Re: Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence

It's the "as possible" clause that I am talking about here because, in the end, what lies beyond being "as empowered as possible" and still being part of a group will be what is labeled in a slant fashion here, as "subsuming to the will of the majority."

Here's a simple way to put it: I am a member of group X. I am Downesianly empowered to be an individual. Great. Now, I want to do something that the group ultimately decides not to do. It is beyond my ability as a group member to have them do otherwise. What happens? Is my identity overwritten? Do I "subsume to the will of the majority?"

That's the slanted vagueness I'm talking about, the representation that groups can exist without the possibility-- indeed, the requirement-- of compromise, acceptance, restraint-- whatever you want to label it.

The point is that even *with* empowerment, groups constrain... because no group can operate on 100% consensus 100% of the time. Implying otherwise sounds good... I just see no logical solution being presented nor any examples of how to surmount the problem.

Not to mention that the idea of collective intelligence actually looks nothing like Surowiecki paints it.
[Comment] [Permalink]