Some More Thoughts on Collective Intelligence
To me the whole social networks “thing” is massively overblown. It is kind of like saying “xxx.com” in the late 1990s that drove valuations to absurd heights. Today calling something either a play on social networks or a social network itself seems to elicit the same frenzied response. And it is totally missing the point.
Here are a few more thoughts I’ve had on the topic of Collective Intelligence (CI):
- CI is not a function of who you know, but what you know.
- It is particularly potent within vertical communities, where experts and influencers rise to the top and help shape the CI of that community.
- It is often markedly different than simply the sum of a pool of autonomous actors; it takes into account the reflexive relationship among members of the community that helps shape opinion and, therefore, CI.
- It is important to differentiate between objective and subjective questions. Where the matter is factual, having access to a large pool of potential experts is valuable for getting the correct answer. Where the matter is subjective, there is no right answer and the community’s CI will be driven by a handful of thought-leaders and influencers who are able to shape the dialog.
- Bonds within social networks are not nearly as impactful on CI as implied bonds with experts and thought-leaders. While these bonds are devoid of a social element, they are based on tastes, preferences and authority, not simply friendship.
- Prediction markets are an incredibly valuable and useful tool for determining group opinion. However, this is only one facet of CI that needs to be explored as part of a more comprehensive discussion of the topic.
I’ve got to run to catch a plane but I am eager to spend more time thinking about these and other ideas.
——-
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: tweetip
EMAIL: tweetip@mac.com
DATE: 02/22/2008 12:04:21 PM
Feb 13th - Sylvi said :)
“The collective intelligence holds solutions to all the problems we face & continue to create. It literally knows everything, the least valuable of which is the next thing I am most likely to buy. Yet that is the single point individuals have been willing to apply significant effort to probeÖ “
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Noam
EMAIL: ngrunes@yahoo.com
DATE: 02/22/2008 02:56:46 PM
Nice blog. You seem to conflate CI with the economic attraction of social networks: users beget users: a durable competitive advantage if there’s a clear leader in the arena who doesn’t fail to match competitive benefits. From the standpoint of an investor in social networks, why care about alleged CI?
——-
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Nate Westheimer
EMAIL: nate.westheimer@gmail.com
URL: http://innonate.com/
DATE: 02/22/2008 10:10:20 PM
This is my favorite:
“It is important to differentiate between objective and subjective questions. Where the matter is factual, having access to a large pool of potential experts is valuable for getting the correct answer. Where the matter is subjective, there is no right answer and the community’s CI will be driven by a handful of thought-leaders and influencers who are able to shape the dialog.”
So how do these “experts” emerge? Peer ratings? There is to track-record for the subjective.
Makes me think that we’ll need to provide a way to reveal the experts within a given social content website in BricaBox (launching Tuesday).
N
——-
————
2 years ago
| view comments
| Internet
