In terms of community modification/formation, I wonder whether people in our cluster are too eager to form new communities from scratch and too reticent to modify existing communities. If this view is correct, it might be best to optimize for finding a community that scores well according to non-malleable characteristics (e.g. the average intelligences of its members) while also being malleable on characteristics of interest. I hypothesize that most communities are lead by whoever in the community is least apathetic, so all that’s necessary to mold a community along the dimensions of interest is to (a) make them like you (b) be the least apathetic person in terms of creating public goods etc.
It’s a voice-vs-exit thing. If you don’t believe you can persuade, negotiate, or otherwise change others’ behavior unless they have no strong influences besides yourself or are already highly aligned with you, then you won’t try voice-based strategies like trying to modify existing communities.
Well you will also need to use your voice if you are founding a new community from scratch, right? (In order to persuade people to join.)
I guess one way to think about it is that communities are defined by which people are considered high status, so breaking away to form your own community represents a step towards a different metric for judging status?
“Voice vs exit” schema distinguishes dialoguing specifically with the institution you’re unsatisfiedwith from leaving it. The terms are just simple handles; “voice” is not meant to include literally all communication with anyone AFAIK.
I suppose you could think of this as exit via using voice with respect to a different institution (humanity). But technically any sort of “exit” that involves transactions with other agents (e.g. buying a train ticket out of town) is a sort of communication. I still think it’s worth distinguishing from trying to contribute information to your local system from the inside.
In terms of community modification/formation, I wonder whether people in our cluster are too eager to form new communities from scratch and too reticent to modify existing communities. If this view is correct, it might be best to optimize for finding a community that scores well according to non-malleable characteristics (e.g. the average intelligences of its members) while also being malleable on characteristics of interest. I hypothesize that most communities are lead by whoever in the community is least apathetic, so all that’s necessary to mold a community along the dimensions of interest is to (a) make them like you (b) be the least apathetic person in terms of creating public goods etc.
It’s a voice-vs-exit thing. If you don’t believe you can persuade, negotiate, or otherwise change others’ behavior unless they have no strong influences besides yourself or are already highly aligned with you, then you won’t try voice-based strategies like trying to modify existing communities.
Well you will also need to use your voice if you are founding a new community from scratch, right? (In order to persuade people to join.)
I guess one way to think about it is that communities are defined by which people are considered high status, so breaking away to form your own community represents a step towards a different metric for judging status?
“Voice vs exit” schema distinguishes dialoguing specifically with the institution you’re unsatisfied with from leaving it. The terms are just simple handles; “voice” is not meant to include literally all communication with anyone AFAIK.
I suppose you could think of this as exit via using voice with respect to a different institution (humanity). But technically any sort of “exit” that involves transactions with other agents (e.g. buying a train ticket out of town) is a sort of communication. I still think it’s worth distinguishing from trying to contribute information to your local system from the inside.