* lightly => tightly

contents/english/6-0-from-⿻-to-reality.md

@@ -27,9 +27,9 @@ Radical social and technological change holds an irresistible allure to human im
 
 What allows for peaceful and beneficial revolutions?  In her classic treatise on the topic, social philosopher Hannah Arendt contrasts the American and French Revolutions.  The American Revolution, she argues, grew out of local democratic experiments inspired by migrants exploring ancient ideals (both from their own past and, as we have recently learned, that of their new neighbors)[^GraeberWengrow] to build a life together in a new and often hazardous setting.  As they traded ideas and built on related concepts circulating at the time, they came to a broad conclusion that they had discovered something more general about governance that contrasted to how it was practiced in Britain.  This gave what Arendt calls "authority" (similar to what in our Association chapter we call "legitimacy" or "common belief") to their expectations of democratic republican government.  Their War of Independence against Britain allowed this authoritative structure to be empowered in a manner, that, for all its inconsistencies, hypocrisies and failures, has been one of the more enduring and progressive examples of social reform.
 
-The French Revolution, on the other hand, was born of widespread popular dissatisfaction with material conditions, which they sought to redress immediately by seizing power, long before they had gained authority for, or even detailed, potential alternative forms of governance.  While this led to dramatic social upheavals, many of these were quickly reversed and/or were accompanied by significant violence.  In this sense, the French Revolution, while polarizing and widely discussed, failed in many of its core aspirations.  By placing immediate material demands and the power to achieve them ahead of the process of building authority, the French Revolution burdened the delicate process of building social legitimacy for a new system with more weight than it could bear.  
+The French Revolution, on the other hand, was born of widespread popular dissatisfaction with material conditions, which they sought to redress immediately by seizing power, long before they had gained authority for, or even detailed, potential alternative forms of governance.  While this led to dramatic social upheavals, many of these were quickly reversed and/or were accompanied by significant violence.  In this sense, the French Revolution, while polarizing and widely discussed, failed in many of its core aspirations.  By placing immediate material demands and the power to achieve them ahead of the process of building authority, the French Revolution burdened the delicate process of building social legitimacy for a new system with more weight than it could bear.
 
-While Arendt's example is drawn from the political sphere, it resonates with literature on innovation in a wide range of fields from evolutionary biology to linguistics. While the precise results differ, this work all indicates that dramatic innovation thrives in environments where a diversity of "groups" (social or biological) that are internally lightly connected and externally loosely connected interact.  This allows innovation to gain the necessary scale and show its resilience, and then to spread.  More connected structures or more centralized ones either stifle innovation or make it dangerous, as changes are only occasionally net benefits.  More disconnected structures do not allow innovation to spread.   
+While Arendt's example is drawn from the political sphere, it resonates with literature on innovation in a wide range of fields from evolutionary biology to linguistics. While the precise results differ, this work all indicates that dramatic innovation thrives in environments where a diversity of "groups" (social or biological) that are internally tightly connected and externally loosely connected interact.  This allows innovation to gain the necessary scale and show its resilience, and then to spread.  More connected structures or more centralized ones either stifle innovation or make it dangerous, as changes are only occasionally net benefits.  More disconnected structures do not allow innovation to spread.
 
 While intuitive, these observations are a significant contrast to the model of experimentation and innovation increasingly discussed in both the science and social science literature on "randomized controlled trials" and the technology business literature on "blitzscaling", each of which we will consider in turn.  Randomized controlled trials, derived primarily from individual, non-transmissible medical applications, focuses on the randomized testing of treatments across individuals or other social subgroups leading to an approval and then rapid dispersement of the treatment to all indicated patients as with, for example, Covid-19 vaccines.  This literature has become increasingly influential throughout the social sciences, especially development economics and associated applied work on poverty alleviation.  This has encouraged the spread of a model of "experimentation on" communities, where economic and design experts construct interventions and test them on communities that may benefit from them, evaluate them according to often preregistered metrics and then propagate thus-measured effective treatments more broadly.