Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • A Practical Strategy for Communicating RBE Concepts by Jen Wilding

  • Hi. OK.

  • By a quick show of hands, how many people in 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.

  • I don't know how many of you have actually shared.

  • How many of you have shared this with other people?

  • OK, so not everyone has received that response.

  • Hopefully I'm going to help you out with that.

  • How many people may have received feedback at all

  • similar to this note of gratitude I'm going to read to you:

  • "I just want to thank you for posting the facebook status:

  • 'WAKE UP YOU IGNORANT SHEEPLES BEFORE WE ALL DIE'

  • followed by eleven exclamation points

  • because if you hadn't done that, myself, my wife and two children

  • might not had watched the 14 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 shudder to think that if your status

  • had been typed in lower case letters instead of all caps

  • we might still be in the dark today about solutions

  • that offer encouraging possibilities to all mankind."

  • I don't think any of you identify with that, fortunately.

  • This is not a real post but

  • unfortunately it was modeled after some people's real posts

  • (no one here, I'm sure).

  • I bring this up as an extreme example

  • of how our strategy for communicating information

  • has a direct impact on whether or not someone is open to considering

  • the information you have to offer.

  • 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 questions

  • 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?"

  • I've been invited to offer some advice

  • to perhaps optimize your communication strategy

  • which I offer to you in six parts.

  • Part 1: 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 a component

  • that humans have a history of exhibiting symptoms of

  • and that is

  • neophobia.

  • Actually not this kind, a different kind.

  • By that I mean the fear of new things or experiences.

  • As a related condition, there is a related condition also

  • called the 'status quo bias' which is very similar to that.

  • I'm sure you have experience with people who

  • are exhibiting both neophobia and perhaps the status quo bias.

  • Neophobia: the fear of new things or experiences;

  • Status Quo Bias: a cognitive bias for the status quo;

  • in other words, people tend not to change

  • an already established behavior.

  • They tend to go with default programming

  • and traditionally this fear of new things

  • is somewhat indigenous to our human limbic system

  • which is related to our emotion and memory mind

  • and has been helpful in 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.

  • And

  • here are some potential causes of neophobia and status quo bias:

  • risk aversion, regret avoidance, transactional costs

  • and psychological commitment or learning curve.

  • Here's an example of neophobia at its finest in history.

  • It is from an article called 'Enhancing Humanity'

  • written by a professor Raymond Tallis:

  • "In Victorian times, it was anticipated that

  • going through a dark tunnel in a train at high speed

  • (30 mph or 48km/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.

  • This is what you're working with

  • and so when I say adjust your expectations

  • just know that it's a natural part of humans

  • a part of our evolution even

  • to be skeptical of new things

  • because they may not be good for us.

  • Knowing this challenge, how can we enhance

  • our communication strategy to be more effective?

  • 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 behavior?

  • 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.

  • - [from audience] Sex.

  • - It came close.

  • [laughing]

  • We know Shar's vote.

  • Being right! ... being right.

  • OK, so 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'll actually dare you to prove me wrong.

  • Stay with me because this is leading us into part two

  • which is...

  • Part 2: 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'.

  • Let's think about 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 it all together so well;

  • he (or she) is therefore brilliant!"

  • Do you see the connection? Right?

  • 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 had this thought about him at the time.

  • 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.

  • I want to 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 territory" ... famously [Korzybski].

  • Since we are born, we begin developing our worldview:

  • how the world works, what our relationship to the world is.

  • In order for us to first learn something new

  • we need to have some orientation of the new idea

  • to our current worldview or reference.

  • A wise friend once told me that he'd heard

  • that the ultimate sign of intelligence in a person

  • was having the ability to honestly try on another person's worldview

  • a different opposing view, temporarily, without any fear

  • of an obligation to take it on as his own

  • just trying it on and seeing how that person thinks.

  • I want you to imagine how the effort of trying on

  • the worldview of others can contribute to your communication.

  • How can you adopt this quality of 'brilliant'?

  • You can set out to make someone 'right'

  • instead of make them 'wrong'

  • and try to start out with agreement.

  • You do this by finding and acknowledging shared values

  • within their existing worldview.

  • Why does this work?

  • Because it gives us those good feelings.

  • It gives that person a sense of "Wow, this person

  • does have some good points on this particular aspect."

  • Some keys to natural 'brilliance' 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.

  • You want to find areas of authentic agreement

  • and then contribute authentic agreement to the conversation.

  • Basically it means that 'authentic' piece of 'it's important'

  • because I know when someone is being fake with me

  • just as much as I'm sure you do:

  • if somebody is just trying to be manipulative.

  • There's not need to in this case. We're talking about things

  • that people have shared values in regard to.

  • There is common ground to be found.

  • All you have to do is find

  • where the authentic common ground is.

  • I want to review some shared values that you will find

  • (this is in our resource-based economic model

  • what we are advocating, what we desire)

  • and also, if you listen to a lot of other people

  • and what they are looking for

  • it's basically the same thing in one form or another

  • and if not all of these things, some of these things.

  • Human equality, efficiency or sustainability

  • scientific proof or evidence, health and well-being

  • and freedom for personal contribution.

  • 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

  • the automation of labor

  • technological unification of Earth via a 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.

  • That's, basically, you know

  • what you would be leading to in a communication

  • after you start with an agreement from

  • a shared value.

  • We're going to move to part 3

  • and then I'm going to give some examples of how all this fits

  • into a conversation.

  • [Part 3:] Comparing a Resource Based Economy Concept

  • to an existing or familiar concept.

  • 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.

  • 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...

  • This aquarium is a four-story coral reef exhibit

  • that includes over 600 sea animals

  • (I was there visiting a little over a year ago)

  • and a child asked this question of the aquarium staff:

  • "Why don't the fish and sea animals

  • that would normally be eating each other in the ocean

  • do this in the tank?

  • and how do you maintain your stock for this (the fish)?"

  • The answer was that the reason

  • they have modified their behavior

  • is because the aquarium staff is diligent to ensure

  • that all of the species are well-fed

  • food that they are satisfied with

  • and since they are already taken 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.

  • 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

  • than I would trying to lug it to the store with every trip."

  • We can start to realize

  • that we already accept sharing property as a 'freedom'

  • in certain present day contexts.

  • That makes it easier to consider that an idea

  • could be expanded upon with an improved outcome.

  • 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

  • that 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!"

  • [Audience laughter]

  • You know...food for thought.

  • 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.

  • There is probably no call to the insurance company

  • to check coverage details

  • (we can learn so much from little people).

  • They do play to be helpful with each other

  • and it is a sense of work, except it's work that they're enjoying.

  • They would love to be doing that for real.

  • It's an adult thing to do

  • but it's not something, you know...

  • that kids aren't. They're playing!

  • I don't know how many people's kids

  • just sit around and watch football all day long

  • and they never leave the house at this age

  • (although maybe that would be more convenient for some parents).

  • No, they're pretty active, so I think they offer a good example

  • when people say

  • "Isn't everybody going to be lazy if there aren't any jobs?"

  • Part 4 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.

  • In order to illustrate these

  • I'm going to give you some examples of communication exchanges

  • based on real things that have come up of people

  • who, after you introduced

  • the concept of a Resource-Based Economy

  • or maybe they just watched one of Peter's films

  • they have different kinds of reactions to them.

  • I'll give you some examples:

  • "Won't everyone be just as lazy

  • in a Resource-Based Economy?"

  • Ask yourself "What are the shared values

  • or concerns behind this response?"

  • That's really what you want to look for.

  • Human Equality: It would be unfair for some people to be doing work

  • or not contributing and just benefiting.

  • I think that's kind of the view

  • so that human equality, and also that plays into sustainability.

  • If everybody was just lazy in an RBE

  • what would really get done? What would really happen?

  • Would that be any place I'd want to live?

  • 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's tapping into those shared values.

  • Again, I suggest a response

  • that includes the shared value acknowledged

  • and starting with agreement:

  • "I agree. 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.

  • 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 of design and technology

  • so that the necessary jobs that no one enjoys

  • become completely automated.

  • This leaves jobs that people enjoy like teaching

  • creating art, creating music, developing technology, gardening

  • work that most would not require a rigid, stressful schedule

  • or that could be shared in shifts perhaps with others

  • to allow for family and social time."

  • 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?"

  • 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."

  • I like to think: What might be the shared concerns

  • or values behind this kind of a response?

  • [It's] well-being, because we know technology today replaces jobs

  • which are tied to income, which causes people

  • to have a lower standard of living.

  • 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

  • the evils that technology is used for such as in warfare.

  • 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 addition 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 for these purposes would be obsolete

  • and since humans would no longer need to work

  • to earn money in order to live comfortably

  • I think in those circumstances we'd welcome the machines

  • to do the labor that we don't enjoy or that isn't safe."

  • Imagine what good things could be done by machines

  • if money wasn't in existence, or money is no object."

  • To give a current example, if you're tying it into an 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."

  • That's just one example

  • but it took a tremendous advancement

  • to get there, in technology

  • so do we really want to all lump it into evil and bad?

  • These are some things you can bring up in that conversation.

  • [Next:]

  • "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?

  • It could be human equality. It could be well-being.

  • As you're talking to the person you can kind of

  • get what that means to them.

  • Here's one way that you might approach it.

  • "Jesus is a great example of an advocate

  • for a Resource-Based Economic Model, per scriptures.

  • 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 the whole post-scarcity aspect of it.

  • Eliminating poverty and allowing multitudes of people

  • to have free access to food, shelter and healthcare.

  • In fact, the only time he really gets angry that I recall is

  • when he kicks the money changers out of the temple."

  • [Applause]

  • And then you pose a question:

  • "So what do you think he would say about it? " in that framework.

  • I think you'd be surprised

  • that they may be a little bit more open 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)

  • 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 anarcho-capitalist or libertarian response

  • and I know it well, because I used to be in that vein.

  • Human equality is definitely in there

  • as an underlying attribute that they are seeking.

  • Freedom of personal contribution

  • is definitely something that they're 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 for crime

  • and bump everyone up to a high quality of living

  • allowing for more freedom than most have in a monetary system

  • where we have to have money in order to make money

  • and we become enslaved to labor through debt to survive.

  • 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 environment."

  • Those values are definitely there and represented.

  • The very thing that they are concerned about

  • is acknowledged in the design of what we advocate.

  • [Part 5:]

  • OK here's 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're asking questions but they don't appear interested

  • in sincere responses. In other words

  • they really aren't interested in what you have to say

  • or they're attempting to insult you.

  • There's no need to continue the conversation at that point.

  • We're not trying to be evangelists.

  • In fact, the best that you can do

  • with what we're trying to do as a movement is to sow seeds.

  • As you're 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 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.

  • Part 6: Always maintain a sense of humor.

  • I wanted to end on this example because it's one

  • that always gives 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?"

  • I've actually gotten this one

  • and I know of a few other people that have.

  • The shared values or concerns behind this response

  • seem to be pretty obvious: the scientific proof.

  • In 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 immediately

  • to produce the desired outcome

  • and which ones 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.

  • [Applause]

  • The Zeitgeist Movement

  • Working for change

  • in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.

A Practical Strategy for Communicating RBE Concepts by Jen Wilding

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

A2 初級

"Zeitgeist Day" 2012 ロサンゼルス - "RBEのコンセプトを伝える" ジェン・ワイルディング氏 ("Zeitgeist Day" 2012 Los Angeles - "Communicating RBE Concepts" by Jen Wilding)

  • 6 2
    王惟惟 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語