Ratings42
Average rating3.8
I read this book because it was one of Jason Kander's recommendations during a Twitter chat. I guess it was an okay book though and while I can't exactly pinpoint what my issue was, I did feel uncomfortable at many points. Maybe it was just too concerned with masculine/male tribal behaviors and didn't feel universal enough for me to connect.
Short read but a very engaging book. According to the author, everyone has the need to be part of a tribe, which explains why some veterans miss the battlefield and can have a hard time adjusting to life post-war.
Wow this was such a thought provoking book. It really helps understand our behavior and mental health concerns.
Junger focuses on the rates of PTSD and mental crisis during emergencies and wars for civilians and soldiers, arguing we don't do a great job with reintegration of soldiers and that our individualistic culture sucks in terms of community connection and sense of purpose. There are some sketchy generalization about First Nations/Native American/indigenous folks at the beginning: describing everyone on the continent as stone-aged nomads. Later he admits some nuance between different groups.
Why did I pick it?
As a recommendation from this list: https://www.valetmag.com/living/culture/2019/successful-people-reading-list-080819.php
Apparently Tim Ferriss highly recommends it.
My thoughts
It's an interesting read, and describes a very cool new perspective which I hadn't thought about so much before (that we evolved from tribes and therefore are seeking that tribal connection, in a nutshell).
However, the book is very anecdotal and not as ground shaking as I had expected from the recommendation above.
I think a more interesting, deeper story is being released on Wait But Why now: https://waitbutwhy.com/story-of-us
Junger brings together an array of interesting ideas here and I'm sympathetic to his central argument - that modern society is missing the kind of strong egalitarian bonds that are key to human flourishing. The subject deserved a more careful argument and a longer treatment (given the range of problems under discussion) than he gives it.