A question I’m interested in, before I get into various specific posts in the sequence: from just the descriptions in this post, does the concept of ‘the coordination frontier’ feel actually helpful?
(The next couple already-written posts don’t super depend on the concept, but it felt very central to my own thinking. Curious how relevant it intuitively feels to others)
I also vote for very intuitive. The pareto frontier analogy is crunchy enough to come to grips with it, but giving it its own name is sufficiently imprecise as to not keep us stuck in game theory or otherwise hamstrung by artificial narrowness.
Very intuitive, but perhaps I’m unusual in how much I think about pareto frontiers. (I mean, obviously I‘m unusual in that, but the question is how much I’m unusual relative to your target audience.)
Glad to hear. Interestingly, originally I didn’t actually have the “coordination frontier == pareto frontier of coordination” ironed out. Instead I was using coordination frontier as a vague metaphor, which included “coordination tools a little bit outside what your current culture uses” and “the cutting edge of human knowledge.”
I became worried both that I (personally) was equivocating between those two definitions, and also that people might organically mistakenly conflate it with “pareto frontier”. And the best solution seemed to be “formally make the definition ‘pareto frontier’ and then come up with other terms for “somewhat nonstandard/novel coordination tech.” (I ended up using “coordination pioneering” for that, which I’m worried is still a bit confusing)
A question I’m interested in, before I get into various specific posts in the sequence: from just the descriptions in this post, does the concept of ‘the coordination frontier’ feel actually helpful?
(The next couple already-written posts don’t super depend on the concept, but it felt very central to my own thinking. Curious how relevant it intuitively feels to others)
I also vote for very intuitive. The pareto frontier analogy is crunchy enough to come to grips with it, but giving it its own name is sufficiently imprecise as to not keep us stuck in game theory or otherwise hamstrung by artificial narrowness.
Very intuitive, but perhaps I’m unusual in how much I think about pareto frontiers. (I mean, obviously I‘m unusual in that, but the question is how much I’m unusual relative to your target audience.)
Glad to hear. Interestingly, originally I didn’t actually have the “coordination frontier == pareto frontier of coordination” ironed out. Instead I was using coordination frontier as a vague metaphor, which included “coordination tools a little bit outside what your current culture uses” and “the cutting edge of human knowledge.”
I became worried both that I (personally) was equivocating between those two definitions, and also that people might organically mistakenly conflate it with “pareto frontier”. And the best solution seemed to be “formally make the definition ‘pareto frontier’ and then come up with other terms for “somewhat nonstandard/novel coordination tech.” (I ended up using “coordination pioneering” for that, which I’m worried is still a bit confusing)