I find the bullet points clear, elegant, true and beautiful, and I find the diagram confusing -- while I understand why it is tempting to make nice and simple diagrams (I do that too, sometimes). Nice try, but too neat if you ask me :)
Of course, maybe I'm misunderstanding it, or I see what I'm able to see, or what I want to see in it...
I have a sense of like "starting a country" as being mappable on the chart as well, although it's also "off the chart"!
in general it seems like there's a tradeoff being made in the modeling here, where by focusing on things that are kind of one size per instance (mostly "events") we lose out on being able to map someone who grows a company from 1 person to 30 or from 30 to 1000. although that could be drawn as an line/arrow on the map I suppose.
Hey Richard, thanks so much for this! It inpired my thinking in a lot of different directions. I am writing an article about my community building work at the moment and would love to cite you, is it ok to use your graph inside my article - obviously, crediting you for it?
Thanks! This helps sharpen my thinking substantially.
This made me think of my clowning skills, where I'm just budding at doing a street performance to 3-8 ppl for 10 min., and want to work up to larger crowds for longer duration.
Practice and knowledge in those domains, and addressing internal hesitations to be such a leader. Or maybe just joining Microsolidarity. I would like to build up to the 150 same neighbour capacity.
Also, I can see people being skilled at something in the upper right area, like organizing a festival, but not skilled at something in the lower left, aka running a workshop. I imagine there are transferable skills throughout, but each has their own set of challenges. I am curious how you see this communal agentic skill progression ideally develops compared to how it currently develops in most people.
I like this, and felt the limits of my communal agency when glancing further along the axes.
I find the bullet points clear, elegant, true and beautiful, and I find the diagram confusing -- while I understand why it is tempting to make nice and simple diagrams (I do that too, sometimes). Nice try, but too neat if you ask me :)
Of course, maybe I'm misunderstanding it, or I see what I'm able to see, or what I want to see in it...
I have a sense of like "starting a country" as being mappable on the chart as well, although it's also "off the chart"!
in general it seems like there's a tradeoff being made in the modeling here, where by focusing on things that are kind of one size per instance (mostly "events") we lose out on being able to map someone who grows a company from 1 person to 30 or from 30 to 1000. although that could be drawn as an line/arrow on the map I suppose.
Hey Richard, thanks so much for this! It inpired my thinking in a lot of different directions. I am writing an article about my community building work at the moment and would love to cite you, is it ok to use your graph inside my article - obviously, crediting you for it?
This is so helpful thank you for these insights!
Thanks! This helps sharpen my thinking substantially.
This made me think of my clowning skills, where I'm just budding at doing a street performance to 3-8 ppl for 10 min., and want to work up to larger crowds for longer duration.
Practice and knowledge in those domains, and addressing internal hesitations to be such a leader. Or maybe just joining Microsolidarity. I would like to build up to the 150 same neighbour capacity.
Also, I can see people being skilled at something in the upper right area, like organizing a festival, but not skilled at something in the lower left, aka running a workshop. I imagine there are transferable skills throughout, but each has their own set of challenges. I am curious how you see this communal agentic skill progression ideally develops compared to how it currently develops in most people.