Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change*
There are two books by Damon Centola (https://www.damoncentola.com/),
both of which Tom Woodroof have written summaries of:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
[dorian] dorian https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian
Community Weaver
April 14
Sorry I wasn’t able to join your event, @tonyb
https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/tonyb. But thanks a lot for
sharing these summaries :raised_hands:
Here are the key takeaways I’m drawing from these two docs:
*Tightly-knit, clustered social groups (such as groups of mutual
friends) fostering strong relational ties are key to the spread of
new norms and complex behaviours.* Conversely, weak ties connecting
huge numbers of less-familiar people across a network are mostly
useful to spread information, memes, or viruses (via simple
contagion) - but not the adoption of new norms, behaviours or
practices that entail some element of risk. Overcoming this risk
requires constant affirmation, ongoing maintenance, and
reinforcement from multiple points of contact around oneself who are
undertaking the same changes - otherwise it’s easy to grow
discouraged and abandon the change. *Creating a sense of social
confirmation is critical to the spread of “complex contagions”.*
*For a contagion to spread from one clustered group to another,
“wide bridges” (multiple interpersonal ties between people in
different groups, neighbourhoods, etc.) are essential.* “Narrow
bridges” (connecting just one broker from one group with another
broker from another group) are not enough. In fact, brokers’
privileged structural position can actually hinder the spread of
innovative practises.
So i*t is much more efficient to cultivate social incubators of
innovation locally, than to try relying on central influencers to
spread complex changes in behaviour.*
*Participants who start off most resistant to embracing a complex
change often become the most committed to this change once they do
embrace it:* the same factors that make a behaviour complex also
make it “sticky.”
*The more connected people are, the less likely they are to adopt a
new idea of behaviour* - because humans tend to assess
ideas/behaviours in terms of the fraction of people in our network
who have already adopted it (not by the absolute number). So if I’m
connected to thousands of people, and only a small percentage of
them have embraced this idea, it has very little legitimacy for me:
the non-adopters act as countervailing influences on me.
So *it is much more likely that someone at the periphery of a
network, with a more modest number of connections, will embrace a
complex change:* their adoption threshold will be lower. It is
therefore possible for an innovation to take hold, gain momentum,
and spread through the periphery until it becomes impossible to
ignore, even for people at the network’s centre. *Across a variety
of contexts, the network periphery is needed to spark and support
meaningful social change.*
Therefore, *a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours in
networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a local,
peripheral setting,* who will mutually reinforce each others’
choices as they cultivate social change. Then, wide bridges with
other tightly-knit groups should be built for these social
innovations (or social movements, like the #BLM example) to spread
more widely.
For innovations that require more social proof that something will
be useful, or else emotional excitement, loyalty, or solidarity,
then *similarity* among reinforcing contacts is key. But for change
that requires legitimacy (the sense that sth is widely accepted),
then *diversity* among adopters is critical: otherwise it will look
like the innovation only concerns a particular clique/type/social class.
*When the proportion of activists committed to overturning a
particular norm in a network exceeds 25% of the population, they
succeed every time*. A social tipping point then occurs.
*Teams of diverse, complementary people who function in clusters
that do not exchange information so freely among themselves, are
much more innovative than teams in which everyone is connected to
everyone else:* this leads to everyone looking at the problem in the
same way by focusing on “easy/obvious” solutions.
*Overly centralised networks tend to allow the people at the centre
to spread their biases (as memes/viruses/information) across entire
populations*. In contrast, challenging ideas, as complex contagions,
typically emerge at the egalitarian, moderately-connected network
periphery**, away from the overwhelming countervailing influences
faced by those at the centre. *Influencers can spread simple
contagions, but not complex ones.*
*Egalitarian network structures for exchanging opinions can have
incredibly powerful effects in helping people overcome their
biases.* This is all the more noticeable when voices are brought in
from the network periphery.
This provides food for thought and confirmation in terms of what I think
many of us have been doing in DAF… :thinking:
For example:
Lots more to explore I’m sure. Any comments/feedback welcome :slight_smile:
Visit Topic
https://community.deepadaptation.info/t/damon-centola-two-book-summaries-on-behavior-change/1601/3
to respond.
@dorian https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian Your rigorous
summary of Centola’s work is exactly what we need to improve our
community practices and develop a better understanding of the concepts
Centola presents. I’m so grateful for your work, sharing your time, and
talent. Thanks again and again.
More Fun and Less Stuff,
Until next time, Tony Budak,
Thank you Tony and Dorian for this contribution. I enjoyed contemplating
what was written, running each point by my truth meter. One of my
reflections is that some decades ago, Harrison was talking about the power
of edgewalkers in bringing about transformation. This much earlier
observation by Harrison sums up some of the points made.
I now have a question. I am looking at the point made
"Therefore, a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours in
networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a local,
peripheral setting, who will mutually reinforce each others’ choices as
they cultivate social change."
My question: does anyone have experience in which the above is true? I am
thinking about the spread of OST, Appreciative Inquiry, Genuine Contact
etc, all social change technologies. I believe it to be true that they, and
other social technologies, didn't grow locally from tightly knit groups of
adopters...they each gathered people from a number of countries, even if
just one or two per country, and strengthened the concepts from there. They
were helped along by good publications.
Thoughts?
in genuine contact,
Birgitt
[image: Picture]
Birgitt Williams
*Senior consultant-author-mentor to leaders and consultants *
Specialist in organizational and systemic transformation, leadership
development, and the benefits of nourishing a culture of leadership.
www.dalarinternational.com
Learn More & Register
http://www.dalarinternational.com/upcoming-workshops/ for any of our
upcoming workshops here.
16 Sunny Acres Dr., Etowah, North Carolina, USA 28729
Phone: 01-919-522-7750
Like us on Facebook
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=6677c35b38&e=e7zyhHfiqG
Connect on LinkedIn
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=c26173f86b&e=e7zyhHfiqG
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:18 AM Tony Budak via OSList everyone@oslist.org
wrote:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
dorian https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian Community Weaver
April 14
Sorry I wasn’t able to join your event, @tonyb
https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/tonyb. But thanks a lot for
sharing these summaries [image: :raised_hands:]
Here are the key takeaways I’m drawing from these two docs:
-
*Tightly-knit, clustered social groups (such as groups of mutual
friends) fostering strong relational ties are key to the spread of new
norms and complex behaviours.* Conversely, weak ties connecting huge
numbers of less-familiar people across a network are mostly useful to
spread information, memes, or viruses (via simple contagion) - but not the
adoption of new norms, behaviours or practices that entail some element of
risk. Overcoming this risk requires constant affirmation, ongoing
maintenance, and reinforcement from multiple points of contact around
oneself who are undertaking the same changes - otherwise it’s easy to grow
discouraged and abandon the change. *Creating a sense of social
confirmation is critical to the spread of “complex contagions”.*
-
*For a contagion to spread from one clustered group to another, “wide
bridges” (multiple interpersonal ties between people in different groups,
neighbourhoods, etc.) are essential.* “Narrow bridges” (connecting
just one broker from one group with another broker from another group) are
not enough. In fact, brokers’ privileged structural position can actually
hinder the spread of innovative practises.
-
So i*t is much more efficient to cultivate social incubators of
innovation locally, than to try relying on central influencers to spread
complex changes in behaviour.*
-
*Participants who start off most resistant to embracing a complex
change often become the most committed to this change once they do embrace
it:* the same factors that make a behaviour complex also make it
“sticky.”
-
*The more connected people are, the less likely they are to adopt a
new idea of behaviour* - because humans tend to assess
ideas/behaviours in terms of the fraction of people in our network who have
already adopted it (not by the absolute number). So if I’m connected to
thousands of people, and only a small percentage of them have embraced this
idea, it has very little legitimacy for me: the non-adopters act as
countervailing influences on me.
-
So *it is much more likely that someone at the periphery of a network,
with a more modest number of connections, will embrace a complex change:*
their adoption threshold will be lower. It is therefore possible for an
innovation to take hold, gain momentum, and spread through the periphery
until it becomes impossible to ignore, even for people at the network’s
centre. *Across a variety of contexts, the network periphery is needed
to spark and support meaningful social change.*
-
Therefore, *a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours in
networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a local,
peripheral setting,* who will mutually reinforce each others’ choices
as they cultivate social change. Then, wide bridges with other tightly-knit
groups should be built for these social innovations (or social movements,
like the #BLM example) to spread more widely.
-
For innovations that require more social proof that something will be
useful, or else emotional excitement, loyalty, or solidarity, then
*similarity* among reinforcing contacts is key. But for change that
requires legitimacy (the sense that sth is widely accepted), then
*diversity* among adopters is critical: otherwise it will look like
the innovation only concerns a particular clique/type/social class.
-
*When the proportion of activists committed to overturning a
particular norm in a network exceeds 25% of the population, they succeed
every time*. A social tipping point then occurs.
-
*Teams of diverse, complementary people who function in clusters that
do not exchange information so freely among themselves, are much more
innovative than teams in which everyone is connected to everyone else:*
this leads to everyone looking at the problem in the same way by focusing
on “easy/obvious” solutions.
-
*Overly centralised networks tend to allow the people at the centre to
spread their biases (as memes/viruses/information) across entire
populations*. In contrast, challenging ideas, as complex contagions,
typically emerge at the egalitarian, moderately-connected network
periphery**, away from the overwhelming countervailing influences faced by
those at the centre. *Influencers can spread simple contagions, but
not complex ones.*
-
*Egalitarian network structures for exchanging opinions can have
incredibly powerful effects in helping people overcome their biases.*
This is all the more noticeable when voices are brought in from the network
periphery.
This provides food for thought and confirmation in terms of what I think
many of us have been doing in DAF… [image: :thinking:]
For example:
- fostering small crews, communities of practice, and local community
groups appears essential to cultivating social innovation and nurturing the
spread of a “DA mindset”. Conversely, if one is left on their own, it is
easy to grow discouraged by all the people around who are *not*
embracing this change;
- if innovations are to travel from DAF into other places,
network-weaving between our networks/community and others should not be
left to just one or two people, but should involve multiple people creating
mutually reinforcing relationships;
- having a less centralised network structure in DAF also appears
essential to foster social learning and creativity across various clusters
doing their thing.
Visit Topic
https://community.deepadaptation.info/t/damon-centola-two-book-summaries-on-behavior-change/1601/3
to respond.
@dorian https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian Your rigorous
summary of Centola’s work is exactly what we need to improve our community
practices and develop a better understanding of the concepts Centola
presents. I’m so grateful for your work, sharing your time, and talent.
Thanks again and again.
More Fun and Less Stuff,
Until next time, Tony Budak,
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
You very welcome Birgitt. Thanks for your interest.
Damon Centola argues that simple contagions, which are akin to how
viruses spread, have become the go-to model for innovation and change
campaigns. However, the emerging field of social networks research
suggests that the spread of behaviors and beliefs, including social
change technologies, occurs differently. Centola highlights that social
change technologies have always followed different dynamics than simple
contagions, as revealed by the new science of social networks. I hope
this clarifies your inquiry on the spread of social change technologies.
Please see below for further details.
https://ndg.asc.upenn.edu/book/how-behavior-spreads-the-science-of-complex-contagions/
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
On 4/17/2023 1:40 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList wrote:
Thank you Tony and Dorian for this contribution. I enjoyed
contemplating what was written, running each point by my truth meter.
One of my reflections is that some decades ago, Harrison was talking
about the power of edgewalkers in bringing about transformation. This
much earlier observation by Harrison sums up some of the points made.
I now have a question. I am looking at the point made
"Therefore, a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours in
networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a local,
peripheral setting, who will mutually reinforce each others’ choices
as they cultivate social change."
My question: does anyone have experience in which the above is true? I
am thinking about the spread of OST, Appreciative Inquiry, Genuine
Contact etc, all social change technologies. I believe it to be true
that they, and other social technologies, didn't grow locally from
tightly knit groups of adopters...they each gathered people from a
number of countries, even if just one or two per country, and
strengthened the concepts from there. They were helped along by good
publications.
Thoughts?
in genuine contact,
Birgitt
Picture
Birgitt Williams
*Senior consultant-author-mentor to leaders and consultants *
Specialist in organizational and systemic transformation, leadership
development, and the benefits of nourishing a culture of leadership.
www.dalarinternational.com http://www.dalarinternational.com
Learn More & Register
http://www.dalarinternational.com/upcoming-workshops/ for any of our
upcoming workshops here.
16 Sunny Acres Dr., Etowah, North Carolina, USA 28729
Phone: 01-919-522-7750
Like us on Facebook
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=6677c35b38&e=e7zyhHfiqG
Connect on LinkedIn
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=c26173f86b&e=e7zyhHfiqG
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:18 AM Tony Budak via OSList
everyone@oslist.org wrote:
*
Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change*
There are two books by Damon Centola
(https://www.damoncentola.com/), both of which Tom Woodroof have
written summaries of:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
[dorian] dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian>
Community Weaver
April 14
Sorry I wasn’t able to join your event, @tonyb
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/tonyb>. But thanks a lot
for sharing these summaries :raised_hands:
Here are the key takeaways I’m drawing from these two docs:
*
*Tightly-knit, clustered social groups (such as groups of
mutual friends) fostering strong relational ties are key to
the spread of new norms and complex behaviours.* Conversely,
weak ties connecting huge numbers of less-familiar people
across a network are mostly useful to spread information,
memes, or viruses (via simple contagion) - but not the
adoption of new norms, behaviours or practices that entail
some element of risk. Overcoming this risk requires constant
affirmation, ongoing maintenance, and reinforcement from
multiple points of contact around oneself who are undertaking
the same changes - otherwise it’s easy to grow discouraged and
abandon the change. *Creating a sense of social confirmation
is critical to the spread of “complex contagions”.*
*
*For a contagion to spread from one clustered group to
another, “wide bridges” (multiple interpersonal ties between
people in different groups, neighbourhoods, etc.) are
essential.* “Narrow bridges” (connecting just one broker from
one group with another broker from another group) are not
enough. In fact, brokers’ privileged structural position can
actually hinder the spread of innovative practises.
*
So i*t is much more efficient to cultivate social incubators
of innovation locally, than to try relying on central
influencers to spread complex changes in behaviour.*
*
*Participants who start off most resistant to embracing a
complex change often become the most committed to this change
once they do embrace it:* the same factors that make a
behaviour complex also make it “sticky.”
*
*The more connected people are, the less likely they are to
adopt a new idea of behaviour* - because humans tend to assess
ideas/behaviours in terms of the fraction of people in our
network who have already adopted it (not by the absolute
number). So if I’m connected to thousands of people, and only
a small percentage of them have embraced this idea, it has
very little legitimacy for me: the non-adopters act as
countervailing influences on me.
*
So *it is much more likely that someone at the periphery of a
network, with a more modest number of connections, will
embrace a complex change:* their adoption threshold will be
lower. It is therefore possible for an innovation to take
hold, gain momentum, and spread through the periphery until it
becomes impossible to ignore, even for people at the network’s
centre. *Across a variety of contexts, the network periphery
is needed to spark and support meaningful social change.*
*
Therefore, *a key strategy for spreading new norms and
behaviours in networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of
adopters in a local, peripheral setting,* who will mutually
reinforce each others’ choices as they cultivate social
change. Then, wide bridges with other tightly-knit groups
should be built for these social innovations (or social
movements, like the #BLM example) to spread more widely.
*
For innovations that require more social proof that something
will be useful, or else emotional excitement, loyalty, or
solidarity, then *similarity* among reinforcing contacts is
key. But for change that requires legitimacy (the sense that
sth is widely accepted), then *diversity* among adopters is
critical: otherwise it will look like the innovation only
concerns a particular clique/type/social class.
*
*When the proportion of activists committed to overturning a
particular norm in a network exceeds 25% of the population,
they succeed every time*. A social tipping point then occurs.
*
*Teams of diverse, complementary people who function in
clusters that do not exchange information so freely among
themselves, are much more innovative than teams in which
everyone is connected to everyone else:* this leads to
everyone looking at the problem in the same way by focusing on
“easy/obvious” solutions.
*
*Overly centralised networks tend to allow the people at the
centre to spread their biases (as memes/viruses/information)
across entire populations*. In contrast, challenging ideas, as
complex contagions, typically emerge at the egalitarian,
moderately-connected network periphery**, away from the
overwhelming countervailing influences faced by those at the
centre. *Influencers can spread simple contagions, but not
complex ones.*
*
*Egalitarian network structures for exchanging opinions can
have incredibly powerful effects in helping people overcome
their biases.* This is all the more noticeable when voices are
brought in from the network periphery.
This provides food for thought and confirmation in terms of what I
think many of us have been doing in DAF… :thinking:
For example:
* fostering small crews, communities of practice, and local
community groups appears essential to cultivating social
innovation and nurturing the spread of a “DA mindset”.
Conversely, if one is left on their own, it is easy to grow
discouraged by all the people around who are /not/ embracing
this change;
* if innovations are to travel from DAF into other places,
network-weaving between our networks/community and others
should not be left to just one or two people, but should
involve multiple people creating mutually reinforcing
relationships;
* having a less centralised network structure in DAF also
appears essential to foster social learning and creativity
across various clusters doing their thing.
Lots more to explore I’m sure. Any comments/feedback welcome
:slight_smile:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Topic
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/t/damon-centola-two-book-summaries-on-behavior-change/1601/3>
to respond.
@dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian> Your
rigorous summary of Centola’s work is exactly what we need to
improve our community practices and develop a better understanding
of the concepts Centola presents. I’m so grateful for your work,
sharing your time, and talent. Thanks again and again.
More Fun and Less Stuff,
Until next time, Tony Budak,
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
Hi Birgitt and for those interested here is a follow up talk by Damon
Centola – Contagion: https://youtu.be/k2bXaqcCigo
On 4/17/2023 5:00 PM, Tony Budak via OSList wrote:
You very welcome Birgitt. Thanks for your interest.
Damon Centola argues that simple contagions, which are akin to how
viruses spread, have become the go-to model for innovation and change
campaigns. However, the emerging field of social networks research
suggests that the spread of behaviors and beliefs, including social
change technologies, occurs differently. Centola highlights that
social change technologies have always followed different dynamics
than simple contagions, as revealed by the new science of social
networks. I hope this clarifies your inquiry on the spread of social
change technologies. Please see below for further details.
https://ndg.asc.upenn.edu/book/how-behavior-spreads-the-science-of-complex-contagions/
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
On 4/17/2023 1:40 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList wrote:
Thank you Tony and Dorian for this contribution. I enjoyed
contemplating what was written, running each point by my truth meter.
One of my reflections is that some decades ago, Harrison was talking
about the power of edgewalkers in bringing about transformation. This
much earlier observation by Harrison sums up some of the points made.
I now have a question. I am looking at the point made
"Therefore, a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours in
networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a local,
peripheral setting, who will mutually reinforce each others’ choices
as they cultivate social change."
My question: does anyone have experience in which the above is true?
I am thinking about the spread of OST, Appreciative Inquiry, Genuine
Contact etc, all social change technologies. I believe it to be true
that they, and other social technologies, didn't grow locally from
tightly knit groups of adopters...they each gathered people from a
number of countries, even if just one or two per country, and
strengthened the concepts from there. They were helped along by good
publications.
Thoughts?
in genuine contact,
Birgitt
Picture
Birgitt Williams
*Senior consultant-author-mentor to leaders and consultants *
Specialist in organizational and systemic transformation, leadership
development, and the benefits of nourishing a culture of leadership.
www.dalarinternational.com http://www.dalarinternational.com
Learn More & Register
http://www.dalarinternational.com/upcoming-workshops/ for any of
our upcoming workshops here.
16 Sunny Acres Dr., Etowah, North Carolina, USA 28729
Phone: 01-919-522-7750
Like us on Facebook
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=6677c35b38&e=e7zyhHfiqG
Connect on LinkedIn
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=c26173f86b&e=e7zyhHfiqG
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:18 AM Tony Budak via OSList
everyone@oslist.org wrote:
*
Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change*
There are two books by Damon Centola
(https://www.damoncentola.com/), both of which Tom Woodroof have
written summaries of:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
[dorian] dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian>
Community Weaver
April 14
Sorry I wasn’t able to join your event, @tonyb
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/tonyb>. But thanks a lot
for sharing these summaries :raised_hands:
Here are the key takeaways I’m drawing from these two docs:
*
*Tightly-knit, clustered social groups (such as groups of
mutual friends) fostering strong relational ties are key to
the spread of new norms and complex behaviours.* Conversely,
weak ties connecting huge numbers of less-familiar people
across a network are mostly useful to spread information,
memes, or viruses (via simple contagion) - but not the
adoption of new norms, behaviours or practices that entail
some element of risk. Overcoming this risk requires constant
affirmation, ongoing maintenance, and reinforcement from
multiple points of contact around oneself who are undertaking
the same changes - otherwise it’s easy to grow discouraged
and abandon the change. *Creating a sense of social
confirmation is critical to the spread of “complex contagions”.*
*
*For a contagion to spread from one clustered group to
another, “wide bridges” (multiple interpersonal ties between
people in different groups, neighbourhoods, etc.) are
essential.* “Narrow bridges” (connecting just one broker from
one group with another broker from another group) are not
enough. In fact, brokers’ privileged structural position can
actually hinder the spread of innovative practises.
*
So i*t is much more efficient to cultivate social incubators
of innovation locally, than to try relying on central
influencers to spread complex changes in behaviour.*
*
*Participants who start off most resistant to embracing a
complex change often become the most committed to this change
once they do embrace it:* the same factors that make a
behaviour complex also make it “sticky.”
*
*The more connected people are, the less likely they are to
adopt a new idea of behaviour* - because humans tend to
assess ideas/behaviours in terms of the fraction of people in
our network who have already adopted it (not by the absolute
number). So if I’m connected to thousands of people, and only
a small percentage of them have embraced this idea, it has
very little legitimacy for me: the non-adopters act as
countervailing influences on me.
*
So *it is much more likely that someone at the periphery of a
network, with a more modest number of connections, will
embrace a complex change:* their adoption threshold will be
lower. It is therefore possible for an innovation to take
hold, gain momentum, and spread through the periphery until
it becomes impossible to ignore, even for people at the
network’s centre. *Across a variety of contexts, the network
periphery is needed to spark and support meaningful social
change.*
*
Therefore, *a key strategy for spreading new norms and
behaviours in networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of
adopters in a local, peripheral setting,* who will mutually
reinforce each others’ choices as they cultivate social
change. Then, wide bridges with other tightly-knit groups
should be built for these social innovations (or social
movements, like the #BLM example) to spread more widely.
*
For innovations that require more social proof that something
will be useful, or else emotional excitement, loyalty, or
solidarity, then *similarity* among reinforcing contacts is
key. But for change that requires legitimacy (the sense that
sth is widely accepted), then *diversity* among adopters is
critical: otherwise it will look like the innovation only
concerns a particular clique/type/social class.
*
*When the proportion of activists committed to overturning a
particular norm in a network exceeds 25% of the population,
they succeed every time*. A social tipping point then occurs.
*
*Teams of diverse, complementary people who function in
clusters that do not exchange information so freely among
themselves, are much more innovative than teams in which
everyone is connected to everyone else:* this leads to
everyone looking at the problem in the same way by focusing
on “easy/obvious” solutions.
*
*Overly centralised networks tend to allow the people at the
centre to spread their biases (as memes/viruses/information)
across entire populations*. In contrast, challenging ideas,
as complex contagions, typically emerge at the egalitarian,
moderately-connected network periphery**, away from the
overwhelming countervailing influences faced by those at the
centre. *Influencers can spread simple contagions, but not
complex ones.*
*
*Egalitarian network structures for exchanging opinions can
have incredibly powerful effects in helping people overcome
their biases.* This is all the more noticeable when voices
are brought in from the network periphery.
This provides food for thought and confirmation in terms of what
I think many of us have been doing in DAF… :thinking:
For example:
* fostering small crews, communities of practice, and local
community groups appears essential to cultivating social
innovation and nurturing the spread of a “DA mindset”.
Conversely, if one is left on their own, it is easy to grow
discouraged by all the people around who are /not/ embracing
this change;
* if innovations are to travel from DAF into other places,
network-weaving between our networks/community and others
should not be left to just one or two people, but should
involve multiple people creating mutually reinforcing
relationships;
* having a less centralised network structure in DAF also
appears essential to foster social learning and creativity
across various clusters doing their thing.
Lots more to explore I’m sure. Any comments/feedback welcome
:slight_smile:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Topic
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/t/damon-centola-two-book-summaries-on-behavior-change/1601/3>
to respond.
@dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian> Your
rigorous summary of Centola’s work is exactly what we need to
improve our community practices and develop a better
understanding of the concepts Centola presents. I’m so grateful
for your work, sharing your time, and talent. Thanks again and again.
More Fun and Less Stuff,
Until next time, Tony Budak,
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
There are two books by Damon Centola (https://www.damoncentola.com/),
see DeepAdaptionForum Dorian Cave's summaries ATTACHED
On 4/20/2023 1:30 AM, Tony Budak via OSList wrote:
Hi Birgitt and for those interested here is a follow up talk by Damon
Centola – Contagion: https://youtu.be/k2bXaqcCigo
On 4/17/2023 5:00 PM, Tony Budak via OSList wrote:
You very welcome Birgitt. Thanks for your interest.
Damon Centola argues that simple contagions, which are akin to how
viruses spread, have become the go-to model for innovation and change
campaigns. However, the emerging field of social networks research
suggests that the spread of behaviors and beliefs, including social
change technologies, occurs differently. Centola highlights that
social change technologies have always followed different dynamics
than simple contagions, as revealed by the new science of social
networks. I hope this clarifies your inquiry on the spread of social
change technologies. Please see below for further details.
https://ndg.asc.upenn.edu/book/how-behavior-spreads-the-science-of-complex-contagions/
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
On 4/17/2023 1:40 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList wrote:
Thank you Tony and Dorian for this contribution. I enjoyed
contemplating what was written, running each point by my truth
meter. One of my reflections is that some decades ago, Harrison was
talking about the power of edgewalkers in bringing about
transformation. This much earlier observation by Harrison sums up
some of the points made.
I now have a question. I am looking at the point made
"Therefore, a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours
in networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a local,
peripheral setting, who will mutually reinforce each others’
choices as they cultivate social change."
My question: does anyone have experience in which the above is true?
I am thinking about the spread of OST, Appreciative Inquiry, Genuine
Contact etc, all social change technologies. I believe it to be true
that they, and other social technologies, didn't grow locally from
tightly knit groups of adopters...they each gathered people from a
number of countries, even if just one or two per country, and
strengthened the concepts from there. They were helped along by good
publications.
Thoughts?
in genuine contact,
Birgitt
Picture
Birgitt Williams
*Senior consultant-author-mentor to leaders and consultants *
Specialist in organizational and systemic transformation,
leadership development, and the benefits of nourishing a culture of
leadership.
www.dalarinternational.com http://www.dalarinternational.com
Learn More & Register
http://www.dalarinternational.com/upcoming-workshops/ for any of
our upcoming workshops here.
16 Sunny Acres Dr., Etowah, North Carolina, USA 28729
Phone: 01-919-522-7750
Like us on Facebook
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=6677c35b38&e=e7zyhHfiqG
Connect on LinkedIn
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=c26173f86b&e=e7zyhHfiqG
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:18 AM Tony Budak via OSList
everyone@oslist.org wrote:
*
Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change*
There are two books by Damon Centola
(https://www.damoncentola.com/), both of which Tom Woodroof have
written summaries of:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
[dorian] dorian
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian> Community Weaver
April 14
Sorry I wasn’t able to join your event, @tonyb
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/tonyb>. But thanks a
lot for sharing these summaries :raised_hands:
Here are the key takeaways I’m drawing from these two docs:
*
*Tightly-knit, clustered social groups (such as groups of
mutual friends) fostering strong relational ties are key to
the spread of new norms and complex behaviours.* Conversely,
weak ties connecting huge numbers of less-familiar people
across a network are mostly useful to spread information,
memes, or viruses (via simple contagion) - but not the
adoption of new norms, behaviours or practices that entail
some element of risk. Overcoming this risk requires constant
affirmation, ongoing maintenance, and reinforcement from
multiple points of contact around oneself who are
undertaking the same changes - otherwise it’s easy to grow
discouraged and abandon the change. *Creating a sense of
social confirmation is critical to the spread of “complex
contagions”.*
*
*For a contagion to spread from one clustered group to
another, “wide bridges” (multiple interpersonal ties between
people in different groups, neighbourhoods, etc.) are
essential.* “Narrow bridges” (connecting just one broker
from one group with another broker from another group) are
not enough. In fact, brokers’ privileged structural position
can actually hinder the spread of innovative practises.
*
So i*t is much more efficient to cultivate social incubators
of innovation locally, than to try relying on central
influencers to spread complex changes in behaviour.*
*
*Participants who start off most resistant to embracing a
complex change often become the most committed to this
change once they do embrace it:* the same factors that make
a behaviour complex also make it “sticky.”
*
*The more connected people are, the less likely they are to
adopt a new idea of behaviour* - because humans tend to
assess ideas/behaviours in terms of the fraction of people
in our network who have already adopted it (not by the
absolute number). So if I’m connected to thousands of
people, and only a small percentage of them have embraced
this idea, it has very little legitimacy for me: the
non-adopters act as countervailing influences on me.
*
So *it is much more likely that someone at the periphery of
a network, with a more modest number of connections, will
embrace a complex change:* their adoption threshold will be
lower. It is therefore possible for an innovation to take
hold, gain momentum, and spread through the periphery until
it becomes impossible to ignore, even for people at the
network’s centre. *Across a variety of contexts, the network
periphery is needed to spark and support meaningful social
change.*
*
Therefore, *a key strategy for spreading new norms and
behaviours in networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of
adopters in a local, peripheral setting,* who will mutually
reinforce each others’ choices as they cultivate social
change. Then, wide bridges with other tightly-knit groups
should be built for these social innovations (or social
movements, like the #BLM example) to spread more widely.
*
For innovations that require more social proof that
something will be useful, or else emotional excitement,
loyalty, or solidarity, then *similarity* among reinforcing
contacts is key. But for change that requires legitimacy
(the sense that sth is widely accepted), then *diversity*
among adopters is critical: otherwise it will look like the
innovation only concerns a particular clique/type/social class.
*
*When the proportion of activists committed to overturning a
particular norm in a network exceeds 25% of the population,
they succeed every time*. A social tipping point then occurs.
*
*Teams of diverse, complementary people who function in
clusters that do not exchange information so freely among
themselves, are much more innovative than teams in which
everyone is connected to everyone else:* this leads to
everyone looking at the problem in the same way by focusing
on “easy/obvious” solutions.
*
*Overly centralised networks tend to allow the people at the
centre to spread their biases (as memes/viruses/information)
across entire populations*. In contrast, challenging ideas,
as complex contagions, typically emerge at the egalitarian,
moderately-connected network periphery**, away from the
overwhelming countervailing influences faced by those at the
centre. *Influencers can spread simple contagions, but not
complex ones.*
*
*Egalitarian network structures for exchanging opinions can
have incredibly powerful effects in helping people overcome
their biases.* This is all the more noticeable when voices
are brought in from the network periphery.
This provides food for thought and confirmation in terms of what
I think many of us have been doing in DAF… :thinking:
For example:
* fostering small crews, communities of practice, and local
community groups appears essential to cultivating social
innovation and nurturing the spread of a “DA mindset”.
Conversely, if one is left on their own, it is easy to grow
discouraged by all the people around who are /not/ embracing
this change;
* if innovations are to travel from DAF into other places,
network-weaving between our networks/community and others
should not be left to just one or two people, but should
involve multiple people creating mutually reinforcing
relationships;
* having a less centralised network structure in DAF also
appears essential to foster social learning and creativity
across various clusters doing their thing.
Lots more to explore I’m sure. Any comments/feedback welcome
:slight_smile:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Topic
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/t/damon-centola-two-book-summaries-on-behavior-change/1601/3>
to respond.
@dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian> Your
rigorous summary of Centola’s work is exactly what we need to
improve our community practices and develop a better
understanding of the concepts Centola presents. I’m so grateful
for your work, sharing your time, and talent. Thanks again and
again.
More Fun and Less Stuff,
Until next time, Tony Budak,
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
Interesting that this thread received only one inquiry.
Tom Woodroof says, "A final important framing (that is implicit in the
network approach, but which should still be emphasised) is that the book
investigates collective rather than individual factors in achieving
change. Although tailoring the messages people are exposed to can be
effective, influencing social norms and structures can be far more so.
In the same way that schooling behaviour in fish could never be
predicted from studying one in isolation, many behavioural diffusion
phenomena only make sense when complex interdependent social relations
are understood."
Are there any OST practitioners that have anything to say about
complimenting OST with the above ideas of collective action and social
networking?
On 4/20/2023 3:03 AM, Tony Budak via OSList wrote:
There are two books by Damon Centola (https://www.damoncentola.com/),
see DeepAdaptionForum Dorian Cave's summaries ATTACHED
On 4/20/2023 1:30 AM, Tony Budak via OSList wrote:
Hi Birgitt and for those interested here is a follow up talk by Damon
Centola – Contagion: https://youtu.be/k2bXaqcCigo
On 4/17/2023 5:00 PM, Tony Budak via OSList wrote:
You very welcome Birgitt. Thanks for your interest.
Damon Centola argues that simple contagions, which are akin to how
viruses spread, have become the go-to model for innovation and
change campaigns. However, the emerging field of social networks
research suggests that the spread of behaviors and beliefs,
including social change technologies, occurs differently. Centola
highlights that social change technologies have always followed
different dynamics than simple contagions, as revealed by the new
science of social networks. I hope this clarifies your inquiry on
the spread of social change technologies. Please see below for
further details.
https://ndg.asc.upenn.edu/book/how-behavior-spreads-the-science-of-complex-contagions/
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
On 4/17/2023 1:40 PM, Birgitt Williams via OSList wrote:
Thank you Tony and Dorian for this contribution. I enjoyed
contemplating what was written, running each point by my truth
meter. One of my reflections is that some decades ago, Harrison was
talking about the power of edgewalkers in bringing about
transformation. This much earlier observation by Harrison sums up
some of the points made.
I now have a question. I am looking at the point made
"Therefore, a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours
in networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a
local, peripheral setting, who will mutually reinforce each
others’ choices as they cultivate social change."
My question: does anyone have experience in which the above is
true? I am thinking about the spread of OST, Appreciative Inquiry,
Genuine Contact etc, all social change technologies. I believe it
to be true that they, and other social technologies, didn't grow
locally from tightly knit groups of adopters...they each gathered
people from a number of countries, even if just one or two per
country, and strengthened the concepts from there. They were helped
along by good publications.
Thoughts?
in genuine contact,
Birgitt
Picture
Birgitt Williams
*Senior consultant-author-mentor to leaders and consultants *
Specialist in organizational and systemic transformation,
leadership development, and the benefits of nourishing a culture
of leadership.
www.dalarinternational.com http://www.dalarinternational.com
Learn More & Register
http://www.dalarinternational.com/upcoming-workshops/ for any of
our upcoming workshops here.
16 Sunny Acres Dr., Etowah, North Carolina, USA 28729
Phone: 01-919-522-7750
Like us on Facebook
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=6677c35b38&e=e7zyhHfiqG
Connect on LinkedIn
https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=c26173f86b&e=e7zyhHfiqG
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:18 AM Tony Budak via OSList
everyone@oslist.org wrote:
*
Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change*
There are two books by Damon Centola
(https://www.damoncentola.com/), both of which Tom Woodroof
have written summaries of:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
[dorian] dorian
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian> Community Weaver
April 14
Sorry I wasn’t able to join your event, @tonyb
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/tonyb>. But thanks a
lot for sharing these summaries :raised_hands:
Here are the key takeaways I’m drawing from these two docs:
*
*Tightly-knit, clustered social groups (such as groups of
mutual friends) fostering strong relational ties are key to
the spread of new norms and complex behaviours.*
Conversely, weak ties connecting huge numbers of
less-familiar people across a network are mostly useful to
spread information, memes, or viruses (via simple
contagion) - but not the adoption of new norms, behaviours
or practices that entail some element of risk. Overcoming
this risk requires constant affirmation, ongoing
maintenance, and reinforcement from multiple points of
contact around oneself who are undertaking the same changes
- otherwise it’s easy to grow discouraged and abandon the
change. *Creating a sense of social confirmation is
critical to the spread of “complex contagions”.*
*
*For a contagion to spread from one clustered group to
another, “wide bridges” (multiple interpersonal ties
between people in different groups, neighbourhoods, etc.)
are essential.* “Narrow bridges” (connecting just one
broker from one group with another broker from another
group) are not enough. In fact, brokers’ privileged
structural position can actually hinder the spread of
innovative practises.
*
So i*t is much more efficient to cultivate social
incubators of innovation locally, than to try relying on
central influencers to spread complex changes in behaviour.*
*
*Participants who start off most resistant to embracing a
complex change often become the most committed to this
change once they do embrace it:* the same factors that make
a behaviour complex also make it “sticky.”
*
*The more connected people are, the less likely they are to
adopt a new idea of behaviour* - because humans tend to
assess ideas/behaviours in terms of the fraction of people
in our network who have already adopted it (not by the
absolute number). So if I’m connected to thousands of
people, and only a small percentage of them have embraced
this idea, it has very little legitimacy for me: the
non-adopters act as countervailing influences on me.
*
So *it is much more likely that someone at the periphery of
a network, with a more modest number of connections, will
embrace a complex change:* their adoption threshold will be
lower. It is therefore possible for an innovation to take
hold, gain momentum, and spread through the periphery until
it becomes impossible to ignore, even for people at the
network’s centre. *Across a variety of contexts, the
network periphery is needed to spark and support meaningful
social change.*
*
Therefore, *a key strategy for spreading new norms and
behaviours in networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of
adopters in a local, peripheral setting,* who will mutually
reinforce each others’ choices as they cultivate social
change. Then, wide bridges with other tightly-knit groups
should be built for these social innovations (or social
movements, like the #BLM example) to spread more widely.
*
For innovations that require more social proof that
something will be useful, or else emotional excitement,
loyalty, or solidarity, then *similarity* among reinforcing
contacts is key. But for change that requires legitimacy
(the sense that sth is widely accepted), then *diversity*
among adopters is critical: otherwise it will look like the
innovation only concerns a particular clique/type/social class.
*
*When the proportion of activists committed to overturning
a particular norm in a network exceeds 25% of the
population, they succeed every time*. A social tipping
point then occurs.
*
*Teams of diverse, complementary people who function in
clusters that do not exchange information so freely among
themselves, are much more innovative than teams in which
everyone is connected to everyone else:* this leads to
everyone looking at the problem in the same way by focusing
on “easy/obvious” solutions.
*
*Overly centralised networks tend to allow the people at
the centre to spread their biases (as
memes/viruses/information) across entire populations*. In
contrast, challenging ideas, as complex contagions,
typically emerge at the egalitarian, moderately-connected
network periphery**, away from the overwhelming
countervailing influences faced by those at the centre.
*Influencers can spread simple contagions, but not complex
ones.*
*
*Egalitarian network structures for exchanging opinions can
have incredibly powerful effects in helping people overcome
their biases.* This is all the more noticeable when voices
are brought in from the network periphery.
This provides food for thought and confirmation in terms of
what I think many of us have been doing in DAF… :thinking:
For example:
* fostering small crews, communities of practice, and local
community groups appears essential to cultivating social
innovation and nurturing the spread of a “DA mindset”.
Conversely, if one is left on their own, it is easy to grow
discouraged by all the people around who are /not/
embracing this change;
* if innovations are to travel from DAF into other places,
network-weaving between our networks/community and others
should not be left to just one or two people, but should
involve multiple people creating mutually reinforcing
relationships;
* having a less centralised network structure in DAF also
appears essential to foster social learning and creativity
across various clusters doing their thing.
Lots more to explore I’m sure. Any comments/feedback welcome
:slight_smile:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Topic
<https://community.deepadaptation.info/t/damon-centola-two-book-summaries-on-behavior-change/1601/3>
to respond.
@dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian> Your
rigorous summary of Centola’s work is exactly what we need to
improve our community practices and develop a better
understanding of the concepts Centola presents. I’m so grateful
for your work, sharing your time, and talent. Thanks again and
again.
More Fun and Less Stuff,
Until next time, Tony Budak,
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun and Less Stuff, :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun, Less Stuff :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
Dear Tony,
the part of Re: "Complex Contagions & Behavior Change" I can follow,
understand.
The part of RE: "8,000,000 Emergent -" puzzles me.
What does it mean in the context of
"8,000,000 Emergent - Complex Contagions & Behavior Change" ?
Gimme a hint
mmp
Am 16.04.2023 um 08:18 schrieb Tony Budak via OSList:
Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change*
There are two books by Damon Centola (https://www.damoncentola.com/),
both of which Tom Woodroof have written summaries of:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
Michael M Pannwitz
Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin
+49 30 7728000mmpannwitz@posteo.de
Tony It may be a painful fact, but I think it is true that self organizing
systems have a mind of their own. As participants in such systems, we may
have our opinions, and often do, but at the end of the day, our opinion is
but one of the many forces at play. We may have the power to stop or derail
the system, and may also find ways to ride the energies in directions we
desire... but at best we are "Wave Riders." I think. Part of the problem is
that all systems are so complex and interconnected that we can never
fully appreciate the complexity. We just can't think at that level. And
what you can't think you can't control. And I rather think the situation
will remain unchanged with the arrival of AI
Harrison
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 3:57 AM Michael M Pannwitz via OSList <
everyone@oslist.org> wrote:
Dear Tony,
the part of Re: "Complex Contagions & Behavior Change" I can follow,
understand.
The part of RE: "8,000,000 Emergent -" puzzles me.
What does it mean in the context of
"8,000,000 Emergent - Complex Contagions & Behavior Change" ?
Gimme a hint
mmp
Am 16.04.2023 um 08:18 schrieb Tony Budak via OSList:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
Michael M Pannwitz
Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin
+49 30 7728000 mmpannwitz@posteo.de
OSList mailing list -- everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email to everyone-leave@oslist.org
Hi Michael,
I am referring to (with apologizes for the math error) to this statement
by Harrison regards 8 billion (my bold emphasis) here below:
Yes the Subject is not clear, in a do over, the Subject would be
something like:
8 Billion self-managed participants ramp up network learning and doing
activities using OST
More Fun - Less Stuff,
Tony
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
Re: [OSList] Report From The Field
Date:
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 11:55:44 -0500
From:
Harrison Owen via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
Reply-To:
World wide Open Space Technology email list oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
To:
'World wide Open Space Technology email list'
oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
CC:
Harrison Owen hhowensr@gmail.com
Mark may be odd (I plead Guilty too) – but he does speak from a place of
practical engagement. Otherwise known as, “in the trenches.” Not always
pretty, but definitely where the rubber meets the road…
“Chaos is alive and well and now, fed by resistance, is a different
animal for facilitators as ill intent looms large. If one's goal as
leader is to obstruct, defame, ridicule, and act to prevent progress of
any kind so as to counter any credibility for your co-leaders, then it
is impossible. That is America today and it makes honest attempts at
system improvement challenging to say the least. In any organization the
leadership MUST embrace the power of collaboration and system
improvement. There are a lot of really well run governments where the
honest leaders seek to inspire positive improvements, continuously. In
the great USofA we have a significant leadership crisis where mutually
assured self destruction is taking place.”
(Mark Carmel – quoted /without/ permission)
I would guess that we need to keep opening space – wherever, however,
about whatever… but we sure need some breathing room. The details of
“solution” are more than any of us can provide, or even contemplate. But
we do know how to establish the space in which serious, productive
conversations can take place. *And that “conversation” is going to be a
big one. Last count… something around 8 billion participants. *Odd,
wild, weird? For sure. But we do have the means. Will we find the will
and the way? Stay tuned!
ho
On 5/7/2023 3:56 AM, Michael M Pannwitz via OSList wrote:
Dear Tony,
the part of Re: "Complex Contagions & Behavior Change" I can follow,
understand.
The part of RE: "8,000,000 Emergent -" puzzles me.
What does it mean in the context of
"8,000,000 Emergent - Complex Contagions & Behavior Change" ?
Gimme a hint
mmp
Am 16.04.2023 um 08:18 schrieb Tony Budak via OSList:
Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change*
There are two books by Damon Centola (https://www.damoncentola.com/),
both of which Tom Woodroof have written summaries of:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
Michael M Pannwitz
Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin
+49 30 7728000mmpannwitz@posteo.de
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun, Less Stuff :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
Hi There,
From Shankar Vedantam, "In order to understand how to apply network
science, you need to know if what you're spreading is simple or complex.
In my interview with Shankar Vedantam on the Hidden Brain podcast, I
discuss the main differences between simple and complex contagions. You
can listen to the episode here!"
https://spoti.fi/3zTHoZO
More Fun - Less Stuff,
Tony
On 5/7/2023 2:47 PM, Tony Budak via OSList wrote:
Hi Michael,
I am referring to (with apologizes for the math error) to this
statement by Harrison regards 8 billion (my bold emphasis) here below:
Yes the Subject is not clear, in a do over, the Subject would be
something like:
8 Billion self-managed participants ramp up network learning and doing
activities using OST
More Fun - Less Stuff,
Tony
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
Re: [OSList] Report From The Field
Date:
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 11:55:44 -0500
From:
Harrison Owen via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
Reply-To:
World wide Open Space Technology email list
oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
To:
'World wide Open Space Technology email list'
oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
CC:
Harrison Owen hhowensr@gmail.com
Mark may be odd (I plead Guilty too) – but he does speak from a place
of practical engagement. Otherwise known as, “in the trenches.” Not
always pretty, but definitely where the rubber meets the road…
“Chaos is alive and well and now, fed by resistance, is a different
animal for facilitators as ill intent looms large. If one's goal as
leader is to obstruct, defame, ridicule, and act to prevent progress
of any kind so as to counter any credibility for your co-leaders, then
it is impossible. That is America today and it makes honest attempts
at system improvement challenging to say the least. In any
organization the leadership MUST embrace the power of collaboration
and system improvement. There are a lot of really well run
governments where the honest leaders seek to inspire positive
improvements, continuously. In the great USofA we have a significant
leadership crisis where mutually assured self destruction is taking
place.”
(Mark Carmel – quoted /without/ permission)
I would guess that we need to keep opening space – wherever, however,
about whatever… but we sure need some breathing room. The details of
“solution” are more than any of us can provide, or even contemplate.
But we do know how to establish the space in which serious, productive
conversations can take place. *And that “conversation” is going to be
a big one. Last count… something around 8 billion participants. *Odd,
wild, weird? For sure. But we do have the means. Will we find the will
and the way? Stay tuned!
ho
On 5/7/2023 3:56 AM, Michael M Pannwitz via OSList wrote:
Dear Tony,
the part of Re: "Complex Contagions & Behavior Change" I can follow,
understand.
The part of RE: "8,000,000 Emergent -" puzzles me.
What does it mean in the context of
"8,000,000 Emergent - Complex Contagions & Behavior Change" ?
Gimme a hint
mmp
Am 16.04.2023 um 08:18 schrieb Tony Budak via OSList:
Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change*
There are two books by Damon Centola
(https://www.damoncentola.com/), both of which Tom Woodroof have
written summaries of:
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit#
•
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
Michael M Pannwitz
Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin
+49 30 7728000mmpannwitz@posteo.de
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
More Fun, Less Stuff :joy:
Until next time, Tony Budak,
on behalf of our Learning Network :thinking:
P.S. Become a Member top left and or
Record your unpaid work time to get
valuable - spendable Learning Time Credits.
https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968
OSList mailing list --everyone@oslist.org
To unsubscribe send an email toeveryone-leave@oslist.org
--
More Fun - Less Stuff :joy:
with a Learning Network :thinking:
Click HERE to Contact Tony
https://pickatime.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php
Become a Member at top left and
Record your unpaid work time for
valuable - Learning Time Credits. https://hourworld.org/bank/?hw=1968