I stopped reading after the first sentence

I think your blog screwed up one of my eyes

Yes, intelligence does that to some people.

I cannot believe you memed, serp.

Applying a concept where it doesn't belong allows one to think of ways that things are similar. While it might not be as strict, it is still a place to start. Simple concepts are beautiful because of their generality, given enough flexibility they can be applied to most things

What can't be applied to intelligence is the the first law, and therefore I'd think it can't be viewed as energy. It can be distributed, however, and that does allow entropy to have some relations. And one can reduce the entropy of a system, given an increase in surrounding systems. By grouping intelligence we drain other areas. But just as we group energy in power plants to deploy it for use in what the loss couldn't be originally used for, we may be able to group intelligence and deploy it for an application which is more difficult to do with distributed intelligence

(Excuse the bloated text, it isn't often I get to directly discuss these things very often and am therefore lacking in how to go about it concisely)

The application, therefore, should be taken with a pinch of salt or, if it seems illogical and non-empirical, discouraged altogether.

It is possible to destroy and create intelligence, one does not need to conserve intelligence. Intelligence cannot be stored as such, only knowledge (the product of intelligence, work and time) may be stored. At a first glance, energy and intelligence are utterly different.

However, I do believe there is an effective entropy of intelligence, as you pointed out, that not all the intelligence in a group of people can necessarily be brought to bear on a single issue. As a result, if one treats a collection of people as a system, there is undeniabley useful and unused intelligence which leads to a degree of entropy.

I'd say that entropy of intelligence is not like entropy of energy beyond the most basic definition - the amount of a unuseable property (energy or intelligence) in a given system. Let us call the entropy of intelligence intropy.

Let us say intropy, S, is the rate of change of useable intelligence, I, with respect to the number of people, N:

S = dI / dN

Intropy is constant with respect to the number of people

S = -k * N

Hence, via separation of variables:

I = e^( -k * N )

Considering this is for one person, a group of N people must show I * N intelligence.

If we take k to be 0.2, the graph shows that the greatest effective intelligence occurs at around 4-6 people. The effective intelligence peters out with more and more people, reaching close to 0. Clearly, a few people are intelligent and rational - many people are stupid and foolish. If the value of k is higher, 0.45 for example, the optimum number is 2-3 people. k is the wasteage constant, a high value indicates that a lot of intelligence is wasted between people. A low value indicates that communication of intelligence is efficient.

As for global maxima of the graph, a lower of value of k is preferable. Despite the maximum effective intelligence occuring at low values of N for high values of k, the maximal intelligence is significantly lower than that of low wasteage constants. For example, at k = 0.1, there is an effective intelligence of 3.68 for 10 people. At k = 0.2, the maximum value of I is 1.84. To bring to bear the maximum intelligence on one problem, the wasteage constant must be minimised.

But how? Better communication, better tools to store knowledge and better tools to retrieve knowledge. Increasing literacy and numeracy to communicate ideas more effectively and most of all, strong leadership.

Let us bring this full circle now and discuss dispersed versus integrated intelligence. Dispersed intelligence is incredibley efficient - it is, in fact, the most efficient. But it means that each intelligence is working on things separately and will yield no unified solutions. Combined, concentrated, intelligence will provide solutions but slowly if not properly managed. The secret, therefore, to achieve progress that is watertight and unified is to minimise wasteage via better communication. If we extrapolate this, for a company or business to function effectively, a strong layered heirachy must be used so that each unit of intelligence (modelled above as a person but can be extended to any knowledge-producing entity) is kept within reasonable limits.

This is nothing new. Communication, as many are told and are keen on telling, is the key to success. As for heirachies, Nature has already formed those for us. Feudalism, military structures and large corportations all worked and still work on a layered system.

Yes, I'd have to agree with a large part of that (Though why one would bring calculus into the mix I'm unsure of, as am I of how you concluded that intropy remains constant in a set of people. Mind fleshing that out a little?). Large groups get little done, but that's mainly due to maintenance costs. (Rome, anyone?)

Since intelligence doesn't obey the first law, one must ask if concentrating intelligence can spawn intelligence. Research centers, Universities and technological cities like Silicon Valley are all places that imply that intelligence is created by concentrating intelligence

One place that intelligence breaks the second law is that when by using intelligence we do not degrade it, but enhance it. The main comparison is more that when intelligence is dispersed it becomes increasingly redundant

Much of this is most likely due to the process of intelligences teaching each other when in contact