Not a metaphor
Wow, I must have expressed myself really badly. Let me make my assumptions a little more explicit:
- That of evolution is not a metaphor. Henrich (and Boyd, and Richerson, etc. etc.) claim that cultural evolution is actual evolution; moreover, it interacts with genetics to produce "packages" that are a mixture of genetic and cultural adaptation (example: persistence hunting package is made of sweat glands + arched feet + tracking + water transport tech).
- This model is not about Darwin-style survival of the fittest. What gets selected is not the individual within the group, but the group itself. Group competition is well documented in anthropology, archaeology, ethnography.
- In group competition, it is not necessarily the case that individuals "change" to adopt other groups evolutionarily superior norms (though some cases are recorded). Individuals die out, and are replaced by people who adopt the winning packages. This can happen by differential migration, warfare, differential reproduction, etc. In the case of organisational models, if you don't like do-ocracy you typically will be repelled by do-ocratic environments. Yes, it does not work... for you. And yes, you do not adopt it, you leave. That's a feature, not a bug, because you are happier and more productive in different settings. The do-ocratic setting also runs smoother without too many disgruntled people.
So that’s my setting. You can buy it or not. I provisionally do: the literature is there, and is consistent with the experimental psychology results best known to economists (Kahneman and Tversky, Knetsch etc.). Anyway, my conclusions only make sense within these settings.
Within the settings:
- Humans are good at internalising norms as goals in themselves. So good, in fact, that goal internalisation interferes with our rationality, and this is why most humans do not get to Nash equilibria when playing ultimatum or dictator games in the lab, whereas chimpanzees do. Observation confirms that experienced monks internalise the chapters of the Rule. This leads to me to expect that Protocol, too, could be internalised, as long as it gives rise to sustainable communities that provide value for their members.
- And yes, monasteries, unMonasteries etc. are not for everyone. I do not care at all about involving everyone. I only care about making an environment in which I myself, and people who have similar quirks, can collaborate happily and meaningfully. Benedict had a similar attitude: the Rule says very clearly that the cloister is not every man's path. So do the best worldbuilders I know, for example Chaos Computer Club. Are you upset that CCC is not mainstream? Of course not, you delight in it. You'll need openness to make sure it does not become too self-referential and exclusionary, but we've covered that base.