Game in the Brain

This is how it works – checking each other even if we both have vested interests. 

1) linus tech tips calling out NVIDIA for being unscrupulous 

2) linus tech tips are after ads. 

3) everyone calling each other out as hypocrites and ” “throwing stones from glass houses” but the thing is – why not? Play out the game scenario – If Imperfect Parties deal with partial Truths – then does that mean truth cannot be found? 

We can find the truth even when everyone mixes their perspective or deception with the truth. It just means its a bit more work and we deal with “probabilistic models” of an IDEA. we have a “TRUTH” and assign a Probability Weight – for TRPGer assign a “Dice Table of Outcomes” (Like Encounter tables; here its outcome tables).

NVIDIA is after your Money and will deceive you to get it – is a TRPG encounter table with Types of Deception with the possible Outcomes of the Encounter Table Roll.  Everyone Rolls on that table – to some people Some are True, to some people another thing is TRUE. 

For me – the ENCOUNTER TABLE model of “TRUTH” models the Uncertainty and Perspectives that Play. The thing about Probabilistic Tables is that over a number of rolls a PATTERN appears. And we behave based on the pattern that appears to us and our understanding of Statistics and probability biases. 

Have you ever noticed most discussions of complicated topics have SO much embedded context that we – can get bogged down with the assumptions or the assumptions are that create STRAW MANS, simplifications, and generalization? 

Just imagine a world where we work with PARTIAL truths. Everything advertisement you see has some “TRUTHINESS” to it. From the people you least respect to the people you respect, to your best friend and most trusted person – You allow no 100% certainty just X% that gets smaller or bigger as we state FACTORS and assumptions that change the %.  
Our kids will figure out how to sort what is True from a Vested Interest Source. 

We are able to not get INCITED by a claim from one source – but IMAGINE us aggregating everything and using an ENCOUNTER TABLE or PROBABILISTIC MODEL per claim or thesis. IMAGINE not arguing about the STRENGTH of one’s certainty but the SOURCES and the factors that make up the Thesis. 

Imagine NORMALIZING that. That the uncertainty we take-forgranted and are able to operate with is a regular part of our day and being who we are.