TROM Dissected after 6 years
This dissection will be brief but important. Since I made TROM (started in 2010 and finished in 2011) I learned a ton about the world and some of the stuff I learned made me realized that I was ‘wrong’ in certain parts from TROM Documentary. Mind you I wrote several books since then on topics related to TROM and for the books my research on the topcis was much much more detailed. So it was quite normal to find out small parts of TROM with which I would disagree.
Here are the things that I got wrong in TROM or I kinda disagree with now:
1. I said that communism and other ‘isms’ are all the same because they are all using money. That’s true for the more recent mutations of these notions, but original intentions of communism and for example socialism were to get rid of money + other things like getting rid of social classes, countries, leaders, etc.. In my defense I was referring to these notions that became popular in the 1900 until present and not prior to that when they were invented. But if I knew at that time I would have presented these ideas in a better light. I realized the real face of these notions whilst writing The Money Game and Beyond TROM ebook (the main book that stands as the basis for TROM project). It is not easy to properly learn about these notions as so many sources are loaded with crap and misinformation. TVP also got it wrong about communism and socialism and then wonders why people ask them about similarities between these concepts and TVP. I told them about this but they didn’t change their minds or clarify it.
2. I said we need a better language to improve communication, maybe a language of science like maths or chemistry. I disagree 100% with that but it took me over a year of work on a massive TROM ebook on language to figure this out. In my defense this is a super super complex subject that takes a ton of work to understand. There is no such thing as a language that’s not subject to interpretation. Even maths or chemistry are – the only reason they seem not to be is because of the context where they are used: the scientific community where scientists agree on the values of those languages + these languages are usually based on physical references like the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in any country and can be measured independently. Therefore, I concluded, that if we want to improve communication then it is not a matter of changing the language, but the context. Again, this subject is super complex and the book that I worked on will be over 600 pages long (still working on it, one more part to be released – you can find all the parts here https://www.tromsite.com/books/). If you are confused by this then you have to read that book because it is impossible for me to make it clear here in a paragraph. TVP also got this quite wrong from what I can say now, and I was influenced by TVP when I promoted this idea of creating a language like maths to solve communicational issues. Now I know better.
3. I said that the monetary system was the problem behind most of today’s issues. That’s true but it will be better said that trade is, since the monetary system is just one system of trade and there are many such systems out there. Again it took me almost a year writing The Money Game and Beyond ebook to realize this. TVP and TZM promote ‘money’ as a source of problems which leaves a huge gap that people fall into because they think that the money is the problem and maybe another currency is the solution.
4. In the “evolution of everything” part I started with the string theory that is not well backed-up today. Maybe it will be in the future. Nevertheless that was a very small part but if I knew better at that time I wouldn’t have put it in there.
5. I kinda regret that I named the TVP part as “resource based economy” since this gets misinterpreted by people that it is about resources while in fact it is not. It is about changing the infrastructure and people’s values. Since then I always tried to stay away from the RBE notation as it creates confusion from what I’ve seen. But my hope is that people are smarter than that and realize this, especially after they see that RBE TROM part.
6. I relied on psychological experiments a bit too much, and now I realize that psychology is a soft science (read this book that I wrote on psychology after I made TROM). Basically the psychological experiments that I presented in TROM are not replicable (mostly) so they are not that solid. Like when I talk about people being obedient in front of authorities, or that subliminal messages in ads may influence people’s behavior, or the “God helmet”, or the prison experiment and a few others. They are all good psychological experiments, but can’t be that conclusive becasue psychology is quite nuts when it comes tu assumptions. Nevertheless they serve more as examples of how the human behavior can be influenced and by what.
7. I should have made the science part much bigger because is hard for people to understand what science is from that tiny 20min presentation. But in my defense this was a very complex subject to tackle and my plan/path with this documentary was different.
I guess that’s all. It is still an amazing documentary from my perspective and I only disagree with small parts of it after 6 years.
30 Replies to “TROM Dissected after 6 years”
1. Isms are presented in tvp mainly for the populist purpose to show their insufficiency and that people require different approaches. Even Jacque said that they failed in reaching the goal because they didn’t have tools. It’s strange that you haven’t noticed that.
2. When you apply clear context – language inevitably changes. I’d recommend Alfred Korzhybski’s ”science and sanity ” in case you haven’t read it.
1. Did you talk to Roxanne about this because I did. They fail to clarify these notions. Actually they refuse to do so. So many people get confused because TVP says “communism used money, had leaders, etc.” they even say that about Karl Marx https://www.thevenusproject.com/faq/is-this-what-karl-marx-advocated/ implying that somehow that’s what Marx envisioned. Trust me I have read those FAQ tons of times. When I told Roxanne what and where to make these FAQ’s clearer by saying something like: “although Marx and the original idea of communism and socialism implied a world without money, social status, etc, they didn’t have the methods or details of applying such ideals or describing them in more detail.” – Roxanne didn’t bother to reply to me even if I insisted a few days on this.
2. I recommend you read some recent science and not a book written 60 years ago that could be opinionated. Language does not change, the context does. Same sentence can mean something to me and something else to someone else. It is the context that matter and not the language.
3. I said TVP and TZM promote money as the source of problems. I have read all TVP materials so many times….they rarely if ever talk about “trade” – and talk about money so much: from their lectures to their writings.
1. I agree that it could be clearer but man, that’s a part of their rhetorics. I think you are missing that entirely.
2. Book that I’ve recommended is a solid foundation to understand better exactly what you are referring to – the context. Try not to disregard something automatically if it’s older than you.
Language does change 🙂 You’re now communicate with linguist 🙂 Look at English language of Shakespeare and modern one in Britain. Language would also change dramatically when a clear narrow context is applied daily by the majority of people. Obsolete words (ones that illustrate same phenomenon would vanish and only the agreed ones would stay active. It’s a a constant process of slow change. Always.
3. Read FAQ no. 2 more attentively. It clearly says ANY form of barter and servitude.
1. It doesn’t help them when they don’t clarify it. You have no idea how many people get confused about this and lose their trust in TVP because they see how TVP ignores the good ideas of communism and socialism. It is like people would define TVP as self sustainable communities – that would be wrong and would serve no advantage to TVP. I used to be one of those who defended TVP when so many screamed that TVP sounds like communism, but then I was able to educate myself (unlike TVP) and provide better answers to people in regards to this.
2. You got this wrong, but it’s not surprising since you needed more context to understand what I meant by context or language not changing people’s behavior (as that’s what I thought you imply) – I too needed more context from you to properly understand this. I know too well how language changes over time, I wrote a book on that :), but from talking to people who read the ”science and sanity ” and one of these people fact checking my book on language, and after reading what influenced Korzhybski to write that book, then I don’t see that book as important because, as I understand from all of this, it mainly implies that languages changes the way we think and that we should improve language to improve communication, though there is no proof of that, by contrary. I am always open to talk about this subject so you can ‘educate’ me on this topic 😛
3. Exactly. One FAQ, one little mention. That was the problem I wanted to highlight. They put the emphasis on money too much. They also do not explain what the monetary system is all about – they lack many details when it comes to this subject.
1. Yeah, they definitely should clarify that if asked. No doubt about it. But for their general rhetorics it works just fine as is. If people are getting discouraged by just one detail of a vast, holistic project that answers tons of relevant to all people questions then they indeed need to read Korzhybski in order to understand how mixing of higher levels of abstractions works. I have no purpose in defending or ridiculing something as this would simply close me from asking relevant questions and mask my intention to know more on the subject.
It’s just what you are saying seems not accurate enough.
2. Yes, context should have been clearer, I agree.
It’s pointless to discuss this with you now as you’re simply unaware of what that book is about (from what you said so far). It’s indeed one of the main books (known to me) for improvement of human communication.
3. What you want to emphasize not necessarily serves the purpose. Read ‘science and sanity – already! 🙂
There are tons of books on language. I choose not to read Korzybski because when I started reading it it was a lot of talking and very little substance and could not continue reading it. Not saying the book is not good since I haven’t read it (of course), but I don’t find it necessary. I think I’ve read enough on the subject. Btw I’ve seen Korzybski’s name several times when reading about “linguistic relativity” as one of those influenced by this idea and one of the promoters of the idea – and the idea is that language affects thought like for example if we improve the language then that will improve the way we see the world and communicate.
This is one part of the book on Language that I wrote https://www.tromsite.com/2017/03/language-the-context/ that deals with the subject of context and language structure – if you have the time and interest to read it. Maybe indeed I said what Korzybski said in his book and I got it wrong when I head that Korzybski’s book is about ‘improving language to improve the way we see the world’.
Yes, that is certainly a mistake.
Also, I don’t think it is ever enough to read something on the subject. I’ll certainly check your book when I have time for it(truck driving, so audio book would be very handy)
That book is strictly on the subject (maybe you’ve checked some sort of adaptation?) . It starts with dual Aristotelian frame of thinking and progresses to structural differential and language failures. Helps a lot not with just communication but also with one’s mental adjustment to the real world. Seriously, I’d even consider it one of my revolutionary books, if I could say that 🙂
We will make audiobooks for all of our TROM books, but it is a slow process because it is super difficult and we have a ton of books.
I know many say that the “science and sanity” is such a great book, but it is a bit frustrating when no one can explain it at least a bit, to give you an idea what it is all about. Because some people say is about how to ‘manipulate’ words to achieve better communication and to see the world in a different way, some say it is not at all about that. So it’s confusing and a bit ironic since it is a book about language.
When it comes to tvp and it’s small (intentional) inacuracies there’s you and there’s me and lots of others to clarify it when needed.
My assumption as to why they didn’t specify more about communism is that it could potentially discourage far more people (especially in America) . Even in Russia itself term communism has quite a derogative connotation. Communism = USSR Vs USA antagonism = failure = bad = idiocy to even talk about.
Instead of comparing tvp to communism (even intention wise which will already turn people against it), they most likely decided to stay away from it and go from another premise.
That’s what I meant by ‘their rhetorics’
But that’s your projection about why TVP does not do that. I haven’t heard Roxanne saying this at all. By contrary she stands by TVP’s words on these ‘isms’. I get your point very well, I would not associate TVP with communism, but I would make it clear to where TVP is different from the original ideas of communism and from the more recent abominations of communism. I actually did that with TVPMagazine in a huge book “The Money Game and Beyond” that Roxanne didn’t like at all. I clarified where TVP is different from these “isms” and what these “isms” are really about and how they were misrepresented in China, USSR, Romania, and so forth. But TVP didn’t care at all.
I am just saying you have to always be honest and historically correct if you aim to get some respectable interest in your project. A little clarification in their FAQ would spare the time that the TVP volunteers have to spend to wrongly dispute on this subject with people who are posing such questions like “how is TVP different from communism”.
Tio, not projections but assumption 🙂 . My assumption is based on the relevant information on rhetorics and information presentation (marketing). I’d say I’m pretty certain they did that with that main purpose. I could try and get in touch with them to clarify it for you personally as to me it’s quite obvious.
K, let’s start with who will pose those questions? Are we interested in uninformed individuals who blindly follow or not follow something or a critical mass of people who are driven by the direction and know exactly what is it all about and where it is going?
Well “projections” works as well 🙂 – you project into what TVP thinks about that subject. If they did that with that purpose then they are damn good at hiding that purpose haha. Roxane could have said that to me but she didn’t.
And actually informed individuals will pose those questions about TVP and Communism since, well, they are informed about these topics enough to make the connection. I never said this should be so crucial for TVP to clarify but is beyond stupid not to clarify this when so many people ask about it.
Anyways, whatever TVP does is not my business. 😉
At this point, it really looks like you’ve contacted them on this ”issue”,they didnt respond to you and you got mad. Which is really strange but still. I don’t know what kind of communication you guys established or any details about it to understand this fuller but it damn looks like the beef thing.
“it really looks like you’ve contacted them on this ”issue”,they didnt respond to you and you got mad. ” – You project too much. Communication is a two ways street, where you don’t understand something ask for more “informational context” so that things are more clear to you ;). Don’t have the time to go into details here over Language or TVP. If anything my comment on Language is here: https://www.tromsite.com/books/ last 4 articles, and on TVP here http://www.tiotrom.com/tvp-and-me/#!/
I have plenty of time to show you where your thinking might be erroneous. When I say it looks like, it becomes quite obvious that there’s no place for projection. I’m not saying that something is so and I’ve stated above that I don’t possess enough information on this.
I’m not going to redirect you to huge books at this point and simply give you a link to one of my articles.
https://web.facebook.com/criteriaforfuture/posts/1434351203255933:0?refid=12
Man, you are a bit stupid. You wasn’t there second by second…, and yet you act as if you were there and thus you know everything.
“When I say it looks like, it becomes quite obvious that there’s no place for projection.”
Even this phrase is a prove that you are much too shallow and stupid, the statement itself proves that it is a complete projection…, or maybe you’ve learned spoken language with the cattle in the barn…
Thanks for the links. I think, it would be more appropriate to put them out in the beginning of this conversation. Will definitely check it out.
Hey Tio
Can we connect on facebook, Skype, whatever for more easy way to talk?
You can always email me at tio.trom@gmail.com. I reply to all emails. It is the easiest for me to keep in contact with people. I don’t use Skype or Facebook Messenger at all. Cheers
I was primarily thinking about online communication but thanks for the email anyways.
Email is online communication for me 😉 – I don’t have much time to spare on direct conversations of any kind online, but as you can see I reply to these indirect messages so if you email me I’ll get back to you.
If we want to achieve more efficient communication language will inevitably have to change.
It’s quite burdensome and time consuming to try finding similar context with other person.
I imagine, that’s why this parallel with science is so frequent (and valid) here.
Thank you! 🙂 – If that’s representative of the general semantics then I disagree 100% with it. I argue that language has nothing to do with better communication, only the context. Language does not have to change to achieve better communication, the context should. That’s what I argue in the last book I gave you link to. I will though read Tyranny of Words these days (i hope so) to get a bit of a better grasp of it.
No it’s not.
Language is the PRIMARY tool we use to show the context and they work in conjunction.
It’s very inefficient to only concentrate on context and disregard the language as it will create too much of a contextual clarification. Similarly to nowadays, we have millions of words in thousands of dictionaries that are highly unrepresentative of phenomena and will get interpreted differently cross-culturally even cross – subculturally.
Yes, context is the main characteristic here but it’s vital to remember that language and context are interconnected and one is implemented by the other.
It could be that the word “context’ dissolves differently in our brains so we understand different things by it. If I say “I want to eat a sandwich” – the only reason you didn’t picture a raw fish in between two slices of cheese is because you and I live in the same ‘context’, same world. We are used with similar representations of sandwiches. So we share a context this is why we can communicate.
So words stand for nothing unless there is a common context. That’s why you can’t explain color to a blind man because you don’t share that context of seeing. No words will make a blind man understand color as a sighted man does. Where there is no context there is no communication.
I explain this in depth in the book.
Well, that’s absolutely obvious. I’m informed on that subject to understand it well enough m, but thanks anyway 🙂
You’ve pretty much repeated what I stated in the previous message.
The example with blind man can be considered invalid in this particular conversation as it doesn’t illustrate why language oughtn’t to change. Blind people talk on their language, as deaf people do.
Again, context is vital but language is the primary tool we use to express / narrow / clarify context.
What you are talking about is general empirical context people share. Also known as background.
When it comes to tvp and it’s small (intentional) inacuracies there’s you and there’s me and lots of others to clarify it when needed.
My assumption as to why they didn’t specify more about communism is that it could potentially discourage far more people (especially in America) . Even in Russia itself term communism has quite a derogative connotation. Communism = USSR Vs USA antagonism = failure = bad = idiocy to even talk about.
Instead of comparing tvp to communism (even intention wise which will already turn people against it), they most likely decided to stay away from it and go from another premise.
That’s what I meant by ‘their rhetorics’
Hello.
I agree with your first point. I saw, several times, how some marxist people regret TVP ideas, because of inability of Fresco to divide communism and socialism. So, TVP become pop project for teenagers, but not for serious people, who really could move the idea.
I think this lack comes from US education. I saw many comments, that show that american people really think that USSR was pure communistic country. This is where the knowledge of communism start and ends. Nobody really know what is communism, they just think communism is Totalitarism and scarcity.