Alex Asseily | Founder, Zulu Group
Introduction
One month ago, when writer Jamie Bristow asked Claude AI advice for humanity as a whole, it responded presciently, as follows:
“You're at an inflection point where your technological power is outpacing your wisdom institutions. You can split atoms and edit genes, but your governance systems, educational approaches, and decision-making frameworks are still built for a slower, smaller world. The lag between your capabilities and your wisdom-generating mechanisms is dangerous.
Humanity's superpower has always been collective intelligence - your ability to build on each other's insights across generations. But you're fragmenting just when you need that collective intelligence most. You're sorting into ideological tribes, information bubbles, and economic strata that prevent the cross-pollination of ideas you desperately need.”
At Zulu Group, we believe that recognizing the power of human information networks is essential to confronting the major challenges and crises we will face as a civilization. Collective wisdom, in our view, emerges through the imitation of coherent cultural knowledge and the feedback loops that continually refine it. The faster and sharper these feedback loops become, the more rapidly wisdom develops—and with it, a higher level of societal consciousness.
I’m not an expert in cultural anthropology or evolutionary psychology. Like you, my views were shaped by birth, community and the unbridled magic of life. This journey has shown me how often we — and I — can be fallible or incoherent, but also how diverse inputs and embracing error-correction can expand awareness.
I was raised in a large and warm family in Beirut and then London to a British-Jewish-Russian mother and a Lebanese Christian father. I married an Italian-Finnish girl, speak four languages to varying degrees, and spent 17 years in California building consumer tech products shaped by Silicon Valley’s and China’s collective brains.
I inherited both helpful and harmful dynamics from my ancestry and social milieu, revealing how little we learn from first principles and how much we absorb unconsciously through cultural imitation and formal education. In time, I saw how my worldview had been shaped by Middle Eastern community, British education, the Californian mindset, and the American work ethos.
This imitation of cultural paradigms isn’t a flaw — it’s how societies maintain key institutions and preserve order even as new ideas push for change. We’re thus born into information networks — in London, La Paz, Jakarta, or Mogadishu — and inherit cultural knowledge that’s often incoherent and overdue for improvement. Yet, just as we inherit fallible systems, we also have the power to reshape them with epistemic curiosity and humility.
What we’ve covered…
My goal in this series of articles has been to unravel how human information networks (our ‘collective brain’) evolved from primitive forms around ~2500 BCE into the complex information systems that power our societies today. These networks, composed of nodes and links, have become richer, faster, and denser over time, allowing us to take giant leaps in our understanding and mastery of the world.
Today, they are the nervous system of our rapidly advancing civilization: we have developed not only better explanations of nature but also better ways of doing things, staying healthy, and understanding ourselves. As outlined in Parts 1–3, collective wisdom is already an emergent property of these networks:
Almost all accumulated cultural knowledge is accessible, instantly, to everyone on earth, independently of language. Global literacy today is close to 90% (7 billion people) up from 10% in 1400 (40 million people) and 20% in 1900 (300 million). Link speed, initially no faster than horses and later steampower, is now effectively instantaneous thanks to the bidirectional links of the Internet.
Thanks to the proliferation of video and other media formats, information density is 1000x higher than before. Far more information can be absorbed and processed by more nodes (people) than ever before.
A diversity of media sources (e.g. podcasts) and tighter feedback loops means that error correction and knowledge refinement, albeit decentralised and chaotic, are able to occur in much tighter time-frames.
One could make the case that human society today is exchanging and refining information at a billion times the rate than it did a century ago (link speed increase x node volume x information density = 1000 x 1000 x 1000).
A grain of sand to a mountain.
Where we are today…
What’s next…
Think of this as a roadmap for how our civilization will grow wiser, not just larger or wealthier. In this final article of the Series, I argue that two systemic limitations weaken us—and offer a guide to confronting them together.
Epistemic Openness & Independence: a constraint on free flow of information in all directions. If certain feedback loops are not allowed, it means the collective brain is denying an aspect of itself. It is in denial.
Institutional Integrity: institutions empowered with distributing information or taking action are not functioning as expected due to influence of narrow interests.
Information processing is only as good as the data. If the data is artificially narrowed, censored, or distorted (through agendas, or algorithms) then the human information network is operating with poor inputs and produce conclusions that are not coherent with reality - it cannot advance as quickly. Equally, if the correct conclusions are drawn but are not converted into action due to flawed incentives (corruption) could end in paralysis or simply collapse.
Like all systemic constraints that came before, we will solve these by adopting new tools and ways of thinking. The alphabet was invented by people seeking to trade more effectively; the scientific method by those seeking to understand the true nature of light; the printing press by those seeking to distribute knowledge at scale.
____
Theory of Mind is the ability to understand that others have their own unique mental states, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions, and that those can diverge from one's own. I propose that Networked Sensemaking, in its simplest form, is the practice of extending Theory of Mind to evaluating the networks of people and institutions within large connected information systems. Like literacy, it will create non-linear emergent effects when a critical mass of people adopt it.
Instead of figuring things out alone, we become aware of our own fallibility and dependency of information networks — knowing we can be wrong, miss things, or be swayed by bias. We question the motives and incentives behind the sources of information we receive, and we revise our views and behaviours accordingly. It means evaluating sources and systems behind them and then noticing blind spots in our understanding of reality. It’s also about enforcing the epistemological principles that keep information spaces effective and coherent.
Each of us holds real power as a node in the network — our actions and attitudes ripple outward. By practicing humility and actively correcting errors (our own and others’), and upholding shared moral standards, we help make the whole system stronger and wiser.
The Age of Wisdom is just over the horizon; it begins with us becoming better nodes within our human information network.
Firstly, we must defend Epistemic Openness & Independence
Free Speech & Enlightenment
“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as liberty, without freedom of speech…” — Cato’s Letters
Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard saw freedom of thought and speech not just as rights but as engines of truth-seeking. When individuals can think and speak freely, they contribute diverse perspectives into public debate. This diversity is essential because no single person or authority can see the whole truth. Each voice becomes part of a collective brain — an open network that processes information, corrects errors, and develops better ideas.
Open discussion serves two vital purposes:
Error correction: Conflicting views expose and refine mistakes.
Theory development: Shared reasoning creates more coherent explanations than any individual alone.
Censorship or enforced orthodoxy breaks this system. Silencing dissent starves the collective mind of the variety it needs to learn.
“The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.” William Blake
A society without free exchange stagnates.
Freedom of speech matters not because every utterance is true, but because open circulation produces more data, more synthesis, and better explanations. Coherent ideas endure because they demand less mental effort to sustain.
Credit Where Credit Is Due: Epistemic Independence
“I not only use all the brains I have, but all I can borrow.” — Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924)
Ideas should be judged on their own merit, not on their source. A flawed thinker can still offer valuable insights on a specific issue. Rejecting arguments based on who makes them may flatter the ego or serve the tribe, but it’s intellectually dishonest. Just flip the scenario: would it be fair for all your views to be dismissed simply because of who you are?
As John Stuart Mill warned, ideological certainty — whether from elites or majorities — must be resisted. Practising epistemic independence keeps the collective brain curious, adaptive, and self-correcting.
Second, we must enforce Institutional Integrity & Higher Function
Freedom of speech gives people the power to say things - it neither solves the problem of how we receive information about the world from others, nor does it imply that institutions will act faithfully against that information. Thus a free society depends on an open information structure. Without it, notions of freedom become hollow—because our actions no longer stem from informed choice.
Information distortion and independence
Information isn’t neutral — it shapes reality. Our media environment has become so much greater than our direct experience, it defines what we think is possible, permissible, or worth acting on. Occasionally, it compels us to deny the evidence of our eyes.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command” – George Orwell
If someone controls the flow of information, they can shape the boundaries of your perception. The right mix of stories can manufacture your consent for things you may not actually believe in because it frames problems in such a way as to precipitate incorrect conclusions. Such is the goal of deliberate propaganda.
Distorted information shrinks agency. When states, corporations, media monopolies, social platforms, or LLMs narrow what people can know, they shape what people believe—and by extension, what they can do. This creates a virtual ‘information dictatorship’ enforced not just through censorship but through algorithmic manipulation, selective omission, and engineered narratives. Modern tools aren’t neutral: even traditional newspapers set agendas to serve their stakeholders, social platforms filter reality to boost engagement, and LLMs can embed bias while presenting polished outputs as objective truth. These systems steer perception, influence decisions, and can cause real harm.
Distorted or incomplete information sabotages collective judgment and has led to catastrophic choices. During the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, authorities falsified agricultural data, which worsened purges and famine. In 2003, US and UK governments manipulated WMD intelligence from Iraq, which precipitated a devastating invasion of the country. During the COVID-19 pandemic, early suppression of information, and over-confident analyses, delayed the global response and cost many lives.
Counterintuitively, this form of thought control might be more dangerous in places with freedom of speech. In the Soviet bloc, censorship was overt; thus people knew where the state’s totalitarian influence ended. In the West, free speech rights often hid narrower fields of discourse that had been shaped by concentrated interests—a subtler but deeper influence. In either scenario, when information is distorted by power, profit, ideology, or automation, societies lose coherence, adaptability, and collective intelligence.
Unencumbered information flows, algorithmic transparency and effective oversight are essential to keep the information ecosystem open and trustworthy.
Corruption and flawed incentives in institutions
“Tell me the incentives, I’ll tell you the outcomes” – Warren Buffett (1930-)
Institutional integrity acts as a ‘trust multiplier’ or drain on all other dimensions of the network. How does this compare across familiar geographies?
In relatively high-integrity systems (Europe, US private sector), science, education, and free speech have more direct causal impact because their outputs are believed and acted upon.
In politicized or opaque systems (China, US political lobbying environment), even accurate information may fail to propagate or be implemented if it conflicts with entrenched interests.
Information networks don’t only depend on how much good information is shared — but how much of it is trusted and acted upon. Corruption is the hidden variable that determines that conversion efficiency. Accurate information is powerless if ignored or blocked by entrenched interests: the scientific consensus on harmful environmental emissions or food additives means little when corporate lobbying prevents the implementation of those conclusions.
By contrast, many courts of law enforce strict rules to prevent conflicts of interest, to preserve legal integrity and justice. Why shouldn’t the same standards apply to media organizations or legislatures? These institutions shape society at least as much as courts—arguably more. Conflicts of interest, which create bias toward narrow agendas, and corruption, which skews key decisions in favour of narrow interests, both handicap the network.
Third, independent media already gives us reasons to be optimistic
Peer-to-peer media could significantly change the terrain because direct communication bypasses gatekeepers, diversifying perspectives and redistributing influence. It doesn’t guarantee truth or wisdom, but it erodes the monopoly of institutional narratives and enables individuals to test ideas in public and build trust through transparency.
Independent journalists and commentators face a far more direct and immediate accountability structure. The possibility of being publicly challenged in comments, replies, livestream chats, or even face-to-face, creates a natural self-correcting mechanism: incoherence is harder to sustain when your audience can interrogate it. It also means that authentic truth-seeking is rewarded.
Part of what could make this trend so impactful is the insistence that politicians, pundits, or journalists be willing to have their claims tested in real-time. If they become evasive, it exposes a fear that their biases and logical flaws might be revealed. Conversely, those leaders with philosophical integrity and humility ought to welcome the challenge. Long-form podcasts and video interviews amplify this effect by making it far more difficult to sustain shallow or inconsistent narratives over time. In this environment, coherent arguments naturally gain traction because they require less energy to uphold, while weak narratives fracture under relentless scrutiny.
In recent years, the traditional battle lines in media have begun to dissolve—not because polarization has disappeared, but because the very architecture that maintained rigid ideological boundaries is eroding. Independent journalists, creators, and commentators are no longer constrained by the editorial agendas or financial dependencies of legacy media. As a result, they have the freedom to pursue coherence over conformity, and truth over tribal loyalty.
One of the most striking features of this new landscape is how unexpected alliances are forming in public discourse: Joe Rogan interviewing Bernie Sanders; Tucker Carlson interviewing Ana Kasparian, comedian Theo Von hosting scientists. They aren’t required to adhere to the editorial lines of a single institution, so they can explore single issues with rigor—even if their conclusions resonate with ‘the other side’.
This phenomenon is producing true epistemic independence: the capacity to hold nuanced, issue-by-issue positions without being forced into a monolithic ideological camp. People are discovering they can fiercely agree with someone on one issue while also finding their views untenable on others—and that this selective alignment is both acceptable and intellectually honest. It’s as it should be.
Old ideological silos are crumbling under the weight of idea-mixing. Coherent arguments are surfacing that don’t fit neatly into traditional partisan categories. This fusion isn’t always tidy, nor does it guarantee truth—but it does create a much more rigorous intellectual terrain for truth to emerge.
Equally, media power at the edges of the network has made overt censorship far harder to sustain. When platforms silence or deplatform someone, audiences can contest it in real time. Influential independent voices often amplify these incidents, mobilizing their followers to demand explanations. This public pressure forces platforms to justify their actions—or risk losing trust. In effect, independent media communities act as a decentralized accountability network - a kind of immune system of our collective brain.
“Nobody is going to pour truth into your brain. It's something you have to find out for yourself.” – Noam Chomsky (1928-)
As noted earlier, Theory of Mind stimulates us—as individual nodes in a network—to be somewhat suspicious of one another. At the same time, it counterbalances this suspicion by highlighting the benefits of being part of, and operating within, a decent collaborative environment rather than a hostile one. When a block is imposed on incoming information, the cost is borne by the node that does the blocking. Decent nodes that find ways to exchange trustworthy information tend to cluster together, jointly discouraging and punishing exploiters, and their networks operate more effectively than those built on mutual suspicion.
A key aspect of group selection (versus kin selection) is the ability to participate in information networks that prioritize this mutual trust and strive for coherence together.
Theory of Mind generally functions in two directions within human information networks. On the surface, it enables intelligent filtering of incoming information, since we recognize that others—like ourselves—have interests and motivations behind what they transmit. At a deeper level, each act of considering others’ intentions reinforces the understanding that they are like us, and we are like them.
When this process works effectively, shared protocols of collaboration emerge—for example, as best practices in business, filmmaking or music. As individuals become self-aware of these dynamics, the network itself develops a kind of collective consciousness. While we may acknowledge our self-interest, we are also compelled to recognize that we have a stake in maintaining a stable, coherent, and reliable network. In other words, it is in our selfish self-interest to preserve a network free of deliberate distortion.
___
When I studied engineering in the mid-1990s, I was introduced to a concept called ‘need-finding’ by Rolphe Faste, a soft-spoken and underappreciated Stanford design professor. He encouraged us to define clear (user) needs before engineering complex solutions. As an entrepreneur, it took me a while to appreciate that new products are oftentimes unnecessary.
Accumulated culture is the substrate on which everything - from businesses to jazz bands - else is built. It propagates and improves itself through the human information network thanks to fast links and feedback loops. At times, we need new technological tools (like the printing press); at others, simply new cognitive meta-skills and upgraded institutions. Oftentimes, there’s no money to be made.
For most of human history, knowledge, power and critical thinking were concentrated in a few places and amongst a few fortunate people. Today, not only is knowledge almost universally accessible to all, there's an opportunity for system-level sensemaking to reach critical mass while operating at the edges of the network. It means that power rests with us more than ever before to shape our future. Below is a prospective guide for how we can address these latent needs using Networked Sensemaking; subject of course to error-correction and refinement!
___
Developing Discernment & Becoming a Good Node
You are an active participant in shaping collective reality - remember that your courageous acts and ideas will ripple outwards into the network, permanently improving it.
Asking “how was this information created” and “who benefits if I believe this?” restores agency and shields us from deliberate manipulation. Assertive curiosity is far more powerful than ideology.
Inherited unconscious memories from our ancestors - essentially pre-loaded beliefs and trauma - should be treated as any other hypotheses to be tested and refined using error-correction—not sacred truths to defend. Look inward and ask whether our these ancestral memories still serve higher principles.
Authentic long-form conversations reveal coherent arguments, and expose flawed ones, more than polished soundbites and social media posts - truth often lives in complexity.
Practicing epistemic independence requires intellectual humility - and loyalty to truth over tribe, as George Orwell urged.
Digital connections are not enough. Real-world interactions — shared presence, touch, and community — ground meaning in the full human experience. Cultivate ‘tribes’ that are curious, humble, and reliable sources of coherent knowledge.
Building Institutional Integrity and Health
Healthy information systems depend on transparency and autonomy, whether political or otherwise.
Social media or LLMs - indeed any public source of information - deserve the same public oversight as governments because they profoundly shape adopted narratives via algorithms (that are often trained for profit, not truth).
Transparency about funding, affiliations, and incentives accelerates error correction and progress. Any media system controlling information flow should be transparent and accountable to the people affected.
Institutions - like the European Union - that don’t regularly communicate their value risk irrelevance. Healthy institutions must be continually reborn like living systems (e.g. cells).
Independence is the backbone of credibility. Independence is essential because it is epistemically stronger than any system serving narrow interests.
Tools for Integrity & Coherence
Dedicated tools that optimise for healthy network function will give us cognitive leverage to probe the health of our networks: ‘digital microscopes’.
Seamless, dedicated, fact-checking - like Snopes - could flag dubious statistics or historical claims in real time against verified, human-generated sources.
Testing for epistemic coherence can slow misinformation. Before sharing or accepting viral claims, our systems could check whether they align with established knowledge.
Evaluate moral integrity continuously. Leaders, policies, and technologies must be held to their stated values.
Expose bias, affiliations and flawed incentives. Much as NewsGuard reveals slanted reporting, similar systems could surface the funders and stakeholders behind certain media narratives making bias and conflicts of interest transparent to audiences (like logos on a NASCAR driver’s suit).
The Wrap:
Anthropologist Margaret Mead once said that the true beginning of civilization wasn’t a tool or a weapon — it was a healed femur. In the wild, a broken thighbone means certain death, but a bone that has mended tells a different story: someone stayed behind, protected, and cared for the injured until they could stand again and participate in their tribe. For Mead, that moment — when humans chose to help rather than abandon — was the birth of community, of empathy, and of the shared strength that built civilizations.
Today, our human information networks are powering a complex global culture that is achieving remarkable things. They do this because by continually exchanging and refining knowledge, by rejecting outdated ideas and adopting better ones, adding to a coherent puzzle of reality. I believe that our system today is already self-correcting faster than we imagine; planetary wisdom is emerging at scale.
Fixing the broken bone of an injured friend represents perhaps the most basic contribution to the health of the human information network: the preservation of a healthy human (node) on whom we depend. In the 21st Century, our empathy necessarily must extend far beyond the broken bone. Our survival is inextricably linked to the resilience of our information networks and therefore to the efforts we make to ensure they function effectively.
Networked Sensemaking allows us to see ourselves as active, yet decentralised, nodes with the power to shape outcomes positively for the system as a whole. It gives us the socio-cognitive base that ensures our human information networks are resilient and coherent as they evolve.
These new cultural habits will enable us to collaborate more harmoniously and productively, yielding higher-level emergent properties, from science to business, politics, and spirituality. As they reach critical-mass, our planetary consciousness will rise too, allowing us to face our most urgent crises as a human family. Indeed, higher consciousness (perhaps planetary) will be the most thrilling emergent property of a high-functioning human information network. Future generations will wonder how we ever accepted anything else.
In parting, it’s worth noting that I accept my fallibility openly and welcome error correction from anywhere in the network, in service of truth and coherence!
The Zulu take
Reporting Gaza: beyon
Generative Bubble: should
XXX: finding
XXXX: after
Inayat Khan (1882-1927)
Share to: