Define Mass Formation in the Bitcoin Community
In the early days of our think tank work at the SFR Group we came across two fiercely competing groups. The land tax group and the money reform group. Both:
- were asking for a remedy for economic collapse in spite of historic levels of wealth creation
- a restructuring of government and financial institutions to carry that through
- were constituted of smart people with huge energy and the willingness to devote their lives to their views
- spent plenty of time inside the political houses and in front of the camera
- were well funded by charity or philanthropy
- had authentic political and religious representation
- held regular events and web presence to share information and dialogue
And never the twain shall meet!
Because though their noble goals were similar, the root cause they wanted to be the focus of their remedy was limited to a specific world view. Both were being driven ideologically by a superficial cause. In other words, they didn’t really care as much about the end goal of making a better community. Rather they wanted their view of how the world should be, to take priority.
And a limited world view, delivers a limited result.
Some people dismiss this kind of thing as ‘being political’. But if one really wants to get to the authentic root, that’s a mistake. It’s psychological as I’ll discuss. It goes so deep that even most good people will give up seeking. Pain caused by the deep stuff is avoided more than material pain. This kind of pain causes the kind of fear which ideology feeds on.
These battles between two opposing ideologies, we used to call a ‘false battle’. There are many forms not limited to the bitcoin world: left versus right, land versus money, libertarian versus statist, good versus evil even. Dualities - creating an illusion there’s a division about something in the world, where in reality both sides are in agreement, but demand a fight nonetheless for some latent reason forbidden from analysis. Could the reason be people really don’t want to face up to the demon driving the psyche which we should really be attending to?
The effect of focusing on this root cause in any public debate was to troll or discount out of hand anything the opposition propose
strawman, question begging, ad hominem attacks, requests for infinite evidence etc.
I’m seeing a strong case history for this collectively unconscious behaviour in the bitcoin community. I won’t be naming any of the victims/perpetrators for obvious reason. Just to point out the lack of wisdom once again blocking innovation.
What do I Propose?
I can’t call this a remedy. More a potion, that if you take, might lead you to the common ground. No guarantees, as always it’s what you make of it personally. The starting point on the road to unity, is to concede “I” am being informed about everything I talk about that matters to me, by the collective psyche of my preferred collective, tribe, group or cult. We should sympathise here because it’s almost certain once possessed in this way, you will not be aware of it, so dealing with it takes extraordinary effort. But are we not the innovators. Isn’t big effort a part of innovation?
Can we all find a quiet moment, take a deep breath and give that a go? One way to do this is to deliberately pretend you believe in the thing you furiously oppose for say a week. Just as if you were an actor. It might work, it may not. Even if you think this is mumbo jumbo, give it a try. If no good just go back to the old way no harm done.
The Common Ground
Definition of grounded
: mentally and emotionally stable : admirably sensible, realistic, and unpretentious remains grounded despite all the praise and attention
Think about our two competing groups, one as needing pure chaos and the other pure order. If either worldview ever finally dominates the world that would be hell on earth right? Would a better method be to continually measure ourselves for balance, to maintain our feet on the ground?
A tool we can use to modulate a continuous ‘grounded’ state is to ‘steelman’ the competing group rather than strawman them? The steelman attempts to gain agreement on the best parts of the opponents idea to see if they stand up to proper scrutiny, quite an honourable approach.
‘The Most Hated Man in Crypto’
On a final note, the so called ‘most hated man in crypto’ seems to be more grounded than the rest of us. He’s further along the untrodden path to innovation than we are. He admits he still has some way to go by regularly conceding his Aspergers condition, which means he surrounds himself with an ordered world often too challenging for others to follow. For the context of my bitcoin analysis here, that ordered world comes in the form of a single bitcoin protocol set in stone and protected by law, no exception. And if anyone tries to change it, to bring them to justice. This is at least a little bit of an ungrounded position demanding order rather than a balance with some chaos.
But he’s already made far more progress psychologically than you and I by his virtue of conceding that he now knows, that he knows, he has much work to do on the higher matters due to his social skills condition. He is capable of looking in the mirror and doing tests like those I suggest above. He has already made way while we fumble our way through wastelands of inauthentic souls. I don’t see any indicators of a similar consistent confession by the opposition yet. It’s curious his opponents dont factor alternative neurodiversity skills into their innovation strategy. Is it because it makes them afraid. Is the fear of challenging the deep stuff more painful than material pain. Does our tribe or cult encourage us not to go along innovation avenue?
More curious still is his opposition are not aware they are actually in agreement with him on the rule of law. Or as they rephrase: “code is law’. If we look at what they really want, it is the form of code they decide should be the ‘legal code’ which is left untouched by all but themselves. One that incentivises a flourishing of the dark web as opposed to state control. The only fundamental difference being the coders decide what ‘regulation’ looks like, not government already selected by the people - a false battle between the libertarian and the statist. The psyche driving our thought and we’re not even aware of it!
This fascinating case history will be the focus of my engagement with the bitcoin community from now on. Healing is now needed in the curation of innovation.