Ja-Nae Duane Show

Ja-Nae Duane Show EP 3: Resistance to Innovation with David Bray

• Ja-Nae Duane • Season 1 • Episode 3

Share episode

A conversation with Dr. David Bray, a digital diplomat and innovator focused on technology and human behavior. We explore the systems that shape our lives and how we can engage with them positively.

• Examination of technology's impact on society 
• Discussion on servant leadership and fostering curiosity 
• Insights into the role of change agents and decision elasticity 
• Personal reflections on imposter syndrome and overcoming doubts 
• Ideas for community engagement and collaborative action 
• Exploration of climate change and the collective responsibility 

You can find us on all major podcast platforms and at www.janaeduane.io, as well as on YouTube under Ja-Nae Duane.


SUBSCRIBE HERE:

YouTube: https://bit.ly/Ja-NaeYT

Apple and Spotify

For over 20 years, behavioral scientist Dr. Ja-Naé Duane dedicated herself to one mission: Make life better for one billion people. This award-winning innovator and expert on global systems focuses on helping corporations, governments, and universities understand and develop systems of the future using emerging technology such as VR/AR, AI, and blockchain. Ja-Nae guides companies forward, helping them get out of their own way to create exponential innovation and future forecasting. She has had the pleasure of working with companies such as PWC, Saudi Aramco, Yum Brands, Samsonite, Natixis, AIG, and Deloitte. A top-rated speaker within the Singularity University community and the author of the bestseller, “The Startup Equation,” Ja-Nae at helping both startups and multinational firms identify new business models and pathways for global scale. Her next book SuperShifts is due out in April 2025.

To Pre-Order SuperShifts: https://bit.ly/SuperShifts

Connect with Ja-Naé Duane:
Visit the Ja-Naé Duane PODCAST: https://bit.ly/40G1i7G
Visit the Ja-Naé Duane WEBSITE: https://bit.ly/Ja-Nae
Like Ja-Naé Duane on FACEBOOK: https://bit.ly/Ja-NaeFB

Speaker 1:

Hello and welcome to the Janai Duane Show, where she explores the systems that shape human behavior in society through the eyes of technologists, scientists, executives and leaders. From the algorithms that govern our digital lives to what the future of work will look like, we'll be taking a closer look at how these systems function and the implications they have on our lives.

Speaker 2:

Hello everyone, welcome to the Jeanne Duane Show. I am thrilled to be joined today by Dr David Bray, a man who is part digital diplomat, part human flak jacket and full-time wrangler of chaos and innovation. From leading bio-preparedness efforts to advising transformative technologies like AI and quantum computing, david has consistently been at the forefront of tackling some of our most pressing issues. His work spans from supporting global collaborations to spearheading cutting-edge ventures that shape the future of data, bio and space. Join me as we explore his insights and the incredible impact that his work is having on this world. Welcome to the Jeanne Duane Show. Well, my friend, thanks for being on here today.

Speaker 3:

Oh, thanks for having me and this is going to be a fun jazz-like conversation. You know, we're completely, you know, working with no script and we're just going to see where it goes.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so for the viewers at home. When David and I were talking about doing this show, I was like, do you want me to send you questions? And he was like no man, let's just do jazz.

Speaker 3:

I said I love improvisation, I like hot potatoes, so you can ask me anything and we'll just see where it goes.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I love it. I love it. It's one of the reasons why I love you and you know you. I, I have to say there's so much that I owe you for as far as where I am, for today and um, and just like some of the guidance before I got into my PhD work and you have just been an open resource to me, and so for that I am extremely grateful and excited to talk about many things today and now you are making me blush, and just for the audience, you said about five minutes ago you weren't going to do it, and now you're a little right.

Speaker 3:

Well, what I would say is I mean one thank you for that. I honor and respect it. But no, it's mutual, because I often feel like sometimes I look at the world and I'm, you know, for whatever reason, I have this like motivation like I've never. I'm not doing enough, that I need to do more to try and make a positive difference, and so to meet someone like yourself who's also out there making a positive difference, it's almost like it sustains, like the idea that it's a marathon together as opposed to by yourself. So, thank you for everything you're doing and again, it's mutual is what I would say.

Speaker 2:

Well, that's interesting, so why don't you feel like you do enough?

Speaker 3:

Probably because how I was raised to be candid in a good way, I mean I love my parents. My father was a Methodist minister, my mom was a schoolteacher. Clearly they were doing their jobs out of a service of love and I watched them and I observed them and I heard when they came home and they talked at the dinner table about things. I mean, of course every Sunday I'm seeing my dad preach and I also have been hearing the stuff behind the scenes and all the challenges with churches. And you know, if folks don't know a little secret story, churches have little massive internal politics and so people wonder, like how can I be a nonpartisan serving in US government? I was born that way, just in a different setting.

Speaker 3:

But that leads to.

Speaker 3:

You know, there were two things they left me with, which was one do what you can to make a difference bigger than yourself. And I actually think the scientific research increasingly because I'm a scientist, I'm a scientist, not someone in religion shows that if you help others, if you truly help others, you're not just doing it to be self-serving. It does lead to some sort of contentment. But the other thing they left me with that almost challenges that was this idea of you know, always keep seeking for more ways to be of service. And the best leaders ask how can I help? The best leaders say, what can I do? Because they don't assume they have all the answers, but they go and approach it. And so throughout my life and my wife now, you know, she often laments, she says you're never going to be happy that you've done enough I'm like, yeah, that's probably going to be the rest of my life and so, anyway, that's where it's nice to find fellow sisters and brothers who are also trying to make a difference, because it helps keep you sane.

Speaker 2:

I will say that my husband and I have similar conversations there you go, so there is a cut.

Speaker 3:

We are from the same class, is what you're saying.

Speaker 2:

That's definitely fair to say so, and you, you know what's really interesting. Thinking about your background. It really speaks to why or at least to me, why you got into service early and through working with the government. Will you speak a little bit to that? Because I mean, I know that history but I'm not sure if most of these folks do.

Speaker 3:

So okay. So I gave a little bit of my background about my parents. My father's skill sets with churches were his healing fragmented congregations and capital planning. So he often would inherit a church that, for whatever reason, had some fragmentation, some breaking. Try to actually find a unifying way to bring people together. That was tied to doing some initiative, do the fundraising, do the capital planning, get that done and congratulations.

Speaker 3:

Now you're moving to the next church. And so we moved every three or four years to a new place. And so along the way my parents said you know, look, if you want, you know we'll support you if you go to a state university, state college, but if anything beyond that you're going to have to get a scholarship. And so this was around middle school. They told me that, and at the time I was both good at writing and English. Both my parents were English majors but also good with computers. I sort of self-taught myself. In fact my parents had no idea where I came from relative to computers, but anyway. And so I was like, yeah, computers seem to have more future possibility for scholarships. Not to lament English majors, I love them. But you know, if I want a scholarship then I probably need to do it.

Speaker 3:

So I went to that route. I them, but you know, if I want a scholarship then I probably need to do it. So I went to that route. I started doing science fair projects and and fortunately, I went to Newport News. I went to later Alexandria, virginia. Both had science fair programs and I was fortunate enough that science fairs at the time this was the tail end of the supposed that the supposed end of the cold war. We can debate whether or not the cold war actually ended or not and the government still used science fairs as a way to find talent. Inside story that's actually they found Vint Cerf when he was a young lad and later got him involved and you know he helped create the internet with at ARPA today and now DARPA and everything like that. So so so for me.

Speaker 2:

I didn't know that. That's how they found him oh yeah, he also.

Speaker 3:

He also. He also started carrying a briefcase when he was in high school, but conversation for another day.

Speaker 2:

He was definitely I carried a briefcase in high school. There's nothing wrong with that.

Speaker 3:

There you go, and here I am wearing a suit on a video call, but anyway. So, yeah, we, we all have our little counterculture ways of doing things, um, but but through science fair projects. I partly because when, when I listened to my father, my rebellion If there was a rebellion was climate change. At the time there was more focus on ozone layer deterioration, even though greenhouse gases was a conversation, and so I went to the local library, got the research I could about rising in o2, co2, methane, ch4, as well as ozone layer deterioration, and tried to build a computer simulation on a 286 computer of where these things were going to go, because, of course, you know what are you going to do. Of course. And that led to a successful science fair project and u US government saying and I have to admit, this is where my own like even then I felt like it wasn't enough. I felt like, actually, like I'm just doing basic maths and everything like that, but this is not enough. But anyway, that's a. Maybe I've always had imposter syndrome, who knows, but anyway. So that led to the us government saying we'd like to offer you a job. It's going to be at the department of energy facility. I was at the time 15 which in virginia you have to get a work permit, got that and and we actually then were building computer simulations of what would happen if the electron beam escaped containment, what might happen with neutrinos and things like that, and so it was quarks it. It was fun stuff.

Speaker 3:

We moved up to Alexandria, virginia, because my dad got assigned to another church and along that way then I got called down when I was 17 to the principal's office, everyone's like, and there's four individuals in suits that say we'd like to offer you a job. It's going to be classified, you won't be able to tell your parents what you're doing, but you'll be able to work with the Department of Defense on small satellites and computers. And I think I immediately said yes, I don't think I said too much more, I mean I don't even ask how much. And so I got to work really, and I'm still in touch with the key mentor. His name was Dr William Jeffrey. It is Dr William Jeffrey. He later went on, you can find him. He was science advisor to a president on international and national security issues. He later actually worked with SRI as the director of SRI. So he and I still we're in touch about once a week now and so.

Speaker 3:

But he was my mentor and sort of began to expose me to the world of how satellites this was mid nineties how satellites, computers could play a role. One was picking up crop growth from space to try and predict famines in advance and actually trying to help out in africa. But then I actually I got. He said you can lead this project. I got to lead a project it was my own idea which was picking up forest fires from space, scan the wind conditions, scan the topography, see if we could guess where the forest fires might go to demonstrate. A prototype of that Could not fully be declassified, so you never heard about my Wessinghouse science fair project. But that's what I was doing. And so it was just. And then when I went off to college I swore I wasn't going to do computers. I still circled back to them, but for me it was trying to understand the world. And then, once you understood the world, how you can make the place, how you can make at least some people's lives better do you feel like you understand the world?

Speaker 3:

I feel like I have ways of linking what happens at the biological level to the chemical level, to the macro level, to the aggregate level, and I can also say where science is lacking yeah like I mean you know I mean you've done it too as a phd that there's a lot of gaps in our understanding. I mean, I went to a business school for my PhD and what I loved about the business school experience as a PhD level is the research really can only explain 30% of what makes a business successful.

Speaker 3:

Right, and so that says a lot about the nature of business and maybe why entrepreneurship is so hard is. 70% is unexplainable, but that's useful to know what you don't know just as much as what you do know.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, but how many people do you actually come across, focus on the things that they really don't know or want to explore those even further? Right, I mean and maybe this is just my, my observation, but I I find that there's very much a lack of curiosity. Um, yeah, I'll just stop there. I mean, do you, do you find that as well? Are there ways in which you combat that? Like, how, how do you approach or to just stay away from those people, like systemic? I'll ask that question and then I have a follow-up.

Speaker 3:

Sure? Well, that's a great question because actually you're channeling what I was thinking about this morning. So, yeah, I'm used to being on the fringe of things, but because of the nature of the changing world and you know this too I mean we were talking about some of the things that are now present in the world in terms of, you know, ai having an impact. I mean, I've been working with expert systems in ai since the mid 90s, later decision support systems with the bioterrorism preparers response program and responding to 9-11. You know, to now see how much of the zeitgeist is focused on ai and not to dismiss a lot of people, but it's almost like everyone now is an expert on AI because they're intelligent. Therefore they must be expert on artificial intelligence, and I'm like you know so. So so you're absolutely right there.

Speaker 3:

There is both the challenge of people who aren't willing to both admit what they don't know and explore what they don't know. But then too, I feel like we're in a society and it's possibly because of the 24 7 news cycle, social media, maybe it's just marketing there's a lot of people that are presenting themselves as knowing more than they do know, armchair quarterbacking, possibly even and you know again, in some respects, maybe that's the world how it always has been. Maybe it's just because we're now more connected. I mean, one of the things I do lament is actually it's not just lack of knowledge in terms of technology and science. There's a lot of people who don't appreciate how civics works, how governments work, and so it's easy for them to look and say DC is dysfunctional or the system is broken or why are they doing that? Well, actually, why is there doing? It is actually a good step to become curious.

Speaker 3:

I often tell people you know, if you assume the system isn't broken, if you assume it is actually operating as intended, you may, just may not like it, then you can sort of go to what I call the metaphorical balcony and say why am I seeing things on the dance floor, even if I disagree with how they're unfolding? Because they are probably incentivized to behave a certain way. And what? You may be saying is I don't like the incentives that are driving the behavior I had as opposed to that person is incompetent or that person is silly.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I literally just had this conversation last week around systemic change and poorly incentivized behavior. I think that many people don't necessarily realize that part of our problem is that we have a behavior problem. Yeah, or?

Speaker 3:

plural. Behavior problem is plural.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, well, that's fair, fair statement, and so it's, you know. It's almost like you don't know what you don't know, but there's a lack of curiosity to even explore what that is or how we try to to solve for that. It's really fascinating to me that you, you bring up imposter syndrome and the fact that you say that you still have it, which I, I get, I, I mean, I, I have it too. But for someone as well-versed in these technologies I say these, um, or at least contextually, technology, as we look at some of our global systems and the impact on society, why do you feel like you have imposter syndrome when you know, when we have folks who tout the flavor of the year, right, like AI is this year's flavor, the metaverse, which is, you know, like spatial computing, was last year, the year before that, or maybe not the year before that, maybe a few. Yeah, it was blockchain, right. So do you really still feel like you have imposter syndrome?

Speaker 3:

Well, so yeah because it's the interesting thing is I, as I got older, I could at least begin to identify why I was feeling this way. Because, because, because I was like you know, why am I feeling this way? And but I also think I think it's actually healthy in some respects, even though, even though my wife says, you know, you can take a break now, you can sleep, there's lots of stuff to do. It's. I mean, once you get to a certain level of understanding a field, you actually realize how much there is still unknown in that field.

Speaker 3:

You know, for example, I was having a deep, deep discussion with folks that are doing quantum efforts and quantum computing efforts, both in the private sector and with our own US government, and one of the things I you know we asked the question why haven't we seen any new algorithms come out? You know there's Shor's algorithm and everything like that, but you know we haven't seen increasing algorithms. And my answer was we still don't quite understand all the quantum phenomenology we're trying to use for quantum computing and quantum sensors. You know, and unlike silicon-based computers that we sort of built ourselves and built from the ground up, here we are actually trying to understand a universal phenomenon that we don't fully, completely understand and at the same time, we may actually be discovering that you know what we consider to be this sort of spooky action at distance, these other quantum phenomenon, that is really hard to explain we're actually limited by our own biology that there may be dimensions to the universe that our brains never evolved to actually perceive because at the macro level they weren't important.

Speaker 3:

So anyway, so that's a very long answer to say. I think I still have this feeling because I'm able to step back enough and say, yeah, there's still a lot to be known.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it's. It's fascinating to me, you know, talking of quantum, it's just fascinating to me to think about human evolution and the fact that it's humbling, the fact that we there's so much that we were not meant to know and we probably won't know because our biology is not equipped to A hundred percent. Yeah, you're absolutely right Receive that.

Speaker 3:

So, yeah, at the same time, I mean, as you know, I mean I think we were having this conversation about a year ago, like I think we both were in agreement that you know only now is the tide beginning to.

Speaker 3:

I mean, for a while, people completely dismissed the idea that there would ever be quantum processes only happen in the cold vacuum of space, you know. And then, and but that's where, I think, when we were both talking about this, you know, we pointed to the fact that, you know, we, we do know that photosynthesis has quantum processes that actually help it work, and so increasingly, you know, there, there is now more and more evidence that there actually may be a basis for quantum processes happening in our brains, which, if so, would throw some serious cold water on the idea that if we just scale this current version of generative AI, we're going to get to somehow AGI, which I don't believe, I'm sorry, I don't think that's going to. That's not one year off, despite what people say, and in fact there's more and more evidence of it that if what's going on in the brain is not just classical physics but also quantum physics, that means we're going to need a lot more nodes, phenomenologies, to actually achieve that in an artificial sense.

Speaker 2:

Why do you think the conversation I'll say the global conversation is not gearing in that direction? Is it because we are very much really looking to have it, you know, to have general ai, or or is it that that is just too much for us to perceive like what? What are thoughts on that?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, so, interesting enough, I got re-invited to go back to Davos this year, and so I did. I mean, I get invited each year, but this was a case where someone actually was going to pay me to actually host five conversations with folks about whether or not industry, government, investors were ready to explore other approaches to AI. Because, if you think, about it right now with our generative AI movement. It's based on late 1980s, early 1990s algorithms, deep learning, neural networks. They were all described in the late 80s yeah, nothing's changed.

Speaker 3:

Nothing's changed, but what has happened is, one, we've got the computing power and two, we've got the data that has now been produced by all of us over the last 30 years because of the internet, and so that's possible. That said, neural networks are incredibly energy, expensive, cpu expensive. That's coming out and at the same time, our human brain is used between 15 and 20 watts. So I often tell people don't call it AI in terms of artificial intelligence. Call it AI in terms of alien interactions that are meant to look like they're doing what you and I are doing, but they're definitely not. This is an alien digital creature. So, that said, I think there's three reasons. One, there's a whole lot of marketing dollars going on that the current version of AI is the ultimate way to get things done, as opposed to looking at the long arc of AI history and saying we've been through multiple AI winters. You know, expert learning had expert systems, had great benefits but also weaknesses. You could not describe all the possible rules of the universe Decision support systems, machine learning, natural, you know, each of these techniques have lots of great strengths and a lot of great weaknesses. I think with generative AI, if you take a really sort of dispassionate view, you'll realize it has some strengths, but if you're trying to do anything in which the present and future is different than the past, don't use generative AI, because, guess what? It's only good as If the past is embodied in the present and future. And there's some fields where that's definitely the case. Customer support, definitely great. But if you're in the business of national security, generative AI may not be your go-to thing. So there's that, but I also think it's. I mean, you did a PhD, so I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

Speaker 3:

I often tell people PhDs don't necessarily mean you're smart. If anything, it may mean you're not smart because you spent that time doing it, but what it does is it breaks down your way of seeing the world in terms of absolutes and instead helps you see the world in terms of the frontiers of knowledge, being uncertain, being a sort of a narrative debate. It's understanding what the empirical evidence says, being able to discern that. I really value it was almost like marine bootcamp. It actually creates a different way of perceiving the world and understanding things from a systems to systems level, as opposed to pure black. You know, pure, pure, boolean, zero one in some respects.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, you know, I have thank you for that. I have mixed feelings about my PhD education because I had specific professors in which I can go back to, who absolutely helped me to have that lens, and that's the lens in which I I hook onto. But then I have others that are very much wanted me and this is this became problematic for me in my PhD process wanted me to have a narrow view of and a siloed view of. You know how phenomena occur, what you know? How do we look at empirical evidence? What are which empirical pieces of evidence do we take into account? And so I love, I love the idea of looking at it as a bootcamp.

Speaker 2:

I almost I don't know how you feel a boot camp. I almost I don't know how you feel. So this is going to be a question for you. I almost wish that people had that level of education just as a baseline, instead of this is, you know, this is the end. All be all Cause. In many ways, when I you know I'm also in academia when I look at, when I look at what our undergrads end up learning, and and this isn't about one university, I've I've worked at several. You've, you know, you've been at several. In many ways, it's what we should be teaching earlier on. Oh, yeah, yeah. So, anyway, what are your thoughts on everyone having a PhD and if it's worth it?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, that's a really good. So I think the fact that PhDs help you realize the limits of our knowledge. Getting back to earlier conversation and the uncertainty, but then also you don't resign yourself to knowledge nihilism that nothing's knowable, that nothing's understandable conversation, not just for undergrads. I would actually go middle school. I mean, yeah, partly because we're now in a world which, um, you know, I tell people you know, historians 20 or 30 years from now will say the good news is we made more accessible and available technologies that that only exquisite capabilities of nation states had, including the cia and the kgb. You know, in in 50 or 60 years ago.

Speaker 3:

I, your phone is a multi-intelligence device. It's got GPS. You can call anybody in the world at a moment's notice. You can actually download apps. It can pull up satellite imagery that's 15 minutes or so relevant in terms of what's happening on the ground. I can guarantee you President Reagan would have really loved to have had your smartphone available to him through the Pentagon back in 1980. But he didn't, and now people are getting it for less than a hundred bucks, and so that's the good news.

Speaker 3:

The bad news is we also did that and we haven't figured out. Now we have to remind ourselves. The KGB had a thing where they were intentionally trying to spread disinformation about the US somehow manufacturing HIV in a lab, intentionally, and that actually caught on effectively. And it's still to this day, even though it's you know, even though Gorbachev has come out and said, yep, we own that, we tried to spread, that it was intentional it's still a myth. That's out there.

Speaker 3:

So in some respects, people need to be able to start triangulating what is more authentic versus inauthentic, what is more reliable online for themselves. The challenge is is this gets back to biology most of us don't have the time, most of us don't have the inclination, and it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not a problem, it's just. If you had to do this on a daily basis, you'd probably not get anything else done. I mean, even today the CIA has got more than 15,000 analysts. They spend three to four weeks on something and then they write it up as an article for the presidential daily brief, and even then they do confidence intervals and they sometimes get things wrong.

Speaker 3:

So in some respects, we got to figure out how to make that, that, that what I would call trade craft of triangulating what is more probable, what is more authentic versus not find ways to make that available to individuals and groups and companies. Otherwise, I'm not sure that this generative AI future is going to be. Eventually, historians will say well, free society is kind of messed up their own civic operations, whereas autocracies they knew exactly what to do. If you didn't like what the autocrat thought was truth, then you were either imprisoned or killed yeah, let's.

Speaker 2:

I want to, because obviously this is an area in which I spend a lot of time and and I love to think about. I don't want to say I love, but I love to think about it's important to think about, right?

Speaker 2:

um, you know, when we look at our systems, they are set up for us to respond, um, to respond reflectively or not reflectively, but reflexively.

Speaker 2:

And so you not only have systems that are almost I'll say well, are I'll put that stake in the sand that are working against you, but yeah, you don't have the time and we're being bombarded with, but yeah, you don't have the time and we're being bombarded with copious amounts of information on a daily basis. And so for a person to start to discern what is real and what is not, or what may be real or I love the fact that you use is probably authentic or probably accurate, because what is, depending on what we're talking about, you know what is accurate, what, what constitutes real, I think, is I mean, those are sometimes bigger and sometimes more philosophical questions to to ask, but how? I mean, what would be your recommendation? Let's just take an organization like, let's try to create a case here, like, what would be your recommendation for an organization to start to do that for themselves and for their we'll say their employees and customers, right? And then I want to move it to the societal level, right?

Speaker 3:

So I think, exactly as you said. I think right now, whether you're in a for-profit organization, whether you're in government, for decision makers in that organization, they are often taxed with martyred by make a decision, make a decision, make a decision on a daily basis, and it's almost like they don't have the time to reflect and to consider what are other things going on here and they've got things time bounded. So the first step would be beginning to encourage them to start doing what's called decision elasticity. And so decision elasticity is how wrong do I need to be before I change my decision?

Speaker 2:

I've never heard that term before and of course I love it. There you go.

Speaker 3:

And so it's, and again it's, it's, it's. There's no perfect science to saying it, but it says what would need to be wrong in how I'm perceiving the world, or wrong in my assumptions for me to need to fundamentally change my path yeah, and how wrong in my assumptions for me to need to fundamentally change my path yeah, and how long would I need to be to do that? The second thing, though, is is intentionally creating environments in the workplace again, in companies or governments, where it is perfectly okay and, in fact, if anything, if anything, it's almost like okay, right now, everyone is allowed to speak freely about different perspectives on this, and I'm going to reward that. I'm not going to actually come down and say, well, that disagrees with me, and so I'm going to ostracize you. This next period is intentionally meant to be the expansive period, and then it could be you say we're going to do that for a day, or we're going to do that for 30 minutes, because maybe we only have 30 minutes before we got to make a decision, or we only got three minutes before we make a decision, but it's almost like you know, share your different perspectives, and now we're going to actually have to be where, unfortunately, whoever is that executive is going to have to make a call, but that doesn't mean that the person who, or the people who may have raised dissenting views, are wrong. It just meant that we had to make a decision at this point in time, and if new information comes along, we will update our perspective on the world.

Speaker 3:

And then, finally, I think you need to actually start doing case exercises.

Speaker 3:

I mean, you know, I mean often, if you can make this real for people and you can give people examples and they begin to see it makes it so that when that moment happens where they've got to make a decision and that confirmation bias is really kicking in and they want to say this is either absolutely not true or absolutely the case, they can only say, oh, I remember that case study from a year ago or two years ago.

Speaker 3:

Maybe I need to recognize I'm stuck in a confirmation bias or I'm stuck in a sunk cost bias, but you can begin to actually expose these different biases, and so those would be the three things I would want to do. I'm also encouraging people increasingly to have what I call portable board of advisors, which are fractional people that you can call on. The trouble is, of course, if it's a real emergency issue, you're not going to have the time. But they're there for the larger issues because, especially if you're trying to lead change in an organization, sometimes it is really hard to see around corners and it's the bus that you're not expecting that comes out of left or right field that ends up hitting you over the head.

Speaker 2:

Well, I really love the idea of having a fractional board of advisors because in many ways when you don't necessarily know the situation or which situation you're going to come across to be able to pull the lever that I've worked with have been focusing on all right, how do we do some adaptive scenario planning and and building in programs that focus in on on at least organizational biases that that end up, you know, illustrating themselves in different ways. But I would really love to see more to your point. I'd really love to see more organizations really get to the individual level so that, no matter what situation comes their way, they can help to build up that organizational resiliency, which I think is important, but also make better choices, more holistic choices when thinking about the impact on society. So I want to circle back a little bit. You know I want to circle back a little bit. You know you have been a servant leader your entire life and have have shown that as an example throughout. I mean throughout that life of yours.

Speaker 2:

What I'm really interested in is you. You tout the need for change agents. I mean ever since I've known you, that's, you know we need more of these.

Speaker 2:

Well, what does that mean to you, and is that the same as servant leadership? Are there different characteristics or different traits? How does one assert themselves as a change agent, and what does that mean as society as a whole? So I know a few questions that are no, it's great.

Speaker 3:

So I would say servant leadership is a tool in the toolbox that change agents can employ.

Speaker 3:

And let me sort of explain what a change agent is. So I often say a change agent is anyone willing to illuminate a path different than the status quo, that is more uplifting of some characteristic of the organization of society, or something like that, but, more importantly, are as willing to manage the friction of doing so? I think right now, for whatever reason again could be, you know, I have a theory that we are repeating the Gilded Age of the 1890s 1900s massive technological change, a whole lot of signaling, but a whole not a lot of substance, a whole lot of polarization. Same thing happened in the 1890s. The US may have gone into war with Spain over disinformation of any of them. So history rhymes, if not repeats, but regardless, but regardless. Um, so positive change agents is recognizing that you don't have to wait until you are anointed the head of something or you're given a title, that that oftentimes you can choose to do something different than what patterns are already going on. However, you've got to take the time again to go to that balcony that we talked about and say why are the other people thinking this way, or why are they in the status quo, or why are they disincentivized to do something? And once you have permeated on this, reflected on this. Maybe you've talked about it with your portable board of advisors. Maybe you've asked how can I help. Maybe you've actually played sort of like detective and sleuth things out. Come up with some experiments to try and do interventions, to do things differently. I'll give some concrete examples.

Speaker 3:

So I parachuted once into a government organization that had had nine CEOs in eight years Always a great sign for CEO number 10. Wow, great. And I went in knowing that I had been within the national security complex at this government organization that was more public facing and had two advanced, persistent threats prior to my arrival infect their machines, which meant I couldn't even trust the IT infrastructure I was getting, and so I clearly needed to do a listening and learning tour to understand what was going on here. Why was there so much change in the leadership? I assumed, and sure enough, as I listened to people, there was fatigue on the staff's part, there was anger, there was frustration, and there were 10 different bureaus that were not used to working with each other each other and so, as a positive change agent, and again repeating some of what my dad does with healing fragmented congregations and capital planning, what I said was you know this is something where it's going to be all of us together, and so I'm going to start having town halls where I can only ask questions. During that time I can't impose my views, I can't say this is the way forward, I'm just going to ask questions, and it's going to be an hour long. We'll have both in-person and virtual, because we can't get everybody together.

Speaker 3:

And so the first town hall I started it was about maybe two, two and a half weeks in, and I opened with just how are things going, how are people doing? And of course everyone was quiet. Nobody wanted to ask the first thing or say the first thing, and I had begun to learn within those two weeks who was a little bit more extroverted. So I called on somebody by name. I said could you share with me how you think it's going? And they were willing, and so that sort of broke the ice and people started talking and I listened and towards the end I said so how many of you are excited about the future ahead? Raise your hand.

Speaker 3:

I made it a very simple thing, which was, and probably less than 30 percent were excited, maybe even less than 20 percent, I said. And then how many of you are are, um, wanting things to go back to the 1990s, when technology was a little bit less complicated and people raised that and how many of you are just waiting to see if I'm still here in six months? And it sort of made a joke. That was about half the people. I was like great. And then I was thinking that was done, or at least as the initial icebreaker, when someone raised a hand and said I have a beep and I said could you tell me more? And they said it happened 17 years ago.

Speaker 3:

Again, I'm two weeks, two and a half weeks into the job and I said could you tell me more? I'm interested in learning more. And it was some disagreement between what happened with the government, people and the contractors and whatever. And they raised it and I said I really appreciate you sharing that. Could you possibly share thoughts about how we could take that lesson learned and apply it to what we do together going forward?

Speaker 3:

And so I often think that really what you're trying to do, if you really want to have systematic change, is how do you create a space that encourages people to be actual problem solvers, at whatever level in the organization, positive change agents, as opposed to just waiting, because I think that's how you actually have change at scale. And I think what right now is happening in our world whether it's because of the economy and concerns about economic polarization, economic risk, geopolitics, technology change people are sort of hunkering down and becoming what I would call problem admirers as opposed to problem solvers, at all levels. And it's safe. I mean, quite frankly, you probably are more likely to get promoted if you're a problem admirer than a problem solver. Problem solvers they create friction, they get people upset, they get shot at metaphorically or sometimes literally. Sometimes yeah.

Speaker 3:

So I have that empathy for people. However, I feel like, whatever opportunities I'm given, if I can encourage a space, if I can help remove obstacles, that help facilitate a space where people are comfortable enough to start becoming problem solvers, at whatever level they're at, that's how you encourage change.

Speaker 2:

So I love that. David on the organizational level, David on the organizational level. So then let's bring that to a higher level. Thinking more globally, how do organizations and communities and groups work together in order to start to create that change? Be a little more empathetic, like how would you implement that if you, if you could, yeah um.

Speaker 3:

So I know you and I both did singular university and and uh, so this was actually before covid um. So my first experience with singularity was actually through daniel craft with his exponential medicine in 2014, and I love daniel and I continue to want to help him out. And it wasn't Daniel. There were some other people in 2014, when I was asked to give a talk afterwards they said that's great, but you talked about the role of communities and governance and everything like that. You know, the future is just do technology. Everything's going to be great. And I was like you know, laissez-faire works until it doesn't work. You know, I'm not saying I mean, I'm a big supporter of free market, but we need to also recognize that there are times when communities are going to collide, interests and incentives are going to collide. You've got to figure out a space to do that.

Speaker 3:

So I kind of didn't come back to Singular University until about 2017, when, when I guess they kind of realized that, yeah, maybe this governance thing, there is a role of governance, even if we're not going to say there's a role for governments, and so, but part of that was saying you know, look, governance is that which we choose to do. That we cannot do by ourselves to coexist. There's also a theory that says civilization is when you don't automatically kill the newcomer or the new idea, and so which, of course, oh, we seem to be going in by you know. There's, you know, and it's always been this way in some respects that that humanity is always on this edge between our more tribal biological tendencies that want to kill new ideas, kill newcomers, metaphorically, hopefully, but and embrace things that are different. And so one of the things I pitched to SU at the time and unfortunately we didn't get to do it before COVID happened was could we find either some philanthropy or could we find even Netflix and pitch to them a series where we're going to find?

Speaker 3:

You know, for a million dollars you get a thousand bus tickets between red states to blue states and blue states to red states, and you find people, you advertise, people apply online, you selected it and really the idea is prior to the journey, they sort of talk about their perceptions about what the journey is going to be like, who they're going to meet, their own background, and then you actually allow them to go on that trip for one week, you know.

Speaker 3:

So someone who's been in the heartland gets to go to one of the coasts, someone who's been on the coast gets to go to the heartland, someone who's grown up in a rural environment spends it in an urban environment and vice versa, and you allow them to experience that and then you ask them on their way back, when they're taking that bus back did their experience match their expectations? And it really is the idea that one of the ways we can overcome our biases, our polarization, our tribal natures which, quite frankly, are human and biological. I mean, I went into biology as an undergrad because, having done computer science, I wanted to understand how evolution, as a blind watchmaker not intentional, but as a blind watchmaker had shaped us. And you begin to realize, oh, we're flawed, we are and not in a bad way.

Speaker 3:

I mean, it's just, it is what it is. It is what it is, and evolution never perceived an environment, there was no pressure to coexist with now 8 billion people on the planet, which we're now facing, and the jury's still out as to whether or not we'll get it to the next level. Right and so, but experiences can overcome some of that xenophobia. Experiences can overcome some of that us versus them, that wedge mentality, and so that would be the first place I would start is just simply and my pitch to Netflix, if they're listening to this, is hey, make a documentary. It would actually probably create a profit and, at the same time, you're doing a social good at the same time.

Speaker 2:

I love it. Listen, I'll work with you on that. All right, let's work on the script. We have a pilot to get funded All right, well, good, we have a pilot to get funded All right, well, good, now we have some follow-up steps from this talk. But so I love that.

Speaker 2:

I think that that's a really it's funny I do within some of my classes.

Speaker 2:

I try to work with students on how do you actually try though you can never do this, but try to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Speaker 2:

Then I usually do that through 360 VR or if we can actually get them immersed in an environment for an extended period of time, it's at least eyeopening for them to remove or or, excuse me, I don't want to say remove, but to question some of the, the assumptions and biases that they have bringing to the table, or, initially, that they've brought to the table. So let's back up a little bit and what I want to do is really dig into the sense of. I have two pathways in which I want to go. I'm trying to think of which one's the best way. But let's start with tribalism. I'm really interested in your opinion as to whether or not you feel we are becoming more tribalistic, or if it's just manifesting itself in a different way than it has, say, over the past 20, 30 years. Like what? Because I have my own thoughts, but I'm interested in your thoughts first so recognizing I'm reflecting on your question and probably deserves longer thought.

Speaker 3:

I'm gonna actually go with both, because and here's how I'm going to explain- it's a lawyer's answer. No lawyer's answer would be uh, you know move for a, you know move for a two-year, two-year continuance or something like that.

Speaker 3:

So anyway, but so so I don't think human nature has changed. So whatever we're seeing, human nature is human nature. Now the question is are we putting in place incentives, disincentives, structures, networks that are allowing certain parts of our human nature to manifest differently? And I would say and I say this is someone who's worked with Vint Cerf on the People Centered Internet Coalition behind the scenes, worked with Special Operations Command on some of these issues of challenging disinformation and polarization, and then also experienced a disinformation attack that was thrown my way that turned out to be from both sides of the aisle. So hey, good nonpartisan, when they're both shooting at you. So, that said, I often ask people how many of us know more people in our immediate neighborhood than we do online?

Speaker 3:

And when, I ask audiences, at least in the United States, less than maybe 15% raise their hands that they know more people in their neighborhood than they do online. And then I say how many of us, on a daily basis, actively seek out news sources that challenge our views? On a daily basis, and unless I'm briefing the intelligence community, which is what they are hired to do, that's usually, again, less than 50% do that, and so the internet is allowing us to begin to associate with people that we don't feel a friction towards, and it's also allowing. Well, the other challenges is and this is, I don't think, intentional on anyone's parts, at least I hope not However, if you design algorithms to promote engagement, promote post, unfortunately, what you will discover going back again to biology and evolution is the number one way to make something go viral on the internet is to make it angry, and not make everybody angry, but make one group angry and the other group angry in response. And the number two way is to make it sad or fearful or disappointing. Right, so I have been saying for a decade now I wish that we could have technologies that would instead hold a mirror up to ourselves and encourage us to reflect, sort of like what you were talking about. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes, see where our biases are presenting to ourselves. I feel like we have unleashed technologies that bring out the more socially disruptive elements of human tendencies.

Speaker 3:

And again, they were probably there. I mean, if you go back to 1968, it got pretty heated. I mean people were being shot at. I mean, you know it's, I tell people, in 1971, 1971 to 1972, there were 18 months in US history in which there was more than 2,500 bombings in the country. Wow, I didn't know that. Yep, an average of five bombings a day. Now, most of them were at night, so fortunately people didn't get killed, but it was a combination of protest extremism and everything like that around the country. And so when people say it's really bad, I'm like it's not 1971, 1972 bad, you know, and I hope we don't get there. Uh and so. So it is worth saying, in some respects, the united states remains what ben franklin said, which is this great experiment um, to see if you can have the states each with. You know, the states themselves each have different views and different forms of governance. There's's people in different states. It is unclear if that this new technology called the internet, which imposes networks on top.

Speaker 2:

Of that is going to help us come more together or become more divided what would it need in order to be a tool to bring us more together? Is there anything else that we haven't, or you haven't necessarily covered, that you think would really?

Speaker 3:

Economics. I think you know, and you and I know this, I mean one with all respect to my economic brethrens, and I will say behavioral economics and experiment economics is empirically based, but there's a whole lot of macro and micro.

Speaker 2:

Yes, it is.

Speaker 3:

A whole lot of macro and microeconomics could use some. You know game theory, which supposedly helped win the cold war, when game theory, you know, and even you know John Nash even found this out with John he actually apparently when he got really disappointed when he took this wonderful, beautiful theories of game theory and then tried to see how people did repeat games and it only explained 30 of observed behavior. So we need, we need a empirical based science of understanding dynamics at group, community, large, regional, national levels and include in that both actual, empirical how do people behave, how are they motivated? As well as the fact that the earth is a finite resource. Right, I think and that's why we're seeing, we're not seeing progress on climate change at the moment is we lack that good understanding of a system of systems. So I'm actually working with NASA some on that is, to try and actually figure out how do we update economic policy decision making to recognize the fact that we, most of our models, do not assume that the earth is a finite resource.

Speaker 3:

You know, and even when I talk about there's some economics, like well, there's space and there's resources in space, I'm like, yes, and space is really hard to get to. Yes, we're making progress, but it's still really hard to get to and there's resources in space. I'm like, yes, and space is really hard to get to. Yes, we're making progress, but it's still really hard to get to and it's really bad for the human body and asteroids. You know people like we can mine asteroids. I'm like, yeah, 5% of the asteroid might actually have the metals you want, which means 95% of that material has got to go somewhere which could be debris in space, which can make it so we couldn't even use space. So, yes, we.

Speaker 2:

So, yes, we'll get there, but it's not the quick win in the next decade. So that actually brings me to another question I have. Why is there so much what I consider sort of climate theater and a lack of urgency to actually work together to create some of the change that we need? Because I I'm in. I'm in agreement with you that we need to be having the conversation that the earth is a finite resource. We also need to consider how we incorporate the earth and nature into the design of our systems, which we don't necessarily um, at least on scale. So why isn't anyone taking this seriously? Do they just not feel the urgency as of yet? I mean, is seeing burning you know, maybe you know fires burning the town over not enough? Like what? What are your thoughts on this? I think it's partly because it's.

Speaker 3:

It crosses so many fields. It gets back to that. You know we were talking a little bit earlier about the challenges of systems to systems thinking, and that you know. So here's what I'd say.

Speaker 3:

First problem the political systems of western societies and free societies around the world that are representative. You know, usually it's two, four, maybe five years if you're lucky for whoever's in office, and unless you can give them something that's going to show results in the next two to four to five years, it's really hard for them to actually do the necessary. You know it's probably going to be. It's going to be a U-shaped curve. You're going to have to make some things that initially hurt economies. You know's probably going to be. It's going to be a u-shaped curve. You're going to have to make some things that initially hurt economies. You know it's going to be changed. Change is going to be hard. People are going to be frustrated. You're going to have to spend money on getting this done, but then you're going to actually make things better, and so it could very well be.

Speaker 3:

Our own political systems aren't equipped to do the necessary long-term actions to to address climate change, so that's why you partly see climate change. The other thing is, let's be honest. Yes, there's a lot of entities right now that are currently making money off the status quo. How do we change it so that they're incentivized to make money off the new? Because there is a lot of. I mean, I think there's a lot of well-intended rushing after green tech and things like that, without necessarily considering the whole life cycle. I that without necessarily considering the whole life cycle. I mean I am still one of those people that is very concerned that we will look back and say we rushed to electrification without thinking about both the environmental but also the political effects.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, yeah, I'm with you, I'm with you, Like if you look at how these rare earth minerals that are used for electronic batteries and everything like that are mine, one pretty toxic, toxic, and two, we may be equipping a whole lot of autocracies with funds from us, but so so, so you know, it's almost like you know, I hate to say it's the line of the king is dead long. Let the king, you know, get off oil. But what you embrace be as good if not, and so and and then finally it's at in the United States and this is true for other of the side science has the problem of it's not, it's usually not definitive, as you know, and it gets back to the probabilistic and everything like that, and so it's hard for scientists to have conversations about what needs to be done when they say this is possible, this is likely, when there are others saying this is absolute, and this gets back to what you're talking about. When you did your PhD and the reason why I'm not in academia. I put my foot in there every once in a while, but I'm not making it my career.

Speaker 3:

One might say that because of the way one has to go after tenure and one has a six year window in which things are ticking and everything like that no-transcript.

Speaker 3:

And now let me give some optimism. You and I both know a person by the name of Sharon McPherson. I'm going to give a shout out to Sharon because she's amazing. Sharon is working at the local level with folks and recognizing that if you tie the transition to jobs you know partly it's a problem of right now you can't rush into places where there's been third or fourth general you know whether it's oil or coal mining and say you got to stop Right Because that's their livelihoods, that's their jobs. But if you work with them to have a path to jobs that are both ideally better paying and also, at the same time, more green, they'll go there. You know that's what they'll want to do, and so I think the way we saw climate change actually is probably by rewarding again positive change agents at every level, including local level, as opposed to somehow thinking we're going to come up with nationwide, let alone international, solutions that work for everybody.

Speaker 2:

So it's a behavior problem again and it is a problem. We have met the enemy and it is us.

Speaker 3:

Darn it, yes, yeah.

Speaker 2:

No, I love that line of thinking and I love the work that Sharon is doing, because I mean, particularly when you're thinking of, if you take away those jobs, you take away, I mean you'll decimate, sometimes entire villages, entire towns depending on where it's located, and there's just so many health problems that go along with some of those jobs. So in many ways, to your point, these folks are looking for another, another way, right Another, another way to to sort of extend their livelihood and and maintain and flourish, have their communities flourish. What I love is that when I think about Sharon, I think she's a really great example of like a net, a net giver, like I, you, you use this term net givers and net takers. First of all, can you define those terms for folks and then and then give me a story of where maybe you were pleasantly surprised by someone where you had the assumption that they were a net taker but they were actually a net giver?

Speaker 3:

Right. So what I mean by net givers and net takers. So there are people in life that you're going to meet that will intrinsically default to paying it forward, that they will figure out. You know they're out to help you and they're not looking for anything else. You know and it's just. You know. If anything it's like how we were beginning this with is that it's camaraderie, it's your brothers and sisters, you're moving it forward. And then there are other people you might. That will be a little bit more transactional. It's like what can I take from you, or how can you help me get to the next level, and things like that.

Speaker 3:

And I don't dismiss those people. However, I don't think they're conducive to actually making meaningful positive change if they're only focusing on themselves. And I don't again, I don't dismiss them because maybe it's where they are in their life. Maybe they've got some economic hardships, Maybe they've got some pressures, Maybe they've got whatever it is. They are that way because of pressures and maybe in a different setting, if they had a chance, they would be different.

Speaker 3:

And I say this because I've worked in enough government settings, but also private sector settings, to realize that organizations sometimes promote and raise to upper echelons people who are more takers than net givers. And and you have to sort of ask yourself, who do I want to be if I want to empower more people to make more change? Because I want to empower more people to make change, I don't want to be about myself. I often say my job is to be the flak jacket so that people have that space, which means I do get shot at metaphorically, hopefully, but this also comes from conversations that I heard as my dad was dealing with churches. I mean churches, which are supposed to be people that are all coming together to do one purpose. Have these people too, and one might even argue this is again product of evolution yay uh, you know, it all comes back to behaviors.

Speaker 3:

So along the way, I have learned that you have to, I have, I am. I have become comfortable with giving people benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, because there have been people I have met that, quite frankly, when you first met them, you're like, wow, seems like a very generous person, great, everything like that. And you start working with them and then, a year or two in, you're like, wow, this is you know, things you helped them with they are now taking sole credit for as doing by themselves. You're like, wow, you know and and and. So that that is.

Speaker 3:

And again, I'm sure if you talk to the other person, they wouldn't perceive that Everybody's a hero in their own mind. So I'm aware enough of that. There are other times, though, when I meet people and I'm like I'm not sure why this person is approaching with me. I don't know much about their background and everything like that. And then you later turn out and they're one of the most generous. You know paid for people, most generous, you know pay it forward people, and so you just have to give people a benefit of doubt, but you also have to be comfortable with that. Sometimes you will help people along the way and there was still value in you helping them, even if it's never actually, you know, if they they rush off and they take off you know, again and again, it and again.

Speaker 3:

it's not about for me, it's not about necessarily getting credit or acknowledgement.

Speaker 2:

It is just saying, like wait, I thought we were doing something as a community, not as a solo venture, and so to see a community activity suddenly gets spun off into a solo venture, you're just going and you just have to walk that off and shrug and get back into a good mental headspace after that you know, I find this, um, this topic, really interesting because I, though early on in my life I would have considered myself a net giver, I actually was a net taker, but the reason why and and years of reflection on this it was because of how I grew up, um, not, I mean, we were sometimes begging for food, like it was very much a scarcity mentality, and so then grow, you know, like moving into my 20s, I carried so much of that with me.

Speaker 2:

But it was actually a book that one of my employees, um, or one of my staff, gave me, the um, the go giver. I believe it's the title and what it made. What I love about the book it had a profound effect on me, though I didn't think it would. It made me realize that not everything needs to be quid pro quo and that you can give, but you know you don't necessarily, you might not necessarily see or reap those benefits, but it's that act of giving that's actually um going to provide you with, um, with more than you could even know or consider. And it's not, it might not come from that person. So, just, I love that you give people the benefit of the doubt as someone who is a reformed net taker.

Speaker 3:

Well, that's very I mean, and I love that you, I mean one, you're spot on. I mean generally when I have gone to the balcony and asked like why did that person spin off? What was a? Community activity as a solo activity, you begin to realize again it's either scarcity, and I'll admit, I mean I hope I'm not disclosing too much.

Speaker 3:

I actually remember at least one, if not two, occasions where checks bounced for when I was growing up. You know, because we were similar, you know money. I mean, you do not become a minister and a school teacher to make lots of money, if anything, it's the opposite. And so at the same time, I saw what they were doing and so I had both of those infusions in my head. And that may also be getting back to our beginning as to why I've always felt like it's a hard walk that I walk, because at the one hand, I saw their challenges and, the other hand, I have this motivation, just this meme of make a positive difference, give to others.

Speaker 3:

Because I can remember, even as a teenager and I'm I'm not particularly religious, but I would the one thing I would say to myself, if I consider myself praying, was help me to the universe, help me be able to be of service where needed, not as I intended, but has how the universe needs it. And I, I mean I still say that to this day because I think you know, and that's hard, because then you are, you're saying it's not about my intentionality, it's not about me, it's not about what I want to be, that title or that organization, everything like that, because there are times I'm sort of like if I was only in that role I could make a really big difference. But I'm not sure I you know, I'm in a non-partisan. I've intentionally chosen not to pick a political party because my mom was catholic, my dad was methodist. I kind of grew up bipartisan or non-part, but you know, relinquishing yourself and saying as the universe wants it to unfold, as opposed to how you want it to unfold.

Speaker 2:

I love that and I think that that's a beautiful way to wrap this conversation. David, if people wanted to find you, where could they find you on these wonderful interwebs?

Speaker 3:

find you on these wonderful interwebs. Increasingly, the internet is getting harder to discern what is real and what's not real. Best place is LinkedIn. However, if you connect on LinkedIn say, I heard the podcast, you know because even on LinkedIn there's a whole lot of bot accounts, so that's probably the best way. The other way is connect with you and then you can make the connection too. I'm increasingly thinking that we're in an era in which discerning what is real and what's not real online is hard. Thank you for this opportunity for a very genuine conversation. So I would say LinkedIn if they say they're not a bot or they connect with you, and then we go from there.

Speaker 2:

I love it and I will have all links in the show notes. And, my friend, thank you for your time, your energy and your authenticity. Thank you for your time, your energy and your authenticity, which is definitely in need, not only today but in this day and age.

Speaker 3:

So, thank you for the time, thank you and thank you for everything you do and it's mutual. And here's to see how the universe unfolds and where we can play a role in helping Love it see how the universe unfolds and where we can play a role in helping.

Speaker 1:

Love it For listening to the podcast. You can find us on all the major podcast platforms and at wwwjanaeio, as well as on YouTube under John A Duane. See you next time.