Hmm, could you say more? I tend to think of social influences as good for propagating ideas—as opposed to generating new ones, which seems to depend more on the creativity of individuals or small groups.
(Social influence might not be the best word here.)
1) rewarding creativity (its opposite might be more infamous)
2)
a) Convening for idea generation, esp. regularly on a schedule (Purpose, Method)
b) via joining hallways and close proximity. (Method for increasing Creativity/Productivity[3])
Examples that come to mind:
People in the same/similar fields can achieve more working together[1]. People in different fields working together[1] can as well, both for similar reasons (2 heads > 1, identical shared problems[2]) and different ones (seeing if stuff from one domain is useful in another instead of overlapping competency protecting against errors).
[1] /talking with each other
[2] Some ‘fields’ might be better (off) than others if they manage to solve basic issues better—more widespread use of better teaching/learning methods, distilling more (and having less ‘research debt’) or being better at coming up with explanations that are easier to understand, being better at encouraging/enabling collaboration[3], etc.
relying on co-location over processes for information sharing is similar to relying on human memory over writing things down: much cheaper until it hits a sharp cliff. Empirically that cliff is about 30 meters, or one hallway. After that, process shines.
Hmm, could you say more? I tend to think of social influences as good for propagating ideas—as opposed to generating new ones, which seems to depend more on the creativity of individuals or small groups.
(Social influence might not be the best word here.)
1) rewarding creativity (its opposite might be more infamous)
2)
a) Convening for idea generation, esp. regularly on a schedule (Purpose, Method)
b) via joining hallways and close proximity. (Method for increasing Creativity/Productivity[3])
Examples that come to mind:
People in the same/similar fields can achieve more working together[1]. People in different fields working together[1] can as well, both for similar reasons (2 heads > 1, identical shared problems[2]) and different ones (seeing if stuff from one domain is useful in another instead of overlapping competency protecting against errors).
[1] /talking with each other
[2] Some ‘fields’ might be better (off) than others if they manage to solve basic issues better—more widespread use of better teaching/learning methods, distilling more (and having less ‘research debt’) or being better at coming up with explanations that are easier to understand, being better at encouraging/enabling collaboration[3], etc.
[3] See this post; it’s rather empirical, and goes fairly in depth: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/f2GF3q6fgyx8TqZcn/literature-review-distributed-teams.