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.
1907年3月7日，英国统计学家弗朗西斯·高尔顿发表了一篇论文，展示了所谓的“众人的智慧”效应。他进行的估计实验表明，在某些情况下，大量独立估计的平均值可能相当准确。

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.
这种效应利用了当人们犯错时，这些错误并非总是相同的事实。一些人倾向于高估，一些人倾向于低估。当足够多的这些错误求平均后，它们相互抵消，产生一个更准确的估计。如果人们相似且倾向于犯相同的错误，那么他们的错误就无法相互抵消。更具体地说，众人的智慧需要人们的估计是独立的。如果由于某些原因，人们的错误变得相关或相互依赖，那么估计的准确性将降低。

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.
但是由华金·纳瓦哈斯领导的一项新研究对这一经典现象提出了有趣的看法。研究的关键发现是，当人群进一步分成更小的小组，并允许他们进行讨论时，这些小组的平均值比同样数量独立个体的平均值更准确。例如，通过五个讨论小组的估计所得到的平均值明显比通过 20 个独立个体估计所得到的平均值更准确。

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 global reduction in error. Although the studies led by Navajas have limitations and many questions remain the potential implications for group discussion and decision-making are enormous.
在一项对 100 名大学生进行的后续研究中，研究人员试图更好地了解组员们在讨论中实际上做了什么。他们是否倾向于跟随那些对自己的估计最有信心的人？是否追随那些最不愿改变主意的人？这种情况有时会出现，但并不占主导地位。最常见的是，小组成员报告称他们“分享论点并一起进行推理”。不知何故，这些论点和推理导致了错误的全局减少。尽管由纳瓦哈斯领导的研究有局限性，还有许多问题有待回答，但小组讨论和决策的潜在影响是巨大的。

1. What is paragraph 2 of the text mainly about?
   A. The methods of estimation. B. The underlying logic of the effect.
   C. The causes of people’s errors. D. The design of Galton’s experiment.
   答案：B

2. Navajas’ study found that the average accuracy could increase even if __.
   A. the crowds were relatively small B. there were occasional underestimates
   C. individuals did not communicate D. estimates were not fully independent
   答案：D

3. What did the follow-up study focus on?
   A. The size of the groups. B. The dominant members.
   C. The discussion process. D. The individual estimates.
   答案：C

4. What is the author’s attitude toward Navajas’ studies?
   A. Unclear. B. Dismissive. C. Doubtful. D. Approving.
   答案：D