Revised Paragraph

Rather than students comprising a collective intelligence, Johnson describes a unit composed of “demons.” In this example, the effectiveness of collective intelligence is measured in terms of how well Selfridge’s voice recognition program accomplishes its job. The “demons” he implements are “a swarm of limited miniprograms” that operate in a bottom-up fashion ( Johnson 206). This anti-hierarchical organization falls under the category of “organized complexity,” which entails a smooth compilation of self-directed mechanisms (203). As long as each specific part conducts its own business properly, the cumulative combination will also run smoothly. In Selfridge’s software, the lowest level demons recognize a specific letter and report to the next higher level, and this level guesses what letter is being worked with before awaiting approval from a subsequent level. Essentially the software’s overall function is completely dependent on the individual intelligence of every separate part of each level. For example, if the second level demon were malfunctioning, the result would be in misinterpreted vocal commands that indicate a flawed software. The information from the first level is shared with the next, and so forth, each adding to the stream of shared knowledge that serves as the fuel to make the program operate. Comparable to the students in Duke iPod experiment, no single demon holds all of the information needed to fully operate the software; after combining individual contributions, the collective entity properly achieves its goal.

Revised: Rather than students comprising a collective intelligence, Johnson describes a unit composed of “demons.” The “demons” he implements are “a swarm of limited miniprograms” that operate in a bottom-up fashion ( Johnson 206). In this example, the effectiveness of a collective intelligence is measured in terms of how well Selfridge’s voice recognition program accomplishes its job. This bottom-up organization falls under the category of “organized complexity,” which entails a smooth compilation of self-directed mechanisms (203). As long as each specific part conducts its own business properly, the cumulative combination will also run smoothly. However, the direction of the information flows opposite to that of a typical hierarchy. In Selfridge’s software, the lowest level demons recognize a specific letter and report to the next higher level, and this level interprets what letter is being worked with before awaiting approval from a subsequent level. Essentially the software’s overall function is completely dependent on the individual intelligence of every separate part of each level. For example, if the second level demon were malfunctioning, the result would be in misinterpreted vocal commands that indicate a flawed software. The information from the first level is shared with the next, and so forth, each adding to the stream of shared knowledge that serves as the fuel to make the program operate. Comparable to the students in Duke iPod experiment, no single demon holds all of the information needed to fully operate the software; after combining individual contributions, the collective entity properly achieves its goal. Just as each student’s contribution leads to the eventual development of an app, each demon plays a vital role in the functioning of the voice recognition program. In both cases, the members of the overall collective intelligence were required to put forth an important output that determines the effectiveness of said group as a whole. 

In peer review, I was advised to work on the third paragraph of my essay. I looked into the criticism and found that improvements could in fact be made. I elaborated on the "anti-hierarchal" system I was referring to by emphasizing the bottom-up method used in the "demon" programs. I was also told to elaborate more on the comparison I began to make between Davidson's Duke iPod experiment and the "demons" -- I merely introduced it but never explained. This revision contributes to my thesis because it supports the claim I am making with an example that connects two of the readings. I am hoping to take the other comments from peer review into consideration as I use this extra time to make my essay the best it can be!