Connections: The Impact of Schooling
December 2003 – Jay Cross
Cross writes, “Most learning is informal; a network approach makes it easier, more productive and more memorable to meet, share and collaborate. Emotional intelligence promotes interoperability with others. Expert locators connect you to the person with the right answer. Imagine focusing the hive mind that emerges in massive multiplayer games on business. Smart systems will prescribe the apt way to demonstrate a procedure, help make a decision or provide a service, or transform an individual’s self-image. Networks will serve us instead of the other way around.”
This last sentence is critical. The individual taps into the network in the way she prefers. Yes, she is a part of the network, but she is not compromised by the thinking of others in the network. Not only does she not have to agree with others in the network, she does not have to “agree to disagree” with others in the network.
Let’s compare this to “brainstorming” sessions. We’ve all been party to “group think” sessions where one or two people have dominated or controlled the actions and outcomes of the group. Often resulting is sub-par results. (Remember those survival exercises where one member of the group scores better than the group collectively. Where two heads are worse than one?) It can be due to the person’s personality, debating skills, authority relative to others in the session or knowledge of the subject. It may be, but does not have to be intentional.
These “group think” sessions, usually corporate sponsored, have a limitation that the learning network does not have. They have to come to a single conclusionn. In the learning network, each member has the opportunity to take the network information and come to her own conclusions.
So just maybe two heads are better than one, and four heads are better than two and eight heads are better than four and so on and so on…
I’d like to see that happen here.