Step 7 Evolving The Collective Narrative

Having studied the rhetoric that people of the first two standard deviations of the bell curve choose to perceive as immovable truth, it is vital that we identify which of these ideas and concepts are founded on science and which of them is a result of belief based behaviour. 

While behavioural science is a large field, a caveat for this approach is knowing that human behaviour is at the mercy of what we can see in the current paradigm.

As mentioned in this blog before, groupthink, as influential as it is, is a vital part of human behaviour that needs to be paid attention to when dealing with decision making as well as planning for best outcomes.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but we must ask the question, are the expressions needs, or just selfish desires that do not take into account the bigger picture or even the most current truth.

What can happens often is that the language and phrase collections used by groups spread. They can spread ideas the way humans spread viruses. The underlying subconscious thinking of a certain phrase continues to carry through and influence the thought patterns of its users and those who comprehend it, specially at just a surface level. And while they may not see the violence or ignorance behind it, it can still be present.

Take for example the Toilet Paper shortage during the COVID-19 crisis or the fact that Corona Beer has seen a mass reduction in sales since Coronavirus the name was announced. Or event the differences in response tactics by countries such as Singapore vs those like Italy, USA and Australia.

So what are some of the stories that we have told each other in our language, in our thoughts and shared ideas, which are inaccurate, violent, and perhaps ignorant?

Here are some common general ones that affect us greatly today:

1. My or Our collective physical / mental ability to over power you and your group is proof that I (and my group) am / are superior and hence 1) deserve more resources to consume 2) have a right to enslave, dominate and deprive you and your group of resources by 3) have more of a right to increase the size, power and resource collection of my / our group
2. Humans succeeded as a result of competition, just like other species and survival of the fittest determines our success as a collective. Hence it is my. / our duty to increase and encourage competition at any cost in order to achieve the best of our collective capabilities. Loss to each other is collateral damage in this evolutionary process.
3. Violence against certain groups is inherent but is not against other groups as they are characterised as being vulnerable and hence some rather than others are exempt from empathy.
4. The restrictions and boundaries that apply to others do not apply to me or my group because I am more intelligent and able to understand more than those who required those boundaries in order to live harmoniously.
5. An issue that is specific to my group an affects my particular group cannot affect other groups in a similar way and our group's particular tragic situation cannot be compared. It cannot possibly be caused by a common misunderstanding, root cause behaviour or way of being.
6. If you do not agree with, have an answer to, do not support our cause and the common understanding of our cause then you and your group must be against our cause. Wanting to have a real conversation is not in the interests of our cause. We provide a simple answer: just stop.
7. Because this option is current, popular and more accepted than the other options we have previously explored, it is the correct and best one. Nothing can be done about it as this is the best option out of the many available. Change is not possible.

Can you think of others?

Until we challenge the collective narratives to ones backed by experience, experiment, result and science we cannot say that the story we hold is based on anything but heresay.

What are successful processes for then challenging the collective narrative?

One very successful but immensely slow method of evolving collective narrative is through the arts.

By the use of shock, comedy, art, plays, TV shows, movies, humans are able to closely examine, laugh at and slowly look at their own closely held beliefs which are untrue and break them over generations.

Another way is through science: By accumilating multiple viewpoints based on real data, studies, papers, independant reviews and proofs, the scientist is able to show their hypothesis to be more correct than the previously understood 'truth'.

By continually testing this science further by building upon it we are able to put that truth into practice and see the results. If the truth stands then what is built stands the test of time. If the truth is not universal then it's specifics are identified an it's exceptions are further explored until every aspect is uncovered or remains a new thesis to uncover.

Can you think of any other processes? Do you think they are practical? Perhaps with a Paradigm shift in thinking they will become practical or more acceptable, perhaps even legal forms?

Step 6.2: Creating Decentralised Peer Reviewed Decision Making Systems

It is very clear that at the centre of all corrupt activity is a central point of failure - A human divided between what benefits himself and what benefits all even to his detriment.

The current and most effective way to counteract this is to remove the position of the human has the last point of decision making. Essentially make political representation obsolete.

How would one go about doing this?

One vital aspect is technological penetration: the system must be able to gage the decision and direction of every single existing entity that has an entitled capability to be affected by the decision. Therefore all affected must have a vote. That would be a true democratic system.

The second vital aspect would be to ensure that all parties affected by the decision are fully aware of all or as many aspects of how the decision will affect them. Multiple peer review of proof of understanding would lead to ensuring that each party has understood the decision and it's impacts as much as possible and ha made a sound decision or proposition.

The third vital aspect is a trustless impenetrable, non-manipulatable system, which has no override without the entire collective affected parties deciding to override it. There is no way in, no way out without 100% agreement to not allow the system to represent the parties.

The fourth vital aspect is that the system is decentralised and cannot be turned off. It will always be present and show the most current state of a decision. It can either be listened to or not but it will always reflect the undeniable truth.

Are there any further principles of such an incorruptible decision making system?

Can you think of a way a system can be built in such a way that all of the above principles can be met using technology without losing anonymity and freedom of the individual and yet retain accountability?

Step 6.1 Supporting and Building Decentralised Value Chains

Since the dawn of time, humans have invented various ways to exchange things for other things. This is how we have managed to diversify our existence. From goods and services, to concepts and ideas.

The earliest form of written language was actually a ledger, one that kept an account of who owed what to whom.

Also in time humans have evolved increasingly complex ways of locking up, storing and securing value that has been accumulated. One of those values in information. The control of information has always been the ultimate way in which economic advantage has been sought and achieved. he or she who knows the speculative value of one item to be higher in one place, and lower in another can accumulate value by simply trading.

The marriage of the two concepts 1) of cryptography - for encoding information in a way that it becomes difficult enough to prevent unlocking by unauthorised parties 2) A ledger that keeps a record of all exchanges of values and therefore is a source of truth has been leveraged into what we call Cryptocurrency.

The struggle it seems, is that a perfectly built idea can still fail to fully bear fruit in the less than ideal conditions created by human greed.

No one could have predicted the events of 2017's mass retail adoption of cryptocurrency and the various things that happened as a result of what is called 'forking'.

The aftermath of alt-coins and ICOs (a crypto equivalent to IPO's) that then began to shift the market in an unprecedented way. In turn, revealing the greatest weakness in the concept which was to free people from the need for a third party to validate trust, was the unscrupulous theft of cryptocurrency through the hacking of exchanges, the weakest link in the chain: When you can't hack the ledger, just hack the place where people exchange their value or better, create an online marketplace and then pull out the rug from under them without a trace. The lack of regulation that lead to the creation of a new concept also lead partially to somewhat of it's demise.

"Ideas are bullet proof" V for Vendetta, but add to this situation, a slew of new regulatory controls based on redundant technologies, numerous laws based on outdated concepts and you have recipe for an idea killer.

That may be the case but for crypto-currency, the journey has changed dynamically.

In the case of crypto-currency, the decentralisation aspects have been challenged by a few things of note:

1) Trading companies creating a market that is in addition to private trading - adding risk during exchange as currency must sit on am exchange to be traded. Major loophole - many exchanges have been hacked and millions in funds lost as explained above.

2) Traders and their behaviour, the media and people's social posts creating FOMO or the opposite (Panic sales) and the capability of holders of large amounts of currency to manipulate the market by buying and dumping crypto for other currencies such as fiat ($US for example) during times of low liquidity. The fluctuations allow scalping and the losses for smaller traders are big.

3) Betting on market through leveraging - gambling and manipulation combined enables big investors to scalp large sums off unwitting traders who have set up bets online eg. Bitmex

4) Centralised chains - XRP as just one example of how decentralization of currency can still be thwarted by banks who wish to create their own centralised currency.

5) Low transaction capabilities of most coin except alt coins designed to overcome this mean Bitcoin has to evolve or become quite redundant for one of its core purposes as a exchange of value and instead simply become a store of value. People can no longer quickly trade BTC.

Crypto is a constantly.changing field of interest. Best to keep an eye on and high risk for investors.

You'll read many articles about it, so this will only serve as an introduction to part of the revolution that is happening with finances.

So how can we support and or create Decentralised Networks?

One of the key points here is trust. We need to trust each other, but most of all we need to no longer have issues of trust - a truth that is undeniable, supported by technology that backs it.

In other words, we need to switch over to taking responsibility of our own value instead of handing it to third parties like Banks. To do this, technology must be adapted to be accessible by the common person. Somewhere along the way, the increase in simplicity of tech use, the increasing complexity of thwarting that tech through hacking (such that it's not worth it must cross with mass adoption of the method) - we are just going to have to get a little bit more tech saavvy.

This is not financial advice - do not invest more than you'er prepared to lose. However, if wee aren't prepare to take a leap of faith to lose it all to gain everything on the other side, then it won't take off. Whatever you do, make sure you research it and that it is indeed truly decentralised.

The crypto-revolution has already begun, quantum computing is already here and hence it is only a matter of time. This is evident from the mass adoption by even larger financial institutions and support for trading by governments world wide. Despite the popularity having degraded the original purposes of crypto technology, it still develops and will be interesting to watch over the next 50-100 years.

Step 5: Evolving Organizational Culture

One of the few large organisations on earth that is closely aligned with changing consciousness for the better is Burning Man. There are smaller ones popping up everywhere though. After all, radical change is always brought on by a shift in consciousness and sometimes that shift is no centralised but distributed.

The principles of Burning Man, according to the org, are "crafted not as a dictate of how people should be and act, but as a reflection of the community’s ethos and culture as it had organically developed since the event’s inception."

Is this somewhat of a copout though? If you don't have principles then how do you know that what you are creating is necessarily the pattern of greater universal chaos (in the physics sense of the word - not radical violence) that is 'best'? If you have no guiding principles then you're simply doing what everyone else is doing, but somewhere else with more vigor and colour. It's just a different reflection of ourselves, not particularly heading anywhere. And if it's just what everyone as a collective created, this allows whatever already exists to be changed and perhaps risk pollution. At the same time the hope is that natural chaotic order will arise from the mess. But that has not happened historically, so why would it happen now?

To create something new, you need to go 'against the grain' - not a rebellion of sorts, but not the mediocre middle. And in order to be truly changing you need to be adaptive, the norm (a bell curve fo sorts) also shifts. Hence at the risk of pollution the ideals should also move forward alongside the polluting aspects so that there may be balance in the forces.

Burning man is fun, its a step forward. But the next step is already here and it is happening even amongst the burner community. Burners without borders is just one example of smaller subcommunities being formed. Burners are also very talented people and have amazing skill sets. Put together they can make a huge difference to where we are going as humanity.

There are greater concerns to deal with right now than a big party. The same way danger compells a meditator sitting, to get up, the impending model of human living must stir the consciousness of those who are forerunners.

Out of the Burningman principles the most aligned one for this is Immediacy. Defined as being the urge to 'seek to overcome barriers that stand between us and a recognition of our inner selves, the reality of those around us, participation in society, and contact with a natural world exceeding human powers.'

You can go into your psychedelic trips and trance states all you like, but the real work has to be done in the greater world. This involves developing ideas together beyond just the experimental.

If you don't review what you have created ( which Burning Man does by the way - clap clap ), you can't evolve or grow.

Gifting culture is great. But outside and now more on the inside we have an uneven distribution of resources (citation needed - not enough evidence of this) . The model needs to start supporting the creative and help them to sustain it. Otherwise it's just a gather and burn. Yes, this is the point of Burning Man. Right? Gather everything and burn it? Burning the proverbial 'man'.

It teaches an important lesson in impermanence and the right to destroy. But this lesson need not be so extravagant and attract so much pompousness. We can simply observe this in our lives should we pay attention.

In fact if the resources were put to better use, real change could happen and a snowball effect could be achieved in the right direction. But without actual direction, that is at the hands of the rich few and hence the pattern of the org mirrors that of whole, the pattern holds.

Take for example small to medium businesses transitioning into large. The newbie employees have just enough time to understand what the organisation can really use, just enough lack in power to be doing something with that knowledge and just enough pressure from the current org culture to not take action out of fear they will be shunned.

The first fear is ridicule from the current powerful: 'So what's new, we know this. What's your radical idea?'

The second fear is of actual failure: 'we tried this before, it failed, that's why we gave up and here we are'

The third fear is higher up the food chain: 'what if the new way of working makes me feel uncomfortable and undermines my power and authority? What if everything I did before is no longer relevant'

No one wants to lose their livelihood. Plebs nor honchos. In fact the smart plebs will mirror the honchos and bring in their own set of cultural behaviours supporting not just a set of useful practices but including a set of redundant practices.

The gap in pay between employees and their managers is also a point of contention. Those above middle manager level are paid rates that are exorbitant. Market rates and competition between employers to get experienced managers with leadership skills, who know what they are doing is blamed for this.

Take note also the business is located closer to where best lifestyle for those who are highly paid is available (when main office location has zero impact on actual business). If you dont locate the business in a central and buzzing area, the managers will leave to companies that do. However everyday employees spend a lot travelling in from far to get to their jobs while the few managers who influence business location decisions, usually live minutes from work. Its not democratic at all.

So how do we evolve from this model where we value managers (not all are actually leaders) above employees? Where we reward some work more than other work because it takes more of a certain type of skill to do? Risk taking and overview is rewarded more than actual hands on work, perhaps because of the way investment itself works and how as a collective we care more about growing our money than growing society - as money can be exchanged for consumables and society will likely not give back. Trade is certain and donation is not.

One emerging method is the sharing economy where skills are shared, not sure where it will go. Here is an example: Awakening Sovereignty Collective

The counter culture of this is things like Air Tasker, and Fiver - where the collective creativity of many is taken advantage of to have work done for the cheapest price possible. The counter to this are startups like Uber which challenge the current way of providing services.

Further to this the peer to peer exchanges of value on the decentralised ledger (crytocurrency) are changing the way people transact. The middleman, the bank and it's limitations and safety are being weeded out. More on this aspect in my next post.

Step 4: Forming Benevolent Organisations

With the governments of the world seeking an ever growing control of information, many of them are spying on the citizens they should be serving on behalf of privately owned organisations and elite individual billionaires that are the puppet masters.

The only outcome seems to be a future battle between those who own the companies and those who are the companies.

Governments have no power for the people. Everyone knows that under the current mode of operations, corporations own governments.

However organisations are made of people. People are individuals. The problem at the moment is that the capital holders can and will get what they want by firing those who oppose their views on sustainability, company decisions and ethics and hire those who will do their bidding.

So long as the unemployment rate is kept at a constant and not all are employed, this control is possible. Because as long as there is someone else to replace your role, you will have no influence in the organisation. And the culture of fear and doubt will place you in a position that is fairly powerless.

If, somehow people gain control of the decisions of the company, then they can control the direction. In this way benevolent organisations can be the leaders of tomorrows economy. This is more possible where the company is owned by those it employs.

With well established competition from such orgs and a changed attitude amongst consumers who no longer want to identify with big brands that exploit, instead deciding to be hip and individual, this particular aspect of the capitalist model where the consumer has power can be utilised much better.

Here are a list of Organisations that currently have profile of supporting the advancement of the human race and it's situation:

Thank You

https://thankyou.co/

Zambrero

https://www.zambrero.com/
Who Gives a Crap

https://whogivesacrap.org

Little Ripples

https://www.littleripples.co/

TruEarth - Laundry Strips

https://www.tru.earth/

Also here is an interesting way waste reduction and such techniques are being done and effective in business:

Coffee Mushrooms (Mushrooms grown from coffee grounds)
Plastic Houses (Built from trash)

Earthships (sustainable homes specially designed for their environment)
Pay per gram food places (Pay only for what you serve yourself and eat pers gram - hopefully you only take enough for yourself)

Know many others? Comment and list them below!

Step 3: Transforming Organisations

This is going to be tough, gradual, slow and painful, but it must and will eventually happen.

Influencing the leadership and the stakeholders of an organisation which isn't already wanting to have sustainability at its core is tough. The people who started and lead it are of a different attitude and therefore all change, right down to low level employees requires a shift in culture. Changes in company culture create fear among directors and shareholders alike.

There have been, in the past, and present, organisations which focus on a triple bottom line, with sustainability as a core function of its operations.

There IS a huge difference.

Here are a few examples of businesses that didn't just do it for show because it's funky and trendy. These businesses were trying to be in the game, they didn't invent the game - they already lived it because their founders said - if this is you - you're in - if it isn't - did somewhere else to work.

But that doesn't mean we should give up on the show ponies. We CAN influence them to do nearly as much (though they will most certainly lag behind for some time).

How?

1) Get involved in the running of the org. This may involve volunteering, taking opportunities to lead with a different style and view that is influential and successful.
2) Provide life changing influence to those who are in power and unaware or those who are totally against sustainable practice because their agenda is profit only.
3) Take the people, out of the politics - people and their own agendas are what create problems, corruption and bad politics. Politics shouldn't empower those who serve people, it should serve people and empower all with real change.

Step 2: Leverage Customer Centricity

We all hear about these terms at work, customer focus, customer centric product delivery, customer experience.

But many of us don't realise what this means in the long run. Customer Centricity places the customer at the steering wheel of the organisation. This means, if the customer changes their needs the producer or provider must change also or face extinction. Without the customer, there is no business!

You can leverage this alignment strategy actively.

1) Choose your providers or sources wisely - look for the qualities you care about, not just the price - if you can't afford it, go with less - because the low cost option is low cost for a reason (they are cutting back on our future to provide a product now which you can buy now but is robbing the world of unseen opportunities and creating unseen problems).

2) Demand change - talk to managers, voice you concerns - if enough people ask, the business may change their ways to keep your loyalty! If you all work together for the same cause individually this is more likely than not. One reason is that employers are annoyed by union like activity - unions are known to bully and cause strife, nearly as much as corporations are known to exploit employees. Individual, assertive activity will force an organisation to ask questions internally, because they will see a shift and respond.

3) Actively Promote good business - there are so many businesses out there that ARE trying to do it right. So help them.

1. Get behind them and support them by advertising for them, take time to promote that which is wholesome.
2. Give away samples, even if it costs you a little, imagine how much you're helping to create a future that is different. You want to make a mark on this world, do it with passion.
3. Start your own business if you have the capital, remember your roots and what your values are - don't bend to economic pressures easily, as all successful businesses know, it takes a long time and many failures to become successful.

5) When you're dissatisfied with the actions of an organisation, speak out collectively or individually. use your social networks, and a number of online groups such as Demand Progress and Avaaz and Change.org to work together. Actively take a role.

Links: It only took one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ

6) Start your own initiatives and recruit like minded people - not just anybody's but people who are really passionate about it, not just a pay packet.

Here is one small example of how an attitude and a product can be engineered from the get go to survive the future we are going to be looking at.

http://www.thankyouwater.org/?noredirect=true

You might say well, it isn't really like that yet, people still don't really see the value behind this and people are still going to behave in a minimalistic fashion - doing little as possible to gain the modest for themselves. This is probably mostly you commerce and accounting students going along with what text books have drowned you in for decades to get you to behave the way the capital holders need you to behave to stay on top.

Let's switch that perspective, say group A is all the capital holders (those who fund business) and B are everyone else (the labour force to simply put it). If all of group B (the majority) choose to value what you value and refuse to accept what is given, demanding better, as individuals, then these few in group A will have no power, because they can only seek those who compromise their own values to achieve group A's ends. They will be forced to shift or put B against B. Group B is realising that this has gone on for a long time. And it's time to pay attention to the growing chasm that we dreamed wasn't there.

We only need to look at how things have evolved in the last few decades to see where they are really going. Not just purely at what we believe is the behavioural science behind humans and their self interested choices.

The direction is pretty clear. We have a case for cooperation and collaboration. We have a case for the need for change. I'm not going to go ranting on about the data, because for one, this blog isn't about an argument for or against anything - it is a manual for change at a grass roots level.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, and you're here because you're already convinced and you're ready to try something new.