I think we collectively lack experience or a manual/guideline to form effective social groups. I observed this in mmos where players/gamers gather to achieve a common purpose, but even there, some people "sacrifice" for the group and take it upon them to organize.
Then the workload exceeds their "budget" and they burn out.
In the case of games, sometimes someone new steps up and tge cycle repeats or the group dissolves. both are bad. The same pattern can be ovserved in political parties or companies with the difference that political activism is done because its "right" but its not fun and corporate activity is paid for.
So the motivation pattern ranges from slightly to very different.| games | political | corporate |
|---|---|---|
| fun | obligation | money |
| pseudo material reward | self actualization | self preservation |
| social experience | justice |
Ideally, the workload of "doing for the group" could be tracked to ensure a roughly equal workload, measure effort/performancd, to make sure that everyone participates and feels integratex, that there are no free loaders taking undue leadership positions, to track achievements and use them to justify meritocratic leadership or opinions.
something i can only report on anecdotally / i strongly believe its true, but i have no good academic source on it: ,
meaning that it's unlikely that a "plan" that consists of "puppies and rainbows and we'll figure out finances and implementation later" will never get to the stage of contact between potential member and group.
at least, and that's the anecdotal part, i would never join a group that doesn't present rudimentary accounting. the same is true for democratic process, decision making, policy writing, etx.
and i would say, that that is the weakness of most common political appeals.
i suspect that that is the actual strength of consciously populist approaches, they can make arbitrary wild claims and the member of more violence inclined groups dont really mind extreme "solutions". so any group going roughly a fitting direction will attract populist members.
while more critical people will identify weaknesses and unhandled risks and failure cases as "unfit" and will instead default to not support that group
without calling an the approach correct or wrong, and only using the example because its available and easy to research, some open source communities have chosen the path of "inclusion" and are trying to establish certain social rules e.g. the linux kernel and python foundation code of conduct
there are arguments for and against that and i dont particularly care one way or the other
but something that can be said for certain is this: there is a chain of thought that has lead to this situation that is assumed to be true:
now, im not saying thats the wrong approach. i hope it is true and what is currently happening in those groups is correct and true and just.
the potnetial problem is that if 4. is wrong and there is some.other more important deciding factor that results in that new majority NOT joining, growth wont be happening.
i think this is particulalrly critical for groups doing social things for a target audience, whwre the target audience does not understand the causation of the group doing work and the target audience receiving the benefit.
the group would then spend effort on morally / programmatically correct things, but still fail in a global context ecause it would spend less effort to the benefit of its actual supporters.
plus, of course, the case where the group is wrong as a whole aboit their mission being GOOD and JUST but still trying to grow the movement.
so actually, its probably a series of steps that all have to be correct. hmmmmm. i should pick a different form of presentation.