Collaborative Intelligence and the Numbskull Factor
Posted on May 11th, 2006
by 
~C4Chaos
~C4Chaos
Nick Carr wrote a very ballsy blog post criticizing the utopian fantasy of collective intelligence of Web 2.0. Here's an excerpt:
"Although wikis and other Web 2.0 platforms for the creation of content are often described in purely egalitarian terms - as the products of communities of equals - that's just a utopian fantasy. In fact, the quality of the product hinges not just, or even primarily, on the number of contributors. It also hinges on the talent of the contributors - or, more accurately, on the talent of every individual contributor. No matter how vast, a community of mediocrities will never be able to produce anything better than mediocre work. Indeed, I would argue that the talent of the contributors is in the end far more important to quality than is the number of contributors. Put 5,000 smart people to work on a wiki, and they'll come up with something better than a wiki created by a million numbskulls."
At first read it looks like Nick is an elitist a-hole. Well, he may be an elitist but Nick has a very good point, and that doesn't make him an a-hole in my book. But here are some good rebuttals to Nick's argument.
from Ross Mayfield: Web 2.0 Nimcompoop:
"Any adoption initative should seek out key contributors for what they can contribute. But one man's expert is another one's nimcompoop. At a certain point, the content generated stand on it's own. It is either a valuable resource worth returning to, or people will not. Arguing for quality or expertise makes sense in theory, but a little practice and understanding of wabi sabi provides greater understanding."
from Eclectic Bill: The Wisdom of Numbskulls:
"Another major flaw in Carr's argument is the definition of a numbskull. umair touched on this but I think the argument is worth expanding because it is demonstrates the fundamental flaw in Carr's argument. It is teleological argument because Carr presupposes that there is a perfect final version of the common body of knowledge (CBOK) by which contributions can be judged numbskull or not. This completely ignores the iterative and piecemeal progress by which human knowledge is created. In his time, Aristotle's ideas would be considered expert knowledge and anything that contradicted them to be numbskullish. But the contributions of many (Newton, Galileo, Einstein, and so on) have overturned the expert knowledge of Aristotle and his contemporaries. What may be a numbskull idea today (Adult Neurogenesis) could be the expert knowledge of tomorrow."
Looking at the above arguments using our "integral" lens, we see that ALL of them have excellent points. Those arguments touch both collective intelligence and collaborative intelligence.
My argument: Instead of picking sides, I'd like to "integrate" those arguments and apply them to Zaadz. Why? Because, IMHO, understanding those camps is crucial for all us Zaazdsters if we are to embody our "mission" of "changing the world."
First of, I understand where Nick is coming from. Those of us familiar with Integral Theory and Spiral Dynamics would see Nick's argument as a kind of holarchy of knowledge and expertise, e.g. "community of mediocrities will never be able to produce anything better than mediocre work." A bit strong, but I think only a few of us would disagree with this statement. E.g. No matter how big a terrorist group is, they still need to kidnap (or bribe) scientists to be able to create nuclear weapons. Yes, this is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates my point.
However, I would like to add to Nick's assessment: "... the quality of the product hinges not just, or even primarily, on the number of contributors. It also hinges on the talent of the contributors - or, more accurately, on the talent of every individual contributor."
Talent is indeed very important, but I say "level" of consciousness is key, especially for the people on top of the flock. Allow me to rephrase Nick and make it more concretely related to social networking (e.g. Zaadz).
The quality of a social network hinges not just, or even primarily, on the number of contributors (members). It also hinges on the level of consciousness (e.g. authenticity, passion, compassion, etc...) of the contributors (members).
Notice that I removed the word "talent." It's not that I don't value talent. In fact, it's very important in my book. However, I believe that everyone has some talent that only needs to get tapped and awakened. If people are grouped together with authentically enthusiastic people who are passionate and compassionate, those talents would naturally come out. That's why support groups work wonders.
The other two arguments I mentioned above are also correct since they are coming from the collective intelligence and wisdom of uncertainty point of views. But this is how I see all of them:
Collective Intelligence = SPAN
Collaborative Intelligence = DEPTH
DEPTH and SPAN should go hand in hand. Zaadz embraces SPAN (e.g. diversity is valued, no discrimination, everyone is invited) but focuses on DEPTH (e.g. potential members must go through an approval process, members should be respectful and stay within the "mission"). This is what separates Zaadz from mainstream social networking sites like MySpace, Friendster, Tribe. By sheer number of membership (SPAN) Zaadz looks like a speck of dust. But when it comes to DEPTH of Zaadz, even the Grand Canyon pales in comparison.
More on collective and collaborative intelligences later. For now, I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this matter. Like I said, this topic is important for us since Zaadz is an "elite" type of social networking. Zaadz value SPAN, but one has to have enough DEPTH to get in.
Access: PublicTagged with: Zaadz, Social Networks, DEPTH, Web 2.0, DEPTH and SPAN, SPAN, Collective Intelligence, Collaborative Intelligence, Dumb and Dumber
collaborative intelligence
September 2008 
I think you did a fantastic job. You sort of touched on lines, but I'd like to re-emphasize it here. I agree with the use of the the word “consciousness.” At the altitude at which consciousness can create a Zaadz and maintain it, the contributions of the consciousness going into it will emphasize the lines of development which attracted those people to begin with. That's what I see here. People who are high altitude in musical talent emphasize music. Those high in photography or painting emphasize that. Same with blogging/writing, poetry, yoga, energy work, etc. And this sharing of high altitudes in respective lines of development creates a virtual cornucopial amalgam of high consciousness. I'm excited to see where it goes!
Excellent points and well thought out, I agree completely with you. I have questioned my own dealing within Zaadz mission? Do I stay with in the mission of Zaadz of “let change the world”? My focus has been on photography or daily rambling not “let change the world”. Thank you for your work and focus on collaborative intelligence.
Well, I'll try to say this right, but… there's the thing where the general consciousness level of a group tends to act as an attractor right? So the more high altitude people you get in the group (zaadz in our case) the more the entire group gets pulled up and interesting things happen. Which is where the changing the world thing can come in, right? Zaadz can become a place that helps people grow into higher levels.
But also with the 5000 smart people thing. What if you had 5000 experts and, you know, a million lay people working on a wiki, would it be better (or more interesting at least) than something just done by 5000 experts (or is experts vs. smart people to much of a change of emphasis?).
It speaks to making sure you include depth and span… but also if it's just a clique of smarty pants creating something it can tend to be…. esoteric? Something that the mass of us can't relate to or use in any significant way.
Umguy stole my thunder. You have to account for the “lifting” effect that a small core of highly-motivated, high-level individuals can have on a group - especially if those others are dedicated 24/7 to the selfless liberation and improvement of others. Leadership skills among the lifters then also becomes crucial. Leadership of this nature will emerge even in a supposed anarchy: many want to contribute, but only a few want to lead; of those few, only a fraction will have the necessary skills to lead effectively.
Well, I'll chime in here with a question- why do the main spiritual/self-help teachers not allow collaboration on their public sites?
And then a follow-up.
(hey jay!)
Umguy said: “there's the thing where the general consciousness level of a group tends to act as an attractor right? So the more high altitude people you get in the group (zaadz in our case) the more the entire group gets pulled up and interesting things happen. Which is where the changing the world thing can come in, right? Zaadz can become a place that helps people grow into higher levels.”
exactly! and that's the argument Nick made! (e.g. only a small percent of Wikipedia editors really kick it but Wikipedia kicks major ass!).
again my argument here is NOT to have a competition between collective and collaborative intelligence because those two are crucial and need to work hand in hand. moving forward, i'd like to be able to articulate better how to harness BOTH those intelligences with LESS FRICTION AS POSSIBLE. believe me, there will always be friction! :) and here is where i need your help: to better articulate this and apply it to Zaadz.
so keep on chiming all your ideas, rebuttals, and whatnot. but just remember that our goal here is not to pick sides but to make both sides work together in seamless integration.
my two cents.
ebuddha said: “Well, I'll chime in here with a question- why do the main spiritual/self-help teachers not allow collaboration on their public sites?”
first let me say that i read your follow-up too before i responded to your criticisms.
you brought it upon yourself eBuddha. i will wear my BIG Compassionate Balls on this reply.
to answer your question on “why do spiritual/self-help teachers not allow collaboration on their public sites,” here are my simplified answers:
1) those teachers simply don't want to. and that's their prerogative
2) those teachers in spite of their spiritual development simply don't get the Web 2.0 Architecture of Participation (yet).
so there. those are my answers (aka projections) on this topic.
as for your rants and analysis, i think you're being too harsh with your own projections. you are assuming too much. let's take KW.com for example. yes, it doesn't have commenting (yet), but did it occur to you that people who are working on that site would possibly implement that soon? however, even if it doesn't get implemented is commenting really that big of a deal on KW.com? do you think Wilber would answer those comments? do you think Wilber has TIME to answer comments?
as for Steve Pavlina, i personally think his reasons are valid and also, that's his own prerogative. and besides, people could still comment via trackbacks using their own blogs. i do that to Pavlina all the time. if you want to get the attention of the guy, blog a response to one of his blog and for chrissake use his trackback!
i'm sorry to say this again bro, but i stand by my argument that you are doing mega-projection here. for a while i think you should put yourself on these people's shoes and try to understand their dilemma.
allow me to use myself as example: i'm not as popular as the people you mentioned above but i get my fair amount of emails, suggestions, SPAMS, fan letters (haha just kidding). i do my best to answer them all (publicly via comment, or personally via email) since i respect people who take the time to send me stuff. but still, it's hard for me to keep up!
now, imagine those people you mentioned above how much stuff they would get. A LOT! so, isn't it better to give these people the benefit of the doubt that they simply wouldn't be able to keep up? especially if they have other MORE IMPORTANT stuff to invest their time in?
this is the reason why a lot of successful blogs out there don't have commenting enabled. coz aside from endless SPAM, it's really hard to keep up with uber-enthusiastic people telling you what you should be doing.
my suggestion to you is to read the Dilbert Blog. that's an opposite example of course. but look how many comments it generates per blog post 200+ on average. Scott Adams do minimal engaging but it's a full time job to just moderate the comments (note: according to Scott he's the one doing the moderation, whatever). then again, Scott loves to do that! that's his prerogative! and he has time to do that because he only draws a strip of cartoon a day and works in his underpants.
so there. i rest my case (for now).
~C (for Commenting on blogs is not all that!)
First off, I'm fully with you on this post. Moreover, I'm definitely supporting your Big Compassionate Balls on the reply above. Erh, as in: I dig your point.
Also, I'm glad to see you posting longer entries like this. I'm in awe of your Kosmic Bloggin' skills, but no amount of pictures, links and other media can compare to the value of a somewhat longer post expressing a quality of reflection and cognitive intelligence and/or compassionate wisdom.
On the other hand, writing long-ass posts can go too far, too. The truth is in the middle? No, fk that, the truth is in a more encompassing level of awareness. I'll try and live up to that, my dear bloggin' brother!
Ah, and I almost forget the one substantial thing I had to say. Or make that a question. The distinction between collaborative and collective intelligence is a new one, for me. Could you expand upon the subject, oh Chaotic One? Or post a shitload of links like you always do, you vacuum cleaner of my leisure time, you? (Ok I confess, I'm at work and this is no leisure time. I'll shut up now.)