A practical Strategy for Communicating RBE Concepts by Jen Wilding
Hi. Ok.
By a quick show of hands.
How many people on this room have introduced somebody
to the concept of a resource-based economic model and
as a result you received a response of sincere gratitude from the person?
You were told 'thank you for sharing this with me'.
Ok good.
Well I don't know how many of you have actually shared...
How many of you (up) have shared this with other people?
Ok, so not everyone has received that response.
But hopefully I'm gonna help you out with that.
So now, how many people may have received feedback at all
similar to this note of gratitude I'm gonna read to you?
I just wanna thank you for posting the facebook status:
'WAKE UP YOU IGNORANT SHEEPLES BEFORE WE ALL DIE'
Followed by eleven exclamation points
because if you haven't done that myself, my wife and two children
might not have watched the fourteen youtube links
you posted in the two hours following that and thus
discovered this new resource-based economic paradigm,
information that has been life-changing for us.
I shatter to think that if your status had been typed
into lower case letters instead of all caps,
we might still be in the dark today about solutions that offer
encouraging possibilities to all mankind.
So, I don't think any of you identify with that.
Fortunately! and this is not a real post
but unfortunately it was modeled after some people's real posts.
No one here I'm sure... and I bring this up as an extreme example of
how our strategy for communicating information
has a direct impact on wheter or not someone is open
to considering the information you have to offer.
And I bring this up as an extreme example to illustrate that in particular.
And what's... even though this is nothing new
(that the way you communicate makes a difference)
as a US coordinator one of the most frequent question
I'm asked by people is: How do I communicate this information
in a way that my friends, relatives and coworkers
will be more likely to receive it?
So, I've been invited to offer some advice to, perhaps,
optimize your communication strategy
which I offer to you in six parts.
Part one is Adjusting Your Expectations
When trying to contribute to an evolution
you have to consider a major component that has been prevalent
in our own existing evolution up until now
and that is the component that humans have a history
of exhibiting symptoms of... and that is
'Neofobia'.
Actually not this kind, a different kind
and by that I mean: The fear of new things or experiences
and as a related condition, there is a related condition also called
'The Status Quo Bias' which is very similar to that
and so I'm sure you have experienced with people who
are exhibiting both Neofobia and perhaps the Status Quo Bias
So Neofobia [is] the fear of new things or experiences and
Status Quo Bias [is] a cognitive bias for the status quo,
in other words, people tend no to change an alredy established behaviour
and tend to go with default programming
and traditionally this fear of new things
is someone indigenous to our human limbic system
which is related to our emotion and memory mind
and has been helpful keeping us -in an evolutionary sense-
from an early demise as a result of eating unfamiliar berries
that might be poisonous, yet
as we are discovering
It has been decidedly unhelpful
when needing to update crippled socio-economic systems.
So here are some potentials causes of neofobia
and status quo bias.
risk aversion, regret avoidance, transactional costs
ad psychological commitment or learning curve.
Here is an example of Neofobia as its finest in history
and this is from an article called "Enhancing Humanity"
written by the professor Raymond Tallis, quoted
"In Victorian times, it was anticipated that going
through a dark tunnel in a train at high speed (48 km/h)
would be such a shocking experience that
people would come out the other side irreversibly damaged".
This was an actual fear of travel by rail.
So this is what you are working with
and so when I say adjust your expectations
just know that it's a natural part of humans,
a natural part of evolution even, you know,
to be skpectical of new things 'cause they may not be good for us.
Knowing this challenge, how can we enhance
our communication strategy to be more effective?
and to answer this question we can look to other information
about human behavior for clues.
So I'm going to ask you this...
Can you guess the most addictive human behaviour?
No, it's not cigarette smoking.
It's not eating sweets
(although breathing is a good one I don't think it made the list)
Drinking coffee, no.
[Sex:] It came close
we know showers vote.
Being right!
There was no formal study per se,
it was more an informal survey of a few close friends
but I think the results have merit in this conversation
and I actually dare you to prove me wrong.
So stay with me because this is leading us into part two,
which is...
Part two is Adopt the Quality of "Brilliant"
didn't you know you could do this?
as many of you know this is something that is desirable.
Adopting the quality of brilliant... and so...
let's think of what that's actually comprised of.
Maybe this is something you've heard or perhaps
said about someone, an author or speaker
that you have thought was brilliant:
"This guy (or gal) is saying some of the same things
I've been telling people for years,
He or she puts all together so well; he or she is therefore brilliant!".
Do you see the connection? Right?
So, if you were to go to that in your mind,
You might had even said that about Peter Joseph
as I know many of you are perhaps here as a result of watching his movies.
I hear this said about him all the time,
I have stated this about him at the time
So basically it comes down to this: It really feels good to be right!
and we tend to listen to people who make us right, basically
who validate an aspect of our existing view of the world.
So I'm gonna talk about belief systems, our view of the world
belief systems as a worldview. This is sort of a map
and note the map is not the terrirory, famously.
Since we are born we begin developing our worldview,
how the world works, what our relationship to the world is
and in order for us to first learn something new,
we need to have some orientation of the new idea
to our current worldview, our reference.
A wise friend once told me that he'd heard
that the ultimate sign of intelligence in a person was
having the abbility to honestly try on another's person worldview
a different opposing view temporarily
without any fear or obligation to take it on as his own.
So just trying it on and seeing how that person thinks.
So I want you to imagine how the effort of trying on
the worldview of others can contribute to your communication.
So, how can you adopt this quality of brilliant?
Well you can set out to make someone 'right' instead of make them 'wrong'
and try to start out with agreement...
and you do this by finding and ackowleding shared values
within their existing worldview.
And why does this work?
Because it gives us those good feelings,
it gives that person a sense of:
'well this person does have some
good points on this particular aspect'.
Some keys to natural brillance are that you really need
to be a good listener in a conversation with someone,
so that you can learn what their worldview is,
find out what's important to them.
And you wanna find areas of authentic agreement
and then contribute authentic agreement to the conversation
and basically it means that authenticity is important
because I know when someone is being fake with me
just as much as I'm sure you do.
If someone is just trying to be manipulative
and there's not need to in this case.
We are talking about things that people have shared values in regard to.
There is common ground to be found so all you have to do is
find where the authentic common ground is.
So I wanna review some shared values that
you are gonna find in our resource-based economic model
what we are advocating, what we desire and also
if you'd listen to a lot of other people and what they are looking for
is basically the same thing in one form or another
and if not all of these things, some of these things. So...
Human equality, efficiency or sustainability,
scientific proof or evidence, health and well being
and freedom for personal contribution.
And let's see (just as a reminder or refresher)
let's quickly review the characteristics of a resource-based economic model,
which are: no money or market system,
automation of labor, technological unification of Earth
via "systems approach", access over property
(so basically having access to resources vs having to own them),
self contained or localized city and production systems,
and science as the methodology for governance.
So that's basically, you know, what you would be leading into in a communication
after you start with an agreement from a shared value.
And we are gonna move to part 3 and them I'm gonna sort of
give some examples of how all this fits into a conversation.
Comparing a Resource Based Economy concept
to an existing or familiar concept.
And this is challenging because it is hard to find
where in our current system there are things to tap into
that people can relate to.
So I'll give you a few examples,
the reason that the fish or sea animals don't eat each other
at the New England Aquarium.
and this aquarium is a four-story coral reef exhibit
that includes over 6,000 sea animals
and I was there visiting a little over a year ago
and a child asked this question of the aquarium stuff:
Why don't the fish and sea animals that would normally
be eaten each other in the ocean do this in the tank?
and how do you maintain your stock for this (or the fish)?
The answer was that the reason is they have modified their behaviour
is because the acquarium stuff is diligent to ensure that
all of the species are well fed with food that they are satisfied with
and since they are already taking care of in this way
there's no need for them to feed on each other,
they can now swim side by side without a problem.
So, do you think fish are smarter than humans would be in a similar scenario?
Just something to think about.
That was the human nature argument.
Or this one: I personally find more freedom in not owning
my own shopping cart that I would trying to lug it
to the store with every trip.
You know we can start to realize that we already accept
sharting property as a freedom in certain present day contexts.
So that makes it easier to consider that an idea
could be expanded upon within a proved outcome.
So then you might think: well, are there other ways
in which this might be useful?
That we would be sharing resources where we need them
and not needing to own them.
You know, there is actually more freedom in that concept
and we embrace it, I don't know anybody that would say
No I have to have my own shopping cart, this is ridiculous.
You know, so, food for thought.
Also children offer a great example of how humans
might behave when they aren't required to have jobs.
Notice they don't usually have much paperwork represented in their play
and there is probably not call to the insurance company
that check coverage details.
We can learn so much from little people.
But they do play to be helpful with each other
and it is a sense of work, except that it's work they are enjoying.
You know, they'd love to be doing that for real,
as an adult thing to do.
but it's not something that, you know...
the kids aren't... they are playing.
I don't know how many people's kids just sit around
and watch football all day long,
and then they never leave the house at this age.
Although that would be more convenient for some parents.
No, they are pretty active so I think
they offer a good example when people say, you know,
isn't everybody gonna be lazy if there aren't any jobs?
Part four is to make use of the Socratic Method
a.k.a. (otherwise known as) Ask Questions,
and really listen for the answers.
Asking questions encourages critical thinking on the part of both parties,
but in order to really be effective, you need to
actively listen for the answers to questions
and then formulate a new response based on those answers
instead of just waiting for your turn to speak.
So, in order to kind of illustrate this,
I'm gonna give you some examples of communication exchanges
based on real things that had come up of people
who after you sort of introduced the concept of a Resource Based Economy
or maybe they just watched one of Peter's films
they have different kind of reactions to them
so I'll give you some examples.
You know: Won't everyone be just as lazy
in a Resource Based Economy?
You ask yourself: What are the shared values or concerns behind this response?
And this is really what you wanna look for.
Human Equality, it would be unfair for some people to be doing work
or not contributing and just benefiting,
and I think that's kind of the view so
the human equality, and also that place into sustainability
if everybody wouldn't just be lazy in a RBE
you know, what would really get done? what would really happen?
Would that be any place I wanna live?
And of course you here are people that already get this
but this is just trying to tap into how you might
respond to this in a way that is tapping into those shared values.
So you might, again I suggest a response that includes
the shared value acknowledged and start with an agreement
I agree and in order for this new system to sustain itself,
you can't have one group benefiting over another group.
It has to be a fair system where everyone is reaping equal benefits.
And what I actually like about an RBE model is that
the issue of equality is addressed in the design.
The idea is to reduce human labor using an efficient system design
and technology so that the necessary jobs that no one enjoys
become completely automated.
And this leaves jobs that people enjoy like teaching,
creating art, creating music, developing technology, gardening
- work that mostly would not require a rigid, stressful schedule,
or that could be shared in shifts perhaps with others
to allow for family and social time.
And then I would pose a question:
Do you feel that in that scenario people would still choose
to lay around instead of making a pleasurable contribution?
So that's just one example of how to approach
that particular person to open up the conversation.
Another one is: But technology hasn't improved life;
it's made things worse.
So, I'd like to think in what would be the shared
concerns of values behind this kind of a response?
Well-being, because we know technology today replaces jobs
which are tied to income which causes people
to have a lower standard of living.
So there is a concern for well being underlying that statement
and making a personal contribution
also it may be when they say it's made things worse,
you know the evils that technology is used for, such as in warfare.
So our response might be:
I agree. There is a lot of technology in existence today
that does more harm than good.
Military weapons are a prime example, in additions to machines
stealing jobs from humans, and thus taking away needed income.
However in a Resource Based Economic Model, the need
for weapons to secure land or resources becomes obsolete.
Technology created for this purpose would be obsolete
and since humans would no longer need to work to earn money
in order to live confortably, I think in those circunstances
we'd welcome the machines to do the labor
that we don't enjoy or that is unsafe.
Then Imagine what good things could be done by machines
if money wasn't in existence or money is no object.
Also, to give a current example of where technology
can be used for really amazing things.
Technicians are already in the process of perfecting technology
that allows for the "printing" of vital human organs
such as kidneys. And that's just one example.
But, you know, it took a tremendous advancement
to get there (in techonology),
So, do we really want to all lump it into evil and bad?
So these are some things you can bring up in that conversation.
As a Christian, I think we need to take into account God's Will.
As a response, so [what are] the shared values or concepts
behind this response?
Could be human equality, could be well being
as you are talking to the person you can kind of
get what that means to them.
And so, here is some one way that you might approach it.
Jesus is a great example of an advocate for a Resource-Based Economic Model
per scriptures. So, for example:
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,
I was a stranger and you invited me in". - Matthew 25:35
Note that he doesn't say you gave me a great
competitive discount on these things...
So it is within.
He also multiplied the fishes and the loaves at that one event
which sort of makes me think he'd dig this whole
post-scarcity aspect of it. Eliminating poverty,
and allowing multitudes of people to have free access of food,
shelter and healthcare. In fact, the only time
he really gets angry that I recall es when he kicks
the money exchangers out of the temple.
And then you pose a question:
So, what do you think he'd say about it?
In that framework, and I think you'd be surprised
that they may be a little bit more opened to further discussion on it.
Next.
We need to embrace a true free market
and individual sovereignty and things will improve if we do this.
So some shared values and concerns behind this response
if someone is saying: no, we really need to
see what the true market has to offer and focus on that.
This is more the anarchocapitalist libertarian response
and I know it well 'cause I used to be in that thing.
Human equality is definetly in there as an underlying atribute
that they are seeking. Freedom of personal contribution
is definetly something that they are seeking in this response
and it's something that is a shared value of a resource-based economy.
Response: I also greatly value individual freedom
and also agree that a well-designed system will negate
the need for laws that unnecessarily restrict freedom.
These are actually among the very reasons I support moving to a
global resource-based economic model.
We are technically capable of moving to a system
that would remove the reward incentive for crime
and bump everyone up to a high quality of living
- allowing for more freedom than most have in our monetary system,
where we have to have money in order to make money
and we become enslaved to labor through debt to survive.
So I'd be thrilled to have only Natural Laws to answer to
and an inherent freedom to pursue my passions in tandem with
contributing to an overall healthy enviroment.
So those values are definetly there and represented.
The very thing that they are concerned about is
acknowledged in the design of what we are advocating.
Ok here is the other piece of it, we have to know when to walk away.
Walk away when the person...
(and this is what they look like to us
when they are acting this way, anyway I think)
...is not asking any questions, they are just making statements.
...they are asking questions,
but they don't appear interested in sincere responses.
(they really aren't interested in what you have to say) or
...They are attempting to insult you.
There is not need to continue that conversation at that point.
We are not trying to be evangelist.
In fact, basically the best thing you can do with
what we are trying to do as a movement is to sow seeds.
and basically as you are sowing seeds
and all that is, is just introducing it, not even seeking agreement from that person,
but just getting the information to them,
having to them to think about it for a second or two and
As bio-social pressures rise and more and more people look
for a different solution, a more comprehensive solution to today's problems,
interest in this train of thought is likely to grow and grow.
And part six: Always Maintain a Sense of Humor
So I wanna to end on this example
because it's one that always give me a chuckle.
I can't support this RBE model until I see the hard evidence
that it works. Where are the peer-reviewed papers?
and I actually gotten this one.
And I know of other people that have.
So the shared values or concerns behind this response seems to be pretty obvious.
The scientific proof, so when response I may say:
'I am also a huge fan of the scientific method.
In fact, if you were to create a movement advocating a
socio-economic paradigm where the scientific method
is the very methodology that determines what ideas and innovations
are implemented inmediatly to produce the desired outcome
and which one go back to the drawing board for reworking and revision...
what might you call that socio-economic movement?
We happen to call it The Zeitgeist Movement
Thank you.
The Zeitgeist Movement
Working for change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.