Do Too Many Friend Connections Harm Unique Thinking?
Does having too many friends in online social networks make radical, innovative thinking harder to develop and foster group-think instead? That's the conclusion of one scientist contributing to a recent issue of Science magazine, but we're not so sure.
Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, director of the Information + Innovation Policy Research Center at the National University of Singapore, argues that "the over-abundance of connections through which information travels reduces diversity and keeps radical ideas from taking hold."
Mayer-Schönberger is specifically interested in what it will take to see the next major stage of the Internet come into being and believes that extensive social networking could favor slower iterative development instead of radical paradigm shifts. Smaller networks of developers are more likely to give unusual ideas the time they need to grow and mature, before other thinkers shoot them down or rip them off. Big networks can also be very distracting.
Other factors to consider though, we would contend, include the positive impact of collaboration, serendipitous social discovery, rapid news dispersal, interdisciplinary cross-pollination and the increased scalability of support for ideas that living large on social networks enables.
A "good or bad" analysis may be too crude for evaluating the effect of extensive social connections online on innovation: it seems true that both extended periods of uninterrupted work time are essential to innovation and that online noise is good for you. Is participation in large social networks a net positive or a net negative? That probably depends on the person, but smaller networks are probably an important option to consider as well.
We would post a poll asking for your opinion on the matter, but in writing about group-think online that would seem too ironic.
Science magazine subscribers can read Mayer-Schönberger's article here. MSNBC's science blog and New Scientist have additional coverage.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Great points all around. My thought is the biggest influencers and innovators are the early adopters of the smaller networks. As the networks grow, these guys/gals jump ship, and move on, to the newer, more innovative, and smaller networks. Those late to the party are generally not innovators. In a very short term micro sense, I would tend to agree with the good Dr. However, communities evolve, times goes on, and things change.
Jeff Howe makes a convincing argument in "Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business" that the greater the diversity of the people in the group and the weaker the connections in the group (discussion density), the greater the lack of groupthink. I assume that the logic would follow similarly here. A lack of diversity (of background and independent thought) is the enemy of innovation - so it's not about the number of number of nodes so much as it is about the differences of the nodes themselves and the strength of the connection between them that matters.
My answer to the question is simply: No (and then...may as well say)
Every innovation is born from something: “cats eyes in the UK roads” – “came from cats eye’s” the big red button on your control came from Edam cheese !
An over-abundance of connections is a great thing and it will make the radical ideas take off (hey who do you want to promote the idea in the first place). Silly argument. Serendipitous social discovery is the new way of being, I suggest that Viktor should face "that point" and then consider advising people to step back and collect thoughts every now and again, which is what most innovative people do. And who knows something may go BING, when you least expect it. After all an innovation doesn’t have to be something radical and new it can be a simple twist in the usage.
I think a networks effect on group think happens on many different levels with equally different results. The average social user is certainly effected by group think via social memes at least on a superficial level and to a smaller degree in a deep way. But the professional creative works a bit differently, the creative mind needs as much data input as possible to make the unique connections that lead to innovations. The viral effect of large networks gives new ideas a more immediate path to the crowd. Isn't the speed at which an innovative ideas become mainstream equal to the speed of its adoption?
I agree completely with Steffan and Josh that diversity is key but the size of a network doesn't dampen that diversity. my large social network is more like a collection of smaller diverse networks. And in this way the occasional cross pollination actually adds to the diversity rather than taking away.
Size doesn't matter, filters do. So there's really not much of an issue here (as far as I see it.)
That said, radical designs (purple cows) and disruption won't be slowed. There's no evidence to support a claim like that. If someone is going to do it, they're going to do it, no matter how many folks they may be chatting with online.
One thing that I feel like i have been learning is that, while we may be networked to thousands of people via technology, it's just as important if not more important to have a solid group of really close friends that you can have serious face to face relationships with.
All too often it seems like we forfeit our deep relationships because they're tough and opt for our vast hyper connected online universes because there is much more of that instant gratification.
Being connected to these massive online audiences, makes it so that are lives more acting for an audience and not actually being real. We're not actually being real. We're doing what's going to please our community because our community knows everything that's going on with us.
There is not much to worry here.
I feel one has to be very sure of what they want to achieve as the end result...ie the core concept. Then it can be used to leverage the benefits. It really helps effectively and quickly evolve solutions.
I think this post and the responses to it are a good example of how what Mayer-Schönberger is talking about can happen.
Someone presents an innovative idea, backed by actual research. Then, people who have no actual knowledge in the subject area chime in and say, "No, no, that's not right, what we are doing now is just fine, your idea isn't right." Groupthink is restored and we can all go back to tweeting.
Social networking is the new opiate of the masses.
Like Brandon said: It's all about filtering!
We need these connections and sources to be able to tap into our innovative epiphanies - because any piece of crucial information, at any given point in time, can trigger that bolt of lightning.
But of course, too many connections push too many pieces of info into our personal world, and we just can't handle it.
So really, the key would be to somehow pick out these insightful information nuggets from the swarm of content.
That's why, if we use effective filtering, no matter how many connections we have - it can facilitate and even expedite the manifestation of our most marvelous ideas. Eureka!
But the nature of the Web has enabled likeminded radical people to locate each other, form communities and make themselves (and their ideas) much more visible in the wider society. See Henry Jenkins or Yochai Benkler for accounts of the consequences. This is an important "structural hole" in Mayer-Schönberger's approach to the problem. I should add that I'm not necessarily disputing his analysis of the cases he cites (open source coding communities, Wikipedia) - indeed these are important arguments about enabling innovation in technical processes - but surely the diversity afforded by the web and the radical expression taken up by its inhabitants counts for something here?
RT @xolotl: @marshallk reminds me of the study circa 1440 "Do Too Many Cheap Books Harm Unique Thinking?" http://bit.ly/9PtgK [lol, yes!] [from http://twitter.com/marshallk/statuses/3149128692]
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
August 14, 2009 12:27 AM
This is really a great idea I am surprised it's not in wider use already.
Size doesn't matter, filters do. So there's really not much of an issue here (as far as I see it.)
That said, radical designs (purple cows) and disruption won't be slowed. There's no evidence to support a claim like that. If someone is going to do it, they're going to do it, no matter how many folks they may be chatting with online.