Posts
Comments
It seems like we should be accounting somehow for the total number of papers published in a field. Assuming that a constant level of "disruptive science" occurs per year, then more published papers would lead to less average disruptiveness. So, rather than measuring disruptiveness per paper maybe we should be looking at disruptiveness per year or even per worker-year.
In other words, how hard is it to reach the Pareto frontier?
Important
It's speculated that real-world group selection may have played a role in keeping the frequency of this gene as low as it seems to be
Super Important - it seems like we need silos, subgroups for evolution to work best. Since multi-level selection seems to be the way of the world, we need to give it all the levels it need to act on to make sure it acts most effectively. This could be a useful argument in a company for keeping teams relatively small, but then having the team leaders communicate and coordinate.