Game in the Brain

I realized in a technical discussion, we offer our criteria and metrics as a sign of good faith. If the other party doesnt qualify any testable criteria we should not give our own testable criteria and metrics. If we did we politely “Withdraw our criteria and metrics” (“Lets ignore my criteria/metrics”) 

This is because to reveal our citeria and metrics provoking their break down of it, without the other party giving their criteria and metrics is a one sided analysis with missing context from the party. 

One of the things I realize is to be transaparent and to be testable is to taken advantage of. Those who accept that risk don’t have to entertain people not ready to accept the same vulnerability and risk. If one party is taking more risk than the other then we step back and re-assess is this Fair? is this Good faith? Would I let someone else be vulnerable or open without being open myself? 

And even if we are not ready to be open, we can politely tell the other party that we will not discuss the metrics and criteria because we are not ready for the commitment or conversation that entails. 

One of the reasons I realized this formulation is critical is when we discuss to people who see things in all-or-nothing and when people cannot agree on a set of definitions (moving goal posts). 

When they say the Olympics is not a metric of who is the best at a particular sport in a given time then it would be difficult to have a conversation with them. If they say any person is corrupt, evil, good, or better and cannot provide their metrics – their substance for the judgment but the other party does this is a one sided conversation. The Act of giving context is a Socially Strategic Position that signals intent and puts the person in a position to be challenged without being able to reciprocate the challenge.  

When they cherry pick a metric that favors their point of view, but fail to account for others that dont support their point of view. When you point this out, the position becomes an all or nothing. When there cannot be Nuance. This is where the TRPG thinking of probability helps me alot – something can be true in a Spectrum or Probability state – “he has a 20% chance of liking red” “this body of reporting is 20% Accurate”. 

I notice my probablistic thinking happens a lot like a muscle thanks to the games – Every verb action I think of in the course of the game becomes a probability. Then eventually when I think of other things that can happen they all have a color of probability. I can imagine probability as a Opacity Grade on the Text where the more transparent the text the lower the probability.