This is an interesting article about something called "Bion's Effect". http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Here's the example from it that was given:

"You are at a party, and you get bored. You say "This isn't doing it for me anymore. I'd rather be someplace else. I'd rather be home asleep. The people I wanted to talk to aren't here." Whatever. The party fails to meet some threshold of interest. And then a really remarkable thing happens: You don't leave. You make a decision "I don't like this." If you were in a bookstore and you said "I'm done," you'd walk out. If you were in a coffee shop and said "This is boring," you'd walk out.

You're sitting at a party, you decide "I don't like this; I don't want to be here." And then you don't leave. That kind of social stickiness is what Bion is talking about.

And then, another really remarkable thing happens. Twenty minutes later, one person stands up and gets their coat, and what happens? Suddenly everyone is getting their coats on, all at the same time. Which means that everyone had decided that the party was not for them, and no one had done anything about it, until finally this triggering event let the air out of the group, and everyone kind of felt okay about leaving.

This effect is so steady it's sometimes called the paradox of groups. It's obvious that there are no groups without members. But what's less obvious is that there are no members without a group. Because what would you be a member of?"


That's just the example. More interestingly, it's applied to online groups. Like Shokushu! And how these groups both survive, thrive, and die as they so often do. I think it's interesting reading, and I hope you're all interested too!

Seems like it would be easier to leave an online group than a physical one because there isn't that knowledge that everyone is looking at you put your coat on. You have the opportunity to explain to a few people in private while for the rest, it starts as a few days absence that just keeps going.

Very true, when it comes to that particular sociological effect.

However, most of the article doesn't focus on that specifically, and in fact does focus on aspects of online society. It talks about the ramifications of things like Usenet's old policies, the difference between the "core group" who actually cares about an online society and the "users" who may not always have its best interests in mind, how such societies can be flooded by unwanted people who dilute that society, and the kinds of rules that must be followed to have such a community as ours work.

I thought directly of Shokushu while reading it. And not in a bad way! We seem to be doing okay, honestly.

Shokushu is more than 10 years old, still kicking, and I think that is more than OK, it is pretty awesome!

I have seen pretty solid on-line groups turn into self-devouring oligarchies futilely fighting against the second law of thermodynamics in much shorter time than that.

Very true!

And be sure: I'm not trying to make any sort of point about Shoku, either passively or overtly. The article itself was just something I found interesting about communities like this, and I wished to share it.

Yes, I do think it is a good article. I have already posted it on another forum I frequent. Thanks for sharing it