chargement...
La
SAGESSE et/ou FOLIE
des
FOULES
Par nicky case • Traduit par @clemkeirua • original en anglais
chargement... C'est parti !


Sir Isaac Newton était plutôt sûr d'être un
malin. Après tout, après l'invention du calcul différentiel
et de la théorie de la gravité, il devrait être assez intelligent pour
des investissements financiers, non ? Hé bien, pour faire court, il a
perdu $4,600,000 (en dollars d'aujourd'hui) dans la folie spéculative
nationale appellée la Bulle de la Mer du Sud de 1720.

Comme il l'a dit ensuite: “Je peux calculer le mouvement des
corps célestes, mais pas la folie du peuple.”
ouais, dommage
Bien sûr, ce n'est pas la seule
fois où les marchés, institutions, ou
des démocraties se sont détraquées — la folie des
foules. Et pourtant, au moment où on perd foi en l'humanité,
on trouve des gens qui s'organisent pour se porter secours
lors des ouragans, des communautés qui trouvent des solutions,
des gens qui combattent pour un monde meilleur — la sagesse des foules !
Pourquoi certaines foules sont folles, d'autres sages ? Aucune théorie
ne peut tout expliquer, mais je pense qu'un nouveau champ d'étude
la science des réseaux, peut nous guider ! Son idée centrale:
pour comprendre les foules, il ne faut pas regarder les
individus, mais... ...leurs liens.
Dessinons un réseau ! Chaque lien represente une amitié entre deux personnes : dessine pour connecter coupe pour    déconnecter quand vous avez fini de gribouiller et jouer, on continue
Les liens sociaux ne servent juste à faire de jolies images. Les gens se tournent vers leurs liens sociaux pour comprendre leurs mondes. Par exemple, les gens regardent leurs pairs pour savoir quel % de leurs amis (sans se compter eux) sont, disons, de gros buveurs. Dessinez/effacez des liens, et regardez ce qui arrive !
cool, j'ai compris Cependant, les réseaus peuvent tromper les gens. Comme la Terre peut sembler plate car on est dessus, des gens peuvent se faire une image fausse de la société car ils en font partie.
Notes optionnelles bonus ! ↑
↓ liens et références

Par exemple, une étude de 1991 a montré que “presque tous les étudiants d'[université] ont rapporté que leurs amis buvaient plus qu'eux” Mais cela parait impossible ! Comment cela se peut-il ? Hé bien, vous allez inventer la réponse vous même, en dessinant un réseau. Il est temps de... TROMPER TOUT LE MONDE
PUZZLE TIME!
Fais croire à tout le monde que la majorité de leurs amis (seuil à 50%) sont de gros buveurs (même s'il y a deux fois moins de gros buveurs !)
VICTIMES: parmi 9 personnes Félicitations ! Vous avez fait croire chez un groupe d'étudiants à la prévalence d'une norme sociale incroyablement malsaine ! Bien joué ! ...euh. merci ? Ce que vous venait de créer s'appelle l'Illusion de la majorité, qui explique également pourquoi les gens pensent que leurs idées politique fait consensus, ou pourquoi l'extrémisme semble plus courant qu'il ne l'est. Folie. Mais les gens n'observent pas simplement passivement les idées et comportements des autres: ils les copient activement. Nous allons donc maintenant regarder ce qu'on appelle... les “Contagions!”
Oublions un moment cette histoire de "seuil". Dessous: nous avons une personne avec une information. Une fausse info, une "fake news" comme on dit. Et tous les jours, cette personne répand la rumeur, comme un virus, à ses amis. Qui la répandent à leur tour à leurs amis. Et ainsi de suite.
Démarrez la simulation!
(p.s: pas de dessin quand la simulation tourne)
Note: malgré le nom négatif, les "contagions" peuvent être bonnes ou mauvaises (ou neutres, ou ambigues). Il y a une grande évidence statistique que fumer, la santé, la joie, les motifs de vote, et les niveaux de coopération sont tous "contagieux" -- et même des preuves que les suicides et les fusillades en sont également. c'est déprimant
En effet. Mais bon, PUZZLE TIME!
Dessine un réseau & lance la simulation, afin que tout le monde soit infecté par la "contagion".
(nouvelle règle: vous ne pouvez pas couper les liens épais)
fan-tas-tique !
Cette folie qui se répand s'appelle une "cascade d'information". Mr. Newton s'est pris dans une telle cascade en 1720. Les institutions financières mondiales se sont pris dans une telle cascade en 2008.

Cependant: cette simulation est fausse. La plupart des idées ne se répandent pas comme des virus. Pour beaucoup de croyances et de comportement, il faut être exposé à la contagion plus d'une fois pour être "infecté". Donc, les chercheurs en réseaux ont trouvé une meilleure nouvelle manière de décrire comment les idées et comportement se répandent, ils l'appellent... “Les contagions complexes!”
Reprenons les "seuils" et l'exemple des gros buveurs ! Quand vous y avez joué la première fois, les gens ne changeaient pas leur comportement.

Maintenant, simulons ce qui arrive quand les gens commencent à boire quand plus de 50% de leurs amis boivent ! Avant de démarrer, essayez de deviner ce qui devrait arriver.

Maintenant, démarrez la simulation, et regardez ce qui arrive vraiment !
Contrairement à la précédente contagion des fausses rumeurs , cette contagion n'atteint pas tout le monde ! Les premières personnes ont été "infectées", car bien qu'elles n'aient été qu'à un gros buveur, celui-ci représente 50% de leurs amis (oui, ils sont solitaires). Par contre, la personne à la fin de la chaîne n'a pas été "infectée", car bien qu'elle ait été exposée à un ami gros buveur, il y a moins de 50% de gros buveurs parmi ses amis.
Ce % relatif d'amis "infectés" est important. C'est la différence entre la théorie des contagions complexes, et notre théorie naïve des contagions simples qui se répandent comme des virus. (on peut dire que les "contagions simples" sont juste des contagions avec un seuil à 0%)
Cependant, les contagions ne sont pas nécessairement mauvaises — assez de folie des foules, pourquoi pas... ...la sagesse des foules ?
Ici, nous avons un volontaire pour... je ne sais pas, sauver des gens lors d'un ouragan, offrir des cours à des élèves en difficulté du quartier, ou quelques chose de cool de ce genre. L'idée, c'est que c'est une "bonne" contagion complexe. Cette fois-ci, cependant, disons que le seuil est seulement de 25% — Les gens veulent se porter volontaires, mais seulement si 25% ou plus de leurs amis le font égalemetn. Hé, la bonne volonté a besoin d'un peu d'encouragment social. Hey, goodwill needs a bit of social encouragement.

← "Infectez" tout le monde avec des bonnes vibrations !
NOTE: faire du bénévolat est seulement une des nombreuses contagions complexes ! Il y a également: les résultats de vote, les habitudes de vie, défier ses croyances, prendre le temps de comprendre un problème profondément — tout ce qui a besoin de plus qu'une "exposition". Les contagions complexes ne sont pas nécessairement sages, mais être sage est une contagion complexe.
(Du coup, que serait une contagion simple dans la vie réelle ? Souvent des anecdotes, comme, "l'oppossum a 13 mamelles") Pour vraiment montrer la puissance et l'étrangeté des contagions complexes, revisitons... ...un puzzle précédent
Vous vous en souvenez ? Cette fois-ci, avec une contagion complexe, ce sera un peu plus dur...
Essayez d'"infecter" tout le monde de sagesse complexe !
(Appuyez sur 'Démarrer' et essayez autant de solutions que vous voulez) BON SANG
Bon, vous vous dites peut-être qu'il suffit d'ajouter des liens pour répandre une contagion, "complexe" ou "simple", bonne ou mauvaise, sage ou folle. Mais en est-il ainsi ? Hé bien, revisitons... ...un autre puzzle précédent
Si vous appuyez sur "Démarrer", la contagion complexe va toucher tout le monde. Pas de surprise. Cette fois-ci, faisons le contraire de tout ce que nous avons fait avant: dessine un réseau qui empêche la contagion d'atteindre tout le monde !
Tu vois ? Bien que plus de liens va toujours aider à répandre des idées simples, plus de liens peut gêner le développement d'idées complexes ! (ça fait se poser des questions au sujet d'Internet, hein ?) Et ce n'est pas jsute un problème théorique. Cela peut être une question de vie... ...ou de mort.
Les gens à la NASA sont intelligents. Je veux dire, ils ont utilisé les théories de Newton pour nous envoyer sur la Lune. Pourtant, en 1986, malgré les avertissements des ingénieurs, ils ont lancé Challenger, qui a explosé et tué 7 personnes. La raison: il faisait trop froid ce jour là.
En fait, les managers ont ignoré les avertissements des ingénieurs. Pourquoi ? à cause de l'effet de groupe. Quand un groupe est trop uni (cela tend à être le cas au sommet des institutions), il résiste aux idées complexes qui mettent en péril leurs croyances ou leur égo.
C'est comme ça que les institutions tombent dans la folie des foules. Mais comment en "concevoir" qui exploitent la sagesse des foules ? En deux mots: liens & ponts
← Too few connections, and an idea can't spread.
Too many connections, and you get groupthink.
Draw a group that hits the sweet spot: just connected enough to spread a complex idea!
Simple enough! The number of connections within a group is called bonding social capital. But what about the connections... ...between groups? As you may have already guessed, the number of connections between groups is called bridging social capital. This is important, because it helps groups break out of their insular echo chambers!
Build a bridge, to "infect" everyone with complex wisdom:
Like bonding, there's a sweet spot for bridging, too. (extra challenge: try drawing a bridge so thick that the complex contagion can't pass through it!) Now that we know how to "design" connections within and between groups, let's... ...do BOTH at the same time! FINAL PUZZLE!
Draw connections within groups (bonding) and between groups (bridging) to spread wisdom to the whole crowd:
Congrats, you've just drawn a very special kind of network! Networks with the right mix of bonding and bridging are profoundly important, and they're called... “Small World Networks”
"Unity without uniformity". "Diversity without division". "E Pluribus Unum: out of many, one".
No matter how it's phrased, people across times and cultures often arrive at the same piece of wisdom: a healthy society needs a sweet spot of bonds within groups and bridges between groups. That is:
Not this...
(because ideas can't spread)
nor this...
(because you'll get groupthink)
...but THIS: Network scientists now have a mathematical definition for this ancient wisdom: the small world network. This optimal mix of bonding+bridging describes how our neurons are connected, fosters collective creativity and problem-solving, and even once helped US President John F. Kennedy (barely) avoid nuclear war! So, yeah, small worlds are a big deal. ok, let's wrap this up...
(pst... wanna know a secret?) Contagion: simple complex The Contagion's Color: Select a tool... Draw Network Add Person Add "Infected" Drag Person Delete Person CLEAR IT ALL (...or, use keyboard shortcuts!) [1]: Add Person     [2]: Add "Infected"
[Space]: Drag     [Backspace]: Delete
IN CONCLUSION: it's all about...
Contagions & Connections
Contagions: Like how neurons pass signals in a brain, people pass beliefs & behaviors in a society. Not only do we influence our friends, we also influence our friends' friends, and even our friends' friends' friends! (“be the change you wanna see in the world” etc etc) But, like neurons, it's not just signals that matter, it's also...
Connections: Too few connections and complex ideas can't spread. Too many connections and complex ideas get crushed by groupthink. The trick is to build a small world network, the optimal mix of bonding and bridging: e pluribus unum.
(wanna make your own simulations? check out Sandbox Mode, by clicking the (★) button below!)
So, what about our question from the very beginning? Why do some crowds turn to...
...wisdom and/or madness?
From Newton to NASA to
network science, we've covered a lot here
today. Long story short, the madness of crowds
is not necessarily due to the individual people, but due
to how we're trapped in a network's sticky web.
That does NOT mean abandoning personal responsibility, for
we're also the weavers of that web. So, improve your contagions:
be skeptical of ideas that flatter you, spend time understanding
complex ideas. And, improve your connections: bond with similar
folk, but also build bridges across cultural/political divides.
We can weave a wise web. Sure, it's harder than doodling
lines on a screen... ...but so, so worth it.
“The great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
~ Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett
<3
created by
NICKY CASE
play my other shtuff

lots of love and thanks to
MY PATREON SUPPORTERS
see names & drawings of supporters · see playtesters
help me make more like this! <3

♫ music is "Friends 2018" and "Friends 2068" by Komiku
</> Crowds is fully open source

VICTOIRE Démarrer la simulation Réessayer Traductions par les fans : Quoi, il n'y a pas de traductions par les fans!? (ajoutez la votre !)

A quick response to James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds

First off, I'm not dissing this book. It's a good book, and Surowiecki was trying to tackle the same question I am: “why do some crowds turn to madness, or wisdom?”

Surowiecki's answer: crowds make good decisions when everybody is as independent as possible. He gives the story of a county fair, where the townsfolk were invited to guess the weight of an ox. Surprisingly, the average of all their guesses was better than any one guess. But, here's the rub: the people have to guess independently of each other. Otherwise, they'd be influenced by earlier incorrect guesses, and the average answer would be highly skewed.

But... I don't think "make everyone as independent as possible" is the full answer. Even geniuses, who we mischaracterize as the most independent thinkers, are deeply influenced by others. As Sir Isaac Newton said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the sholders of Giants.”

So, which idea is correct? Does wisdom come from thinking for yourself, or thinking with others? The answer is: "yes".

So that's what I'll try to explain in this explorable explanation: how to get that sweet spot between independence and interdependence — that is, how to get a wise crowd.

What other kinds of connections are there?

For the sake of simplicity, my simulations pretend that people can only be connected through friendships, and that all friendships are equal. But network scientists do consider other ways we can be connected, such as:

Directional connections. Alice is the boss of Bob, but Bob is not the boss of Alice. Carol is the parent of Dave, but Dave is not the parent of Carol. "Boss" & "parent" are directional relationships: the relationship only goes one way. In contrast, "friends" is a bidirectional relationship: the relationship goes both ways. (well, hopefully)

Weighted connections. Elinor and Frankie are mere acquaintances. George and Harry are Best Friends Forever. Even though there's a "friendship" connection in both cases, the second one is stronger. We say that these two connections have different "weights".

Just remember: all these simulations are wrong. The same way any map is "wrong". You see the map on the left? Buildings aren't gray featureless blocks! Words don't float above the city! However, maps are useful not despite being simplified, but because they're simplified. Same goes for simulations, or any scientific theory. Of course they're "wrong" — that's what makes them useful.

What other kinds of contagions are there?

There are so, so many ways that network scientists can simulate "contagions"! I picked the simplest one, for educational purposes. But here's other ways you could do it:

Contagions with Randomness. Being "exposed" to a contagion doesn't guarantee you'll be infected, it only makes it more likely.

People have different contagion thresholds. My simulations pretend that everyone has the same threshold for binge-drinking (50%) or volunteering (25%) or misinformation (0%). Of course, that's not true in real life, and you could make your sim reflect that.

An ecology of contagions. What if there were multiple contagions, with different thresholds? For example, a simple "madness" contagion and a complex "wisdom" contagion. If someone's infected with madness, can they still be infected with wisdom? Or vice versa? Can someone be infected with both?

Contagions that mutate and evolve. Ideas don't pass perfectly from one person to another the way a virus does. Like a game of Telephone, the message gets mutated with each re-telling — and sometimes the mutant will be more infectious than the original! So, over time, ideas "evolve" to be more catchy, copy-able, contagious.

I wanna learn more! What else can I read and/or play?

This explorable explanation was just a springboard for your curiosity, so you can dive deeper into a vast pool of knowledge! Here's more stuff on networks or social systems:

Book: Connected by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler (2009). An accessible tour of how our networks affect our lives, for good or ill. Here's an excerpt: Preface & Chapter 1

Interactive: The Evolution of Trust by Nicky Case (me) (2017). A game about the game theory of how cooperation is built... or destroyed.

Interactive: Parable of the Polygons by Vi Hart and Nicky Case (also me) (2014). A story about how harmless choices can create a harmful world.

Or, if you just want to see a whole gallery of interactive edu-things, here's Explorable Explanations, a hub for learning through play!

“virtually all [college] students reported that their friends drank more than they did.”

“Biases in the perception of drinking norms among college students” by Baer et al (1991)

“The Majority Illusion”

“The Majority Illusion in Social Networks” by Lerman et al (2016).
Related: The Friendship Paradox.

“strong statistical evidence that smoking, health, happiness, voting patterns, and cooperation levels are all contagious”

From Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler's wonderfully-written, layperson-accessible book, Connected (2009).

“some evidence that suicides are [contagious], too”

“Suicide Contagion and the Reporting of Suicide: Recommendations from a National Workshop” by O'Carroll et al (1994), endorsed by the frickin' Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC).

“some evidence that mass shootings are [contagious], too”

“Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings” by Towers et al (2015).

Also see: the Don't Name Them campaign, which urges that news outlets DO NOT air mass murderers' names, manifestos, and social media feeds. This spreads the contagion. Instead, news outlets should focus on the victims, first responders, civilian heroes, and the grieving, healing community.

“The world's financial institutions fell for such a cascade in 2008.”

“Lemmings of Wall Street” by Cass Sunstein, is a quick, non-technical read. Published in Oct 2008, right in the wake of the crash.

“the complex contagion theory.”

“Threshold Models of Collective Behavior” by Granovetter (1978) was the first time, as far as I know, anyone described a "complex contagion" model. (although he didn't use that specific name)

“Evidence for complex contagion models of social contagion from observational data” by Sprague & House (2017) shows that complex contagions do, in fact, exist. (at least, in the social media data they looked at)

Finally, “Universal behavior in a generalized model of contagion” by Dodds & Watts (2004) proposes a model that unifies all kinds of contagions: simple and complex, biological and social!

“the possum has 13 nipples”

arranged in a ring of 12 nipples, plus one in the middle

“groupthink”

This Orwell-inspired phrase was coined by Irving L. Janis in 1971. In his original article, Janis investigates cases of groupthink, lists its causes, and — thankfully — some possible remedies.

“bonding and bridging social capital”

These two types of social capital — "bonding" and "bridging" — were named by Robert Putnam in his insightful 2000 book, Bowling Alone. His discovery: across almost all empircal measures of social connectiveness, Americans are more alone than ever. Golly.

“bridging social capital has a sweet spot”

“The Strength of Weak Ties” by Granovetter (1973) showed that connections across groups helps spread simple contagions (like information), but “Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties” by Centola & Macy (2007) showed that connections across groups may not help complex contagions, and it fact, can hurt their spread!

“the small world network”

The idea of the "small world" was popularized by Travers & Milgram's 1969 experiment, which showed that, on average, any two random people in the United States were just six friendships apart — "six degrees of separation"!

The small-world network got more mathematical meat on its bones with “Collective dynamics of small-world networks” by Watts & Strogatz (1998), which proposed an algorithm for creating networks with both low average path length (low degree of separation) and high clustering (friends have lots of mutual friends) — that is, a network that hits the sweet spot!

You can also play with the visual, interactive adaptation of that paper by Bret Victor (2011).

“[small world networks] describe how our neurons are connected”

“Small-world brain networks” by Bassett & Bullmore (2006).

“[small world networks] give rise to collective creativity”

“Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem” by Uzzi & Spiro (2005). This paper analyzed the social network of the Broadway scene over time, and discovered that, yup, the network's most creative when it's a "small world" network!

“[small world networks] give rise to collective problem-solving”

See “Social Physics” by MIT Professor Alex "Sandy" Pentland (2014) for a data-based approach to collective intelligence.

“[small world networks] helped John F. Kennedy (barely) avoid nuclear war!”

Besides the NASA Challenger explosion, the most notorious example of groupthink was the Bay of Pigs fiasco. In 1961, US President John F. Kennedy and his team of advisors thought — for some reason — it would be a good idea to secretly invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro. They failed. Actually, worse than failed: it led to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the closest the world had ever been to full-scale nuclear war.

Yup, JFK really screwed up on that one.

But, having learnt some hard lessons from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, JFK re-organized his team to avoid groupthink. Among many things, he: 1) actively encouraged people to voice criticism, thus lowering the "contagion threshold" for alternate ideas. And 2) he broke his team up into sub-groups before reconvening, which gave their group a "small world network"-like design! Together, this arrangement allowed for a healthy diversity of opinion, but without being too fractured — a wisdom of crowds.

And so, with the same individuals who decided the Bay of Pigs, but re-arranged collectively to decide on the Cuban Missile Crisis... JFK's team was able to reach a peaceful agreement with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviets would remove their missiles from Cuba, and in return, the US would promise not to invade Cuba again. (and also agreed, in secret, to remove the US missiles from Turkey)

And that's the story of how all of humanity almost died. But a small world network saved the day! Sort of.

You can read more about this on Harvard Business Review, or from the original article on groupthink.

“we influence [...] our friends' friends' friends!”

Again, from Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler's wonderful book, Connected (2009).

“be skeptical of ideas that flatter you”

yes, including the ideas in this explorable explanation.

★ Sandbox Mode ★

The keyboard shortcuts (1, 2, space, delete) work in all the puzzles, not just Sandbox Mode! Seriously, you can go back to a different chapter, and edit the simulation right there. In fact, that's how I created all these puzzles. Have fun!