Collective consumer behavior reveals political beliefs/divisions in America … Article Proxy Networks

How intelligence can be collective if words are polysemantic and everyone understands differently?

Nikolay Kryachkov This is the direction of discussion - "It is a form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real-time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills. I'll add the following indispensable characteristic to this definition: The basis and goal of collective intelligence is mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than the cult of fetishized or hypostatized communities" (Pierre Levy)

How big is the margin of error in applying such a definition?

This question seems to me a valid one. (Though there's an unstated premiss here which is worth pointing out: that there is such a thing as 'collective intelligence' in the first place. There's a long Gnostic tradition, after all, that's based on the opposite premiss. Not to mention the several millennium-long Christian tradition. But, for argument's sake, let's treat these two 'factors' politics and collective intelligence at face value, from a secular point of view, without any further 'meta-analysis'.)

In a personal assessment of just what the 'answers' have been, from within the Western 'canon' over the last several centuries to this question, I'd say they fall into two main categories, depending on whether you approach it from the 'Continental' or the 'analytic' perspective.

1. 'Collective intelligence' from the Kant/Hegel/Marx/Nietzsche/Freud direction is 'built upwards', from the process of an individual 'coming to consciousness', becoming 'autonomous', independent, a productive and creative citizen, in the course of an education process, in the course of 'Bildung'. The French Revolution (and then the American War of Independence) was fought on the basis of Spinoza's conception of the freedom of the individual, which in its turn is bound by relationships of reciprocity with other individuals, within a larger 'whole', that of a modern Constitution. (The basis for the old French distinction between 'bourgeois' and 'citoyen'.) Right through to Hegel, this individual conception of freedom presupposes an intact family, as the basis for everything else. (One can see remnants of this in the first of the European Republics and independent nation states, namely The Netherlands.) If the family structure breaks down, however, as is happening in so many countries under capitalist conditions nowadays, well, then all bets are off. Demagogy rears its ugly head - and the there's very little, from the emotional/educational side of things to counter that.

2. 'Collective intelligence' from the Anglo-Saxon side of things takes its point of departure more from a Hobbesian perspective. This presupposes a 'homo homini lupus' attitude to populism and populist movements - and, based on this premiss, an insistence on obedience to authority. First of all - regarded historically - as obedience to the authority of the Monarch, then to the Head of State, and finally to the legitimacy of the democratic process itself. (What Habermas calls 'Verfassungspatriotismus' - 'patriotism towards the Constitution'.) It is this that failed so miserably and so fatefully in Germany in 1933 - and it is this that we'd better hope now wins out in the USA.

3. 'Collective intelligence' from the Hegel side of things presupposes a substantive and universalistic set of moral-ethical principles that are taught in the course of an education process - and that has to be protected from the 'market mechanism' if it is going to work at all. (To this day, there are scholars who question whether Hegel is comprehensible outside the Christian framework in the first place.)

4. 'Collective intelligence' within the Anglo tradition follows the above only in part: there is just as much a powerfully influential set of arguments coming from the direction of Darwin. ('We're all animals - physically we're descended from the higher primates', we're all a 'part of Nature'. Personally, the older I get, the less persuasive this Darwinian argumentation has become.)

It needs to be pointed out though that most people nowadays are still caught up in a religious mode of thinking - especially outside of Europe -, which is the same as saying: for such a person there are only dogmatic truths. And if you question those, well, you've suddenly 'outed' yourself, from their point of view, as their mortal enemy. And you haven't even noticed it. And then there's the very problematic legacy of Stalinism...

If "politics" is about beliefs, then "collective intelligence" will do and no proof is required. Who cares about the price of mistakes?

At least Saint Augustine thought that any meaning of Scripture does not contradict the truth. But reality is different from fantasies about reality.

Here is how Russian philosopher Gustav Speth described it in his "Герменевтика и ее проблемы" (The Hermeneutics and its problems) in 1918:

"Основная ложь библейской герменевтики в том и состоит, что она допускает как предпосылку двойственность смысла в выражении: человеческий и боговдохновенный. Затем уже под эту предпосылку подводится основание: утверждается принципиальная допустимость для знака иметь несколько значений. Пока речь идет о "втором" значении как боговдохновенном,- как бы наукообразно ни оправдывалось положение о многозначности знака,- это все остается вне науки. Но упорно последовательное проведение этого взгляда задевает и науку, когда это положение опирается еще на новый фундамент, требующий признания,- по крайней мере, в возможности за всяким знаком иметь несколько дословных значений или смыслов. Но такое признание - только последовательно со стороны того, кто признал первое разделение, как это и делает блаженный Августин, допускающий, что, сколько бы в Писании ни нашли смыслов, мы должны их признать, поскольку они "не противоречат истине" - и "все это имел в виду боговдохновенный писатель, через которого Бог применял священные письмена свои к различным степеням понимания многих, которые должны уразумевать в этих письменах одну и ту же истину в различных ее видах". На этом "имел в виду" (vidisse) и держится все учение о понимании и толковании чужих слов: идет речь об объективных отношениях, о которых сообщает автор, или идет речь об его субъективных представлениях об этих отношениях? Самое боговдохновенность можно при этом понимать разно: в первом случае она может указывать на особо тонкую способность "видения" объективного; во втором - на способность фантазировать по поводу объективного. Августин в противоречии со своим определением становится на второй путь объяснения роли и значения знаков, т. е. на путь психологический. Значение знаков и слов, по такой теории, суть представления сообщающего,- и понятно тогда, что такое многоразличность и как она возможна."

Konstantin Vekua - Is this what you want: an argument with the Russian Nomenclatura over the copy theory of truth?

It is probably better to argue with the nomenclator of false names. But without me. Thank you gentlemen for an interesting discussion.

Politics and collective intelligence share a close relationship that influences decision-making, policy formation, democratic governance, innovation, and public engagement. By tapping into the collective wisdom and expertise of diverse stakeholders, political systems can make more informed decisions, develop inclusive policies, promote democratic values, foster innovation, and enhance public trust and participation.

I apologize for the delayed response because, for the past month, Georgians and freedom in Georgia have been passing through a particularly difficult time. That's why I couldn't follow the development of the theme timely.

First of all, I thank each of you for your kind contribution.

Frederik van Gelder I think, that the idea of the Constitution as a form of collective intelligence's emanation could be interesting. Especially, since the Georgian Z generation is rightly and sincerely condemning the subversive constitutional activity of this pro-Russian government.

Imo, Konstantin Vekua , collective intelligence does not exist. Politics exists as an expression of the power principle, i.e. might is right. The direction of human evolution may point to a learning process, where reason prevails over the power principle. Conclusion: There is no connection between politics and collective intelligence. Better learned people try to avoid the power principle, because they know that might is not right. In this sense, your query points to the messianic era, when the power principle will be abolished by the light of reason.

_________

Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD Almighty.

Zechariah 4:6

Konstantin Vekua - Your question is of the kind that invites endless speculation - which here on RG usually ends badly. If one looks at your interests (to the extent that it is possible to get an impression by simply examining what you have published), one could gain the impression that what you're really interested in is to promote the BRI. (I.e. the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative). Obviously, the BRI is both politics and - at least from the Chinese perspective - 'intelligent'. It is at any rate both an unprecedented projection of economic power into the 'Global North', and an unprecedented challenge to the Western 'rules-based' international order since 1945. (I.e. it is an event at least as serious for global politics as the Cold War - the reason why so many political scientists are speaking of a 'Cold War 2.0'.) If that is what you want to discuss you should perhaps say so. That would at least encourage your readers to believe that you are serious in your motivation and are interested in a serious discussion.

Frederik van Gelder My point is that there is no collective intelligence involved in politics. Konstantin Vekua asked an important query on the dynamics of power politics; my view points to the power structure, which is about weapons and economic potential. Consequently, we can have the model of Führer politics (not only Putin, but also Trump and the like) or the model of the market society. In the market society we can remain customers and citizens; in the Führer model, we will become serfs.

The Führer model is an reactionary model of society that I do not support. We should think about a next generation economic system, without getting into the trap of ideology.

Dear Stephen I. Ternyik, It is always a pleasure to debate with you. These issues do indeed go deep into all kinds of areas, both empirical and theoretical. Not to forget - something I'm personally most aware of - that our areas of competence are always limited, and there's always someone out there who knows more about a particular area than we do.

I asked Konstantin Vekua to be more specific about just what it is that he has in mind - he has published about the BRI, and if *that* is what he wants to discuss, then he should make this clear. (I'm not sure if you're not placing words in his mouth: "... the power structure, which is about weapons and economic potential.")

Sure, markets versus ideology-driven economic policies. I personally wouldn't call the European model of Social Democracy - i.e. based on individual rights, equality before the law, democracy and loyalty to the constitution -, I wouldn't call this an 'ideology'. It also seems to me that the dichotomy you provide - the "Führer" model versus the "market" model - is not differentiated enough, at the theoretical level, to make it possible to discuss seriously any of the issues we're faced with today. (In Europe or North America, Ukraine and Israel/Palestine, or what I suspect Konstantin Vekua wants to talk about, namely containing the USA/China conflict. [He does refer to peace studies.])

So before we end up in one more interminable RG thread, let's just get some clarity about just what it is that we're talking about.

The symbiotic relationship between politics and collective intelligence forms the cornerstone of modern governance, shaping decision-making processes, electoral dynamics, and societal responses to crises. Collective intelligence enriches governance by integrating diverse perspectives through participatory mechanisms, fostering more inclusive and innovative policy outcomes. In electoral processes, data-driven strategies and grassroots mobilization leverage collective wisdom to shape public opinion and drive political engagement. During crises, collective intelligence enables swift response coordination and consensus-building, enhancing resilience and recovery efforts. Public policy monitoring benefits from citizen oversight, while cognitive diversity fosters inclusive decision-making and informed civic engagement. Overall, the connection between politics and collective intelligence signifies a paradigm shift towards more adaptive, transparent, and participatory governance frameworks, where the collective wisdom of diverse stakeholders informs policy formulation, electoral dynamics, and crisis management strategies, thereby enriching democratic processes and fostering societal resilience. Charles Bilali, Ph.D. Candidate,Diplomacy and International Relations Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Contact: +254 717 479 392, Email: [email protected].

RG meets AI

Even before the death of Stalin, who was Georgian Frederik van Gelder , there were several suppressed upheavals in Georgia. This is why I pointed to the unfortunate dominance of the power principle in politics and the dangerous role of ideologies, which appeal more to the collective unconscious undercurrents of human behavior than to rational and ethical reasoning like applying intelligence and wisdom. Of course , it is about Konstantin Vekua to set the direction of the proposed discourse.

Dear Stephen, there will be people aplenty in Georgia much better qualified than we are to reflect on the role of the Jughashvili family in world history. (Starting, no doubt, with Konstantin Vekua himself.) But he wraps himself in silence when it comes to explaining further the question he poses. Is he a political scientist interested in today's debates at the highest level of abstraction, i.e. where 'theory' meets global politics? (In the West, prominent authors publishing at this level are, nowadays, John Mearsheimer in the US, Jonathan Israel in the UK, Kevin Rudd in Australia, Dan Diner and Herfried Münkler in Germany.) Or does he have a different agenda, e.g. this question is really intended as an introduction to a debate about the BRI? That would be a lot less abstract. Until he expresses what he's interested in, there's no debate.

Irrespective of the above, allow me to say that between us, it seems to me, there's the little matter of the difference between transcendence and immanence. Should we ever get around to being serious about this issue of ideology versus rationality, that is where we would have to start. One obvious point to make about this question on the relationship between 'politics and collective intelligence' is the unstated premiss that an ahistorical answer is possible at all. This premiss is not obvious - I would defend the antithesis: an understanding of politics without a study of history is impossible. (Oh, and by the way, when my tradition speaks of 'history', included in that is the notion that our modern 'immanent'[-secular] understanding thereof is itself the product of an older conception, the Aristotelian-Scholastic, that is 'transcendental' in its fundamental logic.)