The Echo Chamber, the Isolation Chamber, and the Sweet Spot
Consumed => “Beyond the Echo Chamber” by Alex “Sandy” Pentland on Harvard Business Review.
1) However, I’m not so sure the tail isn’t wagging the dog. For the example (i.e., trading), market perception is often a key driver to the point to being more self-fulfilling prophesy than “free”. Therefore, doesn’t that by definition reverse engineer (if you will) the sweet spot? That is, of course the sweet spot is on average the most successful, that’s how these things work, yes?
2) In addition, is it more connections that lead to better decisions? Or are better decision makers naturally inclined to seek and process more information from a more diverse set of sources? That is, the win isn’t the signals per se. The win comes from the capability of the receiver to receive and in turn filter noise from quality signal, and vice versa.
In other words, “forcing” a less-than-capable receiver to process more signals isn’t necessarily going to lead to a better decision outcome. Sure you might hedge your bet a bit – per the success of the adjustments in the traders’ habits – but something tells me that for some such TMI can be catastrophic.
I’d like to add, in the case where success is often defined by others (e.g.,staff judging leadership) doesn’t seeing some of our own ideas in the final product (if you will) make us more likely to approve? So seeking more input is a proactive means of consensus building, yes? I’m not questioning the value and/or results. I’m just wondering if that’s really decision making in the true sense of the idea / ideal.
3) Finally, I don’t know what to think of:
“There are few (if any) other data sets where you can see social exploration so clearly and determine which patterns of it work best.”
Does this study have “sweet spot” value? Or is it some exception, some fringe chamber in the periphery of my real world?
I’ll hang up now and listen to your comments off the air. :)