Online Reconciliation Circles

Online Reconciliation Circles are a novel format for modeling constructive dialogue on difficult topics. The goal is to provide a safe place to explore better approaches to polarizing issues, starting with systemic racism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Six Ways to Out-Think the Future

Pre-paying the “Crisis Mode Cost”

To prepare for times of danger, uncertainty, or extraordinary opportunity, we must cultivate these six habits of mind in order to win the future (#WTF) by bridging the gap between Snow’s two cultures.

Mnemonic: CriSys MoDe CoSt

Read the rest of this entry »

Retrospective Roundtable: THE GREAT DECENTRALIZATION OF 2020

Making of a Revolutionary Ruckus

April 1st, 2040 AD

By Ernest Prabhakar and Colin Keeler


Read the rest of this entry »

Truth Bowl Beta 4: Alternative Models of Education (2019-08-29 Finale)

Update:  Truth Bowl is now Fish Bowl.  Watch the videos to learn why:

For more details, please visit

Thursday 8/29 at 3PM Pacific will be our fourth public beta of Truth Bowl:

Zoom Meeting:

One tap mobile: +16699006833,,2960092796# US (San Jose)

Dial manually: +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 296 009 2796

This week we are experimenting with a new format inspired by Shark Tank: Read the rest of this entry »

Truth Bowl: Saving Humanity from Technology (Beta 3 2019-08-015)

Please join us for Truth Bowl Beta 3 next Thursday, August 15th at 3PM Pacific.

  • Zoom Meeting:
  • One tap mobile: +16699006833,,2960092796# US (San Jose)
  • Dial by your location: +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 296 009 2796

Framing Context

Technological progress has never been so rapid, pervasive, or impactful. Yet we are just starting to grapple with the negative consequences of our relationships to smartphones, social media, machine learning algorithms, and big tech companies.

In this hypothetical Scenario, the Activist (Bill) has been invited by the organizers of a tech conference to Pitch his concerns. The press and senior executives will be there. Activist asks the Confidant (David)  to preview his talk. Confidant is expected to raise helpful Concerns and Recommendations to improve the Pitch.

Read the rest of this entry »

Truth Bowl 2019-08-02 How to Fix Education (Beta 2)

For our second “Truth Bowl Beta” we are pivoting away from a panel discussion towards more of a back-and-forth debate — but with a twist! Rather than judging the two Panelists (“Pitcher” and “Catcher”), the audience (“Fielders”) primarily focus on capturing and rating the most useful Insights that arise during the Bowl using
with the code #T361. As before, the Gospodar acts as moderator and timekeeper.

The Challenge Question will be something like “What single change would ensure education better promotes societal flourishing?” There are three phases: Pitch, Counter, and Reflect.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Perspective on “The Purpose of Mass Education”

Ernie’s raw notes for ⰖTruth Bowl 2017-07-12-1500

The societal purpose of mass education is to Model and Promulgate a vision of how to align personal ambition with the good of society, ie gamifying communal status.

The big question is: what vision?

The small question is: does it work?

Read the rest of this entry »

TB 2019-07-12-1500: The Purpose of Mass Education

Around the world, we invest enormous quantities of Financial, Human, and Social Capital in education. Why?  What do we hope to get from it? How can we measure that? Whom can we trust to give us honest answers, rather than merely promote a particular agenda?

In particular, is the purpose of higher education to:

1.  Learn the hard technical skills necessary to land a job
2.  Develop the soft “human” skills necessary for a meaningful career
3. Cultivate the habits of mind necessary for a fulfilling life

And if there is more than one purpose, how do we balance or integrate them in terms of curriculum and funding?

Read the rest of this entry »

Truth Bowl CQ 2019-03-20 Free Speech with Consequences

Challenge Question for V2 of Truth Bowl (the ad hoc version)

You are a professor of philosophy at a large university. You’ve just received a panicky phone call from your former schoolmate Pat, the chair of humanities at a struggling liberal arts college out East. You vaguely remember hearing the school brought in an investment banker alum as president to pull off a turnaround. Pat informs you that said banker has invited a controversial book author to campus as a publicity stunt, and in one hour Pat is expected to face that author in some sort of debate.

Pat (and you) have never read the book or heard the author speak. However, many of your peers consider him a right-wing reactionary with the ear of Trump, who wants to abolish modern education and replace universities with some sort of theocratic communes. Previous invitations for him to speak at major universities have been rescinded due to outraged protests by students and faculties. That’s probably why this college president jumped at the chance to gain notoriety as the first school to host the author — and didn’t tell anyone until the last minute.

Several colleagues have urged Pat to quit and boycott the event, since it feels like a setup; better to be a martyr than risk legitimizing someone who seems both willing and able to destroy everything they stand for.

There isn’t much time. The only background material you have to go on is one relatively balanced book review.

Challenge Question: What advice would you give Pat, and why?

Options include (but are not limited to):
– Directly engaging with / critiquing (the ideas of) the author
– Proposing a debate format that would ensure Pat’s views get a fair hearing, despite the lack of preparation (Pat has enough authority to dictate the format, but not enough to escape the debate )
– Providing a clear rationale why it is Pat’s moral duty to boycott the event

Sign Up for Truth Bowl v1.0: Thu Jan 24 10:30am

This is it!  Please let me know by Monday if you can join a team for the 1.0 Truth Bowl competition:

Thursday, Jan 24th, 10:30 AM US Pacific Time
We want to put together two teams of 2-4 people each to start discussing the cases in advance.
Feel free to invite anyone else who might be interested; we will also need a few people to act as judges.  A draft Blurb is below (feedback welcome).

Read the rest of this entry »