The system of everyone keeping track of everything works ok in small communities, but weâre so far above Dunbarâs number that I donât think itâs viable anymore for us. As you point out, a more formal process wouldnât have time for âprocessing random complaints and documenting them every weekâ, so theyâd need a process for screening out everything but the most serious problems.
The system of everyone keeping track of everything works ok in small communities, but weâre so far above Dunbarâs number that I donât think itâs viable anymore for us.
Everyone doesnât have to keep track of everything. Everyone just needs to do what they can with their contacts and resources. Political parties are vastly larger than Dunbarâs Number and they (usually) donât have formal committees designed to purge them of unwanted people. Same goes for just about every social movement that I can think of. Except for churches excommunicating people, of course.
This is the only time that thereâs been a problem like this where people started calling for a formal process. You have no idea if it actually represents a frequent phenomenon.
so theyâd need a process for screening out everything but the most serious problems.
Make bureaucracy more efficient by adding more bureaucracy...
Political parties are vastly larger than Dunbarâs Number and they (usually) donât have formal committees designed to purge them of unwanted people.
The Democrats have the Democratic National Committee, and the Republicans have the Republican National Committee.
In the US, and elsewhere, they use incentives to keep people in line, such as withholding endorsements or party funds, which can lead to people losing their seat, this effectively kicking them out of the party. See whips) for what this looks like in practice.
Also, in parliamentary systems, often times you can also kick people out of the party directly, or at the very least take away their power and position.
Yes, if youâre in charge of an organization or resources, you can allocate them and withhold them how you wish. Nothing I said is against that.
In parties and parliaments you can remove people from power. You canât remove people from associating with your movement.
The question here is whether a social movement and philosophy can have a bunch of representatives whose job it is to tell other peopleâs organizations and other peopleâs communities to exclude certain people.
In parties and parliaments you can remove people from power. You canât remove people from associating with your movement.
Your party leadership can publicly denounce a person and disinvite them from your partyâs convention. That amounts to about the same thing.
The question here is whether a social movement and philosophy can have a bunch of representatives whose job it is to tell other peopleâs organizations and other peopleâs communities to exclude certain people.
I donât (currently) think it would be a good idea for an official body to make this kind of request. Actually, I think an official committee would be a good idea even if it technically had no authority at all. Just formalizing a role for respected EAs whose job it is to look in to these things seems to me like it could go a long way.
Good questionânot really sure, I just meant to directly answer that one question. That being said, Social movements have, to varying degrees of success, managed to distance evenhanded from fringe subsets and problematic actors. How, exactly, one goes about doing this is unknown to me, but Iâm sure that itâs something that we could (and should) learn from leaders of other movements.
Of the top of my head, the example that is most similar to our situation is the expulsion of Ralph Nader from the various movements and groups he was a part of after the Bush election.
The system of everyone keeping track of everything works ok in small communities, but weâre so far above Dunbarâs number that I donât think itâs viable anymore for us. As you point out, a more formal process wouldnât have time for âprocessing random complaints and documenting them every weekâ, so theyâd need a process for screening out everything but the most serious problems.
Everyone doesnât have to keep track of everything. Everyone just needs to do what they can with their contacts and resources. Political parties are vastly larger than Dunbarâs Number and they (usually) donât have formal committees designed to purge them of unwanted people. Same goes for just about every social movement that I can think of. Except for churches excommunicating people, of course.
This is the only time that thereâs been a problem like this where people started calling for a formal process. You have no idea if it actually represents a frequent phenomenon.
Make bureaucracy more efficient by adding more bureaucracy...
The Democrats have the Democratic National Committee, and the Republicans have the Republican National Committee.
Do they kick people out of the party?
More specifically, do they kick people out of âconservatismâ and âliberalismâ?
In the US, and elsewhere, they use incentives to keep people in line, such as withholding endorsements or party funds, which can lead to people losing their seat, this effectively kicking them out of the party. See whips) for what this looks like in practice. Also, in parliamentary systems, often times you can also kick people out of the party directly, or at the very least take away their power and position.
Yes, if youâre in charge of an organization or resources, you can allocate them and withhold them how you wish. Nothing I said is against that.
In parties and parliaments you can remove people from power. You canât remove people from associating with your movement.
The question here is whether a social movement and philosophy can have a bunch of representatives whose job it is to tell other peopleâs organizations and other peopleâs communities to exclude certain people.
Your party leadership can publicly denounce a person and disinvite them from your partyâs convention. That amounts to about the same thing.
Quoting myself:
Good questionânot really sure, I just meant to directly answer that one question. That being said, Social movements have, to varying degrees of success, managed to distance evenhanded from fringe subsets and problematic actors. How, exactly, one goes about doing this is unknown to me, but Iâm sure that itâs something that we could (and should) learn from leaders of other movements. Of the top of my head, the example that is most similar to our situation is the expulsion of Ralph Nader from the various movements and groups he was a part of after the Bush election.