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?”
source : MIT Sloan Review
An article in EContent Magazine describes of a “proverbial fire hose” that endlessly supplies “junk” data that must be sifted through to discover right, targeted information and relevant intelligence. A report from Basex Research Group is cited, indicating “information overload” is responsible for draining 28% of worker’s time, resulting in an annual productivity loss of “nearly $997 billion”.
We need the capacity to digest and retrieve all this information and we cannot do it alone. It would be useful if the intelligence infrastructure were designed as a game that included “enterprise-ready content curation tools” and machine algorithms that would ensure players effectively “share, collaborate and act upon” gathered intelligence in real-time.
Annotations via eContentMag
Even if you feel like you’re on top of all your content, chances are that you’ve missed some vital information nuggets. Drinking in all the data from the proverbial fire hose is simply no longer an effective way to consume content.
A recent report from Basex Research Group quantifies this wasted time by estimating that workers lose 28% of their time to information overload. That amounts to nearly $997 billion in annual lost productivity for companies.
CIOs and CTOs are increasingly investigating new process and technology solutions that can mitigate the rising cost and productivity losses associated with data deluge.
It’s not just about the volume of information. It’s about finding the right, targeted information in a sea of “junk” data.
Businesses have just started to realize the importance and benefits of aggregating relevant intelligence.
The next step will be to then offer collaboration capabilities on top of content, which enable users to effectively share, collaborate and act upon the discovered intelligence in real-time.
Content curation, through both machine algorithms and human intervention, will become a major integrated part of the enterprise productivity and intelligence infrastructure.
Research suggests we’re less likely to memorize much from the “influx of information,” simply because it’s so readily available online.
“Thinking with computers is a natural extension of that. In the same way you depend on a friend, now you depend on Google,” Daniel Wegner at Harvard, told TechNewsWorld.
Instead, the brain will more often remember where the information can be retrieved, rather than what the information actually is.
“We’re a lot smarter now, and that’s why we use it. We’ve become somewhat addicted because it really extends mental capacities. It’s kind of like a mental prosthetic device that’s better than what you’ve had before,” Wegner said.
According to Paul Reber, professor and director of brain, behavior and cognition at Northwestern University, our brain is wisely strategizing.
“There’s no evidence we are forgetting things more rapidly now than before the Internet. It seems likely that with a much larger amount of information generally around, we are probably trying to remember more. In addition to studying what we forget, it would be important to look at how much we remember,” Reber said.