010 - Heads Talk - The Analysis - Lawrence J Kaiser's Analysis on Episode 000 - Damian Bruckard's

Follow me to see #HeadsTalk Podcast Audiograms every Monday on LinkedIn

Heads Talk - The Analysis - 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞

_____________________________________________

The Analysis is part of Heads Talk®: Nexus Rerum: Boardrooms & Statecraft. Here we extend the conversation beyond the principal exchange.

1 or 2 consequential questions from the main episode are placed before a second distinguished voice. An individual deeply embedded in the worlds of business, policy, or geopolitics. Their role is not merely to respond, but to interrogate: to examine the framing of the question, challenge its assumptions, and surface the deeper strategic and intellectual currents that may otherwise remain unspoken.

This is expert analysis, a companion discussion that offers a more deliberate and expansive reflection, where ideas are tested, perspectives are sharpened, and the dialogue evolves beyond its original bounds.

What you will hear is a continuation, not a repetition. A considered counterpoint. A deeper reading of the question at hand, a nuance.

We hope you find The Analysis  both illuminating and indispensable as part of the broader Heads Talk experience.

In this episode, we feature Lawrence J Kaiser's analysis of Episode 295 with Damien Bruckard Episode Title: Episode Title: 🇦🇺Corporate Statecraft: Enter the Chief Geopolitical Officer🇫🇷

• Question 1 – Build the Ark!:
  Why do intelligent elites consistently see the storm coming... but still fail to build the ark?
• Question 6 – Geopolitical Mind Control Games:
  Has geopolitics become behavioural science?

More on Lawrence below: 

Selected strategic analysis / portfolio

RealClearDefense article, “When Strategic Frameworks Misrecognize the Game”

CIMSEC article, “Turkey’s Air-to-Air Drone Test and the Logic of Middle-Power Alliance Stress”

ABOUT THE HOST

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:02

With Head's talk of the C-suite being involved in and needing to navigate the geopolitical environment, it's just not something that can be added on anymore. It has to be something that is really they they call it baked baked into the recipe.

SPEAKER_06 0:19

Larry was perfect for the analysis of this episode. And I called this question Build the Bloody Ark, which is very Australian. And David loved it, and he said this is what he wants to talk about. And we sort of connected and we had a conversation about that.

SPEAKER_03 0:50

And they have all added on their geopolitical shops because I think increasingly, though they do diagnose that, you know, after globalization, uh after the turn of the century, um there is an intern uh an interdependence that I think would be painful, too painful, in fact, for them to compete against because it would be against their own self-interest. But also they're trying to figure out if perhaps we've reached the time where no longer economics, especially geoeconomics, is driving geopolitics. Rather, the opposite is true increasingly, that geopolitics is increasingly influencing, you know, the economic status of companies worldwide. And I think pertinent, increasingly pertinent by the hour, um, without exaggeration, I think outsourcing thought and judgment. And uh with that, I just couldn't agree more. I think there is a natural laziness to the human condition that the you know the least uh resistant mode being acquired and utilized uncritically. And there is something, you know, by extension, to there being a weakening, at least in the liberal democratic regime globally, but also particularly here in the United States and perhaps the UK, that that's you know, the the uncritical reflection on democratic choice uh is a fruit of something uniquely human, and that's judgment.

SPEAKER_06 2:30

Put you on the spot again. What do you think should be done um to perhaps minimize this something that's quite a sort of amuse it, then I thought, you know.

SPEAKER_01 2:43

Yes, I I remember, I know where you're getting at.

SPEAKER_06 2:45

Yeah, and uh I don't know about that, but uh it made me think, what would I do? What what would I suggest? And um you do you want you want to talk about his suggestion?

SPEAKER_03 3:00

Now there there is no periodicity, it is it is um it is omnipresent. There is no there is no interval, it is constant, and I I do think you're right.

SPEAKER_06 3:17

This is Head's talk, The Analysis. Things are shaped as much by questions as by answers. We introduce the analysis, a considered intervention within each episode. Here we take a single consequential question and submit it to a second independent mind, a practitioner, a strategist, a thinker of standing. Not merely to answer, but to examine, to unpack its premises, expose its tensions, and extend its meaning beyond the immediate exchange. It is, in essence, a dialogue beneath the dialogue where ideas are not only expressed but tested. This is where perspective sharpens judgment and where insight begins to compound. Welcome to the analysis. Right, okay, we are here for another um Head's Talk, the Analysis episode. This time I'm joined by Lawrence Kaiser. Um I will give you a brief introduction to him, and then she will he obviously clearly would add to that, because you know, who better to introduce yourself than yourself? Um and the uh and what was interesting with um Lawrence, uh I think he likes to be called Larry, uh, was that it it started with um a sort of an exchange of um messages uh on LinkedIn between the two of us. I mean, uh Larry asked me the quick question, this was because of the uh rebrand branding of Head's Talk, that uh we we moved to sort of boardrooms and statecrafts, and so that sort of made him go, oh, this is interesting. This is exactly where I'm working. Yeah. Working in for a number of years, and and I'd like to know what are you doing, what are you finding out? And then I think you've probably discovered through the podcast that I interview sort of sea level executives and very leaders in institutions, and you know, I sort of brand it as FTSE 100 and S ⁇ P 500 executive, and a lot of them have been that, and a lot of them have been sort of academic um leaders, as well as leaders in various fields. And you I think you asked the question, um, what was it again? It was about how are they responding to what's happening geopolitically right now, and how how uh how is business relating um to that? And and and that was the sort of the the exchange of messages um that we had. I think you were asking whether sort of there was a perhaps a misdiagnosis of um structural environments and the point you made made, and uh and we looked at um were they sort of effectively um planning or just reacting to what's happening and you and and and I think this sort of mini exchange was good, and then thereafter you sort of supported many of my posts, and I just thought when I had um uh Damien on the podcast, Damon is also uh a geopolitical commentator. I just thought you were the best person to talk to about this because this is so in your area, this is something that you were asking me about, and you were clearly working on. I think, Larry, if you could give me the appropriate links to some of your writings, I'll definitely put it in the show notes so listeners can have a gander about this. That'd be fantastic. And please do connect with Larry and do follow Larry if this is something you're very much interested in. Let me tell you about Larry. Okay. Uh Larry, correct me if I'm completely wrong with my description of you, but uh here we are. Larry, this is Larry Kaiser. He's a strategic analyst and a geopolitical commentator, and he specializes in national security, international affairs, international relations, strategic risk, and you know, decision making under uncertainty. And boy, are we in that time of decision making under uh uncertainty? And you've done quite a number of research and you've written quite a few papers, but what you tend to do is you sort of examine the intersection of geopolitics, um, emerging tech, um, economic competition, and security strategy, which is why he pinged when he saw the the cover of um head's talk change to boardrooms and state classes and said, I need to speak to this person. What is she on about? Is she doing what I'm doing? Let's have a conversation. And so we are here today. We're gonna start, aren't we?

SPEAKER_01 7:31

Yeah, ready, ready, willing, and able.

SPEAKER_06 7:33

Have I made any mistakes? Do you want to tell me whether I've um missed something that you want to add to the any bio given of you?

SPEAKER_03 7:42

Uh you've captured very much my interests. Um I started my own um geopolitical shop in 2019. Um, and I'm here in the the DC area, but I become fascinated uh after I went back to um graduate school increasingly with this intersection, as as you are now doing with with Head's talk of the C-suite being involved in and needing to navigate the geopolitical environment. It's just not something that can be added on anymore. It has to be something that is really they they call bake baked into the recipe.

SPEAKER_06 8:16

Yeah, yeah, indeed, indeed. And I think we're gonna talk some more about this in the way that in the that their roles, as in both parties, I think, be it you're uh on the political side or on the business side, you're both having to add on to your not supposed characteristics, but add on to your portfolio of work. Um each is traits so that you know you can expand on that. Well, we're gonna expand on that. I I'll stop rabbiting on. Let's go into Damien's Brookhards um episode. And listeners, I will put the necessary links to the original episode so that you can have a listen and then come back to the um this analysis, or just listen purely to the analysis and if it wets your appetite, go to Damien's episode. Either way, whichever suits you. And Damien and um Lar Larry's gonna dissect two of the questions, and we're gonna kickstart with the very first question. The very first question in the episode, that's question number one. And I will read it. It's why do uh intelligent elites consistently see the storm coming but still fail to build the arc? Now, uh let me just explain that question for the listeners before uh Larry dives into it. Um I I when when I gave this question to Damien, uh it was based on one of his um um articles and one of his reports, I think it was one of his research reports about how CEOs are reacting to this. That's why I said Larry was perfect for the analysis of this episode. Uh and I called this question Build the Bloody Ark, which is very Australian. And and Damien loved it, and he says, Yeah, you know, he yeah, this is what he wants to talk about, and we sort of connected and we had a conversation about that, and that is the the time frames of things. CEOs are seeing and knowing what's happening, which means they're aware of it, but they are doing very little, I think they're lacking the preparedness to respond to it. And the question is kind of why? Why are you not doing anything hence the build the arc? So, Larry, you read that question, you've listened to Damien's Brookhard's answer. Please dissect everything.

SPEAKER_03 10:27

Very good. Thank you, Elaine. Um, thank you again for having me on Head's Talk. Um I I was listening to your exchange with Damien, and I think, you know, on balance, I think Damien is absolutely right. I think there, if I remember his characterization of it, is that it's uh the CEOs in this economic and geopolitical environment increasingly are in, for lack of a better word, he he characterizes fight or flight, but really a freeze, a freeze response. And you know, saying that neither of those three, especially for a CEO, is acceptable. I I would agree with that. I think they are trying to navigate and distill um the next step of what they should be doing. And I think they're trying to figure out principally through fear, but also looking at each other out of the corner of their eyes, what they should be doing in terms of as you call it, building an arc. And I I think what I think what many of them have tried to do is perhaps add on, as I said um earlier, add on a geop a geopolitical risk shop. You have, for example, you know, JP Morgan Chase, just in the last probably 10 years, um, JP Morgan Chase here in the States, you have on you know Rothschild's, um, good heavens Lazard there, and they have all added on their geopolitical shops because I think increasingly, though they do diagnose that, you know, after globalization, uh after the turn of the century, um, there is an uh an interdependence that I think would be painful, too painful, in fact, for them to compete against because it would be against their own self-interest. But also they're trying to figure out if perhaps we've reached a time where no longer economics, especially geoeconomics, is driving geopolitics. Rather, the opposite is true increasingly, that geopolitics is increasingly influencing, you know, the economic status of companies worldwide. So I I think Damien probably had it right. I think I would push back a little bit. Um, I was listening to your your phrasing. I would push that metaphor around a little bit. It could very well be that they are that they're afraid and that they're just frankly unaware of the waters that they're in. They they uh CEOs nowadays came up and threw, let's say, vice president, senior vice president, now CEO, COO, in an environment uh where conditions were decidedly different than they are today. And I think they're trying to get, for lack of better words, their sea legs. They're trying to figure out if this is just merely a five-year stint or if we are continuing on an arc where things will become increasingly uncertain with the advance, you know, geometrically of technology. Um, so getting back to the metaphor, I'm I'm half wondering if we would want to reshape that question is is you know, a storm and the arc, you know, a threat and some mode of preservation to perhaps some of these CEOs, I think, are seeing it as an opportunity, that it's no longer um a storm. Um, it might be perhaps, you know, instead of an arc, you know, you need a schooner, you need a catamaran. And it's something that they can shape the environment economically and competitively between themselves and and others, but also their their host nation states and internationally.

SPEAKER_06 14:02

Hmm. Hmm. Interesting. Because when you said you were going to sort of put push back on the metaphor, uh in my mind, I thought he's gonna say some submarine, isn't he? He said they're gonna be building a submarine instead.

SPEAKER_03 14:15

We could be doing that too.

SPEAKER_06 14:16

Yes, write it underneath rather than you know, manage the waves and stuff. And I think it was quite interesting when um Damien said uh freeze. And I and I believe that that's what was happening with a lot of them. And in the in his report, in his research, I think he said when he he surveyed CEOs or when they surveyed CEOs a number of years ago, there was yes, there was a small but fairly healthy percentage that you know showed concern and awareness about geopolitics and what was going on there. In this recent one, he said 100%. They're all aware, they're all watching, they're all watching and waiting. What are they waiting for? For someone to make make the first move or for the first move to to work with a big corporation, and then everybody else follows, then then that begs the question: who are the leaders and who are the followers? Because isn't that leadership 101 to you know move forward?

SPEAKER_03 15:10

I um I remember you saying that, and I was I was kind of cheering you on uh quietly behind the scenes because I I would wonder myself, um putting myself in those situations and you know the reactions between, let's say, a CEO and their board. Um CEOs are not built though for disruption. They're they're really built, I think their their mindset is much more continuity and trying to um smooth over, let's say, these larger waves of disruption to somehow accommodate the disruption. And I think you know the nature of a company, it's not a charity, they are there to maximize profits, and they are responsible to their shareholders fiduciary-wise to do so and to their board. So I think there's an incentive. Um apart from it being fear and unsure, I think there's also incentives built into the very nature of just the the economic model that they building an arc would be viewed as inefficient um and wasteful um by their peers. Um, their peers would probably um the person who sticks their neck out, we know, at least initially, is viewed at um as somebody who's who's not thinking rationally until you know the you know, it's irrational to build an arc until the flood arrives.

SPEAKER_05 16:29

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 16:30

And yes, and I think that uh the inefficiencies built in where you have dashboards or compliance processes, the typical things that a CEO would do aren't functioning well now. And they are re they are reaching for tools or a mindset to help them navigate what is going to be an increasing level of change, I think, in the next five years, ten years.

SPEAKER_06 16:57

And I think it's interesting. You said that the the sea is there really for commercial purposes. Yeah, we all know that. And they're there to maximize profits. We all know that. But increasingly, you know, supply chains, that sort of stuff is intertwined with geopolitics. Election cycles. You you've got to be concerned and looking at who's going to be elected wherever you are, in whatever country, in whatever space, and what relationships you have with uh um uh nations in in your supply chain. So you you can't just in isolation think commercially. You have to not just be aware, but you have to perhaps maybe influence a little, which I suppose they do in in all sorts of different forms. And and that's the flip side of things in terms of CEOs and leaders. When I when I mentioned it to um Damien and I asked him about that, because increasingly now you're seeing a lot of these captain of industries, a lot of these leaders that we know are the the Elon Musk, the Jeff Bezos, and the even the other ones that are not readily named, they are uh showing more interest in um geopolitics and what's happening in that space, probably um more so than some governmental individuals, if I can say that. And therefore, it's uh paradoxically despite what I the the original question is then there's an opposite to that, that perhaps some are showing too much interest in that space and being too influential and having you know too much um power, dare I say it in that space. What well what do you say, Larry?

SPEAKER_03 18:41

I would agree. Um, I I think, you know, uh in terms of excuse me, the private sector, for example, you would have, I'm just thinking of Amazon off the top of my head, um in COVID. They they saw those waves as less a disruption than an opportunity. And I think um the wealth and frankly, better the influence amassed by Amazon uh here in the States, but also globally, good heavens, um the data centers that it is pushing and driving um and the interdependence um in terms of data, sheer data, um is is amazing. And one begins to wonder from shareholders themselves, there are rumblings and mumblings of um, are we really getting too far over our skis? Is this something that really is uh should we be dabbling in the politics or influence games within other nation states or indeed within within our host country here in the United States itself? I think um I think there's something to that, that a nation state is, I think Damien was alluding to this, nation states do have an authority and power that private sector companies do not. You know, they they have a legitimacy that private sector companies do not. And, you know, in a way that private sector companies are now trying to navigate these waves of power and the extent to which they can afford to, continuing the metaphor, you know, allow water to come on board and um and strike a balance where they can still steer the ship, uh steer the arc. And I think they're they're flailing about. I think it's it's not just trying to find the proper model. I think they're trying to look also at their peers because their peers are also motivated by the very same interests that they are.

SPEAKER_06 20:38

Yeah, indeed. And it's interesting you talked about Amazon, because we know that Amazon, the Amazon CEO, CEO has bought, was it All Street Journal? So therefore influence in that space, and yeah, I'm sure we can list a whole bunch of other ones influencing in another space. So while we believe um governments uh have a certain element of power and of power over people through their success, a lot of these businesses and their um acquisition of um outlets, they can influence and their um thinking, which is a question that we're gonna move on to, which is um question six of um Damien's uh records episode that we've had a look at. Let me find it. It's a very simple question. Has geopolitics become behavioral science? And um I'm just gonna leave that there. Um Larry, you answered that one, has it?

SPEAKER_03 21:43

Yeah, quite the question, and I think pertinent, increasingly pertinent by the hour, um, without exaggeration. I think uh Damian was right. I I think his principal concern was outsourcing um outsourcing thought and judgment and uh uh With that, I I just couldn't agree more. I think there is a natural laziness to the human condition that the you know the least uh resistant mode be acquired and utilized uncritically. And there is something, you know, by extension, to there being a weakening, at least in the the liberal democratic regime globally, but also particularly here in the United States and perhaps the UK, that that's you know, the the uncritical reflection on democratic choice uh is a fruit of something uniquely human, and that's judgment. And that judgment is is something that needs to be relied on. It's a unique fruit of being human. And um the fact that we might increasingly see moving solidly in that direction that geopolitics is becoming behavioral science. I think it's um I like the way that you phrase that question. I think geopolitics is increasingly a domain, um behavioral science rather is increasingly a domain within geopolitics. Uh, I think there was initial uh reference by Damien to propaganda and misinformation. Um what you know sometimes here in the the American um mindset and the military mindset is called psyop psychological operations. But that is that is decidedly different than what I think you were getting at with the question. And it is effectively a kind of redefinition, I would argue, of power itself.

SPEAKER_05 23:34

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 23:35

That I think you were getting at that it it need not just be uh borders and armies projecting. Yeah, I I think that's I think that's accurate. I think it increasingly power is being uh redefined in a way that is immaterial and not kinetic. And there is something yeah, there's there's something of a of a perception management that is altogether subtle and coupled perhaps with you know the concern of uh surrendering one's own judgment to technology in the form of AI really can um come together with some very unhealthy uh consequences.

SPEAKER_06 24:21

I think it's it's not a new thing. Um when we talk about uh I I think I think I I termed it sort of geopolitical mind control games, because that's that has always been there. And so when I'm talking about behavioral science, that has always been there um for years. And I think you you talk what did you call it? Psychological ops. I can't remember the terminology you used earlier. But the difference is there's this new layer which wasn't that never exist before, this is social media and social media platforms, and what online not just radicalization could be on one end, but how you can manipulate behavior and conditions and that sort of stuff, especially with the younger minds, the growing minds. And that was never available prior. But prior to that, there was always this concept of perhaps if we control the minds of the people, then it's a lot easier than we just, you know, eradicating them through military that sort of stuff. Um, and then you you can get them to do what they want. But now it's almost been made a lot easier through tech, through technology. And therefore the the powers that are controlling these tech and technology, I'm sure governments want them to get closer to them. Government want to work with them in ways that perhaps they've never uh never did with other industry sectors, um, because they can see the power of this kind of control. You can control the behavior, if you control the minds. And once again, if you outsource critical thinking, which is what Damien was very much concerned about, what does that mean to all of us? And I and I think I mentioned with you and me, it's it's probably if we do that, it's laziness because we our brains have developed to such a degree, I don't think it's gonna, it doesn't need that that uh maturity anymore. Whereas someone with a very, very young mind, a 15, 14-year-old, and they haven't developed that. So therefore that has not been developed. And I don't know how long this thing is gonna last for in terms of how social media is going. By the time they reach 2530, what kind of brain will they have? Can this be reversed? We've not we've not been there before, have we? So we don't know how to respond and what to do with this. What's a societal impact? So that's why um it's it's scary because it's in in in in terms of mind control games, that's not that's all that's old as uh the arc. But this stuff, this social media stuff. I believe. Um what say you, Larry?

SPEAKER_03 27:05

I would agree. I think uh the concern um you rightly put your finger on social media, it is it's not episodic. It is it is constant. And frankly, with just the sheer physics of time zones and everyone being connected in some way to the internet and some platform on the internet, whether it be Instagram or Facebook or or what have you, um, it's just it is constant. The interaction I I would say uh something that struck me is uh you know, much of the efforts in the past, uh disinformation or or psychological warfare were were efforts to shape, I think, the content of of what we think. And I think very much like you, I'm leaning towards increasingly that, in particular with AI, there is a drive towards cognition itself. It's just not what we think, it's also how we think.

SPEAKER_05 28:04

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 28:04

And uh the slow shaping of the environment is perhaps the more strategic angle of this, both for CEOs but also nation states. The the positional shaping that is not very um detected by you know the Western mind is is very episodic, and uh decisiveness uh is something that carries the order of the day. If a battle is won or lost, um it is decisive uh martially. Whereas, you know, with the very nature of and constant interaction of social media, an individual is constantly being on or looking down, um, good heavens, you know, getting run over in streets or you know, walking into manholes uh that are that are up and they're just utterly unaware. If they're if they're that unaware, um, you know, physically, good heavens, what are we looking at intellectually in terms of judging them? And um, the shaping of the environment is is ongoing, constant, and gradual. And pretty soon, you know, you don't you don't know which end is up.

SPEAKER_06 29:11

Yeah, there isn't a stop button, there isn't a pause button, which is really I wonder, Larry, uh because as I said, there's nothing new under the sun, but this seems a little bit new with the social media thing. I'm not quite sure if we can do a comparison with anything that's gone by before. But with propaganda. Propaganda's been there, as I said, from day one. Now, the language I hear being used a lot is narrative power, narrative control. Would you would you say they're both the same thing, or if what what are the differences?

SPEAKER_03 29:41

Uh I would think that narrative control, just by it, I think the concept is that there would be first the event, and subsequent to that, there would be an effort to manage or shape the explanation of the event. So, you know, there's this linear aspect to it. I think social media is a little bit more um proactive. In other words, it would it would occur as the event is because of this constancy, this immediacy. Um it is occurring as the event is unfolding, if not the instigation of the event. And I think there you've put your finger on something. I I think in narrative control, it used to be where the nodes of communication when there were so few, uh, at least here in the United States. I think um Damien was alluding to this, you know, in in Moscow, it would be Pravda, um, you know, the BBC principally in the UK and you know, ABC, CBS, NBC initially here in the States, before there was, you know, cable and then ultimately internet and this disaggregation of media sources, which I think is is a healthy thing that makes it harder for uh cognition and content and cognition to be affected. I think um social media though, with uh narrative control, I think it gets harder. I think there's with it being so prevalent, it's easier for there to be abuse and manipulation as well.

SPEAKER_06 31:08

Um but I know, putting you on the spot here. Well what do you think should be done um to perhaps minimize this? Um Damian came up with something that was quite I sort of amuse it, and then I thought, well, you know, yes, I I remember, I know what you're getting at. Yeah, and uh I don't know about that, but uh it made me think, what would I do? What what would I suggest? And um you you do you want you want to talk about his suggestion?

SPEAKER_03 31:38

Sure. I I would lean towards um well, I was thinking back, you know, TV, um, as that technology arrived in the 50s, you know, that was that was black and white as well. And it certainly it certainly captured the the eyes, attention and imagination. It was something special, um, as I understand it. Um and certainly when color rolled around, that too was special. But I the the notion of the moving image is and has been um something that has captured the attention of human beings. I think when we fast forward to social media, um it's I don't think that there can be a policy that is propagated by uh the nation state to pass a law or to pass guidance to say this should be um disallowed, this should be cut off. Everybody's everybody's internet is cut off after 10 p.m. so that everybody gets sleep. Um I'm not sure that you can mandate something like that.

SPEAKER_06 32:35

It would be going to do it for the youngins, aren't they?

SPEAKER_03 32:39

I I think parents, I think parents um probably are are the best people to do it, but I think ultimately, you know, to your point, what should we do? I think just being aware of it, um, by by virtue of being human, you begin to see that um it affects it affects how you feel. Uh it's much like eating, you know, fast food versus eating you know a healthy, balanced meal, you know, but both fill you up, but you you definitely feel different uh after one. And I I think just the awareness and knowing full well that too much of this uh becomes unhealthy. And you, I think to Damien's point, the danger of surrendering judgment um as a CEO or as as a head of a nation state or the national security of a nation state, the one the one thing that you are hired for is your judgment. And surrendering that is uh bordering on a on a moral, you know.

SPEAKER_06 33:34

I think that that's outsourcing because my background is outsourcing in the management consultants, but that's outsourcing one-on-one. You do not outsource your core, your core, you know, your core skills. You do not outsource that's anybody, you outsource all the mundane stuff, but somehow this is what we're doing currently. Is there, Larry, is there uh probably not an equivalent, but uh what does he think was the nearest thing to what social media's doing to all of us? Um that you we could talk about perhaps that were happening in the 50s, in the forties, maybe the sixties. Was it anything or even older than that that's that you could say was uh not quite an equivalent because we don't have really had that, but had the similar effect on people.

SPEAKER_03 34:18

Printing press.

SPEAKER_06 34:20

Um you know, there was But that's gaining knowledge, that's actually gaining hardcore knowledge for the printing press, reading and writing and that sort of stuff. This is not gaining knowledge, this is I don't know, of course.

SPEAKER_03 34:33

Yeah, it's uh yeah, commenting on uh you know, commenting on everybody else's post. No, I I would still say, you know, the the fact that the printing press um democratized text, it it no longer relied upon the medium of um of the oral tradition, and it just shaped the way society thought, and increasingly the notion of the printed word as being a record as opposed to you know oral stories being um the standard, I think also shaped society and the way ultimately uh human beings, nation states behave geopolitically. Um I think further, you know, getting back to um trying to draw this parallel, let's say, between technology proper, let's say in our age, um the rise of the of the television and now this rise of social media. Let's just take a look at the internet. Um, the internet itself, what in the early 90s, late 80s, um, you know, was it was initially a US, I think, invention with uh DARPA, right? It was a kind of defense-related email uh system. And that interconnection, that immateriality of knowing that you could email somebody across the world and they would get it within, I don't know, 10, 15 minutes. Now it's instantaneous. I think that interconnectivity has shaped the extent to which we think. Um often we are reacting more than thinking. And I think that the way to the way to control that is only with the individual being aware of that and making sure that uh their own their own habits, their own thought processes are you know are guarded um and accounted for.

SPEAKER_06 36:18

And it's true that you said with the the printing press, with the the advent of the television, with the internet, it changed us socially, it changes how we do business, it changes it it it it there's a sort of a a speed and thinking about speed and knowledge there. Um whereas now there's a speed. There's speed and concern about losing knowledge, especially with AI. Um yeah. Are you concerned at all, Larry, or are you just aware of it and taking it in your stride?

SPEAKER_03 36:53

I think that AI is I think AI is a tool, and it is right now, for lack of a better word, it's the the sexy tool. I think though it can just as much be harnessed intelligently as much as abused. And so likewise with social media. I would agree with you that the speed, the rapidity of interaction causes the human in the normal course of their day to be on their heels, right? In a reactive mode. And you know, the CEO and the nation state head and people in charge of national security decisions are often with the speed and rapidity and interconnection often reacting. And that that is something that you I don't think we're ever going to get back. And there is actually there was a recent there was a recent monograph by a woman here in the States, Annie Jacobson, who who I think the title of it is called Nuclear War. And and within that, they she talks about the time-making compression with not only decisions about whether, you know, this nuclear warhead is in fact, you know, coming over the polar cap or if it was just, you know, something that was uh a missed signal. And with AI, you know, those that 27-minute window becomes close to seven minutes, which is no time at all. And I think also with with your point about social media, you know, it can it is often shaping, to my point earlier, cognition. And right, it might be vacuous, uh, it's not conveying knowledge, but I do think used intelligently, if we are aware that it is something that is a tool and that we don't always need to believe or trust the first output, um, that it can also sharpen our intellects, it can sharpen our cognition, it can sharpen better our judgment. Something, you know, as you just mentioned, that's about the last thing that you would want a human to outsource.

SPEAKER_05 38:59

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 39:00

And um, I think it can be harnessed for the good. I I do so I think earlier, you know, my comment about it being human nature, there will be those who will fall into this, you know, this sandpit of ever increasing reliance upon something that makes them more efficient. And I think for CEOs, that dynamic is particularly dangerous just because that is the very nature of what drives their entity is efficiency, therefore profitability.

SPEAKER_06 39:28

One of the things that concern me about it is what we're not really talking about much of because we were talking about the efficiencies of um AI and that sort of stuff. But this things that had no value at the time for us, but now we're seeing it as valuable. Um and this sort of delayed gratification thing, and this sort of, especially with the young people, this constant need of a dopamine hit. And people do that with gaming and that sort of stuff. I don't know how old you are, um Larry, but you know, I'm no spring chicken. But I I remember that sort of wonderful sensation of waiting and waiting for the next week and waiting for the next week for this to happen. I think I was a Dallas fan, I was a mad, mad Dallas fan, as in the soap with JR U in. And just the wait of a week just to watch JR on the TV. That the whole process, I know how sad am I. But the the whole process of just waiting and then when he comes on and then you watch it, and then waiting again. And in a way, it kind of trained me for things in life, not just that, but uh it's one of those things that trains you for the real world, you know, patience. It trains you for uh just living in your boredom for a while. If you need to live in your boredom and get on with things, but and I feel with the young people, uh, these little things are being taken away from them, you know? It just kind of worries me that I I even read recently, I think was it a French newspaper where they said that that now the children in nurseries they're sticking them in the grass and throwing mud in their faces and making sure they play with that rather than these sort of makeshift playgrounds, and all of a sudden their immune systems are changing. And I'm just thinking, what are we los what are we losing that we're not really talking about because we haven't really noticed that we've lost it until it's too late. It's almost like regression testing, you know, when you implement a big system and you do all the user testing and all that sort of stuff. It's only the regression testing that tells you where the problems really are. And I think and I think we're not talking about that probably because we don't know what it is or what they are or what they will be, but uh that that's just some of the things that's just rattling around in my my mind. I I just wondered if anything like that rattled around in yules as well, Larry.

SPEAKER_03 41:38

Yeah, there's you know, there's a a philosophical stance. Um I forget the name of the French philosopher, but is um it's the basis, philosophical basis for the narrative of the Matrix, the movie with uh Diana Reeve. It was um simulation and simulacra. And to your point where there is this periodicity of of waiting for a television show once a week, and the interval between the thing that you want, you look forward to, or conversely, you know, if you've uh let's say you've got some dental work systematically that needs to be done, you know, the periodicity of of not looking forward to uh the dental visit. And now there is no periodicity, it is it is um, it is omnipresent. There is no there is no interval, it is constant. And I I do think you're right, like um if if you were caring for children, and the instance you give of the more healthy thing would be taking them out of of the bubble of the playground where you can't now where you can't skin your knee anymore. And I think that that is right, they've got the the rubber matting of you you can't skin your knee. And um, it would be only too healthy to have, you know, coming home, you know, it was a good day if if you came home dirty.

SPEAKER_06 42:59

And compared scales, you know.

SPEAKER_03 43:01

That's right.

SPEAKER_06 43:02

That's right.

SPEAKER_03 43:03

Yeah, I I think it has to do, you know, I I've got something of a philosophical Ben. I do I think you've you've hit the nail on the head that it's unhealthy for humans and human nature to not interact with reality. And I think often uh with social media and the the gradual shaping of the environment being so subtle and constant and omnipresent that you you begin living in your mind a little bit too much where it becomes unhealthy.

SPEAKER_06 43:32

Yeah, yes, exactly, exactly. And I actually thought uh the metaverse was gonna take over because that was sort of the natural next step with living in your mind too much, but that didn't materialize, and Zuckerberg lost a lot of money based on that. Um we won't go into great detail about that. Anything else you want to add to that? I mean, we've sort of well, I've sort of taken it on a sort of a philosophical journey, but in a way, they it all interconnects with each other.

SPEAKER_03 44:01

It sure is. Um and it that's why it makes much of what you're doing here, this this new endeavor, so fascinating, because it is connected. Um geopolitically, geoeconomically, um, you know, socially, the human condition proper is very much part and parcel of some of these conversations, and the way that we cognize the way that we interact with not only uh reality but ourselves, and also the way that we interact from as for shareholders and other nation states very much is part and parcel of some of this diagnosis from this diagnosis that we need to be able to do. And um I think as long as we are raising it, I think it's the most important thing. The board steps in gentlemen. The board is collectively surrendering its judgment to an individual that they that they choose. And so likewise when it comes to an individual's sovereignty over their attention and over their intellect, it it ultimately is, you know, ultimately resides with them. They can decide to engage, to use as a tool, to use it critically, to to reason, um, but never to outsource that that faculty that is that is uniquely human judgment.