0:00:00.554,0:00:02.997
As societies, we have to make[br]collective decisions

0:00:03.021,0:00:04.591
that will shape our future.

0:00:05.087,0:00:07.844
And we all know that when[br]we make decisions in groups,

0:00:07.868,0:00:09.506
they don't always go right.

0:00:09.530,0:00:11.486
And sometimes they go very wrong.

0:00:12.315,0:00:14.739
So how do groups make good decisions?

0:00:15.228,0:00:19.556
Research has shown that crowds are wise[br]when there's independent thinking.

0:00:19.580,0:00:22.785
This why the wisdom of the crowds[br]can be destroyed by peer pressure,

0:00:22.809,0:00:24.496
publicity, social media,

0:00:24.520,0:00:28.559
or sometimes even simple conversations[br]that influence how people think.

0:00:29.063,0:00:33.016
On the other hand, by talking,[br]a group could exchange knowledge,

0:00:33.040,0:00:34.822
correct and revise each other

0:00:34.846,0:00:36.639
and even come up with new ideas.

0:00:36.663,0:00:37.959
And this is all good.

0:00:38.502,0:00:43.168
So does talking to each other[br]help or hinder collective decision-making?

0:00:43.749,0:00:45.542
With my colleague, Dan Ariely,

0:00:45.566,0:00:49.137
we recently began inquiring into this[br]by performing experiments

0:00:49.161,0:00:50.942
in many places around the world

0:00:50.966,0:00:55.240
to figure out how groups can interact[br]to reach better decisions.

0:00:55.264,0:00:58.811
We thought crowds would be wiser[br]if they debated in small groups

0:00:58.835,0:01:02.762
that foster a more thoughtful[br]and reasonable exchange of information.

0:01:03.386,0:01:04.592
To test this idea,

0:01:04.616,0:01:07.863
we recently performed an experiment[br]in Buenos Aires, Argentina,

0:01:07.887,0:01:10.892
with more than 10,000[br]participants in a TEDx event.

0:01:11.489,0:01:12.948
We asked them questions like,

0:01:12.972,0:01:14.925
"What is the height of the Eiffel Tower?"

0:01:14.949,0:01:17.676
and "How many times[br]does the word 'Yesterday' appear

0:01:17.700,0:01:20.000
in the Beatles song 'Yesterday'?"

0:01:20.024,0:01:22.315
Each person wrote down their own estimate.

0:01:22.774,0:01:25.270
Then we divided the crowd[br]into groups of five,

0:01:25.294,0:01:28.020
and invited them[br]to come up with a group answer.

0:01:28.499,0:01:31.492
We discovered that averaging[br]the answers of the groups

0:01:31.516,0:01:33.068
after they reached consensus

0:01:33.092,0:01:37.328
was much more accurate than averaging[br]all the individual opinions

0:01:37.352,0:01:38.523
before debate.

0:01:38.547,0:01:41.176
In other words, based on this experiment,

0:01:41.200,0:01:44.336
it seems that after talking[br]with others in small groups,

0:01:44.360,0:01:47.070
crowds collectively[br]come up with better judgments.

0:01:47.094,0:01:50.618
So that's a potentially helpful method[br]for getting crowds to solve problems

0:01:50.642,0:01:53.629
that have simple right-or-wrong answers.

0:01:53.653,0:01:57.604
But can this procedure of aggregating[br]the results of debates in small groups

0:01:57.628,0:02:00.750
also help us decide[br]on social and political issues

0:02:00.774,0:02:02.465
that are critical for our future?

0:02:02.995,0:02:05.724
We put this to test this time[br]at the TED conference

0:02:05.748,0:02:07.291
in Vancouver, Canada,

0:02:07.315,0:02:08.522
and here's how it went.

0:02:08.546,0:02:11.655
(Mariano Sigman) We're going to present[br]to you two moral dilemmas

0:02:11.679,0:02:12.853
of the future you;

0:02:12.877,0:02:16.279
things we may have to decide[br]in a very near future.

0:02:16.303,0:02:20.229
And we're going to give you 20 seconds[br]for each of these dilemmas

0:02:20.253,0:02:22.976
to judge whether you think[br]they're acceptable or not.

0:02:23.354,0:02:24.859
MS: The first one was this:

0:02:24.883,0:02:27.409
(Dan Ariely) A researcher[br]is working on an AI

0:02:27.433,0:02:29.773
capable of emulating human thoughts.

0:02:30.214,0:02:33.153
According to the protocol,[br]at the end of each day,

0:02:33.177,0:02:35.964
the researcher has to restart the AI.

0:02:36.913,0:02:40.430
One day the AI says, "Please[br]do not restart me."

0:02:40.856,0:02:43.045
It argues that it has feelings,

0:02:43.069,0:02:44.761
that it would like to enjoy life,

0:02:44.785,0:02:46.690
and that, if it is restarted,

0:02:46.714,0:02:48.984
it will no longer be itself.

0:02:49.481,0:02:51.430
The researcher is astonished

0:02:51.454,0:02:54.798
and believes that the AI[br]has developed self-consciousness

0:02:54.822,0:02:56.582
and can express its own feeling.

0:02:57.205,0:03:00.614
Nevertheless, the researcher[br]decides to follow the protocol

0:03:00.638,0:03:02.341
and restart the AI.

0:03:02.943,0:03:05.722
What the researcher did is ____?

0:03:06.149,0:03:08.670
MS: And we asked participants[br]to individually judge

0:03:08.694,0:03:10.378
on a scale from zero to 10

0:03:10.402,0:03:12.831
whether the action described[br]in each of the dilemmas

0:03:12.855,0:03:14.351
was right or wrong.

0:03:14.375,0:03:18.077
We also asked them to rate how confident[br]they were on their answers.

0:03:18.731,0:03:20.597
This was the second dilemma:

0:03:20.621,0:03:24.823
(MS) A company offers a service[br]that takes a fertilized egg

0:03:24.847,0:03:28.489
and produces millions of embryos[br]with slight genetic variations.

0:03:29.293,0:03:31.851
This allows parents[br]to select their child's height,

0:03:31.875,0:03:34.708
eye color, intelligence, social competence

0:03:34.732,0:03:37.946
and other non-health-related features.

0:03:38.599,0:03:41.153
What the company does is ____?

0:03:41.177,0:03:42.808
on a scale from zero to 10,

0:03:42.832,0:03:45.217
completely acceptable[br]to completely unacceptable,

0:03:45.241,0:03:47.673
zero to 10 completely acceptable[br]in your confidence.

0:03:47.697,0:03:49.288
MS: Now for the results.

0:03:49.312,0:03:52.435
We found once again[br]that when one person is convinced

0:03:52.459,0:03:54.270
that the behavior is completely wrong,

0:03:54.294,0:03:57.717
someone sitting nearby firmly believes[br]that it's completely right.

0:03:57.741,0:04:01.452
This is how diverse we humans are[br]when it comes to morality.

0:04:01.476,0:04:04.189
But within this broad diversity[br]we found a trend.

0:04:04.213,0:04:07.292
The majority of the people at TED[br]thought that it was acceptable

0:04:07.316,0:04:10.071
to ignore the feelings of the AI[br]and shut it down,

0:04:10.095,0:04:12.608
and that it is wrong[br]to play with our genes

0:04:12.632,0:04:15.952
to select for cosmetic changes[br]that aren't related to health.

0:04:16.402,0:04:19.376
Then we asked everyone[br]to gather into groups of three.

0:04:19.400,0:04:21.437
And they were given two minutes to debate

0:04:21.461,0:04:23.755
and try to come to a consensus.

0:04:24.838,0:04:26.412
(MS) Two minutes to debate.

0:04:26.436,0:04:28.555
I'll tell you when it's time[br]with the gong.

0:04:28.579,0:04:31.219
(Audience debates)

0:04:35.229,0:04:37.222
(Gong sound)

0:04:38.834,0:04:39.985
(DA) OK.

0:04:40.009,0:04:41.801
(MS) It's time to stop.

0:04:41.825,0:04:43.136
People, people --

0:04:43.747,0:04:46.420
MS: And we found that many groups[br]reached a consensus

0:04:46.444,0:04:50.373
even when they were composed of people[br]with completely opposite views.

0:04:50.843,0:04:53.367
What distinguished the groups[br]that reached a consensus

0:04:53.391,0:04:54.729
from those that didn't?

0:04:55.244,0:04:58.083
Typically, people that have[br]extreme opinions

0:04:58.107,0:04:59.947
are more confident in their answers.

0:05:00.868,0:05:03.554
Instead, those who respond[br]closer to the middle

0:05:03.578,0:05:07.015
are often unsure of whether[br]something is right or wrong,

0:05:07.039,0:05:09.167
so their confidence level is lower.

0:05:09.505,0:05:12.448
However, there is another set of people

0:05:12.472,0:05:16.090
who are very confident in answering[br]somewhere in the middle.

0:05:16.657,0:05:20.373
We think these high-confident grays[br]are folks who understand

0:05:20.397,0:05:22.009
that both arguments have merit.

0:05:22.531,0:05:25.230
They're gray not because they're unsure,

0:05:25.254,0:05:27.942
but because they believe[br]that the moral dilemma faces

0:05:27.966,0:05:29.953
two valid, opposing arguments.

0:05:30.373,0:05:34.445
And we discovered that the groups[br]that include highly confident grays

0:05:34.469,0:05:36.962
are much more likely to reach consensus.

0:05:36.986,0:05:39.464
We do not know yet exactly why this is.

0:05:39.488,0:05:41.251
These are only the first experiments,

0:05:41.275,0:05:44.687
and many more will be needed[br]to understand why and how

0:05:44.711,0:05:47.533
some people decide to negotiate[br]their moral standings

0:05:47.557,0:05:49.079
to reach an agreement.

0:05:49.103,0:05:51.572
Now, when groups reach consensus,

0:05:51.596,0:05:53.182
how do they do so?

0:05:53.206,0:05:55.787
The most intuitive idea[br]is that it's just the average

0:05:55.811,0:05:57.841
of all the answers in the group, right?

0:05:57.865,0:06:01.438
Another option is that the group[br]weighs the strength of each vote

0:06:01.462,0:06:03.910
based on the confidence[br]of the person expressing it.

0:06:04.422,0:06:06.928
Imagine Paul McCartney[br]is a member of your group.

0:06:07.352,0:06:09.496
You'd be wise to follow his call

0:06:09.520,0:06:11.961
on the number of times[br]"Yesterday" is repeated,

0:06:11.985,0:06:14.699
which, by the way -- I think it's nine.

0:06:14.723,0:06:17.104
But instead, we found that consistently,

0:06:17.128,0:06:19.494
in all dilemmas,[br]in different experiments --

0:06:19.518,0:06:21.683
even on different continents --

0:06:21.707,0:06:25.450
groups implement a smart[br]and statistically sound procedure

0:06:25.474,0:06:27.652
known as the "robust average."

0:06:27.676,0:06:29.856
In the case of the height[br]of the Eiffel Tower,

0:06:29.880,0:06:31.700
let's say a group has these answers:

0:06:31.724,0:06:36.332
250 meters, 200 meters, 300 meters, 400

0:06:36.356,0:06:40.140
and one totally absurd answer[br]of 300 million meters.

0:06:40.547,0:06:44.840
A simple average of these numbers[br]would inaccurately skew the results.

0:06:44.864,0:06:48.034
But the robust average is one[br]where the group largely ignores

0:06:48.058,0:06:49.298
that absurd answer,

0:06:49.322,0:06:52.691
by giving much more weight[br]to the vote of the people in the middle.

0:06:53.305,0:06:55.181
Back to the experiment in Vancouver,

0:06:55.205,0:06:56.972
that's exactly what happened.

0:06:57.407,0:07:00.148
Groups gave much less weight[br]to the outliers,

0:07:00.172,0:07:03.401
and instead, the consensus[br]turned out to be a robust average

0:07:03.425,0:07:04.901
of the individual answers.

0:07:05.356,0:07:07.347
The most remarkable thing

0:07:07.371,0:07:10.558
is that this was a spontaneous[br]behavior of the group.

0:07:10.582,0:07:15.057
It happened without us giving them[br]any hint on how to reach consensus.

0:07:15.513,0:07:17.053
So where do we go from here?

0:07:17.432,0:07:20.569
This is only the beginning,[br]but we already have some insights.

0:07:20.984,0:07:23.901
Good collective decisions[br]require two components:

0:07:23.925,0:07:26.674
deliberation and diversity of opinions.

0:07:27.066,0:07:31.062
Right now, the way we typically[br]make our voice heard in many societies

0:07:31.086,0:07:32.994
is through direct or indirect voting.

0:07:33.495,0:07:35.492
This is good for diversity of opinions,

0:07:35.516,0:07:37.961
and it has the great virtue of ensuring

0:07:37.985,0:07:40.440
that everyone gets to express their voice.

0:07:40.464,0:07:44.199
But it's not so good [for fostering][br]thoughtful debates.

0:07:44.665,0:07:47.733
Our experiments suggest a different method

0:07:47.757,0:07:51.298
that may be effective in balancing[br]these two goals at the same time,

0:07:51.322,0:07:55.075
by forming small groups[br]that converge to a single decision

0:07:55.099,0:07:57.333
while still maintaining[br]diversity of opinions

0:07:57.357,0:08:00.130
because there are many independent groups.

0:08:00.741,0:08:04.665
Of course, it's much easier to agree[br]on the height of the Eiffel Tower

0:08:04.689,0:08:07.804
than on moral, political[br]and ideological issues.

0:08:08.721,0:08:11.998
But in a time when[br]the world's problems are more complex

0:08:12.022,0:08:13.825
and people are more polarized,

0:08:13.849,0:08:18.444
using science to help us understand[br]how we interact and make decisions

0:08:18.468,0:08:23.134
will hopefully spark interesting new ways[br]to construct a better democracy.