Conflict In Niche Groups

[nemorathwald]

In my wanderings around the web I've noticed that certain kinds of conflict happen to very certain kinds of projects. Take for instance Orion's Arm, a collaborative worldbuilding project creating a science-fiction universe which is supposed to be "hard SF," meaning they can't just make up fake science, they are constrained to not contradict what science currently knows in 2004. On their e-mail list there are frequent flame wars that usually involve personality politics rather than disagreements over science! I was reminded of that when artificially-designed religions have fallouts, such as Universism or Church of Virus. Artificially-constructed languages also come to mind. And yet all these are the very same people who have the greatest need to band together to succeed, because they serve a niche within a niche.

Ask yourself why the Klingon language is the most widespread artificial language ever (far more so than Esperanto), and no one who speaks Klingon could care less if it is "flawed." "Flawed" is a concept which doesn't seem to apply to it-- "flawed" according to what? Guess what happens to highly talented and valuable (in my opinion) constructed languages which are intended to be "ideal" for real use? They split into countless squabbling factions over seemingly irrelevant grammar mechanisms. These factions often consist of one person, who hopefully can converse with himself in his unique "perfect language." Also coming to mind is the schism between Extropians and the World Transhumanist Association, two organizations I love, both transhumanist groups, who have immeasurably more in common with each other than they do with the rest of the world.

No one questions or even notices the hideous inadequacies of the English language. Why? Because as a naturally evolved language you don't have a chance to "get in on the ground floor." It's not up for dispute-- you take it or leave it, and you can't leave it. Like Microsoft, or revealed religion, the usefulness of English as a common cultural hegemony makes it a standard unto itself. Similarly, in Klingon, a Hollywood scriptwriter invents it off-the-cuff without one-one-thousandth the blood sweat and tears put in over decades by the Lojban Committee, because that guy doesn't have to fear having to speak it. He puts his language into a movie that links it to Star Trek and presto. This man becomes the only standard by which it needs to be judged. If you want to know the subjective state of one author's mind about his fantasy world, you just ask him and that settles it, like Jesus.

In an artificially constructed religion, or a serious constructed language, or hard science fiction, the only standard against which to measure success in its creation is reality itself, in which much less can ever be dogmatically settled. So the participants, starting from a blank slate, feel like they have a chance to create Perfection. So then they will settle for nothing less than Perfection, and a church split ensues. Ironically, the reason monolithic traditions endure is that they're set in stone and the opinion of the participants doesn't matter.

Net communities never survive unless they cultivate a certain kind of indifference as a virtue. I mean patience and grace to people hurting our feelings. "Lower your expectations" is my mantra. Being within that niche within a niche is more than enough to ask. May niche groups have laser-like focus on what they have in common, and indifference to peripheral issues, and the wisdom to tell the difference.

Comments

Niche Warfare

[cosette-valjean.livejournal.com]

It is rather sad how these internet forums do tend to bicker. It seems they bicker more than if they were actually face to face. It amazes me that hurt feelings and emotional attachments and betrayals. People just seem to forget why they were involved to begin with. People should wait two days before posting anything rash or angry and they would realize how silly it is to sweat the small stuff. :-)

Re: Niche Warfare

[phecda.livejournal.com]

But that is the whole beauty of the internet -- instant communication and depersonalization. Who am I? Who are you? And why should I care? What I write has only the emotional content of the phrasing. All the kinesthetic communication surrounding a face to face encounter has been stripped off. I don't have to deal with you as an individual, only as a textual meme. All the realtime feedback that tells me that you are a human worthy of respect and allows me to gauge how my message is being received (and thus adjust that message accordingly) is gone, but the convenience of realtime communication has been retained. And the world is changed, for better and worse, yet again.

Re: Niche Warfare

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Is that why people lose their nerve in a face-to-face and don't say what needs to be said? In one-on-one interaction, conflict still exists, it just remains secret and this creates an illusion of unanimity around a mainstream view. Standing behind a pulpit or writing an essay gives a distance that allows a prepared work of thought not relying on, or interfered with by, immediate feedback. It's a trade-off. There are things in this world that need to be said, but when you say them to a person's face, you are taking a side against a person and truth becomes more difficult. I recently heard someone suggest that everyone should state an idea without declaring themselves to be for or against the idea. But that would be disingenuous.

Re: Niche Warfare

[phecda.livejournal.com]

When people meet face to face, you get the full range of primate politics (dominance/submission) as well as the pure communication.

If I say something as simple as "Hi" to you and all my body language says that I'm in a great mood -- I'm smiling, looking very open and accepting, etc., you are going to be more inclined to respond in kind, even if your body language shows you to be in a despondent or angry mood.

And if I say the same thing, but in a sharp tone, and with angry body language, how will you resond then?

And besides the visual and verbal cues, you also get pheremones, and energy interactions.

So how do you express the range of emotions in pure text for communication unambiguously? You can carefully choose your words, you can annotate with smilelys and other emoticons, you can clearly say that "I am happy" or "I am slightly depressed due to the stress I endured via my commute home", etc.

So, when you say something, it's never pure information. You always have an agenda behind it. Even something as innocuous as "When I left for work this morning, the temperature was 58 degrees fahrenheit" allows one to construct a whole set of arguments around it to determine the underlying motivations for what I said (which quickly runs off into the realms of literary criticism that I choose to avoid. Go find a copy of "The Pooh Perplex" if you want to have fun with that subject...), as well as any associations that you might have with morning temperatures at 58F, and leaving for work, regardless of what *my* associations happened to be.

Communication is subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty theorem -- you can't examine something without adulterating it. (I know that's not exactly what the theorem states, but that is my interperatation when applying it to language.) So, I think it's impossible to state an idea with putting some interperation on it. And any attempt to do so only makes the delivery insipid at best.

I attended a seminar on Imago therapy a while back (it's used in couples counseling), and while it can be a very painful thing to watch, it really forces people to listen to and interpret what another person is saying with immediate feedback. One person will make a statement, say "x", and the other person will say "I hear you say x, and my understanding of that is x'", and if x' doesn't agree with what the first person was trying to say, then they will correct that, or they will go on to the next statement. It makes for a very slow conversation, but the error checking factor is *very* high.

[treebones.livejournal.com]

*nods* It's why the local fannish schisming baffles, and somewhat worries, me so much.

No surprise.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say it baffles me, necessarily. The reason human beings do not just stick to the topic or activity for which they have come together, is that human beings do not like other human beings. When they come together to discuss or do something, they're guaranteed to not like the way somebody does it. If they get past that they still will not like somebody's voice or mannerisms or other friends. These kinds of personality politics have nothing to do with the topic around which the group gathers, unless it's a group gathering together around personality politics. Of course such a group would still have the politics. There is no organization, group and movement whose personality politics could not be cured by simply removing all the people from them. In fact I believe there is currently no conflict on the Moon for this reason.

Granted, fandom has the advantage of not being a church. Churches have the great liability that they come together around a new way for people to be, and so they expect each other to actually be that way. Plus they expect their church to be an official mouthpiece of the centerpiece of their life, which is a pretty high expectation. So it seems to me that if we attempts to solve the problem by writing the abolishment of personality politics into the founding constitution of a group, we exacerbate the problem by arguing about who is practicing personality politics rather than ignoring it. And a new church would be born. :^) So remember the key is, "lower your standards."

Re: No surprise.

[treebones.livejournal.com]

Matt said: "...is that human beings do not like other human beings."

Congratulations, Matt. You have delivered to me a blindingly obvious, and, to me, completely new idea. Thank you. I must go muse, now. (:

Re: No surprise.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

I sense I have inspired a new "De-Motivators"TM poster.

Re: No surprise.

[azetidine.livejournal.com]

"So it seems to me that if we attempts to solve the problem by writing the abolishment of personality politics into the founding constitution of a group, we exacerbate the problem by arguing about who is practicing personality politics rather than ignoring it."

And a new commune (http://www.kerista.com/) is born. I recall reading about the way the Kerista group tried to deal with all the interpersonal politics that come with the type of poly relationships they were trying to have, but not specifically which article it was in. In any case, your commentary reminded me of it.

managing conflict in religious design philosophy

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

In his essay Dancing With The Gods, Eric S. Raymond says: "The original coven I founded broke up in 1986 under circumstances that aren't relevant here, but which turned me off of group work for a while." I disagree. It is very relevant indeed, possibly the most neglected aspect and the most vulnerable to the fact that the observer is part of the system she is observing. In building a religion as he did, there are several stages to the project. It's not the whole of religious design philosophy of course, but it's something that plays into the dynamic, and to ignore it is to leave out important lessons about the whole.

The NoKidding group

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Child-free people have the same problem, further illustrating what I'm talking about. It's universal among all groups. Sadly, I think any person who wants to avoid drama simply has to stay home and not have a life.

[azetidine.livejournal.com]

The general dismay of these postings, and the inevitable mention of internet-group dysfunctions, also remind me of this article (http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html), "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy".