Game Theory of Mind: A Psychological Framework for Understanding Human Interaction and Resolving Conflict

In a world that is becoming increasingly divided, we urgently need a scientific theory that teaches us how to reverse polarization cycles and turn conflict into cooperation.

Ever wondered how a small disagreement can escalate into a heated debate in an instant? It’s for the same reason that a conflict between two nations can turn into a world war essentially overnight. It is the social analog of the famous “butterfly effect” described by chaos theory — in both cases self-reinforcing feedback loops turn minor events into major catastrophes. In the context of two agents engaged in a conflict, we call these self-amplifying cycles polarization cycles.

A polarization cycle refers to a process in which individuals or groups with conflicting ideologies move progressively further apart in their beliefs and attitudes as a result of interacting. This cycle is self-reinforcing, with each instance of disagreement widening the divide: one party adopts a more extreme stance, then the opposing party responds by also adopting a more extreme stance, until both sides are far outside the rational zone where compromise is possible. Polarization cycles occur in many different contexts, like military conflicts, political discourse, and personal relationships, and they result from miscommunication, emotional reactions, and tribal tendencies.

If you want to know why understanding these cycles is more important than ever, just turn on the news. Tensions between the world’s most powerful countries are escalating and it looks as if World War III is on our doorstep. The war between Russia and Ukraine does not have an end in sight, and now we have an even more volatile and divisive conflict with Israel and Palestine, since it ultimately represents a battle between two of the world’s major religions. This could potentially pit the Judeo-Christian world against the Islamic world, bringing about a kind of global spiritual war. If that wasn’t bad enough, the coming U.S. election is sure to divide America even more, if that is imaginable. If the vicious cycle continues, there will be a breaking point where the system undergoes some kind of collapse into chaos and dysfunction.

If we are to avoid that tragic trajectory, we must understand the complex interaction between human perception, behavior, and communication. Game Theory of Mind presents a framework that explains how our minds operate, react, and interact, and how our mental state and corresponding mode of behavior can lead to either conflict and polarization or alignment and collaboration. By understanding this paradigm, we can cultivate a higher state of awareness that one might call a “meta mind.” In this article we will outline this framework and explain how it can be used to facilitate personal growth and societal progress.

Game Theory of Mind: A Mental Model for Understanding Conflict

First let’s break down the compound name so we can understand the intent behind it. Game theory, invented by John Von Neumann in 1928, offers a scientific framework for understanding decision making in strategic interactions between agents. Theory of mind is a term that refers to the capacity for an individual to understand that other people have minds with beliefs, emotions, and goals that may be different from one's own. Having a developed theory of mind means we are better at understanding and predicting what others are thinking, which allows for deeper interaction.

So, Game Theory of Mind seeks to update game theory principles based on new insights from cognitive neuroscience and social psychology that radically change how we think about what it means for decision making to be “rational” or “optimal.” In its classic form, game theory operates under mistaken assumptions about human behavior, such as the assumption that a rational agent is one that makes decisions based solely on maximizing their individual benefits, or “payoffs.” From this perspective, any act of altruism that incurs a personal cost without any return benefit to the individual is considered "irrational."

Thankfully, real-world behavior deviates from this assumption often, not necessarily because individuals are behaving irrationally (though they do that too), but because an individual who is part of a society is wired to behave in a way that is tuned for preserving the integrity of the social system it is embedded in. Though we often don’t realize it, much of what we do is aimed at maintaining the balance of the “social organism” we are a part of, since it is the stability and coherence of the social structure that benefits all the individual agents. If that equilibrium falls apart then it’s game over for all of us. Game Theory of Mind corrects these foundational mistakes in game theory’s logic by incorporating relevant concepts from evolutionary theory, cybernetics, terror management theory, and philosophy of mind.

Game Theory of Mind is based on a model of the mind as a multilevel controller. “Dual process” theories, which have been influential in psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and behavioral economics, propose that human thinking can be characterized by two distinct systems or modes of processing. These two modes work together in a hierarchical fashion, meaning one mode is the default state that corresponds to our automatic responses, while the other mode is a conscious controller that can override our automatic mode when it detects the need to do so.

These two modes have been popularized by the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, most notably in his book Thinking Fast and Slow, where the two modes are called System 1 and 2, which correspond to “fast” and “slow” thinking. For purposes of the Game Theory of Mind framework, we will call these two modes or systems Mind 1 and Mind 2 (a terminology used by the psychologist Gregg Henriques in his UTOK framework, though there may be differences in our descriptions of each mind).

A hierarchically-structured mind, with both an automatic responder and an executive controller, enhances efficiency and adaptability by distributing the computational load. The automatic system handles routine tasks swiftly without draining cognitive resources, while the executive controller offers deliberate oversight, allowing for adaptive responses in novel situations. This combination ensures quick reactions when needed and thoughtful responses when possible. Understanding the properties of each mind and how they interact will illuminate how polarization cycles emerge when agents are engaged in contentious discussion or negotiation, especially during times of uncertainty or tension, and how to reverse these destructive spirals.

Mind 1: The Automatic Processor

Mind 1 is the default mind, and it operates effortlessly and mostly automatically, requiring little to no conscious effort. This system has been shaped by countless generations of survival needs, so evolution has sculpted it for rapid threat detection and response.

Since the automatic system doesn’t require much mental effort, it doesn’t drain cognitive resources, so if one prefers not to think too hard, Mind 1 is the way to go. That’s not to say Mind 1 isn’t intelligent — it just relies on intuition and heuristics (mental shortcuts) to arrive at conclusions. Our brain is always trying to predict what will happen next in the world, but when it’s in the Mind 1 mode, it is only running near-future predictions, rather than projecting far into the future, so its foresight is severely limited.

This system is strongly influenced by our emotions, and is triggered when the amygdala is activated after a threat is perceived. Since Mind 1 processing doesn’t involve conscious deliberation or reflection, the automatic behavior generated by a particular sensory input is determined by a) one’s survival instincts, but also b) one’s cultural worldview, or belief system. So, essentially when Mind 1 is in the driver’s chair, you’re responding according to your emotions and biases. It’s reacting “on the fly,” rather than deliberating and reflecting on the situation. In terms of game theory, Mind 1 would correspond to the instinctive strategies employed when there's no time to deliberate and immediate reaction is paramount.

Mind 2: The Reflective Thinker

In contrast to the reflexive nature of Mind 1, Mind 2 operates with conscious, intentional, and reflective thought. Through logical examination and inductive reasoning, it evaluates situations, ponders implications, plans, and generates insights. A quintessential feature of Mind 2 is its forward-looking capability. It’s not just about the now, but also about the 'what could be.’

Using the slow system is costly in terms of mental resources, but the potential payoff of engaging in deeper cognitive processing is great. Mind 2 does not just react; it analyzes the options and weighs the outcomes associated with different choices before executing a decision and behavior.

Unlike the instinctive and heuristic-driven decisions of Mind 1, Mind 2 is characterized by its commitment to rigorous analysis and self-scrutiny, so it urges us to consider the implications of our actions and the long-term consequences. It is this process of consideration that gives us agency and choice, so you can think of Mind 1 as the determined mind and Mind 2 as the mind associated with what we refer to as “free will.”

Integrating Dual Process Theory into a Game-Theoretic Framework

Game Theory of Mind uses our knowledge of how these complementary cognitive systems interact to improve our decision making.

In game-theoretic terms, Mind 2 emerges as the strategist, taking time to assess the board, predict opponents' moves, and decide on the optimal path forward after careful analysis. While it accepts inputs from Mind 1, it's also equipped with the authority to override them, intervening when deeper reflection indicates a more desirable course.

Unfortunately, because it demands more cognitive resources, Mind 2 is not engaged as often by those who don’t value being reflective and analytical, and this is the source of many of the world’s problems.

Dual process theories explain why people who rely primarily on Mind 1 heuristics make seemingly irrational choices, like costly economic decisions. When the value of an investment drops a bit simply as a result of random fluctuations in the market, and you “panic sell” and end up losing a lot of money because you reacted emotionally, it is Mind 1 who is to blame. When the rational mind is not engaged, our automatic system will just try to reduce the risk of further loss as quickly as possible. It’s an extreme risk-reduction strategy that could pay off in rare circumstances — such as a market crash — but if we habitually overreact in this way, we are sure to pay the cost again and again.

It might sound like Mind 2 is the superior mode of cognitive processing, but that would be an oversimplification. Since it requires conscious effort, its use consumes more mental resources, making one susceptible to fatigue and errors when overwhelmed. Also, Mind 1 can sometimes detect things that the conscious mind is blind to. For example, when “something seems off," it is because Mind 1 has detected a disruption in a normal behavioral pattern that indicates a suspicious character or situation. So, it is more complex than saying one mode is better than another — it is more about whether control is distributed in the optimal way for that particular agent given its goals and environment.

But generally speaking, it is better if an agent exercises Mind 2 whenever there is a difficult decision with a lot at stake, and especially if it involves long-term consequences and a potential ethical component. While Mind 1 generates automatic responses according to emotions and stereotypes, Mind 2 can critically evaluate and potentially override these biases. This doesn’t mean we should ignore our emotions; it means to take them into careful consideration when making a decision, rather than letting the emotion drive the decision with no self-analysis. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens when we get “triggered,” and this causes what is known as amygdala hijack.

Now we must do a little detour into the realm of neuroscience.

The Amygdala: The Automatic Reactor

While Mind 1 is our default state, it becomes particularly dominant when we perceive threats, such that Mind 2 can’t override the preprogrammed response of the automatic mind. These can be physical threats, or simply attacks on our cultural worldview. Examples of cultural worldviews are religions, political ideologies, and national identities, and each particular individual’s worldview is probably some unique mix of those things.

The activation of the amygdala, the brain's "threat detector," can instantly shift someone’s cognitive operating mode from Mind 2 to Mind 1. This almond-shaped cluster of nuclei in the brain's temporal lobe is critical for processing emotion, particularly fear-related emotions. When exposed to stimuli perceived as threats — be it an angry expression or a cutting remark — the amygdala rapidly processes this information and prepares the body for a potential 'fight or flight' response. This automatic reaction has been called "amygdala hijack,” capturing the essence of how our fear center can momentarily commandeer our behavioral control. Whether the perceived threat is physical or ideological, the activation of the amygdala ushers us into a defensive mode, marked by heightened tribalism and strict adherence to familiar worldviews. When this happens, it can be very hard for the rational, reflective Mind 2 to get back in the driver’s seat.

The Prefrontal Cortex: The Conscious Moderator

Opposing the action of the amygdala is the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which can be thought of as the neural correlate of Mind 2. This brain region is involved in suppressing automatic behavior if it is deemed to be an error — that is, will lead to an undesirable outcome, like embarrassment or punishment. A function of the prefrontal cortex is to regulate our emotional state and control our urges. When amygdala hijack sets in, the circuits in the front of the brain work to assess the situation and modulate our actions accordingly. Amygdala activation may activate a violent response, but if the prefrontal cortex does its job, the individual should be able to self-correct before the behavior is executed.

Unfortunately, this moderation isn't always flawless. Intense emotions like anger, fear, or anxiety can increase the amygdala response, making Mind 1 increasingly resistant to the PFC's regulatory grasp. The more emotionally charged we are, the more challenging the shift from from Mind 1 to Mind 2 becomes.

A famous example of amygdala hijack occurred at the Oscars when Will Smith slapped Chris Rock after the comedian’s joke insulted his wife. Interestingly, the video shows that Will was initially laughing, so amygdala hijack didn’t occur until he exchanged eye contact with Jada and processed her expression. If the amygdala signals alarm, the conscious mind of the PFC is supposed to weigh in and determine whether to suppress or endorse the reactive impulse — but factors like drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, or childhood trauma could hinder Mind 2’s ability to exert top-down modulation over our Mind 1 reactions.

Within the framework of Game Theory of Mind, these neural dynamics offer profound insights. When individuals encounter perceived threats, the balance between the amygdala's reactive impulse and the PFC's regulatory control dictates their subsequent actions. If Mind 2 concludes the initial alarm signal was not a threat that required a defensive response, then the PFC will regulate our behavior. However, "amygdala hijack" may push individuals to adopt defensive or confrontational strategies as a reaction to challenges to one's goals, ego, or worldview.

Since one’s cultural worldview plays such an influential role in determining what exact behavior is triggered by our automatic Mind 1 response, we should briefly explore Terror Management Theory, and what we might call the “worldview-defense response.”

Terror Management Theory and the Worldview-Defense Response

Terror Management Theory (TMT) proposes that because humans are aware of our own mortality, we have a persistent feeling of existential terror that must be managed to successfully function in life. The idea is that at some point in our evolutionary history, our species became intelligent enough to understand that death was inevitable, and this was a catalyst for the creation of culture. Essentially, by feeling valuable in the context of our cultural worldview — a belief system that binds its members into a ‘superorganism’ we call a society — we gain a sense of symbolic immortality, even if we intellectually acknowledge the certainty of death. A worldview makes us feel like we are part of something larger that will outlive the individual.

According to TMT, because our worldviews serve as buffers for existential fear, remarks or actions that are perceived as attacks will cause us to cling to our worldviews more strongly, becoming more supportive of those who share our beliefs and more aggressive toward those who do not. This worldview-defense response explains our tendency to become especially tribalistic in times of fear or uncertainty.

Worldviews align the interests and activity of members of a society by giving them a sense-making lens and a purpose. The problem is, there are as many worldviews as there are cultures, so while these belief systems align the interests of their members, if different cultures come into contact — as they often do in an increasingly interconnected world — they will automatically be in ideological conflict.

Because societies are complex adaptive systems with dynamics that are analogous to biological organisms, we can think of nations as superorganisms, and under times of uncertainty and existential risk, fear can trigger a Mind 1 response in some or all of the members of a society in unison. This is why you often see waves of nationalist movements during times of war or periods of heavy immigration influx. Fear that one will lose either their life or their way of life causes amygdala hijack, which elicits a worldview-defense response, and this reaction is essentially the source of tribalism.

TMT provides a framework for understanding why attacks on one’s worldview trigger such strong Mind 1 responses. When the beliefs that shield us from existential terror are questioned or threatened, it's not just an intellectual challenge; it's a profound existential one. This is why discussions about religion or politics can trigger defensive stances that rapidly escalate into polarized debates where emotions run high. Once a worldview threat is detected — and that could be a misperception of the true intent of the statement or gesture, which could be actually neutral in reality or even friendly — we go into tribal mode. In these divided times, something as trivial as a MAGA hat or a BLM bumpersticker is enough to trigger worldview defenses that engage Mind 1 reactions.

A Solution to the Problem of Polarization

We must think about this very hard given the world’s current state of affairs. In times when existential threat looms, like when there is a pandemic, or the lingering threat of a world war, the subtlest of statements can be perceived as worldview threats and trigger a defensive stance that puts two agents into what is referred to as a dialectical dynamic, which involves two opposing forces engaged in an interaction, and it can serve to either polarize or unify those agents. A dialectical dynamic will lead to polarization if one or both of the agents feels threatened, because of reasons that we can only understand with a model of the mind as a multilevel controller.

This polarization cycle arises when communications activate the threat-responsive Mind 1 and put it into a “locked state” that is largely resistant to attempts to override by Mind 2. Achieving mutual understanding and compromise requires that both parties transition from a defensive Mind 1 state to a receptive Mind 2 state, but it’s hard to break out of a state that is defined by a lack of conscious control.

As a result, both agents become entrenched in their positions and continuously provoke one another, which reinforces their initial beliefs. This interplay magnifies the stakes of disagreements, making de-escalation and alignment even more crucial, yet more difficult. If you’ve seen the brilliantly funny and dark Netflix show Beef, then you are familiar with the polarization cycle that can ensue once a dialectical dynamic of this destructive nature is established.

Game Theory of Mind proposes that the worldview-defense response described by TMT is responsible for our shift to Mind 1 states during conflicts. A perceived threat to our worldview is a threat to our means of coping with existential terror, and our general way of making sense of our existence.

To resolve conflicts, we must approach divisive topics with an understanding of the high existential stakes they might have for the individuals involved. Becoming mutually aware of the worldview-defense response, while guiding the conversation from a reactive Mind 1 state to a reflective Mind 2 state, is key to finding common ground and fostering collaboration.

How the Mind 1 State Affects Language Perception

Game Theory of Mind provides a new framework for optimal communication, so we must think about semiotics: the study of signs and symbols and how we derive meaning from them. This framework explains how our mental state influences the way we interpret messages, actions, and events. When we're in a Mind 1 threat-response mode, words and other symbols — which are inherently ambiguous and reliant on context for full comprehension — become landmines in a field of miscommunication. Our perceptions of others’ words, tone, and intent can get significantly distorted, exacerbating conflicts or misunderstandings. This can happen in relationships between friends, lovers, or leaders of nations.

Ambiguous phrases can be double-edged swords. While they allow us to express a spectacular range of ideas in few words, they also leave room for misinterpretation, especially when filtered through heightened emotional states.

The real danger lies in the ensuing polarization cycle that results from the misperception. Once the threat detection system is activated, opposing parties perceive each other's inherently-ambiguous arguments as attempts at persuasion, which further threaten their belief in their worldview, creating existential fear. Each rebuttal and counterpoint is seen not as an opportunity for mutual understanding but as another attack to fend off. Since this is happening in the minds and brains of both parties, the game-like interaction spirals into an escalating loop of opposition, where each person doubles down on their beliefs, making conflict resolution and ideological alignment a more distant goal than before the interaction began.

When we think about how messages can be misinterpreted, we must not only think about words, but also gestures, symbols, and events. For example, a thumbs-up gesture means 'good job' in the United States, but in Iran it means “Up yours.” Another example is the swastika symbol, which in most of the world is a sign for white supremacy and hate, but in India it is a Hindu symbol for prosperity and good luck. Context can change the meaning of a given symbol dramatically, turning it into its opposite, and if we don’t take that into account in polarized times, it can mean completely misinterpreting a message.

Consider the statement "America is the greatest country in the world." If it is said by Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a progressive might roll their eyes at it because of its nationalistic overtones. But if that same statement comes from a Middle Eastern refugee who got the chance to leave a war zone that would have likely led to death, the phrase takes on a whole new vibe.

Mind 1 is always doing a quick and dirty assessment of context to interpret any given message, but the problem is the assessment is sometimes dead wrong. In polarized times, we all have a tendency to misperceive messages, because we often misjudge the intent of the communicator. In a world where dog whistles are commonly used by divisive figures, it can be incredibly difficult to determine true intent.

Essentially, we cannot know the true intent of the speaker without knowing their worldview in detail. The Game Theory of Mind framework would suggest that public figures like politicians or influencers release something like a “core beliefs statement,” which would clarify their vision for the world and provide a context for otherwise ambiguous statements. This reduces the audience’s uncertainty and allows the public to better evaluate the alignment between the said intent and the actions or statements of these figures. This won’t eliminate deception, but it will make it easier to spot. In the context of the Game Theory of Mind framework, understanding the underlying intent of an individual can prevent unnecessary escalation or misinterpretations stemming from Mind 1's reflexive, threat-oriented responses.

‘Sublation’ as a Game-Theoretic Solution to the Problem of Polarization

Game Theory of Mind isn't only diagnostic; it's prescriptive. It offers pathways out of polarization cycles, in the form of conscious strategies that can be used to transition individuals from the reactive Mind 1 state to the reflective Mind 2 state. By achieving this cognitive shift, we can reverse polarization, fostering cooperation and mutual understanding. This paradigm is not limited to personal interactions but extends to relationships at all scales, from romantic relationships to global diplomacy.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, an 18th-century German philosopher, introduced the term sublation (or "Aufhebung" in German). In the Hegelian dialectical process, sublation is the synthesis or integration of two opposing views (thesis and antithesis). The term "sublation" conveys a dual meaning: to both negate and preserve. This means that while one concept (the thesis) is seemingly negated by another (the antithesis), elements of both are retained in the resulting synthesis, leading to a new, richer understanding.

The goal of the game we must all play to avoid civilizational collapse is to transform ideological adversaries into collaborators, by achieving a synergistic unity that transcends prior disagreements. This doesn’t mean meeting in the middle or conceding to an idea or belief that is unlikely to be true — it means understanding why that person has that perspective as a result of their worldview, knowledge base, and lived experience. If both parties could get on the same page about the facts of the matter, and have the same knowledge of how reality works, then in theory, they should have interests and goals that are generally aligned.

Now let’s explore the strategies for sublation suggested by the Game Theory of Mind framework.

Reversing Polarization With Mindful Communication

Our words can have monumental influence on the world, with the power to either bridge divides or widen them. Careful selection of language can pivot a disagreement from adversarial to collaborative. Strategic communication leverages the subtleties of language, the psychology of the audience, and narrative or story-telling.

Consider a scenario where two people are engaged in a discussion that turns into a debate — in real life or on social media — and one of them feels compelled to point out a flaw in another's understanding. A direct approach might be to say, “What you don’t understand is… (e.g., the issue is more intricate than you realize).” Such framing, especially with the use of "you," can inadvertently feel confrontational, suggesting a challenge to the listener's intelligence or worldview.

A more ‘sublative’ approach could be to shift from the individual-specific "you" to the more inclusive "people" or "we." For instance, “What many people might not see is…” or “What we often overlook is...” Instead of insinuating a personal deficiency or oversight, it proposes a broader human tendency. This reframing positions the perspective not as a critique but as a shared revelation. It hints at a collective journey of discovery, inviting collaboration and co-creation. The narrative subtly transforms, and you are no longer the ideological enemy, but a friend wanting to show them something interesting that enlightened your perspective, which used to be something like theirs in the past. Such linguistic choices, subtle yet impactful, can pave the way for sublation.

Acknowledgment and affirmation is another sublative strategy: Start by affirming the other person's viewpoint, even if you disagree. This does not mean you approve of their perspective, but it acknowledges their right to that perspective. If their mental state is dominated by Mind 1 thinking, their perspective isn’t much of a free choice, and understanding this fact makes blame not make much sense anyway. So the recognition of their perspective, especially when it comes from a place of genuine understanding, helps in lowering defenses. For example, rather than outright rejecting an opinion, you might say something like, "I understand where you're coming from. Let's explore this in more detail together."

Unlike persuasion, which can be seen as manipulation, sublation seeks mutual understanding. Highlight areas of agreement, no matter how small. This creates a foundation from which you can both build. Using open-ended questions that don't have a straightforward 'yes' or 'no' answer can help move someone into a more contemplative state. For instance, "What led you to your conclusion?" invites reflection and dialogue and fosters a Mind 2 state.

We can also use the silent power of body language. Non-verbal cues often speak louder than words. Adopting an open posture, maintaining comfortable eye contact, and subtly mirroring the other person's gestures can foster rapport and trust. Body language also conveys that we are really listening and not just waiting for our turn to speak. Nodding at intervals, maintaining an inviting facial expression, and leaning slightly forward can communicate interest and openness.

We must also remember that every conversation is embedded in a broader context. Recognize the cultural, historical, and personal backdrops against which your discussion is set. Frame your statements with empathy that comes from an understanding of the cultural and personal narratives that shape the other person's perspective. Narratives have a unique way of bypassing resistances. Sharing a personal story that illustrates your viewpoint can make your stance more relatable and less confrontational.

By employing these strategies with a conscious awareness of the underlying neural and psychological processes and dynamics, individuals may cultivate more reflective, adaptive responses when confronted with provocation.

But Game Theory of Mind is not just about finding alignment with others — it’s also about aligning the interests of the two minds we possess to achieve internal synergy, since we often have conflicting subconscious and conscious desires and goals.

Cultivating Mind 3: Aligning the Two Minds to Form the ‘Meta Mind’

In Game Theory of Mind, the two minds (Mind 1 and Mind 2) can be likened to the thesis and antithesis in Hegel's dialectic. Mind 1 is fast, automatic, and emotionally reactive, while Mind 2 is slow, reflective, and deliberate. These two modes of thinking can often be in opposition, especially when an individual is faced with complex or challenging decisions that involve both emotional and analytical considerations. Our “gut” might be telling us one thing, while our logical mind is telling us another. This creates cognitive dissonance, and those of us with belief systems that conflict with reality experience this dissonance on a daily basis.

Becoming aware of the hierarchical nature of our minds seems to have an effect on our general cognition, because we become aware of our hidden internal conflicts. When we start to be able to recognize the specific state of mind we are in, and when that state is switching from Mind 1 to Mind 2, what emerges is something like a “meta mind,” or a Mind 3, which acts as an even higher-level executive system that orchestrates an optimal distribution of control between the two lower minds.

This “meta-awareness” starts to infer the intentions of each mind and then the individual can begin to align their own conscious and subconscious interests. We can think of this harmonious integration as a process of “internal sublation,” where the threat detection and emotional reactivity of Mind 1 is recognized but modulated by the insight and reflection of Mind 2. This integrated response retains elements of both the reflexive and the reflective, leading to more effective and adaptive decision-making process. With meta-awareness, we can fluidly move from one state to another when the circumstances call for it.

How to Change the Game Using Game Theory of Mind

This introduction to the Game Theory of Mind framework isn't just an academic exercise. It holds the key to unlocking more cooperative and harmonious interactions in our increasingly divided world.

Here we have presented a model of the mind as a multi-level controller, a framework for understanding and reversing polarization cycles, and a theory of communication that explains how our mental state influences the perception and interpretation of messages, symbols, and events.

Applying the insights and principles from Game Theory of Mind to real life can change how you reason and make decisions on a moment-to-moment basis. But doing so is not as easy as one might think.

Since not everyone can engage Mind 2 so easily, it is important that we do exercises to strengthen our PFC circuitry, such as focused meditation, mindfulness practices, brain games, or some sort of mental activity that involves imagination or creativity. Perspective-taking, in the form of imagining the world from the perspective of others, is an important empathy-building exercise that develops the meta mind, Mind 3. Doing these exercises in conjunction with an awareness of the hierarchical nature of our minds can help cultivate the meta mindset we need to change our collective trajectory and save society from collapse.

However, the real solution, along with a higher state of awareness, is a unifying worldview that explains our biggest existential questions and makes sense of reality. If we better understand what we are, and where we’re headed, our interests would naturally align. The problem is that our current worldviews — the major religions, political ideologies, and national identities — divide us into tribes, and emphasize our differences rather than our similarities and shared human interests.

If the Unifying Theory of Reality proposed on this Substack is the (roughly) correct narrative of reality, then it could be the answer. A scientific-yet-spiritual worldview that unites us all under a common existential goal: the continued existence of life, consciousness, and creativity in the universe. Our intelligence makes our species uniquely responsible for seeing that life continues to survive, because to survive it must ultimately get off the planet before the sun explodes (or otherwise becomes uninhabitable). That means we must always be progressing — technologically, philosophically, morally, and spiritually. It also means realizing that maximizing our collective computational power by cooperating rather than competing. This worldview has been outlined in the article The Paradigm of Emergence: A Unifying Worldview for a Divided World and a Solution to the Meaning Crisis.