Editor’s Note: Welcome to new subscribers. Jimmy Kimmel is back on the air, a win for the First Amendment and for America. We have reached such a ludicrous level of assault on the norms we’ve taken for granted, it has been good to see people from any political side pushing back. Remember the power you have in your voice and your wallet.

The world we learn about has been divided into leaders and followers for all of recorded history. Kings, slaves, peasants, serfs, tsars, emperors, and pharaohs. Part of this comes from how historians write about their subjects, while another source is religion. This binary has shaped our politics, our workplaces, and even our families. The leader-follower paradigm is so deeply ingrained that we seldom question its completeness.

But what if a great amount of progress in the world is due to the presence of a third type of person?

I first considered this third group as the thinkers, but the better label is the dissenters. These are the people who don’t quite fit into either camp, yet quietly shape the fate of societies and temper the excesses of both leaders and followers. It is this third group that stands as the barricade against further polarization and zealotry.

The leader-follower model has ancient roots in the creation of both Gods and Kings. People follow and try to ascertain the will of the God or the order of the king. Plato’s “philosopher-kings” were the ultimate leaders, while the masses were to be ruled for their own good. The leader, by this logic, is the visionary, the risk-taker, the one who shapes destiny. The follower is the loyalist, the diviner of the intent, the one who implements the vision.

We can point to a thousand examples for leaders. Take Winston Churchill, who rallied Britain during World War II and willed the Allied forces into action against the threat of tyranny. He is often cited as the archetype of the leader; someone who is decisive, unyielding, and capable of inspiring a nation to endure and never surrender. For followers, we have the millions who have died on battlefields for lost causes, or those who marched for independence or rights. There’s the French army and the great Napoleon, both of whom exemplified the power and peril of collective following.

History may tell us that these models are the norm, but what happens when societies are composed only of leaders and followers? We’ve seen the rise of totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, Stalinist and Putinist Russia, and Maoist and Peng China. They demonstrate how dangerous charismatic leaders can become when surrounded by zealous followers and a few minimal dissenters.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is worth mentioning here. This 1971 social psychology study was led by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. It simulated a prison environment to examine the psychological effects of perceived power and captivity. College students were randomly assigned roles as either guards or prisoners. Whether this was the sought-after result, the study quickly showed how ordinary people could end up engaged in abusive behavior. The experiment was terminated after only six days due to the extreme emotional breakdowns and escalating mistreatment observed among participants. This study was controversial because it revealed how quickly ordinary people can become complicit in cruelty when under the sway of a perceived authority telling them what to do.

Which is why the third type of person, the dissenter, is paramount to society cohesion.

The dissenter is not defined by a need to lead or to follow. They are chameleons who sometimes step up or step back, but always retain a core of independence. They are the questioners, the connectors, the ones who refuse to be swept up by the crowd or seduced by the podium. In a functioning democracy, these are the journalists, mid-level managers, artists, and creatives searching for better ways and better outcomes.

Dissenters are essential precisely because they do not fit neatly into the leader-follower binary nor settle for a status quo. They are the moderating force, the “gray zone” that resists the pull of extremism. Their presence disrupts the feedback loops that can turn leaders into demagogues and followers into mobs.

Dissenters may be those like Socrates. The ancient Greek philosopher was neither a ruler nor a blind follower. He wandered the streets of Athens, questioning assumptions, challenging authority, and ultimately paid with his life for refusing to conform. Harriet Tubman was neither a general nor a soldier in the traditional sense, though her beliefs led her to act as such. Her work on the Underground Railroad required a chameleonic ability to navigate between worlds, evade capture, and inspire others to action. George Orwell was a writer and journalist. He did not lead armies or political parties. Instead, he wandered through ideologies and experiences from fighting in the Spanish Civil War to critiquing totalitarianism in “Animal Farm” and “1984.” His skepticism and refusal to be co-opted made him a voice of conscience that still rings true today.

These people played a crucial role in preventing societies from tipping into extremism, and their legacies have outlived the positional leaders of their time. When followers become too zealous, dissenters ask uncomfortable questions. When leaders become too powerful, dissemters challenge their authority. In times of crisis, dissenters can step up and lead; in times of peace, they can step back and follow, but always with a critical eye. The dissenters are those who refuse to be swept up by the crowd, who ask inconvenient questions, and who offer humor for levity and coping.

Research in social psychology supports the importance of this third type. Studies on “minority influence”—where a small group or even a single individual can sway the majority—demonstrate that dissenters are essential for healthy group decision-making. Without them, groups are prone to “groupthink,” a phenomenon in which the desire for consensus leads to irrational or dysfunctional outcomes.

In today’s world, the dangers of the leader-follower binary are on full display. Political polarization, social media echo chambers, and the rise of populist movements all reflect the perils of a society divided into only leaders and followers.

Dissenters are more necessary than ever.

It is time to recognize them as the glue that holds societies together. Without them, we risk becoming a world of zealots and blowhards, forever oscillating between tyranny and chaos. It is the dissenters who may be our last defense against extremism.

In a world where the stakes of blind following or reckless leading are higher than ever, we must do more dissenting and seek what is true. Only then can we hope to avoid the extremes that have often brought societies to the brink.

I’ve noticed in my trips to Starbucks that they are writing little notes on the cups as part of a corporate strategy. Not really necessary but a nice touch. While this article talks about what else the corporation is doing as far as training staff for a more inviting experience, there’s really nothing new here. All customer facing positions need this type of training. It should be expected.

But here’s a couple of big differences.

The level of incivility on the part of American customers has grown. I’ve seen it for years and became especially attuned to it after seeing numerous positive interactions between staff and customers in other countries. Reading through some of the comments to this piece, users pointed out that they just want their coffee quick and hot.

That’s a learned cultural mindset, almost inhuman in its approach and certainly not considerate to the worker experience. Such a limited view by customers will continue to downgrade the human aspects of economic transactions, and for what? A few more seconds or a few more pennies to the bottom line? If the focus continues to be on the product and not consider the people, the robots will be here soon.

This also gives a free pass to the structural problem with Starbucks and many corporations. If compensation for workers doesn’t grow in accordance with the $80 million pay package of the CEO, no amount of training will hypnotize staff or customers into giving a real shit.

Getting your money's worth, or remaining profitable, also includes being a good human.

Why am I including this one? Many years ago, probably while prepping for a trip, I found myself wondering why there isn’t more crash protection systems for planes similar to airbags in cars? It sounds crazy but is it? This is yet another example of how AI can be used in ways that help us think about things that once were in the realm of science fiction. The piece infers that the extra weight of such a system would most likely reduce seats and profitability for airlines, but that also is speaking from the old model that puts a price on human life. If we can do better, we should. While such progress could result in less seats and high costs in the short term, I’m confident that advances would continue to offset any issue such as the weight differences.

I guess if we can dream it, we really can do it.

Recent travels through France saw how extensive their transition to wind energy and clean energy is. Instead of the highways being buffered with signage and strips of empty businesses, there are rolling hills of agricutlure and windfarms. It’s quite peaceful actually.

Despite the false messages of the current administration, the green economy is going nowhere. It is the natural outcome of science and research that moves us from burning to sustainable solutions. Countries are diving in deep and making major investments that will leave the US behind.

This is a nice piece on one man and an interested government that shows the positive outcomes from cooperation and vision. The only reason we would even be considering going the opposite direction is to ensure profits for the current trough of corporations. Otherwise, there is no strategy that makes economical sense that doesn’t include a transition to green energy.

If we cannot continue the massive advance in alternatives, it will be a case where countries with central authorities like China, are gettimg it done and outpacing countries like the US in the process. That will have a long-term impact on climate and a strike against the democratic concensus model of governing. It causes the rest of the free world to question the leadership of the United States.

We tend not to feel a sense of urgency in a country like ours when there are multiple sources of energy. We typically don’t have long lines at the pump and when we flip the switch, power comes on. Our situation is one where we have to have a long term view of what’s going to be the best for our kids. Alternative sources such as wind and solar are now on par with the cost of production via coal, natural gas, and certainly nuclear. The models, the science, the data, all point toward a switch to clean energy, and nations like Uruguay have proven it can be done.

Our job now is to protect the democratic process and elect better national leaders to continue getting us there.

And Now….

It has been another week of purposeful manipulation of the public sphere, though with every pushback, every voice, canceled subscription, and phone call, it shows that more Americans are awakening to civic responsibility.

More than any other label or group you’ve joined to, keep being a good human. That is the only label that matters and the one that will guide you.