I was at a very pleasant business dinner the other evening with three smart
gentlemen discussing everything from the presidential election to cold chain
regulatory trends. I mention these topics only because what happened next,
and what happens every single time, occurs regardless of the table's combined
IQ.
The waitress appeared and asked (what is apparently) the hardest question known to mankind: “Would anyone like dessert?” In our case this “sudden group decision” turned four intelligent adults into four blithering idiots, twitching and staring at their laps. Fortunately, one of our number had his PhD and recovered long enough to order a single slice of chocolate chunk pecan pie with four forks--a brilliant solution to an otherwise intractable problem.
I wrote about this phenomenon here in the context of swarm intelligence, the idea that dumb little ants running around in circles can come together in a group that is able to build complex structures, defend its turf, and write monographs about black holes like Stephen Hawking.
Ants. Bees. Birds. Bacteria. Swarm theory is an accepted theory. My theory is essentially the opposite: All too often, people who are otherwise smart, ethical, good human beings come together in a group and become absolute jackasses. Rush hour. The Kennedy administration in The Best and the Brightest. Enron. Ordering dessert.
In fact, I call it “Dessert Intelligence.”
You might think that the falling IQs around ordering chocolate chunk pecan pie are all about politeness and deference. In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell informed us that certain cockpit crews are so deferential that they crash their planes. I call that stupid.
Recently, we’ve had some really menacing, very sad instances of Dessert Intelligence. A local high school basketball team imploded over a reckless group hazing incident. Oklahoma State fans rioted after their team’s victory. Students at Dean College were expelled after participating in a group assault. Penn State football--need I say more?
I don’t know where this phenomenon falls in academia--economics, sociology or psychology--but having brilliant people study Dessert Intelligence (preferably not in groups) seems to be especially important. After all, the greatest single technological innovation in the last generation allows us to create and network groups faster and more efficiently than at any time in human history.
Three lessons here: First, guard your IQ in crowds. Second, the Web really might be the technological embodiment of the great dessert question, making us all stupid. (Think: Flashmob-robbery, singing babies going viral, and Kim Kardashian being the number 1 search term in 2011.)
The waitress appeared and asked (what is apparently) the hardest question known to mankind: “Would anyone like dessert?” In our case this “sudden group decision” turned four intelligent adults into four blithering idiots, twitching and staring at their laps. Fortunately, one of our number had his PhD and recovered long enough to order a single slice of chocolate chunk pecan pie with four forks--a brilliant solution to an otherwise intractable problem.
I wrote about this phenomenon here in the context of swarm intelligence, the idea that dumb little ants running around in circles can come together in a group that is able to build complex structures, defend its turf, and write monographs about black holes like Stephen Hawking.
Ants. Bees. Birds. Bacteria. Swarm theory is an accepted theory. My theory is essentially the opposite: All too often, people who are otherwise smart, ethical, good human beings come together in a group and become absolute jackasses. Rush hour. The Kennedy administration in The Best and the Brightest. Enron. Ordering dessert.
In fact, I call it “Dessert Intelligence.”
You might think that the falling IQs around ordering chocolate chunk pecan pie are all about politeness and deference. In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell informed us that certain cockpit crews are so deferential that they crash their planes. I call that stupid.
Recently, we’ve had some really menacing, very sad instances of Dessert Intelligence. A local high school basketball team imploded over a reckless group hazing incident. Oklahoma State fans rioted after their team’s victory. Students at Dean College were expelled after participating in a group assault. Penn State football--need I say more?
I don’t know where this phenomenon falls in academia--economics, sociology or psychology--but having brilliant people study Dessert Intelligence (preferably not in groups) seems to be especially important. After all, the greatest single technological innovation in the last generation allows us to create and network groups faster and more efficiently than at any time in human history.
Three lessons here: First, guard your IQ in crowds. Second, the Web really might be the technological embodiment of the great dessert question, making us all stupid. (Think: Flashmob-robbery, singing babies going viral, and Kim Kardashian being the number 1 search term in 2011.)
Third, it's not such a bad idea to bring a PhD to dinner.
5 comments:
And democracy?
Can a mob of 300,000,000 make intelligent decisions? Or do we only survive because the 300 million are largely two mobs throwing sticks at each other?
Scary.
No kidding! The Founding Fathers were smart enough at least to create a Republic to help moderate all that democracy. The idea that you can run democracy like the stock market or a call-in sports show because of the Web seems a bad one.
Democracy isn't necessarily subject to Dessert Intelligence, because the secret ballot largely removes the decision paralysis that comes from wondering what the other will do and how my preferred course of action will look in the court of public opinion.
Given this limitation on the extent of immediate mutual influence, we need not even be terribly intelligent to reach a decision that represents the majority's desire. I vividly remember an article that made the point that even if we only have a 51% likelihood of voting for what truly represents our best interests, over a large number of voters that does end up as a representative decision. Whether you believe that probably depends on your level of cynicism and your belief in your neighbor's intelligence. Long ago, Schiller wrote:
"Was ist die Mehrheit? Mehrheit ist der Unsinn,
Verstand ist stets bei wen'gen nur gewesen."
Loosely translated, he's saying understanding is a rare commodity, and certainly not something one would call an attribute of the majority. History seems to bear out Schiller's idea, as democracy makes questionable decisions such as to vote Hitler into power.
So does that make Ben Franklin right, when he said: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."? Or is his just a pretext to enforce one's own views in the name of virtue?
As a resident and citizen of one of the most slowly changing countries, Switzerland, I prefer the risks of democracy, and am willing to pay the price of relative indecision, if that be the price necessary. Peaceful Dessert Intelligence is better than any kind of dictatorship. Plus, you end up with pie on your plate, not in your face.
Great comment, and it places in context the New England town meeting, were a democratic show of hands or voice vote on a critical issue allowed the Puritans to have democracy and their cake, too.
Thanks for the compliments! I should add that the Swiss based their constitution to a large extent on the US model, with a few tweaks.
Post a Comment