dumbness of crowds

the dumbness of crowds is a really interesting piece by kathy sierra at creating passionate users, a blog i came across via roger.

she makes some great points about the tendency to misquote what wisdom of the crowds is all about. lots of people working on an idea or product won't lead to something better. in terms of creative ideas i have observed this in many contexts. ideas tend to spark when you get 2/3/4 people together. as soon as you get 8/9/10 or more there is less edge. it's a good point for alternative worship groups who often plan in quite big groups. we have changed the way we plan grace to being smaller teams and i think it works better. the danger with this article though is that it will equally be misread as saying individuals are better than groups - not so either. it's all about context. a challenge for groups is increasing creativity and particpation. this doesn't necessarily mean everyone doing the same thing, but equally it doesn't mean a few individuals doing everything and the rest of the group doing very little.

Comments

[Nic]

Jonny, that’s a really good conversation– I’m a big advocate of sum-total theory, that creatively, others will get the best out of you. Often way beyond anything you could achieve on your own. However, having said that, the art is all about the right numbers, the right context and right chemistry. My own anecdotal experience is around the notion of 2 and 3’s– these are good numbers. Mark from 8vo (design heroes) always maintained that they had their ‘purple patch’ whilst operating as a duo.

Regards alt worship, this notion of how to create effectively in groups always perplexed me! With Vaux, (as Tim (lowinfo) always said) there was no shared language or aesthetic. That’s why it was so dysfunctional at times. Good stuff would often emerge through accident rather than intention– not necessarily always a good thing.

[nakedpastor]

i think you are right about a smaller group taking greater creative risks. but it has been my conclusion that the only real dynamic that causes this is the fact that it is relationally less complicated with a smaller group. if the larger group is skilled relationally, then creativity can be even greater than a smaller group. the problem is usually time: will the larger group take the time to learn how to relate authentically or do we prefer to get to the finished product quicker and therefore prefer a smaller group?

[treforW]

had an interesting conversation with buisiness friend today. i was bemoaning the fact that nothing was happening on a work project to which he asked how many peopl were involved in the decision making process. he knew the answer, but his point was its difficult to get things done in large teams, unles you have a good decision maker. So leadership of groups comes into the picture as well.

[Existential Punk]

Do you mix up who is involved in the smaller planning groups so it's not always the same people? Shake it up and allow new blood in the mix?

[jonny]

we definitely try to do that...

[Kester]

Really good post.

Nic - I think it wasn't simply that there was no shared aesthetic, but that we needed to be more open to sharing the aesthetic. Unless we're prepared to engage and transact with people then they are never going to get the best out of us, and we are certainly never going to get the best out of them.

The question then is the extent to which we are prepared to negotiate the bounds of the project we are engaged in / planning for. Within a very small group of like-minded people this is less likely to be a problem... But with a larger group the problems above arise. Somehow we need a balance between fresh blood - and hence the opportunity to stretch and be stretched - and creative focus.

On the leadership thing, I wrote a series of posts on leadership and self-organization which may be helpful. Url:

http://kester.typepad.com/signs/2005/10/leadership_and_.html

PS - Jonny, I can never get links to post properly in comments like I can on some other blogs - have you disabled it?

[nic]

I agree. It’s not just about aesthetic– don’t think Timy meant that either, maybe sensibility is a better word.

My take on our corporate making experience has changed some, since we were doing it. However, I still hold to the basic premise that we were all over the shop. We were a ragbag in the best sense– just look at our backgrounds. Now that’s diversity! Yet I’m not sure if made for great art. How can you align yours, mime, Saga’s, Jenny’s, Jon’s or Tim’s creative sensibilities– let alone Sooz, Bex, Ben, Helen and every other social engineer (creative!) on our block.

I mean, the whole thing about time and relationships is a really good point, if we had all of eternity, maybe we could have connected– but there again, maybe a monkey could have written King Lear. Equally, I’m aware that this is not necessarily what vaux was about, which comes back to your point about intention. That was never made clear and maybe that was the biggest mistake. What the fuck were we?

[jonny]

whatever you were you still made some fabulous worship/art - maybe it's best to have some 'wise blindness' about how that came about rather than get too analytical. in spite of ideals i'm sure the tensions in the group helped contribute to the art. you were a gifted group and made gifts available to god and the wider community, gifts that were transformative. i hope you guys are finding other contexts in which to keep gifts in motion. (yes of course i have been reading the gift however many years after you first talked aboout it!)