I came across this five-minute video on prepping that, I believe, is a must watch. Everything this man says is common sense; the way he puts it can challenge us to think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC6ClxwGs-o&t=3s

Jeanette Isabelle

Good points!

The types that he regards as unworthy of his "group" are some of the types that I tend not to engage or trust in normal times...Why would anyone look to them in an emergency?

This seems to be some of the simplistic reasoning that permeates so many "survivalist" sites, with an inordinate emphasis on weapons and military tactics - not to say that such means could never be necessary, but they are not all that likely. It's more productive to focus on the far more likely possibilities.

I mean no disrespect to the OP, but, like hikermor, I find the video to be highly unrealistic for most. If you have really poor judgment, then, yeah, maybe it's worth something.

The biggest clue to me that the video might stem from fantasy is that it seems to neglect the fact that forming a social unit is often a social process. Consequently you cannot easily select and reject people like a dictator. In the "SHTF" world that the person in the video imagines, will he be taking applications online for his survival group? Reading résumés? Holding interviews? Drive around in the Mad Max wasteland, running into exotically dressed people, joining forces to fight a common evil? You're more likely to form a survival group with the social units you already have -- your family, friends, and possibly co-workers and neighbors. Now, there is no rule that says your son, whom you love above all things, cannot be the hot head, the liar, the thief, etc. Even if you want to get rid of him, maybe your spouse doesn't want that. Maybe his siblings will leave you. That's one place where problems come in. I'd like to see the video maker explain to parents how to leave their beloved child to fend for himself.

Now, if you're talking about a ship/planewreck, your survival group has been chosen for you. You can be stuck with the problems.

Discerning character takes a long time of observation. So if the video is about taking in strangers, it's a gross simplification. Moreover, in an organization the problems can sometimes come from the combination of personalities, rather than from any individual personality. That takes time to figure out, too. I don't see any consideration of this issue.

I did not get the impression the video is talking about strangers.

Jeanette Isabelle

Without getting into the person's reasons for prepping or planning for survival, he does bring up an important, and often not addressed, survival necessity.

We all think we understand people, we deal with them every day, right? While the video makes some points about types of people you would not want to "let in" to your prepping or survival groups, it does not address how you make accurate assessments of people. Very few survival oriented sources address this subject at all. I will throw it out there that learning how to more effectively deal with people, especially people in stressful situations, is a key survival skill. Experience with people does help, but you must learn the correct lessons from those experiences.

KEY PEOPLE SKILLS (not a comprehensive list)

Assessing threat (and reducing threats short of violence)

Communication (all aspects)

Leadership

Dealing with Stress and other mental health problems

Deep Survival

This book does a good job of helping to understand some of the issues. It is not a "how to" book, however. There is some good training out there, but it is usually expensive. There are some very good books on the subject, if people take the time to read and understand them.

Montanero is spot on here. I couldn't have said it better, including the book recommendation.

Totally agree that "Deep Survival" is a very useful source. My practical experience in dealing with various personalities is survival, or near survival, situations came from several years of volunteer mountain Search and Rescue in Arizona. We had varying capabilities, usually most members were capable hikers - some of us were proficient rock climbers and very hardy hikers and runners. On each mission, various members would respond and you could never predict precisely who would turn up. The challenge was to form functioning teams that could handle the problem, which varied widely - operations lasted from an hour or so, to some that were in the field for more than two weeks. Some people who were only fairly decent hikers nevertheless came to play vital, useful roles, especially in the more complicated operations.

One got to be pretty good at assessing abilities and skills and assigning people to a good role in the operation. People with real personality issues tended to fall out of the group; those remaining were team players. I would expect about the same result in an "SHTF"situation.

At the time,my employers was putting us through some of the very expensive training Montanero alludes to; the odd thing is that I really got to use my training in SAR situations, not so much on the job.

Incidentally, I got inthe habit of keeping a pack loaded and ready to go. We could have anywhere from ASAP to the next morning to assemble for an operation and it was a good idea to be ready to just pick up the pack and walk out the door - very similar to what survivalists call a BOB today. From time to time I would adjust the contents of my pack. Summer in Tucson is not at all like winter..

It's very interesting to hear the experiences of Montanero and hikermor. I wonder whether I can trouble Montanero for a reading list (once again!). I'd also love to hear of the mysterious expensive training they refer to. What sort of assessment do you get?

It's really hard to imagine being able to discern someone's character so fast. I'm in a line of work where people keep track of each other over decades. But it's amazing how many people who give every indication of being upright choose to cover up the misconduct, sometimes criminal, of someone or for some cause they're invested in. (Incidentally, these are not strangers or obvious non-team players, but people who have gone through years of vetting and close observation in the system. Non-team players tend to have a hard time making it to a position of power.) What happens when one's life is on the line in a survival situation?

The training is not so mysterious. In my company most software engineers get some leadership training to qualify them for the role of project management. This includes training for negotiation and conflict managment. In that training you learn to assess yourself first. That allows you to deal with your character flaws. In role plays you deal with other participants of the training and analyse the footage. That gives you basic skills for assessment and acting accordingly. Refining the skills by practice is then up to you. At some point it will allow you to get even non-team players to work for the team (there may be jobs that fit the lone wolf hot head very well).
If you want to learn about assessing other people, you could work on becoming an amateur illusionist and do some performance. You need to make your judgement quick and it wont be too bad if you are wrong.
Most people can play for a team. Having a good team and the surrounding supporters is very much a leadership issue.


Very often that is a misconception. For those people the team comes first. They are not upright in a sense of standing for doing the right thing even if it is against the current interest of the team. They could be called loyal though. That really makes a difference.

You probably want to have someone around who is loyal and might act to the benefit of the team even if it means to break a law.

I don't think you know what I'm talking about. In the culture of my field loyalty isn't as valued as a trait as independence, which is sort of the opposite trait. The team doesn't come first. So I've never seen covering up to protect the team. But I've seen covering up for someone else because it would reflect badly on your professional reputation, because you share the offender's political beliefs (e.g., amateur labor rights supporters get a free pass for sexual misconduct at work!), or because it gives you leverage later, among other things.

Bingley, I will try to answer completely, but there was much training I did which was provided by the government that is not available outside the government. Most of this training is centered on communications, for all purposes.

Richard Mullender teaches in the UK. He is the former chief trainer for the London Metropolitan Police (New Scotland Yard) National Hostage and Crisis Unit. He is a fantastic teacher. He focuses on listening, which is a skill few people seem to really have. He does run open courses. Mullenders.org

The Institute for Analytic Interviewing is a great one week course, but specializes in law enforcement interviewing. I will say that what they teach is useful to anyone who deals with people, in any situation or capacity. iainterviewing.com

Rory Miller teaches some very practical courses on conflict and violence, and the individual level. His Conflict Communications is great, and he can carry it all the way to practical fighting. He has some extensive experience doing this kind of work, and he studies the science and teaches well. Chirontraining.com

Dr. David Matsumoto has some on line training in recognizing facial expressions and emotions. This is very necessary if you are worried about detecting deception or early detection of threats. He worked with Dr. Paul Ekman and has built on Edman's work. humintell.com

Randy Markoz does not have a web site, and he is working for another company, but he runs a course that includes understanding personality (based on the Myers-Briggs personality inventory) and how that affects communications. I find this very useful in dealing with people as it informs you how they see, interpret and interact with the world. This goes a long way in helping you anticipate their actions and how to communicate more effectively with them. I would have to facilitate a link up with him.

Books:

Personality

Gifts Differing

Please Understand Me

Understanding personality is a big help in assessing people and their intentions. It can also help in assessing people for the best fit in a job or task. It also helps you understand the best way to communicate with them. You start by understanding your own personality, then you can begin to see it in others.

Emotions Revealed

Telling Lies

Understanding emotions is critical to understanding people, and detecting deception. Detecting deception is generally poorly understood by people. You are not detecting lies, you are detecting a difference between the words someone is using and their actual emotional responses. Matsumoto's training helps you identify the emotional responses.

Conflict Communication

Facing Violence

Meditations on Violence

Rory Miller's books are very well written and practical. They are not long, and not written for an academic audience. He also has videos on his training.

If anyone is looking for more resources related to this subject just let me know.

I´ll admit that I did not understand that properly.
Learning to read body language and voice will still help you.

Max, body language and voice stress are very useful. They do require training in order to apply them effectively. There is a common misconception that a certain body movement always means a particular thing, this is not true. Context and the individual's baseline habits are important to interpret them correctly. To be effective with voice stress, it really requires technology to detect the subtle aspects.

With training, language, body language and facial expressions are very reliable. However, a subject's baseline should still be established before it is highly effective.

With all of these tools, the amount of time you have to observe the subject is important. The longer you can observe, the more accurate your assessment will be.

One thing to always keep in mind is that communication and assessment is almost always a two way street. Many (most?) of us have little understanding of how we might be "understood" or perceived by others.

Years ago I was in a job where I occaisionaly but infrequently had to interview job candidates. Since my training and background was mostly in science and technical areas, my employer sent me to a class on interviewing. One of the things we did was to conduct mock interviews which were video taped. It was really fascinating and revealing to see my own mannerisms, body language, and facial expressions. We then talked about how these might be perceived and misinterpreted by others.

An example of what I've learned about myself over the years is that when I'm deep in thought, my face sometimes appears as if I'm angry or upset (when I'm not, I'm just thinking). In some situations that might be frightening to someone, and they react accordingly.

People will react according to what they perceive in us. Always keep in mind that what you see (negative or positive) in another person might be to some extent a reflection of how they are reading us. You should try to know yourself before trying to know others.

AKSAR, as usual you bring up very important and constructive points. How we present is important in communications. When you are learning, it is usually best to study yourself before you study others. If you can't see it in yourself, you are unlikely to see it in others.

Max, upon rereading my post, I realized it came across harsher than I intended. I was just terse and in a hurry.

I'm beginning to think that perhaps my experience is not typical. I interview people as a part of my job, too. In my field some people get very good coaching, and so the answers we get and the body language we see are sometimes just a product of having a lot of resources. I don't mean to imply that you can "beat the game," but it is possible to make your self-presentation very, very polished. When the majority of people have the same degree of polish, the game changes.

The interview process can be quite grueling and long -- months, with days where the interviewee is basically constantly observed from the moment he wakes up to the moment he goes to bed. People do falter under such stress, and perhaps you can construe those moments as revealing of their true self. You also check with people who know them. But, after more than a decade, I'm beginning to feel the information we get is not all that useful. People and careers are quite complex, and you can't always predict problems over the long term. Even this rigorous process cannot eliminate people who would do bad stuff later or even right away.

But I wouldn't be surprised that there is a science to all of this that I do not understand as a mere employee. Recently I heard a CIA psychologist talk about people who leak secrets. (They study this sort of stuff, eh?) She says that people tend to leak or commit such acts of betrayal when they're in crisis (in other areas of life). I have noticed a similar pattern -- crisis in personal life can lead to misconduct at work. So maybe there is something to it, though a part of me thinks, hey, that sounds like common sense.

I don't know how any of this would apply to a survival situation. I mean, if you're in a survival situation, especially in a long-term one as envisioned by the video in the OP, you're in crisis. Everybody is in crisis. So, what, trust no one? At the end, I continue to feel that character can be known only in the long term. You can design whatever process you want for admitting people into your "survival group," but I am guessing that 50% (or more!) of that process will reflect you and the social dynamics in the existing group. I'd prefer a survival group with people you have known for a long time, and prepare for their flaws.

Thanks for the recommendations, Montanero. I have read Rory Miller's work. I think his stuff is really good for short term interactions. I'll check out the other stuff.

Bingley, I did not take any offense on that.


The book "Please understand me" (I´ll second Montanero´s recommendation) may give you hints on this topic. Different personalities perceive a crisis in different ways. Some personalities may need to be monitored more closely, some may actually thrive. Assign tasks accordingly for best results.


I think that basic traits can be observed fairly quickly. A more accurate assessment takes time.


That is not neccessarily a bad thing. An applicant needs to fit into the group if things are supposed to run smoothly.
It should not be forgotten that the interview process is mutual. The applicant may decide that he or she does not want to join the group after the admission process.


That´s a wise choice. Teams need to form and a group develops the social dynamics over time. It´s best when most of the friction is resolved ahead of a crisis.