Game B

[Colibri]

Just went down another rabbit hole reading about the metacrisis and found out about the concept of Game B

" Game B is a new mode of societal, economic, and political organization that leverages people's authentic, long-term interest..." ....From Wiki....

Game A is our actual civilisation winner-loser premise ( and everything that comes with it). The idea is to slowly but surely move ourselves into playing a different game and thus leaving the metacrisis state.

One of the main protagonist is Daniel Schmachtenberger ( YouTube, podcast ).
It seems to overlap with SD yellow/turquoise, many ideas from the Listening Society and of course ERE. It reminds me of Jacob's Stoa presentation on emergence.

It also seems adjacent to ERE2, or what it could looks like.

Anyone familiar with Game B ?

[J_]

Thanks for posting.
It is a good anti-dote to the happenings in some parts of the (ruling) world.
The crux for me is: what can I do?

[7Wannabe5]

I haven't read a great deal of Game B in particular, but I am quite familiar with Daniel Schmachtenberger's take from watching most of his interviews on Nate Hagen's "The Great Simplification" videocast. I think SD Green/Yellow/Turquoise tends towards at least flatter, more "functional" less "dominator", hierarchies that SD Red/Blue/Orange, but as J implied, more is needed than just Vision or Visionaries. The Manager/Technician, even within contexts where we are our own Visionary, requires some level of "script." That said, ERE could constitute a script generating framework or paradigm up to the ERE2 junction of Individual with Community/Citizenship/Coalition. What happens when you combine a Level Green slogan such as "Think globally, act locally" with an over-arching Level Yellow perspective on the complexity of economic and ecological systems, and a Level Turquoise integration of the subjective and inter-subjective quadrants? Maybe just come up with a list of a few things you can do that are fairly likely to do no harm and maybe also some good? Here's my list, not yet thoroughly fulfilled/achieved:

1) Reduce personal spending/planetary-burn to sustainable level.
2) Permaculture/Regenerative Agriculture/Similar.
3) Teach basic skills to disadvantaged members of next generations.
4) Engage with others attempting progress towards Game B.

Two problems that may be encountered with fulfilling own simple "script" in alignment with Game B would be that sometimes and more frequently personal and public issues at boundary levels "below" and/or "beyond" this script will come into play. For example, it can be much more difficult to focus on work in 1-4 if/when you are symptomatic with Crohn's Disease and/or you just watched an interview with noted historian on topic of signs of rise of Fascism in society and/or AI just decimated your livelihood or return on investment and/or wildfire is approaching your neighborhood. IOW, it can/will become increasingly difficult to know for which/when incoming disaster to prepare yourself as you simultaneously work towards achieving higher value-meme functioning.

[jacob]

It also seems adjacent to ERE2, or what it could looks like.

Yes, except that ...

Game B and most people in the "metacrisis talking head"-circuit focus more on talking about "the problems" imagining a vision of "what could be" rather than the praxis, where the rubber meets the road, and what actionable steps any person could take to get from "here to there".

Sadly, the overlap between the talkers and the doers is so small to the point where it doesn't overlap at all because we're just ignoring each other. I wish it was larger and I want it to be large, but I have no idea how to accomplish [a communion between the theory-focused and the practice-focused].

Frankly, I suspect most people still treat the metacrisis like a cosplaying hobby. This would explain the lack of overlap. Most intellectual visionaries interview each other on podcasts talking about their ideas of how the future could be---it's a fun thing to think and talk about. Meanwhile, outside their podcast space, they still live the $40,000/year intercontinental travel consumer lifestyle paid for with grants from "concerned" donators. Whereas reactive practitioners are flittering around doing various short-term (1 month -- 2 year range) projects on permaculture, meditation, simple living, ... presuming that they can return to yuppie world at any time. For them, it's some fun people to meet, some fun things to buy, and a fun project to do.

I declare WL6 on all this. For most people, [[any] crisis] remains a "hobby space" or a youtube channel until it eats their own personal face.

It's the same now as it was 25 years ago. Kinda like how the TikTok generation is simply reinventing whatever the millennials were talking about by adding the word "core" or "maxxing" to old ideas and repromoting them in short vids. Same thing, all the way back. Plus ca change all over again.

#shotsfired #provemewrong #fightme

[AxelHeyst]

I declare WL6 on all this.

As in, a silo'd component of their lives with no deep connection/coupling to the other nodes/components of their lives?

Seems related to the retention problem described by a percentage of intentional communities. When the going gets tough, people dip instead of persevere, because attractive alternatives exist (absorbing back into the warm embrace of consumer society or at least individualistic culture). Industrial society still works well enough often enough to be a reliable Plan B.

I asked Irv, “Do you think I should keep enough capital alive here at Stanford that if this doesn’t work out, I could come back?” Irv said to me, “An option to come back has negative value.” I said, “I thought options always have positive value.” He said, “No. Not on a creative path.”
...
He said, “If you have the option to come back, it will change your behavior. You’re doing a low odds game, which means you have to put all in, 100 percent, full cannonball, go off that cliff. Otherwise, you’re going to hold something in reserve. When it gets really scary, you’re going to pull back. Option is not in your interest.”

(Read the transcript for the caveats - Collins is *not* talking about YOLO'ing off the cliff.)

I'm not certain how to solve for this in terms of metacrisis response, other than figuring out a way to get people to internalize systems thinking (WL7+) for other reasons and then hey presto will inevitably integrate durable metacrisis-appropriate ways of life into their WoG?

[7Wannabe5]

Meanwhile, outside their podcast space, they still live the $40,000/year intercontinental travel consumer lifestyle paid for with grants from "concerned" donators. Whereas reactive practitioners are flittering around doing various short-term (1 month -- 2 year range) projects on permaculture, meditation, simple living, ... presuming that they can return to yuppie world at any time.

I don't disagree, but even ERE carries forward and/or assumes the continuing existence of some aspects of Level Orange/Modern inter-objective infrastructure and/or inter-subjective culture into the future*. Even Dick Proeneke and Robin Greenfield interfaced with other humans through the use of modern technology. Few of us are entirely capable of letting go of both the objective realities and subjective mythologies attached to Modernity as the water we swim in. We will not have a world in which everybody consumes 1 Jacob/year under the conditions of capitalism as we know it, so there has to be a "middle game" or "transitional scenario" to which those traveling along differing paths may contribute. California has its own wisdom as much as New York or the Midwest, even if it sometimes vibes a bit too "BMWs parked at the Buddhist center."

IOW, the reason why I continue to follow (spend my attention on) any podcaster, such as Nate Hagens, would be if they do tend towards providing enough new information/value to warrant updating my own muddled model or model-making. If somebody burns jet fuel to attend an international conference on behalf of their meta-crisis educational concerned non-profit, that line-item is, IMO, energy better spent than the jet fuel burn of CEO of large corporation being underwritten and working in behalf of its early-retired share-holders. IOW, investing in the stock market is a just as "bad" an example of "attempting to solve problem with elements of that which caused it" or, more accurately, it is just as need-fully pragmatic. If the future is to be Level Green/Yellow/Turquoise, it must be constructed upon some remaining rock of Level Orange/Modernity, but great and not-so-great minds may disagree on specifics of "book-keeping" towards "mid-game."

*This is roughly how I look at it, as a matter of only semi-conscious disagreement or difference in preferences about which aspects of Beige/Purple/Red/Blue/Orange/Green to bring forward to Yellow/Turquoise.

[Colibri]

We will not have a world in which everybody consumes 1 Jacob/year under the conditions of capitalism as we know it, so there has to be a "middle game" or "transitional scenario" to which those traveling along differing paths may contribute. California has its own wisdom as much as New York or the Midwest, even if it sometimes vibes a bit too "BMWs parked at the Buddhist center."

... IOW, investing in the stock market is a just as "bad" an example of "attempting to solve problem with elements of that which caused it" or, more accurately, it is just as need-fully pragmatic. If the future is to be Level Green/Yellow/Turquoise, it must be constructed upon some remaining rock of Level Orange/Modernity, but great and not-so-great minds may disagree on specifics of "book-keeping" towards "mid-game."

What would this middle game looks like ?

Thanks for posting.
It is a good anti-dote to the happenings in some parts of the (ruling) world.
The crux for me is: what can I do?

I hear you on this. After recently dabbling in politics (one thing ERE is great for), I ask myself this question even more. It's one thing to get out there and propose alternatives with the sense of "doing something" but at the end of the day, one can only hope to influence rather than really accomplishing anything tangible.

Maybe we should have a slate of ERE candidates in future elections ?

[zbigi]

Maybe we should have a slate of ERE candidates in future elections ?

Politics is downstream from ideas and popularisation - first large enough number people must be convinced of some idea, and only then a politician representing this idea will have a shot at being elected and accomplishing anything. IMO going into politics right now with an ERE platform in mind would be a waste of time - much better to become a thinker, influencer etc. Ideally, a person would reach millions with the ERE message (e.g. through a very popular podcast they run) without dumbing it down too much.

[7Wannabe5]

What would this middle game looks like ?

Dunno. Some rambling thoughts. I think in most people's minds the producer's task of "marketing" defines the line where capitalism and consumerism become two sides of the same coin, which is also roughly the line defining the moving goal between what you need vs. what you want, which is also towards, but only towards, the line between the objective and the subjective. In societies more centered at Level Green than the U.S., "what you need" is currently more likely to be provided by the state, at least in solid back-up form. It is also the case that at some point the marketing of goods by producers crossed over from the Modern to the Post-Modern, as it became more "sensitive" or "intelligent" or "psychology-based" in terms of massaging the difference between "needs" and "wants." However, as each level must subsume those below them, it is also the case that Level Yellow must subsume Level Green, inclusive of the "subjective intelligence" of the marketing division of each and every corporation consolidated in an index fund and the outreach efforts of every ecological-aware non-profit.

There are basically four options for how you can get what you need or want: nature, other humans somehow known to you, the market (inclusive of the discard market), the state. At each level something like "marketing" is occurring, but only the form of "marketing" at Level Orange/Green is associated with "consumerism."

[jacob]

As in, a silo'd component of their lives with no deep connection/coupling to the other nodes/components of their lives?

Yes. I struggle to avoid being judgmental about this, but there's often a disconnect between "the concern" and the actual personal behavior. My understanding [based on many observations] is that this is often rooted in the belief that the bad predictions are only something that's going to affect other people. (As such it's kinda the opposite of those who don't care about bad things as long as it doesn't happen to them.)

The cause of the metacrisis (as I see it, see Stoa2) is widespread individual failure/inability to think in systems and connect boxes. Most people (90%) simply don't have the talent for it. If they had, they would be able to translate theory into personal practice + translate theory between different fields. However, the majority of educated folks are only as good as the ability to "analyze" the [one, a] situation. This means they can talk at length about different aspects of the polycrisis as long as it happens one subject field at a time and one particular dimensionality at a time. For example, "energy production on a national level" or "pandemics on a global level" ... but formal analysis alone will not connect this to e.g. "what am I doing to get my energy at my personal level" or "what am I doing to stay healthy".

This single-topic focus also fits perfectly when it comes to interviewing experts or dividing subforums into topics and off-topics.

The problem with the "formalist" minds is that they struggle to even recognize the systems-thinkers, who have put the things together, because they're using the lens of "expert specialist" rather than "practiced generalist" when they go looking.

I note that such [concerned] groups, therefore, almost always split into two: theory and practice.

The practical group, on the other hand, usually practice for reasons OTHER than what the theory group is talking about. They practice permaculture because they like gardening or farming ... not to save their ass from a breadbasket failure. Maybe they just like buying prepping gadgets...while simultaneously denying parts of reality that is politically disagreeable to them (e.g. climate science). A common result here is that someone picks a fairly idiosyncratic problem to focus on (you could argue that FIRE chooses money) while ignoring other and more likely problems. Basically, practitioners are often doing the right thing for the wrong reasons while the boxed-in theorists are doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. This also makes it harder to connect practice to theory or theory to practice.

I'm not certain how to solve for this in terms of metacrisis response, other than figuring out a way to get people to internalize systems thinking (WL7+) for other reasons and then hey presto will inevitably integrate durable metacrisis-appropriate ways of life into their WoG?

I think this is the only way. I also think it's a very difficult task to get anyone to think about the world in an entirely different way than they're used to. It comes down to recipes and ingredients. WL6 is the developing the ingredients and WL7 provides the recipe. Unfortunately, people often try to skip ahead. For example, theorists will read something like Donella Meadows' book on systems and now be able to yap about systems. However, this does not necessarily mean they now think in systems because they have nothing to think about. Their base knowledge is in understanding one special part of the system, but you can't think about interactions between parts if you only understand one part. EVEN if you understand the theory behind the interaction, the other parts are just "interfaces" that are understood at perhaps slightly above layman level (which isn't saying much).

[jacob]

What would this middle game looks like ?

The working title of my second book, which I have given up on so don't ask, was actually "The middle game". The thesis was that this middle game would look like a more resilient version of ERE-WL7 with a focus on understanding the polycrisis. Basically, the WOG would be arranged around dealing with issues such as "financial chaos", "industrial decay", "political persecution", "resource shortages", "extreme weather", and "public health care collapse" in a systematic way. IOW, it would have focused on how to build a WOG.

Two things became increasingly clear:
1) Actually teaching people was not done optimally with a book. Just teaching WL7 and using the forum for the polycrisis background was likely better.
2) Most people don't care to learn enough of what [ I think] they need to know anyway. The audience for this book would be even smaller than for ERE.

The problem with books of this kind is that they either end up having an encyclopedic size trying to "teach everyone everything" or they become short missives that require the reader to be highly self-motivated towards learning; whereas most readers start complaining if they aren't spoon-fed with "hacks" and "tricks".

[7Wannabe5]

IOW, it can/will become increasingly difficult to know for which/when incoming disaster to prepare yourself as you simultaneously work towards achieving higher value-meme functioning.

Basically, the WOG would be arranged around dealing with issues such as "financial chaos", "industrial decay", "political persecution", "resource shortages", "extreme weather", and "public health care collapse" in a systematic way. IOW, it would have focused on how to build a WOG...

...Just teaching WL7 and using the forum for the polycrisis background was likely better.

Two observations. First observation would be that I think the rule prohibiting discussion of politics is making it too difficult to use this forum as a means by which to approach construction/maintenance of such a WOG. In Dmitry Orlov's model of collapse, the order is Financial, Commercial, Political, Social, Cultural, but that is definitely not to imply that hacking away at more basic structural elements will not contribute to an even more chaotic top down collapse. For simple example, how does one best adjust practices related to extreme weather if probability that National Weather Service is functional is reduced. Is it time to start studying how the behavior of birds may predict tornadic activity?

My second observation would be that there is already a good deal of subjectivity baked into a WOG that maximizes for survival. For example, I will pick on AxelHeyst here, his recent choice to ride his motorcycle to Alaska to reunite with his lady love was not a choice that maximized for survival alone. It was a choice that likely considered a collection of personal values, likely inclusive of Survival, Romance, Frugality and Adventure. No different than theoretical rational consumer weighting Nutritious, Delicious, Inexpensive and Easy when purchasing/preparing dinner.

So, for example, if you and I were considering the probability of the global population facing a lower-energy/capita future and we were considering the effect on aspects of Modernity such as Feminism and/or Atheism, and we weren't willing/wanting to re-inhabit Peyton Place or Provincial Village 1912 or the value-memes previously associated with reduced energy-usage-per-capita, we would also have to consider the means by which to maintain our more preferred value-memes both at the societal and personal level as well as the means by which to simply physiologically survive as an individual. Eventually, the subjective and the inter-subjective do come into play in form such as "Give me FITB or give me death."

For example, Jonathan Foer, the vegetarian (Level Green-plus) author of "Eating Animals" wrote about his Jewish grandmother who barely survived WW2, but refused to eat pork even as she was facing starvation (thereby maintaining her meaning structure within Level Blue.) Obviously, he was making the point that values-aligned vegetarianism similarly provides meaning. Frugality/ERE is somewhat like vegetarianism in that it can be seen as useful towards personal goal Financial Freedom/Healthy Diet and/or towards something more meaningful because beyond self, Global Ecology/Animal Rights. I think the point I am trying to make is that each human has their own unique meaning-structure at the juncture of Level Green/Level Yellow to be brought forward within or along with their desire to survive the meta-crisis on a practical basis. It is only through the additional prism of meaning-making that we can make sense of the behavior of a human like AxelHeyst as he simultaneously chooses to pragmatically prepare for bread basket failure and sincerely experience romantic motorcycle adventures or Nate Hagens as he educates about ecological systems collapse while feeding three dogs and flying to international conferences, or another human who is law-abiding citizen until willing to face imprisonment while protesting political injustice. Humans are wonderful in their inconsistency.

[jacob]

Two observations. First observation would be that I think the rule prohibiting discussion of politics is making it too difficult to use this forum as a means by which to approach construction/maintenance of such a WOG.

The decision to abandon the book was made when politics was still allowed here. It may be [allowed] again as long as I'm not the one having to deal with cleaning up after the inevitable food fights. I sometimes wonder why the political framework of Turquoise is nothing but post-KublerRoss Yellow having finally accepted that "humans gotta human" while casting it in some hippie-dippie verbiage about cosmic patterns. I definitely have one foot in that camp having just about given up on humanity-at-large. It's only a matter of time before I'm in with both feet.

In Dmitry Orlov's model of collapse, the order is Financial, Commercial, Political, Social, Cultural, but that is definitely not to imply that hacking away at more basic structural elements will not contribute to an even more chaotic top down collapse. For simple example, how does one best adjust practices related to extreme weather if probability that National Weather Service is functional is reduced. Is it time to start studying how the behavior of birds may predict tornadic activity?

"The middle game" actually introduced an expanded and more generalized version inspired by Orlov's model. It was really pretty nifty. However, with most such models it was probably only appealing to people who see things in models and want the full understanding. Realizing that such a model didn't have any failure-modes for the tips/tricks humans at lower MHCs was just one more nail in the coffin. Not really worth the effort to try to promote something that most people will either ignore or just imbibe for entertainment.

My second observation would be that there is already a good deal of subjectivity baked into a WOG that maximizes for survival. For example, I will pick on AxelHeyst here, his recent choice to ride his motorcycle to Alaska to reunite with his lady love was not a choice that maximized for survival alone. It was a choice that likely considered a collection of personal values, likely inclusive of Survival, Romance, Frugality and Adventure. No different than theoretical rational consumer weighting Nutritious, Delicious, Inexpensive and Easy when purchasing/preparing dinner.

Two things.

"Maximizing for survival" is just a project to be finished. It's not something that requires the dedication 100% of one's life focus unless one for whatever crazy reason wants to make it extra challenging (e.g. by making everything out of mud or whatever bushcraft solutions the youtubers come up with).

Most of us (who read this sentence) are not in a position where this knowledge actually has to be put into practice as a last resort. One of the occupational hazards of a prepper or a futurist is how "the future" hasn't happened for decades already. Meanwhile, people gotta somehow live. The alternative is sitting in your proverbial bunker waiting for doomsday.

Putting the two together means that the middle game or game (A+B)/2 has to allow for some behavior/lifestyle that's neither A nor B. Ideally it would respect B while drawing on A as some kind of transition.

Purism gets old real fast especially when surrounded by humans whose behavior prove how they don't really give a shit [about B].

[daylen]

I sometimes wonder why the political framework of Turquoise is nothing but post-KublerRoss Yellow having finally accepted that "humans gotta human" while casting it in some hippie-dippie verbiage about cosmic patterns.

Everything needs to change and yet everything is perfect the way it is. At cross paradigms, your own agency can simultaneously be both all meaningful and of no consequence at all (or anywhere along the paradoxical interception). Paradigms are like deep wells of self-evidencing and self-fulfillment built upon irreconcilable incommensurability. They can be torturous places to dwell. Remembering and returning to the unknot of complete ignorance and clarity may revitalize well digging again and again. I am crazy? or just another human trying to write poetry with what I can find?

[jacob]

I am crazy? or just another human trying to write poetry with what I can find?

Yes and yes

My [individualistic agency] problem with Turquoise is that it tends to be a lot of "talk" and very little "walk" that ultimately cloaks itself in paradoxical verbiage or "privileged playfulness" to avoid taking responsibility. I mean, I emphasize with the sentiment because I'm pretty close to giving up on trying to try myself, but I still see this next level as having given up ("It is what it is") rather than the next level of insight, as was the case for all previous cultures/philosophies. This is also why I think Turquoise in its proposed form is a trap. Specifically, I think it's a failure mode of yellow rather than a new paradigm.

[7Wannabe5]

I sometimes wonder why the political framework of Turquoise is nothing but post-KublerRoss Yellow having finally accepted that "humans gotta human" while casting it in some hippie-dippie verbiage about cosmic patterns.

Well, in alignment with the overall model, I would guess that this is either because Turquoise is still naive in its development or this is what Level Indigo will correct for. I think this essay on "The Myth of Self-Sufficiency" by late, great permaculturist Toby Hemenway speaks to growing from Level Green through Level Yellow towards Level Turquoise.

https://artsandopinion.com/2016_v15_n1/hemenway.htm

As veteran permaculture designer Larry Santoyo says, go to the highest generalization to fill your needs. Thinking “I must grow my food” is painfully limited. Thinking “I must satisfy food needs responsibly” opens up a vast array of possibilities, from which you can choose the most stable and appropriate. Individual efforts are often less stable and resilient than community enterprises. And they’re bad design: self-reliance means that a critical function is supported in only one way. If you grow all your food and get hurt, you are now injured, hungry, and watching your crops wither from your wheelchair. That won’t happen in a community farm. And for those worried about an impending collapse of society, the roving turnip-bandits are much more likely to raid your lonely plot while you sleep exhausted from a hard day of spadework, and less likely to attack a garden protected by a crew of strong, pitchfork-wielding farmers who can guard it round the clock.

Creating community reliance gives us yet another application of permacultural zones: Zone zero in this sense is our home and land. Zone one is our connection to other individuals and families, zone two to local commerce and activities in our neighborhood, zone three to regional businesses and organizations, zone four to larger and more distant enterprises. Why would we limit ourselves to staying only in zone zero? We can organize our lives so that our need for zone-four excursions—say, to buy petroleum or metal products—is very limited, while our interactions with the local farmers’ market and restaurants are frequent. This builds a strong community.

It was really pretty nifty.

I bet it was. Please share if you feel inclined.

"Maximizing for survival" is just a project to be finished.

I don't quite see how this is true when one could literally spend entire day focused on improvement of personal health metrics and/or squirreling away funds for passage on escape rocket and/or calculating the risk entailed in riding motorcycle vs. hitch-hiking. OTOH, "Satisfying survival needs/values" could certainly be a more or less finished project. And, "maximizing efficient completion of satisfaction of survival needs/values" would also be possible. I must admit that I am someone who generally errs on the side of "making things out of mud and dumpster finds" with "Dollar Store" as fail mode.

Putting the two together means that the middle game or game (A+B)/2 has to allow for some behavior/lifestyle that's neither A nor B. Ideally it would respect B while drawing on A as some kind of transition.

Purism gets old real fast especially when surrounded by humans whose behavior prove how they don't really give a shit [about B].

Yes, I agree. So, a "dirty" coalition that includes both those lacking in theory and those lacking in practice may prove necessary. Of course, not everybody will choose to interact with humans along this spectrum as ridiculously as I have within my own social circle.

[Stasher]

I will just add that I'm loosing faith that society will not continue to follow through on important things and . I supported some great community work to have high efficiency home building codes with no fossil fuel connections in our region adopted last year (a very core ERE belief for me). Now under the guise of we don't make meaningful impact on world climate, taxes are too high and homes will costs too much...this great work is about to be done because of changes outside my control.

It makes me sad to see important efforts to help the environment, climate and resources of society in the future thrown away as mentioned above because humans gotta human when rubber hits the road. I feel pretty defeated.

[chenda]

It makes me sad to see important efforts to help the environment, climate and resources of society in the future thrown away as mentioned above because humans gotta human when rubber hits the road. I feel pretty defeated.

Its very frustrating when that happens. On a positive note, domestic solar panels are rapidly being adopted. Maybe because people can more directly see the cost - benefit case (and the government subsidies)