Let us imagine a simple situation.
An article is published online about why young people are leaving smaller towns. Five hundred comments appear beneath it.
One person writes about salaries.
Another – about housing prices.
A third – about schools.
A fourth blames the local authorities.
A fifth is angry with emigrants.
A sixth makes a joke.
A seventh starts arguing with the third.
An eighth writes a long comment that nobody reads to the end.
A ninth post a link to another article.
A tenth declares that everything has long been obvious.
A few hours later, there are even more comments.
Has society become any wiser?
Perhaps some interesting insights have appeared. Perhaps there are even very good ideas among the comments. But they are submerged in the overall stream. Some repeat one another. Others contradict one another. Some are only partly relevant. Others were written impulsively. Still others remain unnoticed simply because they appeared too late.
We have many reactions.
But we do not yet have Collective Intelligence.
Noise begins when everyone speaks.
Collective Intelligence begins when everyone starts listening to one another in a structured way.
Many Voices Are Not Yet a Shared Mind
People have long searched for ways to hear one another.
Ancient cities had public squares. Later came assemblies, councils, parliaments, newspapers, radio, and television. The internet gave almost everyone the opportunity to express an opinion publicly. Social media turned that possibility into an everyday habit.
Today, almost everyone can speak.
But an abundance of speech does not yet create shared thinking.
If a thousand people speak about different subjects at the same time, we do not obtain wisdom; we obtain noise. If hundreds of people vote for answers prepared in advance, we learn what they choose, but we do not necessarily find the best solution. If everyone speaks for a few minutes in a meeting, we may hear many thoughts, but we do not necessarily understand which ones matter most.
Many people may be in the same room, the same social network, or the same survey.
But that does not yet mean that they act as one mind.
Many voices are not yet Collective Intelligence.
They are only the raw material from which Collective Intelligence can be built.
Just as a pile of bricks is not yet a house, a pile of opinions is not yet a solution.
Architecture is needed.
Comments: Much Energy, Little Structure
Comment sections are interesting because they reveal something like society’s nervous system. People react quickly, openly, and sometimes with great precision. At times, one short comment says more than a long report.
But a stream of comments has a fundamental weakness: it is almost unable to organize itself.
Early comments usually receive more attention than later ones. More emotional phrases overshadow more measured ones. A popular opinion quickly attracts even more support. People begin reacting not only to the problem, but also to one another. The discussion branches out. Personal arguments emerge. Topics become mixed together.
One person speaks about a cause.
Another – about a consequence.
A third – about personal experience.
A fourth – about an entirely different problem.
All of this may be interesting.
But it is not decidement.
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
Note: Why is the term “decidement” used instead of “decision-making”?
By “decidement”, Dr. Norvaišas does not mean merely voting or selecting a final option. He means the entire process through which society identifies problems, generates alternatives, evaluates ideas, refines solutions, tests their implications, and ultimately arrives at decisions.
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
In a comment section, the strongest idea often does not win. The most noticeable sentence does. Sometimes it is the one posted first. Sometimes the one that sounds angriest. Sometimes the one that confirms the opinion already held by a particular camp.
That is how the attention economy works.
Collective Intelligence must work differently.
Its aim is not to gather as many reactions as possible.
Its aim is to help good ideas rise above the noise.
Surveys: They Measure Opinion but Do Not Create a Solution
Surveys are useful. They help us understand what people think at a particular moment.
Are residents satisfied with public transport?
Do people trust institutions?
Which problem seems most important to them?
Which measure would they support?
Such questions may be necessary.
But a survey almost always restricts people to answers prepared in advance.
Suppose a municipality asks its residents:
What would most improve transport in the city?
A. More buses.
B. New cycle lanes.
C. More parking spaces.
D. Cheaper tickets.
A person can choose one option.
But what if the most important problem is something entirely different? Perhaps bus routes do not go where people actually need them. Perhaps transfers are inconvenient. Perhaps timetables are not aligned with the working hours of schools and hospitals. Perhaps older residents find it difficult to reach a stop. Perhaps people want smaller vehicles running more frequently.
A survey measures answers to questions that someone has already formulated.
But it does not always help discover what the designer of the survey has not yet considered.
A survey shows what people choose from the options provided.
Collective Intelligence helps discover options that nobody has yet proposed.
That is a crucial difference.
Voting: Choosing Is Not Yet Searching for a Solution
Voting is also necessary in certain situations. Sometimes one option must be selected from several clear alternatives.
But voting usually begins where the creative search for a solution has already ended.
Choose A or B.
Do you approve or disapprove?
For or against?
Which option do you support?
This makes it possible to measure people’s choices.
But voting does not answer the question of whether the best solution has been found.
Imagine the residents of an apartment building deciding how to redesign their courtyard. They are presented with two options:
A. Create more parking spaces.
B. Preserve the green area.
The residents split into two camps. Some want convenient parking. Others want trees and space for children.
A vote is held.
One side wins. The other loses.
But perhaps the best solution was neither A nor B. Perhaps the entrance could be redesigned, some parking spaces placed on the other side, the old trees preserved, and a small play area created for children.
That possibility never even appeared on the ballot.
Voting counts the positions that already exist.
Collective Intelligence helps create a position that did not exist before.
Sometimes the best solution lies not among the available options, but beyond them.
Meetings: When Status Speaks Louder Than the Idea
Meetings appear to be spaces for shared thinking. People sit around a table. Everyone can speak. The issue is discussed.
But anyone who has attended a longer meeting knows that reality is more complicated.
One person speaks at length.
Another cannot formulate a thought briefly.
A third remains silent because they do not want to contradict the manager.
A fourth agrees with someone they respect.
A fifth waits until it becomes clear which opinion is safe.
A sixth has a good idea but voices it too late, when everyone is already tired.
In a meeting, ideas rarely travel alone.
They travel together with surnames, positions, reputation, manner of speaking, emotions, and previous conflicts.
When a company’s manager proposes a weak idea, people may support it simply because they do not want to take a risk. When an intern proposes a strong idea, it may be ignored because nobody expects an intern to see more than experienced managers.
In such a case, it is not only the idea that is evaluated.
The entire social package is evaluated.
A Collective Intelligence environment changes this.
The idea must be separated from the person so that it can be evaluated on its content.
We will examine this more closely in the next article in the series.
What Changes in a Collective Intelligence Environment
A Collective Intelligence environment begins with a clearly formulated question.
For example:
Which measures would do the most to help a small town retain young people?
Participants enter one interactive environment.
They act anonymously, but accountably.
This means that other participants do not see who submitted a particular idea, while the system records each person’s contribution.
A participant does not see the entire list of ideas at once.
They encounter previously submitted ideas one by one, chronologically – in the order in which they were written.
They read one idea.
Evaluate it.
Then see another.
Evaluate again.
Only after evaluating all ideas submitted up to that point can they enter one clear idea of their own.
This mechanism appears simple.
But it fundamentally changes the logic of participation.
A person can no longer simply shout an opinion into the crowd. First, they must encounter the thoughts of others. They must read. Compare. Evaluate. Distinguish what is new from what has already been said. Consider whether their idea genuinely adds something to the shared field.
In Collective Intelligence, participation begins not with speaking, but with listening.
Later, participants encounter that idea one by one as well and evaluate it.
The system accumulates the evaluations.
The structure of ideas begins to emerge.
Which ideas are evaluated highly?
Which receives conflicting responses?
Where do people agree?
Where does polarization arise?
Where is the problem still formulated too vaguely?
Where is a new question needed?
This is no longer a stream of opinions.
It is a map of shared thinking.
Why Ideas Are Shown One by One
A question may arise: why not present the entire list of ideas to a participant at once? Would it not be simpler to scan all the thoughts quickly and choose the best ones?
But this is precisely where one of the most important elements of the Collective Intelligence architecture lies.
When a person sees the entire list at once, many secondary signals affect their attention.
A shorter idea may seem more attractive than a deeper one.
The first idea may become the reference point for all the others.
Several similar ideas may create a misleading impression of popularity.
A person may evaluate too quickly, comparing only the surface.
A vividly phrased sentence may overshadow a more meaningful but more restrained idea.
When ideas are presented one by one, each receives a separate moment of attention.
It must stand on its own.
Without a crowd behind it.
Without visible popularity.
Without the shadow of other ideas.
The participant must encounter its meaning.
This is a slower process than rapid voting.
But that is precisely why it is deeper.
Collective Intelligence does not rush to count opinions.
First, it creates the conditions for every idea to be heard.
Not a Crowd, but an Evaluative Field
Sometimes the word “collective” arouses suspicion. It may evoke a crowd in which the individual loses independence. A crowd that yields to emotion. A crowd that follows the loudest slogan.
But Collective Intelligence works in the opposite way.
It does not encourage people to follow others blindly.
The participant does not see the author’s surname.
Does not see their status.
Does not see how others have already evaluated a particular statement.
Cannot simply adapt to the majority.
Cannot safely choose the most popular answer.
They must evaluate it for themselves.
At the same time, they are not isolated. Their evaluation becomes part of the shared field. When many people act in this way, a broader structure begins to emerge – not merely a sum of separate opinions.
This can be compared to music.
If every musician in an orchestra played whatever they wanted at the same time, we would have noise. If everyone played only one note, we would have dull monotony. Music appears when different sounds retain their distinctiveness but begin to harmonize.
Collective Intelligence is a similar process of attunement.
Not everyone must think in the same way.
On the contrary, different experiences, professions, intuitions, and perspectives are needed.
But these differences must not remain scattered chaotically. They must be connected in a shared evaluative field.
Diversity without structure becomes noise.
Structure without diversity becomes dogma.
Collective Intelligence unites diversity and direction.
When Disagreement Becomes Useful Information
In an ordinary discussion, disagreement is often treated as a problem.
People split apart.
An argument begins.
Camps emerge.
Each side starts defending itself.
In a Collective Intelligence environment, disagreement can become a useful signal.
If one idea receives very different evaluations, the system reveals polarization.
This does not mean that the process has failed.
It means that a point has been found that needs to be understood better.
Perhaps the idea is formulated unclearly.
Perhaps people rely on different assumptions.
Perhaps one group is concerned with short-term benefit and another with long-term consequences.
Perhaps the question touches on a tension between values.
Perhaps a separate project is needed to explore this particular problem.
In this way, conflict can be transformed into a new decidement task.
In a mature decision field, disagreement is not a malfunction.
It is a place on the map where more light needs to be switched on.
From Opinion to Decidement
Opinion matters.
It shows how a person sees the world. It may reveal experience, concern, anger, a value, or an overlooked problem.
But opinion is only the beginning.
For it to become part of a shared solution, several additional steps are needed:
It must be formulated clearly.
separated from the author’s status;
submitted into a shared field;
made available for evaluation by others;
compared with other ideas;
examined for resonance;
checked for polarization;
used to formulate new questions;
and developed into better solutions.
This is no longer merely the expression of an opinion.
This is decidement.
Collective Intelligence does not abolish individual thinking. It strengthens it by providing a structure in which an individual thought can be heard, evaluated, and connected with the experience of others.
It does not abolish differences.
It helps differences become productive.
It does not ask people to speak louder.
It creates the conditions for better listening.
A Society That Not Only Speaks, but Also Listens
Modern society has already learned to speak.
It has media.
Social networks.
Comments.
Surveys.
Votes.
Meetings.
Conferences.
Discussions.
But it is only beginning to learn how to listen.
Not to isolated voices.
Not to the loudest camps.
Not to the most popular phrases.
Not to the highest-ranking positions.
It is learning to hear its own scattered mind.
Collective Intelligence begins when opinions cease to be mere reactions and become part of a structured search for solutions.
Not everyone has to agree about everything.
But society must create an environment in which differences become not fuel for conflict, but a source of wisdom.
Noise begins when everyone speaks.
Collective Intelligence begins when everyone starts listening to one another in a structured way.
In the next article, we will examine one of the most important conditions of such an environment: why an idea must be separated from the author’s name and how accountable anonymity works.
