carregando...
a
SABEDORIA e/ou LOUCURA
das
MULTIDÕES
por nicky case • traduzido por Italo Lelis e Iuri Rezende • original em Inglês
carregando... vamos jogar!


Isaac Newton tinha certeza de que era um
sabichão. Depois de inventar o cálculo e a teoria da
gravidade, ele deveria ser inteligente o suficiente para
fazer um investimento financeiro, certo? Bem, resumindo a história,
ele perdeu $4,600,000 (na cotação atual do dólar) na bolha nacional
especulativa conhecida como a Quebra dos Mares do Sul de 1720.

Como o próprio Sir Newton disse posteriormente: “Eu consigo calcular
o movimento dos corpos celestiais, mas não a loucura das pessoas.”
é, que ruim pra ele
Claro, não foi a única vez que
mercados, instituições, ou democracias
inteiras saíram de controle — a loucura das massas.
Ainda assim, logo que se perde a esperança na humanidade,
veem-se cidadãos coordenando para se resgatar uns aos
outros em furacões, comunidades criando soluções para problemas,
pessoas lutando por um mundo melhor — a sabedoria das massas!
Mas por que algumas massas se rendem à loucura, ou à sabedoria? Nenhuma teoria
consegue explicar tudo, mas acredito que um novo campo de estudo,
ciência das redes, pode nos guiar! E sua ideia central é esta: para
entender massas, deveríamos olhar não às pessoas
individuais
, mas para... ...suas conexões.
Vamos desenhar uma rede! Cada conexão representa uma amizade entre duas pessoas: desenhe para conectar risque para   desconectar quando você estiver pronto desenhando e brincando, vamos continuar
Agora, conexões sociais são mais do que apenas figuras bonitinhas. As pessoas olham para suas conexões sociais para entender o mundo. Por exemplo, as pessoas olham para seus próximos para descobrir qual % de seus amigos (não contando a si mesmos), digamos, bebem demais. Desenhe/apague conexões, e veja o que acontece!
legal, entendi Entretanto, redes podem enganar pessoas. Do mesmo jeito que a Terra parece plana porque estamos nela, as pessoas podem pegar ideias erradas sobre a sociedade por que estão dentro dela.
opcional notas bônus extras! ↑
↓ links e referências

Por exemplo, um estudo de 1991 mostrou que “virtualmente todos os estudantes [universitários] reportaram que seus amigos bebiam mais que eles próprios.” Mas isso parece impossível! Como isso pode ser? Bem, você está prestes a obter a resposta, desenhando uma rede. É hora de... ENGANAR TODO MUNDO
HORA DO DESAFIO!
Engane todo mundo para pensar que a maioria de seus amigos (mais de 50%) bebem demais (mesmo que quem bebe demais estejam em desvantagem de 2 para 1!)
ENGANADOS: de 9 pessoas Parabéns! Você manipulou um grupo de estudantes a acreditar na prevalência de uma norma social incrivelmente não saudável! Muito bem! ...tá. obrigado? O que você acabou de criar se chama A Ilusão da Maioria, o que também explica porque as pessoas acham que sua visão política é consenso, ou porque o extremismo parece mais comum do que é na realidade. Loucura. Mas as pessoas não apenas observam passivamente ideias e comportamentos dos outros, elas ativamente os copiam. Então agora, vamos olhar para algo que os cientistas chamam de... “Contágios!”
Vamos desconsiderar a palavra "maioria" por agora. Abaixo: temos uma pessoa com alguma informação. Alguma desinformação. "Fake news", como os bam-bam-bans dizem. E todo dia, essa pessoa espalha o rumor, como um vírus, para seus amigos. E eles, por sua vez, espalham aos amigos dos amigos. E assim vai.
Iniciar a simulação!
(p.s: não pode desenhar enquanto está simulando)
Nota: apesar do nome negativo, "contágios" podem ser bons ou ruins (ou neutros ou ambíguos). Existe forte evidência estatística de que fumar, saúde, felicidade, eleições, e níveis de cooperação são todos "contagiosos" -- e até alguma evidência de que suicídios e tiroteios em massa também são. bem, isso é deprimente
É verdade. De qualquer forma, HORA DO DESAFIO!
Desenhe uma rede & simule, de modo que todo mundo se infeccione com o "contágio".
(regra nova: você não pode cortar conexões grossas)
fan-super-tástico
Essa propagação de loucura é chamada "cascata de informações". O Sr. Newton caiu nessa cascata em 1720. As instituições financeiras cairam nessa cascata em 2008.

Entretanto: esta simulação está incorreta. A maioria das ideias não propagam como vírus. Para várias crenças e comportamentos, você deve ser "exposto" ao contágio mais que apenas uma vez para ser "infectado". Então, cientistas criaram uma maneira nova e melhor de descrever como ideias/comportamentos propagam, e os chamaram de... “Contágios Complexos!”
Vamos voltar com a ideia de "maioria" e o beber demais do exemplo anterior! Quando você brincou com isso na primeira vez, as pessoas não mudavam seu comportamento.

Agora, vamos simular o que acontece se as pessoas começarem a beber demais quando 50%+ de seus amigos o fazem! Antes de simular, se pergunte o que deveria acontecer.

Agora, comece a simular, e veja o que realmente acontece!
Diferente do contágio anterior "fake news" , este contágio não propaga a todo mundo! As primeiras pessoas se "infectam", porque apesar de estarem expostos a um indivíduo que bebe demais, esse bebedor representa 50% de seus amigos. (é, solitário) Em contraste, a pessoa próxima ao final da cadeia não se "infectou", porque enquanto ela foi exposta a um amigo que bebe demais, esse amigo não passou da linha de + de 50%.
Essa relativa % de amigos "infectados" importa. Essa é a diferença entre a teoria dos contágios complexos, e a inocente teoria viral dos contágios simples. (dá para dizer que "contágios simples" são contágios que infectam com "mais de 0%")
Entretanto, contágios não são necessariamente ruins — então chega de madness das multidões, que tal... ...sabedoria das multidões?
Aqui, temos uma pessoa que faz trabalho voluntário para... não sei, resgatar pessoas em furacões, ou ensinar crianças sem privilégios na comunidade local, ou algo legal assim. O ponto é, esse é um contágio complexo "bom". Dessa vez, entretanto, digamos que o limite é de apenas 25% — as pessoas querem fazer trabalho voluntário, mas apenas se 25% ou mais de seus amigos o faz também. Ei, boa vontade necessita de um pouco de encorajamento social.

← "Infecte" todo mundo com as boas vibrações!
NOTE: Volunteering is just one of many complex contagions! Others include: voter turnout, lifestyle habits, challenging your beliefs, taking time to understand a issue deeply — anything that needs more than one "exposure". Complex contagions aren't necessarily wise, but being wise is a complex contagion.
(Então, o que é um contágio simples na vida real? Geralmente curiosidades, como, "o gambá possui 13 mamilos") Agora, para realmente mostrar o poder e a esquisitice de contágios complexos, vamos revisitar... ...um desafio anterior
Lembra disso? Desta vez, com um contágio complexo , vai ser um pouco mais difícil...
Tente "infectar" todo mundo com sabedoria complexa!
(sinta-se livre para apertar 'iniciar' e tentar quantas soluções quiser) DING DING DING
Agora, você pode achar que você só precisa adicionar conexões para propagar qualquer contágio, "complexo" ou "simples", bom ou ruim, sábio ou louco. Mas isso realmente é verdade? Bem, vamos revisitar... ...outro desafio anterior
Se você apertar "iniciar" abaixo, o contágio complexo vai se propagar para todo mundo. Nenhuma surpresa aqui. Mas agora, vamos fazer o oposto de tudo o que fizemos até agora: desenhe uma rede para evitar que o contágio se espalhe para todo mundo!
Você viu? Enquanto mais conexões irão sempre ajudar a propagar ideias simples, mais conexões podem atrapalhar o propagação de ideias complexas! (faz você pensar sobre a internet, né?) E este não é apenas um problema teórico. Isso pode ser questão de vida... ...ou morte.
As pessoas na NASA eram sabichões. Digo, eles usavam as teorias de Newton para nos levar à lua. De qualquer modo, resumindo, em 1986, apesar das advertências dos engenheiros, eles lançaram o Challenger, que explodiu e matou 7 pessoas. A causa imediata: estava muito frio naquela manhã.
A causa menos imediata: os gerentes ignoraram as advertências dos engenheiros. Por quê? Devido ao pensamento de grupo. Quando um grupo está ligado demais, (como tendem a ser no topo de instituições) ele se torna resistente a ideias complexas que desafiam suas crenças ou ego.
Então, é assim que instituições podem cair na loucura das multidões. Mas como podemos "desenhar" para sabedoria das multidões? Em resumo, duas palavras: Ligações & Pontes
← 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 · follow my tweeter

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

WIN start simulation reset & re-draw Fan-made translations: What the, no fan-made translations exist yet?! (add your own!)

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, backspace) 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!