There is a fascinating article by Susan Milius in Science News about collective decision making among social animals such as bees and ants —“Swarm Savvy.” It explains how certain species make collective decisions based on a large enough quorum of group members that favor a particular option.
For example, when a colony of bees needs to find another location, scouts seek out various possibilities and then return to the colony to relay their findings. They recruit additional scouts to examine the same locations, and the enthusiasm of an individual scout to attract fellow surveyors to a particular location determines how many other scouts will explore her discovered place. When these various expeditions report back to the colony, the largest contingent determines the next colony location.
The article covers various experiments with ants, as well, noting that ants tend to make poorer decisions in crisis situations when an immediate decision is required. Researchers have also worked with vertebrates. Even fish, we find out, put trust in the argumentum ad populum. Ten thousand Frenchmen can be wrong, but it is a far better idea to trust ten fish than one.
Milius’ story indulges a bit in comparing the collective decision making process of social animals to that of human beings. What she does not mention, however, is that, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, men tend to have a multitude of competing motives and ends that inform—and often corrupt—their deliberations.