Collective, Connective, Consensus, Groups
[corrected to fix an attribution and insert a missing quote]
In a rare moment of stellar alignment, George Siemens and Stephen Downes apparently have found agreement in dispensing with the term "collective intelligence" and substituting "connective intelligence." I guess I’m sympathetic, as far as it goes, but I’m disturbed with the way both seem willing to dispense with the necessities to for groups and collaboratives to exist at all in favor of what I can only see absolute individuality.
George says, in an illogical and undemonstrated blanket assertion*:
Collective intelligence results in an over-writing of individual identity.
I don’t see why… in part because I don’t think the difference between “over-writing an individual identity” and “making a decision other than what the individual would choose” is purely semantic.
Meanwhile, Stephen notes:
It’s not that I ‘put the individual first’ or any such thing; it’s not a competition. It’s just that, for the whole to produce maximally reliable knowledge, the individuals must be as enabled and empowered as possible, which precludes subsuming themselves to a ‘will of the majority’ or some such thing.
I submit you can fairly rephrase that as saying:
I’m not saying I support absolute individuality in decisions, but I’m ruling out adhering to decisions made by the majority.
You can’t have it both ways. Of course, insofar as one is willing to eschew belonging to groups and collaboratives– and there is a lot of room in that space– then you can rule out decisions made by the majority. Let individuals each do what they will and what happens happens by virtue of the marketplace of ideas, etc. Fine. In the end you end up having to step outside the frame, so to speak, to create a new frame called "action" and consider that the collective and you have to live with the only consensus being emergent and incidental.
But for groups or collaboratives to exist at all, there has to be room for the possibility of group action and decisions that go against– or in a different direction from– some of its members. You can use the rhetorical tactic of giving it a label that is unattractive (subsuming, buckling under, giving in) or you can cast it as a side-effect of being in a community where the membership should provide more net benefits than losses, but it’s a distinction without a difference in the world I live in, where membership in some groups, collectives and collaboratives is not just necessary for pragmatic purposes, but also because they provide some value for the compromise of not having complete individual autonomy.
And, in fact, what I know of the theory of collective intelligence already supports what George and Stephen are talking about here regarding individual identity and network effects as opposed to Borg-like groupthink– it’s a distinction Pierre Levy makes again and again in his book Collective Intelligence right from the introduction to the epilogue.
Not that I’m without sympathy, as I noted at the start. Another aspect of the world I live in (both politically and academically) is that it’s unlikely to tilt too far toward ultimate (unbridled, absolute) individuality, so perhaps pretending that the inherent self-contradiction in supporting something less than absolute individuality while also giving up group actions other than complete consensus makes sense is a worthwhile corrective.
*note: with lack of a qualifier the statement is illogical because if it were true, then there could be no individuality within collectives which not only has the drawback that collectives thus couldn’t, by definition, exist, but also defies individual observations we can all make… and probably have; undemonstrated because, well, it’s logically impossible. Not demonstrating an impossibility isn’t as much of a knock as it sounds…
February 18th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I’m ready to give out a collective (or is it connective) yawn. I did appreciate George’s idea, but like the other yawner about groups vs networks- why must it always be so binary? Is there not room, place for both?
To me, who is largely unread in steeped academic journals, I am more interested in what we *do* with the stuff than debating philosophy. And I fail to see wher participating in collective intelligence I am knuckling under to some massive entity. All of the web apps where my little bits of action feed to larger ones (be it tagging, creating links), I am acting as an individual, I am operating from a base of “tagging my photos does this for me”, and the collective results are an extra layer on top. Where am I subjecting my individuality?
I want both. And I dont care about the semantics, I care about the practicals.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
From where I sit, one problem is the old one addressed in the Federalist papers: how to protect the rights and activities of political minorities without enabling factions to stall all forward progress. We had to move from the Article of Confederation to the “more perfect union” in the Constitution for just this reason. It was tough, fraught, and not nearly so perfect as it needed to be, but it was necessary.
The other problem is the problem of authority, and it’s a problem hiding out (or sometimes clearly visible) in all talk of groups. Who gets to lead? What does leadership mean? What counts as credentials? Do we need authority, or will anarchy do? I firmly believe that authority is necessary, but I think it’s justified by the creativity and freedom it generates. (I try to work through this in a recent essay on Milton.)
But I think that authority really is where the rubber meets the road on this collective/individual question….
February 18th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Hi Chris – a quick note – the phrase you attributed to me is actually Stephen’s commentary.
Could you clarify what aspect of my statements you found “illogical and undemonstrated”? I think you may have interpreted my stance as more absolutist than it is (especially with regard to “absolute individuality”).
I’m generally not overly inclined to binary thinking…I’m more in favor of evaluating context. In my post today, I was reacting to an ongoing sense of unease about the heaving focus (as encountered at EDUCAUSE) of collectives and the lack of attention to the individual. I put my ideas forward with that as a backdrop. Do situations exist where collectives are desirable? Of course. I’m not advocating unbridled individuality. If you look at my post, I emphasized the importance of being a part of a larger community, collaborating, etc.
George
February 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Geroge, my mistake on the attribution. *Your* absolutist statement was “Collective intelligence results in an over-writing of individual identity.”
I’ll correct that right after this comment.
I’m with Alan– I want to have it both ways as well. An understanding of collective intelligence can and should allow for both a picture of autonomy (it’s existence and its limits) within the larger operational structures and the dangers of false and coercive consensus. And as I commented to Jared Stein on George’s blog– it doesn’t in any way diminish or invalidate individual genius.
Where I diverge from Alan is that I don’t think this is “merely” academic– theory can and does inform action, can and does promote or prevent ideas from being taken seriously or getting traction. There is apparently a surface contradiction at works that it takes some reasoning to approach… I can’t otherwise understand where George and Stephen are coming from with the phrases I chose.
Where I diverge from George and Stephen, as far as I can tell, is that I believe the idea of collective intelligence already includes what they are saying. Why invent another term unless for some kind of marketing synergy?
Gardner was wise to bring in the Federalist papers– it brings to mind the important fact that “subsuming to the will of the majority” is but one way that groups can act in ways different than individual desires and has many practical ramifications in terms of individual action and avoiding the tyranny of the majority (not to mention the lowest common denominator). That’s real stuff that even Alan, as an honorary Canadian, can’t overlook.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:07 am
When people look at ‘groups and networks’ they often fall back onto that familiar argument of ‘individual versus the state’. But my advocacy of ‘network’ is not some advocacy of pseudo-Rand individualism.
It is about two ways of forming communities. I recognize and value the role of the community. But I am arguing that, in order to make it the best community possible, it must be organized in a certain way – as a ‘network’, rather than as a ‘group’.
As someone comments on my own website, ‘It is indeed the whole enchilada. But as with good food, it actually matters which ingredients you use – and in which order you combine them.”
My own arguments related to ‘groups versus networks’ have everything to do with how you construct communities and how, therefore, you design software intended to create and support communities. There are some very practical implications of this. These are the foundational points I use to guide my selection, use and development of learning software, rather than just being swept away by the fad of the day.