I wish there were a tool that could quickly connect new articles to older ideas, highlighting how much of what seems original today often builds on existing work, or just was mentioned before.
It wouldn't need to be as precise as mathematics or the hard sciences, just probabilistic enough to reveal meaningful connections.
Thinking out loud here...That could be like an LLM that is tokenized on ideas as opposed to words/fragments, no?
I'm sure someone has worked on this, but how would a computer extract an idea from a bunch of words (sentences?) ?
Looks like another rabbit hole to add to the list...
In the context of the article you mentioned, Robin Dunbar’s research and the Max4 Principle are referenced [1], along with a relevant Wikipedia article [2]. Expanding further, one can trace earlier foundational works, such as “The Primary Group as Cooley Defines It” [3], and even earlier sociological contributions by thinkers like Auguste Comte.
As for the “Serve it Forth” answer, I haven’t come across that yet except when, obviously?, I named it explicitly.
[1] https://newcreate.org/max-4-principle/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_in_small_groups
[1] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=darwin&year_st...
I would say a 4-6 person table is about the largest where everyone can be talking with all the other people.
I sometimes find myself trying to follow both conversations, or switching to the more interesting one. Is that bad etiquette?
I doubt it's that explicit, though. Maybe it's just worked out better that way over the years, without anyone fully realizing the why?
Those tables are intended for eight comfortably. They stretch to ten. You can do twelve, but everyone is gonna be cramped.
Every invitation to fight doesn't have to be accepted.
At the same time, I refuse to spend my free time with people who challenge my patience. There's a clear distinction between professional/family me, and the leisure time me.
Anyone who has raised children ought to recognize these tactics.
I'd like to see a revival of the old setup where everyone has dinner, then everybody in turn, individually and/or in groups, does a musical performance, poetry reading, or interesting lecture to entertain everyone else.
Pro tip 1a: Hot pot! You supply the pot and broth; guests bring the rest.
Pro tip 2: The first one will be waaay harder; then it’ll get easier, as you get a track record and you don’t need to recruit (or “train”) guests; they’re already in and already trained :)
Pro tip 3: They get easier, fast, as you both 1) get practice and 2) learn what doesn’t matter
Pro tip 3: The first people to show up will ask to help; plan something for them to do (I do a make-a-pizza party; I have them grate the mozzarella)
- Formal. Host does all the planning and provides all of the food. At most, some people help in the kitchen.
- Informal. Don't use the good china or fancy napkins, might eat in the kitchen or living room. Often used before a game night or similar.
- Collaboratively assigned. People are assigned a particular set of foods (bread, potatoes, etc.) to prepare (usually about 2 except for the host who might do more), common at holidays (usually formal in winter and informal in summer).
- Semi-assigned. People are assigned general categories of what food (meat, side, salad, dessert) to prepare. Useful if the meal is for a group smaller than the chaotic-potluck threshold, or if you don't have a potluck culture ingrained.
- Location. In a house? In a rented facility? In a public park, or at the beach? Sometimes "on your front lawn / in your back yard" is a reasonable answer.
>It is, though, very dull to be at a table with dull people, no matter what their sex. Dining partners, regardless of gender, social standing, or the years they've lived, should be chosen for their ability to eat—and drink!—with the right mixture of abandon and restraint. They should enjoy food, and look upon its preparation and its degustation as one of the human arts.