Jason, I really appreciated your exploration of muscular institutions, especially your insight about how structure and shared commitments foster real belonging. I took a look at your Connection Opportunity project too, which gave me helpful context before replying.
While I agree with your broader point about the importance of avoiding the bystander effect through accountability, I think there are some additional dimensions worth considering. The differences you mention—such as ideology or lifestyle—are definitely important, but I think we also have to consider age, gender, relationship status, and sexual orientation. These shape not just how people connect, but whether they feel like they can participate at all. As a gay man who goes to a gay-friendly church, I’ve seen how intentional one often has to be just to find spaces that feel safe to engage in. That need for psychological safety comes up frequently in my research too.
What stands out to me is that rules and structure are both the gateway and the barrier to connection. With many of the groups you highlight, there’s a kind of onboarding required—whether through physical training, shared language, or ritual—that helps build cohesion. Your Iraq example captures this well. But those same barriers can make it hard for others to join, especially if they’re starting from the outside. That’s one reason I built social games into my app—to create easy, low-friction ways to break the ice. From what I’ve seen, a lot of younger people, especially young men, are hesitant to connect not because they don’t want to, but because they never learned how.
So I’m wondering if “community norms” might just be another way of talking about intergroup psychological safety. And if that’s the case, are there any organizations you’ve seen that successfully bridge across those kinds of social gaps? That create real structure and shared purpose, but also make space for difference?
Jason, I really appreciated your exploration of muscular institutions, especially your insight about how structure and shared commitments foster real belonging. I took a look at your Connection Opportunity project too, which gave me helpful context before replying.
While I agree with your broader point about the importance of avoiding the bystander effect through accountability, I think there are some additional dimensions worth considering. The differences you mention—such as ideology or lifestyle—are definitely important, but I think we also have to consider age, gender, relationship status, and sexual orientation. These shape not just how people connect, but whether they feel like they can participate at all. As a gay man who goes to a gay-friendly church, I’ve seen how intentional one often has to be just to find spaces that feel safe to engage in. That need for psychological safety comes up frequently in my research too.
What stands out to me is that rules and structure are both the gateway and the barrier to connection. With many of the groups you highlight, there’s a kind of onboarding required—whether through physical training, shared language, or ritual—that helps build cohesion. Your Iraq example captures this well. But those same barriers can make it hard for others to join, especially if they’re starting from the outside. That’s one reason I built social games into my app—to create easy, low-friction ways to break the ice. From what I’ve seen, a lot of younger people, especially young men, are hesitant to connect not because they don’t want to, but because they never learned how.
So I’m wondering if “community norms” might just be another way of talking about intergroup psychological safety. And if that’s the case, are there any organizations you’ve seen that successfully bridge across those kinds of social gaps? That create real structure and shared purpose, but also make space for difference?