Are you in an learning community with Crowd, Light, and Desire. ? Dance on.
7 minute crash course on environment,values and budget explained by SELP.

Does your Group have the DNA of a dancer or campaign team? MIT management professor Tom Malone on collective intelligence and the “genetic” structure of groups » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism

This MIT study of group DNA is interesting and related to the advocacy mix in a network of people working on a campaign. 

Unpacking the right group DNA for specialized tasks is going to be most useful. I wonder if seqence of how the DNA comes together also makes a difference.  

This group DNA assessment gives rise to an entire classification  and intervention system.  I have been thinking about that in a network/organizational context since grad school (Dave Rosgen's Watershed Assessment) /  the beauty of it is that such systems and assessment tools open up conversations about similar networks. How can 2 people talk about 2 networks and know that they are both looking at a system that is going to behave similarly.

This biggest issue I have with the group DNA isea is that groups change constantly (unlike Dna).
 
MIT management professor Tom Malone on collective intelligence and the “genetic” structure of groups » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism.  Groups form for all kinds of reasons, but we generally pay little attention to the discrete factors that lead them to form and flourish. Just as understanding humans’ genetic code can lead us to a molecular understanding of ourselves as individuals, mapping the genome of groups may help us understand ourselves as we behave within a broader collective. And that knowledge, just as with the human genome, might help us gain an ability to manipulate group structures. When it comes to individuals, intelligence is measurable — and, thus, it has a predictive element: A smart kid will most likely become a smart adult, with all the attendant implications. Individual intelligence is fairly constant, and, in that, almost impossible to change. Group intelligence, though, Malone’s findings suggest, can be manipulated — and so, if you understand what makes groups smart, you can adjust their factors to make them even smarter. The age-old question in sociology is whether groups are somehow different, and greater, than the sum of their parts. And the answer, based on Malone’s and other findings, seems to be “yes.” The trick now is figuring out why that’s so, and how the mechanics of the collective may be put to productive use. Measuring group intelligence, in other words, is the first step in increasing group intelligence.

I really like this group level thinking.  I look forward to more research in this space. Sandy Pentland 's work is also fantastic.

Comments