#3 from earlier: The katamari

[sniffnoy]

[This is #3 from earlier. Still need to write: Tufts House vs. IHC. (I put up the 10th week house minutes yesterday. Will these finally be my last ones? None can yet say.)]

This is going to require a lot of background. (It also seems it's going to turn into a rant in a few places. Oh well.)

So have I written here of the practice of trying to katamari up some people? (This is one of the things I call it, anyway. Also just "trolling for people" or "doorknocking", though in truth you generally ring bells rather than knocking on doors.) I don't think it had any name before that.) It seems that I have not. Ah, here we have my record of my first experience with it.

So the idea is this. You start with a few people, and you go around to the houses on people you know, and you knock on their door, and you get them to come with you to get more people, and you continue this until you have lots of people and you settle down somewhere and do whatever.

In Glen Rock, we did this on bikes, and "somewhere" was almost inevitably Mike Epstein's house. This is where I learned it.

Now within a house of 60 people or so, with a large common room, as at PROMYS on weekends (when I was there, anyway) or in Tufts House (theoretically), this is distinctly unnecessary. The point is to build a pool of people, and you already have your pool of people, in the lounge.

But it certainly was necessary last summer, when I lived with a person by the name of Scott, who mostly stayed in his room, and Satoru/Satory/whatever his name was, who kept entirely to himself. And so on weekends I went up and down the streets, carrying my backpack and ringing doorbells. I made a map of where everyone was, that I could find. Ian even made a copy of it, for his own use.

Unfortunately I was not very successful at it. One detail I did not mention above is, who starts such a thing? Back in Glen Rock it was usually Nick, I think - in any case Nick was always quickly involved. Note, in the entry linked above, Nick's approach - "Harry, you're coming bike-riding with us." Nick can pull that off. I can't, really. I'd go, say, to Weiner Central[0], and there would be Doug, and I'd say, hey, I'm going, looking for people, and he'd say, no, not right now, and I'd be like, ah well, see you later then.

(I should note, this is one reason it works better on bikes; having a fleet of bikes show up at your door is rather more intimidating than just a crowd of people.)

(There was also the problem of too often I went when people were eating, due to my own eating later than most people.)

The one time it worked, I found Amelia, bored, on the quads; afterwards we got Kat, and then we stopped at Colleen's where we found Grant. 5 is not a bad number of people, but it's less than, say, what we would get back in Glen Rock, and much less than I'd like given how many places we stopped.

Obviously, the biggest problem is always getting the initial few. The more people you have, the easier it is to get more. Hence "katamari". In Glen Rock, as I've said, I solved this problem by starting with Nick, because he could easily get more. Never seemed to get past that hurdle here.

Now comes this year.

So here's the thing. Firstly, the house seems to be rather... fractured this year. There's a group of first-years who have nothing to do with anyone else. Obviously the house has always had its different groups, but what makes them so thoroughly separate is that they don't use the lounge. (Also the hallways and study lounge, which as a public space are close to equivalent. I wrote "lounge" here at first but I think "public spaces" works better in general.) The lounge is in every way the center of Tufts. People who avoid it... well, it's hard to call them Tufts at all. And even aside from those, the lounge in general seems to be sparsely populated these days. And Smash is now - as it has been since last year really - just a game a few people play, rather than the round-the-clock universal time-killer it was two years ago. (Meaning large numbers of people were *watching* Smash at any given time - when playing free-for-alls, 3-in games were uncommon, but not rare; contrast now when 2-in seems to be pretty rare - meaning a lot of people you can possibly get for something else.)

(We all complained two years ago about the door closers, though many people now have doorstops. What's strange is that you'd think this would at least force more people into the lounge.)

And perpetually interfering with my ideal of a pool of people is plans. This is not new, of course. But so often I ran into the problem of people who had decided in advance to make themselves unavailable! (And, I should note, often, it would seem, entirely by private communication, without making a public "PEOPLE FOR X?" call. That's not always a bad thing, but...) Now obviously a big event, like, say, a game of Diplomacy, needs to be planned in advance. But, I think, on a weekend, a person has time; they should always be willing to spend an hour or three on something unexpected, right? Why restrict yourself beforehand? Every block of time you set aside beforehand affects more than just that - if you are doing something at 5:00, you can't, say, start something that takes an hour at 4:30. It restricts you considerably beforehand, not just during the time you've set aside.

...woah, that turned into something of a rant. Anyway. Also, contrary to what I had hoped, very few Tufts alumni inhabited the lounge. For whatever reason, Tufts is on kind of a 2-year rotation. Few people stay past their second-year; I still do not understand why. Back when there was still a quota on returning students, I figured it was because of that; but that was lifted, and still the pattern continues. The result of this is that the house has a very short memory. It's kind of a problem. (This is not true of all houses - contrast Hitchcock, e.g.)

And these people, who go off and live outside the house, what do they do when they have free time and nothing to do? You'd think, with the Tufts lounge such a central place, where a pool of people can be assembled, where a game of Smash can be found, they'd all come back here; but not many do. And of course, it's self-reinforcing. (Presumably whatever they do is again arranged entirely by private communication rather than by calls for people, the latter being kind of impossible in such a situation.)

(Similarly, during the summer, I had hoped such a central place, where people could go and expect to find people - say the quads, or Bartlett quad - would spontaneously arise, but none did. So, I had to resort to trolling the streets for people.)

Anyway. We're almost done with the background. :P

So it happened that this year, when I couldn't find anyone in the house, I tried to katamari up some people among the Tufts alumni whose locations I knew. There were several problems, however:
1. Again, I'm not a good starter for this, as always.
2. It was no longer the summer. I had lost my map, and anyway it wouldn't have been much use anymore; people had moved. I simply didn't know where people were now. I knew there were a lot of people around 54th and Woodlawn, but the only people I could locate specifically were Grant/Jim/Jake, the girls[3], and Ian/Kat/Sara (now Ian/Sara/whoever the third is). Presumably, once I could get someone, they could then locate others, but it certianly made the initial hurdle even harder by limiting it to only a few groups of people.

So, I would go up to Grant's place, find nobody; then go southward to the girls', find nobody; and then figure it wasn't worth it to try to get Ian, and go home.

(If you know the geography I'm describing here, you might find this order kind of strange. Indeed, if I had expected it to work, I would have gone first south to the girls', then northward, to save walking if successful. But I didn't expect that, so instead I went north first, figuring it was Grant that would be easier to get by myself.)

Thing is, I ought to have had people from the house when I did this, yes? Well... uh... no. That was a mistake. See, I did it when I couldn't find many people in the house, right? And I didn't know how really to call for people for this, so... uh... I didn't. And I went alone, and got nobody, as expected.

But! (Now we get to the event I meant to actually relate.)

It happened last Saturday that as I was going out to find people, Youlian asked where I was going. And I explained. (Not at this length, of course.) And so, Youlian said he would come with me. And then Winston passed by and we got him too. And then we got Steve. And then Youlian Steve did something interesting: He went doorknocking within the house.

Now this I would ordinarly consider, well, rude. Part of the reason going around town knocking on doors is OK is because, well, you have no idea whether they're available to come or not. But here in the house, it's a pretty simple signalling system, no? In public space, or door open: Here I am, potentially ready to do something else. Door closed: Leave me alone. Now of course the installation of door-closers screws this up, but enough people have doorstops you'd think it would be pretty reliable. (Of course, trolling for people like this is very "You're coming with us" anyway, so perhaps this is somewhat irrelevant to it.) (And of course, this isn't reliable in the case of, say, closed-door parties (which have to have the door closed for rules reasons, i.e., alcohol or being way too loud - which forces the question of why do so many people seem to consider alcohol essential to a party?))

But, whatever. We got me, Youlian, Winston, Steve, and Agnes. Now, that's 5. 5 isn't a bad number. If I could find 5 people in the lounge, I probably wouldn't even have thought to go trying to katamari up some more. (Except maybe I would have since it was really loud in the house. Whatever.) Not really a number to stop at, but not at all bad. But, firstly, Youlian had specifically told them we were going out to katamari up some people; and secondly, well, five almost certainly wasn't large enough considering the exact people we had.

And so off we went. Unfortunately, we were not at all successful - it followed the patterns of the other times this year. None of the five of us knew anyone's specific location aside from the three places we'd already mentioned, and so indeed, we went first northward to Grant's, then southward to the girls', then decided it wasn't worth trying to get Ian.

However, the reason for our failure this time was simply that we didn't even find anybody, except for Jim. We had 5 people, and Youlian can do a rather good "You're coming with us", and Winston certainly should help with that too (he had a large cardboard tube with him at the time...). So, something to try again in the coming year, it would seem.

So Agnes and I returned home, and the others wandered around doing who-knows-what, but apparently not first confusing drunk people and then beating with the cardboard tube, as Winston suggested.

-Harry

[0]Doug, Pavel, and Anthony's apartment, though Pavel wasn't there at the time. Also Grant tells me it doesn't exist anymore?
[3]Katy/Kate/Alex/Charlotte. Despite about half the population of Tufts being girls at any given point, among people of my year and the year after us, that it refers to these four is unambiguous. Probably not so among the first-years, though.

Comments

[sivakrytos.livejournal.com]

Here's my theory on the rotation: (and I very well may be entirely wrong)
At this point it's somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Specific dorms are advertised more or less as such: (to prospies)
Hitchcock and BJ are "quintessential U of C dorms" meaning that those who will sign up for it are fairly intensely academic and often have problems socially)

Max and Shoreland are essentially the other end, and people who go there tend to be able to network better.

Pierce is a "social dorm" but also more towards the middle. It's a fairly diverse dorm with regards to this. Thus, what happens is:
Snitchcock and BJ have very high levels of house attachment, Peirce has moderate levels, and others have lower levels. It's somewhat inversely dependent on the "social competence" of residents (which is the self fulfilling prophecy bit at this point)

Now here's what happens with Pierce: we cluster. Because we're varied in network ability, we tend to group somewhat based on this ability, and the ones who network better form stronger groups and become less dependent on the house to do things (this is the primary point: dependency on the house vs private organizational power). These people are more highly likely to move out sooner. (e.g. the group you referenced) Why 2 years for the most part though? Well, those who didn't move off campus after first year but did after 2nd are probably semi-socially competent. They wanted another year in housing to network better, but didn't want to stay longer because housing charges too much, or they felt less connected to the house etc. Thus, 2 years for Pierce, longer for other dorms.

This also explains why Tufts can't really do anything as a house (due to lack of interest). As you said, something of a critical mass is needed before some will do it, the others have formed stronger ties and aren't reliant on the dorm to do things. And of course, some people just don't have time.

[sniffnoy.livejournal.com]

M, but, see, I'm not talking about official house activities here, which of course Tufts scoffs at. Or even anything planned. I mean just ordinary public calls for people. Isn't that what a "social dorm" means? We all know each other, we're all friends, we're all one house. (Mostly.) So lots of house attachment. So I would think, anyway - you seem to have taken the opposite interpretation?

The thing about your "dependency" argument is that it assumes a set of priorities which makes using the house a bad thing. (Or indeed, makes it "using the house" - for your benefit, rather than for the house's.) Which is probably true of these people, but still what I consider a very strange attitude. "Competent" here apparently means "able to make things harder for everyone else."

[sivakrytos.livejournal.com]

I think that there's a difference between "attachment to many of the people within the house" and attachment to house proper. Similar to how there's a difference to attachment to families in your neighborhood and attachment to neighborhood. Both can exist, and often do. But much (not all of course) of the point of the housing system is to catalyze social networking (which it also to some extent hinders because houses (at least Tufts) are so insular), so those who can network very well have little use for the house in this regard. Thus, they form little to no attachment to the house as an independent entity. Those who have more difficulty networking independently use the house more heavily.

So I think I used words that weren't great in the first comment, and perhaps I explained it better here.

[sniffnoy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I get the distinction. But I always figured Tufts was so insular precisely because people were so attached to the house proper, to the point of starting wars with other houses.

And there's still the priority issue. Why can't your statement above read "Those who have more difficulty using the house network independently more heavily?" (And swap other statements similarly.) Neither seems particularly more natural than the other. Remember what I'm aiming for is not "network" but "pool". I never thought of the point of the house as to "facilitate networking" but rather as to provide that pool.

[basman.livejournal.com]

But as certain individuals grow closer, they form their own groups and those groups, because of the closeness of each individual, form a sufficient pool for that person. So they don't gain anything from letting themselves be part of a larger Tufts House pool of people. And then those people move out together, because they aren't gaining anything from living in the house. That, and the hegemony of the situation; whether or not it's warranted (and I think that everyone that has commented on this entry thus far will agree that it isn't), there's a stigma against people beyond their second year living in housing, at least in most dorms. I think that it's a practice that may be right for some, but isn't right for everyone, and some people get rushed out of housing too soon and some people stay too long just because they don't perceive of other acceptable options.

[eyefragment.livejournal.com]

Ok, to preface, I might be being an asshole, here, or maybe, I've just been reading, too much SOSC, and getting somewhat annoyed, by the convoluted writing. Should I apologize, in advance, or should I just, to avoid hypocrisy, delete this disclaimer? Does my leaving this disclaimer in make me more of an asshole, due to my awareness, and culpability, for my asininity, or does the mere notion that I realize that I could write this, that's to say, the following, in a nicer, more amicable way, provide sufficient preface, and context, so as to take the edge off of the following words?

Anyway, what I was saying was that, as sentences have lots of discrete parts, separated by commas, they get really hard to read. Now, I know, LJ is not a place for essays, but rather a place for quick posts, so I normally wouldn't comment, but the phrase, "the hegemony of the situation," which confused the hell out of me, got me annoyed, possibly unfairly, at your bit of writing. First, what on earth does the phrase, "the hegemony of the situation," even mean, really, why not use more down-to-earth language, and second, if you're going to use fancy phrases, like the one above, please make the rest of the post as readable as possible.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back, reluctantly, to my SOSC reading, and the paper thereof.

[sniffnoy.livejournal.com]

[Ah, crap. This turned into another rant.]

form a sufficient pool for that person

Reliably?

I mean, c'mon. You'll never see 60 people in the lounge; that's not the idea. Rather, a reasonable fraction of that, which should occur with good probability, should suffice. If you start with something small, when you factor in who's actually around, you get something very small.

I guess that's what most people plan in advance for... but... well... I just have a hard time believing they really consider that a satisfactory solution. There's so many problems with it.

Trolling for people is essentially also a counter to the reliability problem, I suppose; you expect to get more than 8 or 9 people or so? Of course not. But I think most people don't do that, as so far I've met no one here who's known of the practice before I've introduced it to them. But it doesn't force you into anything specific; it just gets you a pool of people. Often at Eppy's house, some might play Xbox, some might play cards, and some might simply go downstairs and fling cards at each other.

What bothers me especially is that people plan just for the purpose of socializing. That shouldn't need planning, any more than it should need a call for people! "Social dorm" should mean socialization is the atmosphere, not anything special. That's the point of having a perpetual pool of people! People walk in, people walk out. Planning, just as calls for people, should be for organized things.

they aren't gaining anything from living in the house

Firstly, only if they've been restricting themselves to things planned in advance from among a small group of people, as noted above. How are they going to find a game of Smash when they want to play? It's a 5-minute game, it's not worth organizing. Similarly with other small things.

Secondly, what about the house's benefit? Is nobody considering this? If you're watching a movie, you don't need tons of people unless you want to take over the lounge for it; you call for people not so you can get more people, but so that they're alerted to the opportunity. Much as, when starting a game, if you call for players, and get more than you want, well, unless it's more than the game can handle, you take them anyway or play something else, you know?

But I guess that's a pointless argument, since what's fact is fact; what people "should" be doing is kind of irrelevant. I just find it very strange that it is that way.

In particular regarding the house's memory. Our house has hardly any history, because the stories don't get told. What's old house tradition, and what was started only two or three years ago? It's almost impossible to tell with many things. Of course I expect them to fall out of circulation eventually, but so soon? Don't people want to tell their stories to the next generation of Tuftsians? Do these people even think of the house as a continuing thing, or do they just think of it as the people contemporaneous with them?

Though it occurs to me that it may also have to do with not just priorities towards the house vs. individual friends, but also what you're getting people for. When I'm talking about getting people for things, I mean organized things, as otherwise you don't - sorry, shouldn't - need to get people for it. In particular I'm mostly thinking about getting people for games. And in that case the most important thing is often the game itself. I guess if you consider the people more important, it wouldn't work that way. But in that case, why would you want to have to organize at all? Wouldn't you want the general social atmosphere of the house?

Very strange.

[eyefragment.livejournal.com]

For the record: I asked Steve if he wanted to join. Steve then knocked on Agnes and Andrew's doors.

[sniffnoy.livejournal.com]

Ah, sorry. I'll correct that. But that's odd - Steve went doorknocking but didn't come along himself? I guess he just decided not to.

[sniffnoy.livejournal.com]

...wow my memory sucks. Correctly corrected now.

[grenadier32.livejournal.com]

You know, maybe it's another one of those cultural differences that I've written about in the past, since I for one have never lived in a "house" comparable to Tufts--but knocking on friends' doors to see if they're up for social wouldn't seem to be a particularly strange thing to me. If it's a person I know, presumably they wouldn't particularly mind a visit, right? And if they do, they tell me they're not interested at the moment. No problem.

Of course, my first thought would be to IM people, which I've noticed isn't something you do while you're on campus--again, perhaps owing to the insular nature of the house system that I'm so unfamiliar with. People tend to form social groups that stretch all the way across campus here, which is a lot simpler when your campus is 2,400 students as opposed to however many UChicago has (I don't know the exact number, but I know it's a lot bigger). Why not consider using IM? It may make it easier to contact people. Maybe even make a UChicago-only account specifically for this purpose.

[sniffnoy.livejournal.com]

but knocking on friends' doors to see if they're up for social wouldn't seem to be a particularly strange thing to me.

Analogous, no? Knocking on people's doors within a dorm ↔ ringing people's bells outside the dorm ↔ conscripting people on bikes. So that's actually hardly a difference in result, just a difference in context.

If it's a person I know, presumably they wouldn't particularly mind a visit, right?

Here's where you have to take into account that not everything I say is reliable. :D *I* perceive a closed door (in such a case; not when people are more separate) as saying "leave me alone", but am I right? Observing what actually happens suggests that I'm not. But I'll stick to that interpretation for now anyway.

Why not consider using IM? It may make it easier to contact people.

Bah, that's only marginally better than the phone for this purpose. (Yes, yes, normally I'm all "IM is very good, phones are fucking annoying", but in this case that's not the relevant distinction.) By that point, I'm already searching for people outside and would rather go bell-ringing.

One thing to note is that people may prefer being called on their cell phones to having their actual buzzer rung, but I don't do that. That would lose the whole "We're here..." effect. :D