1.Intro

Welcome to the last part of Shifting Paradigms Series, we started this journey to make sense of this world by defining, understanding and tracing paradigms and their shifts. In the first 2 parts, we have built a story which unfolds the current paradigms. Before we dive into the future, let’s pause and remind ourselves why we started this journey. We began by recognizing that paradigms—those shared sets of assumptions and frameworks—shape our collective mental models. And these mental models, in turn, build the systems we live in: our economies, our political institutions, our cultures, our identities, and even the energy systems that power our lives. And it is these systems that create patterns of behaviors across societies and it is these systems that cause the events we have today. Without understanding them, it is impossible to reverse the humankind’s undoing.

The idea is simple yet profound: if the way we think changes, the way we live changes , that’s where shifts starts, and that’s why, after exploring how our modern paradigms were built, we now face a crucial question: What comes next?

To answer that question, we first need to create a model of understanding that describes how the way we think changes. To do that, I will utilize a couple of different methodologies from diverse disciplines like systems thinking, cognitive sociology, psychology and graph theory of mathematics, so please bear with me, this will be long one.

Here is our agenda:

• We will first develop an understanding of mental models

• Then, we talk about behaviors by understanding goal framing theory and how it feeds on mental models

• Next up, we will establish an understanding about social phenomena built on these mental models and goal framing theory

• Then, we will design a network model that reflects our understanding of this world

• And solve this network through finding clusters, top centrality nodes and their interactions

• and finally we will cast a near future scenario based on these dynamics.

I have put timestamps below so you can go directly to the chapter you want to watch, if you do not want to consume this almost 1 hr long video essay.

Let’s start.

2.Building the Model

2.1 Mental Models

In the 1940s, experimental psychologist Kenneth Craik proposed that the mind constructs small-scale models of reality that it uses to anticipate events and reason, which was a groundbreaking idea at that time. And then, in the 80s, cognitive scientist Philip Johnson-Laird advanced this concept by framing it as the dependence of reasoning and understanding on constructing internal representations of reality, which he called mental models. And finally, in the 90s, Systems Scientist Peter Senge, who wrote the systems thinking bible: the fifth discipline, suggested that mental models shape our behaviors and those behaviors yields some results which in return reorganize our mental models, affecting each hierarchical level of organization, thus he brought a systemic perspective to the discussion. To support his idea Peter Senge used Chris Argyris and Donald Schön’s ladder of inference which simply gives more details on this process starting from Data → Selected Data → Assumptions → Conclusions → Beliefs (Mental Models) → Actions. And actions actually create some new data and this cycle continuously updates itself, which later perfectly fit over Edward Hall’s and Donella Meadows’ Iceberg Model, where they suggested a hierarchy between events, patterns, systems and mental models from top to bottom and visualized paradigms as the oceans where these icebergs float, we have talked about it earlier in this channel, you can find the relevant sessions below in the description. Now, we have a notion of what a mental model is, lets move onto behavior part.

2.2 Behaviors and Goal Framing Theory

In the early 2000s, behavior scientists tried and tested many assumptions to model our cognitive processes so that we can have a better understanding of mental models and one of them I want to talk about here is goal framing theory of Lindenberg and Steg.

Goal Framing Theory says that human behavior is guided by three overarching goal frames, and only one frame is dominant at a given moment, shaping how we interpret a situation and what we pay attention to.

What is an overarching goal frame? It is like the main lens your brain is using at any given moment to decide what matters most. Among all the options, you frame one option and take the shot. It answers the question: “What is my main goal right now?” and depending on your answer, it guides:

• What you pay attention to

• How you interpret a situation

• What action you decide to take

So, it calibrates your perspective to that particular situation you are facing, and if you may remember from our systems thinking series, that perspective defines what is a problem and what is not. According to Lindenberg and Steg, at any given time 3 goal frames competes inside our brain. They are hedonic goal frame, instrumental goal frame and normative goal frame. I like to think them like greek gods and goddesses. How Dionysus would see, decide and act; How Hermes would see, decide and act; How Athena would see, decide and act. If you are familiar with greek mythology, you might guess them.

Hedonic goal frame focuses on feeling good now. It is concerned with finding pleasure and comfort and avoiding pain and effort. For example, when you choose the car instead of walking to your 500m away store, your hedonic goal frame won the competition inside your brain.

Instrumental goal frame focuses on guarding and improving one’s resources. It is concerned with financial rewards, gaining or guarding status, performance gains and efficiency. It can be as simple as choosing to cook at home to save money after a long and exhausting day, or it can be a complex situation like weakening labor union through causing conflict among them so your company, which you own, can keep more profits for itself, thus for yourself.

Normative goal frame, on the other hand, focuses on acting properly, because it is obsessed with doing the right thing and being accepted socially. When this frame wins the competition in our brain, we prioritize rules and values of our society over other goal frames even at the cost of self-interest. For example, buying “green” products although they are costly than other alternatives.

Even though all three goals are always present for all of us, only one dominates at a time based on the situation. And that dominant frame shapes perception of the situation, directs attention and influences decision-making. And they can be manipulated through contextual cues or how a message is framed, so one can trigger a shift from one goal frame to another through means of communication.

Take wealth inequality, for example—one of humanity's largest, most persistent challenges. The gap between the richest and the poorest has grown so vast that it's nearly impossible for the average person to grasp, let alone confront. This overwhelming scale activates a response of acceptance, which is a mental model called system justification. Governments, corporations, and media skillfully exploit our goal frames to reinforce this acceptance. Media often trigger our hedonic frame, distracting us with entertainment and consumerist messages that prioritize immediate pleasure over systemic change. Governments manipulate our normative frame by promoting narratives like "economic growth benefits everyone," urging compliance and collective stability rather than critical questioning. Corporations tap into our instrumental frame, convincing us to focus narrowly on individual success, productivity, and efficiency, so framing wealth disparity as a natural outcome of personal achievement rather than systemic design. Through these subtle yet persistent shifts, we stop seeing extreme inequality as a problem at all; it fades from our radar, becoming simply "the way things are," which neutralizes our drive for meaningful intervention. And once a majority of population is neutralized then organizations and even society itself completely stop seeing this as a problem to be addressed.

And this shows the beauty of GFT, that it can be applied to individual level, organization level and even to societal level because you can aggregate those goal frames. And another beauty of this model is that its natural connection to mental models. As said in the wealth inequality example, if society holds a mental model of system justification which leads to acceptance for that situation, then your goal frame shifts towards which one provides the acceptance on that moment.

2.3 Phenomena from Behaviors

If we zoom out from individuals and look at society as a whole, something more powerful begins to emerge, what we call a phenomenon. It is not just a collection of behaviors—it’s a pattern that arises when those behaviors become widespread, self-reinforcing, and culturally embedded. It’s the difference between one person choosing to overwork and some related behaviors, and a society where burnout is normalized. When enough people repeatedly act from similar goal frames, shaped by similar mental models and influenced by the same systemic cues, those actions start to form visible patterns—what we call social phenomena. These aren’t accidental—they are structured, maintained, and reproduced across generations, institutions, and communication. So whether it's capital concentration, anti-elite rhetoric, externalization of costs, or financial markets, these are not isolated events or individual failings. They are emergent structures of deeper cognitive and systemic loops—echoes of our dominant paradigms, reflected through the behaviors we collectively enact.

Let’s take a concrete example: financial markets. While they’re often portrayed as cold, data-driven systems, and feel like they cannot be related to something born out of soft topic like behaviors, they are in fact deeply social phenomena. Every price movement is shaped by millions of individual decisions—driven by mental models about risk and value, goal frames like profit maximization, and emotional cues like fear or euphoria. These individual behaviors, repeated and amplified through institutional structures and media narratives, create patterns like booms, busts, and bubbles. As a matter of fact financial markets do not reflect any sort of rational reality, yep they don’t, sorry mainstream economists, it mirrors the dominant beliefs, expectations, and incentives of a society. They are absolutely the product of our beliefs shaped by the narratives. And in this way, financial markets are not separate from culture, they are not some glorious order of merit and hardcore science just because you are crunching some numbers—they are culture, simply translated into numbers. They emerge from us, respond to us, and shape us in return. And just like any other phenomenon, if we want to shift their trajectory, we must first understand the mental models they arise from.

And this brings us to the types of phenomena. Just like Lindenberg suggested in Goal Framework Theory, we can think any social phenomenon in the same structure, Because those phenomena are emerged from behaviors, they should inherit their DNA. Thus, we have 3 types:

• Phenomena emerging from Instrumental Purpose-Seeking Behaviors,

• Phenomena emerging from Normative Purpose-Seeking Behaviors,

• and Phenomena emerging from Hedonic Purpose-Seeking Behaviors.

For example, when we talk about phenomenon of financial markets, we can sense that it feeds on instrumental purpose-seeking behaviors—those driven by the pursuit of efficiency, control, and personal gain. Think of the behaviors it rewards and amplifies:

• Day trading to chase short-term profits, even if it adds no real value to the economy

• Offshoring labor or automating jobs to maximize shareholder returns

• Buying or dumping stocks based on quarterly earnings calls, not long-term sustainability

• Creating complex financial products like derivatives or credit default swaps—tools designed to optimize risk exposure and return, often with little connection to the real economy

• Pump-and-dump schemes, where influencers or institutions manipulate perception for quick gain

• And even greenwashing, where companies perform symbolic eco-actions just to attract investors, while maintaining exploitative practices underneath

These aren’t just isolated tactics—they are normalized behaviors within the system, guided by the dominant goal frame: maximize gains, minimize losses, optimize outcomes. And when millions act from that frame, over time, we get a market culture obsessed with speed, scale, and surface optics. That is what creates the phenomenon of the financial market—not the numbers, but the collective behavior behind the numbers.

2.4 Network Model

Alright, I believe we are ready to start building our meta understanding model.

Let’s briefly remember Peter Senge’s organizational mental model system: behaviors emerge from mental models and those behaviors create results, which in return feedbacks the mental model. let’s expand this with Donella Meadows and Edward Hall’s suggestion, those mental models emerge from the paradigms.

Next, since we are building a meta model, phenomena would be a better representative for a collection of intertwined self-reinforcing behaviors as we have talked. So let’s replace behaviors with phenomena emerging from purpose-seeking behaviors.

Next up, let’s talk about results. Traditionally, results are thought of as immediate, measurable consequences of actions. But that’s too narrow for what we’re building here. Because in the real world, especially in complex social systems, what actually drives feedback isn’t just what happens, but what is perceived to have happened. People don’t act on objective truth; they act on what they believe the outcomes are, filtered through their own mental models and frames. So, to reflect this cognitive layer, I suggest we shift from using the term “results” to perceived outcomes. This allows us to account for misinformation, selective perception, and narrative framing, all of which play a critical role in reinforcing or challenging paradigms.

So, our loop becomes: paradigms shape mental models → mental models shape phenomena (through purpose-seeking behaviors) → phenomena lead to perceived outcomes → and those perceived outcomes reinforce or reshape the mental models.

But we’re not done yet. There should be a more vital link we need to add: a feedback from perceived outcomes back to phenomena. Because paradigms shift in longer periods, after accumulation of perceived outcomes. So, once people interpret the outcomes of what’s happening, whether through media narratives, institutional framing, or personal experience, they don’t just update their mental models immediately. They adjust their behavior, depending on the outcomes, and some other purpose-seeking or goal framing behavior can become in charge, feeding another phenomena. If people perceive that short-term investing brings reward, they do more of it, amplifying speculative behavior in the market, and that leads to a misinformation phenomena. Or, if they believe social movements bring no real change, participation drops, weakening the movement itself. But does the response stop? No, it channels into another phenomena like creating conspiracies or anti-elite rhetoric.

So phenomena don’t just cause outcomes, they also feed on how those outcomes are perceived. This perception loop is what allows phenomena to gain momentum, become normalized, and even institutionalized. Without this feedback, we’d be stuck with a linear model that misses the dynamic evolution of social patterns over time.

Finally, no model of change is complete without accounting for shocks and breakthroughs. They are those unexpected events or slow-building pressures that reach a tipping point. And these shocks don’t come from outside the system, they are produced by the paradigm itself. When contradictions accumulate, when perceived outcomes no longer align with lived experiences, and when dominant phenomena push systems to their breaking point, a rupture occurs. These paradigm-generated shocks like financial crashes, ecological collapse, revolutionary technologies, or widespread disillusionment, create the disruption needed for a new paradigm to emerge. In our model, these shocks act like pressure valves: releasing tension from the old paradigm while feeding energy, urgency, and legitimacy into the formation of the new one.

But here’s where things get even more interesting. When an emerging paradigm is born, usually in the aftermath of a breakthrough or shock, it doesn’t cooked fully with its own mental models, norms, or systems. So, in its early stages, it often borrows the mental models, language, and structures created by the dominant paradigms, not because it agrees with them, but because that’s the only available cognitive and cultural scaffolding. As a result, the early behaviors and phenomena associated with the emerging paradigm often look a lot like those of the old one. Think of early digital platforms mimicking industrial hierarchies, or green economy still tied to growth logic. But as the emerging paradigm gains strength, it starts to challenge and rewire those mental models. And crucially, it also begins to influence phenomena and get influenced from phenomena, seeding new behaviors, narratives, and cultural patterns that begin to deviate from the old system. This is why our model includes a feedback from emerging paradigms back into phenomena because even while weak and forming, new paradigms don’t wait in silence. They experiment, they signal, they iterate, slowly reshaping what’s considered possible, valuable, and real. And eventually, they earn their place in the dominant paradigms, waiting their turn to be challenged in some future.

Alright, looks like we’ve completed our model. Is it correct? Honestly, I don’t know. But I believe it captures at least some part of the truth, as seen through my lens. Remember, a socio-technical model is never the reality, it’s just a way to make sense of it. And this one, I hope, gives us a better compass for navigating what comes next.

3. Reflecting Our World: What is Happening Now?

Now, we have our proposed understanding model, so we can project our world onto this, at least the we world I’m aware of and have a sliver of knowledge about it. Thus, what you will see is a representation of my mind rather than the true-all-capture of everything in this world. Nevertheless, it is an attempt to unfold this complex, almost chaotic world. If you think there should be other nodes in this model, meet me in the comments section, write down your perspective and let’s start a constructive conversation to make this model a better one.

Ok, let’s pickup from where we left in the part 2 of this series, the set of current paradigms in 5 core oceans.

I’ll put them around a circle and replicate our meta-model by knitting every element to form a network graph.

In the economy paradigm, we are stuck in growth addiction and to satisfy our hunger we have “Harnessing the power of networks of human intelligence to innovate and grow” as the central paradigm, supported by “Be the first for best returns”, “productivity + efficiency =growth” and Machine 1.0 in Business and Fiat Money in Finance.

In the identity paradigm, we identify ourselves by what we did but some of us does this by fitting into society and others by rejecting societal norms

Which reflects in the culture paradigm as the clash of modernism and post-modernism, because economy ocean is still heavily influenced by modernism

This clash is also reflected in the energy paradigm. Most Governments still think in the framework of centralized energy production and distribution, while there is a huge demand for decentralized energy grids

And politics paradigm is caught between Globalization and Identity Politics although modern democracies are holding the core mode of thinking.

Now, these paradigms forged countless mental models of ours, here I pick a bouquet of them, which I believe relevant to iterate this model, for example the paradigm "Harnessing the Networks of Human Intelligence to Innovate and Grow" of the Knowledge Economy, supported 3 central mental models of our modern societies: Rational Actor Theory, Homo Economicus and Technological Determinism. Or "Be the 1st to innovate for best returns", it definitely helped shaping 3 mental models: Growth is Progress, Scarcity and Survival of the Fittest. Or one of the most era shaping paradigm: Productivity + Efficiency = Growth. It almost diffused into every core mental model of ours. Or Globalization, it also has huge impact on how we think.

And this bouquet of mental models, forged our behaviors, and those behaviors collectively created some phenomena we live by, as we have talked earlier.

The first group of phenomena are due to Instrumental Purpose-Seeking Behaviors. This group of behaviors is concerned with improving or maintaining one’s resources in the long run, as talked earlier. Think of the system justification mental model, which frames people to rationalize systemic injustices to feel safe, stable or simply justify their actions without guilt. This mental model is related to many phenomena, from capital concentration to externalization. Actually, all these phenomena feed on many mental models, not from one to one. For example, the phenomenon of capital concentration is not just related to the system justification mental model. Homo Economicus, Scarcity Mindset, Trickle-Down Economics, Rational Actor Theory and Optimization for Growth, all feeds the capital concentration.

All these phenomena due to Instrumental Purpose-Seeking Behaviors which feed on mental models lead to 3 globally dominant problems that we continuously fail to solve or address: Slow Growth, Wealth Distribution and Environmental Crisis. If you remember we have talked about these dominant problems in the part 2 of birth of AI economy.

Let’s talk about each, based on our model’s perspective.

If we zoom in on the wealth distribution problem, what we find isn’t just one bad policy or one greedy rich person, it’s a whole network of behaviors and systems that quietly shape the playing field. Most of the phenomena behind this problem, things like capital concentration, tax policies that favor the rich, weakening of labor institutions, or financial markets chasing short-term gains, are powered by instrumental purpose-seeking behaviors. In other words, they’re focused on maximizing resources, profit, or control, often without asking who’s left behind. Take automation or global labor shifts, for example, they’re sold as progress, and they are indeed progress but at what cost? They often mean lower wages and less security for workers. Or think about how externalization lets companies dump their costs onto people, communities, and our shared planet, while keeping the profits. None of these things happen in isolation. They feed off one another, reinforcing a system where self-interest rules and fairness gets pushed aside. And that’s how we end up with a world where the wealth gap keeps growing, not because we don’t have enough wealth, but because the system keeps funneling it in the same direction.

Now let’s take a look at the environmental crisis. This isn’t just about carbon emissions or plastic in the oceans, it’s again the result of a system built around extracting as much as possible, as fast as possible, in the name of growth and efficiency. Many of the phenomena linked to environmental breakdown: unsustainable resource extraction, fossil fuel dependence, the take-make-waste logic, and externalization. They are all powered by instrumental purpose-seeking behaviors. These behaviors are focused on maximizing returns, minimizing costs, and keeping the machine running, regardless of the long-term damage. For example, if dumping waste is cheaper than safe disposal, the system quietly encourages it. If drilling for oil boosts quarterly earnings, then green alternatives are sidelined. And the take-make-waste model? It’s baked into everything from fashion to tech. It’s not that people or companies are evil, it’s that the dominant goal frame rewards short-term gain over long-term responsibility. So the environmental crisis isn’t just a failure of regulation or science, it’s a reflection of the mental models and behaviors we’ve allowed to shape our systems.

And finally, we arrive at the issue of slow growth ,which, let’s be honest, wouldn’t even feel like a crisis if we weren’t so hooked on the idea that more is always better. Our obsession with growth dates back centuries, from the days of mercantile empires to modern GDP-fueled economies as we have talked in the second part of shifting paradigms. And today, it’s this addiction to growth that turns a natural plateau into a full-blown panic. Many of the phenomena that lead to slow growth like the diminishing returns of productivity gains, regulatory rigidity, high debt levels, and even the maturation of once-powerful growth engines, are all symptoms of a system that was built to sprint forever. But nothing grows forever. Ecosystems grow, then stabilize. Bodies grow, then mature. But our economic system? It’s been stuck in “more is better” mode for centuries. So when the system begins to slow down, as it inevitably does, we don’t pause and reflect. We treat it like failure. That’s why slow growth feels like a dominant problem: not because growth is bad, but because our instrumental behaviors have made it the only goal we recognize.

But there are other phenomena that act as a counterbalance to hold back the first group. They are phenomena due to Normative Purpose-Seeking Behaviors. This group of behaviors prioritizes acting appropriately in the service of a society where they feel they belong. Let's briefly talk about their relationship to dominant problems. To overcome the wealth distribution issue, normative behaviors lead to progressive taxation practices or design inclusive economic policies, etc. And for the environmental crisis, they tackle it by Carbon Pricing, Green New Deal or Climate Agreements, etc. And finally, to accelerate growth again, we see practices like monetary and fiscal stimulus and regulatory reforms or Tech & Infrastructure Investments, etc.

So, now we have a group of phenomena intensifying dominant global problems because of their self-interested nature and a counter group that tries to balance or tackle those intensified problems, at least in the long run. Yet, another group of phenomena is growing because of these three dominant problems and they are due to Hedonic Purpose-Seeking Behaviors. These hedonic-driven phenomena emerge not from long-term reasoning or collective values, but from a desire to cope, to feel better, right now. And in a world full of uncertainty, slow progress, and overwhelming problems, these short-term comfort strategies can spread fast. Think of conspiracies that offer simple answers, anti-elite rhetoric that channels frustration into blame, or protectionist policies that promise safety by closing borders. These phenomena may feel good in the moment, like emotional relief valves, but they rarely address root causes. Instead, they divert energy away from systemic change, fracture trust in institutions, and make it harder for normative or instrumental responses to take hold. And this is why, in our model, hedonic behaviors don’t just sit off to the side, they actively shape the system. They create noise, delay reform, and often reinforce the very conditions that caused the distress in the first place.

Before continuing, let's recap what we have modeled so far. We began with current set of paradigms, then traced their relations to our modern mental models, then, from those mental models, we looked at the Phenomena due to Instrumental Purpose-Seeking Behaviors, and their relations to global dominant problems and other 2 groups of phenomena, which are reactions to dominant problems mainly driven by instrumental group.

And this brings us to our next topic: External Shocks and Breakthroughs, the critical events we have faced in the last decade. They are constructed over the current paradigms, like the case of the China Dilemma, where states both want to keep the perks of economic gains from China and not wanting China to become a superpower. But this dilemma is the very product of the 4 modern paradigms that built this empire. Or let's look at the Rise of AI. Artificial intelligence wasn’t born in a vacuum, it emerged because the six paradigms we explored earlier created the technological, economic, and cultural conditions that allowed it to flourish.

These breakthroughs inevitably lead to emerging paradigms as we modeled earlier. These emerging paradigms are part of reaction by nature, and they are closely related to breakthroughs, but they are not from outer space; they also feed on the mental models. Let's take the rising Machine 2.0 paradigm: Mental models such as Growth is Progress, Linear Causality, or Path Dependence form its foundation. These emerging paradigms feed on mental models and shape some of the phenomena as well. For example, Degrowth and Circular Economy Paradigm impacts some phenomena like Carbon Pricing, Green New Deal, Climate Agreements, etc.

So now, let’s step back and look at the full picture. What we have is a snapshot of the world—a living mesh of ideas, behaviors, and systems, as seen through the lens of this model. It may look chaotic, but it’s not without structure. Beneath the chaos, there’s a kind of order. And the real question becomes: Can we extract insights from this mesh? Can we read this map to understand where the system is being held together, and where it might break? The answer might be yes. Since this is ultimately a network, even if it’s contextual, we can begin to analyze it by exploring the centrality of nodes, helping us identify which elements have the most influence, which are holding things together, and which ones might be tipping points. If you want to explore it for yourself, I’ll leave the link down below in the description.

4. Analyzing Network for Now and Future

To make sense of this network, we can borrow a few simple tools from graph theory. Don’t worry, no formulas, just ways of spotting who's playing what role in this system. Think of each node, whether it’s a paradigm, a mental model, or a phenomenon, as a person in a big party, and the links between them as conversations and relationships.

Some nodes are like the Social Butterflies, they talk to everyone, they are attractive and influential. That’s degree centrality: how many direct connections a node has.

Others are the Wingmates, they introduce ideas from one corner of the club to another, They know who knows a guy who knows a guy. That’s betweenness centrality: they’re the connectors between distant parts of the system.

Then there are the Dispatchers—they may not be the coolest, but they’re perfectly positioned to reach anyone quickly, they know who is where. That’s closeness centrality: it’s about speed and access.

And finally, we have the Deep Influencers, they might not seem central at first glance, but they’re connected to all the heavy party dudes and gals, the most attractive social butterflies, the most active wingmates and the best dispatchers. That’s eigenvector centrality: they matter not just because they’re connected, but because who they’re connected to matters.

With these four types in mind, we can start to spot who holds the system together, the ones spreading influence, and the hidden nodes that quietly shape everything else. Let go back to our meta model and put most critical centrality node types to their corresponding places in the model. These are the top dogs of the party.

But we need to understand the dynamics of interaction by unfolding goals. And since this is network after all, we can try to find what sort of communities we have in this system that are tightly interconnected and supporting each other and influencing these top centrality nodes. Any group of paradigms, mental models, phenomena and maybe a couple emerging paradigms might create meaningful communities that are tightly connected and self-organized to pursue some goal of theirs. After testing some algorithms, here are the tight communities that I found in our network.

1st community: Opportunist Individualists

This community is centered around current identity paradigms, both fit into society and be yourself, and heavily use 2 mental models atomized individualism and externalization of cost and they leverage addiction to growth phenomena to get the most out of the system. When these group need a normative action, they tend to influence regulatory reforms and monetary fiscal stimulus to serve their advantage because they validate themselves through performance. They translate identity narratives into measurable outputs.

2nd community: Growth Worshippers

This community is anchored around productivity+efficiency=growth and be the 1st to innovate for best returns paradigms. Their mental models are obviously growth is progress, optimization for efficiency and command-control thinking. They drive high debt levels and together with opportunist individualists they leverage financial markets to realize themselves. To keep the growth, they tend to support inclusive economic policies like universal basic income so that market never dies. They drive ever-faster innovation and return cycles for boom, and when the bust hits they backfill with stimulus for inclusiveness.

3rd community: Sane Futurists

This community is newly formed, they were partying inside other communities. But when the covid hit and AI became a thing, they left their communities and formed a new community at the center of the dance floor. They anchored around 2 emerging paradigms harnessing co-intelligence to innovate and degrowth with circular economy. They push green new deal, code of sustainability and circular economy to be the dominant phenomena of the floor because they are re-framers and pursue the goal of generating and institutionalizing alternative operating models.

4th community: Lotus-eating Self-Achievers

They are the freaks of the floor. They are anchored around identify by what you did and they leverage instrumental phenomena like protectionism, conspiracies, externalization, unsustainable resource extraction, and addiction to growth who is also the DJ now, raving the party. They are small and tight group but currently dominating. Their only goal is to stay dominant whatever it requires.

and 5th community: Extremist Capitalists

They are the rich kids supporting Lotus-eating Self-Achievers and have close relations with opportunist individualists and growth worshippers. They are not anchored around any current or emerging paradigms but ruled by trickle-down mental model, leveraging tax policies and capital concentration. Their goal is to keep mainstream as is, if not, assign and support who will be next mainstream, without any hesitation to deploy extreme measures. Remember they are already pushing lotus-eating self-achievers.

So, now let’s go back to our meta-model, and put these self-organized clusters at the center. 2 groups are working for deciding who will be next mainstream DJ and influencing top centrality nodes. They are sane futurists and extremist capitalists. So, what’s next?

5. Analyzing Patterns of Historical Paradigm Shifts

At every turning point of economy paradigm, it was always followed by some monetary shift.

If we rewind history, there’s a rhythm in the chaos. At every major turning point in the economic paradigm, there was always a preceding or simultaneous shift in the monetary logic that underpinned it.

• The Mercantile era rode on the back of letters of credit, and the gold-standard logic of colonial exchange.

• The Industrial era followed with central banks and regulated money

• The Knowledge economy emerged alongside fiat currencies to fuel scaling and infrastructure expansion and built an empire of digital financialization, where money itself became increasingly abstract and algorithmic.

Each monetary system didn’t just support the economy, it enabled the paradigm to scale and mainstream. And just as these paradigms collided, collapsed, and gave birth to the next, we find ourselves now in a similar moment.

Today's monetary contradictions like speculative markets, unsustainable debt cycles, inflation volatility, the rise of crypto and digital currencies, are the tremors beneath the surface. They signal that the current operating system, with addiction to growth as its DJ, is hitting its final notes.

So, I am sure that we will have a major change in the monetary model. We don’t know who will be next DJ after addiction to growth, but we can have a pretty good idea of which monetary model we will have in the following years, because we are living in a deeply connected world and heavily institutionalized financial model. It is not easy to change everything in one night. We are not in 1971 when Nixon shocked the world by decoupling us dollar and gold. A similar sharp move will certainly destroy deep financial infrastructure and thus economy, however it is not impossible in this craziness.

Anyways, let’s assume that we are not that crazy and we won’t detonate our institutions overnight, what kinds of monetary shifts might emerge next? We already know that decentralized forms of money and digitalized currencies gaining traction as an emerging paradigm and fiat-money of current world holds tight its position. Let's elaborate the most potential candidate for the next monetary era: Central Bank Digital Currencies.

5.1 Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)

This is a digital version of fiat money issued and controlled by central banks. In current model, central banks issue money proportionate to their debt bonds to commercial banks and they distribute it to the economy. But CBDCs open a new method. In this model central banks can issue digital money directly into your bank account based on inflationary or other corrective algorithms. Their magic is their programmability and traceability. This will still be built on interest-bearing debt and centralized control but give the ability to intervene in micro-scale for managing inflation and economic stimulus.

At first, standard fiat currencies and digital ones circulate side by side, but eventually all will be digitalized and allow global normative phenomena like universal basic income schemes or other inclusive economic measures to roll out easily. Of course it comes with the problem of financial privacy but that’s another day’s topic to discuss.

Growth Worshippers and Opportunist Individualists are hyping this model through whispering to their wingmate globalization to distribute the hype with its dispatchers techno optimism and monetary fiscal policies. And apparently no cluster is opposing this idea.

5.2 Rolling Forward

Let’s imagine a future shaped not by steady consensus, but by disruption, overreaction, and ultimately—recalibration.

It starts with re-Trump.

It doubles down on protectionist tariffs, pushing policies to their extreme. These moves spark immediate retaliations from trading blocs across the globe. This is where we are now.

Next up? The global market seizes. Supply chains rupture. Growth flatlines.

In response, populist-right movements surge across Europe and Asia, fueled by conspiracies and economic anxiety. And this comes with the Anti-elite rhetoric becoming the norm, a set back for Extremist Capitalist. Protectionist policies spread like wildfire. National governments isolate, re-industrialize, and rally their own Lotus-Eating Self-Achievers to the cause. Bouncers, like rules-based-order try to keep the chaos contained, but it can’t handle the volume.

At first, the Social Butterflies like "Growth is Progress" and "Short-Termism" love the attention. They echo the populist noise. Wingmates like Globalization lose its relevance. Deep Influencers like Technological Determinism withdraw into niche tech bubbles. Everything spins.

But quickly, the party begins to rot. Living standards plummet everywhere. Trust in institutions evaporates. People grow tired of empty nationalism and cultural flashbangs. Disillusion plague spreads.

And this is when the Sane Futurists step in.

Harnessing new breakthroughs—say, Artificial General Intelligence and modular energy grids—they begin re-framing the floor. With support from Deep Influencers like Degrowth and Co-Intelligence, and Dispatchers like Monetary Fiscal Stimulus and Inclusive Policies, they start to cohere a new operating logic, that appreciates everyone’s value on the floor, because everyone will feel fucked up. They bring the already-cooked idea of Central Bank Digital Currencies to table because now AGI is capable enough to operate this model and we need many smart micro-interventions everywhere to run a model tailored to everyone’s needs.

In this collapse, central banks—looking for order— will lean into this idea of CBDCs that offers both control and modernization.

Promoted as a stabilizer against chaotic speculation and national fragmentation, CBDCs find support across factions. They promise direct stimulus, micro-targeted interventions, and smooth global interoperability. Wingmates like Modernism and Techno-Optimism pass the message efficiently. Growth Worshippers know the value in the control it offers. Opportunist Individualists embrace its potential for direct performance validation.

And just like that, the DJ booth changes.

Addiction to Growth fades to the background. CBDCs drop the next beat—clean, precise, programmable. The room doesn’t explode. It exhales.

Chaotic playlist fades away and A new tempo begins.

6. Conclusion

I hope you enjoyed this final chapter of the Shifting Paradigms series. If it sparked something in you—an insight, a question, or even a healthy disagreement—drop your thoughts in the comments below. I’d love to hear how you see the map we just explored.

If you found value in this video, please like, subscribe, and most importantly—share it with someone who’s been trying to make sense of the chaos too. Preparing this kind of content takes a lot of time, care, and research, and your support helps me keep creating and growing this channel, so help me spread the word.

This is not the end of our journey for paradigms. In the coming weeks, I’ll be diving deeper into the key building blocks of this model, like mental models, monetary alternatives, system behaviors, and future paradigms, along with some everyday behaviors, with short explanatory videos to make each part more understandable and usable in your own thinking.

Until then, stay curious—and take care.