Abstract

Judgment distributions are often skewed and we know little about why. This paper explains the phenomenon of skewed judgment distributions by introducing the augmented quincunx (AQ) model of sequential and probabilistic cue categorization by neurons of judges. In the process of developing inferences about true values, when neurons categorize cues better than chance, and when the particular true value is extreme compared to what is typical and anchored upon, then populations of judges form skewed judgment distributions with high probability. Moreover, the collective error made by these people can be inferred from how skewed their judgment distributions are, and in what direction they tilt. This implies not just that judgment distributions are shaped by cues, but that judgment distributions are cues themselves for the wisdom of crowds. The AQ model also predicts that judgment variance correlates positively with collective error, thereby challenging what is commonly believed about how diversity and collective intelligence relate. Data from 3053 judgment surveys about US macroeconomic variables obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and the Wall Street Journal provide strong support, and implications are discussed with reference to three central ideas on collective intelligence, these being Galton's conjecture on the distribution of judgments, Muth's rational expectations hypothesis, and Page's diversity prediction theorem.

Highlights

  • We measure and navigate our environment by making intuitive judgments, but these are fallible

  • Unemployment from Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (FRBP), Figure 6 for the case of housing starts and inflation collected from FRBP and Wall Street Journal (WSJ) respectively, and Figure 7 for the case of judgments about US GDP and unemployment from WSJ

  • In the process of developing inferences about true values, when neurons categorize cues better than chance, and when the particular true value is extreme compared to what is typical and anchored upon by individual judges, skewed judgment distributions will emerge with high probability according to the augmented quincunx (AQ) model

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We measure and navigate our environment by making intuitive judgments, but these are fallible. The mean is perfect when judgments scatter in symmetry around the truth, because all mistakes of underestimation are matched by counterpart errors of overestimation. When the weight of judgments distribute in greater proportion on either side of the truth, the mean has error. Systematic error in the mean of judgments exists to the extent these distributions can be predicted. Given the trust bestowed upon popular judgment in democratic societies, it would have considerable implication for outcomes of decision making if such a phenomenon of predictability existed, because it would imply an avoidable type of mistake is currently being made in many domains, from the misdiagnosis of patients by consensus seeking doctors, to the misallocation of resources by consensus seeking managers, investors, and politicians. There is potentially good news, because collective error appears predictable by the way judgments observably scatter

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call