Perspective Exchange: The Game

[karff]

From my perspective the game doesn't seem all that different than communication in general.

Yes, it is communication in general. Just structured to be a bit more productive than usual. Below is a more unified description I wrote about it, before you posted.

Overall, it’s a method of discussion where participants explore and understand the differences between them. When they fully understand each other’s differences, they then have a better chance of communicating productively.

To incentivize this kind of discussion, a kind that does not come easily to humans, it’s described as a game.

The long game
Over many participants playing for many audiences, both the players and audiences become more aware of each other’s perspectives, possibly resulting in better cooperation. That’s the long term goal of the entire game.

The medium game.
A player wants to have his perspective known as widely as possible, over multiple exchanges, as he believes his perspective is a worthy one to promulgate. He wants to have as many exchanges in front of as many audiences as possible. So he plays the short game to facilitate this medium term goal.

The short game
The players trade perspectives. They want, over the medium run, to trade with the best perspective takers - players who will understand their perspective the best. As the players choose who they trade perspectives with, each player tries to be as good a perspective-taker as possible.

An exchange.
The players describe their perspective in a few sentences or paragraph, accentuating what they think makes their’s different.

They then try to understand the way of thinking of the other player that produces that difference. How is that other player’s thinking different than their own? Areas of agreement are only important as reference points for understanding disagreement. In a single exchange, reaching an agreement is not at all the point. Understanding the difference is.

Many times, the difference is perceived as a flaw, the way of thinking is “wrong”. The point is not to point out the wrongness, but to understand it. To understand exactly what kind of thinking leads to this particular “wrongness”. To the point where a player can replicate the wrongness in their own minds (not that they agree with it, they just now understand how it works).

They test this understanding with hypothetical examples. If I’m trading perspectives with a flat earth conspiracy believer, I would try to figure out how he understands what information to trust, and what to not. I would try out hypothetical examples until I could predict what kinds of information he trusts and what kinds he doesn’t. Even if I think his ways of ascertaining veracity are completely wrong and flawed.
Even if it’s just gut instinct. I would ask “Using your perspective, if I just had the gut feeling that information is incorrect, I would not believe it?” If he says yes, then I’ve successfully understood at least part of his perspective.

The goal of a single exchange is to understand, as fully as possible, the differences in ways of thinking, without any attempt to reconcile those differences. The two players are not playing against each other, as they are helping each other understand each other’s differences.


So, it’s really just a method of discussion. Instead of trying to find areas of agreement, it’s looking for all the areas of disagreement, which is where all the problems actually lie. When we fully understand the disagreement, we understand the problems. If we just look for areas of agreement, we never understand the problems.


It makes consensus a two step process, where you have to zig before you zag.
First, you zig - fully understand the differences, the disagreements, without an inkling or interest in the similarities or areas of agreement. No one is trying to convince anyone of anything. No one is trying to prove anyone wrong. They are letting their guards down specifically so they can help each other understand each other’s “wrongness”.
Second, you zag. With a much fuller understanding of each other’s perspectives, there’s a greater possibility of consensus.

[karff]

Yes, I do not like any of these. I also do not like too much fudge on a hot fudge sundae, too much syrup on pancakes, or cake/pie served a la mode with ice cream melting next to it. Although, I do like an apple-dumpling served with cream; somehow that strikes me as being more like a hot pot which I also enjoy.

I wonder if you have strong feelings about how food is “supposed” to be, not necessarily relative to a societal standard, but just to your own. The “swimming in sauce” violates an ideal concept of “solids are supposed to only be coated in sauce”. If a food violates the ideal, it becomes less desirable (which would make some evolutionary sense).

Breakfast: Cheerios and milk
Lunch: Cream cheese on processed white bread, Red Delicious apple. (the cream cheese would have been peanut butter, but I have severe allergy.)
Dinner 1: Broiled sirloin steak, iceberg lettuce and tomato salad, baked potato. Salt, black pepper, butter, French dressing.
Dinner 2: Broiled chicken, frozen peas, baked potato. Salt, black pepper, butter.
Dinner 3: Broiled pork chops, frozen square of squash, baked potato. Salt, black pepper, butter.

There are people who seem to like the flavor of just the unadorned food, with maybe salt and pepper as seasoning. I’m guessing you’re not one of them. More exotic seasonings and sauces (as long as it doesn’t violate the too much rule), and mixtures of different ingredients, are more your preference. I’m guessing you would like a well constructed potato salad?

With very slim evidence, based on the strategy you described, I am going to hypothesize that maybe you are more of a work hard/play hard perspective, so this sort of constantly revolving cycle of cooking wouldn't be as appealing as just cooking a lot of different things and then being done with it?? By extension, maybe you also approach housework by getting everything accomplished on a Saturday morning vs. cleaning as you go over the course of the week?

When I am working, I usually work long hours day after day until a job is done. I guess that qualifies as work-hard. Not sure if I play hard, but I can become consumed by a hobby for some time. Sometimes I get a lot of cleaning done at one time, if there is immediate need (imminent visitors). Other times I have to trick myself into cleaning by committing to only one thing at a time. But once I get started, I sometimes keep going.

It's difficult for me to compose an intense to bland continuum of famous humans with other factors held similar in order to further test this hypothesis, and my personal celebrity database is quite dated, but on the Charlize Theron- Gwen Stefani- Reese Witherspoon- Kate Hudson continuum, I will guess you would prefer to hang out with Gwen or Reese?

I’m not sure who is on what end of the scale. I’m trying to figure out if Charlize Theron is very intense or very bland. Depends on what personality factor you’re looking at. Maybe that says something about me.


Note: I think this exchange has yielded results different than normal communication. “Variety” should probably be considered as a carrot vector for ERE1. “Don’t stay stuck in your boring specialist job. Have a variety of things to do with a systems based lifestyle”. No need to mention boring things like financial independence.

[7Wannabe5]

I wonder if you have strong feelings about how food is “supposed” to be, not necessarily relative to a societal standard, but just to your own. The “swimming in sauce” violates an ideal concept of “solids are supposed to only be coated in sauce”. If a food violates the ideal, it becomes less desirable (which would make some evolutionary sense).

I'm going to say no. Much more just a discovery of what I like that I wasn't even fully cognizant of until entering into this discussion I'm not a picky eater, and I think I have a fairly high disgust barrier, I'm very willing to try new or unusual foods, so this is more a matter of the continuum of Okay to Better to Best for me.

There are people who seem to like the flavor of just the unadorned food, with maybe salt and pepper as seasoning. I’m guessing you’re not one of them. More exotic seasonings and sauces (as long as it doesn’t violate the too much rule), and mixtures of different ingredients, are more your preference. I’m guessing you would like a well constructed potato salad?

It varies. For instance, I like steamed celery with olive oil and crushed saltine cracker, because celery has a subtle flavor. I do prefer potato salad to baked potato with only butter, but it's not my favorite side dish. I often slice and saute cold boiled potatos with onion and peppers. Now that I am cooking just for myself, I find that I purchase sweet potatoes much more frequently than white potatoes. If I am picking the restaurant/cuisine, my current known preference would be Thai/Vietnamese/Japanese/Korean/Cuban/Persian/Guatemalan or Diner(because diners offer a variety), but at meta-level my ultimate preference would be someplace new and interesting. Trying some place or something new and discovering that it wasn't that great would not be a fail for me. Same goes for experimenting when cooking. The core success is in pushing the bounds of the territory and successfully mapping it, not in piling up potatos or repetition of known pleasures/likely successes.

When I am working, I usually work long hours day after day until a job is done. I guess that qualifies as work-hard.

Yes, that is what I meant by work-hard. I am not a work-hard type. I am a make work fun and make play productive type. For instance, I'm constantly inventing new games to teach my young students math. The downside is that I hate working like a machine to an arbitrary deadline, but I also don't enjoy completely frivolous activities. For instance, I almost never watch TV during daylight hours, and I never play video games. Applied back to food preferences and frugality, when asked what I would like to eat, I might reply "Something delicious and nutritious." with third filter being "and inexpensive." When asked what I would like to do today, I might reply "Something fun and useful/productive." with third filter being "and inexpensive, towards greater frugality, or somewhat money garnering." This is why the work super hard to achieve FI and then collapse into recreation paradigm does not work well for me, but I would hazard to hypothesize that it works somewhat better for you?

I’m not sure who is on what end of the scale. I’m trying to figure out if Charlize Theron is very intense or very bland. Depends on what personality factor you’re looking at. Maybe that says something about me.

I don't think it says anything about you. I did a lame job of constructing that continuum. How about Gregory House> Jerry Seinfeld > Andy Griffith > Dick Clark ?
I suggested that one of my exes who thinks (wishes) that he was like Gregory House check out "The Golden Bachelor" which features a bachelor way over on the bland side of personality, hinting that maybe that was my preference (not), and he was thoroughly confused, and just mumbled something like "That guy seems kind of..uh, what's the word..too sentimental, or something." and I chuckled to myself.

Note: I think this exchange has yielded results different than normal communication. “Variety” should probably be considered as a carrot vector for ERE1. “Don’t stay stuck in your boring specialist job. Have a variety of things to do with a systems based lifestyle”. No need to mention boring things like financial independence.

Yes!!! A not unrelated note would be that I was recently reviewing my Goodreads history and discovered that "ERE" the book was recommended to me by the app very shortly after I entered that I had already read "The Renaissance Soul" , "The Art of Non-Comformity" , and "YMOYL." IOW, the innate generalist (eNTP) drive towards novelty/variety unconventional lifestyle was MY path to "ERE." Or, more accurately, at the time I was recommended "ERE" the book, I already had an unconventional, anti-consumerist, slacker self-employed lifestyle, but I wished to put it on a more financially solid basis. Unfortunately, I have made very little net progress, but that is on me and my lack of desire/inability to boot up my earning capacity (as opposed to not spending capacity, which remains quite solid), not "ERE." In fact, at this juncture, I'm willing to state that my behavior would indicate that I'm actually not very interested in achieving a high level of savings, if that requires that I work more at anything resembling a boring specialist job. Kind of analogous to observing the various weight loss charts I have created over the years through the eyes of objective intelligent alien who would conclude "This human is only interested in restricting her intake of cookies to the extent that it impedes her ability to gain access to other places of interest yet to be explored on the territory." And both of these observations would be in alignment with my recent reading on how free will does not exist.