CCI Seminar Series, 2024-25
Steven Dow, UC San Diego, Cultivating Ecosystems of Intelligence for Community-Driven Creativity
Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 12:00 PM-1:00 PM, MIT Building E62, Room 446
Zoom: https://mit.zoom.us/j/93838521414?pwd=5m5ob5lbXwaYMeYuOJSQT5jqYbkncI.1
Humanity’s symbiotic relationship with technology has provided unprecedented access to collective wisdom. Through our devices, the Internet, and now AI, humans have never been more capable. However, smart individuals alone are not enough to solve the wicked problems of the world; we need collective creativity and decision-making. This talk explores new opportunities for AI systems to support the social dynamics of problem-solving — to cultivate ecosystems of intelligence. I will share our work from the Protolab research group on how human-AI interactions can be designed to make individuals, teams, and communities more adaptive, empowered, and wiser.
Steven Dow is a Professor in the Cognitive Science Department and the Design Lab at UC San Diego, Director of the ProtoLab research group, and Co-Founder of the Design for San Diego initiative. His research on human-computer interaction, creativity, social computing and collective intelligence seeks to engage diverse teams and communities to co-create better, more inclusive, and more sustainable outcomes. Prof. Dow received the NSF CAREER Award for research on “advancing collective innovation.” His research has been funded by multiple National Science Foundation grants, a Google Faculty Grant, a Yankelovich Center for Social Science Research Award, Stanford’s Postdoctoral Research Award, and a Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Grant. He holds an MS-HCI and PhD in Human-Centered Computing from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a BS in Industrial Engineering from the University of Iowa.
Vicky Yang, MIT, How social influence shapes collective intelligence (or stupidity): From labs to the real world
March 17, 2025, 12:00 PM-1:00 PM, MIT Building E62, Room 446
Understanding when groups make good or bad collective decisions is a key societal concern, with social influence playing a crucial role. Yet, its effects remain debated in experiments—some studies find social influence improves accuracy, others show it harms, and some suggest it depends on context. We reconcile these conflicting findings in binary choice tasks with a simple mathematical model of individuals integrating independent judgment and social information. The model predicts a bifurcation, where group decisions can diverge into two distinct outcomes. Analyzing four published experiments, we show this bifurcation is already present in prior results. We show disparate experimental findings in the literature can be reproduced by the same model, and identify conditions where social influence is expected to help or hinder collective accuracy. I will also discuss preliminary work extending this model to help understand opinion dynamics applicable to the real world, particularly in the formation of partisan attitudes during crises such as COVID-19 and climate change.
Vicky Chuqiao Yang is the Richard S. Leghorn (1939) Career Development Assistant Professor in Management of Technological Innovation and an Assistant Professor of System Dynamics at the MIT Sloan School of Management. She was most recently an Omidyar Fellow at the Santa Fe Institute. Yang uses quantitative behavioral models, assisted by the analysis of data, to study collective human behavior on a broad range of organization levels, from teams to cities. Recent research topics include collective decision-making, political polarization, scaling laws in cities, and bureaucracy in human organizations. She received a PhD in Applied Mathematics from Northwestern University.
Amir Goldberg, Stanford, Not All Distances Were Created Equal, Or Why Culture Is Not Exactly Geometric
February 24, 2025, 12:00-1:00, MIT Building E62 Room 446
Social scientists often use spatial metaphors to describe social reality. The distances between coordinates—representing people, ideas, organizations—in such spatial apparatuses presumably correspond to socially meaningful differences between them. The advent of computational text methods, specifically word embedding models, catalyzed analyses of culture as a spatial geometry. Yet, the distances between words inferred from computational methods do not correspond to how people perceive their semantic properties. We analyze heterogeneity in people’s interpretations of a variety of cultural objects, and distinguish between different interpretations that are inconsistent with one another (which we term oppositional interpretations) and those that are divergent but not inconsistent (which we term orthogonal interpretations). Using a combination of surveys, free text storytelling, and computational analyses, we demonstrate that geometric representations of cultural space overestimate orthogonal interpretative distance, and underestimate oppositional interpretative distance. Moreover, we show that oppositionality and orthogonality have different sociological implications. People perceive others with opposed interpretations more negatively than those whose interpretations are orthogonal to theirs, and are less inclined to engage with them socially.
Amir Goldberg is a Professor of Organizational Behavior and (by courtesy) Sociology at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, where he is the founding co-director of the Computational Culture Lab. His research uses computational methods, specifically machine learning and large language models, to measure and model cultural dynamics in organizations, as well as in broader social contexts. His work has been published in leading journals such as the American Journal of Sociology, the American Sociological Review, and Administrative Science Quarterly. He currently serves as Department Editor for the Organizations Department in Management Science.