Is there a name for the (logical fallacy / fallacy of reasoning / self-defeating strategy) which I try to describe below? Do you consider it a fallacy? Have you ever seen this happen? Is there a reason to do this, and if so can you convince me that said reason has ever been successfully achieved?
(Specifically at work) Making a named (affinity) group (think: Women In Tech, or DevOps Interest Group, etc, with meetings and goals and priorities instead of just doing things (where “doing” here means scheduling educational sessions, discussion sessions, social activities etc)
Maybe this has something to do with the enjoyment of making plans- getting the satisfaction from saying what you’re going to do, and because one has experienced the satisfaction, it makes one less likely to follow though on doing it)
I have seen this approach result in several dead “groups” which held maybe one or two events each, and sequential waves of people trying to “revive the group” rather than just… doing things that achieve the purpose that the person thinks that the group is for achieving.
Maybe this approach actually works? And I just don’t understand what “works” means?
I don’t think that strategy has anything to do with “logical fallacy” or “fallacy of reasoning”. Being a clearly named group makes it easier to do political action.
If you are the leader of a woman in tech group it’s more likely that a journalist will listen to you then if you are just somebody who scheduled a discussion group. Various decision makers will take you more seriously when you speak for a group than if you just speak for yourself.
Founding a group isn’t the best strategy in every case but it’s a valid for cases of social activism.
Is there a name for the (logical fallacy / fallacy of reasoning / self-defeating strategy) which I try to describe below? Do you consider it a fallacy? Have you ever seen this happen? Is there a reason to do this, and if so can you convince me that said reason has ever been successfully achieved?
(Specifically at work) Making a named (affinity) group (think: Women In Tech, or DevOps Interest Group, etc, with meetings and goals and priorities instead of just doing things (where “doing” here means scheduling educational sessions, discussion sessions, social activities etc)
Maybe this has something to do with the enjoyment of making plans- getting the satisfaction from saying what you’re going to do, and because one has experienced the satisfaction, it makes one less likely to follow though on doing it)
I have seen this approach result in several dead “groups” which held maybe one or two events each, and sequential waves of people trying to “revive the group” rather than just… doing things that achieve the purpose that the person thinks that the group is for achieving.
Maybe this approach actually works? And I just don’t understand what “works” means?
Lost purposes? Malthusianism? Selection bias? Iron law of oligarchy?
I don’t think that strategy has anything to do with “logical fallacy” or “fallacy of reasoning”. Being a clearly named group makes it easier to do political action.
If you are the leader of a woman in tech group it’s more likely that a journalist will listen to you then if you are just somebody who scheduled a discussion group. Various decision makers will take you more seriously when you speak for a group than if you just speak for yourself.
Founding a group isn’t the best strategy in every case but it’s a valid for cases of social activism.