How I Engage the AI

The point here is that you can get more out of AI from a long interaction. It's not just, "I asked o3 and o3 said blah blah blah."

The above is the new look for The Social Code.

Here is a conversation I had with Claude about drafting dialogue for a new chapter. If you don’t want to read or skim the whole thing, what I want you to take away is how much conversation I had with Claude before he went to work providing me with an answer. I believe that almost regardless of your goal, really talking through an issue with an AI model is the best way to achieve it.

In what follows, my words are in block quotes, with the blue line. Other words come from Claude.

I want to work on a chapter called The Revolt of the Public For background, you can look in the project folder at Claude.md, seminarAtmosphere.txt, MartinGurriLooking-Glass politics, ShorterMartinGurri, and Revolt of the Public chapter thoughts. Before we work on the chapter, what questions and thoughts do you have?

Looking at the materials, I have several questions and thoughts before we dive into creating this chapter:

Questions About Content Structure

1. Character Dynamics: The tension examples you've outlined are excellent - much more authentic than polite agreement. For this chapter specifically, I can see Blake being dismissive of elite complaints ("Oh boo-hoo, politicians can't control the narrative anymore"), while Casey might defend institutional wisdom. Should Drew be more sympathetic to grassroots movements while Avery focuses on systemic breakdowns?

2. Gurri vs. Kling Integration: The materials blend Gurri's "revolt of the public" with Kling's Dunbar number analysis. Should we emphasize how the collapse of the "sub-Dunbar" world (personal relationships) drives people into angry participation in "super-Dunbar" politics? This seems like a natural Avery insight that Blake might dismiss.

3. Contemporary Examples: The chapter thoughts mention recent figures like Zohran Mamdani and various European parties. How current should we get? The seminar atmosphere suggests referencing real events but not getting too partisan - should we focus on the pattern rather than specific politicians?

Thoughts on Tensions and Disagreements

4. Elite Sympathy Divide: I can see a natural split where Casey defends institutional knowledge and experience ("These 'elites' have actual expertise"), while Blake celebrates their downfall ("Good, time for some creative destruction"). Drew might worry about real people getting hurt in the chaos.

5. Solutions Disagreement: The final section about "how elites should behave" seems ripe for authentic disagreement. Blake wants them to just get out of the way, Drew wants them to actually listen to people's problems, Casey thinks we need better institutional design, and Avery might propose some technocratic fix.

Questions About Breakpoint Structure

6. Protest Section: Should we include specific examples of "Martin Gurri moments" that students can relate to? Things they've witnessed through social media rather than just historical events?

7. Information Tsunami: How technical should we get about the exponential growth of information? This seems like natural Avery territory, but we should avoid making it too abstract for the others.

8. Ending: Should this chapter connect forward to potential solutions, or end on the note of ongoing tension between old and new systems?

The material is rich and the character dynamics seem perfectly set up for authentic disagreement rather than polite discussion. What aspects do you want to emphasize most?

For (6), do you have some recent events in mind?

Yes, I have several recent events in mind that could work well as "Martin Gurri moments" for the chapter:

Recent Protest Examples (2023-2024)

Campus Gaza/Palestine Protests (2023-2024)

• Nearly 12,400 pro-Palestine protests and over 2,000 pro-Israel protests from October 2023 to June 2024 Protests in the United States on Palestine and Israel, 2023–2024: Social Movement Studies: Vol 0, No 0 - Get Access

• Encampments at more than 130 schools since October 7, 2023 Crowd Counting Consortium: An Empirical Overview of Recent Pro-Palestine Protests at U.S. Schools – Ash Center

• Perfect example: viral social media content from Gaza immediately sparked protests across hundreds of US campuses

• Students could relate to this - many witnessed it unfold in real-time on social media

Iranian "Woman, Life, Freedom" Movement (2022-2023)

• Started after Mahsa Amini's death in police custody, popularized through social media Mahsa Amini protests - Wikipedia

• Before February 2023, an estimated 19,262 were arrested across at least 134 cities Mahsa Amini protests - Wikipedia

• Classic Gurri pattern: a local incident becomes global through social media, sparking decentralized protests

Trump Assassination Attempt Response (July 2024)

• Images went viral on social media immediately Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania - Wikipedia

• Some supporters immediately blamed the press: "This is your fault!" July 13, 2024, coverage of the Trump assassination attempt | CNN Politics

• Shows how a dramatic event gets instantly interpreted through partisan lenses on social media

Election-Related Protests (2024)

• More than 160 significant anti-government protests erupted around the world this year, with many driven by voting-related grievances Election-Related Protests Surged in 2024 | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• Georgia and Venezuela had major protests over alleged electoral fraud

These examples work well because:

1. Students likely witnessed them: Most occurred during or right before their college years

2. Social media driven: All spread and organized primarily through digital platforms

3. Leaderless: No single charismatic leader or formal organization

4. Immediate response: Events triggered protests within hours/days, not months of planning

5. Global reach: Local incidents became international movements

The campus protests are probably the most relatable - students would have seen how a conflict thousands of miles away instantly mobilized their peers through social media, exactly fitting Gurri's model of how the information tsunami creates instant, decentralized political action.

Let's include the Gaza protests, the Iranian movement, and the Venezuela electoral fraud protests. The latter two probably require more extensive background information, since they were not as well covered in the media

Perfect! Now I have comprehensive background on all three examples. Here's what I think works well for the chapter:

Three Strong "Martin Gurri Moments" for the Chapter:

1. Gaza Campus Protests (2023-2024)

• Most relatable to students: Nearly 12,400 pro-Palestine protests since October 2023, with encampments at over 130 schools

• Classic Gurri pattern: A conflict thousands of miles away instantly mobilized students through social media

• No traditional organization: Decentralized, student-led without formal leadership structure

• Immediate viral spread: Images and videos from Gaza triggered protests within hours

2. Venezuelan Election Fraud Protests (July 2024)

• Perfect information warfare example: Opposition claimed to have 73% of tally sheets showing González winning by landslide, while government declared Maduro winner with 51% WikipediaAl Jazeera

• Competing narratives: Government accused opposition of cyberattacks while opposition accused government of massive fraud What’s happening in Venezuela? Election turmoil, protests and fraud claims | Elections News | Al Jazeera

• Instant protest mobilization: Protests started on balconies with pot-banging (cacerolazo), then moved to streets with motorcycles and flags What’s happening in Venezuela? Election turmoil, protests and fraud claims | Elections News | Al Jazeera

• Elite frustration: Maduro called protesters "fascist and criminal" and vowed they would "never take power" 2024 Venezuelan presidential election protests - Wikipedia

3. Iranian "Woman, Life, Freedom" Movement (2022-2023)

• Information tsunami trigger: Death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini for "improper hijab" sparked protests across 16 of Iran's 31 provinces Ms. MagazineBritannica

• Social media amplification: Videos of crowds chanting "Woman, Life, Freedom," women cutting hair and burning hijabs went viral globally One year after Mahsa Jina Amini's death, KU researchers analyze social media responses in Iran | School of Social Welfare

• Leaderless structure: People formed local groups like "Neighbourhood Youth Alliance" without central organization Woman, Life, Freedom movement - Wikipedia

• Government internet crackdown: Internet and mobile service shut down as authorities tried to regain narrative control In Iran, the 'Woman, Life, Freedom' Movement Is Ready to Erupt Again - Ms. Magazine

Why These Work for the Chapter:

For Blake: Can celebrate how social media empowers ordinary people against elite control - "Finally, regular people can bypass the gatekeepers!"

For Drew: Can worry about real human suffering - Venezuelan economic collapse, Iranian executions, civilian casualties in Gaza

For Casey: Can bring up historical parallels - comparing to 1848 revolutions, religious wars after printing press, noting how past protest movements had actual leaders and programs

For Avery: Can analyze the systems - how information networks create feedback loops, why traditional institutions can't adapt to digital speed

For Professor Hartwell: Can tie back to Dunbar number analysis - these protests pull people out of their "sub-Dunbar" world into "super-Dunbar" politics through emotional digital connection

The examples also show Gurri's key points:

• Information overload overwhelming elites

• Leaderless, agenda-less protests

• Elite denial and frustration

• Public anger without clear solutions

• Speed of digital mobilization vs. slow institutional response

Does this set of examples work for creating the tensions and discussions you want in the chapter?

I would like to minimize tension in the seminar until we get to the last section. I don't want the user to be worn out by the time we get to that point. Now let me go back to your other questions. (2) Maybe the Kling-Dunbar issue should have its own section. We should talk about "the intimate world and the remote world being mashed together" which is a phrase of Kling's [mine]. They traditionally been separate (the intimate world is friends, families and co-workers and the remote world is celebrities and politicians), but on our smart phones our friends try to act like celebrities and celebrities try to act like our friends. (3) using specific politicians will help the user understand the point (4) again, I would say keep the disagreement minimal until the last section. I think that Casey might not have much to say about solutions but can express worries about the current state and where it might lead. Avery might suggest that the problem is the two-party system and primary voters causing extremism, but professor Hartwell can remind us that the Revolt of the Public is happening in many countries with various electoral systems. The challenge is to come up with a system that tamps down political tension in spite of the media environment. It is not clear what that might be. What further questions do you have?

Great clarifications! I have a few follow-up questions:

Content Structure Questions

Kling's "Intimate vs Remote World" Section: Should this be positioned early to set up the psychological foundation for why the information tsunami is so disorienting? It seems like this concept (friends acting like celebrities, celebrities acting like friends on social media) would help explain why people get so emotionally invested in distant political events.

Specific Politicians: For the "anti-establishment candidates" discussion, which politicians should we use as examples? You mentioned Trump, but should we include international figures like Milei, Meloni, or Wilders to show it's a global pattern? And should we be careful to pick examples from both left and right to avoid seeming partisan?

Chapter Flow Questions

Progression of Examples: Should the three protest examples (Gaza, Venezuela, Iran) be woven throughout different sections, or concentrated in one "Modern Protest Patterns" section? They each illustrate slightly different aspects of Gurri's thesis.

Professor Hartwell's Role: Since you want minimal tension until the end, should Hartwell be more of a guide/explainer in the early sections, then become more of a moderator when disagreements emerge in the final section?

Final Section Dynamics

Casey's Worries: What specific concerns should Casey raise? Historical parallels to periods of breakdown (Weimar Republic, 1960s polarization)? Or more philosophical concerns about democracy requiring shared narratives?

The "No Clear Solutions" Ending: Should this be genuinely pessimistic, or should it end with characters acknowledging the challenge while remaining somewhat hopeful about human adaptability? Given the seminar's overall educational goals, what tone works best?

Breakpoint Structure: How many sections are you envisioning? The material could work as 4-5 breakpoints, but I want to match your preferred pacing.

These details will help me craft the right balance of explanation, character development, and intellectual tension that builds toward the final section.

A possible structure (these are summaries, we will have to come up with actual section titles): 1. The Revolt of the Public: history. discusses how Gurri connected the information tsunami with the protests that started to erupt around 2010. uses some of those historical examples. 2. how 21st-century protests differ from past protest movements 3. Recent Martin Gurri moments. 4. new psychological pressures (intimate world and remote world mashed together) 5. anti-establishment parties and politicians. 6. ineffective elite responses, and what should be done? Professor Hartwell can end with a vague message that we need the younger generation's comfort with new media but the older generation's approach that is less angry and more solution-oriented. The professor can hope that young people gain emotional stability (connects back to the Big 5 model of personality). What do you think?

I think this structure works very well! Here are my thoughts:

Strong Progression

The flow builds logically from historical foundation → contemporary examples → psychological analysis → political consequences → solutions challenge. It moves from concrete observations to deeper analysis, which matches good seminar pedagogy.

Smart Tension Management

By saving disagreements for section 6, students won't be fatigued when we reach the most important part. The earlier sections can focus on understanding Gurri's insights before evaluating possible responses.

Effective Bookends

Section 1 establishes Gurri's credentials and core insight. Section 6 connects back to course themes (personality psychology, human interdependence) while acknowledging genuine uncertainty about solutions.

Questions on Specific Sections:

Section 2 (Past vs. Present Protests): Should this emphasize the organizational differences (NAACP/MLK vs. leaderless swarms) or the agenda differences (specific demands vs. pure negation)? Both illustrate Gurri's points.

Section 4 (Psychological Pressures): This feels like the intellectual heart of the chapter. Should we include examples of how this plays out? (People getting emotionally invested in celebrity scandals, treating distant politicians as personal enemies, etc.)

Section 5 (Anti-establishment Politicians): Should we frame this as "candidates who figured out how to work with the new media environment" rather than just "outsiders"? Emphasizes adaptation rather than just disruption.

Professor Hartwell's Ending: The connection to emotional stability/Big 5 is brilliant - it ties back to earlier course content while offering a concrete (if difficult) path forward. Should he also mention the need for institutional adaptation alongside individual maturity?

This structure gives us room for rich character development while building toward meaningful solutions discussion. I'm excited to develop this!

section 2 emphasize both. section 4 would benefit from some illustrations. But people have always developed strong feelings about celebrities and politicians. The difference now is that they feel a need to become personally involved. You can use the analogy of a basketball fan who used to cheer from the stands now feeling like he or she ought to run out onto the court and make a statement. 5. No, let's emphasize the outsider aspect. I think that Avery and/or Casey can be the ones to talk about institutional adaptation. Let Professor Hartwell emphasize individual maturity that feeds into the culture.

Perfect! I love the basketball fan analogy - that really captures the shift from passive consumption to feeling obligated to personally participate. And you're right that the "outsider disruption" framing for section 5 is more accurate to what's actually happening.

Let me confirm I understand the character dynamics for section 6:

Professor Hartwell: Focuses on individual maturity/emotional stability as cultural foundation. The idea that we need young people's digital fluency combined with older generations' solution-oriented temperament, plus the Big 5 connection.

Avery: Likely to suggest systemic/institutional reforms - maybe new accountability mechanisms that work at digital speed, or structural changes to how institutions communicate?

Casey: Might focus on institutional adaptation from a historical perspective - how institutions have evolved before during media disruptions, what we can learn from past transitions?

Blake & Drew: Since this is where tensions finally emerge, what should their disagreement focus on? Blake dismissing institutional solutions as hopeless elite preservation? Drew worrying that individual maturity isn't enough when people are suffering from current dysfunction?

And one clarification on section 4: When you say people now "feel a need to become personally involved" - are we talking about the shift from just having opinions to feeling morally obligated to post, protest, take public stands? The basketball analogy suggests it's about crossing the line from spectator to participant.

This structure is really coming together well - it builds understanding systematically while saving the most challenging questions for when students are fully engaged.

on section 4, people want to performatively participate, and not necessarily know that they are doing. I don't know if we want to bring up the January 6, 2021 protests inside the Capitol, but that is an example of putting on a performance where my guess is that at least 90 percent of the people did not have a specific plan. For Blake and Drew, they both distrust elites, but Blake is more of a disagreement in principle--Blake thinks individuals should decide for themselves. For Drew it is a disagreement in practice. The elites we have are too out of touch with the needs of the people.

Excellent distinctions!

Section 4 - Performative Participation: I like how this captures the unconscious aspect. People aren't thinking "I'm going to perform now" - they just feel compelled to do something public to show where they stand. The January 6 example is powerful because it shows how this can escalate beyond what anyone intended. Most people probably thought they were just "showing up" rather than planning to breach the Capitol.

Other examples might work too:

• Social media pile-ons where individuals don't plan to destroy someone's career, they just feel compelled to add their voice

• People filming themselves at protests more for the documentation than any strategic purpose

• The compulsion to post political opinions even when you know it won't convince anyone

Blake vs Drew on Elite Distrust:

• Blake (principle): "The problem isn't that we have the wrong elites, it's that we shouldn't have elites making decisions for us at all. People should figure things out for themselves."

• Drew (practice): "The problem is these specific elites are disconnected from real people's struggles. We need leaders who actually understand what working families face."

This sets up a classic libertarian vs. populist tension that feels very authentic to current political debates, while both characters maintain their anti-establishment common ground.

Does this capture what you had in mind for the character dynamics?

The social media pile-ons example is a subtle one. Maybe no one individual designs a plan to destroy a career, but that is an emergent result. I think that given how much material is already in this chapter, that is probably too much to add. So I think we should skip that one.

You're absolutely right - the chapter already has a lot of substantive material to cover, and the career destruction pile-on example, while interesting, would be a tangent from the main Gurri thesis about political protests.

Sticking with the basketball fan analogy and potentially the January 6 example (if we use it) keeps section 4 focused on the core point: people feeling compelled to personally participate in remote political events rather than just having opinions about them.

Should we move forward with developing the actual dialogue for this chapter structure? I have a good sense now of:

• The 6-section flow

• Minimal tension until section 6

• Character roles and disagreements for the final section

• Key concepts and examples for each section

• Professor Hartwell's ending that ties back to personality psychology and cultural change

I'm ready to start crafting the breakpoints with authentic academic dialogue that builds understanding systematically while setting up the meaningful tensions for the conclusion.