Do a small group of powerful elites truly run the world? Or are aristocrats themselves constrained by large superintelligent systems - systems greater than any single leader, so large that we often don’t even recognize them as self-willed entities?
In this article I explore the balance between the individual leader of heroic myth and organizational structures so large they fade into the background of perception, but more intelligent than any single member.
In Exploring Aggregate Intelligence: Superintelligence in Organizations, I introduced the idea of aggregate intelligence - groups of intelligent entities that, when formed into a network, take on their own individual character. We say that aggregate intelligences can possess both super-capability - the capability to do more than any individual member - and super-intelligence - the ability to solve cognitive problems that no single member could. Most people easily accept the idea of super-capability. Obviously the ancient Egyptian state could build pyramids, yet no individual worker could even move a single giant block of stone. Super-intelligence, while less readily accepted, also remains easily shown. No single engineer knows enough to construct a modern jetliner, but the aggregate intelligence we call Boeing can do so. We can model and simulate aggregate intelligence - and I do so in articles like **Can Organizations Think Better Than Their Members? Simulating Aggregate Intelligence** and The Effect of Connectivity on Aggregate Intelligence.
Anyone who has played or worked on a team realizes that the team quickly forms an identity that is a composite of, and in a way separate from, individual members’ identities. Although we are not used to thinking of large human institutions such as modern governments, organized religions, and corporations as intelligent entities unto themselves, viewing the world in this way provides a valuable analytical lens. Aggregate intelligences survive the departure or loss of any one member, own and utilize property, access the legal system, and persist for longer than a human lifespan. They pursue goals against a competitive landscape in a complex environment, and when possible they restructure the social, legal, and economic landscape to support their action (see **Superintelligence and the “Control Problem” — Gleaning Lessons for AI Safety).**
Readers new to the idea of aggregate intelligence often initially reject the idea that human institutions such as governments, corporations, and organized religions have their own identity separate from that of any individual leader. People think in stories, and our stories tend, not surprisingly, to be human-centric. Yet once we begin recognizing organizations as intelligent entities in their own right, we must ask: do humans really run the world?
Consider a news feed of current events. Because we relate to stories, people follow intently the moves of individual public figures. But when we consider the actions that produce meaningful consequences, those are generally taken by organizations. Parliaments pass legislation that significantly change our world’s operating landscape. That legislation, in turn, is typically written by large lobbyist firms, who are retained by corporations and NGOs. Law and policy are enforced by bureaucracies and police. All of these entities are aggregate organizations much larger in scale than an individual person.
We might tell ourselves that powerful individuals such as presidents, parliament leaders, and CEOs run those organizations. But is this really true? Certainly they have some control, and more than those outside the system. But does a CEO truly run a multinational conglomerate - or is the CEO simply a part of the aggregate? Often executives spend much of their time negotiating with their own organizations, from whom their legitimacy ultimately derives.
When we think of influential corporate leaders, we often think of those who built an organization. During a company’s early growth stages, individual leaders have high influence and can set culture. But as the organization matures into a machine built to do business a certain way, power diffuses beyond any single leader into the bureaucracy and it develops resistance to change. We feel this most directly in the emergency of a corporate culture. What is a “culture fit” if not the aggregate organization selecting its acceptable members? Executives are usually drawn from the ranks of upper managers, who are drawn from the ranks of middle managers. At each level, culture imposes a significant selection filter. Executives are, ultimately, those who the culture would accept, and who best accepted the various managerial hazing rituals imposed by that culture. Note that changing corporate culture poses a notoriously difficult and well-documented challenge. Such initiatives often fail, even when supported by strong executives with specialist resources.
So while we tend to think of our organizations as monarchies in which a new leader can make sweeping changes, in reality an established organization usually gets the leader that the organization will accept.
While aggregate intelligence controls much more than we often recognize, powerful individuals must play some role. What, then, are the characteristics and limits of heroic leaders vs. aggregate intelligences? To explore this question, I consider the sovereign monarch.
The monarch represents the opposite pole from aggregate intelligence, concentrating immense power in the hands of a single human leader using a strong hierarchy. Distinct from the somewhat more distributed decision making of the aggregate intelligence, in this hierarchy information flows upward to the sovereign while important decisions flow down, to be implemented by subordinates.
Throughout history kings, queens, and dictators have reshaped the human landscape. I will consider three powerful historical monarchs to explore the interplay between the historical trends in which they found themselves and their personal capacity to wield power to shape the landscape. For comparison, I include also an evangelist saint who achieved similar results with no personal power at all. Although one could choose any lens, these particular examples are taken from the history of Christianity.
Emperor Constantine (”Constantine the Great”)
The first emperor of his name, Constantine was born into the a declining and disintegrating Roman empire beset by constant internal challenges and internal dissolution. Born in the 3rd century AD, Constantine came to power at a time when the rise of Christianity had persisted despite severe persecution by prior Roman emperors. Born to a pious Greek Christian woman of low birth and a Roman general who acknowledged and legitimized his son, Constantine proved to be the transitional leader who restored the failing empire. After converting to Christianity and defeating his rivals, Constantine instituted the Edict of Milan, ending the Christian persecutions and officially allowing Christianity within the empire. He later convened the first Council of Nicea, a fundamental event that codified Christian belief. He restructured the empire, overhauled its major institutions - the military and the civil bureaucracy - and restructured the currency, introducing the gold solidus. Finally, he moved the Roman empire’s capital to Byzantium, renaming it Constantinople. Together these reforms reversed the empire’s decline and led to 1,000 years of relative peace and stability.
Western scholars often refer to the Roman empire after Constantine as the “Byzantine empire” but Constantine and his successors held no such view. They viewed themselves as the continuing Roman empire, which escaped the disorder that accompanied the eventual fall of Rome itself.
Constantine the Great, then, was a leader who ascended during a transitional time. By aligning with the rise of Christianity while preserving and restoring other key elements of the empire’s operating system, he was able to reform and sustain the empire. His story manifests clear elements of both individual decision making and aligning himself with the greater historical tides of his time.