Let us imagine the courtyard of an apartment building.
One group of residents wants more parking spaces. Another wants to preserve the trees. A third wants a children’s playground. A fourth wants peace and quiet. A fifth wants nothing to be changed at all, because “it will be worse anyway.” A sixth comes to the meeting not because of the courtyard, but because of the neighbor who blocked the exit again yesterday.
The meeting begins quite calmly.
After ten minutes, it becomes clear that people are no longer talking about the courtyard.
They are talking about twenty years of resentment.
One resident remembers how, in 2008, someone broke a branch off the apple tree. Another resident is angry that children kick a ball against her window. A third declares that “everything here is controlled by those people from the first stairwell.” A fourth suggests hiring an architect. A fifth shouts that architects will only take the money. A sixth says that there must be a vote. A seventh says that the vote will be illegal. An eighth leaves, slamming the door.
After an hour, everyone is tired.
There is no decision.
But there are three new conflicts.
This is a very common story. Instead of the courtyard of an apartment building, we could insert a school, a hospital, a municipality, a company, a university, or a state. People have experience. They have interests. They have emotions. They have part of the truth. But there is no mechanism that would turn these parts into a shared search for a solution.
Collective Intelligence begins when chaotic speaking is replaced by a structured process.
Not by silencing people.
But by creating a field in which every thought can be heard, evaluated, and connected with others.
From Noise to a Task
The first step of Collective Intelligence is not collecting ideas.
The first step is a clear task.
This is very important.
If the question is vague, the answers will be vague as well. If we ask, “What should we do with the courtyard?”, one person will talk about cars, another about children, a third about noise, a fourth about greenery, and a fifth about old grievances.
But if the question is formulated more precisely, thinking begins to gather around one point.
For example:
Which three solutions would best balance the need for parking, green space, and children’s safety in this courtyard?
This is no longer an invitation to vent.
It is an invitation to solve.
Another example is a school.
A bad question:
Why are children not interested in learning?
Such a question is too broad. Some will blame phones, others teachers, others parents, others the curriculum, and still others “today’s youth.”
A better question:
Which everyday school factors most reduce the motivation of 7th–9th grade students to learn, and what measures could reduce them?
Here, a direction already appears.
A good Collective Intelligence question must work like a well-placed lighthouse. It does not say what answer must be given, but it illuminates the territory in which it is worth searching.
Collective Intelligence does not begin with answers.
It begins with a question that allows intelligence to gather into one field.
One Environment: Why Ideas Must Meet
In ordinary life, human insights often scatter.
One thought is spoken in a corridor.
Another in an email.
A third in a meeting.
A fourth in a comment.
A fifth in a private conversation.
A sixth only in someone’s mind.
All of them may be valuable.
But they do not meet.
It is like a recipe whose ingredients are scattered across different kitchens. In one place there is flour, in another eggs, in a third butter, in a fourth apples. All the ingredients exist, but the cake is never baked.
In a Collective Intelligence environment, ideas must be brought into one place.
Not because everyone has to be in the same room.
On the contrary — they may participate remotely, at different times, from different cities or countries.
What matters is that they participate in one interactive process.
In one task.
In one sequence of ideas.
In one evaluative field.
Only then is it possible to see which thoughts repeat, which complement one another, which contradict one another, which stand out, and which create a new direction.
If people think separately, we have many separate flashlights.
If they think in one structured environment, a searchlight appears.
Anonymously, but Accountably
In the third article of this series, we discussed why an idea must be separated from the name. In the fourth, it is important to show how this works within the mechanism itself.
A participant enters the Collective Intelligence environment not as a director, teacher, professor, intern, neighbor from the third stairwell, or a person with whom you once argued about the garbage container.
They enter as participants.
Others do not see their surname.
But the system records their contribution.
This means that the participant cannot rely on status, but also cannot disappear without a trace.
If they submit a valuable idea, this is recorded.
If their idea is evaluated poorly, this is recorded as well.
If they evaluate the ideas of others in such a way that their evaluations resonate with collective wisdom, this strengthens their participant weight.
If they constantly evaluate impulsively, ideologically, or against the shared field of wisdom, the system sees that as well.
This is not simple anonymity.
It is accountable anonymity.
We could put it this way:
A person temporarily hides their surname, but does not hide their contribution.
In such an environment, the participant gains more freedom because they do not have to protect their social face. But at the same time, they also gain more responsibility, because their contribution becomes visible in the system’s memory.
Why the Participant Does Not See All Ideas at Once
Here begins one of the most important elements of the Collective Intelligence mechanism.
The participant does not see all the ideas submitted so far as a list.
They see them one by one.
Chronologically — in the order in which they were written.
Why does this matter?
Imagine a restaurant in which people need to choose the best dish. If twenty plates are placed on the table all at once, people begin to eat with their eyes. The most beautiful plate looks the tastiest. The largest portion seems the most valuable. The brightest sauce attracts attention. And a modest but perfectly balanced dish may remain in the corner.
But if each dish is tasted separately, it receives a fairer chance.
The same is true of ideas.
If we see the whole list, we are affected by secondary signals.
The shortest idea looks the easiest.
The longest one looks the most serious.
The first one becomes a reference point.
Similar ideas create an impression of popularity.
The most vividly written phrase overshadows a more restrained but deeper thought.
When ideas are shown one by one, each receives a separate moment of attention.
The participant must read a specific thought.
Evaluate it.
Only then move on.
Each idea must briefly remain alone on the stage.
Only then can we see whether it truly works.
First, You Evaluate, Only Then You Propose
In an ordinary comment, a person usually does the opposite.
First, they write what they themselves think.
Sometimes without even reading others.
In a Collective Intelligence environment, this is not allowed.
Before submitting their own idea, the participant must evaluate the ideas submitted so far.
One after another.
This may look like a technical rule, but in reality it changes the entire psychology of participation.
The participant can no longer be only a speaker.
They first become a listener.
An example of a small town.
The question: How can we reduce the departure of young people?
One participant sees the idea: “We need more cultural events.”
They evaluate it.
Then they see another: “We need to help young families acquire housing.”
They evaluate it.
Then a third: “We need a remote work center where people could work for foreign companies while living in their own town.”
They evaluate it.
Then a fourth: “The most important thing is not events, but the opportunity to find meaningful work.”
They evaluate it.
Only then can they write their own idea.
Perhaps they realize that they were about to repeat a thought that had already been expressed.
Perhaps their idea changes.
Perhaps they see that the problem is not one thing, but consists of housing, work, community, and a sense of dignity.
This is the discipline of Collective Intelligence.
A participant cannot add their voice until they have heard those who spoke before them.
One Clear Idea
In a Collective Intelligence environment, a participant does not submit a long speech, a treatise, or a bag of all their thoughts.
They submit one clear idea.
This is also important.
In ordinary meetings, people often speak in “bouquets.” One statement contains a problem, a memory, an accusation, a proposal, a doubt, a personal story, and three additional side thoughts.
Such a statement is difficult to evaluate.
What exactly is being proposed?
Which part is most important?
Are we agreeing with the thought, or only with the person’s emotion?
Are we rejecting the proposal, or only the tone?
One clear idea makes it possible to evaluate more precisely.
For example, instead of:
“Everything is bad at school, children are tired, teachers are tired too, parents do not care, the programs are too difficult, and phones have ruined everything.”
In a Collective Intelligence environment, it is better to submit one thought:
“The motivation of 7th–9th grade students is most reduced by the fact that learning content is too rarely connected with real situations in their lives.”
Such an idea can already be evaluated.
It is clear.
One can agree with it.
One can disagree with it.
One can see whether it resonates with the experience of other participants.
Collective Intelligence does not like foggy thinking.
It asks for one clear thought that can be tested in a shared field.
Evaluation: Not “Do I Like It?”, but “How Strong Is This Idea?”
In a Collective Intelligence environment, evaluation must not be a simple “like” or “dislike.”
That is too weak for the search for solutions.
A person may dislike an idea, but it may be correct.
A person may like an idea, but it may be superficial.
There may be an unpleasant idea that reveals a real problem.
There may be a very pleasant idea that solves nothing.
For example, in a hospital the question is:
What would help most to reduce patient queues?
One idea: “Hire more doctors.”
It sounds good.
Another idea: “First, the registration system must be reviewed, because part of doctors’ time is lost due to incorrectly assigned visits.”
It is less emotional, but perhaps much more precise.
A third idea: “Patient flow should be divided according to the complexity of the problem, so that simple cases do not take up specialists’ time.”
It may be uncomfortable, but important.
When evaluating, one must not ask only: do I like it?
One must ask:
Does this idea help us understand the problem?
Does it propose a real lever?
Can it reduce harm?
Does it create greater common benefit?
Would it work in practice?
Does it resonate with collective wisdom?
In this way, evaluation becomes not an emotional reaction, but a measure of solution quality.
Ratings, Unity, Polarization, Resonance
When many participants submit and evaluate ideas, the system begins to see more than an ordinary person would see in a meeting.
It can show which ideas were evaluated most highly.
This is the rating.
It can show whether participants agree about an idea.
This is unity.
It can show whether an idea divides participants into different evaluation groups.
This is polarization.
It can show whether a particular idea or a particular evaluation responds to the shared field of collective wisdom.
This is resonance.
For example, in a school, the idea “ban phones” may receive a high average evaluation, but at the same time cause strong polarization. Some participants evaluate it very highly, others very poorly. This is a signal that an unresolved tension lies here.
Perhaps the question should not be “ban or not ban,” but:
Under what conditions do phones interfere with learning, and under what conditions can they be useful?
That is when polarization becomes not a problem, but the beginning of a new, more precise question.
Collective Intelligence does not merely collect answers.
It helps us see when we have not yet found the right question.
When the System Shows That a New Project Is Needed
Sometimes, one Collective Intelligence project does not solve everything.
And that is normal.
If the question is complex, the first stage may show that the problem has several layers.
Let us return to the small-town example about the departure of young people. This time, let us look not at how a participant evaluates individual ideas, but at what the system shows after the first project.
The town asked:
How can we reduce the number of young people leaving?
After the first project, it becomes clear that the ideas cluster around several directions:
jobs;
housing;
culture;
transport;
support for young families;
local identity;
a sense of dignity.
That is already a lot.
But perhaps one result is not enough.
Then new projects can be created.
One project about housing.
Another about work.
A third about young people’s participation in town life.
A fourth about why they do not feel needed.
Collective Intelligence does not work like a one-time vote.
It works as a living unfolding of the problem.
Every result can become a new question.
Every disagreement can become a separate task.
Every strong idea can become an implementation plan.
This is no longer merely decision-making.
This is decidement.
By decidement, Dr. Norvaišas does not mean merely voting or making a final choice. He means the entire process through which society identifies problems, generates alternatives, evaluates ideas, refines solutions, and ultimately makes decisions.
Why This Is Not a Slow Process
It may seem that such a mechanism is long.
One must read ideas one by one.
Evaluate.
Formulate one’s own thought.
Wait for others’ evaluations.
Analyze the results.
But let us compare it with the usual path.
How long does a bad meeting take?
How much time do misunderstandings cost?
How many months are lost because of an unclear strategy?
How many years are wasted implementing a bad decision?
How much does an error cost when people saw it in advance, but no one heard them?
Sometimes a fast decision is only a fast mistake.
Collective Intelligence may seem slower in the first hour.
But it can save months or years because it brings out the real problem, the strongest ideas, and dangerous blind spots more quickly.
It is like a doctor’s diagnosis.
A bad doctor may say in one minute, “Take some medicine.”
A good doctor first asks questions, examines, listens, evaluates test results, and only then prescribes treatment.
The first looks faster.
The second more often saves.
The Mechanism of Collective Intelligence in Brief
If the whole process had to be described very simply, it would look like this:
First, a clear task is formulated.
Second, participants enter one interactive environment.
Third, they act anonymously, but accountably.
Fourth, they see ideas one by one, chronologically.
Fifth, before submitting their own idea, they evaluate the previous ones.
Sixth, if they have something new to add, they submit one clear, non-repeating, and original idea of their own.
Seventh, later participants evaluate it as well.
Eighth, the system calculates ratings, unity, polarization, and resonance.
Ninth, the results show not only the strongest ideas, but also the places where new questions are needed.
Tenth, the process can be continued, refined, and turned into implementation.
It is simple.
But simple mechanisms sometimes change the most.
The wheel is simple.
The alphabet is simple.
Numbers are simple.
The voice is simple.
But when properly connected, they change civilization.
The mechanism of Collective Intelligence is also simple on the surface.
But its consequences may be very deep.
A Society Learning to Think Together
Collective Intelligence is not another survey.
Not a stream of comments.
Not a meeting rewritten onto the internet.
Not voting with a prettier interface.
It is a way to turn scattered human experiences, insights, and competences into a shared field of decidement.
It allows ideas to meet.
It allows participants to listen first.
It allows each thought to stand alone on the stage for a moment.
It allows us to see not only what is popular, but also what resonates with collective wisdom.
It allows disagreement to become a new question.
It allows society not only to speak, but to learn from its own thinking.
In a complex world, this becomes increasingly important.
Because a society that has no mechanism for thinking together is condemned to repeat the same old meeting: many words, many emotions, much exhaustion, and little real decision.
Collective Intelligence offers another path.
Not silence.
Not command.
Not noise.
But a structured process of shared thinking.
When thoughts learn to meet, society begins to think.
In the next article, we will discuss how Collective Intelligence liberates competence: why positions, diplomas, and reputation may matter, but must not become the only gates through which valuable ideas enter shared decidement.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally written in Lithuanian and has been translated into English.
Learn more at omnicracy.net
