# The Wisdom of Crowds  Author:: James Surowiecki ## AI-Generated Summary None ## Highlights > cooperation typically makes everyone better off. But for each individual, it’s rarely rational to cooperate. It always makes more sense to look after your own interests first and then live off everyone else’s work if they are silly enough to cooperate. ([Location 1915](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B000FCKC3I&location=1915)) > The classic and canonical explanation of why people cooperate was offered by political scientist Robert Axelrod, who argued in the 1980s that cooperation is the result of repeated interactions with the same people. ([Location 1917](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B000FCKC3I&location=1917)) > Successful cooperation, Axelrod argued, required that people start off by being nice—that is, by being willing to cooperate—but that they had to be willing to punish noncooperative behavior as soon as it appeared. The best approach was to be “nice, forgiving, and retaliatory.” ([Location 1924](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B000FCKC3I&location=1924)) > The mystery of cooperation, after all, is that Olson was right: it is rational to free ride. ([Location 2304](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B000FCKC3I&location=2304)) > One of the consistent findings from decades of small-group research is that group deliberations are more successful when they have a clear agenda and when leaders take an active role in making sure that everyone gets a chance to speak. ([Location 2866](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B000FCKC3I&location=2866)) > As a general rule, discussions tend to move both the group as a whole and the individuals within it toward more extreme positions than the ones they entered the discussion with. ([Location 2910](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B000FCKC3I&location=2910))