I hate these kinds of surveys. They mean belief as in you have strange thought that the rest of us don't have.

Most of the paranormal is experiential. You do not believe in it, you experience it.

I think there's real value in the "wisdom of the crowd" and also, and this isn't unrelated, shared intuition. If, for instance, 99.9% of people were to believe that something is true without any real, tangible, proof, we certainly can't rule out at that point that it's not purely circumstantial.

Prediction markets have value to us because they've demonstrated time and time again to have real predictive power and statistical reliability -- this is testament to wisdom of the crowd. Now, I admit that predicting psychological behavior (such as the price of a stock) is very different from measuring the probability of something being real based on the number of people that believe it to be so, but, at the same time, we can't rule out the possibility that the same wisdom that leads to statistically significant predictive powers of human events may also be the same that leads to the number of people that agree on unproven (scientifically unsubstantiated) views of reality.

One potential explanation for this (hypothetical) "reality approximation" by random survey is Carl Jung's concept of a shared human unconsciousness. It would make sense in nature that random individuals would have poor approximations of what is true about the nature of reality, due to the variance inherent in multiplicity (individuality), but that the whole, taken together, would better approximate reality. In other words, the "collective unconscious", each individual being given the same "voting power" (voice), could, in theory, result in an average view that cancels out severely deluded concepts of reality, leaving us with a concept that very closely approximates the true nature of the thing/ situation in question.

How is it possible that human consciousness could be such a reliable barometer of reality? Well, our brains and bodies are made up of matter, the matter of atoms, within which there are variances of energetic properties, but, on the whole, all "tend" to a specific set of properties, which make up the "laws" that we observe in the "knowable" universe. Why wouldn't our brain and bodies, made up of these constituents, share that same tendency? Individually, our unconscious and conscious minds could be deluded due to the inherent variance of chemical compositions, due to variance of energetic properties inherent in the matter that makes up the brain and body, due to variance inherent in the forces playing at the atomic level (electromagnetism, strong/ weak nuclear force, gravitational force); however, like the individual elements (gold, iron, helium, carbon, nitrogen, etc.) have their factual properties when seen at the "large scale" of our physical observation, yet have their slight energetic variances at the smallest measurable scales, human consciousness may have a 100% dependable approximation of "truth", regarding the nature of reality, when taken at the scale of all humanity, although there is a known variance at the scale of individuals and "tribes".

The idea here is: so above as below. Of course, it could turn out to be wrong, but it's worth investigating.