One major caveat I think is that it’s a structure that wouldn’t work for most people in the rationality community. Calling most of them libertines incompatible with such a strict framework wouldn’t be too far from the truth. But those are the views of a very distant outsider who doesn’t know the the deeper views/feelings of the Berkeleyans you refer to, and is only familiar at a superficial glance.
But for a niche group of strongly driven baby rationalists lacking for direction/purpose who aren’t opposed to operating within a strict structure, I don’t know how this wouldn’t be an ideal framework to use.
As a former military enlisted, I think all the military comparisons made are valid. Allow me to include one more. I believe that also like the military, there will be a high turnover rate—once people get what they want out of the community, they leave. As I allude to earlier, the appeal of joining is acquiring skills in discipline/organization/direction. Once those are acquired, there is very little left to motivate people to stay. But, in both cases, this isn’t really a bad thing either. If everyone leaves after the one year commitment, but they reflect on the experience positively, then it would still be considered a success.
Yeah. In most-but-not-all of my conceptions of the house, I imagine “leaving” the post of guy-in-charge after a year, if not six months. Maybe not leaving the context as a whole, but “turning over” as far as roles are concerned.
It’s hard to go from being the boss of someone to being their subordinate, and vice versa. I think it’s more plausible to shift into an advisory, strategic, consultant, or executive role rather than swap.
I think it’s a solid proposal.
One major caveat I think is that it’s a structure that wouldn’t work for most people in the rationality community. Calling most of them libertines incompatible with such a strict framework wouldn’t be too far from the truth. But those are the views of a very distant outsider who doesn’t know the the deeper views/feelings of the Berkeleyans you refer to, and is only familiar at a superficial glance.
But for a niche group of strongly driven baby rationalists lacking for direction/purpose who aren’t opposed to operating within a strict structure, I don’t know how this wouldn’t be an ideal framework to use.
As a former military enlisted, I think all the military comparisons made are valid. Allow me to include one more. I believe that also like the military, there will be a high turnover rate—once people get what they want out of the community, they leave. As I allude to earlier, the appeal of joining is acquiring skills in discipline/organization/direction. Once those are acquired, there is very little left to motivate people to stay. But, in both cases, this isn’t really a bad thing either. If everyone leaves after the one year commitment, but they reflect on the experience positively, then it would still be considered a success.
Yeah. In most-but-not-all of my conceptions of the house, I imagine “leaving” the post of guy-in-charge after a year, if not six months. Maybe not leaving the context as a whole, but “turning over” as far as roles are concerned.
It’s hard to go from being the boss of someone to being their subordinate, and vice versa. I think it’s more plausible to shift into an advisory, strategic, consultant, or executive role rather than swap.