Noubel describes a holoptical space that is attained through an “artificially reconstituted reality involving modeled representations of the Whole.” Participants who engage this Whole are said to be experiencing “Holopticism” which allows them to adjust actions and coordinate. Each user is provided “artificially synthesized information” which lends a “point of view” and fits their situation. He suggests there is a feedback loop that “works like a mirror between the individual level and the collective one.”
Noubel further clarifies the state of Holopticism:
“Holopticism is a natural quality of original collective intelligence (OCI). OCI is possible only in holoptical environments, in other words in physical spaces in which our natural senses can access the totality of what happens.”
He envisions that Holoptical communities will evolve toward “self-reflexion, self-actualization, higher consciousness and a high capacity to cohere in the being and the doing.” He mentions their potential to become a global wisdom driven organizations.
Eric Bonabeau of Sloan Review writes that the human brain evolved to “avoid complexity (not embrace it) and to respond quickly to ensure survival (not explore numerous options).” Today’s world is said to require “short response times and more accurate responses and more exploration of potential opportunities.”
Information technologies are thought to provide “a more accurate and intimate understanding of our environment”. With the paradigm shift towards Web 2.0 and tapping into “the collective” comes a new era that Bonabeau labels “Decisions 2.0.”
Bonabeau points out a weakness called “pattern obsession“, when we see patterns where none exist which then influences how we frame our decisions. He calls it a “common trap” that leads us astray due to our basic human nature. Collective intelligence, he adds, “can help mitigate the effects of those biases” by providing a diversity of viewpoints and input, thus deterring “self-serving bias and belief perseverance.”
Bonabeau considers the challenge of designing the right mechanisms for collective decision making and if giving all users equal voice, is better or worse than giving certain individuals a greater say than the collective? If it’s the latter, he ponders, “how should those special individuals be selected?”