 Yes, recording is on. Okay, go ahead. We'll show the link the December 21st, 2002. Excellent. Workup finals. Yeah, but it's like, you know, I see a problem, I always like how is his heuristics. So like, this is a coordination problem, can it be decomposed into a sort of coordination problem? So personally often, yes. Yeah. Right. And, you know, I'm a lot of those, I ask, if we had a commons, will we have this problem? If we had a commons, could we improve on this for like, people in the commons? And again, I find, at least in my imagination, very often the answer is yes. But in practice, we have the hierarchies. And I find it interesting because, you know, they are there, and they are so good at self-preserving that we, I guess, it's not surprising on evolutionary, you know, terms that we see them, because they are, they have evolved to sort of preserve and they are good at it. And then we come and we are like, you know, to some extent, this emerging, like challenging force, which tries to question them. But we sort of have history against us, no? Right. Yeah. So, and then I'm like, am I hopeful because it's rational? Or am I hopeful because it's irrational to be hopeful, but I just want it. And I'm afraid that you and I are sort of irrationally hopeful on this front because history certainly doesn't prove our case very much. And unfortunately, one of the forces at play here is that communities that are sort of pacifist and egalitarian always can't defend themselves against communities that are militaristic and hierarchical, like they get run over. Right? Because in particular, if you're doing the work of a healthy community, we really don't have that much surplus to go building a huge army and, you know, being aggressive or whatever else, or being defensive. It's a bit of a problem. And you have a local buy as well. You are like, hey, everybody here is great. We get along. Someone comes in, you have this agreement, you sold it. Oh, surely people can get along. Right. Which is the mode I operate and we operate in for a lot of time. Yep. But then you meet an actual fascist. Yep. And it just doesn't work. Right. A priori. So, a fascist as a standing for like corrupt the hierarchy and so on. Exactly. So, I just, I had a conversation earlier today where I brought up, you know, how do you build trust? How do you, it's possible sometimes to melt people who seem irredeemably fascistic or otherwise, you know, whatever. And I told the story of Darryl Davis, who is a black jazz pianist who basically has a garage full of Ku Klux Klan robes, because 30, 35 years ago, he was playing in a bar and a guy walked up to him who turns out to be a Ku Klux Klan grand dragon, senior, senior ranking, you know, senior member of the KKK and they get to know each other. And over the course of two years, invite each other to their, each other's homes for dinner. And the guy retires out of the KKK and hands Darryl his robes. And so Darryl now has 200 robes in his garage because he respectfully and patiently listened to people who hated him and wanted him either dead or out of the country. And what Darryl says is, you know, how can you hate me if you don't even know me, which is brilliant. And so I have a couple other stories like this of hope that people who appear to be irredeemably full of hate on the other side, Darryl Davis, Davis or Davis, hold on, I think it's Davis. I'll give you a link. Yeah, Davis. And so here he is in my brain. And I will give you a link to one of his talks. It's really good. How can you hate me when you don't even know me? And then which is the best talk? I think this one. Yeah, watch this if you haven't watched it before. It's really good. And he's a, he's just a lovely speaker. And I got to interview him one to one for a podcast that was brewing, but didn't really happen. And I still have to, I haven't published that, that interview yet, so I need to do that. Oh, okay. But he's, he's a lovely soul. He's just like super cool. Yeah. I mean, and I really mean that. And I think there is different potential, you know, like this outreach across the world. I had a friend who actually we spoke about the commons once and like, you know, and he says something that really stuck with me. And he said that because we were talking about the, because you have the commons standing in for like a place where people manage to get along some rules contract. And the outside and you want, essentially to some extent, or you can call it the aura or, you know, or like the glow of rain, glow of mine, but some space and presumably, you know, you, you want to defend that place. You want to defend that place from outright attacks, you know, like to prevent, you know, the suffering, the balance of tolerance and what you mentioned about how you will trust and protect. And he said that he saw, and he just came right out with this, and I really liked that you needed two kinds of roles in the border. And since then I've been thinking about this as a membrane, you know, the selective membrane of the system. Right. And he's seen that the two kinds of roles were bouncers, which you can imagine, and Buddha's. Right. And we share like, you know, just for with my friend. And I really like that because I think that, you know, to some extent, that I leave is, I mean, in this, in this story, I mean, when I know him, he made me think of the Buddha role, which is like person who actually, you know, of course, like in Christianity, you can, you can come up with similar stereotypes, you know, like I'm also in philosophy in general. But, you know, this person who goes beyond in more than one way, and like embraces, you know, yeah, who said this? What does this come from? From this friend I have. He's a, I'll send you his link. He's really smart. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And like, he's from what I'm a nazis. Yeah. What I'm now nazis being this year. And he's a radio. Oh, he's on Twitter. And one of the things that I thought at some point, it's like, well, this is like, these are all very important roles. And, you know, these go back as well, well to the problem of moderation in the favor. Like, but these are like, this can be really tiring. Unless you're actually an actual right. You can play that role in this sense of the bouncer role, but this is work, right? You're part of the, to some extent, you become part of the immune system, you will say, of the system. If we, we also like, I want to ask you, I don't know if you, if you know, I made this, I did this course, you know, so essentially autopoiesis. Yeah. So I guess this this term as, you know, as you're related to this thing we're discussing also for hierarchy, right? Because I couldn't explain autopoiesis to you, but I've heard of it and it's in my brain. So right. Yes. So, and I haven't read the original book, right? Where because this has come from Maturana and Varela. Varela and Maturana, exactly. Right, right. But I saw all these in this workshop I did, that introduced a lot of the, of this concept to me. And this comes from to the theory, but it is, no. So it's from the Capra course, you know, Frithof Capra? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So I did that for a quarter. Yeah. And he introduced me, at the recent onition that I was in the living, yes, precisely. Capra does courses on the theory of living systems. Exactly. Yes. And he also has this hybrid, you know, cybernetics and system thinking on the one side and like, you know, philosophy, Eastern philosophy in particular sometimes. Backgrounds and physics. So then I think if perhaps, you know, if it's, if it could be in a way proactive to think of both the commons and hierarchies as living systems, you know, who are, they have this autopoietic, you know, like this membrane-like and self-preserving like processes. And how could we communicate at that level, you know, could the commons reach out to the hierarchies in the same way as Darryl Davis? Have you heard the term nested containment? I think. So I heard it for the first time yesterday on a call with a new interesting, interesting friend. And he was saying that what a lot of software needs is nested containment. And my closest understanding of it from the conversation yesterday was that all the different sort of working parts that compose our bodies have nested containment in the sense of atoms don't know how they make up molecules, but molecules hold a bunch of atoms in some way that works. Then molecules organize together into cells, into organisms. None of the component parts really understands their role in the large, but the large forms sort of this nested containment and the nesting stacks in a way that leads to us sitting here talking over, you know, over video. And software, he says, is mostly missing that phenomenon. It's not composable through nested containers. And I'm talking out of my ass now about what he was trying to say, because I'm not sure I fully understood it, but it fits what we're talking about here in terms of platforms and, you know, how this all fits. Right, right. Makes sense. So I want to, I'm not familiar with the term software nest containment. It makes me think of transclusion, but I'm to some extent, I mean, with your transcruel, yeah, the system that's been transcluded. Well, I mean, it can know it's been transcluded. So, you know, like depending on the protocol, you know, in the, you know, with iframes, for example, in the web, like some, some websites will refuse to be embedded and someone, so they have these facilities. So I wonder if it's, I wonder if that says that it's not nested containment, but I need to, I will look into this. Makes sense. And I can ask him more about what he thinks we're going to talk again and see what's up. Nice. So how are you? Yeah, how are you doing, Billy? I'm doing okay. And some reason I've been hired for the last couple of days. So I'm not very effective. I've been playing with the, I don't know, if you've seen the sense doing stuff that's happening on OGM. So I've been trying to facilitate that. But humans are worse than cats. They are. Cats can only scratch you and bite you. All right. Yeah. I don't really like humans, but they're the best thing around. They are really impressive. They come in. Yeah. No, it's, it's good. But yeah, I've been struggling with finding my words and speaking clearly. So, see how that goes. You're working on sense making and categorizing? Well, yeah, I'm trying to do sense making, but that includes other humans. And right. Well, it doesn't have to, but it's much better. There is single player sense making. And unfortunately, that's where most of the tools are focused. Yeah. What we're trying to do is multiplayer sense making. That's where we're aiming. And it is hard as hell. And it's exponentially harder, but it has exponential benefits. We hope. We think anyway. I subscribe to that one. Yeah. So part of the reason there's a fellowship of the link is that I was having conversations with people who were like optimistic about the commons and about open sharing of links and about working openly and openness in general. And I was like, that sounds like a thing we should protect, defend and explore and figure out like where this takes us, you know. And most of us were working on tools for thinking or something like that. So that's kind of kind of a commonality. But I think philosophically, we have a larger umbrella of commonality around the things they just said. On that, I was looking at the, Francine, you made a fellowship with the link, Agora. Oh, yeah. It's not a ray. Yeah. Good because it wasn't working. No, it's actually the Agora went down. I looked for it the other day and it was not working. Yeah. The fellowship link one. Yeah. Yes. You can apologize for that, but I'm actually teaching the containers. And I would have worked to always be up, but it's not. So tools for thinking are not an Agra.org slash tools for thinking is up. That's working right now. Yeah. But the other one, yeah, I need to, I need to keep iterating essentially. If this actually brings me back to the community sense making, if you would like me to, I mean, and there's an open offer, but you have like either streams or gardens. So essentially any, I say streams and gardens, but usually I just mean like repositories. And a stream will be like timeline, driven to some extent. And the garden will be like entity driven. But you know, they can mesh and mix. But if you have any of those that you would like to iterate, I will iterate into this. And also it will motivate me to actually get it running again. And like in a stable way. Cool. And we had also talked about maybe importing some hunk of my brain data into Agora. Yes. And that gives me a way how it works and how it fits. And Bentley, so to catch you up on the OGM list a little bit, we through a couple of different stimuli, we were like, we're trying to do sense making here, but why don't we just do some sense doing? Why don't we sort of pick some software and do an exercise that will let us see some results? Okay, good. And then the thing that bubbled up as the possible software was Marc-Antoine Parant's idea loom, which is sort of finished and sort of useful, but would take a lot of work for him to sort of coach people through using, etc., etc. And what I didn't realize until a call two days ago was that it's tuned to look at email archives and threaded email discussions because it picks those up and then manipulates what was said, the assertions made on email threads. So that's kind of where we were heading. And then we ended up on a call about sense doing where we really got distracted. We bumped right back up to the level of how do we build trust? Why is this a low-trust community? And then two non-standard, non-left-leaning members of the community both sort of quit the community after sort of trying to stay in there and talk with us and all this. And they were like, no, we're gone. And I'm like, God, dammit. So we're trying to sort out what to do in the middle of that. And then Bentley took one of the posts from Pete. No, sorry. I'm forgetting which post you took, but I've got it open in the tab. And put them into a Google Doc so we don't have a place to have the conversation because the question did come up about, like, where do we put these docs? How do we make this work? Sorry, I'll stop now. So I guess I'm just interested about like that system or like that, you know, these people leaving, did they leave because of the, of some meta-level disagreement or like, you know, what sense making means? Or did they leave because of some specific exercise you tried running on a specific topic? So I think they left because the dialogue was too un- too hostile to them or something. They were not feeling like there was progress made. They were feeling crappy about being in there. And they got into a couple of different verbal puzzles with participants on the mailing list. That feels like what happened. Bentley, you may have a different opinion or description of it. Yeah, I think overall the friction they're feeling, I think, made the communication not worth their time. And I think that was mostly the community on the mailing list. Yeah, and that does seem to be a symptom of our, the society thing right now, where you're, yeah, it's almost, it's probably oversimplified to say signaling and stuff, but it's, it's where a lot of people don't seem to think it's worth their time. And maybe it isn't to actually listen to someone that is that far out of your tribe, which was the whole point that the two people that left were trying to get us to do. So when they pushed and they got the pushback, they're like, I tried. I know, I felt like things were just getting interesting. Like we were just getting to a place where we could actually maybe make a breakthrough or three in there. Yeah, yeah. I was very bummed when they left. And I don't know how, yeah, I don't have any ideas on how to fix that. But it was, yeah, it was, it was both a specific topic and the meta issue of, I'm saying things and I'm just getting a surface level response, not someone looking deep into what I'm saying and helping me craft it to be a way that we both make sense out of. So that's what triggered us kind of doing the sense doing thing, but that's also kind of a different area. It just triggered it again. It actually isn't a solution to that problem that those two people brought up. Well, maybe a little bit tangentially, but yep. So, so if I'm, so I guess I hear I have two questions. One is like the second, perhaps is a second one, which is like, how can I help with sense making and sense doing, in particular given that I'm completely behind. So I don't know if you, if I should just, the first thing is catch up and then see, and we come back to the community or if there's any way I could help. So that's the second question. So right now it's, it's very much in the nascent idea and I think it's suffering from no one wanting to enforce their vision on anyone else. So there's kind of a lot of people saying, oh, what do we want to do? So I've been playing with the amount of kind of like laying things out that I want to do and still feel inviting, you know, inviting people that have different ideas. So there's nothing, there's nothing there, there yet. So I don't even know if it's really worth catching up. If you have a concept of what in the sense doing, sense making, I mean, it's sense making, sense doing is a term we coined up to differentiate from general sense making, saying we're going to practice sense making on a topic and then step back and look at the meta of that and say, how can we improve sense making going forward? So it's like a small iteration loop is the way I'm describing it. And Jerry definitely corrects me if you think I'm, that you had a different impression of what we came up with a year ago when we first came up with sense doing. Yes. So there's not, there's not a, there's not a lot of work happening right now. It's just a whole bunch of people where the term sounds interesting, but they don't know what it is. And then no one's kind of set clear vision. Yeah. Right. Well, a couple things to add because I don't disagree with anything you said, Bentley. One is we're going to have another sense doing call to sort this thing out. It's just that we're right up right up against Christmas and New Year's. So I think that that's going to make it a little bit challenging to just pick everybody's time. But the conversation is sort of in motion and Bentley has put in some effort. And a couple others have put in some effort to say, okay, here's the artifact. I tried to step in and say, Hey, here's how I see it. Let's do this. And really nobody picked up and went and did it. So I, so, and then in, in doing so, I also kind of made a mistake because I was trying to outline what our options, what our options are, what the pads look like with pros and cons. And one path is the idea loom on some of the historic threads from our mailing list. The other then, but I was suggesting, let's take this conversation over to matter most to a channel on matter most so we can talk about it in the sense doing channel that that way we don't flood the list and we get it over there. Problem with that is that I didn't realize until two days ago that Mark Antoine's idea loom is tuned to mailing lists. And the moment we take the conversation off a mailing list, his tool becomes less useful. Then the second problem is, I'm not that eager. I'm on both sides of this. I would love to go dissect and analyze a historic conversation we had where there's some thorny issues, but that turns a lot into he said, she said, I'm really interested in the green field exercise where we're like, what would a healthy organization or society do around some of these issues? And that realistically tries to address inclusivity questions and the other sorts of things, not just the science and logic of it. And so those, that was the path. Those were the different paths I was trying to outline. And I don't know that we resolved any of that or figured it out. And I think we got to a place where we could do maybe both at the same time, both concurrently, where we could start an effort to do an analysis of just a couple of messages in some contained domain. And at the same time, a couple of people could go say, Hey, here's a couple of clean wiki pages. Let's describe what a rational plan would look like that trustworthy, efficient way of going through the next pandemic, for example. And I have an interest in this sense doing leaving some kind of artifacts behind that are useful for future conversations and other other communities. I would love us to create something that's actually handy. That sounds very interesting. Thank you. The other question I had was whether thinking about the loss of these members who were perhaps very interesting to the problem, and of course, the people, but also the problem because they were different distance, whether you think there could be some opportunity there. Because when you said that, they were only two and all the rest were in a different position. We don't have that many people coming in with their point of view. Right. Exactly. So the question is cool, perhaps, and this is just like a brainstorming thing. Could we have an opportunity to perhaps reach out to these people and say, Hey, we noticed that it didn't work. Do you know of other people who think like these things and are willing to engage in dialogue in such and such terms? So perhaps you could have that group, and we can have this group, and then the groups get together. But to some extent, because that could defuse some of the personal level, maybe dynamics that affected, I wasn't there. So I usually say I would for short. So I thought of what will Anagora Fork look like? Or like Anagora just divides into communities which don't want to be together anymore. And what will Anagora Merge look like? But thinking of the Fork, you can imagine like Anagora, the typical scenario I have in my mind, which I don't know if that will happen, is like Anarquist Agora, the first one, which divides into Anarco Socialist and Anarco Capitalist. That would be a surprise in a little bit speaking. And which conversation the Agoras could have. So I don't know if this is a framing that could be useful for sense-making or sensu-ing, but perhaps ideally I would expect that it wouldn't be like travel war, which is like what we have had for like so many thousands of years, but rather something like dialogue, right? On a group level, which is very, it's actually hard to find many instances of that. There's a bunch of projects and groups that have done online dialogue in different ways. We're connected to a bunch of people who are really experienced in it. I can point to a bunch of them, but we're not really using any of those tools and we're not availing ourselves of what the possibilities are. And doing so would be I think a big lift. Like getting many of us into some platform where we could do this and then analyzing it and dealing with it properly, that's a hefty investment of a bunch of people's time and effort. Definitely, definitely. I guess it could also be done only, I guess on the, because you mentioned this green field, or like interest. I guess it could be interesting to think, okay, there were two such groups, like a sense doing, like a left leaning sense doing a group and a right leaning sense. That would be really interesting. I don't know who's community that is, that is the right leaning. I know individuals, but I don't know a group to invite into that conversation. Right, so then I guess one here is it could be asking the viewers, which group is most representative, because like if we could find that group, that was seen so interesting. The only thing I could think of is if we could reach out to someone like Braver Angels and say send us your conservatives into this community, because they have both in that community. I don't know if I think you're both familiar with that, but no. What was he known? Braver Angels. So they're an American from the USA group of bringing conservatives and liberals together in open discussions. And where that differs from what I'm thinking sense doing is, is that they're actually doing it with a design format, but sense doing is experimenting with different formats. So like y'all were just saying a minute ago where we might want to use the tools and the practices of people out there. I envision the sense doing project is an experiment to quickly iterate on those tools and experiment and either improve them or use them as examples of those practices working. So someone asked why, you know, I'm saying small tasks and well, that's why I think I'd like to iterate and the goal isn't actually to solve these problems, but to, but not also to be in the theory of solving problems, but to actually reiterate on quick practices. So yeah, so Flancy and also to answer an earlier question, I think the best way to get involved going forward would be as if Jerry and I made sure you had the link to the next meeting. Yeah. And there's not been enough building, you might also look at this document, which where we're kind of hashing, I guess I have three participants hashing around in here. For some reason, I showed up as anonymous on one of my things. Oh, I mean, I mean, I just came this, this looks very interesting. Thank you. For some reason, it took me back, I guess we touched on this shortly earlier. I mean, at least two similar like similarly thin discussions, but related to moderation in the favers. And like, you know, communities writing a code of conduct for themselves. To some extent that there's already some instances which are more like introspective or, you know, self-defying, and some which are more like hierarchical or like, you know, run by a moderate or a single person, et cetera. And I guess just calling that out that there's there may be some opportunities to also like collaborate there, or at least look out how, you know, communities that scale work there. And of course, it's also very much the side guys, because it seems like we are in a moment where, you know, in a moment where like the favor is growing, and it's also looking at itself in an interesting way. Yeah, it'd be interesting to see how in the moderation aspect, you can use tools, like if there is a disagreement, say, oh, let's all use this pattern, go on a meeting and do that, or standard processes when there's a community disagreement, let's host this thing, or use this tool to settle it. So yeah, that'd be interesting. Exactly. We are essentially trying to do that exactly that, develop that which we don't have, neither the tools or the processes in social co-op, the instance and part of, and this comes because there's a, you know, moderation, a part of the moderation team, and the junior member, and like, there's a wide range of, you know, like, there's a wide range of ways in which people can actually, and like, very often, it's not clear to a moderator, you know, and we are dealing also with this information and, you know, a wide range from, like, outright abuse and Nazis to, like, you know, people who are just, like, anti-establishment and perhaps spreading some anti-vax means, for example, different parts of the spectrum, clearly, you know. But there's, like, very little developed and the tooling that Maston gives, which is what most people do, use is very limited. Yeah. Yeah, the whole thing about how do you allow the dissenting view without allowing harm to come to a community and also handling the problem we had in OGM where people were not gracious to the dissenting view and should you be and all that stuff, that is even deeper. My hope is that is in creating tools that help us to collectively get a better sense of what reality is than if we're chained in the discussion from a free speech, I get to say what I want to a let's, as a group, explore making a map of what we think reality is together, then, you know, you can withstand people saying inaccurate things if you have that base of knowledge, which of course is what Jerry's all about, is about creating this hub of knowledge that share knowledge. So yeah. Yeah, that's interesting, right? Because if you are like just building a map, which includes what you think, and also like attribution and things like it's a factor of knowledge, a bit of knowledge that person X thinks Y, that seems to like perhaps equal the few things, right? It's like it can, because even the person is saying something you disagree with, your reaction may be less likely to be that's wrong to, well, now I know what you think that. So I'm going to have to do a map. Right. And so one of the places we got to that was nice was the question, tell me more is a very good question in those situations. It's like, well, I hadn't heard that before, that's interesting, tell me more. Right. And then it lets them, it lets the other person unpack what they believe and why. And I've been sitting here, as you're talking, I was sitting here spinning on, why haven't we over all the time we spent in OGM gotten to the place where we can slow down conversations and actually step down through the logics of something, any assertion, any claim. And the one that the one that's top most for me is on the OGM mailing list, Grace, who was the first of these two folks to step off the list. Grace basically said, well, Jerry, when you caught COVID, didn't that shatter your world? And I think what she meant was, how could you possibly have caught COVID? You were fully vaccinated. And I failed to reply to her on the mailing list, but on the Thursday call, I think it was just last Thursday's call, she was on the call. And I basically said, no, actually, she wasn't on that call. But I answered her question for the group because I brought it up this way. And I said, I had, there was no thought in my head that I was immune, that there was some magic shield, where I was immune to catching COVID, being vaccinated, it merely meant to me that because of the method of operation of viral and vaccines meant that my likelihood of getting very sick or dying was much lower than your average person of my age or whatever else. That's all it meant to me. And so, and so she seemed to have an idea that I had an idea. She had a preconception that I thought I was immune, which my world didn't shatter at all. My world was like, ah, shit, I caught the COVID roulette by not being cautious enough and going to a restaurant in Barcelona, which is probably where I caught it. So anyway, that set of assumptions and beliefs feels to me like a little window into a conversation, into a set of conflicting belief systems, which I like. And it might be I'm misunderstanding her position on it. I don't know. And I don't know if we can bring her back into that conversation. And it would have been fascinating to explore how she came to that impression. That's what I want to know. Right. I still want to know. Yeah. And the only logic I can have for it is that she misunderstands what a vaccine is and how vaccination works and how the mRNA research works and all of that, which I tried to explain in an email back. Yeah. My thought is that maybe she has an inappropriate, I guess, to be talking about someone, but I find that people sometimes have that impression because they are generalizing a group and they feel like that's what the group thinks. And I do think that sometimes they think that the group thinks that because people in their group thinks that the other group thinks that, but they've never actually had a deep conversation with the other side to say. And some of that is deliberate misinformation by people in the community. And some of that is just straw manning the other side. Some of that is just a broad misunderstanding of what the other side seems to think. So it could be interesting. I keep going back to this thing of two since doing groups conversing or two hours talking. And how would that go? Like one group saying you think X to the other group and then the other group having many answers, potentially. One being like, no, we don't and the other being yes, we do because the same group will expose the heterogeneity, right? So essentially like position school four, start at the, you make an assertion out of the group and then you can break it down to like, you know, the responses from the individuals. It seems like it could be interesting. So the problem with picking something like immunity, like the little, like the little window I just pointed to and described is that you wind up down an alley of I'm wrong, you're right, and whatever else, and people may not want to participate because of that, or I don't know. And I'm trying to figure out, is there an example of something that would be more like the more in common videos that Heineken and others shot back in the day, where they have rectangles where people of different tribes that who look similar stand in a room. And then the facilitator basically starts asking questions and says, if you have ever, if you have ever misskipped meals because you couldn't, you or your family couldn't afford them, please step forward to the wall. And out of every one of the rectangles of cliques that look alike, a bunch of people step forward and go to the wall. They have all felt that. If you were ever teased very harshly or beaten up in school, please step to the wall. And everybody sees, oh my God, those people look really different, but we share all these experiences. It's a very, very nice set of exercises that doesn't lay blame and in fact shows you everybody's shared experiences and our indeed our shared humanity. So I love that about that exercise that there's no, that it doesn't lead toward, I'm right, you're wrong. Look, the science proves me right or anything like that, which, which is the problem with some of the things that we're looking at doing is that they wind up sort of down that rabbit hole, which is a fine and dandy set of logics to go through. And I think a bunch of us in OGM love that kind of thing, because we're logically oriented and we're looking at the situation going, how do we science the shit out of this? Right? So yeah, that's interesting. I mean, I haven't done, so I guess I, I haven't done this exercise, except you know, like on social media, you know, talking to, I talked to Nazis and show me, you know, Dandy, I went through phases, you know, like, well, I guess it was on point and like the, and people and Nazis and just very conservative at the end of the spectrum. And like I found that I found that very, very interesting. I guess while doing that, I did often miss, like, just like an easy way to, to like attribute, for example, or to say, like, you know, this comes from like, like this preconception I have, which I, you know, like, perhaps, and that was perhaps the most useful one of the exercise, which is like, you know, for example, like, why do we believe in science? You know, why do we believe it? Like, you know, that doctors mostly tell the truth most of the time and so on. No. I mean, to some extent, that that is statistical as well. And we don't know, I mean, we don't know that, right? It's like it's part of our worldview. And perhaps admitting that as well, like, you know, being open with all the assumptions we have, and like it could actually help in communicating with these groups and like surfacing the differences. So perhaps we could, here we could just rely on Google, like, David's advocate. So I'm, I'm wishing to find, I would love to find a group process that does what you just said. And I'm wondering whether Nancy White would know of which subset or people are doing something like that, because it would be, it would be very nice to give us a place and a space and some time within which we could explain what we believe. But in order to unpack what any individual believes, that individual's got to feel some degree of safety. And part of the problem, the reason these two people walked away from OGM was they didn't feel safe. I think I might be like over generalizing, but that they said that in several different ways. And they also, and maybe also they were frustrated because they felt like their efforts were fruitless with us. Because we were irreconcilably neither open nor global nor open-minded. So, you know, Daniel's good critique of us was, I'm not so sure you're living up to your name at all. Oh, interesting. Well, so I will look, I mean, okay, so that sounds stressful. And, you know, like it's a point to understand, but it's also interesting. Yeah, absolutely. I guess, like, you know, I also think of this, maybe any for this, you know, when you have like a conversation or debate or, you know, with someone on social media, and they are like, we're more popular than you. Yeah, yeah. And then you have this effect, I don't know if you mentioned some time where like, you know, you have this back and forth, and it's sort of like reasonable, like back and forth, but they get like, you know, all the support and all the likes and all the yeah, and you get nah, it's like zero. And it feels really weird. Yeah, it's not good. I mean, we are, you know, we can be evolved to like feel safer when we are our own friends. And when the other person is getting like, oh, yes, you don't, it doesn't feel right. Even if you are doing it willingly. So I wonder if like in a group, it has to do with the dynamic and you have two people with like a marriage opinion, and like a majority, even just saying like, I think you're wrong, even just say that if 10 people say it, or 15, I don't know if it was, I guess the question is, what's in a matter of volume as well, like everybody just like piling on or I don't know in the interactions we're talking about, there were a few people that said spiky things. So at one point, Grace says something and then Gil replied. So what, you know, what's your evidence show me your evidence. And then Grace came back and said, Hey, you're holding me to a whole different standard of proof than anybody else in this community. Because when anybody says something that everybody agrees with, there's no show me the proof. But here I am showing up saying something different than you're like, show me the studies. So that happened. And then Brad de Graff, who doesn't pipe up very often in the group, but is in the group and is a really interesting person. He was like, fuck these people who don't believe in what's going on with science and whatever else, I can't waste my time on them. And that was the harshest note I remember seeing in those interactions in those exchanges. And I'm making it sound harsher than I think his note really was. He didn't say fuck. But basically he said, I've given up. I'm not engaging with those people. They're a total loss. And we just need to sort out how to fix this. And Bentley, I may be projecting too much onto what he said, but that's kind of what I held. I think that that's accurate is the sense. And that is also lumping these two people in with the worst of the other side unconsciously. It was an intentional but and he was expressing his frustration because he'd worked. I'm sure he'd been in interactions with those people where he found a fruitless. But it was an an accurate assumption to think that these two people would have been fruitless. And I think they definitely wouldn't have been. But but I could definitely understand that emotional state because I've been in that situation. Ironically, here is the title of a of a paper that he wrote in 2007. He's a co author with a bunch of people. But this idea of smartocracy and like he's been down this path for a really long time. It's easy to get burned out doing this business. I mean, it happens to me every couple months, right? So I just back off and right now I'm trying to figure out how do we how do we map a little path that is happy making for both for many different kinds of people, participants where it feels like there's progress where we can sort of get not feel like we're wasting our time or getting defeated or breaking down. So can I do one quick thought before saying that on a non sequitur is I think I've also noticed that a lot of people in this community are are both not good at communicating and work very hard at communicating and they're interested in it because it's like every psychologist has a psychological problem. That's why they're in psychology. It's kind of like we attract people who have trouble communicating because they're curious and interested at the people that are naturally good at it. Don't need to talk about it. So it's an interesting thing. I mean, not always. I'm very much generalizing. But I think we have both. I think we have a few extreme communicators. And then we have a few people who are like, Oh, man, just not communicating so well. And yeah. And then in part of it's me projecting. I have used I'm bad at communicating. Or let's say I've been fighting against my natural tendencies that I learned in high school. Right. So I would win arguments by arguing people down and using words they didn't understand well, when they would give up and that was right. So I have to fight that tendency and every once in a while, you'll see it come out and scratch somebody and I have to go back to my corner. Anyway, so and I feel like there's other people like me who find this all interesting because it's it's not natural. And I think that's also great because a lot of times the people who do it naturally can't explain it or teach it or understand it. So it's but we do have we do have a mix. But it may there might be a little bit sharper people in some places because it doesn't come naturally to some of us. Anyways, back to you what you are asking Jerry, I completely sidetracked. But now I forgot it. Me too. I have to find my way back to it. I'm planting. Did you want to jump in? So I guess, sorry, I jumped to solutions in a sometimes not very useful way, but past triggering hopefully some brainstorming exercise way forward. But I guess I keep thinking because of the dynamics between like these two rules as a metric and so on in this case. And I wonder and this these two failure modes you describe these two people who is engaged or like, you know, and they are resulting in these people leaving. So first, I guess I have a little bit is like, I think it's sensible for someone to say I would rather be in a group which has this degree of homogeneity when it comes to like basic for us anyway, like, like tenants, because that is the baseline we need to allow for some further like a development of some ideas. I think that's it's fine to want to have that space. So it seems like a sensible but of course, like saying that is very exclusionary as well. If there is no alternative space. So I guess in that direction. And I wonder if the space of the must have this and I go back to this idea of like the commons or whatever as a living being with a membrane right and a core and organelles or however you want to take the metaphor. And whether, you know, some people are grown to the membrane and then you can say, you know, well, if you don't want to to talk to people who are you know, don't believe in science, maybe just keep around from the membrane, it came away from the membrane and you'll probably be fine. And then and the group depending on the size and the strain on the membrane and so on could still work. Assuming you have that people on call, for example, people who just are not really drawn to that kind of conversation. So to some extent, I think of roles. And I sometimes go back to the RPG metaphors, you know, like, or what we're saying, like the wood and the bouncer. And I wonder if to some extent turn taking on a group level, maybe something that could help here, you know, because again, like, if someone says something like, oh, this is what I believe and I'm an anti boxer, perhaps a the group itself, who is drawn to like just say like, five responses, they could say like, no, let's choose like, you know, like a champion in the Troy war. Let's choose Achilles. Let's send Achilles forward. Yeah, yes. But without the heel, isn't the heel a problem? Just remember the heel. He'll be fine. He's a great warrior. Look, he wipes everybody out. Or maybe perhaps more into the Olympic games or like, you know, the canonical day labor, but just say like, okay, let's choose that response. Right. Who wants to draft a response? You know, like some turn taking more like a, you know, like a correspondence game, right, where people will come together and say, what is the best response we can master? And to some extent apply self editing and self improvement. Before they cross that, they go to the membrane and face the potential, you know, conflict, you know, aspect. And this is, this is sort of, these are what you're describing are elements of a group process or a facilitation technique or a platform, I don't know which that I would love to bring us into, to explore like, like, exactly what you're saying. And, and maybe what that means is we break up into groups of four, each of which comes up with some thesis and a way to present it. And then they come back into the plenary and say, here, here's what we believe in the framework we've agreed to use to present issues. Here's what we believe about this issue. And then, and then lather, rinse, repeat or something. That's, that's very interesting to me. Time consuming, but interesting. Time consuming. I guess it is, it has the same shape as a game. Yeah. Like turn, turn taking and like roles taking and, and that seems to point up some potential. It also, it also occurs to me that we might be a community in need of some coaches or some other kind of guidance to sort of level everybody up in the different ways in which each of us needs to level up. And that that's a piece of what's happening is we don't have that wisdom sort of in the group, or we're not making that effort to do that. So we're winding up kind of slithering back into all the ways in which each of us wants needs to go, but, but that don't serve the whole necessarily all that well. I don't know. Really? Yeah. And I, I have a, so in, in reason score, I have one format where it's a team versus team. So that's kind of very similar to actually have two researchers and kind of one Barker who's saying things, but yeah, I also thought it, it'd be interesting. Yeah. To have a kind of comment review process where someone would propose something community would review it. And then the other side, other side would see it. Yeah. I think those are all things that we could experiment with in the sense doing, and it also makes me think that one problem with the sense doing group as it is right now is that, and I've found in a lot of groups is that it's helpful if you have an honest a believer on the other side of the debate. And so we have even less of that now in the community than we did before. So yeah, also part of the process might be going out and finding some people that, that disagree and that are willing to put in the extra effort to experiment with these tools and practices. Or we could like a risk a system and like look for the things we don't agree on, which I'm sure that must exist. We have, we have dimension. Yeah. That would be so interesting. Yeah, there will be, there will be disagreements in, in any community. Yeah. And one of the disagreements also could be is how do we respond to someone who doesn't believe the vaccines are, I wouldn't think we'd have a disagreement there, but I have a strange idea, which is why don't we get somebody who's really good at prompt engineering to use chat GPT to represent Steve Bannon or some well known anti-vaxxer or whatever else in an argument. And we'll just, we'll just start it by saying, hey, you are, you are this person. Why, why, why do you do it not like vaccines? I think that's worth trying. I did try on one of my debates to use chat. And it was substantially one-sided. I don't know if I just wasn't good at making up the prompts, but I think they've put some things in the system to weed out non-extreme responses or something. Yeah. But it's worth a try. Yeah. And Christopher Allen has been posting on a different list. I'm on some ways in which he's using chat GPT that are shockingly clear and good. Like he's sort of, he describes how he's got three different chat windows open. This one he uses for this, this one for this, and then he does this, and then, and it's clear to me that understanding how chat GPT works and coaching it through very carefully is incredibly important to getting a substantively useful replies out. And I, and I am nowhere on that spectrum. I have no, you know, all I can do is retell stories. That's all. And, and Jerry, actually, I was listening to one of your recent podcasts. I think I'm on episode three. Oh, cool. And I was, it was a, there was sort of a disagreement, although it's probably just phrasing that it'd be interesting to get into at some point about.