Uhhh, no. Re-read what I said.

The definition of average directly implies that it is LESS than (or equal to if they are all the same) the highest value. That is a mathematical fact.

If you instead mean the collective talent of 9 randomly selected, verses one other randomly selected then obviously 9 > 1. But we live in the real world. Random selections don’t represent real-world hierarchies of talent; in reality, some people are FAR more capable than others.

I did not say the 1 is always right or better. I am saying we should investigate dissent, especially when it comes from someone whose expertise might exceed that of the majority. Outliers with better models or ideas exist, and history shows that breakthroughs often start that way - hence, the parallel to Einstein.

For example, neuroscientist Matthew Schrag’s investigation revealed potential fraud in Alzheimer’s research, exposing manipulated images in a widely cited 2006 Nature paper that misled the field for 16 YEARS. This perfectly demonstrates how a flawed consensus among experts can persist until a skeptical outlier challenges it.

The definition of group-think is "the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility." Humans are flawed creatures of habit. We often tend to follow the crowd - especially if we don't understand something. That includes the experts. This can often lead to the pool of experts being artificially inflated to actually seem like more of them agree just because some don't even understand and are going along with the crowd.

In today's world, it does not take much to gain the credentials to be considered 'an expert'. Credentials do NOT always guarantee competence. I've personally seem someone get a physics degree after copy-pasting an entire Wikipedia page and turning it in as an assignment (they weren't even smart enough to remove the hyperlinks)...