Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

feedback focusing on the things that got me confused. the idea makes a lot of sense, and I think will be very beneficial. I think many people do have this understanding of a healthy vs sick egregore; but they've put it together each from a different eclectic group of sources, which often makes communication and research very difficult. your proposal, if I understand correctly, will make it feasible to actually do collective research, communicate it, and make progress in this field. 

  • I'm a little unclear on why "Write the founding translation documents — "connecting current psychological schools and treatments to the new paradigm, showing how CBT, psychoanalysis, behavioral, humanistic, and systems approaches each capture part of the picture and how the framework unifies them" is so important. Your list of "What's in place" feels much  more like what needs to be connected. (I'd add aspects of sociology, anthropology,  political science/philosophy and educational design as being part of that list too.)
  • I'm also unsure why your practitioner looks the way they do. They sound awesome and hyper-virtuous, but I don't see why that's the bar. Isn't it enough to understand the mechanisms of how societies are healthy and sick and know how to pull the lever? I'm not sure this is more like a psychologist than a wise legislator. If anything the skills involved will probably need to be much more intellectually rigorous. The researchers might need some of these virtues (plus super-duper-communication + formalization skills) in order to create the curriculum from which practitioners emerge. Kind of how you need to be a certain kind of mind to discover electricity, and a different kind to be an electrical engineer.
  • Back to the first point, I'm unsure why psychology is your main analogy. It seems to me it is because your next steps have quite a lot to do with psychology as a field needing to be upgraded to health of societies. My guess is that politicians, priests, and other people in power over organizations are actually the target audience. I would want to teach them what is going on, as they already have some levers in their hand. Individual psychs typically don't as far as I know. Even Rogerian T-groups and the like aren't really a society to be healed. 



I"m gonna answer them preliminarily and maybe add more detail later!

1 -To be fair the translation documents are more of a diplomatic step that repeatedly shows up, people want things translated into their language so they can understand and endorse it a lot of times, so this is more focused into the academic integration, but honestly depending on how things progress it gains less and less importance! >Personally< I wouldn't do it (which is why its included as to do, not done, but if necessity arrived haha)

2 - I agree with you for the most part, I think the main virtues are understanding and the capacity to bear responsibility for the consequences, the only issue is that I haven't found any other as reliable way to predict virtuous behavior other then this set of characteristics, and the responsibility that some of these decisions entail are bigger than that, some systems really cannot fail. Maybe it's not feasible to say every practitioner would be like that, but I think at least the bar should be there; I'm also not claiming I fill in all those requirement yet, but Its how the weight of responsibility feels for me. I also miss higher bars, in an environment where it gets increasingly lower in some places

3 - That is a logical question to me really, psychology is just the name of the science of the mind and human behavior; part of the reason this pitch sounds almost like a manifesto is because I feel what is perceived as psychology has lost its meaning (if it ever got a stable one). I've wanted to do something about the world, and if the problem is coordination than behavior is what must be changed, so the meaning comes before the name to me. It also feels like the right egregore to fill and integrate, most sciences are much older and with much more established paradigms, humanities and specially psychology are fields in need of much more maturing to catch up. Ideally we would reach religious and political leaders to bring awareness and problem solving, but I think the ethical and long-term way to do it is p2p propagation in this case, the heart of open memetics: simply because having a guy in a closed room telling our leaders whats right wouldn't change much about the current situation, and so everyone has a shot at participating. That being said, psychology indeed may be a personal bias and I'm open to other candidates, Im not sure where to position psychology then tho. Or if we should integrate this into another more fitting  field

I really like the idea of using this framework as a means to present something cohesive to people who are already in positions of influence. It seems useful to be able to go to religious leaders, trend setters, politicians, youtubers, you name it, and say "Here's how we think culture works, and what your role in it has been. Furthermore, here's how we think you can help heal society." This also opens the opportunity to publicly recognize influential people who are actually operating in bad faith, or under negative influence.

This was nearly almost the initial idea I had, how can I person change the world? Certain people do that all the time, so how to reach them? I'll include it more explicitly in the pitch, thanks!