The Church is an organization, but members also comprise a distinct culture. Within the culture, there is an expectation that church members accept a ‘calling’ or specific unpaid organizational responsibility.
Is this actually optimal? The whole volunteer thing.
It seems to me like it might work to, rather than have most of your members spend a few hours a week volunteering for the Church have all of your members work an extra hour at their jobs in order to hire a professional to attend to those duties.
On the other hand, that probably makes members feel much less involved in the Church.
That might be okay—we’re trying to save the world, not become a ginormous cult.
On the other hand, that probably makes members feel much less involved in the Church.
It seems to be pretty clear from here (second point under herding cats) that the calling doesn’t exist to get stuff done (though that is a great side effect) but to keep you coming back. If you don’t show up, then who will teach your class?
If there’s a reason to come back other than feeling personally involved in the group on that level, then why pull wool over people’s eyes to maintain attendance when you can actually just be worth coming back to?*
On the other hand, it seems (based on my personal experience leading a volunteer robotics team) like keeping people involved is a good way to keep people in a group. But I’m not convinced that the optimal tradeoff between inclusion and inefficiency is almost pure inefficiency.
Like, ostensibly rationality classes should help you improve your life. People are already willing to pay for classes in that. If rationalist groups helped me have fun and live a better life, then I personally would continue attending for the tangible benefits, and not need convincing that I’m needed.
I think that a difference between rationalist groups and religions should be that rationalist groups exist for reasons other than their own propagation.
If there’s a reason to come back other than feeling personally involved in the group on that level, then why pull wool over people’s eyes to maintain attendance when you can actually just be worth coming back to?
Enjoying and wanting are different- I might genuinely enjoy services more than sleeping in, but only choose to go to services instead of sleep in if I’ve committed to going.
It also seems likely that personal involvement magnifies other things (that is, you can’t separate them in the hunt for efficiency without losses), but I’m not as sure of that one.
It seems to me like it might work to, rather than have most of your members spend a few hours a week volunteering for the Church have all of your members work an extra hour at their jobs in order to hire a professional to attend to those duties.
Cleaning up a beach is one thing, but hiring professional evangelists? I think you’d have a much harder time finding a comparable number of people willing to do it as a job. Plus, how convincing they are matters a lot; a halfhearted manual laborer can get plenty of work done, but a halfhearted evangelist might as well not be bothering at all. How many skilled, committed rhetoricians do you think are available for this particular work for less than the church members are making themselves?
Is this actually optimal? The whole volunteer thing.
It seems to me like it might work to, rather than have most of your members spend a few hours a week volunteering for the Church have all of your members work an extra hour at their jobs in order to hire a professional to attend to those duties.
On the other hand, that probably makes members feel much less involved in the Church.
That might be okay—we’re trying to save the world, not become a ginormous cult.
It seems to be pretty clear from here (second point under herding cats) that the calling doesn’t exist to get stuff done (though that is a great side effect) but to keep you coming back. If you don’t show up, then who will teach your class?
If there’s a reason to come back other than feeling personally involved in the group on that level, then why pull wool over people’s eyes to maintain attendance when you can actually just be worth coming back to?*
On the other hand, it seems (based on my personal experience leading a volunteer robotics team) like keeping people involved is a good way to keep people in a group. But I’m not convinced that the optimal tradeoff between inclusion and inefficiency is almost pure inefficiency.
Like, ostensibly rationality classes should help you improve your life. People are already willing to pay for classes in that. If rationalist groups helped me have fun and live a better life, then I personally would continue attending for the tangible benefits, and not need convincing that I’m needed.
I think that a difference between rationalist groups and religions should be that rationalist groups exist for reasons other than their own propagation.
Enjoying and wanting are different- I might genuinely enjoy services more than sleeping in, but only choose to go to services instead of sleep in if I’ve committed to going.
It also seems likely that personal involvement magnifies other things (that is, you can’t separate them in the hunt for efficiency without losses), but I’m not as sure of that one.
Cleaning up a beach is one thing, but hiring professional evangelists? I think you’d have a much harder time finding a comparable number of people willing to do it as a job. Plus, how convincing they are matters a lot; a halfhearted manual laborer can get plenty of work done, but a halfhearted evangelist might as well not be bothering at all. How many skilled, committed rhetoricians do you think are available for this particular work for less than the church members are making themselves?
That’s basically what brand marketing is
I meant hiring professional administrators, like replacing the people who had callings.
So like, hire someone to manage the building, or someone to teach classes or help with employment.