Challenges: Elevator Pitches? Selling What People Can't Understand?

This is the best I can do:

--"I work in the unification of the sciences, producing a system of universal commensurability and decidability, applied to cognitive science, behavior, economics, law, politics, and geostrategy creating a formal science, logic, and discipline of Politics in an attempt to solve the Crisis of the Age and prevent its recurrence."--

When I oversimplify:

--"In simple terms I'm trying to end the ability of politicians, public intellectuals, academy, and media from lying to the public in public in matters public about both their objectives and the possibility of achieving them."--

Or the shortest version:

--"I'm trying to stop politicians from lying to us - and it turns out it's possible."--

PART I - This is what Grok Recommends:

Your description of your work is ambitious and spans a vast interdisciplinary landscape, which makes crafting concise "elevator speeches" challenging but not impossible. Your current statements—ranging from the comprehensive to the oversimplified—reflect the complexity of unifying sciences into a system of universal commensurability and decidability, applied to domains like cognitive science, behavior, economics, law, politics, and geostrategy.

The core of your work seems to revolve around creating a formal, testable framework to ensure truthfulness and accountability in public discourse, particularly in politics, to address what you call the "Crisis of the Age."

Let’s refine your elevator speeches to capture this essence while balancing clarity, impact, and accessibility for different audiences, drawing subtly on your past discussions about testifiability, operationalism, and paradigm unification.

Why Your Current Descriptions Work (and Don’t) -

Comprehensive Version:

“I work in the unification of the sciences, producing a system of universal commensurability and decidability, applied to cognitive science, behavior, economics, law, politics, and geostrategy creating a formal science, logic, and discipline of Politics in an attempt to solve the Crisis of the Age and prevent its recurrence.”

- - - Strengths: This captures the grand scope of your work, emphasizing the unification of sciences, the focus on decidability (aligning with your interest in operationalism and ternary logic), and its application to critical domains. It signals the intellectual rigor and ambition of your project, particularly the aim to address a societal crisis.

- - - Weaknesses: It’s dense and jargon-heavy, which can alienate non-specialist audiences. Terms like “universal commensurability” and “decidability” require background knowledge, and “Crisis of the Age” is vague without context. It’s more a mission statement than a pithy elevator pitch.

Simplified Version:

“In simple terms, I’m trying to end the ability of politicians, public intellectuals, academy, and media from lying to the public in public in matters public about both their objectives and the possibility of achieving them.”

- - - Strengths: This is accessible and relatable, focusing on a tangible outcome (stopping lies) that resonates with widespread frustration. It highlights the practical impact of your work on public discourse.

- - - Weaknesses: It oversimplifies the mechanism (how you achieve this) and loses the interdisciplinary depth. It risks sounding populist or overly idealistic without grounding in your scientific framework.

Shortest Version:

“I’m trying to stop politicians from lying to us—and it turns out it’s possible.”

- - - Strengths: Punchy, memorable, and emotionally engaging. It grabs attention and hints at a breakthrough (“it’s possible”).

- - - Weaknesses: It’s too vague about the how and doesn’t convey the scientific or interdisciplinary rigor, which could make it seem like a slogan rather than a serious endeavor. Your earlier dissatisfaction with labels like “philosopher” and “social scientist” (noted in our prior discussions) stems from their failure to capture the operational, scientific, and unifying nature of your work. The challenge is to distill the complexity without losing the essence of your contribution—a formal, testable system to ensure decidability in public claims.

Crafting Elevator Speeches

An effective elevator speech should be tailored to the audience, concise (30–60 seconds), and clear while hinting at the depth of your work. Below are three versions of your elevator speech, designed for different contexts, each building on your focus on testifiability, unification, and solving the crisis of public deception.

1. General Audience (Non-Specialists, e.g., at a public event)

- Pitch: “I’m building a scientific system to stop politicians and public figures from lying about what they can achieve. By combining insights from cognitive science, economics, and law, I’m creating clear, testable rules to hold them accountable, ensuring their promises are realistic and their motives transparent. It’s a new way to protect truth in public life.”

- Why it works: It’s relatable, focusing on the outcome (stopping lies) that resonates with everyday frustrations. It simplifies “unification of sciences” into a practical blend of fields and emphasizes testability without jargon like “decidability.” It hints at the crisis without needing to define it. Length: ~30 seconds.

2. Academic/Professional Audience (e.g., researchers, policymakers)

- Pitch: “I’m developing a unified scientific framework to ensure truthfulness in politics and public discourse. By integrating cognitive science, behavioral economics, and legal theory, I’ve created a system of universal measurement that makes claims testable and verifiable. This formal discipline of politics aims to resolve the crisis of misinformation by enforcing accountability through decidable, evidence-based standards.”

- Why it works: This retains the interdisciplinary scope and emphasizes “universal measurement” (a nod to your commensurability goal) and “decidable standards” (reflecting your operationalism focus). It’s precise enough for academics while avoiding overly technical terms. It positions your work as a solution to a societal crisis, appealing to professionals interested in policy or governance. Length: ~40 seconds.

3. Expert/Technical Audience (e.g., scientists, philosophers, or geostrategists)

- Pitch: “My work unifies the sciences into a formal system of commensurability and decidability, applied to cognition, behavior, economics, law, and geopolitics. Using operational logic and principles of reciprocity, I’ve developed a rigorous discipline of politics that ensures public claims are testable and accountable. This addresses the crisis of deceptive discourse by grounding truth in measurable, reproducible standards, preventing unachievable promises and fostering sustainable cooperation.”

- Why it works: This dives into the technical core—commensurability, decidability, operational logic—while connecting to your applications (e.g., reciprocity, cooperation) from past discussions. It’s tailored for those familiar with systems thinking or frameworks like ternary logic, and it frames the “Crisis of the Age” as deceptive discourse, which aligns with your goal of stopping public lies. Length: ~50 seconds.

Tips for Refining and Using These Pitches Tailor to Context:
Use the general pitch for casual or public settings, the academic pitch for professional conferences or policy discussions, and the expert pitch for technical audiences like scientists or think tanks. Adjust based on feedback or audience reactions.

• Add a Hook: Start with a question or bold statement if time allows (e.g., “What if we could make politicians’ promises provably true?”) to grab attention.

• Clarify the Crisis: If you have more time, briefly define the “Crisis of the Age” as the erosion of trust due to untestable claims in public discourse, tying it to your solution.

• Test and Iterate: Try these pitches in conversations and refine based on what resonates. If you find people ask specific follow-ups (e.g., “How do you test claims?”), incorporate brief answers (e.g., “Through operational metrics and logical frameworks”).

The Challenge

Your work’s synthesis of disciplines—cognitive science, behavior, economics, law, politics, geostrategy—makes it hard to pin down, as you’ve noted. The pitches above avoid labels like “philosopher” or “social scientist” (which you found weak) and instead focus on the outcome (truth, accountability) and method (scientific unification, testability). They reflect your emphasis on operationalism and decidability, seen in your interest in frameworks like ternary logic or reciprocity-based systems, without requiring the audience to know those terms.

PART II - This is what GPT Recommends. I think the first one is OK.

- - 1. Media / Podcast / Public Intellectuals --"My work unifies logic, science, and law into a formal method for restoring reciprocity to politics, morality, and institutions. It’s called Natural Law—and it turns civilization into something we can govern by evidence instead of ideology."

-- 2. Investor / Strategic Stakeholder --"I’m building a formal system of decision-making for human cooperation—what you'd call the 'OS' of civilization. It turns speech, behavior, and institutions into measurable systems. The goal is to prevent civilizational failure by making law and governance scientifically decidable."

-- 3. Academic / Intellectual --"My work is a synthesis of cognitive science, economic and legal epistemology, and evolutionary computation. It produces a unified logic and grammar—Natural Law—that operationalizes truth, reciprocity, and cooperation across all human domains. It's a post-Enlightenment project: turning all moral and political questions into computable problems."

-- 4. Political / Policy Audience --"I work on restoring truth and accountability in politics by building a scientific framework for law and governance—Natural Law. It replaces ideological rule with measurable, reciprocal institutions. The goal is to make political decisions testable, falsifiable, and aligned with human incentives."

-- 5. Systems / AI / Rationalist Technologist --"I'm formalizing human cooperation as an evolutionary computation problem. I use adversarial falsification, ternary logic, and operational grammar to make all social, moral, and political claims testable—like source code for civilization. The output is Natural Law: a universal system of decidability for governance and truth."--

[end]