S3E03 System Completeness

[Music] Hello everyone and welcome to the last episode in 2025 of Dangermouth. This is Shana who's stepping in for Mikey to make the kickoff announcement even though Mikey is in the room along with Darryl and we are going to do a bit of Dangermouth randomness about systems which in itself creates a bit of a contradiction I think Darryl. So with that I'm going to hand it over to my two learned colleagues. Right, so I'm talking too much again because I'm being a bit hyper. So I've noticed about myself that I've followed this pattern which is related to the aspect I reckon. So any idea that I think is not invented by me and simple I hated so I rejected then I attacked it and eventually I accepted and then I go around, eventually I just went to it and tell to tell people who thought it was a great idea and we should really take it to count. So that is the most effective way for pissing people off ever invented. Darryl, would you call that risk? You know that orange Darryl in terms of a greaves model is Mikey classic, you know, besides the red squirrel and badger that he is. I don't know that's classic anything that's just, that's just, my life mission is to annoy everybody every stage. So, the reason I mention that is because I am at the attack stage on this system thing, which means I don't understand it. So I'm going to be poking maximally at the idea. So would be over there or maybe accept it? I don't want to do that. I want you to go to the previous stage and reject it. We've spent a lot of time over the years trying to understand different models of systems, understand systems in the way that it was caught and understand systems from the perspective of innovation. So really looking at all angles, which very quickly leads to a lot of confusion I think. And so where we've ended up is let's just think about a system and think about minimum elements that define a system. And then if that goes in any way in the right direction, you can start saying, okay, but then there's a whole hierarchy of systems. Okay. So let's just zoom in and say let's think about what is a system. So I think fairly clearly. I think if you look at all the people you were talking about, Kalfa's and earlier, Stapah beer or which is mine, all the biologists that understand biological systems would agree is a system is a collection of entities which together achieve a thought. So you start with that word function and that makes the question. And so what is the system for? What does it do? And then once you've established that, then it would thief that outbound that you can decide that the system needs to achieve. So cleaning my teeth, for example, right in a book, then you need five, six or seven elements, depending on who you read and who you listen to. So there's I think there's different segmentation models that take the same basic ideas and arrange them slightly differently. I think we've found that the risk model or an involved version of the Trismodel is the one that's easily as the people to see. And so that's the one we tend to use, although we've listed a number of articles which say, and it is what happens when you compare Stapah beer with the Trismodel and so on. So the the Trismversion of the system has got six elements within the system. And so let's just quickly talk through those if I may. So you've at the top of the system. And so there is a kind of a hierarchy in the system that's on the means is a coordination. So once you've established what the desired outcome is, then the coordination for our system is to make sure that the outcome is going to be achieved. And all the other parts of the system are working together appropriately to get to the desired outcome. Next to the coordination is a sensor. So you need to be evaluating what's happening both inside the system and outside the system to establish, are we heading to board the desired outcome. Next you've got a tool. So tool is very engineerly way of saying that's the thing that's going to actually deliver the outcome. It's going to do the job that you're trying to do. And in order for the all to do its job, you need a source of energy, you need an engine in other words. And you've then got to connect the engine to the tool. So get a very mechanical metaphor there, but engine transmission connects the engine to the tool. The thing that does the job. So I think all that kind of starts from the far. The function of the car is to get from A to B. If I've got an engine, then that's a little essential element, but by itself it would work. If the engine has not a gearbox, then the transmission that connects the engine to the wheels, then that's good, but it's still not a complete system. The tool are the wheels. So again, more components, but I'm still not going to achieve the desired function. The tool has to interact with something. So strictly speaking, that something is outside our control. So it's part of the system, but it's outside our control. So if you think about the road, then the tool wheels act upon the road. Okay. And the road from A to B is specifically what the interface is. So that's a final element in the system. So we've got an engine, gearbox, transmission, our train connecting to the wheels, the wheels, grip to the road, and we move forward. The coordination there is the driver. The driver is looking at all the signals on the dashboard, what's happening outside the vehicle and is making decisions. And the dashboard has got lots of feedback on it. So here's the speed you're traveling. Here's the direction, your traveling, etc. And that's the sense of both systems. Mike, before you. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Oh, you mean me? I want to ask you. I want to go before you. Sorry, Shana. Please go. That's okay. I don't normally assert myself in this way, but this time I'm going to what is the point of these smart people? Why do they create frameworks that are systems in the first place? Why do they? Why do I need to know the system? It's a really good question because I think engineers don't get caught this stuff, but as an engineer you've really quickly realized that if you don't satisfy that law, then whatever it is that you're designing isn't going to work. So something won't work? Is it also true that it's a way of making sense of reality? I think you could say that. I think I've heard people say in those tours, but it's a map of reality. I could understand that. So I say that engineers, I think, implicitly come to understand it. Stuff doesn't work if you don't match the law, even though you've never been taught a law. I think when we go to industry where people don't understand systems, then generally speaking, the reason we're being asked to go there is because something isn't working or something was working and now no longer is working and people have no idea what whites are not working any longer. And almost invariably the reason they stopped working it or they don't know how to make it work again is because they don't understand systems and they don't understand, for example, that something's disappeared and is no longer there, that had to be there. All they don't recognize that something was delivering a certain heart of the system functionality is no longer doing that. So it becomes a shortcut to understand why stuff goes wrong and how to put it right again. In my mind, it's a way of, I think, what you're saying is systems are as fundamental in every way, both function from an engineering perspective, but also human dynamics. If you start thinking about anthropocontoxity and go down that rabbit hole, but in my way, what you're saying is systems are everywhere and it's like gravity. There is a lot of physics that is true and you're participating with it whether you realize it or not. And even at a very young age, we are taught, oh, there's this thing called gravity and that's why we don't fall off the face of the earth. Is it analogous to say that highlighting systems, you highlighting systems or having this conversation is a way for us to talk about something that a lot of people participate in, but we're never taught. And it is a sense-making mechanism for what's happening all around us, but not necessarily observed. And by seeing it, we will be able to get, be more successful because if we're not recognizing the function in which we're trying to improve or succeed upon or fix because it's failing, we can't fix it if we don't understand the fundamentals which is systems. Is that true? Yeah, I think it is. It is as fundamental as that. So I think what happens has we grow up from being a young infant. So, your parents teach the whole bunch of things. At some point, we get taught that it's used towards exceeding your teeth in the morning and in the evening. So, here's how you clean your teeth. So, the function there is our clean teeth and we teach the little nipper. Here's a toothbrush, here's sub-toothpaste, here's the sink, here's a clock so you can time yourself for 90 seconds of brushing and if we look in the mirror at the end of those 90 seconds and see a shiny white teeth then we want to be achieved with function. So, nobody actually said, oh yeah, and the your hand and your muscles, that's the engine and the toothbrush handles, there's the transmission, the bristles, there's the tool, but we all kind of like Strauner are workouts, stuff that works in life and as soon as we've one person's learned that it's a thing you see, then we just pass that knowledge on to the next person. So, they also know how to clean their teeth. I think where the problems come is usually when we think about I'll say bigger things, but one of the first times when we were working together, I remember we were working with a group of school principals on the achievement gap and you know, 50 years, people have been worked on the achievement gap and yeah, it's the same today as it was 50 years ago. So, even though there's an enormous desire to reduce that achievement gap, nothing has happened. Reason nothing's happened is because nobody in in that system understands it's a system and if the desired outcome is reduce the achievement gap, then you need a system to do it and quite simply the reason the system to do it. Well, and if there were a system, there would also need to be humans who were able to identify the fact that this is a system and see where there might be an incompleteness that is failing to deliver on the results that they were seeking. So, you personally can create a winning system in terms of function for just about anybody. I mean, frankly, as much as I'm your fan girl, which remains true. Like, throw anything at you and you will be able to break it down and say, oh, idiot, this is what it is. And sometimes you use that word and it ends up being like super obvious to you, but then somehow it doesn't translate. We start dipping into education in United States and the barriers that are part of that system that include humans. So, again, going back to, I just, why do we. What do you call it when you talk a lot about something? It's not winging, but when we go kind of at this stuff for a long time and people are like, what are they on about? I guess my point was to say, you're participating in something that we're trying to highlight so that you are increasing the odds of having agency and the choice that you're making and you can get a different outcome. And in our world, that outcome would be whatever win looks like for you. We won't get into the judgment about whether or not the win that they're choosing is right or wrong. But just, you're in a system. It includes anthropocity and the point of us going on and on about it is like it's so fundamental, it's like gravity. If you're not recognizing that that's what's happening, then you're already sort of not equipped to make good decisions. Yeah, very fair. Yes, I think it's when you look at the alliances, particularly engineering, where you test with building stuff that feaves a specific goal, then whether you like it or not, you become aware of gravity. But other sections don't. Humanities almost invariably doesn't. Consequently, I think you find organisation to inherit something that has worked, for example, because somebody previously did the teaching at a brush teeth thing. But as soon as something changes, if you didn't understand systems, you've got no idea what that something was, perhaps, but you've almost never, you don't have any idea why that something has suddenly stuck to your system from doing what you wanted it to do and what it previously did. I think the next problem is that you just go about that achievement gap issue for a second or two. There's no doubt that everybody with a position of responsibility, so in other words, the coordination system as a desire to reduce the achievement gap. So you can tick, yeah, we've got the coordination part system. But as soon as I ask that group people, so what do you think the engine is in this system? Then I'm just getting blank looks, yeah, understandably so, but I'm getting blank looks because nobody's thought about that before, yeah, and why would they? Because nobody's been taught that stuff before. But there's my opportunity on one level as the incoming domain idiot to say, here's how I can help you because I can help you understand and frame and identify what that engine is going to be. We'll have to change the language a little bit, but because that bit's missing, that's why you're not achieving the outcome that you're seeking. And so like you, Stafford Beer and others that create these frameworks to understand systems are creating them as a map for you to navigate in making sense of the reality that is all around you. So smart people make these things because they want to make new things and do new things and they created these as a way to participate in some ways. What we've talked about before, which is education needs someone to create the new way for them to participate in it rather than expecting them to be the creators of it. But these system frameworks are an attempt at a foundational level to be a tool to use when you're trying to do something new. Yes. Yes, and I think it's interesting with Stafford Beer that his start point was somewhat different from the Trist people. The original Trist people were engineers for the most part and so they could look at systems from the perspective of, okay, I'm trying to design a car, I'm trying to design an ice breaker. Where Stafford Beer came from, I'm trying to understand why businesses don't work or do work and how a business works. So one of his classic books, the brain of the firm is his attempt to say, okay, the reason that business is either don't function or cease function is because there's no understanding of systems. So I need to draw system model from the perspective of a business and enterprise and they look at countries. So he started with a much broader frame, if you like, as what systems is. So ultimately his insight is that, oh, it's systems within systems within systems, so the whole thing is hierarchical. I think that challenged for many people that Encaid Stafford Beer's work is because he started with the big picture. You look at his system model and I've been looking at it for probably 20 years now and I'm still not quite sure how to explain it to other people because it just looks very complex and frankly weird. So I think that's the problem he always had in his lifetime. So to him, I'm sure running a country was simple because he's the domestic hierarchy of systems that's everybody else. I think it was exactly the opposite of that. Well, it's true and I don't know what metaphor analogy you're going to come up with, but the ability to make something simple that is in fact, in fact, complex or to communicate it in a way, that's why you choose cars and toothbrushes and brushing teeth because you're trying to break it down at the most fundamental level to something every human can identify and relate to. And making the complex simple, he didn't Stafford Beer really didn't accomplish that task if 20 years later you're still trying to find a way to, you've digested it but to describe it to others. And so the barrier for me is, well, that's cute, but how do the rest of us get to play in this game of understanding systems and accomplishing something? Gravity just happens. I don't have to know it to participate in it and take advantage of it, but that's not the case with a lot of other things. And so how do you use the law of adjacency to meet people where they are when it comes to understanding these things? Yeah, I think I mean, I never spoke to Stafford Beer or even any of the people that worked with Stafford Beer that are still around, but I don't get the impression that he particularly cared that people didn't understand the model. I think he was very much of the Einstein mindset of everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. And I've simplified it as much as it's possible to do. So that's it. It's over to you now. I think that you've got to get people to that adjacent possible. Yeah, that's one of the key ideas and the one-centres book. So I think in that sense, typical start point that will work is to say, okay, so what is the outcome you are trying to achieve? Yes, whether that's a project team in a company, whatever it is. So what is your outcome? Is our outcome then let's just focus on the system required for you to achieve that. So then we just need to look at those six stroke seven elements and worry about whether they're present or whether they're doing the right job. And perhaps, yeah, me is that if I'm a facilitating a week or all those kind of projects, perhaps it's my job to look at the player level system and the lower level system, just to make sure that the system level we're working at hasn't got some kind of a time bomb in one of the surrounding systems. But yeah, adjacent possible is, you know, what's the outcome you're trying to achieve? And let's have a look at the elements that you need to achieve that. And now you're all the way back to my favourite things. Who decides? When you say, "What's the outcome you're trying to achieve?" That's back to power in their perspective. Because the system within systems, you might decide that the best path forward is x, where the system that you're operating within has a different outcome, which is y. Now, you personally, because you don't actually, you kind of get a giggle out of watching things fall apart and sort of emerge in a way that ends up being successful. So you personally would be like, "Yeah, great, so go fail." You pick the wrong thing and in the end, it'll still work itself out over time. It probably would. But that individual choosing, I think that hope would be to arm them with some sort of ability to look at the perspectives other than their own in terms of, what are you trying to accomplish and what do you want? To say, "I'm living within a bigger system and I need to be sort of mindful of that or take that into consideration from a context perspective." - Yeah, I mean, it's a really tough one. One of the laws within the Trizz world, I would say, is the customers always write what from the problem that I see to solve. So almost there never to be the start point. In other words, if I'm working with a project team, they've been handed a specification by somebody with power above them and being told you needn't to achieve that. So in my desire to help, we can only work with that specification initially. That's the job that we've been trying to achieve in. Now, much as I might look upwards and look down and say, "That's completely dumb, that's not gonna work." Unless the team is gonna challenge power, then we're gonna deliver the outcome that we've been asked for. So if I think of that as a contradiction, we're gonna do what we've been asked. That's how I'm gonna get paid. And that's probably how I'm gonna get invited back. But at the same time, I feel like morally and ethically, I ought to say something. And I may say to the team, and the best strategy, I think dealing with it is to go back to the boss with the answer to the question that we've been asked. And also go back and say, "We also thought about this one, "does this make any sense to you?" That is gonna be the solution to the right problem. So that might get ignored, but I think it's, if power's asked for something in the first instance, we give power when they want it. And if there's a warning that goes with it, I say more ethnically, I think it's right to do that. - I think the most powerful part of a system, and then I'll shut up Mikey so you can go, is the invitation for an individual human to adopt a different perspective. A system enables you to see things differently. And that's the most powerful part of this, or Mikey's rabbit trail with AI, which we're soon to hear about, and is it relates to understanding how might I be wrong, and how can I expand my view of what I'm operating within here? And so, like, if there was one takeaway from this pod for anybody, it would be that the most powerful thing for you as an individual is the ability to grow in your competency of adopting different perspectives. - Yeah, I really like that. Yes, I think as you're speaking, I'm thinking it's, we've got to more right-brain because I think if somebody's working inside a system, then they are contributing usually to one of those six elements. And yeah, simply saying to them, okay, well, here's the other five elements. Yeah, you're not responsible for those, maybe, but look at the perspective of that part of the thing. So being able to position, being able to position yourself, and look at things from the perspectives of the other parts of the system, is a great skill to have. Yeah, we make better decisions when we're using our right-brain because our right-brain is very used to thinking about that broader perspective. Yeah, what else is in my system? Because ultimately, it needs the whole system to work before we're going to achieve the outcomes we want. - Mikey. - Okay, so let's try and summarise this. System understanding systems are very, very important, yeah? - Right. - Very important. - Very important. - It's a good skill to have here. - Secondly, we're not used to doing it. Thirdly, it's a problem getting people to do it, because it's so bloody abstract. - And hard to, yeah. - Yeah, now, right? So, like, I've always kept up with you two all of those because you've kept it such an abstract thing. I've kept up to it, you say, now I've got systems in me. (laughing) - Go on. - What are you talking about? We should create a world of systems and be alike it. (laughing) - So, I'm going to say, thank you very much, Charlotte, because your question, why was so much better than the one I was going to ask, which is rubbish. - Yeah. (laughing) - So, what you say, Charlotte, you said, don't bring in Anthro complexity. I'm going to invite you to absolutely bring in Anthro complexity, because that is nobody, is it not familiar with that, yeah? So, for instance, how about a system of a boss and a worker? Yeah, can you display your system skills between the two of you to kind of say, what's going on, and it's also good or favorite thing power there. So, let's say there's a worker who feels, he or she feels put upon by the boss. So, there's a system going wrong. So, is that a good thing to do? Because it might help me. - It's easy. - D, are you shopping at the bit to share, or are you on me to go for it? - No, you said it's easy, I'm going to go for it. - No, you said it's easy. - It is easy, I'm happy to listen to you, so good. - It's easy, I might even understand it. (laughing) - It's easy in that there's always, what are you trying to accomplish? So, what are you trying to accomplish? And there's easy, because there's two people in this scenario as opposed to 150,000. And so, between those two people, alignment around those perspectives. So, can those two people adopt the skill, the really, really critical, important skill of today and tomorrow because of AI, which is having multiple different points of view about the outcome that we're trying to achieve. So, the first thing that would be needing to happen is, do both parties understand, and frankly, does the leader care? (laughing) Because in hierarchy, it doesn't really matter what the person, unless that person that's reporting to hierarchy has some sort of invaluable usefulness, then I don't, as a leader, I would say, my power is that I have a perspective that isn't enjoyed by the person who's reporting to me. Because what's on my plate is very different than what's on their plate, and there's a level of complexity with the plate spinning that I have to manage, that this person isn't necessarily privy to, for good reasons, as well as other reasons, right? I had a leader say to me, once information is a burden, and this leader meant, I don't wanna know. I don't wanna know what's on the plate of the CEO and the board, and I don't wanna understand the decision that's being made in terms of the function, the ideal function outcome is contrary to what I'm trying to lead my team to do, but that was in fact the case, because the leader did not understand the reason for all the cuts, operationally, was 'cause they were getting ready to sell the company, but that knowledge wasn't something that was known at a level below, right? So it's really easy if you understand what is it that we're trying to achieve? If that leader knew the reason for all the cuts, even though it was really counterintuitive to what is the customer want, if you use Daryl's version, customer wants better customer service, I can't provide that because you just laid off 6,000 people in the call center, why did you do that? Because there was a lack of alignment and the ideal outcome function of the system, the ideal outcome function of the system was to sell the company at X EBITDA. So if those were aligned, whether agreed upon or not, at least then you could start working toward that leader's version of what needs to happen in order for the function to succeed. These are super simple. (laughing) - It's like a circle. - It's like a circle. - So don't give me the conversation. So, right, okay, so this is my new mantra, okay? So if you ask any person what they want, I could I'm in my Karl Frischström role, it's to minimize surprise, simple as that, end story, first principle. So, - Those are the values. - Well, we're getting to their meaning, anyway, it's based on their values, well, they're surprise level you see. But anyway, what I was expecting you to say, even surprisingly, that's why I'm upset, is describe that system of the boss and the worker to start before we get into their alignment as all these component things, was that just not the way you think? What is the way you think? - No, no, no, I think, I think John had been accepted right thing and said, - No, okay. - I said at the beginning of the conversation, which is the system is to achieve a desired outcome. So you need to understand what the outcome is before you can decide what system components that will help achieve that. So if the start point is, the worker feels put upon, the work from the workers perspective, their desired outcome may be, I don't want to feel put upon, but as soon as we bring the manager into that system, their desired outcome may be something completely different from that desired outcome, maybe. These are the goals I'll be told to achieve and that's what we need to do right now. Yeah, so the fact that you feel put upon is, I'm sorry about that, but we've got to achieve these goals. So we still need to get a cheat and agreement. on what is the goal here and I suspect that the outcome of that conversation is going to be, the boss says, "Well, I'm still going to get these goals achieved." So that's the outcome we need to achieve. And if we now think about the homesteadiction, the homesteadiction is, we need to achieve these goals without you feeling put on top. Now we've got a problem statement that we can start to work with. At that point, we might start nodding and think about what are the components of the system. And so just thinking of a cuff a little bit, if that's the agreed outcome, we achieve the goals without anybody feeling put upon. Then the engine that system is probably going to be something like critical mass at critical point, because ultimately the boss can have all the desire in the world to achieve a goal. If people are feeling put upon, that's an indication to me that we're not satisfying that law. The person's telling the boss, we do not have sufficient resources in order to achieve that goal that you'd like to achieve. And Daryl's alluding to something that we talked about earlier, which is arming that leader with the perspective that they are functioning with a system, and the outcome that they are trying to achieve can be achieved with solving the contradiction. Many people with power today are swimming in systems within systems or living within gravity and operating in the belief that they are powerless to solve the contradiction, which is I will achieve the goal I'm seeking and the person won't feel put upon. So the point of understanding systems for that leader and having them be armed with the ability to hold multiple different perspectives along with the ability to solve contradictions leads to win-win, which is also the point of why we rock the book. Like, what level I'm kind of getting at contradictions there, I still don't quite understand what me system is, whether it's two systems nested together. But on another level, I'll just confuse, because I'm seeing a worker that doesn't have the full information, a boss that doesn't have the full information. Yeah, and that seems to be the most fundamental thing. How an artist can they be aligned in their goals when they don't know what's going on? That is that the meta problem, if you like. I think that's a fundamental of life in there, which is that there's always missing information in a complex system. So there's always stuff that you will never know. So you've got to make, you've got to function anyway. So the best way to function in a situation where the missing information is direction. Yeah, we've talked about. And contradicting solving as the primary mechanism. So in that, we start with a very simple scenario. Work is really put upon. We won't know everything from the boss. We won't know everything from the boss's boss. We don't work over in from the person either. But as soon as we said, directionally, we've achieved the goal. Otherwise, we're all out of a job. Boss and workers are out of a job. And contradiction wise, we can be clear on the consequences already. The goal is not compact with the dress that people are under. Yeah, we want to achieve the goal and we need you to feel not not put upon. Right. So it's a bit like you just need to keep calm, carry on. If you haven't got the information, you haven't got the information. I just kind of act on what you have. It changes. It's a dynamic situation. Keep calm and carry on is a pretty good philosophy. Provide, and I've got a compass. Yeah, carry on where it becomes an important question. I need a compass and need an engine. And the engine is, I think, the contradiction solving tool. Yeah. We know where we're going to solve the question. And I need perspectives on the territory. Yeah. The perspectives of the territory and what emerges is the critical component going all the way back to what we talked about earlier. Can you adopt in your mind's eye these different perspectives to inform what's missing? What is known or what is missing? And does that inform how you navigate forward? Even though not everything is known, more is known if you can adopt different perspectives in a way that didn't before. Yes. Because you're already improving your odds. Right. So every, I'm really afraid that then. So if you've only got one perspective, yeah, you'll be filtering out shed loads of information. You'll be missing it. Yeah. You'll have in another perspective, it brings in more and the more you add in, the more it feels the gap between what you know and what you can know given the information available. Yeah. And I think it's very good. Map onto the nine windows thing and which Neptune is. I think it's, yeah, it's, I mean, it's, it's, you're mapping into the whole of Neptune. Because Neptune is the system. Just look at all those elements. So one of the elements of the system is the nine windows, which is constantly reminded you. Look at big picture. Look at details. Look at how things are changing in time. Yeah. We're looking at platespin up, which says, yeah, I can only hold. So I've only keep so many platespin and the other reason that the law, sitting complete, this is connected to platespin up is because you need to keep the system working. Yeah. So I need to understand the system. So I can understand which plates I need to keep spinning and which ones maybe I can leave for a while while I deal with this thing. And it is what if I was doing a mickey, I would say it is bloody complex. It is. But as you've already found from your channel, you're right. I'm going to help with ton with this. AI can help with ton when it comes to helping you see, having your own personal coach in your pocket to see these perspectives in a way that you would just never have that capability in the past as a human. So it sounds really horrible and was not possible before AI came on to the market for us to write that book or even talk about this stuff because each person needs that sort of coach and are in their pocket to help them reorient as they're navigating these different perspectives and trying to decide you know what the territory is as opposed to the map. Okay. I'm going to have another go get to answer this. I'm going to fall with anointingly forwarded what Sharda said I was going to do. So take me as an example, all right. And I'm using AI. Okay. There we go. So I'm right in the middle. So my goal is to be as clever as you two. Okay. By by forming a symbiosis with AI. Yeah. So the customer is always right except for the problem they've defined. Perfect. Yes. Well, okay. That's great. So let's start. I give you a starting point. Great, Harold. Chris is harshly. I love it. So I think something missing my sister right now. I'm getting as delusional as the bloody AI. So they're away from AI is a good idea. No, no, no, no. I think I should tell you. Sharda is saying you need an AI in your pocket to see all these perspectives. You do. And I think I think so. Yeah. So come on. There was so many tell me tell me what's the system. So far I've got me got the AI just two bits turn into a system and say what's missing. There we are. You can accept the challenge. Yeah, it's AI is going to be the engine. Well, I don't know, though. I think the contradiction of it AI is the engine. The AI is probably going to be the transmission. It's going to be the thing that communicates with you. You are the tool. The old thing that's going to achieve you. How did that work out? I'm a tool. So we say that. So the AI contradiction solving do I work on is the tool. No, it's the engine. It's a change engine. Yeah, you see. So as soon as you've got to change from what you are to what you aspire to become. Yeah, Lord help you. You need an engine. A change engine. Okay. And that's that contradiction. So yeah, the AI agent is going to be the thing that's going to be communicating with you. Right. I'm the tool. I'm your other tool. I like that sentence. We're going to keep using that sentence. That's possible. Like he is the tool. The tool acts on an interface. So that's I would say that's some kind of external validation. So all the people that you know that you've communicated that all to they are with the ones that would essentially judge whether you have achieved. So we could be the interface in this scenario. And then you've got your brain which is the coordination. Making sure that you're doing a cheapest goal. Yeah. And the sensor is going to be all those feedback loops that you've either already got or you're going to build such that you learn from your interfaces. Are you heading in the direction of the goal or are you heading away from the know. And if we want to add the seventh element index, that's a surrounding context. The surrounding context is yeah, life and the age of health and yeah, well, there's other wonderful. I'm just ignoring all that. Yeah. Big no fine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So like you the tool. So we're convinced now. Right. So thank you very much for that. I was very very clear. But I can I say one additional thing. Oh, I like your tea calm and carry on, which obviously has I mean, become a meme in the UK. A meme in the second world war. But everybody always forgets that there's also a little graphic with that sentence with that phrase. Okay. That graphic is the Royal Family logo. Okay. Which basically is to ensure it's keep calm and carry on carry on doing what that little logo is to remind you you're a British person and yeah, heading in the direction of the King and Country wants you to head into the compass. Yeah. It's a compass. It's yeah, it's a picture speaks of thousand words composed. You didn't just recognize any words. That image tells you what they're in on means. You're doing this for King and Country. Oh, because I think that came to my mind was homey of stasis, keeping the system together for as long as possible. Because that's what was so family represented me. But anyway, well, it's, yeah, it's, I think in the world, what you got to put yourself in the context of the World War II, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Fraze is being used and carry on basically means refighting the good fight. Right. Forking a country. For me, it stands for understated passive aggressive snark. That's the, that's the 21st century context. We should change the logo. So Mike, you need a mug with heat-com carry on and a photo of Charna and a photo of me above it. Okay. Well, that's it. You want a person's present. I'll expect to be Christmas present. Yeah. Christmas present is now being ordered as we speak. So going back to the, so this is good. This is working for me. You've created a model I can understand. Yeah. Good. Now, I think the model is malfunctioning because the sense that can't bloody tell when the things are getting better or worse anymore. Don't make sense. It does. Well, if it does, I mean, I think it's, yeah, it's arguable in it. But if it does, then that would suggest me that the sense, here's where you get to hierarchy. So the sensor is also a system. Yes. Okay. Okay. So the, so the, yeah. So the sensor also needs to satisfy the law of system completeness. And this time you can think through this accelerant and work out why you're sitting way back to work. It's taking it possible. Right. And you just accept the model. It's hard. Deed. You have to, I mean, to just do what you do in a, in a minute's notice is hard. So I'm going to give Mikey a cookie on that one. That's like, hello, but I've got that in Krueger. We use it, use it to turn arm into benefit. The lock, I'll have a crack at anything. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, then go for it. Let's see what you got. Right. So, so I realized the problem. And I built myself a kind of test hardness. So I developed a, uh, called it a protocol, which is just an AI prompt that runs Tris essentially. Yeah. Okay. And, uh, I thought, uh, on the stage, my sense was working because it was easy to tell. It was getting better. And I got to the stage where I could tweak it. And the AI would tell me it was getting better. And I'd give it to another one and say, criticize harshly and say, this is loaded toch that. Yeah. So, uh, so what I, what I did was create a test harness that had test problems. And it would automatically run the prompt to solve this problems and score them. So it's all self contained. Yeah. You with me, you with me? So I tell you problems. I'd say run the 10, uh, test harness like you're a person because it's designed to be right, to keep the human in the loop. But I'm the only human there is get bored of this. And I'm not consistent as well. So it runs through the loop and it gives the scores. And I was quite happily feeding my new improved models. And I was kind of getting some confidence in it worked. But then I lost it. And then it's me and I told him how it was wrong. Yeah. Well, can I suggest that, uh, okay, but some reason you've seen very hung up on these six elements and always seem to be missing out the first step for the first step being what is the outcome that you desire for the feedback for the sensor. Right. Okay. So that's, that's good. Not a step. But we'll use that. Okay. Don't feel bad about it though. No, I don't. We've only said three times in this call that starts with the outcome. So what is it? Well, my goal is to go on to I reckon I'm a top of my S curve. No, no, it's not your goal. We're now at zoom in to the sensor level. So yeah, yeah. I'm sorry. It's quite keep. I remember hierarchy. Yeah. Looking for like where are the seven elements in the sensor? Uh, so my goal is to develop trust in the sensor. Uh, the sensors go. So I think you just, uh, okay, we said zoomed in. The thing is, the goal of what it says is to give you, I think, accurate, actionable feedback. That's, that's what I meant. Which really increased trust. Perfect. Not going to leave. I've just said he's translated. Right. Okay. So to, to what is it? It's, it's, it's actionable and accurate. Oh, okay. So you got to get back in now. Is the sensor is the outcome for the sensor, a complete system because that leads to accuracy and trust. And so that's what you're seeking. I want to trust what the sensor is giving me. Well, I need a sensor to test your sensor to tell you to trust it. But this is perspective taking. This is this beautiful. Just magically turned out. So Daryl's poking just have you take on this different perspective. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not good for that. That we're trying to develop in your, you're at the beginning of that journey as opposed to the mastery level of it, even though Daryl likes to use shame as a mechanism. I just, I've got like, I've got a force field. This band is off. I'm going to encourage you because every human has, has strengths that we need to optimize. And your goal is to trust the sensor. Yeah. And understand how the information it's giving you is, is good for you so you can act upon it. Yeah. That's my go. What is the system? What is the outcome of the, of the sensor? So D, I'm going to put it back on him instead of you. Good. The sensor's goal is to provide accurate trustworthy information. So we're designing, we're designing now the sensor agent. So we put ourselves in the position of the sensor, being given a goal. So it needs coordination. So it needs to know what actionable means. And so now it's the sensor within the sensor in that sense. It needs to understand that you've understand what actionable is. So if the sensor now gives you some information, are you able to action it? It needs that feedback loop. Wait, I'm going to poke. What about accurate? You said accurate too. Yeah. That's in those. Well, that's my line. Anyway. I'm trying to help. I'm actually got your way back. Keep backing me up. I need it. So the interfaces are all those things that the sensor is going to interact with in order to find the actionable accurate information. So is that potentially external databases? Yeah, it could be whatever. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, the sensor is the sensor of course. It's the thing that's going to do those, make those measurements. And then I would say that the engine is, let's call it a difference engine. It's kind of identify where it sees information. It doesn't come under the category of accurate or actionable. One or both of those things and it needs to know what to do about that. What an authenticity filter. Oh, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. It's an engine in this. It's tronid look. I was 10 to think of it as a different sentence. There's that potential. That's okay. Yeah, so it's looking for a stuff that doesn't fit if you like and is providing impetus to solve contradiction again. So if you have the sensors, let's take a scenario of the sensors found some information that it believes is accurate and actionable. And then when it bumps it, that down to your up to your system and realizes that you didn't do anything with that, it can't have been actionable. Then it needs to do, it needs the engine needs to change, needs to provide some information to change something. Right, so I've just read that as I need to feed back while I think it's telling me bullshit so it can do something different. Yeah, it needs to know whether, yeah, whether the information is so, so the sensor system is going to believe it's going to feed you some accurate actual information if you don't act upon it. Do you decide it's for some reason it's not accurate or something else happens that helps you determine that if you're not accurate then the sensor system needs to understand that and change something. But you've not solved the contradiction. In that way he's a feedback loop. Yeah, I can see you've created a feedback loop, but in my mind you haven't solved the contradiction because suddenly I'm back in the position, if I've been to judge whether what I'm the effect is any good or not, so we're back to the point. There's more than one contradiction present here, so. Ah, oh, I think I've heard, I think the right time, you cross a merge from my play around that there's thing called contradiction, contradiction harvesting. That's what we do in the moment is a lovely term. Good for ice. I like it. Yeah, yeah. So is that what we're doing? I think it does. Well, I think, yeah, I think why is I'm like, what a purpose that or why you probably. Yeah, it's one of the five's and actually writes, solve the contradiction. I mean, it's contradictions everywhere, so as soon as we find a contradiction, run towards it. Yeah, yeah, if we talk about shortcuts, then keep calm and carry on for King of Country or by Key, is there's the direction part, but yeah, I think that. The engine almost invariably has got about difference and shape and what to do when things aren't working. So, driving things to a different outcome, for example, to try to stick with engine type metaphors. - Okay. - So if the sensor, if the sensor thinks it's provided you with action information and then not again, it says it's still not done anything with that, then it ought to work out. Okay, so is there a different way I should be saying this? But without trying to overcomplicate things more, I think we could, it's probably going to be the action, sorry, the accurate one, which is more challenging because the, who decides accurate? - Correct. So I'm going to take a shot at simplifying. You indicated earlier that you were interested in a sensor that was, that you could trust. - Yes. - And Darrell said, "Well, what is the outcome? The sensor, which is a separate system, is seeking to achieve." And then he said, actionable and accurate. And accurate is very messy, which is why I think he went with actionable and not accurate the first time around, because that's super easier. - That's good. - Yeah, okay. - And so when I said, don't forget accurate. I knew exactly why I was saying it, because I was poking at the fact that who decides. And your sensor has a system onto itself, which is what Darrell was trying to describe, but its goal is accuracy and actionable. Remember, that's the goal. If you think about that-- - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - And it's a leap, but I'm going to make it. It's analogous to the leader and the direct report as well, right? In that the sensor has a goal unto itself and the degree to which you can see what that goal is. And you can decide if it's giving you actionable, trustworthy, accurate information. - Yeah. - That informs the anthera complexity system within system. So you're talking about it in terms of an AI. - Yeah. - He's trying to illuminate how the AI functions, which is within a separate context, but at the end of the day, a human decides. A human is the feedback loop. And you said, well, you didn't solve the bloody contradiction because what you wanted was higher degree of trust in the sensor. - Yes. - And I'm going to circle it back to you're the one that has to decide. And that's why it's really important for you to be able to hold these different perspectives in the decision as to whether or not the sensor is giving you trustworthy, accurate, and actionable information. - Right, okay. So why does that put me? So I think what Darrell said was the sense that needs to learn based on feedback from me. - Well, if you're deciding that, just just to throw a Molotov in the middle of it, 'cause I'm here in the room. - I'll go on then. - Like you versus somebody at me deciding whether or not that information is actionable, accurate and trustworthy, yikes. We're going to both, like, so what's the reinforcement learning for that? Is it your version of accurate actionable? - Well, I mean, what's going on the back of my mind here is the things that's missing from this system is feedback from reality, okay? - Well, now we're getting into truth. - Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. - Which is also a fun one to throw over at Darrell. - Truth is reality. - We are always dealing with an abstraction from reality, okay? So the best abstraction of reality available to me without actually creating these innovations and trying them out, yeah, is a record of what people have done before and kind of comparing it with that, which is a date basis out there. So that's what I'm, so you say in the center, it's going to say, oh, I've just assessed this change for proposed as seven out of 10. And it's, it's just six out of 10, so it's an improvement. And I need to feed it back to say whether it's right or wrong, get it to learn. So, and I can't do that because I don't know, I don't know, I love a lot of stuff. So I need to back up my ability to exercise my authority by informing myself, which again, he means asking an AI to go find out some load of stuff. - But at the end of the day, it's your discernment in your choice. - Yeah, yeah. Well, it's sort of what I'm doing. The only thing I, I'm done. And so I put the learning mechanism in to my sensor. So that's what, so I've got that stuff. - That's a missing piece of your system? - Yeah, yeah. Well, I'm also tapping up Darrell for some data pages as I could use, for anyway. (laughing) - What, you mean you're in the middle of the UK? - I was pointing to the UK, so I'm on the UK. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - It's all injury-resolution. - I'm not quite sure. - I think you're approaching the boundaries of where AI is right now, as a domain. And the thing that I keep banging away on, which is that the future is unknown. And so it's one thing, training systems on historical data. It's better to train it on, on addiction solving historical data. But at the end of the day, when we're moving forward, you know, that's about breaking the logic. And I guess sometimes some of that stuff is going to be counterintuitive so that you could create a system that gives you something which is utterly accurate but very counterintuitive. And therefore you would ignore it. - Well, actually. - I was wondering if you were going to put that on. - I did say to Marriott Marriott, "Horsey, because we're having these sort of conversations." - So, I know. - But I'll pour Marriott Marriott. - Yeah, so, so if you're listening to this. - Okay. - The only measure that I can recall you setting that's in that case, because you're saying the solution might look on the face of it as utterly ridiculous was the wow factor meter. So maybe that's what I should be, which is that links into Friston again. That is a huge amount of surprise. But it's the trickiest to tell good surprise from bad surprise. - Yeah, and that's true. - Yeah, that's true. - I think there is an algorithm for that. Yeah, I do a regular excising workshops, which is, let's reverse engineer what wow is. - Okay. - Yeah, you can very quickly get people identifying wells. And then I'll typically qualify the question. So there are also bad wells, right? - Okay, yeah, yeah. - And also, it's a prize in life, which are really bad. - Yeah. - Let's reverse engineer those as well. So what you end up with is, I think, wow is three stages. Bad wow gets the first two stages, right? And they're deliberately or otherwise gets the third stage rock. So the first stage is we notice things at a different day. So that's something of the other surprise. The surprises, yeah, all of our senses, but particularly our visual sense are looking for difference. So when we notice difference, there's, yeah, we get a lot of attention to that. 'Cause, you know, that doesn't fit our world model. So our brains try to work out. So why doesn't that fit into my world model? If my world model is wrong, I need to improve it. We notice things at a different one. Step two, the way we organize information inside our heads is in terms of function outcomes. So we see something different. We quickly try and work out. So what is that for? Okay. And then the third part is a value calculation that we make. Is this new thing a better way of delivering the functions that I want than the current way I do in function? If it is, that's when we're likely to experience this good well. And, okay, there's the new product. There's a new thing that I need to improve my life. If we get that third stage wrong, yeah. So in other words, the brain does that value calculation. We realize this new thing is worse than the way that I currently do the job. Then there's bad well. Okay. And with product, it's critical mass, right? Because you could have an individual have bad well versus another individual who has good well. So as a product, as a company, you're looking for critical mass that index on good well. And then you have an active tool. That's your multiple perspective tool. There it is. Yeah. And I hear frequently is, particularly when I'm working in the US is, so what's, yeah, I'll ask the question, what's a good well? And fairly regularly, you know, Las Vegas or something like Las Vegas will come up as a well. Yeah. Because Las Vegas, yeah. See, that's, you know, that experience for tourists that's going to make him come back in. For me, Las Vegas is literally hell on earth. Yeah. Yeah. There's nothing that could encourage me to go to that city other than conference that's absolutely amazing. But it's a, yeah, it's a bad way. So, yeah, wow, it's very content or can be very context is dependent. I think, yeah, when you look at Falcon 9, Elon Musk, yeah, rocket going back to earth, it's difficult to say, yeah, well, that's a bad well. That's, yeah, it's a pretty university accepted wash. I didn't expect that. That's amazing. Right. That's because they're Elon Musk haters. Yes. Anything associated with him is just bad. Yeah. Well, so what you were talking about just now was context or ceremony, yeah? So, Las Vegas is a context. What you think of Musk is a kind of context. Objects. Yeah. True. Yes. Bayouas has introduced the third way forward here. If you talked about something, we're going to solve a contradiction. Well, it does. Third way, we need to reintroduce that phrase. Forward. Forward. Forward is really clear forward. Future. Yeah. Yeah. So, this is my new thing. I mean, you've really corrupted my mind. I keep bloody thinking about contradiction style. And it's all your fault. So, you've got like me. I love binary, right? You've got good, bad, good, well, and bad, well. Yeah. I can do those. The problem I've got is good, well, that look. I'm getting all the time. I'm looking. Hey, I says this. I've asked you. It says it's fucking wonderful. But it's actually bad. Well. I'm not going to pretend this is a good one. It is a good one, bad one, the same time. Yeah, and it can be. Yeah, so I can certainly see that. So, yeah, what may have been a good well 10 minutes ago, could turn very quickly into a bad one if I'm not careful. I think another wrong trend in the world of innovation is, you know, we've had basically 20 years of innovations that make life more convenient for people. So, I think you see a lot of people have been healed a bit many times myself. Oh, wow, there's a fantastic labor saving device. Yeah, and you've been a doctor that labor saving device, only to realize at some point downstream, oh shit, I can't do that anymore now because I've delegated that thing to other people. I've destroyed meaning by absorbing this convenience labor saving gadget thing. So, I think that's where again, distance in becomes important. I think in the nine windows, you've been able to see things from different perspectives. Yeah, the well right now, is it going to be a wow in 10 minutes? Is it going to be a wow in six months time? And I think a lot of companies and already teams in companies are very guilty of that. Yeah, instant wow. Okay, so you just introduced the concept of a wow persistence. Wow persistence. Yeah, and so I think I mean, I'm going to use the contradiction word again. I think, you know, what makes people go, wow, I always solve in a contradiction because that's what expectation. Okay, okay. I always say to my teams when we're working on projects, solve one contradiction, you get a good solution, solve the next contradiction. And, you know, that's when the great solutions start to appear. So I think it's, you know, it's, I think teams very often give up too soon when it comes to refining a solution. And it's, it's the classic drowning puppies thing. Once you've got a solution that you really like, you know, I'm going to say that's a fantastic solution. I've just come up with it's very difficult to force itself to criticize it. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, the reason the second contradiction is guarantee me to your boss party and bosses job, I think, is to find the yes box in things. So your boss, yeah, if you're not looking for the second contradiction, your boss is, yeah. And so, you know, and dissipating that, yeah, and say solving it one contradiction and then the next one, that's, that's how you get sustainable. Well, I think so your, wow persistence meter, I think is how many contradictions did you saw? I like that. I like that. At the end of the day, there is a point, which something has to be made real. There is a point where you need a thing needs to get done. And you have to turn it into, you have to monetize it, right? So at some point, somebody has to decide, you've solved enough contradictions for, I guess, we'll give Mikey another cookie for, wow persistence. And then it needs to be, it needs to be going to execution mode and turned into monetized a Jason possible. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think that there's the difference from a six percent or a one percent. I would say you tell us six percent. Yeah, go look for contradictions, solve contradictions. Yeah, they'll very happily keep doing that forever. The one percent that says, no, no, we do have to turn this into money. Yeah, we need to find the customers adjacent possible. We need to get something out there as quickly as possible. So it gets a genuine feedback and use that feedback to build next iteration and find out what the next contradictions are in the mind of customer. Well, yeah, because using your two contradiction matrix, I was wondering because the more contradictions you solve, I reckon, the further you're going to get away from the adjacent possible. Is that, is that, is that, I think that's the truth. I'm not sure counts of the law because nothing is very context specific, but one of the dangers I think we've fallen into ourselves frequently is getting so far ahead of the parade. Nobody knows you're in the parade anymore. Yeah, yeah. And so, yeah, I think it's been more cognizant of adjacent possible. Yeah, particularly the customers adjacent possible becomes crucial. Yeah, that's, yeah, that's why it's one of the seven pillars in the one percent of all. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm letting you get shit done. I'm going to let you in to a personal confession. It is nearly in there with it. This could be the party shot. So, because I scored my progress on understanding all this complexity myself because I got the power to do so. I'm going to let you do it. So, what, what is by one of my metrics that I've, I've scored myself on is the fact to not get frustrated because you don't give simple answers. And I'm thinking, I'm starting to think now I like the fact you don't. Because that is recognizing that the world is complicated. Yes. I don't think you forgot to win. I'm certainly, bring on the answer to yes, absolutely. Bring on the empty horses. The shot. What do you think of that? Is that, is that, is that mad? Or is that I don't know what it is? No, I think that it's, it's insightful. And you're wishing for Darrell to not be complex as a futile effort. So, I would offer that you, you know, choose a choose another compass. It seems like that's what I'm saying. It seems the one you have, which is to change yourself is working. So congratulations. Yes, yes. Well, I'll be in danger. I've stuck out into the fans rising plays on time. It's also another perspective on those lovely humans that I adore, which is the only variable they have any power to change is themselves and their perspectives. So, yeah. And I think you're going to say, Mikey, good on you. Yeah, that's, that's your right brain switch it on. I mean, we're back to more right brain, right? Let's see, left brain lots, certainly lots simple. And, yeah, we're not in the world anymore. So, I think, I think, the, well, I'm going to raise a pie chart. One last pie chart. You'd assume it's over the last word on you. Well, okay, we'll let you this down. Yeah, yeah. In my, in my model, I've got all these groups of helpers, like the elders and the, the doers and the, the jokers. Yeah. And they're, they're trying to give me different perspectives. That's the point of them becoming. Yeah. One of, one of the things that I like to do is, is, is to balance the humanities with the science, because I'm saying, like the science bias took us a lot of people are. I want to bring in, but the analysis is good to me. Is this blood podcast? Is with, with the three of us, we've got, Darryl and I have got this massive engineering pie, some poor, I was shot. It's fast and doesn't get a worded, I'd do it, please. So this is an appeal that we must bring in and throw complexity. And we must have like a little meter, a little meter that says, if Charlotte doesn't have her third of the school, her half, because, yeah, it's the talking. We are unbalanced, you see? So there we go. That's it. That's the pie shot. That's the cookie for me. Thanks. Rodin slip at the same time. Yeah. Well, which should have been. Probably embarrassing, we should have another meter, which is who gets the last shot. Last word. Yeah, I want to know all. You get the last word. You got the last word. Yes. Never understood it, but it was good. It was last. You can fix the last book. This is fun. Thanks you guys. I enjoyed it. That was hot. Yes. Well, I hope you enjoyed it as well. Yeah. Bye. That's it for another episode of Danger Mouth. So it's goodbye from Mikey and Darrell, and hopefully see you for the next episode.