<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jane Jacobs or Adam Smith</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2008/11/24/jane-jacobs-or-adam-smith/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2008/11/24/jane-jacobs-or-adam-smith/</link>
	<description>The source on how we live, work and play</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:10:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Zoe B</title>
		<link>http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2008/11/24/jane-jacobs-or-adam-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-7890</link>
		<dc:creator>Zoe B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:42:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/?p=5124#comment-7890</guid>
		<description>Specialization necessary when the details matter.  But it&#039;s microscopic focus can be detrimental to interdisciplinary thinking.  The interdisciplinary mind can seem shallow, when it skims a variety of fields and does not take the time to acquire a specialist&#039;s knowledge in any of them.  Also, the interdisciplinary mind sees connections between all manner of disparate things.  Most of the connections are spurious.  Some are true, but their truth must be proved over time.  Often, it is the specialists who establish the proof.  So I think it is productive to combine the interdisciplinary mind into a network of sympathetic specialists (ie open-minded enough to seriously consider a discipline-crossing idea).  You need everybody to contribute what they are good at, in an atmosphere of welcome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Specialization necessary when the details matter.  But it&#8217;s microscopic focus can be detrimental to interdisciplinary thinking.  The interdisciplinary mind can seem shallow, when it skims a variety of fields and does not take the time to acquire a specialist&#8217;s knowledge in any of them.  Also, the interdisciplinary mind sees connections between all manner of disparate things.  Most of the connections are spurious.  Some are true, but their truth must be proved over time.  Often, it is the specialists who establish the proof.  So I think it is productive to combine the interdisciplinary mind into a network of sympathetic specialists (ie open-minded enough to seriously consider a discipline-crossing idea).  You need everybody to contribute what they are good at, in an atmosphere of welcome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wil</title>
		<link>http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2008/11/24/jane-jacobs-or-adam-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-7874</link>
		<dc:creator>Wil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/?p=5124#comment-7874</guid>
		<description>What works for ants or termites probably does not apply to humans. ...Jacobs and Smith are both right, sometimes specializtion creates growth, sometimes much is accomplished by generalists, on an individual level.... This question reminds me of an article that I read in &quot;Backwoodsman &quot; magazine on the ferry back to Vancouver Island last week. The article was entitled &quot;November Hunting? Take Your Fishing Pole&quot;, in the piece the author described the opportunities that a hunter can enjoy if he is,in a sense, a generalist who also is prepared to fish if unsuccessful while hunting. This backwoodsman writer, who has a series of special skills, is not much different from creative class people today who need a basket of several well developed skills in order to make progress in the collective world of business/work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What works for ants or termites probably does not apply to humans. &#8230;Jacobs and Smith are both right, sometimes specializtion creates growth, sometimes much is accomplished by generalists, on an individual level&#8230;. This question reminds me of an article that I read in &#8220;Backwoodsman &#8221; magazine on the ferry back to Vancouver Island last week. The article was entitled &#8220;November Hunting? Take Your Fishing Pole&#8221;, in the piece the author described the opportunities that a hunter can enjoy if he is,in a sense, a generalist who also is prepared to fish if unsuccessful while hunting. This backwoodsman writer, who has a series of special skills, is not much different from creative class people today who need a basket of several well developed skills in order to make progress in the collective world of business/work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Wells</title>
		<link>http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2008/11/24/jane-jacobs-or-adam-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-7871</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Wells</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:35:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/?p=5124#comment-7871</guid>
		<description>Fordist ant colonies, I love it. 

Also compare this with the studies showing that the seemingly random actions of individual termites result in complex structures. For example 
http://ai-depot.com/Essay/SocialInsects.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fordist ant colonies, I love it. </p>
<p>Also compare this with the studies showing that the seemingly random actions of individual termites result in complex structures. For example<br />
<a href="http://ai-depot.com/Essay/SocialInsects.html" rel="nofollow">http://ai-depot.com/Essay/SocialInsects.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

