Project Abstract

There are unique dynamics that shape the way business is conducted in the public sector.  This paper will examine the dynamics of government and politics in the context of a game culture.  People operate in games differently than in other interactions and use of a game philosophy may lead to new interactions and outcomes.  Technology has a role in its ability for candidates and government employees to access and be reached the public.  Public scrutiny may enhance the game dynamic of the public sector, as demonstrated by content on social media sites during elections.  People can be more creative in game situations but there are limitations on government performance in certain situations using game dynamics.  For instance, the advisarial nature of modern elections can be vicious in the tactics used to defeat opponents.  Since public service is the highest priority in government, an assessment of appropriate use of game dynamics in the public sector will be discussed.  Government should utilize game dynamics to create enthusiasm, generate new ideas to problems, and to improve society, but should not be used if damaging to citizen welfare.

Reaction to "Facebook Skeletons Come Out"

The article “The Facebook Skeletons Come Out” in the New York Times by Jeremy Peters and Brian Stelter discusses the backlash on candidates who have pictures of themselves posted on Facebook.  Three candidates during the current election had to justify or distance themselves from photos or video posted on Facebook from years past.  This issue is relevant because social media sites such as Facebook are so widely used by the populace- people in my “generation” began using Facebook in college and have had pictures posted over the years.  The issue is that in modern political campaigns, opponents relish embarrassing each other and using personal information to do so is a rather standard tactic.  However, with so many people using Facebook, the presence of photos from years past may be a more universal for candidates of all political affiliations.  The behavior of young people is not new, but having a technology make such behavior publicly available is.  Candidates prior to social networking sites did not have to consider the ramifications for every event attended at any point in their youth the way that future candidates will have to.  Krystal Ball, one of the candidates discussed in the article, had a comment that brought the issue home, “…I would have to have some young man or young woman think, ‘I can’t run for office because I did something stupid at a party however long ago’” (3).  At the moment, there is not clear regulation or a defined position regarding use of photos on Facebook for political campaigns. 

I feel that the use of social media sites using personal photos as ammunition in political campaigns could go in one of two ways.  First, it could (and likely will in the short term) become the norm for the public to scrutinize candidates personal postings.  It is a reality of life that individuals need to exercise caution when posting photos of themselves on Facebook and asking people to remove concerning photos.  However, it could be that the wide use of Facebook and other sites are so common that candidates eventually shift their focus away from personal photographs to a more issue based discussion.  I do understand that politics is a different animal from other human interactions, but it could be that in this case technology could shape behavior and could do its part to help in making political elections more professional.  In the meantime, I would still recommend avoiding posting party photos on Facebook…

Review of James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds

Review of James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds

James Surowiecki takes a unique perspective on groups of people in his 2004 work The Wisdom of Crowds.  He challenges the construct that quality of decisions declines when made by large groups of people.  Rather, groups can make intelligent collective decisions even if the individuals comprising the group have varying skills and knowledge levels; in fact, a more diverse group will make more intelligent decisions than a smaller homogeneous group.  This view of collective decisions was interesting in that throughout the argument the mistrust of groups keeps popping up in the mind of the reader; this construct of group wisdom causes a shift in perception, but it has potential to lead readers to new level of understanding.  Surowiecki adds an additional note to the concept of diverse group decision making, “Paradoxically, the best way for a group to be smart is for each person in it to think and act as independently as possible” (xx).  Though it is the nature of people to be influenced by their peers when making decisions, he argues that this is not necessarily a requirement, and in many cases the group benefits when individuals are able to make decisions based upon their own assessment of situations (50).  The importance of individual decisions separates the author’s discussion of group decisions from the classic view of the collective; he does not want a group to come up with one decision, but rather to look at the aggregated result of numerous individual decisions. 

An example in the book that really stood out was the discussion of the United States intelligence agencies and their methods of collecting and analyzing information regarding the country’s security.  The attack on the World Trade Center on September 11^th, 2001 illustrated that the current structure of intelligence was flawed since information was not effectively shared across all relevant agencies (68).  This was a great example, since it showed that even if small groups have access to specialized resources, such as classified information, they will still not be as effective as a large group if the information flows are not constantly shared.  (For the uber nerds out there, you will recognize this conclusion is the basis for the creation of the intersect program in the tv show Chuck).  The author notes that decentralization can be a great asset if there is a balance between information remaining simultaneously global and local (72).  Another simple example was of Whyte’s (1969) observation of crowds in New York where individuals use information cues around them to move through a crowded complex environment (85).  This was a great example in that the reader will be able to understand the concept of crowd coordination in a very real world context (anyone who has walked on the ASU Tempe campus on a weekday lunch hour can see this phenomena in person).

The book’s greatest strength in my opinion was the way Surowiecki altered the reader’s conception of crowds and groups.  I loved this view of the collective and its potential for improving decision making; this is one of my areas of interest and I have been taking classes and reading research that concurs with the structure Surowiecki provides in this book.  As noted earlier in this review, he does not argue for consensus but rather an evaluation of the collective individual assessments on a decision or outcome.  This links well to the workings of complex adaptive systems.  Complexity science allows models to be developed to look at emergent patterns through individual interactions.  New knowledge can be developed by looking at the populace that can lead to new levels of understanding when trying to solve societal problems.  A great example of macro patterns emerging from individual decisions was the choice to visit the El Farol bar on a Friday night (87).  This information could be programmed in an agent based model to observe the patterns discussed.  One area that could have been stronger was to talk more about collective decision breakdowns and what characteristic structures can lead to breakdowns.  For example, when discussing governance itself, the author gave a great example of the National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll (259) and the Iowa Electonic Markets (17) where collective predictions from individuals lead to accurate forecasts of elections and other political decisions.  This collective power was limited to prediction rather than information formation.  I think the discussion of collective decision making in the public sphere is much more broad than prediction and would have liked a longer discussion in this area.  Specifically with regard to elections, there could have been more discussion on the difference between participating in elections (classic democratic participation) and prediction of elections.  The author does discuss democracy and the different perceptions that individual citizens, organizations, and economists have regarding citizen participation, I would have loved for greater elaboration.  There was one area I had questions about, but in honesty this may be my lack of comprehension; Surowiecki argues that the stock market was able to locate the organization responsible for the faulty equipment that lead to the Challenger explosion (9).  His explanations of how this occurred left me with more questions than answers since it seemed that there was not tangible evidence of insider information being in play. 

The understanding of crowds and their potential for improved decision making is a seperation from the current construct regarding large groups of people.  I think that this idea has potential for two reasons, there appears to be evidence supporting the thesis of the book, both through the cases presented and the field of complexity science that uses this construct.  Also, there is potential for the reliability of answers to become more accurate if organizations and decision makers understand the contribution of collective decision making and communicate with the public on its desireabilty.  I believe that if people know their ideas and opinions are actually being used to make decisions there will likely be a high level of participation.  People want to matter and this could be a tool that allows citizens to particpate in areas that they truly care about.  This book relates to e public administration in that technology allows the public sector to utilize the deliberation, participation and contribution of the public in pursuit of improved service.  As Dr. McGonigal noted in her TED talk from earlier in the semester, sections of the public, online gamers were her target population, can potentially serve as a new human resource through problem solving through their favored medium of games (McGonigal, 2010).  The assignment regarding government agency outreach to the public indicates that there is increasing demand for interaction between citizens and their government.  If agencies are able to understand the potential for Surowiecki’s argument on strong collective decision making, then technology will be the best tool to harness the power of the group to assist in decision making.  It must be noted that the technology outreach will need to be formatted to facilitate the structure that allows for access to all potential options available and allows individuals to make their decision without worry of what other people are doing, as noted by the author (61).  With that consideration, the idea of using American citizenry to improve the structure and decisions of the United States has great potential and should continue to be explored.