[jaccarmac]

I can't speak to most of your comment, as I'm almost totally unfamiliar with Newport's work. And I might be reading too much into the New Yorker piece, though a glance at his Wikipedia page confirms that Newport works on distributed systems...

> In this particular article, the hunter-gatherer remote work/lifestyle parallel is so forced as to be simply puzzling. First, hunter-gatherer groups were small and required very little coordination, whereas modern companies, when they are larger than a few hundred individuals (I am generous, I might say larger than a few dozen) require coordination overhead--being "on the same" page is quite important--which completely changes group dynamics.

I think that's part of the point. We've moved to a society where large-scale coordination is the norm, but, just like distributed computing, that coordination is a hard problem to solve. Who's to say that the management techniques we tend to implement are the best ones? There are certainly many workers who feel as if work is getting worse, and metrics which point to certain things getting worse or plateauing while capital-P Production rises.

I'm suspicious of easy answers about when humanity had it figured out or simple prescriptions, but if we are interested in evaluating the relatively young modern regime, there are worse places to start than anthropology.

[borroka]

I believe that we are on the same page, as I wrote in my comment.

"Of course, one might say, but how inefficient or ineffective are all these meetings, e-mails, notifications on Slack, etc., I just want to code or get my brilliant ideas accepted without further discussion. And we all agree there are better or worse ways to get things done at the organizational level (that's an important point), and some companies work better than others and some stages of company life are more conducive to good work and good results"

There are better and worse ways of doing things in a company, but what hunter-gatherers bands were doing is no consequence.

Where we do not agree if when you say that, in this context, starting with anthropology makes sense. And I think it makes zero sense, since the goals, structure and size of hunter-gatherers bands and large work organizations are not even remotely comparable.

Articles of this type are meaningless, they try to be thought-provoking, but they are just trying to impress the gullible. "I never thought about that", yes, because it does not make any sense, not because you are a fool.

A sports team, e.g., soccer team, is comparable in size and goals (win/not lose, die/not die, reproduce/not reproduce, it is clear what is good and what is bad) to a hunter-gatherer band, but what kind of lessons should a coach draw from an anthropological study of hunter-gatherer bands? Nothing, zero, other than some feel-good stories about being a team and not just a collection of individuals, supporting the weak and the elderly.

I have no clue how the editor thought it was an article worth publishing.

[jaccarmac]

I don't think we agree that much.

> And I think [starting with anthropology] makes zero sense, since the goals, structure and size of hunter-gatherers bands and large work organizations are not even remotely comparable.

The relative size of these groups are obviously different.

The relative structure is exactly what is under discussion.

Relative goals: Now we're getting somewhere. There may be some people who "just want to code or get my brilliant ideas accepted without further discussion", but that doesn't seem particularly interesting to me. I - and I believe many other people - are interested in a society which achieves goals other than individual aggrandizement or increased production. Anthropology provides a perspective on what groups of people valued and to which degree they flourished. I suppose I might just be a simpleton, but supporting the weak and elderly read to me as rather worthy pursuits, not to mention hard problems.