There are a lot of things I like about Game~B. And I especially like Jim Rutt's blunt, frank answers. However if you can't settle a disagreement between two small groups of like-minded people, your ideas clearly have a long, long way to go before they're ready to radically reform society.
they arent like minded tho , from what i just heard there was a split between scientific rationalists and spiritual deists, who are pretty muchn total opposites!
@@randomname3109 idk if i would go as far as call one group spiritual anything. The problem as i see it are the "experiences" of the two sectors are vastly different. If this groups concern regards the millenial they need to start from where the millennials view points are. Huge loss imho.
The missing element is love, this is a chemistry of hope and overwhelming brotherhood. Groups of endless discussion burn out from discussion fatigue because there are little physical achievements in evidence to practice. The first practice is to learn ego and what it is good for, how to control it, and how to understand democracy, or ‘honesty ‘. ‘non violent communication ‘.(a concise, almost abrupt communication, no monkey business)
1h14. Very Important to do a "save" function on your own belief system. I did it in 2015, wrote it all down, then read it aloud into mp3 format as an audiobook. (5 hours long) and so now I can "lose" myself listening to other people, and come back to my "anchor" point and see if it needs adjusting.
That's an interesting idea, would you care to read and record mine...I hate the sound of my own voice, I write down or as the years went on typed out and read it after time has passed or after a day of dreaming of buying an island, building a 90s themed city and forgetting the millennium ever happened... I used to watch Democracy Now religiously in my early 20s and aligned with most of their views, now at 39, I'd rather stick a scissors in the toaster than listen to more than 5 mins which I still tend to do just to hear what they're spewing...I've definitely had adjustments over the years but they seem to have had a lot more and only in one direction.
At the time I am viewing this, there are 10k views and only 416 likes and it seems to be the approximate ratio for all of the videos I watch on UA-cam. I always hit like on videos I appreciate, and I don't understand why most people don't. We have to show support for what we like and want to see more of in this world, and hitting the thumbs up takes the smallest amount of effort. Come on, everyone! Let's do this!
Finally a distilled perspective on Game B - 10 years after it "dissolved". Proud to have been invited by Jim Rutt as one of the initial "players" along with Bret Weinstein, Bonnitta Roy, Jordan and Vsnessa Hall and other amazing "players"!
I see the conflict between the personal growth crowd and the institutional focused crowd as revealing a sort of catch 22 problem (or chicken and egg problem) of the whole endeavor. I'll try to explain it as simply as I can. To create the structure/institutions of Game B you need people who are well developed, have integrated their shadow, are mature, self actualized (what ever way you want to describe it). Conversely you need structures/institutions that produce those people or allow the conditions for them to come about. To me the solution to "the conflict" is to recognize that you need to work on both and that each will/can support the other. Another fundamental problem that Bret talked about was about "Game B" needing to be organic in the nature of it's take over (like smart phones). Key to this imo is that you need a tipping point of well developed individuals to create, maintain and fight for "Game B" to exists and survive. I would imagine the people in the original meetings were a group of exceptional and "well developed" people, but you need many more than were there to make Game B ultimately succeed and that this is what the personal growth crowd was in some part arguing.
Everybody wants to change the world in a big way, when history suggests progress is a slow accumulation of improvements. Find one small thing you can improve in a self-sustaining/catalytic way. Fix another small thing. The most dangerous people are revolutionaries. The good they serve always comes at great cost to the weakest and poorest.
Harry Mills absolutely, we are in a time of material reductionism from a planet expired of resources and life that depended on the only sustained version of endless growth, plants. We go too fast, consume too much, believe to many consumed beliefs and preach endlessly the greatness of physics to the gains, yet no inclusions to the losses, nor of the human mind that believes it has overcome gravity, time and space, and functions normally towards an absolutely terrifying end without mother earth. But a version of a mars like planet with dying humans who spectate.
I’m a millennial. 35 years old. I graduated Evergreen 2 years before they chased the good Professor out. Shame on them. I would love to be part of something like this but I just don’t know how. Currently stuck working for the state and still in Olympia
Thank you for this. Love it! Interesting having a history of Game B. The stumbling blocks are incredible fascinating. I love Bret's framing of them being inevitable, and good opportunities for learning. He feels like a very wise navigator too. There were/are so many fascinating minds involved, that it feels like we ought to do what we can to collectively to encourage it and will forward.
Thank you for a very interesting talk around Game B. It would be also great to hear what Wilber has to say about what went wrong with that split between the personal growth defenders and the institutional improvement defenders. Doesn't integral theory explain the problem quite well?
I see the conflict between the personal growth crowd and the institutional focused crowd as revealing a sort of catch 22 problem (or chicken and egg problem) of the whole endeavor. I'll try to explain it as simply as I can. To create the structure/institutions of Game B you need people who are well developed, have integrated their shadow, are mature, self actualized (what ever way you want to describe it). Conversely you need structures/institutions that produce those people or allow the conditions for them to come about. To me the solution to "the conflict" is to recognize that you need to work on both and that each will/can support the other. Another fundamental problem that Bret talked about was about "Game B" needing to be organic in the nature of it's take over (like smart phones). Key to this imo is that you need a tipping point of well developed individuals to create, maintain and fight for "Game B" to exists and survive. I would imagine the people in the original meetings were a group of exceptional and "well developed" people, but you need many more than were there to make Game B ultimately succeed and that this is what the personal growth crowd was in some part arguing.
the discussion has entirely skipped the beginning, the beginning is soil. Non of these humans have come close to struggle, so they are stuck in the middle. Gandhi explicitly said, live among those you wish to help.
Brandon Prescott Tec is a word for technology, this has existed since the inception of man, 100,000 years in solid evidence, three million years in anomaly’s of fossil. So to work in tec, can also mean life and tools for life, not just spectatorship and theft.
@@mellonglass In your view is there no help that can be offered to "the middle"? Certainly raising awareness about the plight of the undifferentiated mass you implicitly support would be an action directed to "the middle" as the other designations will either be aware by material circumstance or some causative action. So if nothing else, ideas can be directed towards "the middle" to point towards whatever it is you believe is the higher value.
Brandon Prescott Yes. The middle was described to me in my youth, the asset of learning and discovery, not slavery to a linear outcome while believing in escape to a better place achieved by the wealth paradox and its parasites in behaviour.
Vinay Gupta's falling out highlights Game B's positioning in that 'white liberal' bubble and the mention of people working on themselves first further puts this into a position of ignoring human nature in the hope of manipulating it to fit the ideals of the system. Any system needs to manage the incentives that drive human behaviour including the spiritual aspects but also status, sexual selection and reciprocity and reward for effort in a game theoretically stable equilibrium that is still adaptable to change and events like pandemics and can evolve as Bret says. Not an easy task. You might want to interview Vinay as he needs a bigger audience. I met him at one of the Rebel Wisdom parties so I know you can get hold of him.
A meta-comment. When Jim Rutt declares himself a scientific realist, what happens when he shows contempt for the wu-wu? Rather than create a culture that can draw upon the healhty forms of the magical you co-create among yourselves a strategy that shuts out others who are arranged differently. You will stay a club rather than a movement. Politics is driven by affect, gesture, voice...and catching rhythms...what I find in this valuable conversational space is an overly narrow, conscious focus...there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of Mr, Rutt's philosophy...magic will not save us...the rational academic with a bias towards scientific realism is not going to save us either. A constipated cognition.
I agree. The strength of his opposition to anything non-scientific realist was a kind of off-putting. To find a solution to the "hard problem of consciousness" suggests alternative approaches could be useful or at least entertained. Even to categorise alternative approaches as "wu-wu" is demeaning. For someone who obviously purports to be open-minded, it's disappointing.
Yeah. When you call someone else's honestly held perspective 'bullshit' you are always the one in the wrong. You're looking at a 'scientific realist' who's fat and unfit. If he were truly convinced by science, the amount of research that shows how exercise and healthful dietary habits extended cognition into advanced age would have an impact on his life. But he doesn't believe that enough for it to motivate his actions. He maintains the same blind spots at his own expense that he claims others have. He has to call it bullshit, because in his arrogance he can't say what is actually true: "I don't understand."
I would have thought that systemic anti-fragility would favor a balance between the objective truth sought by scientific materialism and the subjective truth of mysticism, metaphysics and irrationally. Both conscious and unconscious irrational closed loop feedback are essential for robust resiliency during systemic dislocation risks, reversible recovery processes, transitional phase shift realignments or dynamic stability. I find it difficult to imagine a sustainable homeostasis of civilization without the qualitative morphogenic resonance of intersubjectivity; and thereby cases with extreme boundary conditions should be theoretically possible. For example, modeling strain tolerance becomes derivative in systems that are incapable of recursive social recuperation that is in alignment and acceptance of behavioral expressions of intra & inter subjective sympathetic receptivity. {Yes, I know that sentence is unnecessary complex in its oversimplification but this is a UA-cam comment so tl;dr is an option for the frustrated reader and this point.} Game A’s externalizations of moral hazards results and corruption of establishment ideologies towards fundamentalist cultural drift creates both a systemic vulnerability and interpersonal opportunity for networked signal integrity and competitive dispossession of maladaptive systemic hegemonies: i.e. world domination can be decentralized.} Equitably processing complex psychosocial trauma and antisocial behaviors is relevant to transcending Dunbar limitations as well as to permit tolerance for maladaptive reactivity, which enables accelerated psychological heeling and generative non-conforming creativity. Often, I find my ego on a metaphorical bull-ride, and “hitting the ground” too hard can suck the fun out of failures, which is antithetical to the learning experience. If you’d like to challenge your systemic warfare skills, just try designing the social management structures and institutions that would provide meaningful existence on an open-air prison planet of purely “factor 1” malevolent narcissists on a utopian quest for purity and conformity... just in case the Machiavellian sociopathic corruption of our current society isn’t already too much too overcome. As a thought experiment, this displays what I imagine others are calling the “hard problem of consciousness” but I’ll have to become more familiar with underlying issues and assumptions. IMO, existential problems may have no determinant solutions (nor are they systemically desired); and, the inability to grieve this stark reality prevents generative thinking necessary to escape the labyrinth of humanity’s self-imposed delusions of separation and scarcity. But, then again, I’m no philosophy surgeon. I just regard the Indigo Girls quote as relevant: “The less I seek my source from some definitive, the closer I am to fine.” ...which is not only good self-care but it’s also scalable to a civil mutual plurality. {That said, earnest actors are susceptible to deception of cult values and beliefs if these issues are simply ignored. An Easter Island style planet-wide civilization collapse is one outcome I believe that we should all try to avoid.}
46:35 “When I hear the word metaphysics I reach for my pistol” “On the other hand I don’t rule things out either” If you reach for your pistol I think you are ruling things out🤷♀️
That's what I thought. I think this kind of old school mentality is the biggest block to progress. Calling something "bullshit" means you don't care to understand anything other than what you think you know.
Rutt's categorical and openly condescending dismissal of "woo" as "bullsh*t" shows perfectly why remaking society will never proceed from the speculative arguments of prejudiced intellectuals. Weinstein's evolutionary perspective suggests that such a dismissal is not a question merely of personal belief but is in fact a woefully myopic dismissal of the fundamentally human need for meaning in the metaphysical dimension of the self-actualizing project.
in what way is 'woo' not 'bullshit' ??? or in what way is 'shit' not 'fecal matter' ??? sorry, but your choice of words there is quite funny. the circular reasoning that follows not so much. a bit like: "i reserve the right to choose what is real solely based on my personal taste." that's so Game A... ;-)
There's a clear devide in the level and style of thinking between individuals like Schmactenberger and Rutt, you can imagine the rift that would have originally taken place
@dumpsky : the wording of your question suggests that you essentially agree with Rutt's prejuduce, and that would suggest that no further dialog is welcome. For what it's worth, your problem is that you're still thinking chronologically, but what we're talking about is timeless. i chose the word "woo" because he did. I was not in the original group discussions, but i surmise that he meant "woo" disparagingly (as most do) to include any and all interest in a spiritual dimension, which will inevitably include interests and techniques that fall outside of strict materialsim. A more meaningful description of these interests would be concerned with consciousness as a substrate rather than an artifact.There is ample evidence from multiple scientific disciplines to indicate that consciousness can be understood as the substrate of our space-time, functioning as a fundamentally non-material, non-linear, and extra-temporal dimension, which affords us the concepts, luxuries, and benefits of (among other emergent phenomena) inspiration, learning, and creativity, all above the constraints of reductive materialism and strictly rational schema. Spiritual traditions can function in this dimension, often to profound effect, as do the arts, both mental health and illness, and some historically important scientific insights. I would propose that if you've ever had a moment of spontaneous insight, solved a problem in a dream, or experienced a personally meaningful synchronicity, you've had a woo experience worth investigating. More radical but well documented examples abound. To dismiss these interests as 'bullshit' without any option for an inclusive futurist perspective is, in my view, a posture of intellectual sloth and counter-productive prejudice.
I'll place this comment here for the enjoyment of others and to spark some interest. For those that say "this is elites trying to solve problems from a top-down level" or something to that effect, I think Jim's comments on this being a network-centric system must be paid mind. The ideas they're presenting here are to consciously shape incentive structures so as to make the current hierarchies less appealing and for more people to be able to have meaningful participation in the system as a whole without the need for top-down ruling at all. The entire point of Game B should be to move the power into individuals hands with a minimum of institutional interference and with a healthy set of checks and balances on any concentration of power. The people who shape current society are those with large amounts of capital. Brett's point that America was a prototype that needs updating is a reflection of that. The US's founders understood very well the fundamental difficulties of power transfers. They did not anticipate multi-billion dollar corporations becoming "citizens" in the eyes of the law and could not have predicted as much. But if we amend our prototype to include facets that disconnect these capital systems from governance, governance can then go back to doing what it was meant to do in the first place and can begin hopefully to represent its people more and more.
jlloydb1of9 just sounds important, yet is only a non disclosed concept. If we had a concept, the world would be speeding ahead already. I like fractals more than cones, cones are slippery.
jlloydb1of9 the first order in chaos, 3 points, 3 directions, 1+1=3 humans, left right middle, in one chosen direction. and then 3% theory of change and the divisions of 360° ends in 3 not one. So 3 it is, and is inescapable as a universal number we can use to make very good choices. The ‘one’ is confused and can not imagine, then 3 is enough to imagine. The first order of power is 5. A cone is for ice cream.
Holochain is building Game B digital infrastructure... multi chains, each instantiated with its own code “DNA”, all potentially interconnectable... enhancing collective intelligence and regenerative economies... I don’t hear enough specifics in Game B about CI or circular/regenerative economics in support of a healthy global ecology... medium.com/h-o-l-o/introducing-the-commons-engine-9818315214f0?source=linkShare-a9fbb91abd0b-1591799687
Bradley Hughes as things are, I just woke up thinking about such things. The commons has common law written in our method of human. I hope this can prove a way forward to sharing, not all sharing is equal, that is why there is a law of ‘love’. This is based on the number 3. Needs over wants, most people barely notice the difference, so we have ‘endless growth’. In any structure a codec is required to move forward, we have barely scratched the surface of how codec selection is appropriated from chemistry to analog numerical form, I have been pondering these things for months. Thank you for this correspondence, I have it bookmarked.
Biograhies of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin show they created the USA by studying history, especially understanding what went wrong with Athens, Rome etc. This group appears to have started with top down analytical model e.g. "we all THOUGHT civilization was doomed" versus "we OBSERVED we were making the same mistake as Athens". Smart guys but the arrogance is palpable. "No no you're not thinking, you're just being logical" -Neils Bohr
Jeff Teza True. The vagaries of theology and the necessity to ‘publish’ to ‘entertain’ or the necessity to ‘perform’ tricks, is again because of fear. This fear is very real, and it is a fear of losing an audience. This fear puts people on stage to do the stupidest tricks, we even do it ourselves. Where the maturity arrises is to drop the penchant role model system of ‘leadership’ and basically, ‘seek advice’, before imagining monsters, spooks, thieves, copyrights, secrets, and learn again to be a loving curious child, and not the man of ego in self correctness. Always seek another, it is human, not to seek another, is economics.
"Arrogance is palpable" is something that easily could have been said of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Who were they to think they know the proper set of rules to design a nation? They were right to be arrogant. It turns out that arrogance is table stakes in these sorts of discussion. Either way, this group started because they were OBSERVING things are going wrong in the West. Observations are useless without some sort of model in which to make sense of the observations. The only way to solve a problem without some sort of theoretical model is to let it evolve through some sort of selection process. But that's not what the Founding Fathers were doing either. They used observations to build a model, and then used the model to hypothesize solutions to the failure modes of systems. It's the same thing.
Even though Brett said this should be a competitive system that is willingly adopted, too much of what he and Mr Rutt also said smacks of totalitarian rule. I suspect that deep down they believe if they can sneak in a new system that people will just change regardless of how they feel or what they believe. As much evidence as there is that environment can shape people, there’s just as much to show that for some environment isn’t everything
I'm not sure where you're coming from when you say it "smacks of totalitarian rule". Instances of Game B models (there may be many instantiations and many models) are supposed to be opt-in, not mandatory, so if you didn't like how it was set up, you could choose to leave. As an analogy, where you live you may have several choices of local book clubs you could join. If you don't like the books being chosen at one, you don't have to join. If you don't like the format of discussions at another, you can leave (and start your own if you like). Or perhaps you understand that, and you mean that the rule is totalitarian *within* a Game B-style organization. This could be true, I suppose. But I'd point out a few things.. 1) That that's no worse than being an employee at a company. I get that that isn't desirable, but my point is that it may improve *some* aspects without improving that one, but *at least it's not worse* in that regard (as Jim Rutt was saying, don't let "the perfect be the enemy of the good"). I understand this isn't a great argument, but it's worth realizing, I think. 2) They explicitly say it should be non-hierarchical, and I'm pretty sure it's for exactly the reason you mention. Hierarchical systems are vulnerable to capture, and totalitarian rules can be used to lock in that capture. They do not want that. 3) Most importantly, part of the reason that both Jim and Bret stress that "Game B" shouldn't be just *one* thing (but should instead that people should be prototyping with lots of different Game B-style ideas), is because there are lots of possible models, and most of those models will have some characteristics (like "totalitarian rule", but there are many different kinds of characteristics) that are undesirable. The point of actually testing them in the real world is to see how they actually end up operating, because whether any particular model will have negative characteristics isn't always obvious until you actually try it. The models with negative characteristics like "totalitarian rule" will ideally disappear because people don't wish to participate in them, and would rather join a different Game B organization that doesn't have those negative characteristics.
Aaron S, what bit of " the overarching Game B" , and " civilization scale Game B" dyd you pretend not to hear,? It's quite perplexing that you wrote your defence of the " game B" AstroTurf for totalitarian technocracy in 2020 when the system it was laundering ( or the public face of it ) " the great reset ' had already made it's nice to simultaneously grab power in almost every state worldwide. The great reset / global tikkum olam / game B isn't a book clubs you can opt out of , exceif in the sense they need pretend that we can opt out of their " not compulsory" interventions by also agreeing to never leave our homes or communicate with others in any unmediated form. AstroTurf projects always offer the participants s false sense that they have a choice or real power. That is similar to the Delphi process used to manufacture phoney consent for predetermined policy. Exceotbof course that they are manufacturing fake consent for a system that disposed with every level of free consent in every single aspect of our lives , even our relationships and our bodies.
Looking at the reasons of the original GameB collapse reveals exactly what is wrong with the "movement". Take a look at the division between "institutions first" and "personhood first": I think most of us would agree that, on paper, it should have been very easy and common sense to combine these two divisions into a single compelling framework. The fact that a consensus didn't come about and a huge incoherency amongst the group started to emerge from this issue, can tell us a lot about the potential interpersonal dynamics that caused this. When you put the archetype of the "disembodied hardcore scientific realist" against the archetype of the "spiritualist' some shit is about to go down whether you like it or not.. The truth is, both have huge merits and we need to find a way to incorporate both. Someone in the comments mentioned something about the key missing ingredient being love which really resonated with me because I think that ultimately, in order to truly collaborate on something like this together, we have to be able to see each other from each other's light (as opposed to from each other's shadow), and that is only possible when there's love. Anyways, this is very raw language and I should probably develop these ideas into a more compelling essay but I hope this sets a conversation off...
Great comment, I agree. Makes me think of Jonathon Pageau’s discussion: unity amidst multiplicity is possible only through Love. And that love has to have enough gravity to keep people together (coherence) with enough wiggle room and grace to respect the “fringe,” the anomaly, the exception. The dangerous part of Jim’s scientific realism is that it aims at 100% comprehension (every single thing must be accounted for on my terms I won’t acknowledge its existence).... what he calls “woo,” I’d call “breathing room.”
either way, you'll have to get this to the man on the street. The language needs to be dumbed down. Perhaps . love, is to lofty....perhaps Respect should be the first step.
To be fair, the movement is very much in an exploratory phase, so pointing to this or that aspect of it for criticism or praise is a little premature. The idea is for like minded "Game B thinkers" to organically coalesce through exploration of different ideas rather than some authority broadcasting an official Game B framework. Inevitably, some of the early Game B notions will turn out to be clumsy or just plain bad, but they may successfully bring together like minds.
It’s like a academic tutorial on how to build a good intentions paving machine. If a negative result was forewarned as likely or even inevitable, can that result be legitimately called an unintended consequence? Seems more like a business plan.
Who was it that stated, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions? " (A succinct statement. Seemingly summarizing mankind's attempt to realize utopia. Both Now, and in the Afterlife) A subtle warning?
So... are you all suggesting we not attempt to improve on what we have, that any attempt at good intentions will inevitably result in gulags/concentration camps, or are you all simply giving a warning that this _could_ go wrong but might not?
41:50 Brett Weinstein:“I gave a talk many years ago about the ‘personal responsibility vortex’. And the ‘personal responsibility vortex’ was about the wrong-headed idea that one fixes the world through behaving in a personally responsible way that will then scale up. And in fact, the exact opposite is true. If you hold people to live the values that they would like to see fit civilization then the best people will be hobbled by their level of obligation to, for example sustainability, and they will have very little impact on the way the world comes to look. And those who pay no attention to sustainability will have lots of extra resource and freedom with which to shape the world to their objective. So if you want to see the world look a particular way, holding people to that exact standard in the moment seems right but the counterintuitive truth is it’s dead wrong and will be counterproductive.”
Exciting stuff! I see the story of Game B being an Aaron Sorkin movie one day! I thought Jim Rutt was a great speaker and clearly very intelligent, but I do agree with some of the others in thinking that his strong aversion to 'woo woo' comes across as closed mindedness and I wouldn't be surprised if he was a big reason for the division into camps at the Stanton meetings. There has to be way to move forward without closing doors on ideas that don't meet consensus. I think Bretts analysis of the situation was best and they should of continued exploring separately, but still in amicable communication with one another - there was no need for it to get ugly. If people were open and understanding that there are different perspectives and even different truths out there that hold validity outside scientific rigor, I think we will be working in more of a Game B fashion.
We play in this space free from intention. rather than finding Game B while working to produce a solution we play there and encourage and assist others in doing the same! Play well! Enjoy your game!
So the political party was just essentially co-opting every single progressive Utopian idea, but called it something new. A recipe for success, if I ever heard one.
Without a definitive resolution to that disagreement about systems and personal growth there will not be a game B manifestation without imposition, a defacto return to game A
An interesting "alternate track" I had read of, suggested that groups of people could pool resources, and provide tax free loans to people, to act as scholarships. The idea was, that this investment was a tax write off, helps someone to gain an education without a massive debt load. Instead of charging interest (like a bank would) the group would instead receive free (or discounted) service from that person. So, you would over a course of years, continue to expand the services available to the group, adding more students as you identify additional services that the group requires, accountants, mechanics, doctors...
Durita Hansen exactly, then game b, would have to learn about the math of time itself and how the days do not fit into a year and its fudging calculations of fractions that don’t exist, yet are convenient for industry and control. Or the human fear of switching off the lights at night.
That is weak criticism. This can be said about anything that is even recognizable as a "solution". The folks that say "the first step is improving yourself" aren't proposing a solution, they're waiting for the world to end with their fingers crossed.
@@fixed-point Close. The first step is in coming to more authentically know one's self. This becomes a profound improvement once deeper authentic truths about the self become perceived outside of the version built through simulated thinking (game a's framework tends to be maintained by simulated thinking). When one has come to be capable of genuinely recognizing that one's own emotions and cognitive dissonance are entirely initiated and propagated by the self, then blame becomes more authentically perceived to be a literal projection onto a perceived external other as a means to quiet overwhelming emotions in the self. Once the levels of misperception of the true nature of self and reality have been corrected, forgiveness becomes an intuitive result (partly to do with what will, by that time, have become a conscious awareness of the consequences of the nature of one's own former misperceptions with respect to projecting blame outwardly for what was actually literally a mistaken belief regarding the true nature of the self. Of course, until one has taken the steps to address one's own beliefs with regard to their creation having stemmed from dangerously outdated simulated thinking. Memorization and repetition touted as education with a successful student prioritizing obedience while students' epiphanies born of simulated thinking (so the student may come to ancient realizations once more) become mistakenly seen as the highest achievement of education.
Ah, ok, understand Rutt’s perspective now - had to look him up / search his name - explains a lot - Jim Rutt (born 1954) is an American businessman and entrepreneur, the former CEO of Network Solutions, and the former chairman of the Santa Fe Institute.
I'm dying at 45:48 when Jim Rutt lays into Integral thinking and says 'Kosmic Konsciousness' in that tone. Does he know he is speaking to Mr. David 'Integral' Fuller? Where is my laughing emoji...
Jim's show has some great interviews on, highly recommended! The one with Dave Snowden is especially interesting if you want to dive a little deeper into some of the ideas that Schmachtenberger mentions (e.g. complex/complicated systems)
So, trying to keep it objective the terms A and B were used. On asked for more specificity the answer is “better the devil you don’t know than the one you know”. Wow! If you are going to use spiritual language at least realise the correct alternative to the devil is an angel not another devil. Also realise that the devil you know is actually way better than the one you don’t know. Saying something like that and then calling spiritual thinking bullshit is a game ending (pun intended) self awareness test failure.
45:00 This is particularly funny. Jim wants only science in his politics, but now the burden is on him to show how any notion of "good" is in science. If he is honest, he'll have to admit it is not there, meaning that he has no grounding at all. Hate to break it to you, Jim, but "the good" is a religious/woo notion, not a scientific one... welcome to being human.
Kon Berner would a sick unhappy, stressed person, make a new chemistry of badly formed body cells, or does love have a sort of lifting effect to our posture, attitude, breathing, optimism, strength, and over all mental, then physical, health. I’d like to think the science to happy drugs, is for the brain to shift its sick behaviours.
I think you could place a safe bet in arguing that morality and good decision making fall into the realm of psychology. And psychology is a science. It really isnt hard to think about "good" in a scientific context. A simple example is a city, or a town. There are rules in place that exist to maintain positivity and safety for those that live in the city or town. The people may debate about what is good for the city or town that benefits the most people. And this thing that is "good" depends on the societal needs at that time. Saying the idea of what is "good" cant be a scientific notion because what is "good" changes as the needs of a society change, is like saying biology isnt a science because living organisms evolve to better fit the environment they exist in. Just because the idea of what is "good" or not "good" isnt a rigid concept, doesnt mean it cant be a scientific persuit.
@@nc6714 I don't think that quite solves the old is/ought challenge. So soon as science becomes morally prescriptive, it ceases to be science. Schmactenberger, at least, among this clique, seems to understand this.
So game B is a bit of a placeholder. When I wonder about it, my first question is how view-point diverse do we want to make the new system? The more diverse the less efficient communication between people. The less diverse the narrower the growth potential. What seems to be the goal is to test the limits of human interpretive power. There is an interpretive basis for every viewpoint. Even the 5G virus conspiracy was them attacking a feature of Globalisation from China, even if the 5G part was a displacement of their real issue. On large scales, between so many people, we choose to listen to those most rewarding to us. The conflict eruptions come where views are boiling over on the internet. Yet they are the most difficult to communicate with as to be paid attention to, they are angry. This manifests into the big game A problem with understanding each other. It's a feature of human choice at such large scales. To prototype game B in game A feels horribly difficult, without just creating a community. People will naturally view game B success as whether it solves game A problems and game A is so big, to make that noticeable. The interconnectedness is messy to make effective tests, but we can maybe prototype small components of it.
You apparently don't understand the differences between 4G and 5G technology. There is legitimate reason to have trepidation towards a new technology that hasn't been tested for long term health circumstances (increased cancer rates) as that would interrupt the profit motive. I am not endorsing the 5G conspiracy theories, simply disagreeing that it is born only out of displaced anger towards China.
Dameon Geppetto absolutely, the technical abhorrent nature of 5g should be an open the box discussion, not guessing the paint colour. Not even wi fi has a known test on molecular science.
Around 28:00 .. exactly, Bret, the intention to set up a rigid system is inherently flawed. This is why real political philosophers like Robert Nozick work at the meta-level after showing why this is necessary. The presumption to start with that there can be a "one size fits all" system that is ideal seems obviously flawed to start with, so wallowing around in "my view should be your view" thinking cannot succeed for politics. Why does this work for science and not politics? Because scientific facts do not vary (ideally), but the fact is that human values do vary.... it is that simple.
But he’s not suggesting that you fail every time. There’s just going to be a lot of trial and error. I mean, Bret has said this expectation that you should expect to fail, but that doesn’t mean the task is insurmountable. I supported Andrew Yang, and still do, even 2020 was always understood to be a moonshot. As a comment on the effect of recognizing this, it’s quite liberating to being willing to fail, and yet pursuing it anyway. Some pursuits are too clearly necessary to be all that dismayed by failure. I’ll check out Robert Nozick, but with no knowledge of exactly what you’re really proposing, it seems to me that many people in this video understand that building consensus and alignment are the explicit goals of Game B, because the starting assumptions that you most conquer the beliefs of your peers is perhaps the greatest failure of Game A.
Eat the bugs and get in the shipping container. It's more efficient and economical. Millionaires? Billionaires? What are you talking about, of course they won't live in the shipping container with all the proles. They need incentives, after all.
Yeah, people used to form communes quite readily back in the 60s. I feel like there are a lot of people currently who advocate a more communitarian society, but refuse to put their money where their mouth is and find a bunch of likeminded housemates.
I find that the editing and narration of these films get in the way of the valuble content. It would be great if you could stop the channel 4 news documentary style format and just publish the conversation with at most a introduction if the involved parties or make sure to reference their work.
WOW. Nice work!! I have a lot to say about it, but I won't sully the conversation at this time. Like a fly on the wall, I know (like most other people) what is intuitively true and correct. I like what I hear so far.
The palpable arrogant disdain in Rutt's attitude towards the spiritual and the metaphysical is a clear example of Game A thinking. In a Game B scenario it's not "either or" it's "both and." It's a higher level of order. It's the difference between needing to be right and staying committed to collective solution seeking. Just using the word woo derisively to casually dismiss an entire population of people who have come to the table in good faith, pun not intended, is counter productive at best. My challenge in this is to include and honor Rutt's unique contributions to these endeavors and to seek compassionate understanding of his point of view. The pitfalls going into discussions like this will be where each of us find ourselves being triggered. I got triggered! Ha!
The most important/meaningful conversations happening in the world are absolutely not the ones that are amplified across mainstream broadcast channels. Seek and ye shall find. :)
haha I've thought the same thing... But honestly there are TONS of people asking these questions and in this dialog. They are simply not "academics" nor use the terminology of "game B". Though I think it would be helpful to all use game B for simplicity's sake
Maybe because they in fact think of themselves as another elite of sorts, who doesn't need to communicate with commoners to know it all? So deeply in Love with their own smartness and logic.
I know you are working on this project and listen to your channel sometimes. First - Thank you for your commitment to this and the energies that f(ol)low 🌊 Second - Are you connected with anyone who is working on Game B at the early childhood education level. I would love to hear what ideas are out there in this vein, being in the Montessori education world myself. Cheers!
The ecology of ideas looks like a lake with a vortex in the middle. All ideas begin on the edge as paper boats (prototypes) which float forwards, (or sink) get stronger, become participatif concepts for responsable persons, and then the idea crosses the line of industrialisation, where the idea becomes the new fashion, having been made idiot proof to please the insurance companies ("mustn't let anyone hurt themelves and learn anything must we?" mentality). The new fashion quickly becomes the orthodoxy and then becomes hierarchised, and the pyramid of the masses in the middle takes on the words of the idea, like wearing a new suit. The militant victims of new thought then march down an ever narrowing corridor (with ever growing walls on either side) and believe that a narrow band of sky overhead means that they can see out. Just before the end...as the idea goes over the edge of the whirlpool (and so down the hole of history) the idea becomes "fascist" a word which we seem to use to describe authoritarianism. GAME B MUST TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT. Bye
"Ideas good, don't too many people use ideas, ideas only for us, if for others, ideas not good." Good ideas are only as good as their implementation, anything else is mental masturbation, which is fine so long has its place remains inscribed in the arts. This sort of elitism, it's hard to defend, and using esoteric aphorisms does not do it favours.
Or just forget economics altogether and learn what humans can do for themselves without authority to over complicated riddles. If any of the characters travelled the world with just a pocketful of pennies, they would learn the only survival needed is not intelligence, it is love.
This is a solid critique. I do feel like there is a way to circumnavigate these pitfalls, mostly to do with understanding what good leadership is, and what it isn’t. I’d advise taking Jocko Wilink’s sense of leadership and extreme ownership very seriously-there is a way to understand leadership as distributed and non-hierarchical in that way, I think. Whereas one can find an abject dearth of leadership in our current political moment.
Is it possible that Game B is just another aspect of academic hubris , G-less theorizing on a titanic intellectual scale. This doesn’t mean it isn’t hopeful, or smart , or genius but as they say pride goes before the fall.
C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity when you find out you’re in a wrong space it’s best go back and start over. I think we’re here. I’m glad we have smart concerned intellectuals willing to look at what starting over could look like with a plan going forward.
Indeed, there is tendency with the last remaining not yet absorbed leftist... and I honestly don't know how to describe it. Much like I don't any longer know how to describe the rest.
I wish. Spock was objective in discussion, where as Kirk was subjective, Kirk was objective by deciding, where as Spock was subjective. One would believe nothing could be achieved, yet quite naturally, wisdom is disseminate to avoid harm, that is all. Where as our method is largely to produce harm and ask questions later. Please understand, star treck was the show between colonial and indigenous, wrapped in a fictional sparkling plastic. That was the genius of Gene Roddenberry.
Excellent interview. But I don't get why we need a Game B. Why can't we just eliminate Game A by understanding its causes? I'd say that the ultimate cause of Game A is the idea that we are lacking and flawed. This causes us to compete for various forms of happiness to fill the lack, and then the competition creates harms that are interpreted as being due to our supposed flaws. If we understand that, then we will no longer be distracted from the happiness and goodwill of being, and so all will be well.
Bret has done a lot of good, even in the area of showing that religion has evolutionary benefit, but his thoughts on spirituality in this talk betrays that his thoughts need to evolve.
Don't know for sure, but here's what I 'spect he's referring to. Follow the links...: letter.wiki/conversation/241 www.whatisemerging.com/opinions/the-anti-debate
The Game~B homepage in Facebook. This is an index of most of the game~B groups where you will find the most important documents if you do your own exploration: facebook.com/GameBHomePage/
Many ... Of the younger, or youngest individuals have not been taught critical thinking skills, or history (in order to not repeat), or ethical values our country was founded on that appreciated all the people, and includes all the people. Education in the last 70 years failed.
Ann Pane. By accident or design? Maybe a mix of both? History has been undervalued as a subject and as an example, Media Studies has has become a “thing”. Critical thinking and debating are not encouraged. Here’s the accepted narrative. Now repeat it back. How well you repeat it equals your grade.
Learning how to learn, Critical thinking, rationality, Strategy, problem solving, dialogue, philosophy, logic, STEM, Statistics I think these are foundational.
This all seems overly complicated. Why not agree on foundational ideas and move on. For example, all men are equal under the law, that they all have the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness so long as the expression of those rights doesn't infringe on others to do the same. That all men have the right to free speech and the expression of ideas. All men have the right to defend their rights and property and bear arms to protect their rights and property. That all men have the right to privacy and to be secure in their lives and property. That all men are presumed innocent and treated so until proven guilty. All men have the right to meet their accused in a fair trial, and that their trial should be decided by their peers and neighbors. ....we already have these ideas.
I am curious to know why Bret considers the current trajectory as terminal. Could the evolutionary process be already creating the solution to the problems that he sees
Hey, stranger! For what it’s worth, I avoided Twitter for many years myself. About four years ago I found many leading lights in my field, wise folks in analytics and data engineering, were freely sharing what they know on Twitter . Yes, the default Twitter feed often crowds out the gems but, I figure, if you took the time to check out the video and post a comment, you, too, are someone who seeks high-quality information. So, I figured I would take a chance and pay forward my good luck at finding high-quality information on Twitter by letting you know you may want to give it another shot. What has worked for me is to keep my follows constrained to folks whose accounts I can independently verify align with their sharing high-quality information. (I know, easier said than done, right?) Good luck!
It felt as though there were nine hundred at the recent Rebel Wisdom zoom conference. Judging by the thoughtful chat, indicative of genuine enquiry, the kind of right-wing libertarians who are only interested in self-justifying pronouncements on social media (and have no interest in what others think) were largely absent.
Theoryofenchantment.com is her website, also podcast of Chloe and Bret on dark horse podcast UA-cam, recent interview with BenjaminBoyce worth a watch, also on youtube. She has mAinstream traction even here in the uk. Hope that helps, if you need links let me know , be well x
@@jdelaplaya9678 just heard Chloe on the Stoa w/ Peter L. SO GOOD!!!! Thank you for the intro! I'm seriously considering asking her if she might be available to speak at our Montessori conference this year! ❤️
I'm sure I'm not alone in that I think this here is the first time I've typed "Game B" in at least several years, and never to talk about these concepts. I am much more satisfied watching all of these discussions from the sidelines and seeking/finding the answers to my own questions through non-attached consumption of all perspectives surrounding these topics. These types of ideas spread on their own, due to obvious legitimacy, rather than marketing. Jim's disgust for Anarchy, in my eyes, only discredits his research and understanding on these things. Non-hierarchical is quintessentially Anarchy. It's sad that he falls victim to such a common misconception. Anarchy is no rulers, not no rules.
Most podcasts rarely read the comments however I will proceed: please examine the rules of the most successful social. movement of the 20th & 21st Centuries. The traditions of AA (without God or theism as a basis) an archistic methodology that works very well.
This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world - legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it. Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this very thing." True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire. My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks - armed with rings, hooks, and cords - surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull." "Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty." God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works. -The Law, Bastiat
"Yes but..." some might prefer a recalibration of the 5000 BC to 2020AD of the words "faith in god." Hummm, does the Goddess play Game A, or is God more a Game B player? Or do they play MNLOP...? :) HIJK! - i think i just love how the letters sound. My apologies, not a serious comment.
But I don’t see any clear line to be drawn from faith in a god to personal liberty. The god of Islam, for instance, is explicitly antithetical to such liberation. And also, the prior idea of an emancipation party runs afoul of many interpretations of god and god’s law. And moreover, the discussions of those involved in this being peers in a non-hierarchical arrangement gets more or less at this concern-no invocation of a god necessary.
@@quaternio I agree that the term "God" is unclear. Here he is speaking of a Deist God, where one can assume God=Good. That is, exactly equal. No deity is needed to have a notion of good, and if you have not notion of good, then you cannot have a foundation upon which to have any kind of ethics, morals, or political philosophy. Who determines "God's will", each of us have to do that for ourselves, but we can also decide our morals and ethics together when there is overlap in our findings... when there is not, perhaps try living apart, as the implication that we must always agree is nowhere implied. As for the line between God and state and the role of state, I'd suggest reading through this short pamphlet and he gives clear answers and reasons. He is not against all state, but for a clear boundary between state and what amounts to "religion" (humanist or otherwise). What he is implying is that socialism, in all of its forms, is a sort of Godless (goodless) religion. Why? Because it is about power, control, forced redistribution, and all of this done by _humans_ who also deny that it is a religion. What is is arguing for, in sum, is a true separation between church and state, in the most fundamental sense.
Benjamin David Eddy Ever noticed how the indigenous have no capability to project themselves on to others, ever notice how we are always projecting onto others, instead of ‘creating’ the best conditions for things to grow, creating the best conditions for our children to choose the best path, and creating the best examples of our brotherhood, relationships, equality and love. It is very difficult to tell a rapist how to behave, when all they do is rape and remain addicted to taking away land while enforcing rules of violence, over the nation of no violence practiced for 60,000 years or more.
A detailed outline already exists of how a Game B society needs to be organised so that 'The Good' self-organizes thereafter. It is the same way that evolution has organized societies of self-producing molecular processes, of cells, and of organisms. Google "The Self-Organizing Society: A Grower's guide".
Whatever plan you have must take into account human nature. As far as I understand it, hierarchy is evolutionary. I would expect Bret to see this and build that into the game. We should be working with our nature instead of trying to fix it with solutions that go against our nature.
OK I'm an hour in and thus far have seen Not one Game B concept Not one concrete objection to game A I think this is the first problem game B folks need to solve.
Yeah, most of the Rebel Wisdom videos are tiny snippets of long, ongoing discussions which in their entirety are in fact weaving a beautiful tapestry of visionary human growth and evolution. But it's hard to get a feel for the as yet unfinished whole from just one or two random videos. It's a good channel, though. Lex Fridman also has some amazing guests on his channel.
Scottso Maybe they fused there names together to be more equal rather then one person taking the others name. Knowing Jordan there is probably some reasonable explanation. Why is it bad? I would think the kids would be named Greenhall as well not just green
Yeah but what happens with the kids...if they marry someone else which bit do they take to combine with their spouse...or do they just combine names like lego blocks?
I'm not sure that Game B actually has to out-compete Game A, as Eric puts it. In a ship analogy: it just has to be visibly apparent that it can float and that others are jumping aboard with success. The only thing required to evacuate those on a sinking ship is to effectively convince others that the ship is indeed sinking irreversibly. If you are on a sinking ship the qualities of the next ship don't actually need to be all that stellar -- as long as its actually floating and others are jumping aboard. All that is required is to show that this new ship is floating and being boarded by reasonable and competent people. If you are sufficiently convinced then you will jump ship no matter if it's a life raft, fishing troller, speed boat, or anything else. This is also a major danger in the current crisis and a reason to establish coherence as soon as possible -- because who knows what kinds of haphazard vessels may also come sputtering along in light of the noxious and extreme tribalism that we see popping up? The problem is that since we've harnessed the atom, learned how to control our living environments, internal biological "environments" etc. that this equates to being able to also to stave off the systematic issues that come with a growing population with shrinking agency and responsibility in that system. In short, people are still in denial that the systems we have relied on to keep us out of the wrath of wilderness and the wild are failing us more and more. This will come to a head when either Game B succeeds in floating (meaning that it starts to actually solve some problems and has a visible tangibility of some sort) or when wilderness finally seem like a more viable path than a crumbling civilization. We are already starting to see the latter with talk of SHTF and the bug out folks -- while the rest are just simply hoping they are wrong.....I might be mis-characterizing Bret's notion of competition though and welcome any clarification and/or discussion on that -- from anyone.
Fascinating that the initial significant fissure basically broke down about fault lines as to whether to emphasize the things the Weinstein Bros tend to view as.most important ( institutions ) vs the things JBP would view as.most important.( personal responsibility and improvement ).
46:20 with the orthodox materialists in mind, we have developed a rule-set based on a solid foundation, as long as we don't get mired too deeply in existential philosophy as to lose the very ground. Perhaps not strangely it starts to mirror threads of guidelines that run through most religions.
"Something like that [Game B in the irresistible form] can sweep over civilization relatively easily." Hmmm, sure, now all we have to do is invent it. Still waiting for cold fusion. Most people won’t be motivated to change until something big goes missing, oil, food, drinkable water. When that happens, peace love & understanding are not likely to be the ground-rules. Scarcity tends to enhance the drivers of Game A. Still, I respect these folks for sketching a better way and looking for paths that will get us there. We are headed to a massive collapse. Those who survive will live some kind of modified Amish life-style until nation-states form again; or perhaps civilization will evolve in a different direction next time.
How to sustain Equity and Justice? Empire is stable its life is consumption of resources. Democracy is unstable, it feeds on ideas and ideals which is nebulous and ever-changing.
Too many people involved and diversity of ideas doesn't help solve any issue. Have smaller teams focus on something specific and if its good emergent effects will change much more on a macroscale. Take an example of bitcoin and what came out of it. Bitcoin is also an entity that rests on a gameB side.
Thanks. Well, at least you're talking... or were. I certainly hope that future incarnations have a better name than "Game B"! I don't believe that it will be enough to have something that "out-competes" the current system. We will find that there is incredible, systematic, & very aggressive resistance to any such ideas from the rich & powerful - whose "Game A" is working just fine for them! We will not only have to out-compete the current system, we'll have to out-smart it as well; we will have to subvert it. So it's not just (somehow) coming up with a better, workable, truly sustainable system (which no one has ever, ever, done before!), it's making sure it can actually out-compete the old one on many levels. Plus, it must have broad (nearly unilateral) appeal to people. Plus, it (and again: we) will have to out-smart - and probably out-battle - the current model. Plus, it (again: we!) will have to find some way to overcome that simple fact that *_people do not want to change!_* Yeah, I think that's all. Just that. No pressure. Piece of cake. Yeah. Um... 🤔 tavi.
I don't agree that putting personal/spiritual growth first is putting the cart before the horse. We have to desire self actualization first. Unless of course game B is a tool embedded in the spiritual
There are a lot of things I like about Game~B. And I especially like Jim Rutt's blunt, frank answers.
However if you can't settle a disagreement between two small groups of like-minded people, your ideas clearly have a long, long way to go before they're ready to radically reform society.
they arent like minded tho , from what i just heard there was a split between scientific rationalists and spiritual deists, who are pretty muchn total opposites!
@@randomname3109 idk if i would go as far as call one group spiritual anything. The problem as i see it are the "experiences" of the two sectors are vastly different.
If this groups concern regards the millenial they need to start from where the millennials view points are.
Huge loss imho.
The missing element is love, this is a chemistry of hope and overwhelming brotherhood. Groups of endless discussion burn out from discussion fatigue because there are little physical achievements in evidence to practice. The first practice is to learn ego and what it is good for, how to control it, and how to understand democracy, or ‘honesty ‘. ‘non violent communication ‘.(a concise, almost abrupt communication, no monkey business)
Thats where the woo, as Jim referred to it, comes in.
A fascinating and important conversation. Thank you, gentleman!
Best film yet. Listened to it while on my new farm harvesting peas to sell to my neighbouring community. Felt so in line with most of what was said.
Nice one. Rebuilding localised communities has to be part of a big shift towards any sustainable future "game b"
Play the game!!
1h14. Very Important to do a "save" function on your own belief system. I did it in 2015, wrote it all down, then read it aloud into mp3 format as an audiobook. (5 hours long) and so now I can "lose" myself listening to other people, and come back to my "anchor" point and see if it needs adjusting.
Made any changes in 5 years?
That's an interesting idea, would you care to read and record mine...I hate the sound of my own voice, I write down or as the years went on typed out and read it after time has passed or after a day of dreaming of buying an island, building a 90s themed city and forgetting the millennium ever happened...
I used to watch Democracy Now religiously in my early 20s and aligned with most of their views, now at 39, I'd rather stick a scissors in the toaster than listen to more than 5 mins which I still tend to do just to hear what they're spewing...I've definitely had adjustments over the years but they seem to have had a lot more and only in one direction.
Came for the information; stayed for the eloquence of Bret W.
Many thanks for making these videos available.
At the time I am viewing this, there are 10k views and only 416 likes and it seems to be the approximate ratio for all of the videos I watch on UA-cam. I always hit like on videos I appreciate, and I don't understand why most people don't. We have to show support for what we like and want to see more of in this world, and hitting the thumbs up takes the smallest amount of effort. Come on, everyone! Let's do this!
It’s going to require way more than likes
thank you for doing what you are doing David
Finally a distilled perspective on Game B - 10 years after it "dissolved". Proud to have been invited by Jim Rutt as one of the initial "players" along with Bret Weinstein, Bonnitta Roy, Jordan and Vsnessa Hall and other amazing "players"!
I see the conflict between the personal growth crowd and the institutional focused crowd as revealing a sort of catch 22 problem (or chicken and egg problem) of the whole endeavor. I'll try to explain it as simply as I can. To create the structure/institutions of Game B you need people who are well developed, have integrated their shadow, are mature, self actualized (what ever way you want to describe it). Conversely you need structures/institutions that produce those people or allow the conditions for them to come about.
To me the solution to "the conflict" is to recognize that you need to work on both and that each will/can support the other. Another fundamental problem that Bret talked about was about "Game B" needing to be organic in the nature of it's take over (like smart phones). Key to this imo is that you need a tipping point of well developed individuals to create, maintain and fight for "Game B" to exists and survive. I would imagine the people in the original meetings were a group of exceptional and "well developed" people, but you need many more than were there to make Game B ultimately succeed and that this is what the personal growth crowd was in some part arguing.
Everybody wants to change the world in a big way, when history suggests progress is a slow accumulation of improvements. Find one small thing you can improve in a self-sustaining/catalytic way. Fix another small thing. The most dangerous people are revolutionaries. The good they serve always comes at great cost to the weakest and poorest.
Harry Mills absolutely, we are in a time of material reductionism from a planet expired of resources and life that depended on the only sustained version of endless growth, plants. We go too fast, consume too much, believe to many consumed beliefs and preach endlessly the greatness of physics to the gains, yet no inclusions to the losses, nor of the human mind that believes it has overcome gravity, time and space, and functions normally towards an absolutely terrifying end without mother earth. But a version of a mars like planet with dying humans who spectate.
I’m a millennial. 35 years old. I graduated Evergreen 2 years before they chased the good Professor out. Shame on them.
I would love to be part of something like this but I just don’t know how. Currently stuck working for the state and still in Olympia
Thank you for this. Love it! Interesting having a history of Game B. The stumbling blocks are incredible fascinating. I love Bret's framing of them being inevitable, and good opportunities for learning. He feels like a very wise navigator too. There were/are so many fascinating minds involved, that it feels like we ought to do what we can to collectively to encourage it and will forward.
Thank you for a very interesting talk around Game B. It would be also great to hear what Wilber has to say about what went wrong with that split between the personal growth defenders and the institutional improvement defenders. Doesn't integral theory explain the problem quite well?
Hi Jose, do you have a link for that , thanks.
I see the conflict between the personal growth crowd and the institutional focused crowd as revealing a sort of catch 22 problem (or chicken and egg problem) of the whole endeavor. I'll try to explain it as simply as I can. To create the structure/institutions of Game B you need people who are well developed, have integrated their shadow, are mature, self actualized (what ever way you want to describe it). Conversely you need structures/institutions that produce those people or allow the conditions for them to come about.
To me the solution to "the conflict" is to recognize that you need to work on both and that each will/can support the other. Another fundamental problem that Bret talked about was about "Game B" needing to be organic in the nature of it's take over (like smart phones). Key to this imo is that you need a tipping point of well developed individuals to create, maintain and fight for "Game B" to exists and survive. I would imagine the people in the original meetings were a group of exceptional and "well developed" people, but you need many more than were there to make Game B ultimately succeed and that this is what the personal growth crowd was in some part arguing.
Thank you for taking the time to condense these ideas in video format!
the discussion has entirely skipped the beginning, the beginning is soil. Non of these humans have come close to struggle, so they are stuck in the middle. Gandhi explicitly said, live among those you wish to help.
Yes! Very strongly agree, still looking for the people to help! the soil is the best starting point! #solutions #whosready #gameB let's go folks!
They are if their targeted audiences are southern california tech workers.
Brandon Prescott Tec is a word for technology, this has existed since the inception of man, 100,000 years in solid evidence, three million years in anomaly’s of fossil. So to work in tec, can also mean life and tools for life, not just spectatorship and theft.
@@mellonglass In your view is there no help that can be offered to "the middle"? Certainly raising awareness about the plight of the undifferentiated mass you implicitly support would be an action directed to "the middle" as the other designations will either be aware by material circumstance or some causative action. So if nothing else, ideas can be directed towards "the middle" to point towards whatever it is you believe is the higher value.
Brandon Prescott Yes. The middle was described to me in my youth, the asset of learning and discovery, not slavery to a linear outcome while believing in escape to a better place achieved by the wealth paradox and its parasites in behaviour.
Make Game A Great Again
Vinay Gupta's falling out highlights Game B's positioning in that 'white liberal' bubble and the mention of people working on themselves first further puts this into a position of ignoring human nature in the hope of manipulating it to fit the ideals of the system. Any system needs to manage the incentives that drive human behaviour including the spiritual aspects but also status, sexual selection and reciprocity and reward for effort in a game theoretically stable equilibrium that is still adaptable to change and events like pandemics and can evolve as Bret says. Not an easy task. You might want to interview Vinay as he needs a bigger audience. I met him at one of the Rebel Wisdom parties so I know you can get hold of him.
A meta-comment. When Jim Rutt declares himself a scientific realist, what happens when he shows contempt for the wu-wu? Rather than create a culture that can draw upon the healhty forms of the magical you co-create among yourselves a strategy that shuts out others who are arranged differently. You will stay a club rather than a movement. Politics is driven by affect, gesture, voice...and catching rhythms...what I find in this valuable conversational space is an overly narrow, conscious focus...there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of Mr, Rutt's philosophy...magic will not save us...the rational academic with a bias towards scientific realism is not going to save us either. A constipated cognition.
I agree. The strength of his opposition to anything non-scientific realist was a kind of off-putting. To find a solution to the "hard problem of consciousness" suggests alternative approaches could be useful or at least entertained. Even to categorise alternative approaches as "wu-wu" is demeaning. For someone who obviously purports to be open-minded, it's disappointing.
Yeah. When you call someone else's honestly held perspective 'bullshit' you are always the one in the wrong.
You're looking at a 'scientific realist' who's fat and unfit. If he were truly convinced by science, the amount of research that shows how exercise and healthful dietary habits extended cognition into advanced age would have an impact on his life. But he doesn't believe that enough for it to motivate his actions. He maintains the same blind spots at his own expense that he claims others have.
He has to call it bullshit, because in his arrogance he can't say what is actually true: "I don't understand."
Arthur Nowr money is a religion with the most weight, it is so heavy we won’t have a planet left from always shopping.
@Arthur Nowr *tips fedora*
I would have thought that systemic anti-fragility would favor a balance between the objective truth sought by scientific materialism and the subjective truth of mysticism, metaphysics and irrationally. Both conscious and unconscious irrational closed loop feedback are essential for robust resiliency during systemic dislocation risks, reversible recovery processes, transitional phase shift realignments or dynamic stability.
I find it difficult to imagine a sustainable homeostasis of civilization without the qualitative morphogenic resonance of intersubjectivity; and thereby cases with extreme boundary conditions should be theoretically possible. For example, modeling strain tolerance becomes derivative in systems that are incapable of recursive social recuperation that is in alignment and acceptance of behavioral expressions of intra & inter subjective sympathetic receptivity. {Yes, I know that sentence is unnecessary complex in its oversimplification but this is a UA-cam comment so tl;dr is an option for the frustrated reader and this point.}
Game A’s externalizations of moral hazards results and corruption of establishment ideologies towards fundamentalist cultural drift creates both a systemic vulnerability and interpersonal opportunity for networked signal integrity and competitive dispossession of maladaptive systemic hegemonies: i.e. world domination can be decentralized.}
Equitably processing complex psychosocial trauma and antisocial behaviors is relevant to transcending Dunbar limitations as well as to permit tolerance for maladaptive reactivity, which enables accelerated psychological heeling and generative non-conforming creativity.
Often, I find my ego on a metaphorical bull-ride, and “hitting the ground” too hard can suck the fun out of failures, which is antithetical to the learning experience.
If you’d like to challenge your systemic warfare skills, just try designing the social management structures and institutions that would provide meaningful existence on an open-air prison planet of purely “factor 1” malevolent narcissists on a utopian quest for purity and conformity... just in case the Machiavellian sociopathic corruption of our current society isn’t already too much too overcome. As a thought experiment, this displays what I imagine others are calling the “hard problem of consciousness” but I’ll have to become more familiar with underlying issues and assumptions.
IMO, existential problems may have no determinant solutions (nor are they systemically desired); and, the inability to grieve this stark reality prevents generative thinking necessary to escape the labyrinth of humanity’s self-imposed delusions of separation and scarcity.
But, then again, I’m no philosophy surgeon. I just regard the Indigo Girls quote as relevant: “The less I seek my source from some definitive, the closer I am to fine.” ...which is not only good self-care but it’s also scalable to a civil mutual plurality.
{That said, earnest actors are susceptible to deception of cult values and beliefs if these issues are simply ignored. An Easter Island style planet-wide civilization collapse is one outcome I believe that we should all try to avoid.}
46:35
“When I hear the word metaphysics I reach for my pistol”
“On the other hand I don’t rule things out either”
If you reach for your pistol I think you are ruling things out🤷♀️
That's what I thought. I think this kind of old school mentality is the biggest block to progress. Calling something "bullshit" means you don't care to understand anything other than what you think you know.
Not very open-minded I would say🤔
Durita Hansen 4. Why we don’t get anywhere. Predictable outcome.
la de da So? Not everyone wants progress. Most folks can’t even define anymore, it’s so banal.
Evolve.
Reach for your ray gun.
Rutt's categorical and openly condescending dismissal of "woo" as "bullsh*t" shows perfectly why remaking society will never proceed from the speculative arguments of prejudiced intellectuals. Weinstein's evolutionary perspective suggests that such a dismissal is not a question merely of personal belief but is in fact a woefully myopic dismissal of the fundamentally human need for meaning in the metaphysical dimension of the self-actualizing project.
in what way is 'woo' not 'bullshit' ??? or in what way is 'shit' not 'fecal matter' ??? sorry, but your choice of words there is quite funny. the circular reasoning that follows not so much. a bit like: "i reserve the right to choose what is real solely based on my personal taste." that's so Game A... ;-)
There's a clear devide in the level and style of thinking between individuals like Schmactenberger and Rutt, you can imagine the rift that would have originally taken place
@dumpsky : the wording of your question suggests that you essentially agree with Rutt's prejuduce, and that would suggest that no further dialog is welcome. For what it's worth, your problem is that you're still thinking chronologically, but what we're talking about is timeless. i chose the word "woo" because he did. I was not in the original group discussions, but i surmise that he meant "woo" disparagingly (as most do) to include any and all interest in a spiritual dimension, which will inevitably include interests and techniques that fall outside of strict materialsim. A more meaningful description of these interests would be concerned with consciousness as a substrate rather than an artifact.There is ample evidence from multiple scientific disciplines to indicate that consciousness can be understood as the substrate of our space-time, functioning as a fundamentally non-material, non-linear, and extra-temporal dimension, which affords us the concepts, luxuries, and benefits of (among other emergent phenomena) inspiration, learning, and creativity, all above the constraints of reductive materialism and strictly rational schema. Spiritual traditions can function in this dimension, often to profound effect, as do the arts, both mental health and illness, and some historically important scientific insights. I would propose that if you've ever had a moment of spontaneous insight, solved a problem in a dream, or experienced a personally meaningful synchronicity, you've had a woo experience worth investigating. More radical but well documented examples abound. To dismiss these interests as 'bullshit' without any option for an inclusive futurist perspective is, in my view, a posture of intellectual sloth and counter-productive prejudice.
Orunj YegLad Well he’s stuck in a Rutt... Sorry. Somebody had to say it..
c3bhm yeah. He talks like the kind of guy that sees a 20 year old when he looks in the mirror.
I'll place this comment here for the enjoyment of others and to spark some interest. For those that say "this is elites trying to solve problems from a top-down level" or something to that effect, I think Jim's comments on this being a network-centric system must be paid mind. The ideas they're presenting here are to consciously shape incentive structures so as to make the current hierarchies less appealing and for more people to be able to have meaningful participation in the system as a whole without the need for top-down ruling at all. The entire point of Game B should be to move the power into individuals hands with a minimum of institutional interference and with a healthy set of checks and balances on any concentration of power. The people who shape current society are those with large amounts of capital. Brett's point that America was a prototype that needs updating is a reflection of that. The US's founders understood very well the fundamental difficulties of power transfers. They did not anticipate multi-billion dollar corporations becoming "citizens" in the eyes of the law and could not have predicted as much. But if we amend our prototype to include facets that disconnect these capital systems from governance, governance can then go back to doing what it was meant to do in the first place and can begin hopefully to represent its people more and more.
I love this grandpa, you can see by his joy how much he enjoys his time. He is really broad in his interests and very smart indeed
You lost me at "cone shaped triangle that isn't a hierarchy"
jlloydb1of9 just sounds important, yet is only a non disclosed concept. If we had a concept, the world would be speeding ahead already. I like fractals more than cones, cones are slippery.
@@mellonglass I googled 'fractal' and all I saw was more triangles.
jlloydb1of9 the first order in chaos, 3 points, 3 directions, 1+1=3 humans, left right middle, in one chosen direction. and then 3% theory of change and the divisions of 360° ends in 3 not one. So 3 it is, and is inescapable as a universal number we can use to make very good choices. The ‘one’ is confused and can not imagine, then 3 is enough to imagine. The first order of power is 5. A cone is for ice cream.
Holochain is building Game B digital infrastructure... multi chains, each instantiated with its own code “DNA”, all potentially interconnectable... enhancing collective intelligence and regenerative economies... I don’t hear enough specifics in Game B about CI or circular/regenerative economics in support of a healthy global ecology... medium.com/h-o-l-o/introducing-the-commons-engine-9818315214f0?source=linkShare-a9fbb91abd0b-1591799687
Bradley Hughes as things are, I just woke up thinking about such things. The commons has common law written in our method of human. I hope this can prove a way forward to sharing, not all sharing is equal, that is why there is a law of ‘love’. This is based on the number 3. Needs over wants, most people barely notice the difference, so we have ‘endless growth’. In any structure a codec is required to move forward, we have barely scratched the surface of how codec selection is appropriated from chemistry to analog numerical form, I have been pondering these things for months. Thank you for this correspondence, I have it bookmarked.
Woohoo, the algorithm gods have smiled down on me and allowed me to find this
Biograhies of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin show they created the USA by studying history, especially understanding what went wrong with Athens, Rome etc. This group appears to have started with top down analytical model e.g. "we all THOUGHT civilization was doomed" versus "we OBSERVED we were making the same mistake as Athens". Smart guys but the arrogance is palpable. "No no you're not thinking, you're just being logical" -Neils Bohr
Jeff Teza True. The vagaries of theology and the necessity to ‘publish’ to ‘entertain’ or the necessity to ‘perform’ tricks, is again because of fear. This fear is very real, and it is a fear of losing an audience. This fear puts people on stage to do the stupidest tricks, we even do it ourselves. Where the maturity arrises is to drop the penchant role model system of ‘leadership’ and basically, ‘seek advice’, before imagining monsters, spooks, thieves, copyrights, secrets, and learn again to be a loving curious child, and not the man of ego in self correctness. Always seek another, it is human, not to seek another, is economics.
"Arrogance is palpable" is something that easily could have been said of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Who were they to think they know the proper set of rules to design a nation? They were right to be arrogant. It turns out that arrogance is table stakes in these sorts of discussion.
Either way, this group started because they were OBSERVING things are going wrong in the West. Observations are useless without some sort of model in which to make sense of the observations. The only way to solve a problem without some sort of theoretical model is to let it evolve through some sort of selection process. But that's not what the Founding Fathers were doing either. They used observations to build a model, and then used the model to hypothesize solutions to the failure modes of systems. It's the same thing.
Even though Brett said this should be a competitive system that is willingly adopted, too much of what he and Mr Rutt also said smacks of totalitarian rule. I suspect that deep down they believe if they can sneak in a new system that people will just change regardless of how they feel or what they believe. As much evidence as there is that environment can shape people, there’s just as much to show that for some environment isn’t everything
I'm not sure where you're coming from when you say it "smacks of totalitarian rule".
Instances of Game B models (there may be many instantiations and many models) are supposed to be opt-in, not mandatory, so if you didn't like how it was set up, you could choose to leave. As an analogy, where you live you may have several choices of local book clubs you could join. If you don't like the books being chosen at one, you don't have to join. If you don't like the format of discussions at another, you can leave (and start your own if you like).
Or perhaps you understand that, and you mean that the rule is totalitarian *within* a Game B-style organization. This could be true, I suppose. But I'd point out a few things..
1) That that's no worse than being an employee at a company. I get that that isn't desirable, but my point is that it may improve *some* aspects without improving that one, but *at least it's not worse* in that regard (as Jim Rutt was saying, don't let "the perfect be the enemy of the good"). I understand this isn't a great argument, but it's worth realizing, I think.
2) They explicitly say it should be non-hierarchical, and I'm pretty sure it's for exactly the reason you mention. Hierarchical systems are vulnerable to capture, and totalitarian rules can be used to lock in that capture. They do not want that.
3) Most importantly, part of the reason that both Jim and Bret stress that "Game B" shouldn't be just *one* thing (but should instead that people should be prototyping with lots of different Game B-style ideas), is because there are lots of possible models, and most of those models will have some characteristics (like "totalitarian rule", but there are many different kinds of characteristics) that are undesirable. The point of actually testing them in the real world is to see how they actually end up operating, because whether any particular model will have negative characteristics isn't always obvious until you actually try it. The models with negative characteristics like "totalitarian rule" will ideally disappear because people don't wish to participate in them, and would rather join a different Game B organization that doesn't have those negative characteristics.
Game B is one of the AstroTurf narratives preparing the way for " the great reset " total surveillance technocratic totalitarianism.
Aaron S, what bit of " the overarching Game B" , and " civilization scale Game B" dyd you pretend not to hear,? It's quite perplexing that you wrote your defence of the " game B" AstroTurf for totalitarian technocracy in 2020 when the system it was laundering ( or the public face of it ) " the great reset ' had already made it's nice to simultaneously grab power in almost every state worldwide. The great reset / global tikkum olam / game B isn't a book clubs you can opt out of , exceif in the sense they need pretend that we can opt out of their " not compulsory" interventions by also agreeing to never leave our homes or communicate with others in any unmediated form.
AstroTurf projects always offer the participants s false sense that they have a choice or real power. That is similar to the Delphi process used to manufacture phoney consent for predetermined policy. Exceotbof course that they are manufacturing fake consent for a system that disposed with every level of free consent in every single aspect of our lives , even our relationships and our bodies.
Looking at the reasons of the original GameB collapse reveals exactly what is wrong with the "movement".
Take a look at the division between "institutions first" and "personhood first":
I think most of us would agree that, on paper, it should have been very easy and common sense to combine these two divisions into a single compelling framework. The fact that a consensus didn't come about and a huge incoherency amongst the group started to emerge from this issue, can tell us a lot about the potential interpersonal dynamics that caused this.
When you put the archetype of the "disembodied hardcore scientific realist" against the archetype of the "spiritualist' some shit is about to go down whether you like it or not..
The truth is, both have huge merits and we need to find a way to incorporate both.
Someone in the comments mentioned something about the key missing ingredient being love which really resonated with me because I think that ultimately, in order to truly collaborate on something like this together, we have to be able to see each other from each other's light (as opposed to from each other's shadow), and that is only possible when there's love.
Anyways, this is very raw language and I should probably develop these ideas into a more compelling essay but I hope this sets a conversation off...
Great comment, I agree. Makes me think of Jonathon Pageau’s discussion: unity amidst multiplicity is possible only through Love. And that love has to have enough gravity to keep people together (coherence) with enough wiggle room and grace to respect the “fringe,” the anomaly, the exception. The dangerous part of Jim’s scientific realism is that it aims at 100% comprehension (every single thing must be accounted for on my terms I won’t acknowledge its existence).... what he calls “woo,” I’d call “breathing room.”
either way, you'll have to get this to the man on the street. The language needs to be dumbed down. Perhaps . love, is to lofty....perhaps Respect should be the first step.
To be fair, the movement is very much in an exploratory phase, so pointing to this or that aspect of it for criticism or praise is a little premature. The idea is for like minded "Game B thinkers" to organically coalesce through exploration of different ideas rather than some authority broadcasting an official Game B framework. Inevitably, some of the early Game B notions will turn out to be clumsy or just plain bad, but they may successfully bring together like minds.
It’s like a academic tutorial on how to build a good intentions paving machine.
If a negative result was forewarned as likely or even inevitable, can that result be legitimately called an unintended consequence?
Seems more like a business plan.
Just keep the ideas at your evergreen peri dish Bret.
Who was it that stated, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions? " (A succinct statement. Seemingly summarizing mankind's attempt to realize utopia. Both Now, and in the Afterlife) A subtle warning?
So... are you all suggesting we not attempt to improve on what we have, that any attempt at good intentions will inevitably result in gulags/concentration camps, or are you all simply giving a warning that this _could_ go wrong but might not?
Betterment Project
Is this Cathy Newman? 🤣
Big Picture Dot Connector
Hence my reference that progressives/public intellectuals are the industrialization of the aphorism.
41:50 Brett Weinstein:“I gave a talk many years ago about the ‘personal responsibility vortex’. And the ‘personal responsibility vortex’ was about the wrong-headed idea that one fixes the world through behaving in a personally responsible way that will then scale up. And in fact, the exact opposite is true. If you hold people to live the values that they would like to see fit civilization then the best people will be hobbled by their level of obligation to, for example sustainability, and they will have very little impact on the way the world comes to look. And those who pay no attention to sustainability will have lots of extra resource and freedom with which to shape the world to their objective. So if you want to see the world look a particular way, holding people to that exact standard in the moment seems right but the counterintuitive truth is it’s dead wrong and will be counterproductive.”
Exciting stuff! I see the story of Game B being an Aaron Sorkin movie one day!
I thought Jim Rutt was a great speaker and clearly very intelligent, but I do agree with some of the others in thinking that his strong aversion to 'woo woo' comes across as closed mindedness and I wouldn't be surprised if he was a big reason for the division into camps at the Stanton meetings. There has to be way to move forward without closing doors on ideas that don't meet consensus. I think Bretts analysis of the situation was best and they should of continued exploring separately, but still in amicable communication with one another - there was no need for it to get ugly. If people were open and understanding that there are different perspectives and even different truths out there that hold validity outside scientific rigor, I think we will be working in more of a Game B fashion.
We play in this space free from intention. rather than finding Game B while working to produce a solution we play there and encourage and assist others in doing the same! Play well! Enjoy your game!
So the political party was just essentially co-opting every single progressive Utopian idea, but called it something new. A recipe for success, if I ever heard one.
Without a definitive resolution to that disagreement about systems and personal growth there will not be a game B manifestation without imposition, a defacto return to game A
An interesting "alternate track" I had read of, suggested that groups of people could pool resources, and provide tax free loans to people, to act as scholarships. The idea was, that this investment was a tax write off, helps someone to gain an education without a massive debt load. Instead of charging interest (like a bank would) the group would instead receive free (or discounted) service from that person.
So, you would over a course of years, continue to expand the services available to the group, adding more students as you identify additional services that the group requires, accountants, mechanics, doctors...
Interesting,
Bret and Jim are trying to solve the Game A problem on “the same level of consciousness that created it”.
Durita Hansen exactly, then game b, would have to learn about the math of time itself and how the days do not fit into a year and its fudging calculations of fractions that don’t exist, yet are convenient for industry and control. Or the human fear of switching off the lights at night.
Einstein says....
That is weak criticism. This can be said about anything that is even recognizable as a "solution". The folks that say "the first step is improving yourself" aren't proposing a solution, they're waiting for the world to end with their fingers crossed.
@@fixed-point Close. The first step is in coming to more authentically know one's self. This becomes a profound improvement once deeper authentic truths about the self become perceived outside of the version built through simulated thinking (game a's framework tends to be maintained by simulated thinking). When one has come to be capable of genuinely recognizing that one's own emotions and cognitive dissonance are entirely initiated and propagated by the self, then blame becomes more authentically perceived to be a literal projection onto a perceived external other as a means to quiet overwhelming emotions in the self. Once the levels of misperception of the true nature of self and reality have been corrected, forgiveness becomes an intuitive result (partly to do with what will, by that time, have become a conscious awareness of the consequences of the nature of one's own former misperceptions with respect to projecting blame outwardly for what was actually literally a mistaken belief regarding the true nature of the self. Of course, until one has taken the steps to address one's own beliefs with regard to their creation having stemmed from dangerously outdated simulated thinking. Memorization and repetition touted as education with a successful student prioritizing obedience while students' epiphanies born of simulated thinking (so the student may come to ancient realizations once more) become mistakenly seen as the highest achievement of education.
Ah, ok, understand Rutt’s perspective now - had to look him up / search his name - explains a lot - Jim Rutt (born 1954) is an American businessman and entrepreneur, the former CEO of Network Solutions, and the former chairman of the Santa Fe Institute.
I'm dying at 45:48 when Jim Rutt lays into Integral thinking and says 'Kosmic Konsciousness' in that tone. Does he know he is speaking to Mr. David 'Integral' Fuller? Where is my laughing emoji...
hi there liz?
Jim's show has some great interviews on, highly recommended! The one with Dave Snowden is especially interesting if you want to dive a little deeper into some of the ideas that Schmachtenberger mentions (e.g. complex/complicated systems)
So, trying to keep it objective the terms A and B were used. On asked for more specificity the answer is “better the devil you don’t know than the one you know”. Wow! If you are going to use spiritual language at least realise the correct alternative to the devil is an angel not another devil. Also realise that the devil you know is actually way better than the one you don’t know. Saying something like that and then calling spiritual thinking bullshit is a game ending (pun intended) self awareness test failure.
Understanding that an angel you dont know, may just end up being a devil you dont know is the point....
45:00 This is particularly funny. Jim wants only science in his politics, but now the burden is on him to show how any notion of "good" is in science. If he is honest, he'll have to admit it is not there, meaning that he has no grounding at all. Hate to break it to you, Jim, but "the good" is a religious/woo notion, not a scientific one... welcome to being human.
Kon Berner would a sick unhappy, stressed person, make a new chemistry of badly formed body cells, or does love have a sort of lifting effect to our posture, attitude, breathing, optimism, strength, and over all mental, then physical, health. I’d like to think the science to happy drugs, is for the brain to shift its sick behaviours.
I think you could place a safe bet in arguing that morality and good decision making fall into the realm of psychology. And psychology is a science.
It really isnt hard to think about "good" in a scientific context.
A simple example is a city, or a town. There are rules in place that exist to maintain positivity and safety for those that live in the city or town. The people may debate about what is good for the city or town that benefits the most people. And this thing that is "good" depends on the societal needs at that time.
Saying the idea of what is "good" cant be a scientific notion because what is "good" changes as the needs of a society change, is like saying biology isnt a science because living organisms evolve to better fit the environment they exist in. Just because the idea of what is "good" or not "good" isnt a rigid concept, doesnt mean it cant be a scientific persuit.
You're confusing "good" with "convenient".
@@nc6714 I don't think that quite solves the old is/ought challenge. So soon as science becomes morally prescriptive, it ceases to be science. Schmactenberger, at least, among this clique, seems to understand this.
@Kon Berner - we don' t have to prove what's good, we just have to agree what's good - in some cases, that's easier.
So game B is a bit of a placeholder.
When I wonder about it, my first question is how view-point diverse do we want to make the new system?
The more diverse the less efficient communication between people.
The less diverse the narrower the growth potential.
What seems to be the goal is to test the limits of human interpretive power.
There is an interpretive basis for every viewpoint. Even the 5G virus conspiracy was them attacking a feature of Globalisation from China, even if the 5G part was a displacement of their real issue.
On large scales, between so many people, we choose to listen to those most rewarding to us.
The conflict eruptions come where views are boiling over on the internet. Yet they are the most difficult to communicate with as to be paid attention to, they are angry. This manifests into the big game A problem with understanding each other. It's a feature of human choice at such large scales.
To prototype game B in game A feels horribly difficult, without just creating a community.
People will naturally view game B success as whether it solves game A problems and game A is so big, to make that noticeable.
The interconnectedness is messy to make effective tests, but we can maybe prototype small components of it.
You apparently don't understand the differences between 4G and 5G technology. There is legitimate reason to have trepidation towards a new technology that hasn't been tested for long term health circumstances (increased cancer rates) as that would interrupt the profit motive. I am not endorsing the 5G conspiracy theories, simply disagreeing that it is born only out of displaced anger towards China.
Dameon Geppetto absolutely, the technical abhorrent nature of 5g should be an open the box discussion, not guessing the paint colour. Not even wi fi has a known test on molecular science.
Superb observation.
Around 28:00 .. exactly, Bret, the intention to set up a rigid system is inherently flawed. This is why real political philosophers like Robert Nozick work at the meta-level after showing why this is necessary. The presumption to start with that there can be a "one size fits all" system that is ideal seems obviously flawed to start with, so wallowing around in "my view should be your view" thinking cannot succeed for politics. Why does this work for science and not politics? Because scientific facts do not vary (ideally), but the fact is that human values do vary.... it is that simple.
But he’s not suggesting that you fail every time. There’s just going to be a lot of trial and error. I mean, Bret has said this expectation that you should expect to fail, but that doesn’t mean the task is insurmountable. I supported Andrew Yang, and still do, even 2020 was always understood to be a moonshot. As a comment on the effect of recognizing this, it’s quite liberating to being willing to fail, and yet pursuing it anyway. Some pursuits are too clearly necessary to be all that dismayed by failure. I’ll check out Robert Nozick, but with no knowledge of exactly what you’re really proposing, it seems to me that many people in this video understand that building consensus and alignment are the explicit goals of Game B, because the starting assumptions that you most conquer the beliefs of your peers is perhaps the greatest failure of Game A.
26:44 “Co- housing“ Voluntarily or by force? Because you can freely choose to do cohousing now ?
Also as a political movement it would go nowhere. Unless you're a hippie who wants to live in a commune then who would want to live there?
Eat the bugs and get in the shipping container. It's more efficient and economical.
Millionaires? Billionaires? What are you talking about, of course they won't live in the shipping container with all the proles. They need incentives, after all.
Yeah, people used to form communes quite readily back in the 60s. I feel like there are a lot of people currently who advocate a more communitarian society, but refuse to put their money where their mouth is and find a bunch of likeminded housemates.
Fact. People fight.
I find that the editing and narration of these films get in the way of the valuble content. It would be great if you could stop the channel 4 news documentary style format and just publish the conversation with at most a introduction if the involved parties or make sure to reference their work.
WOW. Nice work!! I have a lot to say about it, but I won't sully the conversation at this time. Like a fly on the wall, I know (like most other people) what is intuitively true and correct. I like what I hear so far.
The palpable arrogant disdain in Rutt's attitude towards the spiritual and the metaphysical is a clear example of Game A thinking. In a Game B scenario it's not "either or" it's "both and." It's a higher level of order. It's the difference between needing to be right and staying committed to collective solution seeking. Just using the word woo derisively to casually dismiss an entire population of people who have come to the table in good faith, pun not intended, is counter productive at best.
My challenge in this is to include and honor Rutt's unique contributions to these endeavors and to seek compassionate understanding of his point of view.
The pitfalls going into discussions like this will be where each of us find ourselves being triggered.
I got triggered! Ha!
If you can't even keep a group of academics together, how you gonna keep society together?
Am I the only one thinking why have I never heard this was going on?
you have heard, 1 day ago :p
now you have to tell some friends or share online somewhere to expand the conversation ;)
The most important/meaningful conversations happening in the world are absolutely not the ones that are amplified across mainstream broadcast channels. Seek and ye shall find. :)
haha I've thought the same thing... But honestly there are TONS of people asking these questions and in this dialog. They are simply not "academics" nor use the terminology of "game B". Though I think it would be helpful to all use game B for simplicity's sake
Maybe because they in fact think of themselves as another elite of sorts, who doesn't need to communicate with commoners to know it all? So deeply in Love with their own smartness and logic.
Game b = vague social movement
yep that is pretty on brand but in the most beautiful way
I know you are working on this project and listen to your channel sometimes. First - Thank you for your commitment to this and the energies that f(ol)low 🌊
Second - Are you connected with anyone who is working on Game B at the early childhood education level. I would love to hear what ideas are out there in this vein, being in the Montessori education world myself.
Cheers!
The ecology of ideas looks like a lake with a vortex in the middle. All ideas begin on the edge as paper boats (prototypes) which float forwards, (or sink) get stronger, become participatif concepts for responsable persons, and then the idea crosses the line of industrialisation, where the idea becomes the new fashion, having been made idiot proof to please the insurance companies ("mustn't let anyone hurt themelves and learn anything must we?" mentality). The new fashion quickly becomes the orthodoxy and then becomes hierarchised, and the pyramid of the masses in the middle takes on the words of the idea, like wearing a new suit. The militant victims of new thought then march down an ever narrowing corridor (with ever growing walls on either side) and believe that a narrow band of sky overhead means that they can see out. Just before the end...as the idea goes over the edge of the whirlpool (and so down the hole of history) the idea becomes "fascist" a word which we seem to use to describe authoritarianism.
GAME B MUST TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT.
Bye
"Ideas good, don't too many people use ideas, ideas only for us, if for others, ideas not good."
Good ideas are only as good as their implementation, anything else is mental masturbation, which is fine so long has its place remains inscribed in the arts.
This sort of elitism, it's hard to defend, and using esoteric aphorisms does not do it favours.
Or just forget economics altogether and learn what humans can do for themselves without authority to over complicated riddles. If any of the characters travelled the world with just a pocketful of pennies, they would learn the only survival needed is not intelligence, it is love.
This is a solid critique. I do feel like there is a way to circumnavigate these pitfalls, mostly to do with understanding what good leadership is, and what it isn’t. I’d advise taking Jocko Wilink’s sense of leadership and extreme ownership very seriously-there is a way to understand leadership as distributed and non-hierarchical in that way, I think. Whereas one can find an abject dearth of leadership in our current political moment.
Is it possible that Game B is just another aspect of academic hubris , G-less theorizing on a titanic intellectual scale. This doesn’t mean it isn’t hopeful, or smart , or genius but as they say pride goes before the fall.
when i listen to jordan and daniel i don't sense any academic hubris
C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity when you find out you’re in a wrong space it’s best go back and start over. I think we’re here.
I’m glad we have smart concerned intellectuals willing to look at what starting over could look like with a plan going forward.
Way too much SPOCK and not enough KIRK.
Chris Gonzales 😂
Indeed, there is tendency with the last remaining not yet absorbed leftist... and I honestly don't know how to describe it. Much like I don't any longer know how to describe the rest.
I wish. Spock was objective in discussion, where as Kirk was subjective, Kirk was objective by deciding, where as Spock was subjective. One would believe nothing could be achieved, yet quite naturally, wisdom is disseminate to avoid harm, that is all. Where as our method is largely to produce harm and ask questions later. Please understand, star treck was the show between colonial and indigenous, wrapped in a fictional sparkling plastic. That was the genius of Gene Roddenberry.
Excellent interview. But I don't get why we need a Game B. Why can't we just eliminate Game A by understanding its causes? I'd say that the ultimate cause of Game A is the idea that we are lacking and flawed. This causes us to compete for various forms of happiness to fill the lack, and then the competition creates harms that are interpreted as being due to our supposed flaws. If we understand that, then we will no longer be distracted from the happiness and goodwill of being, and so all will be well.
Bret has done a lot of good, even in the area of showing that religion has evolutionary benefit, but his thoughts on spirituality in this talk betrays that his thoughts need to evolve.
Excellent work, as always. Could anyone link said google docs pls?
Don't know for sure, but here's what I 'spect he's referring to. Follow the links...:
letter.wiki/conversation/241
www.whatisemerging.com/opinions/the-anti-debate
The Game~B homepage in Facebook. This is an index of most of the game~B groups where you will find the most important documents if you do your own exploration: facebook.com/GameBHomePage/
Let me guess...no one saw the behind-the-curtain Federal Reserve as a big problem?
Many ... Of the younger, or youngest individuals have not been taught critical thinking skills, or history (in order to not repeat), or ethical values our country was founded on that appreciated all the people, and includes all the people. Education in the last 70 years failed.
Ann Pane. By accident or design? Maybe a mix of both? History has been undervalued as a subject and as an example, Media Studies has has become a “thing”. Critical thinking and debating are not encouraged. Here’s the accepted narrative. Now repeat it back. How well you repeat it equals your grade.
Learning how to learn, Critical thinking, rationality, Strategy, problem solving, dialogue, philosophy, logic, STEM, Statistics I think these are foundational.
@@chickenandmushroompotnoodl3180 Sir, you are so correct. It has all been about regurgitation.
This all seems overly complicated. Why not agree on foundational ideas and move on. For example, all men are equal under the law, that they all have the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness so long as the expression of those rights doesn't infringe on others to do the same. That all men have the right to free speech and the expression of ideas. All men have the right to defend their rights and property and bear arms to protect their rights and property. That all men have the right to privacy and to be secure in their lives and property. That all men are presumed innocent and treated so until proven guilty. All men have the right to meet their accused in a fair trial, and that their trial should be decided by their peers and neighbors. ....we already have these ideas.
Did they notice, that there are already GameB aligned business approaches like Agile and Teal Organization or Holacracy?
I am curious to know why Bret considers the current trajectory as terminal. Could the evolutionary process be already creating the solution to the problems that he sees
I dont do Tweets or FB. A youtube Game B er.
Hey, stranger! For what it’s worth, I avoided Twitter for many years myself. About four years ago I found many leading lights in my field, wise folks in analytics and data engineering, were freely sharing what they know on Twitter . Yes, the default Twitter feed often crowds out the gems but, I figure, if you took the time to check out the video and post a comment, you, too, are someone who seeks high-quality information. So, I figured I would take a chance and pay forward my good luck at finding high-quality information on Twitter by letting you know you may want to give it another shot. What has worked for me is to keep my follows constrained to folks whose accounts I can independently verify align with their sharing high-quality information. (I know, easier said than done, right?) Good luck!
It felt as though there were nine hundred at the recent Rebel Wisdom zoom conference. Judging by the thoughtful chat, indicative of genuine enquiry, the kind of right-wing libertarians who are only interested in self-justifying pronouncements on social media (and have no interest in what others think) were largely absent.
Thank the gods.
Which is why this thing will devolve into leftist woo. Rebel Wisdom is a hippie commune for the new age.
Sounds like a self-justifying pronouncement.
The whole effort resembles the World Rose concept by Daniil Andreev, including the "Woo faction".. I am glad that these kind of attempts continue.
Thank you
Look at the concept of The Giant in Chapter 17 of Lila by Robert Pirsig
Thanks SK. It's by my bed here. I will take a look :-) (Rev Matt)
**GAME B EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION**
Is anyone working on this? I am a Montessori director and am very interested!
Chloe Valdery, theory of enchantment
@@jdelaplaya9678 thank you for the feedback! Any content that they have put out that you might recommend?
Theoryofenchantment.com is her website, also podcast of Chloe and Bret on dark horse podcast UA-cam, recent interview with BenjaminBoyce worth a watch, also on youtube. She has mAinstream traction even here in the uk. Hope that helps, if you need links let me know , be well x
@@jdelaplaya9678 just heard Chloe on the Stoa w/ Peter L. SO GOOD!!!! Thank you for the intro! I'm seriously considering asking her if she might be available to speak at our Montessori conference this year! ❤️
I'm sure I'm not alone in that I think this here is the first time I've typed "Game B" in at least several years, and never to talk about these concepts. I am much more satisfied watching all of these discussions from the sidelines and seeking/finding the answers to my own questions through non-attached consumption of all perspectives surrounding these topics. These types of ideas spread on their own, due to obvious legitimacy, rather than marketing.
Jim's disgust for Anarchy, in my eyes, only discredits his research and understanding on these things. Non-hierarchical is quintessentially Anarchy. It's sad that he falls victim to such a common misconception. Anarchy is no rulers, not no rules.
In such a society, who enforces those rules? (Genuine question, from someone who thinks about these things).
And that's all the answers you're gonna get.
What are the SPECIFIC dissatisfactions with Game A?
"We should call each other peers." then later "Anarchy is chaos." Anarchy means "no rulers", not "no rules", you know like "peers"?
Most podcasts rarely read the comments however I will proceed: please examine the rules of the most successful social. movement of the 20th & 21st Centuries. The traditions of AA (without God or theism as a basis) an archistic methodology that works very well.
This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world - legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.
Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this very thing." True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.
My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks - armed with rings, hooks, and cords - surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull."
"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."
God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
-The Law, Bastiat
"Yes but..." some might prefer a recalibration of the 5000 BC to 2020AD of the words "faith in god." Hummm, does the Goddess play Game A, or is God more a Game B player? Or do they play MNLOP...? :)
HIJK! - i think i just love how the letters sound. My apologies, not a serious comment.
But I don’t see any clear line to be drawn from faith in a god to personal liberty. The god of Islam, for instance, is explicitly antithetical to such liberation. And also, the prior idea of an emancipation party runs afoul of many interpretations of god and god’s law. And moreover, the discussions of those involved in this being peers in a non-hierarchical arrangement gets more or less at this concern-no invocation of a god necessary.
Brilliant..really.😊
@@quaternio I agree that the term "God" is unclear. Here he is speaking of a Deist God, where one can assume God=Good. That is, exactly equal. No deity is needed to have a notion of good, and if you have not notion of good, then you cannot have a foundation upon which to have any kind of ethics, morals, or political philosophy. Who determines "God's will", each of us have to do that for ourselves, but we can also decide our morals and ethics together when there is overlap in our findings... when there is not, perhaps try living apart, as the implication that we must always agree is nowhere implied.
As for the line between God and state and the role of state, I'd suggest reading through this short pamphlet and he gives clear answers and reasons. He is not against all state, but for a clear boundary between state and what amounts to "religion" (humanist or otherwise). What he is implying is that socialism, in all of its forms, is a sort of Godless (goodless) religion. Why? Because it is about power, control, forced redistribution, and all of this done by _humans_ who also deny that it is a religion. What is is arguing for, in sum, is a true separation between church and state, in the most fundamental sense.
All the indigenous would like to have a word or two about “Game B”...
Benjamin David Eddy Ever noticed how the indigenous have no capability to project themselves on to others, ever notice how we are always projecting onto others, instead of ‘creating’ the best conditions for things to grow, creating the best conditions for our children to choose the best path, and creating the best examples of our brotherhood, relationships, equality and love. It is very difficult to tell a rapist how to behave, when all they do is rape and remain addicted to taking away land while enforcing rules of violence, over the nation of no violence practiced for 60,000 years or more.
adam at mellonglass so what do you suggest the indegenous do to overcome? Any effectiveness strategies?
Extreme coherence vs not enough coherence will end up getting you into what he referred to as "woo" territory.
A detailed outline already exists of how a Game B society needs to be organised so that 'The Good' self-organizes thereafter. It is the same way that evolution has organized societies of self-producing molecular processes, of cells, and of organisms. Google "The Self-Organizing Society: A Grower's guide".
1:07:19 the man summarises THE RISKS of suggesting solutions 🎓
Jesus , how refreshing. People thinking for the sake of thinking.
I'm pretty sure you guys are losing sight of the target. Whatever target that might be.
1:06:30 *******hi capacity means highly vulnerable*****
Dave Snowden uses the term "coherent heterogeneity"
He should be a stand up comic.
Whatever plan you have must take into account human nature. As far as I understand it, hierarchy is evolutionary. I would expect Bret to see this and build that into the game. We should be working with our nature instead of trying to fix it with solutions that go against our nature.
ua-cam.com/video/GVnrqtcLNDY/v-deo.html
Whatever you think of as human nature is not human nature.
OK I'm an hour in and thus far have seen
Not one Game B concept
Not one concrete objection to game A
I think this is the first problem game B folks need to solve.
Some useful info here: www.gameb.wiki/index.php?title=Game_B
Yeah, most of the Rebel Wisdom videos are tiny snippets of long, ongoing discussions which in their entirety are in fact weaving a beautiful tapestry of visionary human growth and evolution. But it's hard to get a feel for the as yet unfinished whole from just one or two random videos.
It's a good channel, though. Lex Fridman also has some amazing guests on his channel.
I consider agitators to be spam and I'm reporting them as such.
Jennifer Grove 😂
Why did he change his name from Greenhall to Hall?
I've been wondering the same thing
I think he was born Hall then changed it to Greenhall(green was his wife’s last name) when he got married and changed it back when he got divorced
cringe, it's bad enough that your wife won't take your name but taking hers? please don't tell me the kids were named Green.
Scottso Maybe they fused there names together to be more equal rather then one person taking the others name. Knowing Jordan there is probably some reasonable explanation. Why is it bad? I would think the kids would be named Greenhall as well not just green
Yeah but what happens with the kids...if they marry someone else which bit do they take to combine with their spouse...or do they just combine names like lego blocks?
I need to check out this Jordan Now-Hall
GameB is online: web.facebook.com/GameBHomePage
I'm not sure that Game B actually has to out-compete Game A, as Eric puts it. In a ship analogy: it just has to be visibly apparent that it can float and that others are jumping aboard with success. The only thing required to evacuate those on a sinking ship is to effectively convince others that the ship is indeed sinking irreversibly. If you are on a sinking ship the qualities of the next ship don't actually need to be all that stellar -- as long as its actually floating and others are jumping aboard. All that is required is to show that this new ship is floating and being boarded by reasonable and competent people. If you are sufficiently convinced then you will jump ship no matter if it's a life raft, fishing troller, speed boat, or anything else. This is also a major danger in the current crisis and a reason to establish coherence as soon as possible -- because who knows what kinds of haphazard vessels may also come sputtering along in light of the noxious and extreme tribalism that we see popping up? The problem is that since we've harnessed the atom, learned how to control our living environments, internal biological "environments" etc. that this equates to being able to also to stave off the systematic issues that come with a growing population with shrinking agency and responsibility in that system. In short, people are still in denial that the systems we have relied on to keep us out of the wrath of wilderness and the wild are failing us more and more. This will come to a head when either Game B succeeds in floating (meaning that it starts to actually solve some problems and has a visible tangibility of some sort) or when wilderness finally seem like a more viable path than a crumbling civilization. We are already starting to see the latter with talk of SHTF and the bug out folks -- while the rest are just simply hoping they are wrong.....I might be mis-characterizing Bret's notion of competition though and welcome any clarification and/or discussion on that -- from anyone.
Fascinating that the initial significant fissure basically broke down about fault lines as to whether to emphasize the things the Weinstein Bros tend to view as.most important ( institutions ) vs the things JBP would view as.most important.( personal responsibility and improvement ).
WHY IS NOBODY TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT 8:22 ?? HOW DID THAT BRANCH GET INTO THAT POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE!?!?
The blood of the heroes is closer to God than the ink of the philosophers and the prayers of the faithful. - Taylor Swift
46:20 with the orthodox materialists in mind, we have developed a rule-set based on a solid foundation, as long as we don't get mired too deeply in existential philosophy as to lose the very ground. Perhaps not strangely it starts to mirror threads of guidelines that run through most religions.
The best part of this video is the comment section.
@37:45 ".. any person who isn't authoritarian minded would agree". Well, isn't that the problem we have now. For the good of society
"Something like that [Game B in the irresistible form] can sweep over civilization relatively easily." Hmmm, sure, now all we have to do is invent it. Still waiting for cold fusion. Most people won’t be motivated to change until something big goes missing, oil, food, drinkable water. When that happens, peace love & understanding are not likely to be the ground-rules. Scarcity tends to enhance the drivers of Game A. Still, I respect these folks for sketching a better way and looking for paths that will get us there. We are headed to a massive collapse. Those who survive will live some kind of modified Amish life-style until nation-states form again; or perhaps civilization will evolve in a different direction next time.
How to sustain Equity and Justice? Empire is stable its life is consumption of resources. Democracy is unstable, it feeds on ideas and ideals which is nebulous and ever-changing.
Consumption is not stable - over-consumption is a road to ruin.
Too many people involved and diversity of ideas doesn't help solve any issue. Have smaller teams focus on something specific and if its good emergent effects will change much more on a macroscale. Take an example of bitcoin and what came out of it. Bitcoin is also an entity that rests on a gameB side.
51:49 - "one single error" leads to Game C!
Thanks. Well, at least you're talking... or were. I certainly hope that future incarnations have a better name than "Game B"! I don't believe that it will be enough to have something that "out-competes" the current system. We will find that there is incredible, systematic, & very aggressive resistance to any such ideas from the rich & powerful - whose "Game A" is working just fine for them! We will not only have to out-compete the current system, we'll have to out-smart it as well; we will have to subvert it. So it's not just (somehow) coming up with a better, workable, truly sustainable system (which no one has ever, ever, done before!), it's making sure it can actually out-compete the old one on many levels. Plus, it must have broad (nearly unilateral) appeal to people. Plus, it (and again: we) will have to out-smart - and probably out-battle - the current model. Plus, it (again: we!) will have to find some way to overcome that simple fact that *_people do not want to change!_* Yeah, I think that's all. Just that. No pressure. Piece of cake. Yeah. Um... 🤔 tavi.
I don't agree that putting personal/spiritual growth first is putting the cart before the horse. We have to desire self actualization first. Unless of course game B is a tool embedded in the spiritual
What about survival? Wouldn’t getting survival and security down come first?
Self reflection is first.