As requested by @rufuspollock I’m capturing some of the WhatsApp discussion around the Stag Hunt theme here. Includes some familiar names, as well as a newcomer (welcome @Nymrod !)
The discussion began with a reframing of the Prisoner’s Dilemma as a Stag Hunt: the central problem is not simply selfish defection, but the risk of ambitious cooperation when trust, common knowledge, shared commitment, or confidence in the goal are not yet present. “Rabbit hunting” was framed as the safer, risk-dominant option under uncertainty, while “stag hunting” requires more developed coordination infrastructure, trust, and credible shared vision.
From there, the conversation moved into the deeper problem of competing visions. Several participants argued that people do not come to collective projects merely as neutral contributors; they arrive with their own hopes, strategies, identities, and “fully worked out plans.” This makes coordination difficult because collaboration often asks people to loosen attachment to their own preferred future.
A major theme was vision dropping: the maturity to let go of one’s cherished plan so that it can fertilize a richer shared vision. This was not presented as self-erasure, but as a way for individual insight to become part of something larger. Related ideas included “ontological commoning,” nested goals, non-attachment, and the need to hold one’s own contribution without clinging to it as the one true path.
The discussion also explored the metaphor of building a cathedral. A collective may agree that it wants to build something grand, but still faces the meta-problem of deciding on the blueprint. Not everyone is an architect, yet many kinds of contribution are necessary. This raised questions about hierarchy, legitimacy, postmodern pluralism, shared ethos, and how a group can converge on a goal without domination.
A tension emerged between subtle alignment work and tangible action. Some argued that deep collaboration requires philosophical, relational, and ontological groundwork; others pressed for concrete experiments rather than endless talk about how to contribute. This led to the proposal of small, low-risk collaborative projects as a practical test of coordination.
Overall, the thread circled around one core question: How can people with strong, diverse visions become capable of ambitious cooperation without collapsing into hierarchy, fragmentation, endless deliberation, or premature action?
Highlights / extracts
“It’s simpler & more reliable for people to work autonomously towards their own projects (‘hunting rabbits’). Coordinating for bigger projects (‘hunting stags’) is higher risk, takes greater trust, & the stags actually have to be in the forest.”
— Melody Half-elven
“The point… is not ‘always choose rabbit,’ but ‘do not moralize rabbit as defection before you have done the work required to make stag a sane choice.’”
— David Joseph
“Our visions don’t have to be identical, in fact they mustn’t be, but we can and must cultivate the ability to flow in dynamic harmony with one another’s visions and work.”
— Ganga Braun
“People don’t get together ONLY to contribute — they want their visions to come to life.”
— Martin
“We who come to spaces such as this often come with our hands full of gifts, though that interferes with us bringing our hands together.”
— Nymrod G
“This situation demands of us all the maturity and faith to ‘drop our vision’.”
— Nymrod G
“This isn’t a dilemma about defection. It’s a dilemma about maturity.”
— Nymrod G
“Trust that rather than your ideas, you are the gift that you are bringing into the space.”
— Nymrod G
“The most beautiful vision you can imagine is ever partial, with room to grow, and for other people’s visions.”
— Melody Half-elven
“How does a collective decide which vision to follow? I’d liken this problem to deciding on the blueprint of a cathedral.”
— David Joseph
“Not every player on the team can be the goals and shots leader. Some can focus on assists. Others can just defend or do other sorts of set up.”
— Robert Bunge
“We need to start contributing towards certain tangible goals rather than endlessly talk about how to contribute towards certain tangible goals.”
— Martin
“In the dialogical juxtaposition of all those fully worked out plans, a less fully worked out plan — but most probably a richer one — is very likely to emerge.”
— Robert Bunge
“Moving toward a goal can be counterproductive if the goal itself is out of alignment with… the Good, the True and the Beautiful.”
— Nymrod G
“Not detachment in the sense of devaluing one’s own contribution, but rather not clinging on, not seeing it as the one true path.”
— Simon Grant
“A Collaboration mindset doesn’t need to invoke ‘subordination’ or ‘submission’… perhaps think instead of nested goals.”
— Margeret Heath
“Mostly, work with love, and an openness towards how the unifying Vision, and shared Ethos might express itself.”
— Margeret Heath
Possible forum framing
A useful framing for the post might be:
From Stag Hunts to Vision Dropping: Notes on Trust, Cooperation, and Collective Action
The discussion begins with game theory, but quickly opens into a richer inquiry: under what conditions does ambitious cooperation become rational, mature, and alive? The recurring answer is that trust alone is not enough. A group also needs shared ethos, practical experiments, better coordination infrastructure, and the maturity to loosen attachment to individual visions so that a genuinely collective vision can emerge.
Original chat log: ChatGPT - Vision Dropping and Cooperation