Can one be too connected? Not if you're a New Yorker
It looks like Gladwell, it reads like Gladwell but it's not Gladwell. What is it? Sounds like one of those riddles used for tormenting those ancient heroes who had to save the princess from the ogre. They were usually in a hurry, too, the heroes, and with the clock ticking, the last thing they needed was for some crazy old oracle to block their path and insist on an IQ test. The answer, by the way, in case you're ever asked this is Surowiecki.
First came The Tipping Point and then came Blink. Both books have been very well received, which is delightful for their author, Malcolm Gladwell, and reflects well on the magazine that employs him, the New Yorker. After all, any publication that's smart enough to see what Gladwell's got deserves to bask a little in the glory. With the market so bullish on Gladwell, it's inevitable that others would want to follow the trail he's hacked out and that brings us to James Surowiecki, another New Yorker staffer. He writes a bi-weekly business column "The Financial Page", which has been praised here for its clarity and fluency, and last year he authored what many called the best business book of the year, The Wisdom of Crowds, in which he argues that under the right circumstances groups are often smarter than even their smartest members. If you've read Gladwell, you can decide if the Surowiecki comparison is fair. If you think it's unfair, let's hear your opinion.
Anyway, James Surowiecki will be speaking on 14 March at the 4th Annual O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference in San Diego. The title of his talk is "Independent Individuals and Wise Crowds, or Is It Possible to Be Too Connected?" and here's what he wants his audience to think about:
Groups, instead of falling to their lowest common denominator, can often rise to the level of their best member and beyond. The paradox, though, is that groups are typically smartest when the people in them act as much like individuals as possible — when they rely primarily on their own private information, when their opinions are independent, and when their judgments are not determined by their peers. And in an ever-more connected world, this creates a challenge: how can we reap the benefits of collaboration and collective decision-making, while still ensuring that people remain independent actors? Are networks problems as well as solutions? What might it mean to be too connected?"
Should be a great old debate, this. So, what might it mean to be too connected? Too many tools, technologies? Hardly, as they're useless if you don't have contacts. Too many distractions? Too many meetings? Possibly. A bigger problem, surely, though, than being too connected is being disconnected or badly connected, because those who don't know enough people or don't know the right people or don't network are in trouble. Dr Johnson twigged this 300 years ago when he said "If a man does not make new acquaintances as he advances through life, he will soon find himself alone." The ideal state, one assumes, is to be well connected, just as James Surowiecki is, no slight on his hard work, talent and intelligence intended, by the way.
