<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/13/22 5:48 PM, Marcus Daniels
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BYAPR11MB383008A83CA71E065A5104C5C5549@BYAPR11MB3830.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Anyway, the reason I noticed this article is that I posit that
the steely harm reduction approach that was discussed recently
is in my mind a form of stoicism. Can one put away their
emotional responses and make hard choices based on the greater
global good? If one engages in large intimate social networks,
I would say two things are likely to happen: 1) executive
decisions become harder because there is diffusion of sensitive
information, and thus political complications in making them.
Members in the network may not be sharing the whole factual
context (preferring the emotionally laden parts) 2) there are
still dominance relations (her language), but they are just
manifest in different ways. Namely by being in the center of a
social network and slightly censoring the information that gets
passed along.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>this makes me think of the progressive ideation: "think global,
act local" which first-order I support/ascribe to. Your point
illuminates higher order issues with this. I always felt it
held a strong component of hubris that any of us could actually
effectively *think global*. A variation more apt might be "feel
global, act local"? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I presume there are network theoretic models/treatments of
aspects of this phenomena?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>