วีดีโอ

It would be extremely interesting and very valuable for the community if someone hosted a conversation between Dave Snowden, Daniel Smachtenberger, and Daniel Görtz. These three bring together unique perspectives on complexity, systems thinking, the metacrisis and cultural evolution that could lead to a really deep, challenging and fruitful discussion. Snowden’s focus on “scaffolding” and his skepticism of holistic thinking would be a fascinating counterpoint to Görtz’s metamodern vision of integrating new cultural narratives. I believe Smachtenberger could help bridge the two, given his work on meta-crisis solutions and civilization design and overall temperament in talks. It’s a conversation that could really push the boundaries of where we’re at, and leave us with some precious jewels by the end of it.

Brilliant as always. I'm appreciating Dave's Deleuzian turn

This video is really informative and brilliant. Thanks so much for recording this talk.

10:00 - talking about mental models or mindset is to cognitively frame a process that is only partially cognitive (90-95% decisions are not)

Can you say more about the difference between crews and teams?

Concerning “negative energy,” could that be used to reference inputs from outside entities? Preserves the idea of conservation of energy while showing influence of things outside your perspective of what you consider the system. Military analogy here area of responsibility vs area of influence.

“If you know you’re being observed, you’re more ethical…” not necessarily. Peer pressure and group think make it such that you can be more ethical when not observed. You’re more ethical in terms of not helping oneself at the expense of others when observed. But you may be less ethical in support of the observing group at the expense of a greater whole or of a slandered minority while observed. Morals isn’t just doing the right thing in the dark, it is doing the right thing in the light. Consider our politicians, they’re going to do the popular thing and they’re going to act for the cameras while observed; sometimes we really should let some things work out in the dark. The Constitutional Convention was closed door for a reason.

Ideation Diversity! 🤩🤓

The first question’s answer seems to get at Cass Sunstein’s Sludge while also hitting other’s recent points regarding safety theater, excessive compliance, Sydney Dekker’s view that government deregulation has actually led to more bureaucracy due to litigation liability avoidance while adding “safety” and “risk” mitigation measures is asymmetrically too easy versus removing them.

Making everything explicit isn’t only dangerous in that it can be gamed, it is dangerous in that it makes you play the game whether you want to or not. It causes ‘safety theater’ and compliance culture. Woe be you if you deviate because you adapted to alternate circumstances.

“Why didn’t we line up the dots?” discussion, look at Michael Lewis’ handling of the Fort Dix Flu and follow-on in The Premonition. Then back to Clausewitz and friction with a hefty dose of Boyd. Perhaps Kahneman with “undoing” as well, for example looking at the 9/11 case study, why is it anyone could take a plane with mere box cutters? The undoing of that given our conditioning from 70s and 80s hijackings to go along as many were looking for rides to Cuba and not of the religious fundamentalist suicidal bent. Though in this specific case, we could also mention a Tom Clancy book which in turn gets us to Singer and Cole with their emphasis to useful fiction. We didn’t connect the dots and we were working in a complex strategic environment; they however, planned and executed in a complicated operational one. They did line their dots beforehand. So back to Boyd on that friction and the importance of the relativity of friction when in competitive circumstances.

excellent video 👍