Turtleocracy
notion.so
notion.so
Berlin...divides writers and thinkers into two categories: hedgehogs, who view the world through the lens of a single defining idea (examples given include Plato, Lucretius, Dante Alighieri, Blaise Pascal, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Henrik Ibsen, Marcel Proust and Fernand Braudel), and foxes, who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples given include Herodotus, Aristotle, Desiderius Erasmus, William Shakespeare, Michel de Montaigne, Molière, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Aleksandr Pushkin, Honoré de Balzac, James Joyce and Philip Warren Anderson).
One thing I would like to see, though, is a list of historical evidence that this paradigm does better than the standard academic “publish papers to gain notoriety” paradigm. Turtleocracy has been tried before, I’m sure, even if by accident—there are only so many relationship graphs a small set of humans can end up in. I’m pretty sure some private research organizations work[ed] like this?
But I’d like an analysis of how much their working-like-this contributed to their success or lack thereof. It’d be interesting to contrast different private research institutions, e.g. {Bell Labs, RCA Labs, maybe Oak Ridge?} on their comparative Turtleocracy-ness vs their comparative “throughput” in pumping out new foundational knowledge (which I assume is the goal here.)
I'm not sure where people are getting the consultingware idea. We don't have any consulting relationships with businesses at all. Guess our copy is misleading somewhere?
> Most organizations should not be turtleocracies. It depends on what your organization wants to do, and whether it's never been done before.
> 1. When you must do things well, in the standard way, you need experts. You can put them together into an expert bureaucracy, a consultancy, etc.
> 2. When most things can go poorly, but you hope some things work out, you can use people with ideas and energy without needing turtles. You can put them together into a do-ocracy or startup ecosystem.
> 3. But, when you must do things well, in a way that's never been done before, you need "takeless" people, without strong ideas, who will slowly experiment over years. You can put them together into a Turtleocracy.
1: https://www.notion.so/Is-Turtleocracy-Right-for-Your-Organiz...
[0] https://www.notion.so/HS101-Deluxe-9c92efe621a04d2886e2986ce...
https://www.notion.so/Human-Systems-62a526124acc40d3aa15bc8e...
Also an FAQ: https://www.notion.so/FAQ-f4f7ad008c5043f6946e43544b328ecd
This work was started by Joe Edelman, whose been a part of some of the efforts to help people working in different domains design things with less toxic/addictive aspects (e.g. tech, social networking companies). He arguably prototyped and called for action now being done from bigcos in their “digital wellbeing” and “screen time” efforts.
See http://nxhx.org , try reading some of his earlier essays.
Edit: they also hijack Ctrl-click which I consider extra shitty and non-user-friendly.
This "Turtleocracy" model might help bring some insight or inspiration in certain challenging environments, but be careful about assuming you're in a "Turtleocracy" or stereotyping people into "Rabbit" or "Bird". It's tempting to reach for these systems and stereotypes when you're in conflict with someone because it gives you a sense of having the upper hand. Ironically, doing so will turn you into the very person this article warns about in the section about Tyranny of People with "Takes". Always be on the look out for signs that you're wrong or that you've misunderstood the situation.
In my experience, it's healthy to have a variety of different models and perspectives through which you can view situations. It's not healthy, however, to try to force every situation to fit your favorite mental model. When you all have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Don't be that guy.
Actually, we already have a lot of those. Highly conservative organizations that ascribe a very low probability of success to any particular effort are common and arise on their own without any coaching required. All it takes is a few failed projects in the professional history of the leaders, whether at that organization or elsewhere. Unless your leadership is full of 20-somethings who have never seen an idea not work out, a far more important problem is avoiding the scenario where nobody wants to takes risks because the benefits go to the company but the failure would be pinned on them.
Hoping to hear the name for this trend as it's a very interesting one indeed. Done well it seems like this is definitely the new wave as we continue to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. Done poorly, well I've done this and will just tell you the results are about as bad as you'd expect.
In fact, I doubt you could really express anything beyond the simplest concepts with emojis in a language-agnostic fashion.
Actually I'll go a step further: the idea of emoji as a language agnostic writing system is dumb. It's equivalent to pictograms, and like Chinese, will only become useful when you have a massive set of them, and you assign multiple layers of meaning for particular combinations that eventually take you down the path of culture-specific language anyways.
Picard and Dathon, at El-Adrel.
For anyone else who needs a reminder, have a read: https://www.startrek.com/article/picard-and-dathon-at-el-adr...
I think the emojis in theory could aid in machine translation - that is - if the machine translation has some ambiguity, maybe the emoji could help, then again, I bet animal names and the concepts that an emoji can convey are the easy part of translation, so I guess I've convinced myself you probably are right.
With that said, I do think that they could still act as visual aids and assist memory/retention, at least for some folks, though I'll admit at this point I'm trying to create a justification for the sake of doing it.
They're not a tool. They're for fun. It's their original purpose, and it's what they do best, and it's not at all clear to me that we need to pretend they can do anything more -- fun is sufficient justification for their existence.
The only real problem is that most emoji character sets don't properly optimize for that. They pretend they're far too important to simply be fun, and they instead become fairly ugly "realistic" depictions of whatever they're representing. ASCII art is somehow still dramatically more appealing, despite (or perhaps because of) emojis having much more freedom. Or actually more likely, it's because the only people who get to draw this stuff are the BigCo's, and they are not.. fun.
I mean hell, the most basic ASCII emoji (smiley :) is still better than Apple's emoji
Any useful utility for emoji will be at best in addition to written language, not in replacement of it.
And the major blocker is definitely the lack of composability; you have a very strict and very limited set of options to work with (and without composition, the rule "limitation breeds creativity" doesn't apply), so I have little hope for significant creativity to appear
exciting times!
I mean, how do you exactly express the nuances of ಠ_ಠ
The same thing could be said about words.
Of course it depends on skillful execution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yertle_the_Turtle_and_Other_St...