Wisdom of Crowds?

Common Interest and feeling of being able to learn or do something.

Lugon,

 Good.

 One more point - we are not here by random chance. We have woken up and are looking.

 Unlike people in an elevator or on a plane, we share commone interest. Perhaps we share a common fear.

 Unlike those who wish to bury their heads in the sand we give, we learn, we do. We are not all writers, not all politicaly active, not all cooks or mechanics or computer folk nor medicaly inclined.

 Bound by common desire we share and give only to receive. Even those who do not post get information and ideas.

 Flubogia is driven by us who care. What is the point in writing if no one reads. The network metrics say "we, and otehrs, are being read. :o) we are being watched :o) that is good :o) Just have to live up to the call.

Kobie

---

by: Kobie @ Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 00:15:57 AM UTC

Hive Minds

Its called synergy boys and girls.

---

by: cloud9 @ Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:09:21 AM UTC

"keep"

I wrote I think it's important to keep "number", "diversity", "independence" and "sharing".

But it's not "keep", but "grow".

Thinking about ways to have a more effective (world-preparedness wise) "crowd".

Not as an aim in itself.

1) "Number": yes, we want to be more.

Some will come to flublogia, use their eyes to read and their hands to type.  Some will watch videos or listen to podcasts.

We're starting to go out there.  Some have been doing it on their own for a long time.  Readymoms do it and I personally would like that to grow a lot.

We've requested (begged, nagged, incited, tried to find ways to help, put ourselves in their shoes) that TPTB go out and tell it like it is.

All of that is to grow the number.  And number will grow.  It's just that we might want to pay attention to how, and look for creative ways to do that.  Focus.

2) "Diversity": we have a lot of it.  Lots of people with time and skill and computers so we may end up typing and reading.

How do we reach others so we may increase our diversity?

Do we go out and record the audio of our conversations with non-keyboard enabled folks?  Talk to people in many different countries and settings?

SusanC has interviewed at least one virologist and we've had his voice heard.  That too has increased diversity, bringing a voice that wouldn't have been here otherwise.

We bring other people's comments from time to time.  Are there other ways to do that?  And how can we bring our thinking to others?  A newsletter was suggested some time ago, and the idea re-emerges at times.

3) "Independence":

This appears to be obvious, but it may be tricky.  Those who speak first or more or louder get heard more.  In flesh-life, those who are tall and have an impressive beard and a thunderous voice get heard more.  Our Billy The Kid's have faster keyboards.

I've seen many here who say things like "speaking only for myself".  I think this is because we really need each others' ideas and voices.

Sometimes silence helps.  "In the quiet of my mind, what do I think?"

And later silence needs to be broken.  Those who think differently, please speak up.  You never know if it may be important.  Please.

4) "Sharing"

We share text, some charts, and links.

Oh, and the files in many sites (getpandemicready and readymoms come to mind, but there are many others).

How do we share more?

---

Ok, exploration finished for today.  We have other things to do.

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM UTC

this is not a comprehensive comment

as the topic is too big!

But I'm going to nitpick at one point - the notion of defining a crowd is a bit of an oxymoron.

The word 'crowd' gives one the impression of spontaneity, of freedom of action, of diversity, of self-selection.  Also of fluidity - people come and go, and so the constituents of the crowd are never the same, from moment to moment.

I guess Surowieki's original idea is more descriptive than prescriptive, although he does suggest ways of creating the conditions for wise crowds to congregate.  He certainly does not make the case of defining a crowd for the purpose of anything other than describing a phenomenon, I believe.  But I read his book a while ago, so I may be mistaken in which case these are only my thoughts.



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:07:04 AM UTC

also, lugon

you whole concept to me suggests an underlying theme of 'directedness', if there is such a word.  Of trying overtly to make something out of this group venture.

It IS a noble goal, trying to make something more worthwhile come out of it, but I am a lot more relaxed about it on that score.

We are all here because we have certain common interests and concerns.  But as individuals we all deal with these concerns differently.  Like what was being discussed recently on the PPF diary, and the link that you put up, to the debate where this originated.  These are examples of diversity, that makes the crowd 'wise'.

Rather than putting that under the microscope, (which is kinda fun too!) I would say that we are already functioning the way it's supposed to function.  That different people come and go depending on interest and what's going on, and that from time to time, worthwhile projects do arise out of it.

And if all we do is to continue to respect such diversity, and treat each other with courtesy and openness while not holding back in our opinions simply because it may draw some fire, then each one of us would have done our part to ensure the health and continued wisdom of this crowd.



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:15:19 AM UTC

"directedness"? no!

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "directedness".

If it is that I would like the population ...

Ok, first, let me make this clear: populations are defined by some feature.  Those who are concerned about something get a "1" and the non-concerned get a "0".  Descriptive, not prescriptive, as you say.

Would I like to see the concerned population grow larger in numbers and more effective in the general activity of getting the world prepared for the next pandemic?

Yes.

Do I think crowds can be "engineered"?

No, not really.

I believe I can look at what I do and change that a little bit.  Just as an example, I may write a diary about a specific sub-topic.  Just like, btw, anyone else can!

But to be honest I'm never sure what's the cause and what's the effect: if someone starts a diary - it's a cause of a larger conversation, but it's also an effect of previous comments, and maybe of a feeling elicited by a number of small insights that happened previous to the diary in question.

So if someone wants to talk about "directedness" then we have to see if anyone of us is really outside the system, and able to influence it without being influenced by it.

Of course, anyone of us is free to see an uncovered area and tell the others so we may go for it if enough people want to do that.

It just happens that way.

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:55:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ok, here goes.....

I wanted to take a while to think about my post here.  I didn't want it to be based on emotion of the moment, but on how I honestly feel about the importance of this site.

First!!!

I really do want to thank and express my appreciation to everyone who have contributed to making Fluwiki the best site on this topic on the net.  You guys and gals are awesome!!!  The information available  here is professional, top notch and honest.  The discussions are both intelligent and insightful.  The following is not meant to be hurtful or attacking  in anyway, but are meant to be honest for both the site and the message we are trying to get out.

Ok, here goes:

As a site, we are stronger as a group, regardless of education, background or occupation.  Even the most basic question or comment can bring up thoughtful and intelligent discussion and debate.  The smaller the group gets the less diversity and options we will come up with.

To use an simple analogy, Fluwiki started as a child.  We nurtured and directed this child into its teenage years.  Now it is time to bring it into adulthood.  The question now is, as a group, what kind of adult do we want it to be???  Is Fluwiki the site we want it to be right now?  Is Fluwiki attracting and bringing in new members like it used to?  

The second question, as a group, what rules do we want to implement for this teenage site?   What are the guidelines and boundaries we are going to set for this teenager?   What do we want to show and express to the new people that come here?

As we have all experienced, we grew up as children, left home and started our own lives.  But, what always brought us back home.  The familiarity, the comfort, the sense of normalcy we grew up with..  Eating off the same plates we did as a child.  Sitting on that same old couch.  Seeing the same pictures on the wall.  Knowing what was in the hall closet without looking.

The third question, what influence do each of us have?  Is this still a true Fluwiki, where each one of use have a equal say in the site?   Or has the power of the site dictated more governance by those more educated in the subject?  

---

by: indypokerboy41 @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM UTC

good questions, thank you for raising them

I guess my first thought on reading your post is, I believe you misunderstand the structure or even the intention of this forum (notice I'm talking about the forum, not the wiki, cos the considerations are similar but there are subtle differences).  

First of all, you referred to FW as a group several times.  Flu Wiki is NOT and was never meant to be a group.  We as editors have debated this and are very clear on this.  I guess it is also why lugon put up this diary, cos we are more of a crowd than a group.  

We are not a group in the sense that we do not seek a common position or identity, and nobody here represents anyone but themselves, including the mods.  Even when I/we participate in events where we are invited because we are editors of FW (notice how this is phrased) we always take care to point out that what we say do not represent anyone's opinion except that of the individual speaking.    We do, however, as individuals, sometimes speak of ideas and concerns raised by others on the forum.  I can't speak for Dem or anyone else, but I always portray that as "here's what I'm hearing on the forums".  The way that I explain this to others is to say FW is a community of participants, but we are not a group in the sense that we do not have a common position nor (more importantly) do we seek one.

Secondly, your question of where this is going or how this ought to be run is good and valid one.  I believe it's healthy for the community to visit this issue every now and then.  The last time we had a major discussion about this was on the issue of whether this software has had some unintended consequences, whether the Old Yellor format was more friendly towards community building where it's more like there's a bunch of people hanging out together in a room, and everyone is talking to everyone else rather than to one person that they are responding to.  Personally (and Dem has a different take on this) I believe the 2 different formats foster different types of communications, and that something WAS lost without the 'all-in-one-room' feeling, while something else was gained, in that more focused and constructive discussions can happen, which brings great value to readers and participants.  Ideally, I would have preferred that we have both, a blog and a forum, but we are limited by the amount of time that mods can commit to running this place.  I raise this as an example of how we do try to take into consideration the needs and issues raised by participants, even if we may not always agree nor can we implement all of the suggestions made.

There are also some implicit assumptions behind your thoughts, like this one.

The second question, as a group, what rules do we want to implement for this teenage site?   What are the guidelines and boundaries we are going to set for this teenager?   What do we want to show and express to the new people that come here?

Even though the mods try their best to incorporate suggestions, this FW forum was never meant to be a place where the rules of the forum are set by popular demand.  Again your statement implies there is a 'we' which is a gross misunderstanding of both the purpose and the structure of this forum.  To be very crude about this, this site was set up by a bunch of people, using their own time and resources, and designing it around how they thought this ought to be done.  In other words, this has always been a moderated forum, with the mods exercising ultimate discretion as to how things should go, although we try to be  as light-handed as possible.

The third question, what influence do each of us have?  Is this still a true Fluwiki, where each one of use have a equal say in the site?  

To answer this question, everyone has a fair amount of influence, in that your views are expressed and debated by everyone else.  However, no, there is no equal say because it is in the nature of moderated forums to give moderators the final word.  Notice however, that this does not in any way diminish the power of the wiki, which is not and should not be a free-for-all, but rather a place where anyone can contribute within the parameters as defined originally by the founders and editors.

Or has the power of the site dictated more governance by those more educated in the subject?

This site was/is dictated by governance as laid out in the forum rules, no more no less.  Who 'dictates' those rules has nothing to do with how educated we are on various subjects; it has to do with who the original founders are and who they invited to become mods and deputies.  I certainly concede that many are much more educated than I am in many areas apart from the ones that I am interested in.  I believe Dem feels the same way.

Finally, there is an unrelated matter but one that I believe is important to raise here as a matter of public interest and in the spirit of full disclosure.  It is something that I intended to announce at some point in the very near future, but I might as well take this opportunity to say it here, to prevent any misunderstandings that may arise retrospectively.  I raised this issue with Dem a short while ago, that to the extent that I am now involved in the development of a formal incorporated nonprofit group, the ReadyMoms Alliance, which may in the near future be seeking legal designation as a tax-exempt 501c3 nonprofit with the intention of seeking government and other grants and funding, there may be some conflict of interest for me to serve as a moderator and editor here.  Discussions and plans are underway, and we as RMA have by no means made the decision that that is where we want to go.  All options remain open at this point.  But as soon as the agreement is reached within RMA that we WILL be seeking formal status as a 501c3 tax-exempt organization, I will be stepping down as moderator and editor.  I will continue to participate and write diaries as I have always done, but will take no part in decisions that affect how this forum is run.

I expect (fingers crossed) that we WILL arrive at that decision some time soon, at which point I will formally make that announcement.  This discussion arising so near the time of my expected resignation, prompted me to disclose it here just to avoid any misunderstanding.  As always, I appreciate everyone's understanding and patience as the issues are being worked out.  ;-)



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:26:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

excellent questions and comments!!

What we did is set up the framework. Everything else that has  happened has been more spontaneous and less directed than you can imagine.

I'm a contributor and editor. I really don't dictate content beyond the original forum rules, but I can help dictate tone along with everyone else. Personally, I'd rather this be as open a forum as possible, but that means accommodating a wide varieties of views, putting up with occasional grumpiness (mine, yours, and everyone else's!).

OTOH, this software just about never crashes, looks different than other forums, accommodates multimedia like maps, tables, charts and video, and is really cheap to run.

So:

The question now is, as a group, what kind of adult do we want it to be???  Is Fluwiki the site we want it to be right now?  Is Fluwiki attracting and bringing in new members like it used to?  

My thoughts after doing this for 4 years is that people respond to the news. using the political sites as an analogy, between election years (odd numbered years) there's always bemoaning of loss of viewers. And then every 4 years, with presidential elections, traffic spikes beyond belief.

I know we have a continual new subscriber list, but it's relatively small (~1400). Viewership is steady but down compared to a year ago... that mirrors interest in the traditional media. But who reads is a different issue than how many, and we are widely read amongst professional planners at every level of government, ans well as our own core readers, whom this place is for.

The second question, as a group, what rules do we want to implement for this teenage site?   What are the guidelines and boundaries we are going to set for this teenager?   What do we want to show and express to the new people that come here?

I don't think the forum rules have changed. They work pretty well to get us here. I don't work for the US government and hope people feel comfortable expressing whatever point of view, but we do try to keep politics off the site (for me as much as for everyone else).

Because we have so many experienced preppers, I do hope we continue to show patience with folks that have questions and direct them to sites like getpandemicready.org.

And I do hope to remind folks we have a unique Flu Wiki with a ton of info that needs care and maintenance, too. Some of that audience never comes here and vice versa.

The third question, what influence do each of us have?  Is this still a true Fluwiki, where each one of use have a equal say in the site?   Or has the power of the site dictated more governance by those more educated in the subject?

Depends what you mean. Ideas are always welcome (news, week in review, the country-specific diaries were all user-generated ideas), but we're going to stick with this software for now.

And the wonderful group of people like Bronco Bill, MaMa, AnnieB, AlohaOR who help us with maintenance are most appreciated, as are the newshounds and those who post at multiple places. (So is SusanC, but she's posted her own detailed comments!)

So, the answer depends on what you're referring to but the question is welcomed. ;-)

In fact, they all are!

---

by: DemFromCT @ Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 13:37:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"equal say"

I don't think there's such a thing as "equal say", but it's because of the accumulated history of whatever each of us has written, not because of the length of our beard.

Just as an example, maybe DemFromCT's comments carry more weight than FicticiousNewbie's comments, when maybe FicticiousNewbies's comment might in any specific instance be much wiser.

So if anyone here feels like they are a bit like FictitiousNewbie, please do speak up as there's simply no other way to have your ideas taken into consideration.  (That's part of what I mean by encouraging diversity.  Stagnation and complacency are, in my mind at least, evil.)

Broken records need a kick from the side, and not necessarily a gentle one.

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:13:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

agree, agree, agree!

All of it.  Maybe except for length of beard.  lol

Thank you.



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:26:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I got no monopoly on wise ;-)

that's certain.

---

by: DemFromCT @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:28:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

interesting topic.  folks might want to consider the aspects that go beyond the prep side - there will be crowds that can be managed once things kick off, and almost certainly once we're in recovery.  the corp planners would certainly argue that crowds can be engineered - perhaps the folks that do political rallies, as well.  in civil unrest, crowds are not uncommon, tho the folks that are managing those may not have set plans on what the goal is..  i think it is important to assert voices within the crowd, to keep the flow of discussion on a given track - for the folks that engineer crowds, it can be tricky keeping discussion on-track.  crowds are engineered for large town-hall type meetings - having an agenda for discussion, an identified goal to achieve..  the folks that are interested, attend...  and the attendees form the crowd.  maintaining initiative is key - once lost, anyone else can pick it up, and take the discussion in a different direction.  of course, in unrest, there may not be much discussion, though certainly there may be perceived leaders that provide initiative in a given direction at different times.  

now - i don't want to hijack the intent of this thread onto another subject matter, or along different aspects of crowds in the events we face.  it is useful tho, to consider the application of what is discussed and learned here - some tools have multiple applications.  what is learned in this application of the tool, may be needed when we get to recovery.

---

by: c3jmp @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:10 AM UTC

c3jmp

this thread is un-hijackable and will go where we take it :-)

You say "it is useful tho, to consider the application of what is discussed and learned here - some tools have multiple applications."

I don't understand what you mean yet, but it does sound interesting.

Also, I think what we're doing here may be important come a pandemic.  I mean, we'll know the value of independent thinking in a crisis.  At least, I feel personally immunised to group-think.

I'll want to help keep community thinking as a useful activity, not as a counter-productive one.

I'm interested in whatever directions you see unfolding from here, so please write more!

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 18:19:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

we're looking at crowds from the standpoint of organizing community resilience efforts on the front side of the event - prep efforts before it kicks off.  my reference to hi-jacking the thread was regarding the other times that crowds may be of interest and concern; later, in the response and recovery phases.

gaining and retaining initiative within the crowd is the biggest overall challenge.  if we fail to gain it, or fail to retain it, we lose the potential of turning the crowd first into a group, and later into a team.  on the front-end, that fails to achieve the objective of organizing resilient groups.  during response, when the crowd much more emotionally involved, failure may dissolve into unrest.  in recovery, failure may lead to misuse of key critical resources, the loss of which may affect recovery and survivability in a post event world.

gaining the initiative, and retaining it - are the same across prep, response, and recovery.  my point was for folks to take whatever skill gains we make on the prep side, and keep them in their toolbox - those skills will find re-use.

---

by: c3jmp @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

by initiative, i don't mean control - attempting to control a crowd draws a line, and puts people on either side of it; once thaty has been done, it is harder to transform the crowd into a group, and then a team - and the folks that were placed on the other side of the line, frequently don't forget it, leading to friction down the road.

so..  say we setup a presentation at a PTA meeting.  our audience is the crowd in attendance.  in order to transition the crowd into a group, we have to establish a common interest among the people in the crowd - in this case, why we need resiliency at the level of individuals and families.

once the crowd is lead along the path to discovery of the larger issues that they have not been made aware of, and the group has explored some of the envelope, and what it means to them - at that point, they can move forward and organized into one or more teams within the community to address local issues in becoming more resilient.  

keeping the discussion and coverage of the larger issues on-topic, and slowly moving the people within the crowd forward toward grasping the issues - that is the initiative.  if someone side tracks it, we lose the initiative; gaining consensus is achieved by leadership, not asserting control.

so..  in business, in large group meetings setup to brief employees on changes within the business, it is useful to position folks within the crowd - not to control the crowd, but to be perceived as a member of it, and to sway the discussion back on-topic, or down a new direction by asking questions that lead to answers and discussion.

once the crowd is transformed into a group, and later, a team - the individual strengths and knowledge can be leveraged.

---

by: c3jmp @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

the mechanics of transforming crowds into groups, groups into teams - are easy to spot.  i'm sure none of my comments are news to anyone.  just because it is visible, tho, is no indication that folks within the crowd will discount it - when i see it, if i'm not aware of what is going on...  it makes me more curious...  "man, they went to alot of trouble to set that up..  why did they do that?  what am i missing?"...

---

by: c3jmp @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the other aspect of 'crowd wisdom' is size

and that's rarely achieved in the business setting.

You also need the ability to respectfully dissent. That's also rarely achieved in the business setting.

---

by: DemFromCT @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

agree -

---

by: c3jmp @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:51:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

these comments are new ideas to *me*!

Lord a mercy, now I finally understand what people mean by "guiding the conversation".

That tactic of planting people in a crowd, to pretend to be a part of it, but make comments to get people thinking in a certain direction, just sounds sneaky and duplicitous to me.

If you have a good idea, you should be able to present it in a straightforward way, to get people to buy into it.   If you can't be up front with the idea, to my mind, it probably isn't that great an idea to begin with, if you need to sneak people surreptitiously into the crowd to get them to steer discussion in the direction you want to go.

(Or did I misunderstand this tactic?)  

That's not the basis for solid, grassroots community resiliency.

I have never found prepping for a pandemic to be difficult to "sell" to people, once they understood -- really understood -- the nature and potential severity of the threat.  But getting them to sit down and listen to lil' ol me (with no credentials, so what do I know) has been the issue.  

Planting people in a crowd to get that idea across seems unnecessarily slimy.   Just my opinion, though -- I do know a lot about motivating people (I think) but, I think it is more effective in the end, to be straight up from the start.  (As well as, it's the "right thing to do")

GetPandemicReady.org - non commerical website with practical ways for families to prepare.

---

by: Average Concerned Mom @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:47:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

agree...  it's not as straight-forward as letting the discussion flow entirely on its own.  otoh, for some aspects we may be very time-constrained - in survival situations, there can be time for putting the issues out for discussion, and letting folks draw their own conclusions at their own pace - and they may be well past the point where they can effect constructive change by the time they reach those conclusions on their own.  leading-to-a-decision is quite common, and it has its place.  and ultimately, the folks that don't choose to follow the path, often don't - and that can impact their survival, but it is their choice.  it's not about ordering someone to do something, it's about exploring an issue in a condensed time frame.  :-)

---

by: c3jmp @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 13:01:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

on the front end - take a presentation to a group in a city..  the folks that are not internet-savvy, do not have local resources to draw from, and are new to the issue - their window of opportunity is your presentation.  once you're out, they're back to their local non-existent resources to draw from, local folks that have little understanding of the larger issue, and no internet -- so the resources here are not useful to them.  not everyone is connected.  for segments of the population, presentation contact time may be their only real exposure to the larger issues in lead of impact.  if we wait for them to consider all the issues on their own time, chances are the folks that are doing the presenting will be long gone by then.  :-(

---

by: c3jmp @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 13:14:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It concerns me

that there's such a short distance between 'motivating' people and manipulating people.  I think it's a fine line and shouldn't be crossed, from an ethical viewpoint (even if it is in someone's best interests that they be manipulated, I still perceive it as unethical).  

The whiffs of "collectivism" that I continue to sense here and there also concern me.  Collectivism is a dirty word, and a dirtier concept, in my mind.  I'm not sure how anyone jumped from the "hive mind" concept, which was a vague realization that perhaps the concensus of a group might be more valid than the opinion of any one individual, to the concept of the collective, whereby things must be perceived and enacted as a group in order to be validated.

---

by: Clawdia @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 13:46:39 PM UTC

Clawdia, I agree with you

Collectivism is only useful as a mechanism for attaining a purpose as agreed by those who choose to join a particular collective action.  This sub-group that may agree to a particular action or position, however, is often and should be smaller than the crowd that provided the original impetus for the purpose.  

Indeed, Surowiecki's original concept in his book places a lot of importance in diversity, independence and decentralization.  The final component 'aggregation' is more of a tool for turning whatever wisdom that has been generated into outcomes, rather than an outcome in and of itself.

In that sense, I believe Surowiecki is a strong opponent of collectivism.  I don't think he is strongly into motivating people (apart from motivating them to participate, and even there he goes softly) either, let alone manipulating.

The original concepts as presenting in Surowiecki's book is easily misunderstood.  We are culturally conditioned to think of any word that implies a plural and some sort of identity, such as 'crowd', as somehow also implying 'group'.  In fact that is the complete opposite of what Surowiecki is trying to say.

Which is the reason why I voiced my albeit mildly-worded 'objection' to lugon's 'directedness'.  ;-)  I really do believe in the hive mind, that we collectively (only in the sense of the sum total, not as standardization, of viewpoints) hold more wisdom albeit scattered in all the different brains and going in different directions, such that whenever efforts are made towards 'directing' our minds towards certain directions, we at once exclude all other directions that may be equally if not more valid.  

And who decides that direction anyway?  For anyone (or any 'group' within the crowd) to believe that their direction is right or at least better than others, except as a privately held opinion to be shared with all, is not conducive to further evolution of the crowd wisdom, which to me is different from and far better than the notion of collective wisdom.



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 14:55:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

all this, btw

was why I objected to the Pandemic-Aware Community (PAC) proposals as they were originally presented, and the concept of all for one and one for all.  Because our circumstances, our ideas, our opinions, are all so different that we need to take care to only gather together those who are willing and do share enough common vision or temperament to want to work together.  Otherwise, it's a recipe for dissent and discord.  



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 15:35:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Learning

The PAC proposal brought to light what would work and what wouldn't. Such lessons are immensely valuable.  Now good things are getting done simply because diverse individuals choose to work on this project or that issue together.  

---

by: InKy @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 15:49:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yep, agree

This whole pandemic mitigation is new territory to everyone, us as well as tptb.  There will be great strides and false starts.  The only thing I know is that you ain't going anywhere if you don't try.  :-)



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 15:57:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's called being patronizing

even if it is in someone's best interests that they be manipulated, I still perceive it as unethical

and you're right, it is unethical, and disempowering.



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 15:06:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know what you mean

when you say:

"collectivism" that I continue to sense here

Can you elaborate? I am clueless.

Collectivism as in communism or as in groupthink is not desirable, but different words mean different things to different people (kibbutz, wikis and grassroots are examples where it's less a pejorative and more a dynamic alternative to top down plans).

---

by: DemFromCT @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 15:08:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Elaboration, briefly . . .

What I mean when I say "collectivism" is pretty much the same thing that Ayn Rand meant about the concept.  In my vocabulary, it is always a pejorative.

It's also vaguely reminiscent of what Heinlein said about a committee . . . something with too many feet and not enough brains.

---

by: Clawdia @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 19:06:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ha! I like that expression lol

a committee . . . something with too many feet and not enough brains.

All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 19:25:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hmmm...

to the concept of the collective, whereby things must be perceived and enacted as a group in order to be validated.

Well, 'collective' as you describe it  doesn't sound like a good thing, but then again I have trouble seeing where the 'whiffs' of that are.

Other than on occasion, like pandemic flu awareness week, we almost never do group things.

---

by: DemFromCT @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 21:06:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and when "we" do, it's an invitation + law of 2 feet (go if you can and want to)

but anyone is free to invite all others

just like every one is free to drop the invitation

(can one be a firm believer in fluidity?)

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 21:37:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Survival

We human beings enhance odds for survival because we cooperate. Collaborative problem solving and action have made us successful as a species - maybe even a bit too successful for our own long-term good, at this point.  

Our brains even reward us for cooperating.  

We're funny about our independence (i.e., watchful of it), but we live in the most profoundly interdependent state I think we've ever attained. The Achilles Heel in our system of globalized interdependence, however, is its vulnerability to disruption or collapse, and our lack of good backup system. It would be very useful, in the matter of resilience, to re-learn to think and work together on a local scale as well as a global one.  

We have to figure out the way forward.  If it's all about distrust and self-centeredness, there won't be enough ammunition in the world to save us from ourselves and each other.  If we can promulgate and embrace models of mutual helpfulness instead, while respecting freedom and diversity and while conscientiously avoiding coercion, we've significantly bettered our chances.

What this thread uncovered is the rift within us, the tensions between independence and belonging.  Those are old, old human themes and dichotomies, and we will struggle with them as a species and as individuals as long as long as we exist.  

As a habit, I find it useful to take dichotomies conventionally thrust into opposite conceptual corners like boxers in a ring, and see whether they can be taught to dance instead - to accord each other mutual value, to balance each other, and to move in complementary ways. I think independence and belonging both find their best expression in lives where people exercise wisdom and restraint regarding either extreme, and focus instead on choreographing them together. We need to figure out the optimal mix and movement when we confront a pandemic-sized challenge.

Sigh. That's probably too metaphorical a way of expressing the idea, and this is a 100,000 foot view of the things that have been said here, not a comment on anybody's comment. I've had too little sleep these past few days to do a better job just now. Maybe later.

One more thing - there are as many versions of a text as there are readers of that text. Words don't have the capacity to mean without their meaning slip-sliding in any direction according to a reader's associations and experience, emotional state, paradigms of reality, etc.  Communication, for that reason, will always be an imperfect art.  We can try to use words with care, but we need to be very patient with ourselves and with each other as we strive to understand and to be understood. If we do this, we can have the difficult and even critical disussions even while we uphold the value of difference.  

---

by: InKy @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 23:03:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Try again.

I wanted to have "discussions," not "disussions." No more writing until sleep restores synapses or eyes or whatever!

---

by: InKy @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 23:11:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well said, InKy. n/t

Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!

---

by: flubergasted @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 23:13:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I second that n/t

All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 23:36:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

boxers-dancers LOL thanks, i'll steal that

and if the ring opens up then both boxers can slide into the future, dancing away into a territory that's gradually lit up by their fluorescent boxing gloves.

(Sorry, got carried away.)

That said, there's also the boxing-dancing of "what we can do about it".  I don't think we can successfully engineer the right mixture of individuality and cooperation.  It just happens (with us as players-pushers-pushed).

It may be a matter of keeping an eye for opposites and introduce (or break) balance if that's what we (meaning "I", "each one of us that wants to") feel is needed.

For more on dancing and systems: Dancing with Systems:

The Dance

       1. Get the beat.
       2. Listen to the wisdom of the system.
       3. Expose your mental models to the open air.
       4. Stay humble. Stay a learner.
       5. Honor and protect information.
       6. Locate responsibility in the system.
       7. Make feedback policies for feedback systems.
       8. Pay attention to what is important, not just what is quantifiable.
       9. Go for the good of the whole.
       10. Expand time horizons.
       11. Expand thought horizons.
       12. Expand the boundary of caring.
       13. Celebrate complexity.
       14. Hold fast to the goal of goodness.

People who are raised in the industrial world and who get enthused about systems thinking are likely to make a terrible mistake. They are likely to assume that here, in systems analysis, in interconnection and complication, in the power of the computer, here at last, is the key to prediction and control. This mistake is likely because the mindset of the industrial world assumes that there is a key to prediction and control.

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:22:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A committee defined

"A Committee is a form of life with six or more legs and no brains."  RAH

One of my favorite sayings.

Another-

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million people are wiser than one man.  How's that?  I missed something..."

and yet one more-
"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"

Oh, yes, both by that famous inventor of the water bed, Robert Heinlein.

KEEP THE GRID UP!
Prudent People Prepare Properly

"better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it!"

---

by: LMWatBullRun @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 22:49:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At my advanced age....

My eyesights a bit blurry....does that say "famous inventor of the water bed, Robert Heineken"? Isn't he the same guy who invented beer in a micro-mini keg for the kitchen?!?  

Sorry...I just had to do it!!

---

by: Bronco Bill @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 00:06:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

nah, the inventor of the beer can was-

William Weiser, known by his firends as 'Bud',  a German expatriate who moved to Milwaukee in the 1890's.  

KEEP THE GRID UP!
Prudent People Prepare Properly

"better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it!"

---

by: LMWatBullRun @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 21:13:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL!! ;-) n/t

---

by: Bronco Bill @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 22:08:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heinlein

His definition of a committee has always been good enough for me . . .

I like the way he said a whole lot of things.

---

by: Clawdia @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 00:08:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Collaboration of diverse minds

There are two dangers:  

1) We will be too fiercely independent to work together and will thus maximize our vulnerabilities.

2) We will institute some nightmare right out of 1984. I don't envision the independent thinkers here succumbing either to collectivism or groupthink.  I don't see evidence of a herd mentality.

The best approach is to think and work together wherever our* interests and goals sufficiently converge, while owning our diversity. Diversity, after all, is a source of strength.

*The word "our" doesn't, by the way, refer to everybody, but just to those who are invested in this goal or that one.  

---

by: InKy @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 15:11:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

i can't (and don't) speak for anyone else.  what i meant by a group in my comments was simply more than one person with something in common.  as for teams, i thought that would be obvious...  in a community of many folks, some people may gather fuel, some may gather food, some may plant food, some may hunt, some may watch over the kids to keep them safe, some may form medical teams, some may act in security roles for the community, some may do any number of things that are beneficial to the community but require more than one person to server the community as a whole...  ie, if there are much more than a handful of mouths, one sole person's efforts at farming may come up short in feeding the community - perhaps that person could use help..  people that work together toward a common goal are frequently referred to as teams - at least in my experience.

perhaps only evil dark entities form groups and teams to solve problems and work issues to resolution where others live...  if that's the case, then please substitute whatever term you use where i said "group" or "team".  

as for motivate and manipulate...  that's more of a perspective thing, at least for me.  folks that look back on some organized activity they were involved in, that achieved results they were pleased or satisfied with, may say that they were motivated to achieve whatever.  folks that look back on an activity they were involved in, that had results they found displeasing, may say they were manipulated.  i've never heard anyone, ever, say "let's manipulate people to do xyz".

when a house catches on fire, folks can certainly sit down inside, have a long easy going discussion on all the points, positive and negative, let everyone express their views, draw what conclusions they will on their own pace...  while the house burns down around them, and they die.  or...  someone can motivate them to get outside where they are safe, before the house burns down.  motivated or manipulated?

the ism's i try to avoid - i'm sure there is some meaning to collectivism, but i'm not familiar with the defined, nor the common use of the term, much less figuring out the intended meaning.  and i've got stuff to do..  so i'll leave it there..

---

by: c3jmp @ Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

sed s#server#serve#g

it passed the spell check...  why can't there be a technical context checker...  

---

by: c3jmp @ Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:54:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...

off-topic, but fyi for mac folks...   open a terminal window, command shell, or console..   type "man sed", press return, press the space bar to scroll the text, and type "exit", and press return to get back to the gui..  off to technical stuff.. ;-)

---

by: c3jmp @ Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 13:07:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Manipulation sometimes takes the form of concensus building.

For example, a town government questionaire to its citizens might read:

Should all citizens of ______ be provided all services provided to every other citizen in town?

Sounds like someone wants to make sure everyone is getting a fair shake, no?  NO!

When the town later annexes an outlying area and levies a hefty one-time tax on those new unwilling citizens to pay for their new sewer connections, they can say that the citizens spoke on the issue.  It wasn't their decision, but our decision.  Notice that citizens were not asked if others should be forced to use the sewer service, nor that they should be forced to be citizens of the town.  Most citizens viewed the question as making sewer service available to all citizens equally, rather than forcing it down someone's throat who couldn't afford it.

True story, btw.  So, nobody said, "let's manipulate people to do XYZ, at least not publicly.  Yet, in effect, that's what they did, and used those surveys as evidence of what the citizens wanted.  I'm just saying, be careful what you agree to. Concensus may sometimes have far reaching and surprising implications for the future.  We can all agree that a house on fire needs our urgent attention, but other issues require deliberation and scrutiny, sometimes even the ones that look obvious on their faces.

Maybe that kind of thing has made me suspicious of anyone trying to build a concensus when I'm not really sure of the motivation.  I dunno.  I just try to be a little bit discerning anymore before I add my assent to any kind of concensus opinion.  Moreover, if we don't ask the right questions, we can't trip up the folks who would manipulate us.  Asking questions is a good thing.  True concensus does not exist without full disclosure.

Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!

---

by: flubergasted @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 23:05:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you both

I personally think that it's a spectrum with no clear cut-off points, from exchange of ideas to collaboration/cooperation to consensus building to coercion or manipulation.  Anywhere along that spectrum, anyone can exercise free will.  At least that is the theory.  

In practice, as you rightly pointed out, the way in which different actors use communications, and the degree to which the recipients of these communications use due diligence to scratch underneath the surface, are just a couple of things that can decide whether the process is fair or ethical.  

In addition, even assuming good intentions all round, there are wide variations in temperament and personal preferences, and lots of room for misunderstanding.  

Just as there are so many different kinds of coffee that you can get at Starbucks, we all prefer to do things in some ways more than others.  Some of us are more accommodating, some less.  Some perfectly well-intentioned people are likely to see consensus building and the group approach as the most effective and most important paradigm, while other similarly well-intentioned folks would balk at the idea and find it intrusive if not manipulative.

The key for me is respect.  Whether we conduct our discussions with good faith and openness, and respect others' opinions even if they are dramatically different from ours.  Particularly when issues are earth-shatteringly important, there is a risk that well-intentioned efforts in building group projects becomes misinterpreted by those who hold different views, and vice versa.

The solution to any misunderstanding is simply to ask and clarify.  It doesn't sound very sophisticated, but IMO there is no beating asking simple and straightforward questions and taking people at their word.  Don't try to second-guess or over-interpret other people's comments or intentions.  Why?  Cos if they are different from you in the first place (which was the REASON that prompted you to scrutinize their words) then chances are your interpretation of their words may still be erroneous simply because you are trying to mind-read what others are saying but doing it from your own beliefs and ideas.  

It's a mighty difficult thing, for any one of us to overcome our own blind spots and prejudices.  We all have them.  What we do with them, whether we let them be warnings to our fallibility or whether we use them to justify our righteousness, is something we all have to work out for ourselves.



All 'safety concerns' are hypothetical.  If not, they'd be called side effects...

---

by: SusanC @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 23:33:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

third ways, too

Some perfectly well-intentioned people are likely to see consensus building and the group approach as the most effective and most important paradigm, while other similarly well-intentioned folks would balk at the idea and find it intrusive if not manipulative.

I personally balk at the idea of "consensus".  And there's no such thing as "the" group approach.  In more general terms, it's not "either/or".

Some times, and more so under stress, we may feel compelled to take sides ("coffee with or without sugar?") when instead we could be finding a way forward ("can I have tea?").

Regarding pandemic preparedness, I think we'll need all the flexibility and strength and whatever else it takes.  Maybe, and I'm only half-kidding when I say this, we'd need to write a follow up to the adjustment reactions wikipage.

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:39:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Post-catastrophe, people in a meeting or a group will be scared,

and they'll have to want to be rational.  When people go to a PTA meeting, they could be upset about a teacher or a proposed change in school policy, but the issue isn't life-threatening; still tempers flare and people shout.  For a productive discussion, the moderator has to be very good at redirecting people's attention to the issue.  It may not be as sneaky as it sounds to have colleagues seeded in the audience.  If the moderator is more prepared than the audience, because he's thought through the issues and can imagine likely problems with, say, water or trash and sewage, and he knows a few people who also have a clear idea of how to solve some problems, it makes sense to arrange for them to help, imo.  

If the aim is to benefit the community, not collect goods from the audience, I don't see why it would be a bad thing to plan out this kind of strategy.  However, there's always the risk that the audience could be so angry at their circumstance that they're resistant to cooperating, and then they could turn their anger on the speakers. (shudder)  That's a good reason to prep evrybody now, hmm?   :-/  Not that we didn't know that.

"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it."  Flannery O'Connor

---

by: Jane @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 15:20:50 PM UTC

hmm - sorry i touched so many sensitive spots with one unsensitive diary!

The only thing I really wanted to share was my realisation, when reading one specific book, that there's strength in the "numbers", "diversity" and "independent thinking" of those who, being completely different in every other regard (including, I'm learning, sensitivity to words like "crowd"), are:
- human beings
- concerned about the next pandemic

I wanted to explore:
- how can I, as an individual,
- and now as well as at the onset of the next pandemic,
- do 3 things:
-- increase the number of those paying attention,
-- reach out to individuals who will bring diversity to whatever is already being thought and said,
-- and keep an eye on independent thinking (as a good feature) so that it won't be easily killed off by someone else.

Because, here's what I think, there'll be times when we'll see quite the opposite.

And maybe it's happening as we speak, in some places.

I get the feeling that some words have acted as unintentional triggers.

At the onset of the next pandemic, there'll be this and more.

So I think it's important to learn about this.

But of course it's just me.

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 21:36:32 PM UTC

...

you didn't touch it off...  i did...  you've done good work here..  if the folks that replied to what i wrote are ok with it, i'm fine with the mods deleting my posts.

---

by: c3jmp @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:49:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i think you touched on a valid concern

As soon as the next pandemic starts, there'll be many million minds tuned in (each with our own fluid biases).  So we'll have the "number" and the "diversity".

Some of those minds will be more "independent" than others (due to character, age, biography and many other factors).  Some of those minds will be tempted to guide others for a number of varied reasons and with many different effects (two of the options being "unethical survival" and "ethical death", which will be tough but will happen too).

Emotions will often run high, and part of it will be really ugly.

My present concern is about getting as ready as I can, and about getting stuff out here that can be used by those who want it.

So I consider false paths, misunderstandings, trigger-words and all, to be part of my personal learning.

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 13:48:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

why would we want to do that?

done only rarely and usually for spam or sidescroll.

---

by: DemFromCT @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 21:08:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can I get an email notification if there seems to be pandemic starting?

On a practical level, I do not read this web site every day, but would still like to get an email notification if there seems to be something dangerous starting to happen.

It would be nice to be able to use the "wisdom of the crowd" here to generate a single number between one and ten or something, ten being certain pandemic spread, so that it would indicate to me that I ought to go read the web site and see what is up.

Is there any easy way to do this? One simple way which is automatic would be to have something which sends an email if the activity of this site, measured by posted articles per hour, goes above some threshold for more than 24 hours.

It would be easy to write a little daemon to watch the log files and gather this info. I could do it if someone tells me what operating system the web server is hosted on, what scripting languages are available, and samples of the web server log file format.

---

by: hqmhqm @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:21:18 AM UTC

sure!

sign up here...

http://www.newfluwiki2.com/sho...

---

by: DemFromCT @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:43:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

maybe we'll have to measure a sudden lack of messages :-)

"What? No hobbits in the forest? Hmmm!"

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 13:53:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

still posed as a question

http://www.worldchanging.com/a...

Are our "crowds" (temporary association of diverse people, not derogatory at all) wise?  Could be wiser?

For me it's an academic question.  I'm not following this thread.  Other things to do.  But I thought I'd write down the link to the worldchanging article.

Also, this about "wave riders", though of course their waves are not our waves: http://www.openspaceworld.com/...

;-)

You arm yourself to the teeth just in case.  You don't leave the gun near the baby's hand.

---

by: lugon @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:05:45 AM UTC

markets

I haven't read the whole long thread.

I remember papers about "whisdom of crowds" and prediction markets.
Like
http://fluprediction.uiowa.edu...
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/int...

http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-b...

or just share-prices, financial futures

I think the quintessence is, that this sort of prediction works pretty well

ask experts for their subjective
panflu death expectation values
and report the replies

---

by: gs @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:55:07 AM UTC

Prediction = speculation = pure guess

No pure facts to back it up, since it occurs in the future.

---

by: Bronco Bill @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:07:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]