last updated
11/11/2014
The Surprising Failures of Deliberative
Groups
Sunstein' Infotopia. pp. 45-73
Thesis/ Themes
-
While
we, as citizens, assume decision-making by deliberating groups (i.e.
groups that meet and discuss face-to-face) is good and effective,
such groups can go very wrong.
-
While majority opinion tends to rule in deliberative settings, the "truth" influences
decisions - but only somewhat
-
Groups sometimes make good decisions (esp. if the majority
starts out favoring the good decision) but often they don't.
-
Groups can end up making worse decisions than any individual
would have made. Consider situations as diverse as the Bay
of Pigs fiasco, student group hazing incidents, the GM ignition
switch recall.
-
Groups work best at getting the "right" answer if the right
answer is obvious when you see it (due to the effects of the
Condorcet Jury Theorem).
-
Deliberating groups vary a lot in effectiveness (see above
points); thus, group deliberation is not always a good idea.
-
Sunstein assumes (mostly correctly) that an essential to making
good decisions is being careful to pool the best information
available.
Key Concepts
-
In
groups where there is substantial initial agreement (e.g. mostly
liberals or conservatives), views become more extreme as a result of
discussion. (this is called "risky shift.")
-
Groupthink, based on the research of Irving Janis into the
causes of the Cuban Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco, illustrates how, in
highly cohesive grooups, social pressure and witholding information
can cause disasterous mistakes.
-
Sunstein tends to presume that the principle function of
deliberation is to combine information and expand the range of
thinking. His take on the U.S. Constitution is that pooling
information is what the structures of government are intended to do.
But there may be more to it. (What?)
-
A
highly confident group member may lead the group in his/her
direction, for better or worse (e.g. 12 Angry Men).
-
Sunstein suggests small group outcomes tell us about larger groups,
but is that true?
-
Herb
Simon's concept of "satisficing" [The tendency of
individuals and groups to gain just enough
information to develop a preference for a decision, often ends the
search for information and leads to efforts to avoid contradictory
information]. This is at least partially a feature of the human
desire to reduce ambiguity - whether by individuals or in groups.
This problem is amplified by the desire to be "effcient."
-
SHARED
knowleged plays a much bigger role in decision-making than UNSHARED
knowledge even when the unshared knowledge is better. Groups
are less likely to ignore unshared knowledge when they believe there
is a demonstrably correct answer to the problem they are facing.
-
The
two most important reasons for deliberative failure
(Low status members are most affected by these.)
-
Informational influences -- people defer to others (and don't
share their information) when they have the impression others are
right/more confident. (informational signals)
-
Social influences -- people defer to the group/others when they
fear their statements will be punished, ridiculed or disliked.
-
Groups
function better and share information better when the benefits of
good decision-making result in meaningful, real rewards for the
individual members.
|