Paragraph Revision

Original

The case could be made that these two prominent forms of collective intelligence are categorizable as one definition, or that the term deserves no special attention, but such a statement shows blindness to a great array of differences. Each author tends to lean toward one form of the word, not addressing the fact that it has multiple meanings. Collective intelligence is a vast term, that can extend beyond even the two aforementioned forms. In defense of the controversial iPod experiment, Davidson states, “A revolution in the democratization of knowledge is not frivolous, especially considering that, once customized, an individual mobile device is actually an inexpensive computer” (Davidson 54). She is supporting the idea for a new kind of intelligence. In her case, this relates more directly to the idea of crowdsourcing, but it carries with it a broader application. Her statement that it is not frivolous shows the need for attention to be paid to the concept of collective intelligence, and to pay attention to it, one must recognize the duality associated with it. Johnson addresses much duality in his piece, as well. For example, he does this in regards to complexity. He writes, “There is, first, the more conventional sense of complexity as sensory overload… But complexity is not solely a matter of sensory overload. There is also the sense of complexity as a self-organizing system” (Johnson 199). Making note of this difference is essential to Johnson’s essay. Beyond this point he chooses to focus on solely the latter definition of complexity. Had he chosen to not differentiate between the two definitions, his paper would be hard to follow and ineffective. As a result, the same can be said for the two definitions of collective intelligence. It is crucial to recognize that each meaning is distinct and different.

Revised

The argument could be made that these two definitions of collective intelligence are categorizable as one definition, or that the term deserves no special attention, but such a statement shows blindness to a great array of differences. It is true that each author tends to lean toward one form of collective intelligence, not addressing the fact that it has multiple meanings. However, the aforementioned explanations should have demonstrated the falsehood of such a statement. Davidson makes the case for attention to be paid to collective intelligence. In defense of the controversial iPod experiment, she states, “A revolution in the democratization of knowledge is not frivolous, especially considering that, once customized, an individual mobile device is actually an inexpensive computer” (Davidson 54). Through the example of mobile devices, Davidson’s statement is supporting the concept of a new kind of intelligence. In her case, this relates more directly to the idea of crowdsourcing, but it carries with it a broader application, which can relate to the topic as a whole. Her statement that it is not frivolous shows the need for attention to be paid to the concept of collective intelligence, and to pay attention to it, one must recognize the duality associated with it. Johnson addresses this kind of duality in his piece. For example, in regards to complexity, he writes, “There is, first, the more conventional sense of complexity as sensory overload… But complexity is not solely a matter of sensory overload. There is also the sense of complexity as a self-organizing system” (Johnson 199). Making note of this difference is essential to Johnson’s essay, considering that following this statement, he chooses to focus on solely the latter definition of complexity. Had he chosen to not differentiate between the two definitions, his paper would be hard to follow and ineffective. As a result, the same can be said for the two definitions of collective intelligence. Each meaning is incredibly distinct, so without differentiation, their uses can become unclear.

Analysis

My reviewers had suggested that my quotes in this paragraph seemed a little bit out of place. Rather than completely replace the quotes, I tried to do a better job of blending them into the paragraph to make the paragraph flow more smoothly. Because my thesis deals with a rather technical aspect of the definition, having a strong counterargument in my essay serves to strengthen the relevance of my thesis. With these edits, I have made my counterargument stronger, and thus strengthened my own argument.