Is the community itself more interesting if it is more unitary?
Would the community itself be rather more interesting if it were more unitary?
chat log
T: I imagine that people have a lot of knowledge, and they can just say, "You know what?
Similar in some aspects.
「アオいいよね」で全部伝わるような集団かな/villagepump/cFQ2f7LRuLYP.icon N: If the definition is that all participants are similar, then of course I who am participating in them are similar, so if I belong to community A and B, then A and B are also similar
T: yes, yes, yes
N: In the end, that's "I enjoy a community where knowledge is shared in high concentration." T: Yes.
There's a high concentration of knowledge shared in certain areas, but not so much in others.
Still, we can say "that community is unitary."
I mean, the premise is that a community is not interesting unless there is a strong unity in some attribute.
T Oh, that's right.
Isn't that usually the case?
T: Oh, you do.
N: There is a community of culture that says, "Don't demand that the reader skim what they are not interested in, don't demand that the speaker output so much to the reader's expectations." T: Is that something that if the speaker offers a topic that no one is interested in, everyone will skip over it?
N: Yes
T: Then the speaker would automatically leave the community
There is an addendum here later./villagepump/nishio.icon
Can act without showing an explicit "leave" action by not waving attention. No, on the contrary, some social networking sites have a "mute to" mechanism. The word "community" is too big. I'm expensive, so I feel I have to satisfy the other participants.
It can be expressed the other way around.
My level of expectation for the community is low.
I should learn a little more from Mr. Tachikawa.
On the other hand, I think "not every community is worth the effort" is also True.
T: I agree with this and it's more like ownership than expectations for the community [I guess I feel that if I work hard, the community will improve, and if I don't work hard, it won't improve.
Or is it a community where there are multiple members with high ownership.
N: Mr. Tachikawa sees the community as "an object that you can improve," while the majority of people see it as "something that is there naturally. It's like ownership of a software product.
[I feel like I'm holding the steering wheel.
There's likely to be a political stance like this as well./villagepump/基素.icon
T: I see!
In my opinion, even a community that seems to have come about naturally must have been created by at least one individual who thought, "I wish this was a community!
If no one has that expectation, then the community won't be able to? I think so.
There is a sense of someone's intention in the community! A sense of I think it's usually a factual error to see a community as something that's "naturally there." w
N: I think that at least geographical communities occur naturally, but instead they are connected only because they are "in the same place," so if they leave, they are cut off. If there is a will to create a "community that continues to be connected even after you leave," then the community that Mr. Tachikawa is referring to is created for that purpose. There's also a naturally occurring community of people who attended the same college at the same time, and if they're not incorporated into the "surviving alumni community," they'll dissipate into the clouds with graduation. T: My thinking is different. For example, in a community of college classmates, if someone doesn't have a sense of "we're classmates, so we want to get along with each other," it won't happen.
You don't need as strong an ownership as you have at the wheel, but you do need to have a vague expectation that you want to get along with each other. N: It reflects the high expectations of Mr. Tachikawa, who only recognizes as a community a community of people who share the intention to "get along". Where you draw the line in the definition is not essential, so that's fine.
I don't think all of us start out with the intention of "getting along."
And there's also the desire to "be left alone," which doesn't go into a group of people. There's a type of participation where you don't actively go in, but if you being swept up in, you try to get involved a little bit, and if you're not uncomfortable, you'll settle in. T: I'm not sure about the classification, but it's certainly true that you have a purpose other than just wanting to get along.
There's also a type of participation where you don't actively go in, but if you get involved, you try to get involved a little bit, and if you're not uncomfortable, you settle in.
There are a lot of people like that.
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/コミュニティ自体は単一性が高い方が面白いか？ using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.