8 Comments

Let me give an example. Yesterday, on Twitter, a colleague (@lsolum) complained about a colleague who went over his alloted time at a conference. I asked him to name the offender, arguing that "academic pricks deserve to be outed." My colleague, however, replied that my suggestion was a "terrible idea" and refused to name names.

Expand full comment

Another fascinating post. What about the inherent satisfaction the act of complaining gives to the person who is complaining, regardless of the content of the complaint or to whom the complaint is made?

Expand full comment

Yes, we use voice more with allies, exit more with other associates.

Expand full comment

Read Boehm's classic Hierarchy in the Forrest. http://www.overcomingbias.c...

Expand full comment

Of course that's correct, but I don't see how those facts imply our different expectations for small and large agents.

Perhaps it's obvious to everyone else - if so, I'd appreciate an explanation.

Expand full comment

There are (Pareto principle) more small agents than large ones -- and even large agents have to sleep sometimes.

Expand full comment

This reminds me of Albert O. Hirschman's "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty". Economists have tended to focus on modelling the logic of Exit, while Voice is a matter of politics. More recently, social media has led to campaigns of complaints intended to influence corporations.

Expand full comment

You should read Machiavelli's "The Prince" if you haven't. He has a lot to say about alliances.

I think your observations are correct, but why did such thinking evolve? How and why was it advantageous to think about big and small agents differently?

Expand full comment