Shingler.

Thanks. Thanks for having me. I want to share some slides. Is that okay? Let me see. Do this. Tell me. Do you see that? Yes. Yes. Okay, great. Cool. So let's see. So, yeah. So as Josh said, I'm here to talk about the project that I've been working on with some colleagues and friends called executional theory. And this is an idea that has been getting thrown around in a bunch of more casual environments and discussed. And it has a sort of like memetic, sorry excuse me, quality to it that I think is both really exciting. And we really want to complement that memetic quality with some sort of significance and depth and rigor and to explore this idea from the from the institutional side as well as the institutional side. So this is work that I've been doing with Primavera, Tifluipi, which everybody on here I'm pretty sure knows, Tony Lai, and several other folks in our extended community, including Josh and Virgum and others on the call today and one step while we're looking. So let's see. So I just wanted to kind of this this slide is is just almost like a little thing. Sorry. That background is very loud. Can you hear me? Great. Okay.

I'm in a highly urban environment, let's say. Yeah, so this slide is just a kind of a quick fable in a sense about the role that institutions have played in the evolution of societies and civilization. And it's a little bit silly, but the idea is to capture, I suppose, the importance that institutions have in human societies and the way in which they have enabled thriving and progress and innovation and coordination. But the idea is that they they're almost they've become so central and so important that we don't know how to see collective action through other lenses. And so we almost forget that it's possible to to coordinate and to act together in concert outside of an institutional setting. And so what I'm gonna be talking about today isn't predominantly institutions, but I thought it would be helpful to start off with some definitions of institutions, so that we can have some shared language to build off of as I start to get into this idea of institutional theory. So institutions are, different authors define them, of course, in different ways, but the definition that we'll be using today is a system of rules and rules that structure certain social interaction. And the important things here are, of course, rules and roles being the the animating elements of institutions and the idea that together these two components have the effect of structuring social interactions that are happening around them. That might sound really basic, but we're going to start scaffolding off of that. And in institutional theory, we are using that definition sort of normatively in order to restrict it to these dynamics. Some folks talk about institutions as being much broader than these rules and rules, but we want to use it to actually scaffold, no pun intended, the definition of institutional theory off of. So institutions are associated with structures and discrete boundary. So I'm just going to pause for a second and talk a little bit, given that definition of institution. I think it's helpful to talk about the motivation for why why we came into working on this thing that we're calling it execution theory before I start to define what the heck we mean by execution. So institutions are an area of study, of course, in a broader field of social science. But institutions these days are sort of our only model of persistent social dynamics. So when we talk about patterns of social behavior persisting over time, the vocabulary that we have and the theories that we have trying to model and reason about the persistence all operate through the lens of structure. And there's nothing wrong with that, but the idea is that it's not that it's incorrect, it's just that it's incomplete. So within social science and social philosophy, what we observe is that we tend to equate persistent social dynamics with institutionalization and vice versa. And reasoning about persistent social dynamics then involves a implicit assumption that one leads to the other. And we think this is really limiting. I've seen this a lot in anthropology, even though I'm not an anthropologist. There's some really great work by Clasdras, who I love, who wrote about the definition of power in a book called Society Against the State, and he talks about how anthropologists of, you know, like the mid-twentieth century couldn't have this very particular definition of power, which was coercive power. And I think that's kind of an interesting example in the context here of talking about governance. We talked about coercive power as being the only form of power that anthropologists knew how to see and therefore had to study. And when they started to realize that there were forms of power that were non coercive, they they expanded and and were able to understand social dynamics in the society that they were studying much better. And so here, I'm not actually advocating that we extend the definition of institution. I'm just pointing out that the the scope of our terminology, it constrains and shapes what we know how to see. So the second aspect of the motivation is that collective action itself is then only seen in relation to institution. So that means that when we talked about the outcomes of collective action, we're always evaluating it through the manifestation in an institution or the impact on the institution, and that relates as well to the notion of success. Like how do we think about success in an institution, sorry, in a social setting? We're constantly evaluating that against an institutional background, and we think that that can be changed. I see that there's a chat that I'm just checking. Yeah. I think legibility. I'm gonna talk about that. There we go. So

all the questions. Holler holler if actually, Actually, I was also gonna say that this is a sort of casual presentation, and so, like, my my idea with this is just to take us through some definitions, but in a very conversational sense. And so feel free to just, like, jump in and ask questions as we go and if I'm going to address what you're asking in a subsequent slide I'll just say so, but I actually like the conversational style so please jump in. And the second aspect of the motivation is really just to talk about why now, like why, why is this coming up now and why does this feel like a timely thing to be studying? And so there's two main reasons that stick out for me. One is that as the world is increasingly kind of like over emphasizing in a sense institutional reasoning, We just have a lot more data and large end means that we start to see where the cracks show up. Like we have more data and so therefore it's easier to see the imperfections or where institutions don't exactly match our reasoning about social behavior. And the second is the technology, this is like you know obvious to everybody on this call, but technology is changing fundamentally how we can coordinate. And that means that we just have this huge explosion of experiments that mean we're seeing a wider variety of phenomenon and they are, again, not well described by existing institutional theories. And so some examples of that would be, something as simple as, let's say, me being on this call, like, I'm not here. I'm not here because of a role that I play officially or a rule that said I had to come here. I'm here because of my relationship with a bunch of people on the call and the identity I hold as being associated with, say, like governance research. Another much broader example that, Doreen and I were talking about earlier is the notion of care work. In our lives, we all have role, sorry, we all have relationships where we perform care work. And care work is the kind of thing that actually actively. Ulrike Thomas At almost undermined when we try to institutionalize that or describe it in terms of formal rules and rules it's I think we would all say that we feel somewhat. Jennifer underrepresented if not actively misrepresented if somebody were to say that you're caring for someone and we're describe the full care that you have somebody because of a formal role, as opposed to your identity or relationship. So the history of social science and a lot of social dynamics have predominantly been studied in the workplace, and I think that explains, you know, in some respects why we haven't seen a huge amount of study of this kind of institutional dynamic that we're about to get into. But the thing that is perhaps worth empathizing is that what we're doing, what we're doing with institutional theory, none of it is new. The point is not that what we're seeing are new dynamics or dynamic that didn't previously exist, the point is that we're offering and we think we found some interesting tools to describe those dynamics. Okay, so all of that is some context and some backdrop for getting into some of these definitions. The first is just the definition of executional theory itself. Institutional theory is a general theory of social dynamics. And specifically, executional theory posits that social dynamics can be described by at least two interacting domains, the institutional and the execution. Each domain is characterized by distinct and internally consistent ordering logic or you could say like sort of social physics. So the study of these domains and the interplay between the two are the focus of executional theory. And a few things to point out about that definition this isn't just an this isn't just a definition that says anything that's not institutional is executional. The idea is that we're going to flesh out what characterizes the kind of social physics in each of these domains and that doing so gives us a language or permission, permission and language to describe things that have not been previously easy to describe. The other thing is that institutional theory is not about saying it's either institutional or institutional or the institutions are bad and institutions are good, but rather we always need both. So if there's a particular social phenomenon that we're observing our our thesis is that. There's always an institutional component and an institutional component and that what we're looking at is the way in which those interact to either support or undermine or create a stable arrangement or an unstable arrangement of social interactions. So within that idea of you know we've sort of like said what is executional theory now there's just a few terms that. That I want to flesh out within that the first is the idea of executional dynamics, so we talked about the institutional domain at the beginning of the presentation, and the idea that institutions are codified into structures. And that's on the one hand, and then the institutional domain is codified by dynamics. I think that are constantly in flow and moving around. So, institutional dynamics have at their core the sort of like basis vectors, if you will, of institutional dynamics, we think of as being identities and relationships. And that these identities and relationships are animated in ways that kind of feel like, orbital dynamics or like gravitational attraction. So that that's that's playing a bit loose with, you know, metaphors into physics. And again, this is for us to kind of lay it out and then see how we can begin to formalize these observations and layer in yeah like a more formal description of these things. But our punch is that there's something happening in institutional dynamics that have this kind of like gravitational attraction nature to it. So, for example, me being here was there's this sort of like reputational attraction to the meta dev community and meta dev is generally hooked up in the world. I kind of look at what they're doing and I'm like, the people are cool. I want to hang out with them. It is an identity that I hold to be involved in governance research, and therefore the relationships that I want to develop. Sort of draw me into participating in this in this in this community. And so, that being said, given that I just said that institutions are structural and institutions have this sort of dynamic element to them. The next thing that I think is worth pointing out is there's the idea of an institution. You know, an institution has the discrete boundary, you're either inside the institution or you're outside the institution. Is it meaningful to talk about an institution? And we think it is. Although execution, executional dynamics don't have the same idea of fixed boundaries, the the thinking that we have is that execution is a reference to institutional dynamics that basically share a common set of gravitational attraction. So that might sound kind of crazy. But you know again sort of like leaning into our intuition here. There let's say that there's somebody who is up to something really interesting that you that you would that you have some identity associated with. When when we name a thing, like when you name MediGov, whether it's institution or institution, or when I name a community that I'm part of, There's this idea that an execution emerges and sometimes it has an associated institution and sometimes it doesn't. An institution emerges when a social group begins to recognize itself or is recognized by others as an entity with a name on its own. And so, again, that there's a sort of like common sense of gravitational tractors that pull people in, that cause them to want to associate or to identify with a name. And sometimes that name could be or that identity could be an identity I hold, like the one I've been using here as an example. You know the identity of being somebody involved with governance work or the identity could be the sort of abstract concept that we are all co organizing. And then another concept to talk about is the term that we've often been throwing around again called scaffolding. And the idea of scaffolding is that between institutions and institutions, because we're interrogating the way in which they relate to one another, the way in which you know one gives pride to or challenges or undermines the other in different circumstances, that we we have found ourselves talking about this idea of scaffolding, which is the institutional resources deployed to facilitate the institutional dynamic. So, you could think about this as, like, in a way, we're almost constantly teetering between this situation of in the extremes, perhaps, something that's, like, the tyranny of structurelessness where everything is just open and fluid, and there's no structure, and you're just flowing, and you're feeling it out, and there's maybe very little accountability and very little formalism. And on the other hand, you have the opposite extreme of like seeing like a state where everything is codified, everything is rigidified. And the question is, what is the equilibrium and the idea of scaffolding helps us to interrogate that. So. I just have a few more slides where I'm going to go into this concept of exclusion that we've been exploring a bunch within executional theory and within this work. And my hunch is that, in my experiences, that this concept brings up a lot of interesting examples to kind of like turn over and to explore together. So if you want to like write down the examples that you think of or even like cut them out as I'm talking and we can discuss them, maybe we can kind of evolve into a discussion about this after. I finished with the slides. But within, within institutional theory, or within as we as we look at the dynamics between, let's say, like institutions and institutions, in the institutional domain, we have this idea of enclosure, right? Like you have social dynamics that are being sort of like codified by rules and rules, and they are being enclosed or contained within an institution. And that's all well and good. There's nothing particularly surprising about that, but sometimes we find ourselves in a situation where there's a set of institutional rules that create a kind of naturally self reinforcing environment that actually supports institutional dynamics and allows them to thrive. And that that is itself an institutional phenomenon, but it's a funny institutional phenomenon where there's like this sometimes stable equilibrium, but like almost a stable tension between the institutional and the institutional dynamic. An example that we like to talk about of exposure is the idea of copy left. So in the copyright world, for a long time, what you've had was, you know, the creative works that were that were put out into the world were by default covered by or are by default covered by copyright. Even if I wanna say my work is free, and so we had copy left, my work was by default covered by copyright rules, and I couldn't just I couldn't exclude my work from from those rules. And at some point, people came up with the idea of copy left or CC0 or whatever you wanna call it. And what they did was they used the rules of the institution to construct like a boundary that actively excluded a bunch of content but relied on its own rules in order to do so. So the thing that's meaningful about that is that if the institution had wanted to say copyleft isn't legitimate, then it would have had to actively undermine its own sense of legitimacy of the legitimacy of copyright as a concept overall. So, just to go through the rest of the definition here, institutional dynamics generally exist within the normal enclosures created by institutional rule, but exclosures are stronger because of their self reinforcing nature. So this comes from the strategic incorporation of rules that are valued by the institution, such that the institution would have to actively undermine its own rules in order to further institutionalize the institutional dynamic. And by the way, the exposure is part of why I have this lovely hunk of cheese behind me because the the Emmental cheese is sort of like a playful metaphor for the the exposure present in institutional and institutional dynamics, my apologies for. Valerie J Cabral, Urantia Having to achieve the last twenty minutes. Valerie J Cabral, Urantia So anyway, so this notion of exposures is really interesting and we have a few examples of it, but one of the questions is you know for those of us who are who work in environments where we're kind of balancing executional and institutional dynamics, this is both a really interesting concept and the question comes up well how do we design basically good enclosures or what does it mean What does it mean to support and catalyze healthy, institutional dynamics? And again, we're not prioritizing execution dynamics because we think they're better than institutional, but rather because we're in a moment in time where institutional dynamics have been so heavily prioritized that we're not sort of smart on the institutional dynamic side, nor the interplay between them. So just a few things to point out about the features of exclusures. Exclosures, although they support institutional dynamics, they're actually they're they're institutional creatures. They're made up of institutional building blocks. And enclosures are not just protected areas within institutions, but they're actively self defending. So they have to be, they're sort of like autopoetic thing. And the third is that the creation of institutional scaffolding might result in an exposure, but it might also just be scaffolding. So the reason that I put this here is because often when we start to talk about exclosure, we, it's almost like it's such a cool concept that we then end up thinking kind of like everything is an exclosure. But there's lots of institutional dynamics that simply coexist with institutional dynamics that don't involve an closure, like an active disclosure. And so that it's sort of, I think it's a really interesting concept that's worth interrogating with that formalism in mind. And there's basically three types of exclosure that we've identified. One is what you'd call maybe like the secret society type of exclosure, which is the copy left example. It's it's a situation where, the institutional dynamics have basically escaped from the enclosure. So the secret society type will, we think, tend to have, like a very small surface area in the institutional realm, but something that's designed just right such that there's this this large volume relatively speaking of social dynamics that are existing outside the institution. The second type is one that I was calling the influencer, and I think Zarga maybe had a variation on the term here, so maybe you can throw it in when we start discussing. But the influencer type of exposure is something that's kind of like adjacent to the institution. So while the secret society is like really outside the institution, the influencer is kind of like, has an institutional component, like knows it needs to speak the institutional language and interact with the institutions. But internally to its own institution, it's kind of like everybody's on to you know the game. They're like we're just playing this game because we have to but we're just we're doing these institutional things over here and that are adjacent. And then the third is what we're calling the lab. So labs are like, Brooklyn Klein Center is one of our common examples, but also something like, Bell Labs or, like, like Los Alamos or something like that, like the Manhattan Project was certainly a lab where you have a space being carved out within an institution. And the institution is benefiting from this kind of like rule less environment, where there's like a lot of creative flow and low bureaucracy. But it exists inside, like it's fully consumed by the institution as opposed to being outside or kind of like straddling the zoo. And this is completely a working definition, but after many, many an hour of whiteboarding in the middle of the night in a castle in Germany, we came up with a working mathematical definition of an exclosure, at least the stability of an exclosure. And this is again just to give us some tools for thinking about this. It's not my guess is wrong, but it's something along the way to getting to the right definition. But some, yeah, the terms that we identified that we think influence the stability of the exposure. One is, you could call the loss or harm to the institution if it were to dismantle the institutional behavior. So when it's expensive to to attack the institutional dynamics, the institution will be more reticent to do so. Would it be sacrificing other institutional dynamics of value? The second term is the value that's being fed back into the institution from the institutional dynamics. So the creative processes that are leading to insights or innovation. And then the third is you call like, yeah, sympathy or resonance of individuals in the institution. So what we see is often these exposures tend to have like individuals who for whatever reason have this like take the exposure under their wing and are kind of protecting it within the institution. And that is also an important component. So each of the three types that I was just discussing kind of fit into that equation, that hand wave equation. The secret society is very high, let's say, on the loss or harm factor. So it's stable even though there's not a lot of value being fed back into the institution. Whereas the lab example has a very high value being fed back into the institution. And so it's unlikely, and some lost terms in the institution from that, but but really its value comes from the the B term. And then the hybrid is hybrid. It's getting value from both. So I think that is the end of my slides. Yeah, discussion question mark. But feel free to unmute ask questions. I will look at the chat and I'd love in particular to hear examples or counterexamples or questions about how we can kind of, like, develop this theory further.

Yes. Yeah. That's nice. Thanks. Thanks for that. I think it'd be cool to explore that as an application.

Right. Yeah. It that would probably be it's like that's more ambiguous. Right? That implies that we're less certain about it. And we did talk about it a little bit. I mean, the reason we made it a plus, just for the intuition, not because, I'm convinced that we're right in any way, shape, or form. But the reason we made it a plus is because you could have any one of those could be zero, and the others could still exist without fault that they were they're not necessarily totally independent as terms. But that that yeah. The other two of them could be zero, and one could still exist, and that would be sufficient in some cases. Case.

Well, I can't claim to represent what Prima was saying in her loving commentary, I'm sure. But, yeah, I guess, to be an institutional person might be to emphasize and be sort of preoccupied with the roles that you play and the roles as they're laid out. So maybe you would get involved in a project because you've been assigned a particular role or you want things to happen at like very particular times. Where as an executional creature might sort of like. Might come to meetings when they feel like you know when this timing feels right they may It's not necessarily about lack of accountability. Let's say it's maybe about being in communication. So that let's say that you and I are collaborating on a project. Maybe we just like to touch base and we're like, hey, do you want to jam on this project this week, as opposed to saying yeah we're going to meet every Tuesday at 10AM. And I think that yeah structure oriented there's a intuition or spontaneity I think those are those are aligned for me. One way of thinking about it is like, you know, I think we've all had the experience of collaborating with friends on something that feels like emerging and creative and fun. And sometimes what we do when when that's going really well, sometimes response to that is to say, great. How do we capture this? Well, let's put in place a bunch of structures. Like, let's let's have a reading group, and let's, meet every Tuesday at 10AM, and let's have a reading list. And, you know, have to write up notes on everything because we wanna keep the momentum going, and we're really excited. But the second you do that, it kind of like loses the energy. And the idea is that you're kind of you're like over institutionalizing, which is nothing wrong with that, but if you over institutionalize, you lose that like dynamic way of relating. So now all of a sudden have to, like, fill a form to attend the meeting, and you've got to show that you participated sufficiently. And, you know, that's that's just a little fun. So, I see Chris's hand up and then something from Ariana.

Oh, cool. Sorry. I didn't wanna jump in. I only just put my hand up. And sorry. I am driving, so I'm a bit distracted. My question was thank you very, very much. I've been sort of excited to hear about this for a long time, having having got little hints of it from. My question is, if in a collaborative context, somebody relies on me to do something in a way where it's just between us, It's just sort of peer to peer. So however, we may have formally defined roles, institutional roles, but this this didn't depend on those roles. So it might be in alignment with those roles. It might be outside the scope of those roles. But either way, we've kind of come to the shared understanding that now now you're relying on me to do this thing. And yeah. And you think you think that something else you're trying to do in this collaboration depends on it. So it's it's somehow part of the collaboration, but it's it's fundamentally a relationship. Mhmm. It's a kind of the relationship that supports that shared understanding between us of what it is you're relying on me to do do and my intent my intent to try and do it. And my my viewing it as relational in that if having done it, you say you're not satisfied, then I will feel that somehow something's gone wrong. That kind of relationship, I'm guessing it's institutional rather than institutional, but I I'm not sure. So so my question was sort of how how would you analyze that with with executional theory? Would you put a little bit of it in and a little bit of an execution, or is it does it sound like it's squarely within

Yeah. Thanks for the question. I think I'm I think I, got it, but feel free to sort of nudge me if I if I didn't. The short answer would be that, yeah, I would say that it's both. And in general, that the the idea with institutional or institutional theory is that we do see everything always has a mixture ratio of institutional and institutional dynamics. And so the question is just like, what is that mixture ratio? And but in the specific example you're giving. There's actually I wanted to point out the work of another scholar that we've been doing some collaboration with called Emmanuel Azaga and he he wrote about sort of just what you're talking about within, I'm just trying to find the word because I'm like blanking on it. Oh, he he talked about this idea of collegial pockets, and he talked about them specifically within the institutional framework. In collegial pockets, he describes as being these kinda, like, undercoded or almost like what you could think of as, like, exposure of social dynamics that exist within the institution. And what you're talking about, I think, is is I think they would coexist. Your institutional role and roles persist, they continue to exist, but then you've overlaid this kind of institutional relationship or set of relationships on top of it. And those are gonna interact in ways that could be good or they could be bad. Like other ways that that overlay can exist sometimes is something like nepotism or bribery or ways in which people kind of flip outside the formal institutional roles and roles to literally to get around them. And so I guess it's also important to to acknowledge and to point out that it's not the institutional dynamics are like good, they're just different. And by understanding them, we can we can have a better sense of what is causing the institution or the execution to to thrive or to evolve or to be stable or not.

Yeah. I think it's a really important question. And I would say I actually don't think documenting my hunch is that documenting things is not itself in the configuration. Sorry. That That is silent.

Okay. Good. Yeah. I don't think documentation is itself institutionalization, although I suppose it's it's kind of fractal in a sense. Like, you could think of it as as there's an element of institutionalization in that literally, you know, words are structured and they follow grammatical rules and rules. But if you have something that's documented and then you are referring to it, it depends on the the rules that you have for how you use that documentation. The processes, there's also you mentioned processes and framework. And I think that yeah. To the there's a basically a spectrum there, you know, to the extent that we everything becomes a process and a framework, then we could imagine that's very institutional. And the transition point, I think it's subtle, and we still need to figure that out. I don't think we know the exact transition.

is working?

Excellent. Okay. So, actually, I'm gonna ask a slightly different question first, and we can get to that if if you feel like it. But where does design fit into institutions? As in, like, what is the role of design? Like, what can be designed, what can't, if if and and then may maybe that connects back into this. What is this? Because I think the point of this partially is to, like, unbook to understand, almost to make legible the executions themselves. But maybe for the role of thinking about how that affects the design of institutions. And maybe the design of institutions, maybe not. Maybe that you're talking about them being emergent.

Yeah. I think some examples or or, I guess, to the first thing I would say is is I think that that that's like a lot of the body of work that is in front of us in terms of understanding, you know, institutional dynamics and institutional theory is is like we're asking those questions and that's the work that we want to do. So what I'm what I'm describing here is is very much like the kind of opening salvo to what we hope will be, you know, a lot more work in this. But some areas that we've been looking at that I think get at your question are things like ritual or play games and the ways in which people sort of like you can observe and you can even name and refer to emergent behavior in a way that is there there's some consistency there, like, across different circumstances or environment. There are certain kinds of of of dynamics that tend to draw people into institutional dynamics. And so I mean like music is a really good one. Jamming and making music together is an example of where you're generally you've got like people setting patterns and rhythm, but those evolve together. But we can still name the fact that those patterns exist and we know that we can start, you know, start into a musical jam by establishing a pattern and that doesn't, it doesn't sort of like ruin the institutional dynamic to name the fact that there's a pattern there. But if you were to say, well, after 20 beats, you now have to change to this other pattern that would go from being institutional to institution. I mean, it's like a contrived example. Like, I think we have these intuitions about when we've crossed the line. But to I think it was Ariana. It's Ariana's question. You know, the precise moment at which we cross is, is obviously an interesting one, and I don't know exactly where it is.

I mean, it seems to me, if I'm understanding correctly, maybe the distinction is where agency lies. Is the agency in the individual in in the in in the agents, or is it in the is it in the set of rules and structures?

Right. Yeah. That's a really good distinction. I like that a lot. Yeah.

But I I don't know if that's true. I'm just doing sad living here. I'm just trying to, like, understand, like, where Mhmm. Because that that puts a design it it means that it's not a design process. It's premeditated. It's an sort of there might be some premeditation. I'm gonna bring up this in this conversation or try to create this dynamic.

Yes.

Right? Like, that's an institutional play as opposed to institutional play.

If anybody's read any, Deleuze and Guastrier from thousand plateaus, they have this idea of a line of flight. And I think that's a good example of where line of flight is like I'm gonna I'm gonna not to give their definition, but the line of flight as we've been using it in this context is like I will often have this kind of like concept that I know if I drop a reference to it in one environment, it might draw people into interacting with me in a very different way. So like I do this, I work in a space, like an outer space space exploration world. And, well, where did that come from? Sorry. One sec.

Sorry. I think I was in another meeting with different app.

We do have a meeting

That's quite funny. Yeah. No. I was I was muted there. What was I saying? Just trying to what was I saying? Just oh, the line of Outer

Yeah. Right. I was like literally in The US space. In the space community, if I you know, drop a reference to, something like, you know, self organization, then a lot of people, like, won't even like, they won't pick up on it. They won't kind of know what that means or won't have any balance to them. But the people who do, do. They pick up on it, and then, like, they'll they'll be like, oh, like, let's dig in on that. And so that's the kind of, like, line of flight that I drop in that. Like, it can it can build up in this relational way, but it can be quite premeditated. Like I often have specific lines of flight that I drop in very specific environments. But I can't find the exact outcome because I guess to riff on your suggestion. That it's you know the response to that is coming from the agency that the individuals who are participating hold and the way that they're relating to another and their identities, as contained.

And I

Yeah. It's a good question. There's a there's, like, a little cabal of us that may or may not have just signed up to do PhDs with Primavera at CNRS on, I mean, authentically under this setting, and we each bring really different backgrounds to the work. And so we have some folks who are coming from political science background, somebody coming from law and climate background, myself from like a mathematics and computer science background. And so my hope and my understanding is that they're interested in taking it in each of those directions from from each of us and also applying it in different contexts. So but the thing that cuts across it, I guess, is to is to continue to flesh out and develop the formalism that can underpin these ideas because as I said at the beginning of the of the discussion it's I think really mimetic and that's that's really great, but it also means that it can get away from us. And so I would say there's like this is my institutional self. There's doing some, you know, the work and the diligence of formalizing it is a big part of that. But that being said, I also think we should lean into the institutional aspect of it. Like, you know, we've been most of the best work we've done on this has been in, you know, between 2AM and 6AM, and it's been, you know, an environment where we didn't necessarily plan to have these conversations. And I also think it's the world and an environment that needs new zeitgeist and new means to hold on to. And I know that I need it. And so I think there's almost like an opportunity for us even with our institutional on. We're, like, not to get too institutionalized with it, but to figure out how we how we straddle that divide.

Okay. Thank you. Enjoy fun. Thanks, everyone.

Oh, great. Okay. Cool. I like that. Yeah. Actually, can you I would love to I don't know how I can export the chat, but if you can save or share the chat with me, I'd love to go through it.

bit. Great.

Thank you. Thank

And, yeah, next time I'll I I like that idea of adding the the blob back into the the slides.