#2 energy

One of my weirdest fears is showing up at a dance party and nobody is dancing.

This literally happened when I first arrived at this “sunrise rave” I went to this morning. It's a trivial fear, but I love dancing, so I care. On rare occasions, I can overcome the activation energy to be the first one dancing (e.g., my best friend’s wedding). More often, I'll volunteer to be first if there is a friend with me, knowing that we will both be first, which basically means we're both second. And of course if there is already one person dancing, I will happily join as dancer 2.

I call this #2 energy.

In Granovetter's (1978) threshold model of collective behavior (e.g., riots), each person has a threshold based on the number of others who must participate before they will join. The first person is the radical/instigator with a threshold of "0," the second person has a threshold of "1" (joins after seeing one person), and so forth.

Most of the time, I notice that I am #2, which sounds denigrating in a competitive world where #1 is best, but it's very different than being just a non-leader or a "follower," because #2 is still far ahead of most people. New friends mistakenly think that I'm extroverted, partially because of my gregariousness, and also because I seem to lead in social situations. In reality, it's mostly because I feel safe being #1 knowing that someone will join immediately. I'm usually not #1 in a situation where I don't know anybody.

You could say that it’s a fear of rejection. Being #1 is a bid – for approval, for collective permission, etc. It’s essentially a public proposal that says “I believe we should transition from standing/watching to dancing/participating.” It’s cost-asymmetric in that it’s potentially a highly visible, public failure, but not the same public reward/credit. The time period between being first and having a second join is the tension that rejection is coming. I hate that feeling.

Derek Sivers calls #2 the “first follower” and says it’s an under-appreciated form of social leadership, because the first follower shows others how to follow but takes just as much risk (debatable).

Auto-enabling

At the beginning of the year I said to my friend that I think my growth edge is to be “uncapped” for 2025 – I thought that this meant that I would let loose more often, saying yes to more things, etc. It still doesn’t feel like I’ve properly identified the exact edge that I want to be growing.

I think that a more useful framework for me is to notice where/when I am #2, but not #1.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with being #2, but I think it’s worth exploring why being #1 is a lot harder. I'm trying to dissolve the stories and self-limiting beliefs I have about social rejection, but I think it needs more than rationalization.

So instead I imagine how I would convince a friend to be my #2, not with words, but with a warm energy. My smile is inviting, my eyes reassuring; my goal is to exude an affirmation of safety, that everything will be ok. A little safety is all we need to take risks (secure base theory).

In some kind of metacognitive splitting, can I simulate that same energy to reassure myself? Can I “be” my own #1 to my #2? Instead of trying to “fight” the threshold, I am assisting myself by providing myself safety signal. You would think that this is just a “self-pep-talk,” but it’s not about overcoming a fear as much as it is about creating conditions in which the fear response isn’t triggered.

I’m calling this hack “auto-enabling” because I’m using my “#1” voice to enable the #2 that is primary behavior.

2 + 2 = 1

I noticed that #2 energy became a bigger pattern in my life, especially in interpersonal relationships as opposed to collective behavior.

I used to have quite a lot of #1 energy in my twenties, but now in my thirties with reduced energy and risk tolerance, I can feel myself constantly sitting on a knife’s edge of choosing an adventure (exploring new events, new skills, new groups, new hobbies, etc.) or choosing to stay where it’s safe (home, coffee shops, work, etc.). I say knife’s edge because I’m very easily activated. Yesterday my friend texted me “do you wanna go kayaking with otter pups tomorrow” and I immediately said yes.

I’ve found that having two #2s together is essentially the same as having a #1’s initiating energy: They enable each other. And often it happens so fast that it blurs the line between first and second. When you feel safe knowing the other person is quickly enabled, you’re basically not taking any risk, whether it’s on the dance floor, going on a spontaneous kayaking trip, or a weekend warrior trip. I’ve had a lot of these 1:1 adventure-buddy relationships over the decades, and it’s magical when you can instigate trips knowing it’s not a big ask. It feels even more magical when you have several #2s in a group. The vibe is unmatched.

I also think that great couples are #2s to each other. This intersects nicely with the Gottman’s model of bids for affection. Not only do they accept bids for affection, but they also affirm bids for acceptance. And the faster they follow, the more it feels like “sameness” between two people. Totality in collective behavior is reached with a single follower, because your first follower is also the last follower.

In the last big relationship I was in, my workaholism stopped me from being the #2 to my #2, and then we broke up. With the last person I briefly dated, I feared instigating (#1) because I was afraid she wouldn’t follow, maybe also vice versa. A key lesson I learned in dating is that I thought I was looking for someone adventurous enough to be my #1, but really all I needed was someone who can match my #2 energy in the right ways, and that maybe the search strategy should just be focused on that.