Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence
George Siemens, elearnspace, February 18, 2008.

This is exactly right: "(Surowiecki) makes the point that people do not think together in coming to certain conclusions, but rather than people think on their own and the value of the collaborative comes in the connection and combination of ideas. Each person retains their own identity and ideas, but they are shaped and influenced by the work of others. The concept here is related somewhat to Stephen Downes' discussion of groups vs. networks. At stake in these discussions (Surowiecki, Downes, de Kerchove) is how we are to perceive the individual in a world where the collaborative/collective is increasingly valued." That is why I, too, prefer the concept of connective (not collective) intelligence.

I also agree with Siemens that the difference will become more vital over the years: "For reasons of motivation, self-confidence, and satisfaction, it is critical that we can retain ourselves and our ideas in our collaboration with others. Connective intelligences permits this. Collective intelligence results in an over-writing of individual identity." It is not a coincidence that I am at the same time arguing for personal empowerment (Learn Yourself, Things You Really Need to Learn) as I argue in favour of connective knowledge. 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. (Hits Today: 0 Total: 904) [Direct Link] [Tags: Connectivism, Networks]

Share |

Comments

Re: Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence

Alan Levine, February 18, 2008

Why is it either / or? I'll take both, the whole enchilada, rolled up with spicy salsa. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence

Stephen Downes, February 18, 2008

Because you cannot be simultaneously be free to make your own choices and told what to do.
[Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence

Anymouse, February 18, 2008

First, there are multiple ideas of collective intelligence out there. In his book _Collective Intelligence_ Levy makes a similar distinction. But if there is to be any 'collective' at all-- or any group-- then there has to exist a possibility that the group will move in a way that is not in agreement with particular individuals. Surowiecki is using one particular idea of collective intelligence to represent them all, which is a bit feeble.

If you want to drop the idea of the 'collective' then that's fine, but then you really end up having discard the idea of the 'collaborative' and all the other weasel-words that effectively bring group actions back into the picture. There can be great value in group and collective activities-- legislating them away (or, worse, using completely slanted vagueness like "'the individuals must be as enabled and empowered as possible, which precludes subsuming themselves to a 'will of the majority'" when it seems self-evident that there is value in some of what lies beyond being as individually empowered as possible *and* that for groups and collaborative efforts to work at all there will be times when the will of the majority will have to be recognized) seems foolhardy. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence

Anymouse, February 19, 2008

I can discover no 'completely slanted vagueness' in the call for individual empowerment as a condition for connecting knowledge, and a condition for collective action.

The value of groups is not disputed here, on the contrary: the value of groups would benefit from members being enabled and empowered as much as possible. Without such empowerment, groups restrain, at best, and manipulate, at worst.

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. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence

Anymouse, February 19, 2008

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] [Previous][Next]

Re: Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence

Stephen Downes, February 19, 2008

> 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.

You are implying that the 'will of the group' is something that must be the same as 'the will of the members' in order to be successful. That if the group wants to do A, then every member also must want to do A.

But this isn't the case. Fred simply wants to make enough money to raise his kid. So he enters into a voluntary transaction with some other people, each of whom has a different objective (Jim like to play hockey, Alfie likes to mess around with aerodynamics, Jill wants to travel...). But what 'the group' wants to do is to design and fly an airplane.

The 'group objective' isn't the objective of any individual person writ large - it isn't the case where some 'leader' captures the 'general will' and imprints it on everybody, thus molding some sort of general will. Groups don't - or, I should say, shouldn't - work that way. And indeed, to the extent that they *do* work that way, they're dysfunctional.

[Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence

Anymouse, February 19, 2008

I'm going to have to think on this... I think my sticking point is some different assumptions about group membership and group objectives, where people aren't just incidentally contributing, but where they share in a common goal but in details on getting there might differ. If the group *does* want to build a plane-- and I'm a member of that group because I want to build a plane-- then we have to decide on a wing design and ultimately choose one even if I disagree... but I don't necessarily have to (or want to) forego my group membership and retain complete individuality else there is no plane at all.

Anyway, I definitely don't believe this:

"You are implying that the 'will of the group' is something that must be the same as 'the will of the members' in order to be successful. That if the group wants to do A, then every member also must want to do A."

Because that complete consensus is just the belief that I felt was the only logical outcome of you position and didn't agree with it!

I will cogitate. I appreciate the dialogue. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence

Anymouse, February 24, 2008

Collective Intelligence and collective theory immediately have captured my attention in this Blog when I start to open it. Since I have just learned the concepts- Multiple intelligence and learning style. Now I have gotten other two concepts- Connective and Connective Intelligence. Actually I am curiosity that how four of them are interrelated and work together.

According to Gardner's theory, multiple intelligences are the abilities to create and solve problems, create products or provide services that are valued within a society. With multiple intelligence theory, an individual intelligence could be identified and allows them speak with their own voice. The collective theory says an individual view will be collected in some certain fields. Furthermore, well, how learners learn? In general learning style refers to the uniqueness of how each one receives and processes new information through senses ( Emily Giles, Sarah Pitre, Sara Womack, 2008). I think, by identifying learning style and creating individual inventory will be helpful for learners to organize their learning pattern and connect with outside world that collective intelligence theory has pointed out. In the all of views, applying learning concepts for practice actively play a center role. When we listen to different voice from learners; When we collaborate with others in an open manner, we will benefit from our collection and framework by society service. By reshape thoughts and learning processes constructively, we can improve our learning skills. Also the open reflection will motivate learners to engage in the authentic objective.



Cindy Zhang


[Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Comment



Title
Your comment:
Enter email to receive replies:

Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here you agree to license under the same terms as this site (CC By-NC-SA). If your comment is offensive it will be deleted.

Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.