What is your presentation titled "Collaborative Group Intelligence: A Case Study of a PC Peripheral Failure" about?
On the one hand, this is a case study: the failure of a DVD reader/burner to be recognized after installing a particular piece of software, and the resolution of the issue through consultation with people from diverse backgrounds and by utilizing various resources found on the Internet. The first part will be appreciated by those who understand what is at stake when one tinkers with the Windows registry, applies various tools downloaded from professional and amateur websites, and navigates the precarious architecture of a not-so-elegant operating system. On the other hand, my text links this example of collaborative problem-solving in computing with the proposals of Paul Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchism, formulated at a time when no one could have imagined something like the World Wide Web.
What hypothesis does it propose?
The word "hypothesis" is overused in academic contexts to lend an air of seriousness to texts that do not always deserve it. This article describes a case and demonstrates the theoretical relevance of linking it to Feyerabend's reflections in *Science in a Free Society* (1978).
How does Feyerabend's philosophy relate to the topic of your presentation?
If we can choose plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, and construction workers—because after a few unpleasant experiences we begin to understand enough about their respective trades to know who’s cheating us and who does good work— it’s time to start getting involved in matters that seem inaccessible to novices, but that shouldn’t be the exclusive domain of doctors, lawyers, environmentalists, or financial advisors. The IT revolution was started by kids in jeans in modest garages, and although today it is multinational corporations that guide the direction of its development, it can be embraced by ordinary citizens as long as they are willing to work hard and in groups (which can be virtual or in-person). These groups must be diverse and pluralistic. They must not be insular, nor should they get trapped in the filter bubbles of Google, YouTube, and social media (which connect us with people like us or show us what web companies think we want to see, rather than what we need to see).
Why did you decide to choose that topic for your presentation at ALAIC?
The forms of collective intelligence, the philosophy of technology, Edgar Morin’s paradigm of complexity, and epistemology are deeply intertwined in this context and constitute areas of my ongoing interest. I have been working in these fields for several years, and I am drawn to the idea of creating more space for research that is highly specific yet technically meticulous and analytical: a middle ground between purely quantitative studies, which end up being shallow and irrelevant, and scholarly, “cultural” texts—vague, full of references to authors and schools of thought, overflowing with clichés from old communication theories—which, frankly, seem like a waste of time to me. Promoting citizen oversight of science and technology with the means at my disposal is another good reason.
Specifically, why are you interested in collaborative forms of intelligence as a contemporary communicational phenomenon?
Because it is a fruitful perspective: it allows us to solve problems in architecture and affordable housing, understand the evolution of financial markets, or grasp how laboratories around the world might cure or mitigate new and terrible epidemics. To get a basic idea of how all this might be possible, I recommend James Surowiecki’s book *The Wisdom of Crowds* (2004). There are many communication researchers working along similar lines, including at our ORT University. For example, Daniel Mazzone has done so before and since with texts such as “Wikipedia, the Management of Collective Intelligence” (Inmediaciones de la Comunicación Journal, Volume 6 – No. 6 – August 2011. Published by the School of Communication at Universidad ORT Uruguay).
Is this presentation related to the one you gave at this same conference in 2012, titled “Galton Groups: A Unique Space for Communication Processes”? In what way?
My latest paper is a continuation of that work from two years ago, written in collaboration with Omar Gil, who holds a Ph.D. in mathematics. "Galton groups" are a specific instance of "wisdom of the crowd," but not every form of "collaborative intelligence" is a "Galton group." We’ll have to wait until late September for the papers to be posted in PDF format on the ALAIC 2014 (Lima) website to read the text that served as the basis for my presentation in Lima. But the one from the ALAIC 2012 conference (Montevideo) is available, and I recommend reading it because it anticipates much of what I said later.