cargando...
la
SABIDURIA y/o la LOCURA
de las
MASAS
por nicky case • traducido por Gilberto Guerra • original in English
cargando... ¡comencemos!


Sir Isaac Newton estaba bastante seguro de que era
una persona muy lista. Quiero decir, después de inventar el cálculo y
una teoría de la gravedad, él debería de ser lo suficientemente listo como para hacer
algunas inversiones financieras, ¿cierto? Sin embargo, en resúmen, él
perdió $4,600,000 dólares (dólares actuales) en el frenesí especulativo
nacional conocido como la burbuja de los Mares del Sur, en 1720.

Es por esto que Newton dijo: “Puedo calcular el movimiento de los
cuerpos celestes, pero no la locura de la gente.”
pobre Newton :(
Por supuesto, aquella no es la única
ocasión en la que mercados, instituciones,
o democracias enteras se volvieron locas — la locura de las
multitudes. Pero aún así, justo cuando pierdes la fé en la humanidad,
vez a ciudadanos coordinandose para rescatar a sus prójimos en
huracanes, comunidades creando soluciones a problemas,
gente luchando por un mundo mejor — ¡la sabiduría de las masas!
Pero ¿por qué algunas multitudes recurren a la locura, o a la sabiduría? No existe una teoría
que pueda explicar todo, pero creo que un nuevo campo de estudio,
análisis de redes, puede guiarnos! Su idea principal es esta: para
entender a las masas, en lugar de observar a las personas de forma
individual, deberíamos observar... ...a sus relaciones.
¡Dibujemos una red! Cada conexión representa una amistad entre dos personas: traza una línea para conectarlas cruza la línea para   desconectarlas cuando termines de hacer garabatos y jugar, continuemos
Las conexiones sociales no solamente sirven para tener fotos bonitas. La gente recurre a sus conexiones sociales para entender su alrededor. Por ejemplo, las personas recurren a su red de amistades para saber qué porcentaje de sus amigos (sin contarse a ellos mismos) son, digamos, bebedores compulsivos. ¡Crea y elimina conexiones para ver lo que sucede!
¡entendido! Sin embargo, las redes pueden engañar a la gente. Así como la tierra puede parecer plana porque estamos en su superficie la gente puede tener ideas erróneas sobre la sociedad porque estamos dentro de ella.
opcional ¡notas extras! ↑
↓ enlaces y referencias

Por ejemplo, un estudio de 1991 mostró que “prácticamente, todos los estudiantes [de universidad] reportaron que sus amigos consumían más alcohol que ellos.” ¡Pero eso es imposible! ¿Cómo puede ser eso? Bueno, estás a punto de descubrir la respuesta, creando una red. Es tiempo de... ENGAÑAR A TODOS
¡HORA DE UN RETO!
Engaña a todos haciéndoles creer que la mayoría de sus amigos (al menos el 50%) son bebedores impulsivos (¡Observa que las personas que no toman superan en número a los bebedores impulsivos!)
ENGAÑADO A: de 9 personas ¡Felicidades! Manipulaste a un grupo de estudiantes para que crean en la prevalencia de una norma social sumamente dañina. ¡Bien hecho! ...ehm. ¿Gracias? Lo que acabas de crear se llama la Ilusión de la Mayoría, la cual también explica por qué la gente piensa que sus puntos de vista política son un consenso, o por qué el extremismo aparenta ser más común de lo que realmente es. Una locura. Pero las personas no solamente observan pasivamente las ideas y los comportamientos de otros, también los imitan activamente. Ahora, veamos algo que los científicos llaman... ¡"Contagios"!
Pongamos aparte lo del "límite" por ahora. Abajo: está una persona con información sobre algo. Desinformación. "Fake news", como le dicen los chicos en onda. Y cada día, esa persona esparce el rumor, como un virus, a sus amigos. Y ellos lo esparcen a sus amigos, y así sucesivamente.
¡Comenzar la simulación!
(p.d.: no puedes dibujar mientras el simulador se está ejecutando)
Nota: A pesar del nombre negativo, los "contagios" pueden ser buenos o malos (o neutrales o ambíguos). Existe fuerte evidencia estadística que indica que el fumar, la salud, la felicidad, los patrones de voto, y la disposición a la cooperación son todos "contagiosos" -- y hay incluso evidencia de que los suicidios y los tiroteos también lo son. pero qué deprimente
Sí que lo es. Pero bueno, es ¡HORA DE OTRO RETO!
Dibuja una red y corre la simulación, para que todos se infecten con el "contagio".
(Nueva regla: no puedes cortar las conexiones gruesas)
¡excelente!
Esta propagación de desinformación se llama "cascada informativa". Newton fue víctima de ella en 1720. Las instituciones financieras del mundo fueron víctimas de ella en el 2008.

Sin embargo: esta simulación es incorrecta. La mayoría de las ideas no se esparcen como lo hacen los virus. Para muchas creencias y comportamientos, necesitas estar "expuesto" al contagio más de una vez para que seas "infectado". Es por eso que los científicos han desarrollado una nueva y mejor forma de describir cómo las ideas y los comportamientos se esparcen, y le llaman... “¡Contagios Complejos!”
¡Traigamos de vuelta el ejemplo con los "límites" y los bebedores compulsivos! Cuando jugaste con esto la primera vez, las personas no cambiaron su comportamiento.

Ahora veamos lo que pasaría si la gente comenzara a tomar, ¡cuando al menos el 50% de sus amigos lo hacen! Antes de que empieces la simulación, piensa en lo que debería de pasar.

¡Ahora corre la simulación y observa lo que pasa en realidad!
A diferencia del contagio de "fake news" anterior, ¡este contagio no afecta a todos! Las primeras personas que se "infectan" lo hacen, porque a pesar de que solamente están expuestas a un bebedor compulsivo, ese bebedor compulsivo es el 50% de sus amigos. (sí, son muy solitarios) En contraste, la persona cerca del final de la cadena no fue "infectado", porque mientras que fue expuesto a un amigo que es un bebedor compulsivo, no se excedió el límite del 50%.
El porcentaje relativo de amigos "infectados" importa. Esta es la diferencia entre la teoría de contagios complejos , y nuestra teoría reduccionista de contagios simples que se transmiten como un virus. (podrías decir que los "contagios simples" son contagios en donde no hay resistencia a la infección)
Sin embargo, los contagios no son necesariamente malos — así que basta de la locura de las masas, ¿qué hay de... ...la sabiduría de las masas?
En este caso tenemos a una persona que es voluntaria para... no lo sé, rescatar personas en huracanes, o dar clases a niños de bajos recursos en su comunidad, o algo genial como eso. El punto es que es un contagio complejo "bueno". Esta vez, digamos, hay un umbral del 25% — las personas están dispuestas a ayudar, pero solo si más del 25% de sus amigos también lo hacen. Hey, es más sencillo hacer buenas acciones en conjunto.

← ¡"Infecta" a todos con buenas vibras!
NOTA: ¡El voluntareado es solo uno de muchos contagios complejos! Otros incluyen: participación electoral, hábitos, cuestionar tus creencias, tomar tiempo para entender un tema complejo — cualquier cosa que necesite más de una "exposición". Los contagios complejos no son necesariamente inteligentes, Complex contagions aren't necessarily wise, pero ser sabio es but being wise is a complex contagion.
(Así que, ¿cuáles son ejemplos reales de contagio simple?) Usualmente trivia como "el tlacuache tiene 13 pezones") Ahora, para realmente mostrar el poder y la extrañeza de los contagios complejos, recapitulemos... ...un reto anterior
¿Recuerdas esto? Esta vez con un contagio complejo será un poco más difícil...
¡Intenta "infectar" a todos con sabiduría compleja!
(puedes presionar "iniciar" e intentar encontrar cuantas soluciones quieras) MIRA NADA MAS
Puedes pensar que solamente necesitas seguir añadiendo conexiones para propagar cualquier contagio, sea "complejo" o "simple", bueno o malo, sabio o loco. ¿Pero es eso cierto? Veámoslo... ...en un reto pasado
Si presionas "iniciar", el contagio complejo llegará a todos. Esto no es nada nuevo. Pero ahora, hagamos lo opuesto a lo que hemos hecho hasta ahora: ¡crear una red para prevenir que el contagio infecte a todos!
¿Lo vez? Mientras que más interacciones siempre ayudan a esparcir ideas simples, ¡más conexiones pueden perjudicar el esparcimiento de ideas complejas! (¿no te hace esto pensar sobre el internet?) Y no es solo un problema teorético. Puede ser un caso de vida... ... o muerte.
Los empleados de la NASA son muy inteligentes. Quiero decir, usaron las teorías de Newton para llevarnos a la luna. Pero bueno, en resumen, en 1986, a pesar de las advertencias de los ingenieros,, el cohete Challenger fue lanzado, y a poco tiempo del lanzamiento, explotó, causando la muerte de 7 personas. La causa inmediata: Hacía mucho frío aquella mañana.
La causa secundaria: los gerentes ignoraron las advertencias de los ingenieros. ¿Por qué? Debido al pensamiento de grupo (groupthink). Cuando un grupo es muy cerrado (como lo son los grupos de altos ejecutivos) los integrantes se oponen a ideas complejas que van en contra de sus opiniones o ego.
Así es como las instituciones son víctimas de la locura de las masas. Pero entonces, ¿cómo podemos "diseñar" para fomentar la sabiduría de las masas? Dos palabras: Vínculos y Puentes
← 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!