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?