首页> 外文OA文献 >Group Judgments: Deliberation, Statistical Means, and Information Markets
【2h】

Group Judgments: Deliberation, Statistical Means, and Information Markets

机译:小组判断:审议,统计平均值和信息市场

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

How can groups elicit and aggregate the information held by their individual members? The most obvious answer involves deliberation. For two reasons, however, deliberating groups often fail to make good decisions. First, the statements and acts of some group members convey relevant information, and that information often leads other people not to disclose what they know. Second, social pressures, imposed by some group members, often lead other group members to silence themselves because of fear of disapproval and associated harms. The unfortunate results include the propagation of errors; hidden profiles; cascade effects; and group polarization. A variety of steps should be taken to ensure that deliberating groups obtain the information held by their members. Because of their ability to aggregate privately held information, information markets substantial advantages over group deliberation. These points bear on discussion of normative issues, in which deliberation might also fail to improve group thinking.
机译:小组如何获取和汇总其个人成员持有的信息?最明显的答案涉及商议。但是,出于两个原因,审议小组常常无法做出正确的决定。首先,某些小组成员的陈述和行为传达了相关信息,而这些信息通常会导致其他人不透露自己知道的信息。第二,某些团体成员施加的社会压力常常导致其他团体成员沉默,因为他们担心遭到反对和相关伤害。不幸的结果包括错误的传播;隐藏的个人资料;级联效应;和群体极化。应该采取各种步骤来确保审议小组获得其成员持有的信息。由于它们具有汇总私人拥有的信息的能力,因此与集体审议相比,信息市场具有实质性的优势。这些观点都涉及对规范性问题的讨论,在这些问题中,审议也可能无法改善群体思维。

著录项

  • 作者

    Sunstein, Cass R.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2004
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类
  • 入库时间 2022-08-20 20:11:54

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号