Tubegraph

Game B and its emergence

9 min read

From: jimruttshow8596

Game B is an emerging concept for a potential future system, contrasting with Game A, which is seen as heading towards a catastrophic end [02:27:00]. The previous podcast with Jordan Hall extensively discussed Game A [01:11:14]. The core idea is to move beyond the current “status quo” before it leads to a destructive outcome [02:37:00].

Defining Game B

Game B is notoriously difficult to articulate using the conceptual structures derived from Game A, as doing so might “poison the well” [15:16:00]. Instead, understanding it often requires a “parallax perspective,” combining several succinct constructions [15:46:00].

One way to describe Game B is the capacity to navigate complexity without resorting to complicated systems [16:08:00]. This applies to natural complexity (the environment), anthropocomplexity (people), and technocomplexity (technology’s impact on possibilities) [16:44:00]. It emphasizes developing skillfulness to respond to complexity rather than defaulting to complicated approaches [16:32:00].

Another definition for Game B is a “meta-protocol for hyper-collaboration” [17:14:00]. This concept suggests that everyone is already engaged in Game B at some level, perhaps even at “level zero,” meaning it is omnipresent in the field of play [21:17:00]. Consciously choosing to participate can increase one’s skillfulness in collaboration [21:45:00].

The Emergence of Game B

The Game B Movement is characterized by a “totally spontaneous emergence of people gathering around and talking about and sort of co-discovering and co-creating” this new system [17:35:00]. An initial group started discussing this concept years ago, around six years prior to the discussion, then entered “spore mode,” spreading the ideas widely [17:51:00]. This has led to a distributed cognition where people, without formal coordination or top-down structure, are able to collaborate and generate useful resources [18:42:00].

Resources available for engagement with Game B include:

This meta-protocol allows individuals to self-orient, discover what is happening, and find ways to participate meaningfully [20:16:00]. This leads to emergent, distributed cognition, where people collaborate even without direct knowledge of each other’s work [22:21:00].

The early principles laid down for Game B—being non-hierarchical, network-oriented, and long-term metastable—are now observed to be driving its self-booting and self-growing aspects [24:40:00]. The increased accessibility of these ideas and the worsening situation of Game A contribute to people’s willingness to explore alternatives [25:16:00].

Optimism for Game B’s Success

Despite Game A being “huge and powerful” and Game B seemingly non-existent [26:13:00], there is optimism for Game B’s potential due to its higher “exponent” of growth [43:02:00].

Based on Stuart Kauffman’s concept of the “adjacent possible,” systems combining components in novel ways expand the set of possibilities faster than exponentially [27:01:00]. This means a system that starts small but grows at a higher exponent will eventually overtake a larger system growing at a lower rate [43:07:00]. Game B is designed to be substantially better at innovation than Game A [44:37:00].

The challenge for Game A is that its “deep deep code” involves increasing technological capability within a context of competition, leading to an accelerating capacity to destroy things [04:44:00]. This includes biological warfare facilitated by gene editing, or catastrophic power grid failures [05:18:00]. This accelerating technological curve also increases system fragility and the distribution of destructive capacity [07:05:00]. Within Game A, a game theoretical trap forces entities to continue running forward recklessly in fields like AI research, fearing falling behind others [08:02:00].

Beyond direct destruction, Game A also faces limits in its long-term carrying capacity of the ecosystem [09:00:00]. The technological enhancement of lifestyle leads to increasing externalities and environmental degradation [10:05:00]. Furthermore, there’s a “war on sense-making,” where AI-enhanced marketing and political propaganda manipulate choice-making, eroding individual capacity to make sense of the world [11:57:00]. This is likened to an “autoimmune disease on sense-making,” where the tools meant for clarity turn against themselves [13:48:00].

Game B aims to counter this by:

  • Prioritizing wisdom: Rather than just increasing power, Game B must cultivate collective wisdom symmetrical to, or superior to, the power it generates [48:43:00]. This means orienting innovation towards cultivating individual and collective sovereignty, maturity, and awareness of consequences [49:03:00].
  • Fostering creative collaboration: Unlike Game A’s hierarchical, extrinsic motivation-driven structures [31:19:00], Game B fosters environments where individuals can maximize their “sovereignty” and rapidly achieve “coherence” with others [32:30:30]. This relies on “liminal” (not-knowing) states of deep listening and perceiving reality without prefiguring meaning [33:18:00].
  • Embodied knowledge: Skillfulness in Game B is embodied, learned through experience, leading to a “participatory knowing” that allows individuals to conform to problem domains [38:39:00]. This involves “humility” as a primary capacity, recognizing the depth of complexity and the need for openness [41:40:00].

Preparing for Game B: The Pre-B World

The “pre-B” world describes the current state where a fully functioning Game B group doesn’t yet exist, but individuals are working on foundational elements [50:08:00].

Key areas of individual and group preparation include:

  • Finding the others: Connecting with like-minded individuals is already happening through online platforms [50:29:00].
  • Personal transformation:
    • Transparent Agentic Mind: Seriously engaging with liminality, being aware of one’s axiomatic assumptions, and being able to shift paradigms as contexts change [52:01:00].
    • Orienting by Meaningfulness: Building the capacity to make choices based on genuine meaningfulness, not external ideologies or consumerist programming [52:25:00]. This involves discerning what truly matters and aligning choices with deeply held values [53:51:00]. Meaningfulness, in this context, relates to the “wholeness” of one’s mode of being and an increasing capacity to respond well to the world [58:20:00]. It’s about figuring out how to live effectively and increase that effectiveness ongoingly [01:00:44]. The “sense of wrongness” felt in Game A’s short-termism or fragmentation (like alienation or inauthenticity) is a signal that Game B aims to resolve through greater integrity [01:02:50].
    • Financial Order: Reducing dependence on status-oriented consumerism can free up resources and time, increasing personal freedom [00:56:01].
    • Parenting: Approaching the parent-child relationship with a sense of symmetry, recognizing the child as a fully realized soul and supporting their capacity building, while also being open to learning from them [01:11:06].
    • Making a Living (Vocation): Cultivating discernment to move towards one’s “ikigai” or calling, where one’s unique capacities align with what feels meaningful and serves the larger system [01:13:13].
    • Health and Well-being: A holistic view of health, encompassing physiological, psychological, and relational aspects, with an emphasis on supporting all dimensions synergistically [01:21:04]. Well-being involves creating a context that supports ongoing healthy practices [01:22:35].
    • Justice and Policing: Approaching conflict or injustice with “curiosity” rather than avoidance or retribution [01:25:50]. The goal is to slow down, listen deeply, and understand the root causes, with an aim to increase maturity and capacity [01:29:01]. This requires “discernment,” not “non-judgmentalism,” to recognize reality and set boundaries while maintaining a basis of “love” and “conviviality” [01:34:20]. This approach aims to make the community “anti-fragile to injustice” [01:39:37].

Experimenting with Piece Parts (Proto-B)

The transition to Game B involves experimenting with “piece parts” as we don’t fully know how to implement everything [01:09:42]. This transition is a series of steps towards a metastable state, like building a “Noah’s Ark” or “lifeboat” to ensure human survival [01:08:21].

The concept of a “proto-B” describes the first attempts to create integrated ways of Game B life [01:49:42]. These early iterations will likely be dependent on aspects of Game A (e.g., computer chips, hospitals) [01:50:10]. Critically, these proto-B experiments will be “consciously and hopefully talented at parasitizing Game A” [01:50:27], pulling energy from the old system to build the new one [01:55:27].

Unlike past intentional communities that failed due to weak economic models (e.g., selling artisanal crafts) [01:53:01], Game B seeks to leverage the “generative capacity” of highly skilled individuals (creative class, software developers, scientists) [01:53:50]. This could lead to highly disruptive economic innovations emerging from Game B experiments that would have “massively asymmetric competitive advantage” in Game A [01:54:14].

A key challenge for Game B is scaling beyond the Dunbar Number (around 150 individuals for face-to-face communities) [01:41:38]. The “hard problem of Game B” is how to maintain coherence and effective collaboration in much larger groups [01:42:40]. The solution may involve discovering an “attractor in reality itself” that allows a distributed cognition group to accelerate with the adjacent possible without falling apart [01:44:02]. This is likened to growing an emergence, which is inherently unpredictable [01:45:50].

Game B relies on:

  • Conviviality: Literally “living together,” this is the conscious design of culture, rituals, tools, and events that support personal, relational, and holistic growth [01:15:07]. It emphasizes face-to-face interaction and taking relationship as sacred, realized in the ordinary [01:16:54]. Conviviality may be Game B’s “secret weapon” [01:17:40]. While geographically anchored communities are highly likely for early proto-B’s, episodic physical meetings or collaboration between multiple anchored groups might also maintain coherence [01:56:08].
  • Coherence: This refers to distinct parts generating a synergistic relationship to create an emergent whole greater than the sum of its parts, where this whole simultaneously enhances the autonomy of the parts [01:37:39]. This implies a “coherent pluralism” where there’s a delicate design problem of balancing agreement and liberty [01:39:15].
  • Meta-learning: The ability to experiment extremely effectively, using the output of experiments to improve the experimental protocol itself [01:48:46]. This generates an acceleration of learning rather than just velocity [01:48:57].
  • Honorable Failures: Some proto-B groups will likely fail [01:59:29]. However, if these are “honorable failures”—meaning deep learning is gained from unforeseen challenges rather than toxic internal culture—the individuals involved carry that wisdom forward, contributing to the larger Game B Movement’s progress [01:59:43].

The development of Game B is a complex, long-term endeavor comparable to the scientific and engineering challenges of developing technologies like lasers [02:02:04], but with far greater scope and fewer resources [02:02:43].

Graph View

Backlinks