 This is a Design From Trust call. We are on Friday, January 25th, 2019. We are in a weird year. Lots of interesting things happening in the news. And plenty of reason to worry about trust. So it seems possibly like an appropriate moment to take this into a practical direction and design a workshop around Design From Trust. That's the topic of this particular call. And I have a, I've started a Google Doc around this, which I will send a link to us now. So anybody with a link can come in and edit this document. Copy link, paste link. Here's the link. Here's the link where we can collaborate. So Michael, nice to see you. To you, nice. Excellent. So I just started writing a couple of things that I figured we can start to think and talk about several different things. I was thinking a nice way to start the conversation might be. Just if anybody has memories of the best workshop they've ever been to or run. Just if you want to reminisce on what was the best workshop you ever were in or helped construct, helped produce anything like that, any of those come up. Because I'd love to just get what made the memorable, what made them work for you, what stuck. Was it the mechanics of the workshop? Was the topic? Was it the people who were in the room? Was it some particular exercise that somebody did? If you think back on your own life of workshopping, and I think most of us have been to quite a few, just because that's how we roll, right? Any of these memories come back to you? I remember, for example, a 10-year forecast for the Institute for the Future at least a decade ago where the whole thing was designed by Jane McGonigal, who was a super game designer. And she had everybody running around the room, screaming stuff, going fero, and rolling all over the place. And the things that we were assembling and doing were actually meaningful. It was good. It was like you could tell people were having a tremendous time. And the way it had been arranged was meaningful. People were getting something from all the running around. I wish I remembered more of the texture or the detail of it. But I just remember everybody kind of laughing and learning together during it. So that's one, at least for me, that really stands out. Anybody else? The good workshop you were at or when you created? I did this before on one of your sessions. So I hope there's a different group of people here so I'm not being redundant. But the best workshop I ever conducted was one that I didn't plan for more than five minutes. Oh, yeah. Yeah, say that again. So that I was asked to go to a conference and do a half day workshop about systems thinking. And I didn't remember that it was a workshop. So I developed four hours for the presentations that even I wouldn't listen to. And at breakfast that morning, I remembered that it was supposed to be a workshop. So while I was finishing my coffee, I designed a workshop in about five minutes. And it turned out that the whole workshop, there was about 35 people at six or seven different tables. And in the space of about four hours, they were absolutely amazed at how smart they were. And I don't know how it gets any better than that. So that from the get-go, which was sort of off the cuff, I said, take out a piece of paper and draw a dot on this piece of paper and write next to it cat. And a couple inches away from it, draw another dot and label it mouse. Now draw an arrow from cat to mouse and write chases on the arrow. You've now created your first relationship modeling. If you feel faint, you should leave now. And from that moment, the entire four hours was absolutely out of control. And this group of people who thought they knew what systems thinking was developed a whole new appreciation for the value of developing relationship maps and being able to present them to each other to tell a story. And it wasn't a lot of time spent giving them a bunch of rules and regulations. It was asking them to do very simple things that they knew how to do and allowing them to build on that piece by piece so that all along the way they realized that they essentially knew how to do this, they just never spent time doing it. So that's mine. I would love an opportunity to experience that again because I may have learned more than they did. Thank you. That's a great example. And it's also lovely when you're suddenly hit with the realization you need to do something in 10 minutes that's different or in an hour that's different from what you thought you were going to do. And you must rearrange all the tables in your brain and clear the decks and do something really quite different from what you expected. I love it. And I'll say that attempting a thing to do a workshop on designing from trust is to use an example of design from trust, which is open space, a group process that trusts that the people you invite are smart enough to figure out what they ought to be talking about. One quick answer to my whole, hey, how do I run a workshop question is, hey, just go do an open space, a frame it properly, and people will show up and work on the different parts of it. So I'm intrigued by that. I'm interested. I could easily do that. That would be fun. I may actually do a virtual version of that at some point. I think that structuring that would be kind of cool. But I'm also interested in, let's call it more conventional workshop design, or how do I blend those things? Because I think partly having a felt experience of trust through the workshop matters a lot. My favorite workshop experience story here is one that the idea factory used to run these things. They called dilemma dinner parties. And they would invite the client to a fancy dinner held in their facility the night before a two-day workshop was going to happen. And on the way in, their facility was in Southwood Market, and there was a long hallway from the street door to their door. And there was a homeless person, a woman, sitting in the hallway. And as they walked by, she reached up and she said, got any change, got any food, something? And then they'd go in. They were told to dress fancy. They sat down at this nice dinner. And five minutes into the dinner, the homeless woman sort of snuck past whoever was watching the door and came up to the table and said, man, that looks really good. I'm really hungry. And it took a little while for people to figure out that she was an actor paid to do that. Not everybody figured it out right away. A lot of people were like, holy crap. And they had their throats clenching and their heart in their throat. And her job was to represent the people who were not at the table. We're not going to be at this fancy, expensive strategic planning meeting for the next two days. And whether that worked or not, I don't know. I think it was very memorable. I think that that shot of adrenaline that goes through you when you're in that situation and your sphincter titans and your throat titans and everything's like, well, that's really interesting to me. And so maybe there's equivalence in a trust workshop. I don't know. I also know that you could violate trust. You could mess with trust during a trust workshop and really screw things up. You could break people's trust by toying with them or playing games or doing whatever. And I've seen that happen as well in different ways. So anyway, just broadening the space of inquiry. But any other reminiscences on good workshops or workshopping? I used to do meetings with a mannequin in the room. Cool. What did you do with the mannequin? Well, the mannequin essentially represented what you said, all the people that aren't there. So that when people would propose things, you would refer to the mannequin and say, and what might they think? To get the person that's thinking to sort of reflect on what it is that they're thinking. Thank you. Super interesting. Anybody else? Michael, Susan, John, people? I find myself drawing a blank on workshops that have been so wonderful, et cetera, particularly my own. Although I recall a Jeanne Houston workshop that she ran on the Wizard of Oz. And God is all excited about that. That was a wonderful thing. That was a really good workshop. But specifically, how did it happen? A lot of work, a lot of organization, a lot of media, a lot of music. By contrast, in my own experience, as a unprofessional ski instructor or semi-professional ski instructor, every damn lesson was a creative process and a bit of adrenaline, too. So just flashies to that, but nothing coherent. Sorry. Yeah, it's OK. Thanks, Michael. John? Hello, everybody. Greetings. Well, certainly I'm the imposter for today's meeting. Not the imposter. You're the... Go ahead. Everybody, I'm an acquaintance of Michael. That's how I've heard of. The Digital Life Collective, as well. Oh, excellent. One experience I've had of a group of about 20 that didn't know each other was to break off into groups of three or four and to... So there was an overall topic or an overall issue or overall problem to look at. Break off into smaller groups for, say, half an hour to an hour to raise questions. So, and essentially, it was using post-it notes that you would write a question on. Then everybody reconvenes, and the facilitator then goes through each post-it note and there's a kind of collective intelligence of classifying the particular questions. And they then get put on a wall into groups. And then after the initial facilitation, people then can actually go up on the wall and actually move post-it notes, kind of without authority. And then somebody can stand up and then move it back if they like. And once the cluster is finished, four or five, then it's kind of voting on which one should we look at next. So I think it's a way of being able to find safe to fail probes of a problem. So, okay, this is what we agree as a group of disparate people to look at next. Now, I only did that once. I wasn't the facilitator. I don't know how tedious it would be to repeat that on a regular basis, but on the occasion I was there, it was really successful. And it was a good icebreaker as well. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Thank you, John. And there's sort of a category of icebreaker exercises. There's some people have a big grab basket of those. I collect some of those and put them in my brain as resources. So that sounds like an interesting way to do it. And also, there's a couple of different workshops that I'm sharing to this discussion that I've done before that from which we can harvest interesting elements. And one of those workshops had a segment where I was just asking everybody to share stories of examples of things that were, in that case, I was using the term the relationship economy, examples of the relationship economy. And so they would write on a post at some topic like, well, there's this thing called Airbnb or whatever, or there's Craigslist, or there's something else. And each person would stand up and explain them and put the post, post it up and we would kind of cluster those a little bit. But just telling stories from your own experience is good because it's grounding. Other people can say, oh yeah, either. I've seen that too and now I get it. So I'm kind of caught up with the group or I'd never heard of that. They can make a little private note, but now they're up a little more up to speed on what the topic is. So that's an interesting workshop element. Any other thoughts on, Susan? So, go ahead. Susan, go ahead, Demjean. You are muted still. The magic of unmuting. You're still muted. Shall I unmute you? Here, I got it. Go ahead. Erg. I think I'll have to revise my New Year's resolutions. Anyway, I was listening to everybody. And so I was struck by a number of things that seemed to me on some sort of dimension and I have five of those. Would you like to know what they are? Of course. Right, okay. So one had to do with, one of them has to do with whether or not what's being done by people in the workshop is authentic real work. Okay, so for instance, the conservation workshop that I was just at was about people trying to transform conservation. And they were passionate about it and they were all, everything else. And then versus on the other end, the sort of, you wanna break the mold of what people are doing. Either to get them to do something differently or to get them into a different space. And the techniques for those, it's all valid. It's just that the techniques seem to me to distribute themselves along that axis as to how effective they would be. Another one is the people who know each other versus people who don't. You have a lot, they're gonna completely different dynamics if it's depending on where people are on that spectrum. And then again, if you get, I can see different problems arising from people who are authentic and people who know each other, if you have them right there, you're gonna do a lot of work to get the thing to happen. Another one is whether or not you care about or are tracking lasting impact. And whether you want it, whether you just wanna get people together to get to know each other and come up with, you know, ideas. I mean, open source, I mean, open source. Open conferences strike me as being kind of on the, not necessarily looking for lasting, a particular lasting impact. You're just trying to get things to jail. And my last one is, oh God, what is the last one? Well, throughout the last one, that's four. Oh, shoot. All right, and I only cataloged three as you were writing, I was sort of taking a note. I did have one of memorable versus not memorable. Uh-huh. You know, if you, I don't know how you would, these could be metrics, but I don't want to say that something's good and something's bad. Yeah, yeah. This is just kind of the space. A combination of four or five metrics. I mean, four or five dimensions, you get quite a space of where to place all these things. Yep, exactly. And it's interesting because I'm a big fan of open space and the favorite one that I point to is Kalia Hamlin's internet identity workshops, which have been running at least twice a year for five, six, seven years, maybe. I forget, we're forgetting when the first one was. And it is now a high-function community of practice with people who've created startups and started different sub-industries and, you know, self-software and identity stuff has been, you know, nurtured and grown in this lab. And it's a purposeful community that uses, that understands how to come together for like three-day open spaces regularly. And so that's actually worked really well. A lot of good stuff has come out of there, which is not your average open space, which is more toward what you were describing. So you're like, let's get together and just turn the soil on this. And by the end of it, we'll know each other a bit better, which happens a whole bunch, right? Which is not a bad thing. Which is entirely not a bad thing. Cool. Any other thoughts on good workshops? Jean, you've raised, that's right. Jean, you had something you wanted to say. Well, what's the purpose of the design from Truss Workshop? The larger purpose is to help people use this idea to fix the world's problems. Because I have this weird bug in my ear that what's broken a lot is trust. And if we understood how to use it better, we might actually be able to solve many different kinds of problems, including, you know, the partisan divide between people who are being shown how to mistrust each other and how to not trust foreigners all the way to why are students disaffected in class or employees not connected to their work, all the way to why does the compulsory education system stamp out curiosity instead of creating good citizens and curious inquisitors, all those kinds of things to me leave a little mouse trail back to trust. And so what I'm trying to do is leave tools in the world that allow people to overcome those obstacles by understanding, harnessing, and applying these principles, these methods, these, I'm not sure exactly what to call it. Does that make sense? And I could be wrong, but this is my strong inclination and this is sort of where I'm putting my effort. Let me ponder a bit. Yeah. Cool, great question. I mean, I want to kind of question everything and think really broadly about this because I think I can sort of find my way to a narrow definition of what this is. And as I said, I've run two or three, I've run three different work, run two and prototype a workshop, all of which are cannibalizable for this conversation, which are workshop flavored. They look like workshops, they smell like workshops, they, you know, they have elements of workshops. And that's kind of where I'm heading, but I'm completely open to other sorts of things. John, go ahead. This is more of a thought, current thought I have at the moment. And I think Michael may be able to pick up on this. And it's the difference that you have between a physical meeting, a physical group, and then a virtual group. And I don't think it's beyond reasonable doubt to say we are shifting towards using tools like Zoom, dealing with people with different cultures from different countries. And sometimes that can be a point of, I'm gonna use the word friction, but that may not be the right word, but it can kind of get in the way of the fluid and the flow of a meeting. And it's kind of saying, okay, well, we recognize that that's just a cultural thing. It's not, it's how to identify those awkward, those awkward social things that can happen, which tend not to happen in a face-to-face meeting. I hope that made sense, it was a bit garbled. That totally makes sense. Something that Michael actually spoke to me over probably over 12 months about, just to say, you know, keep that as a consideration while you're having conversations. I think Michael. Probably. Is this something you would say? Is that what you said? Well, I never remember what I said. That's good. That way every sentence is fresh and new and authentic. I have another question. Yeah. Following on that, on the purpose, which is one of the questions I was going to ask if someone didn't. What's different about, I mean, I've been puzzling ever since, I'm not puzzling, but thinking, occasionally reflecting on what you mean by trust from and how many, what are the assumptions behind it versus things like trust in or trust that or trust someone or any of those different things, right? And this trust from, it was interesting to me, on the last, there was a call with the people who you had gathered together from a number of venues, but who had been practicing as it were designed from trust. And we all learned a lot. You remember, a couple of weeks ago. One of the things that I noticed in that was that there was an assumption. There was assumption of that it, well, do you want trust to be an outcome of the meeting? Do you want trust there to be trust? Is it a precondition? That's another dimension. I think another dimension is how much trust exists in the group before they walk in the door, right? Is this a high trust or a low trust situation? Because the situation has modified it already. So that's good, right? Yeah, because in some cases, somebody who paid to buy a ticket to go to a workshop about trust is likely predisposed to be open to the idea from a get go, as opposed to a CEO that forces their staff to take a workshop on trust because there's a trust crisis in the company. That's a completely different audience, right? And if there's internal politics and internal crap going on with the group that's sitting in front of you, you're starting from a different place. And I think that's an important dimension. Okay. How about following on from that? How about cases where trust is, I mean, I can walk into a room and see people that I know and I will trust them for certain things and not others. Exactly. I've sort of written and spoken about this. Like I have a friend, David Reed, who I would trust with my proxy vote on any issue around telecom. Telecom policy, you name it, he's a genius. I have no idea if I can trust him to cook a meal for 12 people or to watch a child or to navigate his way to another town. No idea. So what do you think is the core of what design from trust? What's the situation that it would address? So the situation I discovered and your mileage, I'm really interested in whether this resonates for you. I discovered by poking my finger into trust and all these issues for a while that most of the institutions we're surrounded by assume that the average participant is not to be trusted. They're designed from mistrust is what I call it. So they build coercive systems that make us all walk in lockstep. And my favorite example here is the compulsory education system, which in a world of abundance creates scarcity at every turn in order to control people, to try to educate them. Skinny's that all down to a grade and whether you got a diploma or not. Like all of that work sort of comes down to a couple really flawed measures or markers or signals or badges of achievement. And there's 100 different ways in which that could actually be improved, be better, be more interesting, raise more critical people. But I think the assumption is that there's just way too many people to try to be personalized. Basically the industrial mindset took over education and we then scaled up the schools before, you know, before the same- Even worse, it was the Polish military. Yeah, well, we imported the Prussian military educational system. Exactly, basically Bismarck's education system got brought over to the US and planted whole here. But over and over again, we designed systems with assumption of mistrust and we're so accustomed to all these systems that we don't notice. So you asked earlier, like how does trust play? There's a couple places where trust obviously plays. Like, do I trust you with something? Are you predictable tomorrow? All that stuff is kind of up at the surface of trust. And then there's a bunch of stuff I'm trying to figure out how to describe and I call these the hidden architectures of mistrust. And in a couple of my talks and workshops I've gone into this. I'm trying to say, how do I help you identify and read the hidden architectures of mistrust? And so, and these are- That sounds perfect. I mean, the first thing that you said, the reason I'm paying attention, as you know, I sort of like trust. It's too big, it's too complicated, it's too whatever. But when you talk to best things being designed for mistrust, I set up straight. And I thought, oh, right. Okay. So I can imagine, I can imagine, you know, if you had a, that sounds like a promising thing to do, but only for some audiences is, you know, and then maybe, you know, they could send people away to design a system from trust and design a system from mistrust and see how the differences play out, right? Yeah, we could do an exercise where you take the same situation and you contrast it. Yeah, one of the things that I'm wrestling with in the middle of this is how to help people see the design from mistrust. Yes, exactly, exactly. And I think of this, for me, this goes into a certain category of things like, how do you change people's mindset? Right. Makes me stop and think, how do mindsets shift? And I've been collecting examples and I only have a few and I had, I thought I had the perfect client engagement, which I could figure this out. And then it kind of dissipated. But I was watching people for a particular subtlety and I was watching this group, all of whom needed to shift. And I had to, I didn't know whether they needed to shift their mindset consciously, but the way in which I saw them doing it was sort of breaking it. There were like three things that happened and then they kind of go, ah-ha. Okay, those three things could happen over a period of weeks, over a period of, you know, over the period of a phone call, over, right? And they would get them sort of one at a time. But once they had those in play, their designs became, their designing, their understanding of what they were trying to do, in this case, build a work marketplace, changed. So I don't know what other people's experience are if you watch that mind shift process in practice, how it happens, whether there are any clues there. And that's a mindset shift that you have to. Which is very much what I'm looking for. I'm looking to figure out ways to change people's mindsets. That's very much a goal here. And to see differently, to then act differently as they go out. And one of the workshops that I've designed, but not piloted, I designed with Marty Spiegelman, who's a Rex Fellow and a Shaman. And she and I created a one day workshop called Roots of Innovation, where we get to the principles of the relationship economy, which we sort of boiled down to CBDU. And she gets to them from Indigenous Ways of Knowing, and I get to them from this relationship economy thesis. And we kind of meet in the middle three times during the day of this workshop. It's really interesting. And so if you can see differently, you will be differently and then you will act or do differently. So CBDU was the thing we boiled that down to. Yeah, and I don't know whether, it's interesting now, because I don't have the enough data to go back and figure out where the people were, whether you could classify, whether, in fact, the order of the three things that had to change, and I don't even remember them happening. Yeah. And I think we have people who want to jump in. We've got Michael, April, and Jean all would like to jump in. April, do you want to jump in first? We do not hear you yet. Shall I unmute your, here, let me unmute your phone, go ahead and try again. Yeah. Now I hear you. I just feel like the openers of walking people through the first 15 minutes of really just asking a series of questions, it's like the five whys or whatever, like why do we structure things this way? Like to really lead people down the path in which they pull back the layers of the onions to recognize just how much we have designed from mistrust. And you pick five different examples and you spend three or four minutes on each of them, but it's a series of conversations and you need to, I feel like you lay the breadcrumbs, but the first 15, 20 minutes are people really having their own set of a ha's around how much we have designed from mistrust. And maybe you, of course, you take an example from education and from politics and from consumerism and pick one other. But I feel like that's how you break the ice and get people to be like, oh, I have no idea. Or I just, to your point, there are so many constructs that so many people just take for granted that you've got to get really creative about cracking open that like trap door in their head to think differently. But that needs to happen. I feel like personally, I feel like that happens really like fast off the bat, where you just present a series of questions and leave people going like, huh. But then the bigger question I have is who is the audience? And I say that because you and I have talked, I mean, one audience is designed firm. One audience could be young people, students or something like that. One audience certainly could be going to the belly of the beast in terms of companies or CEOs or I wonder also about boards of directors. I think boards of directors are gonna be very allergic to this kind of thing, but they're also the ones who could be really interested. I think healthcare professionals, I think people are non-profits. Like there's all these different audiences. And when I think about design from trust, obviously there's a big picture boil the ocean. Oh, look at how we designed for mistrust everywhere kind of thing, which might be useful, but I don't think it's actually going to, it's like a freemium. It's like, yeah, put it out there and like allow people to download it or walk themselves through it or something. But I feel like for you, you wanna operate at a different, I don't wanna say higher level, but a more sophisticated level where you're really getting clear on where you're the guide. And so I feel like for a design firm, there's one version of this, which would look potentially, I think very different than if you were to do this in an educational institution setting, which would look very different and not different in terms of the goal, but to get really clear, I guess what I'm trying to land on is for whatever you're trying to pile it first, could you come up with, can we, I don't wanna be narrow, I don't mean to be narrowing our lenses, but I'm like, you need to get narrow on what is, what are the first one, two, or three max audiences you're gonna design this for? Because otherwise we can all boil the ocean and for a long time on it. No, all of the time. Well, that's on the call, but like this topic can just become really diluted, really fast. Well, that's why in the document that I put down, audiences, just to have exactly that conversation. So I was heading there. What you're making me think of April is are there waypoints in the workshop that I should aim for, meaning, okay, I need to get people into this frame of mind by the first third of the workshop. And then for a different audience, I do that in a different way. So I would have three different modules that swap in depending on whether it's designers or students or whatever. But at the end of that element, they're all, for example, they're all able to identify design for mistrust and explain a bit about what it means and what it smells like. And then the waypoints become the markers for the workshop. Yes, and one final thought. At the end, I would love for each person to participate or a small group or whatever, could you send the final, depending on how long you have the final half hour, maybe it's 90 minutes or I don't know what, but if it's depending on if it's a half day or a full day or a longer workshop. But of course, and maybe this is obvious, but like, could they prototype designing something from trust? And I don't care if it's a process or a product or whatever, but it feels to me like that's where it gets really fun and interesting, but it kind of rocks, or it would rock my world in terms of like having to rethink everything. But I feel like this is not a conversation in which you convey information and we talk about it. But could they and really give them free reigns. And that's where I think it gets really interesting, for example, if you were to pilot this in some kind of educational setting. Or, but like to actually have, there needs to be a framework or a prototyping path for this, which from, even if I think about direct principles, you've laid all that out and we can all look at it until the cows come home, but it's still very hard to make, like that hasn't, I don't feel like that has been made actionable or as actionable as it could be. So could you, and I don't even know that you use the direct principles, like I'm thinking about that, you know, the laminated thing that you had, which is great, but it didn't necessarily allow people to like, okay, I'm gonna go build. Like, how do you actually turn that into more of a journey, more of a, like a journey card. And I think the journey is an interesting metaphor to use here very much. Let me go to Jean then Michael. April, I'm gonna leave you unmuted on this end, if you'd like to mute on your phone so that we don't hear your noise, that'd be great, but then you can let yourself into the conversation at will. Okay. To the question of people changing their minds, it's been sort of an eternal fascination. Isn't it? And I like the work of Chip and Dan Heath. They've written a single thought in about five volumes now. Yeah. And the last one that they wrote, The Power of Moments, which was sort of, I saw it as a combination of all of the rest of them together. And they said that it's easy to change someone's mind if you help them trip over the truth. And you do that by creating a clear insight, compressed in time, and discovered by the audience itself. So that you don't tell them, in other words, they have to have an aha moment. The real, and they change their, in other words, I've always said that I can't change your mind. The best that I can possibly do is to provoke thought. And if I provoke a thought that causes you to question something that you already believe, rather than, I mean, if I collide with something that you already believe in, your typical response is defense. You don't rethink it, you don't contemplate it, you don't reflect on it, you just defend. So it has to be approached in a way that, in a way where you think about it on your own because you sort of lead, you get led down this path and all of a sudden you find out you're not where you expected to be. It's sort of a slingshot. And I just, that the way that they summarized in that last book, and there are some good examples in the book about a clear insight compressed in time and discovered by the audience. So that if I endeavor to tell you something, I'm essentially, and I'm doing it now, I mean, I can't find ways to get around it because I'm offering you a thought. And I've often said to people, how much of what I have to say are you willing to listen to right after I tell you you're stupid? Probably not much. Exactly. And I completely empathize with what you're saying, Gene, because I'm very didactic. I tell people what I've discovered and it's like, look how cool it is. And the better pedagogical design, a term I don't particularly like, is really how do I help you get to the point where you see the thing I found? Right. So at one point I wrote an article called Change Management, The Colombo Approach. Oh, nice. But wait, there's one more thing. Yeah, well, and it's an approach from self-discounting because I don't understand, all right? And I'm looking for you to help me understand. The example that rang true for me was, a person walks into a department store and they're wandering around looking at things and the clerk walks up and says, may I help you? And the typical response is, no, I'm just looking. Though people typically don't realize why that's the response. The response, that is the response because what cycles through the person's head in a microsecond is, how can this person be so presumptuous as to think I need help? I'm perfectly capable of helping myself. So, I mean, so we have to approach things for a way of, well, the way I approach the workshop and it wasn't me explaining to them about the value of doing this, it was them realizing the value of doing it by doing it. So back to the whole design of the, the design from Trust Workshop, to get the audience to realize the difference between things like Wikipedia and encyclopedia Britannica. Right. So that rather than explaining to them what design from Trust means, develop a way for them to realize and sort of synthesize what it means and then they get it. That was the thought. Thank you. And so I have the same trouble that you were describing in creating this kind of atmosphere because I tend to tell people what I've found. In my talks, one of the things I like that I'm using more is when you hit something that's been designed from Trust, very often you have like a two shit response. Like the first one is oh shit, this is impossible, it would never work. And then you either bounce off it because it looks too stupid, you're not gonna try it or you dive a little further and you're like, your second one is oh shit, this is working. And then maybe I'd like to try a little more like this because that was super interesting. So I sort of refer to this as the two shits response. And if the workshop could have a lot of those kinds of visceral insights of wait, this will never work, oh my gosh, it's working, that would be great. And maybe that means that the workshop is, hey, go try this thing over here, go look at this, go read this story, go interview somebody, maybe it's experiential. Maybe what I do is I say, hey, this workshop lasts 20 weeks and each week there's a mission and you have to find four people and go do a mission and come back. That's a workshop design. It's different from what I'm thinking but it could be super-duper interesting, right? And it's maybe that's more like a course, like that's the length of a quarter or semester but I don't really know. But I'm trying to play with all the different formats because I think getting under the hood for what you're saying is the only way people will see differently and think differently. Michael and John and Susan all have their hands up. Michael first and then John and then Susan. Yeah, I'm just recalling an experience from 50 years ago where I audited 500 hours of video. I am. Yeah, 50 groups of six undergraduates in small T groups, 10 hours videotape. We had videotape in 1978, 1970. And the objective was to find out whether facilitators enabling or disabling what was happening on the particular spectrum of supportive or confrontative. And the outcomes, as obvious, were too much support, everybody goes to sleep. It's couch potato time. Everybody feels happy but not in changes. Too much confrontation. Well, it was exciting, nothing moved. You needed the mix of support and confrontation to achieve any demonstrable reported results such for social science. It sort of reflects on the skiing, too. Like, you know, if you give them too much of a bunny slope, they go nowhere. If you're not the black diamond, good night. It's like, where do you play with this balance of surfacing the issue of mistrust without making it a bogeyman or without making it a non-event? So basically, it's this provocative business and April's line fun and interesting. So there's got to be the juice. It's got to be in the room. There's got to be the issue of why are we worried about trust mistrust and the internalization of the experience that I'm operating with those issues at any time. And just to close on that, the CB do, it's sort of like the seeing is the abstract perception, the conception of, in some ways. The being is sort of the framing. One of my friends says, you work either in Greek, Latin, or German. And in Greek, you're in the theory, nothing but theory. When you start Latin, it's about organization management, administration, pattern, performance. When you do it, it's shit and shovel time. It's very Germanic in the barbie age. And basically, until you get to the shit and shovel, nothing's happening. That's hilarious. A brief digression to an element that I have, that's usable in the workshop, I invented something called the stakeholder trust assessment. And I take a standard stakeholder diagram. I number all the parts. So company with management, employees, board, suppliers, customers, community, et cetera, et cetera, competitors, et cetera. And then I ask people, I say, look, your management of this company, and picture your own company right now. Now, put yourself in the shoes of each of these players and rank yourself. Do we trust them one to five? And I give them like, what does one mean, what does five mean? And across the top in large, large uppercase letters, it says confidential, because I tell them ahead of the exercise that I'm not going to harvest the room. I'm not gonna walk around and say, what, how did you answer this? Because I want them to answer it as honestly as possible. And it's a really nice exercise. People get it. Like we have, we'll have a discussion afterward without like, what did you say? And that works. And it's a way of opening up questions like, where should we look? Who doesn't trust us? Why don't they trust us? Because it'll highlight pretty quickly, you know, communities that were something is really broken, clearly broken. So let me go to John and Susie. I'm thinking here, how interesting it is to think about trust versus mistrust. As human beings, we're all fallible. And we have an innate survival instinct. So with that in mind, is a certain amount of mistrust a healthy trait to have? Or am I getting confused with mistrust and skepticism? Which is a phenomenal question, John. So another slide I love to use when I'm talking about trust is I say, you know, I'm not talking about naive trust because everybody knows there's bad actors. And where I say bad actors, I click and there's a big, big picture of Michael Hasselhoff and underneath in large text it says bad actors. And partly what I'm saying is, there's an assumption or a presumption of good intent on the next person you meet or the next participant or the general average participant with the knowledge that there are bad actors out there. Like, it's not naive trust, it's not blind trust, it's not, hey, you should just trust us because loyalty, that's stupid. So it's a form of skeptical trust, right? And I don't know how much I like the old Reagan tagline of trust but verify. And Gene, I know you kind of went that way within a conversation we've had recently. And I'm like, that's interesting, but I'm trying to say that one of the insights I had was, if you design a system or an institution on the basis that most of the people are gonna try to damage you and hurt the system and take advantage, you design an extremely different system than one where you assume that most people actually want to do good, find the genius and go crazy and like do good things. You would design a totally different system with those two assumptions. And the assumption I arrived at is that most of our institutions have taken the darker assumption that there's too many bad actors and therefore we must design coercive systems that limit what everybody can do so that everybody does the same thing so that we make progress somehow. We have so many people to educate, for example, right? So I think mistrust is a healthy trait in the sense of being awake and skeptical, but I'm asking people to begin with an assumption of good intent. I don't like game theory at all. I think it's mostly like white male scientists who are like trying to use math to explain social interactions. However, it turns out that one of the winning strategies in game theory is tip for tat, starting with a good bit. I've forgotten the actual language of it, but one of the winning strategies is start by doing a good thing. That's kind of what I'm saying, right? If you're opening gambit is assuming good intent in the person and you offer something up, you're a generous and vulnerable coming in, usually often, not always, good things will roll out that way. And that's kind of part of the mindset I'm trying to achieve because it's perfectly rational that, and I think an interesting question here would be, can I find a litmus test, a quiz, or something to give people to figure out before they ever show up to the workshop? Are they on the side of people are born good and generally trustworthy or people are born evil and generally not? And I think both of those are completely normal points of view to whole and the world is kind of split that way in weird ways. So yes, and more, did that sort of address what you were asking, John? It does, I appreciate that, but there was one other point I wanted to make quickly and it just follows on from what you were saying is this, the notion of survival is bias. So we're all biased, I think that's a first assumption to make, but we have then conscious bias and unconscious bias. So I would say I mistrust myself because of that. Sorry, I'm coughing a little bit, absolutely. And I think part of this journey is understanding some of our own unconscious bias and getting there. And I haven't gone there in my thinking about design from trust, but I think it's actually really important what you just said. And then another part of it, which is the part that I want to have people discover on their own as we were just talking about, but that was hard for me to see and describe properly is the systemic institutional bias that's buried in our assumptions about how life is supposed to work. And a bunch of these are capitalism's broken assumptions. So one of them, for example, is the overprotection of intellectual property, right? Copyright was created to give a few people a head start and to make some money and it has been taken to an extreme at this point. Like copyright law is completely whacked. As far as I'm concerned, it's totally out of control and damaging us. Nevermind patents and seed patents and all, Monsanto is one of the companies that I think is hurting us more than helping anybody. And so part of the process I want to get to, to be fruitful, is to question some of those basic assumptions and to show people that capitalism can work on top of the commons while feeding the commons instead of while plundering natural resources, including intellectual resources like ideas. And that's a biggie, that's a real biggie, but I'm trying to get there in this workshop as well. Because some of this is mano a mano trust. Like when I meet you, can I trust you? Will you meet my expectations as we move forward? Part of this is what the hell's happening in the background? How is our business structured? What are our assumptions? How does this all work? Susan, go ahead. Oh boy. So I guess one of the things that, it seems to me an underlying assumption that's been part of this conversation is that mind shift change happens one by one. And I think of trust as something that's an emergent phenomenon and that is socially constructed. And so that you can put someone in a situation like a workshop and they can go through the whole thing and then they go home to their own group and co-am. It's the, I call it the rubber band effect. I mean, they're stuck to that. And nothing happens. And it's not that they didn't change their mind, they did, but they're going back into a situation. We all know this. But I think we haven't quite given the social constructions trust enough play yet. Absolutely. So on the document, if you'll look over at the Google doc that I started, one of the sections is as a personal practice, like what does design from trust look like as a personal practice? And a thing I haven't introduced yet, I've got it sort of on the side and I'm gonna have an inside Jerry's brain call about this in the next week or two is a thing I call up keto. And up keto is a neologism. It's basically a blending of eye keto, which is a defensive martial art and upward spiral or uplift. And one of the interesting principles of eye keto is that what you're doing is you're blending energies. You're basically, eye keto always assumes somebody is attacking you. And what you do is you neutralize the attack by blending with the energy and using that energy productively in a keto's case to throw or pin the attacker. But in sort of global strategies case, like how do I take awareness of what motions are in the world, what forces are happening and then do some good. So up keto is, the question behind up keto is, what is it like to be in the world where you improve everything you touch? Or at least you try to, that's at least your intention. And I'm saying all of that because I think that behind here lies a personal practice. So there's a systems design angle that can get really abstract and really heavy and deep into a critique of capitalism and stuff that we sort of just kind of touched a moment ago. Because another part of this is, which is like, all right, how do I groove this as a new attitude? And these days there's books about grit, there's books about getting things done. There's all sorts of self-improvement books, like they're all over the place. Maybe there's a self-improvement practice here that's the grounding, rhythmic, repetitive thing that we do that lets this not snap back. And Susan, I love the rubber band effect because to me there's a very big difference between the words elastic and plastic, right? Elastic is rubber and elastic goes back to its original shape when you stop pulling it, plastic reshapes under heat or stress. And like to be plastic to me is more interesting than to be elastic. And to me resilience and sustainability are kind of that you bounce back to where you were. And that's why I prefer the words thriving and flourishing because they open up new ground that you might actually transform the situation. And instead of just coming back to where you were, go into some new mode that's actually maybe better. Sorry, that was probably eight things you wanna say, Susan, go ahead. It was, but I'm only gonna say one. Awesome. I was just gonna point out that elastic is good with respect to bread baking. Yes, agreed, good crumb. My grandmother taught me to bake bread. And there was this point when you kneaded and then it was enough. And I learned what enough was and I learned how the bread felt and everything else. And later on I had cookbooks that told me to knead until elastic. I thought, what the hell does that mean? And then I realized they already knew. Great, because you had absorbed that quality. One of my favorite terms is this one. One of you must know what this is. Quan, K-W, sorry, Q-W-A-N, anybody know Quan? No Quan, it's the quality without a name from Christopher Alexander. And when Christopher Alexander starts to inspect beauty, what is beautiful? Why do people generally agree that this is more beautiful than that? Whatever two things you put up to compare. And he says, well, because things that have beauty and have life in them have this quality without a name. It's hard to put your finger on it, but you know that this one's more alive. You know that this one's more beautiful than that one. For some reason. That's a language chap. Exactly, exactly. He and colleagues wrote a pattern language. They wrote the timeless way of building. And then more recently he wrote the four volume tome called the nature of order, which is this very deep excursion into the nature of beauty and order and structure and why we design the things the way we do. It was too deep for me. I was sort of part of a book club that never got more than a quarter into the first volume. But even the quarter into the first volume was really quite fascinating. This is back when I lived in Berkeley, but I had a friend who had like absorbed the whole four volume set. I have a different friend who actually read those in draft form from Christopher Alexander's hands. It's kind of crazy. Anyway, so a piece of what we're talking about is I'll say hard to get to. I don't know. A piece of this is art more than a reason why I'm sort of asking what does this workshop look like? Is that some aspects of this are less workshoppy and more practice like. And I borrow IKITO for up KITO partly because I'm actually in an IKITO dojo now. That's my form of exercise. And IKITO is absolutely a practice that you can do this for 10 years and you'll get better on the 12th year. You can keep doing it for 15 years. You'll be better on the 20th year because you just keep grooving and understanding movement and patterns and whatever better over time. And being in the practice has a whole bunch of side benefits because it's good exercise. It's kind of a semi spiritual practice. It does a bunch of different things. So how might IKITO become a practice and what does an IKITO dojo do is one of my open questions. And that's something I'll introduce in its own call coming up soon. But so now I'm, am I over complicating this? Well, what's this? Am I over complicating the design of a design from trust workshop by saying, well, there's some stuff that we can do kind of quick and easy in a workshop. There's some stuff that's more about ongoing practice so that people when they step out of the workshop and go back home, don't just snap back to all their old patterns and belief systems. And then there's stuff here that's also kind of a critique of capitalism behind the curtain that would change entire businesses not just what people do day to day but would also solve a lot of problems, right? There's kind of layers of design from trust that I've discovered are each important but they're sort of, they're located in different places. Is that too complicated a model? Should I just like tackle one thing upfront first? Should I just try all three things in different ways and see what sticks? Like I'm very open to suggestions. Susan then John. I'm thinking that earlier when, okay. I'm thinking that I have one of these things like trust that you have designed from trust which is practice-based design. And for many, many years, I had to go around explaining what the hell practice was and why practice-based design was always better and so on and so forth. And then I learned that I didn't have to explain it. I just had to help people do it. And of course, that's no way to run a business but I got better results in the sense that impact was more easily there. People go, oh God, I never thought, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And you can walk them through that and my guess is that your success in all of these past workshops has been because it was very specific and particular and designed a response to a particular situation, particular people at a particular time and place in their business. No? I'm not sure. I don't think any of the workshops I've done were that targeted. I think they were like, here's a whole big bunch of ideas. I haven't gotten to the point where things were that rifle shot. Well, okay, and I don't do that either but I've stopped explaining it. Well, and I love what you just said. Like what they had to have was an experience of the practice. Yeah. Right? And once they were in the practice they were like, well, okay, I see what this is. Yeah, so I'm kind of- And then they could do that because they know what it is to, oh, this is just a different way of doing something. Oh, that's interesting. Right. So in that sense, maybe Upkido is front and center and I get people to try that and I make it available and accessible and build an organization around that. I don't know. But that's very appealing to me because that is the practice, right? And that is the place where you can repeat these things and express them and experience them and go out and do them with people because another very big piece of design from trust is just borrowing and adapting other models that already do design from trust that people haven't already invented all around the world. So design from trust isn't about designing from whole thoughts, some new institution that trusts us. It's in fact saying, hey, look, there's all these unschoolers out there in the world. These are the principles they seem to work by. Or, hey, look, there's a whole bunch of people in the open source community. They're sharing code. It used to be that people owned code. Why are they doing that? What are the principles behind that, right? And that's partly, there's a big amount, there's a big piece of borrowing and appropriation and adaptation that's part of design from trust. And I can easily take that into an Upkido, dojo-y practice that actually connects to real life projects like the digital life collective is doing, right? Which seems to be then open to the usual claim of, but we already do that. You know what? If everybody changed the way they see and do things and everybody said, well, we already do that, but it led to some change, I'd be happy. Like, I would die content. I'd be like, there'd be a smile on my headstone except I don't want to scratch the grave. John, you were, I think ready to jump in. The three parts that you explained before, you asked the room, am I over-complicating things? Well, the first one is really important, is it? It's how can we efficiently collaborate? And that's an area I'm really interested in. So for example, wardly mapping is a way to be able to do a kind of brain dump to get people to work together to challenge assumptions. Now, I think what I like about the work that you're doing, Jerry, is this idea, let's hold on, let's try and let's scrub the record and redesign the whole thing. Let's read. So I posted something in chat which might probably a completely mad idea, but I'll give it a go because it reminds you of what you're saying, though. I think I'm gonna pronounce this wrong as kojo, what you're talking about this, a new method of collaborating. So I was talking about dojos and a dojo is basically a hall where you practice a martial art. That's the, it's usually called the dojo. So I haven't coined a kojo, but I like it. My hearing, I'm sorry. So if we consider our human evolution, there is research saying now that actually music and art came before language and that really to teach people STEM subjects is actually a nothing else, no art or anything like that is actually inhumane. So I'm just wondering if collaboration and design thinking could be geared around an approach where it's a music base, where it's based around tempo of a meeting where people can actually engage a subconscious level. I don't know where you'd start with that, but I think, and I'm not sure about the credentials of that report, but I just think it's an interesting read. And I'm not a musician or a composer. I appreciate music deeply and I know almost nothing about music theory, but I really love the idea of rhythm, tempo, music as an element here. I think it's actually really important. In particular, in institutional change, in my own theory of change involves rhythm and tempo in the following way. There's something called the satir change model that was put out by Virginia Satir about personal change, like how do we change when things happen to us? And she says, like, people are coming along on some vector and then something hits them and they have a reaction, but then they have a counter reaction and then they kind of settle into some new behavior and that might be a different vector, right? And there's a, in physics, it's called underdampened harmonic oscillation, which is something hits and then it goes back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth until it kind of dampens and hits some new vector. So part of my model of change is that you actually have to make room for the effect and the backlash and the effect and the backlash. So if you look at, for example, me too right now, then go look at the cycles of women's suffrage. There's like, every time there's progress and then there's like this incredible snap backwards and society is a rubber band. Society is very elastic, is sometimes elastic but not that forgiving and it wants to go back to where it was and every now and then it goes through this gigantic change and to me, the last big gigantic change that matters in my head is the Industrial Revolution and the, this is why I love Karl Polanyi on this. Basically Polanyi says market economy requires market society. He said to have a market economy which starts showing up like market economy starts and there's no free labor force because everybody's tied to the land. There's no money because not everything has a dollar price. There's no land, you can't go buy yourself land for your factory. It's all owned by the king or the church or somebody, you know, inherited it or whatever. So all these things have to be pride loose. Workers have to be pride loose and made free labor. Everything has to have a dollar price on it. That is a gigantic change and society resisted that for a very long time. We fought against being roped into cities. There's a really good book against the grain that talks about that. We fought against this sort of domestication or civilization or industrialization and consumerization for many years and now we take it completely for granted because we're not aware of a lot of history. We don't, people don't read a lot of history. We assume that things are the way they are because that's as good as we're gonna get in designing them. So the current educational system, why change it? We've been doing this for hundreds of years or actually it's not been hundreds of years and it's probably as good as it could be otherwise we would have designed a better work, right? And that logic doesn't work for me because I've seen that there's much better ways of doing things because I've been tearing back the courtroom and trying to figure out what's going on behind it. Sorry, that was like 10 different thoughts that just burbled out in the same thing. But we're hitting something that sort of really matters for me in how these things work and how the scales of change might work. So getting back to rhythm or tempo or whatever, I think the workshop may need to have a tempo like this. It may need to express and make room for and in fact harness backlash energy and so forth. So I think that's a really interesting observation. Yeah. Now, Jerry, it was just obvious. Okay, good. Excellent. You know, I'm glad it was that simple. Other thoughts? And oh, I'm just realizing that we have 15 more minutes to talk because time has flown. And I think what I'll do is I'll set up a couple more workshop design conversations like this one. So this will be our opening salvo and I'll do some work and then we'll come back. Other thoughts? Let me just go over to the document, the Google doc that I shared and just talk about some of these dimensions. So I've got a website up called Design from Trust. Currently the front page of the Design from Trust website has a very narrow appeal. I'm trying to find a design firm somewhere on earth that would like to create a Design from Trust practice. And so the second page, if you go sort of up to the nav menu and look behind, you'll find the other stuff that I was sort of writing up there around creating a Design from Trust practice and inviting people in to do what we're doing here. So my apologies, but one of my quests right now is to locate a couple of designers who'd like to do this or a design firm that would like to go create Design from Trust. I also added a link to Design from Trust in my brain, which is sort of the nexus of all the resources that I've found in role models, inspirations, structural aspects, et cetera, et cetera. We talked a bit about the format and I will say that doing a face to face workshop, I love face to face. I love being in a room with humans. My favorite format is being around a table with like eight people, six people, something like that. That's my favorite, favorite size. I love rooms with 50 people or 100 people. That works great for me too, but I like the small size a bunch, but very small sizes on economical for trying to do a workshop series because you've got to fly, do book, reserve, pay for things. It's really easy for me to imagine doing some of these things virtually. And then I know that I would have to adapt a whole big bunch to do it virtually because you lose so much in the virtual and then you gain a few things in the virtual, right? Because you gain the side chat. We're able easily to monitor a little side conversation with useful links and questions and stories and turn taking, but that's hard to do kind of when you're all face to face. It's sort of doable, it kind of interrupts more in some way. So there's virtuous to doing virtually, but a virtual experiment I'm totally up for and want to do. So I think the question is what form would that take? In fact, then you get into easy, not easy questions, but then you get into obvious questions like, okay, great, so what platform? Does this go on Skillshare? Does this go on Eventbrite? Does this go on some other new interesting MOOC platform because the platform will actually frame what's available to do, how people perceive what this is, et cetera, et cetera. That's a question we haven't tackled that I'm interested in any kind of answers and insights on, but so if this is a virtual workshop, then what's the platform and what's the timeframe? What do you mean by what's the platform? Well, Skillshare, for example, is a platform for teaching courses, right? And there's now a whole bunch of other platforms like Skillshare. There's also a whole bunch of webinar platforms and some of these webinar platforms let you charge a fee, let you have breakout rooms, let you do a whole bunch of structural things with the group that's in front of you. And some of these webinar platforms are pretty expensive. Like we're in Zoom right now. Zoom's normal mode is like 10, 15 bucks a month for just more or less unlimited use, but if you wanted to do webinars using Zoom, it's 45 bucks a month. So the price jumps a whole big bunch, which means you need to have some economic model to actually fund using webinars, but I could just bump to that here on Zoom and try that. Or I could go seek a different platform. One of the things I considered was using Twitch. Twitch.tv is known as an eSports website. It's basically where kids go to duke it out and shoot each other, but also you can get paid to teach people how to program. So liveprogramming.com is hosted on Twitch and is a whole separate area that does really interesting things. That's a platform. So sorry to give you a long answer, but the platform question means what is the hosting service that I end up using to do a virtual offer? Because there are things that you want or need that you don't have here. Yes, exactly. So then the timeframe question is really interesting. Is this a one day, I can see this becoming a practice with a monthly fee for, it's a year long course that takes you through up keto and at the end you're a certified up keto coach. I mean, I spent a lot of last year with the exponential organizations group where I'm a certified coach, right? I did a five week virtual sprint and I've been involved as a speaker and participant in a couple other of their sprints. Their sprint is a 10 week workshop structure. I can describe that a lot more if anybody wants, but that was really interesting because there's 180 odd trained coaches in the world who understand that methodology and are employable on future sprints. There's a little online place that's kind of a marketplace for those people and those engagements and they're trying to build that out. That's interesting. The Digital Life Collective is trying to build out a thing called the social ledger in a couple other aspects that could become collaborative platforms. Basically you can embed other software tools into this social ledger thing that's being built. That's really interesting. So I think there's a bunch of cool and they get geeky pretty fast, but platform questions like that. Let me pause for a second and see what anybody's thinking. And then a place I didn't go to during this conversation, but thought we might was the principles of design from trust which I'm sort of ambivalent about. Not deeply ambivalent about because part of me really loves these things. Like when I begin describing design from trust as having a lot to do with assumed good faith, that's an open door. It's really easy to talk about. It's easy to talk about why people would object to that. The people are born good, people are born bad, all of that. But it's also a known principle, right? Like open source software starts from assumed good intent as a basic ground rule. But then I also created a thought called role models for design from trust principles. So for example, one of my role models for design from trust principles is the pattern language for growing food. And how do you create healthy soil? Well, you disturb your soil as little as possible because when you plow soil, you kill the little varmints that are in there. You dig up the root systems. You basically destroy the natural systems that are creating nutrients in the soil. You keep roots in the ground at all times for plants. You keep your dirt protected. So when there's not a crop on a plot of land that's sheltering the land from evaporating all the moisture out of it, you cover it with some kind of cover, et cetera, et cetera. So that's actually also to me a role model for design from trust principles because metaphorically, what does it mean to keep your soil covered, to keep moisture in the soil, right? Then there's the principles of messy management, which I ran across, which is actually really nice. There's this whole notion of an article, there's an article called Think Biologically, Messy Management for a Complex World by Martin Reeves and Simon Levin and Daiichi Ueda. And in this, they develop some principles of messy management that include things I think you really like, experimentation rather than deduction, wholism rather than reductionism, indirect rather than direct approaches, plurality instead of universality, pragmatism rather than intellectualism, resilience rather than efficiency. These are all good, right? So there's a piece of me that says, all right, can we boil these down and create a set of principles for design from trust? Yes, sounds great. And then also one thing I've noticed from long ago conversations around design from trust, when I was first kicking around the idea is, it's really easy also to say, everybody should honor their promises and you should be a good person. And it's really easy to slip into a series of what I sort of think of as platitudes. I mean, they're really great objectives for a good person, but they don't help that much as design principles here. And so I think separating those is difficult and probably varies by individual. A lot of people really need to see those kinds of principles of integrity in something called design from trust. And for a lot of people they're like, that's just sort of what it means to be a good person that's different from design from trust. And I don't really know where that boundary lies. So to me, that's probably a different conversation we can have here as well. But let me pause again to see if anybody has any thoughts on the principles. Bueller, Bueller, I love that scene. Yes, Susan. I think having principles and collecting them is a really great idea. And it depends on how long, but you could be collecting them, well, I guess I'm thinking about longer term engagements where there's time for the principles to emerge and for people to own them as they come up with them and sometimes having someone designated as a principal spotter, like, oh, there's one. And occasion is a certain amount of conversation and it's kind of like we're used to having people do timekeeping, you know, people do principal spotting. Or it could be a- You seed it, I mean, one can seed that and see what other people come up with. Yeah, it could also be sort of a superpower that emerges that people notice in each other and that different people have this superpower. And they, I like the concept of superpowers a lot because one of my beliefs is that most of us don't realize our own superpowers, right? We're really good at something we think everybody's really good at. And here I will use my wife as an example. April didn't realize how good her calendar memory was until I started telling her, like, I can't figure things out that way and most of us can't figure out that way. But she can tell you like what we were doing on this day for the last seven years and she can reconstruct it, she can figure it out. And I don't know what I was doing seven days ago without consulting my electronic calendar. That has just been flushed out of my buffers. But that is a superpower. And a piece of, I think, a pedo, a piece of a pedo practice is noticing one another's superpowers and notifying each other about these and then improving them and sharing them. Like, hey, if you're really good at X, like this is a skill that you could spread, this is a skill we should harness, et cetera, et cetera. So there's a whole dynamic around superpowers that's part of this. And I have to say that if a pedo is about improving the things you touch, then informing somebody they have an unknown superpower that's really a skill and then helping them improve it, play it up, share it is gotta fit in that spectrum. There was a point in time where I found myself between two jobs. And I'm sitting on the, I'm in my office talking on the phone with somebody doodling at the same time. And after the phone call, I looked down and I noticed that what I had written was, what does life want from you? Wow. So after I pondered it for a couple of days, I realized that there was a thread that had gone through my entire life since I was a child. And I realized it was turning on other people's light bulbs. Wow. And I just, I had to call somebody and tell them. So I called this woman that I'd worked with for several years and I told her and she said, I could have told you that. So, ask. And that's really lovely. And it was just delightful to realize that the answer had been there all along if I had to just ask somebody as opposed to spending years pondering it. And the people who kind of know us a bit, right? A friend who's a math teacher in Colorado has said a bunch of super interesting things, but one of her beliefs about teaching about students is that students should have kind of at least two conversations going on. One conversation is one with themselves. They should journal and kind of reflect on what they're doing. So it's basically inward reflection. The other conversation is with somebody who over time sees them as just available as a mirror, as to bounce ideas, to look for resources, whatever else. And I completely believe that. And I think we have torn away the fabric of sages. We deprecate age, so the village elders, nobody gives a shit anymore. We try to get rid of them. They can't find employment. Like the role of elder, that's a tough one. And then there's no, you know, we're fragmenting trust between people to the point where we're trusting somebody with being that mirror for you is hard, et cetera. But one of the roles I'd love to see is sort of this network, this loose, loose network of sages who are available to help us to be our mirrors. And we can do this for one another. Not, it ain't that hard. Yes, but we are so presumptuous. John, go ahead. I saw you jumping in. A point about, I'll follow up on your wife, observation on your wife, how she can memorize calendar dates. So you call that a superpower. So maybe you can call it a talent. But I think what I've discovered later on is the importance of lifelong learning, especially in the era that we're going to enter with machine intelligence and automation. It's gonna be rather than the exception, it's gonna be the rule. We're gonna have to learn to retrain more often. So if you're in a group, a design group and you identify superpowers of people, they will obviously be flattered and appreciate that. But is it more important to force people out to their comfort zone? So they carry on the journey of learning. Because if it's a talent, an innate talent, there's nothing to learn and boredom could set in. So I think that that's the other side of your superpowers because the superpowers are the things that you're innately good at, skilled at and might share more of. Then there's other parts of your life where like, crap, I'm not that good at that, but I'd like to be better. Those are, and I don't know exactly what we call that, skills gap, something like that. Future talents to be a little optimistic about it. But I think identifying, when I meet a young person and they're trying to do some career planning, one of the things I recommend to them is, hey, figure out what you're really good at and what you wanna become good at. And then use your next three jobs to get good at the things you know you wanna be good at. And find an individual, find a human being who has that skill, who's got that superpower and apprentice yourself to them. And just lather rinse repeat a few times until you've rounded out the palette of things that you think you wanna be good at and that palette is gonna change over time. But I think this is sort of that kind of a strategy. It's like, how do we help each other amplify what's good and then fill in what's not the thing we wanna make better? Does that make sense? Cool. We have hit an hour and a half. We've hit 90 minutes in. I love this conversation. I will book another couple sessions like this so we can do more. Let me know if you have ideas for how to refine this quest, like a particular piece of this that should be a topic for its own call. Send that description to me and I will make that its own call. I will post this video on YouTube so we can share it and see where we go. Let me know if you wanna jump deeper and start developing a workshop or something like that. Tell me and we can start figuring out what that looks like. Develop a workshop about something in particular? Anything in general? I mean, whatever comes to our mind. About this design from trusting is what I'm thinking about. You what? About this design from trusting in this case. Oh, I see, okay. Yeah, yeah. I trust that you know why you showed up. Exactly, exactly. But thank you all. I really appreciate the conversation and your presence and I think we're on a roll here. Thank you.