The module Collective Intelligence(s) is a voyage in both space and time to explore different experiences of collective intelligence, the emergent property of social groups collaborating around something. The dynamics of interactions of small and large groups, whether they are in the plant world, the animal world, or the human world, are explored, analyzed, discussed, and evaluated in order to uncover the best practices for manifesting collective intelligence and apply them in everyday life as members of learning communities and/or communities of practice. The module is for college-level and adult learners.

After completing this module, you should be able to:

• Define Collective Intelligence.
• Describe the different types of collective intelligences.
• Discuss the characteristcs of three sub-types of collective intelligence in the human world.
• Evaluate the consequences of the collective intelligence of small and large social groups.
• Apply the best practices of effective social groups coordination and collaboration in the spaces of your learning communities and/or communities of practice.

This module can be completed in seven weeks.

Materials:

• Access to a connected device
• Links for readings
• Graphics and videos

Pre-module Survey: https://s.surveyplanet.com/jkejixgl

At the end of this update, you should be able to define Collective Intelligence after synthesizing key terms and phrases in selected scholarly definitions.

Key word:  Collective intelligence

The work of Malone and Bernstein (2022) provides several definitional attempts by scholars over the years. In addition to providing their own definition of Collective Intelligence, the authors also cite the works of David Weschler, Hiltz and Turoff, Smith, and Levy to discuss various characteristics of social groups displaying collective intelligence. Here are a few definitions taken from Malone and Bernstein.

"Groups of individuals acting collectively in ways that seem intelligent." (Malone, Laubacher, and Dellarocas, 2009)

"A collective decision capability [that is] at least as good as or better than any single member of the group." (Hiltz and Turoff, 1978)

"A group of human beings [carrying] out a task as if the group, itself, were a coherent, intelligent organism working with one mind, rather than a collection of independent agents." (Smith, 1994)

"A form of universaly distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills." (Levy, 1994)

"The capability for a group of people to collaborate in order to decide upon its own future and reach it in a complex context." (Noubel, 2004)

In the next video, Thomas Malone talks about the intelligence of small groups. He provides his own definition of Collective Intelligence and discusses its origins. Malone also mentions the conditions leading to emergence and gives examples of groups displaying remarkable collective intelligence. 

Figure 1: MIT Corporate Relations (2014)

Readings: 

The work of Atlee and Por provides another opportunity to explore the field of Collective Intelligence. The authors define the concept and discuss different types of collective intelligences. Atle and Por also discuss how individuals and groups can reap the rewards of effective collaborations leading to collective intelligence. Click this link:  Collective Intelligence as a Field of Multi-disciplinary Study and Practice  

Comment 1:  Atlee and Por argue that there are many forms of Collective Intelligence. Can you think of one type of collective intelligence other than those produced by human collectives? OR Why is individual intelligence not enough? OR Why is collective intelligence vital for our times according to you? (Your comment should be at least 50 words.)

Make an Update: Find another definition of Collective Intelligence and compare it with the definitions provided in this update. Discuss where they are similar and/or dissimilar. Which definitions are closer to what you think is Collective Intelligence? Why? (Your update should be at least 300 words with one media (video or graphic) and at least one scholarly work from you.) 

Comment 2:  Comment on at least three peers' updates (no minimum word count. However, your comment should be in 1 or 2 or more complete sentences.)

Are we running the risk of anthropomorphizing the natural world of plants when we argue that they are capable of intelligence? Are plants showing signs of different types of intelligences that should not be compared to human intelligence? In fact, what is intelligence? Is intelligence a monopoly of human beings alone? 

The above questions certainly emerge in conversations on plant intelligence and are very relevant to the current debate on the intelligence of collectives. As we will later discover, social groups displaying characteristics of collective intelligence are not only confined to the human world according to many. Animals, it turns out, often behave in intelligent ways when they coordinate their actions and collaborate around a prey if they are predators or against a predator if they are preys.

But as far as plants are concerned, little is known about their social lives, if there are any. Little is also known about their ability to behave in intelligent ways. Richard Firn, whose article "Plant Intelligence: an Alternative Point of View"  is part of the reading this week, discusses this intelligence we want to attribute to plants. The author disagrees with the idea that plants can display intelligent behaviors, an idea defended by Trewavas, also featured in this week's reading. The author goes on to provide a definition. According to Firn, "The word intelligence comes from Latin (from intellegere to discern, comprehend and, literally, `choose between', from inter- and legere, to choose). The key words in this definition are discern, comprehend and choose, all of which are terms that are meaningful in the context of human behaviour. These terms, and the concept of intelligence, were adopted by those participating in the development of the English language to describe actions, and to express thoughts, about their own behaviour. The terms discern, comprehend and choose each imply a considerable degree of mental processing of more basic sensory information. There is rather little evidence that plants (or maybe more accurately plant cells) do anything other than rudimentary processing of sensed information and that alone should caution us against adopting the term `intelligence' when discussing the abilities of plants" (p.346).

Firn's refutation of the existence of plant intelligence does in no way diminish the ardors of proponents of a plant consciousness and capability to sense and react in its environment. Pollan (2013), whose article is also featured in this week's reading, discusses scientific findings about the ability of plants to make decision in their environment after receving information from it. Pollan writes, "Roots about to encounter an impenetrable obstacle or a toxic sub- stance change course before they make contact with it. Roots can tell whether nearby roots are self or other and, if other, kin or stranger." (p.95). In short, plants can discern, comprehend, and choose. Mancuso, in the second video, argues that plant, although they do not have any organ in the animal sense of the word, do "see without eye", "are able to hear without ears", "are able to taste and to smell, and breathe without the use of organs" (4:44).

At the end of this update, you should be able to:

• Describe plant emergent processes if there are any.
• Evaluate the applicability of Collective Intelligence to the plant world.

Key word: Intelligence

Readings:

"Plant Intelligence: an Alternative Point of View" 

"Plant Behavior and Intelligence"

"The Intelligent Plant"

Video 1: How trees secretly talk to each other

Figure 1: BBC News (2018)

Video 2: Are plants conscious?

"In this talk, Stefano Mancuso presents a new paradigm in our understanding of the vegetal world. He argues that plants process information, sleep, remember, and signal to one another-showing that, far from passive machines, plants are intelligent and aware." TEDx Talks (2015)

Figure 2: TEDx Talks (2015)

Comment: Is our present lack of knowledge of plant intelligence because of our plant blindness? In the second video, Mancuso argues that there is a human tendency to overlook the vegetal world. What do you think? (Your comment should be at least 50 words.)

Update: Make an update in which you respond to the following prompt: Can we apply the concept of Collective Intelligence to plants? (Your update should be at least 300 words with one media (video or graphic) and at least one scholarly work from you.)

Comment 2: Comment on at least three peers' updates (no minimum word count. However, your comment should be in 1 or 2 or more complete sentences.)

At the end of this update, you should be able to:

• Describe the characteristics of animal social groups with emergent qualities.
• Evaluate whether the results of animal coordination can be called Collective Intelligence.

Key words: swarm intelligence, holopticism, emergence

Reading1: 

This excerpt from Jean Franscois Noubel's exploratory essay "Collective Intelligence, The Invisible Revolution" published in 2004, explores the concept of Swarm Intelligence, when groups of animals of the same species coordinate their behaviors and show emergent properties. 

Swarm Intelligence

"Insect societies (ants, bees, termites...) have become particularly observed models these past two decades. How can just the interaction of a high number of individually 'stupid' creatures cause the emergence of an intelligent, reactive, adaptable and in symbiosis with the environment? This is known as swarm intelligence. It has inspired many computer simulations (swarm computing and cellular automata), all providing fertile discoveries and teachings.

Swarm intelligence is blind because of its lack of holopticism. None of the individuals have the slightest idea of what the emerging entity is. What 'stabilizes' and manages social insects’ societies comes mainly from external conditions (temperature, weather, dangers, food, etc...) that work like a natural 'container' and provide behavioral guidelines and boundary conditions. Millions of years of evolution were necessary to refine their genetic programming so that large numbers of individuals working in unison could create societies having the stability and robustness we know."

Reading 2: "How animals collaborate: Underlying proximate mechanisms"

Video 1: How do schools of fish swim in harmony? 

Figure 1: TED-Ed (2016)

Video 2:  Why Do Starlings Flock in Murmurations?

Figure 2: How to Survive (2019)

Comment: Comment on Noubel's assertion that individual members in a swarm of birds or a school of fish have no idea of what the collective intelligence is. OR What rules do schools of fish follow to create emergence? OR What do you think of the idea that "emergence does not require something to be in charge if the right rules are in place and some basic conditions are met? (Refer to video 1). (Your comment should be at least 50 words.)

Update:  Make an update responding to one of the following prompts: What are the main reasons why animals create emergence? Is it the collective intelligence of self-conscious beings? OR what is the difference between plant intelligent behaviors and animal intelligent behaviors? (Your update should be at least 300 words with one media (video or graphic) and at least one scholarly work from you.)

Comment 2: Comment on at least three peers' updates (no minimum word count. However, your comment should be in 1 or 2 or more complete sentences.)

At the end of this update, you should be able to:

• Define Original Collective Intelligence.
• Describe the charactetistics of small social groups with emergent properties.
• Evaluate the relevance of Original Collective Intelligence in today's world.
• Apply principles of effective small group coordination and collaboration in your own contexts. 

Key words: Holopticism, polymorphism, object-link

Reading 1: This excerpt from Jean Franscois Noubel's exploratory essay "Collective Intelligence, The Invisible Revolution" published in 2004, explores the concept of Original Collective Intelligence, the emergent properties of small social groups coordinating their actions and collaborating around a concrete or abstract object (object-link).

The Original Collective Intelligence

Original collective intelligence, endowed to us by evolution, is merely the intelligence practiced in small groups. We all have a direct experience of it, whether in our work, our community life, in team sports, in reflection groups, etc... Each of these contexts involves a small number of people placed in sensorial – i.e. spatial – proximity with one another.

This 'optimal' group formation also shows up among some social mammals, like wolves, dolphins, elephants, some big cats, or monkeys. All have in common the fact they coordinate around an object: the prey, a threat, a toy (stick, stone, water, baby prey, etc...). Thus, with coordinated encircling techniques and attacks, the pack of wolves can catch a prey that is bigger, faster and stronger than any individual wolf.

Such types of organized communities are numerous in humankind. Apart from sports and games where players are coordinated around material objects, most communities in daily life use objects from the symbolic and cultural space. But the dynamics remains fundamentally the same since our senses and our spatial engagement are solicited in a very similar way. Let's review a few examples that we are all familiar with, they will ultimately serve as references that will facilitate our thinking:

In a sports team, each player is an expert who knows what must be done in real time in relation to the perceived global situation. The team acts as a homogeneous and coordinated entity without a structure of hierarchical that directs how information is followed. Objectives such as scores are reached in an extremely complex context. In the same sport, each team is different from one another and has its own personality. Each is a whole that cannot be reduced to only the sum of its parts.

In a jazz band, each player perceives the global melody in real time and, upon which, accordingly adapts his or her musical play, sometimes in an improvised way, sometimes in a predetermined manner. The way the piece is played defines what is considered as the style of the group, these traits that make it recognizable among all the others.

As for the meeting room, it is structured to place each participant in a spatial and temporal proximity that allows all to perceive everything that happens: talk, gesture, mood, mimics, writings, etc... It is the established place where the feeling of belonging to something, even temporary, is generated. It is where the tight, friendly, studious, or whatever spirit and mood of the community can exist. The aim of the meeting room is to steward collective intelligence via its spatial architecture.

Characteristics of original collective intelligence

What are the observable phenomena in the previous examples? They are too numerous for an exhaustive exploration, but let's list seven of the most significant ones. They give us enough grain to grind in order to understand some of the big theoretical and practical principles of original collective intelligence.

1. An emerging whole: each jazz band, sports team, working team has its own personality, a style, a spirit to which we refer as if they were an individuality. When we emphasize the success, the quality and the unity of a group, it is another way to express the fact that this Whole appears so obviously.
2. A 'holoptical' space: the spatial proximity gives each participant a complete and ever updated perception of this Whole. Each player, thanks to his/her experience and expertise, refers to it to anticipate his/her actions, adjust them and coordinates them with the actions of the others.Therefore there is an unceasing round trip, a feedback loop that works like a mirror between the individual level and the collective one. We define holopticism as this set of properties, that is the 'horizontal' transparency (perception of the other participants), and the 'vertical' communication with the emerging Whole. In the examples above, the conditions of holopticism are given by physical 3D space; our natural organic senses then serve as interfaces. The role of a coach, or an external observer, consists in encouraging the conditions for holopticism.
3. A social contract: whether it is musical harmony, game rules, or work legislation, the group is shaped around a social contract, tacit or explicit, objective or subjective, that is accepted and staged by each participant. The social contract is not only about values and rules of the group, but also the means of its self-perpetuation.
4. A polymorphic architecture: the mapping of relationships is continuously updated depending on circumstances, proficiency, perceptions, tasks to accomplish, or relational rules based on the social contract. It gets strongly magnetized around talents or expertise. Then each expert, as recognized by the group, takes the lead one after the other to act according to needs. In a sport team for instance, the right-winger becomes the leader when the ball comes into his space, but it can happen that he becomes the goalkeeper when the situation requires it.
5. A circulating object-link: as Pierre Lévy explains so well in a paper called Collective Intelligence and its objects (1994), "The players use the ball simultaneously as an index that turns between individual subjects, as a vector that allows everyone to design everyone, and as the main object, the dynamic link of the collective subject. We shall consider the ball as a prototype of the linking-object, the collective intelligence catalyzing object". Melody, ball, objective, or 'objective' of the meeting, no doubt that original collective intelligence gets built upon convergence of individualities toward a collectively pursued object, whether or not the object is a physical or symbolic one (a project for instance). When they belong in symbolic space, it is an absolute necessity that these objects must be clearly identified and united in their number and quality by each participant of the group, otherwise this leads to some of those fuzzy situations that all of us have already painfully experienced.
6. A learning organization: the learning process not only operates at the individual level, but it also involves the existence of a social process that takes charge of mistakes, and integrates and transforms them into shared cognitive objects. It enhances the development of the relational intelligence, what we learn for ourselves is useful for others.
7. A gift economy: in the competition-economy, the one we know today, we pick something for ourselves in exchange for compensation, most often money. In the gift economy, we give first, then we receive once the community has increased its wealth. Raising our children, taking care of the elderly, giving our sweat to a sports team, being involved in an NGO, or helping each other in the neighborhood are examples that demonstrate that the gift economy is the absolute base of social life. This is so obvious that we are generally unaware of it. Could any community be sustainable in the long run if it relied on the dynamics of individual sacrifice? In the gift economy, each participant finds a strong individual advantage that motivates him to give the best of himself. The gift economy organizes the convergence between individual and collective levels.

Emerging whole, holopticism, social contract, polymorphic social architecture, circulating objects- link, learning organization, or gift economy, here are the main qualities that we will find in all communities in which original collective intelligence is at work. Each characteristic is all at once the cause and the consequence of the other characteristics. None can be taken separately. The more they are developed and coordinated, the more the community is able to evolve and create the future in complex, unexpected and uncertain contexts.

The natural limits of original collective intelligence
If we stick to the definition we have adopted, original collective intelligence meets two natural

limits:

• In number: only a limited number of participants can interact efficiently otherwise a too- high level of complexity is quickly reached that generates more noise than effective results. This then strongly limits the capacity of the group;
• In space: participants need to be physically together in close range so that their natural interfaces (organic senses) can interact. This way they can apprehend the global picture of what happens (holopticism) and adjust their behavior accordingly.

This is the reason why we never see any sport played with eighty players. This limitation is also true for jazz groups, corporate meetings, etc... When the number of participants and the intervening distance become too large, a division generally occurs. However, other strategies, other organizations have been developed along evolutionary lines. We are now going to review them.

Excerpt from Collective Intelligence, The Invisible Revolution (Noubel, J.F., 2004)

Reading 2: Collective Intelligence in Teams and Organizations

Video 1: Exploring Collective Intelligence - What are the secrets of high performing teams

Figure 1: Influence (2018)

Comment: Comment on the narrator's statement in video 1 that one thing that distinguishes high performing teams from low performing teams is the way they move interchangeably around perspectives. What other factors do you think are key features of high performing teams? OR Comment on one of the seven characteristics of Original Collective Intelligence that Noubel refers to. (Your comment should be at least 50 words.)

Update: Make an update responding to one of the following prompts: How is the collective intelligence of human social groups different from swarm intelligence? OR Is holopticism reproduceable in the online environment? If yes, How? (Your update should be at least 300 words with one media (video or graphic) and at least one scholarly work from you.)

Comment 2: Comment on at least three peers' updates (no minimum word count. However, your comment should be in 1 or 2 or more complete sentences.)

At the end of this update, you should be able to:

• Explain what Pyramidal Collective Intelligence is.
• Compare and contrast Pyramidal Collective Intelligence to Original Collective Intelligence.
• Judge the impact of Pyramidal Collective Intelligence on human civilization

Key words: pyramidal collective intelligence, panopticism

Reading 1: This excerpt from Jean Franscois Noubel's exploratory essay "Collective Intelligence, The Invisible Revolution" published in 2004, explores the concept of Pyramidal Collective Intelligence, the properties of human civilization, centralized governments, kingdoms, empires, cities, and large organizations. 

'Civilization', and pyramidal intelligence

How can the two limits of original collective intelligence – the number of participants and distance separating them – be bypassed? What social machinery could be implemented in order to coordinate and maximize the power of the masses? How could communities of communities be harmonized and synchronized? For tasks such as building, planning, cultivating, transporting or manufacturing and creating such as erecting temples at the glory of the Gods, human works required more and more muscular strength as well as specialization, namely a large number of participants. This was a situation that characterized the beginning of history (defined as the birth of writing) and the early days of large civilizations.

This mutation is absolutely original since it was accompanied by almost no perceptible change in our physical constitution. It has not been duplicated in the animal world. Our brain, our body and our genetic code are the same as they were a few tens of thousand years ago, yet all has changed. The drama is also played out on another stage, the noosphere – the mind – on which the 'invisible' ecology of symbols, myths, knowledge, beliefs, and data, is what organizes the social life that is visible to our organic senses (biosphere).

With the invention of writing, man entered the era of the territory. Signs engraved on physical supports were first used for counting, managing, norming, laying down the outlines and the surface of a territory, list, defining belongings and exclusions as well as permissions and restrictions.

For the first time, a message was able to circulate without being physically attached to its issuer. The qualifier, the fact, the counting, the law, the description, etc... were objectivized in the circulating object bearing symbols. This sealed the object- signifier-signified trio.

This symbolic labeling of the world was also applied to humans themselves. Thus name, profession, qualification, wealth, facts, misdemeanors, caste and lineage became important attributes that positioned an individual in the social geography. Writing is, in essence, the core technology of the State.

Equipped with this extraordinary capacity to send signifiers over long distances toward a virtually unlimited number of recipients, pyramidal intelligence was launched and gave birth to civilizations and their States.

The four dynamic principles of pyramidal intelligence

Four fundamental principles constitute the universal signature of these human edifices, no matter whether these are companies, administrations, governments, armies, religious organizations or empires. These are:

1. Labor division: everyone has to cast himself in a predefined role in order to make people interchangeable. An immediate corollary is the division of access to information, which establishes a context opposed to holopticism, i.e. panopticism – controlled and partitioned information – that we will detail later;
2. Authority: from divine right, by filiation, by merit, by expertise, by law, by diplomas, etc... No matter the legitimating principle, authority institutes a pawl effect, a dissymmetry in the information transmission between the emitter and the receiver, and sets up a command and control2 dynamics (C2). Authority determines the rules, assigns rights and prerogatives, organizes the territories (and thus labor division), and distributes wealth by means of money;
3. A scarce currency: money is historically a social convention and an information system made to allow the market to function. It serves as a medium of exchange and a store of value. Unlike what many people believe, scarcity is not an inherent quality of money, but an artificially maintained property. Scarcity generates channels of allegiance from those who need toward those who have. It naturally catalyzes the hierarchies of pyramidal intelligence. This phenomenon of hierarchization is strongly accelerated by the Pareto effect (the more we have, the more we earn) that we will explore later;
4. Standards and norms: they allow the objectivizing as well as the circulation and the interoperability of knowledge within the community. Language is itself a standard. As for circulating artifacts (electronic components, pieces of machinery, materials, etc...) they all have a 'jointing pattern' made to chain their added value and build more complex functional 3 sets .

The strength and the stability of organizations built on pyramidal intelligence largely stem from the fact its four founding principles mutually reinforce and legitimize themselves. Wealth is distributed by those in authority, hierarchies are catalyzed by scarce money, inclusion-exclusion rules are established by standards and norms, and so on.

Today pyramidal intelligence still drives most aspects of human organizations. From the point where the number of participants and the intervening distances exceed that inherent in original collective intelligence, this basic form of such intelligence is no longer possible. By organizing and synchronizing communities based on original collective intelligence, pyramidal intelligence has permitted creating and governing of cities and countries, invention of aircraft, launch of satellites into space, establishment of gigantic armies, conducting musical symphonies, discovery of vaccines, etc.... Furthermore, during the past 120 years, the rapid growth of telecommunications has significantly increased the growth in and power of this form of collective intelligence.

As a master in the science of economies of scale, pyramidal intelligence excels in piloting repetitive processes of transforming power applied to a given raw 'mass' such as matter, population, data, etc... in order to generate added value. Assembly lines, teacher training, administrations, armies, marketing, commerce, politics, mass medias, computers, etc..., all these domains are structured around these universals about economies of scale. Even the most abstract consulting company today, whose mission statement is to produce knowledge from its social capital, is structured in such a way that these economies of scale and repetitive pattern principles can be applied. These are the foundations – often raised to the level of a dogma – of our present economic paradigm.

Limits of pyramidal intelligence

Of course pyramidal intelligence has also its limits: unlike original collective intelligence, it shows a structural incapability to adapt to the unsteady, unpredictable and disruptive grounds of complexity.

Cross-out qualities, which are strengths in more simple environments, underlie its inherent weaknesses:

1. Work division: the social architecture (organization charts, job descriptions, information access levels, etc...) is hardcoded. There is no way this structure can self-modify when confronted with changing circumstances, for example as in the case of a sports team. Whatever the efforts made to improve and optimize the flow of information, the intrinsic limits of hierarchized structures will always show up, with their pawl effects and their dynamics made of territories and prerogatives;
2. Authority: top management, nearly always reduced to ruling minorities are by nature unable to perceive and process the tremendous flow of information that pours into the large body of the organization they are supposed to manage. This generates reductionist visions that become a source of conflict between the 'head' and the base;
3. Scarce money: scarcity breeds competition which minimizes collaboration, an aspect of the capacity to self-adapt;
4. Standards and norms: most of the time they are subordinated to a logic of competition. They serve a strategy of territorial occupation and monopolistic control by means of artificially rarefying knowledge (patents, intellectual property, etc...), rather than maximizing the permeability and the interoperability with the external environment. The most obvious example in the computer world is Microsoft Corporation’s Windows operating system, the core of most microcomputers. The end user is dependent on the future evolutions of this code, must struggle to evolve into other environments, and must pay for any extra desired services such as licenses, labels, trainings, etc.

Indeed today's organizations are larded with infrastructural and human 'cabling' that are made to counterbalance the weaknesses of strict hierarchical architecture: information systems, intranets, KM, project oriented organization, works councils (that shuffle human relationships), ERP, HR management, etc. But the fundamental structure remains, based on the industrial dynamics of mass transformation via the principle of economies of scale.

Today we suffer cruelly from the limits of organizations based on pyramidal intelligence. Their deficiency in face of systemic complexity is expressed by a common symptom: the fact they wander into directions that can be opposite to the will of their own participants, either because internal coordination is virtually impossible, or because leaders use de facto opacity – even cultivate and legitimate it – to take advantage of their power."

Reading 2: Pyramidal Collective Intelligence

Comment: Comment on the concept of panopticism introduced by the Collective Intelligence Research Institute (2022). How can it be overcome in today's context? (Your comment should be at least 50 words.) 

Update:  Make an update responding to one of the following prompts. Can our systems be effectively built without pyramidal architectures? If yes, How? OR Why is Pyramidal Collective Intelligence perceived as incapable of dealing with present-day complexities? Give at least three reasons supported by scholarly works. (Your update should be at least 300 words with one media (video or graphic) and at least one scholarly work from you.)

Comment 2: Comment on at least three peers' updates (no minimum word count. However, your comment should be in 1 or 2 or more complete sentences.)

At the end of this update, you should be able to:

• Explain what Global (Holomidal) Collective Intelligence is.
• Compare and contrast the three types of human collective intelligences (Original Collective Intelligence, Pyramidal Collective Intelligence, and Global (Holomidal Collective Intelligence).
• Reflect on the characteristics of Global (Holomidal) Collective Intelligence.
• Evaluate the Implications of Global (Holomidal) Collective Intelligence on collaborative activities both locally and globally.
• Apply key features of Global (Holomidal) Collective Intelligence in your learning communities and/or communities of practice.

Key words: Holomidal Collective Intelligence, Global Collective Intelligence, 

Reading 1: This excerpt from Jean Franscois Noubel's exploratory essay "Collective Intelligence, The Invisible Revolution" published in 2004, explores the concept of Global Collective Intelligence, which was later renamed Holomidal Collective Inteliigence. It is the new collective intelligence of large groups in cyberspace. 

From collective intelligences toward a (global) Collective Intelligence

The human, by nature, is always in search of a higher level of consciousness that allows him to guide and understand his present condition. This quest happens at the individual level and throughout all humanity.

Original collective intelligence transcends and includes the individual. It transcends as a differentiated emerging entity appears; it includes the individual in a harmonious relationship that fosters his/her evolution and provides him/her meaning.

It seems that neither pyramidal intelligence nor swarm intelligence have proved to be able to transcend and include original collective intelligence. However, these two forms of large-scale organizations appear like transitory and necessary steps in evolution. Today, everything seems to show that the transition toward a new level of consciousness at the humanity scale – and not only in small groups – is at work.

Let's note first that the two limitations of original collective intelligence are fading quite quickly. Communities with a very high number of people at a large distance between one another are now beginning to possess, with slight differences, a good part of the properties of original collective intelligence.

What should be added to the seven constituent characteristics of original collective intelligence so that we can shift to a global Collective Intelligence that might include tens to millions of people that transcends and includes?

These are:

8. A sufficient currency: the gift economy does not need to be regulated by accounting processes at the scale of small groups. When it comes to large groups of people, a monetary information system becomes necessary. 'Monetary' here is defined in the way it acts as a medium of exchange and store of value. Thus we are exploring the role of circulating currencies, not scarce, but sufficient and available in real time. This point will be detailed later.

9. Standards and norms: just like with pyramidal intelligence, standards and norms remain indispensable to organize the cohesion and the degree of permeability and interoperability of large communities. But in the case of global Collective Intelligence, they are issued from ascending emergence processes. Their function aims at maximizing the interoperability and the capability to build functional, ever more complex sets rather than seeking hegemonies in competition contexts.

10. An information system: by playing a role in all the properties listed here, it is used to organize and optimize the symbolic space shared by the community. It interconnects our senses via more and more powerful and extended interfaces, it builds and presents digestible
synthesis, it processes complex calculus, simulations and anticipations that neither our senses nor our intelligence are able to achieve, it organizes and indexes the collective memory, it counts monetary transactions, it applies the social contract, and it rebuilds artificial holoptical spaces where being in proximity is not sufficient anymore, it puts people in relation with one another according to polymorphism's needs, and it connects us to cyberspace.

11. A permanent interpenetration with cyberspace: no community today can pretend to be smart if no exchange dynamics is at work within cyberspace. There we find the most advanced knowledge, the most fulfilling experiences, and the best practices. Then it is our turn to deliver our experience, to link with others, etc... and doing so we give resonance to this echo chamber of humanity.

12. Personal development: the mutation toward Collective Intelligence at a large scale cannot happen without a profound individual and societal transformation. We enter into the inner sphere, into the spiritual work linked with our very own existence. We don't have the space to cover this immense topic here which, in any case, leads back to each person’s individual journey.

Reading 2: Peer Production: A Form of Collective Intelligence

Video 1: Designing Collective Intelligence. Alberto Cottica explains how the concept of emergence resulting from harnessing the collective minds of people can help us find solutions to the most pressing problems of our time.  

Figure 1: TEDx Talks (2012)

Video 2: The New Republics goes far in the past to tell a story of growing complexity and emergence. The narrator takes us on a big history of collective intelligence and tells us how we are at the threshold of a new emergence driven by the power of networks. Human Collective Intelligence has evolved, leading to different kinds of local and global human collaboration. The narrator ends with an invitation to think about how humans are at the measure of all things. In his own words, "The way a collective designs itself determines the way it sees reality and the way it innovates."

Figure 2: The Collective Intelligence Research Institute (2022)

Comment:  In 2004 Noubel wrote, "Today, everything seems to show that the transition toward a new level of consciousness at the humanity scale – and not only in small groups – is at work." Comment on the progress that has been made since 2004, the year when Noubel's exploratory essay went public. What emergence(s) have you noticed since then?  (Your comment should be at least 50 words.)

Update: Make an update responding to the following prompt:  What are the barriers, if any, of applying principles of Holomidal Collective Intelligence in everyday life? (Your update should be at least 300 words with one media (video or graphic) and at least one scholarly work from you.)

Comment 2: Comment on at least three peers' updates (no minimum word count. However, your comment should be in 1 or 2 or more complete sentences.)

Presentations: You are invited to pick one Collective Intelligence type explored in this module or one concept or idea related to Collective Inlelligence and make a synchronous or asynchronous presentation lasting between five to ten minutes. In your presentation, discuss what the concept or idea is, why you chose it, how it is related to ideas developed during this module, and what are the potential applications of the concept or idea in your everyday life. 

Assignment: Combine all your updates from one to six into one paper, revise, and submit it for review from your peers.  

Knowledge Process and Review Criteria

Concepts: The project should have relevant concepts explored and discussed during the module. They should also be clearly explained with examples if they apply.

Reasoning: The project must show clear reasoning to explain concepts and arguments that are relevant in the module.

Critique: The project must address the benefits and limitations of relevant ideas and concepts covered in the module and referred to in the work. 

Application: The project must address the potential and/or existing applications of relevant concepts and ideas used, giving examples when applicable.

Innovation: The project must demonstrate innovate approach to apply ideas and concepts used. 

Communication: The project should demonstrate well-organized and well-written arguments with relevant citations and references (scholarly papers and media).

Referencing: The project must follow the APA citation and referencing style. The project must provide the sources of all cited materials. 

Rubric: 

Peer_20Review_20Rubric.pdf

Post-module survey: https://s.surveyplanet.com/zcm6bzgq