How to Champion Transformative Systems
Understand why people make abstractions in order to efficiently break down false abstractions
There is a difficulty in explaining transformative systems to people who lack a frame of reference because they assume the current system is already ideal or works as intended.
The Matrix is fictional world in which most humans are trapped, living a false reality while their bodies are used as energy sources for machines. They believe they are free and in control of their lives, but in truth, they are prisoners of a system they can't see or question.
In the movie, Morpheus offers Neo a choice between two pills:
Blue Pill: Return to the illusion of the Matrix, remaining ignorant but comfortable.
Red Pill: Awaken to the real world and face the harsh truth of the Matrix’s control.
People use the term ‘red pill’ or ‘red-pilling’ in reference to this movie when dealing with real-world transformative systems.
Abstraction and Systemantics
We all have limited mental bandwidth. Even the most responsible first-principles-thinkers among us must rely on abstractions. This is a skill and a tool; without it, our knowledge as a civilization would never compound and we would be stagnant. We can grow and create great new things because we can abstract. But of course, we can fall victim to this. Too much abstraction and blind trust leads to not only inefficient systems but also complacency with using them.
The student of Systemantics will know that building complex systems based on abstractions (but also, generally) will create inefficient (or ineffective) systems. Unfortunately, we live within many of these systems. The first hurdle to usurp an inefficient, incumbent system is to understand it.
Operational Fallacy: The system itself does not do what it says it’s doing.
In other words: there are no adults in the room, and you think far too much of the powers that be. There is no grand plan that pulls the strings of the world. We instead live through flawed systems; flawed systems that we can (and must) improve! To replace a system with a more efficient one, you’ll need to be able to articulate the flaws of the current system to others. Just because you can see the cracks, doesn’t mean anyone else can (or is even looking).
Many will just assume that things are in place for a reason. Surely someone built it this way for a reason, right? Well, no, as the creators’ intentions surely don’t map 1:1 with the actual implementation. This is also true for incremental, “safe” constructions.
Non-Additivity Theorem of System Behavior: A large system, produced by expanding the dimensions of a smaller system, does not behave like the smaller system.
Deprogramming ‘False Truths’
There is a difficulty in explaining transformative systems to people who lack a frame of reference because they assume the current system is already ideal or works as intended.
Every participant of every system has some personal truth of how it operates; this is typically a subconscious understanding as we seldom think critically of our most basic activities. How are roads built, how does the water flow through your sink, how does a dollar work?
It's absolutely comforting to think that someone has a grand plan and everything exists the way it does for a reason. Even if things are bad, it's more comfortable to think that some bad actor made things this way.
Case Study: Crypto
The average person does not care, and should not care, how the intricacies of their financial systems works. Finance is supposed to be boring and reserved for the nerds. This is completely fine, but understand that the rational participant in this system has made abstractions for the basics of their system such that they can operate within it.
It's hard to explain the value prop of crypto to people because they think that the financial system they currently use already works that way. Your pitch about the benefits of crypto sound underwhelming because while they are improvements over the system as it actually works, they’re not improvements over the system as it’s actors perceive it.
Farce: “when I buy a share of TSLA on Fidelity, I own that share.”
Reality: “you 'own' nothing, only an IOU.”
Now try to pitch how owning an onchain representation of a real world asset is an ‘improvement’ and worth their precious, limited time to learn about.
Farce: “I own my dollars, and they’re secure.”
Reality: “Your dollars lose value as the government inflates the supply, and banks can freeze or seize them. You have no financial sovereignty.”
For a concept as fundamental as money, it’s difficult to even suggest that it can be done another way.
Before explaining the value proposition of a transformative system such as crypto, you must first get your counterparty up to speed on how their current reality actually operates under the hood: no abstractions.
Farce: "The current financial system already gives me ownership and control."
Reality: "You rely on intermediaries and centralized systems that can devalue or restrict your access to assets."
Crypto Reality: "You truly own your assets. No one can inflate, freeze, or seize them without your consent."
Conclusion
Championing a transformative system is an uphill battle. One must first be a teacher, expertly understanding and articulating the incumbent system. The only way to do this is to start beneath the common abstractions.