William J. Berger
University of Pennsylvania
Bennett Holman
Yonsei University
Patrick Grim
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
1 more
In a series of formal studies and less formal applications, Hong and Page offer a ‘diversity trumps ability’ result on the basis of a computational experiment accompanied by a mathematical theorem as explanatory background (Hong & Page 2004, 2009; Page 2007, 2011). “[W]e find that a random collection of agents drawn from a large set of limited-ability agents typically outperforms a collection of the very best agents from that same set” (2004, p. 16386). The result has been extremely influential as an epistemic justification for diversity policy initiatives. Here we show that the ‘diversity trumps ability’ result is tied to the particular random landscape used in Hong and Page’s simulation. We argue against interpreting results on that random landscape in terms of ‘ability’ or ‘expertise.’ These concepts are better modeled on smother and more realistic landscapes, but keeping other parameters the same those are landscapes on which it is groups of the best performing that do better. Smoother landscapes seem to vindicate both the concept and the value of expertise. Change in other parameters, however, also vindicates diversity. With an increase in the pool of available heuristics, diverse groups again do better. Group dynamics makes a difference as well; simultaneous ‘tournament’ deliberation in a group in place of the ‘relay’ deliberation in Hong and Page’s original model further emphasizes an advantage for diversity. ‘Tournament’ 2 dynamics particularly shows the advantage of mixed groups that include both experts and non-experts. As a whole, our modeling results suggest that relative to problem characteristics and conceptual resources, the wisdom of crowds and the wisdom of the few each have a place. We regard ours as a step toward attempting to calibrate their relative virtues in different modelled contexts of intellectual exploration.
Keywords diversity  expertise  Hong Page
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Epistemology of Democracy.Elizabeth Anderson - 2006 - Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3 (1):8-22.
Three Criteria for Consensus Conferences.Jacob Stegenga - 2016 - Foundations of Science 21 (1):35-49.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Diversity, Not Randomness, Trumps Ability.Daniel J. Singer - 2019 - Philosophy of Science 86 (1):178-191.
Diversity, Ability, and Democracy: A Note on Thompson’s Challenge to Hong and Page.Daniel Kuehn - 2017 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 29 (1):72-87.
Value of Cognitive Diversity in Science.Samuli Pöyhönen - 2017 - Synthese 194 (11):4519-4540.
Meta-Induction and the Wisdom of Crowds.Christian J. Feldbacher - 2012 - Analyse & Kritik 34 (2):367-382.
A Pluralistic Approach to Interactional Expertise.Kathryn S. Plaisance & Eric B. Kennedy - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 47:60-68.


Added to PP index

Total views
78 ( #150,118 of 2,520,355 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #46,314 of 2,520,355 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes