We humans like to complain. And while we might pretend that the main purpose of our complaints is to help others adjust their behavior, more likely we like to collect successful complaints as a resource. Collect enough complaints, and maybe you can trade them for some compensation, or at least sympathy.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
Yes, we use voice more with allies, exit more with other associates.
Read Boehm's classic Hierarchy in the Forrest. http://www.overcomingbias.c...
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.
There are (Pareto principle) more small agents than large ones -- and even large agents have to sleep sometimes.
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.
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?