This piece is not about canceling Scott Adams.
I am not dancing on his grave.
It is not about denying his intelligence, his cultural impact, or the genuine insight found in his work on persuasion. I was a longtime fan. I laughed at Dilbert in a cubicle at Apple Computer in the 1990s. I own his books. I followed his thinking for years. I believed we shared a skepticism of institutional power and a commitment to clear reasoning.
This is about a documented exchange, what it reveals about ego and persuasion, and why so many people—especially men in liberty-adjacent movements—reacted to defend Adams come what may.
I’m going to walk through the facts carefully, because precision matters.
The Exchange (What Actually Happened)
On October 12, 2022, Scott Adams reacted publicly to a Pfizer executive video suggesting that key COVID vaccine data—specifically transmission-related data—had not been collected prior to rollout.
Adams tweeted (paraphrased):
“Um, we are just hearing this now?????????”
I replied directly to him:
“Dude. If you were independently following the data, this was 100% clear. But I am really glad you are coming around. Now help us get #Nuremberg2 going. Heads must roll. (I’m speaking mostly metaphorically. Mostly.)”
This reply is important to parse accurately.
“Dude” was used in a casual, colloquial, gender-neutral, we-got-this way.
I acknowledged his shift in understanding (“glad you are coming around”).
I invited him to leverage his platform toward accountability.
The call for “heads must roll” was explicitly framed as metaphorical.
This was not a personal attack. It was an attempt at alliance-building.
Adams responded with sarcasm:
“You were independently following the data that was not collected. Good for you.”
This framed my point as “guessing,” rather than as a valid inference drawn from the absence of safety data—a standard analytical practice in law, risk assessment, and scientific skepticism.
I replied:
“Yes, Big Bulb. It’s called extrapolating conclusions from the lack of data. If they tell you it’s ‘safe,’ but there’s no data to prove it’s safe, one may conclude they cannot prove their claim. We critical thinkers also call that ‘a tell.’”
At this point, the exchange escalated sharply.
Adams began using direct personal insults, including (as captured in screenshots and later documented on my blog):
“Look, bitch”
“cunt”
“fucking idiot”
“asshole”
He accused me of starting the exchange with a “sexist, dismissive insult” (“dude”) and of being “horrible and wrong.”
Two representative Adams tweets from later in the thread (verbatim):
“You’re surprised that starting a conversation with an insult didn’t go your way? Fucking idiot.”
“You started with a sexist, dismissive insult and then proceeded to make an uninformed point that showed no understanding of my views. Then you face-planted by being both horrible and wrong at the same time in public. Own it.”
I pushed back, defending “dude” as neutral and pointing out the substance of my argument. The exchange ended with Adams dismissing my reasoning as equivalent to guessing:
“In the same way guessing is science.”
Shortly thereafter, Adams blocked me and deleted several of his most explicit insult tweets.
This sequence is not disputed. Screenshots exist. The deletions occurred.
Why This Matters: Adams Failed His Own Framework
This matters because Scott Adams was not just any public figure.
He explicitly positioned himself as an authority on persuasion.
In Win Bigly, Adams lays out several core principles:
Humans are “moist robots,” driven more by emotion and framing than raw facts.
Effective persuasion requires pacing (meeting someone where they are).
It requires leading, not humiliating.
It requires high-ground maneuvers—appealing to shared values rather than personal attacks.
Above all, it requires ego discipline. Ego, Adams repeatedly warns, is the enemy of influence.
By his own criteria, Adams failed—completely.
- No pacing
I explicitly acknowledged his shift and welcomed it. He responded with mockery.
- No leading
Instead of steering toward shared goals (accountability, skepticism of power), he escalated into personal abuse.
- No high ground
He abandoned principle for insult, focusing obsessively on whether “dude” was sexist rather than addressing the underlying claim.
- Ego collapse
Rather than engaging with the argument—that absence of safety data is itself meaningful—he reframed disagreement as a personal affront to his intelligence.
This is not persuasion. It is status defense.
Mad Scientism and the Messenger Problem
Many defenders of Adams argue that he was “playing the odds”—that vaccination was a rational risk/reward calculation given available information at the time.
That argument is coherent.
But notice what happens next.
When a woman points out that the lack of data itself was the red flag—something many skeptics, especially mothers and caregivers, had been saying for decades—the response is not curiosity. It is dismissal.
This is where mad scientism enters.
Mad scientism is not science. It is faith in authority masquerading as rationality.
It privileges credentials over inference, institutions over lived evidence, and compliance over skepticism. And like all belief systems, it reacts aggressively to heresy.
Women who question medical authority are not treated as skeptics. We are treated as emotional, intuitive, paranoid, crazy, or rude—even when we are correct.
If a man revises his position later, it is called growth.
If a woman is right early, it is called guessing.
When Disgust Becomes Casual — and Dangerous
This isn’t just an online tone problem.
We’re seeing a broader cultural pattern in how men in positions of power react when a woman resists or questions authority — a pattern that shows up across contexts, from trivial to lethal, with the same reflexive contempt.
In Minneapolis in January 2026, cellphone footage from a fatal ICE enforcement action captured a federal officer uttering the words “fucking bitch” immediately after shooting a woman. That language wasn’t private. It was recorded, published, and then debated by institutions more focused on narrative management than reckoning.
I’m not equating an X exchange with a shooting.
I’m pointing to a shared cultural reflex:
the reflex to reach for demeaning language when a woman resists
the reflex to justify power after the fact
the reflex to argue tone instead of conduct
What makes this moment especially strange for me is that the Minneapolis footage exists at all in part because of work I did years earlier.
In 2014, I was the plaintiff in Gericke v. Begin, a First Circuit case that affirmed the First Amendment right to record police in public. That precedent helped normalize the idea that state power should be observable — that encounters like this don’t belong solely to official narratives.
Which makes the reactions to my Adams essay revealing.
Defending the right to film authority is widely praised. Using that same right — and the same analytical posture — to document misconduct or name a pattern? Suddenly that’s “too much,” “unnecessary,” or “beneath you.”
The reflex is the same.
The woman who insists on seeing clearly becomes the problem — not the behavior she’s pointing to.
That reflex didn’t start with Scott Adams. But it showed up there too — on a smaller scale, without physical violence, and without consequence.
The Deeper Pattern
Our X exchange was not unique. It was simply more visible.
For decades, women—particularly mothers of vaccine-injured children—have raised concerns about safety, liability shields, and lack of long-term data. They were dismissed, mocked, and punished long before COVID.
COVID didn’t create this dynamic. It exposed it.
And when someone like Scott Adams—brilliant, influential, accustomed to being the smartest guy in the room—was confronted with that reality, ego won.
Not just ego.
Deletion. Blocking. Erasure.
The Redemption Arc That Never Happened
There’s one more detail that matters, especially for those accusing me of bad faith.
Before Scott Adams died, I reached out—quietly—to his biographer. Not publicly. Not performatively. Privately.
I suggested the possibility of a redemption arc.
Not a gotcha. Not an apology. Just an acknowledgment that sometimes, near the end, people soften. Sometimes they realize that being unyielding isn’t strength. Sometimes they unblock. Sometimes they listen. Sometimes they model what growth actually looks like.
I wasn’t trying to humiliate him.
I was offering a way to end well.
There was no response.
And that matters, because it exposes something uncomfortable for the people who are angry at me now.
Why the Anger Is Misplaced
Let’s be honest about what’s happening.
Scott Adams was in the wrong in that exchange. Not morally complex wrong. Not tragically misunderstood wrong. Just… wrong.
He insulted. He escalated. He blocked. He deleted evidence.
And yet the fury isn’t directed at that.
It’s directed at me, the woman who names it.
That’s the pattern.
People are mad at me not because I was inaccurate, but because I refused to help preserve a comforting illusion: that brilliance excuses bad behavior, and that calling something out is more offensive than doing it.
Pointing out wrongdoing disrupts group cohesion.
Especially when the wrongdoer is admired.
Especially when the truth-teller is inconvenient.
Instead of asking, “Why did he react that way?”
The group asks, “Why couldn’t she let it go?”
Instead of grappling with ego, power, and persuasion failure, they ask me to be quieter, softer, kinder, more forgiving.
That displacement is not accidental.
Why This Feels Familiar to Me
This is, in many ways, the story of my life.
Seeing something early.
Saying it plainly.
Being punished for naming it.
Whether it’s vaccines, censorship, regulatory capture, government overreach, power dynamics, or bad behavior dressed up as brilliance—the response is often the same: attack the messenger, preserve the hierarchy, move on without reckoning.
Those who benefit from that hierarchy want the view without the accountability required to stand there.
And when the reckoning finally comes—after damage is done, after positions quietly reverse—there’s an unspoken hope that no one will remember who said what, or when.
That hope depends on silence.
I’m not interested in that bargain.
The Real Work (Still Unfinished)
If this essay (or my previous one) makes you angry—if your instinct is to correct me rather than examine Scott Adams’ behavior—that’s not my work to do.
That’s yours.
The work is noticing why accountability feels like an attack.
The work is asking why a woman pointing out a clear failure feels more threatening than the failure itself.
The work is asking why admitting error feels like annihilation instead of growth.
Scott Adams is gone.
But the pattern that protected him—and turned on me—is very much alive.
And until that changes, we’ll keep losing allies we could have had.
The Takeaway (For the Living)
This isn’t about condemning a dead man.
It’s about deciding what kind of movement we want to build.
Movements that survive learn to hear inconvenient truths—even when they come from people who aren’t supposed to be right.
Ego kills persuasion.
Status defense kills coalitions.
If we want allies instead of echo chambers, we have to get better at listening—
even when it stings.
Especially then.
Dude, that’s the work.
Before you do anything else, buy your Porcupine Day tickets right now! Thank you to our top level sponsor, FSB-DAC, the most insider Bitcoin conference in the world, coming up again October 2026. Only in the Free State.
Welcome to The Independents, live from the Free State, where we sort signal from narrative and call things what they are.
Today’s show covers a lot of ground—because liberty never sleeps:
- The Dilbert creator saga: Scott Adams is dead, the internet is weird, and there are lessons here about ego, bitterness, repentance, and what happens when smart people trust the wrong institutions.
- The new food pyramid (finally): Protein and vegetables take the crown while pasta and low-fat ideology get benched. Your body knew this. Science is just catching up.
- Rand Paul and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. working together to prosecute Fauci—accountability is back on the menu.
- Campus Carry: The bill gets a hearing today in New Hampshire. Shouldn’t the Constitution apply everywhere equally?
- Tomorrow’s Spy Bill: Should the governor have her own intelligence agency? What could possibly go wrong?
- Ed-Opt events and what’s coming up next in the Free State.
- Porc Day X–celebrating 10 years of triggering NH statists. Get your tix today: https://community.fsp.org/event/porcd…
This show isn’t about left vs. right.
It’s about truth vs. bullshit, health vs. dogma, and liberty vs. permanent emergency powers.
Live free or die.
Live free—and thrive!
Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert—and a man who once took it upon himself to call me some pretty shitty names—died from what’s being called turbo cancer. He was wrong about vaccines. He was wrong about trusting Big Pharma. And he paid the ultimate price.
Anger, bitterness, and meanness rarely help outcomes. Ego least of all.
Adams claimed to have repented at the end, and for that I am genuinely glad. Mercy matters. Still, if I’m being honest—and it’s hard not to be, given how despicably he treated me—I wasn’t overwhelmed by the depth of his remorse or sincerity. I hope God was in a good mood for the dude.
If you missed my particular run-in with Scott Adams, here’s the essential context. The original tweet that set him off read:
“Dude. If you were independently following the data, this was 100% clear. But I am really glad you are coming around. Now help us get ‘Nuremberg2’ going. Heads must roll. (I am speaking metaphorically. Mostly.)”
That word—dude.
That “dude,” paired with the assertion that some of us did figure it out. That some of us did know. That some of us did keep questioning even as dissent was erased, reputations were destroyed, and silence was enforced.
No, we didn’t “luck out,” as Adams later claimed. We stayed skeptical. We stayed discerning. In my case, I had already been harmed enough by the state to know better than to trust it—especially when fear is deliberately manufactured to control behavior.
Scott Adams fell for it. He fell for the snake-oil promises of the Gods of Science, for the madmen in lab coats selling certainty in exchange for obedience. A trope so old it has a name—mad scientism—yet suddenly scrubbed from cultural memory through coordinated censorship. Poof. Gone.
The “dude” was perceived as an attack. Adams was accustomed to being the smartest guy in the room. In this case, the room was the internet—and his ego could not tolerate the idea that others had made better decisions than he had. He’d been outsmarted. And tragically, he learned too late that the government does not care about you.
It’s a shell game. An attention Ponzi scheme. The next policy always benefits the few at the expense of the many. From cannon fodder to collateral damage to Covid lab leak — the words evolve, but the human cost is always the same.
He learned that too late.
And it cost him his life.
What still bothers me about the Scott Adams saga isn’t the disagreement—it’s this:
First, decent men do not speak to women with casual cruelty. Calling a woman asking for your help a “cunt” is gross. It’s unmanly. He was wrong.
Second, instead of using his massive platform to help the health-freedom movement, he blocked me.
Third, he devoted airtime to debating whether “dude” was sexist. The internet answered: Nah, dude. He still didn’t unblock me.
Fourth, he could have—should have—become the world’s most powerful antivaccine advocate. Maybe he did. I wouldn’t know. He blocked me.
As I write this now, what I feel most is compassion. Scott Adams may yet become the poster child for vaccine injury in whatever public reckoning–Nuremberg 2 with Fauci in the hot seat? Fingers crossed–eventually arrives. He would hate that. But he would also love being remembered.
And somehow, that feels fitting.
Dude.
I’ve introduced a weekly Sunday night to Tuesday lunch fast into my routine. Here’s what GROK thinks:
From Sunday 8:00 PM to Tuesday 1:23 PM is 41 hours and 23 minutes.Quick breakdown:Sunday 8:00 PM → Monday 8:00 PM = 24 hours
Monday 8:00 PM → Tuesday 8:00 PM = 24 hours
→ subtotal so far: 48 hours to Tuesday 8:00 PM
Then subtract the extra time from Tuesday 8:00 PM back to 1:23 PM
(8:00 PM – 1:23 PM = 6 hours and 37 minutes earlier)
So: 48 hours − 6 hours 37 minutes = 41 hours 23 minutesAlternatively (direct calculation): Sunday 8 PM to Tuesday 8 PM = 48 hours
Tuesday 8 PM to Tuesday 1:23 PM = go back 6 hours 37 minutes
→ 48 − 6:37 = 41 hours 23 minutes
Total: 41 hours and 23 minutes (or exactly 41.3833… hours if you want it in decimal form).
Health benefits of such a length water fast plus add 30sec dead hanging daily, 10lbs overhead ball bounce x30 daily, plus 6 miles on snow trails with crampons *30F
A 41-hour water fast (from Sunday 8 PM to Tuesday 1:23 PM) combined with your described daily activities—30 seconds of dead hanging, 30 overhead ball bounces (interpreting this as explosive medicine ball overhead throws or slams with a 10-lb ball), and 6 miles of snow trail walking in 30°F conditions—can offer several potential health benefits, primarily around metabolic health, fat loss, cellular repair, strength/mobility gains, and cardiovascular improvements.This routine blends short-term fasting with light-to-moderate exercise in a cold environment, which research suggests can enhance fat-burning and other adaptations. However, benefits are most pronounced in healthy individuals, and exercise during fasting (even short fasts like this) should be approached cautiously—stick to low-to-moderate intensity, listen to your body, and prioritize hydration/electrolytes (e.g., add a pinch of salt to water if needed). Strenuous activity isn’t ideal during fasting due to reduced glycogen and potential fatigue.Key Potential BenefitsEnhanced Fat Loss and Metabolic Shift
A ~41-hour fast depletes glycogen stores (typically after 12–24 hours), shifting your body to burn fat for fuel (ketosis begins). This promotes weight loss (mostly water/glycogen initially, then fat) and improves insulin sensitivity. Adding exercise amplifies this: the 6-mile cold walk increases calorie burn (cold exposure boosts energy expenditure to maintain body heat, potentially activating brown fat for extra calorie use), while the explosive ball work and hangs add metabolic demand. Overall, this combo can accelerate fat oxidation compared to fasting or exercise alone.
Autophagy and Cellular Repair
Fasting for 24–72 hours ramps up autophagy (cells recycling damaged parts), linked to reduced inflammation, better longevity, and lower chronic disease risk (e.g., heart disease, diabetes). Exercise (especially endurance like walking) may enhance this process mildly. Short fasts like yours show promise for these benefits without the risks of longer ones.
Cardiovascular and Blood Pressure Improvements
Short fasts can lower blood pressure, cholesterol/triglycerides, and improve heart metrics. The 6-mile snowy trail walk in cold weather adds cardio benefits: cold exposure may improve endurance, vascular health, and mood while burning more calories than in warm conditions. This low-impact activity supports heart health without over-stressing a fasted state.
Shoulder Mobility, Posture, and Grip Strength (from Dead Hangs)
Daily 30-second dead hangs decompress the spine, stretch shoulders/back, relieve tension, and build grip/forearm strength. They improve posture (countering slouching), enhance shoulder stability/mobility, and may reduce upper-body tightness. In a fasted state, this low-impact move is generally safe and feels great for recovery.
Explosive Power, Core Strength, and Full-Body Conditioning (from Overhead Ball Work)
30 reps of overhead ball bounces/throws/slams engage your full body explosively: core, shoulders, glutes, legs, and back. This builds power, boosts heart rate (HIIT-like effect for cardio health), improves coordination, and burns calories. It’s a great metabolic conditioner that complements fasting’s fat-burning mode.
Mental and Mood Benefits
Cold-weather walking in nature reduces stress, boosts endorphins, and enhances mental clarity/resilience. Fasting can increase BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor) for better cognition/mood. Combined, this routine may leave you feeling energized and accomplished (many report mental sharpness during short fasts + light activity).
Overall Resilience and Immune Support
Cold exposure + moderate exercise + fasting may strengthen immune response (some studies link short fasts to better viral defense) and build mental toughness.
Important Caveats and Safety NotesEnergy and Performance: At 41 hours, you may feel fatigued, lightheaded, or weaker (glycogen depletion + cold stress). The walking is fine (encouraged as low-intensity), but scale back if dizzy. Dead hangs and ball work are short/low-volume, so they’re likely okay if you feel good—avoid pushing to failure.
Risks: Dehydration (fasting + cold/dry air), electrolyte imbalance, or low blood sugar could occur. Refeed carefully post-fast (start light). Not suitable if you have conditions like diabetes, eating disorders, or are pregnant/underweight.
Individual Variation: Benefits are evidence-based for short fasts + moderate exercise, but results vary. Consult a doctor before combining fasting with activity, especially if new to either.
This is a solid, challenging routine for metabolic reset and functional fitness in winter—stay hydrated, monitor how you feel, and enjoy the process! If you notice any adverse effects (e.g., extreme fatigue, dizziness), break the fast early.
54 web pages
How about breaking the fast with 3 dates, and a handful of macadamia nuts followed an hour later with raw yogurt, berries and toasted walnuts
Breaking a 41-hour water fast (a moderate extended fast) with your proposed sequence—3 dates + a handful of macadamia nuts first, then raw yogurt with berries and toasted walnuts about an hour later—is a solid, nutrient-dense approach overall. It’s far gentler and more thoughtful than jumping into a big meal, aligning well with common recommendations for short-to-moderate fasts (under 72 hours). Refeeding syndrome risk is very low here (it’s mostly a concern for much longer fasts or severe malnutrition), but the key is still easing digestion, stabilizing blood sugar, and replenishing electrolytes/nutrients without overwhelming your gut.Why This Works Well (Benefits)Dates as the opener: Traditionally excellent for breaking fasts (e.g., in many cultural/religious practices like Ramadan). They provide quick natural sugars (fructose/glucose) for gentle energy restoration, plus potassium, magnesium, and fiber to help with electrolyte balance and mild rehydration. 3 dates (~60–75 calories, 15–20g carbs) give a controlled, not overwhelming, blood sugar bump—much better than a sugary processed item.
Handful of macadamia nuts: Great follow-up. Macadamias are very low-carb (2g net per oz), high in healthy monounsaturated fats (heart-healthy, anti-inflammatory), and provide sustained energy without spiking insulin much. They add electrolytes (magnesium, potassium), support satiety, and are often recommended by fasting experts (e.g., Dr. Jason Fung suggests a few macadamias or similar nuts to break fasts). A small handful (1 oz/28g, ~200 calories) is digestible for most and pairs nicely with dates’ sweetness to blunt any minor glucose rise.
Delayed yogurt + berries + toasted walnuts (1 hour later): Smart timing—gives your digestive system ~60 minutes to “wake up” after the initial solids. Raw yogurt (assuming full-fat, live cultures) introduces probiotics for gut health, easy-to-digest protein, and calcium. Berries add antioxidants, low-glycemic carbs, fiber, and vitamins (e.g., vitamin C) without excess sugar. Toasted walnuts bring omega-3s (anti-inflammatory), more healthy fats, and crunch/texture. This combo creates a balanced mini-meal: protein + fat + fiber + moderate carbs, which supports stable energy, muscle repair, and continued metabolic benefits from the fast.
Overall perks of this refeed:Nutrient replenishment: Covers quick carbs, healthy fats, protein, fiber, probiotics, electrolytes, and micronutrients.
Blood sugar control: Low-GI elements (fats/fiber from nuts/yogurt) moderate the dates’ natural sugars.
Gut-friendly: Starts small/simple, then adds fermented/digestible foods—reduces bloating, cramps, or nausea risk.
Maintains fasting momentum: Keeps things low-processed, whole-food focused, preserving insulin sensitivity gains.
Potential Drawbacks and Tips to OptimizeDigestion notes: Nuts (especially macadamias) are fatty and can be slower to digest for some after fasting—rarely cause issues in small amounts, but if you’ve had trouble with high-fat foods before, start with fewer (e.g., 5–10 nuts). Dates’ fiber might cause mild bloating if you’re sensitive.
Portion awareness: Keep the handful small (1 oz max) to avoid overdoing calories/fats right away. Total first bite: ~300–400 calories; second: similar—perfect for easing in.
Hydration/electrolytes: Sip water (or add a pinch of sea salt) before/during. If you felt low-energy during the fast, consider bone broth or electrolyte drops earlier if needed.
Listen to your body: Eat slowly, chew well. If you feel full, nauseous, or off, stop and wait longer. Most people feel great with this style after 40-ish hours.
Next steps post-refeed: Proceed to normal meals gradually—add steamed veggies, lean proteins, etc., over the next 12–24 hours. Avoid heavy/processed foods initially.
This is a thoughtful, effective way to transition—many fasters report feeling energized and clear-headed with similar fruit + nuts + dairy/fermented combos. If you have any digestive sensitivities or health conditions, check with a doctor, but for a healthy person, this looks spot-on. How did the fast feel overall?
Friday nights on The Independents will evolve into guest nights with “after hours” vibes. This was a test. Everything worked as expected. Except we didn’t discuss The Weare Incident of 2010, where we got arrested and much legal hijinks ensued. Read my landmark First Circuit case Gericke vs. Begin et al instead, and stay tuned… One day, we will capture the story in all its glory!
I attended the AFP-NH’s soiree in Sandown on Tuesday, January 6th, 2026. Great turnout for NH’s birthday party. ICYMI: NH formed statehood before the Declaration of Independence, and that means, ahem, that we can secede any damn time we like. Indeed, this would be a good time to rewatch this video and read this article: Boom! Why the Free State of New Hampshire Will Succeed (And Secede)…
Here are some photos from the AFP-NH event, where former speaker of the House, Bill O’Brien, and current House Majority Leader, Jason Osborne spoke.
Linguistically speaking what is the order of groups of humans? E.g. Tribe, clan, group, faction, etc.
Linguistically and anthropologically, the terms used for human social groups form several overlapping hierarchies rather than one single strict order. The most common ones depend on the context:
- Evolutionary/political organization scale (Elman Service’s classic typology) — from smallest/simplest to largest/most complex societies
- Kinship/descent group hierarchy — especially common in tribal/segmentary societies
1. Political/Evolutionary Scale of Social Organization
This is the most widely taught hierarchy in anthropology (often called band → tribe → chiefdom → state):
| Level | Typical size | Leadership | Key characteristics | Examples (historical/ethnographic) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Band | 15–50 people | Informal, consensus, no fixed leader | Smallest unit, usually hunter-gatherers, egalitarian | !Kung San, Hadza, many Australian Aboriginal groups |
| Tribe | Few hundred – few thousand | “Big man”, elders, situational leaders | Kin-based, segmentary, fluid alliances, mostly egalitarian | Many pastoralist/horticultural groups (Nuer, Maasai, many Native American groups) |
| Chiefdom | Thousands – tens of thousands | Hereditary chief with real authority | Ranked society, some centralization, redistribution | Pre-contact Polynesia, many Mississippian cultures, some African kingdoms |
| State | Tens/hundreds of thousands+ | Centralized government, bureaucracy, monopoly on force | Social classes, taxation, laws, standing armies | Ancient Egypt, modern nations |
This sequence is roughly correlated with increasing population size, economic complexity, and political centralization.
2. Kin-based Hierarchy (inside tribes / segmentary societies)
This is the most common “inside-a-tribe” order of descent/kinship groups (from smallest to largest):
Individual → Nuclear family → Extended family → Lineage → Clan → Phratry → Moiety → Tribe / Sub-tribe
Typical order and rough sizes (very approximate — varies enormously by culture):
| Level | Typical size | Definition / characteristics | Exogamy?* | Common examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nuclear family | 4–10 people | Parents + children | — | Universal |
| Extended family | 10–30 | Multiple generations living/acting together | — | Most societies |
| Lineage | 30–200 | Descent group tracing from a known (usually recent) common ancestor | Usually | Nuer (minimal → maximal lineages) |
| Clan | 200–5,000+ | Descent group from a (often mythical/distant) common ancestor; usually has a name/totem | Almost always | Scottish clans, many African & Native American groups |
| Phratry | Several clans (thousands) | Group of related clans that act together (like “brother clans”) | Often | Many North American & Northeast Indian tribes |
| Moiety | Roughly half the tribe | The tribe divided into two complementary halves | Usually | Many Australian Aboriginal, Amazonian, and Native American groups |
| Tribe | Few hundred – 50,000+ | Largest named kin/political unit, often containing the above | — | Maasai, Yanomami, many others |
* Exogamy = rule that you must marry outside this group
Quick Summary — Most Common “Ladder” People Usually Mean
When people ask for an “order” like tribe > clan > group > faction, the most standard anthropological answer is:
family/lineage < clan < phratry/moiety < tribe < chiefdom < state
Or, more simply and most frequently used in casual/academic conversation:
family → lineage → clan → tribe → chiefdom → state
(With band as the smallest pre-tribal level, and phratry/moiety as optional mid-level divisions inside some tribes.)
Note: Real societies are far messier than any of these neat schemes — anthropologists have largely moved away from rigid evolutionary stages since the 1980s, but these terms remain very useful as descriptive tools.
are there other terms?
Yes, there are many additional terms used in anthropology, sociology, and ethnography to describe human social groups, especially in kinship-based, tribal, or traditional societies. These terms often fill in gaps between the core levels (family → lineage → clan → tribe → chiefdom → state) or describe alternative/parallel structures.
Here are some of the most common and important additional terms, organized roughly from smaller/more specific to larger or alternative divisions:
Kinship/Descent Group Terms (Mostly Inside Tribes)
- Horde — An older, somewhat outdated term for the smallest mobile group (similar to a band or camp), often used for hunter-gatherers; implies a temporary, fluid gathering (e.g., Australian Aboriginal contexts).
- Sib — Sometimes used interchangeably with clan (especially in older literature); a unilineal descent group (patrilineal or matrilineal) with a shared (often mythical) ancestor.
- Sept — A subdivision of a clan (common in Scottish/Irish clan systems); a smaller branch or segment within a larger clan.
- Phratry — A group of several related clans that recognize a “brotherhood” relationship (often sharing a mythical ancestor or ritual functions); acts as an intermediate level between clan and tribe. Common in many Native American, Melanesian, and some Indian tribal societies.
- Moiety — A division of the entire tribe/society into two complementary halves (e.g., “Earth” vs. “Sky,” or “Upper” vs. “Lower”); often exogamous (must marry into the other half) and creates balanced opposition/reciprocity. Found in many Australian Aboriginal, Amazonian, and some North American groups.
Other Political/Social Organization Terms
- Band / Camp — The smallest stable unit (15–50 people), usually egalitarian hunter-gatherers; sometimes called “horde” in older texts.
- Ethnic group — A larger cultural/identity-based unit (beyond kinship), often overlapping with or larger than a tribe; used when kinship is less central.
- Conical clan — A ranked or hierarchical clan structure (common in some chiefdoms), where descent lines are ordered by seniority.
- Kindred — An individual’s personal network of relatives (bilateral, not a fixed group); overlaps with others’ kindreds and isn’t a corporate descent group.
Modern/Sociological Scales of Group Size
Beyond traditional anthropology, some researchers propose more universal layers based on cognitive/social limits (e.g., Dunbar’s number ~150 for stable personal relationships), leading to approximate nested layers like:
- Intimate support clique (~5 people)
- Sympathy group (~15)
- Band (~30–50)
- Cognitive group / stable relationships (~150)
- Clan/tribe level (~500–1,500+)
- Larger linguistic/ethnic/political units
Quick Comparative Table of Additional Terms
| Term | Typical Level/Size | Key Feature | Common In |
|---|---|---|---|
| Horde | Very small (~10–30) | Temporary/mobile camp | Hunter-gatherers, older ethnographies |
| Sept | Small subdivision | Branch within a clan | Scottish clans, some Celtic groups |
| Sib | Clan-sized | Often synonymous with clan | Older anthropological texts |
| Phratry | Medium (several clans) | “Brother clans”; alliance/ritual grouping | Native American, Melanesian tribes |
| Moiety | Large (half the society) | Dual division of whole group; reciprocity | Australian Aboriginal, many dual-organization societies |
These terms aren’t part of one universal hierarchy — different cultures emphasize different ones (e.g., moieties are rare in Africa but common in Australia). Modern anthropology often avoids rigid evolutionary schemes and focuses on how groups function in specific contexts, but these labels remain useful descriptive tools. If you’re interested in examples from a particular region (e.g., Native American, African, or Indian tribal systems), let me know!
Kindred — An individual’s personal network of relatives (bilateral, not a fixed group); overlaps with others’ kindreds and isn’t a corporate descent group… etymology and usage over time
Etymology of “Kindred”
The word kindred originates from Old English (pre-1150), appearing as forms like cynrǣden or kinrǣden. It is a compound of:
- cynn (or kin): meaning “family, race, kind, sort, lineage” (from Proto-Germanic *kunja-, ultimately from the PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget”).
- -rǣden (or -red/-rede): a suffix meaning “condition, state” (from Old English rǣden, related to “ready” or “conditioned/disposed”).
Thus, it literally meant “condition of kin” or “kinship/state of being related by blood.” An epenthetic (inserted) -d- appeared in the spelling around the 15th–17th centuries (as in words like “thunder” or “sound”), leading to the modern form kindred.
- Early meanings (Middle English, c. 1200–1400): Primarily “family, lineage, blood relations, kinsfolk, race, nation, or tribe.”
- It functioned as both a noun (one’s relatives collectively) and later an adjective (of similar nature, related by blood or affinity).
- By the 14th century, it also gained figurative senses like “similar in kind” or “kindred spirits” (people with shared attitudes/beliefs).
The term has remained remarkably stable, with core meanings of blood ties and relatedness persisting into modern English, though everyday use often emphasizes emotional or spiritual similarity today.
Usage in Anthropology Over Time
In anthropological kinship studies, kindred has a more precise, technical meaning: an ego-centered (or egocentric) network of relatives traced bilaterally (through both mother and father), without forming a fixed, corporate descent group. It contrasts sharply with unilineal structures like lineage (traced through one line to a known ancestor, forming a corporate unit) or clan (a larger, often dispersed group claiming mythical/shared descent, usually exogamous and with social functions like identity or alliance).
Key historical developments:
- Pre-20th century/early roots: The general sense of “kinsfolk” or “blood relations” appeared in historical/legal contexts (e.g., medieval English law on inheritance). Early comparative kinship studies by Lewis Henry Morgan (1871, Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity) laid groundwork by mapping global patterns, including bilateral/cognatic systems where kindred-like networks dominate.
- Early–mid-20th century (rise in technical usage): British structural-functionalists like A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (e.g., in works on Australian Aboriginal and Andaman societies, 1922–1950) emphasized kinship as interlocking social roles and networks. Kindred described fluid, personal bilateral ties in societies lacking strong unilineal groups. Meyer Fortes and others contrasted it with African unilineal descent groups (lineages/clans). George Peter Murdock (1949, Social Structure) popularized it in American anthropology, classifying kindred as typical of bilateral/Eskimo kinship systems (e.g., Inuit, Yupik, and most Western societies), where the nuclear family is emphasized and relatives fan out bilaterally without corporate boundaries.
- Mid-20th century onward: The term became standard for describing ego-centered groups in bilateral societies. Anthropologists like Jack Goody, Freeman (1961, on the concept of kindred), and later David M. Schneider (1984 critique) highlighted its fluidity — no two people (except full siblings) have identical kindreds, and it changes over time/life stages. It is not ancestor-focused (unlike lineages/clans) but ego-focused, ephemeral, and useful for personal support, marriage choices, or inheritance in non-unilineal contexts.
- Modern/post-1980s: With shifts away from rigid typologies (e.g., critiques by Schneider and others), kindred is still widely used descriptively, especially in studies of Western, Southeast Asian (e.g., Iban), or hunter-gatherer societies. It underscores individual networks rather than group corporateness, reflecting broader moves toward processual and cultural understandings of kinship.
In summary, while the word’s everyday etymology has ancient Germanic roots tied to “kin-condition,” its specialized anthropological usage crystallized in the 20th century as a key contrast to unilineal descent groups — emphasizing personal, bilateral, and non-corporate ties in many societies, including our own.
Kindred Spirits… deep dive
“Kindred Spirits” — A Deep Dive
The phrase “kindred spirits” evokes a profound, almost magical sense of connection — that rare feeling of meeting someone who truly “gets” you on a deep level, as if your souls recognize each other instantly. It’s not always romantic; it often describes unbreakable friendships, creative partnerships, or even fleeting but meaningful encounters. The term bridges the anthropological concept of kindred (personal networks of relatives, as we discussed earlier) with a more poetic, spiritual dimension of shared essence or “spirit.”
Etymology and Historical Origins
- “Kindred” comes from Old English cynrǣden (“kin-condition” or “state of being related”), combining cynn (“kin, family”) and -rǣden (“condition”). It originally referred to blood relatives or family ties.
- “Spirit” derives from Old French espirit (meaning “soul, courage, vigor, breath”), rooted in Latin spiritus (“breath, soul”).
- The compound “kindred spirit” first appeared in print around 1706, in the poetry of Isaac Watts (a hymn writer and theologian), who used it to describe people sharing similar qualities or inner nature.
- By the mid-19th century (around the 1840s–1850s), it gained idiomatic popularity in English literature and letters, often as “kindred soul.” George Eliot referenced it in an 1849 letter: “You won’t find any kindred spirits at Plongeon.”
The phrase expanded from literal kinship to metaphorical “like-minded souls” during the Romantic era, when ideas of deep emotional and intellectual affinity flourished.
Popularization in Literature: Anne of Green Gables
The term owes much of its modern cultural resonance to L.M. Montgomery‘s 1908 classic Anne of Green Gables. The imaginative orphan Anne Shirley frequently uses “kindred spirits” to describe people who resonate with her vibrant inner world — starting with the shy Matthew Cuthbert, then her best friend Diana Barry, and even unexpected figures like the stern Aunt Josephine Barry.
One of the most beloved quotes captures the optimism it inspires:
“Kindred spirits are not so scarce as I used to think. It’s splendid to find out there are so many of them in the world.”
— Anne Shirley (L.M. Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables)
This line reflects Anne’s growing realization that deep connections aren’t rare — they’re everywhere if you’re open to them. Montgomery herself drew from real-life friendships (like her “bosom friends” in youth) and possibly from earlier works she read, such as Elizabeth von Arnim’s Elizabeth and Her German Garden (1898). The phrase became synonymous with heartfelt, platonic bonds that feel fated.
Here are a few classic illustrations of Anne and Diana as kindred spirits — the ultimate bosom friends whose connection defines the term:
These artistic depictions capture the joy, loyalty, and instant understanding that make Anne and Diana iconic kindred spirits.
Modern Usage and Psychological Significance
Today, “kindred spirits” describes anyone with whom you share core values, humor, worldview, or an effortless flow of conversation — often feeling like “no time has passed” even after years apart. It’s commonly used for:
- Platonic friendships — the deepest, most supportive kind.
- Creative or intellectual partners — artists, writers, or thinkers who “vibe” instantly.
- Romantic connections — though not always; many distinguish it from soulmates (more intense, growth-oriented, sometimes karmic) or twin flames (mirroring for transformation).
Psychologically, these bonds provide companionship, emotional support, and a sense of belonging — boosting well-being and reducing isolation. Signs you’ve met one include:
- Instant familiarity (“I feel like I’ve known you forever”).
- Shared wavelength — finishing sentences, similar reactions, effortless understanding.
- Comfort in vulnerability — no need to explain yourself.
- Calm presence — being around them feels like “home.”
Here are some evocative modern artistic representations of that deep, soul-level connection:
In essence, “kindred spirits” reminds us that profound understanding isn’t reserved for romance or family — it’s a human gift that can appear anywhere, enriching life with lightness, recognition, and joy. As Anne would say, it’s splendid indeed. Have you ever met someone who felt like a kindred spirit?