<p>
</p>
<p>There also are some theoretical models of this observation that Gladwell cited - one theoretical model was a plot of group size as a function of prefrontal something ratio/total brain ratio (forgot exactly what it was, as I had to return the book to the library). Though the theoretical models are based on assumptions that may not be particularly generalizable, especially in the sense of our limited overall understanding of the brain (and the flaws that may arise out of cross-species neurological studies in general). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But schools like Caltech typically have a small number of WoW ■■■■■■ and other people who lock themselves in their rooms all day to study (this seems to be supported by the posts of other people on the boards). One of my questions is - is this rule as generalizable to groups where not ALL individuals of the group are extremely dependent on each other? (remember that Amish communities and military regiments tend to be pretty isolated from the rest of the world) While Caltech’s very difficult psets certainly do encourage group-work, the question is, does everyone necessarily partake in this? By saying “Even Caltech Houses, which all have less than 150 members each, don’t exactly fit with his definition.”, you seem to imply that you don’t seem to be able to enforce all of the rules informally within your group, implying that perhaps people don’t know everyone else that well on an intimate basis (perhaps since there are some individuals who don’t seem to be as motivated to become intimately associated with the group because they don’t feel as strong of a need to do so?).</p>
<ul>
<li>I generally pose my questions in terms of unintended consequences - that is - I pose them as questions (albeit oftentimes vague ones) to explore, but I don’t know what replies will come out. I don’t know what will replies will come out of my posts, but I’ve seen pleasant surprises. :)</li>
</ul>