I think the point you're trying to make about the Particular and the Scorekeeper is that they're too focused on trivial, petty things. I do see how that can be a problem, but I'm curious how you'd recommend approaching the issue of someone who wants to avoid certain scented products because of health issues (e.g. allergies, asthma, migraine, MCAS), or someone who makes several times less money than everyone else in the group and therefore can't afford to eat the food the group wants to splurge on, like avocados. Maybe it's not always possible to accommodate those differences in a group setting, but I'd like to try.
This is a good question (and obviously I'm being somewhat flip in this article!)
I think the community needs to understand people's needs at the stage that they are wanting to join and make an active decision on whether they are able or willing to accommodate specific needs or not.
For example, we say "our food program is mandatory and costs $X" and we don't budge on that. How we do food is really central to our experience together. It's simply the community agreement we have reached and people can choose to opt-in to that with us or not.
If someone who can't afford X wants to join, the community can choose to subsidize them (which we've done) OR change the program OR not do either of those things (in which case it's just not a good fit). But I don't think you need to feel obligated to change community agreements or practices to satisfy every need in every instance. Sometimes its just not a match.
Circumstances where people's needs change while in the community can be tricky. And there's no single answer here. It's going to be very contextual and need to be negotiated within. In general, we try to take care of folks where possible. But in some cases, it's simply not possible without changing everyone's else's experience or the community practices in a too-meaningful way.
Haha, like the categories. Perhaps we've got 2 bean counters, 1 emotional laborer, and 2 social promoters. Not promoting for new residents per se (we've been one group living together for 4+ years) but always bringing more people into the extended community for meals, events, or just support.
Yeah, we've typically got our bases covered when it comes to optimizing things, dotted our i's and crossing the t's lol! Only drives the others crazy when we make too many decision matrices with costs, expected values, you name it (love em!).
I think the point you're trying to make about the Particular and the Scorekeeper is that they're too focused on trivial, petty things. I do see how that can be a problem, but I'm curious how you'd recommend approaching the issue of someone who wants to avoid certain scented products because of health issues (e.g. allergies, asthma, migraine, MCAS), or someone who makes several times less money than everyone else in the group and therefore can't afford to eat the food the group wants to splurge on, like avocados. Maybe it's not always possible to accommodate those differences in a group setting, but I'd like to try.
This is a good question (and obviously I'm being somewhat flip in this article!)
I think the community needs to understand people's needs at the stage that they are wanting to join and make an active decision on whether they are able or willing to accommodate specific needs or not.
For example, we say "our food program is mandatory and costs $X" and we don't budge on that. How we do food is really central to our experience together. It's simply the community agreement we have reached and people can choose to opt-in to that with us or not.
If someone who can't afford X wants to join, the community can choose to subsidize them (which we've done) OR change the program OR not do either of those things (in which case it's just not a good fit). But I don't think you need to feel obligated to change community agreements or practices to satisfy every need in every instance. Sometimes its just not a match.
Circumstances where people's needs change while in the community can be tricky. And there's no single answer here. It's going to be very contextual and need to be negotiated within. In general, we try to take care of folks where possible. But in some cases, it's simply not possible without changing everyone's else's experience or the community practices in a too-meaningful way.
Haha, like the categories. Perhaps we've got 2 bean counters, 1 emotional laborer, and 2 social promoters. Not promoting for new residents per se (we've been one group living together for 4+ years) but always bringing more people into the extended community for meals, events, or just support.
2 bean counters?! Those are some lucky beans Andrew.
Yeah, we've typically got our bases covered when it comes to optimizing things, dotted our i's and crossing the t's lol! Only drives the others crazy when we make too many decision matrices with costs, expected values, you name it (love em!).