Thanks to Sarah Jones via John Mallony for this article which has some great examples and research references one of which I quote below
Bernard Nijstad, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, explains that if you take a group of 12 people and have half brainstorm together on a topic while the other six go it alone, all 12 will usually agree that the group experience was more productive--even though those working alone almost always end up with more good ideas.
It reminded me of my earlier blog on the issue of debate and dialogue and also several concerns about the status of truth on the Wikipedia. Surowiecki on large group decision making also comes into play here.
I think this brings to the fore a key principle of Cognitive Edge, namely that of bounded applicability and also a dual theme to which I constantly return in my own writings namely the criticality of context and the false promise of universal recipes. The evangelical promotion of knowledge, world cafes etc privileges consensus over knowledge if taken to excess. Surowiecki in one of the better popular science books properly describes the conditions under which a crowd can be wise which involves the participants being unaware of the overall subject, but dealing with aspects of the problem. We use ritual dissent in specific contexts to improve sense-making. I use the Wikipedia a lot, but I don’t and will never fully trust it, neither do I think it should replace books and refereed journals. Mass validation of truth has generally been exploited by tyrants in the past and a tyranny can be collective as well as individual.
A near messianic adoption of a single approach is a sin: often of commission, frequently of omission. Both as students of Dogma will know are equal in nature. So stand up and be counted!
PS: I have been absent from the blogosphere for most of this week for which my apologies. My mind has been elsewhere with the scattering of my parents ashes which aside from the emotional aspects also involved two six hour drives in the same day and a consequent degree of exhaustion. I will blog on that event early next week when I get get my mind around what I want to say.
Comments (4)
Hi Dave,
A quick note to say how much I enjoy your blog and appreciate the candour of your personal disclosure as well as share the outlook you are taking. I have a similar aversion to the false promise of universal recipes. I have almost recovered from my first hand observation of XXXXXXXXX & XXX in action as they purport to make their sweeping savings in a part of the UK public sector so could easily, and probably should launch into a tirade about dogmatism on steroids and format fascism.
Your comments about collective and individual tyrannies ring too true and remind me of the work of Manfred Kets de Vries about the 'Psychoanalysis of Organisations' and the Organisation Development guru Edgar Schein who was heavily influenced by 'brainwashing' from the his experience of the Korean War.
Keep up the good work and looking forward to seeing you in Singapore.
Richard Cross
Posted by Richard Cross | September 8, 2006 9:58 AM
Posted on September 8, 2006 09:58
Hi --
Yes, ' messianic adoption of a single approach' is SO common, in the USA in particular, that it is a real problem. After all, while a folk legend invented the werewolf, it took American's to popularize the Silver Bullet.
Why is this so? Why do normally clever people, trained in the 'universitas' tradition, get so overbearing and focused on closed, single approaches?
Why don't enterprise people in particular see that new methods, techniques, technology, tools extend, expand and augment, not replace, more mature methods?
This is the question of our time. Thoughts?
Could it be that we are focused on problems? That experts, to assert credibility, try to 'find the pain?'
"If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Newton
-j
Posted by John Maloney | September 8, 2006 3:49 PM
Posted on September 8, 2006 15:49
I see three different aspects:
"truth": can the community / crowd / mob find out ""the truth"? I think , quite much so if is just about a construction/common belief without "deep" ontological substance, like market value. In that case, shared belief creates existence. Less so if it's about something like physical reality. And in-between is in-between (like: were there weapons of mass destruction in ...).
"efficiency": is the group more effiencient (again, in business context, time is money is limited), is it appromimately equal to isolated parallel activity, or less? Is collective work - not to mention long meetings with many participants - efficient and productive, or is it just a waste of time? (related but different aspect: do we enjoy it?). Sorry Dave, I like circumstances where resources are abundant - but at least at my worklife, it's most often not the case. Hence this topic I tent to repeat over and over. My opionion: it depends. Chances to find a good balance increase by alternating: alone, together, alone, together ....
"good or bad": is the outcome desirable socially/ethically/morally? Well, that's too much for a reply to a blog entry, so I stop.
Posted by christianhauck![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 8, 2006 7:45 PM
Posted on September 8, 2006 19:45
John - I love the phrase "a folk legend invented the werewolf, it took American's to popularize the Silver Bullet" you should patent it before I steal it for use!
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 9, 2006 6:34 AM
Posted on September 9, 2006 06:34