Survival chances group vs. alone

[Ole WV Coot]

Doncha just hate it when yer watching a real good *itch slapping session going on in a thread and a couple of people go and start posting back to the original question of the thread. Geez, you guys, the scrappers were almost in tears here---that would've been great!

It just ain't right for sure. Best not to stir it up, those high heels are pointy. I
would have a rough time trying to fight back with one hand and have a dictionary in the other trying to find out what I was just called. Guess we are
just uncivilized. Back of the head with an EMPTY beer bottle, remember son?
Now that is the civilized way.

[trax]

It just ain't right for sure. Best not to stir it up, those high heels are pointy. I
would have a rough time trying to fight back with one hand and have a dictionary in the other trying to find out what I was just called. Guess we are
just uncivilized. Back of the head with an EMPTY beer bottle, remember son?
Now that is the civilized way.

You do always keep things in perspective for me Pop, thanks.

[Norse&Native]

Since this thread has pretty well deteriorated, I'd like to throw something vaguely on-topic back into it.

Regarding survival: independent vs. group and what I've learned from this thread alone:

It's pretty clear that some types of people would survive better independently, because any group would surely rank them out and kill them him within the first few minutes.

It really just depends on what kind of a person you are. If you're a knowledgeable person that makes their skills available and useful to a group, and can indeed work within a group, your chances of survival within that group and the chances of the survival of the group on the whole are greatly increased.

But, if you're a loud-mouth, know-it-all @$$HOLE that would rather be right than be useful, chances are you probably won't survive with a group, and probably won't do too well on your own, either.

[Ken]

Since this thread has pretty well deteriorated, I'd like to throw something vaguely on-topic back into it.

Regarding survival: independent vs. group and what I've learned from this thread alone:

It's pretty clear that some types of people would survive better independently, because any group would surely rank them out and kill them him within the first few minutes.

It really just depends on what kind of a person you are. If you're a knowledgeable person that makes their skills available and useful to a group, and can indeed work within a group, your chances of survival within that group and the chances of the survival of the group on the whole are greatly increased.

But, if you're a loud-mouth, know-it-all @$$HOLE that would rather be right than be useful, chances are you probably won't survive with a group, and probably won't do too well on your own, either.

Excellent observations.

[wildography]

This has been an interesting thread...

Some of you have gone to "mountain man" rendevous (spelling?) and this thread makes me think of the mountain men of old... generally speaking the mountain me went out on their own, or at times with one other person... but once a year, or sometimes a little more often, they would all get together to re-supply, reconnect, party, and hang out together. As the fur trade started to deteriorate some, some of the guys went on to buffalo hunting or other endeavors... with the buffalo hunters, generally the groups were small... 3-5 people typically, sometimes more...

to my mind, that is the way to "do it" when the SHTF, resulting in TEOTWAWKI... small groups, maybe 3-5 men (or familes) with other small groups scattered through the area.

The "frontiersmen" of the Daniel Boone/Simon Kenton era would often do the same thing... have regular gatherings with other families, etc. And during times of crisis, in their instance "Indian" uprisings, the small groups would get together for mutual protection,support, etc

To me, that is the way to go.. have "units" of 1-3 men/families with other "units" maybe within in 20-50 miles of each other... closer or further away depending on the area of the country, etc...

that way... for the most part, you can tolerate people "for a while", whereas, if they were there every day... you'd end up killing each other... which would sometimes happen at the mountain men rendevous...

[Norse&Native]

Excellent observations.

Absolutely. Thank you.

[Rick]

I agree with Norse to an extent. However, it would be the very rare group that someone didn't think someone else in the group was an a$$. I don't think that's the criteria. It's more our ability to productively deal with them and them us. They may, afterall, feel the very same way about us. So we either end up killing each other because we are both a$$holes or we do the civilized thing and learn to deal effectively with each other.

I'm sure most on here have taken the Jung-Myers-Briggs personality test or some variation. While it is helpful to understand the type of personality you have, what traits you exhibit and who best you get along with, I think it far more important to understand we are all different and still all similar and learn to deal with it.

To suggest that one person would be singled out in a group to be eliminated because we didn't like them seems to be a tragic waste of life and a terrible group mind set. I doubt a group with that mentality could survive in the long run.

Every neighborhood has an a$$hole. If yours doesn,t then you are probably it.

[Dennis K.]

I think Wildography has a pretty realistic outlook. You have an immediate circle that is the most trusted. Then there are more distant circles, then even more distant circles. Your closest circle is with you daily - the farther out from that circle a person is, the more distant the relationship, etc - the less you rely on that person or group for daily survival.
SO - occasionally, the groups come together - like families - going to a grocery store.

[Rick]

Now THAT'S a great analogy. Great post, Dennis.

[klkak]

Originally Posted by Norse&Native
Since this thread has pretty well deteriorated, I'd like to throw something vaguely on-topic back into it.

Regarding survival: independent vs. group and what I've learned from this thread alone:

It's pretty clear that some types of people would survive better independently, because any group would surely rank them out and kill them him within the first few minutes.

It really just depends on what kind of a person you are. If you're a knowledgeable person that makes their skills available and useful to a group, and can indeed work within a group, your chances of survival within that group and the chances of the survival of the group on the whole are greatly increased.

But, if you're a loud-mouth, know-it-all @$$HOLE that would rather be right than be useful, chances are you probably won't survive with a group, and probably won't do too well on your own, either.

Excellent observations.

So when do we get to "rank out" and "kill" That member that finds it necessary to use "essay's" for posts. You know the one. Fat, bald, lonely and thinks he's smarter then everyone else on the forum. He's a real "loud-mouth, know-it-all @$$hole that would rather be right then be useful. I think his screen name starts with an "R"?

[Rick]

WELL! I rest my case, sir.

[Amazon]

Well my brothers thank you all for the shower of pee...is the contest over?!

I believe the group situation is best for me and mine. We work well together and everyone has skills that are needed. Our group is made up of mostly family members with a few very close friends. Everyone puts in sweat equity and money to maintain our survival refuge. We all retreat there one weekend a month as a group to practice our plans and skills. It's part of our guidelines for belonging and it works. DH and I are there often, as we have a (private) shooting range on the property, three, one acre gardens and all the livestock.
We are secure in the knowledge that we work great as a team or as a single
individuals.

[Alpine_Sapper]

Well my brothers thank you all for the shower of pee...is the contest over?!

I believe the group situation is best for me and mine. We work well together and everyone has skills that are needed. Our group is made up of mostly family members with a few very close friends. Everyone puts in sweat equity and money to maintain our survival refuge. We all retreat there one weekend a month as a group to practice our plans and skills. It's part of our guidelines for belonging and it works. DH and I are there often, as we have a (private) shooting range on the property, three, one acre gardens and all the livestock.
We are secure in the knowledge that we work great as a team or as a single
individuals.

That's awesome, and different. Most people think of survival in a group in terms of being solo, and then connecting to a group. If you are not friendly with the people beforehand, in a survival situation, most people will withdraw rather than open up to outsiders. Otherwise, why would there be so much media hype about not falling into "protecionism?"

[Ken]

So when do we get to "rank out" and "kill" That member that finds it necessary to use "essay's" for posts. You know the one. Fat, bald, lonely and thinks he's smarter then everyone else on the forum. He's a real "loud-mouth, know-it-all @$$hole that would rather be right then be useful. I think his screen name starts with an "R"?

Now you've done it, Klkak!

Now some frustrated essay-writer (who usually lurks around without logging-in) is gonna' start making juvenile remarks about your wife. He's gonna' call your dogs morons. He's gonna' suggest you go **** yourself. Then he's gonna' ask the Super Moderators to kill the thread before you can respond.

Loud mouth know-it-all runs back inside school from playground and cries: "Teacher! Teacher! Please protect me from Klkak! He's gonna' whip my butt just because I was saying real nasty things about his girlfriend and his dogs and told him to **** himself."

Teacher replies: "Get back out to the playground, Remy! Klkak ain't gonna' hurt you none today. There's 10 kids in line ahead of him and only 5 minutes of recess left."

[trax]

Well my brothers thank you all for the shower of pee...is the contest over?!

You gotta hang around a little longer Amazon, they're just getting warmed up.

[DOGMAN]

I think for long term survival a group situation would be ideal. Not in a barricaded Mad Max commune way. But, in a small scale barter society way. A tribal set-up, where a group watches out for one another and helps in certain areas, but day-to-day living is done in a family arrangement.
I think I could get by fine with just 5-6 wives, and a colony of children to work for me.

[Ken]

I think I could get by fine with just 5-6 wives, and a colony of children to work for me.

Three kids and I always got my own newspaper.............

[Ole WV Coot]

I think Wildography has a pretty realistic outlook. You have an immediate circle that is the most trusted. Then there are more distant circles, then even more distant circles. Your closest circle is with you daily - the farther out from that circle a person is, the more distant the relationship, etc - the less you rely on that person or group for daily survival.
SO - occasionally, the groups come together - like families - going to a grocery store.

Yep, a very realistic outlook and one I can understand. I couldn't have said it better myself, well maybe but sometimes I doubt it. Can't find any holes in that logic at all.

[crashdive123]

Think about what Remy has done on this thread. He has demonstrated that a group can easily be fractured by the actions of some. Pretty sure that was his intent all along. I guess the question would be, if you had some sort of relationship before hand as we do here would you move to remove or banish percieved trouble makers from your group in order to maintain harmony in the group? What if that individual had a valuable skill or equipment? If they were needed by the group would you strive to smooth over the rough edges in order to get along as a group?

[Ken]

Think about what Remy has done on this thread. He has demonstrated that a group can easily be fractured by the actions of some. Pretty sure that was his intent all along. I guess the question would be, if you had some sort of relationship before hand as we do here would you move to remove or banish percieved trouble makers from your group in order to maintain harmony in the group? What if that individual had a valuable skill or equipment? If they were needed by the group would you strive to smooth over the rough edges in order to get along as a group?

If a mosquito starts buzzing around your head, you try to swat it away. If it keeps coming back or starts to draw even the smallest amount of blood, you don't ignore it - you squash it.