After trying in some detail to discover new ways to propose social networks I stumbled across the idea of a limited social network.
The new variant would be able to harness probably the worst traits of hum and social interaction but arranging the structure on the ideas of exclusivity and inclusion into the foundations of the network. Nonetheless my humble attempt at a new social network idea can be found here.
The approach was potentially a bit tongue in cheek.
That said there was a scientific basis. The idea came from the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. The premise being that monkeys and primates tend not get on so well if they get into groups of more than 150 members. Social interactions get more difficult. Keeping the peace and maintaining order becomes a task. This doesn’t necessarily mean that monkeys didn’t make it to the moon because they could get on together (humans by extensions are in fact nothing more than chimps). It just means they had other ideas on how to organize their day.
The idea that anyone would touch a social Network that made its their primary objective to exclude and abominate probably would not pick up a lot of followers. Let alone investors. Albeit from my point of view there no better way to replicate what happens in real life. Its beyond doubt that there is a subset of humanity that revels in keeping exclusivity and maintaining a sense of class. That’s why we have country clubs, that’s why magazine like this exist. Its why we have business class in commercial fights and private jets for who is wanton to take flights with out the riff raff. So in terms of business model and audience there is something there to work on.
All the same the idea is takes the worst of all our traits and scales it.
Which is why the same school of thought could well be leveraged for more productive and less questionable means. Recently I ma reading this book Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World by General Stanley McChrystal which hones in on the brilliantly simple revelation of reorganizing organizations form a traditional Taylorian industrial era model. The nest iteration of management needs to deal with a modern network or neural based organizational method. The assumption being that only with a team of teams can organizations cope with complex (not complicated) environments where minimal actions can have a multitude of amplified consequences in parts of (and outside) and organization.
The Tipping Point
In one of the chapters the author touches on the same concept, referencing Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point (Little, Brown and Co., 2000) and what is called the 150 rule . A quote puts his point in context “‘In order to create one contagious movement, you often have to create many small movements.’ This is one detail that explains his Rule of 150. The number 150 represents the maximum number of people that we are able to maintain a social relationship with… and that when a group, organization, or society begins to reach the number of 150, it is beneficial and necessary for a group to divide.”
So this is where a new business model idea can be siphoned off
Why not create an altogether new social network where 150 is the maximum number? But instead of being about exclusion the same social network can be used to implement working teams with a shared purpose.
Its a Pivot.
When a new cause or shared objective is born it stands to reason that the more that are on board the critical mass of the movement – I’m thinking a revolution – will succeed simply by the weight of the movement. The Arab spring succeeded in this way. With governments falling under the sheer weight of the groups. But in essence these governments were ripe for overtaking. While it was no small feat to overthrow a series of governments nailed to power for decades, the same movement had a head sort knowing that the governments had backed themselves into a corner.
But what about less fledgling causes
Having a social network where the only added benefit and its strength lies in blind numbers means that the cause worth fighting needs to be shared across masses of member. But what about causes where the weight of the movement will only lead to a leaderless direction. When it should be a living movement made up of smaller skilled parts. This is where a capped number of members in a social network can be far more fluid and interactive and resourceful, but working at completely different elves of interactions and efficiency and being able to react differently to changing environments.
A Use case from a completely folklorist point of View
This methodology might well be used for dealing with emergency response and intervention. Dealing with complex low profile causes where the value add comes from having highly skilled but less verbose numbers. Think for example about cases of injustice, death row appeals where less is more when it comes to dealing with the complexities of the legal system.