Survival chances group vs. alone

[youthpastor]

Hey I'm trying to figure out what way you have a better chance to survive, alone or in a group? And why?

[Alpine_Sapper]

It depends on you, and the group. Skillsets of the individual as well as reactions to emergency situations all will come into effect.

Sometimes, being alone will get you killed.

Sometimes, being in a group can get you killed.

For example; you're in a small group situation where all three of you must paddle ferociously to avoid going over the falls. Teammate A is paddling like their life depends on it. Teammate B is freaking out and screaming "We all gonna DIE!" and flailing the air with their arms hysterically. Chances are, Teammate B is the reason everyone died on the sharp rocks below.

If you are by yourself, you should have a pretty good idea of the skillset and materials availalbe to you, at least one would hope. but what happens if you get into a situation where you need the assistance of another human?

There are no hard and fast rules as to whether being alone or in a group will be better as there are SO many variables. Leaders abilities, followers trust in said leader, etc etc.

[MatthewnOK]

I think it would depend on the group. Example if you had one trained survivalist and several people who didn't know pine from poison ivy it could cause problems. If you have several people who are trained in outdoor skills I think it would be a great boon. One could start a fire, while the other started a shelter, and one set snares/fished etc. Also if each of you had a small survival kit you would have everything doubled/tripled. On the downside all water and food would have to be split up, possible shorting you on calories.

[crashdive123]

Youthpastor - the checklist in this THREAD will help others with the answers you are looking for. Letting us know about yourself in the Introduction section may help as well. Thanks

[DOGMAN]

If you get a group of people together that know nothing about a subject...
combined do they know more about the subject or less about the subject, that an individual member does?

[Sarge47]

If you are what your screen name suggests then do the right thing & give us a good intro. I'm not one for finessing, but your question was a poor one. You seldom get the chance to pick the type of true survival situation you'll be in: either solo or alone...it just happens!

[Dennis K.]

I've been through a number of corporate team-building seminars.
Frequently, groups are presented with some scenario (sometimes a plane crash in a desert, or a shipwreck on an island or stranded in a snow storm), given a list of goals, and a list of materials. Each person individually ranks their supplies and goals, like from 1 to 10. Then, the group discusses the rankings and comes up with a group ranking for the goals and supplies. Then, the individual rankings are scored, and the collective group rankings are scored.
Most often, the group scores are significantly better than the individual scores, indicating that the group would handle an adverse situation better than an individual.

These scenarios do not take into account individual training, individual preparation, local area knowledge, etc. There is also a certain psychology within a group. Just as fire can lift your spirits, an extra person to share the workload can ease the stress of isolation.

Statistically, pairs or small groups fare better than individuals in SAR operations. Some of the SAR guys here can probably weigh in on that.

Ropes courses, Scouts, much military training - is based on team-building and functioning as a unit, because a cohesive unit is usually stronger than the sum of it's parts.

There are, however, certain individuals who do fare better alone.
Alaskan homesteaders - Hopeak - I think he sees more bears per year than humans.
Some of the guides here - probably would be fine.
Even so, I suspect they would prefer to have some other people around in a real survival situation. But, they can speak for themselves.

[ClayPick]

That’s really an open ended question. If there where no whiners in a group, I’d gladly take the advantage of a pool of knowledge.

[bulrush]

I'd rather team up with someone who knew nothing and was willing to learn, than be by myself. Two people can have better ideas than one. Plus you would have someone to ***** to:

"Man, this squirrel you cooked is awful."
"Yep, I try."
"Well you did a great job at messing it up."
"F*** you."
"F*** you too."
(pause)
"I love the outdoors."
"Yup."

[SARKY]

Many years ago when "Survivor" first came on the air I applied to be a contestant. I am very glad I wasn't picked as I think they would have frowned upon me using my fellow contestants (The whiney ones) for either bait or food. (YUM! the other white meat)
2 things I can't stand are whiners and quiters!
When students ask what the first thing they should do in a given situation, I tell them "first wish it wasn't like this, then get on with surviving" .
A good group of people is a pleasure to survive with, even under the most dire of situations where as a horid group of people is torture to survive with even under the most pleasant of situations.

[old soldier]

no doubt about it, a group gives you more protection BUT

I'm a loner all the way and trust no one except my immediate family, I even have my doubts about son and daughter in laws, they also have family whom their loyalties should lay with, but they are married to my sons and daughters and that makes them my responcibility.I wouldn't want to have my family here and in great shape for a couple yrs and then have my DILs family show up with just the rags on their backs, it could be very embarrassing or even bloody, maybe even break up some familys.

I've spent the past couple yrs printing out info for them hoping they will pass it on and start prepping so i figure they have all got the warnings. I don't believe in the old saying, "we'll all starve together" they'll starve before me if they aren't prepared

[MCBushbaby]

Instantly reminded me of the movie Defiance. Band of brothers only three-strong go into the woods to escape the Nazis, but eventually accumulate Jewish survivors and grow into a group of something like >100. With a group you begin having politics, social ordinances, democracy, etc. In a SHTF situation, martial law is always preferred over group dynamics. A large group also attracts more people, good or bad. A larger group gives more resources but also requires more. Large grounds leave a definitive impact where they stay verses a small group that can easily practice evasion. Moving a large ground is slow and noisy progress. Unless you have a group of trained personnel, you're going to be stuck carrying the sick, weak, old, and young. Babies and children will really **** you over if you're trying to evade silently. However if the 'enemy' knows you are somewhere in a wood and are actively pursuing you, a larger group with adequate weaponry has a much better chance of defense than individuals. When evasion fails, a small group will perish but a large group can fight.

However this is evasion. If you are expecting to start a new community - farming, society, all that stuff - then a larger group is a necessity. It's infinitely easier to sow the field and manage the crop with a large group without putting strain on resources. Therefor, it depends on the stage of SHTF: early vs recovery.

[DOGMAN]

I'd say...look at yourself now. Do you surround yourself with people, or do you keep your own council. Go with what works for you. Know yourself and your own strengths and weaknesses.

[vthompson]

If I were by myself, I could make it on my own. But now I have my wife and our grandkids to think about. Awhile back, me and two of my closest neighbors were discussing survival situations, and we all agreed that we each had something different to bring to the table.
I have always hunted and fished and I am pretty wood's savvy. One neighbor is a farmer so he could contribute in that manner. The second neighbor is a retired state policeman and all around jack of all trades. Our wives likewise have different specialties. So I think that we could cover all of our bases.
To me the problem would be from outsiders wanting to join up with us, and then run us short of our provisions.
I guess that we would have a group meeting to see what the outsiders could contribute or be willing to do to help out, and then vote on it.

[SARKY]

vthompson, Pick up and read "Lucifers Hammer" it is a fiction that delves deep into a group of people only allowing into their enclave those people that can contribute something to the group. a very good read

[Rick]

I guess it depends on the circumstances. By nature I think of myself as a group guy. Family for sure. I think we do better with others. We can rely on their strengths. Sort of a synergy thing. I could make it on my own under the right circumstances and in the right location but I think a group thing would be better.

If I were in Sri Lanka I know I'd want Jay around. Hope and/or Klkak in AK. My knowledge base is here in the Midwest so I'd fair pretty well here.

[Fletcher]

Hey I'm trying to figure out what way you have a better chance to survive, alone or in a group? And why?

This question is a difficult one to answer.
The right group the answer is yes a group is the way to go..............
The wrong group the answer is no a group would not be the way to go.........

[bulrush]

I guess what I meant was, your attitude is primary, even if you know nothing about survival. A positive attitude is the primary thing you need to survive. That allows you to learn new things and get through the tough times. Various studies have shown that, whether in an outdoor survival situation, or if you have a medical condition threatening your life (like cancer), people with a positive attitude have a much greater chance for survival.

That said, I won't team up with someone with a bad attitude. If you want to be alone, be alone, but don't muck things up with your attitude.

[BruceZed]

It all depends on the Group and its training level and how cooperative they are. Some groups have defied the odds and lived well in survival situations where others have disintegrated and caused themselves more difficulties by being a group.

[klkak]

Unfortunately I have been in a "Real" survival situation or two. I am ever so glad there were others with me. One of those occasions forever changed my life.

It is writen that:

9. Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their work:

10. If one falls down,
his friend can help him up.
But pity the man who falls
and has no one to help him up!

11. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
But how can one keep warm alone?

12. Though one may be overpowered,
two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.