 Take us in. This is the the Rex call for November of 2017 And I usually start our calls with a poem. Hey mark So why don't I actually have two short poems to take us in with this morning? The first one is is titled how to listen by major Jackson and Goes like this How to listen I'm going to cock my head tonight like a dog in front of McGlinchey's tavern on locust I'm going to stand beside the man who works all day combing his thatch of gray hair corkscrewed in every direction I'm gonna pay attention to our lives Unraveling between the forks of his fine tooth comb For once we won't talk about the end of the world or Vietnam or his exquisite paper shoes For once I'm going to ignore the profanity and the dancing in the jukebox So I can hear his head crackle beneath the sky's stretch of faint stars I'll read it again How to listen I'm going to cock my head tonight like a dog in front of McGlinchey's tavern on locust I'm going to stand beside the man who works all day combing his thatch of gray hair corkscrewed in every direction I'm gonna pay attention to our lives unraveling between the forks of his fine tooth comb For once we won't talk about the end of the world or Vietnam or his exquisite paper shoes For once I'm going to ignore the profanity and the dancing in the jukebox So I can hear his head crackle beneath the sky's stretch of faint stars And the second poem is by k ryan and is titled nothing ventured Nothing exists as a block and cannot be parceled up So if nothing's ventured, it's not just talk. It's the big wager Don't you wonder how people think the banks of space and time don't matter How they'll drain the big tanks down to slime and salamanders And want thanks And I'll read that one again too Nothing ventured by key ryan Nothing exists as a block and cannot be parceled up. So if nothing's ventured, it's not just talk. It's the big wager Don't you wonder how people think the banks of space and time don't matter How they'll drain the big tanks down to slime and salamanders And want thanks I have analyzing a little of those poems Oh. Yeah, it's uh partly I use poetry at the start of of calls and meetings uh often as much as I can Uh partly because it puts us in a slightly different place. It's like a little bit of a portal A little bit of an entryway and uh And once a group sort of uh, acculturates to it or customs itself to it You sort of approach the beginning of meetings with like, oh, okay moment where we walk in, and it's really nice that way. Did the poems bring up anything for anybody? I mean, the main thing that, as I was thinking about, the topic for today is trust, right, Jerry? A topic for most of our calls is trust, but yes, we're going to dive right in. Yeah, so what it made me think of actually was what it means to trust yourself when I listen to that first poem. Trust yourself at the most fundamental level of observation and connection with the world, or with someone you love, or with a business partner, or with a child. And what it means to be present and to trust yourself to be completely present and open to what's happening around you feels like the start of any generation of trust with anyone else. So that's what it made me think of. Yeah, and it's funny because the technology we're using right this moment, Zoom, and I'm the host, so I'm kind of, as you were talking about that, I'm like, ooh, OK, I need to actually be really present. And it's a struggle with all of this stuff. It would be so much easier if we were all sitting in the same room or if we'd traveled here for a week on Nealback and we're sitting by a campfire where there was just no place else to go and no other demand on our time. But here we are. And I'd love us to sort of pay that kind of mindful attention to each other as you were just describing. Hey, Dave, hi, Mark. And Sam, if you want to turn on your video, you can, I think, we're on our way now. Anybody else thoughts from the poems? I could barely hear it the first time you read it. And was so grateful you read it a second time, right? I had to get out of whatever I was thinking about. Oh, that's an interesting word. I didn't even hear that the first time. Thank you. If you haven't heard him, there's a poet named David White. And he's one of my favorite poets. He's got a bunch of videos on YouTube. And he recites poetry from memory by heart. And he's really good at it. And not only his own poems, but a lot of people's poems. Derek Walcott and a bunch of others. And he has a habit when he recites of repeating lines a lot. And it really works. And I haven't found I can do it necessarily. I read through because I need the flow. But he stops and he'll do a sentence twice and then he'll go back and then he'll do a stanza again. And then he'll keep going. And it works beautifully. Does he do it with a different kind of emphasis or different tone of voice when he reads it the second time? Or it's respect? He doesn't appear to be calling out different aspects of the line. He's just going back to it so you can hear it again. And it sort of soaks in a little bit more that way. It's really interesting. Yeah. He's sort of a corporate philosopher. He's a very interesting fellow. He's got a couple of good books out and all that. Any other thoughts? Go ahead. I was going to say it's a little bit like music we have repeats, much more common in classical music where people can do that or become more formal as recently. Exactly. And it used to be in life before the days of radio and photographs, it used to be that if there was a lot of applause, the orchestra would stop and go back and play that section over again, right? They would just go, oh, OK, that was so good. Let's do it again. Actually, I was thinking of, if you remember listening to Barack Obama's 2008 election speeches, he would actually use that technique quite frequently because I spoke with a cadence that was intentionally poetic. And so there would be points where he would say something particularly powerful and pause and repeat it a bit more quietly, a bit more thoughtfully. And it was actually really useful. And I found when I'm giving talks myself, that kind of technique can be very productive for an audience. Absolutely. In fact, I just gave a talk a week ago and I used a video online of a technology that takes Barack Obama's face, video images, and projects him saying, whatever he said somewhere else, you can put on that avatar and make it look like he's actually saying it. So it's kind of spooky because you can now create lifelike video that will fool you into thinking Barack Obama or whoever said whatever. But what's cute is the video I used has the fake avatar on one side and on the other side is a guy who's a young white man who's imitating Obama's voice. And he says, you need to talk in this really weird timbre. And you go up and you go down. And he does a brilliant job of emulating Obama's very interesting cadence because I think that you're calling out one of his sort of hypnotic speaking superpowers. Hi, Estie. Any other thoughts before we dive in a little further? Cool. That was even, I think that was actually in my beginning to this conversation about trust because how you speak, how you tell your story, the techniques that you use for conveying information is a critical element to how you gain or lose someone's trust. Also, the medium helps and interferes. So there's gains and losses from this video conferencing thing. For example, when I look at the camera, I'm now more looking at your eyes. But normally, I'm looking around the room to see what you're doing. And the human eye, hi, Carlos. And Mika, excellent. The human eye is very finely tuned to tell the difference. So if we're standing in front of each other, you can tell if I'm looking at the tip of your nose or in your eyes. Like, humans are very, very good at distinguishing that. So there's a little bit of loss of trust from the lack of actual eye contact. But then the reason that the first seven years of Rex calls were audio only, not video like this. And maybe there was a piece of that that was technology because now we have things like Zoom that are pretty capable at delivering high-quality video with lots of people, lots of faces in the room. But also now you can see peripherally when somebody is engaged leaning in, or if they're sort of off doing their email on the side. Or we use the general assembly hand signs, like this means I agree, this means I disagree. You can now see that across. I'm in gallery view now, so it's not just to the person who's talking. I can kind of see who's doing what to whom, all of which are really interesting kind of trust-building formats or ways of thinking about our online interactions and how this stuff, the technology stuff, interferes with and amplifies our ability to do things, including the side chat. So I recommend gallery view with a side chat, or maybe on this side for you, because then we can have a little side conversation as we go. And Mark, for example, put a chat in there about the Radio Lab episode of using Obama's face, which is, yeah, super interesting. We've got the video stuff, like, so my son's at this video-only university, and they use, I think, a format that looks like this, so you can see the entire class in front of you all the time. And one of the things that they found is that it's really hard to not show up. Some people really prepare for the classes because you can't dodge. You're sitting in front of all your classes. And even in a classroom, you don't usually see the faces of most of your classmates. So it's an interesting, you like the technology, using the technology better than, in some sense, the face-to-face stuff is also interesting. And I find that I was always watching myself, but I don't know when Zoom added the hide myself button, but I have to use the hide myself button to keep myself out of the picture. That's interesting. Cool, well, let's dive in for some more, let's head toward where we're heading today. And there we go. So a couple of things. I posted a couple things that are coming up to the Rex list, and I'm also going to post an interview that I did a week ago with Sheila Foster and Neil Gorinflow, which I put on YouTube, but I didn't finish posting it to Patreon or to the Rex list. But it was super, super interesting. Sheila Foster teaches at Georgetown. She's a specialist in land use planning and a variety of other things, but also in managing the commons and has done a whole lot of work adapting Lynn Ostrom's principles for managing the commons, which is something that is a really interesting concept in Rex. And I'll go back and do a little more framing in a second. But the interview is really interesting, but it's an hour long. And so partly I'm interested in what would be useful ways to make those kinds of videos more accessible. To more people, because I think few people stop and watch an hour long video, but it was a great conversation. And Neil, he founded shareable.net. Years ago, he is always ahead, like you'll see at the very beginning of the video, that he's always there before I get to things. I learned about some new thing that matters for the relationship economy idea or about trust. And it turns out that shareable has already published an article on it before me. So it's kind of fun. And we went deep into that. So also coming up on Tuesday, and I'll put a note on the Rex list for this, we're going to have an unscheduled, an ad hoc, Rex call that anybody can join if you want to around Arthur Brock and other people's project called Holochain. And I had a, this is part of the conversation I had yesterday with Matt Schudy and Nancy Giordano, who I think can't make today's call. But we're basically trying to figure out how to explain Holochain. And if you wanna join us on Tuesday, there'll be an invite, it'll be a Zoom call just like this. And we're gonna try to explain it and see how to go about doing that because there are many paths into this Holochain thing. Right now blockchain is hot, hot, hot. Cryptocurrencies, ICOs are going all bubbly and frothy and going kind of crazy. And how do you enter that market for platforms that might be transformative in an interesting way? So we're going to do that. And then there'll be a few other Rex calls that are gonna show up in the next couple of weeks. What I'd love for you to think about as we have today's conversation and as you see these other calls and all that is, what topic would I like to have us talk about? Like Kelly and the whole world of service innovation and the relationships that companies have with their customers and prospects and all that. Like what are some good questions we could chew on together? And let's just put them in front of the group and see where they go, things of that nature. And there's no lack of topics to go into between gender and race issues around trust between politics. We're not afraid to dive into politics. There's plenty going on in the world at this point. All those kinds of things are sort of really fruitful for us. So just as framing for new people to the call, Sam, I think Sam and Carlos, I think this is your first time on the call. And a few people, we raise your hand if you're a Rex veteran, if you've been in the Rex group for quite a while. So SD, Dave, Peter, Jamai, Saluting, thank you, and Mike and Todd. So know that like, it's kind of a funny group because some of us have been in this group for a long time and some of us are just joining in, trying to figure out, okay, what's where and where are we going? And what I wanna do is put a little bit of handrails around that so we know kind of what this is. In a sense, it's a quest into understanding trust better. And I got to that, that simple sentence is hard one for me because it's a distillation of what I call the relationship economy. The reason this group is called Rex is that it's a relationship economy expedition. And the relationship economy showed up because I can't stand the word consumer. And I realized that some 20 years ago and paid attention to it. And I say often the smartest thing I've done for the last 20 years is pay attention to that word and follow it where it took me. And it took me into a really disruptive, kind of upside down, a topsy-turvy world where I realized that most of the institutions that we take for granted, our educational institution, our electoral systems, how we control traffic and design streets, a whole series of things, how we reward people, how we create reward mechanisms and all that are basically designed for mistrust of the average person and that we threw away things like society and relationships and the general connectivity that people have. So the relationship economy is an exploration into does hundreds of groups around the world that are already designing from trust is what I call it. But they figured out that the average person is trustworthy. So if you go to Wikipedia, for example, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia says in many an interview, you know what? People are more trustworthy than we think they are. Which is a lovely kind of, it's a lovely sentence to just keep in the back of your head as we're doing this expedition in the trust. It doesn't mean that there aren't bad actors. It just means that on average, most people wanna help. Most people have shown up and are willing to lean forward, lean in and jump in and do interesting things. So that's the general framework and it touches absolutely everything. So two nights ago, I had coffee with a local fellow who was a tax attorney and is really interested in alternative forms of company organization, four benefits, all sorts of other kinds of things. And then we've sort of wandered in the conversation, turns out his wife does horse-gently. And he says, do you know anything about natural horse massiflamic? My eyes, I think my eyes went completely wide. I'm like, yes, oh my God, horse-gently. And I talked about how in an early REX meeting, we actually spent an afternoon talking about the trailer for a documentary about one of the first horse whispers, a guy named Buck Branaman. And all I did was I played this two and a half minute trailer. I was gonna put the link in our chat in a bit. I played the trailer and then I went back and I played the first sentence of the trailer. And the first sentence is something like, when Buck does this, it's kind of spooky. It's like voodoo. It looks like something that shouldn't happen. And what Buck Branaman is doing is he's walking into a ring with a wild horse or a horse that has some behavioral dysfunction. And he's treating it in a way that they join up. They form a trust relationship. And after a while, the horse has got its head on his shoulder or is following him around the ring and we'll let him put a bridle on it and we'll let him ride it. And it's the opposite of breaking horses, which was what the general conventional wisdom is for what you do with wild animals. You break them. So the relationship economy is really fun because it goes all the way over to horse gentling but also includes workplace democracy and open source software and microfinance and all these interesting movements. And when I go over and I look at Shareable or the peer-to-peer foundation that Michelle Bowens runs or other kinds of places that are also exploring the wide landscape of what's available, what's possible. They're looking at the same movements, the same sorts of issues. It's just that we have different ways of trying to explain what this is. And I'm really interested in how do we explain this? Like, I think, you know, 100 years from now whatever message crystallizes out of this era is the one that we'll be telling 100 years from now, right? And I'm designing my, I'm finishing the design of my talk for Friday for the disruptive innovation festival right now. And part of what I think I'm doing up front is I'm gonna say, look, there's dozens of possible solutions. There are people who've written really good and interesting books about how to fix the world. Why haven't we fixed it yet, right? And so somehow we need to create partly the catalyzing thought that is going to shift us into the next economy, whatever else it is. And then there's clearly a deathmatch going on right now between many different parties for control of the political apparatus, for who gets to determine what things look like, you know, what we're going to use, what rights we're going to have, all of that. That's playing out really big in the public sphere right now. So that's kind of the general backdrop for this relationship economy thing. Let me pause for a second and answer any questions that you have, because there's probably a million questions, or there might be none. Are you open for comments? You bet, Chris. So I just wanna make a comment on first the significance of the trust issue and not just in the economy, but in society, and then a note on misconceptions around trust and really getting scaling factors right in terms of how the language is used. On the significance, some of the global polling that's been done recently is showing that worldwide citizens trust and governance is at the lowest level that's ever been measured. And it's around at the 40% level. In the most recent poll, I think that was released last year, and it's just interesting. I don't know what it means at all, that the current President of the United States approval ratings are right about that 40% level. I mean, if you wanna judge whether it's good or bad, there's, and if most of the world doesn't trust government, then it's an interesting question of just, how we relate to one another at the scale of a family and how we relate to one another at the scale of an economy or society are two really different things. This is my point about distinctions and misconceptions. Karen Cook, who's a professor at Stanford University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and who's an expert on trust, it's her field. One of the things I've learned from her is that in the science of trust, we distinguish between trust, the word trust, the concept of trust which we apply to people that we're close to, and what the social scientists tend to use the word confidence as it applies to people who we're not close to. So as a scaling factor, language actually has to change. If we're using trust to discuss the economy and society at a very, very large scale, scientifically we're actually, it could be argued that we're using the wrong word. And I think the trust and confidence live on a spectrum and it's just interesting to ask ourselves what that spectrum is. But I do think it's really important to start with that distinction because otherwise it's very difficult to accurately set expectations around certain kinds of behaviors. And I think once you begin to associate trust with high degrees of intimacy and familiarity, personal familiarity and time together and all the things we have with the people that we love and the people that we're friends with. As opposed to the kind of feelings of confidence and bonding that get generated either over calls like this or in an economy where you're at the other end of a transaction or you're in an election and you're voting or you're just watching somebody on a video and deciding whether to vote for them. Confidence feels much more accurate to me in terms of my emotional resonance to the way I relate as a human being to a larger scale entity. But I just wanted to start the discussion with those two comments. Thank you, anyone else? Yeah, let's go ahead. Yeah. Hi, everyone. Carlos here for the first time on Genesis Call. Thanks, Jerry, for the invitation. And one little thing that I never thought of, but in Spanish, the word that we use both for trust and confidence is the same word. And which is confidence. So I never thought of that, but that actually makes a lot of sense. I'm actually trying to write an essay about sort of how trust is evolving. And I keep using the word confianza to sort of hint at both concepts that you're talking about, Chris. So I'd add that. And by the way, I just posted a link of an article that I read on a Swiss magazine a few months ago. And this woman, Aries Bonnet, I think that's how her name is pronounced. She was, she talks about how when it comes to, she talks about how the difference between loss aversion, sort of how we prefer to not lose versus to gain things. That's sort of how we're wired as humans because in the past when we were living in the caves, losing was very much riskier than losing now. And she talks how we're actually, so let's say you may take a gamble if you think that you have a 55% chance of winning from the gamble. But when it comes to people, if I say somebody may pay you back some money with a 55% chance of possibility, most people would say, no, we need a much higher percent of success. If somebody's gonna pay us back, then we need from just a gamble in a casino. And she calls this betrayal aversion. So what it says is that we don't like being cheated. We're okay with things going wrong, but we're much more careful of not being cheated. So the concept of fairness now becomes, when it comes to trust, it's not a matter of only being confident something's gonna work or not. It's like, is somebody taking advantage of me? Is there some sort of manipulation here which I think plays a big part on the cold government conversation? And I just posted links to Iris's Wikipedia page and a piece she wrote about betrayal aversion, which is interesting. So there is an example that we probably all see every day of exactly how dependent we are on and how much we embrace trust of each other in very, you know, in literally life or death situations. Drive a car down the street and you have a multi-ton vehicle, multi-ton weapon under your control as does everybody else. And you trust that the people driving the other direction who will collide head on with you are not going to because of a line painted in the road. I mean, just think about that for a second. We trust that because there's a line there people are going to drive properly and they do, by and large they do. But there's an interesting phenomena that seems to be emerging. And I was talking to an engineer at Daimler-Benns about this. With the emergence of self-driving cars, one of the things that they're actually very concerned about is essentially people taking advantage of the combination of supernatural reflexes and total awareness on the part of self-driving cars and essentially bullying them. So I'm driving and I make a left turn and I don't, if there's a self-driving car coming, I don't care because I know that it will move out of the way because, you know, it's this super powerful robot that will do that, you know, not just- And we know that the owner of the self-driving car will be sued into oblivion because it will make the news because they will do any, it will be driving more conservatively so I have right of way, despite the laws. So as human drivers, suddenly we have, if not permission, at least the permissive space to act in a way that would violate that trust that we have in other human drivers. And so it's an interesting example of a technology that makes us safer that has the potential to encourage bad behavior. No, totally. It's the first time that something like that has happened but it's an interesting manifestation of it. It's interesting too because one of the inspirations for my coming up with this relationship economy idea is a Dutch guy named Hans Monderman who helped invent traffic calming. I interviewed him, excuse me, in 2006 and he took me on a walking and a driving tour through Drachten in the Netherlands. One of 140 towns across the Netherlands that he helped re-engineer. He basically helped them redesign the streets and intersections thoughtfully. And traffic calming is all about eye contact between drivers and pedestrians and bicyclists and motorcyclists at places where they cross, where they might touch. And part of what he does is make the street very readable. He removes stop lights. He affordances and laws that are meant to make you slow down don't actually work, he says, and I agree. But a road that appears to be kind of narrow where there's a cafe with people actually eating cake right by the roadside or a children's playground will make you slow down because you know that people will be hurt unless you slow down. And so the big conundrum right now is I believe that self-driving cars are coming faster not slower and how do you make eye contact with a self-driving car? You don't, right? So very likely through logic like what Jame just presented, there might be ordinances in the inner cities. Just like today we have, I forget what they're called, high traffic zones or whatever, like in London, it's very expensive to transit through the city during business hours. They may in fact pass laws that only self-driving cars are allowed in different parts of civilization and that may eat its way out much like non-smoking zones have eaten their way across the world. It could be, you know, if you really like stick shift driving right now, get a lot of driving in because it could be illegal where you are. Unless you're outside of the cities in which case who cares, how's it going to go? But I'm sad because that moment of taking back human interaction and making eye contact at intersections and reducing the accident rate which is what happens when you do that is going to go away. We will miss that opportunity because technology will hijack it. And I think a lot of that's where you're at. You gotta add a cultural component to that Jerry. I mean it probably reduces accidents in Holland. Reduces accidents everywhere. People say American drivers are too stupid. Go ahead. No, they behave differently. New Jersey is the case in point, right? Because New Jersey has unique driving rules and one is the first left always gets right away. But another, the Jersey jump, right? Everybody out of a stop sign left goes first. And then another is that at the Jersey circles if you make eye contact, you have to give way. And so you don't make eye contact. You mean that's a norm? Yeah, I mean there are perverse norms in different places. Jersey also has jug handle intersections which are really, really weird too. Well, they do lots of merging. And so the idea that if you make eye contact just means you've lost the game. That's really funny. You know, Jerry, thinking about your overall big idea of what does trust in our era or a message about trust in our era mean and listening to Jame and Carlos. Carlos, you made me think of, and when you talked about cheating, what is the opposite of trust? And what does it mean to live in an environment of real distrust and just distrust even adequately express what it means to have the opposite of trust? And Jame, you made me think of different societies, ones that have highly articulated norms and degrees of trust like in Japan and others where there's simply chaos. And what it made me think of is the simple common sense idea that trust and or confidence is hard to build and easy to lose. That's something that I've found in life is just a profound experience of trust and confidence. And because it's so hard to build and takes continuous time and effort and because it is so easy to lose as trust scales into confidence in government, there are real issues about how easy it is to break social capital and depletes. Social capital and how hard it is to build it. And what does it even mean? I mean, how much social capital are we destroying right now in the United States? Just living through this era, right? How do you measure that? These are really profound questions. Absolutely. I mean, just look at Kevin Spacey a month ago and Kevin Spacey today. You know, the whole Harvey Weinstein fiasco and the sort of layers upon layers upon layers of trust issues that are bubbling to the surface because of all of that. Hartley, for me, one of the biggest interesting questions is if in so many of these cases, everybody knew but nobody acted, what's going on? What's our responsibility? How can we actually stop doing that and fix these problems before they have to fester to the point where we're seeing sort of large scale efforts now to regain some of this land? Go ahead, Mike. I just wanted to... Your volume is very low, Mike. I just wanted to introduce a quick example of how this actually works in practice, right there at a hard corporate level. So I had somebody stay at my house and visit my Airbnb guest, who was a super expert in marketing and he was actually working with the head marketing team, a very large multinational and they were looking at a number of projects that they could do to try and boost their revenue share across a particular geography, okay? And what they had, they had a list of like 15 different ideas that they had and what they could do, right? He said the first thing that they did, the first thing that they did to prioritize the list was to look at, sorry, was to look at how much IT would have to be involved in any of the given initiatives, right? Seriously? Yeah, and the ones which had the biggest dependency on IT went straight to the bottom of the list, okay? Well, that seems like a good decision-making rule. But the point was, and it curiously enough, it was an organization I had worked at actually trying to introduce a pilot system for a new departure. And it was blocked at every turn. And the IT department, absolutely, if you ever wanted to see homeostasis of a silo in an organization of work, this was it. Yeah. There was. Now, it was never gonna happen, not in a million years. Have you? And they threw away at least five million years of work, finally canceling this thing. And that, but fundamentally that was actually all about trust, it was absolutely about trust. Right. And the organization was one which prided itself on its advanced culture, on how highly it respected all the individuals' rights, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah. But the actual values in actual practice, no. So have you read the Phoenix Project? Have I read the Phoenix Project? I just typed it into the chat. It's a derivative book of the goal. The Phoenix Project is a novel about IT, believe it or not. And it's actually pretty good. It's not Faulkner, but it actually describes a mid-level IT guy who suddenly becomes the CIO because the other guy gets fired and the CEO drags him into the middle of a highly dysfunctional organization where there's no trust. And it's the story of progressive disclosures that sort of explains what DevOps is, modern DevOps, and how to get on top of feature requests and how to change everything. So it's really an IT novel. But I think a lot of people reading it at companies like the client company you're talking about might actually help. It might sort of open up their perspective and open up interesting conversations there. Who knows? I actually think what's involved here, what was involved was actually like fundamentally the organization was running on fear. And you could, you could actually introduce as much... It could be much deeper. Yeah. You wanted to, but if you weren't dealing, you weren't going to deal with the fear, then nothing was going to happen. Cool. Hi, guys. Sorry I was cloaking myself for a while because I really have to do a lot. I wanted to just throw into the mix something that's been bubbling up in movement organizing circles lately, which is the idea that you can only build real movements at the speed of trust. And what people are trying to say is, it takes time. You simply cannot build strong political organizations in a rush. And that too much of what we are building these days is weak because the internet gives you a very fast boost. And so you get to scale really fast, but actually the leaders don't know each other there's no real bonds between members and that this requires time and unfortunately nobody feels like they have time. But if you make it a rule that you have to take the time to build strong trusting relationships, then I see it here in what we are doing at Civic Hall, then when a hot button issues surfaces and somebody uses the wrong language and the call out culture jumps in of people attacking each other because, oh, you're not as woke as you should be. It can be done in a framework where, oh, but I still am your friend and we're trying to struggle through this together. And what seems to be happening in an accelerated way in virtual space is that these conversations don't heal. They actually get worse. We have platforms that just make us more likely to distrust each other and more likely to call out each other and more likely to be triggered. So this idea of building at the speed of trust I think is really, really important and it's a building block to what you're trying to do to Jerry. The juxtaposition of talking about call out culture and then also talking, and Jerry previously mentioned Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and the like, that actually illustrates or underscores an important element of the trust relationships in broader society, at least in the West or the US, that have built up over the years. If somebody had called out Kevin Spacey or Harvey Weinstein five years ago, they would have been obliterated socially because of the power that Spacey and the Weinstein, et cetera, have in society. It's only recently that that... Oh, you mean the caller outer would have been obliterated? Yes. Sorry, I thought you meant the other way around. I was ambiguous. The person who was calling out who was saying, hey, Harvey Weinstein raped me was not going to get... There were many attempts over the years. There were stories squelched. There were spies hired. We've read the stories. It's incredible. And so I think we need to be conscious of the fact that trust is... Sometimes I trust that I will be harmed if I behave in a certain way, but not I trust that I will be listened to. And that is something that seems to be changing slowly, grudgingly, fitfully. But I think it's important to recognize that call out culture exists for a reason because for a long time, people weren't listened to. The comments on your comments, Jimé, and the comments on the speed of trust were about another example, Mike, and the corporate world. Probably, is everyone here on the call familiar with the Volkswagen scandal, the software? Dieselgate. What I've been reading is the forensics on that scandal show this moment, which apparently was actually documented where at very senior levels of Volkswagen, one of the executives that was involved in the decision about how to actually respond basically just said out loud, we just have to decide, are we going to be honest? And that, to me, just expressed so much about humanity and how it relates to brand and how brand relates to trust and celebrity. And as I was thinking about the speed of the movements at the speed of trust, the thing you can do to... It's easy to destroy trust, but there are no real shortcuts, but there are some shortcuts in the sense that there are trusted brands and trusted people who spend lifetimes is building reputations. Shakespeare's one of famous quotes is the purest treasure of mortal times of forest, spotless reputation. And it made me think of what you could do differently to change the speed of trust, whether it's in a movement or in a brand rollout, as you bring in people who have very high amounts of trust and how that can change the speed of trust. I don't know the answer, but I think it fundamentally can. If you have the right people involved, you can accelerate. Can you accelerate the speed of trust? I don't know. What do you think? Can I add another element that you asked before, Chris, about sort of what is the opposite of trust I think of when trust becomes mistrust? I think a lot about how trust basically has to have an element of faith, which means living in an outcome without absolute evidence. Like no one trusts in gravity or trusts in that if I go into the right, I'm going to get wet, we just know it. It's a certainty. So when we trust, it means there's an element that is like, well, I trust you, but maybe you disappoint me. And I think the problem, I think where I agree with Micah, is that you to build trust, there has to be like little gambles, little tests, little experiments where you sort of start showing me the evidence to have bigger and bigger trust in you. That's why we date in romantic areas or we have interviews in the work life. So I think there's, as long as, I think we're sort of letting, forgetting that we are fundamentally limited biologically, like there's all this like the number number and how many people we can trust, how many people we can be familiar with. And the reason I think, I mean, I think a lot also about why we lose trust. Like it takes a lifetime to build, but one mistake to lose it was because before, like I said before, if you were mistaken in who you trusted, it could have potentially deadly consequences. We became very careful about not trusting against somebody that can disappoint us. So if you add the biological limitations of how many people we can trust, the fact that we need a lot of evidence to before we can make bigger and bigger trust. And I think the other elements that we're so bombarded now, technologically I think it's not just, like there's so many attempts to get our attention and therefore trust in all those different directions that I think it gets really hard to, I think it's actually going to get harder. It's going to get harder to develop trust because of technology than it used to before. Because before I think you were, you were sort of limited geographically to what or who you would consider trusting, right? We didn't have free worldwide communications. Yeah, like Jerry and I met like twice in our lives, and I never met any of you, but this is already like a much bigger world than it was than it is just me being in Buenos Aires, I'm in Argentina. So I think this is why I, what Miha said, I think it's even, probably going to be an even stronger factor. Let me weave together a couple of threads. Miha, what you asked is a beautiful question. What I'd love to do is set up a separate Rex call around the question and invite in a couple of people who might be able to talk about it and shed some light on the subject. So let's put that on the schedule for just Rex calls and give it some more time and some more room to breathe. Chris, you mentioned earlier about the words trust versus confidence. And just a couple of thoughts on that. Sometimes I define words more narrowly than other people do. So like the word community, a lot of people say, oh yeah, community, I'm influenced a bit here by Scott Peck, who wrote the different drum, which is about community building. And for me, communities are usually groups that have been, that have had a little trial by fire of some sort, which, and I can go deeper into sort of Peck's ideas about this, but I tended to find actual true communities more narrowly than other people do. In case of trust, I think my definition might be really broad because I want a really large umbrella or bucket or tub to hold all these ideas in. And because when you say we're exploring trust, everybody's like, oh yeah, everybody has an idea and you'd be shocked at how few people, maybe you wouldn't be shocked, how few people have actually thought about it in any depth. So trust actually opens all the right doors because we talk about blockchain and Bitcoin as the trustless systems. I'm like, really? That doesn't make any sense to me. We talk about money as a form of trust at a distance and totally between strangers. So I still, I like the framing of trust for the broader thing, but I totally understand what you're saying or I partially understand what you're saying about confidence. And if Kamala Forch were on the call, he'd be talking about sort of warmth and competence as ways of gaining trust. One of them, I'm a big fan of Brene Brown and her whole notion of vulnerability as the path to authentic connection and joy. I think vulnerability is interesting because I did a little exercise I did in Sydney, Australia. I was working with a Sun Corp an insurance company there and I invented a tiny exercise. What I did was gave everybody post-its and said, okay, put yourself in the role of a corporate executive. What does the word vulnerability mean to you? And everybody was like, you know, danger, damage, weakness, et cetera, et cetera. And we put all those post-its up and talked about it for a while. What does the word vulnerability mean to you? And its intimacy and closeness and proximity. And then we compared the two little word clouds on post-its. And it was really, really interesting. And we have such different notions of what works at the organizational scale and what works at the personal scale. And I think one of the things that's happened is that the distance that used to protect corporations and large organizations that let them lord over us and tell us what to do has just broken down and gone away. And organizations need to show up as peers in the arena now. And they don't know what that means. They don't get it. They have antiquated ways of communicating with us by bombarding us with messages, you know, all that kind of stuff. So it's a whole bunch of dynamics. Go ahead, Chris. That makes sense to me, Jerry. I think that if you start to develop it not so much as a bucket, but as a spectrum, and I'm almost thinking I'm visualizing it like a two by two matrix where, you know, one axis is the spectrum that Carlos has sort of set up for us of, you know, distrust to, you know, low trust to high trust or low confidence to high confidence or low confidence to high trust. And the other is scale. I feel like Carlos, you've almost, you've led us to the $64,000 question, which is that as the world gets more complex and we get more at risk of ruining it, you know, whether it's through climate change or depleting social capital or poverty or inequality or a lot of the major global issues we're facing, can real confidence scale? Can governance mechanisms scale effectively to generate very large scale focused movement on major issues? And it's almost a call out to the innovators of the world like what does the state of the art and trust innovation mean? You know, at the human level, the technology level. It's a really big question. If we are putting as much energy into trust innovation as we're putting into, you know, biotechnology. And apps. Yeah, would that make a difference in the governance systems we need and how we interact with one another? I think it's profound. I just like the way you talk about Carlos. So the three words that have killed more interesting projects that I've seen are it won't scale. Partly, the softer stuff we're talking about trust is a lot about human relationships. And it's one of the softer skills. It's one of the more feminine attributes I think in relations and relationships. And it scares people off. So a lot of trust frameworks do scale. It's just that they don't appear to scale. They're fractal in scale. They work at different scales and sort of come up together. But when analytically minded executives look at them, they're like, well, that won't scale. So we're not even going to try that. And it's very interesting. So Sheila Foster, the woman I just interviewed a week ago, she's using a concept called polycentric governance that comes out of some of the work that Eleanor Ostrom did at University of Indiana. And it's basically how do you do multi-layered governance mechanisms so that authority and control devolves to the people closest to a commons, for example. But that requires these sort of sets of nested relationships. And by the way, this is the kind of conversation we'll probably also have on Tuesday next when we're talking about Holochain, because the architecture of Holochain lends itself really nicely to this multi-layered, multi-faceted polycentric governance. That notion just sort of clicked together. Those two ideas just clicked together in my head right now. I hadn't thought about that as part of Tuesday, but it is. It's part of what's going on here. So there's a whole sort of bucket of issues here. Estie, would you like to open? I would. I'm feeling myself called to make a version of a statement I've been making a lot recently, which Jerry, you've heard. I love these distinctions between trust and confidence and this notion of betrayal avoidance versus loss. Because betrayal is a social word. And I'd like to propose that in the spirit of Jerry narrowing ideas that we confine trust or we use trust to describe that emergent phenomenon because it always emerges from the doing of things. That is a social phenomenon. That is people assessing and seeing into one another. We are wired to do this. We are wired to do it very quickly with direct contact. I think it's the reason why nested relationships and polycentric governance happen. So for me, we tend to use trust or have been in these conversations of scale in which trust becomes some sort of quantity, some sort of stock that is being built when, in fact, it is a descriptor of an emergent social phenomenon. And the speed of trust is both almost instantaneously. And I often cite the amazing thing of women meeting each other largely around a round table or especially around a small round table. And the true trust at the most deep levels of what Benet Brown calls vulnerability emerges astoundingly with a little back and forth and you watch that process. So anyway, plead for trust is only a social phenomenon. It is what happens as a result of social interaction for which the human being and other social beings are wired to accomplish in complex and glorious ways, which also detect danger when they start breaking down. Of course they do, Ray. That was a really wise statement and what it made me think was both a balancing statement to Jerry's point and something that I was thinking about the emergent phenomenon that I think trust, you think about soldiers going into battle, it's just as much a masculine issue as it is for a feminine issue. And if you look at how much we fight in this society in particular, we've got a fighter for a president, we fight each other in the battlefields and trust sets up barriers between us and them as an emergent phenomenon in groups, just as much as it brings people together. As you were talking, I was getting chills because there's just so many ways the issue cuts. That's right. And let me say, I think, summoning up the experience that even those of us who haven't been in battle with brethren because it turns out to feel like siblings. That's the image of women around the small table and fighting troops who were truly a troop are both easy to sum up and carry equally. Go ahead, Dave. I was, Jerry and I talked about this a little while back, but I went back and read through the Robert Axel wrote paper on tit for tat, like repeated game competition stuff. Everybody's familiar with that. But I was thinking about it in terms of the Trump election because I think Trump's election represents the last play of a multiple-play game. And so the Trump administration will have to basically steal as many chips off the table as they possibly can because they don't get to play the next game. But it has other implications. And one of the things that Axel wrote and talked about that I didn't think about was basically the multiple-play game that's tit for tat phenomena looks like trust. The winning outcome is to just do what the last person did. And as long as you're cooperating and you continue to cooperate and everything works fine and the outcomes are the highest level, that looks like trust. And so I wondered, I was thinking about the spectrum idea and I think there's a spectrum from kind of low cost to high cost trust. So the things that I can do automatically because I just know I'm going to get my, I'm not going to get ripped off at the 7-Eleven. I'm not going to get run over at the intersection. I'm not going to get pushed onto the subway tracks. Those are kind of low cost trust situations. And then there's a set of high cost trust situations where I have to be actively engaged. Am I going to be cheated on craziness? And I think one of the strategies that has to be moving, we want to move more interactions from the high cost realm into the low cost realm. It seems like we probably could come up with rules around how to increase trust. One would be how do we make the multiple play, how do we make the interactions more regular and make them happening easier so that they were just used to that kind of behavior. So then we don't have to put as much effort into them. And I think one of the sides of that has to be we talk about trust, but really the issue is from our perspective, trustworthiness. So in the MiW case, the issue is what they were trying to decide was are we going to be trustworthy. If I'm honest, I'm trustworthy. If I'm dishonest, I shouldn't be trusted. I'm going to try to get away with it. So I think that as we think about strategies, there are actually some things we could start to break out. Kelly. It just occurs to me that we are transitioning in some sectors from this idea of the zero-sum game to this idea of abundance. And I have not spent enough time thinking about it, but how do we shift the narrative? Because if what you're doing is playing a zero-sum game and you think that I have to lose in order for you to win, then that's a total erosion. You have no reason to be in a trust relationship. And so many things now function on an abundance model that we have to figure out what the ego food is for the people who really are into playing the zero-sum game. How do we change the narrative to get everyone involved in playing the same game where we're doing better together? Kelly, have you ever heard of a book called Infinite and Finite Games? James Kars. James Kars wrote this book. It's a beautiful little volume and it's really to your point. He basically, his message in the book is there are at least two types of games, finite games, zero-sum and infinite games where the goal is to get as many players as possible. But the real, I think his ultimate point is that the art of life and work and business is really most of the time to try to figure out which games you need to play with. And that's a really challenging thing to do in leadership and teamwork. When do you play the infinite game? When do you play the finite game? You have to play them both almost all the time because there are always zero-sum competitions in life. It's not an either or abundance versus zero-sum. It's actually when do you do which and can you be good at both? And then things move is his point. It's interesting because we have a series of cultural narratives that we've been sold, in my belief, that put us in this conflict combat scarcity situation. This is not how early humans worked and that it behooves a lot of interests, whether it's Wall Street or whoever, to have us in this particular way. And if you're in the middle of a consumerist society where everybody's job is to buy more stuff and if we stop buying stuff, the GDP stops growing and growth is our objective and profit maximization is what all the corporations are supposed to do and sort of luxury maximization is what all the individuals are supposed to do. All of that works together and hangs together as a system. It's just that it's very destructive for everything and everyone in the system. But we are up to our nostrils today in that system and there's a whole lot of organizations who've made noble efforts to change the measurement systems for how companies are rewarded like Triple Bottom Line, Tomorrow's Company and a bunch of other things. The measurement systems for how we look at global wealth and well-being like the Genie Index and a bunch of others. None of these have broken through. And so this is a very big narrative behind everything that we'll talk about in the relationship economies. This is the current context and it's hot and it's live and it's already eaten everything and the question is what kinds of messages will break us into the world of abundance that we're thinking about into authentic relationships at multi-scale levels. Things of that nature. I want to poke in here with the thought that relationship does not require abundance. In fact, we often see the strongest relationships between people who are dealing with situations that are the opposite of abundance. So I get worried that we tag trust because it's of increasing social value to us to some sense of progress in the world on other economic bases that are really not orthogonal but not the same. Totally different kind. And also the casting behavior as games is part of that. I think one of the things that I learned from watching the actual gaming industry evolve is learning that the goal of most games, which is the goal of life, is to keep playing. That's the infinite game. Right, is to keep the game right. And we never actually know, right, what game we're playing, which is the right strategy, etc. And yet, and we do know kind of who's with us or what feels right, or there's an inter socially mediated system that is the, I think it's really the only reliable mechanism we have, right? You always have you in relationship to other people or the world around you. I want to expand a little bit on what I think was one of the warnings you just gave. And I have no idea why Alexa thinks I just talked with her. And that is that I'm really leery of mathematical, scientific explanations of trust and all that. Sort of like tit for tat and so forth. And I get it that game theory has always frustrated me because it seemed like a really male thing to go do. And the experiments were always artificial and there was almost never an ongoing relationship between the parties in any game theory experiment. Like if you had to live with that person in community for the rest of your days, would you still have done the same thing, right? Which is kind of the big question, right? It's one of the huge questions here. And I appreciate things like the Dunbar number, which is if you go and look at tribes around the world, they tend to do pretty well up to about 150 and then they split into two tribes or whatever. Observationally, they're interesting. I don't want to cautious against over-sciencing this and take it back to the felt things. And Estee, thank you for untangling abundance from relationship and trust and all that. I think I tend to think of all these issues as belonging together, but you're right in some cases they don't belong together in the same bucket. But we're also trying to find our way out of these scripts and these narratives that are the opposite of what we're talking about here. Jermaine, go ahead. It's funny. How many of you have ever played Dungeons & Dragons? And trust me, this is connected. Okay. Dungeons & Dragons is connected to everything, right? Yes. I first started playing back in the 70s. Okay. Back at a time when it was even more marginal a hobby than it is today. It was a game where the point was to beat each other or to defeat each other or to win. The point of it as a game was to continue. It was my first brush with an infinite game. And trying to begin with a game that was very difficult to explain to people what D&D was because it was a game, but it wasn't a game where the point was to beat it. It wasn't a game where the point was to beat each other or to defeat each other or to win. Trying to, beginning to see that distinction of a game where you're trying to win, where you're putting sorry each other, versus a game where the point is to tell a story together. And that actually, that strikes me as a much, as a better metaphor for where we are going. If you want to talk about a game, game is a metaphor for where we're going. Games where the point is to tell a mutual story to try to challenge each other, not by I'm going to defeat you, but by I'm going to make things interesting for you. And you're going to make things interesting for me. And I wonder, I wonder if people who grew up playing these kinds of open-ended role-playing games have a different approach to social interactions and business interactions, and people who grew up playing monopoly and risk and other kinds of endpoint winning games. You know the backstory of the monopoly game? Yes. Yeah. It was usually originally called the Landlord's Game. It was a gorgeous idea, and it was trying to show how stupid and terrible capitalism was. And ironically, it gets co-opted and turned into the Parker Brothers game about the rich white guy. Peter, go ahead. I think we have to be mindful that we don't get trapped in our own game. Because we seem to like the spectrum from infinite to finite to infinite games. But what if the trustful relationship is a game, is a relationship where there is no game? Yeah, but finite, but also not an infinite game. So the more critical question may be what is a high-quality human connection? And Tom, in our other conversations, he came up with a quite sharp phrase to define a high-quality connection, saying it's a connection where information transfer is rapid, reliable, and noise-free. And I would like to expand a little bit on the noise-free part, because the noise-free is about humans. It's about human noise, whether you take noise as a positive or negative element. But as long as we are in finite games, and Jonathan Hayth has written a whole book about this, about basically human motivations. It's about motivations about reciprocity, about power, about entitlement, about that sort of thing. But the high-quality human relation needs something more than the freedom of noise. And that's where we get into other qualities, which are it's not about games, it's about showing care, showing tradition, showing craftsmanship, beauty, proportion, sacredness, that sort of thing. It's not about games, whether they're finite or infinite. Peter, were you finished? Well, I was going to add one thing, because in Jerry's, was it the key, levers or the key points of Rex were six points social? The six forces of the relationship economy. Free, open, social, abundant, emergent, and thriveable. Yeah. Write them down in the chat. Yes. And I know that the thriveable is split into more pieces, but if I read the material of Jean Russell about thriveable, she's talking about coherence, about coherence amongst three things. It's coherence between narrative, between motives and governance. So I like the earlier part in our conversation where we talked about the multi-layered approach, whether it's at the company level or at the family level or even at society level. So what are the elements of narrative motives and governance that we have to apply in those different areas to reach high quality relationships? And I like the emphasis on narrative. Estie, you were going to jump in. That was exactly what I was going to jump in on, right? And sorry, Peter, for misinterpreting. I would like to propose that we define relationship or that we understand that a relationship is a budding narrative or it is an instant narrative. It calls for a narrative, right? It's established by a little bitsy narrative of that initial creation of the relationship and that it defaults to continuing because this is the fundamental way in which we care for, raise, feed, build organizations and products with and do all the other things we as humans do in our societies. So it's kind of in the middle of the spectrum as you have to frustrate it in order to diminish relationship in life because it naturally arises and then it happens as a narrative which is inherently unpredictable, right? And the more people in that narrative, the more emergent that that narrative is. So for me, the notion of narrative and our ability and our design to really process things through narrative which is not just the Hollywood encyclopedia of narratives but we make sense through narrative that trust relationship and narrative are all an assumption of default emergence and persistence. So in some ways, I know as a, at the point in life in which I sat down and was able to start thinking, asking myself the question, what is it that I as an engineer, technologist, et cetera, community leader, mother, et cetera, as a woman, what is my experience of life? It is that it is a set of responses to a set of commitments which are relationships. Which comprise my identity. So there you have it. I'll shut up. That's brilliant. Let's pause for 30 seconds, Carlos, and then go back in because we've been talking hot and heavy for over an hour and that was, you just encapsulated a bunch of really good stuff there that has me thinking and I feel like interrupting and taking us elsewhere, but let's just hold on for a second and we'll go back to Carlos. Carlos, the floor is yours. Thank you. Okay, bear with me. I can't, this competition is amazing and there's so many thoughts and I'm trying to put it together and I'm one of those people that learns to, understands what he's trying to say as he says it. So bear with me here. But I think one of the elements that, I'm a, yeah, I'm a verbal thinker. One of the elements that, you know, this thing of narrative and trust, when we're talking about the Harvey Weinstein thing and the Kevin Spacey thing and all these like scandals of different companies and whatever, one of the good things of technology, if we channel it right, is that the price, like it's much harder now to get away with life. And that sort of forces all of us to actually have to have the same narrative. One of the words that I've been thinking about, like why is hypocrisy a bad thing? Why are we bothered by hypocrisy? And after a lot of thinking, my theory is that we are bothered by people that want to have two narratives. Like you don't get to have two narratives. No one gets to have two narratives. You don't get to say something to the world and be that to us, but in your own life be something else. We are all, we only get, we all get just one life and one narrative. And I think we all expect the world, everybody to sort of earn whatever narrative they have. And so when, because of the transparency of connectivity, I think it's not that people are going to be nicer because all we're biologically better, it's just that transparency makes you have to stick to one narrative and be coherent, which is the word that Peter said that blew my mind because it's that word that sort of, I think technology is sort of forcing us to be more coherent together. We can't just sort of be, you know, this of course has a bad part, which is well now there's no, you know, so much privacy and intimacy. There's a lot of bad things about it. But in terms of trust or in terms of coherence and all of us acting together, this may be one of the good things of it. Just to wrap it up, there's this book to sell is human by Dan Pink, sort of a popular writer. And to sell as human, I really like because I do believe that we're all in sales and somewhere another, even though the word is, has one connotations or whatever, but a lot of sales is about earning someone trust and showing that you have the other person's best interest in your offer or whatever you're trying to promote. And his point in the book is that the reason why sales has changed is not so much because salespeople now are nicer, is because there's so much more information for the buyer now. So the feel is much more even. So you better be honest because I can just read someone's reviews. I can talk to somebody, you know, I can do competition. I can find who worked in the past. And so people are sort of, we're sort of systematically pushed to be more transparent, more trustworthy if I lie, someone's going to find out. And so I guess this is one of the good things of it. But just because I think it pushes all, now we all have one narrative and we're all coherent. That's what I like to about this day and Peter said. Interesting. I think that I wish that what you're saying is more true than I see it being in many places. Like Facebook, for example, is the place where mostly you see the good things in people's lives and people are performing a lot. And you don't see the dark side of people's lives except now and then when it breaks through the surface. So I think there's a forcing function here. As you started saying what you just said, I remember that Sherry Turkle, many, many years ago she spoke at PC Forum. We invited her in and she'd written a book called The Second Self. And it was funny because in a side conversation with her, she said, I'm so happy that the online stuff has shown up. This is sort of pre-open internet days. She said, because now my post-modern training in grad school is paying off. And her thesis was kind of that online was going to let us play out all those different aspects of self and that the normal self was the fragmented, distributed self. And I was like, no, that doesn't make any sense to me at all. I get how online is helping us work out aspects of identity with anonymity or pseudonymity in different roles in different places. But my intuition was that the integrated person is probably the healthy person that you might choose to play different roles in different places over time. But it wasn't that this was fragmenting and that that was a good thing, but rather more toward what you just said, which is that we need some concurrence, some coherence, some sort of healing back of our many different kinds of self. And part of what's falling away is the old strictures of, when you went to work, you left yourself at the door. You were your role in the office. And now it's like, it's okay between always-on devices that mean the electronic leash that means you're on call 24-7 and how do we rein that in. But that means that people see that you're at softball practice or you're at the doctor or you're this or you're that. We have much more visibility into one another's lives than I ever thought would be possible in my lifetime. So I think that the whole thing is happening live as we speak and this whole notion of prostruthiness and who can, you know, how many of the people we're interacting with online are bots and how many of them are actually real? All those things are damaging our ability to cohere and come together in the ways you're talking about. I think just to clarify, I think my point is just that I think depending on what you lie about the consequences can be much harsher than before because now there's ways to track almost everything. That makes sense. But over everything else, I completely agree with you. Bestie, go ahead. I also was kind of stiffening at the notion of converging around one narrative or needing one narrative. I think that a key piece of this is recognizing that we are composed of multiple roles and commitments. In fact, you are quite literally a different you in every relationship or taking that out of the one-on-one in every social setting in which you embed yourself and there is sometimes in a completely legitimate, and yes, Jerry says we call this multi-minding, which is my thing. This is completely legitimate in the outside world and in your own experience of yourself where you go, did I just do that? Was I just the manager who... So there are inconsistencies in, call it the games or the techniques or the roles that we're producing in our different contexts. And that's again part of the great glory of being human and of being able now to live lives where we occupy multiple roles at the same time. That can be quite different. So that said, I think there comes a point in life and I think often you can measure this by the point after which you have children where the parent self or the partner self that you are demands to be given at least as big a place, if not a bigger place than some of the other selves you've been and co-hearing them together. But multi-narratives in the same life as a weave of multi-narratives is to me the essential understanding here and relying on our ability to interact with others' narratives and to assess them, which is core social processing. Boy, I'm amazed at the words coming out speaking of... So maybe one of the tests of our times complicated enormously by the online medium and Snapchat, Facebook, what have you in mind is negotiating these different aspects of self and how they're made manifest, how we manage them, all that kind of thing. And maybe tools are missing that would help us organize that or figure it out for ourselves. That's kind of an interesting question. But as people are building identity management platforms and more social media platforms and this and that, I think they would be really smart for these kinds of... the dilemmas of personal narrative, personal aspects of self and how those are manifest as they're layered inside of social, cultural, political narratives and assumptions made about how things work and how everything fits together. I think in many ways many of us are hacking those issues in our professional lives. We have a little machete in hand and we have a little chisel like chisel and sandpaper for the wood or we're trying to carve out that thing that we've been talking about in this conversation in our professional lives so that more people can kind of benefit from it in that way. I could be off but I have a feeling that that's close to some of our missions. We're also getting close to the end of our call time and I wanted to add a couple of things about what we might do. I'm going to send some notes out and create little triplets of members of REX to go kind of meet together on the side, interview each other and fill out profile pages on our REX website which I will send links to online. I'll basically say, here's a couple steps to go through but I'd like us to meet in smaller, in little groups and to have an interesting conversation and then to flesh out some presence for the group of who we are and some of what we're doing. I'd also love it if you can spend five minutes thinking about how this conversation applies to what you're trying to get done in the world and post some of that to the REX list. Just as a reflection on the call, just like, hmm, here's, it can be bite size, it can be a little piece of it that applies or it can be bigger or whatever but if you want to do it just a couple minutes of reflection, it can be a couple paragraphs. It doesn't have to be an essay but if you'd like to take it and put it back on the list I think that would be really helpful because it'll help make concrete for each of us what these things are. And then third, I will start posting also on the list of upcoming REX calls from these sorts of things so I'll get a hold of Micha and schedule something about the topic he was bringing up earlier about the speed of trust but I think there's several kind of interesting call topics in this conversation so if you want to recommend those we can schedule them, post them and see who shows up and keep going as we are. So with all that, are there any kind of wrap up comments from anybody? What would you like to add to today's conversation? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Well I do think that there is a generational component to a lot of this that it's going to be difficult for this particular crowd to address just looking at how much gray is in all of our hair. It's in part because of the technology the experiences with technology in part because we have a tendency to refer to as technology anything that was invented after we turned 12 and so there are a lot of people growing up who don't think of Snapchat or Instagram or mobile phones or whatever as technology they're just there. We don't think of electricity as a technology. Every year the Beloit College puts out their freshman list I'll put a link to it but it's really interesting every year they basically say for the class the incoming class of 2020 America has always been at war. Things like that and they don't know what this is they don't know a world without the Sopranos or they haven't even heard of the Sopranos because it's been canceled longer than they've been old enough to watch anything but it's all these observations about technology culture politics and reading the list every year is a wake up call. You're like oh damn that's right. I gave a talk recently about the idea you've probably heard the term digital natives it's been kicking around for quite some time and it's basically kids grew up with being connected and I think we're heading towards a time of AI natives growing up in a world where everything is responsive and so the point of all this is that the way we conceive of trust especially technologically mediated trust and betrayal may be qualitatively different for people who have grown up with a lot of this stuff and they may have a very different perspective and I would really hope that at some point we get a chance to bring some younger folks in on the conversation to get that perspective. So there are catalysts invited and coming in Carlos is younger than most of us here he's here as a catalyst but there's another half dozen who I need to basically corral to come join us in these conversations and my hope is that they will provide some of that kind of perspective including Zach, Dave's son who's at Minerva. Other closing thoughts? Mark, Todd, you good? Thank you everyone, I really love where that conversation started and where it wandered and where it finished. Same here, I really appreciate it and we will see each other in a month for the regular scheduled call but in between for these other things that I've been talking about so keep tuned and thank you all. Thank you.