Worth looking at. It helps explain some of the network material I’ve been developing.
Humans are social animals and HAVE to maintain social contacts. Most people make those contacts by having many strong ones within a small number of groups. Others have many weak links to a large number of groups.
Studies have shown that a majority of people in a group connect strongly to others in the group and are highly pushed top conform to the group’s norms.
Others tend to be disruptive early adopters who have weak links to many other groups, so the pressure of any one group is weaker. They are not as susceptible to any one group’s norms
But this then tends to make them unloved by any particular group because they are not seen as one of the team. They bring in outside ideas and norms that are not from the group.
They are the ones that hold their hand up and say they are confused. They are the ones who ask why we are doing it this way and not another. They are the ones who say that there is not viable reason for doing it this way and only the persona view of a few is doing so.
They are disruptive. No one likes them.
But they are the ones who bring in new ideas and new ways of doing things. They are the ones who help the group survive and adapt to changes. If they are not present, the group becomes mundane, brittle and maladaptive.
So, being an early adopter myself, I kept reading this article saying “I don’t do that.” or “That is not how I would do it.” It felt like reading a study on some weird primate instead of other humans.
It was a weird feeling.
But what technology allows us to do today, and what the article states we should do, is this: it allows anyone to make a weak connection to someone from outside the group. Now even the majority can begin to make links and find new norms, without having to be disrupted.
They can do it diectly. This will change culture in important ways.