Mr James Surowiecki would like crowds to be smart. He even writes a book to support his wish: The Wisdom of Crowds (Anchor Books, New York, 2005). And what data does he put in to stand for? Take a look on the example on the right, one among the first in his book, a "striking one".

So, what is the exemplary crowd? James’ description: "random crowd of people with nothing better to do on weekday afternoon than sit in a TV studio". It may be a random crowd of so described people but not a random crowd of the society, fortunately. Most of the people "with nothing better to do" are not lazy, they just are not intelli- gent and inventive enough to do something besides the routine they do for living. And the people participating and watching the game show Who Wants to be a Millionaire? are in the same neighborhood. Friends and relatives to be called, what is the probability that they do not belong among the people "with nothing better to do" ? As for the questions’ level, for the show to survive, an encouraging percentage of them have to be answered.

So, when James writes that every week this show "pitted group intelligence against individual intelligence, and that every week group intelligence won", a specification like "when you deal with the people of below average intelli- gence" (more descriptive than "with nothing better to do") is missing in his statement. Fortunately, life of the human society advances by the individuals with something better to do, the individuals for whom Kenneth Clark says: