daniel (s) on interdependent thinking
Being an independent thinker (Daniel Schmachtenberger & Bret Weinstein) – feb 2021
notes/quotes from 12 min video:
bret: what can people expect the experience to be when they arrive there (high quality independent thought)
1 min – i think most people will experience a higher degree of uncertainty than people who are part of any camp who have figured most things out.. and certainly comforting in a particular way.. ie: what is my basis for what i believe.. as you try to find more into to deepen the topic.. the known unknowns expand faster to what the known knowns do and so you keep being aware of more stuff that you know you don’t know that you know is relevant and pertains to the situation.. so there’s a complexification of thought.. increase of uncertainty.. hopefully there’s an emotional/psychological development where there’s an increased comfort w uncertainty.. so that you can actually be honest.. and not defect into your own sense making into premature certainty.. create confirmation bias
embracing uncertainty.. usefully ignorant .. graeber can’t know law.. et al
3 min – and there’s a certain aloneness of not having a whole camp of people that think very similarly.. i don’t find that to be a painful thing.. but it’s a thing
perhaps because you have people listening to you all over.. not really alone.. ie: warning ness and kids in the lab et al..
bret: in its own way it’s freeing.. saying things that goes against convention.. and world divides between people who are so enraged or thrown by what you’re saying that they disappear or antagonist at a distance and the people who have a similar experience and therefore aren’t thrown by the fact you’re saying things out of phase.. editing the world down to those who are comfortable w what they don’t know.. who are interested in following things where they lead irrespective of who that elevates and who it hobbles.. those people are interesting people to hang out with.. so yes.. the alienation may be a blessing in disguise in some ways
4 min – i wouldn’t call myself (anyone) an independent thinker.. because i think in words/concepts invented by other people.. i don’t necessarily have specific school of orthodoxy from which i take an entire worldview but almost every idea that i believe in i did not discover.. i think that’s a very important concept ..
the it is me.. but i’m never just me.. beyond the monastic self.. et al
5 min – the things we’re going to discuss today .. *democracy and open society.. have to do with the relationship between an individual and a collective.. and i think the idea of an individual is fundamentally a misnomer.. **w/o everybody else i wouldn’t be who i am .. and i wouldn’t think the way i think.. i wouldn’t think in the language i do .. i wouldn’t have access to the *knowledge that came from the hubble telescope.. so i can say there’s an ultimate authority of what i choose to feel i believe in and trust that has an internal locus of control.. ***but the info coming from w/o and my own internal processing of it are part of the same system
**yeah.. that’s also been bad.. ie: maté trump law .. language as control/enclosure.. et al.. made us not us.. keeps us in sea world.. speaking whalespeak.. we need brown belonging law.. undisturbed ecosystem ness.. so that we can also let go of ideas like any form of *democratic admin.. know\ledge ness.. et al..
***oh my.. dang daniel.. in an undisturbed ecosystem yeah.. but in the ongoing broken/cancerously distracting system.. if we want out.. can’t have internal processing being filled with non legit data.. oi.. hari rat park law
(to me) this is red flag you are going part\ial ness.. and ie of your interdependence being a cancerous distraction.. and too.. why you both see aloneness as not painful.. oi (again to warning ness)
6 min – bret: so this is a perfect ie.. of how two people will have their own separate glossaries..
huge.. on needing to let go of words ness and try idiosyncratic jargon ness
7 min – interdependent (rather than dependent) thinker
8 min – brett: i once wrote *declaration of interdependence.. it was a proto (first) game-b attempt to define what the **rules of a functional society would be like.. i say individual is an illusion .. individual is a level of understanding that has focused us on because historically it has been the limit on that which we might have control.. evolution might ultimately care about whether you are successful.. your genes are still around 100 generations from now.. but your focus on 100 gens from now is unlikely to have any useful impact whatsoever.. whereas your focus on your life and your children is likely to be useful.. so we’ve been delivered a kind of temporal myopia (nearsightedness, lack of imagination, foresight or intellectual insight) in order to keep focused on that which could be productive for an ancestor.. but of course now we are living in an era in which we can have dramatic impacts on the distant future.. in fact you and i are quite focused on the strong possibility that our foolishness in present will result in the end of our lineage.. very real.. and our tendency not to think about it is a big part of the danger
*declaration of interdependence.. everyone becomes expert at thinking for themselves.. (but sans all the ed/teaching stuff on that page).. so really.. about everyone become expert (truest to self) at curiosity over decision making
**sans rules ness.. sans functional
9 min – *i think temporal myopia and the collective coordination problem is a good way to describe all of the problems we face or one of the generator problems of all the problems we face.. that you have a bunch of game theoretic situations where each agent w/in their own agency pursuing the choice that makes the most rational sense to them pursues local optimums.. where the collective body of that drives global minimums.. but if anyone tries to orient toward the longer term global max they just lose in the short term.. that’s an arm’s race.. that’s a **tragedy of the commons..
*if we’re quiet enough.. can get to a problem deep enough to org around (aka: legit needs)
**any any form of m\a\p is tragedy of the non common.. myth of tragedy and lord
10 min – and so.. how do we reorient the game theory outside of those multi polar traps is one of our underlying questions that when the biggest harm we could cause was mediated by stone/bronze/iron/industrial tools.. we didn’t have to cause it immediately because extent of harm was limited in scope.. when it is mediated by fully globalized exponential tech running up against planetary boundaries with many diff kinds of catastrophe weapons held by many diff agents.. we actually have to solve the problem
11 min – bret: have to agree as well.. maybe every important problem is a collective action problem of one way or another.. once you start to see that 1\ reason for despair because not easy problems to solve 2\ discovery that effectively not 1000 distinct problems.. *it’s 1000 variations on one theme and that that theme is solvable.. in fact we have for ie **elinor ostrom’s work which points to the fact that evolution itself has solved these problems many times.. that that is helpful.. if we could focus on the problem as it was.. it’s more tractable than many people think it is
*oi.. so close.. and yet so far.. ie: not variations on one theme.. solvable (meaning they will disappear) by one theme.. yes.. but only if that theme is deep enough (which means has nothing to do with each one.. renders each one irrelevant et al) ie: maté basic needs.. let’s org around legit needs
elinor ostrom.. ostrom 8 et al
__________
__________
___________
__________
__________
_________
__________
be you. 