= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Morendil comments on Intelligence Amplification Open Thread - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (339)
Most if not all of the comments so far are focused on individual intelligence augmentation.
I suspect there is big, juicy, low-hanging fruit in collective intelligence augmentation. We're pretty smart by ourselves but really dumb when we get together in groups, small and big.
For an interesting (if controversial) example of IA for groups, see Software For Your Head.
Hold off on proposing solutions..
I'm planning to start an organisation that experiments with a different feedback system for organisations.
It is about trying to improve organisational sanity more than intelligence though.
Improving organizational sanity? But... organizations are not found to be conscious, are they?
Morendil, Thank you for reminding me of this book! A technique I remember being described there is very attractive to me. My memory will mangle the details, but basically it is a convention by which either party in a discussion (say, party A in a discussion with party B) can call a point of order to ask the other party (in this case, B) to state A's position to A's satisfaction.
I have tried this some with mixed results, which I suspect could have been better with more preparatory groundwork. I'd love to hear of others' experiences.
"What do you think I believe?" "Why do you think I believe what I believe?"
I haven't tried these out yet.
Yes Nisan, that is the gist as I recall it. One can see how such a tool might help with a whole host of dysfunctional discussion/meeting behaviors.
A skeptic might regard this as gimmicky, and point out that the discipline required to use the tool properly would, if present, have prevented the dysfunctions in the first place. To which I reply: Well, maybe. But it's cheap to try. You might even enjoy it.
That sounds like either a Protocol Check or the more useful Intention Check.
What I like about the Protocols is that most of them can be practiced unilaterally and without even sounding weird. "Okay, what is our intention here" can be a powerful question when a discussion is getting bogged down.