
doi: 10.1111/nous.12233
AbstractA group is often construed as one agent with its own probabilistic beliefs (credences), which are obtained by aggregating those of the individuals, for instance through averaging. In their celebrated “Groupthink”, Russell et al. (2015) require group credences to undergo Bayesian revision whenever new information is learnt, i.e., whenever individual credences undergo Bayesian revision based on this information. To obtain a fully Bayesian group, one should often extend this requirement to non‐public or even private information (learnt by not all or just one individual), or to non‐representable information (not representable by any event in the domain where credences are held). I propose a taxonomy of six types of ‘group Bayesianism’. They differ in the information for which Bayesian revision of group credences is required: public representable information, private representable information, public non‐representable information, etc. Six corresponding theorems establish how individual credences must (not) be aggregated to ensure group Bayesianism of any type, respectively. Aggregating through standard averaging is never permitted; instead, different forms of geometric averaging must be used. One theorem—that for public representable information—is essentially Russell et al.'s central result (with minor corrections). Another theorem—that for public non‐representable information—fills a gap in the theory of externally Bayesian opinion pooling.
[SHS.PHIL] Humanities and Social Sciences/Philosophy, Knowledge, and Uncertainty, 330, [SHS.PHIL]Humanities and Social Sciences/Philosophy, JEL: D - Microeconomics/D.D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making, [SHS.ECO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Economics and Finance, [SHS.ECO] Humanities and Social Sciences/Economics and Finance, JEL: D - Microeconomics/D.D8 - Information
[SHS.PHIL] Humanities and Social Sciences/Philosophy, Knowledge, and Uncertainty, 330, [SHS.PHIL]Humanities and Social Sciences/Philosophy, JEL: D - Microeconomics/D.D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making, [SHS.ECO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Economics and Finance, [SHS.ECO] Humanities and Social Sciences/Economics and Finance, JEL: D - Microeconomics/D.D8 - Information
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 11 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
