Find the Others

General
1

I’ve heard this phrase in a couple of conversations lately and I decided to make it more precise by pulling together some material by Terence McKenna, Douglas Rushkoff, and others, and generating some Gherkin. The bold scenarios were written by me to add some opportunities I see in today’s media landscape:

Feature: Find the others

As a person trying to act wisely in a complex and often chaotic world
I want to find and connect with other thoughtful, capable people
So that we can recover agency, build trust, and respond constructively together

Background:
Given the world feels complex, uncertain, and difficult to navigate
And many people feel isolated, overwhelmed, or unsure what to do next
And there is no single authority who can provide a complete script for how to live
And meaningful action depends on trust, shared language, and human connection

Scenario: Recognize that no one has a complete script
Given a person is looking for certainty from institutions, leaders, or inherited assumptions
When they realize that no one else can fully decide how they should live
Then they should accept responsibility for their own participation
And they should begin looking for others who are also trying to act with care and clarity

Scenario: Move beyond simple group identity
Given a person divides the world into “people like us” and “people unlike us”
When they encounter someone with a different worldview, background, or way of life
Then they should not assume that difference means opposition
And they should look for the human concerns, needs, and hopes beneath the difference

Scenario: Find signal in unfamiliar perspectives
Given someone says something that initially sounds strange, challenging, or incomplete
When another person listens for what may be true, useful, or sincere within it
Then they should try to identify the signal before rejecting the whole message
And they should respond in a way that makes better conversation possible

Scenario: Build trust before crisis
Given future disruptions are possible
And communities may need to coordinate under pressure
When people still have time to prepare
Then they should build trusted relationships now
And they should develop shared language before urgent decisions are required
And they should make it easier to act together when conditions change

Scenario: Recover agency through grounded action
Given a person feels overwhelmed by large-scale problems
When they focus only on what is too big to control
Then they may become passive, anxious, or resigned
But when they identify a concrete place to contribute
Then they can recover agency through action that is local, relational, and practical

Scenario: Become capable of doing something new
Given a person or group has been following inherited scripts
When existing paths no longer fit the situation
Then they should experiment with new responses
And they should learn by acting, reflecting, and adapting
And they should become capable of doing things they have not done before

Scenario: Create paths that make people come alive
Given formal paths may not lead where people need to go
When people discover better ways through practice, need, and lived experience
Then those paths should be noticed and strengthened
And people should be encouraged to follow paths that increase responsibility, aliveness, and care

Scenario: Choose human connection over abstraction
Given systems, institutions, markets, and media can make people feel faceless or distant
When someone is tempted to treat others as symbols of a problem
Then they should pause and look for the person behind the role or position
And they should prefer relationship, curiosity, and repair over dismissal

Scenario: Coordinate across multiple areas of need
Given meaningful response requires more than one kind of action
When people organize around shared challenges
Then they should consider practical needs such as infrastructure, care, ecology, governance, culture, and economic resilience
And they should recognize that these areas are connected
And they should invite people with different skills to contribute

Scenario: Find the others
Given no one can meet the complexity of the world alone
When a person seeks others with sincerity, courage, and care
Then they should find people who are also trying to understand and respond wisely
And together they should become more capable than they were alone

Scenario: Align a contribution with people who need it
Given I have an idea, offer, service, project, skill, resource, or other contribution

When I express this contribution in clear language
Then I should be able to find others who need it
And I should be able to find others whose complementary contributions could strengthen it
And others should be able to understand where my contribution fits
And I should be guided toward relevant conversations, projects, or people

Scenario: Invite people who are already using shared language
Given someone is already sensemaking using our shared language
And they use this shared language publicly on social media
And this usage is evidenced by tags, phrases, or other recognizable signals
When their contribution appears relevant to ongoing discussions
Then they should be notified that their contribution may be useful
And they should be able to quickly understand why it is relevant
And they should be able to offer their contribution with minimal time investment
And they should be able to decline without friction

Scenario: Route a contribution to the right context
Given someone offers a contribution
When the contribution is submitted, tagged, or described
Then it should be routed to the most relevant discussion, project, need, or working group
And the contributor should be shown why that context is a good fit
And the receiving group should be able to accept, redirect, or decline the contribution

Scenario: Match needs with offers
Given one person has expressed a need
And another person has expressed a relevant offer
When the need and offer appear aligned
Then both people should be made aware of the possible match
And each person should be able to decide whether to continue the conversation
And the system should support lightweight next steps without forcing commitment

Scenario: Preserve contributor agency
Given someone has been identified as potentially relevant to an ongoing discussion
When they are invited to contribute
Then the invitation should be respectful, specific, and optional
And it should not assume availability, agreement, or obligation
And the person should be able to contribute, follow, save for later, or opt out

Scenario: Make relevance legible
Given a contribution is surfaced to a person or group
When they review the contribution
Then they should be able to see which tags, themes, needs, or conversations made it relevant
And they should be able to correct the match if it is inaccurate
And that feedback should improve future matching

2

All of this seems generally unobjectionable. Is there an action plan attached? Assuming one is sympathetic to the various scenarios, how might one proceed? Is any of these a higher priority than the others?

3

The bold scenarios that I added are the missing mechanisms for much of the rest, as I see it. Douglas Rushkoff gave a talk around 20 years ago titled “Find the Others” and, while “others” have been finding each other, I think developments like Cloud Computing, Agentic AI, and so on, have created new opportunities for doing so. All of the work I’ve been doing with LTPs have been converging on a couple of leverage points related to this: amplifying one’s signal (contribution) and aligning that signal with those of others.

One way to look at these scenarios is a genealogical trace from vague suggestions by figures like Timothy Leary and Terence McKenna, to more tech-focused countercultural network gurus like Clay Shirky and Douglas Rushkoff, to a present vantage point where we can ask, has our finding been as successful as it needs to be? If not, how do we make it so?

4

As I reflect on my personal practice of this sort of thing, one thing that stands out is relevance framing of who the “others” are. In my case, the period 2004-2023 was defined by the search for “others” who could advance my professional goals. Starting in 2023, I pivoted to a search for “others” who were more broadly philosophically aligned around human development, social change, and social action.

In the 2004-2023 period I developed a LinkedIn network of over 1000 and a face-to-face presence in professional circles consistent with that. We could go into the mechanics of how to professionally network like that (if it’s of interest), but let’s just say it’s one of the keys to the kingdom of capitalist success. That general communications strategy involves meeting as many people as possible, looking for common ground, and identifying win-win opportunities.

In my more recent philosophical turn, it was not about the money. It was more about consolidating personal identity, meaning-making, and developing a network to support that. In retrospect, though, I do see the philosophical turn as consistent with a “social capital” strategy. Still maximizing, but according to a very different metric. The way that’s worked for me lately is trying to focus in on fewer, but deeper relationships. In stock investing, there is a distinction between “index investing” (buying all the names in the market) and a “concentrated book” (purchasing just a few selected names). I’ve lately I’ve been concentrating my “book” of others and trimming my involvement in channels that are of more marginal social return (to me). Paradoxically, though, I do a lot of thinking out loud in public channels (like this one), which is very much part of the old “grow the network” strategy I have always used. Who knows who is reading this who might become a valuable contact someday? The cost of posting is minimal. The potential payoff is good. So it seems like working with a limited set of high-quality collaborators in publicly visible ways is my current optimization approach.

6

Thanks, yes please do split it up a bit - it looks like there’s some interesting stuff in there!