I'd need to re-read it again to actually understand the experiment they did (though I've read about it before).
Another current hot theory in research - which goes against this I guess - is "predictive markets", the idea that a large enough sample is a good predictor of things, but an even BETTER predictor when the sample is itself acting as a predictor, i.e. "What will you like?" gets you an OK result, but "What do you think other people will like?" gets you even better ones, and even BETTER better ones if there's something 'at stake' i.e. if you present it as a game.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 04:43 pm (UTC)Another current hot theory in research - which goes against this I guess - is "predictive markets", the idea that a large enough sample is a good predictor of things, but an even BETTER predictor when the sample is itself acting as a predictor, i.e. "What will you like?" gets you an OK result, but "What do you think other people will like?" gets you even better ones, and even BETTER better ones if there's something 'at stake' i.e. if you present it as a game.