Point Epithetical Books The Wisdom of Crowds

Title	:	The Wisdom of Crowds
Author	:	James Surowiecki
Book Format	:	Paperback
Book Edition	:	Anniversary Edition
Pages	:	Pages: 306 pages
Published	:	August 16th 2005 by Anchor (first published May 19th 2004)
Categories	:	Nonfiction. Business. Psychology. Economics. Sociology. Science

The Wisdom of Crowds Paperback | Pages: 306 pages

Rendition Conducive To Books The Wisdom of Crowds

In this fascinating book, New Yorker business columnist James Surowiecki explores a deceptively simple idea: Large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant–better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future. With boundless erudition and in delightfully clear prose, Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse as popular culture, psychology, ant biology, behavioral economics, artificial intelligence, military history, and politics to show how this simple idea offers important lessons for how we live our lives, select our leaders, run our companies, and think about our world.

Be Specific About Books To The Wisdom of Crowds

Original Title:	The Wisdom of Crowds
ISBN:	0385721706 (ISBN13: 9780385721707)
Edition Language:	English URL http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/

Rating Epithetical Books The Wisdom of Crowds

Ratings: 3.81 From 21956 Users | 717 Reviews

Criticism Epithetical Books The Wisdom of Crowds

Two heads are better than one. And a hundred heads are even better. And a thousand are almost perfect. Watch the asymptote as it approaches infinity... You are getting veeeerrrry sleeeeepy...This is a very interesting concept, fleshed out into a very boring book. It seems like a graduate thesis that got stretched to book length for publication in hopes of drafting the popular slipstream of writers such as Malcolm Gladwell.The premise is fascinating, and the first chapter delivers. After that it

Really the best way to review this book is to just star it, right?

Im trying to remember the first time I heard the phrase: Group Think. It might have been when a teacher pointed out a logical fallacy during a group presentation, or from a judge in a debate tournament, but I definitely remember hearing the phrase in reaction to the second gulf war and all the accusations and recriminations associated with it. Like many people, I heard that phrase and wondered: is that the polite way of saying: we all screwed up? Though he writes as part of the aftermath of the

The book is highly listenable but suffers greatly from events which have transpired in the years since its original publication (2005 vs. today 2013). The financial crisis and stock market crash really do poke holes in a lot of his narrative on how groups out perform individuals.I would not recommend using a credit today for this book because it is outdated by recent events and we have evolved technologically since those days. I do like the authors main theme that groups out perform individuals

If a crowd is wise, then an individual writer like the author must not be? Much of the book is trite, some is just wrong. He refers to the book Moneyball and how clever Oakland was using new ideas to win more games.Like money sports is only about winning. Their #1 goal is to make as much money as possible,winning can help that,but being entertaining is more important. He admits that later in an example about Italian soccer. In Moneyball, we're told that the way to win is to walk to first base,

Updated 4/12/09. I was handing out this book to all my friends and colleagues at work, especially our president, who seemed to think a small coterie of sycophants was all he needed.From an earlier review I wrote some time ago: Wisdom of Crowds is a very insightful book about how we make decisions. The author describes the dangers of homogeneity in promoting group think, something we will begin to see more of in the Bush second administration as he builds his Cabinet with "Yes" men and women.

Ive read James Surowiecki in the New Yorker. Ive generally enjoyed his articles and found them fairly informative and engaging. I think that perhaps he should stick to that: writing articles. This book was, well, disappointing. And I suspect that its because I expect more from a book. I expect an analysis that is more balanced and rigorous. While I am willing to accept a little grandstanding in an article, I find it intolerable in a book. Whats ironic about all of this is that hes written a book