2004  Februrary

*For Collective Intelligence

Preface

Now there is much knowledge in human intelligence. With the progress of natural sciences and extending of human society, the amount of academic intelligence grows so much that a number of people are engaged in their fields. However, their products are separated each other and do not have common basis on which they can communicate mutually. Until 19 century, philosophy played the role to integrate human intelligence. But now each academic field seeks for their own objects in their own way.

It should be called the BABILONIA Situation of academic studies. In the sphere of social and human sciences, each study stays in its own fictional world and uses the terms that others cannot understand. Also, in the sphere of natural sciences, people pursue their truth without considering the meaning of what they do. The problems of life studies show the danger of blind progress of natural sciences. I will deal with here how to communicate and integrate modern academic studies.
 

1. Bildung as common Academic Basis

I think following three words are key ideas for collective intelligence: Bildung, dialogue and tolerance. Bildung means cultural knowledge in German, but I cannot find fitted word in English. It should be regarded as the accumulation of knowledge to insight something creative from the integrated point of view. Compared with modern studies with those of 19 century, academic people lost the sense of Bildung, because they work only in limited sphere, in which the academic frame and terms are already decided and kept them from other academic studies. So researchers do not need to give explanation to outer people through dialogue, and it is the reason that they are stubborn and intolerant to others. For example, there are many criticisms of modern economics due to the recession of entire world, but it is rare to find effective dialogue between economists and critics, although most of the latter have some experiences of studies out of economics.

One of the reasons why they cannot have meaningful communication is they do not share common academic basis, which should be called Bildung. Until the first ages of 20 century, academic people commonly had studied classic works such as Bible and philosophic books. However, after the studies concerning humanity and our society were established as ‘science’, the obligation of academic people is limited within textbook and thesis in their specialized fields, even if some of them go out from study rooms for fieldwork. All people think they should work positively free from traditional prejudice, but they fall into the dogma of positivism.

Modern period is the time of positivism. It demands us to limit our objects and analyze them as an aggregation. This spirit of positivism brought enormous result in the sphere of natural sciences, but rather bore confusion in the field of social and human studies. In natural sciences, it is possible to obtain some result in a laboratory where we can limit some incidents. But when we consider our actual society, we need to consider various incidents at once. We can analyze and reconstruct objects according to the rules of formal logic in the former, but not so in the latter. Individual concepts and elements are not transformed by others in the inference depending on formal logic, but they interfere with each other in actual researches for human society. Modern researchers tend to limit their objects according to their academic sphere, but the more so they do, the more they cannot but fall into impotent.

To create effective idea that can contribute to human life, it is necessary to find something essential point, on which we can construct the systematic theory that is different from traditional paradigm. Within already decided frame, it is impossible to find other standpoint to find different ideas depended on new concept. This fact will be shown in the metaphor of ambiguous figures. For example, we can see following figure as goblet or facing two faces. In modern sciences, people tend to deicide one of both as truth and another is false. However, if both are regarded two aspects of one object, they are compatible each other. Also if we can integrate both aspects, we will be able to construct a new extended systematic view about object. This is an important reason why collective intelligence is necessary beyond academic fields.

Nevertheless, the tendency of positivisms does not allow the academic integration. It is because not only it is negative to traditional Bildung due to its immatureness, but also it ignores the paradigm itself that is constructed on some essential concepts. Once decided something rules in the field of academic studies, it tends to reject new concept to revolute the frame on which their studies are going on. Most of researchers are not aware of their paradigm that is tacit assumption of their studies, and lose the ability to reflect it from outer point of view.

* Therefore, although positivism insists that we should recognize objective world removing human prejudice, it is impossible. What is necessary for us is to be fully conscious that we depend on some concept, when we see something. Prejudices are the concept without critical awareness.

To learn the Bildung is not to acquire the result, but the process of studies reflecting our own paradigm. Through it we can learn how to build human concept for academic activities. Human studies grow with the development of concepts, and Bildung had provided them to us as common basis that promotes academic progresses collectively. When I read some books of sociology written from the latter half of 19 century to the first years of 20 century, I find I am sharing Bildung with those authors. I studied Deutsch Idealism in university, which is also fundamental Bildung for academic people in those days.
 

2. Dialogue composed of three dimensions

The second element for collective intelligence is dialogue. The Bildung provides us the common basis for human intelligent communication. But it is not enough for dialogue. I do not use this idea, dialogue, only among human beings, but also between human and other beings. So if you read some books or observe something from the active point of view, it is dialogue between you and books or something. Dialogue develops on the basis of Bildung, but Bildung grows with the progress of dialogue. The key point between Bildung and dialogue is interest (Sorge), with which human academic studies are going on.

There are two kinds of dialogue: one is dialogue with old inheritances such as books, and another is dialogue with others. Both are essential elements to construct human studies and connect each other inseparable as two dimensions. The knowledge of books provides common basis for communication, but it will be useless, if you do not have spontaneous interest in the filed of studies. It also enables the dialogue in the latter sense.

Constructing the coordinates composed by these two dimensions, the origin at which both lines, X and Y, cross is Sorge. This point extends by reading and discussing. And it is necessary to add more one line, individual experiences including his/her fieldwork.

Individual human academic activities should be developed in this field composed by above three dimensions, in which we can obtain outer suggestions and diverse our own ideas. However, it is rare to find enough intercourse of dialogue extending all directions. Someone reads books so much, but lack the actual experiences. And there are people who have much knowledge, but do not have enough Bildung or interest to discuss with others. This is the reason why we need Collective Intelligence with dialogue among various kinds of people.
 

3. Tolerance beyond limited Academic Sphere

It is difficult to overcome the wall of academic fields. The modern positivisms demands us too concrete individual data for researches, but it becomes a reason why many academic specialist do not have the sense of universal structures which is common in all beings. Without the recognition of general regularities, it is impossible to integrate human academic studies. Modern sciences tells us how relate individual elements, but it is effective only when we make clear mechanisms composed of stable parts and not useful to analyze something complex such as societies, where the elements that construct the whole appear, disappear and exchange frequently.

On the other hand, researchers who work in too subdivided fields tend to have prejudice or ignorance to their outer sphere. When I heard a lecture by a sociologist, he criticized economists attitude that adhere to the importance of economic growth and index. However, economists have been ignored this kind of critic. Economics was called an excellent social science that had introduced the method of natural sciences. It makes use of mathematics frequently, and was regarded as ‘a strict science’. Nevertheless, now many people think it as complex but impotent study, although many economists continue their own researches. If there is enough communication between them and outer people, economics would not lose its trust to other people.

You will abele to find here how the sense of tolerance is important for collective intelligence. Researchers who study in limited field tend to deny critics against them saying others people do not know special knowledge shared among them. However, is it unnatural that they share special ideas that some researches who are engaged in other field cannot understand.

I demand the people who close their knowledge in their own fields the accountability. As long as human Vernunft (reason) have common basis, it should be possible to express their own ideas to others according to general logic. If not so, they speak something meaningless words among their fellows. In the case of natural sciences, mathematics is common language to communicate and verify mutually. However, in sociological and human studies it is difficult to stable the basis, on which they can share their academic results. But, it will be able to find to some common fundamental ideas to construct their theories and logic, according to which they can build their thesis. If it is not possible to make clear the basic ideas in their own academic field to others, they depend on fantastic assumptions that are only convenient for the people who take part in intellectual but meaningless games.

Effective academic theories have some relation to our actual life. However difficult or complex their academic ideas are, there should be some concrete stand points in our own world. In the case of natural sciences, its result can be verified by expatriation or technical applications. Few people know why the computer that you use now, but the people who use it can understand the reality of technical influence of natural science. Even if it is difficult to find such clear criteria in social and human studies, the result of academic studies will appear soon or later in our actual world.

It is necessary that various people consider their objects and discuss each other depending on common basis composed by fundamental ideas. This is the reason why we should share general Bildung and the etiquette of accountability. If a researcher rejects the expression for outer people and denies other’s critique with the reason that he/she does not know technical terms that is peculiar in the study, this researcher should be expelled from the field of collective intelligence. Unfortunately, I can find some researchers in the field of economics, although the effectiveness of this study becomes doubtful.

The way of natural sciences, which observe object from outer and above stands point of view, might produce such arrogance in some social and human sciences, because it recommends us to operate objects without human emotion. To remove the idea of value is a principle of positivisms. But is it possible in these studies? Both societies and human beings behave according to some sense of values. If we do not have some sympathy to value, it will be impossible to observe human worlds. What is important is not to remove the sense of value, but to be aware of it correctly.

The attitude to keep distance too much from our objects sometimes causes friction with them and ourselves, because it is impossible to be completely objective to them. If we dare to be too objective keeping from them, we will have to ignore interrelationship between them and us. The problem of the uncertainly principle in physics always accompanies with social and human studies. Especially in the case of sociology that deals with human problems, this attitude seems arrogance for people who are objects of researches.

I sometimes hear from the people who are engaged in local activities actually that academic researchers only steal useful ideas that are the result of their long standing efforts. Researchers do not commit actual works, and introduce other people only the result as an objective observer. However, is it possible for researchers to find new way for real activities without committing actual behavior? They can collect and comment on cases, but will not be able to recognize true sense of what each people do in each area.

Academic researchers who study social or human problems should not be only an observer, but a mediator among the people who are engaged in activities. They should introduce not only ideas, but also persons. Any way, it is necessary to be tolerant to others in order to be a good mediator. This is the reason why I adopt the idea of ‘tolerance’ as a key term. The people who wish collective intelligence should have open mind not only among researchers, but also to outer people. It means we should learn general knowledge and wisdom of usual people. Researches who study only in limited place and human relationship tend to lose the actual sense to reality. Sometimes shown in theoretical models of econometrics, academic theories often become too ideal far form real world. We need dialogues in large sense, and should discuss with not only academic researchers, but also usual people who have their own precious experiences.
 

Conclusion

If we want a collective intelligence to solve actual social or human problems, we need to be open to others. How we can communicate effectively with outer others is the key point to achieve our ideal. Bildung is the basis to communicate with academic people in other sphere and foundation on which his/her original ideas. And dialogue is actual behavior to communicate others, and tolerance is the ability to extend our field for communication.