Let me give some feedback about your writing style, which I find consistently cryptic. You tend to describe your thoughts starting in the middle and giving the context later, or skipping it altogether. E.g. the fist sentence reads
I find myself more and more interested in how the concept of "systematized winning" can be applied to a large group of people who have one thing in common, and that not even time, but - in my own very personal case - ...
Until this point, a context like "biology research" etc. does not appear anywhere, and a "large group of people who have one thing in common" could be all people who like ice cream. It is of course possible to decipher what you mean, but by writing in reverse order you make it unnecessarily hard.
~~~
Possibly, a part of the problems you are describing could be solved by storing all the raw data that is collected during research, not just conclusions. In some cases, the amount of data might pose technological problems, but humanity's capacity to store information cheaply is increasing very quickly. So we can just let the future generations analyse the data by themselves, if they care to do so.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
If nomads united into large hordes to go to war, shouldn't the change in the number of men living together have had some noticeable psychological effect on the warriors? I mean, the Wikipedia says that "a Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships", and surely they had to co-work with lots more people than during peace?