I’m not spoiling for a fight, and I am not arguing with you in any case. But it would be easy to throw all my favorite insults back in my face: “Greg, you are being be awfully Cautious in your Driven defenses – and how is this not reductionism?”
I smile. I have the game theory of everything, but theory is just a map. The work we’re doing here – right now, day by day, philosophy without a net – is interesting because my new map better-corresponds to reality:
DISC my way encapsulates everything beneath it, explaining phenomena that cannot be accounted for with other models.
So the other day, I demonstrated that, since all of official life is Ci, the official opponents of Ci Marxism cannot triumph. Worse news: It wouldn’t matter if they could. Ci is Ci, and, waving red flags or blue, a technocratic Ci culture will depopulate itself out of existence.
I’ve been talking about this for years – why libertarians, for example, don’t breed. I can explain this easily in DISC terms, and we addressed it yesterday in talking about The Prisoner’s Dilemma.
I take huge liberties with academic game theory games, so Ci’s can refuse to listen even harder, if that seems wise. Meanwhile, the relative lack of fecundity of every social and cultural strategy except for Ds is easily inferred from this chart:
Am I not playing fair? Mainstream game theory reduces relationships to interactions and interactions to transactions, even as it iterates events ad infinitum and refuses even to admit the possibility of escape – of free moral agency.
Every bit of this is false to the facts of human existence, so that sort of game theory ends up looking like robot theory to me: What would robots do if they didn’t take all those gooey, messy human diversions?
Another way of saying the same thing: Which girl would a Ci lab-rat marry if women were made of Legos? Alas, we’re about to find that one out…
Meanwhile, among real people, transactions occur as components of interactions within on-going relationships – which either party can escape at will.
The outcome of any one event will typically add to or subtract from the extant reservoir of storgic love in the relationship, rather than, say, doubling it or wiping it out all at once.
The older and deeper the relationship, the less significant any one event – positive or negative – will seem. Accordingly, newer and shallower relationships will be more volatile and more fragile, with interactions among strangers being likely to recur only among people who were mutually-satisfied with their first interaction.
Translation: If you repelled on the first date, there won’t be a second one – not with a real girl.
So in real life, D and S greet affectionately (blind cooperation), where C and I greet aggressively (blind betrayal). Because only mutually-satisfying interactions recur reliably, C and I are more likely to lead to lives that are loveless and lonely – peopled broadly but shallowly, if at all.
C and I can be propitious strategies for mission-critical purposes at work, but they are instantly and enduringly damaging to human social relationships. As reproductive strategies, they are self-eradicating. But because Ci is culturally dominant, for now, virtually all currently-practiced reproductive strategies are suicidally infecund.
The Driven will happily interact with the Driven – typically as commerce or play. Sociables are always delighted to schmooze with other Sociables. But only the Driven and the Sociable are drawn to each other so irresistibly that they gleefully pop out lots of babies.
Accordingly, the future belongs to Ds, regardless of our current Ci cultural nightmare, because the children of Ds marriages will be the only people around to inherit to the future.
I can do this every which way: You show me an outcome, I’ll show you the iterative DISC strategies that induced it. Even better, show me a plan and I can predict – and optimize – its progress. That’s what I’m doing now: I’m recruiting people smart enough not to eviscerate their own emotional lives – so they will gleefully pop out lots of babies. 😉
Humanity is Ds. Every other strategy is sub-optimal.
What that means is that you, as you are human, should strive to be Ds. Your marriage and your family life should be Ds. Your concourse in the world and your social interactions at work should be Ds.
And the culture you live in, to the extent that it seeks pandemic human thriving, should be Ds.
Stick around. I’m working out a plan…