Introduction: A Survival Scenario Upside-Down
Imagine a classic teamwork exercise: your group has crash-landed in a frozen wilderness, and you must rank salvaged items by their importance for survival. First, you rank them individually, then as a team. The expected outcome – often the lesson of such exercises – is that the team’s combined decision will trump any individual’s choices, illustrating the “wisdom of crowds.” In fact, studies have long shown that on survival tasks like these, group decisions tend to outperform individual decisions on average[1]. Our class was no exception: almost everyone’s team score beat their solo score – except mine. I was the outlier whose individual ranking outperformed the team consensus, inadvertently throwing off the instructor’s data and narrative for the day. Instead of synergy, my team experience felt like frustration: I remember insisting a metal pot was critical (to melt snow for water), only to relent in the face of group skepticism. The team’s final decision left out what I knew was right, and our score suffered.
This awkward episode highlights a broader point: while teamwork usually adds value, there are edge cases where a lone wolf can outshine the group. In this article, we’ll dig into the research and psychology behind such outliers – examining when and why teams excel, what can go wrong in group decision-making, and what traits or conditions let individuals perform better on their own. The goal is a nuanced look at why conventional wisdom (“two heads are better than one”) is true most of the time but not always, and how those exceptions play out across survival scenarios, business, parenting, creative work, and more.
Teams vs. Individuals: Why Groups Usually Win
There’s a reason business schools and management workshops use survival simulations and similar team exercises: they typically demonstrate the power of teamwork. A group can draw on a broader base of knowledge, skills, and perspectives than any single person[2]. In theory, by pooling information and checking each other’s errors, a team should arrive at a more informed, well-rounded decision. Researchers call this the “collective intelligence” or wisdom of crowds effect – the idea that many minds can outperform one, under the right conditions[3][4].
Empirical evidence backs this up. In the “Winter Survival” and NASA moon crash simulations (classic versions of the scenario we faced in class), group rankings consistently came closer to expert answers than even the average individual’s ranking[1]. One recent analysis of 115 teams found that their decisions were higher quality than the average of their members’ individual decisions in 83% of cases[5]. In other words, most teams managed to collectively improve on what their typical member would have done alone. This reflects what early small-group research noted back in the 1930s: groups have more total resources (knowledge, experience, ideas) to draw upon, increasing the probability of a better outcome[6][2]. When a team effectively integrates everyone’s information and skills, it can solve problems that would overwhelm an individual[7][4]. It’s no surprise that in complex tasks – whether maneuvering a business through market challenges or making policy decisions – we tend to put our faith in committees, teams, and boards to leverage this synergy.
However, the ideal of team synergy (the whole being greater than the sum of its parts) is not always fully realized. Researchers distinguish between weak synergy, where a team outperforms the average of its members, and strong synergy, where the team even outperforms its single best member[8]. Achieving that stronger form of synergy is tougher. In fact, in the analysis above, only 30% of teams managed to beat their highest-performing individual[9]. This means that in about seven out of ten teams, the top individual (had they worked alone) equaled or exceeded the team’s result. In our survival exercise, I happened to be that top individual whose initial answers were better than the group’s final answers – a scenario that, while not the norm, is hardly unheard-of in studies. Most teams improve upon each member’s thinking to some degree, but it’s relatively rare for a team to truly excel beyond the best idea that any one member had from the start[9]. When it does happen, psychologists consider it a sign of an exceptionally good team process – one that manages to synthesize insights or create new ideas that no single person had initially[10][11].
The usual takeaway is that collaboration has big advantages, which is why organizations and educators emphasize teamwork. As the saying goes, “No one of us is as smart as all of us.” But if that’s generally true, one must ask: What about those situations when the group falls short? To understand the exceptions, we need to examine how group decision-making can backfire, and why a strong individual can sometimes outperform a team.
When Teams Go Wrong: Groupthink, “Too Many Cooks,” and Other Pitfalls
If teamwork is so often beneficial, what undermines a group’s performance such that an individual might do better alone? The answer lies in the well-documented pitfalls of group dynamics. Under certain conditions, the process losses in a team – miscommunication, conformity pressures, conflicts, and free-riding – can outweigh the benefits of diverse input. Some common group decision-making problems include:
- Conformity and Groupthink: Humans are social animals, inclined to seek harmony. In groups, people often feel pressure (implicit or explicit) to agree with the majority or the leader, which can lead to poor decisions. Psychologist Irving Janis coined groupthink to describe how cohesive groups may ignore alternatives and suppress dissent in the interest of consensus. Alarming experiments show how powerful this effect can be. In one study, participants did a mental rotation puzzle individually and with a group. Alone, they chose a wrong answer only about 13.8% of the time; but when placed in a group where everyone else confidently gave the same wrong answer, the individuals went along with the group 41% of the time[12]. Many didn’t even realize they were swayed, later insisting they had arrived at the (wrong) answer independently[13]. This blindness to peer influence is what Susan Cain calls “dangerous” – we unwittingly substitute the group’s judgment for our own[13]. In team discussions, especially if a consensus forms early, individuals with contrary insights may doubt themselves or stay quiet. The result is a false consensus that can be objectively worse than some members’ initial ideas. The Challenger Space Shuttle disaster and other famous decision failures have been partly attributed to groupthink – voices that warned of danger were muted by the overwhelming agreement to proceed. When everyone agrees in a rush, it’s often a sign that dissenting knowledge has been lost.
- Dominance of Loud Voices: Related to conformity is the problem of unequal participation. In group meetings, the most assertive or talkative members often drive the discussion. But as Cain quips, “There’s zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas.”[14] A forceful speaker can give the impression of certainty and sway the group, even if their ideas are inferior. Teams often fail to make room for quieter, more analytical members. A study of legal teams noted that “teams don’t make room for introverts’ cautious analysis, and this may result in…bad decisions.”[15] In our survival exercise, for example, I found myself second-guessing my correct answers because others in the group were confidently dismissing them. Research shows that groups tend to reward confidence over accuracy – a dynamic that can let charismatic but wrong-headed opinions carry the day, while better ideas (perhaps voiced more hesitantly) get ignored. In short, the loudest voice can drown out the wisest voice.
- Social Loafing: When working in a team, individuals can feel less personally responsible for the outcome and put in less effort – the classic “someone else will pick up the slack” mentality. This phenomenon, known as social loafing, means the group’s output might reflect the effort of only a subset of members. If the person with the key insight happens also to be less assertive, their reduced participation could rob the group of that insight entirely. Social loafing is especially common when the task is unstructured or roles are undefined – exactly the scenario in many brainstorming sessions or open discussions[16].
- Production Blocking: In a face-to-face group discussion, people have to take turns to speak. This sequential nature can ironically block idea generation – while one person talks, others are momentarily inhibited from contributing or may lose their train of thought waiting for a turn. Research on brainstorming finds that individuals working alone generate more ideas than groups brainstorming out loud, partly because in groups people can’t all talk (or think deeply) at once[16]. Important thoughts might never surface due to the conversational traffic jam. In our survival task, while two team members debated one point, others (myself included) might have fallen quiet on other points – potentially letting some good suggestions drop.
- Evaluation Apprehension: Another creativity-killer in groups is fear of judgment. People may self-censor novel or offbeat ideas in a meeting because they worry how they’ll be perceived[17]. This is antithetical to creative problem-solving, where sometimes the odd idea is the winning one. An individual working alone doesn’t face this social risk; they can freely consider unconventional solutions. In group settings, especially with peers or superiors present, individuals often stick to safer suggestions, which can lead to a mediocre consensus instead of an innovative leap.
These and other “process losses” explain why a team’s outcome isn’t automatically better than an individual’s – it depends how the team works. If the team fails to tap into each member’s knowledge (say, by silencing minority opinions or defaulting to the most vocal person), it may effectively have less wisdom than one thoughtful individual working alone. In our scenario, my team’s mistake was exactly that: rather than truly integrating everyone’s insights, we fell into debates and compromises that favored the majority view and omitted a few key facts that one or two of us held. We achieved consensus – but at the cost of accuracy.
Notably, research on team performance often calculates a “resource utilization” index: how well did the group leverage the information its members had? An effective team will pull the best ideas from all members; a poor team will leave some individual knowledge on the table[18]. The creativity index similarly measures if the group came up with solutions none of the individuals had initially[11]. Our team arguably underutilized resources (we ignored some of my correct points) and didn’t generate any new insight that someone didn’t already have. In management terms, we experienced negative synergy – the whole was less than one of the parts. Unfortunately, this isn’t an anomaly: studies show that while most groups beat the average member, many fail to outperform their best member[9]. In those cases, the “team advantage” evaporates, and the best strategy would have been to identify the top thinker and let them make the decision (or at least give their input more weight).
The “too many cooks spoil the broth” effect is real. Past a certain point, adding more people to a decision can create confusion and conflict, especially if roles aren’t clear. Harvard researchers Groysberg, Polzer, and Elfenbein found that stacking a team with multiple high-performing individuals can even hurt performance once you have too many stars jostling in one kitchen[19][20]. Without coordination, a team of all chiefs and no Indians can underperform a smaller or more structured team. In everyday life, anyone who’s tried to plan a family trip or a child’s birthday party by committee knows the struggle: divergent preferences and opinions can make a simple plan exponentially more complicated. My own stress in planning my toddler’s party was a prime example – coordinating with well-meaning relatives felt more difficult than just doing it myself. In such situations, collaboration can become counterproductive, validating that sometimes one organized mind can be more efficient than five people in mild chaos.
None of this is to say that teams are bad – only that teams must be managed well to avoid these traps. The best teams deliberately counteract groupthink and social loafing (for example, by inviting silent members to speak, or breaking into smaller subgroups, or using secret ballots for decisions). When teams do leverage all their members and maintain open-minded debate, they can achieve that strong synergy where the group outperforms even its brightest star. But what about those instances where synergy fails and the “lone wolf” was right all along? Who are these lone wolves, and why do they shine?
The Lone Wolf Advantage: Traits of Individuals Who Thrive Alone
In the world of teamwork, certain individuals consistently find that they do their best work solo. If you recognize yourself in that description – preferring to tackle projects independently, frustrated by group decision processes – research suggests a few reasons why some people are wired this way.
One key factor is expertise. Sometimes, an individual outperforms a team simply because they know much more about the problem than the others do. If one person has specialized knowledge (say, a wilderness medicine background in a survival scenario) and the rest are novices, the group would be wise to heed that expert’s input. However, groups don’t always identify who the real expert is, and the expert might not always convince the group. In my case, I didn’t have formal survival training, but I had carefully thought through the logic – arguably more so than my teammates. That gave me a slight edge. Research on the “wisdom of crowds” finds that the crowd works best when each person has some independent knowledge and their errors cancel out[4]. But if one person’s knowledge is considerably above the rest, a simple average or consensus can dilute the accuracy. Ideally, the group would recognize that person’s confidence and competence and weight their opinion accordingly. In practice, groups often under-utilize their most skilled member (unless that person happens to also be very assertive). This is why only 30% of teams beat their top member – in the other 70%, the top member’s advantage is lost due to the group process[9]. It stands to reason that the more talented and motivated an individual is, the more likely they might outperform a mediocre team. As organizational psychologist Adrian Furnham bluntly concludes, “If you have talented and motivated people, they should be encouraged to work alone when creativity or efficiency is the highest priority.”[21] In other words, let your stars run solo when appropriate – they’ll often get more done without the drag of group bureaucracy.
Another important element is personality, particularly introversion versus extroversion. Susan Cain’s book Quiet: The Power of Introverts brought mainstream attention to the idea that introverts can be extremely effective solo operators in a world that often rewards extroverted teamwork. Introverts tend to be reflective, preferring to think deeply alone and work in quiet environments. This can translate into higher creativity and problem-solving capacity when they are given solitude[22][23]. Cain notes that many great creations and innovations came from introverts working alone – “Groups don’t write great novels, and a committee didn’t come up with the theory of relativity,” as Malcolm Gladwell similarly observed[24]. In my own experience, I relate to getting “distracted by noise” in groups – a hallmark of someone who might do better by focusing alone. It’s no surprise that I found the team debate in the survival exercise more distracting than enlightening. Research shows that, indeed, introverts are most creative when they work alone, and constantly forcing them into group work can actually kill innovation[25]. Brainstorming studies have repeatedly found that individuals brainstorming by themselves generate more ideas, and of equal or greater quality, than groups brainstorming together[26]. The supposed energy of the group can actually stifle idea generation for introverts, who might shut down in a lively meeting but flourish in a solitary thinking session.
What traits define these lone-wolf outliers? A few emerge from the research and anecdotes:
- Deep focus: Lone high-performers often have the ability to focus intensely on a problem without needing social stimulation. For example, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak famously designed the first Apple computer largely by himself, in a flow state, late at night. He has said he never would have been so productive in a group engineering team. That intense focus is easier to achieve alone, and it can produce brilliant results. As one review of Cain’s work noted, many successful business and tech leaders (Warren Buffett, Wozniak, etc.) credit their solitary work habits for their innovations[27]. These individuals thrive in environments with minimal interruption – something that group meetings or open-plan offices don’t provide well.
- Independent thinking: Some people have a streak of low conformity. They trust their own analysis over the group’s opinion, which can be crucial in moments when the majority is wrong. The willingness to stand alone intellectually – even under social pressure – is a defining trait of many scientific and creative geniuses in history. Of course, it’s uncomfortable: standing against the group activates stress responses (one neuroscience study found increased amygdala activation – essentially pain – when people resisted peer opinion[28]). Many people will go along with the group just to avoid that stress. The lone wolves who outperform the group may simply tolerate (or even embrace) the independent path despite the social discomfort. They are the ones who will say “I know you all think X, but I’m convinced Y is correct” – and often, they’ll be right. Think of the stereotypical lone inventor who persists in an idea everyone else called crazy, only to be vindicated later. Such independent-mindedness is a double-edged sword (it can lead one down wrong paths too), but when combined with expertise, it can be powerful.
- High standards/perfectionism: In some cases, a person works better alone because they have a clear vision of what they want and are unwilling to compromise. In group settings, any compromise feels like a dilution of quality. This can be labeled as selfishness or rigidity – and indeed it can cause conflict – but it may also mean the individual’s result, un-compromised, is superior. For example, if you know the exact way you want to design a product or plan an event, collaborating with others who have different ideas can slow down or water down the outcome. The feeling “it’s easier if I just do it myself” often comes from a place of efficiency (you don’t have to explain or debate your choices) and quality control (you trust your judgment more). Many creative artists prefer working alone for this reason; the end product aligns fully with their singular vision. Of course, the downside is the loss of others’ potentially valuable contributions – but for certain tasks (like artistic endeavors or personal projects), that might be an acceptable trade-off.
- Low need for social reinforcement: Some people simply don’t need much social validation in their work. They’re content spending hours on a task alone and don’t feel “unproductive” without meetings or team check-ins. This trait ties in with introversion and independent thinking. Such individuals won’t be buoyed by group energy; in fact, group work might drain them. So they operate best solo, which in turn means they might produce better results solo. They also might be more immune to evaluation apprehension – caring less about what others think of their ideas, so they are willing to pursue unconventional approaches on their own. That can lead to breakthrough solutions that a consensus-driven team would never consider.
It’s worth noting that being a “lone wolf” in performance is context-dependent. The same person who excels alone in one scenario might benefit from a team in another scenario. For example, I might solve a puzzle or write an essay better alone, but if I were building a house, I’d surely need a team with diverse trade skills. Likewise, many introverts do recognize the value of teams for certain tasks and learn to collaborate when needed. The trick is understanding when you (or your employee or colleague) will do better solo versus when to engage a group.
Susan Cain doesn’t suggest abolishing teamwork – rather, she advocates using it “more judiciously”[14]. Crucially, she and others point out that online or asynchronous collaboration can sometimes offer the best of both worlds. Interestingly, research has found that online brainstorming (where individuals contribute ideas electronically and somewhat anonymously) actually outperforms both traditional group brainstorming and solo work, and larger online groups generate even better outcomes[29]. Why? Because it allows individuals to think and contribute independently (no production blocking; minimal evaluation fear since it’s often anonymous), and then aggregates everyone’s input – essentially harnessing the wisdom of crowds without the typical group meeting downsides. This points to an important principle: often the optimal setup is to blend independence with collaboration. For instance, a common technique in organizations now is “brainwrite first, discuss second.” Team members first work out ideas or solutions on their own, then bring them to the table to merge and refine. This ensures the lone geniuses get to formulate their thoughts without interference, and the team still benefits from pooling knowledge at the end. In the survival task, this is exactly what we did (individual ranking, then group ranking) – and in a way it saved my initial insight, because we could later compare my individual score to the team’s. If we had only done the group version, I might never have realized my ideas were better. In real organizations, having both independent analysis and group discussion (as in the Delphi method of decision-making, or simply a culture that gives weight to solitary research followed by team review) can catch those cases where an individual has the right answer that the collective might miss.
When the Process Is the Star: Reconsidering Teamwork in Business
No discussion of lone wolves vs. teams is complete without acknowledging the bigger picture: in many large endeavors, coordinated teams truly are the stars of the show. Malcolm Gladwell, in examining corporate successes and failures, famously argued that while we cherish stories of lone geniuses, in complex organizations the system often matters more than any individual[24][30]. He pointed out that “groups don’t write great novels, and a committee didn’t come up with the theory of relativity” – those were singular efforts – “but companies work by different rules… the ones most successful are those where the system is the star.”[24] In other words, a business that relies solely on heroic individuals can falter, whereas one that builds effective processes and teamwork will thrive. He gives the example of Southwest Airlines: it became one of the most successful airlines not by hiring “the best and brightest” M.B.A. superstars, but by creating an incredibly efficient, well-coordinated operation with ordinary employees[31]. Planes were turned around quickly by ground crews acting in sync – a triumph of process over individual prowess. Similarly, companies like Procter & Gamble have dominated their industries for decades with a culture of steady teamwork and systems, not flashy solo acts[32][33].
On the flip side, Gladwell noted how Enron’s collapse in the early 2000s was partly due to an over-reliance on star talent. Enron (advised by McKinsey & Co.) believed fervently in the “talent mind-set” – recruiting top individuals and pitting them in a hyper-competitive internal market[34][35]. The company had brilliant people, but its organization was chaotic and its culture cutthroat. Departments poached staff from each other; everyone was encouraged to think outside the box, but no one fixed the box[36][37]. Enron ignored the importance of cohesive teamwork and sustainable process, and we know how that ended. As Gladwell put it, “The talent myth assumes that people make organizations smart. More often than not, it’s the other way around.”[38]. In thriving companies, the infrastructure enables average folks to perform like all-stars. In faltering ones, even many geniuses can’t save the ship if they don’t row together.
This perspective is a useful counterweight to the lone wolf narrative. It reminds us that context matters. A genius software developer still needs a team to bring a product to market – marketing, support, operations all have to work in concert. An visionary CEO still requires an organization that can execute the vision. So while we’ve celebrated the cases where an individual can beat a team, it’s not a license to dismiss teamwork. Rather, it’s a call to integrate the two: value the individual and the team. The best organizations often find ways for lone geniuses to plug into team structures effectively – think of a tech firm where a brilliant programmer is given autonomy to create a prototype (solo work), which is then handed off to a larger team to refine, scale, and commercialize (teamwork). Both contributions are critical.
Embracing the Outlier (Without Throwing Out Teamwork)
My experience as the “data point that didn’t fit” in the class exercise was humbling at the time – I felt like I messed up the nice story about teamwork always winning. But it planted a seed of insight that has since been reinforced by research: outliers exist, and conventional wisdom isn’t one-size-fits-all. Yes, in general, collaboration trumps isolation and two heads are often better than one. But sometimes one head, working in the right conditions, can outperform a committee of ten. A mature view is to recognize when that is likely to be true.
For complex decisions requiring diverse knowledge, a well-run team is probably your best bet – it can correct individual biases and cover blind spots. But for tasks requiring singular vision, creativity, or ultra-deep expertise, an individual might have the edge. Knowing your context is key. If you find yourself frustrated in teams because you think you could do better alone, reflect on whether the task is one that truly benefits from group input or if the group dynamics are stifling the result. It might be worth voicing that perspective: sometimes a team can decide to delegate a subtask entirely to the best-qualified member, rather than hash out every detail collectively. Effective teams aren’t those that do everything together – they’re those that collaborate when it adds value and split up when independence adds value, then integrate the outputs.
From a personal growth angle, I’ve learned not to feel “embarrassed” about being an outlier, as I did back then. Instead, I try to analyze it. If I outperformed the group, was it because I had information or clarity others didn’t? Then the takeaway is to better share that information next time or help improve the group’s process. If I simply got lucky, the group shouldn’t be faulted. And if I underperform in a team, it’s a prompt to examine those groupthink traps and my own participation: Was I too quiet about a critical fact? Did I get distracted by side conversations? There’s often room on both sides – the team and the individual – to adjust so that next time, the group outcome benefits from everyone’s best.
In closing, the tension between lone wolves and collaborative teams is a false dichotomy. Most real-world success stories involve elements of both. A wise quote often attributed to Kenyan scholar Mwalimu Julius Nyerere says: “When you run alone, you run fast. When you run together, you run far.” The lone wolf runs fast – perhaps solving a problem quicker or more ingeniously alone – but the team can run far, tackling larger, more multifaceted challenges together. The world needs its outlier geniuses and its harmonious teams. By understanding the psychology and dynamics at play, we can better determine when to let the lone wolves run and when to corral the pack – and importantly, how to avoid the pitfalls that make the pack blind to the lone wolf’s insight. In a well-functioning group, there’s room for both collaboration and individual excellence. Conventional wisdom holds true most of the time, but the exceptions can teach us just as much about how to improve our decision-making, whether on a snowy mountainside or in a boardroom.
References
Sources
- Johnson, D. & Johnson, F. (2000). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills – Classic text on group dynamics and exercises like the survival scenario.
- Miner, F. C. (1984). “Group vs. individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains.” – Found teams outperformed individuals in survival task[1].
- Hamada, R. et al. (2020). “Wisdom of crowds and collective decision-making in a survival situation…” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications – Showed both consensus and aggregated individual answers beat lone individuals on average[39][1]. However, group consensus didn’t beat a pure aggregation of independent answers[39], suggesting issues in group process.
- Pojarliev, A. (2024). “Using the Results of Problem-Solving Simulations to Improve Group Learning.” – Analysis of 115 groups; group decisions beat average individual 83% of the time, but only 30% of groups achieved synergy over their best member[5][9].
- Edwards, B. G. (2024). “Why Brainstorming Is Worthless, and Groupthink Is Dangerous.” Psychology Today – Summarizes research on brainstorming inefficacy and conformity. Notably, groups produce fewer ideas than individuals, and people unconsciously conform to group answers even when wrong[40][13]. Cites Susan Cain’s Quiet and Adrian Furnham on letting talented people work alone[41].
- Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking. – Argues that introverts can outperform in solitude. Notes a 1963 study where people produced more (and better) ideas alone than in groups[26]. Warns that constant groupwork stifles innovation: “since introverts are most creative when they work alone, we can kill innovation by making them work with others constantly.”[25].
- Gladwell, M. (2002). “The Talent Myth.” The New Yorker. – Critiques the cult of individual talent in organizations. Uses Enron as an example of star-centric culture failing, versus team-oriented cultures succeeding. Memorable line: “The talent myth assumes that people make organizations smart. More often than not, it’s the other way around.”[38] Emphasizes that strong systems and teamwork usually outperform collections of free-agent geniuses[24][31].
- Additional references: Kerr, N. & Tindale, R. (2004). “Group Performance and Decision Making” – comprehensive review of why group decisions can excel or falter; Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink – seminal work on faulty group decisions; Diehl & Stroebe (1987) on brainstorming productivity loss; and various management studies on teamwork and performance[6][42]. (These provide further empirical backing for the concepts discussed above.)
- [1] [3] [4] [7] [8] [10] [11] [18] [39] Wisdom of crowds and collective decision-making in a survival situation with complex information integration | Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications | Full Text
- [2] [5] [6] [9] [42] 2024 20-Chapter Manuscript-577-1-10-20240609 | PDF | Simulation | Decision Making
- [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [21] [26] [28] [29] [40] [41] Why Brainstorming Is Worthless, and Groupthink Is Dangerous | Psychology Today
- [19] [20] Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How High-Status Individuals Decrease Group Effectiveness | Organization Science
- [22] [23] [25] [27] The Benefits of Introversion | Greater Good
- [24] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] The Talent Myth | The New Yorker
