![]() |
||
What is Collective Intelligence?CI means many things to many people. Here, it refers to the capacity of human communities to evolve towards higher order complexity and integration through collaboration and innovation. This blog wants to be an embodiment of what it is about. If you care, subscribe and contribute.
(Un)subscribe
Archives
August 2005
June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 November 2004 October 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 January 2004 December 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003
Blogroll
Powered by
Movable Type 3.17 Technorati
|
August 04, 2004What is CI? - a community approach to define itIn a recent conference call of CI practitioners somebody brought up the question “what collective intelligence really IS”. Here, I suggest an approach to define CI in terms of a domain of practice shared by a community of peers. A domain, in the context of communities of practice, is a “domain of knowledge worthy of the collective attention of a group of peers.” (Etienne Wenger) Suggesting the “communities of practice” approach to describe what CI is, we recognize that the definition of no domain of knowledge is separable from the community using and developing it. It helps us avoiding the trap of semantic debates, abstract theorizing, and the typical misunderstandings when practitioners of very different disciplines try to describe an object common to all. In that sense, the question is not what is CI but what is CI to us as a potential community? What is our shared sense of the domain that we are engaged in? “What makes our domain a coherent body of knowledge? Where does it fit in the broader scheme of things? What exactly is our domain? Where does it stop?” (Etienne Wenger) There are as many definitions of CI as different kinds of discipline-oriented or mission-oriented communities practicing it. I imagine that CI for the intelligence community, or marketers using it for predicting consumer trends, has a meaning quite different from what I suggested (see upper left corner), in an evolutionary perspective, to use by a potential community of evolutionary agents. This differentiation does not imply that either of those definitions is wrong or right. It just means that they reflect different domains of practice engaged by different communities of practitioners. Of course, there are community straddlers with membership in multiple communities, and tools and techniques that can span and help cross-fertilizing multiple domains. All that becomes possible on the basis that each community defines CI as a domain of knowledge and practice that attracts the learning edge of, shared attention and stewardship by its members. Posted by George Por, Wed, Aug 04 2004 09:40 AM
Comments (2) | TrackBack (2) Categories: CI & Communities of Practice | Definitions | ________________________________________________________ Comments
This raises all sorts of questions about how we define knowledge communities and their way of knowing. If we should group not by identifying opposing paradigms of thought (or practice), perhaps instead then by a classification of intent. By being completely clear in recognising there are other perspectives and why we have chosen one - integrity of perspective then gives us a community with unity (such as in this space). But in moments of harmony I always fall back on Karl Popper's essay on the Myth of the Framework refuting that we need to know what we are talking about using a shared langauge in order to have a meaningful and productive conversation towards a collective insight. The alternative is more mess - sure - but he had a point. Does the purpose behind the knowing then guide the perception of what is known - and what is the 'intelligence' that is then created? Posted by: emrgnc at August 4, 2004 04:41 PM Efforts to pin down a precise definition of "What CI Really IS" seem to suggest there is one correct answer and maybe risks turning it into an unliving, albeit exciting, thing. Of course for those of us who experience CI in our daily lives we know it to be animated and very alive. That's why it can evolve. In the journeying spirit of discovery ... perhaps a more compelling and fertile phrasing of the question is "What might CI BE?" This gives CI the mystery of a life we can all share and enjoy as we grow with and in it. Posted by: pad at August 5, 2004 02:31 AMPost a comment
|
Recent Entries
• "Are you in for a phone call tonight?"
• Growing better CI through better mental modeling • Memories (and mental models) of generic structures • A local-to-global definition of CI • Going local to global to local with Duane Elgin • On vMemes and the yellow leading edge • The subtle, the causal, and the evolutionary movement • Another definition of CI. What difference it makes? • The response-ability of the practitioners • New comments in the last few days Categories
Academic Research in CI
Autonomy, Communion, and CI Blogging for Emergence CI & Communities of Practice CI Basics CI of Open Source CI Within Co-intelligent Economy Cognitive Relations Collaborative Taxonomy Collective Intellect Augments Individual Collective Objectivity Collective Wisdom Community of CI Practitioners Definitions Democracy and CI Events Evolutionary Threshold From States to New Stage Hypertinence Intersubjectivity Leaning into the Unknown Local to Global to Local Mental Modeling Methodologies associated with CI Multi-community membership Politics and CI Questions Worth Asking Spiral Dynamics & the Colors of CI Synchronicity and CI Technologies That Support CI Time, attention, bandwidth & CI Towards an attention economy of CI Truth of Impersonality Visualizing Our Ecosystem Ways of Tuning with Collective Consciousness Syndicate
|