Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:20 pm
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Meta » General META Discussion
Experiment Into Collective Intelligence
Moderators: imbri, ndemeter
View previous topicView next topic
Page 2 of 2 [23 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2
Author Message
Silent
Boot

Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 56

 		Well, thanks for the criticism. I always need to find faults in studies.

Quote:
Well, to disprove the existence of said hive mind, you'll have to revise history, quite frankly. How many games and distributed puzzles have you researched??


But how many hive minds of random populations can deal with problems that exist in the real world, as opposed to just games and puzzles?

If I can falsify it, then it will be fine. If I can find evidence to disprove my hypothesis that the hive mind is not effective, I'll accept it. But I first need to find evidence.

Quote:
So I was wondering - what's your hypothesis here? That there exists a problem that a CI cannot solve? OK, that's fine. But what conclusion do you draw from that? You don't know if a specialist or what have you would be able to solve the problem you pose. Thus you can't make any conclusions about whether the CI is more or less able than an expert.


Um, I do know that an expert can be able to solve the problem. In fact, I can be certain of it.

Let me make this clear: This "real world" problem is not really happening in the real world. It's like math assignments talking about a "real world situation" where you need to use math to solve it, but you're not really out there measuring tape and figuring out how tall the shadow of the tree is so that you can figure out its height, for some terrible purpose.

Quote:
But even if you did know an expert could solve the problem, you only have one data point. A data point, I may add, that you are constructing. I'm sure you'll try to be neutral in that portion of it, but still. At most what you could say that there exists a problem that a particular CI could not solve but a particular expert could - something I doubt anyone here would disagree with.


I won't be biased, I hope. After all, I want to know the truth, just as much as everyone else, and if I'm wrong, I'll abandon whatever it is I believe in. And I suppose that that latter objection may be true, meaning that to really sustain an argument against CI, I need to re-run different experiments, to show limits of CI. And I don't think many people will be convinced either way of if CI is good or not right now, but hopefully this experiment can shed some light to help pave the way to figuring out its effectiveness.

Quote:
Maybe you could take a stab at defining what CI is for you, as a label?


Basically the 'Intelligence' or 'Hivemind' that a group of people have rather than just an indivudal.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:16 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Silent
Boot

Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 56

 		I think I found a flaw in my study.

Who defines what is the 'right answer' to a question?

If you assume the CI defines the right answer, then you assume the CI is correct when that is what we want to prove.

If you assume the elites are right, then you assume the elites are great and are just comparing the CI's answers to the Elites to see if they 'square up'. I'm afraid I can't really do much. Still, I'm going to finally push through and try my puzzle, altough now, I suspect this experiment is rendered meaningless.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:33 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Silent|away
Guest


 		/me sighs.

I'm still going to try to do this, if only because the idea of the CI still annoys me so.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:30 am
 Back to top 
MageSteff
Pretty talky there aintcha, Talky?


Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 2716
Location: State of Denial
Silent|away wrote:
* Silent|away * sighs.

I'm still going to try to do this, if only because the idea of the CI still annoys me so.


(smiling) Two years and you are still looking for a way to limit the number of variables you don't have any control over? (still smiling)
That's an issue most scientists have to deal with. Perhaps the premise you are trying to test is too large to handle the question and you need to run a number of smaller tests with stable control factors before you can take in the bigger picture?

If you want to see previous results of the "hive mind" in action, I suggest you review the archived games that have taken place that required active participation to solve problems. "Haunted Apiary" (HALO game release in 2004) which required participants to show up at specific pay phones across the USA to receive informatio. It required solving a puzzle to get the GPS coordinates of the pay phone, having people who were able to record the message, and then people placing the messages in the (mostly) proper order. Considering the sheer number of people who showed up at the various phone booths at all hours of the day and night in all conditions of weather - I'd say that is proof enough.

Oh, the real life problem? The release of the Halo franchise game (I think it wa sthe second game in the series).

[edited to add]
But you wanted real life issues. Ok...
ERA- women's rights. No the amendment to the US constitution did not happen but something else did. Women went to work as Telephone linemen in the 1970's. I remember all the bad press that got - how male linemen felt that women were too weak to do the work. At the same time you rarely saw a woman working as a doctor in a hospital. Now people hardly notice them.

Second example: Gay rights. Not everyone agrees with them, but there are still contries and US States where same sex marriage is legal.

Third example: Smoking. Now banned in many US public buildings after decades of it being legal. Even many smokers now only smoke outside their own homes.

There are three real life examples of groups of people banding together to solve problems- make a difference - in real life.

Want more examples? In the US - the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) = wheelchair access to public buildings - Disables helped by the able bodied who don't need the special ramps or automatic door openers helping to change laws so that people who need them can have the same access to public buildings.

US - Civil Rights (1955-1968)- the ending of racial segregation.
Caucasian Americans assisted even though the degredation did not affect Caucasians. Collective Action. Whites helping to register african americans to vote. Judiciary rulings in Brown vs the Board of Education. The repealing of "Jim Crow" laws.

These aren't math problems or riddles, or be "investigation" but then real life issues don't present as riddles, but the same principle applies. A collective of unrelated people joining together to make things happen.
_________________
Magesteff
A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead


PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 8:37 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Silent|away
Guest


 		All those "real-world" examples you cite, I don't consider them CI. The problem you frame is "There is X, we need to remove it"...leading me to conclude that any informal organization that was formed were merely there who all agree on the same "policy" to implement (remove X) and are just working together to do that, with no debate whatsoever within those groups. Besides, how can you tell that they all are "unrelated" when we're dealing with self-selection, and why would you claim CI was responsible and not an "elite" running the show and telling all those masses what to do?

A better example of a "real world" problem would be balancing the budget, and a deliberate excerises have been conducted to that.

And showing up at pay-phones doesn't seem like something that really require CI. You just need to tell certain meatpeople the GPS coordinates and order them to get there; an expert could have easily solved the puzzle and then force other people nearby to do the puzzle. This is not a hivemind.

Anyway, this really does bug me, yet I never really have the time or patience to pull this study, and am starting to suspect it's impossible for me to do it effectively. Eh. It's really academic whether to credit the "hivemind" or the "elite running the hivemind".

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 11:42 pm
 Back to top 
Silent|away
Guest


 		After talking on IRC, I was logically convinced into believing that CI exists and is real, and thus no longer will attempt an experiment to prove its existence. I'm copying this here so that I remember why I was convinced, and won't forget it and bring up this topic:

Quote:
freeloading?
09:38 PM <Silent> To me an elite would be someone with specialized skills to solve
something.
09:38 PM <Rowan> a doctor may be an elite at medicine, but not necessarily at music
09:38 PM <Silent> If someone is good at codingbreaking, he'd be an elite in that sort
of thing.
09:38 PM <Six> looking at it from a similar but different way, if multiple people in the
group have knowledge about different areas (math, geography, history), then it's a
given that by talking together and sharing their knowledge, they know more together
than any one individual in the group
09:39 PM <Rowan> and dont you think that even just providing moral support is
helpful to a group?
09:39 PM <Rowan> having a sounding board is often important in complex problems
09:40 PM <Six> yeah, even someone who might be able to break a code might have
to try at it for a long time with many failed methods, so it's very easy to be discouraged
and give up
09:40 PM <Six> someone simply saying "wow, nice work so far" can help them to
keep on trying
09:40 PM <Silent> When you put it that way, now I can see why CI works
09:41 PM <Silent> Is it okay for me to copy and paste this in that CI discussion so I don't forget it and ask you guys again?
09:41 PM <Rowan> if it'll keep us from rehasing all this stuff again, then yes
09:41 PM <Six> sure, I'm just talking out my ass really
09:41 PM <Six> And I want that line put in too.


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 12:43 am
 Back to top 
Silent|away
Guest


 		What I posted above was part 2, so here's part 1 of the conversation. The last part of the conversation is me typing out a summary of what happened as opposed to copying and pasting.
Quote:
09:32 PM <Silent> Collective Intelligence to me is the combination of unrelated people
together that will then automatically through some unknown method come to the
correct answer to a problem
09:32 PM <Rowan> but you do know that they dont mind meld to create one gigantic
mind, right?
09:32 PM <Rowan> the group of people is still made up of individuals who have
individual strengths and weaknesses
09:33 PM <Silent> Right, but I also want to avoid the problem of specialization, where
you have one specialized individual that solves the problem for said group.
09:33 PM <Silent> That was the reason why I wanted an expert control, so that we see
if this CI works without this specialization
09:33 PM <Silent> But since I can't control for that, I need a different experiment
method.
09:34 PM <Silent> (Or more likely, just abandon this hopeless quest.)
<six> If there were multiple steps for solving a problem,
09:36 PM <Six> then if people get some of the steps but not others, then if they get some of the steps, but not others, then they cover the whole thing.
<Rowan> But then Silent will consider the individual people that got the steps "elites".
<Silent>Right, but if you have a group of elites coming together, then it might as well be called a Collective Ingelligence. So the debate then is over size. How do you determine what is a person solving the steps versus one that provides moral support or is a freeloader.
<Rowan> What consistues an elite?


PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 12:52 am
 Back to top 
avaviney
Kilroy

Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Posts: 1

 		Wow! Learned so much from this one. Thanks.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:23 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 2 [23 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Meta » General META Discussion
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group