emergentfutures
tacanderson:

Four people is the optimum sized team for collaborating on a project.
This is far from scientific and it’s only one example but it’s interesting. In this case it seems to imply that for work that relies on generating activity (e.g. generating ideas, editing existing content) 2 or 3 collaborators on a project are better than 1, and 4 are better than 1, 2, or 3, but 4 are also better than 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9. Not until you get to 10 or more collaborators do you see an increase in activity per person. This makes some sense as collaborating on a project sparks more ideas, if you’re accountable to a group of people then you’re more likely to hit deadlines, but once you get above 4 people the extra communication needed to coordinate works against individual productivity.
Once you hit 10 or more people a different communication protocol emerges. One of two things is probably happening. This is probably closer to crowdsourcing than collaboration. You probably have a few owners of the project with multiple inputing only occasionally. 
There’s probably other research out there on optimal team size, I should find some. 

tacanderson:

Four people is the optimum sized team for collaborating on a project.

This is far from scientific and it’s only one example but it’s interesting. In this case it seems to imply that for work that relies on generating activity (e.g. generating ideas, editing existing content) 2 or 3 collaborators on a project are better than 1, and 4 are better than 1, 2, or 3, but 4 are also better than 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9. Not until you get to 10 or more collaborators do you see an increase in activity per person. This makes some sense as collaborating on a project sparks more ideas, if you’re accountable to a group of people then you’re more likely to hit deadlines, but once you get above 4 people the extra communication needed to coordinate works against individual productivity.

Once you hit 10 or more people a different communication protocol emerges. One of two things is probably happening. This is probably closer to crowdsourcing than collaboration. You probably have a few owners of the project with multiple inputing only occasionally. 

There’s probably other research out there on optimal team size, I should find some. 

thenewinquiry

You’ll Never Walk Alone

thenewinquiry:

image

If walking is the most philosophical way of getting around, solitary strolls in nature won’t cut it. You have to choose who to march alongside. 

Ways of getting around come with their own outlooks on the world. Cars, Americans are told again and again, mean freedom and comfort. Yet they can just as well be a burden, from the social costs of car-dependent communities to the way cars turn drivers into isolated individuals raging at the world outside their little metal box. Public transit can feel frustrating, involving lots of waiting and plodding routes. But there’s a solidarity that emerges on the subway or bus, the feeling that we’re all in it together, that makes it feel democratic. Whereas walking, trusting your own two feet, can mark one out as an interloper. It’s the mode of the solitary thinker, the flâneur, the backpacker. Yet it can be just as much a communal activity – from the solidarity of through-hikers on the Appalachian Trail to the crowd at a demonstration, people are on their own two feet together. The ambivalence of walking, which makes room for solo saunters and mass marches alike, has made it attractive to quite a few artists and thinkers.

For Frédéric Gros, a Parisian professor and Foucault specialist, walking is also the most philosophical way of getting around. In A Philosophy of Walking (originally published as Marcher: une philosophie in 2009), Gros expounds a view of the world in which walking is the cure for all modernity’s indignities. Setting off on a walk is self-liberation, discarding drab duties or even rejecting a “rotten, polluted, alienating, shabby civilization” for an ascetic freedom. Given his interest in Foucault, one might expect Gros to see the aimless, rambling walk as an evasive countermeasure against surveillance and discipline. But his emphasis is more on the philosophical, timeless value of wandering. He brings home the extent to which walking, practically the simplest activity there is, has been made almost peculiar in most societies. Yet his fundamentally Romantic sensibility leads him to an odd vision of the practice—so caught up in the sublime and lofty that it misses what’s at its own feet.

Read More

politicsprose
uutpoetry:

Why Existentialism Frightens Children
The average and typical studio philosopher holds on with her bright harp holds on with her reality rhododendrons holds tightly to the facticity spectrum to the wiry headline toxins.
She stares out and thinks and thinks. The head is cleared by activity of legs. The head is cleared by her wordless orphaned thoughts.
Nails in feet. Flung skirts. Human stags.
Giant metal pincers protrude from heaven and pluck the family of earth while helicopters and Apollonians gather round crashing against the shoals of wind like so many Achaean ships.
The Great Bear watches,  soaking it all up, through every membrane,  as if the whole body were a craving mouth.
seed text: Ted Hughes, Collected Poems art by Karen Constance paintings and collage

uutpoetry:

Why Existentialism Frightens Children

The average and typical studio philosopher
holds on with her bright harp
holds on with her reality rhododendrons
holds tightly to the facticity spectrum
to the wiry headline toxins.

She stares out and thinks and thinks.
The head is cleared by activity of legs.
The head is cleared
by her wordless orphaned thoughts.

Nails in feet.
Flung skirts.
Human stags.

Giant metal pincers protrude from heaven
and pluck the family of earth
while helicopters and Apollonians gather round
crashing against the shoals of wind
like so many Achaean ships.

The Great Bear watches,
soaking it all up, through every membrane,
as if the whole body were a craving mouth.

seed text: Ted Hughes, Collected Poems
art by Karen Constance paintings and collage