I have a similar problem with the musical community—I know from experience that no group of musicians who invites me to play with them will think any less of me as a person or shame me in any way for having less talent or skill than they do, and yet I find it extremely difficult to alieve that I will fit in with a group of musicians at a jam session.
I used to be on the other end of this self-directed discomfort in the Jewish community—I heard over and over again about how laypeople and recent converts were too terrified and ashamed of their low skill levels or low cultural fluency to attend even relatively passive events such as festive meals. I am not aware that anyone has developed any Jewish programming that successfully addresses this issue...no matter how welcoming, inclusive, or beginner-friendly an event is, there is still a very large share of the target market that will say that they didn’t go because it was too foreign and threatening.
I had somewhat more success attracting newbies to Less Wrong San Francisco meetups, although, even there, despite my best efforts, for each person who came and said they were a newbie, about one person said they were a newbie and used that as a reason not to come.
Is this a general social problem with a general solution? What, if anything, can an in-group do that will reliably prevent prospective members from feeling insecure and marginalized?
I think it definitely is a general social problem. I’ve seen it in many other groups too.
Two solutions I’ve seen to work:
1) Having a “newcomer’s event” where everybody knows that most of the people are there are going to be new, and those that aren’t are there specifically to answer questions and ease the new people into the event. It not only reduces the fear-factor of “being the only new person”, but it helps set up friendships amongst people that are “at the same level”—which is very helpful.
2) having a “newcomers” section for each meetup. In the Sydney Linux User’s group (SLUG), the meeting format always included a timeslot called “SLUGlets” (after the main, joint talk) which was a general-discussion time that was specifically engineered to be for newbies asking all the questions they need. (of course lots of non-newbies also came along and had time just to chat amongst themselves too). Again—giving the newbies the space and permission to be newbies amongst other, equally clueless types.
I think a lot of the problem can be solved my finding a way to prove to your newbies that they can feel comfortable and NOT ALONE in their newbyness. Especially having somebody around to answer all the dumb questions (and the permission to even ask them without looking stupid). Part of the issue is the fear of being judged… and maybe we know we won’t do that… but the newby doesn’t.
The LW community has a lot of extremely competent, educated, smart people in it.. it’s no wonder that people are worried of looking like idiots (I know I was… still am, in fact). The learning-curve even for the “basics” is extremely steep and long: people keep throwing around “a million words” as the length of the essential sequences (and I suspect that number might not include the comments)… and from personal experience, you kinda need to have read all of them so as not to miss out on large patches of the conversation without looking clueless.
In any case… to get back to my own reasons for steering clear of the more committed groups… it’s not just being clueless… but also not having the time to commit as much. I simply cannot keep up with all the extra-curricular work done by some of the people there. I have other commitments. I have other goals. Some people have families with children they have to look after, or two jobs or such like.
Even the non-newbies can’t always put in the same level of sustained effort that some can. And we don’t want to feel bad about that.
Making space for people with different commitment levels feels different problem to the “i don’t want to sound stupid” issue. I think that the solution to that one is to just allow space for it. Now, I don’t know the details of what the NY group is doing (so apologies if I make it seem worse than it is) but for instance - if the NY group always has a homework assignment every week—and if today’s discussion and homework depend on having been here and done last week’s homework.. it doesn’t leave room for people that didn’t have the time to work outside of the meetups. People that show up feel that they have to do the extra-curricular work… or don’t fit in in the group.
My solution would be to have two “streams”: people that want to do extra, and people that don’t/can’t. Have room at the table for both—and have discussions available for both. The “extra work” group could work as a sub-group of the whole, allowing anybody that wants to to join in… but not being the only thing available to do each week. ie use the SLUGlets approach—have some joint-group activity/discussion (to keep the group as a whole). then break up into “more work” and “less work” groups..
I have a similar problem with the musical community—I know from experience that no group of musicians who invites me to play with them will think any less of me as a person or shame me in any way for having less talent or skill than they do, and yet I find it extremely difficult to alieve that I will fit in with a group of musicians at a jam session.
I used to be on the other end of this self-directed discomfort in the Jewish community—I heard over and over again about how laypeople and recent converts were too terrified and ashamed of their low skill levels or low cultural fluency to attend even relatively passive events such as festive meals. I am not aware that anyone has developed any Jewish programming that successfully addresses this issue...no matter how welcoming, inclusive, or beginner-friendly an event is, there is still a very large share of the target market that will say that they didn’t go because it was too foreign and threatening.
I had somewhat more success attracting newbies to Less Wrong San Francisco meetups, although, even there, despite my best efforts, for each person who came and said they were a newbie, about one person said they were a newbie and used that as a reason not to come.
Is this a general social problem with a general solution? What, if anything, can an in-group do that will reliably prevent prospective members from feeling insecure and marginalized?
Make them impatient to apply and demonstrate acquired expertise.
I think it definitely is a general social problem. I’ve seen it in many other groups too. Two solutions I’ve seen to work:
1) Having a “newcomer’s event” where everybody knows that most of the people are there are going to be new, and those that aren’t are there specifically to answer questions and ease the new people into the event. It not only reduces the fear-factor of “being the only new person”, but it helps set up friendships amongst people that are “at the same level”—which is very helpful.
2) having a “newcomers” section for each meetup. In the Sydney Linux User’s group (SLUG), the meeting format always included a timeslot called “SLUGlets” (after the main, joint talk) which was a general-discussion time that was specifically engineered to be for newbies asking all the questions they need. (of course lots of non-newbies also came along and had time just to chat amongst themselves too). Again—giving the newbies the space and permission to be newbies amongst other, equally clueless types.
I think a lot of the problem can be solved my finding a way to prove to your newbies that they can feel comfortable and NOT ALONE in their newbyness. Especially having somebody around to answer all the dumb questions (and the permission to even ask them without looking stupid). Part of the issue is the fear of being judged… and maybe we know we won’t do that… but the newby doesn’t.
The LW community has a lot of extremely competent, educated, smart people in it.. it’s no wonder that people are worried of looking like idiots (I know I was… still am, in fact). The learning-curve even for the “basics” is extremely steep and long: people keep throwing around “a million words” as the length of the essential sequences (and I suspect that number might not include the comments)… and from personal experience, you kinda need to have read all of them so as not to miss out on large patches of the conversation without looking clueless.
In any case… to get back to my own reasons for steering clear of the more committed groups… it’s not just being clueless… but also not having the time to commit as much. I simply cannot keep up with all the extra-curricular work done by some of the people there. I have other commitments. I have other goals. Some people have families with children they have to look after, or two jobs or such like.
Even the non-newbies can’t always put in the same level of sustained effort that some can. And we don’t want to feel bad about that.
Making space for people with different commitment levels feels different problem to the “i don’t want to sound stupid” issue. I think that the solution to that one is to just allow space for it. Now, I don’t know the details of what the NY group is doing (so apologies if I make it seem worse than it is) but for instance - if the NY group always has a homework assignment every week—and if today’s discussion and homework depend on having been here and done last week’s homework.. it doesn’t leave room for people that didn’t have the time to work outside of the meetups. People that show up feel that they have to do the extra-curricular work… or don’t fit in in the group.
My solution would be to have two “streams”: people that want to do extra, and people that don’t/can’t. Have room at the table for both—and have discussions available for both. The “extra work” group could work as a sub-group of the whole, allowing anybody that wants to to join in… but not being the only thing available to do each week. ie use the SLUGlets approach—have some joint-group activity/discussion (to keep the group as a whole). then break up into “more work” and “less work” groups..
Anyway—that’s my 2c
Interesting, I didn’t know this was such a pervasive phenomena.