Comments on: Clay Shirky: Here Comes Everybody at RSA http://strange.corante.com/2008/03/18/clay-shirky-here-comes-everybody-at-rsa Picking out patterns in the chaos Mon, 21 May 2012 13:23:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: lewis http://strange.corante.com/2008/03/18/clay-shirky-here-comes-everybody-at-rsa#comment-2839 lewis Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:39:34 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2008/03/18/clay-shirky-here-comes-everybody-at-rsa#comment-2839 hi, there is an interesting conversation between clay shirky and daniel goleman (the author of emotional intelligence) which you can listen to free samples of at morethansound.net, thanks, lewis hi, there is an interesting conversation between clay shirky and daniel goleman (the author of emotional intelligence) which you can listen to free samples of at morethansound.net, thanks, lewis

]]> By: Sam Cannon http://strange.corante.com/2008/03/18/clay-shirky-here-comes-everybody-at-rsa#comment-2838 Sam Cannon Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:31:14 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2008/03/18/clay-shirky-here-comes-everybody-at-rsa#comment-2838 WRT Maslow, you could shorten the sentence to: "The social goal is to increase the amount of time people have to give." One would assume that they would give correctly. Check out Maslow's "Theory Z" and the difference between Clinton and Obama. One transcending SA and the other, an Eisenhower type. WRT Maslow, you could shorten the sentence to:
“The social goal is to increase the amount of time people have to give.”

One would assume that they would give correctly.

Check out Maslow’s “Theory Z” and the difference between Clinton and Obama. One transcending SA and the other, an Eisenhower type.

]]> By: donnie mcleod http://strange.corante.com/2008/03/18/clay-shirky-here-comes-everybody-at-rsa#comment-2837 donnie mcleod Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:43:14 +0000 http://strange.corante.com/2008/03/18/clay-shirky-here-comes-everybody-at-rsa#comment-2837 I suspect the ideal small grouping will be 5 or 6 individuals. It is about half of twelve, 1 in 12 people are inherently ubable to be fair so destroy the trust needed for colloboration. A smaller than 12 grouping of 5 or 6 people will tend to punish those that are not fair if one is in the group. The challenge for technology is to enable small groups to form on an ad hoc basis based on practicle fit of each element of the group for the task at hand and then enable the group to black ball the inherently unfair for the groups own protection. A group never larger than 5 or 6. I suspect the ideal small grouping will be 5 or 6 individuals. It is about half of twelve, 1 in 12 people are inherently ubable to be fair so destroy the trust needed for colloboration. A smaller than 12 grouping of 5 or 6 people will tend to punish those that are not fair if one is in the group. The challenge for technology is to enable small groups to form on an ad hoc basis based on practicle fit of each element of the group for the task at hand and then enable the group to black ball the inherently unfair for the groups own protection. A group never larger than 5 or 6.

]]>