Stephen Downes argues that the following statement is invalid:
“The flock of geese decided to land”
What in fact happened is that each individual goose decided to land. We observed this and interpreted it as the flock deciding to land.
photo under CC licence by glennharvey06
What a wonderfully clear example the flock of geese idea gives us to try and think about this clash of perspectives which has been rumbling along about individuals and groups, blog networks compared to listserves, the illusion of flat hierarchies, left right, north south, hive mind or cooercion and so on. It might just be me, but the geese question seems to point at something which may turn out to be a central and fundamental issue, like the difference between the naturalistic worldview and idealism.
So I will argue that the flock of geese did decide to land. {{ducks}}
Maybe one goose made the first move towards landing, or maybe the trajectory emerged from out of whatever was going on between the flock beforehand, but what happened next is a process which I would call ‘arriving at a group decision’. One or more individual geese began to move towards landing in such a way that the intention to land began to be communicated through the flock. Each individual goose then took a decision to follow the leaders, or ignore them. I’ve observed occasions when this results in a cleaving of the flock, with one part landing and another group splitting away to circle around and land in the next field, for example. Now, some individuals may be motivated by the desire to land, and others by a preference to stay with the group who are landing, that doesn’t matter. Nobody said it has to be one goose one vote in a secret ballot. The decision can be swayed by acts of leadership, by an averaging of cumulative actions, or by random events but a decision is what is arrived at by the flock in just the same way as the various parts of my own brain somehow come to a conclusion as to which shirt I will put on in the morning.
The reason why all of this is important, is because sometimes groups can do things which sums of individuals cannot, like negotiating decent pay and conditions through collective bargaining for example. In that case, the individuals within the syndicate need to be willing to subject themselves to a group discipline in order to take effect action without splitting. There has to be a mechanism to take a group decision which is binding on individuals in order for the individuals involved to benefit from collective action.
That’s why the emphasis on individual networks rather than groups disturbs me, it’s all too reminiscent of Mrs Thatchers’ “There is no such thing as society, there are individuals and there are families”. Networks seem to have the effect of exaggerating inequality as already stronger nodes attract new connections faster than weaker ones. Is that the effect we wish to take an active decision to cultivate or should we make positive choices to nurture alternative patterns with greater long term sustainability?
Well Stephen is a skillful and knowledgable philosopher so I expect he will tear my proposition apart if he ever reads it, but if anything remains it can only help to clarify somebody’s thinking, somewhere – like mine perhaps.
Andy Roberts is a writer who initiated DARnet. Contact me on aroberts@gmail.com or @aroberts on twitter
This is just a play on words. The electorate ‘decide’ the outcome of a general election.
‘Decides’ is one of those ambiguous verbs that can almost make sense when applied to a group. Almost.
But what would we say about something like these:
- “Jones thought of potato soup” vs “The group thought of potato soup”
- “Jones tasted something sweet” vs “The group tasted something sweet”
- “Jones took a deep breath” vs “The group took a deep breath”
- “Jones was six feet tall” vs “The group was six feet tall”
There is a sense, isn’t there, that there are some things that Jones can think, do, feel or be that the group Jones belongs to simply cannot?
Indeed – isn’t this the case for *everything* Jones thinks, does, feels or is? Because Jones is a human being and a group – manifestly – is not.
Therefore – even if it seems to make sense to say that the group decided” we are talking about something very different from what we are talking about when we say “Jones decided”.
It’s easy enough to describe the parts of the ‘group decision’ that consist of individual actions. “One or more individual geese began to move towards landing…”, “Each individual goose then took a decision to follow the leaders..”
But what is it, exactly, that we are saying when we start talking about what the group did? “a process which I would call ‘arriving at a group decision’.”
What is this, if not the *individual* decisions just described?
Or – another way of putting it – isn’t this something *you* are bringing to the table, an interpretation *you* are proposing, rather than something that is inherent to the group?
It’s like when you see the lights and shadows arranged in a certain way on the rocks on Mars, and you look at them, and it seems like something you’ve seen elsewhere, and you say “There’s a face of Jesus on Mars.”
Of course, there isn’t a face of Jesus on Mars – the only thing that can have a ‘face of Jesus’ is Jesus. You can’t even say ‘there is a representation of Jesus on Mars’ because there was no intent in the lights and the shadows to represent Jesus.
That does not, of course, stop people from saying ‘there is a face of Jesus’ and believing that it really must be there. Just as they cannot help saying ‘the electorate decided’ when it did no such thing.
The illusion is based upon ‘Theory of Mind’ – an evolutionary-derived cognitive process whereby we can infer intentionality. This is evolutionarily advantages in the case of intelligent humans, as our cognitive processes are such that we can make decisions and then act upon them, and so it is useful to infer that when other humans do things, they do so because they intended to do such things.
However, like all cognitive processes, this is susceptible to mis-firing, whereby we can infer intentionality on the part of groups, animals, even inanimate options. Hence ‘the group decided to act quickly’, ‘the insect decided to fly away’, ‘the computer decided to crash on me’.
Fundamentally, as you hint at, all decision-making is illusionary (and usefully so), as whilst groups are made up of individuals, individuals are made up of neurons, atoms and so on, all of which behave according to given laws, but together act as if governed by a conciousness.
All of which isn’t to negate your point, but to re-inforce it. If intentionality is indeed an illusion, then we may as well apply it as best fits. So if a group behaves as if a single, conscious entity, then the metaphor of intentionality may be usefully applied.
This is great stuff to think about! As you watch geese, or for that matter, a swarming school of Herring, you have to appreciate that the thought is the action. There is no time delay involved. It is a synchronicity, a simultaneous experiencing of nowness. It is a cosmic dance, Union espiritas!!! …………………………………………………………E.
So I’m going to go with Frankie on this one. Intentionality is a very useful illusion. Some illusions are too useful to give up – mostly.
There is the explicit side of group decisions where human individuals can negotiate between each other using language. And use other technologies (such as voting) to agree on things.
Then there are the implicit aspects where people act & react to each other based on subconscious stimuli & perceptions. For some reason I’m thinking of football teams moving around a pitch. There is no voting & little discussion (there is plenty of pre-match training however).
i have found this thread quite funny, to think i only thought of a throw away title in a second and it gets dissected into is it a leader or follower dabate is priceless. anyway i have made a mistake it’s skein of geese not a flock. a skein is a flock in flight.
keep on thinking
Pingback: song thrush birds appearing urban environment