4 ms·

I can't say if it's better or not, but we do know that human organizations function poorly at scale. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to communic

I can't say if it's better or not, but we do know that human organizations function poorly at scale. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to communicate, the easier it is to feel powerless, the more the problems of a large chunk of the group are remote and abstract (and thus ignored/missed/downplayed/deprioritized) I suspect that you also have more corruption and/or abuse of power because (a) the previous entries all empower sociopathic individuals, (b) you have a larger pool from which to find such sociopaths, and (c) you have more positions of power for said sociopaths to fill. You have all of these problems in small groups, but many of our policing/accountability systems don't function well in very large groups.

kbenson 9y ago
I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. Is our larger society more corrupt? Is it more difficult to communicate? I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy, which might lead to more wars. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounds plausible to me. In the end, actually examining data is what's needed. Until there are facts to assess, we're just spouting wild conjecture.
- ergothus 9y ago
  > I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number has a decent collection of the research I know of. There is a little hand-waving involved when it comes to "why", but it's notable that multiple researchers over decades disagree about the number, not the base concept. Likewise, studies related to the base concept of the non-technical Brooks Law support the non-linear impact on communication as a group grows (off hand I can't find a study on that, but I know I've read of multiple). Edit: Also https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201108/statistical-numbing-why-millions-can-die-and-we-don-t-care https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/... points out some research about the distance/abstractness I mentioned. Anecdotally, plenty of governing and/or economic systems (e.g. communism) have historical success in small groups and no examples of success in large groups, but that's a completely different kind of evidence. The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect" Given the above, and what we know about leaders (executives, politicians) and how sociopathic tendencies are an asset to personal success I find it very plausible but I have no actual evidence, thus "I suspect". > I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences. That's orthogonal to my point though, as I was only addressing internal workings, not interactions between groups.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect" My main point was that the theory was labeled as something you suspect, but the evidence you listed to back up that theory sounded like it was being presented as fact. You've provided resources to back up the claim, at least to some degree (as you note), which is what I was looking for, so thanks. :) > You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences. I don't have any, but I also would be interested to see it. I was using it as an example of something that sounded true and that I suspected was true that I had no real evidence of, and thus should be hesitant to assert as true. Unfortunately, by its nature that makes it interesting to a certain type of person, so it ends up teasing us. :/

kbenson 9y ago

I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. Is our larger society more corrupt? Is it more difficult to communicate? I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy, which might lead to more wars. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounds plausible to me. In the end, actually examining data is what's needed. Until there are facts to assess, we're just spouting wild conjecture.

ergothus 9y ago
> I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number has a decent collection of the research I know of. There is a little hand-waving involved when it comes to "why", but it's notable that multiple researchers over decades disagree about the number, not the base concept. Likewise, studies related to the base concept of the non-technical Brooks Law support the non-linear impact on communication as a group grows (off hand I can't find a study on that, but I know I've read of multiple). Edit: Also https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201108/statistical-numbing-why-millions-can-die-and-we-don-t-care https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/... points out some research about the distance/abstractness I mentioned. Anecdotally, plenty of governing and/or economic systems (e.g. communism) have historical success in small groups and no examples of success in large groups, but that's a completely different kind of evidence. The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect" Given the above, and what we know about leaders (executives, politicians) and how sociopathic tendencies are an asset to personal success I find it very plausible but I have no actual evidence, thus "I suspect". > I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences. That's orthogonal to my point though, as I was only addressing internal workings, not interactions between groups.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect" My main point was that the theory was labeled as something you suspect, but the evidence you listed to back up that theory sounded like it was being presented as fact. You've provided resources to back up the claim, at least to some degree (as you note), which is what I was looking for, so thanks. :) > You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences. I don't have any, but I also would be interested to see it. I was using it as an example of something that sounded true and that I suspected was true that I had no real evidence of, and thus should be hesitant to assert as true. Unfortunately, by its nature that makes it interesting to a certain type of person, so it ends up teasing us. :/