Broadcasting Brain

Here are my thoughts:

1. Can you belong to more than one tribe?
Of course. Everyone does. The Harley tribe or the Mormon tribe, the Obama tribe or the green movement...

2. Can you lead more than one tribe?
You can, but it's pretty tough to do this with all your heart. A minister, for example, might also lead an extended family or his local model rocketry club.

3. What happens when two tribes go to war?
People die. I don't write a lot about the negative aspects of tribes, but they are there and they are obvious. Mumbai...

4. Why is making a tribe exclusive supposed to be a good thing? I can see it from a bonding perspective, but to me that’s how bad feelings and bad feelings happen between groups: when they make themselves exclusive from each other.

Well, the goal isn't to avoid bad feelings, the goal is to make change. If you have no outsiders, then you can't have insiders. It's human nature, and we've always been that way.

5. What happens when people don’t want to be led?
Then, in general, don't lead them.

But what we've found throughout history is that for the right cause, in the right group, people want to be led. Very badly. The thing is that you don't get to determine the how or the when, the people do.

I think that this is my most important book because it is inclusive (anyone can do it) and highly leveragable. I also think it's important because it allows people to do work that matters, not just sell chocolate.

Seth, first of all, thank you very much for taking the time to leave a comment here.

I'll make some remarks on your comments.


1. Yes, it's pretty obvious that we can belong to multiple tribes. Does each tribe become weaker when it has part-time members instead of full-time members and when it's members divide their time and efforts? Maybe, maybe not. I guess that good leadership can make the most of whatever time-slices that they have available. On the other hand, unless you've got some full timers (at least one!), you probably won't be very effective.

2. Makes a lot of sense to me.

3. Fighting over territory (real, virtual, conceptual) strikes me as a big concern. Historically, at least, either the smartest, strongest, or most fanatical win. Maybe in the 21st century we can do better at avoiding conflict or at least humanely resolving it.

4. I think that I understand what you are saying about insiders vs. outsiders but at some point that's got to change. Ethnic group vs. ethnic group, denominations of Christianity (or any religion), Republican vs. Democrat, Mac vs. PC, etc. - some of these rivalries are more serious than others and some quibble over very small points of difference. However, sometimes those points of difference are used like walls when some form of compromise or dialog might be better. Human nature is what it is, but this naive guy hopes for something better.

5. Fair enough.


One question: you've got the manifesto in place for Tribes (forgive me if I've missed any developments on this end of things) but is there going to be a Tribes "handbook" or "guide" that provides more practical steps, etc. (I'm not sure if the Tribes Ning group is working on this or not...)? Seems to me like that's the next thing that people will be looking for.

A final comment: perhaps the reason why this book, good as it is, doesn't resonate with me like some of your other books is due more to my personality than anything else. Intellectually and, in a way, emotionally, the material in Ideavirus, Purple Cow, and the Dip appeal more to my interests - there are pieces of the tribe concept in those works as well.

One final comment: I used the word "hype" in terms of the coverage about your book Tribes. I have a tendency to be rather cynical about effusive feedback on anything, but the "hype" that I spoke of was not of your doing, it's the reviewers/evangelists's presentation. I've also seen a couple of reviews that were needlessly harsh. I'm trying to be somewhere in the middle: objective as I can.

At any rate, I continue to be an interested reader and fan of your work, Seth.

I'm in the Ning Triiibe, and as a habitual tribal heretic, I'm struggling. I ebb and flow with activity there, rarely feeling intelligent enough to comment. When I do, I tend to get lost in my own point!

On the one hand, Triiibes feels like a luxurious First Class Lounge at an airport...but there's an element of people posturing to show how clever they are. The beset thing is the access you have to some very busy, interesting and cool people, who, for Seth, are prepared to tolerate nobodies and engage in dialogue. Thus, there are intriguing learning opportunities. I would never have discovered a Becky Blanton had it not been for the "lounge" Seth has created.

Maybe that's where the change begins... by creating watering holes for the well-known and unknown to come together to learn from one another...and maybe that's where the seismic shift is that Seth feels his book, Tribes, has created. Could you have had one without the other? Would all of those folks have come there had it not been for someone like Seth who was in the throes of writing a book about it all?

Maybe there's room for a Mark Dykeman book on a his own comet and corona ----

interesting: I don't know if he would have envisaged the group as a place where the newbie mixes with the pro, so to speak, but maybe. That's certainly an indirect benefit of that group. I don't think this kind of group would ever have formed spontaneously, though.

I'd love to publish a book. Need to write one first...

There was open enrollment for a while with Triiibes. He posted the link on his blog, and if you explained yourself a bit you were accepted. I'm not sure you had to be recommended. You do now, however.

Did Seth invite Dr. Mani? Or did the fellow find him on his own? Dunno. what seems to have intrigued most people was Seth's invitation to be part of a book he was writing. In order to illustrate the concepts, he wanted them to exist in the purest form first. And because Seth has a following, he was able to pull that off.

You have a following. And a relatively sizable one is my guess. I don't know. I do know that those of us that "follow" you (read and digest your thoughts and writings) love the way you think and express things. Therefore, you already have your own tribe. And if you don't think you're leading it, so much the better for the therefore-must-be-empowered followers.

You and your folks could write a book, or could come together for something else. No reason not to. Just need a rallying cry, focal point, purpose... even if it's the green-brained, anti-exclusive, lunatic fringe, it's still a gang going someplace with you, in your light, on your journey....

That's all I was trying to say.

That's cool, I appreciate what you are saying.

I'm thankful that I have an audience at this point, regardless of size.

Thanks for commenting!

Excellent topic, Mark. I was discussing an overlapping topic in a recent post, Social Media Are Not Communities. Communities have a number of characteristics, including that members interact with each other and that there can be grassroots leaders. I'm wondering whether these concepts also apply within Tribes or does this point to the seeds of destruction for the Tribe.

I'll be checking out your post, Barry!