Ever stood at a county fair and tried to guess the weight of a cow? Probably not. But back in 1906, a guy named Francis Galton did exactly that at the West of England Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition. Galton was a polymath, a bit of a skeptic when it came to the intelligence of the "average" person, and honestly, he expected the crowd to fail miserably. He collected 787 guesses from a diverse group—some were butchers and farmers, but many knew nothing about livestock.
When he crunched the numbers, the result was staggering.
The average guess was 1,197 pounds. The actual weight of the ox? 1,198 pounds. It was off by less than 0.1%. This moment is the bedrock of James Surowiecki’s 2004 book, The Wisdom of the Crowd, and it challenges almost everything we think we know about leadership and expertise. We are taught to look for the smartest person in the room. We want the CEO, the doctor, or the "expert" to give us the answer. But Surowiecki argues that, under the right conditions, the group is smarter than even the smartest individual within it.
What James Surowiecki actually discovered
It’s not just about guessing the weight of an ox or how many jellybeans are in a jar. That’s the "simple" version. The real meat of The Wisdom of the Crowd explores how this collective intelligence applies to economics, psychology, and biology.
Surowiecki isn't saying that every mob is smart. Far from it. We’ve all seen Twitter. We know how fast a crowd can turn into a panicked, irrational mess. For a crowd to be "wise," it needs four specific ingredients. If you miss even one, the whole thing collapses into groupthink or a stampede.
First, you need diversity of opinion. This doesn't just mean demographic diversity; it means everyone should have some private information or a unique interpretation of the facts. If everyone is reading the same news feed and following the same "influencers," the crowd isn't wise. It’s just an echo chamber.
💡 You might also like: Fast Food Restaurants Logo: Why You Crave Burgers Based on a Color
Second is independence. This is the big one. People’s guesses shouldn't be influenced by those around them. This is why "brainstorming" sessions in corporate boardrooms are usually useless. One loud person speaks first, and everyone else subconsciously aligns their views with that person. To get the real wisdom of the crowd, you need people to think for themselves before they share.
Third, you need decentralization. Knowledge is often local. The person on the ground knows things the manager at HQ doesn't. Finally, you need a way to aggregate those opinions—a way to turn individual guesses into a single collective verdict.
The problem with experts
We love experts. It feels safe to listen to someone with a PhD or twenty years of experience. But Surowiecki points out a glaring flaw: experts are often overconfident. They lean on their specialized knowledge so heavily that they miss the "noise" or the outliers that a diverse crowd might pick up on.
Think about the stock market.
If you ask one top-tier analyst what a stock will be worth in a year, they might be right, or they might be catastrophically wrong. But the market itself—which is essentially a giant machine for aggregating the "bets" of millions of people—is incredibly hard to beat. This is why index funds often outperform managed funds. The "crowd" of the market has already baked all available information into the price.
📖 Related: Exchange rate of dollar to uganda shillings: What Most People Get Wrong
Does this mean we should fire all experts? No. That’s a common misconception. Expertise is vital for certain tasks, like performing heart surgery or designing a bridge. You don't want a crowd-sourced opinion on your bypass surgery. But for predicting the future or estimating value, the collective usually wins.
When the crowd goes off the rails
Surowiecki spends a good chunk of the book talking about when things go wrong. It's fascinating because it explains why we have stock market bubbles and why political polarization feels so inescapable.
When people start paying too much attention to what others are doing, they stop being independent. This is "herding." Think about the housing bubble of 2008. People weren't looking at the actual value of houses; they were looking at the fact that their neighbor just made $100k flipping a condo. When independence vanishes, the "wisdom" evaporates. You’re left with a bubble.
The same thing happens in "information cascades." This is when people choose to ignore their own private information because they assume the people who went before them must know something they don't. It’s why a mediocre restaurant with a long line stays busy while the great place next door is empty. People assume the line knows best. Often, it doesn't.
Real-world wins for collective intelligence
You see The Wisdom of the Crowd in action every day, even if you don't realize it.
👉 See also: Enterprise Products Partners Stock Price: Why High Yield Seekers Are Bracing for 2026
- Google Search: The original PageRank algorithm was basically a massive exercise in crowd wisdom. It ranked pages based on how many other people linked to them. It was a giant vote.
- Prediction Markets: Sites like Polymarket or the Iowa Electronic Markets often predict election outcomes more accurately than professional pollsters. Why? Because people are putting real money on the line, which forces them to be honest about what they think will happen, rather than what they want to happen.
- Linux and Open Source: Thousands of developers contributing small pieces of code. It’s decentralized, diverse, and it works.
There was a famous case involving the search for the missing submarine USS Scorpion in 1968. Instead of relying on one salvage expert, a naval officer named John Craven asked a diverse group of mathematicians, divers, and salvage experts to give their best guesses on where the sub might be. He didn't ask them to talk to each other. He just averaged their answers. The sub was found just 220 yards from where the "crowd" said it would be.
How to use this in your life
Honestly, you can apply this to your business or even your personal decisions. If you're a manager, stop holding "open" meetings where everyone just nods along with you. Start asking for anonymous feedback or "blind" votes before a discussion begins. This preserves the independence that Surowiecki harps on.
If you're trying to make a big decision—like whether to move to a new city—don't just ask your best friend. Ask ten people who live there, including people you don't usually agree with. You're looking for that diversity of opinion.
The world is too complex for one person to have all the answers. Surowiecki's book isn't just a business text; it's a plea for humility. It’s a reminder that we are smarter together than we are alone, provided we have the guts to think for ourselves first.
Actionable steps for leveraging crowd wisdom
To get the most out of collective intelligence in your own work or projects, follow these steps:
- Enforce "Silent Starts" in meetings. Before anyone speaks, have everyone write down their thoughts or estimates on a piece of paper. This prevents the "first speaker" bias from ruining the independence of the group.
- Seek out "The Weirdo" in the room. Intentionally include someone in your decision-making process who isn't from your department or background. Their lack of "insider knowledge" is actually an asset because they won't be blinded by the same assumptions you have.
- Use Aggregate Forecasting. If you're trying to predict a deadline or a sales goal, don't just take the average of what people say in a group. Ask them individually for their "best-case," "worst-case," and "most likely" numbers, then average those.
- Distinguish between Facts and Values. Use the crowd for "fact" problems (like "How long will this take?") but stick to smaller, more focused groups for "value" problems (like "What should our brand’s personality be?").
- Watch for "Social Proof" traps. If you see a group moving in one direction, pause and ask: "Is this because they all reached the same conclusion independently, or are they just following the leader?" If it's the latter, the group's intelligence has dropped to the level of that one leader.