*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.

* 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,

-

*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.

- 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.

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: > > * 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 <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. > > Lots more to explore I’m sure. Any comments/feedback welcome [image: > :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 >

 *
 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

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>

 *
 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

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>

 *
 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

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>

 *
 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

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: > > > * 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 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>