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.

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.

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

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….

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.