 I'm going to share a few thoughts broadly and set the stage on systems thinking and relate that to investing and impact investing. And then we'll quickly go down the row with some introductions and they'll talk a little to each one, we'll talk very briefly about the work they're doing in systems change and how they apply systems thinking and one key learning. And then we'll go back and forth for a little while and then we'll open it up. There's the general flow. So with systems thinking, systems thinking has been around for quite a while and has been applied in a variety of different settings and it's now being applied more rigorously both academically and by practitioners to the social change space, impact space, et cetera. And I'm just going to highlight three principles of systems thinking. First is interconnectedness, that everything is connected to everything else and sounds very Zen and Eastern and in fact it is, it also happens to be true, which is great, that everything's connected to everything in systems theory and systems thinking attempts to map those connections but most importantly look at the interaction between the connections, the way of information or financial or power flows and imbalances and things like that as a way of understanding the system and the basic idea is you can't understand a system from just one node because it's complex. It multiple interactions determine final results. Second is feedback loops, that there's some type of feedback loop built in to a system, to a natural system, if you think of an ecosystem or something like that when the deer population gets too high, eats too much food and then it can't sustain itself the next time. There's some kind of feedback loop or the wolf population gets too high, eats too many deer, then the wolf population can't support itself, et cetera, so a feedback loop and then the third is emergence, that there's an emergent behavior that the result of the system emerges from within the system itself. It's not linear and it's almost not always directly able to be predicted. It's not just one plus one equals two. It's one plus one equals horse, or it can be. So those are some broad principles that I think we'll build on as we talk about this here. So why is this important? Why does it matter? Is this just some esoteric academic thinking applied to this space or what? I actually think it matters now more than ever. We are facing, depending on your point of view and where you spend your time, we're facing six, seven, eight, nine crises, like big fundamental systems level, even existence level crises in the world. And I again don't wanna be a downer on this if you've heard my talk this morning, but from climate change to the potential threat of AI to polarization, et cetera. And I think in the impact investing space broadly, and I've been a part of it for 20 years, so I'm pointing at myself as well, sometimes we tend to get really excited about this deal that we're doing. And it's fun to talk about it Thanksgiving dinner, or it's great to have the press release or the whatever, because this deal is so exciting and this deal is going to make these changes, et cetera. But fundamentally, if we zoom out and take a systems approach, one deal on its own will rarely change too much. It will do something within the system, but not change the structure that's producing the results that we have. By the way, there's another principle. This is, I don't know. You mentioned this in our pre-call, but our system, we have perfectly designed the world to give us the results we're currently getting. You think about that for a second. We've designed things to perfectly give us the results we're currently getting. We don't like the results. You have to go back and change the system. And so we're gonna talk a little bit about this. How do we think harder? How do we think bigger? I've found, I've been doing this type of work for almost 30 years. Yes, I started when I was quite young. But, and I found it takes about, here's another market research pulled out of my ear. It takes about 20% more effort to think 100 times bigger. 20% more effort to think 100 times, doesn't take 100 times more effort, right? I don't think some of you who are doing systems work, it takes more effort, definitely, but it's not totally proportional with some additional effort. We can think bigger, we can think systemically, et cetera. I want to, so with this, a couple more things and then we'll go to the group. One of the things we'll see is that who we invest in or who makes the investment decision and how we make the investment in systems thinking can be at least as important in what we're investing in. Who and how can be at least as important of what, if not more important, right? Who's making that investment decision, et cetera. And this, I was with another group this week at the World Economic Forum event and we had a presentation by one of the leading scientific technologists in the world. This is the person who helped, I shouldn't say who it is, I'm not gonna make them identifiable. But some of the main things that we read if you open up X or you open up however you get your news source or whatever things that we're reading about, this is the person behind these. And they're involved in launching some things to space and doing low-orbit broadband provision through satellite networks, et cetera. And somebody asked them a question and said, am I understanding that with the broadband provision down to Earth, by the way, uses radio or microwaves. So if this works, we're gonna have microwaves beam data all the time. Think about that and how you teach your kids not to stand in front of the microwave, now it's just gonna be beam data. So remember that, because that's gonna be part of my point and then we're gonna go on. Next is, someone said, I thought there's a lot of loss in transmission. And they said, well, right now, it's about 90% loss in transmission. And we can solve that, but it's actually cheaper just to put more satellites up. And it's okay because we have a lot of space out there, which, if you're just buying the kind of technology will save us line, seems great, I'll put more satellites up and everybody has broadband everywhere. But I said that, I raised my hand, I said, that's kind of like what people thought when they went to the United States and thought they're limitless trees, let's just chop them down and use them. We don't have limitless resources. They didn't have a fantastic answer there, but that was the point about not thinking about second, so they were thinking about first order impact. Let's get broadband internet to rural Africa, Latin America, et cetera, a place that don't have it. Not thinking about the second order impact or the third order impact, space debris, microwaves beamed at us all the time, et cetera. So just as we go through this, you'll hear practitioners thinking 20% harder to think 100 times bigger. How do we think about second order impact and third order impact? That's setting the stage, that's probably the most you'll hear from me for the rest of this panel, hopefully. So now let's go down. If you would just talk about quickly your name, where you are, where you work, and how briefly how you and your team are thinking about systemic change and systems level impact investing. For sure. Briefly was probably meant specifically for me. I understand that, Jeff. After my five minute monologue. My name, Tanshi, Kinnu Kinnu in an indigenous cost. My traditional name is Eagleman Leading. I come from Canada, the Prairies. We call the Red River Valley. And I'm from the part of the Métis Nation, the historic Métis Nation there. And I live and work in Canada. I'm one of the co-founders and managing partners of Raven Indigenous Capital Partners and the CEO of the Raven Indigenous Impact Foundation. We are impact investors. We are indigenous impact investors. We have the unique and unfortunate distinction of being the only ones in North America. Let's think about a system for a minute. And how do we think about a system? And we're doing a lot of work now in outcomes finance. And we're doing that work in outcomes finance. And the team is here in this room is because the systems are broken and we want to have different outcomes than the ones that we've been given and work within. We are constantly in a systems thinking modality because the systems were not made favorable to our people across the globe, in particular, where we work on Turtle Island here in North America. And we believe that we need to upend the system. And maybe it's a bit of subterfuge on our part. We are trying to use capital against capital. So we're trying to stop the extractive process of capital by building our own capital to work in a different way. What I just did a panel before on how money can act as medicine and we can get into more as we progress, but I don't take too much time. But when we do come back, let's come back in a moment because I think the approach you're taking from an indigenous perspective, we collectively in the world lost, we gained a lot through the enlightenment and reductionist thinking that got us so far. Now we need to go back to the indigenous wisdom. So if you can tie that in when we come back around, that would be really helpful, I think. For sure. It'd be great. Okay. Tell us. Yeah, lovely to be here and thank you so much for the session. So I'm Erica Barbosa, I'm with a company called Sycamuse Capital. I come here from, I'm based out of Montreal, Canada as well, first generation immigrant originally from Bolivia and mom to a Greek, Canadian, Latina daughter. So you can deduce the personality there. Mighty. But so Sycamuse, so we're a family of companies that is really dedicated to building new markets and by, with a particular focus over the years on supporting economies that are in transition or in new development. So it leads us to focus a lot on supporting entrepreneurs. There's Sycamuse that is an impact and innovation company so have been working really through processes like open innovation, global hackathons to really with the principles of, tapping into the genius of as many minds as possible and the genius of the many to come up with solutions. Everything that we do has systems, sort of like systems principles under it. And so part of it is experts are really good at defining problems, less good at coming up with solutions. So let's get as many minds as possible to come up with better ideas. And more informed, Sycamuse supports about a thousand entrepreneurs every year through a range of programs whether it's in technology, ecosystems promoting women in tech, advanced manufacturing, circular economy, digital mental health and climate are particular sectors that we work. And very much on also what sounds a little bit more abstract which is ecosystem development. So that's really less about working directly with entrepreneurs and supporting companies and more initiatives in which you're coordinating the activities between different actors with public sector, with investors, with entrepreneur support organizations and all with the intent of influencing the relationships between the actors. So your ecosystems are working in more coordinated ways to create economies that are more just, inclusive, resilient and less harmful for people on the planet. And second use capital that is the sister company which is where I focus 100% of my time is really looking at the supplies, influencing the supply side of capital in line with the same principles of collaboration and systems development. And we are right now building some venture capital funds one particularly in climate. And we have some services around advisory services for institutional product development and impact investing as well as a lab process by which we bring investors with communities with entrepreneurs and others to design products in new ways. Just recognizing that it's not just about what we're investing in but we need to rethink also some of the structures by which we're managing money and investments. So, and happy to elaborate a little bit more on the systems. We'll go deeper. Thanks, Erica. Darren. Yeah, thanks. It's great to be here with everyone. I thought I might start with just sharing a little bit about Blooming Capital but the way I'll do it is through sharing a little bit about a mentor that I never met. Does anybody know Charles Hamilton Houston? Anybody know that name? One over here. All right, all right. Two. Charles Hamilton Houston was dean of Howard Law School and he thought that there was injustice in the early 40s within the education system. So he became the dean of the law school and developed a strategy of teaching a generation of law school students how to take on the system of Plessy versus Ferguson, separate but equal. And his student in the front of his class was Thurgood Marshall. And many of his students would take that on and challenge and overturn Plessy versus Ferguson with Brown versus Board of Education creating integration and overturning the doctrine of separate but equal. Which I believe, and part of the reason it was overturned is it leads to greater prosperity in communities in the country and in the world. Alluming Capital similarly takes on a system and many of us have heard earlier today it's 1.3% of $82 trillion capital managed by women and people of color. When we look at the system, our model is to empower a generation of managers through a cohort of fund to funds investing such that they're informed with information around bias that led to this abysmal number. And not only is it abysmal but it's also suboptimal in terms of an investment strategy and equip them with the ability to think at a 10x level differently. 10x, the way that that comes into fruition is that rather than investing simply directly in companies we're working with managers in a partnership that helps them over time see underestimated and overlooked women and people of color within global financial markets and deploy capital as such. So that's part of the way that we think about the world that we're in. We think about the lineage that we come from and the transformative power of taking on systems. I think that it's interesting being here in so many different ways alongside of others that I really value and think together with. And I think the system's incomplete without any of our different strategies and the fullness of what we can produce and believe. So it's cited for the discussion. Thanks, perfect. Let's just start, if you don't mind Darren, keep going with you. Next question, talk a little bit about how you are seeking systems change. So if you can say a little more, sketch for us with words, the system, the capital allocation system and the intervention points that just like the law school dean did, okay, taking a long term view, create up a generation that's going to change the map for us, the system and what nodes you're working on that you think will have a ripple effect throughout. And then as part of that, tell us a little about what's been hard in doing that work. Next, I'll just borrow a ball from Einstein and talk about many of you know that whenever you approach a problem, you take 55 seconds and frame the problem and the last five seconds to solve the problem. And when we started Aluminum Capital, what we did is we asked the question, basically are people willing to give up financial performance because of their own inability to see the humanity of other people and the value that they bring to the marketplace when race and gender are present. And we went out and tested 180 asset allocators with professors from Stanford and published a paper saying that yes, people will leave money on the table rather than investing in high performing women and people of color. So by solving that and framing the problem in a way that the financial markets would basically choke on themselves as they were trying to maximize financial outcomes and missing the very solutions set and people and human beings that were producing them, we're able to at least get in and share a different perspective with some of the larger pools of capital in the world and cause a cognitive dissonance in which we can enter through a different way of thinking our idea. So the system that we're trying to change ironically claims profit maximization when it systematically overlooks and underestimates women and people of color in its ongoing daily process. So we went after the fiduciary elements of a system that would claim one thing and then in many systematic instances overlook these incredibly well-performing groups of folks when race was present. So we A, B tested as well conditions where it was white men and black men, for example, and as we increased performance, people would select white men with exactly the same performance again and again and again. And so then once you showed them that the underlooked allocators were out performing then everything changed. Oh, well, we'll just do that, right? Once you show them the data, this is a softball question for you. Yeah. Well, I think a lot of our work is based on realizing, I call it show and tell. You can tell people all day long to change their behavior and to see the research, but until you show a different way of doing things, it's very hard to realize that. And the way that we do that is that we bring people into community in Montgomery, Alabama and bring them through a process of seeing the history of lynching, mass incarceration, slavery and understanding how we got to 1.4% in the global financial markets because only once you understand how we got there can we really begin to torque the systems of change. So the systems, as you said and as others have said, Erica shared before that systems are created to produce outcomes that they're created to produce. So if that's true, then we have to go back in order to go forward. Thanks. Erica, will you give us a map of brief mental map of the system you're working on, where you're intervening and what's been hard? Yeah. And so we work with across the board more as an enabler for others to be able to operate within a larger system. And just following on this last point that Darren raised, yes, systems are doing what they were designed to do, but why are they wrong to begin with? And when you think about it and I'm using an example that one of my colleagues uses frequently with physical systems, it's a little bit much easier to have some of that feedback loop. You put on wings, you jump on a cliff and very quickly you're gonna realize something is wrong with that and you're gonna iterate and improve on that. With social systems, it's a little bit harder to get immediate feedback loops and you can go centuries oppressing half of humanity and you call it progress for a long period of time. And part of it is just the way that we're wired as human beings, and sort of like for efficiency purpose, evolutionary purposes, just the blinders that we have in the form of biases. And so for a very long period of time, we've been creating things by very homogeneous groups of people that just have one perspective, one life experience and has resulted in what we're seeing today. So one of the big important things about systems intervention, whether you're working on very complex issues like climate change, poverty reduction, et cetera, it's really creating the space to bring in as many perspectives as possible into the conversation. And even be able to put yourself in a posture of humility where you're not, we talk a lot about this and we've gotten very much more comfortable recognizing that we don't have the answers to everything. But as a colleague, Leah from NBC was, you know, I would have quote her, she said this morning, it's much more difficult feeling being comfortable with being wrong about something. And so being able to invite that conversation change your mind and recognizing the value that others bring. So when we go into collaboration, it's not just to show off what you have and the solutions you wanna bring, really invite and recognize the values of others. So a lot of the work that we do, whether it's designing products, our own investments, et cetera, it's really creating the spaces where you can bring in your investors with your entrepreneurs in the creation of new solutions. You're gonna work on abundantly investing in girls, fans and general expansive youth of color across the United States, for instance, working with youth to create the space for them to create that vision, recognize the wisdom that comes from that space. And so really on the piece around the diversity of perspectives is one central one. And the other is really also on the interconnectedness, there's the interconnectedness of issues, social environmental issues, governance issues, a whole range, but the interdependence piece around them. And so one of the things that we're trying to do with our investment funds, for instance, is recognize that the value is not being created by just the intermediaries that are identifying the companies, the value is being created by the founders, by the entrepreneurs, but in large part by the ecosystems that are nourishing them. And so how do we really, can we embed within our investment, within our investment thesis, within the profit sharing models, within the entire package, a way to recognize and feedback and share back with those ecosystems, which is where really the value is being created so that we can create resilience for the future. Let me just pause for a second and pull out a couple of principles we've heard so far before you, Jeff, I'm guessing you'll build on some of these. So one is we heard the idea of thinking about the change makers and how do I create and equip and train the change makers from the professor, the Dean of Howard. Another that both of you have mentioned so far is trying to change who makes the decisions is as a systems level change, as opposed to having all the same people just try to invest differently. We're trying to change who's making the investment decision to start with. And then you mentioned also building the ecosystems and not just the change makers and not just who's making the decision, but the facilitators, the intermediaries, et cetera. So putting together different components. Go ahead, you wanna build on that? I know a lot of that is teeing up the work you do. So tell us what you're doing and what's hard about it. Yeah, these people are great. They just say everything that we do essentially at Raven. And I think the way that I would start it and I wanna talk about systems for a second and at least how we're seeing it, that the way that we drive our work, I think the way that you put it is we're trying to put evidence into practice. We find it easier to talk to systems decision makers by saying, see, it can work. And the way that we started with that was by creating an indigenous impact investment firm that hadn't existed before and we pushed uphill against all kinds of systemic racism barriers inside the financial system and in particular with decision makers. A lot of these investment committees who sit on funds, fund of funds and on boards of foundations and other areas are implicitly, inherently biased. And I think we're suffering what I would call a racial risk premium as indigenous people in that space. That's it. So talk about systems for a second. So if you're an indigenous person in the world today, your life has been defined by a dominant system, unfortunately, and it's a system that created a level of capital development and extraction starting to some degree with slavery, to a large degree, and indigenous black slavery and then development of financial institutions that supported that and then kind of self reinforcing mechanism of resource extraction on top of it. And then, which was finalized by of course the taking of land itself, the ultimate resource. And so if you're indigenous today, you see and felt that and because we have oral histories, we talk about it in a very real personal sense that it still exists. And so that system is the system of colonization and inside that colonization system, all kinds of justification started to happen both with religious doctrine and then with philosophical and political doctrine about how these things were gonna be structured. What are we left with? We're left with this system. How capital markets work today. How governments work today. And that's another part of the system for us that we wanna talk about and engage. And if people actually believed that there has actually never been an invisible hand to the market, there's always been tons of human hands creating the markets to do exactly what they do is. Both the colleagues have said today. So the way that we are working at Raven is we did venture capital funds to start. We got two venture capital, digits venture capital funds at work and we're trying to do change from the bottom up. We're investing in digits businesses with themselves or change makers and we're providing a kind of, we're trying to blanket them as we would say and kind of lift them up. But importantly on that, we don't wanna make the mistakes that have made in the past. We only take minority positions. We wanna leave wealth in the community. That means human and financial wealth in the communities that we're working. That's the only way that we'll see the broad upliftment that we're seeking. The other part of the system though that we noticed while we were doing the venture capital side is the complex, you know, big wicked hairy problems that you talk about in social finance and particularly we work in climate, climate adaptation and climate change. Indigenous people are on the front lines of that experiencing it very roughly in most places of the world and on health and why health? Cause we think health of Mother Earth is connected to health of the individual and it's connected to resilience in community and you saw this in an extreme version during the pandemic where our community suffered extraordinarily. I think our the broadest sense of our communities across the globe. And when it came to the pandemic that's because they were not, they were mistreated by and not a healthy part of the ecosystem. And if you quote the Daren's quote about, you know, sort of what percentage is, you know, female led, black led, you know, sort of part of funds. I can't imagine what the number is for Indigenous but it's going to be a lot less than that even. And so we kind of look at all these systems that are at play and so we have venture capital on one side and now we're working on what we call outcomes finance and I mention it because our approach to outcomes finance is a two wide seeing approach. Meaning we see Western science and the things and the gifts that it brings and we see traditional Indigenous and the gifts that it brings and we think they work together and actually I think we've proven that they work together fairly well. We are doing geothermal ground source heat pumps and on reserve communities. Why are we doing that? Because that's what the community asked for. It's not that we come in there as investors and we need to do geothermal. It's more what is the community telling us that it needs and it comes back to I think something one of you said I can't remember now who is that we believe that those closest to the problem actually know how to fix the problem. It's not someone sitting in Washington, Ottawa wherever it is kind of making decisions which means that you need to approach systems differently. I actually have a point Jeff. No, in all this. It's great. But it is. And then the, so what we've done on outcomes finance what we realized that we needed to do is we needed to engage public capital in a different way. So we get some credibility by being a private capital placement firm and we know what we're doing there. We start working on outcomes finance and we need the government to come along and we need philanthropy to come along. We need all three. The problems are so large of climate and health and adaptation that we realize that we need them to come along and we need to change the system. So we're identifying the points that we need to play as we're not a lumen or second means we're very small players. We're trying to use our small but mighty team to kind of engage government and have conversations in Canada and now the U.S. about where we think that they can act differently and show up differently. And it's, I know it's kind of trite but capital needs to show up differently in our communities. And when you do, you get really good outcomes and you get good commercial outcomes too, by the way. You don't just get good outcomes. And I think to some degree we need to set aside concepts of profit because concepts of profit have gotten us into a bit of a bind globally and we have a lot of people excluded from the system. We have a lot of money moving up to people who want to put lower up satellites in place and move money from extract money from the lower end of that pyramid and pull it up where it doesn't actually do a lot of good. Trillion dollar valuations on certain technology companies and their place doesn't really help the vast majority of humanity. It doesn't do any good and then we just move, right? So anyways, I'll stop there. How are you using the same investment tools, the same investment techniques, the same structures, the same term sheets, et cetera? Or are you adapting them? So we're adapting them. So what we've been doing, we've been on this, what we call decolonizing the investment process, journey, not a destination. So every time we do it, it's a bit different. So we got into a deal with one of our first Portcos and we did not take preferred shares. So for a VC firm to not take preferred shares in a deal is kind of interesting, right? You're kind of going against the philosophy. We also do structured exits and structured buybacks so that the entrepreneur knows how to get out of it and we only need so much capital back. We don't need, we don't really want unicorns. I don't think we want to lift all up. We don't want to take two or three, you know, the sort of two and 20 approach that VC tech, VC is extraordinarily extractive, by the way. And we chose VC for a purpose because we want to change the extraction stuff. So we're trying to change term sheets. We're trying to double end with legal fees so it comes off of the founders' legal fees. We did a reverse buyback where an indigenous company, so a big company, the software testing, had started a smaller company that was indigenous only and we did a reverse engineering buyback where the mouse ate the elephant and bought the big company through a shared transfer. It was complicated structurally, but it worked brilliantly and now this $40 million a year company is an indigenous-owned company. And so we're trying to do things different in this space and create different sort of value. On outcomes finance, we're already starting with what we want to do. Like at the outset, we're saying, let's stabilize A1Cs in this community because type two diabetes is a crisis. Osempic, by the way, won't solve it just to get that out there. And you need to change the systems of food, of health provision, all of these systems that have been put in place. So all of it is a change approach. Like we can't do one. We have to work at all of it all the time. It can be a little bit exhausting and that's where allies come into play just working together on this. It's good to hear these folks that they left me up, fill up my cup, as we would say, and you must be working with a good team on the outcomes-based financing structures. They're there, they're in the room. Wahee, Rebecca, MJ. Anything else to add on this before we talk about the leadership needed for systems change? No, I was just gonna ask Jeff where he gets that, we're bigger than you. You're bigger than us right now. It speaks to your success, yes. It's hard to believe because that was only six years ago, I'm sorry, I don't know. So let's talk now about leadership and the type of leadership needed doing systems change as opposed to just direct one-off work and to set the context for this. As capitalism is evolving and there's talks of stakeholder capitalism and an evolution of capitalism to include multiple stakeholders and internalize externalities, et cetera, that's going to require a different form of leadership than the traditional command and control top-down, et cetera. I say that just because systems change also requires it. You can't stand up and say, change, do this, you can't, one person, one group, can't just make a decision. It requires collaboration, it requires stakeholder analysis thinking, et cetera. We share, let's just go down the line, whoever has a thought first on the leadership needed and the strategy needed to do this type of systems change and what you've learned so far, whoever wants to go first. You need, collaboration is a really important piece in all of this because you were speaking about one of the principles of systems and it's sort of like emergence and typically we see sort of like the birds, right? How they're going and there isn't one single leader that is at the top, it's sort of like it's a living body and that's how our systems operate and it's something about, with an organization, et cetera, there's gonna be leadership but it's really about how do we make that leadership more inclusive and open space to collaborate and maintain sort of like that feedback and that coordination in the things that we're working. So Jeff, your examples and Darren's, you're two in terms of how you're managing your funds but even who is at the table creating, it's not just who's making the decisions, who's creating the products to begin with and then how do we give the space for continued participation in governance structures and accountability, et cetera, more broadly. So sort of like there's for the creation of solutions around the collaboration but the other one too is, these are massive problems and to start to think about systems that are much larger than you is like, how do we get more collaboration between different types of investors? We keep on talking about foundations, endowments and sort of like impact investors have a lot of flexibility or thinking very much advanced there but limited in scale in the larger scheme of things. We have pension funds and other institutional investors, they have the skill but not the flexibility and for many, for good reasons. So creating the space and sort of like the leadership to be bringing all of these groups together to think together about how do we operate in the space? How do we address some of these massive issues? And the last thing I'll say is, I think that we can't underestimate talking about systems and then really being aware of what that means because we sort of like talk, we need to be working on broader systems and then we spend how much time just developing a strategy that is gonna lead us to very siloed approach to any one issue. I care about this social issue, I care about this environmental issue and we forget and we don't yet feel comfortable sort of like stepping out and say, we're gonna work on all of these things recognizing that it's gonna benefit me too and it's gonna benefit my cause. So I think that collaboration, like genuine collaboration can allow us to maybe start to operate better in that way. Let's just jump in really quickly, Darren, before just to give me a thought. The difference, or maybe if one of you know it and wanna take it, the difference between something that is complicated, I know Franz will know the answer, complicated versus complex, right? A complicated thing has a lot of different moving parts that interact with each other that are all important and the right order, a Ferrari is complex, right? I mean, it's complicated. Complex is more like the birds where there are independent actors that are interdependent as well that are moving around. You take a Ferrari apart, you can put it back together. You take a body apart, somebody's body apart, you can't just put it back together and have it function because of the way the things, so it's more than just the sum of the parts. So there's this issue of systems change, systems, the type of systems where human systems are often complex. Mechanical systems are often complicated. Human systems are often complex because one actor over here can make an independent decision over here that ripples through the system. That actor can make a different, that actor can make a change and so all of them are very difficult. Because of that, somebody can't just say, like I said a moment ago, just change this. We have to find the different nodes and influence them and it's more of an influence, collaboration, listening, getting the right people in there than your command. Go ahead, Darren. Yeah, I just wanted to build off of the conversation here. And I think that one of the things that's inspiring to me about us coming together and the power of coming together in a conference like SoCAP to learn is that one of my mentors said that learners will inherit the earth while the learned will be suited, find themselves suited for a world that no longer exists. So one of the things about private equity and venture capital and growth funds, the areas that we invest into is that when we arrive with a curriculum and toolkit set to coach managers on addressing biases and hiring and board selection and looking at their investment selection process, a lot of times were their first professional development opportunities that they've had within their respective organizations because the learning process is not full as it should be. For investors, stopping to learn is sort of the end of an organization. It's vital. It's the lifeblood of the organization. Learning about areas where there's latent value in the market is sort of the DNA of finding outcomes that are solutions that grow prosperity, I think for communities, for organizations, et cetera. So I think that there's this wonderful kind of spirit of continuous learning that's part of the overall system and all of the different models that we're sharing and holding up. And I just wanted to honor that as well. Yeah, can I go? Yeah, please. So I was going somewhere else, but this triggered me to, I sat with some,