 call recorded. This is the build OGM call for Tuesday, December 21, 2021, the winter solstice. So we are, and we figured out that today at 3.29pm, where we live, it's actually the solstice. We didn't call a scientist, we just asked Google. Although it should be pretty good, right? So it's kind of exciting because I'm always happy when the days start getting longer. I'm always sad when we get to the summer solstice. And it's like, no, no, no, stop, stop, stop. Well, yes. So what is the classic sentence? Feliz Diaz Sol Invicti. What is it? Feliz Diaz Sol Invicti. I think I don't have it exactly. But happy day of the unvanquished son. That's right. That's right. The Roman mitraist, the mitraist version. I'm sure we can look that up. Sol Invictus. Yep. There's a festival of the unconquered sun. I've never heard of this. This is good. Thank you. Here we go. Sol Invictus. It just keeps saying Sol Invictus, but it doesn't give me the full saying. So Feliz Diaz, Natalis Solis Invicti. Natalis, okay. Sorry, I had to look for it. I should know this better. Oops. Thanks. That's the beginning of the Saturnalia in classic Rome. There we go. Feliz Diaz, Natalis Solis Invicti. Huh. Very straight. Cool. Do you want to talk a little bit about the cultural article without my having read it? Or should we just skip until some of the time? Because I'm interested and I'd love your sort of preview or take. Okay. Basically, he's making a generic argument and I don't know how much I want to go into details because I'd have to review it a bit myself. That we have this basic instinct that given this information, more information is more and that people should research all the pros and cons and decide. And he gives a few examples where more information is actually confusing and good heuristics are better than research. He gives actually a very good example on choosing a house and how much should we spend for a house and calculate incomes and expenses and yadda, yadda, yadda. And he says basically this is a good way to get into using bias. Oh, I will be able to let go of that expense. No, you won't. Or not taking into account this or not taking into account that because you want to think you have more income than you do. And you know, there's a rule of thumb, don't spend more than 28% of your gross income on the house. And this is actually better heuristics because there's less of that using your own, your own bias, your own instant judgment, which is really violent. Giger-Enzer rationality for mortals, risks and rules of thumbs. And he's using, he's been pushing this SIFT method for quickly knowing the origin of a claim and quickly evaluating a claim by just looking at where does it come from as opposed to doing all the research about it. And he does show that basically students who spend more time researching kind of the logic of the claim end up like if they do it a little bit, it works really well. And if they do it a lot, they get into information overload and maybe this and maybe that. And it's hard to weigh the relative importance of the various counter arguments and the relative value of the various pro and con arguments. And that was a very interesting point. Like we get all these, oh yes, but this, but that, but this, but that. And it's like, okay, which ones are just a but, that is, you know, somebody said this versus, you know, this is researched and there's a meta study or whatever, right? And he's saying asking people to be scientists is totally overkill. And asking people to research more is provably counterproductive. Finding more arguments has been shown to be counterproductive, as opposed to the very, very simple step of, okay, where does this come from? Is it, does it show up in reliable sources? Does it show up in blah, blah, blah, which has its own flaws, right? I mean, we all know that reliable sources are their own echo chambers and this and that. It's not that simple. But he's saying it's a much better heuristic than doing the research and being flooded. And certainly I've been, you know, trying to, me and many people in our circle, we're trying to help people see the whole picture. And this notion that seeing the whole picture could be detrimental is definitely something I think we need to address. I don't think it means let's not show the whole picture. But is there a way to contextualize it so that we can help people not be overwhelmed by the multiplicity of pros and cons, which is certainly infinite, right? Right, right. And we select evidence to prove our case. You know, we have a whole bunch of biases. What was the SIFT methodology you were just talking about? Yeah, he's been setting up a methodology. Okay, let me let me just do a link dump, because I think the easiest thing I can do. So Zoom chat, chat, chat. Thank you. So this is a link dump. So the first link is just literacy for mortals. The second one is another note about that thing and why he thought about it. The next one is the Liberal Reading, Canada, Civic Study. That is a big study with tons of schools in Canada where they used his methodology for helping people do information literacy. Then there's... This is Caulfield's methodology of SIFT. Okay. Yeah. And webliteracypressbook.com is the kind of little booklet he wrote about the methodology. The Civic Study, the Canadian Civic Study also has interesting, like they've got another version of another packaging of it in terms of lessons and a real program around it. And then there's articles about, by Caulfield, as he elaborated this, so you get a bit more of the history. So those would be the last links. So this is really my link dump about this. That's awesome. Thank you. And super interesting because he's trying really hard to make us smarter by stepping carefully through the ways we think we make ourselves smarter and saying, that one? Not so much. And try this instead and how about the system to step through things and all of that? It's really, really interesting. And also this is a way of fighting the endless, recursive unpacking of trying to be explicit about everything and trying to map everything and trying to be complete because that's never-ending. And this is maybe a way to... I don't know that this is a way to cut your... to logic your way through arguments or to find your way to better conclusions. It doesn't sound like a reasoning system, but it sounds like an evidentiary system. I'm kind of making this up as I think about it. Yeah. I'm just... Yeah. And I ended up yesterday chasing a little rabbit hole around the Margaret Mead controversy. I didn't realize how controversial she was, but... So there's this guy Freeman. So let me go back to my brain and find the... Mead Freeman controversy. Here's the link in the book Coming of Agent Samoa, which is her first famous work when she was 27 years old. She comes back from Samoa and writes Coming of Agent Samoa, which apparently motivates feminism in a whole bunch of things because it says, hey, there's young people in Samoa who have sexual freedom and this and that and the other. And then this guy Freeman who worked in Samoa as well says, nope, it's all bullshit. What happened was she got tricked by two of her... What do you call them? Informants. Informants. Thank you. Perfect. Which is just the worst word to use for that, but still, especially given World War II. But she got tricked by two of her informants who were just pulling her tail and pulling her leg. That's the actual expression. And then I read this Scientific American article by John Horgan that says, forget about Freeman's critique. He was a crazy guy. He was like a loon. And in fact, Mead was much more subtle about her research and more thoughtful. And if you go look at what she did over time, she was really, really good at this. And she put out a couple of fires. There was one point late in her career where a different research paper was really controversial and people were kind of cancel culture-ish about it. And she was like, no, that would be a book burning. Let's not do that. Let's slow down and talk about this. So he defends Margaret. And I'm like, I had no idea this was all happening. Yeah. I'm very interesting. I would read more about that specific controversy. And it's not impossible. She got that wrong. But I have no doubt that she's one of the smartest women in that age. Here's the Horgan article. I just pasted it in. One thing, by the way, I was really, really happy while reading The Dawn of Everything. I'm not done yet. But how much he sends us back to the notion of schismogenesis, which is originally a Bateson. And I think a Bateson need idea, right? I think so. I don't know. I've got it under Bateson only, but that doesn't mean anything. Entropology. No, developed by Bateson. Okay. So maybe it's Bateson only. Yeah. And it's interesting. I mean, so Stacey, for you, Mead and Bateson were married. I don't know if you know this. Their daughter is Nora Bateson and Mary Catherine Bateson. And there's another one. There's a third one whose name I forget. And so their sort of collaborations are super interesting. And Bateson is one of these very deep systems thinkers as well. Five kids of Gregory, now maybe, you know, he had three spouses and so did Margaret Mead. But they just say five, including, it's like, they had a son, John Sumner Bateson, as well as twins who died young. Oh, no, no, but that's the Sumner. Okay, so Mary Catherine is the only daughter in common. Oh, interesting. Okay, so Nora's not. Nora's from a different wife. Yeah. Third time, a therapist and social worker, Lois Kamak. Okay. So I like this thinking about thinking a lot. I think, you know, epistemologically or whatever else, logically, I think we're certainly in those waters. I'm trying to figure out how this might work. But it takes me back to last Friday's call about composting. And I know and I want to report on it because it was kind of, it was a lovely warm call, but it was very lukewarm about composting. And part of it was the language of composting is not great, but it's not, it's not the metaphor or the label that matters so much. It's like, I can kind of, and this may only be because I'm obsessively like curating the brain, et cetera, et cetera. But I can see how several people would be doing a piece of what you just said together in a shared space and how that would be useful for humanity in some sense by leaving behind artifacts that would be arguments and, you know, other sorts of narrative trails and whatever else. And the more we learn and begin to understand how to feedback into the system, hey, this is just a story or just a narrative, but it's important as a narrative because narratives tend to conquer our brains and eat our souls and take over our policies, right? And then here's a string of facts that were disproven later, but held sway, like that kind of thing is interesting as well. But I can see that happening, but I don't know that everybody on the call was like, yeah, yeah, I can see that happening. So it was me, Jean Bellinger, Stacey, you were on the call? I forget. It was just four of us on the call. And I can look at the video again also. But we didn't end up at the end of the call, I think Mark Caronzo was on the call too. And he is an obsessive like I am with a particular tool that he's built, right? So both of us can kind of see it, but at the end of the call, we weren't all going, yeah, awesome, this is great. We know how to frame it. Let's go do this. So sorry, can you give me the two line word definition of composting because I'm afraid I'm lost. That's fine. That's fine. So the conceit of weaving the world is that there are regular episodes that are like the fruiting body, the mushroom of this thing, they look and smell like regular podcast episodes. Then we have composting calls, that's the temporary name, where we look back on those episodes and invite in the guests from the episodes too, if they want to or can't attend. But then with other people, we sit there and we go deeper, we're like, okay, like you just sent a beautiful batch of links to me. I would weave those into my brain even before the composting call. And then we would sit down and stare at this and I would go read some call field and make sure that I had done some more homework. And then we would come in and say, what does this take us? What else does it connect to? Where else might that conversation that we had lead us? So the composting is kind of mulching, inoculating the nutrient materials and putting them into the larger ongoing body of useful work. And that assumes a whole bunch of things. That assumes that there is an ongoing body of useful work of some sort other than Wikipedia, let's say. That assumes that people collaborating can find their way to the simpler arguments, like you started the conversation about call field and literacy. It assumes a bunch of things like that. But I can see the pony, like I'm like, that smells like important work and like something we can start to prototype and model for other people. And one of the devious goals of leaving the world is to get other people excited about composting and about feeding the big fungus, which is why I like the mycelial metaphor so much. So it's really about deep dives. And I certainly cannot be more encouraging of deep dives. And the whole, I don't know where I was having that conversation, I think with Wendy actually. Alfred, you remember Clay Scherke? Of course. Saying that one of the conditions of collective intelligence, the way he defined it, was independence, like diversity and independence of the opinions to basically avoiding group think, making sure people don't see one another's. And I'm sure that's absolutely true. And I often have the exact opposite, but I think it's not contradictory definition that I don't think there's real collective intelligence. If you just aggregate information from everybody's individual position, it's when people start to really build on one another's positions and learn from one another and create something more that you have real collective intelligence. But there's no question that that stage of building on one another works best if you've really mapped out the diversity. And there, I think Clay Scherke's independence is perfectly valid. I think you need both. And this is the usual pulsation back and forth. And the composting stage, I don't know if it's related to that to be honest, but what it seems to me is that the pre-composed stage, it's more, you know, let's create a curated view in a small group, because sorry, yesterday's conversation and curation is totally relevant. And this is very much the convergence and building. And then the composting, should it be together or should it be independent and many subgroups? Because maybe that's a stage that would benefit from the independence. And you want like, you know, you want the divergent thinking to apply at the research stage. And before you come back for another convergent stage and weaving things together. And I think you need both in pulsating. And I think that that's like polarity management kind of like you were referring to a moment ago, I think that's a polarity to manage is like, are we diverging or are we converging? What do we want to do? How complete do we need to make this? Who wants to take on this small sub piece and play it out? Because it could be that it could be that in the middle of such a conversation, one person's like, I love this topic, I'll be back in a week with something that I've created around it. And then that becomes an interesting contribution in the flow of thought, right? Yeah. So I think all that. And I think that active engagement together over the topic is essential to this composting or whatever we call it. And then we need to we need a great verb that actually sort of calls this out because composting is like rotting, unfortunately, but composting or mulching is also like the generation of nutrients from waste. And certainly the ants in the hive are not busy composting the leaf matter, but they sort of are. It's almost an act of mulching. It's like they're mixing their spit with the leaves, they're putting it on a fungus so that the fungus can break down the materials and feed them. So composting is awfully close to what's going on, right? And we call them farmer ants as well. They're not just leaf cutter ants, they're also known as farmer ants because they're farming the fungus as a whole other breed of farmer ants that farm aphids. You know about those? Yeah. Yeah. Basically drink the aphid poop. You know what? There's different forms of making a living in nature and some of them are stranger than others. Ants are fascinating. Oh my God. Yeah. Ian Wilson found a career. Yeah. But on the other hand, well, what was the classic kind of lane quote specialization is for insects? Yeah. Yeah. We're not, we don't want like again and again. I mean, I think specialization, I agree and disagree, specialization can be awfully useful and generally and going across specializations are fully useful. And this is this whole pulsating metaphor, right? Diverge and converge. You need both. Exactly. And how to kind of how to manage them well together in community is important. It is part of what we're trying to model here and then or refine or something like that. And then how to do that while preserving a longer term asset is a big piece of it, which is why like, I just think that like the internet archive, there's a possible like real resonance there with improving the archive in some way. And yet, and yet I think the conversation wasn't like clearly exciting. And, and I got a note back from one participant who's an old friend who's like, frankly, I don't see the value. And I was like, well, okay, gosh. Interesting. You know, it was mentioned again during Mike's, well, Mike mentioned it again during his presentation. So Mike at least, sorry, Mark Carranza sees the value. Okay, good. During his presentation on Saturday, you mean? Yes. Okay. Cool. I'm sorry, I missed. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so I don't think, you know, some people don't see the value or some, some will, it's okay. I totally see the value because it's the whole question of diversity, right? I'm, of course, very, very, very big proponent of diversity and, you know, have diversity and yeah, yeah, yeah. And I remember once almost, you know, waking up in a sweat, not, not exactly, but almost had a nightmare of, okay, we have diversity, we have mixing, and then we lose the diversity because everybody's mixed and we've converged to the mean. We do need the ability to like, I complain about racism and I still do and I still always will, but we need the ability for some people to say, no, you know what? We want to remain heterogeneous in our own little sub community. So, and we need that for diversity because you don't have these heterogeneous sub packets that remain true to whatever weird idea they have. And I hope it's not ethnic, but cultural, but whatever, right? It's, yeah. So is this, is this yet another polarity to manage? Or is this simply, or is this more of an either or thing? Because, so for me, I can imagine healthy communities where a piece of their energies are spent figuring out how to collaborate with other people and communicate with them so that we might govern together over the things that matter to us. Awesome. But to do that, we might need to learn a common language, a lingua franca, a trade language, whatever else it might be. And then also spending a huge amount of our time preserving, protecting and passing down our traditional cultures in ways. Absolutely true. Absolutely true. But for this traditional culture in ways to be meaningful, you have to have a certain cultural homogeneity. And so you need to be able to say, you know what? Let's stick together in this little, and I don't think nation state is the right boundary for this. Right, right. Because then you get in trouble. And the whole question of, you know, who owns the land and thinking beyond land ownership and yadda yadda yadda. It's like, hello. People are worried about the migration flux now. Wait a bit. Yeah, exactly. And a dear friend of mine just wrote a book about land use over the years. Her name is Joe Gouldy. And he just she just wrote, where's the book? Where's the book? No, that's not the book. Where's come on. It's brand new. Well, shoot, I'm on her. I see the history, history manifesto, roads to power and her newest book is I just added it. That's weird. I'll let me Google for it. But you see what I'm saying, like, for example, intentional communities, intentional communities are often it's heterogeneous in some ways because whoever picks up on their weird idea behind the intention and there's diversity there. But on the other hand, it's like, okay, we'll make a community of people who agree with those tenets or beliefs or we want to do things this way. That's important. The possibility of doing that is profoundly important. I found the book, The Long Land War, the global struggle for occupancy rights. And it's not officially out yet, but it's like in process. And she's long been like, we're concerned about land rights because it's such an important issue in history, right? Between enclosure movements and struggles, I grew up partly in Peru. And I remember the reform agraria agrarian reform was like what what the opposing candidates always ran on. Then occasionally they would win and they would sort of resort the land out to peasants and then occasionally it would get taken away. And that was that was like this this continuous flip-flop battle, you know, the seesaw battle over time. My wife's my wife's first novel is about that. Oh, no. Land rights in an imaginary African country. Wow. Wow, that's cool. So, okay. So there's something promising here between us and the work we're doing together. I'm trying to figure out, I'm trying to find the right framing, right, invite the right language, the right motivation for it so that it turns into a happy practice that a bunch of us do, right? And we can do it asynchronously or together. I think that together is really fun because because it gets it gets excited and it warms up really nicely when somebody says, yes, yes, that, but also did you know that Margaret Mead did this other thing? And then it builds a body of evidence that each of us kind of brings together to the table. We create a better a better and bigger idea of whatever topic we were chewing on at the time. There's an there's an amplification. There's a there's a growing and a weaving are connecting, but then improving of the thoughts. And this is why I think the GitHub metaphor is so important, right? Because it's about let's have a little team making a branch and doing a deep dive on a branch from whatever we started from. And then let's weave it back together, like merge back. Okay, we've done this deep dive here and another team is another deep dive there. Another team is another deep dive there. How what can we make out of this? But the whole fork and branch and we, you know, we've outweave in metaphor, I think is hugely, hugely important. Yeah. Who else is doing this that that as a community in some sense, that we can learn from? Because I don't think I don't think we're unique here. And you know, what we're doing is kind of the work of creating the Oxford English Dictionary, except that was just the dictionary that it wasn't supposed to have opinion. It was supposed to just find the first origins of words, really good definitions of words and then compile that sucker into a big tone. And the professor in the madman is entertaining. And it was just two humans who were obsessive collaborating. I will note, I started talking about Oxford OED as a kind of a joke in the context. And then I'm realizing it was really created by two people who were completely consumed by the task, one of whom was in an insane asylum. Okay, that's maybe that's maybe that's the role model here. Stacy, make a note for the team. We should go query some asylum. But there's other communities of collective intelligence. You know, yeah, it would be interesting for us in OGM to just sort of do a little mental survey of who else do we know that's doing this kind of this nature of work in what way. Scientific communities coming up with papers are digesting, you know, their matter in in this way in a scientifically tested rigorous kind of process, right? Anybody doing a PhD is doing this by themselves, not so much a community. They're doing a literature, literature search, they're trimming up the thesis, they're kind of turning that all into something, you know, they're contributing to their field. But what I hear here is again, the little team doing something and of course, they're doing it a bit more obsessively. And this is how you get stuff done up to a point. Yeah. And I'm all for it. But it's again, some small team doing something that what interests me is how the back and for the weave in and out. And that I don't think exists that much, because frankly, the tooling is not there yet. We don't have good tooling to weave back together knowledge graphs. And for me, that's that's my mission, right? It's exactly. And it's striking me that the artifacts humans do have is cave paintings that we go back to. And then we stand there and go, gosh, we have no idea what they were thinking when they did this or how on earth they painted such beautiful bison way deep in a cave when all they had was torches. Or is this a sacred? Is this a sacred painting? Is this just like somebody who was like, I can paint this look, you know, we have a very little context and we go back to those because those are those artifacts have somehow miraculously, I look at those pigments on the wall and I'm like, how is that still on a wall anyplace after, you know, in some cases, 30,000 years? Yeah, the oldest cave art is clocking back to that kind of that kind of timing. It's kind of insane. Absolutely. Absolutely. So it's kind of weird. I'm still here. I'm just going to meet my video for a second. There we go. And so who, yeah, so where else do we look? Who else do we ping? Who else is concerned about this? Who else cares? That kind of thing. I would say a lot of people on the one hand, right? It's all over the place. I mean, we know a lot of maybe mapping communities and this is what Vincent is doing with Trove is a big, a good first step. Like as I said, I know people in France doing it. I've named them a few times. I know people and again, there's many people, many communities. And there's community asset mapping actually as a practice that has a couple of our names and and like Christina Bowen has used Kumu to do food web mapping of the Columbia River Gorge area, including what organizations are doing what where what does nature kind of do some of that. But again, that was a lot of her project because the tool is arcane, right? And so in a really good project, what happens is the tool artist sits in community listening and feeding back into the tool into the map, what the community is thinking and doing and learning and the map gets better because one person really knows how to use the tool and the tools are to arcane for a bunch of people to just be weaving in there together, usually. And then kind of along the same line of logic, and then this better map, which is really pretty interesting is trapped inside of Kumu, which is this complex tool. And that data doesn't make its way out into other mapping, other efforts, other whatever. And at some point is lost when Christina dies or when the community just decides they don't care about it anymore and don't maintain it or somebody forgets the password to the server or whatever, right? And then we have a loss. And so we have there's a bunch of tools problems here. There's like the better tools are kind of arcane. The better tools don't leave data that's more useful with other tools in the broader scheme, et cetera. And there seems like I like Creative Commons, the CC, the organization and I love the archive, but it feels like we're not actually yet building this more connected Commons. And this is why your point about my goodness, the Internet archive needs to have this, needs to curate these knowledge graphs. And that should be part of the curation, because the knowledge graphs are in have enormous value. On the other hand, you speak about the arcane tools and that's one thing. But I mean, these tools are going to be complex and arcane. I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that those tools are also immensely deus and crap. And how much can I get from having access to your brain and vice versa? Like, it's something that helps you think, how much does it help me think? It'll show me stuff. But I mean, discovering it there or discovering it elsewhere was a difference. What's the difference is, as I said about curated views, you can tell a story from this, because you've externalized part of the stories you know around this into the visual arrangements. And can I tell a story from your brain? Not clear. And it's always, and the question of negotiating, making a personal liminal object, a personal outboard brain into a community liminal object is going to be enormous. Very complex process. And I don't think we have that much good experience of that. Like, I'm really curious how many ontologies are designed by a very, very small committee versus taking community input. But the good news is that often a small group does great work and other people are like that. Thank you so much. That's a great contribution. And it gets exactly, it flows in. So that's actually not terrible. The fact that a few people working well, a few people collaborating very well can create really useful artifacts is a fine and dandy element of this. And one piece that I'm coming to, and this, I think the Friday call brought this home to me is, I think I need to slow things down in a sense of, I'm like, okay, good, we're going to have a podcast, we're going to have episodes, and we're going to have these composting calls. Come on, everybody, let's compost. And it's like, we don't really know what that is. We need to kind of slow it down to just figure our way to poke and test our way into what composting is. And then like the hodown call that we did, God, a year and a half ago now, was a really nice call. And I should have done more of them just so that we had a rhythm of, hey, today we're going to test a bunch of tools. And one thing I could do is I could change the rhythm of the Thursday calls. And right now we're doing check in and one topic, we can do check in topic and hodown. Or on the topic calls, we could say, hey, it's topic and hodown, and invite people to map and contribute their maps at the end of the call. Or alternate, you know, two topic calls, one hodown call or whatever. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And one fear is that the hodown part of it, the tools part of it will distract from really good topical conversations. And I can see that happening. But if a couple of people, if a couple of If a couple of manic obsessives like me are busy like composting away during a call and still managing to participate, who that doesn't bother anybody else really. And I think the artifacts are better. But I have this feeling I need to slow down the pace to find our way to what this is. And then I'm not coming to the Thursdays because between the Monday and Tuesday, where personally, I get more value. I'm not saying there's no value on Thursdays, it's like I had to make a choice. I totally understand. And I am just so thrilled that you're with us regularly on Mondays and Tuesdays. Like, thank you. Because I love how your brain works and what you bring to every conversation. You just reminded me of something that showed up in my head a moment ago that I forgot, which is it might be useful for me to run a poll about my brain. And basically, because I have personal experience and firsthand, almost like testimonial emails from friends who are like, Jerry, I've made it a practice when I hit some new area to go look in your brain because I always find useful links and I don't know. And other people who can look at what I've mapped and how I've mapped it, and they get stuff from it. And then I have plenty of evidence from others who are like, I look at your map and without you guiding me, without you saying, hey, this goes here, this goes there, this is why I'm lost. It's just a mess of links. And then there's other people who are like, I don't get any of it. And I don't know what distinguishes one from the other. I don't know what might bump some people from one group into a group that sees more value and gets more value without my participation. I don't know how to increase my presence without increasing my presence literally with ours. So I have a couple of use case videos that I shot a year or more ago about how to use the brain. One is about the potato, a couple others. And they're fine and dandy tours through a slice of the brain saying, hey, here's a bunch of really interesting things about the damn potato. The potato is just fascinating, fascinating food source. It's like born in the Andes with Bolivia and Peru. Makes its way to Europe where nobody will eat it. Royalty has to trick and convince people to eat it. By the time they get everybody eating it, the bite shows up and wipes out the potato crop and causes famine. And then that's just one little slice of the story. And you're like, oh my God, right? And part of the reason there's a bite is that there's 400 varieties of potato in Peru, and only two of them get brought to Europe. So there's a monocrop, it's a clone crop, which is completely vulnerable to the bite. And you're like, so many interesting things here. As monocultures generally are. And as we see right now with humans, bingo, and with factory farming and monocropping and all that kind of stuff. And then it spills over into the Irish potato famine and this huge immigration of Irish into America, where they are mistreated and hated. Like the latest wave of immigrants is always spat on, stomped on, frowned on, hated, all of that. Like people hate the Irish, can't stand them. Like they hate the Poles and like they hate Italians and like, as each wave shows up. So anyway, I love all those connections. And I love mixing and matching stories about those things with an awareness that off sometimes they're just stories. Sometimes they're just, sometimes they're not actually supported by evidence. But you're saying, you see what I'm saying about like this is really back to the curated view thing. You told me a story. That story is present in the links as in all the links that make up the story are there. But the story isn't because the story is more than that. It's a path and a narrative and taking a subset of the path to make a certain causal relationship or set of causal relationships evident in the whole path. And that's what I was calling a curated view. So go ahead. And I can see how people who are, and I really get, you're right, the survey would be interesting, how much of being able to derive value from your brain has to do with enough context to be able to, so that the new links enrich existing context. Because I found like I'm one of my claims to fame is I learn fast enough. And when people ask me, how do you do it? Well, it's because a lot of things, there's a framework. So a new fact gets grafted onto an existing framework. And I know where it fits because it's got a framework to attach to. It's not floating in midair, right? Yeah, exactly. Your brain is naturally sort of ontological taxonomical and logical. And then the reason is that your life quest is to create this infolumen to figure out how arguments work is that you have really rich frameworks going on in your head. And when something new floats by, you're like, oh, good. It's like this and this. And yeah, it's my, it's the way my brain works. And I have absolutely rotten visual memory, for example. And you know, it's brains are different. Whatever. That's not the point. The point is not about me. The point is, is it are people who relate to your brain? Is it because they have more of kind of visual thinking or receptivity to serendipity and to seeing value in your stuff? Or is it that they have enough existing frameworks that the new links fit well with existing links? Total, I'm, I'm, I'm mouthing hypothesis and I'm sure there's more. These are great questions. So I'm, I'm actually really inspired to set up a poll and maybe, maybe set up to use one of our calls to design a good, a nice poll, send it out to as many people as possible and to then sit down together and analyze results and sort of slow things down and go deeper into that. And also I think sometimes I think the people who get more value are the people who stop and just knows around longer to the point where they put the point where they begin to pick up the patterns that I'm busy doing ongoing, right? Makes perfect sense. Because I have a bunch of cliches. I have a bunch of ways. There's a style that I use when I'm feeding my brain. And once you've sort of nosed around in there enough and you start to absorb my pattern, I think then stuff starts to call out. And if you don't know that I use purple for opinions and yellow for look here, which is something I try to explain in the, you know, brain 101 video kind of thing. But if you miss the brain 101 video and you're just in there kind of poking in the dark, it's going to be harder. Right, right, right, right, right, right. No, it would be interesting to have this survey actually. But what I was trying to say is your, the story is implicit in your brain. It's not stated and it's a very big part of the knowledge encoded in your brain. Yes. And making that explicit. Like, I remember the first thing you wanted with me brain was, oh, can I have a path representation? Because your stories are paths. They're not links. They're not their paths. Higher level patterns. They're links of links. They're links of links. Yeah, fancy that. Yeah, exactly. And one of the reasons I really liked Prezi before they killed themselves was that ability to declare a path, right? And I was trying to figure out how to make the brain do something Prezi like, you know, just like programmatically because Miro is quite programmatic. It would be cool if somebody wrote some code to help Miro be Prezi. That would be, that's got to be doable. Of course. That's got to be doable. Anyway, no, I think, I think this is this, I don't know if we got a conclusion, but I really think that this whole question of what is the narrative behind the, that is encoded in the curation in the curated view? And that's one fundamental question versus the value of the graph itself. Like the value of the graph is really what story is it telling? Or what simplification is it affording, right? In ontologies, they're not telling a story, but they're giving people bins in which to put things. And that's also of value. And of course, it can be also limiting. We know that, but that's okay. I mean, that's the point is we are creating, and I insist so much on, yeah, what's the use of ontology without the distinguishing characteristic of why this is different from that? Because again, the distinguishing characteristic is another part of the story that may be missing if all you have is the skeleton of the ontology, right? That again, the distinguishing characteristic is a big part of the real ontology, as opposed to just the skeleton of the, yeah. It's not just the taxonomy. It's like, okay, what makes this part of the taxonomy different from its siblings? And I think we're all earnestly trying to figure out how to distill those insights so that they are crisp and visible and useful. Exactly. Right? We want them to just jump out and so that you can be like, oh, I'm so glad somebody boiled it down to that, which is partly why we love pattern languages, is that pattern languages are a community. Distillation community. So sorry, neither of us thought of the pattern language movement when I asked earlier, so who the hell is doing collective intelligence? And gotta say, any group of people who's made any progress on a pattern language fits that bill really nicely. And we live right close to a couple communities that have been a whole bunch of that, right? But again, question, are the pattern language usually, are they done by communities or by, you know, loan scholars? And the answer is probably both. Yeah, the answer is probably both. I think what winds up happening in a good pattern language is that one or two people are the guides of the whole pattern language that then several participants took particular interest in several patterns and nodes and wove them in, and that the group of them had some really interesting and possibly difficult conversations about the broad scheme and how things fit and whether this is or isn't a pattern and how to break this one up and whatever, and that those were hopefully, if the thing was really fruitful, that those were exciting conversations because people could see commonalities and they could see that wisdom was being distilled and all of that. So, you know, whether it's Christopher Alexander and his team at or University of Oregon back in the seven, late 70s, probably early 80s, you know, writing the first one or whoever. But I think there's a really interesting excursion here into pattern language communities. And we have several people who'd love to write pattern languages. And so we may be back in that we should, we might have to have the tools conversation again, about what is our best bet, you know, is it massive wiki? Do we use markdown and massive to do a pattern language? I don't know. Yep. Okay. I think on that note, I should go back to building my own tools. Okay. I think this was a good stopping point. Yeah, thank you. We've got lots of good things running in my head and I've got a bunch of links to go read and absorb and put my brain, but thank you. A bientôt. A bientôt. Ciao ciao.