A bit about why I feel the game b models don't actualize their immense potential:
The oval reps the collective, the circle reps the individual

Fig 2: the collective is for exploring & discovering the unknown in real time and the discoveries become metabolized by the individual
Information and sense making sharing becomes horizontal, equal and not hierarchical. No right answers. Just observations and questions. Dialectic method

Fig 1. The individual shares into the collective their own model of sense making. So when someone shares a perspective, it's
not just a perspective but an OS on how they explored. The digestion of that perspective is put to the collective. It mirrors the individual's neural pathways to the collective & forces everyone to go down that rabbit hole. This creates friction bc there isn't enough space to
explore as the person didn't digest it. It's like dumping a whole slaughtered animal and telling the collective what recipes could be made from what part. It can't be tasted in that moment. Therefore, the neural pathways with most momentum overshadow all others & becomes what's
mirrored in the individual. Meaning, the individual doesn't digest and in fact throws out their own models in lieu of the popular pathway which they copy & paste. Ofc this means they get stuck in a loop of always needing the collective to digest on their behalf
This model is hierarchical and ironically Game A even if the content is game B. So, I've found that what makes or breaks game B isn't the information but the infrastructure
Interested in yalls input, if any,

@antonjw @cognazor @RyanGady @questionaware @cascadiality @Timber_22

(these are just people I regularly interact with, but if this thread moves something in you, please do share!)
You can follow @NeoSomaliana.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: