Do you believe the mass consensus opinion here would be more consistently accurate than any particular expert?

Do you believe the mass consensus opinion here would be more consistently accurate than any particular expert?

If so what's the value of that opinion?

Would that opinion be unbeatabley investable in?

Seems better than hacking to get to

Collections of opinions more accurately represent broad sentiment than one opinion.

Zero, it's an opinion

No not at all

It is if you value your freedom

get a load of this turd burglar shilling Cindicator.

I'm gonna need this translated please

Collection of Opinion on Who Wants to be a Millionaire was more accurate than any 1 particular contestant.

How many people try to pick the winning lottery numbers every week?

Not with the amount of shills here.

I think social attacks are huge threats desu.

Thats everyone going in their own direction though not a group consensus.

A group consensus would still pick more accurate/prize winning lottery numbers than individuals anyway...

Of course, lottery winning picking doesn't get you much unless like the lottery winnings went to some group owned company that could then go on super charging the economy.

Social Attack?

What?

Regardless, how is that a threat? The threat would have to be before the social attack not during or after.

>opinions
>in anything involving capital
your dollars is your opinion

Maybe for what consumer products people want to slurp up, mass consensus on that might be useful product wise.

For anything of substance or usefulness to humanity tho, narp.

The democratic option is only useful when the voting pool is a team of individuals qualified and competent enough to understand the problem. Mobs are fickle, unreliable and easily swayed.

>A group consensus would still pick more accurate/prize winning lottery numbers
This is a fallacy if the lottery is truly random.

except for the guys who won 1 million

This is true, but it's one of these highly misleading truths. You cannot jump from it to conclude consensus beats expertise.

In who wants to be a millionaire, there's one important assumption: every question has the same worth. But in the real world, it's infinitely more important for a nuclear scientist to know how to stop a reactor melting down than it is to know what was Madonna's hit single in 1982.

Even without entering the topic of specialization, there are general orders of importance. Financial planning results in better quality of life for almost everyone, yet the consensus for the population at large is that it's ok to spend your paycheck as soon as you get it and have nothing in savings.

Dollars aren't your only opinion.

You also need to understand the power of an organization of people.

with a lot of money

If products is all you've got you're not thinking how far this sort of thing could go.

That and products would be a huge area that could lead to huge economic growth that in turn leads to more unseen levels of beyond prosperity.

Who Wants to be a Millionaire's ask the audience lifeline proves you wrong.

As for lottery winnings, there is more to lotteries than just picking winning numbers. For example you could pick winning numbers that are less likely to be picked... but of course, lottery picking is a very boring method of crowd calculating. Like using lightning bolts to power lightbulbs. (Like if street lights required attached lightning rods to work.)

The audience picked the correct answers as well though so, that'd be a draw???

>wwtbam lifelibes prove you wrong
no, it just means
average < lifeline < 1m winners
now who would you ask out of these three what the answers are

1000 people with $1000 each + a group expertise would easily be able to get a 10-100x investment in.

It'd be fun to write down the predictions posted on this board and check them up after the fact.
What's the percentage of correctness? Does it vary by coin? time of the prediction? ...

lifeline is 95% accurate

The winners didn't defeat the audience to win??!?

you can pick any number and i can pick a higher one and it would do better

They're more consistently accurate then...

And they're a small sampling of people! What could a larger one do?

they defeated the audience by being 100% correct you daft nigger

So your addition to the mix would be there should be a maxed out number in the bunch?

That sort of thing is kinda what I was getting at there lottery wise, given multiple winning numbers there is more to lotteries than picking a winning number.

the max number is everyone playing obviously

Wait so, how is the contestant getting the right answer meaning the audience specifically had the incorrect answer?

I think you're trying to play up exceptions to the rule to demand those exceptions be the rule.

do you understand statistics.
audience is right 95%
1m winner is right 100%
which number is higher?

Huh? More than 1 lottery ticket per person is possible!

Was that... Did I confuse what you were saying? ...

Well Oh...

The winners use the audience lifeline though.

Would you trust a specific winner over an audience if you had bet continuously?

you wouldnt?
lets say YOU are playing wwtbam and its the 1m dollar question, you narrowed the answer down to 2 choices
you have 2 lifelines, ask the audience or call an ex wwtbam 1m winner.
you woukd choose ask the audience?

had to bet continuously I mean, through multiple shows essentially. I really think you're judging the audience over the course of 1000s of questions vs an individual with 15 who more than likely even used the audience to get to 15. I mean what gives?

Calling a winner seems really exciting but I think the audience would have the correct answer 100x^+ more often.