(highlight:: The Tradeoff Between Societal Coordination/Unity and Flexibility of Governance
Summary:
Societal resilience and adaptability are lacking on a national and state level, particularly highlighted during the pandemic.
Authoritarian governments can respond quickly due to forced unity, but this may disintegrate people's agency. Grassroots initiatives are essential, and the government should act as a safety net supporting these initiatives.
There is concern about citizens becoming passive consumers rather than active participants in democracy.
The challenge lies in animating people's agency and empowering them to determine their lives and neighborhoods.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
To me, the whole problem is like we're just so irresilient, we're just so not adaptable as a society level scales, you know, national scale, state scale, like, I, this whole pandemic For me is just highlighted what I already knew, which is like we're not very flexible and resilient. Our governance system is just isn't, and we can adapt very quickly to things. Maybe that's where an authoritarian government can, you know, because of the forced unity can respond. It's like, okay, or in the case of New Zealand, it sounds like very skillful, like kind of harnessing of national unity to respond. It's not sort of forced per se.
Speaker 1
For the moment, I think it's the right response, but I'm really concerned about the long term impact of it, not because New Zealand is going to turn into some corrupt, like dictatorship. That's not really a legitimate threat. But the problem with good leadership is that it's very easy for that to disintegrate people's agency, you know, because it's interesting. You know, I've got friends that work in, that do a lot of grassroots community projects in New Zealand, and they feel a bit like, huh, the official centralized government response is Kind of whatever we're uncovered, and in the sense, they wait, where's our space, they what are we doing? There's kind of no room, and that doesn't, yeah, that makes me uncomfortable. I'd much rather have a society in which a lot of the energy is coming from these grassroots initiatives, and the government is sort of a safety net in the background that fills in with This gap, but mostly it's trying to let the neighborhoods just look after each other in their own creative ways of their own set of values. Now, I am concerned about, yeah, how citizens can become consumers, you know, rather than co-constructors of a democracy, but they just kind of like passively sitting back and that, Yeah, the Red Team's doing it for now, they're pretty good, and if we don't like them later on, we'll get the Blue Team, and they might push us off in the right direction. I think it's a pretty major, there's still maybe there's still a big part of my political position, is like, finding ways of animating people's agency and giving them a sense that they Get to determine what their life is and what their neighborhoods look like. It's pretty important to me, and it's kind of a puzzle, I don't really know how to do it.)
- Time 0:35:34
- governance, societal_resilience, societal_unity, participatory_democracy, local_activism, local_leadership, co-creation, 1socialpost-queue,

(highlight:: Don't Give Others Power, Give Others Courage
Summary:
Replace the word 'empower' with 'encourage' to emphasize giving someone the courage to act and believe in themselves.
It's about acknowledging someone's efforts and affirming their abilities to make a positive impact in the world.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Like, I just don't use that word empower. I use encourage because, encourage for me is about giving someone the courage, you know, like, you can do that. I can say what you're doing is awesome. And I think you should do more of it in the world needs it.)
- Time 0:39:40
- leadership, management, ownership, courage, power, power_sharing, empowerment, 1socialpost-queue,

(highlight:: Objections to Game B Philosophy: Sovereignty is a Relation Quality, Not an Individual One
Summary:
Sovereignty is not solely about individual development, but also about relational processes.
Its cultivation involves observing and learning from others who possess sovereignty, whether through personal encounters or exposure to their work. The focus should be on developing relational practices and excellence to maximize mutual benefit in every interaction.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
One of the points of departure I have with the way that the game be folks frame, you know, like the whole way of this sort of got some key pillars that they bring in the first one is about sovereignty. And it's very much about the individual and about cultivating your, your rudder and your keel, you know, your, your, your agency, your ability to like, recognize when you're being Pushed up center and then get yourself back in alignment. And yeah. And that's, that's all about this, this personal development, which is addressing an individual. And I just don't believe that as an individual process, I think it's always a relational process. I think the way that you cultivate your sovereignty is you see someone who's sovereign that you respect. And then, and, and they give you their attention and you enter into a relationship where you get to pick up a little bit of what they've got. I think that's always the way it works, whether it's like an actual face to face personal encounter or it's even just reading their book or seeing something that they did online. Always think it's happening through this practice of relationality. And so, yes, that's why my focus is all about like, how do we develop these relational practices? How do we, how do we cultivate relational excellence? So that, how, yeah, we can, we can give and receive the most from each other through every encounter, you know, that, that to me is a, is a core driving question.)
- Time 0:41:37
- game_b, relationships, sovereignty,

(highlight:: Consensus vs. Consent-Based Decision Making
Summary:
Consensus decision-making aims to achieve as much agreement as possible, accepting dissent to enhance the proposal until the group is satisfied with the best possible outcome.
This approach is suitable for important decisions where thorough deliberation is crucial. On the other hand, consent-based decision-making focuses on listening for objections and only proceeding when there are no strong objections.
The emphasis is on safety and the willingness to experiment and learn from the outcome, without the pressure of everyone having to be completely in agreement.
It allows for differing mental models and avoids the ideological violence of forcing everyone to have the same viewpoint.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think of consensus as a process where you're trying to get as much agreement as possible. And there are some cases where you that means 100% of people in the group put their thumb up and they say, yes, I love this idea. There are other kind of ways where maybe you can tolerate people standing to one side abstaining. Maybe you're going to your consensus decision is augmented in a way where you can tolerate a little bit of disagreement. But really the goal is you're using the dissent to enhance the quality of the proposal until you have as much agreement as you can get. That's the objective of the process. And at the end, you might not get 100% of people saying, I love this, but you are getting people to say, I'm satisfied that this is the best that we can come up with. And that's the orientation that you're going into it with is that there's a bit of, we're going to convince each other, we're going to really hash this out until we're all convinced that This is the best we can come up with. And it's really useful. It's a really useful tool for really important decisions. Like if you're going to own some land with six people or something, then yeah, you probably want to hash out some really important stuff on those terms. But when it comes to like, yeah, what language should we put on the website for this event, you don't need everyone to have a complete passionate agreement about getting the words exactly Right. You know, and so it helps to have different decision methodology that you can use. And the consent line is a good example. And the way that I distinguish it from consensus is with consent, it's not about maximizing agreement. It's about listing for objection. We don't proceed if there's a strong objection. So, but as soon as we get to the point where no one has a strong objection, then we proceed. So that means, you know, in sociocracy terms, that means that the phrase they use is a good enough for now and is it safe enough to try? And it's this emphasis on safety, meaning yes, you still have that beta, right? Like if you think this is going to do harm, if you think there's like a really serious reason why we shouldn't do this, absolutely it's your responsibility to share that objection and We'll take it seriously. But we're not expecting everyone to be completely in love with this idea before it proceeds. It's not what we hear from. We don't need everyone to share the same mental model about what might be the outcome of if we take this decision. We just need it. We just need to hear like, do you think it's going to do harm? If not, then let's just try it out. And let's try it out and see what we learn. And I think it's an orientation more towards learning and experimentation rather than this fantasy that we can have a decision process where we come up with a perfect answer and then We don't have to think about it again.
Speaker 2
Yeah, well, in a way, I mean, in a way, you already revealed this in the way you talked about it, but you know, having people having to have to have the same mental model. There's a kind of, yeah, like an ideological violence, there can be of trying to everyone trying to have the same view on the thing.)
- Time 0:45:47
- consensus, consent, decision-making,

(highlight:: Group Governance: Written v.s. Spoken Word
Summary:
Group governance through written word involves constitutional documentation, procedures, and policies for proposing and changing important matters, with everything being documented and referred back to the written agreement when in doubt.
On the other hand, governance through the spoken word focuses on present-moment orientation, coherence of feeling, being heard, acting in good faith, and working together as a whole, tested through dialogue. It suggests that most humans care about feeling part of a healthy, safe group where they are respected and their voice matters, rather than focusing on the details of written proposals or constitutions.
The emphasis is on attending to feelings, relationships, and maintaining a healthy culture, while acknowledging the importance of occasionally documenting agreements.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Like, if you're if you're governed by the written word, then you have some kind of constitutional documentation and you have some kind of procedures and policies and when you need to Change something important, then you raise your proposal through this process and everything's documented. And if in doubt, you refer back to that written agreement. Whereas if you're governed by the spoken word, it's your orientation is more towards the present moment than it is towards some documentation about the past. And what you're aiming for is some coherence of feeling like, do we feel we're being heard? Do we feel like we're all acting in good faith? Do we feel like we're working together as a whole? And you test that through dialogue. But sometimes you can have that agreement. You can have that alignment and how many in a group that and you can disturb it by trying to write it down. This is a real puzzle for people. Like, it's still a puzzle for me and we've been doing it for a decade. Like, I'm very much oriented towards the idea that most humans are basically what they care about is it operates at the feeling layer. They want to they want to feel like part of a healthy, safe group where they're with their respected and their voice matters. And they don't actually need to have the details of the written proposal perfectly. Most people don't actually have that much engagement with the detail of the text that whatever goes into this proposal or this constitution. What they give all their attention to is like, how it feels to be part of that group. And so I'm trying to draw the attention when the governance processes to like, attend to those feelings, attend to those relationships and make sure the culture is healthy where people Can express their feelings and needs. And yeah, sometimes you're going to have to write some stuff down. Like, that's a good idea too.)
- Time 0:49:06
- documentation, group_dynamics, group_governance, knowledge_transfer, cultural_norms,

(highlight:: The Interior v.s. the Exterior In Group Dynamics
Summary:
Group dynamics involve the distinction between the interior feeling of being part of a group and the exterior documents that dictate how to behave in the group.
The interior feeling is subjective and can only be known through personal experience or deep conversation, while the exterior documents are visible and can be read. The mutual understanding of feeling good in a work environment is a result of the interior dynamics, as it cannot be solely derived from the external guidelines.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Yeah, you know, this this reminds me a bit of a distinction that I remember Wilbur would always make about the interiors and the exteriors of things. I don't know if that seems relevant to you here, but it's like one of the things you're describing is like the interior feeling of what it's like to be part of this group. You know, and the other is like an exterior document that you can go and look and see what is written about what you know, what we're supposed to how we're supposed to be being with each Other. And you know, those are very different things because you can't one of them you can see and you can find and you can look out with your eyes and the other you can only know if you feel it yourself Or you or if you have a sufficiently good conversation with someone and you get a sense for what they feel. And it's like, oh, okay, there's an a mutual understanding here that like we both feel good being in this work environment together and we like working here.)
- Time 0:50:59
- belonging, collaboration, group_dynamics,

(highlight:: The Complexity/Multidimensionality of Group Communication
Summary:
Group communication involves a complexity that goes beyond what can be captured in writing, as it includes diverse perspectives, memories, and interpretations of the interactions.
This multidimensionality adds nuance and texture to the exchange, which cannot be fully documented. The shared understanding in a room is not just about the content of the conversation, but also about the interpersonal dynamics and individual perceptions, making it difficult to accurately capture in written form.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Yeah, I often think about it in terms of complexity, just that like, when you're in a group of people that are all speaking with each other, you can you can construct a kind of shared understanding In the room that is much more complex than you can write down. Because everyone has a different memory of what happened and what was said and what were the important parts. And obviously, that can be a big problem. If you're trying to refer back to it later, anyone's got a different picture of what was agreed that is a problem and that's the big joint about down. But the nuance and texture of the exchange has got just so much more density than you never get into a document because it's like, you're not just tracking, oh, Vincent said this thing About the budget, but you're also tracking Vincent always seems like he's out to get me and I need to second guess everything he's saying. And you've got this extra dimensionality that you're carrying in that dialogue space that you just can't get that into person.)
- Time 0:52:24
- communication, decision-making, collective_understanding, verbal v.s. written communication,

(highlight:: Information Dynamics in Oral v.s. Written Cultures
Summary:
Written cultures store information statically in books for long-term reference, while oral cultures rely on fluid, momentary transmission of information.
Oral cultures are rooted in the fallibility of memory and the web of relationships, with a longer evolutionary history. However, the arrival of literacy has diminished oral skills, as the idea of preserving knowledge in written form has altered the perception of knowledge as fluid and living.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
There's a really great book by Walter J. Hong called On Arelity and Literacy, where he documents basically, this is not my area of specialty, but just having read that book, he documents the difference between oral cultures And written cultures. And obviously, one of the big things about a written culture is that the information is static. It lives in a book and you can refer back to it 100 years later. Whereas in an oral culture, it's always fluid. It's always only alive for the moment while you're speaking it. And then your memories and all of our memories are fallible and we're held in this web of relationship. And we've obviously got a lot more evolutionary history in the oral way of doing things. But in recent history, we've forgotten that. And in the book, he also documents how the arrival of literacy obliterates our oral skills. It's not like you have these two different modes that you can switch between them. It's like, once you've seen writing, once you've got this idea that you can put knowledge down on paper and it still lives, then you lose your sensibilities of what it was like when knowledge Was more fluid.)
- Time 0:53:42
- information_flow, knowledge_transfer, intergenerational_learning, knowledge_half-life, knowledge_persistence, communication_norms, culture,

(highlight:: The Tradeoff Between Societal Coordination/Unity and Flexibility of Governance
Summary:
Societal resilience and adaptability are lacking on a national and state level, particularly highlighted during the pandemic.
Authoritarian governments can respond quickly due to forced unity, but this may disintegrate people's agency. Grassroots initiatives are essential, and the government should act as a safety net supporting these initiatives.
There is concern about citizens becoming passive consumers rather than active participants in democracy.
The challenge lies in animating people's agency and empowering them to determine their lives and neighborhoods.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
To me, the whole problem is like we're just so irresilient, we're just so not adaptable as a society level scales, you know, national scale, state scale, like, I, this whole pandemic For me is just highlighted what I already knew, which is like we're not very flexible and resilient. Our governance system is just isn't, and we can adapt very quickly to things. Maybe that's where an authoritarian government can, you know, because of the forced unity can respond. It's like, okay, or in the case of New Zealand, it sounds like very skillful, like kind of harnessing of national unity to respond. It's not sort of forced per se.
Speaker 1
For the moment, I think it's the right response, but I'm really concerned about the long term impact of it, not because New Zealand is going to turn into some corrupt, like dictatorship. That's not really a legitimate threat. But the problem with good leadership is that it's very easy for that to disintegrate people's agency, you know, because it's interesting. You know, I've got friends that work in, that do a lot of grassroots community projects in New Zealand, and they feel a bit like, huh, the official centralized government response is Kind of whatever we're uncovered, and in the sense, they wait, where's our space, they what are we doing? There's kind of no room, and that doesn't, yeah, that makes me uncomfortable. I'd much rather have a society in which a lot of the energy is coming from these grassroots initiatives, and the government is sort of a safety net in the background that fills in with This gap, but mostly it's trying to let the neighborhoods just look after each other in their own creative ways of their own set of values. Now, I am concerned about, yeah, how citizens can become consumers, you know, rather than co-constructors of a democracy, but they just kind of like passively sitting back and that, Yeah, the Red Team's doing it for now, they're pretty good, and if we don't like them later on, we'll get the Blue Team, and they might push us off in the right direction. I think it's a pretty major, there's still maybe there's still a big part of my political position, is like, finding ways of animating people's agency and giving them a sense that they Get to determine what their life is and what their neighborhoods look like. It's pretty important to me, and it's kind of a puzzle, I don't really know how to do it.)
- Time 0:35:34
- governance, societal_resilience, societal_unity, participatory_democracy, local_activism, local_leadership, co-creation, 1socialpost-queue,

(highlight:: Don't Give Others Power, Give Others Courage
Summary:
Replace the word 'empower' with 'encourage' to emphasize giving someone the courage to act and believe in themselves.
It's about acknowledging someone's efforts and affirming their abilities to make a positive impact in the world.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Like, I just don't use that word empower. I use encourage because, encourage for me is about giving someone the courage, you know, like, you can do that. I can say what you're doing is awesome. And I think you should do more of it in the world needs it.)
- Time 0:39:40
- leadership, management, ownership, courage, power, power_sharing, empowerment, 1socialpost-queue,

(highlight:: Objections to Game B Philosophy: Sovereignty is a Relation Quality, Not an Individual One
Summary:
Sovereignty is not solely about individual development, but also about relational processes.
Its cultivation involves observing and learning from others who possess sovereignty, whether through personal encounters or exposure to their work. The focus should be on developing relational practices and excellence to maximize mutual benefit in every interaction.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
One of the points of departure I have with the way that the game be folks frame, you know, like the whole way of this sort of got some key pillars that they bring in the first one is about sovereignty. And it's very much about the individual and about cultivating your, your rudder and your keel, you know, your, your, your agency, your ability to like, recognize when you're being Pushed up center and then get yourself back in alignment. And yeah. And that's, that's all about this, this personal development, which is addressing an individual. And I just don't believe that as an individual process, I think it's always a relational process. I think the way that you cultivate your sovereignty is you see someone who's sovereign that you respect. And then, and, and they give you their attention and you enter into a relationship where you get to pick up a little bit of what they've got. I think that's always the way it works, whether it's like an actual face to face personal encounter or it's even just reading their book or seeing something that they did online. Always think it's happening through this practice of relationality. And so, yes, that's why my focus is all about like, how do we develop these relational practices? How do we, how do we cultivate relational excellence? So that, how, yeah, we can, we can give and receive the most from each other through every encounter, you know, that, that to me is a, is a core driving question.)
- Time 0:41:37
- game_b, relationships, sovereignty,

(highlight:: Consensus vs. Consent-Based Decision Making
Summary:
Consensus decision-making aims to achieve as much agreement as possible, accepting dissent to enhance the proposal until the group is satisfied with the best possible outcome.
This approach is suitable for important decisions where thorough deliberation is crucial. On the other hand, consent-based decision-making focuses on listening for objections and only proceeding when there are no strong objections.
The emphasis is on safety and the willingness to experiment and learn from the outcome, without the pressure of everyone having to be completely in agreement.
It allows for differing mental models and avoids the ideological violence of forcing everyone to have the same viewpoint.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think of consensus as a process where you're trying to get as much agreement as possible. And there are some cases where you that means 100% of people in the group put their thumb up and they say, yes, I love this idea. There are other kind of ways where maybe you can tolerate people standing to one side abstaining. Maybe you're going to your consensus decision is augmented in a way where you can tolerate a little bit of disagreement. But really the goal is you're using the dissent to enhance the quality of the proposal until you have as much agreement as you can get. That's the objective of the process. And at the end, you might not get 100% of people saying, I love this, but you are getting people to say, I'm satisfied that this is the best that we can come up with. And that's the orientation that you're going into it with is that there's a bit of, we're going to convince each other, we're going to really hash this out until we're all convinced that This is the best we can come up with. And it's really useful. It's a really useful tool for really important decisions. Like if you're going to own some land with six people or something, then yeah, you probably want to hash out some really important stuff on those terms. But when it comes to like, yeah, what language should we put on the website for this event, you don't need everyone to have a complete passionate agreement about getting the words exactly Right. You know, and so it helps to have different decision methodology that you can use. And the consent line is a good example. And the way that I distinguish it from consensus is with consent, it's not about maximizing agreement. It's about listing for objection. We don't proceed if there's a strong objection. So, but as soon as we get to the point where no one has a strong objection, then we proceed. So that means, you know, in sociocracy terms, that means that the phrase they use is a good enough for now and is it safe enough to try? And it's this emphasis on safety, meaning yes, you still have that beta, right? Like if you think this is going to do harm, if you think there's like a really serious reason why we shouldn't do this, absolutely it's your responsibility to share that objection and We'll take it seriously. But we're not expecting everyone to be completely in love with this idea before it proceeds. It's not what we hear from. We don't need everyone to share the same mental model about what might be the outcome of if we take this decision. We just need it. We just need to hear like, do you think it's going to do harm? If not, then let's just try it out. And let's try it out and see what we learn. And I think it's an orientation more towards learning and experimentation rather than this fantasy that we can have a decision process where we come up with a perfect answer and then We don't have to think about it again.
Speaker 2
Yeah, well, in a way, I mean, in a way, you already revealed this in the way you talked about it, but you know, having people having to have to have the same mental model. There's a kind of, yeah, like an ideological violence, there can be of trying to everyone trying to have the same view on the thing.)
- Time 0:45:47
- consensus, consent, decision-making,

(highlight:: Group Governance: Written v.s. Spoken Word
Summary:
Group governance through written word involves constitutional documentation, procedures, and policies for proposing and changing important matters, with everything being documented and referred back to the written agreement when in doubt.
On the other hand, governance through the spoken word focuses on present-moment orientation, coherence of feeling, being heard, acting in good faith, and working together as a whole, tested through dialogue. It suggests that most humans care about feeling part of a healthy, safe group where they are respected and their voice matters, rather than focusing on the details of written proposals or constitutions.
The emphasis is on attending to feelings, relationships, and maintaining a healthy culture, while acknowledging the importance of occasionally documenting agreements.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Like, if you're if you're governed by the written word, then you have some kind of constitutional documentation and you have some kind of procedures and policies and when you need to Change something important, then you raise your proposal through this process and everything's documented. And if in doubt, you refer back to that written agreement. Whereas if you're governed by the spoken word, it's your orientation is more towards the present moment than it is towards some documentation about the past. And what you're aiming for is some coherence of feeling like, do we feel we're being heard? Do we feel like we're all acting in good faith? Do we feel like we're working together as a whole? And you test that through dialogue. But sometimes you can have that agreement. You can have that alignment and how many in a group that and you can disturb it by trying to write it down. This is a real puzzle for people. Like, it's still a puzzle for me and we've been doing it for a decade. Like, I'm very much oriented towards the idea that most humans are basically what they care about is it operates at the feeling layer. They want to they want to feel like part of a healthy, safe group where they're with their respected and their voice matters. And they don't actually need to have the details of the written proposal perfectly. Most people don't actually have that much engagement with the detail of the text that whatever goes into this proposal or this constitution. What they give all their attention to is like, how it feels to be part of that group. And so I'm trying to draw the attention when the governance processes to like, attend to those feelings, attend to those relationships and make sure the culture is healthy where people Can express their feelings and needs. And yeah, sometimes you're going to have to write some stuff down. Like, that's a good idea too.)
- Time 0:49:06
- documentation, group_dynamics, group_governance, knowledge_transfer, cultural_norms,

(highlight:: The Interior v.s. the Exterior In Group Dynamics
Summary:
Group dynamics involve the distinction between the interior feeling of being part of a group and the exterior documents that dictate how to behave in the group.
The interior feeling is subjective and can only be known through personal experience or deep conversation, while the exterior documents are visible and can be read. The mutual understanding of feeling good in a work environment is a result of the interior dynamics, as it cannot be solely derived from the external guidelines.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
Yeah, you know, this this reminds me a bit of a distinction that I remember Wilbur would always make about the interiors and the exteriors of things. I don't know if that seems relevant to you here, but it's like one of the things you're describing is like the interior feeling of what it's like to be part of this group. You know, and the other is like an exterior document that you can go and look and see what is written about what you know, what we're supposed to how we're supposed to be being with each Other. And you know, those are very different things because you can't one of them you can see and you can find and you can look out with your eyes and the other you can only know if you feel it yourself Or you or if you have a sufficiently good conversation with someone and you get a sense for what they feel. And it's like, oh, okay, there's an a mutual understanding here that like we both feel good being in this work environment together and we like working here.)
- Time 0:50:59
- belonging, collaboration, group_dynamics,

(highlight:: The Complexity/Multidimensionality of Group Communication
Summary:
Group communication involves a complexity that goes beyond what can be captured in writing, as it includes diverse perspectives, memories, and interpretations of the interactions.
This multidimensionality adds nuance and texture to the exchange, which cannot be fully documented. The shared understanding in a room is not just about the content of the conversation, but also about the interpersonal dynamics and individual perceptions, making it difficult to accurately capture in written form.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Yeah, I often think about it in terms of complexity, just that like, when you're in a group of people that are all speaking with each other, you can you can construct a kind of shared understanding In the room that is much more complex than you can write down. Because everyone has a different memory of what happened and what was said and what were the important parts. And obviously, that can be a big problem. If you're trying to refer back to it later, anyone's got a different picture of what was agreed that is a problem and that's the big joint about down. But the nuance and texture of the exchange has got just so much more density than you never get into a document because it's like, you're not just tracking, oh, Vincent said this thing About the budget, but you're also tracking Vincent always seems like he's out to get me and I need to second guess everything he's saying. And you've got this extra dimensionality that you're carrying in that dialogue space that you just can't get that into person.)
- Time 0:52:24
- communication, decision-making, collective_understanding, verbal v.s. written communication,

(highlight:: Information Dynamics in Oral v.s. Written Cultures
Summary:
Written cultures store information statically in books for long-term reference, while oral cultures rely on fluid, momentary transmission of information.
Oral cultures are rooted in the fallibility of memory and the web of relationships, with a longer evolutionary history. However, the arrival of literacy has diminished oral skills, as the idea of preserving knowledge in written form has altered the perception of knowledge as fluid and living.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
There's a really great book by Walter J. Hong called On Arelity and Literacy, where he documents basically, this is not my area of specialty, but just having read that book, he documents the difference between oral cultures And written cultures. And obviously, one of the big things about a written culture is that the information is static. It lives in a book and you can refer back to it 100 years later. Whereas in an oral culture, it's always fluid. It's always only alive for the moment while you're speaking it. And then your memories and all of our memories are fallible and we're held in this web of relationship. And we've obviously got a lot more evolutionary history in the oral way of doing things. But in recent history, we've forgotten that. And in the book, he also documents how the arrival of literacy obliterates our oral skills. It's not like you have these two different modes that you can switch between them. It's like, once you've seen writing, once you've got this idea that you can put knowledge down on paper and it still lives, then you lose your sensibilities of what it was like when knowledge Was more fluid.)
- Time 0:53:42
- information_flow, knowledge_transfer, intergenerational_learning, knowledge_half-life, knowledge_persistence, communication_norms, culture,