I'm reading a book called
Here Comes Everybody, about how the Internet's social groupings have changed how groups work.
He details how hard it is to get people together to accomplish things, as we're well aware.
In one part he talks about how easy it is for 2 people to go see a movie, and how it gets harder the more people you add into the mix, due to the exponential math involved.
Quote:
|
By the time you want to go to a movie in a group of ten, waiting for forty-five separate agreements is pretty much a lost cause. You could sit around discussing the possible choices all day, with no guarantee you'll get to an agreement at all, much less in time for the movie. Instead you'll vote or draw straws, or someone will just decide to go to a particular movie and invite everyone else along, without trying to take all possible preferences into account. These difficulties have nothing to do with friendship or movie-going specificially; they are responses to the grim logic of group complexity.
|
Hence, groups designate leaders, or committees, or a hierarchical structure, or something to make these sorts of things work. (The point of the book is that a lot of these problems disappear in Internet groups. It's when we venture into the real world that we get in trouble, isn't it?)
My point? Eh, don't really have one, was just reading and realized it fit in with this thread. The transactional rules are there. Either you obey them or you have nervous breakdown.