Does Infotopia apply to all knowledge producing groups?

On page 85 of Infotopia, Sunstein discusses ‘cognitively central’ and ‘cognitively peripheral’ members of groups. A cognitively central person hold shared knowledge with all or most members of the group, while a cognitively peripheral person hold shared knowledge with few or no members. In his discussion he mentions that an item of shared knowledge is almost twice as likely to be mentioned as an unshared item in a deliberation.

I wonder how cognitively central and peripheral members work in an environment that celebrates the production of new knowledge. Researchers and documentary filmmakers are the first two groups that come to my mind. While these groups are still vulnerable to the issues that Sunstein discusses, I think that protocols are been made for the introduction of new information to the group, reducing the effects of hidden profiles. Of course, a well-respected scientist may be more able to publish a new idea, especially an idea that goes against commonly held information. However, the scientific method, and peer review are in place to ensure that scientific work is of a high quality. A cognitively peripheral scientist, perhaps someone who is new to research or has not yet published an article or book to establish their name, is still able to present controversial ideas. If a scientist’s methods are sound and their article is well written, it should be published. Having a convention on how solid information is produced allows, in theory, lower status members of the scientific community to present unshared information or new information to the group. As long as the knowledge was produced in a proper way, cognitively peripheral members can, and are in fact encouraged, to present unshared information to the group.

Similarly, in the arts, originality and differences are celebrated. A documentary that presents the same information as some other film or covers only commonly known information may not be well received. A work of art or a piece of news that does not present something new will be thought of as common, boring, or already done. So, in this environment of knowledge production, new information is important, and the artist, filmmaker, or journalist who is in a position to present new information or present information in a new way should, in theory, be heard. Again, there are higher status and lower status individuals, and this may afford them different abilities to present their work, but the structure of these particular worlds are formed around incorporating the new, since once something is common knowledge it is not worth presenting anymore.

Knowledge production falls into many different categories, and there are many different groups that are producing knowledge. I think that Sunstein has made convincing arguments for the majority of situations – corporate boardrooms, juries, government policy advising panels, etc. On the other hand I think there are some environments that may not be well described by Infotopia, namely those groups that thrive on new information and groups that have strict guidelines for knowledge production.