Thank you Tony and Dorian for this contribution. I enjoyed contemplating what was written, running each point by my truth meter. One of my reflections is that some decades ago, Harrison was talking about the power of edgewalkers in bringing about transformation. This much earlier observation by Harrison sums up some of the points made.
I now have a question. I am looking at the point made "Therefore, *a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours in networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a local, peripheral setting,* who will mutually reinforce each others’ choices as they cultivate social change." My question: does anyone have experience in which the above is true? I am thinking about the spread of OST, Appreciative Inquiry, Genuine Contact etc, all social change technologies. I believe it to be true that they, and other social technologies, didn't grow locally from tightly knit groups of adopters...they each gathered people from a number of countries, even if just one or two per country, and strengthened the concepts from there. They were helped along by good publications. Thoughts? in genuine contact, Birgitt [image: Picture] *Birgitt Williams* *Senior consultant-author-mentor to leaders and consultants * *Specialist in organizational and systemic transformation, leadership development, and the benefits of nourishing a culture of leadership.* www.dalarinternational.com >> Learn More & Register <http://www.dalarinternational.com/upcoming-workshops/> for any of our upcoming workshops here. 16 Sunny Acres Dr., Etowah, North Carolina, USA 28729 Phone: 01-919-522-7750 Like us on Facebook <https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=6677c35b38&e=e7zyhHfiqG> Connect on LinkedIn <https://dalarinternational.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=35ed818c946a88ba7344da05f&id=c26173f86b&e=e7zyhHfiqG> On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 2:18 AM Tony Budak via OSList <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Summaries on Complex Contagions & Behavior Change* > There are two books by Damon Centola (https://www.damoncentola.com/), > both of which Tom Woodroof have written summaries of: > > • > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZOK6Hv9i1sM7uPd8Xjk6qbJySapPRnimnErL-0cKl4w/edit# > • > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--NlCdnbYu7I1F0Img5iE1afXdnsqo903zf3jnfCkOY/edit#heading=h.qve2gb7t94qm > dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian> Community Weaver > April 14 > > Sorry I wasn’t able to join your event, @tonyb > <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/tonyb>. But thanks a lot for > sharing these summaries [image: :raised_hands:] > > Here are the key takeaways I’m drawing from these two docs: > > - > > *Tightly-knit, clustered social groups (such as groups of mutual > friends) fostering strong relational ties are key to the spread of new > norms and complex behaviours.* Conversely, weak ties connecting huge > numbers of less-familiar people across a network are mostly useful to > spread information, memes, or viruses (via simple contagion) - but not the > adoption of new norms, behaviours or practices that entail some element of > risk. Overcoming this risk requires constant affirmation, ongoing > maintenance, and reinforcement from multiple points of contact around > oneself who are undertaking the same changes - otherwise it’s easy to grow > discouraged and abandon the change. *Creating a sense of social > confirmation is critical to the spread of “complex contagions”.* > - > > *For a contagion to spread from one clustered group to another, “wide > bridges” (multiple interpersonal ties between people in different groups, > neighbourhoods, etc.) are essential.* “Narrow bridges” (connecting > just one broker from one group with another broker from another group) are > not enough. In fact, brokers’ privileged structural position can actually > hinder the spread of innovative practises. > - > > So i*t is much more efficient to cultivate social incubators of > innovation locally, than to try relying on central influencers to spread > complex changes in behaviour.* > - > > *Participants who start off most resistant to embracing a complex > change often become the most committed to this change once they do embrace > it:* the same factors that make a behaviour complex also make it > “sticky.” > - > > *The more connected people are, the less likely they are to adopt a > new idea of behaviour* - because humans tend to assess > ideas/behaviours in terms of the fraction of people in our network who have > already adopted it (not by the absolute number). So if I’m connected to > thousands of people, and only a small percentage of them have embraced this > idea, it has very little legitimacy for me: the non-adopters act as > countervailing influences on me. > - > > So *it is much more likely that someone at the periphery of a network, > with a more modest number of connections, will embrace a complex change:* > their adoption threshold will be lower. It is therefore possible for an > innovation to take hold, gain momentum, and spread through the periphery > until it becomes impossible to ignore, even for people at the network’s > centre. *Across a variety of contexts, the network periphery is needed > to spark and support meaningful social change.* > - > > Therefore, *a key strategy for spreading new norms and behaviours in > networks is to foster tightly-knit groups of adopters in a local, > peripheral setting,* who will mutually reinforce each others’ choices > as they cultivate social change. Then, wide bridges with other tightly-knit > groups should be built for these social innovations (or social movements, > like the #BLM example) to spread more widely. > - > > For innovations that require more social proof that something will be > useful, or else emotional excitement, loyalty, or solidarity, then > *similarity* among reinforcing contacts is key. But for change that > requires legitimacy (the sense that sth is widely accepted), then > *diversity* among adopters is critical: otherwise it will look like > the innovation only concerns a particular clique/type/social class. > - > > *When the proportion of activists committed to overturning a > particular norm in a network exceeds 25% of the population, they succeed > every time*. A social tipping point then occurs. > - > > *Teams of diverse, complementary people who function in clusters that > do not exchange information so freely among themselves, are much more > innovative than teams in which everyone is connected to everyone else:* > this leads to everyone looking at the problem in the same way by focusing > on “easy/obvious” solutions. > - > > *Overly centralised networks tend to allow the people at the centre to > spread their biases (as memes/viruses/information) across entire > populations*. In contrast, challenging ideas, as complex contagions, > typically emerge at the egalitarian, moderately-connected network > periphery**, away from the overwhelming countervailing influences faced by > those at the centre. *Influencers can spread simple contagions, but > not complex ones.* > - > > *Egalitarian network structures for exchanging opinions can have > incredibly powerful effects in helping people overcome their biases.* > This is all the more noticeable when voices are brought in from the network > periphery. > > This provides food for thought and confirmation in terms of what I think > many of us have been doing in DAF… [image: :thinking:] > > For example: > > - fostering small crews, communities of practice, and local community > groups appears essential to cultivating social innovation and nurturing the > spread of a “DA mindset”. Conversely, if one is left on their own, it is > easy to grow discouraged by all the people around who are *not* > embracing this change; > - if innovations are to travel from DAF into other places, > network-weaving between our networks/community and others should not be > left to just one or two people, but should involve multiple people creating > mutually reinforcing relationships; > - having a less centralised network structure in DAF also appears > essential to foster social learning and creativity across various clusters > doing their thing. > > Lots more to explore I’m sure. Any comments/feedback welcome [image: > :slight_smile:] > ------------------------------ > > Visit Topic > <https://community.deepadaptation.info/t/damon-centola-two-book-summaries-on-behavior-change/1601/3> > to respond. > > @dorian <https://community.deepadaptation.info/u/dorian> Your rigorous > summary of Centola’s work is exactly what we need to improve our community > practices and develop a better understanding of the concepts Centola > presents. I’m so grateful for your work, sharing your time, and talent. > Thanks again and again. > > More Fun and Less Stuff, > Until next time, Tony Budak, > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
