Prototyping environments and finding good peers

We are learning junkies, because that’s how we survived. We managed to learn

before the formal education kicked in, through the environments and the peers.

Studying sometimes does not provide a learning environment, but a huge amount of data

which is not to be confused with learning.

Design an environment needed for

a skill needed, such as:

Studying abroad designing an environment

to boost your

-critical thinking: revise old stereotypes as well as start thinking critically of your own culture.

-the ability to create social ties

Both skills needed, specially in times of mobility and interconnectedness.

Find some peers.

Education has it’s dangers:

  • Get stuck in a subject bubble: when only your fellow researchers can

understand what you’re talking about. When studying is

is exciting there is a risk

to become biased and to start collective polarisation amongst your fellow


The trick which works for me: to mingle as much as I can with those who studying subjects different from

mine and work in a different field. If I’m

loosing the ability to explain to them what I’m studying and why it is exciting, it is a stuck-in-a-bubble alert.

The weaker is the connection with a peer better the alert works, because close friends and family tend to love or hate what you’re doing, so the feedback might be biased.

Working on just that.

It’s funny, I remember us chatting about this subject bubble on the tram in Strasbourg… usually this is very present in my mind. My argument here is that to produce really good research you need to find the balance between keeping eyes open and feeding new ideas into your paradigmatic approach. otherwise you’ll be eaten alive by your “other” peers, the ones in your discipline.

BTW how’s your research aim going? :slight_smile:

Bubbles can extend to entire cultures.

Ideas, if they fall out of the mainstream perceptions, have good chances of being rejected, no matter how well a person can explain them. Several people will not tolerate a different viewpoint than theirs.

Entire fields of study can be lopsided. They can rely on limited methods or limited views.

what do you mean by mainstream

I went through some of your posts, and felt like I want to ask you which criteria do you use when choosing between science and pseudoscience?

ups, which aim…

I think the post I\ve written is a bit vague… well… a bit :slight_smile: But yeah, its always the balance.

If I were working at the Uni, even for a very small amount of time, I would get it part time, par time someth else. Trouble is with teachers, when it is their one and only job, so that by the time you’re out of school, you had noone to ask about how the life outside is.

Well, i’m guessing your aim is not to do research in university or teach (?). I meant how’s it going deciding on what’s worth researching to put a large amount of effort and a bit of compromise. path insecure of course, but driven by passion is the only way I see it… keep me posted, I’m super curious about research careers, especially how young pursue them nowadays given the education fail. And if in doubt, also get in touch with Rebecca, @Beckery here on the platform. she’s just finishing her PhD and can tell you something about research gigs out there…

Centre for Communication and Glocal Change

I think that even the most twisted theoretical research can be possible to communicate between disciplines. It might sound a bit simplistic, but if you tried hard to understand what the theoretical work is for and about, and could not, it is what I call the theoretical bubble which got too detached from reality.

I came across this event last year, and going this year too. It brings together a thinkers crowd and doers crowd from communication for development field. Check it out

If any of edgeryders attend they will certainly enjoy it.