Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: >> Option 1 is that a recipient can't understand a concern or is unable to >> act on a request for change from a signaler >> Option 2 is that a recipient understands the concern but has a different >> value system from the signaler that renders it moot >> >> If the effect of their behavior is damaging in some important way to the >> signaler, then it doesn't really matter what the intent is. The >> signaler's options are to displace the recipient from the environment or >> move themselves. >> > > Well, that's an awfully _binary_ way to think. [grin] I'd suggest there > are a countable infinity of other options as well. One such option > (let's say option 3) is to keep the recalcitrant recipient in the large > group and form a still smaller group within the larger group that does > not include the recalcitrant recipient. The binary in-group, out-group way of thinking is common in many real organizations and communities. But it is smarter to diversify, to have hedges and multiple membership if that's at all doable. Group cohesion is a fine thing to seek, but not without other irons in the fire -- an escape plan for all concerned. The internet, and social networking as the latest fad instance of it, helps to give people these alternatives..
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
