There is a generally held belief that consciousness is a mystery of science or a miracle of faith; that consciousness was attained instantly (or granted by god), and that one has either attained self awareness or has not.

I don't believe any of that. I believe like all things in biology, consciousness evolved to maximise a benefit, and occurred gradually, without any magic or mystery. The closest exurb1a gets to that is when he says at 6:28:

"Maybe evolution accidentally made some higher mammals on Earth self-aware because it's better for problem solving or something"

We need to know what other people are thinking and this is the problem that consciousness solves. If a neighbouring tribe enters your territory then predicting whether they come to trade, mate, steal or attack is beneficial to survival.

Initially this may be done through simulation - imagining the future based on past experience. A flood approaching your cave is bad news. Being surrounded by lions is not good. Surrounding a lone bison is dinner. Being charged by a screaming tribe is an upcoming fight.

We could only simulate another person's actions, but we had no experience that allows us to simulate another person's thoughts. You may predict that giving your hungry neighbour a meal may suppress their urge to raid your supplies but you still can't simply open their head and see what they are thinking.

Then for the benefit of cooperation and coordination, we started to talk, and everything changed.

Communication not only allows us to speak our mind, but allows us to model the minds of others. We can gain an understanding of another person's motivations long before they act upon them. The need to simulate another person's thoughts becomes more nuanced and complex. Do they want to trade, or do they want to cheat?

Yet still we cannot look into the minds of others and verify our models of them. If we had access to an actual working brain we could gradually strengthen that model with reference to how an actual brain works, and we happen to have access to such a brain, our own!

If we monitored ourselves then we could validate a general model of thought against real urges, real experiences, real problem solving and real motivations. Once we apply our own selves to a model of thought we become much better at modelling the thoughts of others.

And what better way to render that model than with speech itself? To use all of our existing cognitive skills and simply simulate others sharing their thoughts with us.

At 3:15 exurb1a referenced a famous experiment that showed that we make decisions before we become aware of them. This lends evidence to suppose that our consciousness is not the driver of our thoughts, but a monitor - an interpretation of our subconscious that feeds our model of how people think.

Not everybody is the same. We all have different temperaments. Some of us are less predictable than others, and we tend to avoid such people. Some are more amenable to co-operation, others are stubborn. To understand the temperament of one we must compare them to another. If we are to compare the model of another's mind to our own, and we simulate their mind as speech, then we must also simulate our own mind as speech. Then not only are we conscious, we are self-aware.

Add in a feedback loop of social norms, etiquette, acceptable behaviour, expected behaviour, cooperation and co-dependence, game theory and sustainable societies and this conscious model eventually becomes a lot more nuanced than it first started - allowing for abstract concepts such as empathy, shame, guilt, remorse, resentment, contempt, kinship, friendship, nurture, pride, and love.

Consciousness is magical, but not magic.

The examples in this video (picture wise) are bad.

A big point in 'the prince' was that one needs to appear as a good person, regardless of whether or not you are or are not good.

Hence the best examples would be people who were perceived as virtuous, when they behind the scenes were sometimes not [when they needed to be not virtuous in order to achieve their goals].

Showing plenty of examples of people historically perceived as villains, is actually not the point. In fact, Machiavelli makes a point of how being perceived as bad runs a high risk of ending your reign.

One example in the book is of a ruler who assigns a man to ruthlessly crush disorder in a city. The man ruthlessly crushes disorder, and earns the hatred of the citizens. The ruler comes to the city, kills the man (cuts off his head and takes it out to show people), and claims to have liberated the people from this abusive man. In doing so, he both swiftly eliminates the disorder, demonstrates his authority, and ends up appearing as the good guy (one who cares for the suffering of the people and earns the people's appreciation).




The prince is a historical case study of different rulers throughout history, their circumstances, their intentions, their actions, and their success/failure, and what functional elements interconnected these factors. It's a game theory analysis for monarchs. Primarily technical (morality outside of its scope, morality being neither promoted nor admonished).

(The prince was not Machiavelli's personal opinion of how one should act - he personally preferred virtue and the republic. Personal preference was not the point of 'the prince'.)

-scheherazade

Trump as president will be the same as Trump as presidential candidate. There won't be policies and solutions, he wants to be a demagogue, giving speeches and basking in the adulation. He will delegate the hard work of running the country to other people and stoke his ego presiding over ridiculous meetings where he gives directions and derides his cabinet for failing. "You're fired!"

President Trump will get nothing done and when he pushes the wrong buttons he'll be impeached. The Trump presidency will not be 4 years.

But this guy's video is full of shit. He blissfully ignores the fact that a president must compromise and sometimes even make the best choice from a list of undesireable options. No President can, or should be able to, get everything they want. You can never judge a politician based on every naive expectation you have, because you have the luxury of idealism while they're dealing with reality. The best you can do is support someone who's agenda best matches your own and applaud them when they succeed.

It's like pinball. You can use what control you have to push the ball where you want it but you cannot ultimately control where it goes.

This video starts out be denigrating the idea that game theory should influence our choices in politics. Well that's one of the stupidest things he could say. You cannot refuse to throw the dice in monopoly, claim all the properties and believe you're winning. You have to develop the best strategy you can for the best outcome you can manage with the rules that are in place. If you don't like the rules...change them before the next game begins. Of course, that would require you to make an effort in between games. You don't get YouTube views for that.

Just a comment on the title: might want to changed that to Game Design Theory, because Game Theory is an economic term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

This was also not the only man involved, and not the only concern that applied. This quote is his, not that of half a nation.

While I agree that the south had racist and white supremacist behaviors, I simply point out that the north was little better.

Both were plenty racist, and both cared a lot more about their money/power than they did about slaves. Rich white people in charge today don't give 2 shits about poor black people, I find it very unlikely that the rich white people in charge way back then cared any more.

Let me illustrate the 'champion of liberty' spin with an unrelated example :
Take the ww2 pacific theater for example. Japan teaches WW2 as a war to free Asia from western colonialism. U.S. teaches WW2 (pacific) as a war to free Asia from imperial expansion and oppression by Japan. Both are telling the truth, and both are full of crap. For neither was altruistic in their motivations, but both spin themselves as champions of liberty. For you will always have people on your side if you tell them you are standing up for liberty. (A concept well illustrated in The Prince - one of the earlier 'game theory' (from before it was called that) studies of governance.)

On a side note,

Keep in mind that slaves from Africa were usually purchased from black slavers.

And just a few generations ago, my own great grandparent's era, they and their peers were white peasant property of local white counts.

Things are not really all that 'black and white' (no pun intended).

-scheherazade

So despite many of these encounters seeming like they could have been better resolved without the interference of random strangers, this illustrates surprisingly well what ought to be a universal practice.

Feels are all well and good, but you don't have to descend into the pig sty of emotions and sentimentality to recognise the utilitarian principle that whenever you can pay a small cost to give someone a substantially larger gain then humanity makes a net profit. You're enriching the entire world; and you live in the world, so that's usually a good idea.

Kindness? Pah. Karma? Pah. Game theory and rational cooperation? Yes.

He's got a PhD in game theory.. that almost turns me on.

Yeah, I think that's a much more accurate description of what's going on. Another example is how national chains behave when they're trying to break into a new market. Back before Starbucks was everywhere, their strategy in a new town was to build right next to the local coffee shop (and hopefully drive them out of business). People are already in the habit of going to that location for coffee; it's easier to steal someone else's customer base than try to create your own.

But still I have to upvote for a good illustration of a few game theory concepts, even if their premise that it explains business clustering is off.

That statement is really a reflection of your own cognitive dissonance.

Chomsky doesn't pontificate about right/wrong or problems.

He's describing the applied game theory present in society.

If you think that's 'bad', then that's your own personal judgment of the matter.

Like 'the prince', his message is a conveyance of the relationship between intelligent actors manipulating perceptions, and intelligent actors acting on perceptions.


Imagine a fish seller, with too many fish. The fish will go bad soon if he does not sell them quickly.
Should he :

A) Ask people to buy more fish, before they go bad, please.

B) Go speak with the distributor that's buying fish from the fisherman and get him to spread the rumor that there is an incoming fish shortage.

(A) may be honest, but (B) will sell faster and for higher prices.

The idea is not to get what you want the most direct way - the idea is to get what you want the most efficient way.
You can be direct about getting what you want, or you can give people information that makes them come to a conclusion for themselves that makes them do what you want.
More abstractly : If it takes less energy to 'persuade' than to 'do for yourself', then use information to 'get people to do for you'. Let others spend their time and resources for you, and save your own.


Politically, this means ruling not by telling citizens what you want, but ruling by nurturing an environment where the media provides information that makes citizens ask for what you want of their own volition.
Then you aren't telling citizens what to do, you're merely obliging their wishes. You not only avoid appearing overbearing (which is not sustainable on account of eventual public disdain) - you actually appear obliging (which is perpetually sustainable).


If you want examples in an a-political environment (if in fact the political backdrop is foiling your ability to take the message in an impartial manner), you should look at Boyd's OODA loop and the Conceptual Spiral.

Analysis, synthesis, etc, etc, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_fjaqAiOmc&index=8&list=PLDB0DF43AA0B67552
http://www.iohai.com/iohai-resources/destruction-and-creation.html

Related matters :

Game theory (life/politics/economics is a game)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Lo2fgxWHw
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lro-unCodo

Persuasion (use tools [real or perceived] to apply influence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw

*keep in mind that "from the responder's perspective" there is no difference between you doing X, or the responder thinking you did X - because in both cases the responder is acting on his personal perception of what happened (be it real or not).

-scheherazade

Thanks mate, very nice comment of you.

Always like to hear different viewpoints, makes me consider ideas I hadn't and also bulk up my own point of view, so all good

I suppose they're all specific specialities of the broader business field, I would also add accounting but they are very broadly interrelated. For example in bank lending decisions, discounted cash flow estimations (finance) which are reliant on income statement and balance sheet information are just as important as IS/BS audit expertise (accounting) which assesses the credibility of their reporting. This is especially true for smaller, privately owned entities (who obviously can't rely on public equity, so are generally bank reliant). Large publicly listed companies have much more stringent auditing requirements already, and public disclosure means that they are highly open to scrutiny.

Economics beyond 101 basics is generally is more of an academic niche. The macroeconomic side looking at large scale GDP, inflation, employment etc., is relied upon in government, treasuries and policy think tanks. Large listed companies would certainly have a dedicated in-house team for consultations. Medium sized companies might contract dedicated industry research consultant firms, but outside of that their use is quite limited.

The microeconomic side is industry specific looking at competitive behaviour inter-firm, with suppliers and customers. It's generally a more wishy washy field which introduces some amateur psychology via behavioural economics and game theory. It's more of an academic field really. I can imagine large multinationals with few competitors employing them or hiring consultants. We have a near duopoly here in supermarkets and I can see them using microeconomic theory in pricing decisions for example.

I guess I should clarify; I think that the pace of our advances is being bottlenecked by our current system because we (as nations) continue to exploit via a relentless focus on profit rather than try to actually spread knowledge and tech as best we can.

A free education system for the world would be incredibly easy to achieve with our current technology, but as nations we don't even try to aim for such a thing. As universities and other education institutions (publishing companies, etc), we have no incentive to truly aim for this in the current paradigm because it reverses profit growth (which, honestly, in the case of education, is pretty much all over-inflated anyway). There's no malicious intent, no conspiracy, and noble goals abound, but we're doing it at a snail's pace out of selfishness.

Individual people act much more nobly than large, well-established institutions. You see a rather strong trend of such large groups behaving closer to the "rational" approach from economic game theory, i.e. the one where self-preservation and gain are maximized first and foremost. If we just rely on our institutions to fix the problems at their root or think that the incidental improvements tied to increased tech and knowledge are being nurtured even half as well as they could be, I think we'd be gravely mistaken.

I think we both ultimately hope for the same outcome, but we clearly disagree on the extent to which our current society(/societies) effectively move towards those outcomes. I would personally like to see us double down on those things that help move us forward.

EDIT: Some examples of ways we're bullshitting ourselves and not doing half as much as we could, for your pleasure.

Princeton University's motto is "In the service of the nation and of all nations" (probably slightly off on the phrasing, sorry), and they have BILLIONS of dollars of endowment. If they and their alumni network took this motto seriously, with their knowledge of business, tech, and science, they could easily bring entire nations out of poverty by simply helping local people adapt tech in sustainable ways to provide food for their population more easily, institute strong education access, and more. Harvard, Oxford, all the other big names are in similar situations. They can do SO MUCH, but just do little projects while answering to their boards about making sure to keep the cash flow positive, keep the endowment growing, keep using alumni donations to pay for things where possible. It's bullshit.

Most large organized religions are also lazy about service. There are many who do seriously just aim at food and medical aid, but most are more interested in conversions and extra tithes than eliminating poverty. How many Christian missionaries of various sects are there around the world? Of them, how many devote their missions to actual service of everyone they can to show their religion through their works as opposed to just focusing on bringing people into the fold via preaching? Additionally, the old "teach a man to fish" concept comes into play here; giving food is good, but we need to be helping people help themselves as well so that they can thrive.

I know shit is very complicated and the answers aren't easy, but we can EASILY do better than this.

@enoch, if I sound evangelical, it's because I have an allergic reaction to misinformation and a deep aversion to disinformation...

Here are my comments, interspersed:

> and how come all your examples are the european countries that got fucked
> in the ass by corrupt currency and derivative speculators?"

By corrupt currency, do you mean the Euro? These are a big percentage of the so-called "1st world countries."

> are you working for goldman sachs?
> whats the deal man?

Are these borderline ad hominem, or did I miss something...

> denmark? finland?

Is that it, do you want to limit the evidence to the scandinavian countries? Fine, list for me the countries you want me to address and compare to the US or more free market economies and we will proceed from there.

> but its apparent you dont know shit about socialism.
> socialism-communism=not the same.

Personal attacks aside, communism is a type of socialism in the Marxist sense. But to clarify, please define 'socialism' as you think it should be defined, if something other than public control over the means of production.

> and no free market carny barker never seems to want to talk about.

Are you getting upset about something, or are you not calling me a "free market carny barker"?

> 1.how do you fix the currency issue with its pyramid scheme?

What is the currency issue? The central bank's monopoly in currency? You get rid of legal tender laws and let people decide what currency they want to use and accept.

> 2.how do create a level playing field for the wage slave? or debt slave?

You have to be more specific as to what "level playing field means in practice" so that I can answer this.

> 3.or can you outright buy people?

Do you mean slaves? No, that goes against free-market non-aggression and self-ownership principles.

> 4.since nothing is communal and there is no regulation.is there anything that
> cannot be commodified?

Again, please be more specific about what you mean by "commodified." Do you mean are you free to buy and sell anything as long as you don't violate self and property rights? Not clear what you mean here but I'm sure with some clarification I can address it.

> look man.i get it.lots of good things can happen with a free market. but so can
> a lot of bad. eyes open my man.

Sure, but please tell me, what specifically bad can happen in a free market that cannot happen as bad or worse in a non-free market?

> reminds me of the scientist who came up with game theory.
> from the rand institute i think. the whole cold war was set up on this dudes
> principles of self-interest. did a bunch of testing on dudes and the data
> seemed conclusive...until he did the same experiment with secretaries. turns
> but they were unwilling to dick each other over and were more prone to co-
> operate with each other.

How is this relevant? People like to cooperate. That's the basis for the voluntary free market and why it works.

> well how about them apples.co-operation as a way on interacting. ya dont
> say? very interesting.

I agree. Voluntary interaction equals cooperation. That is the free market. Coercion is the non-free market. Is there disagreement here, because I don't see it.

> i know we both agree that what we have now is a clusterfuck.
> and i agree that the free market should have a place,that its even vital. but
> unrestricted free markets? naw..no thanks.

I still don't know the specifics of how exactly you want to "restrict it" and how specifically you want to restrict it. You must forgive me if I don't think you are as competent to restrict me and my life and my business and I myself am. The same with your life and business, I am not qualified to restrict it.
Who is then? Specifically, "who" do you want to restrict you, and your freedom to engage in free trade?

@Trancecoach
you are starting to sound damn near evangelical about this free market lovefest you are having.
and this:
"Socialism promotes equality: "it's only virtue is equal misery for all" (with the exception of the rulers, of course)"

thats a beaut.

and how come all your examples are the european countries that got fucked in the ass by corrupt currency and derivative speculators? are you working for goldman sachs?
whats the deal man?

how about throwing out some countries are doing pretty damn ok?
denmark?finland?

ill give ya props for knowing capitalism and all the positive bennies that can go with it but its apparent you dont know shit about socialism.
socialism-communism=not the same.

so while we are at it lets discuss some things that are from the dark side of capitalism and no free market carny barker never seems to want to talk about.

1.how do you fix the currency issue with its pyramid scheme?
2.how do create a level playing field for the wage slave? or debt slave?
3.or can you outright buy people?
4.since nothing is communal and there is no regulation.is there anything that cannot be commodified?

look man.i get it.lots of good things can happen with a free market.
but so can a lot of bad.
eyes open my man.

reminds me of the scientist who came up with game theory.
from the rand institute i think.
the whole cold war was set up on this dudes principles of self-interest.
did a bunch of testing on dudes and the data seemed conclusive...
until he did the same experiment with secretaries.
turns out they were unwilling to dick each other over and were more prone to co-operate with each other.

well how about them apples.co-operation as a way on interacting.
ya dont say?
very interesting.

the scientist later recanted and dismissed his own study(years later though).

i know we both agree that what we have now is a clusterfuck.
and i agree that the free market should have a place,that its even vital.
but unrestricted free markets?
naw..no thanks.

>> ^wagthedog1:

Game Theory explanation of Voter Paradox - only in a tie does your vote matter. So why vote?


Voter Paradox essentially explains that you get one vote.. and not one million votes.. so, i think its only a paradox if u dum

Game Theory explanation of Voter Paradox - only in a tie does your vote matter. So why vote?