Tribes: Could This Be The Secret to Happiness and Life Fulfillment?

The Man Camp project started years ago based on a simple idea - I was interested in bringing the world together. Building bridges. Making connections. Curing world hunger and assuring peace and prosperity for all. All that Jazz

The major roadblock I've found to this is our tendency to really, really dislike each other. And we're all guilty. It's easy to point out the KKK, Westboro Church, ISIS, and fans of "The View" as bigoted fucks, but we sometimes fail to realize those Bernie Sanders supporters that go on and on about their seething hatred for Donald Trump are just as guilty. Hate is a human condition.

After studying why people seem to dislike each other so much, I've come to a simple conclusion - we suck at empathy. Sure, most people claim to be empathetic. They might even be able to give scores of concrete examples. But they fail to realize they're only good at empathizing with people a lot like themselves.

This is a really easy concept to test. Simply pick a controversial topic like gun control or abortion. Find someone with a strong opinion on the matter. Ask them to explain the motivations behind the other side's position. Almost all people can give an answer, but it's almost always their interpretation of the other side's motives, not the other side's actual motives. Seems like a small point, but it's hugely important. Complex social problems require complex answers, and complex answers require a thorough understanding of all the variables at play. In our modern world, this rarely if ever happens.

As someone who is deeply interested in leadership, this has always proven to be a really hard puzzle to solve. 

Until now.

The Tribal Organization Hypothesis

Humans are social animals. It's a major reason we're at the top of the food chain. In the most simplified terms, evolution has and continues to reward those that have the ability to play a role in a social unit. For our ancestors, this meant organizing into tribes, usually around 150-200 members (a number we now call “Dunbar’s number.) Sometimes smaller. Bigger tribes would usually consist of a collection of smaller tribes united for a common goal. These tribes had specialized roles, which is sort of the point of social organization. Specialized roles were filled based on ability, which has a strong biological basis. When individuals fulfilled their biological imperative in this way, they felt complete. Like, Jerry Maguire complete. They were fulfilling a role that was both personally intrinsically motivating AND they were contributing to the greater good of the tribe. Individuals prospered and tribes prospered. It would look kinda like this:

Then came the rise of agriculture. Industrial revolution. Democracy. The Enlightenment. The rise of the city. And yes, I know this list is not in chronological order. The point - we started organizing in ways that took us away from our tribe. But all the "tribal biology" remained. So we compensated by forming a new tribe. Many tribes, actually. Think about all the "tribes" you belong to today. For me, these are just a handful of my "tribes":

• Family
• Social network of real-life friends
• BJJ/ MMA gym teammates
• Runner friends
• Professional networks... and so on.

The problem in almost all of these cases is the issue of goals. Before we abandoned our hunter-gatherer tribal organization, survival was the goal. In that high stakes world, people had a vested interest to bond with their tribe even if the tribe had significant differences. Joe, the dude who guards the perimeter of the tribe's camp, really, really hates people from the Jaguar Tribe. Sally, the tribe trader, is easily annoyed by Joe's frequent rants about those stupid, barbaric Jaguars because she knows them as kind, intelligent artisans. But their need for survival demands they find a way to get along well enough to make sure their tribe is the most powerful, thus assuring their survival. That model looked something like this:

This wasn't too difficult because Joe and Sally knew each other really well on a personal level. Despite their obvious differences, they also had a lot of qualities in common. They both love dancing around a fire. They both love the cave paintings on the other side of the mountain. These points of similarity are only possible because Joe and Sally have the time and exposure to get to know each other. This gives us a clue to an important ingredient required for successful tribes - a shared interest.

Now take away that need for survival, which is exactly what we have in the modern world. Imagine Joe is a modern-day police officer. Sally is an international businesswoman. They still kinda rely on each other, but that connection is too diffused for either of their brains to really grasp it on a personal level. Worse, it's extremely unlikely they will ever get to know each other on a personal level. If they ever encountered each other in real life, there's no chance they would get along. Their respective views about strangers would be a chasm that cannot be crossed by either of them.

When we moved away from tribes required for survival, we still retained that innate need to form tribes. So that's what we do today. The problem? Since we don't need the tribe to survive, we no longer need the tribe to consist of people who play specific roles. When we don't need people to perform specific roles, we will avoid the discomfort of surrounding ourselves with people that think differently. Instead, we surround ourselves with people that think like us, have the same belief system as us, and behave like us. In essence, we create echo chambers. Those echo chambers severely limit human potential because we simply have no reason to get along with people that have a different biological imperative. 

A modern example - the gun control debate in the US. The anti-gun side believes guns are dangerous and need to be eliminated to keep us safe. Gun advocates believe the world is dangerous and we need guns to keep us safe. Both are right and both are wrong based on the world they live in. But both sides are absolutely convinced they are right and the other side is wrong, and we see all kinds of cognitive biases popping up to reinforce that belief. On a practical level for someone interested in leadership, this poses a HUGE problem. A mutually-beneficial solution will be impossible in the modern world because neither side has any incentive to empathize with the "other side."

This problem is made infinitely worse because of social media. The one thing that keeps us from completely abandoning our drive to create specialized tribes is in-person relationships. We all have people in our lives that have a different biological imperative, but we bridge those gaps because we have a mutually-beneficial personal or professional relationship. And there's the whole "there might be negative consequences to bitterly disagreeing with this person in real life" issue. Like someone punching you in the face. Social media mostly eliminates those barriers, ergo we create really, really restrictive echo chambers. Being right feels phenomenal, even if it results in a radically limited world view. 

Conversely, let's say we were still organized as tribes. Joe and Sally's tribe, in fact. Joe would most likely be pro-gun; Sally anti-gun. They'd have a very different point of view, but they could use their personal connection and mutually-shared survival goal as a tool to bridge the gap and reach a compromise. That's only possible because they understand each other's point of view.

This concept is brilliantly highlighted in Sebastian Junger's excellent book Tribe, which is centered around the idea of soldiers returning home from war (read a critical summary here.) In the book, Junger details the scientific data supporting the benefits of belonging to a "tribe", including the powerful sense of contributing to the greater good. From the review:

"When Junger notes how high unit cohesion for soldiers or high community unity can reduce psychological symptoms, or how soldiers returning from war might miss the war because of the camaraderie they felt in the trenches, he is latching onto an important concept — the human need to belong and be part of something. But the book’s most powerful statements come not from Junger but through quotes from Sharon Abramowitz, who spent time in Africa in the Peace Corps. Abramowitz reminds us that Americans are prone to express support for the military through posters and words, but our society does not effectively give returning troops what is most prized: jobs. In this manner, Abramowitz clarifies that it not just being a member of a tribal community that promotes psychological well-being. Instead, recognizing people for their achievements and assuring that people hold a meaningful role in society could offer innumerable benefits, and not require any bloodshed to achieve them. That would indeed create a tribe people would seek to join." 

Here's an even better review. This one highlights the need for a "common enemy" to bring a tribe together. Maybe that "common enemy" can be something as simple as "modern day social isolation." Maybe all we need to create a "tribe" is the desire to want to create a tribe.

So How The Heck Does This Help?!?

If a leader has any desire to lead a diverse group (which is inherently going to be more competitive than a homogeneous group because they're capable of responding to a much wider variety of challenges), they need a framework to get the group to move past their petty differences that result from different biological imperatives and resulting world views. Explaining the tribal organization hypothesis might be that framework.

Joe the guard and Sally the trader would normally be in a state of perpetual disagreement because they have no framework to understand each other. If this model were explained, they would come to see their world views, while different, are simply two different strategies to carry out the same function - allow their tribe to survive. 

So what if we were to create this kind of tribe in real life, today? Absent a survival imperative, could it work? Could we bring a group of people together of varying backgrounds, ages, races, political ideologies, etc., and have them thrive as a "tribal" community?

I'm not talking about a hippie commune attempting to create some weird-ass Utopia. Nor am I talking about some sort of communal living arrangement. Or a cult. All of these ideas are centered around a specific goal or belief system, which automatically eliminates the diversity aspect of tribal organization, thus weakening the tribe itself.

I'm talking about a group of people (possibly up to 150-200 individuals) within a relatively small geographic area intentionally creating a dispersed "tribe" set up based on a few guiding principles that would utilize the concepts I discussed above. The goal would be to create a community of sorts, of people who would all be working together with the goal of helping the "tribe" survive, thus allowing each individual thrive. The basic purpose of the tribe would be to provide a wide, diverse social support network should any given individual member struggle.

The real benefit would come should our safe, prosperous modern society and all the associated comforts ever come under threat. A major war, natural disasters, pandemics... all could and would dramatically affect the safety and convenience we now take for granted. Countless stories throughout history have taught us the veneer of civility can and does disappear in an instant. In those cases, people HAVE to fall back to the basic tenets of tribal unity to survive. Shit, we've seen that in our lifetime with 9/11 and Katrina.

Why wait for disaster to strike before setting up a community that provides mutual support? We have this innate drive to live in and participate in a tribe; why not establish one right now?

Of course, we have many "communities" like this already. Any geographically isolated very small town more or less works like this. So do many small religious congregations. Both of these scenarios have flaws, though. The small, isolated town requires just that - isolation. What if the "tribe" members preferred to live in a more populated area? Religions suffer from the flaw of a lack of ideological diversity, which, depending on the voracity of the dogma, can be exceptionally exclusionary AND require all members to adopt their particular belief system, thus eliminating a key component of diversity.

Some other folks are taking a more radical approach, such as this group in the Pacific Northwest. They're clearly creating a tribe, but they're also rejecting modern conveniences. I'm not really down for that unless it's absolutely necessary. We don't have to live off the land to get the benefits of tribalism.

Will this idea work? Is it possible to create a "tribe" that exists within modern society? I'm not sure. Is it worth a shot? I think it is. Imagine all the possible benefits of always having a wide network of tribal members to call on should you ever need help, advice, or just support. Think of what we could accomplish as individuals with a tribe of cheerleaders all doing their part to help us thrive and reach our full potential. Or imagine how fulfilling it would be to share your skills, knowledge, and expertise with a tribe of genuinely appreciative folks.

The San Diego Man Camp Experience

This latest incarnation of the "man camp" idea came about after a multiple year experiment running a Facebook group-based men's group called "San Diego Man Camp" (I lived there for seven years.) For the members who regularly participated and supported each other, a great deal of personal and professional growth occurred. For me, lots of lessons were learned, including a decidedly difficult problem - we only existed online. I knew most of the men in real life, but for the most part, they didn't know each other in real life. The group had all kinds of potential to create the kind of tribe I discuss above if only we weren't dispersed around the world. Magic happens when a group of motivated men get together and work towards common goals... and that just occurred in a Facebook Group. I can't help but imagine the potential if we all lived within a fifty mile radius. That group is (and was... we've had a few great members who left over the years) filled with the exact kind of men I would want in my real life tribe.

Once I started recognizing the potential for a real-life men's group AND the potential benefits of setting up the kind of "tribe" I discussed above, I started working to create a life that could make both come to fruition. So here we are. The actual men's group is well under way, but the "tribe" concept is still a bit theoretical. This post was written for two very specific goals:

First, I want to start a discussion about these ideas to help hash out the pros and cons. The idea is in its infancy and requires A LOT more thought and assessment. The best way to do that is to get feedback and input. Brainstorming and what not.

Second, I want to assess the interest level of people who may find this concept appealing. A tribe needs tribe members. Broadly, who might this idea appeal to and why. Specifically, who in my social circle is interested enough in the idea to consider giving it a go?

“Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things you

didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail

away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore.

Dream. Discover.”

- Mark Twain

I've had a lot of "out there" ideas over the years (hello barefoot running ultramarathons, writing books, traveling the country in an RV for two years with little kids in tow, taking a pro mma fight, etc.), which have taught me a valuable lesson - I can't let the fear of potentially stupid ideas inhibit me from trying those ideas. As the Mark Twain quote above illustrates, life is simply too short NOT to try "out there" ideas. I assume most people who read this will think something along the lines of "Well that's stupid; it'll never work." But I didn't write this post for those people. I wrote this post for those people who will read this and say "Huh. That's interesting. I'm going to give this a little bit of thought."

To those two ends - if you have thoughts on this idea, either comment here on the blog post or, if you're reading this via Facebook, comment in the original thread I posted. If you personally find the idea appealing, either comment here or on Facebook OR shoot me an email at eldiablobjj "at" gmail.com.

~Jason

### 

Why Do We Really Silence Women? A Discussion on the True Nature of Gender

I spend a lot of time writing about the effects of gender on our personal lives and on our relationships. I also spend a lot of time writing about tribalism through a lens of evolutionary psychology, and how this affects our modern beliefs and behaviors. Lately, thanks to some great conversations with my friend Kimberly, I've started to consider the intersection of these two realms - namely what effects gender has within tribes, especially in the realm of leadership. 

I'm still working on the nuances of the ideas and will write a full post on my hypothesis soon. In the interim, I'm going to address on very specific aspect of gender and leadership - the issue of women being silenced. 

Before you continue reading this post, read the article below. I'll be referencing it throughout the rest of the post.

When Women Don't Speak

In this article, the author discusses the persistent problem of women, in mixed groups of men and women, largely being ignored. The exact problem is summed up by this quote from political science professor Chris Karpowicz: 

“Women are systematically seen as less authoritative,” says Preece. “And their influence is systematically lower. And they’re speaking less. And when they’re speaking up, they’re not being listened to as much, and they are being interrupted more.”

Basically, in a group setting where decisions are being made, female participants do not share the same elevated platform as male participants. This observation is not surprising and entirely valid; we have a ton of data in the published literature that confirms this. My own observations across all kinds of circumstances also confirms this. 

The standard narrative permeating the social sciences has a fairly uniform explanation for this phenomenon, which was summed up nicely by political science professor Jessica Preece:

"Rather than outright misogyny, she says it’s usually cultural norms and gendered messages that subtly - and profoundly - shape the rules of engagement. Individuals who suppress female speech may do so unwittingly. “They may love women,” says Preece. “They may even be a woman!” But as a society we have been “slowly socialized over years to discount” female expertise and perspectives."

The professor continues with this explanation when she describes BYU's accounting program and the experiences of women placed in cohort groups:

“Women are systematically seen as less authoritative,” says Preece. “And their influence is systematically lower. And they’re speaking less. And when they’re speaking up, they’re not being listened to as much, and they are being interrupted more.”

When you unpack the nuances of this narrative, it's essentially based on the belief that men are perceived as inherently superior to women, and this is supported by the observation of group dynamics. Men dominate the discussions and decision-making process. 

The article goes on to discuss some experiments involving groups of five who were given a task of distributing money. When the group's decision is determined by majority rule, they found the total talking time and, ultimately, the decisions the groups reached, were dominated by males. Further, the vast majority of the interruptions made by males when women were speaking was negative. After the discussions, the participants rated who was the most influential group member, and it almost always fell to those who talked the most... which were always males. 

Their solution was to change the decision-making protocol from majority rule to unanimous. In that scenario, female influence (and talking time) increased substantially. 

The authors then go on to hypothesize about the problems with the current solutions to this problem.

"From pundits in politics, the business world, and the media, “the solution so often has been, ‘You’ve got to fix the women,’ or, ‘Well, women have just got to lean in,’” says Stoddard. But the experiences women have when they lean in can be very different than a man’s in the same position.

“Advice that works for men doesn’t always work for women, because people react differently,” adds Preece—and this is well supported in the literature. Behavior that seems strong and decisive when it comes from a man, she says, may be interpreted as abrasive and aggressive from a woman. There’s even a term coined for it—the double bind.

“The double bind is huge,” says Stoddard: exhibit traditional female characteristics, she says—warmth, caring, responsiveness to all ideas and assignments—and “you’re going to experience others seeing you as less competent.” But take on male characteristics—leading, disagreeing freely, being assertive, speaking out—and likability suffers. “The competency-likability tradeoff is a constant balancing act for women.”

They accurately point out that the problem isn't the women. But they make a fundamental error in assuming the problem is the environment. This conclusion makes complete sense if you frame gender as a social construct that was designed by men to oppress women (the "patriarchy" narrative), which has been a basic assumption of gender research dating back to the 1960's. If you've read ANY of my other writings on the topic, you'll know I bitterly disagree with this narrative. 

It's flat-out wrong. The authors are correct in that women are not to blame for this "not being heard" problem. However, they're wrong about the environment being the problem. It's understandable; given their incorrect assumptions about the social nature of gender, the environment is the only possible problem. It never occurs to the authors that their basic assumptions about the very nature of gender may be wrong, despite the fact that their narrative hasn't "fixed" this problem despite decades of effort. 

"Karpowitz, Preece, and Stoddard watched all of this unfold anew in the accounting-program study, where the women who were in the minority were routinely seen—by themselves and others—as the least competent, least influential members of their groups. And this is among 20-somethings raised in the era of #LeanIn and #MeToo—arguably a time in which women have been encouraged to be more ambitious and speak out."

Not only have these 20-somethings grown up in a pro-woman culture where gender equality is THE dominant narrative spread anywhere and everywhere, but their parents and even their grandparents have been exposed to the exact same message. Since the 60's, our society has been aggressively pushing this pro-woman narrative. Even in the most educated, liberal of circles where all participants have internalized the belief that men and women are truly equal in every way (sometimes to the point of absurdity), we still see this effect of women being silenced. 

After six decades of trying to fix a problem and having zero success, it's prudent to consider the possibility that we're somehow doing something wrong. I'm suggesting we (really, them) don't understand the actual nature of the problem. And that misunderstanding stems from the fundamental assumptions researchers make about gender. 

What if it's NOT a social construct? What if masculinity and femininity weren't fabricated by men to oppress women? What if we've been trying to solve a problem that isn't actually a problem at all? And perhaps worst of all, what if we've been hurting the very people we've been trying to help while solving this problem that doesn't really exist?

Enter My Hypothesis

I love science because it seeks "the truth", but openly acknowledges the pursuit of "the truth" is a true asymptote. Over time, we get progressively closer to "the truth", but we'll never fully arrive. That means good scientists aren't motivated by discovering that all-encompassing "truth", because they know they never will. Instead, good scientists HAVE to be intrinsically motivated by the process of trying to discover "the truth." So we use empiricism and the scientific method to slowly and systematically disprove various hypotheses. Rule out possibilities. Inch closer to that ever-elusive "truth." Good science forces us to see the world as it is, not the world we WANT to see. When applied correctly to this problem of women not being heard, good science reveals WHY we can't seem to fix this problem. 

The fundamental error the author and the researchers cited in this article make is the same error that's dominated gender research for decades - the assumption that gender is a social construct that was created for the nefarious goal of female oppression. Thanks to ideologies like modern feminism, this same error has been spread to popular culture and has given rise to the modern social justice movement (among others.) In short, this world view assumes something like this does or has actually occurred:

But what if gender isn't a social construct? What if gender is biologically-determined? What if it's innate? What if gender is more like sexual orientation and it's not a choice so much as a fundamental part of who you are? This is the foundation of most of the gender topics I write about, and is explained in greater detail in this post. Give it a read if you're unfamiliar with my arguments.

Back to this scenario. I would argue the group dynamics the researchers observe occurs as a function of our innate behaviors that have developed throughout the millennia, therefore serve an evolutionary purpose. Furthermore, if we embrace THIS narrative, we can easily develop a solution that fixes the "problem."

So What's the Solution?

After twenty years of working as a high school social studies teacher, I've observed countless groups of students. These groups sometimes consist of all males or all females, but mostly contain a mix. I may occasionally create groups just to test my hypotheses. But don't tell my students that. 

Anyway, I've come to realize group environments are not inherently collaborative in nature. They're competitive. Without excessive intervention, all groups always follow the same pattern all the time: Different people will have different ideas, which they share. The person who sells their idea the most effectively by gaining group consensus ultimately "wins", and the group comes up with a solution. 

When it comes to gender roles, masculinity is inherently competitive and hierarchical. In any given situation, the most competent male, as determined by the rest of the group, is deemed the "leader." This position isn't bestowed; this position is earned. In a group setting, the most competent person is assumed to be the leader, and their ideas are the ideas that the group supports. They reach that conclusion based on that masculine person's ability to sell the idea over the other ideas other individuals in the group try to sell. 

Quick sidebar - I'm using the term "masculinity" instead of "male" because it's entirely possible for a woman to exhibit the masculine traits needed to be deemed the most competent person in the group. In these group settings, the bias isn't against women; the bias is against femininity. Subtle but VERY important point.

So within groups, masculine people make the decisions. So where does feminine people fit into this? Are they truly voiceless?

Of course not. 

To understand the role femininity plays, let's go back in time. Imagine we're part of a tribe of hunter-gatherers roaming the plains of pre-colonial America 400 years ago. The tribe has to make an important decision about moving to follow a herd of animals or staying in one place and planting crops. The very survival of the tribe could be at stake. How would the tribe make this critically-important decision?

Ultimately, the decision is likely going to be made by a single person who is willing to assume the responsibility of the lives of the people they care about deeply. If this person makes the right choice, they survive. Wrong choice? People die. So this person is likely going to gather as much information as they can, including information from the tribe itself. Different people in the tribe are going to have different perspectives that will consider different variables. Some people will consider the food variable. Some people will consider other, potentially hostile tribes. Some people will consider access to water. Some people will consider access to fire wood. And shelter. And weather. And a myriad of other practical survival considerations. These people would likely have a more masculine outlook on the situation; they're going to consider how the tribe will get provisions for survival and how the tribe will protect itself from outside threats. 

Some people will also consider how each option would affect the people of the tribe. Will it affect relationships? How will it affect the children of the tribe? How will it affect relationships with the tribes they trade with? How will it affect their ability to recruit new tribe members? These relationship-related variables are more likely to have a more feminine outlook on the situation; they're going to consider how the tribe itself functions as a collection of different individuals. 

The leader of the tribe, the person who has accepted the responsibility for the tribe's very survival, absolutely needs both of these perspectives to make the right decision. Without the masculine perspective, the tribe might starve or be overrun by a more powerful neighboring tribe. Without the feminine perspective, the tribe may rot from within due to interpersonal conflict or be isolated from the outside world and die because the tribe failed to progress as much as competing tribes.

In summary, both the masculine and feminine perspectives very different, but both are absolutely necessary for survival. A good leader recognizes this and values each for what they are: complimentary, necessary perspectives.

When we look at the mechanics of how great leaders make decisions, we see a familiar pattern. They present the problem to a collection of advisors, the advisors mull possible solutions, the advisors report back to the leader, and the leader makes an informed decision. In some way, shape, or form, this is how organizational decisions are made. 

The advisors who will present ideas to the leader are essentially "selling" their ideas. This actual process, as such, is competitive in nature. The best ideas presented by the most persuasive advisors win. This is why these advisors tend to be masculine (again, not necessarily men.) Assertiveness, confidence, and logic are what will make their ideas winning ideas. That's the realm of masculinity, not femininity. 

So where does femininity come into play? 

Throughout this entire process of developing possible solutions, the leader and all the leader's advisors will consult with feminine individuals (who are usually women, but not always women), usually informally. They have conversations. They present the ideas, the feminine individuals consider how those ideas would affect the relationships within and between tribes, then share their thoughts. As I mentioned earlier, this input is absolutely critical to the tribe's survival. 

So why can't femininity be the decision-making gender? 

This is the million-dollar question. In the "gender is a social construct" narrative, femininity is capable of running the show but isn't given the opportunity because of oppression. This narrative probably developed, in part, because women were envious of men in power. Power itself is great, but it also comes with all kinds of nice perks. The person calling the shots makes the most money, attracts the hottest mates, gets the best access to the best food, clothes, private jets... whatever. Who wouldn't want that?!?

The problem with this is two-fold. First, this ignores the fact that the person at the top likely got there because they earned it by beating out all the other inferior people in the tribe. As a masculine male, I can confirm that clawing your way to the top of anything and remaining there is really fucking hard work. Because there's always people fighting for your position. You have constant pressure to be the best as long as you desire the power of being at the top.

Second, being at the top requires one to take on a shit-ton of responsibility for the welfare of the rest of the tribe. Normally this isn't a huge deal... until you have to make a decision that pits the welfare of the group against the welfare of one or a small number of your tribe members you're leading. 

Going back to the hypothetical tribe scenario - let's say the clear best solution is to follow the herd of animals. Maybe the land our tribe is currently occupying is ill-suited for agriculture and staying in one place will make the tribe targets of neighboring, aggressive tribes. Staying in one place exposes the tribe to likely starvation AND war, both of which could doom the entire tribe.

But let's say moving to follow the animal herd means two sick children in the tribe will likely die. Do you choose to endanger the whole tribe, including the two sick children, or do you save the tribe but endanger just those two children? Practically, it's an easy decision. Emotionally, though, that simple decision means your choice will likely kill two children in your tribe. 

That kind of decision requires the ability to dissociate from the emotion of those close relationships of the tribe in order to save the tribe, which is something feminine individuals simply cannot do. Nor SHOULD they do. Nor should we ASK them to do. 

So back to our BYU accounting groups from the posted article. Whenever we convene a group of students, whether it be in my high school psychology class or a group of BYU accounting students, and ask them to do a task, we're inserting them into what amounts to that final stage in my tribe example where a leader is determined and the other group members "sell" their ideas to the leader. This is a competitive environment. As such, masculinity takes center stage and femininity is marginalized. 

We CAN alter that dynamic, as the researchers did in the study described in the article, by requiring unanimous decisions, but this is a decidedly artificial solution to the problem. Forcing the feminine members of the group to participate in the competitive practice of sharing ideas does allow them to speak more, but their ideas are still left behind because they're not being sold with masculine gusto. So it makes us feel good that the feminine people are literally talking more, but the end result is the same - the ideas the feminine members have are largely ignored.

The worst part of this scenario is that the process of forcing the feminine members to compete with the masculine members, we may be robbing them of their opportunity to actually influence the decision-making process, which ultimately hurts the group because decisions lose that feminine perspective.

So what IS the solution?

Based off my hypothesis of how this shit works, the solution needs to be two-fold. First, the leader of the group absolutely has to recognize that any decision pertaining to the group/ organization/ tribe NEEDS both a masculine and feminine perspective. While I think this kind of leadership is rare today, it's not extinct. Truly good leaders intuitively realize decision-making requires both masculine and feminine input and guidance and will seek out both perspectives. But a lot of 'leaders' fail to recognize this, which results in a lot of bad decisions. 

Second, an environment has to be created where the feminine perspective can be shared in a noncompetitive environment. This means we can't just throw people together in a group and ask them to make decisions. That is ALWAYS going to result in masculine voices dominating at the expense of feminine voices, even if we radically alter the "rules" of how the group operates (by measures such as requiring unanimous votes for decisions.) No matter how much we tweak the dials and knobs of group dynamics, this is always going to be a problem. 

So, our solution to this problem is to choose better leaders who understand the value of both the masculine and feminine perspective, AND create a decision-making process that allows the feminine voice to be heard. The first is straight-forward. The second is a little tricky because it requires work outside a group setting where that competitiveness isn't stoked. 

Personally, I've found the easiest way to do this is to simply split groups up and let individuals have one-on-one conversations with each other. in these scenarios, the masculine members tend to share their ideas with the feminine members, and the feminine members share all the relational variables that would influence the masculine member's ideas. In this way, all the ideas that will eventually be proposed in the group setting are filtered through a feminine lens. This dramatically improves the quality of the ideas that are eventually proposed in the group setting. 

Interestingly, the BYU researchers acknowledge this:

"For starters, women are “likely to identify different things as problems in the first place,” says Preece. In politics women often think differently about issues than men do; the literature even shows they can have a cooperative, democratizing impact on deciding bodies. “Women are more likely to think about, What are the needs of families and children and how do we care for those who have the least in our society?” says Karpowitz. “Many men focus on different priorities, such as how to balance the budget or change the tax structure.”

The problem is they fail to understand the underlying dynamics of gender, which leads to misidentify the problem, which leads them to propose solutions that have failed, continue to fail, and will continue to fail into the future. The folks who buy into this narrative, in the process of trying to solve the wrong problem, are making the very problem they're desperate to solve much, much worse.

Like any good scientist, I openly acknowledge I might be totally wrong about all this stuff. But based off my own experimentation and observation, I'm likely a lot less wrong than the BYU researchers. If we can momentarily suppress our emotional reaction to the suggestion that gender roles are complimentary in nature and not oppressive, and that gender roles are innate and not imposed by a nefarious "patriarchy", we can begin to understand the real dynamics at play. That clarity allows us to develop actual solutions to the actual problems. 

For the folks who read through this entire post, give these ideas some thought. After you've pondered them for a bit, share your thoughts with me. 

***

Getting Your Needs Met: How Do You FInd the Right People, and are Tribes the Answer?

In my last post, I outlined why it's important to learn to ask for what you need, and how to go about doing it. I didn't address an important point in that post, though:

How do you get your needs met if you're surrounded by people who, for whatever reason, can't or won't meet your needs?

Not everyone possesses the emotional maturity to engage in healthy relationships where each member of the relationship feels safe and secure enough to voice their needs openly and honestly. Or worse, not everyone cares about our best interests. That's usually why the problem starts in the first place. It certainly did for me.

My Early Life Experiences

I grew up in a pretty weird environment. Both sides of my family had some significant dysfunction that went back at least a generation or two, yet nobody ever talked about it. Appearing "normal" was important. I think this was intentional; it was their attempt at killing the cycle of generational shittiness in order to give my generation of offspring a chance at a life better than they experienced. For the most part, they succeeded. Except in the realm of expressing needs. 

I learned from a very young age that expressing my needs came at a steep price - it indebted me to the people I asked. It was kinda like asking a favor from the mob. They'd grant it, but then you owed them. When they came to collect on the debt, it would be fine if I could fulfill their request. But if not? 

That's where things routinely turned pretty dark. People, especially the women in my family, would start negatively gossiping to other family members or friends of the family. The goal seemed to be both getting me to comply with the request and/or punishing me for not fulfilling the request. I was made out to be a bad person in the eyes of my family, and it hurt. A lot. I'm kinda prone to depression, especially seasonal affective disorder. If this kind of thing happened when I was experiencing a bout of depression, my mind went to very, very dark places. Which was made infinitely worse because I couldn't express that to anyone.

Needless to say, it was a cycle I needed to break for self-preservation. I naively tried actually fixing the dysfunction years ago, but that turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. The only workable solution was to severely limit interactions, which is lonely and royally sucks, but it's better than the alternative.

To the point, though, it taught me to avoid asking people to meet my needs. Instead, I developed a lot of shitty passive-aggressive strategies to try to get my needs met without actually asking for them. If I didn't verbalize them, they couldn't be used against me. That's the "Nice Guy" problem I mentioned in the last post.

Luckily, it wasn't too difficult to fix this issue. It WAS incredibly difficult to take the first step; I still vividly remember the first few times I directly asked Shelly to meet some of my needs without resorting to my old subversive tactics. But experiencing her joyfully acting to fulfill those needs was powerful. It was a "Holy shit, I can't believe this actually works like this" moment. Almost immediately, the problem mostly disappeared.

Why mostly?

Because I had to learn another important lesson - how do you determine WHO you can trust to share your needs with and who do you need to avoid? Learning that lesson was a little more tricky.

Authenticity is the Key

Shortly after discovering that "Nice Guy" pattern, I started analyzing the relationships in my life. I quickly realized some people fell into the "safe to share my needs" category and others fell in the "unsafe to share my needs" category. The difference between these two? The former were all people Shelly and I met and befriended AFTER we started trying to live as authentically as possible. And by "authentically", I mean letting our inside selves shine by not erecting a facade of, well, "normal."

Like attracts like. And the "likes" we attracted were the kinds of people who could and would meet whatever needs we expressed without some ulterior motive. They were emotionally safe, and this safety created wonderful, lasting friendships. 

Once I kinda discovered that there were people out there who could and would willingly meet whatever needs I had, all those "unsafe" relationships started to feel really, really toxic. SO I started gravitating towards the safe people and away from the unsafe people. And every aspect of my life improved remarkably. 

The Tribe

At some point in this process, I realized there was incredible mutually-beneficial value in curating a group of people who all cared about each other unconditionally. That realization slowly grew from an abstract idea to the "Tribe" plans I've been planning and developing, which I'm documenting on one of my other blogs. 

The basic idea - We have a lot of needs, many of which are social in nature. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors got these needs met by their tribe. That's why we're hard-wired to have these social needs today. But we don't have tribes today. We have a lot of individuals living individualistic lives. We get our "tribe" needs met by rooting for sports teams, identifying with political parties, or maybe joining a church. And the loneliness of these topical connections causes a whole lotta needs to go unmet. It's no surprise so many of us are riddled with depression and anxiety.

So I set out to create a Tribe. Or as close to a "tribe" as we can get without sacrificing the benefits of modern society. Brandon, one of our Tribe Members and co-founder of this project, provided us with some excellent criteria to decide who we wanted in the Tribe, which I describe in detail in this post.

Our Tribe is a little bit unique in that it is formed around that authenticity idea in the last section. Our current and future Tribe Members come from our jiu jitsu gym Shelly and I own. When we're at the gym, both of us are our authentic selves. And people either love us or hate us. There's not a lot of middle ground. So we attract people who tend to be like-minded, which creates an awesome foundation for the Tribe.

Specific to the point of getting your needs met - the kind of people we want for the Tribe are the precise kind of people who either already understand the reciprocal nature of healthy relationships or, in some cases, have the capacity but need to learn how to ask for help. Like I was back in the "Nice Guy" days. 

Reciprocal Rings

A researcher by the name of Wayne Baker developed a concept known as a "Reciprocal Ring", which is a tool groups can use to develop equitable reciprocity within a group. It basically teaches people how to use the group to get their needs met. And it's a tool I plan on utilizing for our Tribe. It works like this.

You gather the group together. One person expresses one need they have to the group. I can be a physical need, social need, emotional need, spiritual need, financial need... whatever. The group then brainstorms how they can, collectively, get that need met. Then they actually do it or make a plan to do it. This continues around the group until everyone has expressed a need. 

Done repeatedly, this quickly evolves into what amounts to a group "Pay It Forward" virtuous cycle where group members quickly build trust in each other that allows them to rely on the group. In short, the collective group becomes a powerful resource to get any and all needs met for each individual within the group.

But What If You Don't Have a Tribe?

I'm fortunate in that I've had an incredibly supportive wife who I could rely on to openly express my needs, which has given me the opportunity to be able to curate a Tribe of reliable, emotionally healthy friends. Not everyone has that resource available to them. In that case, it's important to learn to recognize emotionally-healthy people. 

For people trapped in some cycle of emotional fuck-upedness, that can be really difficult. If all you've known are emotionally-troubled people, you don't know what healthy looks like. Worse, we tend to be drawn to the people who make us comfortable. And if all we've ever known is emotionally-damaged people, those are the people we'll be drawn to. 

There are a lot of guides out there that will explain what an emotionally-healthy person looks like. Lifehacker, one of my all-time favorite websites, produced a nice article explaining 15 good traits to look for. As much as I like their list, I also have some criteria I use personally, usually by asking questions. These questions determine if they're:

• Honest
• Competent
• Reliable
• Kind
• Able to persevere after setbacks
  
• Willing and able to accept blame when they're at fault
• Compassionate
• Modest and humble
•  Have the ability to control their emotions

So what are the questions? What behaviors help me determine if an individual "fits" this ideal?

1. How do they treat service workers, especially retail workers, receptionists, and restaurant servers? Do they tip well?
2. How do they treat animals?
3. How do they treat children and the elderly?
4. How do they treat people who have poor social skills?
5. Do they get angry frequently?
6. Do they do random acts of kindness, especially when nobody appears to be looking?
7. Do they brag excessively?
8. How do they handle failure?
9. Are they excessively gullible and fall for conspiracies, multi-level marketing schemes, etc.?
10. Do they try to control others?
11. Are they prone to excessive jealousy or envy?
12. Do they have a victim mentality?
13. Do they intentionally hurt people, physically, emotionally, or mentally?
14. Do they blame others for their lack of success?
15. Are they passive-aggressive?
16. Do they engage in revenge fantasies?
17. Do they routinely make other people uncomfortable?
18. Do they have confident body language?
19. Do they talk on the phone in public or in the presence of others without trying to excuse themselves.

 

And, of course, there's the gold standard hack for evaluating others - simply pick a particular trait, then ask someone how often they see that trait in others. It's based on the idea of psychological projection - we frame the motives behind other people's behaviors within our own motivational framework. A happy person will see happiness in others. A manipulative person will assume everyone is trying to manipulate them. A compulsive liar will assume everyone is lying. A genuinely kind person will see kindness in others. And so on. 

Taken together, these strategies can be super useful when it comes to identifying the kinds of people who can and will gladly help fulfill your needs versus the toxic people who will not. Surround yourself with the former and life gets a whole lot better. Surround yourself with the latter and life ain't so good.

Conclusion

 

We all deserve healthy relationships where we can feel safe expressing our thoughts, feelings, and needs. We all deserve healthy relationships where we will have those thoughts, feelings, and needs heard and acknowledged. Surround yourself with those kind of people, and follow my advice from the first post on getting your needs met. 

You deserve it.

~Jason

***

Conspiracy Theorists are a Cancer to Society

A few weeks back, I was having a discussion in a Facebook group regarding how COVID-19 would affect public schools in the fall. A handful of parents, rightfully, expressed concerns for their children's health, and more importantly, the health of high-risk individuals in their families. Schools are, after all, petri dishes. It would be exceptionally easy for a kid to bring the virus home from school and infect entire families. 

But two members of the group had entirely different rationales for not wanting to send their kids to school - they were concerned an eventual vaccine for the virus would contain a microchip that would be activated by 5G cell phone towers nearby, which would in turn cause their children to start believing in a "gay agenda" that's been pushed by Hollywood.

That discussion was... tough.

You see, I have a visceral disdain for conspiracy theories and, sometimes, for the people who push them. Most of us are familiar with at least a few conspiracy theories, and a lot of us may even entertain some as being a remote possibility. For example, I'm generally open to the possibility that there are still some unknowns related to the JFK assassination decades ago. Or that the Saudi government might know more about the 9/11 attacks than they're letting on. Shit like that.

I place that kind of belief on the same level as agnostics being open to the possibility that there is a god or gods. Or some kind of higher power. It's not something we can prove or disprove. At a bare minimum, we have to entertain the possibility that it could be true, but we can acknowledge that it's improbable. 

I'm okay with that. I think it's good, even. 

My disdain for conspiracy theories comes from the folks who actually live the brand. You know, the people who will literally live their lives around the material facts of their preferred collection of conspiracies. The folks who could probably be diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder if they were to seek treatment. 

So what's the genesis of this disdain?

Why I Hate Conspiracy Theories

To understand why I have such a primal hatred of conspiracy theorists, it's probably useful to know a bit about me. Per the Myers-Briggs (yes, I understand the validity issues of personality instruments), I'm somewhere between an INTP and ENTP. Using logic and reason to stimulate debates to solve problems is my jam. Take a problem, research everything related to the problem, debate possible solutions, and come up with a unique solution that satisfies all the relevant parties. 

I can do this all day every day forever and be endlessly fulfilled.

In college, I majored in history and social studies, and also experimental psychology. All of those realms involved the same kinds of skills - research, critical thinking, asking questions, then answering those questions. This required great researching skills, curiosity, open-mindedness, skepticism, empiricism, and a relentless pursuit of the asymptote we call "the truth."  

The basic process is the same for all those fields. You start by making an observation, then you formulate a thesis or hypothesis, do research on the thesis or test the hypothesis, report the results, then offer a conclusion as to why it's correct or incorrect. If it's correct, I missed evidence somewhere and go back to the research stage. If it's incorrect, I reformulate the hypothesis and repeat the process. Greatly simplified, but that's the process.

Regardless of the application, there's always a fundamental assumption I HAD to make: I might be wrong. No matter how much evidence supports whatever I was investigating, that process of seeking the truth is a real asymptote - you never get to discover the truth, you only get incrementally closer. This means there's always going to be a lot of uncertainty baked into my world view. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that. Quite frankly, certainty makes me really uncomfortable. If I think I've discovered "the truth" about anything, it means I missed something, somewhere, somehow. 

This is a decidedly different approach to what a conspiracy theorist will take. Conspiracy theories go in the opposite direction. They start with a "truth", then work backwards to make that truth valid. Instead of seeking evidence to refute their truth as a good historian and experimental psychologist would do, conspiracy theorists seek evidence that supports their truth. 

I modify my world view continuously based on an evolving understanding of the world. A conspiracy theorist controls their view of the world to match their preconceived world view. 

My approach makes me progressively better at navigating the world because I objectively understand it better. This makes me a better individual, husband, father, teacher, community member, etc. 

Conspiracy theorists get progressively worse at managing their lives because their world view becomes more and more limited, which reduces their overall effectiveness at anything and everything. In short, they drift farther and farther from objective reality.

The Effects of Conspiracy Theorists on the Pandemic

Normally, this has little to no effect on others. Or more specifically, no effect on me. So I usually tolerate conspiracy theorists just for the amusement factor. However, the coronavirus pandemic has changed that game. A lot. 

While there's still a ton we don't know about the virus, we do know enough to understand that we're now at a stage where we have to "thread the needle" of reopening society in a way that won't overwhelm our health system, and this reopening has to be coordinated on a local level. Unfortunately for our policy-makers, this is a Herculean task given there's a HUGE lag between people being exposed to the virus, becoming contagious themselves, and showing symptoms. In short, seemingly healthy people can infect a lot of other people. 

This problem can be partially mitigated with all the recommended guidelines - only leaving home when it's absolutely needed, social distancing, wearing a mask in public, washing hands, avoiding touching your face, etc. Even with all those efforts, the reopening process is still akin to driving a bus down a busy highway without a steering wheel. 

Enter the conspiracy theorists.

The most dangerous type, right now anyway, are those who believe the danger isn't real. There are a lot of conspiracy narratives being circulated via Youtube videos and social media, but they all produce the same result - people avoiding any and all mitigation efforts. The stupid shits in my home state of Michigan are the perfect examples:

Because these people buy into the conspiracy narratives and take little to no precautions, they spread the virus quickly. Which results in a spike in positive cases, hospitalizations which threaten to overwhelm local hospitals, and eventually, deaths.

What these dumb shits fail to realize is that their "protests" to reopen the economy have the net effect of assuring the economy stays locked down longer. THIS is the overt harm that is being caused by conspiracy theorists right now, today. As a business owner increasingly desperate to reopen, I have a growing disdain for this group and their short-sighted ignorance.

Of course, there IS the extreme polar opposite conspiracy theorists who believe the virus is an apocalyptic end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it pandemic that will wipe out most of humanity. While these folks don't get nearly as much press as the people pictured above, their irrational fear fueled by their particular conspiracy theories are also potentially catastrophic only economic in nature. Instead of death via virus, though, they're heading down a path of death via starvation and exposure as more and more people lose their homes.

Culling the Herd

One of the main points of this blog is to connect with and, maybe, recruit people into my "tribe" in both real life and online. This process involves identifying people who are interested in the concept, have skills or knowledge that would be useful to the tribe, and are eager to learn from others within the tribe.

To this end, I'm normally extremely open-minded. I want as diverse of a tribe as possible because diverse tribes have the varied skills and knowledge to survive and thrive any and all potential situations. Conspiracy theorists pose a serious problem, however. They're "stuck" in a particular world view that perceives nefarious enemies and secret plots all over the place, and that generalized distrust seriously limits the flexibility of the tribe.

So that's one population I will not consider for the kinds of people I want to surround myself with as part of this project. 

***

For those who are interested in learning more about the psychology behind conspiratorial beliefs, this is an excellent literature review on the published data on the topic, which I used as a source for this post: Understanding Conspiracy Theories

Expecting the Best; Preparing for the Worst: A Logical Pandemic Response

Yesterday, I was a guest on Scott Jones’ podcast “Athlete on Fire” to discuss my “preparing for a depression” post from a few days ago. Among the topics we talked about - expecting the best and preparing for the worst. It’s an idea that is common in coaching pretty much any sport, and it’s a great life strategy.

This has been my approach throughout this entire coronavirus ordeal. This approach gives me optimism, but still prepares myself and my family for the extreme hardships that may be lurking around the corner. I’m a proactive person. I like acting instead of reacting. And I like having options. This approach accomplishes all those things.

I find this approach far superior to burying our heads in the sand and ignoring what’s happening around us. I’m perplexed to see so many people completely ignoring our current situation. Likewise, I also find this approach superior to going into a full-blown “head to the bunker” approach. Society isn’t collapsing; that panic isn’t rational at this point. 

This approach is heavily influenced by Stoicism, an ancient philosophical school of thought that is incredibly useful in uncertain times. This’ll probably be a topic for a future post, but until then, the really relevant part is the Stoics we huge proponents of focusing only what you can control and accepting what you can’t control. Here’s an example from the linked article:

“An archer is trying to hit a target. He has a number of things under his control, such as training, which bow and arrow to use, how well to aim, and when to let go of the arrow. So he can do his very best up to the moment when the arrow leaves his bow.

Now, will he hit the target?

That is not up to him. After all, a gust of wind, a sudden movement of the target, or something could go between the arrow and the target. And the Stoic archer is ready to accept all possible outcomes with equanimity, because he has done his best and left the rest (what he could not control) to nature.”

So what exactly does this look like? Here’s how I’m handling this:

First, I like to work out the likely BEST case scenario. Even this looks a little bleak right now, but it is what it is. The number of positive coronavirus cases in the US is at about 20,000 and the number of deaths is at about 275, and both of these numbers are doubling about every two days. The element that seems to be limiting that exponential growth are widespread testing of the public AND nation-wide draconian lock-downs that prevent ALL members of society from interacting. Luckily, people will take matters into their own hands.

If we do the basic math and we reach a peak in the number of cases increasing, we’re looking at maybe 200-250,000 positive cases and 5,000 deaths. That's VERY optimistic, but it's important to recognize we're in the "fog of war" at this point. We simply don't know the real lay of the land, and there's a good chance this may not be nearly as bad as it looks right now.

There’s a chance, given how terrible our testing has been, that the virus has actually been circulating widely throughout the US population since late fall/ early winter, and a lot of us have already been infected, thus immune. If that were the case, we might not be too far away from the peak number of infections and deaths.

There's also an incredibly slim chance we could find an effective treatment or vaccine in the near future. There's a chance the virus could quickly die out when it gets warm outside. There's a chance the entire world population suddenly takes this seriously and everyone starts practicing radical social distancing without the threat of fines, imprisonment, or force.

Based on this scenario, the BEST we can hope for would be a widespread lockdown that will last through mid-April. The mass shutdowns cause a significant worldwide recession akin to 2008 with similar unemployment numbers and a similar drop in GDP. So all of us will have to deal with some serious financial issues for a while. But we'll rebound quickly.

Almost all of us have been there, done that, and survived just fine.

Second, I like to work out the likely WORST case scenario. This one gets pretty damn bad. Please stop reading if you’re prone to anxiety over shit you cannot control. In the worst-case scenario, which the CDC has projected, we’re in this social distancing/ lockdown scenario for a year, 214 million Americans would be infected. Up to 21 million of those infected would need hospitalization, and we only have around a million hospital beds available in the US. Over 1.7 million would die (about one out of every 200 Americans.) Millions more would die from unrelated illness (like cancer or heart disease) because they wouldn’t be able to receive treatment. 

In this scenario, we’d see a complete collapse of the global economy that would pitch us into a severe depression that would last years. The unemployment rate could flirt with 30%. Long-distance food chains would evaporate, store shelves would be left bare until local food production could ramp up. Millions starve to death. Cities would become death traps as the food shortages cause people to get extremely desperate. Looting would become the norm as the strong and well-organized quickly start killing the weak and unprepared. Banks close permanently. Hyperinflation takes over and paper money becomes worthless. Widespread civil disobedience forces the federal government to suspend habeas corpus and mobilize the military and the entire country is placed under martial law. And the Internet disappears. The government collapses under the weight of the crushing debt racked up in an attempt to ward off the financial catastrophe. Anarchy ensues.

In this apocalyptic scenario, the world as we knew it would cease to exist, possibly forever. 

Third, I like to actualize the fear of the worst-case scenario. If that worst-case scenario comes to fruition, what would I do? Normally, this is pretty easy because, in our safe, comfortable world we had at the beginning of this year pretty much always meant our lives would become slightly less comfortable for a little while. 

Now, though? How the Hell do you prepare for the collapse of society? THANKFULLY, Shelly and I started making intentional choices a few years back that would help in this apocalypse scenario, which included moving out of San Diego to rural Western Colorado. Ironically, it was our perception that SoCal was woefully unprepared for any sort of natural disaster (like a major earthquake) that led us to bail. Our choice of Western Colorado was also influenced (a little bit) by the geography in the event some apocalyptic scenario happened - we’re 6,000 feet above sea level (no threat of rising sea levels), it’s a good climate for agriculture, and we’re geographically protected from anyone reaching the area on foot (rugged mountains on three sides, a vast desert on the other.)

Since civil unrest is unlikely in our small town and we know how to grow food, hunt and fish, and can forage, the biggest problems would be financial. We’ve been really, really poor in the recent past AND have a good knowledge of survival, so we know we can still survive if we lost our day jobs, our gym goes out of business, we lose our home, cars, and every other material possession we have. 

Since arriving here, we’ve also deliberately worked to create a “tribe” of like-minded people, which WAS the original intent of this very blog. This was our original goal, which I later expanded on with this post about the logic behind tribal organizations. From that post, which I wrote a little over one month ago:

“The real benefit would come should our safe, prosperous modern society and all the associated comforts ever come under threat. A major war, natural disasters, pandemics... all could and would dramatically affect the safety and convenience we now take for granted. Countless stories throughout history have taught us the veneer of civility can and does disappear in an instant. In those cases, people HAVE to fall back to the basic tenets of tribal unity to survive. Shit, we've seen that in our lifetime with 9/11 and Katrina.

Why wait for disaster to strike before setting up a community that provides mutual support? We have this innate drive to live in and participate in a tribe; why not establish one right now?”  

Our “tribe” is really just a loose collection of diverse friends who would be willing and able to help each other if the shit really starts to hit the fan. Part of the preparations I've been making have been specifically done to be in a position to help any member of our "tribe" should they need it as we navigate this pandemic. This group really eliminates a lot of the anxiety about solving the problems of this worst-case scenario. 

The hardest part of thinking about how we’d handle that worst-case scenario is death. What happens if one or more of us were to die? As difficult as that is to imagine, all five of us are resilient and confident in our ability to thrive despite the circumstances. Both Shelly and I thrive under pressure, and we’ve exposed our kids to all sorts of hardships over their lives; they’re capable of persevering. And we have our tribe. 

So if the shit hits the fan and society basically collapses, we have a plan. 

Fourth, I find the most accurate information I can about the present conditions, which includes traditional media, social media, and a network of friends spread around the world. It’s important to understand the real nature of each of these. Traditional media tends to be sensational, social media tends to be conspiratorial, and friends will have a limited perspective based on geography. Any one information source is problematic, but taken together AND accounting for their individual shortcomings, this is a decent way to clear the “fog of war” a bit. 

A good site to follow, by the way, is Nate Silver's data-driven FiveThirtyEight. For example, this post lays out the facts without the sensationalism.

The purpose of this is to be in a position to act instead of being forced to react. So far, this has allowed us to do a TON of last-minute preparing because we can accurately predict which items people are panic-hoarding, which has allowed us to stock up on those specific products. This has also allowed us to predict which restrictions we’d be under in the next day or two, like schools closing, restaurants and bars closing, and most relevant to us - when we’d be forced to close our gym. 

Fifth, I go about living. Life doesn’t stop because we’re faced with this incredibly terrifying threat to our very way of life. Having considered the absolute worst-case scenario AND having developed a plan if that scenario comes to fruition, I can relax. Perhaps more importantly, the people closest to me can relax. 

If the best-case scenario happens, we can look back on this and chuckle. It’ll make a good story for the grandkids. But if the worst-case scenario happens, we can enjoy the last vestiges of the world that once was. 

Be safe, folks.

~Jason