Group decisions are usually encouraged as it helps to add more perspective to a certain argument. Having a different point of view on a point is healthy and can provide a better output. More information is expected to be gathered through the use of group discussion and decisions. However, nature and wildlife gave humans a new way to look at group decisions. The study conducted by a Baird Scholar and Omidyar Fellow at the Santa Fe Institute, Albert Kao and the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and Chair of Biodiversity and Collective Behavior at the University of Konstanz, Iain Couzin, shows that group decisions are not a good thing.
The study was published in the journal of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, which shows different animal groups that were put under the test. Different animals have shown that dividing into subgroups is beneficial for being more productive and achieving more.
Animals have shown that they also have different preferences when they are trying to communicate. This would mean that certain individuals of a certain group might actually communicate certain information to one another and not share it with the rest of the herd.
Dr. Kao commented on the findings saying, “A feature of modular structure is that there’s always information loss, but the effect of that information loss on accuracy depends on the environment.” In simple environments, the impact of these modular groups is detrimental to accuracy, but when animals face many different sources of information, the effect is actually the opposite.”