- 1、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
- 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载。
- 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
- 4、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
- 5、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
- 6、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
- 7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
2023高考英语真题阅读精读含答案
本文是说明文。没有人是一座孤岛,文章陈述了“群体智慧”效应。实验表明,在某些情况下大量独立估计的平均值可能是相当准确的。
D
On March 7, 1907, the English?statistician?Francis Galton published a paper which?illustrated?what?has come to be known as the “wisdom of crowds” effect. The experiment of?estimation?he conducted showed that in some cases, the?average?of a large number of?independent estimates?could be quite accurate.
This effect?capitalizes on?the fact that when people?make errors, those errors aren’t always the same. Some people will tend to?overestimate, and some to?underestimate. When enough of these errors are averaged together, they?cancel?each other out, resulting in a?more accurate estimate. If people are similar and tend to make the same errors, then their errors won’t cancel each other out. In more technical terms, the wisdom of crowds requires that people’s estimates be independent. If for whatever reasons, people’s errors become?correlated?or dependent, the accuracy of the estimate will go down.
But a new study led by Joaquin Navajas offered an interesting?twist?(转折) on this classic phenomenon. The key finding of the study was that when crowds were further divided into smaller groups that were allowed to have a discussion, the averages from these groups were more accurate than those from an equal number of independent individuals. For instance, the average?obtained?from the estimates of four discussion groups of five was significantly more accurate than the average obtained from 20 independent individuals.
In a follow-up study with 100 university students, the researchers tried to get a better sense of what the group members actually did in their discussion. Did they tend to go with those most confident about their estimates? Did they follow those least willing to change their minds? This happened some of the time, but it wasn’t the?dominant response. Most frequently, the groups reported that they “shared arguments and reasoned together.” Somehow, these arguments and reasoning resulted in a?
您可能关注的文档
- 60m³LNG加气站预冷方案全套.docx
- 2023高考英语真题阅读理解精读mis.docx
- 2024高考英语阅读理解精读consent.docx
- 2024一建考试《工程经济》计算公式.docx
- 2024注册一级造价工程师《建设工程计价》冲刺班讲义.docx
- SK-2000型综合录井仪计算机故障处理方法.docx
- 保温材料合作协议 标准版.docx
- 采暖季施工环保措施全套.docx
- 采暖节能工程管理.docx
- 测井质量控制.docx
- 2025年春新人教版化学9年级下册全册教学课件 (2).ppt
- 2025年春新人教版化学9年级下册全册教学课件 (3).ppt
- 2024年新湘教版地理7年级上册全册教学课件(新版教材).ppt
- 2024年新湘教版7年级地理上册全册教学课件.ppt
- 2024年新湘教版7年级地理上册全册课件.ppt
- 2025年春新人教版8年级下册物理全册大单元教学整体设计课件.ppt
- 2025年春新人教版道德与法治9年级下册全册课件.ppt
- 2024年新湘教版7年级上册地理全册教学课件(新版教材).ppt
- 2025年春新北师大版物理8年级下册教学课件.ppt
- 2025年春新沪科版物理8年级下册全册教学课件 (2).ppt
原创力文档


文档评论(0)