Social middleware: another installment – another app

In an earlier post I argued the case for the ‘middleware of democracy’ arguing for the inculcation of the (largely social) skills that help constitute collective intelligence. Skills like having some small inkling of how ignorant we all are, listening to those with different opinions as if they might have something to say, being good at retaining the respect of those who don’t agree with you while you try to persuade them of your point of view.

We occasionally pay homage to the importance of these skills, but we haven’t in my experience thought hard or taken any strong action in the direction of seeking to build them except by rhetorical emphasis – and words are cheap. That’s why I thought Tim Van Gelder’s YourView was a great initiative. It runs debates online but all the while in the background it’s ranking the ‘epistemic virtues’ of the participants in the conversation. He might have chosen a more compelling term than ‘epistemic virtue’ but then Tim’s a philosopher.

In any event I thought YourView constituted the middleware of democracy in an age in which virtually everyone hates what our democracy has become. In the same spirit here’s an educational initiative and educational software that monitors, and so offers a way to teach collaboration. I must admit my heart sank when I read this:

By working with real teachers and real students the ATC21S™ team have developed an assessment tool to provide real data to teachers and parents about students’ collaborative problem solving skills.

Real teachers, real students – real data. A bit tough on those of us who like to pretend. Anyway this is a small tick in what looks like a great initiative.

As the website explains after its threefold insistence on its own reality (Rene Descartes eat your heart out):

The assessment tool involves pairs of students working online to solve a problem.  Each partner has different information on their screen and they need to communicate and share information in order to solve a problem.  They communicate via a chat box and they may need to adjust their language and communication style so that they can work effectively as a pair.  An example of one of the problems students have to solve is growing a plant: one student controls the temperature and the other controls the light conditions for the plant and they need to work together to make the plant grow.

I love this for the way it gives concreteness to the ‘publicness’ of education, to the fact that, in addition to inculcating specific individual skills in individuals, a great many of those skills will be used in collaboration. One could make a philosophical/sociological argument that virtually all functioning intelligence is social intelligence. Put in more folksy terms, one often doesn’t know what one thinks till one hears oneself say it – and one comes to individual insights socially, dialogically – by talking them through – with others and inside one’s own head. That’s why writing stuff down helps. You talk to yourself, put it on the page/screen and then, if this didn’t happen when you first wrote it down, when you reread it, you step into the mind of someone else. Often this leads you to realise that the words and the ideas need clarification, or won’t stand up at all.

But, particularly since our policy thinking seems to have pretty much collapsed into the economic, it is certainly the case that most people’s economic productiveness, and their usefulness to employers relates to their ability to collaborate with others who represent different disciplines, areas of expertise and parts of the organisation to contribute to the employer’s collective intelligence. So, in an economic sense, our education system is there to deliver ‘inputs’ to the productive process – people who have strong cognitive skills representing the best systematic knowledge that can be got from textbooks, refereed articles and books and <irony> (even) some unrefereed sources </irony> as well as the social skills to combine their own and others’ skills effectively into collective intel. But here’s the thing, these social skills are all co-dependent. Someone with high order social skills will be much more effective with others with the same skills.

 

This entry was posted in Cultural Critique, Economics and public policy, Education, Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Social middleware: another installment – another app

  1. Chris Lloyd says:

    “One could make a philosophical/sociological argument that virtually all functioning intelligence is social intelligence.” Would Newton be the exception that proved the rule?

    • Nicholas Gruen says:

      I don’t know, though I have seen a history and philosophy of science article arguing for the ’embeddedness’ of Newton’s achievement. But it was a pretty low grade article – one of those articles written by an academic who has seen the light and signed up to some school or meme and the meme was that all science is embedded, the lone genius is a fiction etc. It was sufficiently, dimwittedly derivative of this higher level cause – or if it wasn’t it had enough tell-tale signs that it might be, that I wasn’t persuaded by what I saw of its argument and stopped reading after a couple of pages.

      I can say however that, if he were alive today, Newton would probably win more than his fair share of Troppo competitions – and indeed might have been the first person to take a ride in the new Troppo chopper Bronwyn.

  2. Chris Lloyd says:

    Business schools are all over emotional intelligence and learning the skills of persuasion. Future managers know that they must be empathetic and culturally sensitive and well, just damned nice.

    Which is OK. But none of our MBA students seem to be taught the other side of the coin. Which is… if you are negotiating with someone who acts like an arsehole well just learn to suck it up and listen to his (he will probably be a male) argument anyway. You are getting paid shitloads by your organisation to find a win-win.

    It seems to me that, as with all well intentioned schemes, there are perverse effects in emphasizing the social skills. In this case, it legitimises and almost encourages people having a thin skin. You have to learn to work with arseholes! I think I will propose some new electives at MBS to follow the core on Managing People. The first could be Managing Dickheads. The most advanced would be Managing Academics….

    • Nicholas Gruen says:

      Like you say, that’s just one side of the EQ coin.

      The other being tough-mindedness, the ability to push people, be ruthless if necessary, the right degree of assertiveness, simple courage – particularly social courage.

      All much harder than the luvvie duvvie skills. The equating of the skills of collaboration with the luvvie duvvie is pretty soft headed.

      All that having been said, I think it is the case that organisations hugely overemphasise compliance and sanctions for inadequacies of performance compared with genuinely empathetic encouragement. By that I don’t mean people’s boss necessarily taking great interest in their charges’ lives or even their work lives although that’s helpful. I mean paying attention to the way in which work is experienced, understanding that the main thing that keeps organisations together and certainly that has organisations performing well is the intrinsic motivation of employees. This is something that the Toyota production system is built on and it was, in its time, transformative.

  3. Nicholas Gruen says:

    This from BCG may be of some use. (then again, maybe not – just linking it here for future reference – haven’t read it yet.)

  4. Pingback: Five ways to tell if you’re REALLY doing strategy | Club Troppo

  5. Pingback: If I had a hammer: or Is change we can’t theorise, change we can believe in? Part Two | Club Troppo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.