I thought there was explicit discussion of this in the relevant slack-channel but may be misremembering.
I’m not sure how to describe this differently than I just did, but to restate completely:
“Pull the rope sideways” is relevant to the domain of politics. A reason it actually is relevant to the domain of politics (regardless of how the tug-of-war metaphor plays out) is that people tend to form 2 opposing coalitions. Naively you might think you could show up to help one of the coalitions win, but when Team A see that Team B is “getting out the vote”, that also motivates Team A to work harder to get out the vote. You’re not a solitary actor, people respond to your actions.
And part of the point of the pull-sideways metaphor in politics is that there won’t be social patterns (or social explicitly-built-infrastructure) to notice and respond to when someone shows up to pull the rope sideways.
I don’t understand, could you elaborate? What followup theory?
I thought there was explicit discussion of this in the relevant slack-channel but may be misremembering.
I’m not sure how to describe this differently than I just did, but to restate completely:
“Pull the rope sideways” is relevant to the domain of politics. A reason it actually is relevant to the domain of politics (regardless of how the tug-of-war metaphor plays out) is that people tend to form 2 opposing coalitions. Naively you might think you could show up to help one of the coalitions win, but when Team A see that Team B is “getting out the vote”, that also motivates Team A to work harder to get out the vote. You’re not a solitary actor, people respond to your actions.
And part of the point of the pull-sideways metaphor in politics is that there won’t be social patterns (or social explicitly-built-infrastructure) to notice and respond to when someone shows up to pull the rope sideways.
OK, thanks. I think it’s a plausible theory but I don’t think it’s the whole story or even the most plausible theory.