Coordination Problems: What It Takes to Change the World

The key to major changes on a societal level is getting enough people to alter their behavior at the same time. It’s not enough for isolated individuals to act. Here’s what we can learn from coordination games in game theory about what it takes to solve some of the biggest problems we face.
It’s possible to change things on a large scale if we are able to communicate on a much greater scale. When everyone knows that everyone knows, changing what we do is much easier.
We all act out of self-interest, so expecting individuals to risk the costs of going against convention is usually unreasonable. Yet it only takes a small proportion of people to change their opinions to reach a tipping point where there is strong incentive for everyone to change their behavior, and this is magnified even more if those people have a high degree of influence. The more power those who enact change have, the faster everyone else can do the same.
To overcome coordination failures, we need to be able to communicate despite our differences. And we need to be able to trust that when we act, others will act too. The initial kick can be enough people making their actions visible. Groups can have exponentially greater impacts than individuals. We thus need to think beyond the impact of our own actions and consider what will happen when we act as part of a group.
“Successful communication sometimes is not simply a matter of whether a given message is received. It also depends on whether people are aware that other people also receive it.” - Michael Suk-Young Chwe

What you're saying is pretty much echoing the kind of conduct I tend to apply to my own way/goals without really having to bring it into the language, and I wonder why. So my question is: isn't there something beneficial and deeper to be understood about the nature of our choices and how we relate to each others ? What kind of language would exist without people speaking to each others ? I'm currently reading Nick Chater's "The mind is flat", and it's interesting that you're able to put these words together reflecting on your past choices and make it seems all rational about the choices you're going to make in the future (but some researches tend to point that those explanations are mostly illusions). The point is: if language constructs are just an effect of a particular set of experiences, how useful is it to express ideas for somebody with a completely different baggage ? It may refresh related memories for those who once took that route but got away... at best ?