Too much networking?

Posted: Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:27 PM by Alan Boyle

Duane Hoffmann / msnbc.com

Open-source communities may suffer from "an overabundance of connections,"
an information policy researcher suggests in the journal Science.

Are geeks guilty of groupthink? A network expert argues that less social networking would produce more radical innovation on the Internet.

"An overabundance of connections over which information can travel too cheaply can reduce diversity, foster groupthink, and keep radical ideas from taking hold," Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, director of the Information + Innovation Policy Research Center at the National University of Singapore, writes in this week's issue of the journal Science.

That may be one of the reasons why much of the open-source software currently being produced is rarely altered in anything more than an incremental manner, Mayer-Schönberger says.

"The basic point that I'm trying to make is ... how do we get to the next stage of the Internet, the new-generation Internet, the radical innovation, rather than another dot release on the Firefox browser?" he told me today.

Mayer-Schönberger is focusing on the open-source software community because the perils of groupthink are well-known in the commercial world. Once a complicated piece of software catches hold in the market, there's often a "lock-in effect" that freezes out radical changes in that software.

"Every radical change gives the users the opportunity to make a switch to a potential competitor's product, and as a vendor, you don't like that - except if you're Apple," Mayer-Schönberger said. (Apple can rely on a dedicated following that will be quick to adopt radical innovations, such as the iPhone, he explained.)

Open-source software - like the Firefox Web browser, for example, or the Linux operating system - can be freely modified and redistributed by anyone, which would seem to encourage innovation. But Mayer-Schönberger invokes network theory to contend that the open-source community is so interconnected, using the very tools they helped develop, that fresh ideas don't have as much time to develop before they're assimilated (or disposed of) by fellow programmers.

Companies such as Apple, Google, IBM and Microsoft (which is a partner in the msnbc.com joint venture) get around the groupthink trap by creating incubators for research and innovation, modeled after Lockheed Martin's storied "Skunk Works." The key is to have limited linkages between the idea incubators and the larger enterprise, Mayer-Schönberger said.

The payoffs from the innovations that are allowed to hatch outweigh the costs of maintaining the incubators. Mayer-Schönberger said examples of such payoffs range from the original IBM PC and Apple Macintosh to the atom bomb (which was created through a government-funded incubator known as the Manhattan Project).

When there's no incentive for developing unorthodox products or services, and when the network in charge of creating the main product remains highly interconnected, the lock-in effect is more likely to take hold.

The locked-in Internet ... and Facebook
"The most prominent example is not commercial software, but the Internet, or more precisely the protocols underlying this dominant network infrastructure," Mayer-Schönberger wrote in his Science policy paper. "It is too costly and risky for a commercial competitor to create and market a set of radically improved, but incompatible protocols. This is true for the peer-producing, open-source community as well."

Facebook's rise illustrates the pluses and minuses of open source, he told me. "By opening the API (application programming interface) they created a lot of room for experimentation," he said. "That sealed the fate of MySpace and pushed Facebook forward."

Today, there's an entire software ecosystem that relies on Facebook's open API (including Mafia Wars and "25 Random Things"), and that could lead to the lock-in effect. "Changing the API is much harder now because it has an ecosystem that lives off it," Mayer-Schönberger said. "So it's a double-edged sword, in a way."

There's a rule of thumb that says a network becomes more valuable as it adds more connections, but Mayer-Schönberger said that trend could bog down innovation. "It would be terrible if we reach a basically steady state in the open-source community where we have version 11.5.17 and we change to 11.5.18, and everyone thinks it's a step forward," he said.

The prescription for geek groupthink
So what is to be done? On one level, the National Science Foundation is already fostering a "Skunk Works" Internet by supporting next-generation network development programs known as NetSE and GENI.

Mayer-Schönberger said governments could go further by offering incentives for the creation of smaller, competing development teams. This would reduce "their connectedness to the thinking of the status quo through their social networks," he said. The idea sounds a little bit like an X Prize for information infrastructure.

Another strategy, aimed specifically at the open-source community, would be to break a big project into smaller components, and then let separate teams compete to deal with those components. "That is what propelled Firefox into the forefront," Mayer-Schönberger told me. "When they broke (the browser program) into small modules, then they had competitive open-source projects on all those subcomponents."

Mayer-Schönberger was reluctant to extend his analysis to individual behavior, but he said it might be worth your while to take a look at your own social networking. "Think hard about whether those 1,125 Facebook friends are really friends. Think about how many are hangers-on or chance encounters - and perhaps take them off," he said.

You can build diversity into your own social networking by keeping a division between the various aspects of your life - for example, by using LinkedIn for professional contacts and Facebook for personal contacts.

"We now tend to converge our personal and professional lives, and that's not necessarily a good idea," Mayer-Schönberger said. "Having multiple and slightly overlapping networks is better than having one large converged network."

Reality check
Does Mayer-Schönberger's view make sense? I asked one of the pioneers in network science, Northeastern University's Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, for a reality check. He told me the idea of reducing connectedness to encourage innovation was intriguing and provocative.

"I think many people sympathize with the idea that if you could start from scratch, you would have a much different Internet, and a better one," he said.

However, the reality is that the present-day Internet has so much critical mass that there'd have to be a radical reason for introducing radical change. Maybe a nuclear war. Maybe a totally new communication medium. In any case, it'd have to be something big, Barabasi said.

"If you were to ask me, I think we will be using this Internet for quite a while," Barabasi said. "If there will be a new Internet, it's not going to emerge from a private company, because the Internet is just too big for that. ... It may require serious social engineering to get away from the status quo."

10 years of network theory
In the same issue of Science, Barabasi traces the research that's been conducted into the nature of the Internet, the World Wide Web and other scale-free networks over the past 10 years. (That's how long I've been writing about Barabasi and his colleagues.)

"I think the big thing that has happened is that networks are everywhere now. ... They have pretty much invaded all fields of inquiry," Barabasi told me. Other articles in Science discuss how network theory has been applied to cellular biology, biodiversity, economics and social-ecological systems, how technologies (and diseases) spread, how to fight terrorists and how to get along.

The amazing thing is that researchers are finding strong parallels between the workings of the cell and the workings of the Web. "Because they ended up being so similar to each other, the results that were obtained by studying the World Wide Web could be transferred to the study of the cell," Barabasi said.

One of the questions surrounding the past decade of network theory may well be why scientists didn't notice even earlier how much different types of networks had in common. "In a way, the computer made it possible to get large enough data sets to see these features," Barabasi said. "It was the Internet that allowed biologists to share with each other so we actually had maps."

Today, network theory can be applied to a wide range of questions: How do we avoid geek groupthink? Who will be our future business competitors? How does the brain work? Why does Ashton Kutcher have so many Twitter followers? (I think the last question is the biggest mystery of all.)

"I could not imagine 10 years ago how big networks would become," Barabasi told me. "Which is probably a good thing."

Get in on the Cosmic Log groupthink by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. If you really want to be friendly, ask me about my upcoming book, "The Case for Pluto." You can pre-order it from Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Borders. Act now before I limit my connectedness!

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think the challenge is to make changes with the internet in stages to bring about the radical change that will benefit networking. Why does radical thinking require rebuilding the wheel? Why not remodel it?

Duane Orgill, Appleton, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:46 PM)

Luddite nonsense. Just further proof that the private sector fears the open-source movement. Proof that they finally see it as a REAL threat instead of just a curiosity to be dismissed casually.

We struggle with perpetually buggy versions of Windows (or any other commercial software) because development and bug-fixing is limited to a handful of in-house developers. How many thousands, maybe millions of programmers out there could actually FIX the damned thing if they only had the legal right to do so? Instead, we're stuck with crippled software and no way to fix it ourselves.

Don't believe this anti-open-source propaganda. It's nothing short of preposterous conjecture. Commercial software keeps people who could make a positive contribution to something from being able to do so, to the detriment of the entire marketplace.

There are MANY open-source projects aimed at modernizing the internet, the average person just doesn't hear about them because they just do their thing, they don't hire Bono to do a bunch of glossy commercials. That and because the commercial software companies do everything they can to either squash or buy-out any technology they can't collect a royalty from.

Don Gregory, Torrington CT (Sent Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:52 PM)

OK, Alan, tell us about "The Case for Pluto"!

W. Sitze, Las Cruces, NM (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 12:21 AM)

There's no Luddite-ism at all in this piece. Just someone who believes that we're all becoming sheeple instead of using our brains.

Dohn Joe (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 1:48 AM)

@Don Gregory:
I can just see "the commercial software companies" (aka "Microsoft" in Mac/Apple-sheeple speak) worrying about most of the OSS projects.

If "the commercial software companies" do pay attention to more than one or two handfuls of FOSS projects or simply OSS, it's likely the ones they was watching are those with similar goals as what's in or something planned for the commercial software. The big commercial companies -- the ones who want to survive -- don't have all the time to waste that many of the OSS/FOSS have when developing a package.

Dave J. (Scoop0901) (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 2:58 AM)

The assertion that "open source" software bogs down progress, rather than facilitating it, is absolute nonsense. When in the course of history have we found that small, isolated groups produce so-called radical thinking at a higher rate than interconnected societies???? The very idea is antithetical to both human nature, and the evidence of history itself. look at the developmental timelines over the past several centuries.... does this article propose that the space shuttle would have been developed more quickly by small groups of warring tribes???? ludicrous.

i agree completely with the poster who suggested that this article's assertion is nothing more than a blatant attempt to justify corporate interest. corporations function by isolating ideas and thereby extracting profit from the application of said idea. period. open source threatens this system, and what better way to crush new ideas than by vilainizing them with psycho-babble (ie. "groupthink") and propaganda. Compare for example- "universal healthcare" vs. "socialized medicine". its all in the presentation, folks....

Jeremy Davis, Albuquerque, NM (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 3:19 AM)

Ultimately, it does not matter, because people will continue doing what people naturally do . . .

There was just as much "groupthink" before the web, and there always will be just as much no matter what happens, so long as people exist . . .

Prior to personal computers and the web, it was the telephone and the various flavors of the "grape vine" . . .

These continue to exist and to be important, but digital social-networking adds a new and more globally instantaneous aspect to the grand scheme of everything, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

And on the topic of "Fabulous!", it might be interesting to know (a) that I always have been fascinated with the inner workings of the "grape vine" and (b) that several years ago I decided to do an experiment which consisted of selecting a word and using it all the time over and over and over toward the goal of determining how long it takes for the word to become trendy, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

So, I started appending "which is fabulous . . . " to sentences, followed by repeating the experimental word yet another time, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

And while it might be a bit annoying at first, after a while people start using it when they feel a bit silly, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

Of course, I have no idea what any of this suggests, but so what . . .

So what!

The world needs to be peopled, and people need to communicate, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

And while there is a lot of great open-source stuff, I am not certain what social networking has to do with any of it, other than being a good way to do a bit of "grape vine" marketing and to let people know about new stuff . . .

Of course, never having visited a place where one can be jailed or caned (beaten with a long and gnarly bamboo stick) for various offenses involving the possession, use, or inappropriate disposal of bubble gum, I have no idea how such folks view the general concept of information freedom, but so what . . .

So what!

From what I read, the streets in Singapore are very clean, at least with respect to there being little if any bubble gum, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

However, I am not entirely convinced that those of us in the free parts of the world should pay much attention to any advice and ideas coming from a place that has a national obsessive-compulsive fear of bubble gum, really . . .

Really!

And when you think about it for a moment, what brilliant ideas have emerged from Singapore lately?

Is there a think tank somewhere in Singapore which at this very moment is imagining of a world where there not only is no bubble gum but also is no social networking?

Intuitively, I strongly suspect that prohibiting bubble gum and social networking is not going to do very much toward the goal of encouraging creative thinking, really . . .

Really!

Who are these people and what is it about bubble gum and social networking that frightens them?

I have no idea, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous! :-)

JD, Seattle, WA (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 6:16 AM)

"Luddite nonsense?" Sounds like Don Gregory needs some real education on the original discussion.
This guy is so far off track that his perception of reality is now in question.

[...]

He is definitely a Mac user, and a flaming Liberal.LOL

Cleotis James Jackson (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 8:09 AM)

(I am an internet writer- who studies human behavior on the internet) I feel if anything the internet has fostered a group think tank of rudeness. It seems it is a pandemic virus of rude thoughtless people. People whom can hide under false identities- to put forth – constant useless information. I think this goes well beyond software- the major problem is the anti social behavior on it. The other main problem I see is not =the merging of personal and career choices- it is the fact too few on it have any sense of dignity, morality or purpose. People have completely let go of privacy and are willing to expose themselves in any manner- to the world. It would be wonderful if the “think tank” was positive and it fostered a positive cosmic think tank but it really has not. In some countries where once the news once taboo and hidden (in communist and suppressed countries), the internet has become a way to get stories through but with that, it has also destroyed magazines, newspapers, journalism. Let’s face it we are all writing for free on the Internet – and any of us that are trying to say something worthwhile- can’t be heard everyone is on information overload.

T. Jacobus Boonies, Illinois (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 8:47 AM)

Duh - people are just beginning to realize this? Just look at the last election and the language used in this article? 75% of readers won't even know what the hell the author is talking about, and 80% of the rest are so dumbed down already that they have lost all ability to independently think without the media via the net etc.spewing non-stop propaganda themes that they suck up like an addict getting his fix. Sorry state of affairs and Orwell saw it coming.

Jim Pittman, Aurora, Colorado (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 8:58 AM)

I think you're missing the point, Don. He's not saying that open source is bad, the researcher is saying that not enough people are paying attention and USING open source, and THAT'S the bad thing! It sounded to me like he's saying, "Dump the homogeneity of what everyone is using now, and open up the internet to a lot of different formats, to encourage more creativity and development of new ways to do things.

Me, I'd like to see the Microsoft monopoly broken, but it's going to take a lot of people to make that happen. Unfortunately, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did a pretty good job of making a platform that even your average yobo can use without screwing things up too badly, and it's spread everywhere.

I used to hear a LOT about Linux once upon a time, and now I hardly hear a thing. I suppose that's because, for most people, the less creative and innovative people, it's easier to use a platform that everyone else uses to create, because they know they have a better chance of marketing their little programs that way.

Does it ultimately come down to money? Yeah, I think it does. That's human nature, after all.

Cat, U.S. Army (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 9:04 AM)

Woody Allen ("Stardust Memories"):

"You can't control Reality. All you can control are Art and Masturbation, two subjects on which I am an authority."

Jym Allyn (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 10:03 AM)

The author is spot on. Despite the knee jerk protestations from the OpenSource fanbois (who insist on spelling Microsoft as Micro$oft) this article AND PARTICULARLY Don Gregory's response to it - identify and highlight the problem. Do any of you think that a revolutionary browser like Firefox could have been created and conceived amongst the development team of IE? why not? - Because the communal 'Groupthink' would have squashed dissent and with it the change and new direction (read: INNOVATION) that would have come with it.
It is the inherent nature of communities to limit diversity and 'non-group think' to maintain their institutional integrity: Same as cults, for that matter.
It's not "wrong" It's just the way it is. Our challenge, as the author points out, is to recognize those basic characteristics of human organizational behavior and ensure we are not hobbled by it

steve (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 11:53 AM)

After reading the article a second time (and the subsequent responses) I believe that the fundamental issue here is "cooperation" vs "competition".

The implication that i feel is being missed here by a majority of the responses is this: the author appears to feel that institutionalization of resources and thought is more effective than decentralization. An interesting point, I'll concede that; HOWEVER the premise, in my opinion, is faulty in that fails to take into account the value of "standing on the shoulders of giants" as a means to produce advancement.

Here is (in essence) my "fanboi" argument for open source over institutionalization: while it is true that updates come from multiple sources in small increments rather than a single outlet launching major upgrades, the cumulative effect of these small upgrades is greater than that of a single entity. Consider: v1.12.1, v1.12.2, etc, ad nauseum- are all released consecutively over a six-month period. It is my proposition that the six-month version (we'll say v1.12.6 for the sake of argument) will be more advanced, and useful, than the once-a-year, 45 minute download, "major advancement" of the isolated think tank.

As one respondent pointed out- is it really necessary to reinvent the wheel every time we want to advance? Must we, Wyle E. Coyote style, return to the drawing board and try an entirely new approach in order to achieve our goals? I should say not.

While our entire economic system is based on the belief that competition produces greater advances more quickly than (otherwise unmotivated) cooperative efforts, it is my most fervent assertion that what we are dealing with here is an entirely new playing field, with new rules.

I am sorry, but i simply do not believe that "our betters" (read that- the isolated think tanks) know what's best for "us commoners". In the final analysis, this is what i hear most clearly from the ideas expressed here. Fear is a powerful marketing technique, and the offer to soothe that fear, or alleviate it entirely, is a powerful motivator in the mind of the average consumer.

On the whole, a very interesting article and good food for thought. I for one will be interested to see this dynamic as it plays out in the market-place.

Jeremy Davis, Albuquerque, NM (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 12:26 PM)

It's a sign that reading books is superior to computing, for expanding consciousness and knowledge.

Tom Tomklub (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 12:39 PM)

Most people are asleep, and the few who are awake are in a constant state of amazement.

- Ambrose Biers, "Not the same as everyone else."

Dude Erodomy (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 12:44 PM)

This smacks of (1) more scientific jealousy of technology, (2) rationalization of many scientists' fear of socializing, (3) the National University of Singapore providing theo-pseudo-academic underpinnings for their government's attempts to Ctrl Singapore's society.

Tech has run away with most of the prestige and glam which once belonged to science. Not fair, not even right, but science needs to take a different approach. Instead of trying to tear down tech, science should be making the case that it *is* tech and that tech *is* science. This notion that we're too networked seems like rationalized emotion, and from checking out the links here, I don't even think it's well rationalized. I would put it dangerously close to pseudoscience; "Science" is on thin ice.

Long time fan, Seattle (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 12:48 PM)

I agree, author is spot on. Also find how amazing the parallel to a well known biology model there is..........

Importance of genetic diversity
There are many different ways to measure genetic diversity. The modern causes for the loss of animal genetic diversity have also been studied and identified.[1][2] A 2007 study conducted by the National Science Foundation found that genetic diversity and biodiversity are dependent upon each other -- that diversity within a species is necessary to maintain diversity among species, and vice versa. According to the lead researcher in the study, Dr. Richard Lankau, "If any one type is removed from the system, the cycle can break down, and the community becomes dominated by a single species." Wikopedia for short version.

This same princapal could also apply to the group think loosing the diversity needed to make decisive innovatioins.

Sedjreck, Tacoma, Wa (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 1:05 PM)

It's also obvious from an evolutionary standpoint. Isolated communities experience the fastest evolutionary change. Period. In larger communities exceptions are much more likely to be washed out.

A society with 100% free flow of information between all people will enter complete stasis.

Jim Bob (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 1:42 PM)

Mostly interesting and thoughtful comments ... Refreshing compared to what I read on many other news sources. I think the points about too much connectivity have relevance in both a theoretical, physical (i.e., data network), social, and perhaps even a neuronal sense. The value in content and creativity of our connections is not determined by the number of them (i.e., think social connections where some boring people name-drop about their superficial connections). From a neuronal perspective, I'm certain it is not about random unweighted connectedness. From a physical data network perspective, the disadvantages of too much interconnectedness are well-known and appropriate pruning and structure is instituted to improve the overall effectiveness of the network. Even using the very limited examples of our "friends" as sources of knowledge, we all have had hundreds or thousands of acquaintances during our lives, but there are probably about 6-12 that you would consider at the real "center" of your network with respect to wise counsel ... They are probably also at the "center" of many other persons "networks". In other words, these are interconnections that have evolved over time and not like the typical spew that we see on the Internet social networks and various commentary mechanisms.

Regarding open-source, I think the other is making the point that this "group-think" may be stifling creativity. While I agree with him -since the real creative thinking is always being done by the vanguard which is the opposite of group-think- I'm not sure it really applies here. The limited success of open-source and the substantial success of commercial products is not surprising given human nature and the obvious success of capitalism. First, most people are "greedy", and I meant that in a positivie sense in which they are first person-centric, then family-centric, then social-group-centric, etc. Most people do not invest their precious resource of time in things that are just intellectually interesting or for the betterment of mankind. So, it is rare group of people who will create new content of "value" thay they will make freely available. It is even much less likely that a commercial company will be at the center of such activity, and they typically will support open-source only to the extent to which it somehows provides them a competitive advantage, or it damages a competitor and thereby benefits them. Plus, developing complex systems and completing such projects is hard to do. Is it not surprising that some high proportion of the populace hires someone to perform the mathemtically trivial task of completing their taxes ... conceptually trivial, and not a difficult "project", but many just cannot do it themsleves apparently. And, how difficult is it to conduct a "project" like planning a wedding (guest list, invitations, entertainment, facility, food, officiator, etc.), but many are simpkly crushed by the responsibility and we even have movies about "wedding planners". What is simple for some is very difficult for others. Non-commercial development of open source requires unique, creative, committed and talented people, and they are in short supply. Commercial developpment of open source is always suspect w.r.t. the true motivations and intent. Governmental development of open source probably has some merit, but government organizations have been developing "public domain" content including application code for half a century and it just has not worked out ... too difficult to get coordination among the parties involved. There have been notable successes of academic development, but US local, state and federal governments have essentially invested hundreds of billions of $ in developing code that is essentially public domain, but where is it and what is the value? Skunk Works-type initiatives often can be very effective. In a large organization where they can be funded, they require a creative and effective management for support. But, very creative and effective managers are in short supply; most of us are just average "creative and effective" and resist such efforts. When you think about it, one apsect of ineffective management is essentially group-think writ small. You can't get the group of 6 VPs to think creatively because they're either not creative or too timid to take a non-centrist position ... hence, group-think is facilitated.

One last comment, when you think about it, there are many biological examples of communication strategies, network models, altruistic behaviors, etc. I can't think of any natural model that "open source" fits into, except one. Under the simplifying assumption that "open source" means the development of a system(code, specifications) of a reasonably complex nature that is developed or expanded upon by a relatively small group of individuals that is made "freely available" for the greater benefit of a much larger group, the only example that comes to mind is government-developed systems such as laws and regulations, highway infrastructure, etc. However, development of IT-related systems currently develop at a rate which is truthfully orders of magnitude faster than the development of laws, highways, etc. There may be some flaws in my logic, but this seems to be a reasonable analogy. And, despite any protestations to the contrary from open source fans, the real installed base and use of open source products of all kinds are barely making in-roads compared to commercial software. And, if we further eliminate uses of open source that is accompanied with an expensive support contract, the real adoption levels are even smaller. (The latter case is like saying that I have "open access" to a library, but I can't read and have to pay someone else to read for me (e.g., Novell, Red Hat, etc.) ... that's not open access; that's not open source.

Thanks, Thardy

T Hardy, Sacramento, CA (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 1:56 PM)

Truly fascinating responses. It is apparent to me that this will break down eventually into a metaphysical discussion of human nature if allowed to continue.

Altruism or profit? Which will produce more, faster, or more efficiently? I understand the concept of "herd mentality" which frowns upon individual (read that- innovative) thought, however, the discussion then becomes- are we now no more than automatons, functioning on a purely visceral level? or are we capable of higher motives?

I leave with that thought. i will be watching this article closely. Truly fascinating.

Jeremy Davis, Albuquerque, NM (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 3:53 PM)

Hi I thought I would comment on your article about group think or social structuring . When you feel like you're in a box, why not step outside the box and realize the box never existed . Learning curve boundaries and social and psychological acuity and dissemination of information . Or for some social engineering on a benign level for the betterment of a person,a group or social structure, or even all of mankind . As a population density gets larger and information being passed back and forth faster and faster, social structures and individual psychology should improve over time . Tesla einstein freud and many others tried to show this but had problems coming up with a eloquent equation to represent it . Nevertheless psychology and sociology still evolve and others have helped the field grow . As we become more interconnected we move closer to Ghost in the shell tech, and some of the sociological and psychological patterns of society will have to be dealt with and even in some cases guided to a desired outcome . Here I would refer to a social parallel to some of the ghost in the shell concepts of thinking and parallels http://dreaming5gw.com/2007/05/puppetmaster_parallel.php . Can you see the after effects of social engineering play out like waves in a social sea ? Do you see the ripples of social and psychological engineers play out and form a common goal . Can you put yourself not only in another persons shoes, but a whole group or even groups that may inter-react on a certain levels, or even the whole super structure of society itself ? Can you engineer a social or psychological seed or seeded events to create a over all outcome . Even if it's a ghosting effect like che, where the movement got larger after his death . And for the article perspective can a company socially engineer it's employees for better results, or better diversity in thinking, ect... . What social and psychological engineering is good and what is bad and even who decides society's, or companies, or religious structures, Who decides ?

And a last note . How will we even realize when a computer A.I. evolves to a point where it can socially and psychologically seed and mold a society ? Even if it does it just on a benign level for sociological and psychological evolution of mankind . After all with the right flaw parameters for human actions for seed events, how could we tell if it was A.I. or human ? when you start a congregation, Whether it starts out mean, happy, sad, informational, etc..., we start the congregation with social engineering, whether we see it or not . Engineering work groups can be done many ways, as with most social groups . Boundaries are part of the engineering to, here is a quick link http://www.jstor.org/pss/254106 witch shows some of this point . Oh well just my 2 cents for now . :)

Robert,TX (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 4:28 PM)

Well what do you expect from guys with pencil packs and wet matresses ?

Your Worst Nightmare (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 4:31 PM)

MY gut instinct is that group networking fosters the "lemming syndrome". Think agout it...

John Doe, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29 PM)

If I were to build an application that distilled the social interation of individuals within an organization, by monitoring email, instant messaging, etc, and predicted or scored the social interations, what would happen if that company happened to be Enron? The Lemmoings march to the sea.....

I call it the "lemming effect". It amplifies organizational behavior: for good or for evil. How do you sort the wheat from the chaf?

John Doe, Seattle, Wash... (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 9:36 PM)

This article, to me at least, sounds like a load. Just because people in a particular group have the same opinions about something doesn't mean they're being homogenized. There is something to be said for echochambers, but that's not even what this article is going on about. It's true that groups working toward a particular goal usually work better when not affiliated with the larger group, but this doesn't extend to completely blocking communication.

Aaron Maxwell, Detroit, MI (Sent Friday, July 24, 2009 9:43 PM)

This controversial argument was made previously in Jaron Lanier's essay Digital Maoism (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html). I agree with some, but not all, of the points being made--but I'm much more concerned with the confusion in the comments and elsewhere about what those points actually are. This is not an anti open-source or pro proprietary argument. This is just stating that truly radical innovations, real CREATIVITY, is inversely proportional to the size of the collective doing the work (at least in the way our organizations are structured thus far). It is arguing, for example, that more heads would not have made Romeo & Juliet better than the lone genius of Shakespeare. The previous irate comments defending open-source and denouncing proprietary software as full of bugs are completely missing the point. All truly revolutionary things are created by a small group of closely interacting individuals or lone visionaries with support groups. Think Xerox PARC, or Douglas Englebart, or the original Apple.

haig (Sent Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:40 PM)

Ok first John Doe Seattle Wash. I would be careful of what you are joking about and clamming to name . Look at the lemming project on dod site http://www.dodsbir.net/selections/sttr1_08.htm . Yes they had a lemming project but not what your saying, what your describing is in other work . Now you can be scarred of much more. LOL.

Now haig I like your summery of the article and good link . Yes we all maintain our individuality and micro groupings can leap in thought in times when not cut off completely from the social structuring they inter react with . Structuring and controlling the information flow to encourage a specific type of knowledge, or to help technologies or thought evolve faster . Is part of what I thought the article was vaguely about . Also is cross networking detrimental to the over all micro grouping or project . I would think you need some of it for the over all constant evolution . Spreading from a micro grouping sub structure out to the super structure of society, and from the over all super structure and sub structures back to the micro grouping . And within such a structure can you have a Einstein or a Tesla or Shakespeare or mozart . One person who out shines the rest basically . Yes we can but the probability for such a person becomes less when dealing with many many sub groupings within larger super groups . My example would be the manhattan project . A lot of scientist where gathered in a few spots and brain stormed within a micro group structure . Yet to an extent they still had contact with the outside world . Also if the article was about some of this, I would have to add, true genus, or Intellectually acute, or visionaries are normally born and raised that way not learned threw a job or carrier . We can help foster some of this but most comes from the individual or self . Oh well just my 2 cents for now . And again good comment haig .

Robert,Tx. (Sent Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:36 PM)

I disagree. Real innovation comes from one person's vision, seed of an idea, etc. The next breakthroughs will come form individuals. If their thought and knowledge development or resources are enhanced by social media, that simply speeds the individual development process.

donald a Pazour (Sent Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:04 PM)

I'm not so sure the problem is the network. The original paper seems to describe the nodes in an impersonal fashion, rather than recognizing that humans are involved, each with their own views.

Networks do not make communities innovative. People make communities innovative. The problem identified may be a result of an ineffective mix of people that make up the network, not the network itself.

Rogers' work on the technology adoption lifecycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_lifecycle and the diffusion of innovations in a community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_Innovations would indicate that the makeup of the Open Source community might not be optimal for rapid dispersal of innovative ideas.

In particular, there may not be a sufficient number of early adopters/innovators engaged in these online networks to permit innovations to efficiently diffuse throughout the community. Too few of these types of people make it very likely that the natural tendency of the majority to be evolutionary, not revolutionary, will dominate.

For innovation to traverse a community there needs to be sufficient numbers of early adopters (who filter out good and bad ideas) and innovators (who create the good and bad ideas) to combat the status quo of the majority (who hate to have their workflow disrupted). Without the right mix, ideas that are useful to the community do not get effectively filtered and presented. The conservatism of the majority overwhelms the efforts of early adopters/innovators.

The majority, whether in real life or online, usually only communicates with others in the community, is skeptical of change and often only adopts a new innovation when told to by a respected member of the community, often someone who can be labeled an early adopter.

Early adopters and innovators as a group have the largest number of connections outside the community. They know a lot of people and access a lot of external information. The fact that some of the described networks only connect to themselves indicates to me that they do not have enough early adopters and innovators in the community.

Without an effective core of early adopters whose opinions are respected by the majority, there will be a noticeable slowdown in the rate of diffusion of innovation in a community. Without the right amount of early adopters/innovators to push ideas through to the majority, innovation can falter.

The solution may not be to change the networks as much as to identify and empower early adopters/innovators.

The way to do this in the real world is to put them all in a group called Research where their relative numbers are greatly increased and the conservatism of the majority is not as readily seen.

Skunk works are effective in the real world for similar reasons - they artificially increase the percentage of early adopters/innovators, permitting the filtering activity to be enhanced. They work, not because they change the network but because they alter the relative numbers of key people, such as early adopters/innovators, in a group.

Purposefully creating something like this, and making sure it is well populated with the proper sort of people, could be a big factor in increasing innovation in online networks.

Not because the network itself is necessarily altered but because enough of the 'right' people are included.

Ricahrd Gayle (Sent Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:57 PM)

Conservative Republican PC user, actually. Mac's don't run linux, they run BSD.

The proof is in the pudding. I can name a dozen different distros of linux that all work better than Windows. Faster, more stable, and more feature-rich and customizable than any version of Windows, past, present or future.

Furthermore, the idea of homogeneity is completely contrary to the obvious. There's many different flavors of linux. Some multi-media heavy, some streamlined for low-end systems, some designed specifically for server use and every possible variation you can think of. Linux is anything but homogenous.

This article makes a lot of claims that are just not borne out by the facts.

Don Gregory, Torrington CT (Sent Monday, July 27, 2009 6:37 PM)

"An overabundance of connections over which information can travel too cheaply"...TOO CHEAPLY says it all...its a ploy to justify charging MORE for internet access or to cut the availability of connections...(i didn't read much beyond that statement as it seemed to me the rest of the article would just reinforce the idea that the internet is too inexpensive)...

undrgrndgirl, planet, earth (Sent Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:54 AM)

Interesting that after writing an article that suggests less social networking that they would encourage you to add them as a friend on Facebook or follow them on Twitter. Take a look right after the article.

David Endsley (Sent Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:54 AM)

Very interesting article and comments. Anyone else feeling a direct correlation between this issue and political ideology? It essentially seems to be "socialism vs. capitalism" played out with code and microchips.

I expect a staunch capitalist would argue that profit is the ultimate motivator. In that case, having small incubators with a vested interest in producing ground-breaking ideas would seem to be the most effective.

On the other hand, one might argue that the sharing aspect provides everyone with greater access to communal knowledge and tools, which they are self-motivated to advance for the good of all.

Just a thought. If that's crazy, feel free to say so.

*Side note: Someone inferred that "building the space shuttle" would not have been as successful adventure if it was attacked by warring tribes. Is that not what the Space Race was all about?

Carl Vervisch, Tampa, FL (Sent Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:48 PM)

re: Carl Vervisch's comment-

I actually agree with you that this comes down to an issue of fundamental ideology. It comes down to what i mentioned in one of my earlier comments e.g.- altruism vs profit. Does altruism exist? CAN it?

My comment re the space shuttle was intended to point out that it took all of the resources of a fully functioning nation-state in order to produce it. Yes, in a manner it could be reduced metaphorically to "warring tribes" but what i intended to point out was the SIZE of the tribe.

What this article fundamentally comes down to (IMO) is the old adage that "knowledge is power". I, knowing this adage, and believing firmly in it, do tend to get defensive when someone brings up the possibility, (or worse, attempts to justify in some way the efficacy) of limiting the public's access to knowledge. This is particularly the case when the argument in question brings profit margins into the equation as though they somehow justify anything.

Still good food for thought.

Jeremy Davis, Albuquerque, NM (Sent Saturday, August 22, 2009 1:08 PM)

Two links that wrap it up entirely:

Comparison of Captilism and Socialism:
http://www.economicshelp.org/dictionary/c/capitalism-v-socialism.html

The real motivation behind teaching kids to share:
http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/gordon-the-gecko.html

Anonymous, Nowhere, None (Sent Wednesday, November 18, 2009 1:47 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2007019

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG