I empathize with the "find your tribe" concept, but am deeply disappointed by how sama has framed it here.
> You want to find your tribe – the types of people like you that you can imagine working with for the rest of your career. Within that, you want to find a small group of people whom you trust, and whose opinions you really respect. [emphasis mine]
There are a handful of people in the world who are "like me", with whom I have any significant intersection of history, interests or identities. And though I am able to include others in my circle by celebrating our differences, this mentality (and advice) encourages them to exclude me from theirs.
I really wish the commonly accepted advice when forming one's "tribe" would be to seek out others to connect with who are different from you, but who you share enough with to forge a bond. It's not just better advice to create a healthy whole, it's idiosyncratically more interesting (and professionally more profitable) to have a variety of friends and colleagues with different histories, biases and networks of their own.
I think you can interpret "like you" in a few different ways. Someone can be "like you" if they share common values, even if they have completely different background, interests, personalities, etc.
I don't want to speak for him, but I believe Sam's point is that those are the people that you forge the strongest bond with.
I agree that's a better interpretation, but this is a post for an audience to whom that's not necessarily the most obvious way to read it.
I'd hypothesize that diversity is both among the best qualities to have in one's tribe and something which requires the most intentional approach to assemble. That's well worth pointing out, and probably a more helpful reminder than "make some friends".
It's the "people like you" which I disagree with, and the presumption that you should choose those who you trust and respect from that group.
That's probably not what Sama means, but it's what is technically advised and how it's practically enacted. Surrounding yourself with similar/aligned people is just positive spin on excluding those who are different.
I believe strongly in creating one's tribe with intent, and choose it to maximize the richness of one's personal and professional life. That takes a lot more work than settling down with one's classmates & colleagues, but it's ultimately far more fulfilling (and holistically healthy for the system).
But (as said in OP) I am disappointed in how he's framed it in this particular think piece. The casual reader without out-of-context knowledge is unlikely to pick up on the nuance, and he's missed a golden opportunity to preach a better gospel.
> You want to find your tribe – the types of people like you that you can imagine working with for the rest of your career. Within that, you want to find a small group of people whom you trust, and whose opinions you really respect. [emphasis mine]
There are a handful of people in the world who are "like me", with whom I have any significant intersection of history, interests or identities. And though I am able to include others in my circle by celebrating our differences, this mentality (and advice) encourages them to exclude me from theirs.
I really wish the commonly accepted advice when forming one's "tribe" would be to seek out others to connect with who are different from you, but who you share enough with to forge a bond. It's not just better advice to create a healthy whole, it's idiosyncratically more interesting (and professionally more profitable) to have a variety of friends and colleagues with different histories, biases and networks of their own.