The Wisdom of Crowds or the Madness of Crowds?

Crowds inspire ambivalent feelings—at their best, they represent the power of collective action and shared understanding; at their worst, they reflect the irrational exuberance of mobs, the thoughtless march of followers. But how do we identify which crowds are which—or are all crowds inherently both wise and mad?

A crowd in which there is both consensus and disagreement is a healthy crowd. A crowd in which there is only consensus raises eyebrows. But what’s the tipping point? If a leader of a country is democratically elected by 70% of the population, it’s a landslide representing the “collective will.” But if the leader is elected by 90+% we might suspect some corruption—people don’t generally agree that much! So what happens between 70% and 90+%?

Now what if people are voting not on their leader but on whether they think the earth is flat? If only 70% in 2020 concur that the earth is round is that healthy? If you think there are things on which we as a collective should agree above 90+% how do you decide what those things are? On what questions is the crowd wise? And on what questions mad? Or are wisdom and madness simply subjective judgments—depending on whether you are in the majority or the minority?