The development of teamwork

14/10/12 15:53 [Sunday]
I have been pondering various things the pondering originating from the question why the letters of the alphabet are in the order they are in. I interject here (in my introspective way) that it gives me great pleasure to ponder, pleasure I was deprived of for decades on high dosages of dopamine-blocking drugs.
Where my pondering led me was to the realisation that modern society is a great success (to use that way of describing it) because of the existence of structures in society which allow ends to be achieved through teamwork instead of through the efforts of rare geniuses. Johannes Kepler published the first two laws of planetary motion in Astronomia Nova in 1609 but Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in which was expounded the theory of gravitation deriving from more basic principles Kepler's laws was not published till 1687. In other words scientific progress occurred until recent years only through fits and starts as very clever people came into being and found themselves with a position in life to make their contribution. An example nowadays of the teamwork I am referring to is to be found in programming computers. The way computer languages like Visual Basic are structured latterly allows for less clever people to combine together and as a team come up with a program - in quick time too - to do whatever is required, that is whatever will find a market.
This fact of modern life goes hand-in-hand with the wide spread of democratic socialism which without a doubt arises from the high population density. Instead of a top-down originally feudal structure to society in which ways which are right and ways which are wrong are defined by edict according to the will - except in occasional cases of the Caligula type the fair-minded because disinterested will - of those higher-up the ladder: instead of that we now have the policy of letting everyone have their say to contribute to the mob decision. A lot of the explanation why this policy is now preferred comes down to improved communications technology. So instead of record company executives taking quiet decisions which bands to hire and which to exclude we have the X-Factor shows where artistes with some experience they can share (but originally record company executives still, but in public) pass comment only the ultimate decision is by plebiscite. You'd think this would work because the statistical difference between the paying public and the voting public is little, but I have to remark that the basis on which people vote is not identical to how they decide to spend their money.
Another example of mob sharing of ideas and (more easily measured for theorising) language comes in the internet. Instead of writing a book (of essays, say) and submitting it to a publisher who would do an initial short-listing to decide what to put before the public and for items put before the public edit the publication to make it conform to standards of grammar tried and tested over centuries: instead of that people publish themselves in sometimes shorter and sometimes longer formats but without the vetting and conformation to standards which publishing through a house imply. What this results in is the written language which anyone who thinks will agree should (or certainly did in its origination) closely follow rules taught in schools: the written language coming to be used in the democratic manner the spoken language naturally follows. The thing is that the spoken language does not need rules because it derives, without any effort or intention on the part of the learner if it is his mother-tongue, from the way neural networks in mammalian systems (or probably any systems of synapses) are structured. To use the written language merely to mirror the spoken language risks - as I said the other day on 'their' versus 'they're' written without reflection on the etymology and meaning - making a complex mish-mash without it on the surface - to the native speaker - appearing a complex mish-mash.
Well I believe in freedom of speech and democracy because they protect from oppression - that is if there is free WiFi in McDonalds in China or Syria oppressive measures gain world-wide publicity - but on the other hand I cannot approve of using the written language in a way which muddies meanings and makes things much more difficult for non-native speakers. What does it mean then? What it means I think is teaching the written language rigorously in schools (in countries which approve freedom and democracy) so that a great majority of users send texts and issue blog updates which convey accurately what they say and say what they convey and which can be read by an international audience.
More generally what it means is subjecting preadolescents to a top-down almost feudal régime so that they can live in a free world as adults.
---
Because I was an only child and an individualist indeed a loner until recent years what fits better with my nature is the importance of individual freedom not interacting a lot with other people for example before deciding to do things or in doing things. So I have asked myself what the good is of Society at all. An answer I have come up with recently takes as its example refuse disposal. Only through disposing regularly through schemes of collection of household trash can people live in such proximity in cities. What this means is that mankind has done so well in terms of multiplication of numbers because of arrangements made by minds agreeing together in concert. It doesn't in itself explain how it comes about that minds can make agreements together but they have been able to through recent centuries starting from joint-stock companies originating out of bands of merchant navigators sailing the seas developing into governmental and lately intergovernmental acts funded by taxing, borrowing and property-rating.
The evolution from being able to communicate in spoken language to being able to build cities and roads and spacecraft through large-scale organisation and co-operation is the same I was on about earlier speaking of bands of less clever people teaming up to do things previously assigned to small numbers of more clever people. The possibility of it has something to do with the enjoyment people including the cleverer get from the talking-shop (deriving indeed from the evolutionary advantage of sharing experience) and the proportionate increase in numbers of less clever people and their increased influence with the economies of scale accompanying the increasing population. Because life is easier (from economies of scale) there is less pressure on people to perform (eg children in State schools) but things carry on (the population continues to increase) through teamwork (which includes the breakdown of the tradition of lifelong monogamous relationships).
Reflecting further: you can see the advantages from teamwork that is the multidisciplinary approach. One person does not need to have expertise in all the various disciplines and does not need to hold all factors in mind all at once. All I need to be able to explain is why the structures needed for a team to intercommunicate effectively and retain what has been achieved as it is achieved through the lifetime of a project (à la teamwork Visual Basic): why these things necessarily came to be as people lived in closer and closer density. One thinks of things like local filing systems which large numbers of 'colleagues' have access to plus ancillary requirements such as defence against loss through fire and other catastrophe (protection against a fire like that at Alexandria) from having the fire-brigade within local reach. These factors more significant really than increasingly large organisational structures unified by (still now to a degree and certainly widely so until recent decades) a top-down hierarchy depending from boards of directors (but since the commencement of joint-stock companies the directors answerable to a proportional democracy of shareholders and more and more so lately a simple democracy of 'users' of all descriptions). These top-down hierarchies themselves rely on the ability to communicate directives (and report-back upwards) and the ability of companies of electors to come together in other words until recent telecommunications advances (and before that preliminary sorts of transport and communications improvements) on the proximity of personnel.
In summary the reason teamwork and democratic socialism have taken over is fundamentally the reason cities were a success from the outset. People in close congregation enjoy providing mutual help, whether because they do it through paid custom - getting something tangible in return - or because they can afford to get pleasure from identifying with those they help.