With appropriate standards, requirements and restrictions in place, a group can collectively express the numerous and varied points of views to direct a more logical goal than any single individual.

Individuals typically act in their own self interests. Any societal benefit just comes from them trying to look good because that benefits them later on.

When enough individuals are making decisions together, their individual self interests average out and make decisions that are better for society. The problems the US is having aren't because society has voted for war or certain economic plans, it's that small groups of greedy people are making the decision.

I think as a whole the decisions made by the masses are better than those made as an individual. When you have a diverse group of people you get opinions that tend to differ from your own. While you may think you're always right, the fact is that there are many smart people out there whose opinions could help you make a better decision.

That's the beauty of this site. I get to hear everyone else's opinions on some very important and controversial topics and then formulate my own perspective.

This is a close one, on the one hand, the super organism is much more 'cognitive' than individuals, however mob mentality is also dangerous. At the end of the day, i think the super organism must win out, because ultimately while individuals may fail, the society will continue and if the society has made a bad decision, it is to the detriment of the whole society, and thus it tends to to make small mistakes as many individuals 'correct' the direction. However, that said, sometimes society can be seriously misguided and vote for stupid, narrow minded morons. (Yes. Him.)

But trust in the ants.

A large group of informed people will have better judgment than an equally informed individual. That said, the masses tend not to be very well informed (although the internet is helping to change that).

Yes, just look at the politicians the majority elects. Oh, wait....

-j

Diversity of opinion and independence are two of the 4 characteristics of a "wise crowd."

So, yes, under perfect conditions, a large body of Individuals probably can make a decision much better than one individual. The problem is that groups inevitably bring with them a psychological dynamic that tends to discourage individual views and independent thinking.

Knowledge is the key. Groups are unavoidable and can be beneficial, as long as everyone understands the importance of protecting alternative viewpoints.

Group Thinking is always determined by going with the majority. whoever can can make the majority tow his/ her line in a group and make collective thinking look far inferior to decisions individuals can take. Sometimes the silent minority might be right. Lets take some examples. India-Pakistan partition; The 2 World Wars. My point is simple. Collective thinking has to have some converging point of view and this view would come from ONE influential individual in most cases.

"Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance." Groupthink = Bad.

Men in Black:

A person is wise. People are fools.

An individual capable of rising to the position of power within a group will generally direct the group towards more positive goals

People with large bodies are not better than little individuals.