It seems that with peer-to-peer, interconnected, and collaborative environments, syntheists ought to be able to keep up to speed on the latest computer science technology.
In other words, I would like to re-envision what a team of programmers looks like and make it more in line with Syntheism.
My impression of a grossly stereotypical software development team is a group of isolated white dudes each with four screens and a 24-pack of Mountain Dew. Each developer is essentially learning on his own, but with a group of people to whom he can pose questions and read their answers in a linear forum. Tasks are broken into tiny chunks that programmers split up amongst each other. It’s divide and conquer.
There are efforts under way to fix the gender disparity in the technology industry. My pick of late is Women’s Tech Radio, which brings inspiring stories from diverse backgrounds. In episode 15 Liz Heidner talks about her positive experiences with pair development teams around one computer. Show host Paige eloquently describes this new programming paradigm as “person-based dual core processing and hyperthreading.”
I hypothesize that a group of two or more motivated syntheists around one computer will be more productive by far than a single body. Not every contributor need be fully proficient in the technology being used in order to learn and add constructive ideas to the project. Groups should have a plurality of ages. This is the most efficient way I can think of to get our society directly involved in the creation of syntheos.
A distributed software team, then, is a network of syntheist groups connected in real time to contribute code, text, photos, video, gaming, and audio content and collaboratively create a web application for free and universal access.
We can imagine the experience of the least technologically savvy group member and foresee a multitude of questions arising during and after the real-time development event. To meet this tide of questions we need pedagogy to create content for the questioners to turn to. Thus, there will have to be meta-development teams creating the new educational material whose purpose is to ease new members into a development team. The cutting edge will develop rapidly, so the need for new pedagogical content will be constant. It is easy to see then, another meta-development level for facilitating the evolution of pedagogy. The most practical number of meta-development levels remains an open question that might demand experimental inquiry.