What you are describing, Ken sounds similar to the hippie communes of the 1960's and 70's minus the marijuana and lsd I agree that in very ,very small communities the concept works well, at least for short periods of time. However as you also noted it does not work well in larger communities. Ergo it is not an appropriate pattern for the majority of the USA. Similar communes have also been tried in the US, or by Americans in other countries. WACO and the Jones cult in Mexico. They are frequently criminal efforts or extreme relgions.
Well you are right in the sense I don't favor large communities (cities). On the other hand, suburban communities are almost universally decried by psychologists as breeding grounds for
social isolationism, depession, psychopathy etc. For the mental well-being the escape to suburbs has a better place to raise children is, acc to sociologists as well to be the worse place to raise children. Furthermore, despite all of the claims they are nearly double the incidences of rape & theft in suburbs as cities per capita, higher rates of suicide. And nobody seems to know become all of the studies are buried for suburban growth.
Despite all of this and my personal dislike of even being in large metropolitan areas, people could break up cities into neighborhoods that have direct control over their own economy and governance. Large city governments contain many varieties of ethnicities and economic classes that will by their very own structure make governance illegitimate in any effort to balance the needs for strengthening are communities equally. So in a city of five million people instead of one consolidated govt there would need to be at least 20,000 local governments. It may sound cumbersome but that is only because we have been trained to believe in the opposite.
The funny thing is that in the early days of facebook they discovered this. People simply didn't move beyond 150 friends. They thought it would be more apt for growth to break up these friendship groups and so they began to break them up by recommending different friends to all of the members and to adding likes so the original friends began to realign not by relationships that were open to each other in their group of friends and into groups structured by more common likes and more conformity in their ideology. People by nature are much more susceptible to both control by powerful leaders and divisions between themselves against those unaligned with their own views when their community is too broad. On the other hand people are more like to seek commonality by seeking more diversity from each other and be more permissive of each other's perspective in a smaller group. As the members of a group expand it can create tensions and intolerance of other ideologies and expect conformity to particular ideology. At least that's what facebook determined, and as they desired to expand their platform they thought the latter as the more viable option for their own growth.
Partial agreement Kenneth. Some statements are too broad "people by nature" for instance. Some people are susceptible to control true. All people NO. Some people need the company and companionship of other people to fee whole. Other people are content to stay by themselves for long periods of time with no interaction. One of the few things I learned from a couple of classes in logic. Don't paint with too broad a brush.
"People by nature" does not mean all people. It was from the releases from the facebook files from a whistleblower a few years back, But basically their "discovery" aligns with my own views. Of course I paraphrased a long 200+ report. I don't think I used the phrase all people anywhere in my report. I believe the facebook report was based a lot on generalities and I don't have it at hand, and not even sure I kept the file. Facebook itself denies the report of course, but it contained a lot of percentages based on what they determined to be the "most likely outcome from the statistical trends", but the point that became obvious was, while many might have fewer friends, there was no user (in the early days, and I believe this might have been done in the first or second year of its launch) that exceeded the absolute max of 150 friends. Apparently not a single user (and this was stressed several times) had 151 friends. I don't personally believe that is the max of associates a human might be capable of knowing. My school when we were stationed at Guantanamo had slightly under 200 students (gd. 9-12). Everyone knew everyone. But there were multiple subgroups, For some reason I took it upon myself to try to involve all the sub-groups into one group. I arranged regular dances, beach parties, sporting events that both sexes could participate. The sub-groups did not disappear but they mingled on a continuous basis, and the mingling created an atmosphere (I thought) of the students who participated all more involved in inputting and exchanging ideas for future inclusive parties and staging plays that they could perform for parents and in trying to include everyone in some way in these performances, acc. to whether to do makeup, work on the stage, scour scenery, or arrange the seating (folding chairs) or actually perform. Different students would bring plays they wanted to perform and everyone seemed to be involved in deciding if they wanted to do the play, determining the director from our own midst, etc. From there we transferred to Germany and the high school had over 600 students just in my senior class. I was unable to accomplish the same task and the school remained splintered and developed negative feelings towards each other, largely centered on race. So from "on the other hand.." to "...particular ideology." is based on my interpretation of my experience. Facebook, on the other hand, determined to expand the network and reshape the network from pre-existing friend communities that primarily communicated within themselves to split those groups up and develop large followships by attempting to particular points of view. A year later they reexamined their platform and saw substantial growth of the network, but what the whistleblower said she found alarming a lot more likes and followers but a lot fewer people that were followed creating an increasing antagonism between those who followed one person or the other. I think she issued this report and was called to testify before congress but I don't remember her name. As I said, I do believe facebook has declared everything she wrote to be false. Nevertheless what it concluded pretty much conformed my own experiences.
But if you made the inference that by using the term "people by nature" to mean all people, yes that is obviously false. I believe people by nature do have general tendencies. But if all people had the same nature we would all be in a heavenly paradise.
I have observed and thus formulated the opinion that people do become more susceptible to becoming "followers" when the group expands to the extent beyond the human's natural ability to absorb its own members. That's what I write about every article I believe. I don't believe a person would have a hell's breath of a chance at success without a large audience. While I agree some people can spend more time comfortably alone than others, and maybe because of that (I don't know)they might be less susceptible to following others; what I am damn sure convinced of the person who needs to be followed will only be followed by others when they feel their own voices have been marginalized and that somehow they will become important to others when the leader they follow succeeds. Doesn't mean everyone will follow Donald Trump or any particular leader, doesn't mean there aren't followers of leaders who want to be more inclusive and accepting of various human differences. ALL leaders like ALL people are not of the same mold, but THIS PERSON follows a little bit of john, a little bit of mary and a little bit of susie because I'm too stubbornly mule-headed to ever completely follow anyone and therefore possibly delude myself into believing I don't follow anyone. But I do think that are natural tendencies of human personalities but the tendencies don't always lead to any time of universalism.
P.S. Something I know nothing about is suburbs. I encounter literature about them only when I research other topics like mental illness, crime and the environment. Just to be honest.
What you are describing, Ken sounds similar to the hippie communes of the 1960's and 70's minus the marijuana and lsd I agree that in very ,very small communities the concept works well, at least for short periods of time. However as you also noted it does not work well in larger communities. Ergo it is not an appropriate pattern for the majority of the USA. Similar communes have also been tried in the US, or by Americans in other countries. WACO and the Jones cult in Mexico. They are frequently criminal efforts or extreme relgions.
Well you are right in the sense I don't favor large communities (cities). On the other hand, suburban communities are almost universally decried by psychologists as breeding grounds for
social isolationism, depession, psychopathy etc. For the mental well-being the escape to suburbs has a better place to raise children is, acc to sociologists as well to be the worse place to raise children. Furthermore, despite all of the claims they are nearly double the incidences of rape & theft in suburbs as cities per capita, higher rates of suicide. And nobody seems to know become all of the studies are buried for suburban growth.
Despite all of this and my personal dislike of even being in large metropolitan areas, people could break up cities into neighborhoods that have direct control over their own economy and governance. Large city governments contain many varieties of ethnicities and economic classes that will by their very own structure make governance illegitimate in any effort to balance the needs for strengthening are communities equally. So in a city of five million people instead of one consolidated govt there would need to be at least 20,000 local governments. It may sound cumbersome but that is only because we have been trained to believe in the opposite.
The funny thing is that in the early days of facebook they discovered this. People simply didn't move beyond 150 friends. They thought it would be more apt for growth to break up these friendship groups and so they began to break them up by recommending different friends to all of the members and to adding likes so the original friends began to realign not by relationships that were open to each other in their group of friends and into groups structured by more common likes and more conformity in their ideology. People by nature are much more susceptible to both control by powerful leaders and divisions between themselves against those unaligned with their own views when their community is too broad. On the other hand people are more like to seek commonality by seeking more diversity from each other and be more permissive of each other's perspective in a smaller group. As the members of a group expand it can create tensions and intolerance of other ideologies and expect conformity to particular ideology. At least that's what facebook determined, and as they desired to expand their platform they thought the latter as the more viable option for their own growth.
Partial agreement Kenneth. Some statements are too broad "people by nature" for instance. Some people are susceptible to control true. All people NO. Some people need the company and companionship of other people to fee whole. Other people are content to stay by themselves for long periods of time with no interaction. One of the few things I learned from a couple of classes in logic. Don't paint with too broad a brush.
"People by nature" does not mean all people. It was from the releases from the facebook files from a whistleblower a few years back, But basically their "discovery" aligns with my own views. Of course I paraphrased a long 200+ report. I don't think I used the phrase all people anywhere in my report. I believe the facebook report was based a lot on generalities and I don't have it at hand, and not even sure I kept the file. Facebook itself denies the report of course, but it contained a lot of percentages based on what they determined to be the "most likely outcome from the statistical trends", but the point that became obvious was, while many might have fewer friends, there was no user (in the early days, and I believe this might have been done in the first or second year of its launch) that exceeded the absolute max of 150 friends. Apparently not a single user (and this was stressed several times) had 151 friends. I don't personally believe that is the max of associates a human might be capable of knowing. My school when we were stationed at Guantanamo had slightly under 200 students (gd. 9-12). Everyone knew everyone. But there were multiple subgroups, For some reason I took it upon myself to try to involve all the sub-groups into one group. I arranged regular dances, beach parties, sporting events that both sexes could participate. The sub-groups did not disappear but they mingled on a continuous basis, and the mingling created an atmosphere (I thought) of the students who participated all more involved in inputting and exchanging ideas for future inclusive parties and staging plays that they could perform for parents and in trying to include everyone in some way in these performances, acc. to whether to do makeup, work on the stage, scour scenery, or arrange the seating (folding chairs) or actually perform. Different students would bring plays they wanted to perform and everyone seemed to be involved in deciding if they wanted to do the play, determining the director from our own midst, etc. From there we transferred to Germany and the high school had over 600 students just in my senior class. I was unable to accomplish the same task and the school remained splintered and developed negative feelings towards each other, largely centered on race. So from "on the other hand.." to "...particular ideology." is based on my interpretation of my experience. Facebook, on the other hand, determined to expand the network and reshape the network from pre-existing friend communities that primarily communicated within themselves to split those groups up and develop large followships by attempting to particular points of view. A year later they reexamined their platform and saw substantial growth of the network, but what the whistleblower said she found alarming a lot more likes and followers but a lot fewer people that were followed creating an increasing antagonism between those who followed one person or the other. I think she issued this report and was called to testify before congress but I don't remember her name. As I said, I do believe facebook has declared everything she wrote to be false. Nevertheless what it concluded pretty much conformed my own experiences.
But if you made the inference that by using the term "people by nature" to mean all people, yes that is obviously false. I believe people by nature do have general tendencies. But if all people had the same nature we would all be in a heavenly paradise.
I have observed and thus formulated the opinion that people do become more susceptible to becoming "followers" when the group expands to the extent beyond the human's natural ability to absorb its own members. That's what I write about every article I believe. I don't believe a person would have a hell's breath of a chance at success without a large audience. While I agree some people can spend more time comfortably alone than others, and maybe because of that (I don't know)they might be less susceptible to following others; what I am damn sure convinced of the person who needs to be followed will only be followed by others when they feel their own voices have been marginalized and that somehow they will become important to others when the leader they follow succeeds. Doesn't mean everyone will follow Donald Trump or any particular leader, doesn't mean there aren't followers of leaders who want to be more inclusive and accepting of various human differences. ALL leaders like ALL people are not of the same mold, but THIS PERSON follows a little bit of john, a little bit of mary and a little bit of susie because I'm too stubbornly mule-headed to ever completely follow anyone and therefore possibly delude myself into believing I don't follow anyone. But I do think that are natural tendencies of human personalities but the tendencies don't always lead to any time of universalism.
P.S. Something I know nothing about is suburbs. I encounter literature about them only when I research other topics like mental illness, crime and the environment. Just to be honest.
If all people had the same nature we would be bored to death. It is pour differences that make life interesting