When I was in elementary school we conducted a science project whereby we attempted to create structures that would allow an egg to be thrown from a two story building sans parachute and fall to earth without damage.

This project, flying under the name Brooklyn Space Program, www.brooklynspaceprogram.org, reached 19 miles into the heavens and safely returned an iPhone to earth unharmed and with amazing video footage.  Hats off to this father and son team.

Btw, my egg found out that gravity was greater than my engineering skill.

Homemade Spacecraft from Luke Geissbuhler on Vimeo.

As blogged at National Geographic, tests indicated that in a small group the range between the smartest and least smartest person, or the presence of a smart person, was not indicative of the overall smartness of the group.  Rather, the research published in Science Magazine tended to show a strong correlation between group smarts and the ability for the group to interact effectively.  In groups where there was strong sensitivity and members were allowed to participate equally and in a systematic manner, the groups produced higher smarts than those dominated with smart yet insensitive individuals.  The smarter small groups had members who were 1)  socially sensitive, i.e. able to read peoples emotions from their facial expressions and 2) took turns talking.  In addition, test results indicated that group performance with small challenges, checkers vs. computer, correlated to their performance in larger projects, in depth video games requiring problem solving skills.

Though I haven’t reviewed the data, it seems that this conclusion would tend to make sense.  In sports we see teams that work together will achieve more and come out on top over those teams filled with superstar primadonnas.  On a regular basis, teams that are cohesive and can interpret what other members are going to do before they do them will work to achieve a common goal.  Very often, teams with individual talent will flame out as the individuals shoot off in their own self interest or in spates of “I know more than them.”

In terms of technology, maybe testing for a larger group may be optimized by creating small project tests to determine the efficacy of the larger group.  Along that line of thinking, maybe a testing scenario can be created with social networking technology to allow managers to find groups and determine who will work well together before dedicating assets and people to larger projects.

Another interesting corollary would be in testing to see if social networking technology can create an atmosphere of collegiality by limiting discussion in an autocratic manner.  As an example of a problem, a  good friend who is in her early 50s recently returned to college to earn her Masters degree in education.  Many of her courses were conducted online in a group chat environment.  Regularly, she found herself frustrated as her ability to communicate in the medium was drastically less than younger members in the class who dominated the chat environment.  They were simply of the generation who grew up online and in a connected environment.

I remember back in the mid to late 90s when AOL’s chat rooms were becoming the rage.  So many people were talking it was a struggle to keep up with what was being typed.  I found it a nauseating exercise and have never returned to the medium.  However, that group think environment can be effective for producing information and solutions.  An example being Leo Laporte and his chat room which he often calls his supplemental brain.

If we were to somehow harness that environment to instill a disciplined sharing environment maybe the small group smartness testing could be used to find more effective means of small group collaboration.

Okay, this may make me upgrade to Windows 7 earlier than I originally intended.

Apparently, a blue tooth device can be used as a microphone for voice recognition and telephony applications and listening to music played on the computer.  See Scott Hanselman’s post here.