Week 7: Collective Intelligence, Collaboration, and Thinking Multimodally

Now that you have submitted your video narratives, we can turn our attention to our next big project: the tap essay. If you haven’t downloaded Tapestry on your iPad or phone, you should do so ASAP, as we will be using the application in our classes next week. As we work on this project, you should bring your iPad (or another mobile device with Tapestry on it) to class each day unless I specify otherwise.

Here’s a quick overview of how we’ll get started on this new project next week:

On Monday, we will continue our discussion about collaboration and collective intelligence. Before you go to sleep on Sunday, please read Chapter 4 in Net Smart (pp. 147–89) and leave a comment on this post pointing to something from the chapter that you want to discuss in class. In addition, please read at least ten different tap essays within Tapestry and come to class on Monday with a long list of ideas for your tap essay (long = at least ten).
On Wednesday, we will begin working with the Tapestry application to explore the differences between traditional printed texts and multimodal texts. Before you come to class, please create a document in your Google Drive folder containing three possible topics for your tap essay. For each topic, write a paragraph or two that summarizes the argument you want to make and describes how you might do so using the tap essay format. I will review these ideas with each of you to help you finalize your topics for this project.

As always, if you have any questions, send me an email or stop by during my office hours.

10 Responses to "Week 7: Collective Intelligence, Collaboration, and Thinking Multimodally"

Brittany says:

March 3, 2013 at 11:56 am

In the book Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, McGonigal writes: “we are all born with the potential to develop collaboration superpowers. Scientific research shows that we have both the ability and the desire from early childhood to cooperate, to coordinate activity, and to strengthen group bonds- in other words, to make a good game together.” (156).

This is the first time I have heard anything beneficial about kids spending hundreds of hours a week playing video games. I watched McGonigal on TED and spent the first 12 minutes waiting for the ‘so what’ moment. She believes we need to create the future we want to see and by playing video games people strive for an epic win in whatever the game offers them. By creating games that relate to real world issues people will begin to change the world. I think this is a new theory that could catch on, especially if games that relate to the real world become intriguing to gamers. This theory blows my mind, but I could see it becoming a reality because of the rapid pace technology advances and mass amounts of people who love virtual reality.
Becca says:

March 3, 2013 at 5:52 pm

“When I broadcast the question on Twitter to my network of followers, What’s the difference between these three related but not identical forms of collective action? a professor in Canada, Wayne Macphail, put it this way, two minutes after I tweeted my query: ‘You need coordination to dance, cooperation to dance with a partner, and collaboration to dance with a flash mob.’” pg. 153 (iPad)

This is the easiest way to describe the difference between these three forms of collective action I think. What I am curious about, though, is how the Internet relates to these forms. To me, the Internet itself is networking because you can see and talk to other people as well as use other people’s programs and websites. Coordination seems like your ability to get on the Internet, and the resources you use to do so. Cooperation would be creating and visiting websites on the Internet, or your participation and contributions to the Internet world. Finally, Collaboration would be using the programs (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc.) on the Internet to connect with other people as well as utilize ideas highlighted on said programs.
Jordan says:

March 3, 2013 at 9:41 pm

On page 154 Rheingold talks about what the Cooperation Theory teaches us about life today. After reading the seven bullets I go to thinking, are these not the same rules we have when we are face to face? Simple things like when someone doesnt seem interested, move on and find someone who is or punish someone for cheating but don’t be too harsh. These are all rules that we are taught at young ages. It is odd that the same reactions or way of acting can work over the internet. It seems to me that eventually almost all types of reactions/rules or day to day functions will be able to be used virtually as well as in person to person conversations.
1. Sangji says:
  
  March 3, 2013 at 11:28 pm
  
  I think this is a really interesting point. Most people think of the online world as a completely different realm from the “real world” simply because the computer adds a sense of facelessness to online interactions. However, now that I think about it, I also think that the 7 rules apply I’m real life too.
2. Catherine says:
  
  March 4, 2013 at 12:59 pm
  
  I agree with Jordan. The online world is not all that different from the “real world.” After all, you’re still talking to real people on the other end. This is actually what I’m thinking of doing my tap essay on. A lot of people think the online world isn’t real, but the Internet is just another way we communicate with people we can’t physically be with at the moment, just like we do with texting, phone calls, letters, etc.
Beth says:

March 3, 2013 at 11:06 pm

“Journalists, activists, and entrepreneurs are exploring “crowdfunding” (p 168)

I’ve participated in crowdfunding. The Kickstarter process is allowing a long-awaited sequel to a favorite adventure game to be made, without the restrictions of a publisher. I chipped in a few dollars to help create the next game in a series that I love. Crowdfunding is certainly interesting – one feels a sense of ownership, no matter how small.

“I will help create this. I will help make this happen.”
Ron schuetz says:

March 3, 2013 at 11:19 pm

Do those four things-know the territory, assume goodwill, jump in wherever you can add value, and reciprocate-and you will succeed as a virtual community member. (Pg164, 45%kindle.)

I agree with all of these points. This will make for a successful virtual community member; however, the second point seems, to me at least to be the most difficult to achieve. “Assuming good will” can be difficult especially in a virtual environment where comments can be taken out of context and are presented without a vocal tone to suggest the nature of the comment(sarcastic,serious, etc.)
If this one piece is lacking in a community member, the whole scheme falls flat, where his/her comments become tainted by potential, miscommunication. Many a blog has been derailed by an inexperienced community member causing a tangential argument. Basically what I’m saying is, we must focus on this piece in particular. Without it, our online presence and reputation can be permanently affected.
Jonathan says:

March 3, 2013 at 11:28 pm

“Don’t tell me that my life online isn’t real. If you agree with sociologist Barry Wellman’s definition that ‘communities are networks of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, a sense of belonging and social identity,’ I still stand by the term virtual community as it (sometimes) applies to computer-mediated relationships” (page 163).

I think that this is an increasingly important idea to come to terms with as we progress further into digital mediums in the years to come. Some may find it foolish to invest time and effort into online communities / friendships, but the fact of the matter is that a means by which one may come into contact with communities of similar interests, establish a “sense of belonging and social identity,” as well as foster meaningful relationships with others should (ideally) be considered as much a reality as anything else. There will always be a world of difference between knowing someone in person and knowing someone online, but this is simply a difference in medium. The connection / communication is no less real in the truest sense of the word just because you cannot reach and touch the person on the receiving end.
Curtis Stanford says:

March 3, 2013 at 11:50 pm

“By talking to bartenders in hotels where the cast might have stayed, piecing together small pieces of information contributed by members of the online spoilers community, and arguing vociferously online about what the evidence means, spoiler communities have rivaled intelligence services in their ability to collectively sleuth out the answers.”

Rheingold, Howard; Weeks, Anthony (2012-02-24). Net Smart (p. 159). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

I wonder at what point will feats such as this earn somebody a more traditional (paid) job, or if it already has, to what extent does it take place. I’ve heard of computer hackers earning themselves jobs by bypassing a company’s security software and as such impressing the boss. But I want to know when will a particularly popular user of facebook or twitter be offered a broadcasting job because of their supposed sociability.

While there’s still a protective veil, that fabric is starting to thin, and people’s online selves are starting to reflect their ‘real’ selves increasingly more. Instead of using social networking sites in a sleuth like way in order to find holes in a prospective employee’s credibility, shouldn’t employers start using the internet as the resource it is for recruitment purposes?

In fact, now that we all have a google account and are being spied on and recorded 24/7, I think an effective resource could be one that compiles our online presence into a resourced bio. Instead of creating entertaining pages about ourselves, a program could create one for us based on truthful and empirical data that would highlight online accomplishments, participation, skill sets, topics of interest, even popularity. Maybe it could even rate our relevance based on the searcher’s desires. Too protect privacy and spare the graceful side of accountability, maybe the program would only track and edit our bio while we are logged into whatever service this idea is based on. It would be a modern resume and in some cases outdate the need for references.

Spooky?
David says:

March 4, 2013 at 2:08 am

Seeing humans as supercooperators who constantly seek to invent ways to increase their abilities to cooperate makes visible an entirely different landscape of possibility than can be revealed through the story that focuses solely on humans as ruthlessly successful competitors. Social media are part of a lineage that connects cave paintings to alphabets to hyperlinks. Virtual communities, like contracts and constitutions, are technologies of cooperation.

Rheingold, Howard; Weeks, Anthony (2012-02-24). Net Smart (p. 151). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

I think this is really interesting and is something that I have never really thought about, in terms of social interaction, online. People cooperate in different ways online and I dont think there is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way of cooperating; however, there are certain things that people dontdo online and there are definite boundaries that are present depending on the types of online communities an individual is involved in. For me, I find it important to keep balance and to maintain my level of cooperation across all online communities. But, why do I do that?

Comments are closed.