I'm surprised there was no mention of Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death", which came out in 1985 as I recall, although I only just recently read it. He traces it back to the invention of telegraph and photography and their "unholy alliance" which technologically proceeded in the development of silent movies, radio, television, and - if he had lived long enough, I'm sure he would have included the Internet and smartphones. Because his basic principal of massive change in how we go about cognition in a written environment vs what we have now strikes me as the same as what you have been trying to quantify. It's worth reading just for the chapter on the development of television news alone.
I appreciate your efforts, but I also think they're not going to be sufficient without understanding that in order for positive community (as opposed to negative cults or gossip traps) to happen, there have to be synergies between people (people need to need each other strongly, in both cultural and material ways), there have to be enough psychologically healthy individuals, there have to be strong families, there have to be intermediate levels between the community and the state to effectively manage complexity and free riding, there have to be Ostrom Principles to manage free riding, there have to be level-dependent Dunbar numbers of parts at each level, to account for limitations of individuals (and higher levels) due to transaction costs. An analogy: you are trying to build a bridge without understanding Newtonian statics and resonance theory. Would you be interested in collaborating? Do you read the comments here, or are they going into the great digital void?
Brilliant work, both in the Substack and some of these comments. I'm not totally sure that understanding all the science would make community-group formation easier. What did they do before engineering? Bridges still got built. Need the start and interest before you can build it, then bring in the science as you go along.
BUT...
Sorry to be a Party Pooper but, as George Carlin famously remarked: "Ya' gotta' wanna'". Doing things such as the ones recommended in the post takes time and energy. And most of us would like to have more fun *even if maybe it's not good for us*! It is MUCH easier, and most would say more fun, to be entertained. It surely takes less brain work. (see Jonathan Haidt's Rider and Elephant). As long as people can get paid good money for telling people what they want to hear, and entertain them in the process, I remain very dubious that any significant progress can be made. Pissing into the wind. See "Infinite Jest" for the Final Outcome.
We *should* try and my thanks to all those who are. May you succeed beyond my wildest dreams.
Yes, Romans and Chinese people built bridges before modern engineering, but they had enough understanding of engineering principles that they didn't need Newton's science. Still, maybe the bridges were not as big as they can be today and they probably didn't last as long. The science is not there to motivate the masses. The science is there to help a few pioneers to succeed, so that the masses can then follow suit. The masses will be motivated by joyful examples, and also by stories that are in line with community, instead of just individualism and the myth or perpetual Progress through technology and capitalism.
I agree that community needs to be joyful for people to want to do it. It could beat entertainment both on the hedonic AND eudaimonic fronts if it was done right. People don't only want to be entertained. They want to commune, create and participate. They want to work for themselves, families and communities at things they are good at and are appreciated for. These things give meaning to life. Meaning is a big part of being human. There are many more ways to do it wrong than there are ways to do it right. Same as with bridges. Funding is an issue, for sure. If we funded scientifically based communities as much as military projects...
My sense is that maybe you're "misunderestimating" the forces arrayed against us. Per Haidt and Kahneman, we're *emotional* creatures. It takes work and, as I noted above desire, to want to do things differently, to go against the flow. The current algorithmic entrapment of minds is profoundly powerful. And for most of its victims, very fun and *addicting*. [This is *old* news, from 1919! See Megan Garber in The Atlantic today.] There is money to be made by that entrapping, which means it's gonna' be near impossible to eliminate.
I can't help but note that all of those "community" things you and the Substack post mentioned have existed previously and have been in precipitous decline for 40+ years. How about mainline Protestant religious communities? Great groups, working for and with others, "easy" religion...and yet they're on life support with the trend line pointing down. How is what's proposed any different than that, or is it different in some way so that we should expect better results? The authors sorta' say "Build It and They Will Come" because that worked before. I think that minimizes the forces arrayed against us, which are far wider spread and much more insidious than in the past.
Logically, it all makes great sense. People want and need these things. I agree. But the vast majority of us work with our hearts and not our brains, so we can be and are entrapped by nefarious forces. Progressive atomization has been the rule since the first industrial revolution and it continues apace. I don't see how to stop that. Yes, let's try. Just NOT optimistic we can succeed.
Good questions about the difference between what is proposed in this article and what has been tried before. I agree that the 3-pronged approach the authors proposed is not that different from what has been tried before, or that if there is a difference, it's not one that will make a difference for successful communities. Intentional communities are/were local civic experiments that had plenty of support and still failed (even the ones that still exist have huge turnover). Shifting the national narrative is not likely because as you say, most people have been captured by an opposing narrative. And I don't quite get the third option: did urban renewal result in more successful communities? Having professional organizations is not quite the same as having strong communities. Maybe I'm not understanding this one.
I don't need to be optimistic about success in order to keep trying to find collaborators on building communities that can provide for themselves on most needs, to network them economically, and to ensure they follow certain principles (like Ostrom and "proper nesting") which are necessary (but perhaps not sufficient) for success. We can talk more off line if you are interested?
Also, what "nefarious forces" do you think are "arrayed against us"? It's just capitalism, nothing intentionally nefarious about it. It's not even about greed or power, it's just graph theory.
Thanks for pointing me to the Netflix documentary about Robert Putnams's work. I was thinking about how membership in clubs increased in the first half of the 20th century, peaked in the 1960s and then kept declining. On the face of it, this seems to go against my hypothesis that it is capitalism itself that destroys these intermediate levels of organization (families, villages and tribes) between individuals and states, or replaces them with corporate entities. But there is another possibility: first people tried to compensate for the destruction of villages/tribes by forming and joining clubs. But eventually capitalism's relentless assault on anything that threatens profits won, and clubs dwindled, just like the villages and tribes before them.
Capitalism also has some pros, not only cons. The question is why did intermediate levels of organization between individuals and nations/states dwindle (families, villages, tribes)? Was it capitalism and/or something else?
When people blame capitalism for something, it's usually a Marxist critique, having to do with private property, equality and exploitation/extraction. This has nothing to do with any of these...
I've been following Jonathan Haidt since "The Righteous Mind" back in 2012. It's refreshing to see this historical perspective on community renewal that complements his work in "The Anxious Generation." What resonates most is how you position our tech-driven isolation within a recurring American pattern - disruption followed by awakening followed by renewal. Rather than just hand-wringing about screens and social media, you offer concrete paths forward through local experimentation, narrative shifts, and professional reorientation. It's a hopeful counterbalance to the tech doom that dominates so many discussions today, without falling into naive techno-optimism. I'd be curious to hear more about creating environments where young people can develop healthy social connections again.
Thanks for offering this hopeful perspective: "...each decided to act on a belief that your little seed, your little alternative, was worth cultivating". This is how change happens, from a personal conviction that all is not lost and small decisions matter. Over the past two years my husband and I have been leading various community projects at School of the Unconformed, including a Walking Rebellion, a Reading Rebellion, and various digital fasts, all of which have encouraged thousands of readers in their personal efforts to sow seeds of change, not just in their own lives, but their communities as well. People are eager to take action, and hearing that their efforts are not "ridiculous" is most encouraging. Thanks for your work!
I love everything you’ve shared, but for us, the biggest challenge lies in encouraging people to move beyond just observing from the sidelines and actually get involved. We need to reignite the value of local communities and the connections they bring. We need to make community engagement not just meaningful, but trendy again. Nothing will change (at least fast enough) unless people are willing to step up and take action.
Many communities today exist online. In fact, I first became acquainted with Jon Haidt through the now defunct HxA forum. My son, when he was in high school, ran a Minecraft server with a partner in Germany. They become good friends, although they never met. Do you believe that online communities can fulfill the need for belonging? Why or why not? What do you lose by having virtual as opposed to face-to-face interaction? Is the loss significant?
Many belong to online communities. In fact, I became acquainted with Jon Haidt through the now defunct HxA forum. I was sorry to see it go. Do you believe that online forums can fulfill the need for belonging as efficiently as in-person ones. Can they come close? Why or why not?
My strange little contribution is running all-disciplines grant writing workshops on university campuses in which the microbiologists, for example, have to explain themselves to the ethnomusicologists. It’s been a great way to not only teach the art of storytelling but also help faculty members find a larger sense of shared purpose with researchers in other fields.
Coming from the urban design/ architecture field—-yes! We need to understand how the paces we build form our lives. We build isolated houses on larger pieces of land, eliminate the ability to walk places, and wonder why we feel isolated! We need a whole society shift toward to the importance of and responsibility to our communities. It starts with real life. We can use technology to enhance these real life connections, but it cannot replace the actual thing. Would love to see this movement grow!
Well, I am putting my little but mighty seed out there to blossom. Headlines were mentioned so here are a few from current & future reality, crafted by yours truly:
"The Sound of silence is heaven for the ultra introverts & for people with autism spectrum disorder."
"Screen reader software uses text-to-speech, magnification and Braille to provide access, work & school productivity, safety & personal pleasure for the blind & visually impaired."
"AI opens the world even more for the blind & visually impaired, including reading of books, handouts, flyers, mail and handwriting, with navigation aids and other wonders to come."
The scamdemic was a turning point in the history of mankind. Many missed the turn. But many of us are forming communities of truth on the digital networks and with fellow men, women and children. The world belongs to the living. The death cults with global reach are losing influence with every tippy-tappy on billions of keyboards. Nature wins.
Really appreciate this piece, Sam and Pete, on a whole lot of levels, but especially you pulling the thread of the similarities of this moment to the cultural stew that existed in the Burned Over District in the 1800s. I've been working on a piece about that moment for a little bit now-- have you all encountered any other smart analyses of that moment and its applicability to this one?
Great work here gentlemen. At a schooling level the yearning for connection is evident. The desire is there and often the framework and organizations. The biggest obstacle for many is total exhaustion and flattening out from social media (or more acutely from the algorithm underneath them which for hours and hours every day induce dopamine in order to extract data). For this reason, the outside/active organizations (hiking groups, rock climbing, garden club) where the opportunity for further tech-dopamine hooks are minimized and recovery is maximized (sunlight, fresh air, movement) are maximized are the most resilient. Keep up the great work!
I'm surprised there was no mention of Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death", which came out in 1985 as I recall, although I only just recently read it. He traces it back to the invention of telegraph and photography and their "unholy alliance" which technologically proceeded in the development of silent movies, radio, television, and - if he had lived long enough, I'm sure he would have included the Internet and smartphones. Because his basic principal of massive change in how we go about cognition in a written environment vs what we have now strikes me as the same as what you have been trying to quantify. It's worth reading just for the chapter on the development of television news alone.
I appreciate your efforts, but I also think they're not going to be sufficient without understanding that in order for positive community (as opposed to negative cults or gossip traps) to happen, there have to be synergies between people (people need to need each other strongly, in both cultural and material ways), there have to be enough psychologically healthy individuals, there have to be strong families, there have to be intermediate levels between the community and the state to effectively manage complexity and free riding, there have to be Ostrom Principles to manage free riding, there have to be level-dependent Dunbar numbers of parts at each level, to account for limitations of individuals (and higher levels) due to transaction costs. An analogy: you are trying to build a bridge without understanding Newtonian statics and resonance theory. Would you be interested in collaborating? Do you read the comments here, or are they going into the great digital void?
Brilliant work, both in the Substack and some of these comments. I'm not totally sure that understanding all the science would make community-group formation easier. What did they do before engineering? Bridges still got built. Need the start and interest before you can build it, then bring in the science as you go along.
BUT...
Sorry to be a Party Pooper but, as George Carlin famously remarked: "Ya' gotta' wanna'". Doing things such as the ones recommended in the post takes time and energy. And most of us would like to have more fun *even if maybe it's not good for us*! It is MUCH easier, and most would say more fun, to be entertained. It surely takes less brain work. (see Jonathan Haidt's Rider and Elephant). As long as people can get paid good money for telling people what they want to hear, and entertain them in the process, I remain very dubious that any significant progress can be made. Pissing into the wind. See "Infinite Jest" for the Final Outcome.
We *should* try and my thanks to all those who are. May you succeed beyond my wildest dreams.
Yes, Romans and Chinese people built bridges before modern engineering, but they had enough understanding of engineering principles that they didn't need Newton's science. Still, maybe the bridges were not as big as they can be today and they probably didn't last as long. The science is not there to motivate the masses. The science is there to help a few pioneers to succeed, so that the masses can then follow suit. The masses will be motivated by joyful examples, and also by stories that are in line with community, instead of just individualism and the myth or perpetual Progress through technology and capitalism.
I agree that community needs to be joyful for people to want to do it. It could beat entertainment both on the hedonic AND eudaimonic fronts if it was done right. People don't only want to be entertained. They want to commune, create and participate. They want to work for themselves, families and communities at things they are good at and are appreciated for. These things give meaning to life. Meaning is a big part of being human. There are many more ways to do it wrong than there are ways to do it right. Same as with bridges. Funding is an issue, for sure. If we funded scientifically based communities as much as military projects...
My sense is that maybe you're "misunderestimating" the forces arrayed against us. Per Haidt and Kahneman, we're *emotional* creatures. It takes work and, as I noted above desire, to want to do things differently, to go against the flow. The current algorithmic entrapment of minds is profoundly powerful. And for most of its victims, very fun and *addicting*. [This is *old* news, from 1919! See Megan Garber in The Atlantic today.] There is money to be made by that entrapping, which means it's gonna' be near impossible to eliminate.
I can't help but note that all of those "community" things you and the Substack post mentioned have existed previously and have been in precipitous decline for 40+ years. How about mainline Protestant religious communities? Great groups, working for and with others, "easy" religion...and yet they're on life support with the trend line pointing down. How is what's proposed any different than that, or is it different in some way so that we should expect better results? The authors sorta' say "Build It and They Will Come" because that worked before. I think that minimizes the forces arrayed against us, which are far wider spread and much more insidious than in the past.
Logically, it all makes great sense. People want and need these things. I agree. But the vast majority of us work with our hearts and not our brains, so we can be and are entrapped by nefarious forces. Progressive atomization has been the rule since the first industrial revolution and it continues apace. I don't see how to stop that. Yes, let's try. Just NOT optimistic we can succeed.
Good questions about the difference between what is proposed in this article and what has been tried before. I agree that the 3-pronged approach the authors proposed is not that different from what has been tried before, or that if there is a difference, it's not one that will make a difference for successful communities. Intentional communities are/were local civic experiments that had plenty of support and still failed (even the ones that still exist have huge turnover). Shifting the national narrative is not likely because as you say, most people have been captured by an opposing narrative. And I don't quite get the third option: did urban renewal result in more successful communities? Having professional organizations is not quite the same as having strong communities. Maybe I'm not understanding this one.
I don't need to be optimistic about success in order to keep trying to find collaborators on building communities that can provide for themselves on most needs, to network them economically, and to ensure they follow certain principles (like Ostrom and "proper nesting") which are necessary (but perhaps not sufficient) for success. We can talk more off line if you are interested?
Also, what "nefarious forces" do you think are "arrayed against us"? It's just capitalism, nothing intentionally nefarious about it. It's not even about greed or power, it's just graph theory.
Maybe you should re-read Haid's chapter on the harms that the belief in evil has done to humanity
Thanks for pointing me to the Netflix documentary about Robert Putnams's work. I was thinking about how membership in clubs increased in the first half of the 20th century, peaked in the 1960s and then kept declining. On the face of it, this seems to go against my hypothesis that it is capitalism itself that destroys these intermediate levels of organization (families, villages and tribes) between individuals and states, or replaces them with corporate entities. But there is another possibility: first people tried to compensate for the destruction of villages/tribes by forming and joining clubs. But eventually capitalism's relentless assault on anything that threatens profits won, and clubs dwindled, just like the villages and tribes before them.
Capitalism is the problem. What was the question?
Capitalism also has some pros, not only cons. The question is why did intermediate levels of organization between individuals and nations/states dwindle (families, villages, tribes)? Was it capitalism and/or something else?
When people blame capitalism for something, it's usually a Marxist critique, having to do with private property, equality and exploitation/extraction. This has nothing to do with any of these...
Perhaps it starts
With a sacred fast
Where we ditch our screens
To go touch grass
I've been following Jonathan Haidt since "The Righteous Mind" back in 2012. It's refreshing to see this historical perspective on community renewal that complements his work in "The Anxious Generation." What resonates most is how you position our tech-driven isolation within a recurring American pattern - disruption followed by awakening followed by renewal. Rather than just hand-wringing about screens and social media, you offer concrete paths forward through local experimentation, narrative shifts, and professional reorientation. It's a hopeful counterbalance to the tech doom that dominates so many discussions today, without falling into naive techno-optimism. I'd be curious to hear more about creating environments where young people can develop healthy social connections again.
Thanks for offering this hopeful perspective: "...each decided to act on a belief that your little seed, your little alternative, was worth cultivating". This is how change happens, from a personal conviction that all is not lost and small decisions matter. Over the past two years my husband and I have been leading various community projects at School of the Unconformed, including a Walking Rebellion, a Reading Rebellion, and various digital fasts, all of which have encouraged thousands of readers in their personal efforts to sow seeds of change, not just in their own lives, but their communities as well. People are eager to take action, and hearing that their efforts are not "ridiculous" is most encouraging. Thanks for your work!
I love everything you’ve shared, but for us, the biggest challenge lies in encouraging people to move beyond just observing from the sidelines and actually get involved. We need to reignite the value of local communities and the connections they bring. We need to make community engagement not just meaningful, but trendy again. Nothing will change (at least fast enough) unless people are willing to step up and take action.
Many communities today exist online. In fact, I first became acquainted with Jon Haidt through the now defunct HxA forum. My son, when he was in high school, ran a Minecraft server with a partner in Germany. They become good friends, although they never met. Do you believe that online communities can fulfill the need for belonging? Why or why not? What do you lose by having virtual as opposed to face-to-face interaction? Is the loss significant?
Many belong to online communities. In fact, I became acquainted with Jon Haidt through the now defunct HxA forum. I was sorry to see it go. Do you believe that online forums can fulfill the need for belonging as efficiently as in-person ones. Can they come close? Why or why not?
Good point
My strange little contribution is running all-disciplines grant writing workshops on university campuses in which the microbiologists, for example, have to explain themselves to the ethnomusicologists. It’s been a great way to not only teach the art of storytelling but also help faculty members find a larger sense of shared purpose with researchers in other fields.
Coming from the urban design/ architecture field—-yes! We need to understand how the paces we build form our lives. We build isolated houses on larger pieces of land, eliminate the ability to walk places, and wonder why we feel isolated! We need a whole society shift toward to the importance of and responsibility to our communities. It starts with real life. We can use technology to enhance these real life connections, but it cannot replace the actual thing. Would love to see this movement grow!
Well, I am putting my little but mighty seed out there to blossom. Headlines were mentioned so here are a few from current & future reality, crafted by yours truly:
"The Sound of silence is heaven for the ultra introverts & for people with autism spectrum disorder."
"Screen reader software uses text-to-speech, magnification and Braille to provide access, work & school productivity, safety & personal pleasure for the blind & visually impaired."
"AI opens the world even more for the blind & visually impaired, including reading of books, handouts, flyers, mail and handwriting, with navigation aids and other wonders to come."
The scamdemic was a turning point in the history of mankind. Many missed the turn. But many of us are forming communities of truth on the digital networks and with fellow men, women and children. The world belongs to the living. The death cults with global reach are losing influence with every tippy-tappy on billions of keyboards. Nature wins.
Amen!
Is there a similar awakening in the UK? Are there local civic organisations in London I should know about? Thoughts and leads welcome!
I was wondering the same thing! What a hopeful post though!
Mark my words. Just wait until all of this supposed "togetherness" becomes forced.....
Really appreciate this piece, Sam and Pete, on a whole lot of levels, but especially you pulling the thread of the similarities of this moment to the cultural stew that existed in the Burned Over District in the 1800s. I've been working on a piece about that moment for a little bit now-- have you all encountered any other smart analyses of that moment and its applicability to this one?
Great work here gentlemen. At a schooling level the yearning for connection is evident. The desire is there and often the framework and organizations. The biggest obstacle for many is total exhaustion and flattening out from social media (or more acutely from the algorithm underneath them which for hours and hours every day induce dopamine in order to extract data). For this reason, the outside/active organizations (hiking groups, rock climbing, garden club) where the opportunity for further tech-dopamine hooks are minimized and recovery is maximized (sunlight, fresh air, movement) are maximized are the most resilient. Keep up the great work!