Dear Colleagues, The area of debate as proposed by John P., although broad, seems to involve a number of self-imposed restrictions that perhaps should be explicitly referred to. Thus, neither John?s papers (please excuse me if I have missed it), nor the postings so far, have addressed the issue of knowledge vs. intelligence. As I understand it, John?s approach is specifically based on using Information Technology mediated groups of agents to derive the existence of a collective intelligence, but I would like it to be explained in what this intelligence consists. In other words, are we dealing with knowledge-as-such (stored and shared data) or capability for effecting change. John P. does say that crowd capability is directed at processing knowledge, but does this exhaust the content of the concept of intelligence as capability? My next point is the following: it is easy to see how the interaction of two individuals can lead to the emergence of new behavior and capability of behavior. An example of the former is interactional convergence. The second is a learning process. I tend to associate capability for behavior with intelligence. The subsequent interaction of a third individual with the result of the initial interaction, or one of the individuals involved in it leads to further emergence of the same kind. Iteration of this process, in my conception, focuses on the individual-group interaction as its locus. On this basis, collective intelligence appears with two or three people. My first question, therefore, is whether one can in fact consider that multiple interactions at the same time constitute collective intelligence in themselves, or whether there is always the need to take into account the one-many relation, as well as, joining Loet, the qualitative aspects of the communications involved in the interactions. Best wishes, Joseph ----Message d'origine---- De : l...@leydesdorff.net Date : 08/03/2014 - 03:49 (PST) A : colli...@ukzn.ac.za, fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE Dear John, Beyond the case of pyramids, one can think of more abstract forms of social organization such as the rule of law as a supra-individual coordination mechanism. I doubt that ?collective intelligence? is the fruitful category. As in the rule of law, it seems to me that codification of the communication (e.g., legislation and jurisprudence) are the vehicles. In other words, the quality of the communication is more important than the individual or sum total of reflections. Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor Emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of John Collier Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 11:26 AM To: Foundations of Information Science Information Science Subject: Re: [Fis] COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE Guy, This looks fruitful, but it might be argued that the exchanges of information in a colony can be reduced to individual exchanges and interactions, and thus there is not really any activity that is holistic. This is what Steven is doing with his example of pyramid building. On the other hand, with ants, for example, it has been shown by de Neuberg and others that in ant colonies the interactions cannot be reduced, but produce complex organization that only makes sense at a higher level of b_ehaviour. Examples are nest building and bridge building, among others. I assume the same is true for humans. For example, in the pyramid case, why is it being built, why are people so motivated to cooperate on such a ridiculous project? Contrary to widespread opinion the workers were not slaves, but they were individual people. I doubt this can be explained at the individual level. If ants have complexly organized b_ehaviour, then surely humans do as well -- we are far more complex, and our social interactions are far more complex. John At 10:33 PM 2014-03-07, Guy A Hoelzer wrote: I think of ?collective intelligence? as synonymous with collective ?information processing?. I would not test for its existence by asking if group-level action is smart or adaptive, nor do I think it is relevant to ask whether ?collective intelligence? informed or misinformed individuals. I would say that in the classic example of eusocial insect colonies (like honey bees, for example) there is no reasonable doubt that information is processed at the level of the full colony, which can be detected by the coordination of individual activities into coherent colony-level behavior. Synchronization and complementarity of individual actions reflect the top-down influences of colony-level information processing. It is the existential question that I think is key here, and I hope our conversation includes objective ways to detect the existence or absence of instances where a ?collective intelligence? has manifested as a way to keep this concept more tangible and less metaphorical. Cheers, Guy On Mar 6, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> wrote: > Is there such a thing as Collective Intelligence? I am concerned that the methods of the Harvard paper demonstrate nothing at all and, however well intended, they appear to be insufficiently rigorous and one might say "unscientific." If the question were: are there things that a group of individuals may achieve that an individual may not, build the Pyramids or go to the Moon, for example, then manifestly this is the case. However, can we measure the objective efficiency of a group by considering the problems solved by individuals working together in groups such that we may identify whether there is an environment independent quantifiable addition or loss of efficiency in all cases? Perhaps, but one suspects not. Bottomline: I think you must stop worrying about collective intelligence and speak to quantifiable efficiencies in all cases. > How does IT effect the existence or non-existence of Collective Intelligence? The internet does not seem to have especially improved general intelligence - it has made apparent the ignorance what what there all along. On the other hand, it appears to have misinformed more individuals than it has benefitted. Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://iase.info +1-650-308-8611 On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Pedro C. Marijuan < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: Dear John P. and FIS Colleagues, Thanks for the kickoff text. It a discussion on new themes that only occasionally and very superficially has surfaced in this list. Intelligence, the information flow in organizations, distributed knowledge, direct crowd enlistment in scientific activities... It sounds rather esoteric, but in the historical perspective the phenomenon is far from new. Along the biggest social transformations, the "new information orders" have been generated precisely by new ways to circulate knowledge/information across social agents--often kept away from the previous informational order established. In past years, when the initial Internet impact was felt, there appeared several studies on those wide historical transformations caused by the arrival of new social information flows --O'Donnell, Hobart & Schiffman, Lanham, Poe... But there is a difference, in my opinion, in the topic addressed by John P., it is the intriguing, more direct involvement of software beyond the rather passive, underground role it generally plays. "Organizational processes frozen into the artifact--though not fossilized". Information Technologies are producing an amazing mix of new practices and new networkings that generate growing impacts in economic activities, and in the capability to create new solutions and innovations. So, the three final questions are quite pertinent. In my view, there exist the collective intelligence phenomenon, innovation may indeed benefit from this new info-crowd turn, and other societal changes are occurring (from new forms of social uprising and revolt, to the detriment of the "natural info flows" --conversation--, an increase of individual isolation, diminished happiness indicators, etc.) Brave New World? Not yet, but who knows... best ---Pedro Prpic wrote: > ON COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE: The Future of IT-Mediated Crowds > John Prpi� > Beedie School of Business > Simon Fraser University > > > > Software (including web pages and mobile applications etc) is the key building block of the IT field in terms of human interaction, and can be construed as an artifact that codifies organizational process ??in the form of software embedded ?routines? (Straub and Del Guidice 2012). These organizational processes are frozen into the artifact, though not fossilized, since the explicit codification that executes an artifact can be readily updated when desired (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001, Yoo et al. 2012). > > A software artifact always includes ?a setting of interaction? or a user interface, for example a GUI or a DOS prompt (Rogers 2004), where human beings employ the embedded routines codified within the artifact (including data) for various purposes, providing input, and receiving programmed output in return. The setting of interaction provides both the limits and possibilities of the interaction between a human being and the artifact, and in turn this ?dual-enablement? facilitates the functionality available to the employ of a human being or an organization (Del Giudice 2008). This structural view of artifacts (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001) informs us that ?IT artifacts are, by definition, not natural, neutral, universal, or given? (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001), and that ?IT artifacts are always embedded in some time, place, discourse, and community? (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001). > > Emerging research and our observation of developments in Industry and in the Governance context signals that organizations are increasingly engaging Crowds through IT artifacts to fulfill their idiosyncratic needs. This new and rapidly emerging paradigm of socio-technical systems can be found in Crowdsourcing (Brabham 2008), Prediction Markets (Arrow et al. 2008), Wikis (Majchrzak et al. 2013), Crowdfunding (Mollick 2013), Social Media (Kietzmann et al 2011), and Citizen Science techniques (Crowston & Prestopnik 2013). Acknowledging and incorporating these trends, research has emerged conceptualizing a parsimonious model detailing how and why organizations are engaging Crowds through IT in these various substantive domains (Prpi� & Shukla 2013, 2014). The model considers Hayek's (1945) construct of dispersed knowledge in society, as the antecedent condition (and thus the impetus too) driving the increasing configuration of IT to engage Crowds, and further details that organizations are doing so for the purposes of capital creation (knowledge & financial). > > However, as might be expected, many questions remain in this growing domain, and thus I would like to present the following questions to the FIS group, to canvas your very wise and diverse views. > > > Is there such a thing as Collective Intelligence? > How does IT effect the existence or non-existence of Collective Intelligence? > - http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Woolley2010a.pdf > - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1919614 > - http://www.collectiveintelligence2014.org/ > > How do national innovation systems (and thus policy too) change when we consider IT-mediated crowds as the 4th Helix of innovation systems? > - http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3 > > Does the changing historical perception of crowds signal other societal > changes? > - http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1907199 > > -- ------------------------------------------------- Pedro C. Mariju�n Grupo de Bioinformaci�n / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragon�s de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigaci�n Biom�dica de Arag�n (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ ------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Steven _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
