The game teaches an epistemology, what do we know and how do we know it, with rules and definitions. Part of the game’s play is the presenter, the gamemaster. Is the gamemaster being serious or silly? Silliness indicates the breaking of one or more rules of the game. Players learn how to question everything by constantly having to evaluate the presenter.
My job as the gamemaster is to present a convincing epistemology using evidence and humor.
Players score points if they can cite a rule and show how the gamemaster broke that rule. Each player has a personal writing coach that critiques daily writing assignments while also helping the player score points.
After laying out the ground rules of the game and where to find the rules and definitions, the video proceeds to break as many rules of the game as possible in the remaining 8-minutes.
And before anyone gets too smug, what if it’s true, that I’m under the control of aliens? How would I know as presumably I would be unaware of these influences? Did I experience euphoria while writing the book? Yes. Does that mean I’m channeling the ideas of an alien organization of time-traveling societies? Maybe. Or, did I simply experience a run-of-the-mill kind of euphoria normally associated with creative inspiration? How can I know for sure?
The point isn’t to answer these questions but to observe how presenting ideas in this kind of context impacts learning. It isn’t about knowing the truth, as if truth were a static thing, but to learn the process for determining truth.
Learning process over content creates independent thinkers that can envision better ways to organize society. Learning process over content creates individual and group power.