The 9-minute masthead video are the comments of a retired psychologist, Jack, at the very end of a Couey presentation to a group of doctors from Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International.
Jack covers quite a bit of ground on what we know about group psychology from:
But it’s the bit about “touch” that I found the most interesting.
The value of touch as an anxiety and aggression reducing act.4
I like his take on social distancing and “6 feet apart” through this lens of “touch”.
He’s right, for the vast majority of people standing 6 feet apart means you cannot reach to touch the hand of the other person. I tried it with my wife, and no matter how you stand, facing each other of at a side angle, our fingers couldn’t touch.
6 feet apart is a prohibition on touch. As for the virus, it couldn’t care less.
There’s also a moment where he discusses masks and seeing a mother’s face.5
His discussion on touch made me think about Arendt’s “atomized individual”.
6 feet apart is an atomizing accelerant, and an incredibly effective one at that.
Here she is, in 1958, in "The Human Condition" discussing the concept of the atomized individual:
"The modern age has replaced the more traditional concept of man as a social animal with a new concept of man as a solitary being."
"The modern age has seen the development of a new form of poverty, one that is characterized by the absence of any form of social relationship."
"The modern age has witnessed the emergence of a new form of loneliness, one that is marked by the absence of any form of meaningful human interaction."
"The modern age has brought with it a new form of isolation, one that is marked by the absence of any form of meaningful human connection."
"The modern age has given rise to a new form of social isolation, one that is marked by the absence of any form of collective action or shared purpose."
But she had already put her finger on the building block of totalitarianism when she published in 1951, The Origins of Totalitarianism.
Nationalism, then, became the precious cement for binding together a centralized state and an atomized society, and it actually proved to be the only working, live connection between the individuals of the nation-state.
The truth is that the masses grew out of the fragments of a highly atomized society whose competitive structure and concomitant loneliness of the individual had been held in check only through membership in a class. The chief characteristic of the mass man is not brutality and backwardness, but his isolation and lack of normal social relationships.
Totalitarian movements are mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals. Compared with all other parties and movements, their most conspicuous external characteristic is their demand for total, unrestricted, unconditional, and unalterable loyalty of the individual member.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider Arendt as one of the greatest minds of the last 100 years.
Let’s take a moment. What is atomization?
Well, it’s all the points above, but another way of thinking about it, is that it’s the opposite of Connection6.
Atomized is Unconnected.
I think the best visual representation of Connection is Eywa in Avatar (I didn’t enjoy the sequel). From a psychological and social perspective, Eywa is a metaphor for the interconnectedness and interdependence of all living things. The Na’vi even connect and “plug-in” to the animals. They say to each other “I see you”, another form of connection. Atomization is the opposite of all that.
Desmet picks up the baton from Arendt and continues the atomization discussion in The Psychology of Totalitarianism.
We have to consider the current fear and psychological discomfort to be a problem in itself, a problem that cannot be reduced to a virus or any other “object of threat.” Our fear originates on a completely different level – that of the failure of the Grand Narrative of our society. This is the narrative of mechanistic science, in which man is reduced to a biological organism. A narrative that ignores the psychological, symbolic, and ethical dimensions of human beings and thereby has a devastating effect at the level of human relationships. Something in this narrative causes man to become isolated from his fellow man, and from nature; something in it causes man to stop resonating with the world around him; something in it turns the human being into an atomized subject.
It is precisely this atomized subject that, according to Arendt, is the elementary building block of the totalitarian state.
So, how do we, as atomized individuals, become the building blocks of a totalitarian state (ai)?
In a totalitarian regime, the state seeks to control every aspect of public and private life, and individual freedom and autonomy are severely restricted.
One way in which totalitarianism can take advantage of the atomized individual is by exploiting feelings of isolation, loneliness, and disconnection. In a society where people are disconnected from one another and feel that they have no control over their own lives, they may be more susceptible to the promises of a strong leader or ideology that offers a sense of belonging and purpose. Totalitarian regimes often seek to create a sense of community and shared purpose among their citizens, even if this is based on propaganda and manipulation.
Additionally, the atomized individual may be more likely to conform to the demands of the state in order to avoid punishment or ostracization. In a society where people are isolated and disconnected from one another, there is less of a sense of collective resistance or pushback against oppressive policies. This can make it easier for a totalitarian regime to exert control and maintain its power.
Viewed through this lens, it’s clear that “6 feet apart” is an atomization amplifier.
We were already atomized going into the GMC, but lockdowns, distancing, masks, etc. have amplified that atomization.
Which brings us to the Soviets
Arendt makes it a very clear that the Germans and Russians arrived at totalitarianism via different paths. In both cases an atomized society, laden with atomized individuals was a requirement but, in her words:
That totalitarian movements depended less on the structurelessness of a mass society than on the specific conditions of an atomized and individualized mass, can best be seen in a comparison of Nazism and Bolshevism which began in their respective countries under very different circumstances. To change Lenin's revolutionary dictatorship into full totalitarian rule, Stalin had first to create artificially that atomized society which had been prepared for the Nazis in Germany by historical circumstances.
—
All these new classes and nationalities were in Stalin's way when he began to prepare the country for totalitarian government. In order to fabricate an atomized and structureless mass, he had first to liquidate the remnants of power in the Soviets which, as the chief organ of national representation, still played a certain role and prevented absolute rule by the party hierarchy.
—
In the last analysis, it has been through the development of this device to its farthest and most fantastic extremes that Bolshevik rulers have succeeded in creating an atomized and individualized society the like of which we have never seen before and which events or catastrophes alone would hardly have brought about.
The Soviets manufactured atomization, while the Nazis worked with what was already there.
Our GMC experience has been an exquisite combination of both.
Which brings us to “victim blaming”.
I listened quite a bit to Desmet when he was doing the rounds on Mass Formation. Then I read his book and Arendt’s and having reflected on both.
I think the point (and it is a psychological point, before it is a political point) that both Arendt and Desmet make, which is that “the building block of totalitarianism is the atomized individual” is correct.
Desmet’s work on how hyper rationality and scientism inevitably lead to atomization is also correct in my view.
Arendt never uses the term Mass Formation, but she does refer to Mass Man. I don’t think that she or Desmet are wrong in naming the “mass” phenomenon.
While it has been the specialty of Nazi propaganda to profit from the longing of the masses for consistency, Bolshevik methods have demonstrated, as though in a laboratory, its impact on the isolated mass man.
—
In this atmosphere of the breakdown of class society the psychology of the European mass man developed.
—
Eminent European scholars and statesmen had predicted, from the early nineteenth century onward, the rise of the mass man and the coming of a mass age. A whole literature on mass behavior and mass psychology had demonstrated and popularized the wisdom, so familiar to the ancients, of the affinity between democracy and dictatorship, between mob rule and tyranny.
—
The truth is that the masses grew out of the fragments of a highly atomized society whose competitive structure and concomitant loneliness of the individual had been held in check only through membership in a class. The chief characteristic of the mass man is not brutality and backwardness, but his isolation and lack of normal social relationships.
—
The present totalitarian rulers and the leaders of totalitarian movements still bear the characteristic traits of the mob, whose psychology and political philosophy are fairly well known; what will happen once the authentic mass man takes over, we do not know yet, although it may be a fair guess that he will have more in common with the meticulous, calculated correctness of Himmler than with the hysterical fanaticism of Hitler, will more resemble the stubborn dullness of Molotov than the sensual vindictive cruelty of Stalin.
But you are not left in doubt by Arendt on what she thinks about the perpetrators. The whole book is a “how to” guide on how to pull off totalitarianism, with intent. Desmet goes light on that part of the discussion, without totally absolving them, possibly because he didn’t want to be lumped in with the “conspiracy” people, or possibly because he wanted to stay in his lane and focus on the psychology.
Even though I don’t think he was setting out to blame the victim and absolve the perpetrators, he left himself open to the charge.
But back to the main point that I am interested in, that of atomization.
Reading Arendt’s quotes from the 50s, she could have written them today. Do you think that “atomized” describes something that is true today? I do.
Do you think it was true in the 30s and 40s, well Arendt does, and she explains how it was the basis for the emergence of European totalitarianism. I am not in a position to disagree with her. I accept her “atomization” thesis and explanation of history to be true.
In describing the atomized European, she wasn’t “victim blaming” the citizen, she was simply describing the prevailing conditions that provided fertile ground for the totalitarians to take advantage of (the Nazi’s especially). The Soviets manufactured those conditions.
In a comments section to a Desmet interview I found this great analogy that I think maps over the last few years:
Fish on the boil
I once observed and was explained a fishing technique where ground-up meat is thrown into the water, forming a thick cloud. The idea is that fish will sense that there is food around and swim to that place, but will find no prey, no object. With their appetite all alert they start to search frantically for the origin of that smell, that sensation, but can't get a grip on anything. Until the fisherman throws in, at the right moment, a real bait, on a hook: the fish now attack this finally appearing object, their otherwise instinctive caution now absent due to the frenzy the deceptive "bait-cloud" has created. The moment they attack they become a prey themselves. Ever since I started listening to Mattias Desmet's explanations this fishing technique has been on my mind as an analogy for the phenomenon of mass formation.
The fish swimming into that trap are the hungry ones, just like the humans embracing the "cloud of meaning" which propaganda offers, day after day, are the lonely ones, hungry for meaning, angry and frustrated, hoping for a new paradigm in which they miraculously cease to be lonely and hungry. But sadly, they will just end up on a hook.
Towards the end of the book, Desmet says that leaders themselves become part of the mass formation, they get caught up in it. That is true, to a point. But in my opinion, he undervalues the role of the “fire starter”, the role of capital, its interests and intent, and suggests that “conspiracy” is something done in secret, that if it’s in the open, how could it be a conspiracy. He is wrong on all these points, and uninformed, but that’s OK, he is a psychologist, not a politician or geopolitical expert. And he’s far more right than wrong in the book.
I love CJ Hopkins and have quoted him at length in prior articles. His GloboCap (Global Capitalism) work is proven each day. But Hopkins doesn’t like Desmet because, among other things, the above-mentioned problems.
As far as I am concerned, their viewpoints cross over and form a Venn space where they are both right.
Which brings us to the forest…
Forest Fire Theory
Let’s start off with Dr. Mark McDonald and his explanation of delusion and psychosis
When a number of associated delusions organize themselves into an irrational belief system, a state of psychosis can develop. When the man who believes the world is out to get him also insists that his restaurant food is poisoned, that his wife is having a lesbian affair with the neighbor’s daughter, and that his boss is somehow involved in both—he is psychotic.
I agree with this framing. We all have delusions (untruths, false or bad axioms) in our heads. It’s a matter of quantum and degree though, that determines whether we arrive at psychosis.
What McDonald is describing here is a single, ill, unhealthy tree. But in the context of the GMC, it was made ill. The false axioms were manufactured and surgically implanted. It was a full spectrum psychological assault by the state, orchestrated and coordinated by capital.
But it wasn’t one tree, it was most of the trees in the forest. To get a handle on all the delusions they put into our heads, all the untruths and false axioms, that in totality have created psychotic, unwell, individuals, here is a good list of 20.
What Arendt and Desmet are describing, with atomization, is not the “ill” tree, but the “dry” tree. The drought, the isolation, loneliness, and dryness of the forest is what makes it combustible, not its poor health.
Atomization is dryness. It’s the combustible state.
How dry is the tree and the forest? How ready is it for a bush fire? The atomized individual is primed for a savior. Ready to be taken advantage of. It’s a forest in drought, thirsty for connection, meaning and purpose.
It’s ready to be lit…
Hopkins is right, when he describes the fire starter, GloboCap.
But the goal of GloboCap’s War on Reality isn’t simply to deceive the masses and divide them into opposing camps. Rulers have been deceiving the masses and dividing them into opposing camps since the dawn of human civilization.
--
The global-capitalist ruling establishment is implementing a new, more openly totalitarian structure of society and method of rule. They are revoking our constitutional and human rights, transferring power out of sovereign governments and democratic institutions into unaccountable global entities that have no allegiance to any nation or its people.
That is what is happening … right now. It isn’t a TV show. It’s actually happening.
The point here though is that a forest fire was not inevitable.
It was ready to be lit, but not inevitable that it would be lit, and not in the way it was lit. You still needed a fire starter to come along and start it the way they did, at the time they did, and on the scale they did.
It was lit with purpose, but the scale of their success has a lot to do with both the ill health, that they created, and the dryness, that was already there, but that they amplified.
This today from Malone.
Over the last three years, you and everyone around you has been subjected to military-grade psychological warfare technologies, developed for offshore combat to influence the thoughts and minds of state and non-state combatants and the cultures within which they exist, but deployed against the citizens of virtually every western nation by their own governments. All for our own good, of course, to compel acceptance of and thereby protect us with unlicensed, experimental medical products that were neither safe, nor were they fit to purpose - for example preventing infection, replication, and spread of a RNA respiratory coronavirus.
So, to conclude:
Is atomization real? Yes.
Is it a pre-requisite to Totalitarianism? Yes.
Did it exist before the GMC? Yes.
Has it increased since Arendt wrote about it? Yes.
Did they amplify it, through policy. Yes.
Did they insert false axioms, creating delusions, psychosis and unwellness. Yes.
Is there a Mass Psychosis, that “formed”? Yes.
Are the citizens to blame? No.
Are the perpetrators to blame? Yes.
Would we have had a GMC (and its Mass Psychosis) without the perpetrators. No.
Are we currently in a Totalitarian moment? Yes.
Do they want to make it permanent? Yes.
Will they succeed? Maybe.
What do we need to do? Keep telling the truth.
Further reading.
Am I an expert in Mass Formation or a Trojan Horse? (substack.com)
Mass Formation Hypnosis Disorder - CJ Hopkins (substack.com)
Repocalypse - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)
Thank you for reading this Substack.
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to a good cause.
I am always looking for good, personal GMC (pandemic and jab) or childhood vaccination stories. Shared stories are remembered and help others.
In the comments, please let me know what’s on your mind.
You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com
If you are Covid-jab injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch this 21 minutes.
Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:
FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein
The Asch experiments
The Asch conformity experiments were a series of psychological experiments conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s. The experiments were designed to investigate the extent to which an individual's own opinions are influenced by those of a group.
In the experiments, subjects were shown a card with a line on it and were then asked to pick the line on a second card that matched the one on the first card. The subjects were placed in a group with several confederates of the experimenter, who had been instructed to give the wrong answer. The subjects were then asked to give their answer aloud.
The results of the experiments showed that a significant number of subjects conformed to the incorrect answers given by the group, even when they knew the answer was wrong. This conformity was more likely to occur when the group was larger, when the subjects were unsure of themselves, and when the group was unanimous in their incorrect response.
The percentage of people who conformed in the Asch conformity experiments varied depending on the specific conditions of the experiment. In some cases, as few as 1% of subjects refused to conform, while in others, as many as 75% of subjects conformed at least once.
Overall, the results of the Asch conformity experiments showed that a significant number of people are willing to conform to the beliefs and behaviors of a group, even when those beliefs and behaviors go against their own convictions. The percentage of people who conformed increased as the size of the group increased and was also higher when the group was unanimous in their incorrect response.
The findings of these experiments have had significant implications for fields such as social psychology and marketing, as they demonstrate the ways in which groups can influence individual behavior and decision-making.
References:
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177-190). Carnegie Press.
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35.
Stanford prison experiment
It was a psychological study conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. The study aimed to investigate the psychological effects of power and the roles people play in prison situations.
The experiment was conducted in a simulated prison environment, and the participants were randomly assigned roles as either guards or prisoners. The study was intended to last two weeks but was terminated after only six days due to the extreme psychological and emotional distress experienced by the participants.
The study found that the guards, who were given authority and power over the prisoners, quickly began to abuse their power and engage in behavior that was cruel and dehumanizing. The prisoners, on the other hand, became passive and compliant, and some even developed severe emotional problems.
The results of the experiment have been widely debated and have had a significant impact on our understanding of the psychological effects of power and authority. However, the study has also been criticized for its ethical concerns, including the use of deception and the lack of informed consent for the participants.
References:
Zimbardo, P. G., Haney, C., & Boyd, J. N. (1973). The Stanford prison experiment: A simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment. Stanford University.
Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1977). The socialization to criminality: On becoming a prisoner and a guard. In J. L. Tapp & F. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice, and the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues (pp. 358-378). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
The Milgram experiments
Named after psychologist Stanley Milgram, was a series of social psychology experiments conducted in the 1960s to investigate obedience to authority figures. The experiments were conducted at Yale University and were designed to measure the willingness of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that went against their personal conscience.
The experiments involved a "teacher" participant who was instructed to deliver a series of increasingly intense electric shocks to a "learner" participant, who was actually an actor, every time the learner made a mistake on a learning task. The teacher was told by the experimenter, who was posing as the authority figure, to continue administering shocks up to a lethal level, even though the learner was clearly in pain and begged to be released.
The results of the experiments showed that a significant proportion of the participants were willing to obey the authority figure and administer shocks up to the highest level, despite their personal reservations and the suffering of the learner.
The Milgram experiment has been widely cited and discussed in the fields of psychology and sociology and has been replicated in various forms in different countries. However, the experiment has also been criticized for its ethical concerns, including the use of deception and the potential for psychological harm to the participants.
References:
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
Touch
There is a wealth of research showing that touch can be an effective way to reduce anxiety and aggression. Some of the key findings include:
Touch can help to reduce stress and anxiety. A study published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology found that students who received a 15-minute back massage before an exam had significantly lower levels of anxiety than those who did not receive a massage.
Touch can also help to reduce aggression. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that subjects who received a brief, supportive touch on the arm from a stranger were less likely to act aggressively towards that stranger later on.
Touch can be particularly effective at reducing anxiety and aggression in children. A study published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology found that children who received a weekly 15-minute massage from their parents had lower levels of stress hormones and displayed less aggressive behavior than children who did not receive massages.
A study published in the Journal of Family Psychology found that infants who received more physical contact from their mothers during the first three months of life had lower levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, and were less likely to display aggressive behavior later on in childhood.
A study published in the journal Developmental Psychology found that children who received more physical affection from their parents had lower levels of aggression and were more likely to have positive relationships with their peers.
A review published in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology found that touch can help to reduce anxiety and promote relaxation by activating the body's "relaxation response," which is characterized by decreased heart rate, blood pressure, and levels of stress hormones.
A study published in the journal Emotion found that touch can help to reduce feelings of social exclusion, which can in turn reduce aggression. In the study, subjects who were touched by a confederate during an exclusionary task were less likely to act aggressively towards that confederate later on.
Overall, the research suggests that touch can be an important tool in reducing anxiety and aggression and may be particularly useful in helping to manage stress and emotions in children.
References:
Field, T., Diego, M., & Hernandez-Reif, M. (2002). Cortisol decreases and serotonin and dopamine increase following massage therapy. International Journal of Neuroscience, 112(1), 15-22.
Davis, D., Ghearing, G., Tapp, J., Phillips, K., & House, S. (2000). A systematic review of touch and massage for the reduction of pain in adults. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008-1016.
Field, T., Healy, B., Goldstein, S., & Guthertz, M. (1990). Behavior-altering effects of massages in children. Adolescence, 25(98), 635-646.
Barraza, J. A., & Zak, P. J. (2009). Empathy toward strangers triggers oxytocin release and subsequent generosity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 182-189.
There have been many researchers who have studied the psychological and physical effects of human touch. Some notable researchers in this field include:
Tiffany Field, director of the Touch Research Institute at the University of Miami, who has conducted numerous studies on the therapeutic effects of touch.
Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, who has studied the social and emotional aspects of touch.
Matthew Hertenstein, a professor of psychology at DePauw University, who has conducted research on the role of touch in nonverbal communication.
Francis McGlone, a neuroscientist at Liverpool John Moores University, who has studied the neural basis of touch and its role in social bonding.
Olivia Judson, an evolutionary biologist at Imperial College London, who has written extensively on the evolutionary history and biological significance of touch.
Seeing a mother’s face
There is a strong psychological and bonding value for a baby to see their mother's face, as the mother's face is the first face that a baby sees and becomes familiar with. This familiarity can help to create a sense of security and attachment for the baby, which can have numerous positive effects on their development.
Research has suggested that newborn infants prefer to look at their mother's face over other faces, and that this preference is stronger when the infant is hungry or in need of comfort. Other research has found that infants who are able to make eye contact with their mothers during the first few months of life show increased social and cognitive development compared to infants who do not have this opportunity.
Overall, the psychological and bonding value of a baby seeing their mother's face is significant and can have long-lasting effects on their development and relationships with others.
References:
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Spangler, G., Suess, G., & Unzner, L. (1985). Maternal sensitivity and newborns' orientation responses as related to quality of attachment in Northern Germany. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1/2), 233-256.
Tronick, E. Z., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T. B. (1978). The infant's response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17(1), 1-13.
Connection
There are many psychological and physiological benefits of social connection:
Improved mental health: Social connections have been linked to better mental health outcomes, including reduced risk of developing mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety (1).
Increased happiness: Social connections are associated with increased happiness and life satisfaction (2).
Improved physical health: Strong social connections are associated with improved physical health, including reduced risk of developing chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes (3).
Enhanced coping skills: Social connections can provide support during times of stress and can help individuals cope with challenges more effectively (4).
Increased sense of purpose: Belonging to social groups and having meaningful social connections can provide a sense of purpose and meaning in life (5).
Improved academic performance: Social connections and a sense of belonging have been linked to improved academic performance, particularly among students (6).
Enhanced creativity: Social connections can foster creativity and innovation by providing new ideas and perspectives (7).
Increased productivity: Strong social connections at work can increase productivity and job satisfaction (8).
Reduced risk of substance abuse: Social connections can provide support and reduce the risk of substance abuse (9).
Improved cardiovascular health: Strong social connections have been linked to improved cardiovascular health, including lower blood pressure and reduced risk of heart disease (10).
Improved sleep: Strong social connections have been linked to improved sleep quality (11).
Reduced risk of dementia: Social connections and engagement in social activities have been associated with a reduced risk of developing dementia (12).
Improved physical rehabilitation: Social connections can enhance the physical rehabilitation process and improve outcomes (13).
Enhanced problem-solving skills: Social connections can improve problem-solving skills by providing a diverse range of perspectives and ideas (14).
Increased resiliency: Social connections can provide support and increase resiliency in the face of adversity (15).
References:
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on psychological science, 10(2), 227-237.
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2017). World happiness report 2017. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on psychological science, 10(2), 227-237.
Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health: understanding the health consequences of relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health: understanding the health consequences of relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kolehmainen, C., & Wass, H. (2018). The role of social connections in learning. Routledge.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schawbel, D. (2015). The benefits of strong work relationships. Forbes.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2019). The role of social connections in preventing substance use and promoting recovery.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on psychological science, 10(2), 227-237.
Irwin, M. R., Olmstead, R., & Carroll, J. E. (2016). The influence of social connections on sleep quality: a review. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 27, 1-10.
Fratiglioni, L., Paillard-Borg, S., & Winblad, B. (2004). An active and socially integrated lifestyle in late life might protect against dementia. The Lancet Neurology, 3(6), 343-353.
Fülöp, M., & Smith, T. (2015). The role of social support in physical rehabilitation: a systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(24), 2197-2209.
Burt, D. B., & Knez, M. (1995). Collective problem solving: An analysis of group cognition. Cognitive Science, 19(1), 85-123.
Uchino, B. N. (2006). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Forest Fire Theory