Bret Weinstein

The rate of change is so high that one can't figure out- overarching pattern over time is one of a dawning of a kind of moral enlightenment it's not as you point out it does not prevent the alternatives from repeatedly re-emerging right but i mean let's take for example how can we even call it enlightenment why is it not just to our preference Let's take the story of Jesus.

The story of Jesus, if I understand it, and I'm no biblical scholar, but if I understand that story, the key elements of it, or at least several key elements of it, involve a broadening of the sense of self, a broadening of the ingroup. This is what the story of the Good Samaritan tells us. This is what the golden rule is. This is, you know, love your enemy.

The story of Jesus, if I understand it, and I'm no biblical scholar, but if I understand that story, the key elements of it, or at least several key elements of it, involve a broadening of the sense of self, a broadening of the ingroup. This is what the story of the Good Samaritan tells us. This is what the golden rule is. This is, you know, love your enemy.

The story of Jesus, if I understand it, and I'm no biblical scholar, but if I understand that story, the key elements of it, or at least several key elements of it, involve a broadening of the sense of self, a broadening of the ingroup. This is what the story of the Good Samaritan tells us. This is what the golden rule is. This is, you know, love your enemy.

Now, those things are a radical increase in the inclusion of others into an in-group. And the benefits of stabilizing a larger in-group are absolutely tremendous.

Now, those things are a radical increase in the inclusion of others into an in-group. And the benefits of stabilizing a larger in-group are absolutely tremendous.

Now, those things are a radical increase in the inclusion of others into an in-group. And the benefits of stabilizing a larger in-group are absolutely tremendous.

Now, imagine for a moment that Jesus had said these things in game theoretic terms, and he had tried to convince people with whatever the equivalent of a whiteboard would have been of, you know, the reasons to broaden the in-group at this moment in history. It's preposterous, right? It's not a good argument. Even if it's a true argument, nobody's going to get it. Nobody's going to care, right?

Now, imagine for a moment that Jesus had said these things in game theoretic terms, and he had tried to convince people with whatever the equivalent of a whiteboard would have been of, you know, the reasons to broaden the in-group at this moment in history. It's preposterous, right? It's not a good argument. Even if it's a true argument, nobody's going to get it. Nobody's going to care, right?

Now, imagine for a moment that Jesus had said these things in game theoretic terms, and he had tried to convince people with whatever the equivalent of a whiteboard would have been of, you know, the reasons to broaden the in-group at this moment in history. It's preposterous, right? It's not a good argument. Even if it's a true argument, nobody's going to get it. Nobody's going to care, right?

So that's not how humans become enlightened. Humans become enlightened because of the power of a narrative that causes them to modify their behavior so that they do function more effectively in light of all of the game theoretic hazards that are always jeopardizing us. Which then answers your other question, I think. Why the bad patterns?

So that's not how humans become enlightened. Humans become enlightened because of the power of a narrative that causes them to modify their behavior so that they do function more effectively in light of all of the game theoretic hazards that are always jeopardizing us. Which then answers your other question, I think. Why the bad patterns?

So that's not how humans become enlightened. Humans become enlightened because of the power of a narrative that causes them to modify their behavior so that they do function more effectively in light of all of the game theoretic hazards that are always jeopardizing us. Which then answers your other question, I think. Why the bad patterns?

You know, if it's simply good to include others in your in-group, why don't we just simply evolve to default to that and never waver? And the problem is that there's a competition between short-term gain and long-term gain. Effectively, the upgrade in which you in-group more people is much better in the long run.

You know, if it's simply good to include others in your in-group, why don't we just simply evolve to default to that and never waver? And the problem is that there's a competition between short-term gain and long-term gain. Effectively, the upgrade in which you in-group more people is much better in the long run.

You know, if it's simply good to include others in your in-group, why don't we just simply evolve to default to that and never waver? And the problem is that there's a competition between short-term gain and long-term gain. Effectively, the upgrade in which you in-group more people is much better in the long run.

But in the short run, individuals who decide to take advantage of that may have some advantage inside of the group, right? And so... Building a structure in which you can't get away with it increases the effectiveness of the moral point, right? If you have everybody calculating that it's morally, you know, you should do the morally right thing if you are in a position to be observed.

But in the short run, individuals who decide to take advantage of that may have some advantage inside of the group, right? And so... Building a structure in which you can't get away with it increases the effectiveness of the moral point, right? If you have everybody calculating that it's morally, you know, you should do the morally right thing if you are in a position to be observed.

But in the short run, individuals who decide to take advantage of that may have some advantage inside of the group, right? And so... Building a structure in which you can't get away with it increases the effectiveness of the moral point, right? If you have everybody calculating that it's morally, you know, you should do the morally right thing if you are in a position to be observed.

And if you're not in a position to be observed, then you should do whatever is most profitable, right? Right? Civilization breaks down. If on the other hand, you take a narrative and you say, nobody ever gets away with anything. it's being observed, it's being recorded, and it may be profitable in the short run, but there's an awful lot of punishment that will come later, right?