The cancellation of Andrew Huberman, science-lifestyle podcaster

 

To me this is an interesting story.  A well-regarded, well-credentialed, science-oriented life advice podcaster--Andrew Huberman--rises to new heights of fame and following, and is later "cancelled" for personal reasons, basically for having 5 or more exclusive relationship girlfriends at the same time.  

Should that get him cancelled?  What does it really mean in relation to that life advice?  To me those aren't even the most interesting angles.  The better questions that arise relate to why so many people accepted his ideas so completely, and why opinions are divided between seeing his personal life choices as not relevant and this calling into question his general credibility.

It all originated from this New York magazine story, Andrew Huberman’s Mechanisms of Control :The private and public seductions of the world’s biggest pop neuroscientist.  I just noticed that they put "Joe Rogan" in the web page name, even though he played essentially no part in any of this, beyond helping Huberman rise to fame.  That's SEO I guess.

Let's work backwards, and start with what he did, and then who he is, on to how to take this.  He was in a relationship that was framed as monogamous with one woman, over a period of years, extending that as far as attempting to have children at one point (allegedly; it's hard to know how much of any one-source account is accurate).  Then it turned out that he was in serious relationships with at least 4 other women at the same time, and maybe more.  The coordination is admirable, on one level.

So what?  The problem was that he communicated the relationships were exclusive to each, per the story, not only adjusting his partners' expectations but influencing their decision to have unprotected sex, which is lower risk in an exclusive relationship.  Per the story spreading STDs did come up, which have been rebranded as STIs in recent times, broadened to include other conditions.  It's all not such unusual behavior, but it is immoral.

I've seen Huberman on some podcasts but I wasn't really a follower.  The ideas seemed fine, including some that I already subscribed to.  He recommended that people shouldn't even consume moderate amounts of alcohol, not for moral reasons, but because it causes more health impact than is generally accepted.  I essentially quit drinking alcohol some years ago, maybe 5 or 6, and drank very little for a decade before that, and it does seem like life might balance a little better without that input.  He recommended getting sun early in the day, and moderating or adjusting the form of caffeine intake, and any number of other things (including ice baths, maybe?).  Most of it is probably pretty good, well-grounded advice.

It's odd that all this isn't really directly derived from his scientific researcher background, or so it seems.  Per that article he researched optical conditions and regeneration capabilities in mice, pretty far from the scope of all this life advice.  He could sort through scientific materials in a different way than others, based on the general background, and what he pursued of his own interests might be directly relevant, based on sound research, and worthy of sharing.

Let's clear up a bit of extra context and tangents and then move on to the main themes, how this cancellation worked out, and what seems interesting about it to me.  To frame where I stand on the general research based advice theme, I've been following another "science-guy" Youtube channel that perhaps overlaps in scope, Physionic, described as follows:

Detailed multi-study analyses, clear explanations of mechanisms underlying the results, and a sprinkling of cheeky humor. Learn your body, from the macro to the micro - welcome to Physionic.

So I can relate to the instinctive desire to learn from someone who is drawing on and summarizing research materials that it would be hard to interpret, related to diet, exercise, supplement use, new atypical practice topics like ice baths, and so on.  I get how credentials, charisma, and well-grounded information could be more compelling in combination.  The Leo and Longevity Youtube channel had been a similar resource, focused more on longevity and experimental drug use, or steroids and such, but Leo died under mysterious circumstances last year, leading to me searching out a replacement, Physionic.

I've recently ran across a Reddit Huberman sub (group), which is the main prompt to write this post.  They're rejecting him there now; it's one sided, and even a bit ugly.  The comments on that original article, describing his relationship issues, are divided; half say that his personal relationships aren't relevant to his role as a "pop neuroscientist," with the other half calling into question his personal credibility.  The reason that resource made the subject more interesting is that I find the reactions interesting.

One odd input condition stands out in that article, tied to the latter theme:  Huberman is endorsed by Athletic Greens.  Per my understanding that product theme works off the older spirulina miracle food status by mixing lots of other natural inputs or supplements with that.  Then that can be regarded as controversial, because they combine 75 ingredients into a supplement marketed as a way to replace vegetable input in the diet.  This quote sums that up, from their website:

that's Huberman saying that

Could you get a basis of important vitamins, minerals, and probiotics from a scoop or two of that per day?  Maybe, but it seems doubtful.  If it was designed to be more like Soylent, a balanced input supplement designed to replace a meal then that kind of large-scope claim seems more likely, not as a green foods variation of a protein shake.

Why his relationship status doesn't matter, the argument

Seems obvious enough, but let's go there.  It's Huberman's business who he dates, and if he misrepresents his relationship status with women that's a bit sketchy but it's still up to him.  The life advice / pop neuroscientist theme is relatively completely separate.

This response and perspective is a critique of cancel culture, of the pattern of blaming individuals and and striking them down from public acceptance for personal shortcomings, even when these aren't even close to illegal activity, or even vaguely related to why they are popular, or tied to what they communicate.  This resonates with me; I think if Huberman is giving useful, science-based life advice then how he manages dating and relationships isn't relevant to that theme.

Why connecting relationship issues and giving practical life advice makes sense

There is something to this theme of critiquing general reliability and authenticity.  Within the scope of longevity study, for example, research into extending human life-span, cases of researchers recommending supplements that they have a commercial interest in comes up.  It seems possible that the science based, practical guidance could be adjusted when it relates to the person offering it making money off it.

This isn't that case though.  It moves the concern all the way back to far more general reliability; is this a trustworthy individual?  I don't have a great read on Huberman, for not having seen much of his content, but my initial impression was positive.  Just not positive enough to seek out more content, I guess, but then I'm pretty inconsistent about what I watch on Youtube.  It ends up being filtered more for varying and random subject interest than practical impact, so that I might be watching content on cave diving one week and about streamed content reviews for shows that I don't watch the next.

To me the Athletic Greens / AG1 sponsorship really is a bit more troubling.  That's fine for content producers like Joe Rogan; if any viewers are making life choices or supplement purchases based on his input that's up to them, and they have to already know that it's not grounded by the latest scientific research.  Huberman should be more careful.  Is it that Athletic Greens might really be a fantastic product?  Instead of being unconvinced I'm more actively skeptical, and doubt it, but in fairness I don't know.

Just because Huberman continually lied to some of the people he was closest to in personal life that doesn't mean that he would be dishonest about findings he communicates in his podcast.  If the right conditions came up he probably would, but it's not clear that they ever do, beyond that one sponsor endorsement issue.

Extremist reactions from Huberman followers

This might be the most interesting part.  People in that Reddit sub are already talking about cancelling Athletic Greens subscriptions, and potentially disregarding the other life advice that they had accepted.  I'm not really going to address that here, that some people are taking this so seriously, as if it changes everything.  Maybe it should, but not everyone would follow that logic.

It's interesting to me that people were seeking out this kind of reference and personal authority to follow to begin with.  As a personable, interesting, and potentially valuable information source why not; Huberman's podcast was probably novel and helpful.  Positioning him as a thought leader or life coach I don't get.

And this is also why people feel so personally betrayed, related to him not being the person they thought he was.  But then they had no idea how he managed his personal life, so all that was projection from an online persona image anyway.  

If he was just sharing some ideas, drawing on research and his own developed perspective, then none of that matters.  If he had been taken up and placed in a role model / life coach role it all shifts.

Then source-image branding factors in.  He was built up as the next great resource, as I took the framing.  That guy that creates Physionic content isn't like that; he frames himself as an advanced grad student researcher sorting out some modern themes, like whether turmeric works or not, or whether doing more or less reps when weightlifting is better (just more on the drug / supplement theme side).  

Leo of Leo and Longevity was always framed as kind of an unconventional, strange guy; he started his Youtube career as a penis extension specialist, then moved on to longevity and biohacking themes, talking a lot about steroids.  He openly said that others shouldn't experiment as much and as freely as he did, with lots of things.  Part of his personal exploration involved taking significant risks, not following well-established and grounded practices.  Huberman framed it all as solid life-practice advice, both explicitly and implicitly.  

When it came up that Leo had abusive tendencies in his marriage relationship--as I remember those circumstances--his popularity dipped, and he became inactive for a time, but there wasn't an established idealistic image that he wasn't living up to.  He was always out there.  Huberman was supposed to be some sort of ultra-modern, research oriented, renaissance man.

Maybe he still is that; he was never supposed to be perfect.  Maybe this will be the rare case where all of this blows over.  More likely the drop in popularity that was going to cycle through eventually will be triggered now, and he will retain influence and popularity with some proportion of his earlier audience.  A podcaster like Joe Rogan might have him on again just to talk through cancel culture experience, to highlight how he and his platform are immune to the whims of people who want to initiate that pattern.  It will be interesting to see, but I won't be following it closely, since I never really was a fan anyway.  I'm more a student of these kinds of patterns; to me they are interesting.

One last take

This was an interesting summary, a post in that Huberman Reddit sub titled I'm disgusted by how much I relish this:

On the whole, I enjoyed Huberman's podcast. Setting aside the exhausting tedium and BS ads for supplements and salt, I took away a lot of useful information. In the wake of the NY Mag article, though, I'm getting a kind of sick enjoyment from watching the dumpster fire.

Maybe it's alleviating an insecurity in me, seeing someone I subconsciously compared myself to get exposed as being so egregiously flawed. Maybe it's satisfying to watch deplorable behavior being met with justice. Maybe it's cathartic to imagine a vaguely smug demeanor getting wiped off someone's face.

Whatever the case, in the last couple days, I've been on this subreddit more than in all the time leading up, and I get the sense that it's not very healthy or productive for me to keep indulging in someone else's demise, at least not at this rate. Just thought I'd put that out there in case it resonates with anyone.

It might not be that people are so upset over their hero being torn down, or that people who were always skeptical are happy to be validated.  It may just be that people love to watch things burn.

Joe Rogan and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage

 

This is interesting, how two relatively conservative, fairly influential modern media figures disagreed over whether or not gay marriage is valid.  How could gay marriage really be invalid?  It seems like nothing more than a bias in accepting that lifestyle, preference, or self-definition as legitimate, doesn't it?  One reasonable interpretation seems to be that it's just homophobia, extended to protect an institution regarded as "traditionally straight."

It takes some back and forth to get to it but Matt starts to propose why he sees gay marriage as problematic in this video discussion clip.  I commented there trying to help clarify what he started in on but never made clear; let's start with that:

I'm no fan of this guy, and Joe clearly proposed the superior take on definition of marriage here, but there is something Matt wasn't able to clearly express that works. At a societal level if we drop most of the definitions of roles and forms like marriage, being male or female, related to employment status and commitment, other types of self definition and other family roles there will be negative impact. And probably some positive change, to be fair. 

It doesn't work well to take up the God's eye view on what these social forms reinforce, so any final mapping is problematic. It certainly doesn't work to apply concern about broad societal cultural changes to individual imperatives, or role or relationship definitions, like that of marriage.

In one sense Matt is saying that gay marriage just doesn't work for him personally, but there's a deeper and potentially more reasonable component of that, which starts to question if abandoning many traditional societal roles wouldn't have negative impact on American culture, and on Americans' lives.

The awkward part of his framing is a loose and seemingly meaningless claim that opposes "his" traditional definition of marriage (between a straight man and woman, for the purpose of having and raising children) with a gap on the "other" side, and a claim that there is no good opposing definition.  Joe Rogan argues well here (unusual, that), and is more or less proposing that marriage could as easily be seen as any definition of committed monogamy, as a long-term relationship commitment between man and woman, or a gay couple, with or without any intention to have children.  That part is odd, that married people should intend to have children for some reason, so I'll just set that aside here.

Grey areas are always going to come up.  There's an internet rumor that Joe Rogan is in a somewhat open relationship, that he has binding prenuptial agreement support to pursue physical relationships outside his own marriage, which of course may or may not be true.  Setting that aside here works, and open marriages in general, or just not considering if three people couldn't be married.  It definitely works best to set aside that Matt Walsh is opposed to transgender acceptance and rights in general.

They never did dig down to the supposed problem, to the layers of why Matt sees gay people being regarded as married in society as problematic.  He seemingly wants to retain the use of that pair-bond term and legal definition for straight couples.  He probably is uncomfortable with others being gay, so there probably is a personal feeling aspect to this, but it can work to isolate the most reasonable concern, that he's not expressing well, and isolate it, to see how much sense it could possibly make.  He seems to think that traditional societal roles are functional, and is concerned that new non-traditional definitions and roles won't work as well.  He just stops short of clarifying that concern here.

As a starting point let's use a hypothetical approach, and move back to a more standard definition of marriage from the US in 1950.

Traditional marriage in the US in 1950

Before even treating this gender preference issue it's worth noting that mixed race marriages were not always legal in the US, and the shift to broad acceptance of those probably came after 1950, along with repealing some of the laws preventing this.  It's a bit of an aside but let's start there, with interracial marriage instead (don't worry, this does connect):

Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation state laws unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates. Anti-miscegenation laws have played a large role in defining racial identity and enforcing the racial hierarchy. The United States has many ethnic and racial groups, and interracial marriage is fairly common among most of them. Interracial marriages increased from 2% of married couples in 1970 to 7% in 2005[16][17] and 8.4% in 2010.[18]

According to a Pew Research Center analysis of census data conducted in 2013, 12% of newlyweds married someone of a different race...

Certes, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons (link)

U.S States, by the date of repeal of anti-miscegenation laws:   No laws passed   Repealed before 1887   Repealed between 1948 and 1967   Overturned on 12 June 1967

In a sense we are there at the connection already, aren't we?  In 1967 all US Southern states were in agreement that people of mixed races could not legally marry, and the rest of the country was in complete agreement that of course they could.  55 years later we're onto a very closely paralleled concern with gay marriage.  The Supreme Court backed all the States outside the South in that divide, and extended previous constitutional rights to include marriage between people of different races.  A more conservative court could walk that back, as gay marriage has been somewhat universally accepted and then restricted again over the past few years.

What was the perceived problem with inter-racial marriage?  It threatened the way that people in the conservative US South viewed race, and surely plenty of conservative and racist individuals elsewhere didn't want people of different races marrying either.  To them race was a social construct and also a real thing, based on clearly identifiable genetic and cultural grounds, that enabled people (with their opinions and perspective) to navigate the world.  To this opposing view if government and legal precedence accepted this racial mixing it would validate that as a form of perfectly reasonable individual choice, in violation of prior norms.  In retrospect it was the norms that had to go, but it probably wasn't so clear at the time, or at least not universally accepted.

To be clear I have two mixed race kids; my wife is Thai, and I'm white and American.  Of course I don't see them as a threat to how others arrange their worldviews, or see their existence as somehow less valid than anyone else's.

where that other direction led, to happy families with more mixed genetics

Matt Walsh sees a related individual choice as a threat, just in regards to gay people forming families, and taking up the formal role as a married couple instead.  Is there anything remotely valid about his perspective?  Not really, as a broad imperative that should be applied to everyone who identifies as gay, but he still might have a reasonable point, just not necessarily the one he's trying to make.

Erosion of social constructs

The isolated race theme some conservatives were promoting in the middle of the 20th century in the US surely didn't work out, but it must be hard to identify how that impacted the US.  Even if someone could tie negative social trends back to this causal input, for example to try to link racial mixing with crime rates, which would be impossible, there is no way that this ever should have trumped individual free choice, that inter-racial marriage should have stayed illegal to maintain some positive social order or common good.  That's Nazi stuff.  This is actually still the main tenet of modern white supremacists; they want other people to stop marrying between races, because it suits their preferences.  Too bad for them, that no one really cares what they prefer, beyond taking active steps to make sure that their views are not influential related to government policies. 

What if a current US social movement was sweeping aside or altering a lot of social constructs at the same time, not just perspectives on race and gender preference, but also gender related roles, what it means to be male or female, related to family structure definition, stability of gender definition across extended time periods (the trans and gender fluid issues), and also how people self-define as employees, citizens, local residents, and so on?  Couldn't that potentially build up to be a more serious problem than any one issue?

Maybe.  Analyzing this is problematic though.  Even if it wasn't a problem to understand these influences, even if these social transitions and cultural cause and effect sequences could be sorted out, identified as they inter-relate, and mapped from causes to final effects, it still wouldn't necessarily tie back to a firm grounds for limiting personal choices.  But let's set that concern aside; how would it be remotely possible to identify any one input's effect?  Let's try a hypothetical test case, not necessarily one that is going to shed light on this, but to help consider how one to one mapping of one change might get started, and why it would have trouble even getting started.

What if we could analyze two relatively identical societies in relation to just one easily identifiable social role and practice related parameter input; that might work.  Let's see if maybe we could consider divorce rate alone in two very comparable countries; maybe it's possible to trace likely outcome patterns from that social input, and maybe the US and Canada could work as examples.  Here's a graph to get us started:

That's from 2013, reported in 2016, and the US and Canada aren't on there (cited as currently 2.3 and 2.1 divorces per 1000, respectively, per Google results, so a bit on the higher side).  What does that even mean, since we are more accustomed to the rougher stat and half of all US marriages end in divorce?  This bullet summary probably helps:

• The current divorce rate in the US is 2.3 persons per 1,000 people.

• Overall, the rate of divorces in America is falling.

• Divorces amongst people aged 50+ years are rising.

• Fewer couples choose to marry than pre-1990.

• The US divorce rate is the third-highest in the world.

• There were around 630,000 divorces in the US in 2020.

Ok then; there is some real social role and practice change.  It does seem like it makes some sense that in the long term that roughly half of all US marriages end in divorce, even though we're not really seeing that stat form there.  Comparing 2.1 and 2.3% does show a difference, off by 10%, but it's probably not enough to serve as a basis for vague guesses about outcomes.  Comparing family stability and then further outcomes between places like the US, Guam, and Peru (at opposite ends of that scale) is also problematic, because so many other cultural differences would factor in.  It could help to compare standardized test results for children with married and separated parents across different countries, and if a clear pattern showed up in spite of the cultural differences then maybe that would help narrow down real, single cause related impact.

Of course this hypothetical study example is still a bit problematic.  Back at the level of guessing causes for the divorce rates at a glance, no trends seem to jump out related to developed or less developed countries having higher divorce rates, and so on.  There is a lot of bunching up of stats between the 2.0 and 2.3 levels in the US and Canada.  That earlier cited claim that "the US divorce rate is the third highest in the world" seems a bit questionable, based on this other set of stats, but so what if Guam, Aruba, Belarus and the others really do have a much higher level rate; what would that tell us?  I suppose if societal conventions are breaking down this might work as a bell-weather indicator, but even if it could we probably couldn't support that through clear analysis and justification, working back to why (eg. if race, religion, or gender preference concerns are a significant cause).

If a stat that is so easily accessible remains problematic to treat much in terms of cause and effect analysis themes like gay marriage and the impact of trans-gender self-identification must be all the more so.

Considering divorce rates in Thailand

Let's shift over into the opposite extreme, ungrounded hearsay input, versus analyzing clear stats; since I've just lived in a foreign country and culture let's consider how I interpret social changes having an impact here in relation to in the US.

Divorce seems pretty common, to me, but that's a little too anecdotal.  My wife's mother (who is elderly, closing in on 80) had 4 siblings, and one didn't marry, three were divorced, and she was widowed, but maybe her own marriage would've held up if not, leading to a 75% divorce rate in their example.  One source goes further, claiming that a general rate was 27% in 2006, and 39% in 2016.  Looking at other stats and sources doesn't narrow that to a clear number per 1000, to match with what I've mentioned so far.

It does seem to disrupt family member's lives, of course, in those examples I've witnessed.  My wife has four closer cousins, and one we're not in such close touch with, and half of those four have been divorced.  It adds complexity and stress for their children to grow up in divided households, or to live with brothers and sisters from different parents.  The cousin that isn't close is from the first wife of an uncle we aren't in touch with; those kinds of ties are impacted.

It's hard to get any feel for general status related to other changes in relation to marriage practices, for example if the impact of increased gay marriage is causing any negative effects, for example if that status is stressful and problematic, as growing up in divided household can be.  Gay people can't legally marry in Thailand, so that's going to throw off collecting any stats.  I don't know that incidence of non-heterosexual identification is necessarily higher or lower in Thailand, but there is a very culturally embedded and accepted male to female identification change, with the opposite seemingly less common, but also well accepted.  Thais don't seem very homophobic, to me; the few gay people I've worked with were treated exactly like everyone else.

Although all this didn't lead anywhere, as considering inter-racial marriage didn't, to me it's still interesting pursuing these thought-model parallels a bit.  We will surely never sort out a final societal negative impact (and positive outcomes) from more widespread gay marriage, but perhaps we can learn from comparing it to other related and better known circumstances.  If there is no way to clearly identify cause and effect for broad trends like divorce rate changes then acting on a presumed possible cause for family structure instability would make no sense, because even if we could accurately isolate a likely potential future cause (eg. society "supporting" gay marriage) we could never really place to what extent that ever happened (acting as a real cause), or didn't happen.  

Of course that's still avoiding a main concern:  gay couples can have kids whether or not legal protections and benefits of marriage apply to them.  It's not likely that slightly more favorable tax deduction options would tip the balance for such decisions.

How could the US government attempt to resolve a "problem" like a high divorce rate, if it came to be seen as problematic?  That's a tough one.  Applying the opposite of tax incentives, some sort of penalties, probably wouldn't work.  Offer counseling?  It's just not the place of government to get involved at this level.

Gender fluidity as an extreme case

Let's go further with what I'm trying to get at.  This seems like as extreme a case in current self-definitions shifts as we are seeing, with some people rejecting that they should adopt any consistent time-frame gender self-definition role at all, not just in terms of gender neutrality (not participating), but related to form of consistent, active identification.  What impact will this have on the stability of society, or an ability for someone to serve as a role model for developing children?

There's no clear way to tell, of course.  As far as society goes I think offending sensibilities and not meeting expectations might be the main impact.  Gender neutrality has the same effect; people just don't know how to place that.  And they don't need to know, unless it somehow becomes relevant to them.  Matt Walsh gave a good example of how that might work in that podcast discussion, just not in that clip, describing a negative experience in referring to a person working in a coffee shop as male, a bearded individual wearing a dress.  That person was offended, and corrected him.  

Relatively little impact there, but Joe and Matt went on to discuss how adding preferred pronouns to their work email footer impacts them.  Really, does it?  Seemingly not; this turns back to sensibilities.  If someone could be processed through HR reaction for mis-gendering, and eventually fired for this, then that's a more practical effect.  If what Matt Walsh said had been a crime, responding "thanks, bro," instead of just "thanks" that's another example of when real impact could apply.

It would take impact and outcomes pushing on to this next level for new forms of confusion and inability to relate to have a next level of real effect.  That gets tricky, because as societal protections ramp up to match average personal acceptance level those legal implications will enter in as well.  It could become very difficult not to "mis-gender" people who were changing self-designation day to day, or difficult to interpret where it all should naturally leave off, if people are adopting non-human identification along with new forms of gender identity, eg. identifying as an animal type, elf, or fairy.  It could sound absurd now but new practices and social norms could need to evolve along with new forms of identification and expression.

It goes without saying that society as a whole trying to prevent anyone from entering into relationships or having children is taking a couple of extra very problematic steps.

Considering differences between two cultures and nationalities

It's very difficult to separate different levels of social changes and outcomes across two different cultures.  Since I just spent two months living back in Honolulu, where I went to grad school, and since I'm in constant online contact with US culture, I can share some impressions related to how changes have real impact, related to here in Thailand, where these changes are slower to occur (accepting that these self-definition changes will also happen here, which is not necessarily a given).  For the most part they really don't seem to shift culture in terms of changing how people inter-relate, to me, beyond a myriad of these isolated cases adding up to real net effect.  

Within certain parts of US society, in sub-culture groups, and probably even industries, there would be real teeth to these new applied demands to observe new norms.  Actors need to adopt or support certain social perspectives, for example, or company cultures can evolve towards shared perspectives, and can certainly prune out staff who don't observe those.  Beyond that it's probably these sorts of hypothetical discussions, up until something like a legal right to marry completely shifts that.

Again, to be clear, Thailand is not undergoing this related social change, per my understanding.  It's coming; according to my son early teenagers are so well exposed to these ideas that it's now just a matter of time until that generation carries their new self-definition range on to adult perspectives and practices.  In not facing the issues yet, for these new perspectives and self-definitions not being taken up, the complications and negative outcomes also don't arise.  To be clear I'm not talking about people self-identifying as gay or trans-gender; those things are normal in Thailand, and have been for some time.  I'm still projecting ahead to how other related changes may cycle through to other kinds of impact, eg. enforced gender pronoun use laws.

A completely unrelated observation that I made just yesterday shows how this kind of input could be almost impossible to isolate, for some types of culture changes being gradual, or relating mainly to background conditions or "feel."  I'm going to try to use this example to explain how a general culture-based "feel" varies, which is difficult to achieve.

My wife and I were in an informal market area, eating dinner in an outdoor food court sort of area, with lights hanging to outline the area, food trucks or stands serving the food, and loud music playing.  In the US I had only seen food trucks mirroring this sort of environment, and that only recently, on the last stay in Hawaii (it wasn't there 15 years ago, or probably open to local licensing).  I'm not claiming that Thai and developing-world culture is influencing the US; in fact the opposite.  That sort of chaotic, vibrant, loud, uncontrolled environment didn't remind me of any experience I'd ever had in the US; it just felt different.  I suppose it was closest to the feeling at an event, let's say at a large sports event, or state fair type environment.  There is more structure and shared intentional context there, but the dynamic feel is somewhat comparable.

It couldn't be more normal in places like Bangkok sidewalks, or old-style markets.  It reminded me of how one main observation from a single visit to Europe a very long time ago was that societies there were much more orderly, quieter, and more reserved.  Not Eastern Europe, I don't mean; beyond the Czech Republic we only visited the Western parts.  That was generally a positive thing, that public environments were much cleaner and better organized, and people were more reserved.  It just felt a little odd, being accustomed to less restrictive and louder American experience.  

Thailand is a couple of steps further into chaos, culturally.  And that's generally a good thing too, ironically.  There is essentially no crime at all, in comparison with US urban environments, and a lot changes when you cut off that mapping of rough edges and poverty linking to a lack of safety.  A high degree of comfortable feeling enters in, when restrictions drop away, and noise picks up, with no real downside in terms of what might happen that's negative.  Traffic risk is much worse; you have to be careful of that, and that's about it.

In the US political issue tension combines with these varying contexts and cultural shifts.  Some of it all is just about perceptions and expectations, one broad group not liking another, but then real impacts do adjoin all that.  Real violence comes up.  Someone can get shot in a road-rage incident in Thailand too, but road rage is a much less common theme.  Everyone drives so poorly all the time it's just the norm.  It's rare for people to use a horn because that's regarded as poor form, but people almost crash into each other continually; that's just what driving experience is.  I've only been in one accident in 15 years here though, when the mud-flap of a truck grazed our car due to passing too close when we were turning at an intersection.

Where was I going with all this?  Broader cultural context is a funny thing, not something easy to isolate.  Splitting out individual inputs and change effects is going to be problematic when cultural context baselines are so complex themselves.  Some degree and types of chaos can seem good, and others can be very problematic.  The tension and political perspective divide in the US isn't a universal theme, and legal restrictions mapping to every point of personal perspective also isn't.   

Thailand is quite openly accepting of gay and transgender status, but there is no same sex marriage in Thailand.  This relates to a generally conservative approach to application of laws, and the government trying to just stay out of it.  I don't think there ever were legally mandated protections related to gender, race, or ethnic status either; society was given free reign to sort all that out instead.  That's a trade-off; problematic special cases would occur without such protections, some people treated unfairly, while the entire range of problems from mandating equal rights also drops out.

It's probably going to seem like none of that connected, as much as I see it all as linked.  What is the running thread between informal food courts set up under elevated highways tying back to societal protections and perspective of gay people?  Less formal and restricted social order seems to be a normal earlier state in the development of societies.  At the other extreme perhaps European societies are much more orderly, clearly role-defined, and rigid, which has to bring in positive aspects at a cost.  The chaotic state of people doing whatever they want to do is nice, in terms of freedom and openness, but then negative patterns evolve that society tries to make adjustments for.  Maybe gays being married is not at all a good example of this; it doesn't seem to parallel the natural need to set speed limits on roads or to control food safety through laws and inspection steps.

Conclusions

The final point, as much as there is one, is that dictating culture, perspective, and individual behavior is problematic.  You can't really isolate broad cultural shifts and then identify clear outcomes that result from those.  No one can say if allowing mixed race marriages proved to be a positive or negative input to US culture, in terms of some vague well-being metric.  Surely providing people with reasonable rights was a positive change.  

It also doesn't work well to identify clear outcomes of culture-based choice trends through stats, or by comparing one aspect of one country to another, broadly mapping different cultures.  "Allowing" gay marriages probably has no more impact than allowing mixed race marriages did, but even if there was some negative outcome (eg. higher divorce rate, children experiencing problems due to drawing on more diverse role model forms) it seems in this case access to equal rights is still the primary concern.  

If 25% of all Americans drop out of traditional gender based self-image roles that will have significant impact on US culture, but no one will ever really be able to separate that out as a cause of other individual effects.  The US economy is already in serious long term decline, which surely no one can contest, and that cause will have greater impact on US society than almost any other individual factors.  That one over-arching factor, along with issues of unequal distribution of wealth, will have more impact than people deciding that they want to switch genders, or not adopt one, or keep switching that self-definition around.

Conservatives in general would be uncomfortable with people being gay or trans.  My own parents are completely liberal, except with regards to this one point.  They just can't accept that as a valid norm, that men might be attracted to men, and women to women.  As committed liberals maybe they can't go as far as Matt Walsh does, and say that marriage should be restricted to straight couples, although maybe they could, supporting use of the term "civil union" instead, accepting equivalent rights but not use of "their word."  

My parents would be open to offering gays equivalent tax benefits, and legal protections related to divorce processing and inheritance, which shifts the issue back into purely semantic range.  My parents would base that preference for word use on a perspective informed by religion, where it seems that maybe people like Matt Walsh see societies' endorsement of taking on social roles as grounded elsewhere, as supporting positive forms (what he sees as positive), leading to better outcomes (what he projects as probably better).  His framing and read are problematic on every level.  All the same thinking through broader related patterns and why he is uncomfortable seems interesting, to think through the next level of underlying context.

Talking to Ken Cohen, host of the Talking Tea podcast

This is about talking to Ken Cohen in a meetup, not about being a guest on the Talking Tea podcast.  It was interesting hearing how hosting that goes, and other personal background stories and discussion.  There wasn't as much central theme as occurs with tea producers, or even vendors, when narrowing discussion scope down to a clearly defined range of tea types and activities makes sense.

Ken is from the same state I'm originally from, Pennsylvania, but over on the other side, in Philly.  We talked about NYC a bit since he also has had plenty of exposure to there.  And about Buddhism; he is also a Qi Gong and meditation practitioner.  I don't have any background with Qi Gong but the Buddhism and meditation parts are familiar.  We covered a lot on personal practice variations, and how Buddhism works out interpreted as Western philosophy, and considered Buddhism in relation to tea practice.

In writing about all these talks some degree of a lack of a central theme makes it hard to summarize what was covered, all the more so in this version.  I can start with the Talking Tea podcast background.

Talking Tea

Ken mentioned that he started this years ago to further his own self-education in tea background, which is a familiar theme with bloggers too, just less of a formal process and output for them.  In reviewing what he has covered the range is fairly broad.  I caught a version about Meghalya teas recently (an region in India), and an interview with Brother Anthony (An Sonjae), the main name that comes up in relation to tea themes in South Korea.  He came up in a meetup discussion about association with the Penn State Tea Club not so long ago.

Ken talked us through an elaborate planned out alcohol infusion experiment that related to a podcast episode.  That went a half dozen steps beyond what normal media coverage of a sub-theme gets to, never mind informal blog posting.  A tea vendor cooperated with a local spirits manufacturer to host an offsite, hotel-based alcoholic drink tasting session, which is complicated to arrange in the US. The podcast version would include more details, and the results of the alcohol infusion trials.

It sounded like a lot to take on as a hobby interest, not just that more developed event, but an audio podcast format in general.  Ken mentioned that rather than ramp up version production over covid times he has kept the pace moderate.  In part that related to being busy with other work scope.  Then he also added that lots of vendors are hosting lots of forms of more and less formal podcasts and online gatherings now, so he doesn't see that range as a gap to be filled over the last year and a half.  

I've written regularly about discovering new forms of these types of channels and versions, most recently about Discord channels hosting them, but Youtube and Instagram versions are common now too.  Crimson Lotus is an example of a vendor holding a video podcast version, Farmerleaf an example of a Discord audio only version, and Cody of the Ooolong Drunk blog holds regular Instagram based podcast sessions.  Elyse of Tealet seems to bridge from some of those forms into multi-channel events of different kinds, some more like seminars and some just random streaming.

Ken's approach to a podcast seems a little more considered, planned, and structured than almost all of those, more like a conventional media approach.  Maybe Farmerleaf one on one interview discussions don't fall too far from that theme, but as live sessions the result includes whatever it includes, and those seem a bit conversational.  Cody's version is quite social, which can be nice, or I suppose someone could see the small talk and extension beyond tea themes as not being of interest.  We've talked about extending these informal meetups to be a recorded and shared version in the past, but never did, because it would diminish the informal feel.

only the first of a longer list

Tea as Buddhist meditation

This could seem a little disappointing as a finding, since we discussed how tea practice could be used as meditation or mindfulness practice, but didn't get far with seeing it as closely linked.  I'm not really a great reference for meditation practice, but I have informally practiced that in the past, and went through a few weeks of guided instruction during regular sessions while ordained as a Thai monk.  In general a lot of Thai "city monks" leave off meditation practice after spending a lot of their time chanting in services and ceremonies, but I did visit a local meditation center daily at that time, one hosted by monks at the next temple over.

with Nong On, who is now the oldest of our three cats

Why wouldn't it be great mediation experience to brew and appreciate tea?  Formal meditation is something else than people tend to describe as meditational.  It's nothing too exotic or hard to relate to, but relaxing and paying attention to tea experience, or walking in nature, or whatever else, can overlap but it's not the same.  Related to the overlap part there isn't much to discuss that isn't already familiar ground; it can provide a good opportunity to relax and pay attention to the present moment, and to turn off a broad range of other distractions.  If a half an hour of that experience every other day helps calm and center someone then in a broad sense it is meditation.  In the narrower sense it's still not, related to seated meditation, calming your mind, watching breath, and noticing thoughts pass, which brings about some degree of inner experience change the rest of the time.  That involves a lower degree of external stimulus and can result in a different effect (per a standard take, and to a large extent to my past experience).

It can be a problem that focus on aesthetic forms or relatively trivial calming themes can be presented as Buddhist practice, when they are sort of that, and sort of not.  Getting a massage in a spa is quite calming, but not really equivalent to Buddhist meditation.  Wearing robes could seem pleasant, or having Buddha images around can be decorative, and a good reminder of some ideals, but I personally see no connection with that to meditation or mindfulness practices.  Being in nature is great; to me there's more overlap in just being outdoors than relates to wearing natural fiber clothes, lighting candles, burning incense, or playing New Age music.  But again I think if tea exposure is experienced as calming, as a means towards connecting with the present moment, then there's a lot to that, just not necessarily a lot to be said about it.

I have no problem with people combining interest in tea and aesthetics, I just don't

Ken talked about his formal meditation practice a little, but not to the extent of delving into how it works, for example in relation to breathing techniques, or daily life effects.  There's a Talking Tea podcast episode about Taoism that goes further into tea and meditation practice themes, it's just not entirely about that.  It would represent his take on Eastern religion and meditation practices better than these earlier comments, which are really written from my own point of view, and as an interview it would include background input from that guest as well. 

Maybe it's as well that people tend to connect interest in Buddhism and Eastern Philosophy with tea, even though related to formal practice the overlap can seem limited.

this can be associated with Taoism, but it's also easy to overstate the connection

Tea origin stories

It's not typical that the circle of friends who always join (Ralph, Suzana, and Huyen) end up covering their own initial connection to tea stories, but since Ken has that interview background it was easier for him to consider and raise this sort of point in discussion.  I think I heard and shared more about my own background than we've been through in any other single session, with some details about the other coming up that I'd not heard, even though we've been meeting and talking for a year and a half now.  

I hadn't heard Huyen's family's complete story related to two brothers founding two different tea businesses, although I was familiar with her working for one of them, Tra Viet, a gift shop company that sells tea.  

Huyen and her brother Dung looking amazing (photo credit her FB profile)

their spirits and their daily life is beautiful (just check out her Instagram page)

Ralph covered how his earliest family related starting points went.  Then Ken also described his early origins with tea, which led through and connected with other Asian culture practices, the Qi Gong and meditation themes.  It was really interesting.  In a story that comes up in different forms Ken was exposed to tea in two forms over time, related to drinking moderate quality Chinatown shop tea (like gunpowder), then later onto what tea enthusiasts tend to drink, the rest of the range.

New Kan Man NYC Chinatown store (a theme we discussed, with more on there in this post)

To some extent that kind of thing works better as a personal discussion, tied to social connections, than hearing many different personal versions in those informal podcast sessions I mentioned catching parts of.  A 5 or 10 minute version wouldn't drag on, but hearing over and over about someone running across a shop or knowing a friend into tea can just repeat.  

To be clearer introductions to tea is a sub-theme I'm interested in for more than one reason.  It can be interesting for story value, but it's also worth considering how tea awareness spreads, or why it doesn't, related to coffee and bubble tea interest dominating that of "real tea."  All those online channels and content forms I've mentioned wouldn't be of interest to someone not already into better than average tea.  Text based tea blogs are even less likely to be of interest to most tea enthusiasts, it seems, which is understandable.  The main tea theme is the actual experience, not reading and learning, or watching video.

Having a friend or family member into tea is the main introduction to tea story, or another Asian culture related interest leading to tea exposure.  I kept seeing Thai tea in grocery stores, and buying some, and did the same in visiting other countries.  Oddly I was into tisanes for 15 years in the US prior to developing that interest, and never accidentally ran across "real tea."  Today I think I would; things have changed.

Conclusion

This is the least focused on the person joining any summary has been, with good reason.  We talked about foreign cultures, covid themes, our own connections to tea, and shops and outlets in different places, not so much about Ken and his own tea interest.  I don't even know his favorite type of tea; maybe we could've focused more on that.  

Letting discussions take an organic path lands on different results, and it was as well that we made it through so much interesting scope, instead of getting into what he's drinking, or the gear he owns.  Huyen was the only other person on time for the session, so we did an earlier limited participation version talking more about Tea Masters and tea in Vietnam than we typically do, and Suzana joined really late, so we talked about Indian teas towards the end.  That transition of themes was nice. We tend to either get pretty far into covid discussion or skip that part, and it was nice comparing notes about experiences in this session (which of course I'm not summarizing here; everyone knows how the pandemic is going, we just add more local detail in the discussions).

It makes perfect sense to me that when we talked to a podcast host and Buddhism practitioner the focus wasn't on him personally.  The opposite shouldn't have happened.  Most typically one or two of us tend to talk less than the others, with conversations settling into a two-way form, and that didn't really happen this time, which I also see as positive.  When we are talking to a tea producer it's as well that almost all focus is on them, and what they are doing, and related background, but for a more open social form discussion the more even balance is really nice.  At times I can miss just talking to Ralph, Huyen, and Suzana without any theme or topic, and this session was like that, with Ken as just one more of our friends.

Tea references

 

First published in TChing here.

Four years ago I wrote a beginner's guide to tea themes post that included a reference section.  Someone just mentioned a good reference on oxidation (a Tea Geek blog post), a source listed in that, and it made me reconsider what I had left out, or what has changed since.

Most of what usually gets mentioned isn't bad.  If you ask in a tea group--which I see, for moderating one--people will bring up blogs like the ones mentioned in that post, or the Global Tea Hut magazines, or a few Youtube channels.  I'll only cover what is new, or that I didn't include there, at least for the most part.  Mei Leaf and Hojo vendor content both aren't bad beginner references, but both contain errors and marketing bias, as I see it.  All vendor produced content doubles as marketing, so it's probably that part of that context bothers me more than that it's different from other sources I am mentioning.

Farmerleaf video content:  this vendor started making interesting tea production videos a few years back, about black, white, and pu'er teas (and most recently about oolong; strange for a Yunnan vendor).  I did actually mention this source in that post.  It's odd how rare it is for vendor content to seem like a reference.  Cindy added background on Wuyi Yancha in hers, there's just not a lot there yet.  That limitation is normal; travel photos typically are as close as vending pages get, maybe just with tea processing pictures mixed in.  It's all partly there to sell Farmerleaf products, but William Osmont does a great job of just covering basics, and some finer points, without steering ideas too far towards product sales.

William making some sheng

Late Steeps:  this blog includes a lot of cool experiment references on using mylar bags for sheng storage, and heated storage experiments.  I'm not sure what other blogs seem like a reference to me, as half mentioned in that post some years back also sort of don't, more about reviews and general commentary.  One I left out then works for that:

Tea DB:  maybe the most popular video blog out there, with some pretty good research reference text posts.  It's hard for a blogger to level up to really being much of an expert, as tea producers almost automatically are, but someone doing research works out as developed content.

Mattcha's Blog:  this isn't mainly designed as a reference, like the Tea Geek blog is, but it's a personal favorite.  Some parts head towards that scope, digging a bit deeper into background.

Discord Communitea:  not a reference at all, a social media channel and group instead, but then that post included that range too.  An old-style forum like Tea Chat can serve as a reference using searchable threads, but daily streams of discussions just aren't that (but I'm mentioning it anyway, mostly related to novelty and uptake).

a mainframe board kind of feel people would probably like or hate

Tea Forum:  kind of a carry-over from Tea Chat, more what that had been, really by design since a falling out in Tea Chat led directly to its creation.  It never became what Tea Chat had once been, but then it's a different time now; diverse online channels mean no central references or groups could take up the same role some had a decade ago.  This reference on making your own humidity control packs is about as solid as this site gets for that role.

same for this style; it would probably seem familiar and positive or else a bit obsolete

Moychay, Sergey's content:  their content is mostly in Russian but this sub-channel is translated. Content is pretty good, solid and in-depth, and not so directed towards sales.  

Tea Masters, Tea Obsession (Tea Habitat related):  classic blogs are worth a look, and Tea Masters is actually still active (a vendor-related Taiwan based blog), with Tea Habitat, Imen's now-inactive blog, mostly related to Dan Cong.  I must be missing a lot related to this range.  Walker Tea Reviews on Youtube were great (from 2011-2014 or so); I bet those haven't even aged badly.

Podcasts: since I don't keep up with this range, or necessarily see these as a reference, I'll just mention a couple of examples and let it go; Crimson Lotus does an interesting series, and Cody of Oolong Drunk does a cool informal version.  There must be lots of these (I keep seeing mentions), or saved seminar and forum content.  Again the "reference" theme can be vague;  if someone put enough research in a seminar session could be that, or the right expert talking for an hour is a great resource, but hearing stories about how someone got into tea can become repetitive.

That's good for a start.  I'm really not reading around reference content as frequently now; exploration naturally follows cycles, and after awhile that kind of drops out, then something triggers new rounds.  I try to not give up on learning but in basic references I tend to see more errors and omissions in reference content than ideas I'm not already familiar with.  It's hard to think of a counter-example, to place that in relation to something I've read or viewed this year that was newer to me.  William's Farmerleaf content always goes into more detail than I'm clear on for tea processing, and Sergey's Moychay content talks about visiting parts of China, and growing and processing themes there, which of course aren't familiar.

A lot of blogs are just about trying countless teas; I suppose mine could come across like that, even though I'm largely off the subject this year.  A little of that could go a long way.  It's nice venturing into new types range, to higher quality levels, or getting to other basics, but trying to drink the ocean for trying hundreds of kinds or versions of teas could be way too much to embrace.  Even the basic background context has limits for practical utility.  It's all about making a drink from dried leaves and hot water, which doesn't need to be so complicated.  I tend to see the background learning and social media themes as secondary and complementary interests, as much as directly tied to drinking tea.

20,000 members in the International Tea Talk FB group

 

looks more like a business page than it really is

This is a good prompt for reconsidering what some social media stats mean.  It's always hard to place, isn't it, what the number of Facebook post likes means, or Instagram followers?  Taken alone nothing specific, I guess.  Facebook group membership is all the more vague, given how people tend to join a few dozen groups and then interact with few of them.  Most people wouldn't even see posts in their feed, based on that.

Let's back up:  I helped co-found the International Tea Talk group a few years ago, adding half the new members from a friends list, along with Shana Zhang, the real owner.  I'm not credited as a co-founder but that's fine; I don't put value on that official role title anyway.  I'm essentially the sole moderator / admin, which is more about workload than getting credit.  It's all good.  It's strange I stuck around that long; I helped a second online contact start a group at the same time and that's gone quiet long ago.

The group theme is about internationally oriented tea discussion.  A lot of Facebook tea groups turn into streams of ads, since vendors use the groups to post those, and it was a judgement call but explicit ads aren't allowed in that group.  I won't get into applied ad definition, moderation grey area, and daily screening practice here, but all that could fill up a 1000 word post.

Back to the theme here; what does it mean that this group has 20,000 members, versus some other group having 10 or 15,000?  Nothing at all, of course.  The count went up a bit fast because the "international" theme broadens scope.  Groups like Gong Fu Cha and the Puerh Tea Club have narrower themes, not necessarily limited to US or European membership, but it tends to relate to more participation from those areas.  "International" is everywhere, by definition.  The theme naturally led to including more tea producers as members, and plenty of vendors, and because those people are networked in different countries it amounted to a lot of Facebook group suggestions to people.

Placing other stats

I keep coming back to considering social media stats related to FB or Instagram contact count, and even more so in relation to blog reach / post views.  Facebook changed a feed routing algorithm quite a bit something like 2 1/2 years ago and the reach of this blog dropped considerably, down from 300-500 views per post to more like 100.  I couldn't fully place what it meant that only a third as many people were reading what I wrote.  Group feed posting, other FB filtering algorithms, probably changed considerably then too.  It might have worked to try to bump use of hashtags in Instagram, or post to Twitter, or whatever else, to reclaim some viewership, but I never did.  Reading over 1000 words of text is a challenge; it's strange that many people do it regularly.

It has been interesting experimenting with Quora, a question and answer themed site, and noticing how reach / engagement stats are so much higher there.  I don't necessarily interpret that to relate to any actual engagement; scrolling past a post heading isn't much of a "view."  Those stats are so interesting--to me at least--that I'll cite my personal stats and those for a "space" here:

4.2 million answer views for my personal profile and 120k for the Specialty Tea Space (my "group" equivalent; I accept content shared there by others but it's mostly what I write).  Seems like a lot.

I've seen different Facebook post or group stats, of course, but a quick reference to most popular posts (from the last month) in that International Tea Talk group can help clarify the range of reach:

So some posts were seen by 2700 to 6700 people; not bad.  I had thought group engagement would end up being quite limited since people tend to join a lot of groups but maybe not:

That count is a bit over 10,000 active members for the last month, with this three month view showing an upward trend.

What does it mean though?

Ok, so thousands of people really are seeing more popular posts, and 10,000 see something from that group in a month, with likes and comments varying a lot per post.  It's still hard to place.  It would almost make more sense to shift interpretive framework a little, from those stats, and try to consider what value people are getting out of the group, how the meaning varies by participant.

Advertising value is a bit limited for vendor members (and by extension maybe to consumers), but plenty find ways to work around the explicit ad restriction, adding other content instead of advertising.  And the ad posts stay up until I clear them.  After posting an ad members are placed on one month post pre-approval status, and deleted from the group if a stream of ad posts follow that, requiring daily review and deletion from that queue.

Two of those top five viewed posts are questions, two are information, and one kind of a general starting point.  I mention these blog posts there but they would draw less attention.  The post I've added that was viewed most was about US tea production, sharing a post by Jason McDonald about the Great Mississippi Tea Company growing a lot of clone plants (or seedlings, was it?).  It's interesting that in the most engaged post 300 people reacted with "likes" and such; seems like a lot.

Answers to questions probably make up a lot of the experienced value, for members.  If someone asks about physical shops where they live or are visiting, for example, related to anywhere in the world, there are typically a few good answers.  The same is true for asking about tea types, online references, or storage issues, and so on.  But it would all be equally true if there were half as many members, I think.

Limitations of that group, strengths of others

In order to make this more clearly about placing what tea groups are doing I'd like to mention a main limitation of this International version:  it has no clear central theme.  "International" is a theme, but it just means "from anywhere."  The Gong Fu Cha group narrows tea interest to a brewing approach and more ceremonial form; the Puerh Tea Club limits by tea type.  The Yunnan Sourcing Fans group makes for an unusual exception; it narrows theme and discussion down to one vendor.  And that works, although it can be a little annoying cutting off discussion at that range, since in many cases more interesting scope lies just outside what any one given vendor sells.

Narrower focus makes a group feel more like a real shared interest, like a social group form.  Narrower focus comes at a cost, beyond limiting potential membership count.  It stands out more when people's interests aren't within a perceived main part of the theme.  For a tea type like puerh (pu'er) that's less significant; there's a potential grey area related to the same tea coming from Myanmar or Vietnam or wherever, but basically it's clear what pu'er is, and isn't.  Whenever someone asks about a version of gushu from LBZ selling on Ebay that can feel a bit jarring, but it's a great place to hear why those teas may well not be worth the $10 they tend to sell for, or why drinking bad pu'er might not suit everyone.  People do post about grandpa style brewing once in awhile in the Gong Fu Cha group, and technically that's completely out of scope, but as long as topics are reasonable they'd be ok with that.

I think the Reddit r/tea group (subreddit) suffers from the same limitation; it's just about tea, in general.  Evolved consensus preference there is more about drinking grocery store versions brewed from tea bags, but it has evolved to include more loose specialty tea and gongfu brewing concerns just recently.  The r/puer group there seems narrower, but it doesn't really feel like a social group, like a set of main members who know each other.  I'm not sure why not; maybe it relates to people being generally anonymous on Reddit, with some exceptions.  That leads to a related question:  how do you intentionally build up that feeling of community?

Building a feeling of community in an online group

It's not as if I'm some sort of social media expert but of course I have some background exposure, so I'll add thoughts on this.  You build up the feeling of community in a few ways:

1. define scope narrowly enough to capture shared experience and perspective (already discussed).

2. set rules that limit problems, scope drift, and related membership turnover (applies to all groups).

3. develop a core group of main members who are familiar with each other.

1 and 2 are simple enough; 3 is tricky.  A couple of years ago there were a few main members of the International Tea Talk group who were most active (not many; two main ones come to mind), and essentially all of them participate relatively little now.  I don't think a natural active member "churn" is as much of an issue as initiating a group feel and regular participation in the first place.  One central owner can help post and set up an environment that encourages routine discussion and participation, but it kind of has to happen organically.  I suppose making a half dozen people fit more in that central role as moderators could use that role assignment step to support core group development.

I participated in an expat forum that achieved a sense of community and small group core better than anywhere else I've experienced online. I think part of that related to the natural shared experience (living abroad, being a foreigner), and to luck related to those guys getting along, and to Brits naturally embracing that kind of association.  Then the owner went off the rails a bit, eliminating more and more people for trivial violations, until it was like the Sopranos, and eventually everyone was going to be gone.  Then he pulled the plug.

#2 relates to an interesting case, maybe more familiar to Americans than others:  if any group allowed political posts a central trend for mostly liberal or conservative backing would exclude a large amount of members.  If membership was split, which could be even worse, the group could easily turn into a battleground for debating that difference.  Two examples of this come to mind.  One related to a tea group normally way outside that subject range making an exception and allowing some politically oriented current event discussion.  In the second case a Penn State alumni group really became messy as a result.  In both cases the set of issues seemed to "play through," so maybe it's not that critical a concern.  Surely some people quit both groups as a result but I would imagine most members just ignored it.

From there lots of steps I've never tried could help, like setting up group oriented online meetups, or using surveys to initiate discussion.  I post about content I'm creating, or news and events I find interesting, and that's about it.  Routine light conversation starters, like asking "what's in your cup today?" could help, but it doesn't seem like it contributes enough to make a lot of difference.  It might help to push that to a next step and ask about real current issues or background themes.  I've been considering forest or wild-sourced tea a bit lately; one might post and ask about experiences with that (and I should, come to think of it).  

With 20,000 members getting .1% together for a chat--20 people--is still too many, but hosting a podcast interview themed event might work; I've joined such a thing elsewhere before.  I've been holding a series of small-group video gatherings, that I've posted a lot about, but those aren't streamed live or recorded and posted for public viewing.

Changing to a broader scope, it's odd that Facebook groups have hung in there as a relevant format for as long as they have.  I first participated in Facebook tea groups around 8 or 9 years ago, and Tea Chat and Steepster have both more or less died since then.  Something like Discord groups could eventually replace FB groups, and Instagram already is a lot more active.  I don't love the Discord old mainframe board feel (just with better graphics, and a bit more diverse structure), and of course Instagram is mostly about pictures, short text, story clips (now reels?), and comments.  Maybe Facebook groups will last awhile.  The Quora Spaces theme always did seem like an experiment, and not one that necessarily took.  Questions and answers as a site theme only goes so far.

As in my own case Facebook works well for mixing a personally related profile, themed pages (tied to this blog), developed messaging function, and groups.  The "live" thing was interesting, while people did that, now transitioned some to more informal forms of podcasts and such.  Facebook's dabbling in stories forms and video media channels didn't seeming to have much impact.

One might wonder, why do I moderate a Facebook group, essentially covering the typical role of owner, why put that time in?  It started as an experiment, and now I'm not sure.  Partly out of force of habit.  Not everything I do is about my own benefit, and it seems like others must get some value out of it.  A lot of people have learned a lot, about background, references, and events, and many relatively specific questions have been answered.  Active participant transition limits a sense of community, but at any given time a lot of people are active there.  Maybe the true potential hasn't been realized yet, and some minor shift in form could develop more continuity and group feel.  To say that membership is truly global is a real understatement; group members are from everywhere.  There seems to be a lot of potential in that.

I've talked to hundreds of people related to participation, or in a broader sense have had limited contact with thousands, so it doesn't work to imply that I've taken limited value from the experience.  That meetup series I've mentioned included people from a lot of different countries, largely related to that contact.  It's really cool that if a question comes up about tea in a random place I can usually search back and find a message conversation with someone about there, regardless of where it is.  I think of it all as mostly not being about me though, more about the group being a positive discussion channel and resource for others.