Wow! Henrik, I love this piece. Love how you use your ability to connect dots and themes and patterns but with other people’s experiences. Such a neat concept and I feel that you nailed it. Congrats!
My favorite was this: “Going your own way is a bit like playing a countermelody when jamming music with others. If you are just playing along, filling in the same melody as everyone else, you don’t need a lot of skill. But the more dissonant your ideas are, the more skill it takes make them work.”
I’m a big sucker for a good analogy and i really loved the visual you gave to this idea. I also am a fan of when you talk about the work and effort it takes to go against the crowd. You have a lot of lived experience with that, and so your words on the topic bring great value.
I was re-reading your piece on Grothendieck last night before this post was released. Even pulled up the original version in French and read it from a few different angles to get a feel for the translation. So I couldn't stop thinking of him while reading this. Especially when you mentioned orienting one's relationship toward a group.
This is the consensus and law he was talking about, I believe.
""when I was thrown onto my own resources, following guidelines which I myself had spontaneously invented, instilled in me a strong degree of confidence, unassuming yet enduring, in my ability to do mathematics, which owes nothing to any consensus or to the fashions which pass as law...."
This point was interesting: Individual dynamics are more open to change or conversation compared to social consensus, but it's easier to change the consensus of a group if you update beliefs one at a time. I had noticed this, but never articulated it in this way.
It reminded me of how Lincoln and co worked on each member to get the 13th amendment passed, turning over people who had publicly voiced opposition to it. You were reading Lyndon Johnson's biography earlier. Did LBJ have an intuition for this sort of interaction?
Yes, this is what LBJ does. In a very manipulative way, I should add. But a great example is early, when he’s at college, and he’s got very low standing with a group that he wants to control, so he never speaks during their meeting, but gradually, people realize that all decisions that get made are what he wanted—because he’s talked to everyone individually before the meetings. So that’s def related to what we’re talking here. But it can be done in more wholesome ways
That conflict is fascinating, that LBJ was very effective at what he did and executed some of the most important changes like civil rights, etc. but wasn't a very transparent or egalitarian leader. On the other hand, Ulysses Grant was supposed to be a good-hearted person who wanted to keep the peace, but he was inept and helmed one of the most corrupt administrations of all time.
Makes me wonder if driving consensus and running an efficient operation inevitably needs an iron hand and a manipulative approach (might not be a great strategy for personal fulfilment). Counter-examples I can think of are Lincoln, Washington, but I don't really know their stories deeply. Your anecdotes about LBJ are pushing me to read the biography ASAP.
In "The Founders", Jimmy Soni touches upon something similar – productivity at Paypal was highest when there was open conflict and bad blood driven by an authoritarian vision, and when a more good-natured CEO started to run more meetings, productivity stalled. Finally the CEO was ousted in LBJ fashion, by individually turning people against him behind his back.
Very interesting article and recollections. I study conflict resolution, and what you mentioned on the two co-workers being liked for their warmth even if they were polarizing--while the other is disliked because of his polarizing as well as cold attitude--comes up very frequently in the research. People will pay attention to your friendly behavior, even if you are firm on your values. This often leads to better negotiations. Very insightful point on how telling the truth might not always lead to deeper relationships, but to their dissolution. Telling the truth is still better than not doing so. People respect people who stay aligned to their truths.
It’s really hard to go against a group once you start noticing things you don’t like about how it works. I have a friend who’s the game master of an RPG group. He wanted to share that hobby with his girlfriend, and at first his friends said they didn’t mind and that she was welcome to join. But when it actually came time for her to play, they admitted they felt uncomfortable and said they’d rather keep the games just between them.
This happened several times, which really frustrated my friend and made his girlfriend feel pretty bad about the whole situation. Since he’s the game master, he eventually decided he would bring his girlfriend to some of the campaigns anyway, even though the others weren’t happy about it.
I just find the whole situation sad, and I hope they can eventually figure out a way that works for everyone.
This is a common enough thing to be called "DM's GF syndrome", but it's IMO not really about the group as such, it's specifically about RPGs.
DM and his group are equal in some ways, but he's also their superior in how the game is run, what kind of things can happen in the setting, etc. He has higher narrative and mechanic rights than any of the players pretty much by definition. The entire affair is predicated on their voluntary submission to his power, so to speak. Additionally, DM has to be (to borrow Moldbug's phrase) disincentivised incentiviser. He is the enforcer of equality between players, and a person responsible for the entire campaign having sensible arcs, structure, balance, workable game session logistics, etc. DM should not prefer any one player over another, otherwise the rest stop having fun.
Either thing matches poorly to a relationship. You probably won't submit to John-your-BF the way you're supposed to submit to John-your-DM for him to do his thing. And treating Jane-the-GF as Jane-the-New-Player is gonna read like being an asshole to her, because the whole point of the relationship is to treat this particular person as if they were better than everyone else.
Compare to eg people joining non-DM'd but otherwise similar hobbies. Introducing your GF to (say) your local Warhammer community won't be really different for introducing any other newcomer.
I understand what you mean about the “DM’s GF syndrome,” and I agree that it can be a real issue in some RPG groups. But in my friend’s case the situation is a bit different. The group isn’t just an RPG group — they’re a long-standing group of friends who also happen to play RPGs together. They hang out in other contexts too, and when they meet casually (like going out for drinks) they have no problem with his girlfriend being there.
The confusing part is that when my friend asks them if they’d be okay with her joining a campaign, they say they’d love that and that they’re excited to play with her. But when the moment actually comes, they suddenly say they’d rather keep the game between themselves. This has happened several times, which is why it feels frustrating and confusing for him.
I think the real issue here is communication. If they actually prefer to keep the RPG group closed, that’s completely fair. But it would be much clearer and less hurtful to say that honestly from the start instead of saying they’re excited about the idea and then backing out later.
My friend has also been open with them about how important is to him to share it with his partner. So from my perspective the communication breakdown seems to be coming more from the group than from him.
This is a common enough thing to be called "DM's GF syndrome", but it's IMO not really about the group as such, it's specifically about RPGs.
DM and his group are equal in some ways, but he's also their superior in how the game is run, what kind of things can happen in the setting, etc. He has higher narrative and mechanic rights than any of the players pretty much by definition. The entire affair is predicated on their voluntary submission to his power, so to speak. Additionally, DM has to be (to borrow Moldbug's phrase) disincentivised incentiviser. He is the enforcer of equality between players, and a person responsible for the entire campaign having sensible arcs, structure, balance, workable game session logistics, etc. DM should not prefer any one player over another, otherwise the rest stop having fun.
Either thing matches poorly to a relationship. You probably won't submit to John-your-BF the way you're supposed to submit to John-your-DM for him to do his thing. And treating Jane-the-GF as Jane-the-New-Player is gonna read like being an asshole to her, because the whole point of the relationship is to treat this particular person as if they were better than everyone else.
Compare to eg people joining non-DM'd but otherwise similar hobbies. Introducing your GF to (say) your local Warhammer community won't be really different for introducing any other newcomer.
Loved how many voices dance though this piece. And I’m walking away with the idea that telling the truth has a polar effect — an attractive and repulsive force
Group or mass psychology pressure is a powerful and potentially dangerous thing. It takes a very strong individual to be able to withstand strong group pressure. However, once you've done it, you know you can do it again.
The emotional work you mention is often expected to be made by the person looking for change, either in relation to individuals or in groups. At least that’s my experience. You’re asked to process your own discomfort while also absorbing everyone else’s. This gives you agency but can also make the change harder than staying put?
And on groups - Maybe one could describe the shift that is necessary to happen in relation to the break-out individual is as a paradigm shift? The individual can be a symptom of a larger number of anomalies that have accumulated and be the katalyst for a crisis/revolution/new era, or can be the first anomaly and thus be quieted by the current structure.
This is not an answer, but your comment made me think of the work of Jakko Seikkula. His team do sort of dialogical group therapy with schizofrenics and people have psychosis and so on--during the acute phase, they gather friends and family and works through the situation communally. The idea being something like that the psychosis being a reaction to something being wrong in the social web (not discounting that the person might have a genetic predisposition etc, but that something in their situation usually provoked it, so they are like the canary in the coal mind almost). And so while things are in chaos, you bring everyone together, with some therapists, and open the pipes so people can articulate and share the suppressed stuff that lies beneath it all. And usually there is a lot of things that people haven't been saying to each other.
I'm not sure how well this works (they well), but it resonates with personal experiences, in that it is often useful when you get these ruptures so that the unspoken can be spoken, and that tends, if done with skill, to unblock also the people around the one who is in crisis, or talking up.
Yes Seikkula’s work maps onto that kind of thinking cleanly. I did some reading after your note. The results are striking, although as I understand it they have not been replicated elsewhere.
The concept ”polyphony of voices” is particularly interesting I think. The idea that the psyche is a system of voices that need to maintain a functional dialogue (a bit like IFS I suppose). But what may be even more interesting is the possible implication that many of these internal voices may be shared across the relational system, so that if one person ”gives voice” to something repressed there is often instant recognition in others in the group, because they themselves carry a version of thesame thing.
This also reflects your jamming analogy. If you’re jamming well you’re carrying the voices of others into the new melody so to speak.
I really enjoyed this piece, thank you Henrik. I agree how interesting it will be to explore the emotional work involved in following your own path and navigating the ensuing social friction.
It makes me think about love's role as a motivator and a support for following your own path. A quote, commonly attributed to Norwegian author Arne Garborg, that I have been pondering recently suggests that "to love a person is to learn the song that is in their heart and to sing it to them when they have forgotten". I wonder if Beth was learning to love herself in a new way, finding the song in her heart, and asking those she loved to also learn to love her in a new way.
I've just started to write about the place for love in policy and politics. Talk about trying to weave a dissonant melody into tightly controlled music! All loving support gratefully received.
Thanks a lot Henri. This email perfectly lands home for me. Beth’s story is similar to mine over the last 16 months— except for the part where she marries another person— as I had to stand up for something in marriage that my family didn’t approve of and support. Neglecting one’s worth based on external acceptance is indeed a challenging task and it feels even greater once you’ve surmounted it.
Democratizing style, values, integrity, ethics, morality, knowledge, and even love has its strengths and weaknesses. The perception of shared features bond people together into communities of any size, and once bonded, members grow to share more and more features. So it is not surprising that they start intuiting that to be alike is to like, and to be dissimilar is to dislike, forgetting that, while resemblance and affinity influence each other, they must remain distinct or individual agency and relational honesty collapse. Of course, there is a balance - compromise can require sacrifice of self and/or relationship, not all of either, but some of each, perhaps, with the balance point determined by the stakes involved.
Wow! Henrik, I love this piece. Love how you use your ability to connect dots and themes and patterns but with other people’s experiences. Such a neat concept and I feel that you nailed it. Congrats!
My favorite was this: “Going your own way is a bit like playing a countermelody when jamming music with others. If you are just playing along, filling in the same melody as everyone else, you don’t need a lot of skill. But the more dissonant your ideas are, the more skill it takes make them work.”
I’m a big sucker for a good analogy and i really loved the visual you gave to this idea. I also am a fan of when you talk about the work and effort it takes to go against the crowd. You have a lot of lived experience with that, and so your words on the topic bring great value.
Appreciate you and your work Henrik, thank you!
I was re-reading your piece on Grothendieck last night before this post was released. Even pulled up the original version in French and read it from a few different angles to get a feel for the translation. So I couldn't stop thinking of him while reading this. Especially when you mentioned orienting one's relationship toward a group.
This is the consensus and law he was talking about, I believe.
""when I was thrown onto my own resources, following guidelines which I myself had spontaneously invented, instilled in me a strong degree of confidence, unassuming yet enduring, in my ability to do mathematics, which owes nothing to any consensus or to the fashions which pass as law...."
This point was interesting: Individual dynamics are more open to change or conversation compared to social consensus, but it's easier to change the consensus of a group if you update beliefs one at a time. I had noticed this, but never articulated it in this way.
It reminded me of how Lincoln and co worked on each member to get the 13th amendment passed, turning over people who had publicly voiced opposition to it. You were reading Lyndon Johnson's biography earlier. Did LBJ have an intuition for this sort of interaction?
Yes, this is what LBJ does. In a very manipulative way, I should add. But a great example is early, when he’s at college, and he’s got very low standing with a group that he wants to control, so he never speaks during their meeting, but gradually, people realize that all decisions that get made are what he wanted—because he’s talked to everyone individually before the meetings. So that’s def related to what we’re talking here. But it can be done in more wholesome ways
That conflict is fascinating, that LBJ was very effective at what he did and executed some of the most important changes like civil rights, etc. but wasn't a very transparent or egalitarian leader. On the other hand, Ulysses Grant was supposed to be a good-hearted person who wanted to keep the peace, but he was inept and helmed one of the most corrupt administrations of all time.
Makes me wonder if driving consensus and running an efficient operation inevitably needs an iron hand and a manipulative approach (might not be a great strategy for personal fulfilment). Counter-examples I can think of are Lincoln, Washington, but I don't really know their stories deeply. Your anecdotes about LBJ are pushing me to read the biography ASAP.
In "The Founders", Jimmy Soni touches upon something similar – productivity at Paypal was highest when there was open conflict and bad blood driven by an authoritarian vision, and when a more good-natured CEO started to run more meetings, productivity stalled. Finally the CEO was ousted in LBJ fashion, by individually turning people against him behind his back.
There’s a term in Japanese for this called nemawashi
Very interesting article and recollections. I study conflict resolution, and what you mentioned on the two co-workers being liked for their warmth even if they were polarizing--while the other is disliked because of his polarizing as well as cold attitude--comes up very frequently in the research. People will pay attention to your friendly behavior, even if you are firm on your values. This often leads to better negotiations. Very insightful point on how telling the truth might not always lead to deeper relationships, but to their dissolution. Telling the truth is still better than not doing so. People respect people who stay aligned to their truths.
It’s really hard to go against a group once you start noticing things you don’t like about how it works. I have a friend who’s the game master of an RPG group. He wanted to share that hobby with his girlfriend, and at first his friends said they didn’t mind and that she was welcome to join. But when it actually came time for her to play, they admitted they felt uncomfortable and said they’d rather keep the games just between them.
This happened several times, which really frustrated my friend and made his girlfriend feel pretty bad about the whole situation. Since he’s the game master, he eventually decided he would bring his girlfriend to some of the campaigns anyway, even though the others weren’t happy about it.
I just find the whole situation sad, and I hope they can eventually figure out a way that works for everyone.
This is a common enough thing to be called "DM's GF syndrome", but it's IMO not really about the group as such, it's specifically about RPGs.
DM and his group are equal in some ways, but he's also their superior in how the game is run, what kind of things can happen in the setting, etc. He has higher narrative and mechanic rights than any of the players pretty much by definition. The entire affair is predicated on their voluntary submission to his power, so to speak. Additionally, DM has to be (to borrow Moldbug's phrase) disincentivised incentiviser. He is the enforcer of equality between players, and a person responsible for the entire campaign having sensible arcs, structure, balance, workable game session logistics, etc. DM should not prefer any one player over another, otherwise the rest stop having fun.
Either thing matches poorly to a relationship. You probably won't submit to John-your-BF the way you're supposed to submit to John-your-DM for him to do his thing. And treating Jane-the-GF as Jane-the-New-Player is gonna read like being an asshole to her, because the whole point of the relationship is to treat this particular person as if they were better than everyone else.
Compare to eg people joining non-DM'd but otherwise similar hobbies. Introducing your GF to (say) your local Warhammer community won't be really different for introducing any other newcomer.
I understand what you mean about the “DM’s GF syndrome,” and I agree that it can be a real issue in some RPG groups. But in my friend’s case the situation is a bit different. The group isn’t just an RPG group — they’re a long-standing group of friends who also happen to play RPGs together. They hang out in other contexts too, and when they meet casually (like going out for drinks) they have no problem with his girlfriend being there.
The confusing part is that when my friend asks them if they’d be okay with her joining a campaign, they say they’d love that and that they’re excited to play with her. But when the moment actually comes, they suddenly say they’d rather keep the game between themselves. This has happened several times, which is why it feels frustrating and confusing for him.
I think the real issue here is communication. If they actually prefer to keep the RPG group closed, that’s completely fair. But it would be much clearer and less hurtful to say that honestly from the start instead of saying they’re excited about the idea and then backing out later.
My friend has also been open with them about how important is to him to share it with his partner. So from my perspective the communication breakdown seems to be coming more from the group than from him.
This is a common enough thing to be called "DM's GF syndrome", but it's IMO not really about the group as such, it's specifically about RPGs.
DM and his group are equal in some ways, but he's also their superior in how the game is run, what kind of things can happen in the setting, etc. He has higher narrative and mechanic rights than any of the players pretty much by definition. The entire affair is predicated on their voluntary submission to his power, so to speak. Additionally, DM has to be (to borrow Moldbug's phrase) disincentivised incentiviser. He is the enforcer of equality between players, and a person responsible for the entire campaign having sensible arcs, structure, balance, workable game session logistics, etc. DM should not prefer any one player over another, otherwise the rest stop having fun.
Either thing matches poorly to a relationship. You probably won't submit to John-your-BF the way you're supposed to submit to John-your-DM for him to do his thing. And treating Jane-the-GF as Jane-the-New-Player is gonna read like being an asshole to her, because the whole point of the relationship is to treat this particular person as if they were better than everyone else.
Compare to eg people joining non-DM'd but otherwise similar hobbies. Introducing your GF to (say) your local Warhammer community won't be really different for introducing any other newcomer.
I think everyone can recognise themselves in some way in Beth. Thank you again for writing articles that make me feel.
Thank Beth! :)
Loved how many voices dance though this piece. And I’m walking away with the idea that telling the truth has a polar effect — an attractive and repulsive force
Group or mass psychology pressure is a powerful and potentially dangerous thing. It takes a very strong individual to be able to withstand strong group pressure. However, once you've done it, you know you can do it again.
The emotional work you mention is often expected to be made by the person looking for change, either in relation to individuals or in groups. At least that’s my experience. You’re asked to process your own discomfort while also absorbing everyone else’s. This gives you agency but can also make the change harder than staying put?
And on groups - Maybe one could describe the shift that is necessary to happen in relation to the break-out individual is as a paradigm shift? The individual can be a symptom of a larger number of anomalies that have accumulated and be the katalyst for a crisis/revolution/new era, or can be the first anomaly and thus be quieted by the current structure.
Thanks again for a great read!
This is not an answer, but your comment made me think of the work of Jakko Seikkula. His team do sort of dialogical group therapy with schizofrenics and people have psychosis and so on--during the acute phase, they gather friends and family and works through the situation communally. The idea being something like that the psychosis being a reaction to something being wrong in the social web (not discounting that the person might have a genetic predisposition etc, but that something in their situation usually provoked it, so they are like the canary in the coal mind almost). And so while things are in chaos, you bring everyone together, with some therapists, and open the pipes so people can articulate and share the suppressed stuff that lies beneath it all. And usually there is a lot of things that people haven't been saying to each other.
I'm not sure how well this works (they well), but it resonates with personal experiences, in that it is often useful when you get these ruptures so that the unspoken can be spoken, and that tends, if done with skill, to unblock also the people around the one who is in crisis, or talking up.
Yes Seikkula’s work maps onto that kind of thinking cleanly. I did some reading after your note. The results are striking, although as I understand it they have not been replicated elsewhere.
The concept ”polyphony of voices” is particularly interesting I think. The idea that the psyche is a system of voices that need to maintain a functional dialogue (a bit like IFS I suppose). But what may be even more interesting is the possible implication that many of these internal voices may be shared across the relational system, so that if one person ”gives voice” to something repressed there is often instant recognition in others in the group, because they themselves carry a version of thesame thing.
This also reflects your jamming analogy. If you’re jamming well you’re carrying the voices of others into the new melody so to speak.
I really enjoyed this piece, thank you Henrik. I agree how interesting it will be to explore the emotional work involved in following your own path and navigating the ensuing social friction.
It makes me think about love's role as a motivator and a support for following your own path. A quote, commonly attributed to Norwegian author Arne Garborg, that I have been pondering recently suggests that "to love a person is to learn the song that is in their heart and to sing it to them when they have forgotten". I wonder if Beth was learning to love herself in a new way, finding the song in her heart, and asking those she loved to also learn to love her in a new way.
I've just started to write about the place for love in policy and politics. Talk about trying to weave a dissonant melody into tightly controlled music! All loving support gratefully received.
This is really lovely, and hits home in multiple layers. Bravo.
Thanks a lot Henri. This email perfectly lands home for me. Beth’s story is similar to mine over the last 16 months— except for the part where she marries another person— as I had to stand up for something in marriage that my family didn’t approve of and support. Neglecting one’s worth based on external acceptance is indeed a challenging task and it feels even greater once you’ve surmounted it.
I really deeply appreciate this post.
I'm feeling anger on Beth's behalf at how she was treated by her community, and inspired by her courage.
Democratizing style, values, integrity, ethics, morality, knowledge, and even love has its strengths and weaknesses. The perception of shared features bond people together into communities of any size, and once bonded, members grow to share more and more features. So it is not surprising that they start intuiting that to be alike is to like, and to be dissimilar is to dislike, forgetting that, while resemblance and affinity influence each other, they must remain distinct or individual agency and relational honesty collapse. Of course, there is a balance - compromise can require sacrifice of self and/or relationship, not all of either, but some of each, perhaps, with the balance point determined by the stakes involved.
Thank you. This struck a chord with me. Life (and relationships) is so complex.