 Hi Stacey, how are you? Good, how are you? I have five words that are making me very happy today. Give me four and let me see if I can pick the fifth. I'll just give you a tail of five. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Trying to focus on the good news. It is good. It is good. You know, I was trying to, I was thinking about it because I try to be somebody that I try to think that I'm good at getting myself into other people's shoes even when I don't agree with them. And you know, I was like, you know, obviously I don't have the same empathy for these protesters as I had for the other ones. However, I tried to imagine that I truly thought the election was taken away. And I truly believed that my democracy was about to be destroyed. It wasn't a fun practice. Let me tell you, I didn't enjoy doing this. I'm sure, it's like, okay. It's just... Do you, are you always this masochistic? I'm proud of it. Hello. Hey Gary. We're just discussing that there's five words that are making me very happy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Isn't that, isn't that the best? It's just, yeah. Wonderful thing to say. Actually, it was the New York Times last night as an opinion piece. I looked at like 11 o'clock and said, say it with me now. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell like, yes, I'll say that over and over. Like... That was so good. Yeah. Yeah. Hey Doug. It's just crazy. Stacy was telling me she did a thought experiment to really try and get in the heads of people who genuinely thought that the election had been stolen. And I was asking her if she was always that masochistic, but... Well, the sad thing is I have a very good friend. Like a very good friend of 25 years. We did a lot of spiritual work together. This is somebody that I consider. First of all, she's an engineer. She's very bright. She's evolved spiritually. And after Trump lost the election, I felt her withdrawing from me. And she finally told me that she couldn't be with me. And this is a close friend. She couldn't be with me because when she looked at me, she saw me as part of a socialist agenda. Wow. You know, she inadvertently said, she accidentally sent a text to me that she meant for somebody else. And she was upbeat and lively and telling them she's not watching the news, only what's coming from Europe. Which I found very interesting. Well, if you're watching what's coming from Europe, America looks like a shit show. But she's what I think the part she's watching are the people that are saying that COVID's not real. We have those people in our community that I respect. We just, I guess, don't get into those conversations too much because I guess we sense that we're not on the same page. By we, you mean you and your friend, or you mean us here in OGM, or what do you mean? I'm talking about the different conversational communities on Facebook that sprout out to different Zoom calls. Yeah, yeah. Hi, Judy. Hey, Charles. Good morning. Morning. Howdy. The apocalypse is busy happening outside, so I thought I'd put an appropriate background up. Thank you. That makes me feel so good. Actually, it's better than it was. Yeah, I yesterday... Yesterday was awful, but I went to bed with Congress undecided and woke up with Congress decided and that was good. I stayed up on West Coast. It was easier, but I stayed up until they wrapped the certification vote because I really wanted to see Mike Pence declare that Biden and Harris had won. I just really wanted to see those words come out of his lips and I wanted to hear what the people were saying in the floor arguments. When was that, Jerry? How late did they go? They went until quarter to four East Coast time. So, and they're remarkable. They're truly remarkable thing because 140 Republican representatives still voted to stop the vote and to recount in Pennsylvania and all kinds of other shit. It was like, there's still a whole bunch of people who are on message for that. And I was hoping that the day's events would have maybe changed that, but despite the day's events, like Congress stayed in town and got back into their chambers and did their business and concluded their business on the day. And the whole reason for the invasion was really just to delay the vote. I mean, there were a couple of really, really scary agents who were crawling around inside the houses. There was one guy who, there was a photo of a guy hopping a fence inside the Senate chambers with a bunch of zip ties in his hand and a pistol, a Glock on his belt. And a total mask, he couldn't tell who he was, but zip ties were like, we're gonna find me some Congress critters and kidnap them. I don't know any other thing that necessarily indicates. And there were plenty of people who were just loonies who were armed. And I'm like, this could end extremely badly. And if your last name is Pelosi or Schumer, worse, you have got to be like crafting your pants right now. Because any one of these loons, including some of the guard detail, could have it out for you, right? Yeah. And you're Chuck Schumer. You are not like calm right now in any way at all. Because you've been very successfully demonized for a long time. So anyway, sorry, I think a piece of our call today will be about yesterday's events, but I knew that the last two days events would be significant. I didn't realize they would be historic. Well, you know, Jared Huffman is a Congressman from my district and he's introduced to Bill because there's this loon from Colorado who's declaring that because the Capitol's not safe, she's going to wear her Glock. You know, she knew the elected Congress person from. And he sent a newsletter saying the Capitol is the most secure place in Washington. And I'm like, well, I believed you until yesterday, Jared. You know, like how did this happen? When Black Lives Matter came out, there were hundreds of guardsmen lined up on the steps of the Capitol. Yesterday, there's actually images of police removing the barriers and letting the protesters come in. This sounds like a very well-planned inside job to me of let's make sure there's not enough security here so that Congress gets totally disrupted because how is it possible that a joint session of Congress gets destroyed like this? I just don't get it. There's something very, very fishy going on. And I think there's a lot of outraged Congresspeople who want investigations into this. With plenty of advertising, this was coming, including the president. And I happened to listen to part of Trump's rally earlier in the day. And I heard him say, you know, we will not accept this. There will be no, you know, we will not accept the election because it was stolen, stolen, stolen, stolen, stolen. Landslide, landslide. Everyone knows. And then we're gonna walk up to Congress. Like holy crap. Hey, guys. Hey, George, Kevin, Matt, Ingrid, awesome. Nice to see people. Just in a way, I just wanna mention, Jared, I'm gonna have to leave at 10 for another meeting. So, so people know, sign off quietly then, but. And I only have 30 minutes if we started at 11 every week. So that's just what I have. Shoot, shoot, shoot. All right. We'll check in with you early on. And yes. So yesterday was a little bit distracting. Give for understatement, Jared. Yeah, and I don't, like I haven't spent so many hours glued in front of my laptop as I did yesterday because I stayed up, I was telling the people who were on the call really early, I stayed up until the session closed, until they actually finished the certification of the vote, which was easy on the West Coast because it was just, you know, a quarter to one. So it was quarter to four, quarter to finish this time when all the Congress leaders finally wrapped their business and could go home. And I was impressed that after a day with so much commotion and so much sort of danger that all the Congress critters went back in. Like, like they have beheld votes. They separated and discussed. They changed their speeches. They were like, well, I came in this morning and I was gonna give a speech about this, but after today's events, blah, blah, blah. Well, they had to. Super interesting, yeah. But what a compelling day, what a crazy, compelling day. So why don't we do a little bit of check-in and feel free to riff on your feelings about what's going on. My observation is that, and I listened to a lot of the floor debates. That's part of the reason I was listening in because I just really wanted to hear, what are both sides saying here? This is a moment where they have a lot of attention. And there were a couple of people who started their speeches like, I did not expect that my first speech on the floor of Congress would be about this because they just got sworn in on Sunday. They just got sworn in, right? And got thrown into this as their first taste of what's going on. So my own feeling is really a reflection on an open global mind, which is like, we have our work cut out for us and what we're doing is important. We need to figure it out. We need to figure ourselves out so that we can actually get something done in the world. But this is really important that the split, our inability to have a shared reality of any kind out in the world and to have productive discourse is gonna break us and break us entirely unless we sort this out. So let me start with check-ins with Kevin because Kevin's gotta go at the half. And I'll reiterate here, I thought I sort of made it clear earlier, but our calls will be starting at 9, sorry, 8 a.m. Pacific from here forward for the Thursday calls. So it's a permanent shift this later time. And Kevin, I'm sorry, that overlaps with the standing calls that you have. So let's start with Kevin Scott Koss. Okay. So I'm going off at 11.30 my time, I have a cohort of neighborhood economics entrepreneurs that I am curating. And I'm excited this week, we've got like five that are working together in South Bend, Indiana. It's one of those places that it's an industrial small industry center, micro manufacturing is actually about 10 to 75 employees. And so a lot of those folks, there's this thing called the Silver Tsunami, which is that boomers are wanting to sell these businesses but often can't. So I'm working with Project Equity to do employee conversions. And we've got somebody there working on that. But we've got the church-based credit union node and our community equity fund that could put the first money down that could be kind of a protein package that could be replicated in other places. And so it's three initiatives that have other places where they're working that are now working in one place because there are two people there in South Bend. So it's pretty cool about that. One other thing on this thing is there's been a member of our cohort that's been really effective helping younger businesses. And but he's also in DC yesterday with all those folks and it turns out he calls himself a socialist on the local level, but on the national level, he wants to destroy the national government, which nobody knew until last week. And then he started sending these emails saying, you know, we're all going and it's a fraud. And it's like, he has two parts of his head in some way. He was really helpful helping younger businesses work on their financial modeling. And he has this, the way he thinks about local community is this other complete way that he thinks the national government needs to be destroyed in it. So he's no longer welcome, but he was texting me that there was a real peaceful meeting up there yesterday and that you can't trust the media. And it's like, dude, I can see it. So anyway, it was really bizarre. But because in working locally, he's saying working on a national scale, he's this other person. And he's sent me clips from Parler. And so anyway, I don't know, it was so bizarre to think about that. Why do you think that's the case? It makes no sense to me because, you know, on a local level, the guy is helpful and nurturing and friendly and other stuff. He has a way he thinks about local and he has some way he thinks, which I never knew this other thing. And he suddenly started erupting. I have no idea why that's the case. So this may or may not be helpful, but my mom who just recently passed away a couple of years ago, I got her to see a geriatric psychiatrist because she was paranoid about her upstairs neighbors. And she insisted for five different departments and 10, 11 different neighbors because the neighbors kept switching. She insisted that they wanted her apartment that they could tell where she was that they were throwing things at her. And she ended up banging on the ceiling, screaming and getting herself a victim a couple of times. So the psychiatrist diagnosed her having a focused delusional disorder. And the delusional wasn't general purpose. You could talk to her about Trump or about the stock market and have a reasonable conversation with some words dropping out. So she was losing the memory, like the word battery or cell phone. Those were just gone. But she could talk about current events and all that, she was kind of a newshound. And it was a focus disorder because in that realm of stuff, there's no way I could convince her that it was a problem happening to her, not her neighbors. There was no access to that at all. To her dying day, she was quite positive that other people were busy like wanting her stuff. And I think it was childhood trauma that she had successfully suppressed for a long time that was burbling back up. Long personal digression, but I think there's an element of watching what's going on in the world that has some flavor of that where within this realm over here, we're perfectly happy to, and not convinceable that this alternate reality isn't in fact somehow true. And I think that's pretty frightening because this has become a general purpose kind of thing that's happening. And then separate from that, you're talking about what you just described in your project as a protein package, which is really cute. So maybe you should call it Project Plumpy Nut because there's a couple different peanut based high impact nutrition foods that you bring to places that are having very poor nutrition. And what product is actually called Plumpy Nut and peanut based nutritious food kind of thing. Okay, well, I'll, you know, good idea. Yeah, it probably won't fly, but I love funny project names. Yeah, well, it's just that the three things might fit together. We're the early money to get the owners who were ready to sell, we're the down payment of philanthropic equity. Then there's the credit union to go further and then project equity. And you have to train people into thinking like owners because they've been used to thinking like employees. So there's a whole lot of odd training you wouldn't think somewhat like we had to do with habitat and training people to be home owners when they're used to hating their landlord. And so you treat your house one way when you hate your landlord and he doesn't give you heat and you treat them another way when you own the house. So they're having to do that. But I think it's, this kind of works. Project equity did a really neat thing in Fremont because there are a lot of sub-assembly manufacturers for the GM plan and then this electric car plant that moved there too. And the problem was that they weren't gonna be able to put all the parts of the GM cars together if the kids didn't want the sub-assembly under the dashboard manufacturer. And so the city got involved in employee ownership to preserve the whole ecosystem because big plants are dependent on a lot of small manufacturers, you make sub-pieces. And so I think this thing could work if we get it to work in any place where there's a bunch of micromanufacturers or 75 employees and down. So anyway, there's a lot of folks around and then the other part which I'll finish is they're really trying to recruit CDFIs, Community Development, Finance Institutions to South Bend, but those don't work for small businesses. You need two years clean financials and stuff. So we're the stepping stone to that. So anyway, there's a lot of things that make it kind of work there. They're just kind of interesting. So anyway, yeah. One of my beliefs about one of the best things Biden and his administration could do coming in is to do basically a national service package to go into the parts of the country that have been hurt really badly and bearing gifts like what you're describing. And if we actually sort of treated everybody who's had a very hard time for the last 30, 40 years as like just offer them, hey, which of these flavors of Baskin Robbins would you like? What will work for you? We'll help, we will adapt. Here's some platforms, here's some funding. I think that would be tremendous. Yeah, there's a way of looking at this thing called asset based community development. So you look at their assets and the things we're doing is, yeah, right. And the things we're doing are adding new capital vehicles that you typically take the capital that's there as a given. And capital is the thing you make up which we discovered in venture capital and you can make it up down at the real local level. So anyway, so that's my check in. And my friend is sane in one realm became crazy in another. And so he's no longer welcome, very strange. That is wild. Thank you for like an awesome and fertile and generative check-in that's really, really lovely Kevin. And we've heard of your ventures in different check-ins and all that, but I think that they can sexualize and take more roots at least in my mind as we get progress and as we start to hear it again and think about, oh, wait a minute, it's kind of like this, kind of like that. So really, that's really lovely. Thank you. And I think I had said Scott Claus. I don't remember my order, but let's go Scott Claus, Lauren. All right, well, hello everyone. I woke up with a visual in my head that I thought that I should put pen to tablet and share with you all. Nice. So I'm not sure where to put this. That's kind of a question for Pete to find out what I do with this, but yeah, that's just kind of my takeaway on all of this. Do you have an Instagram account? I do. I'm like, why don't you tag this up as a cartoon or whatever and post it straight to Instagram and see what happens to it, because it's lovely. All right, well, I will give that a shot. I mean, for starters, just to get it out in the world. Yeah, yeah. Was that your question to know, Scott? Was that my what? Was that your question when you said I don't know what to do with this? Yeah, that was the question, is I do things like this. I put them on my, you know, I put them on my webpage. Well, that doesn't have any people that are following it. You know, I just am thinking, what's the OGME thing to do with something like this? Because we talked about, you know, potentially helpful memes and things. And I thought, okay, well, I have this thing that I just made and it seems to be relevant and maybe useful and what's the OGME thing to do with it. So. And I think Matt is asking like the second order question, because my first reaction was like, post it somewhere where there's a lot of flow and that's just a tool and a platform and that's Instagram and that like bam done. You could also repost it to other socials. You could go to Instagram, you could go to Facebook, you could go, you know, other places. And in those places, all of us could retweet, follow, like, et cetera, et cetera. But I think there's a deeper issue, which is like, where could this be really useful? Where is this insight helpful in general discourse? Which I'm pretty sure is where Matt was heading. Yeah. And anybody with ideas, Papin, too, please. That's interesting. I hadn't really, well, again, yeah, I thought, okay, well, I'll start with this. And then there's another one that I was working on that I also would like to share because, hey, today is the day of sharing visuals, apparently. It's equally simple, but it just occurred to me that this might have some relevance as well. So it's obviously a play on some things that we're going on. And I don't know. It's like, what, you know, it's another thought about like, what are you, yeah. So a question for you. How about if you colored the US different from the TR and the T? Yeah, sure. I mean, that's fine by me. I was thinking, yeah, okay. I mean, the United States and us, separate from time, as the trust issue, right? Yeah, well, oh, there you go. Yeah, that makes, that rings really true for me. That there's a path here that requires trust and this is nice. Yeah, and, you know, let's buy by playing on this and by using this obvious, you know, visual language that we already know, whether we agree with it or disagree with it, we know this language already or this visual, you know, it's, it felt to me like, again, it's that we have to come together. We can't just say, you're wrong and I'm right. So again, silly idea as a starter. Put a badge or a shield around that to make it look more Captain America-ish and then go make it available on T-shirts or something like that and see if they'll sell and we can all kind of shake the tree and get people wearing it. Yeah, I was just thinking that the US could be red and white stripes, diagonal red and white stripes. So it looks like a drag-ish motif on the US. I literally opened the file and made this while Kevin was checking in. So I haven't done anything to it other than just, I thought I wanted to throw it out to you and see what you all thought. So obviously I'll make it look a little more, you know, I'll work on it a bit, but. That's great, that's awesome. And the idea of backgrounding the blue and the red as parts of the flag. So the blue could have star background, the U and the S could be, you know, the bars. That's interesting too. Anybody else with punches on where to put it? What to do with it? I don't know, I don't know. So, sorry, Ken. No, go ahead, Matt. I guess I'm not sure about, you know, a critique of this particular piece, but it does, it does bring up for me this question about the symbols and signs that we use in this country and what those symbols and signs have come to mean, right? Culture, you know, culture is care, you know, is our beliefs turned into our behaviors and supported by the symbols and signs and artifacts that we, you know, we choose. If you look at, I think it's Shiner who did a lot of work on kind of culture. And I find myself horrified by seeing the American flag, you know, on whether it's on the back of a truck or whether it's on a hat or whether it's on, you know, these things. And I find that to be just a really, a lot of dissidents in that feeling, right? And how did those symbols and signs become appropriated, right? And I like Scott, what I like about what you're suggesting in Ingrid, I think even this idea of the American flag and bringing it into the, like reclaiming that stuff, right? These are common visual vocabulary that can mean a couple of things depending on who you are and even the words that they represent. So that's just a thought on that. I'm completely in line with that in my, all sorts of feelings last night. But the one that surprised me was seeing what I would consider a sacred space. Yeah. Like a surgery suite, like a classroom that's not your kids, like a, you know, a police station. Like there's just a courtroom. There's just places you don't do that. And, you know, I understand what you're saying Matt about the flag. And I think it all kind of came together and made me realize that's mine too. Yeah. No, that's mine too. You, yeah. And so I'll develop this a little more. Thanks Doug. Doug, go ahead and turn it. Yeah. And playing with symbols. What about the possibility that the protesters yesterday have a higher level of trust amongst themselves than the general population? Agreed. One more thing to report on my friend who was in DC. He said, you know, it was peaceful. And he said, you know, in fact, you know we were friendly with the National Guard and we shook hands and thanked them for their restraint afterwards. And somebody online said, you know why you never seen Miley Cyrus? And why you don't see the cops show up when there's white, you know, terrorists. And it's the same reason you don't see Miley Cyrus show up at the same place as Hannah Montana. You know, it's like, they were friendly. The cops were friendly with the white terrorists because they have a common feeling together. That was just, it was an interesting. It looked like they were having a barbecue at the Capitol the way that they walked around and joked with the police. It was really disgraceful. Yeah, it was weird. It was weird. And they like each other. There was racism on full display in the Capitol yesterday. They were very peaceful with each other. Yeah, they were very peace. Yeah, exactly. The Black Lives Matter pictures, you know all those sorts of things was crazy. Anyway. So I'm worried that the trust T-shirt could be seen by the protesters as their thing. Absolutely. What would be the problem with that? Well, if it's the, I think that Scott's purpose is to bring us together with things that we believe are important. But if the protesters are using the same symbol to do the same thing, it's slightly counterproductive. Well, I'm thinking if you managed to co-opt some of their symbology like make America great again, if you managed to sort of loop into that, hook it and then build something that's built around the flag which is the symbol that's attractive to the far right. And I'm oversimplifying here, but you can actually bring them back toward make America relate again is pretty good. Like, let's do that, right? And having the word trust actually show up makes you examine the word trust at least opens the conversation. And Scott, you may, whatever motives you have, but what you could do is just sort of troll with this and see if people start picking it up. And if it does become a symbol of the far right, maybe it brings them for the left. And I'm using the right left axis here without one. Oh, no, that's absolutely the idea is to say, here's something that we're familiar with on the right and that it makes me potentially think that there's another way to look at this. And then on the left, it's about the ability to bring back those symbols that stand for the nation and make them not stand for this over here. And I don't know, so there's a saying and one of the reasons I'm teaching visual thinking as part of my thinking skills for kids is that thinking is pre, or I mean, visuals are preverbal. I mean, not pre, yeah, yeah, like preverbal. So it's, you draw something out and then you look at it and it helps you understand before you can put words to it. And I hadn't put, even though there's words here, I hadn't really put words around it other than here's this visual and it feels like it's something and I needed to talk with my trusted partners here to say, what is this? Is this something that's an idea that doesn't belong, doesn't need to exist or should this exist? So that was about it. Thank you, Scott. Anybody else have a thought for Scott? Yeah, I just, and it's related to the Doug thing and also externalizing our tacit knowledge by playing with visuals, I think is a really powerful thing. And this is one of the places where Jerry, I think the brain and where Open Global Mind is going with sort of these knowledge webs and stuff is really interesting because it's a way of externalizing things that we might be thinking but not really understand what we're thinking, right? So, there's lots of stuff that I'm in my head. I'm like, oh, I know exactly what needs to be done. And yet you say, okay, put it down on a piece of paper and you can't, right? It evaporates somehow. Right, I think, so I think that conversation from the tacit understanding, tacit knowledge to making something explicit, Scott, is what you're doing. I also wanted to just reflect, Doug, on what you were saying around, there's a lot of power in ownership of visual language, right? And who owns it? And I, going back to that whole flag thing, it's almost like a form of cultural appropriation. I feel violated that this thing that represents something to me has now come to belong to somebody else and has been appropriated from what I believe its original intentions were. And I think that there's something just interesting to hold there is, has the flag been appropriated inappropriately by a new culture? Or is the flag representing a culture that always existed that is finally on the surface? And I don't know, I don't know if today's or yesterday's riot was something that was always America or is it a new America that's emerging that is sentimental for a past that never really existed? Right? I think there's a lot of juicy conversations in there. Can't wait until we can all actually congregate in person and like crack a bottle of wine open and talk like this in person, like next to each other, breakthrough idea. I know I'm playing with the future here. It means barrel, Jerry, a barrel of wine. Yeah, exactly. Or maybe an IV or something like that. Hey, Scott. Excellent. I just wanted to point, given what Matt just, sorry, given what Matt just said, I wanted to point out some posts by Neil deGrasse Tyson this morning about how yes, this is actually what America always has been. It's just in the last few years that these people have felt safe to come out and express it. Do you mind sharing those on the chat? Let me go. And thank you for that. And I didn't realize you raised your hand. And I'm not host so I can't actually lower your hand. That's awesome. So let's go back to check-ins. Klaus, Lauren, Ingrid. Good morning. Yeah, yesterday was an interesting day. We had our webinar for Citizen Climate Lobby who co-hosted with business climate leaders and the Peace Corps volunteers focused on climate action and we had 974 people signed up before we started. And then of course we coincided with the events. So we dropped down to about 340 people that actually checked in, which is still a good number. And we had people checking in from Hong Kong, from Europe and our places that I've also done connected with people. And then we had a really interesting conversation about regarding the legislation that is about to hit us as soon as the Biden administration moves in because Department of Agriculture is a key focal point that's the proverbial low hanging forward to engage in climate change action. And the fear of course is that some of these decisions that they will be pushing forward and particularly like establishing carbon markets are actually going to be very controversial and very risky to lead to a further consolidation of the industry that is the big fear that this is really for the big cats and the small producers will be left out again. So that was good. But then I have a meeting at 11 o'clock this morning with the president of the Sierra Club and with the two directors of this movie and the founder of the Kiss the Crown organization. And we had scheduled a meeting for next week. I mean, podcasting again to hopefully the large number of the Sierra Club volunteers and aligned organizations. And it's just falling apart. And the reason it's falling apart is because, Jerry, what you were talking about people having a lock on AIDS specific topic. It's the same here. We are shredded between animal rights activists, vegan activists, indigenous rights activists. So we are completely, I mean, it's the proverbial circular firing squad. And what we found is that the agricultural action team that I have been embedded in, the agricultural grass roots food and agriculture grass roots network team. We sort of separated from where the general membership is. We haven't been able to reach out sufficiently. We had some raving arguments about there can't be any animals involved in the food system and trying to bring that to some kind of conclusion which just didn't succeed. And it's again, I mean, you bring down your science. You explain this great specificity which is that movie Kiss the Crown is doing an incredible job really to bring it down to here is what we're doing to soil. Here's the damage it causes and here's the alternative. It just doesn't make it. So all of these logic reason just doesn't, it just doesn't change minds. And that's incredibly difficult to to think through, you know, how do you shift there? Well, so clearly the focus should be on community-based food systems development. I mean, that really is where the opportunity is, the action should be from, because none of the government level, corporate level thoughts or strategies that have been laid out so far talk in one sentence about organic soil health or social systems impact. There is zero focus on what is this going to do to jobs, to the labor markets, to food security and to put that consideration into the political process is an enormously important issue right now. Klaus, thank you for offering the detail about what's going on, because it's super interesting and I'm going to over generalize again, but when you describe the circular finance squad, I'm like, yep, that's the left. The left is really good at splintering and not very good at queuing together. And one of the things that has made the far right have as much power as it has is a thing called message discipline and a bunch of other things. But Gingrich, I lay a lot of this at Newt Gingrich's feet because when we had the Gingrich revolution in 94 and he became Speaker of the House, thank God briefly, he basically separated the houses. So it used to be that Congress people from both parties would share housing in DC, they would exercise together, eat together, travel together or things like that. And he made it so that if you were caught talking to the other side, we would cut off your primary funding basically. And he made it so that everybody was on message and it turns out that if everybody parrots the same speaking points on media and whatever else, regardless how blatantly wrong they are, and all of this was working really well before Trump shows up on the scene, all of this was actually working really, really well, you can own the conversation. And in particular, the other side didn't know how to respond. There's the Udallup fractures in here, a bunch of other things, but that's a piece of the mechanics of why the right has gotten as much ground politically as they have, I think. There's a whole bunch of other things, it's messy, messy, messy. But all of which makes me think of how do you get people with extremely conflicting perspectives on how to do something? Like there should be no animals at all in the food system because eating animals as torture is cruel. Raising animals for meat is cruel. How do you get them to pull in the same direction as people who want soil fertility but are like cattle are really good on top of soil, ask Allen savory and so on and so forth. So how do you get a distributed set of people with pretty strong and slightly different perspectives to pull together in unison on important things that they share and to see the shared pieces because otherwise they end up locked up in the conflict you're describing and they get no place and they're very easy to pick apart. There's a kind of combat called defeat in detail, it's called, and Napoleon was really good at this. Basically, if you couldn't marshal all your forces to meet Napoleon's, he would pick you apart in little pieces. He made sure he could move his troops faster so that you were basically defeated over here even though if you all had your troops together you were a much larger number than he had. So that's what's happening also in the battlefield of ideas. So, I mean, the way I'm sorting this out in my mind I'm coming back to spiral dynamics and basically you're operating in red and when you look at this from a lateral perspective, very good, but when you look at it from a lateral perspective, I mean, you're dealing with a mindset that is more focused on beliefs and mythology than on science. Science just doesn't resonate here at all. And that's same on the right. The right is being manipulated for political purposes because there's sort of a purpose as we could see yesterday. Now that, I mean, that was clearly directed there. That energy was directed. So I'm curious because I'm reflecting on what you just said and I'm reflecting on how the right is using a lot more social science and psychology than the left is. Like I just described military science and political science and psychology which the left seems to be like unaware of or incapable of using and the right is like all over and implemented has totally turned it on. Now on the battlefield of ideas about the topic at hand which is our food system. They're ignoring the science or whatever else but that could be completely intentional. So I bring this back to spiral dynamics. Does framing them as in the red zone eliminate the idea that they could be very sophisticated users of science just not on the topic you're talking about but in the dynamics. I'm sorry, I've just been thinking this whole time while you guys are talking that we are so fragmented now that if you look at any big movement it was led by a charismatic leader. I think that's what we're missing is I don't think it's science anymore. I don't think people are looking at any of these things at a granular level or even scientific anymore. Look at someone like Trump, he is a charismatic leader whatever else you may think about him. He has galvanized people beyond reason, beyond science, beyond everything brought a disparate bunch together who if you look at all those people on the Capitol they are very different from each other in many ways. So I think that what we have to do is look for leadership that can make us rise above these differences. I really, and there will always be fringe people on the side that's non-animal people the animal people but I think that there's some other thing that we're missing. The thread is someone that it can lead us. So why is that happening? So do you think Obama is charismatic? I think he was actually of his time, absolutely. So how did that go off the rails then? Cause I think I was like, oh my God, we have a charismatic leader in charge of sort of the left center, what like now what? Yeah, but he had a very specific moment in time and a very specific charisma that he could use but of course it wasn't solving some of these baseline issues, right? Because he wasn't even actually dealing with them. But yeah, I would just where, I don't know where that person is, where that movement is. Yeah. I mean, it's also Ingrid, I think you're, the Obama Trump question is kind of interesting one but I mean, Obama made a choice, right? He made a choice to say, I had my time, I did my thing, I got my progress and now I'm gonna let the next guy and didn't sort of own that mantle. And I think, Trump is using techniques that have been used by whether it's mega church, mega church people. I mean, it's massive gnosis, it's rhetoric, it sounds, it's lights, it's all these things. And I think these, the question is, is what do you do with your charisma? And charisma is a part of it, but I think you have to choose to use it and apply it at the scale that Trump is applying it, right? I don't think charisma will take people, there's all these psychological boundaries that are maintained by the groups they belong to. So there is like a narrative. In order to break that narrative, you need to reach them at the place that they are. Both Obama and the current coming president, they put a lot of emphasis on empathy, but how it is to really have empathy for those groups. For me, personally, it's really difficult because they say so much untrue things, but the empathy is another place than what truth is about. And but it's still, there's still a balance act also. Yeah, you want to uphold truth or truthful thinking and science and knowledge management and all that stuff, but still in order for this to change, you'd really need to be at where they are. And I think a lot of people are putting guesses out there, like, what is really making people vote for Trump? What is people making really going for all this thing that for me looks like nonsense, but it requires a depth of being with what is going on there. And I think it will also be different than you imagine it to be, how people really think. And just to elaborate on your point, I think, Eric, it's really, it's been really weird to me. It's been huge cognitive distance to think that there is like crusty cowboy farmers in the middle of the country who feel like this crazy guilt-edged billionaire who lies all the time, understands them and is just like them and represents them. And they do, but apparently 70-some million of them do, right? And they're not all crusty. But it's not just cowboys and those, there is the hidden elite that are also for Trump. It's not just one kind of person at all. There's a lot of different things. And then he's not showing empathy, he's just playing into an emotional thing that hits really deep. And he's putting, but he uses that and he frames his own thinking in it. It's just really manipulative. So it's not real empathy. It's not really feeling what's going on in those people. It's just using something that's really alive and it's something deep. And giving them a narrative, they can kind of feel, yeah. That's great. One of the big challenges is that he's such a chameleon and he mirrors and postures the climate of the audience to which he's speaking. So what he actually says to the plains farmers is quite different than the small farmers in Minnesota, which is different than the industrial farmers somewhere else. So he's tailoring because he's such a chameleon and has, in my opinion, so little core value except self-service. He just plays to what that audience wants to hear. And so they think, oh, he's one of us and he's gonna represent our viewpoint. And they're not discerning that he isn't representing anyone's viewpoint, but his own. Whatever is self-serving is the viewpoint he will represent in the moment. And that's a discernment that I don't know how to teach people to understand or appreciate. It's sort of like you have to have been taken in by a con man once to really appreciate the dimension. And he just is such a snake oil guy. Very skilled at this though. I just posted a couple of links that it might be useful. The why do people support Trump link in my brain has a lot of things. I've been collecting this for a long time and some people have written some beautiful, beautiful essays about what is up with, what is up with the people who support Trump? So you recognize some of the pieces in there. And then the field manual for dealing with Trump is a playlist that I shot. These are short videos. I think there's six of them. And the first one of them is like how smart is Trump? And I believe that Trump is actually smarter than most people think he is. And I have the standing fun fights with a few friends about like using the word smart anywhere near the word Trump. And I'm like, he's done a series of things that to me indicate a level of grasp of dynamics that other people simply don't even have. Anyway, and then we could turn this call into a full-on Trump analysis call, but let's see if we can't go back to our check-ins. Klaus, last word on this topic? Yeah, yeah. So I asked the question yesterday to the panel. We are instructing our volunteers as a citizen climate lobby when they go out and talk with farmers to talk about climate change issues to avoid mentioning the word climate change because they are hardwired to reject the very idea of climate change. I mean, it's just amazing. And so I said, how do we overcome that? And the response that came back was this kindness, gentle and patience. And I thought that was probably summarizing that there is no charismatic person around to rally the tools, so to speak. So it's one at a time. Can I just say, I think people need to be heard. And I think that's what leadership does that appeals and they can have a broad appeal to people when they are acting as if they are receiving and listening. And I think that is hugely important. And I mean, that's what I do in project management. It's most of my problems I can solve by having no thing that I'm hearing them. And I mean, I know this is making it simplistic. Of course, it isn't that simple, but I'm just saying this is the characteristic that you'll see across these types of people or when you're dealing with these issues. In good, I totally agree. And I just put a link to feeling heard in my brain. And there's maybe two very different kinds of feeling heard here that I'm trying to like figure out in my head. One of them is going on a listening tour, listening empathically, absorbing, actually sitting and listening to people, letting them talk about stuff. And I'm pretty sure that Trump has done none of that ever in his life. The other kind of feeling heard is articulating something, putting something into words that's taboo to say that's the script that's going on inside a lot of people's heads so that when they hear someone say it and nobody else say it, they're like, this is the only person on stage who's saying the things that are running in my head. And to me, those are two extremely different kinds of feeling heard. And they're both incredibly powerful. And clearly the latter, the one that Trump I think uses is insanely powerful. Like there's 71 plus million people who voted in favor of him after four years of the Trump apocalypse. Right? And they're not all single issue voters like abortion or whatever else or socialism. He healed universally to the underrepresented individual in the country in a very chameleon way. And he left the impression that this is the first guy I've heard in decades that gets my issues. Bingo. He created that image very, very strategically and did it audience by audience so that each audience would reinforce others of that audience. So I agree with you, Jerry, that either here his advisors are smarter than he's given credit for in a very manipulative way. You're describing Trump, hold on. It can be used for good, though. It's not always bad, this second way of listening. I think if it were used in an ethical way, it's powerful, but he's using it in an unethical way. I just wanted to say for kind of a check-in and a goodbye because I have to leave for a 10 o'clock meeting. Good. I'm really spending a lot of time on trying to frame the methodology of organizational movement, that in a general sense of what are the universal elements of trying to engage productive dialogue that leads to enlightenment and directional activity across multiple organizations that have different fundamental frameworks of existence but face many similar issues in terms of identification of membership, alignment of membership, action on specific directions and things like that. And I know this is what a lot of you who are professional facilitators do in your job, but what I wanna do is take it to a very simple level so that it can become a handbook for civil action and change in smaller units. And there's handbooks out there like Saul Alinsky's famous sort of activist. There's a few things that are notable from history, just famous pieces like that, but this is a great quest. And I put a link to my brain in the chat that might be useful to you, Judy. Okay, thanks. And thank you for the check and I was gonna make sure we got to you before you had to take off. So Lauren, you're on the hoof. Do you want, are you able to check in? Cause I was gonna go Lauren Ingrid, then Shimon. Can I do it in just a little bit when I get home in a few minutes? Sounds great. Okay. We're enjoying the walk with you though. Yeah, exactly. Thank you. It's a nice evening. So let's go Ingrid, Shimon and then John. So thanks for, I'm glad to make my second call. So I'm a little behind in everything but I've been seeing things in a, I'd just like to say I'm completely emotionally exhausted from watching late into the night, last night and seeing what I thought I would never see. And really, I mean, I've been to the capital, I've lived in DC, I've been to huge half a million people, marches and somehow we were never let up the capital steps. So that gave me a disquiet that I have never felt before about our nation. So that's kind of what I'm reeling with today. That's all I'd say. Thank you. Yesterday was hard. Yesterday was just crazy and riveting. And I never knew that like a dude reading the same page for every state of the union over and over could actually be like must watch TV kind of thing. That was kind of crazy. I stayed up and watched the hearings as well after all the events of the day. Julian, do you wanna jump in and check in since you have to leave as well? Okay, actually I just put in the chat but it's been lost to think here. A lot of people say I wanna be heard and they really mean you have to do what I say. So they're all petty dictators. It's like we're going at length but I guess really my checking is that I've been busy still working on this problem of importing the SIGGRAPH proceedings into Neo4j because that's the next step I need for my long-term visualization project. And it's like I discovered when I did the Lego digital things and some databases just don't get along with some information structures but it's all technical and theoretically computable so eventually it will be done. So as you can tell that's what's frustrating me for the last few days. Cool, thank you, Julian. Love that. So Shimon and George, John and George. Yeah, well, it's nice to be back on the call. I think the last four weeks I had to do a lot of covering in the hospital being Jewish around Christmas time has been usually kind of meaning I have to cover. Anyways, I'm also just like moving forward have decided that I'm retiring as of May. So I'm gonna have a lot more time to dedicate to some of the things that we've been talking about. I actually, as a psychiatrist would like to reframe how I see what happened. I mean, I too watched Tuesday night the election results from Georgia which I thought were spectacular. And then last night watching what happened at the Capitol. As a psychiatrist, perhaps I try to reframe things. I think that what we saw is so like the end and potentially the beginning of America starting to have a better view of what it can be about. Even though there are 70 million people so like are still, I guess intoxicated by the message of Trump and I totally agree with people who said about being heard or not. I think that for the last 20 or 30 years through neoliberalism and post, and globalism so many Americans have not been heard. They've been very marginalized and it's so like created essentially an abscess if not a cancer in the US political system. And I see that what's been happening over probably the four years but more so the last couple of weeks is that more and more people are recognizing the problems that we have. So what I've been working on essentially over the last decade, which is now coming to fruition more so is one, how do we so like engage as citizens. This is work that is inspired by Hannah Arendt and James Madison and Judge Randiz and a number of other people who sort of like look at the citizen and how to get engaged in government. And I think that what's been happening the last couple of decades is that citizens have just acquiesced to bureaucratic institutions, their role. So one of the things that I'm more immediately working on is what I call the George Washington farewell project. And when he left his presidency he issued a farewell address that essentially describes exactly what we're going through including a Trump-like character and what needs to be done. So my George Washington farewell project essentially lays out more civic rituals that we can all kind of get behind to reclaim the trust that we have in each other. And that builds on what we call or I call front first principles. But we pretty much lost the vision of what America is about. So when people storm the Capitol, they say, oh, well, this is the people's house or they don't listen to me but very few people really have an understanding or willingness to sort of engage in a conversation of first principles which is one person, one vote and all these other things. So that's part of what I'm engaged with. And the other part which I'll just put a little bit on the kind of back burner this week is the Citizens Commission to deal with to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, which again is giving people tools to really assess the different institutions that have essentially let us down as well and what can we do as citizens. So those are two specific things I'm working on. Sounds fascinating, Shimon, thank you. And I think a lot of us are like, oh, oh, that's interesting. And I need to go reread George Washington's farewell dress, because like you're right, it was really important. I actually wrote what I hope to be an op-ed that I just did before we got on this, that I got on. I'd be happy to share it with people, if people want to comment and maybe we can do it as a collective to do an op-ed about it, if everyone, post whatever co-author. So I don't know what the best way, I mean, it's a Google doc, I'll just put it as a shared document for people. That sounds great. To look at. That sounds awesome, thank you. Let's go to John George Lauren. Hi, thank you. So I'm actually working on fiction and I have a fictionally recreated Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy looking at our current situation. Although they're looking, there's because of some time travel tricks, they're looking at slightly earlier than our current time, but they're gonna wind up in our current time and they're gonna have to decide, do we want to try some of the tricks that Trump used or how do we not do that? And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I'm equal to the task of pulling this thing all together with the requisite skill and gravitas, but it's a wonderful challenge and I keep getting ideas like one of these sessions, I go, wow, I got a whole bunch of ideas just from the comments people are making to add to it. So in any way, it's keeping me very occupied and I am the host presenter in another Zoom, which is starting right now. So that's gonna be my check in and my check out, unfortunately, but great to see you all here from you and I look forward to joining you again soon. Same here, John. Thank you. Good luck. Okay, here we go. We all live in Zoom now. Yeah. George, Lauren, Eric. I'm very, very upset and very, very hard to be coherent here. I've, this is a slow motion train wreck that I've been watching for, I don't know, 20 or 30 years. 10 or 15 years ago, I wrote an article about the deep, deep anger that's going on in this country. We have basically, for a lot of reasons, abandoned reason, abandoned the careful use of our minds. We have stopped thinking, as Shimon mentioned, in first principles. We don't know, we are like, I don't know what the politically correct way to say it these days is, but it's like a world of people whose minds are disabled. A bunch of, I don't know the right word, mental cripples, people who are mentally, you know, we are cerebral, we are good thinkers, we know what logic is, we know how to spot our own biases and adjust for them. Many of us, I'm a psychologist by training, many of us have been trained for years and how to spot these things and get around them. Most people haven't, it's hard for us to appreciate how completely at sea and adrift people are. So it's made me rededicate myself to my mind skills project, which is to compile and publish, probably not in book form, maybe in the brain form, maybe in some form that's accessible to people. A compendium of mental methods. I mean, we can rattle off the five steps of the scientific method. People don't use the scientific method. People don't say, gee, what is government about? Let's, we have some disagreements about whether statism or individualism is a good idea. Let's do an experiment. Let's look at the facts. They don't know how to approach these things. People don't know how to, because people haven't had years of training in experimental design, which incidentally I have had, and I am still at sea with COVID stuff. So somebody who's been trained in it like me doesn't know how to evaluate this stuff. Same thing with the climate, all of that. People are not able with what's going on in this world and colleges are teaching people to repeat and not to not trigger each other. I went to college to get triggered. I went to college to get challenged, to learn how to think. And now people are protected from challenges and intellectual confrontation. You know, the whole idea of tenure was so that professors could speak their mind without retribution. So I just see a world of people completely at sea unable to use their minds. And I don't mean just rational, I don't mean just logic. They don't know how to manage their emotions. They don't know how to manage their dreams. They don't know how to manage their projects. They do not know how to use their minds. And it is getting, and as an anti, it's been all my life, but there's been an anti-mind mentality, anti-intellectual mentality, anti-reason mentality. And we're seeing the consequences. Just one last thing, I'm so surprised that it took till two weeks before the end of the Trump administration for him to implode. Those of us who've studied narcissism know that the narcissist usually blows himself up, gets arrested, whatever, the extreme narcissist I'm surprised he went this long. I am right-wing leaning in the sense of smaller government and greater individualism. I'm basically an individualist. And he has so polluted the whole, that whole right-wing side, that whole side that I'm on and embarrassed us. And it invalidated these ideas. People are just not listening to each other. And when they do, they don't know what to do with it. So I'm rededicated to formulating these mind skills, teaching people how to agree, how to disagree in productive ways. That's all I'm going to say at the moment. Thanks, George. Again, I feel like breaking out a bottle of wine and sitting down and having that longer conversation. Matt, go ahead. You wanted to jump in and you're muted. George, I really appreciate sort of the emotion and heart and thought behind what you were saying. I really, you know, Doug, I'd like to get your reflections here and what your reaction is. I wonder if we, I read the article maybe a year ago by David Brooks about the death of the nuclear, or the why the nuclear family was a mistake, right? And how we used to make choices in sort of these larger community groups. And quite honestly, those larger community groups were mostly led by the people who were in position of power and that power came from a lot of times, it came from sort of savvy or intellectual superiority, right? We had an early America that was based on intellectualism. You know, part of the challenge though is that intellectualism was reserved for a very few number of people and those people happened to be white and they happened to be men. And I'm not sure America ever had, you know, a society that was truly, everybody were independent thinkers, right? It was a few people who happened to get together at the right time in the founding fathers that made a lot of these choices. And that was why we had a representative government because these were supposed to be the smart ones to make peace thing. And what I'm wondering, I wonder about scale, right? And does scale have something to do with where we are as a country? I also wonder about acceptance of diversity and our willingness to live. You know, they show that businesses that have diverse groups of people outperform those that don't, but they're less confident in their decisions. They're significantly less confident in their decisions and we'd like to be confident in our decisions. And so we want to weed out that diversity. And so, you know, part of, you know, I think something to explore, George, is what is this tension that comes from a welcoming of diversity of being inclusive and that less confidence at a scale of, you know, hundreds of millions of people. And if you go to the global level, I mean, billions of people and asking them all to exercise their minds when that was not something that was ever built into our societal systems, right? We didn't expect a lot of people to think. We expected some people to do this and some people do that, some people do that. And then you had the few that were kind of, you know, quite honestly, the wise men. And that scares me. And this is, I think, the tension with intellectualism. And I live in Boston. I'm part of the liberal elite, if you will, right? I have money and I have a brain and I am well educated. And so anyway, it's just something to think about. Next Matt, Doug, did you want to call in here? If not, I'll go to Ken and then I'll go back to Q. Well, I sort of do, but what I have to say is complicated. So I don't know quite how to have a complicated conversation here. Let me just put out a couple of points. The charisma of Obama was for people who are reflective profession. He was not charismatic for the bottom half of the population who saw him as a tool of the professional class. I think we need to understand that more than we do. Earlier in the week, I was in a conversation with people about James Baldwin, the black leader of long ago. And the view was that Baldwin saw that pushing on race and pushing on voting and those issues was going to lead to bad and would not work. That it was going to be very important to go for the fundamentals, which he meant by that, basically capitalism and the ownership of capital by part of society and not all of it. And I think that a lot of the discussion now is at the symptomatic level. So for example, if we take all the conversations this morning, one, it's a kind of cookie cutter approach, but it's like we're dividing a population into the reasonable, rational and the emotional unreasonable. However, there's a logic to the emotional unreasonable, which is that the country is controlled by the bankers and the professional class and has created ladders for themselves and their children to get to the top that are inaccessible to most of the country. A thing I read earlier in the week was about the history of the farming world in the 1880s being obliterated by the bankers and the railroads and the anger of the farmer rhetoric they used was very similar to the Trump supporters now. Those are just some points on the chessboard of my own thinking, there are more, but I think I'll stop there. Thank you, Doug. That's really nutritious. A friend of mine who's a historian, Joe Gouldy, wrote about the early turnpikes in England when they first mapped out England, because they didn't have a map of England until people went down and surveyed it. And then they started to put roads in for the postal service, which was a new thing. And it turns out that wealthy people knew where the road was gonna come through, bought up the property, blah, blah, blah. And if you go read the minutes, the transcripts of those meetings, and you substitute turnpike with internet, you could have exactly the same talk. You could have exactly the same sort of talk for what was happening. It's super interesting. Ken, and then we'll go back to the cue, which is Lauren, Eric, and Matt. Thanks, Doug. You actually teed up what I was gonna say beautifully. I appreciate that. As a facilitator, I'm very aware of wherever I point a group's attention, that's gonna grow. So if I point them at divisiveness, there's gonna be much more divisiveness. If I point them at what is working, they're gonna find things that are really useful to amplify. There seems to be an underlying, poorly articulated assumption throughout this conversation and others that we've had about levels of development, about tribalism, about this. There's a them out there that doesn't get it and they're dangerous and they are, as Doug said, they're emotional and non-rational. They don't believe in our consensus reality. And then there's us. There's those of, you know, we're educated and we know how to use our minds. And my question is, if that is true, then what has allowed us to grow? Because if we all go back far enough, we all came from that murky, slimy stuff. So how did we evolve to a place where we are? And I'm really glad you mentioned Baldwin. Earlier this year, I've been listening to books on audible and I listened to the fire next time and I was stunned by Baldwin's wonderful and awesome articulation of the power of love. Here's a man who had been, I can't imagine as a white person what he went through, what he was subjected to. And he did not turn around out of hatred and say, I'm gonna show you guys. He said, I'm gonna love you. I'm gonna love you into education. So I wanna just put a voice out here for the evolutionary power of loving, of accepting people, where they are. And really to go back to what Eric said earlier about finding that way to empathize. And, you know, I was appalled to watch the people coming out of the Capitol building yesterday, carrying these flags and going, you know, and guns and like, this is Trump's base. I do not want in any way to have them, that mob mentality rule, gain any more traction and power. And at the same time going to what Stacey said earlier, how can I find a way to empathize with them? And they may be poorly educated. They may have much lower IQs, but there's something in there that can be reached that can help us to come together. I don't know what it is, but I think love has something to do with it. And so I'll just end by saying, say this with me now, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, this is the fucking greatest news we have, right? Mitch McConnell, I like the ring of that somehow. Isn't that a great sound? Yeah. Thank you. And I just wanna underline a piece of what you said Ken, which is loving people for who they are is kind of different from loving people for who they are, even though poor them they're stupider than we are. But there's a huge difference there. And then the second thing I'll say in relation to that is, when you scratch people who you think are dumb and ask them about baseball or cooking or some domain that they're passionate about, you will discover that their fully functional brains are completely engaged and they like can spit out stats and do like incredible feats of mental agility in some other field. It's just that something about their situation has made them not apply that to other areas. Whether it's- It's the indignity. We have to grant them indignity and respect. If we don't do that, if we make them other and we dehumanize them and say, you're scary, you're, you know, I'm afraid of you, then we lose the ability to grow and move and evolve and become what we wanna be. Exactly. And we're getting awfully close to the end of our 90 minutes. So let me go back to the cue Lauren Eric Matt. So, you know, I think a few weeks ago now, Jerry released his video talking about the kind of proposal for structure for OGM. So we've been kind of sprinting ahead on the roles part of it, trying to figure out kind of what roles we need and what roles we actually have right now that people are actually doing. And so we did a deep profile exercise a couple of weeks ago. And then in our Monday sessions at Kiko Lab, we've been working on these roles. And after a lot of non-success in, you know, kind of showing people self and having people kind of scratch their heads and not making a progress, I came up with something and I'd like your feedback on it. And maybe it's still, you know, maybe it's not effective, but maybe it will spark something looking at it. So I've taken the deep profiles and I've turned them all into stickies and put them on and map them onto a map of collective intelligence, how I interpret collective intelligence is happening. So let me just share that with you. Hang on just a minute. And I'd just love to get some quick feedback about if it's, and then maybe I can share my screen. You should be able to show you where it is on the Neuromap because there's a lot on this Neuromap. So this is what I'm talking about on this particular Neuromap. And so these squares here are facilitation, sense-making, creativity or innovation, deal-making, execution, stewardship, connection, augmentation and amplification. And so I put these kind of things and they map to people's names and then there starts to be clusters that form like here. We see Ken as kind of like, he's the guy that we love. Like there's just, when you see it all at once, it's like, oh my God, it's just like the heart of OGM. So I was just wondering if you look at this and does it give you any insight? So what I've done, I've kind of done this across groups now with OGM, with Kiko Lab, with some with GCC, although I'm not finished with those, Metacogs. And what I'm trying to do is get like a cross network visualization of what kind of people we have and see if roles just kind of emerge from this or I don't know. First Lauren, wow, like I just talked in the chat. This is a labor of love and it's an amazing work. Second, and this is just my own observation. I love the way you and Charles turn the soil on all of this constantly. You're always like putting nutrients in and feeding the earthworms and turning things around so that we can see ourselves, so that we can try to find our way to something useful and positive. And that's really lovely. Anybody else with ideas about where to put this, how to implement it, what to do with it from here? And I wish Max Harper were on the call because he's the good Mirocoder. He may also be already in your conversations but he might actually know how to instrument the Miroboard that you're working on to do interesting things. Can we do a word? What is it when you get one word out of a bunch of words? I've got word cloud. Word cloud on each of the people to see what, if that jumps out, something about them, I don't know. Charles is a word cloud guy. Well, I like the idea. I'm not specifically, but I, yes, I agree. It's a good idea. There's some simple open free word cloud tools on the inner tube. So we could actually take a cluster of texts and plop them through for different people or just offer that to people at some point. Other thoughts? I don't know how the software works but Kumu would be able to do it probably, I guess. Word cloud? No, know what you want to do. Yeah, word cloud as well, but it's the way it works and the way it deals with connections and visualization might be best suited for what you're doing right now. Especially as you get clustered themes like you've just done by hand, Kumu could be an attractor for those different themes for different people. That's true. Yeah, themes. Yeah. I think as I've told very briefly, Lauren earlier, some of this could be maybe automated or made more efficient but Lauren had her way and she just got the inspiration just to go into it and like go through it in this particular way. It is quite labor intensive but it yields insights that Lauren has that no one else has. Also as a result of going through our videos and cutting that's something we become more and more aware of she's really sitting on a lot of insight. It's funny, for some reason, there's a BBC documentarian named Adam Curtis whose documentaries have really affected me and his sort of ninja skill is he goes to BBC archives around the world, finds old reels, digitizes them, tags them up and then knows what's where and his documentaries are basically assemblies of these videos. And one of the things he does really well is he'll get the full footage of an interview with Bill Clinton or somebody or Putin but he'll take the part where they're busy primping before the whole thing happens and somebody's putting on makeup or something else is happening but it's more revealing of their character and his opinionated voiceover will be happening while you're watching like this little behind the curtain peak at somebody who otherwise is performing and whom you've only ever seen perform and then he'll do this with a riot scene with something else. And knowing where the snippets are and composing them well is this insane skill. And Lauren, I think you've got something like that for who we are and what we're good at and what lights us up and something like that. And I think that part of this conversation is how do we liberate that back into the group to facilitate everybody to find their way to each other and to the projects that matter to them and how do we apply these superpowers to what we're trying to do together? Part of it is actually making this process collaborative. It's a big part of it, I think. And something that I think we've been chipping away at a bit but it's kind of a big wall, maybe a wall up before us. And just a quick comment, similar note. I had this reflection just today again. All these calls, especially the Thursday OGM calls are loaded with amazing golden nuggets that are just kind of either completely lost and forgotten or sitting around getting dusty but needing that kind of review, processing, filtering and so forth. So there you go. And the point is it should be, could be ideally collaborative. Scott, and then I'm gonna apologize because we're four minutes from the 90 minute mark and we've missed a bunch of people. There's at least fire review on the call, maybe more that haven't had a chance to check in and I apologize for that. But I think we've had a juicy go around. Scott, go ahead. Just very quick. I was part of the put together meeting with Lauren and Charles and a few others. And Lauren, I think you've done, you've taken what we had a mess of and really have made sense out of it. So I think you've moved along wonderfully. I'd love to see what you do with it now, Scott. Yeah, we'll see. And before we end the call, if anyone wants to hang around for the end, I have an update on my trust make America relate again. So I can do that. Awesome. Maybe I'll do that as we're talking because you can still. Sounds great. Tray, would you like to check in? I'm conscious of the time. That's okay. Oh my God. Scott's been busy. Wow. You know in elf, when the elves can make packages and all that, that's what just happened in the background here that Scott did. Sorry, Tray. I will share this in some of our other channels. I just wanted to get in front of you to see how this could evolve. And I have such a visceral reaction to this. And then I read it and so it's funny because it lures me in with like, oh, huh. So anyway. Okay. If you can, I'm sure the screen for a second and then we'll take a breath and go back to Tray. This is Mike. Can I just throw one thing in? There's a fellow named Nicholas Lundblad who used to be at Google doing government relations. He has a blog called Unpredictable Patterns. And if you haven't checked this out, there's some really good things on how he examines skills in skills and in organizations and how to think about them. It's a tool that might be quite useful here. I'll put it something in the chat with a link to his blog. And I'll see if I can find the recent article on management. Thank you, Mike. Now let's take another breath and go back to Tray. So yesterday I was part of a meeting where one of the members, one of the colleagues on the call was two miles away from ground zero who actually physically lives two miles away from ground zero in Washington, DC. And it was palatable. Myself being Canadian, I often find myself in awe of certain things that go on in the world, not just to our neighbors to the south. I waiver, I waiver between sadness, shock, I think. But for the most part, I'm just, I just wanna express my gratitude that despite the them and us conversation that seems to emerge everywhere even among the people that I hold most dear that this group still appears to be an open-minded group. That's why I continue to be here. In the name we have to be. Of course that doesn't always work. That's, I think that's about all I need to say for today, but thank you. Thank you a lot. And that's a lovely note to end on. Would anybody else, and anybody else who wants to see, talk to Scott about the drawings so they can hang out a bit. Anybody else want to go and help us sort of wrap out? This is Mike. Just if you want a positive note that came out of what yesterday was, if you can go on C-SPAN and listen to Corey Booker, Senator, Democratic Senator from New Jersey, and then immediately after him, you have the Senator, Ben Sass in Colorado, a Republican who made this impassioned plea for community and hope and taking care of our neighbors. There was some eloquent and powerful and poignant and well and really sincere speeches yesterday. And I point you to both of those. Thanks, Mike. I was moved by a bunch of different speakers in the sessions. Scott? So I thought I'd end on a humorous note. So the funniest thing I saw yesterday was a photo of the guy carrying the podium out and it had been reposted and reposted because they were calling for the punishment of Mr. Via Getty, V-I-A Getty, because the photo said this photo was courtesy of Getty. It was a photo credit, right? Yes. And there was, they were forwarding all of this, make sure Via Getty gets his due. Love that. I thought that was humorous note at all. Mr. Via Getty, Eric, you wanted to jump in too? Yeah. Maybe one thing is that the positive note on what happened yesterday for me is that, I think what I understood from the start with Trump, something like Trump is uniting the world against him. So there's a huge lot of people that are sitting in this kind of discomfort and like, wow, this is horrible. This is, how is this possible? But they're also people and they also have power. So let's try to work from that place. Thank you. It's a little bit like alien invasion, that would unify humanity, but here we have. Yes. And you would think you would. Maybe as a visitor too. Yeah, exactly. And you would think the coronavirus would be like an alien invasion because it's like different life forms, busy attacking everybody on earth pretty equally. And it hasn't happened that way at all. That's been a real political divider, real acts. This feels like a good place that we should pause. My apologies to those of you who didn't have a chance to check in. We don't, on purpose, I don't have a timer to make sure that we cover everybody. It just goes as it goes, but this has been really wonderful. And this is a really lovely place for me to be the day after yesterday, given what happened yesterday. So thank you all. I appreciate it very much. You're being here in this conversation. Until soon. Watch your left. Thank you. Val, can we just watch Lauren's kids play for a while? What? Yeah. Is it the same link every week? It will be for the next bunch of weeks and we're permanently on the new time. So 8 a.m. Pacific, 11 a.m. Eastern. Thanks. I will send a confirming note to the list. Good, thanks. Thanks. Scott, can you send me an email? Yes, George, I certainly can. Okay, thank you. I'm trying to get in touch with you and it hasn't worked. Yeah, I'm sorry I've been involved with a fortunate to have had a lot of freelance work. So that's a good thing. As long as I know you got the message, I'm fine. Yes, I think you and I have been on parallel paths for a while. Exactly, and eager to connect. Yeah, sounds great. Thanks, George. Everybody else looks at me and says, what the fuck are you talking about? Well, I've managed to put it in front of the Metacogs group. So they're, I would call them artificial intelligence hobbyists. All the way down to a junior in high school and a bunch of people in between. And so far, my framework has held up every time. They got it right. The Rome group is also, ROAM, the Rome group is also very into this. And they talk in terms of thought algorithms. We'll talk further. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm making it as simple as possible. Yep, exactly. That first picture you put up, I would love to share that on Facebook to maybe open up some conversations if that's all right with you, if you could send it to me. Absolutely. Yeah, same here. I, let's see. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. I can serve you, though. It seems like it would be nice to have like a really cross group group somewhere. I know there's different like matter most and slacks and stuff like that, or even just a Facebook group, which makes it really simple to share these kinds of things. But yeah, that's just me. Maybe that's another, maybe it's better for later because it seems like a simple thing to do, but, and I'd really like to talk to you also about your graphics, Scott, because I know groups who could benefit from your skill that you might be interested also to work for us. Yeah, absolutely. That's why I do these things and share them. So to see. There's one guy, Edwin Rutsch, and he tries to organize conversations, empathy circles between Congress members. That's his main aim. That would be a really, like that's one of the main people that I think he would, you would be a really, really good person for him. And I think I like his aim to bring together those kind of people, yeah. Yeah, I found later in life that my design and writing professional training and experience has been serving me better in the clarity, communication, simplification, sphere and education. And then I enjoyed in that space much more than where I used it for my career, which was creating advertising and marketing, all that stuff, which I can do, but I found that it's kind of hollow for me. It doesn't have the meaning. And I'm using it now in other ways that always have meaning behind them. Simplification of things always. But it helps me present ideas in a way that people who don't have those skills, unfortunately they can have great ideas, but if they're hard to grasp because they're not enough, I can use those visuals to make something easier to understand, which it really helps. I just had a funny thought looking at your background. Like you could make, let's make wars into pinball machines instead of torture machines. I mean, no, let's make conflicts into pinball machines instead of torture machines. Yeah, for sure. Thanks, yeah. I'm happy that you're refocusing. I celebrate that. I am, and it's one of those, well, as George had said, he's been watching this for decades, in the context of other things. And for me, what I realized is that I've been preparing for this for decades. And that's, it's making it easy, I think. Maybe that's the best way to say it. It's not easy, but it's making it feel easy because it's integrating 25 years of just being interested in stuff. And now all of a sudden I'm realizing that I have all these things at the ready. And that it was kind of surprising to me in a way, but it's also been just so exciting because it's not, you know, like, as I say, I'm trying to make this suitable for children. It would be forced to eighth grade over here. So I don't know what age group that is. I don't know, is that 10 to 15, something like that? Nine would be fourth grade. Okay, so nine to 14, you know. And the average 25 year old. Well, and right, yes. I realized that the need is great across the sphere. But starting with, if it's similar to a Pixar movie in the sense that if it appeals to kids, really appeals to kids, the adults are going to enjoy it as well. A lot of kids entertainment is horrible. And, you know, it doesn't even really catch for their attention either. But, you know, when you have a really good, something that's great that's been simplified, you can easily make it deeper. That was my point, yep, exactly. You can't go the other way. Yep, exactly. It's really hard to go the other way. And so what I've done is at the very end of all of this, I've gotten it down to, this is work in progress, but I just pasted it into the chat. I have my sections, and this is a visual code of all of the tools. And it's as simple as that. It won't make sense to you. But once you understand the tools, it makes sense to you. So you would look at them and say, oh, I know what that is. You know, like the example for the line play, well, those are games. So the games have five components. There's a goal, which is symbolized by the arrow pointing to the circle. So every game has a goal. There are rules, things you can do, things you can't do. So that's the zero and the zero with the line through it. Things you can do, things you can't do. Next to it, a game has a challenge. There has to be some kind of a challenge or a difficulty level to it. That's the O and the X, in the sense that there's a competition going on, either between you and your environment, you and another person. The fourth part is invitation. There has to be an invitation to play the game, an agreement that way. And the last part is development. So that's plus 1%. So it's the idea of practice, repetition, improvement. But that's just a really simple fast. Here's what that's about. But now as you look at that, you can say, oh, what do you play? You play games. And those games are goals, rules, challenge, invitation, and improvement. Now, what about your school? Is your school a game? Oh, no, it's a school. Well, it doesn't have a goal. Well, the goal is to educate, graduate. It doesn't have things you can do and things you can't do. Rules, does it have a challenge? Well, if it's too easy, that's no good. If it's too hard, that's no good. Is there an invitation to learn, to engage? Yes, absolutely. And is it focused on development? Oh, well, maybe your school is a game. And now that you understand that we play games, that's how we interact with each other. Well, maybe you can make your own game. Maybe you can change the rules. Maybe you can pick a different goal. Maybe make it harder or easier. Maybe you can invite others into your game. And that's the nature of the things that I'm putting together is to understand the things you're already doing with your thinking and to make them now meta in the sense that now you can do them consciously and be in control of, you know, better control of your environment and your life. Terrific. There is a... Next meeting. See you. See you. See you, George. Yeah, thanks. Could I add something to, it's got a few things, actually. Like, I think something happens in our minds or in our societies and it's automatic. Like, there's this moralistic thinking, ethical thinking. And in ethical thinking, one thing is better than the other. And there's also a tendency of going to one place. This is the ethical place. But if you consider the qualities of thinking, it's actually a lot of different qualities that you develop. There's something also about that. That's one thing. And I don't know if I explained that clearly enough, but okay. Then there is another one is there's a scoring language. That's what they call it in, mostly in dance. I don't remember the name again of the scoring language, but it's actually, it's like a sign language that they use to kind of tell actors, dancers and musicians what to do. And it's like got different indications, like tempo and the kind of themes you want to talk about, who is playing what, who gets to be stronger or softer. And there, I wonder if that's like a nice thing for you to look at as well, because it's yet another approach into what you're doing. This kind of scoring, the thought of the scoring language. So let me provide another framework that might help you. So my set of skills are divided into the conceptual. So that's the systems thinking part of it. That's learning, taking apart. The level above that is design thinking. So now we're talking about making and how do you go about making something from noticing a need to diverging on ideas to converging back to prototype to test and feedback. So design thinking. So it's based on systems thinking, that's the underpinning. Then there's design thinking in the center. And at the top, there's narrative thinking, which is games and stories. And how we all play games with each other and how we live, basically live stories and the ultimate story is the story of you and your unique place in all of this. All of human history and your agency, your ability to actually change the games, to change, to make things, to understand things at a system level. And so it's integrated from top to bottom, from the granular to the entire scope of your life and beyond. And that's, those are the sets of tools and I'm not trying to make it comprehensive in the sense that there's every thinking tool and mental model possible. It's more about if you had these set of skills, each one of them has to stack on all of the others. Each one has to be able to plug into. So you can take the idea of a relationship, which is part of systems thinking, into an invitation. Oh, okay, well, clearly those things connect and all of them stack on top of each other and can be used together. And that's what I've been very careful about is to not just have a bunch of tools in a box. They have to be like Lego pieces. They have to all be able to fit together in order to give you a set of tools that you can use. And if they're a little fringy or maybe you only, everyone needs these, everyone already uses these. We all play games, we all live in a story. We all automatically do systems thinking even though we don't even, we all remember and remind. And so those are the criteria from what to include. So can I, that's, I'm gonna try something really difficult for me to explain, but I'm trying. Maybe what I was saying before, like the scoring part, like you said two things, narrative and games, right? Story, so narrative is stories and games. And the way I conceptualize it is a story is something that has happened in the past. And a game is something, or a story is something that's happened in the past or something that's going to happen in the future. And a game is a story that's happening in real time. And that's the narrative section of the three sections. So there was another, yeah, I'll give it a try. Like in scoring, there's this book, the game of music or something under current, I have my memory. So it's a book about how to learn how to play the piano and he describes like, what is music? And he says, yeah, it's a feeling. It's not necessarily what you describe it to be. Yeah, but just let me finish. Bye. Okay, but the scoring is also something that works on a longer line. It's not really narrative. Scoring is something that just works on the emotional level on long term as well. That's why I also like scoring. It goes outside of the realm of trying to make a story out of something. It's really something that has a rhythm and all these kinds of things. It's also part of play, but it's just another dimension of that I guess. It doesn't matter, but just my mind playing around with your ideas. But yeah, maybe how are you, Stacey? I'm just listening. I'm finding it interesting. Yeah, I'm gonna actually get off the call now. So much was brought up today. I could have spoken on all of it. I didn't hear what you're saying, Eric, in terms of in as far as that objectivity in I think what I hear you saying is that a scoring that would sort of be more objective, is that what? No, it's not. I think he's talking about musical score where you have a rhythm. Yeah, musical score, but it works on different levels. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry, yeah. Ah, yeah, yeah, sorry. Wow, yeah, it's so hard to put your ideas out sometimes in words. But it's like, it is that the narrative, what I see with narrative often, it's like it creates a whole reality and it's binding to people often. Games are more liberating and freeing. It's not so important that everything is true. But scoring is, it's like, it's a way of writing and a way of creating a deeper reality that has a lot of significance and depth and that doesn't have this quality of the narrative that's binding. Okay. That it's a very abstract thing, but it's... Well, I think that it's a higher level combination of some of the things I have. And what it sounds like the way I, my initial reaction to it is that in order to understand that, you have to understand music a little better. And what I'm trying to do is not include any tools that require any other skill first. These are all as base bedrock as possible. So one type of game, one type of story could be a score, could be music, could be creating a band. Any of those things become a story or a game. And what I'm trying not to do is find myself having to explain one thing. You have to learn this in order to learn this. I should be able to go in at any point and start there. And that's my goal. And with all of these tools so far, I don't, I think rhythm, rhythm to me is something I'm considering. And I want to see where that fits. So I think that some, it does fit in the story. It needs to be relatable to anyone. Like it needs to be an element that if you talk about it, immediately people will understand what it's about. And then they can start interacting with it. If it's something that requires too much conceptual understanding like you have to have a higher level meta kind of thing. You don't want to immediately use it. And the meta comes with practicing and doing the games and doing all the activities. And I framed these or I'm framing them as your friends. So each one of these is a friend that you can make and understand and get to know and they will be your friend for life and they will help you for the rest of your life. If you get to know them and if you play with them. And so that's why play is my highest level of interaction. So you play games, you basically play out a story. Well, upplay, see playing is a verb to play a game but play is also a noun, which is your story. A play is a story. And so that's kind of how I've, it's learn, make and play. Those are the three, the three levels and for think, make and play. Either one of them works, but that's kind of the framework for all of it. And I think rhythm fits in story better than anyone else because a good story, well, any story is going to have a rhythm to it. There's going to be high points. There's going to be low points. There's going to be fast, slow and considering that rhythm, that might be a tool that might pass the test of does everyone understand it? Can it be used in combined with other things? And it seems like, I mean, it integrates with habits and routines. It integrates with knowledge of the seasons, the cycle of the day. You know, there's all kinds of richness in that word, which I like. I also wonder if you've got visuals for all of these, like I could see your typed visuals, I'd say, on those patterns? I can, but it's, I mean, it's, it's really, it's like looking at one of those, those mural boards, you know, it's just so, like here's an example, just very quickly. You can see the overall structure. There's conceptual at the bottom, design thinking in the center, narrative thinking at the top, learn and think at the bottom, make in the middle, play at the top. There's, you know, stories and games and it's all of the bits and pieces that come into that. So conceptually that's, visually that's what it looks like. But I'm thinking that I might actually want to make a deck of cards, which I think might be an interesting way to go, where each card is a, is a, one of the tools. And then using color and pattern, they group together, you can, you can deal them out and have, okay, well, there's the five tools of games. There's the, you know, the five tools of stories. There's the five of systems thinking, you know, et cetera. And that feels like it's also about the right amount. A one deck of cards would be enough tools to cover all of the tools that I have. Yeah, good. And one thing I want to bring in, which is a question you have to think of, which you will figure out for yourself, what makes most sense. But like I'm thinking of the methodology of Stodd van Axe, that's city of axes. That's like a Dutch methodology. And he uses animals. And if it's one kind of thing, like it's only animals, then you can, then it's easier to relate than if it's general just cards that illustrate what it is. It could be that you have very diverse cards that have very different kind of examples. Could also be that you find like an archetype of all these kinds of sub elements in either animals, creatures, fantasy creatures. Fantasy creatures. I'm not sure what would work the best. I had, I had, I had tried that. I'm gonna go. Bye Stacey. Bye bye. See you later. I had tried that. And what I was doing was coming up with names because I was going to introduce them as your friends. So each one of them was a character. And I thought, okay, well, this character has a personality. Do you know the Harry Potter stories? Yeah, yeah, a bit, yeah. I read one book, I think, and then I saw all the movies. That's enough. So, you know the sorting hat, the hat that they wear to decide which house they're going to go in. So distinctions is deciding what something is, the dividing line between what something is and what it is. And it's, it's the way that we, you know, like what is a, you know, what's a, what's a school? Okay, well a school is a building. Oh, well, is it, or is it, is it bigger than that? Or is it just a classroom? Or, you know, when we move the line around and the sorting hat basically is a distinction maker. It, it sometimes we'll, we'll know right away which house sometimes we'll have to eliminate by looking at what you aren't. No, you're not slithering, but you might be, you know, and, and that's the process of making distinctions and drawing that line. And so I started to think about how could the, each one of these has a personality. And so, so could that work? And I realized that it was a helpful memory thing maybe later, but that it was another level of abstraction when you're learning them, which I thought, I'm not sure that that's gonna help make it easier. Because now you have to learn the character and then learn what they do. And I thought, well, maybe it's going to be easier just to make the language simple, you know, think, draw, as opposed to having a picture of an artist or, you know, a pencil that's animated or, you know, something like that. I don't know. It needs visuals to go along with that. Yeah. I guess maybe it's also that you're thinking needs to be at a level where all the elements are in balance. And then you can let go of that process and then the visuals will come something that could also be, could you, could you share me the graphics? I think, yeah, I added you on Facebook now or ask a friend request. And then I'd be happy to share it actually in some groups. Would you be open to also working for people that really need this kind of visuals? Oh, yes. Yeah, I enjoy this work. This might be my favorite type of work is when someone is trying to understand what they are, what their company is, what their message is, what their value is, you know, and then take this mess and turn it into this. And when the way that I try to present it, well, here's, there's an easy way to look at it. Hang on a second here. This is an older one, but it'll work, I think. Hang on a second here. I'm trying to open something up. Okay, yeah, here we go. I'm going to, okay, so you can see this image now. All right, so earlier in the call, I said, sometimes you have to draw something or write a poem about it or paint a picture or write a song because you don't know what you want to say yet. I drew this, I drew this a year and a half ago and it spoke to me immediately because this is what I like to do. But I didn't have a word for it. I wasn't able to explain what it was in a simple way. And it took me a year of looking at this and thinking about it. And I like to help people map their world, constrain and reframe their problems, see their options. And I know I've succeeded when they know what they want to do next. And that's my current statement of what this means to me is that people, I will ask good questions. People will bring to me all of their, the clutter in their head and the mess that they have. I'm going to pull out what feels to be the relevant and related points, integrate them into a unified thing. And ideally they're going to say, yes, that's it. That's what I've been trying to say and haven't been able to say. And I use graphic design and writing to do that and visuals, but that's the kind of work. It's not design-based, it's thinking-based. So that's the type of work I like to do. So does that make sense? Sorry, I get it. Yeah, I could say much more, but I also want to run it up. Yeah, okay. And could you send it through Facebook or something or whatever works for you? The one with the perspectives on dialogue? Yeah, or the one, no, also the one you sent like let America relate again. I love that one. Oh, if that's something you want to share. I'm on the fence because I think that the message is great. I just, you know, I don't know. It's funny because I think that the people that I normally hang out with would understand it. But what I don't want to do is to get, it's just, I don't want it to be polarizing. That's the point is it's about saying we need to integrate everything. And I don't know if that's the right thing. And if I would. It doesn't attack in its implicit message, I think. So in that sense, you're okay, but I get your point. You don't want it to be like a moralizing message to the ones that believe in Trump. You actually want them to see this and think, ah, yeah, that's nice. It's me saying here, let's talk about this. Which was also the same thing as the dialogue piece because we're thinking that it's a cave, that entering into dialogue is a cave with a dead end. Instead of a tunnel that we have to actually, you have to go through the tunnel to get out. And no one's willing to go in because they think it's just, what's the point? Because it's just kind of, we'll just hit a wall. Yeah, so the two ideas I had with that was, yeah, just a moment. Yeah? Okay. Is, I was thinking of the Gotar tunnel. It's a very long tunnel. That's been dug. It's an immense work. In a way, it's unbelievable that that tunnel got dug. And I think also, but then, yeah, okay, there's a tunnel. And you can also see every summertime, people just, it's like a very long line, of course, that want to traverse the tunnel. There's also a lot of blockage because it's slow to move through. There's always, it's true, there is a tunnel, but it's not that fast always. And depending on the amount of things that need to go through, it's a reality that it's a lot, it's a lot to cover or a lot that needs to traverse this tunnel as well. But we have to go through it. If we stand and looking at, look at the cave, or look at the hole and say, that's a cave, there's no point in going in there. Then we'll have her. Yeah, for sure, of course. Yeah, all right. Okay, yes. I know you're- See you later. Nice to meet you by the way, Scott, again. Nice to meet you again. See you next time. It's good talking.