The wisdom of crowds works when the crowd is choosing the price of an ox, when there's a single numeric average. But if it's a design or something that matters, the decision is made by committee, and that's crap. You want people and groups who are able to think thoughts before they share.

In the quote, Jaron Lanier explores the concept of the wisdom of crowds and its limitations. He acknowledges that the idea works well in situations where decisions are based on quantifiable metrics, like pricing an ox, where an average can be calculated. In such cases, the collective knowledge of a group can help arrive at a fairly accurate outcome. However, when the decision involves something more complex, such as design or matters requiring deeper consideration, relying on a committee often leads to subpar results.

Lanier criticizes decision-making by committee, implying that it can be inefficient and lacks depth. In these situations, the diversity of opinions can dilute the effectiveness of the final decision, as groupthink often replaces individual creativity and insight. When it comes to creative or impactful decisions, he believes the input of individuals who have had the chance to form their own thoughts before contributing is far more valuable than a collective vote or consensus.

The mention of a single numeric average highlights how some decisions benefit from quantifiable data, where a simple average can provide a fair result. In contrast, design or complex issues require more nuanced thinking, which can’t be captured through simple numbers. Lanier emphasizes that the best decisions often arise from individuals who think critically on their own, not just from a group of people throwing ideas around without reflection.

Ultimately, Lanier advocates for a more thoughtful and selective approach to decision-making, suggesting that it's essential to have people who are able to think independently before sharing their thoughts, especially when the matter at hand is important or creative. In doing so, he promotes the idea that quality of thought is more important than the quantity of voices in a decision-making process.