squishy math for building community

I have tried to write this a dozen times.   And then this popped into my head.


This is the default state of people attempting to build community.   Suppose there are six people attempting to build community.


Six people put in one pound of goodness: each person receives three pounds of goodness.

Five put in one pound of goodness and one puts in one pound of ick: each person receives three pounds of ick.


This is the default.  The challenge is to come up with a collection of recipes to build community rather than destroy community.  But all of the squishy math starts with this foundation.  Further: with enough goodness, community thrives.   And with enough ick, community dissolves.

When I tried to write about this in the past, I always started with "it is easy to destroy community; it is almost as easy to build community."  And there is the core:  I think a default human being has learned that hostility is often rewarded and then that human being can walk away with damage caused to the other human beings.  But if a person wishes to build community, then they would simply elect to get the things they wish without causing such damage.  


The brute force solution is to insist that the person bringing ick to not bring ick.  And if they continue to bring ick, then they are expelled from the community so the community can thrive.   The person bringing the ick is probably certain that they are adding push behind their words for the benefit of the community and if the other five would simply obey these words, then peace can be restored.


From my essay all of human history and 90% of human psychology fits into one sentence:

Most people NEED to hear their own opinion from all other people and are frustrated that they don't have the might to make it "right."

And it can further be summarized into three words "obey or else".  

The excellent point about this statement is that it's validity has been verified by psychologists.


I think there will be no perfect solution - as is the case for nearly everything in permaculture.  Instead, it will be a collection of small things that will all add up to enough of an improvement that it will be a solution of the time:


recipe #1:  everybody must recognize that all human beings are hard wired with "obey or else" and that this frame of mind is poison to community.


So the only way to have community is every member recognizes this and chooses to build community, every day, despite this.  

In Diana Leafe Christian's works, 90% of communties fail.  And of those that succeed, my analysis says that 90% of those are struggling and people rarely stay longer than 2 years.  It might be fair to say that the reason for the failure and struggle is entirely the "obey or else" thing running wild.

Just being aware that this is THE poison on community could go a long ways to mitigating the problem.


recipe #2:  present your position rather than expressing "obey" or "the truth."

The one rule on this web site is "be nice."  And from that we have developed our "publishing standards".   It all boils down to:  if you post "obey or else" stuff, in the many flavors it can pop up, your stuff is not published here.  So the people that do well in these forums would probably do well living in community.  


An excerpt from the permies.com publishing standards.

Along the way comes stories like "I once heard of a guy that ..." or "didn't I read somewhere that you could ...." and this sort of attempt to figure things out is not helped by comments like "Citation needed." or "that's bullshit." or "prove it."

Another thing is that some folks are certain that their path is the only path and that other paths are unacceptable. That sort of thing is unacceptable to me.

I tend to delete anything that suggests that anybody on permies.com is less than perfect. I'll even delete stuff that suggests that somebody that might come to permies.com is less than perfect. Or if a group of people is less than perfect and somebody on permies.com might be part of that group.

An excerpt from "my position" vs. "the truth":

I prefer to see posts that offer "my position" rather than "the truth". I've deleted a lot of stuff with "the truth". The reason is that if somebody posts "the truth" and a second somebody has an alternative position, then posting the alternative feels a lot like entering into conflict - so it is less likely to get posted. And it is that alternative that I want to see shared on this site.

recipe #3:  be a healer

The problem is presented above as:

Five put in one pound of goodness and one puts in one pound of ick: each person receives three pounds of ick.

That's a total of 18 pounds of ick going around.  I think that even the most feeble attempt at being a healer will probably take five pounds of ick off of that load.  And an expert healer might be able to get it to zero.   Or maybe even get it back to a positive.  

I think it is fair that the best of us will stumble once in a while and bring the ick to the table.   And it is good if the others will help to heal the situation.  

Of course, there is also the case of somebody who jumps on the ick to "respond in kind" and they make an bad situation into a worse situation.

And this is further compounded by people who bring ick to the table over and over, which leads to:


recipe #4:  ick-ectomy

Sometimes people realize that they are not a fit for this particular community, or for community living in general.  They move along.  

And sometimes they need to be shown the door.

It is rare that we ban people from permies.com.   But some people are just too hostile for community.   Each story is different, but it is usually something about how on their first post they will violate all of the publishing standards and insist that this "hate speech" be published.  

Sometimes there is something similar in the world of intentional community.  One person firmly believes that the rest of the community must obey their will.  And their presentation style is hostile.  If the one person is removed, it might remove 80% or more of the ick and drama from a community.


recipe #5:  distance

Do you share a roof with your community members AND share three meals a day every day?  That is a lot more opportunity for drama.  For some people, spending all day, every day, for many years with a community is a dream come true.  And for others, it cannot last more than a few days - it is just too overwhelming.   Some people prefer to be alone than get married (or something similar).  

And there could be an ecovillage of small homes that are hundreds of yards apart.   You get just the right amount of community you are looking for.  Some will live 500 yards from the community house, some will live 100 feet from the community house and some will live in the community house.



recipe #6:  central leader instead of consensus

Several people think the community house should be painted purple.  Several others think brown.  Several more think light green and several more dark green.   And two people think it should not be painted at all.  Communities have been destroyed by debates like this.   And there can be a new decision every week.  Having a central leader can eliminate most of these kinds of debates.  But the usual attempt at central leader is that you get somewhere and it is not until you have settled in that you learn that you do not like the general direction that the central leader is taking.   I think there are two important ingredients needed for central leader to work:

A:  the central leader must provide a large body of work for people to see before the choose to come.  This way, people can choose if they would be comfortable with future decisions the central leader would make.

B:  the central leader must hear out everything that everybody wishes to express.   This does not mean the central leader must obey - just listen.

For my online communities and my physical community, I choose to follow the Independent Thought / Consensus / Dictator Hybrid Decision Making Model.


recipe #7:  share all of your little thoughts

I think the root of all conflict is the difference of knowledge set.  If two relatively decent people have the same knowledge set, I think they travel in identical direction and even get identical ideas.  So rather than telling people to obey, share hundreds or thousands of bits of knowledge with as many people as you can.  And listen to their bits.  In time, they are doing and saying what you would like them to be doing and saying, and you are doing and saying what they would like you to be doing and saying.  Conflict is eliminated.

And now the math is always:

Six people put in one pound of goodness: each person receives three pounds of goodness.

...and one's relation to #5 would be the controlling principle of relation to the multifold recipe...

How about the idea that we have to accept no one is perfect , they just have to be good enough .
I have seen issues where some people expect leaders to be perfect and then get very upset when they are not and the leader is then portrayed as being the devil himself or at least his brother in law.
When the reality the leader has not changed at all .

David

I think if people kept in mind that 'slow and steady work best', it helps as well.

Yes definitely all very good food for thought and this clears up my question I had related to the recent Dealing With Drama podcast. My neighbor, Barbara Fredrickson, runs a research lab dealing with positive psychology and boils a lot of positive psychological effects to a having a good enough ratio in your life of positive moments to negative moments. (Scientific tabulation of the effects of too much "ick" in your life). Some organizations I want to be active in, but there is too much negativity and it is difficult to change so I just need to pare those down. For others, I think it is good to think how to apply suggestions like these to make participation more positive, productive, and generally rewarding.
Thanks,
--Abraham

How we are trying to Build a Sustainable Community

We have an 80-acre Ranch is 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean in Oregon.  It is 7 miles from the nearest town of 1300 people with: riverside park; bank; gift shop, Grange Hall, bakery; restaurant; video store; (5) churches; grocery store; library; post office; roadhouse\sport bar; fuel station and mini market.  

The ranch is surrounded by 20,000+ acres of logging land. It is a land locked island of 80 level acres surrounded on two sides by a wild salmon, trout, and steelhead river  
The Ranch is the center of a Sustainable Community.  Every person in the Community has and is committing time to increase their Sustainable Permaculture Knowledge and to develop a Life Worth Living.   When a person commits to join us, they have to starting learning about their DNA Way of Working.  There are nine (9) DNA ways of working. We have all nine, but one is our favorite.  When you embrace your favorite way of working, you never have to work another day in your life.

Some do not want to look at their DNA way of working and leave or they are asked to leave.   Others want to know why they do what they do and want to stay to develop a Life Worth Living.  Staying for two, three or four years is become common.  We are only 6 years old.  For more details we do this see attach document.  

To see some of the projects the Community work on and developed.  Go to www.SustainableLivingCenterOregon.com

When a person commits to join us, they have to starting learning about their DNA Way of Working.  There are nine (9) DNA ways of working. We have all nine, but one is our favorite.  When you embrace your favorite way of working, you never have to work another day in your life.

That is an interesting statement.  Would you please tell me a bit more about the 9 DNA ways of working.  I don't think I've ever heard the phrase before.  It may be another learning moment for me (anticipation and a bit exciting).

Traditionally, most stable communities were quite uniform in their world views, often relatively closely related (so they grew up in similar households), and often functioned more as extended families than anything else.  

Trying to "form" a community from disparate individuals is going to be tough, even if there is a shared, common set of beliefs.  (The success record for the various 'utopian societies' is abysmal, mostly because there is an extreme shortage of perfect men or women walking around (sorry guys, I think I got the last perfect gal)).  I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but recognize your shooting really high and put as many things on your side as you can.  We are all occasionally short tempered, bull headed, short sighted, selfish, lazy, and sometimes lustfull (of both other peoples partners and their cool stuff).  The larger the group, the greater the probability of someone dumping 'ick' into the common soup on any given day.  

When my wife and I got married we came from different families with different traditions and different attitudes.  We didn't take long before we realized that we were often using the same words to say different things.  We decided that we needed a few things to make it work.

1.  We needed a commonly agreed upon set of ground rules and goals.  In our case, this came from the world view our religion gave us which gave us a common philosophy and an agreed upon referee we could use when disagreements came up.  This can't be overemphasized.  We view it as kind of like 'Hoyles Rules' that we can refer to.  Without something like that, it comes down to a contest of wills with the required winner and loser.  (Even with an agreed on referee, it still sometimes comes to a contest of wills, especially when you're young and headstrong).  You need to agree on the rules.  You really can't win if one person thinks they are playing poker and the other thinks their playing whist.

2.  We really liked each other and wanted the other to be happy.  (This doesn't work if only one wants the other to be happy.  If one doesn't care that much, it gives them too much power in the situation.  You have to be roughly even in your level of commitment.)

3.  We both were not willing to let anything come between us.  (When my children would fight repeatedly over a toy, I would call them over to witness me throwing the toy into the woodstove.  I used this as a teaching moment that no THING was more important than their relationships.)

4.  We agreed that we wouldn't normally move ahead without buyin from both of us.  When a decision needed to be made quickly, or no agreement seemed possible but action was required, the person affected the most got to make the decision.  I didn't get to always run things, neither did she.  This comes back to Paul's comment about the leader listening to all sides.  Try for agreement, but sometimes someone needs to decide and agreement isn't going to happen.  Then the community leader makes the decision and takes his lumps for it.  Everyone else has to understand that it is his job and let him do it.

5.  Realize that most things people get wound up about just aren't really that important in the big scheme of things.  Is it going to matter in 10, 20, or 30 years?  It's tough, but sometimes we don't get our way, and it's still ok!

6.  FORGIVE.  This is the most important thing.  Everyone screws up once in a while.  Some more often than others.  If you can't forgive and let it go, you'll end up ruining relationships and damage your own life/soul/aura/chi (whatever your particular world view wants to call it).

recipe #5:  distance

When my wife and I moved back around my family, we purposely picked a home about 25 miles from everyone else.  There are a couple of members of the family that generate lots of drama.  We wanted to be able to distance ourselves if need be, but still be close enough for contact.  In our case, 25 miles was about the right distance.

I completely agree with Pauls comment

recipe #7:  share all of your little thoughts  

.  Arguments between my wife and myself are down to maybe once a decade or so.  I think that's mostly because over the years our overall knowledge set has grown to have huge overlapping areas, and in the areas where one of us has specialized expertise, the other recognizes it and respects that knowledge.

Trying to "form" a community from disparate individuals is going to be tough, even if there is a shared, common set of beliefs.  (The success record for the various 'utopian societies' is abysmal, mostly because there is an extreme shortage of perfect men or women walking around (sorry guys, I think I got the last perfect gal)).  I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but recognize your shooting really high and put as many things on your side as you can.  We are all occasionally short tempered, bull headed, short sighted, selfish, lazy, and sometimes lustfull (of both other peoples partners and their cool stuff).  The larger the group, the greater the probability of someone dumping 'ick' into the common soup on any given day.  

Yes, it is tough to form a community from disparate individuals.  We have been studying this subject for 18 years and have developed 10 "rules" that seen to work.  We are only 6 years old, so the proof in the pudding.  Our Community has no common belief  religion,, political, or permaculture but want a quality life worth living.  We have observed that 40% - 50% of a person living choices come their DNA way of Working.

Each person starts by focusing on their DNA way of Working and they rate a 6 paragraphs quiz.  We give them feedback on their DNA Way of Working.  At that point, some run away and some stay and want to go further.  We do this even for the local community.  We have one lady from the local community who is a retired high school placement counselor with a masters degree, who has attended two (2) five hour meetings a week for the last year and loves it.  If you would like to check out our process,  Click to take Quiz and take the quiz and we will give you feedback.  There is no cost or obligation.    

paul wheaton wrote:Six people put in one pound of goodness: each person receives three pounds of goodness.
Five put in one pound of goodness and one puts in one pound of ick: each person receives three pounds of ick.

6g = +18
5g + 1i = -18

ergo

g = +3
5(3) + i = -18 and thus i = -33

>> ick is negative and 11x as potent as goodness

Sounds reasonable, so let's roll with it and see where we end up.

Assume that 100 good people come together to form a community.  Life is good.

Then they start breeding.

Assume that the birth/death rates are roughly equal, and that we have 2% of both each year.

Since children are not voluntary members of the community, one cannot control whether they tend to be good or ick.  Let's be outrageously optimistic and assume that half tend to be good, and half tend to be ick.

Year 1:  100g + 0i = 100(1) + 0(-11) = +100
Year 2:  99g + 1i = 99(1) + 1(-11) = +88
Year 3:  98g + 2i = 98(1) + 2(-11) = +76
Year 4:  97g + 3i = 97(1) + 3(-11) = +64
Year 5:  96g + 4i = 96(1) + 4(-11) = +52
Year 6:  95g + 5i = 95(1) + 5(-11) = +40
Year 7:  94g + 6i = 94(1) + 6(-11) = +28
Year 8:  93g + 7i = 93(1) + 7(-11) = +16
Year 9:  92g + 8i = 92(1) + 8(-11) = +4
Year 10:  91g + 9i = 91(1) + 9(-11) = -8

(Fractions were rounded in a sensible manner, and would not have materially changed the result.)

So, even with a purely good starting population, and an outrageously optimistic level of goodness in newborns, the 'good' community dissolves nine and a bit years after it was created.

Since it is impossible to ignore breeding (and all of the courtship, pairing, bonding, mating, drama that goes along with it) when talking about the concept of a sustainable community, and the above 'squishy math' shows that even communities in an extremely favourable scenario self-terminate after a relatively short period of time, is it really worth the effort?  Phrased more delicately:  Is there any math — squishy or otherwise — that would suggest long-term survival of a 'good' community is even possible, assuming Paul's "default state of people attempting to build community" is accurate?

(If one's strategy for maintaining goodness is to expel ick members, one should remember:  It is one thing to expel single adults from a community, but expelling children and family members is a completely different kettle of fish.)

The extraordinarily high (90%) failure rate of Eco Villages reported by Diane Christian, and Paul's analysis that 90% of the remainder are struggling, might actually be observations that geographically-bound 'good' communities are simply not mathematically viable.

If that's the case, then possible solutions to the problem are:  1) prohibit/discourage breeding, 2) institutionalise methods for conditioning/programming all children to all think/act/value the same, and 3) create geographically-unbound communities (from which icks can be easily expelled) instead.  Option 1 would seem to be self-defeating in the long run.  Option 2 would be an Orwellian nightmare with highly-suspect ethical foundations (but remarkably like many existing institutions which I will not name here).  Option 3 describes online communities (like permies.com) which seem to be thriving thanks to relatively cheap and accessible communication technologies (i.e. the Internet).

Maybe the problem of building sustainable 'good' communities is only soluble if we cast aside the notion that communities need to share the same geographic space like the villages of old?

Maybe "Think Global, Act Local" is more than just a catchy slogan?  (And perhaps the comma suggests the two were meant to stay apart, and not be combined?)

Tim, so: #1 is the Shakers, #2 is Walden II, and #3 is this site? Excellently argued! QED.

I was thinking kibbutz :-) the origional ones not the religious ones that came later

David

David Livingston wrote:I was thinking kibbutz :-) the origional ones not the religious ones that came later

From Wikipedia:

Along with gender equality, the issue of parenting under the communal way of life was a concern. The parental tendency is to view the child as a personal possession and to dominate them. The founding members of the kibbutz agreed that this was not conducive to community life. They also thought it was selfish of parents to want to control their children and that this did not give room for the child to grow as their own person.

To solve these issues the founders created the communal children's houses, where the children would spend most of their time; learning, playing and sleeping. Parents spent 3 to 4 hours a day in the afternoon with their children after work and before dinner.
...
Under Freud's influence, the importance of the early years of childhood development were understood by the Kibbutz and much emphasis was put on fostering the child's sense of individuality, creativity, and basic trust. In practice transmission of family traditions and views was replaced by indoctrination into kibbutz and kibbutz movement views and also resulted in much uniformity vs. individuality. Significantly, this method of child rearing was not only "collectivization" of children, but a near complete conscious break with a cornerstone of Jewish life: focus on family, especially the nuclear family.

Although, for many of the original founders of the Kibbutz, the arrival of children was a sobering experience: "When we saw our first children in the playpen, hitting one another, or grabbing toys just for themselves, we were overcome with anxiety. What did it mean that even an education in communal life couldn't uproot these egotistical tendencies? The utopia of our initial social conception was slowly, slowly destroyed."

We raised three (3) heritage turkeys and they became Christmas dinner.  This was the table setting.  After dinner we played the game Imaginiff.  It helps build a Sustainable Community because you have to thinks about the other members of the Community and how they are and how they think.   It increases one’s Emotional Intelligence.

The game is played in rounds. Each round, one of the players is chosen as the "subject" of a question. The question has 6 multiple choice answers. The question is read aloud and players vote on the answer they think is correct. Points are awarded to the players that chose the most popular answer.

An example of a question:

Imaginiff  “Carl” were a flying object. Which would he/she be?
1) Blimp
2) Biplane
3) Glider
4) Frisbee
5) Lear jet
6) Brick
   

You took the words right from my head. Whatever community I'm going to be a part of needs to recognize this as truth.

I've been thinking of this "community" thing for the last few days.  I've been off work for a concussion so I've had a little more time, and anyone who has ever had a concussion knows that thinking can go a bit wonky for a while.  (I'm back to my personal normal now and will be going back to work Monday).

If you go to a village, or any small community, you will find after a while, that while 'everyone knows everyone', each person has people that they interact with all the time and feel close too.  There are others who that person is well disposed to and interacts with occasionally, and a few that they try to avoid dealing with.  Each person is part of this web, and is actually part of a 'community' made up of different people than the other guys 'community'.

I lived in a pretty small town in Alaska and thought I knew most of the people, at least by sight.  One evening a young girl didn't come home and I was part of a search driving around wherever we could think of, talking to people, etc from about 11:30 to 1:30 at night.  (Turned out, the girl was fine.  She had ridden her bike way too far away, gotten lost in the woods and by the time she found her way back to the road, someone had stolen her bike).  Anyway, what I found was that there was an entirely different bunch of folks running around late at night than I had ever seen during the day.  We were pretty much invisible to each other normally, (different hours, different lifestyles).

Where I'm going with this, is that every "community" I've ever been part of had several other 'communities' occupying the same geographic area.  Some people in my 'community' were actually pretty far away geographically.  Some people who lived quite close were very periphreal parts of my 'community'.

That said, it's better to be closer to the people you feel close with.  Problem is, how close you feel to someone can change over time as you each evolve.  

I knew a couple once who lived on the same street as a particular church.  They were the only ones on the street who weren't members of the congregation.  (by the way, I have no prejudice for or against that particular church. They aren't on my radar enough for me to care one way or the other.)  The reason everyone on the street was a member of the church was that for some reason, those people wanted to be near their church.  When a house came open, they tended to jump on it.  They were willing to pay a little more for that location, it was a value added thing.  When the couple I knew divorced and sold out, guess who bought their place?  Right!  A member of the congregation!  

With the ability to 'banish undesirables' a different problem emerges, especially when 2nd and 3rd generation family are involved.  The intercommunity politics could get murderous.

I love the idea of a tight little community, but as has been noted, without the ability to 'banish undesirables' from the area of the community, the community will automatically, over a few years contain some individuals that are 'tight' with the original group, some who are 'loosely attached' to the original group, and some who are just living there and are strangers to the original community, maybe even one or two who are hostile, but too damned stubborn to sell out and move somewhere else.  I have an impression that the Amish communities tend to accumulate around their edges people who were raised Amish and chose to not go Amish but remained in the area to be near family.

That is actually ok.  Permaculture says diversity is good.  

I think though, that just like not every plant or animal fits in a particular ecosystem, certain types of people aren't a good fit.  I believe this is where community rules and standards with teeth of some sort are useful.  (I realize this is a double bladed sword, but every community has a right to defend itself).

If there is something about a location that says 'value added' to permies, they will tend to congregate there.  As you make your area increasingly valuable to permies, you will tend to accumulate them.  If it becomes attractive to lots of others and the land value pushes the permies out, you get a different crew.

One of the possibilities I read about that might reduce land values pushing poorer permies out might be to right up the bylaws to force sales to be limited to the sellers purchase price (possibly allowing for inflation and value added things like buildings).  Another possibility might be to force sales to go back to the community (this requires money in the bank to buy out those leaving, hopefully regained when the property is resold).  

A possible problem with this might be people who want to leave but can't afford to.  Hmmm, well someone else probably can see a way through that.

My thoughts after reading the start of this topic. I do not want to have my 'first reaction' influenced by other posts. So those I will read afterwards. Maybe then I'll have new reactions ;-)

From my youth on I have periods in which I think: I want to live in an intentional community. When I was young there were 'hippie communes', but that wasn't the kind of community I wanted to live in.
When I think of what kind of community I'd like to live in, I think:
- It's like a village. Every person (sometimes a couple or family) has a little house in that village, or at least an apartment.
- Every little house in the community has its own little garden. An apartment building can have one garden or several. Community members do not need to have a garden and take care of it. But if they do have a garden, there are rules for taking care of it.
- For me it's important that 'village' is clean, like nature is clean. Free of toxic chemicals. All 'waste' has to be re-used, re-cycled or up-cycled.
- There are rules, like 'be nice'.
- There are weekly meetings. Everything concerning the community is shared at these meetings. If something isn't going well, the members try to find a solution together. If a community member doesn't want to be at these meetings ... that means something isn't going well. Maybe in such a case there has to be a special meeting concerning this special case ... Maybe that one person has a problem with one or some of the other members and first wants to talk with them alone ... or with some others alone ... It's very important such talks take place as soon as possible, before the problem gets way too big!
- There's some kind of 'village hall'. It has a kitchen, every member of the community can join the group meals there, whenever they want. But nobody is forced to do so.
- There are shared tools, machines, vehicles. All members of the community can use those. A schedule for using those is needed, and rules for use.
- There's a community garden. Every member of the community who wants to work there can work there. If a schedule and rules are needed for this work ... then it has to be made by that group of members who are involved.
- There's other work to do for the community. Same here as for garden ...
- Members of the community can 'pay' for the costs by doing volunteer work (garden or other work) or by paying money. Or partly volunteering and partly money. Work for the community is valued higher than money. Money is only needed for costs (like taxes, buying new community stuff, a.a.). Nobody has a salary from working for the community as a whole.
- All members of the community have free choice of what they want to do for the community and wath they want to do for themselves. But doing work (f.e. having a workshop) in the community area is prefered over 'commuting' to a job somewhere else. Community members can have their own enterprise with co-workers, members of the community, and they can be paid a salary. They can sell their products both in the community and to other buyers. Maybe in some cases even co-workers from outside the community are allowed in these enterprises ...  

OK, now it's time to stop this writing ;-)

From Diana Leafe Christian book, ”Creating a life together”

Founders of “the ten percent of successful sustainable communities” are often headed by a successful entrepreneur or have at least an experienced entrepreneur in their group. The book is referring mainly to the aspect of instinctive business savvy — someone with an inner “radar” about what will work financially. Entrepreneurs take risks, based as much on intuition as on experience.

Of the 9 DNA Ways of Working only one that has the inner “radar” that will work financially based on intuition as well as experience, that way is the 8 DNA Way of Working.  The founders of the Sustainable Living Center of Oregon is headed by a husband and wife couple, both that have the 8 DNA Way of Working.

The gifts of the 8 include:

Assertive: Eights are confident and direct, say what they need to say and get on with things.

Decisive: Eights are quick to respond and willing to make decisions. They trust their gut instincts and will move things forward.

Protective: Under their toughness, Eights are bighearted and take people under their wing. They protect the people and things they care about and will fight against injustices.

Independent: Self-sufficient Eights dislike being dependent on others and maintain their autonomy.

Influential: Eights have their own way of taking charge and influencing others, which includes the capacity to influence the bigger picture.


Just because a person has the DNA Way of Working of an eight does not insure success.  


From Daniel Goldman bestselling book, ”Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.”  

EQ is what we call Emotional Intelligence.  We have experienced that EQ can be increased, but your DNA Way of Working cannot.   You are born with it.  

There are a lot of people that have the 8 DNA Way of Working and low EQ in prisons.  If you want more information and see people with the 8 Why of Working and high EQ Click Here

Coralee Palmer wrote:From Diana Leafe Christian book, ”Creating a life together”  Founders of “the ten percent of successful sustainable communities” are often headed by a successful entrepreneur or have at least an experienced entrepreneur in their group. ....

That's probably true. At least that's the reason why I'll never start any community myself: I am not that 'entrepreneur' type. I like to join something already started by others. Like the 'community garden' in my neighbourhood. Two others started, I was the third person ... and then others joined too.
This garden is fairly succesful, as a project totally run by inhabitants of the neighbourhood (with a little support from town hall). We are starting our third garden season now. This is not an 'intentional community', it's only a permaculture garden project.  

I meditated on my ideas on an intentional community and found out that it would be very nice if the land on which the community starts building up is owned by one of the members (or a family). Than this person 'pays' his part of the costs not with volunteer work or money, but with his/her land. (Of course if he/she likes to do volunteer work, that's possible ...) But owning the land does not give this member of the community more rights (like 'veto' in the meetings)

Rule Number 7 that we practice in building a Sustainable Community is Gratitude

Happiness - Gratitude fosters happiness. It makes it easier to cope with stress. trauma. You will learn how to have a positive perspective which will allows you to encounter personal adversity like loss or illness and stay happy.
Random acts of kindness fosters happiness.  Studies shows that engaging in a random act of kindness — even if you’re told by a researcher to do so — improves your happiness level.  This will be demonstrated by doing the following:

Offering compliments, saying "thanks," and expressing true gratitude to a person are all related, but they are different in a few notable ways.

Compliments tend to praise or express admiration for someone. For example, telling a person that they look good,

Saying "thanks" expresses appreciation, and that's nice, but what are you thankful for? If you really want to express more meaningful gratitude, try something like this:

Thanks, for vacuum the meeting room I really appreciate you getting the meeting room ready for our meeting.

Expressions of gratitude that are specific remind to a person not just that you're thankful for what they've done, but it indicates how their help is meaningful to you and makes them feel valued and appreciated.

Try it .... Our ten rules on how to build a Sustainable Community are attached

So...

Without much simplification:
Any intentional community starts with a cast of strong characters and one (1) driving personality.
If there are two driving personalities, they will challenge each other until there is only one.
The rest of the cast of characters are drawn into the community by familial ties, romantic liaison, birth, and economic opportunity / distress.
In the expanding cast of drawn characters, many driving personalities will appear, and when challenged, the leader of the moment will immediately declare them "harmfull to community harmony" or "ick".
If the community agrees, and the "ick" is dispelled the community continues.
If the community agrees and the "ick" is not dispelled the community declines until cohesion is lost and the capable people leave because they're tired of supporting the "ick".
If the community sides with the new personality, the leader of the moment is;
1: ousted and the community continues.
2: ousted and the community finds he has retained title to the bulk of assets and really been a "benign dictator" the community fails and a new community coalesces around the exposed (no longer so benign) dictator.
3: Ousted and the core of capable people leave with him and the community collapses.

Most people leave intentional communities out of frustration and exhaustion and mental fatigue.

Religion, (of the Jim Jones variety), creates an "us vs them" mentality that overcomes all three, perhaps not indefinitely but for extended periods.
Religion thrives on persecution.
Even artificial self imposed persecution.

So far the best system for a community is:
Personal possession of involved assets.....keeps people from walking away lightly.
A community that declares sycophants "ick" and establishes firm boundaries, checks and balances, on the leader of the moment.
Frequent turnover of the leader of the moment.
A no work, no eat ethos that declares dead weight "ick".
A dignified escape hatch for the spare driving personalities.

The failure of most communities starts with few of the  "driving personalities" or benign dictators, will abide the previous paragraphs restrictions.
Most communities are stillborn as leaders demand cult like adherence to there edicts, or they walk away and the "driving force of the community" is dissapated.