The Declaration of Imagination
This podcast debates and explores innovation and the human Imagination as the Original Operating System (OS); the foundation of every human breakthrough and how reclaiming it might be the most rebellious act of our time!
The Declaration of Imagination
Tulips and The Ancient Biology of Modern Risk
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Every decision we make carries an invisible ledger: potential gain on one side, potential loss on the other. But as humans, we rarely evaluate these probabilities with perfect clarity. In this episode, we dive into Chapter 9 of The Declaration of Imagination to explore the brilliance and the folly of human risk-taking.
Key Discussion Points:
The Tulip Bubble: What a 17th-century flower can teach us about the subjectivity of value and why perceived reward often ignores rational risk.
The Neurobiology of Anticipation: Why our brains are wired to prioritize the "thrill of the chase" through dopamine loops in the prefrontal cortex.
Calculated Courage: A look at Amelia Earhart and how high-stakes risk-taking can advance human knowledge and challenge societal boundaries.
The Science of Managing Risk: How the Apollo space program and "The Lean Startup" methodology prove that while risk is inevitable, reckless exposure is not.
Accountability: Why risk-reward decisions—from climate change to biotech—are ultimately ethical questions of whom we are accountable to.
Takeaway: Mastery is not the elimination of uncertainty, but the ability to navigate the space between courage and care
So picture this. It's sixteen thirty-seven, and you have this seasoned, like highly rational investor in the Netherlands.
SPEAKER_00Right. Someone who really knows what they're doing.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. And this person trades an entire estate. I mean, we are talking land, livestock, literally their entire life savings.
SPEAKER_00Just massive, massive wealth.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And they trade all of it for a single flower bulb.
SPEAKER_00Which is just wild to think about today.
SPEAKER_01It really is. You hear that and you probably think, well, they were completely out of their mind, right?
SPEAKER_00No, absolutely.
SPEAKER_01But the crazy thing is, right now, as you were listening to this, your brain is using the exact same biological software that bankrupted that investor.
SPEAKER_00It's the exact same hardware, yeah.
SPEAKER_01It is. And it's using that software to decide whether or not you should say, ask for a promotion today. Or, you know, even just whether you should try a new route on your morning commute.
SPEAKER_00Every single little decision.
SPEAKER_01Because you are constantly running this hidden calculation, right? You're balancing this invisible ledger of potential gain against potential loss.
SPEAKER_00Always running in the background.
SPEAKER_01Always. So welcome to the deep dive. Today we are opening up that exact ledger by unpacking chapter nine, which is risk and reward from Chris Sherrill's book, The Declaration of Imagination.
SPEAKER_00It's such a great chapter, too.
SPEAKER_01It really is. Our mission today is to figure out why you take the risks you take and how your brain, you know, actually decides what is worth the gamble.
SPEAKER_00It is a totally fascinating space to explore because, you know, our default assumption is that risk and reward are these clean, fixed mathematical quantities.
SPEAKER_01Right, like an Excel spreadsheet in our heads.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. We walk around assuming we are operating this perfectly rational spreadsheet right in our prefrontal cortex. But when you look at Cheryl's synthesis of the research, that ledger is incredibly fluid.
SPEAKER_01It's not objective at all.
SPEAKER_00Not even close. It gets completely hijacked by human perception, it's distorted by immediate context, and heavily, heavily governed by some very ancient biology.
SPEAKER_01So it was never just about the raw numbers.
SPEAKER_00Rarely. It's really about how those numbers are processed through our uh our emotional architecture, basically.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell, which brings us right back to that guy trading his farm for a flower.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell The ultimate emotional hijacking.
SPEAKER_01Seriously. If we want to understand how perception can just completely overrule mathematical reality, the Dutch tulemania is the perfect case study.
SPEAKER_00It's the classic example for a reason.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Because it wasn't just like a few eccentric gardeners making bad calls on a weekend. This was a society-wide delusion.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. And if you look at Peter Garber's analysis in famous First Bubbles, which Cheryl actually says in the chapter, the sheer scale of the irrationality really reveals the mechanics of a hype cycle.
SPEAKER_01Okay, let's unpack this because I want to understand how a whole country goes crazy for gardening.
SPEAKER_00Well, you had traders literally exchanging fortunes for a single rare variegated tulip bulb. And what is crucial here is understanding why the valuation detached from reality.
SPEAKER_01Because the flower itself doesn't actually do anything.
SPEAKER_00Right. The bulb itself had zero intrinsic utility. I mean, you can't eat it, you can't build a house with it.
SPEAKER_01It's just pretty.
SPEAKER_00That's it. Its worth was entirely constructed by the collective, feverish belief that the next person would pay more for it tomorrow.
SPEAKER_01It is basically the 17th century equivalent of a meme coin.
SPEAKER_00That is exactly what it is.
SPEAKER_01Like the underlying asset doesn't actually matter at all. What matters is the story the community is telling itself.
SPEAKER_00The hype is the product.
SPEAKER_01But like, how does that social consensus actually blind a genuinely smart person to the fact that they are trading a house for a glorified onion?
SPEAKER_00So the social consensus basically acts as an anesthetic to the brain's risk assessment centers.
SPEAKER_01An anesthetic.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, because when everyone around you is validating a specific belief, the perceived potential for reward artificially inflates. And when the reward inflates like that, it mathematically shrinks the perceived risk in your mind.
SPEAKER_01Ah, so the ledger gets unbalanced.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. If your neighbor just doubled their net worth on a flower, your brain stops calculating the intrinsic value of the flower.
SPEAKER_01And it starts calculating what?
SPEAKER_00It starts calculating the social and financial cost of being left behind. The FOMO, basically. The illusion of guaranteed future wealth becomes so intoxicating that it just overrides basic logic.
SPEAKER_01Okay, but if the math is that obviously terrible in hindsight, what is actually happening under the hood?
SPEAKER_00You mean biologically?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, like neurobiologically. Why does that illusion feel so physically real in the moment? Why do we fall for it?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell This is where Robert Sapolski's work in Behave really comes into play. It all hinges on how the prefrontal cortex processes reward.
SPEAKER_01Okay, so we're talking about dopamine here.
SPEAKER_00We are. But you know, in popular culture, we talk about dopamine as the reward chemical.
SPEAKER_01Right, like you eat a slice of chocolate cake and you get a hit of dopamine as your prize.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Exactly. That's the common wisdom. But Sapolsky points out that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the brain works.
SPEAKER_01Wait, really?
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Dopamine doesn't just fire when you receive the reward. Its primary function is actually to encode the anticipation of the reward.
SPEAKER_01So dopamine isn't the reward for getting the thing, it is the chemical that gets you off the couch to go pursue the thing.
SPEAKER_00Precisely. It's the craving, not the satisfaction.
SPEAKER_01That makes so much sense.
SPEAKER_00And it goes further than that too. The dopaminergic pathway goes into absolute overdrive when there is uncertainty involved.
SPEAKER_01Uncertainty. Like gambling.
SPEAKER_00Exactly like gambling. If you know you are getting a reward 100% of the time, the dopamine hit actually levels off. It gets boring.
SPEAKER_01Because it's a sure thing.
SPEAKER_00Right. But if there is a 50-50 chance, the anticipation spikes massively. And what's fascinating here is that functional MRI studies show something even more counterintuitive when people face these high-risk, high reward scenarios.
SPEAKER_01What does scans show?
SPEAKER_00Well, the regions of the brain that process excitement and the regions that process anxiety.
SPEAKER_01Which we assume are total opposites, right?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Right. We think they are mutually exclusive, but they are actually activating simultaneously. The signals physically overlap in the brain.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Wait, hold on. I need to push back on the evolutionary logic of that for a second. Sure. Go for it. If my brain is firing anxiety, which is screaming, this is dangerous, run away, and excitement, which is screaming, this is amazing, go get it, at the exact same time. Isn't that just a biological recipe for total paralysis?
SPEAKER_00It sounds like it would be, yeah.
SPEAKER_01Like a car with the gas and the brake pinned to the floor at the same time. How did we survive with overlapping signals like that?
SPEAKER_00You would naturally assume it causes a system crash, but it is actually an evolutionary action forcing mechanism.
SPEAKER_01Action forcing, how?
SPEAKER_00Think about the environment our brains evolved in. If you are a hunter-gatherer and you hear a rustle in the tall grass, that rustle represents supreme uncertainty. Exactly. It could be a predator that is going to eat you, or it could be prey that will feed your family for an entire week.
SPEAKER_01So literally life or death, high risk, high reward.
SPEAKER_00Right. And in that moment, you don't have the luxury of pulling out a legal pad and listing the pros and cons.
SPEAKER_01You'd be eaten before you wrote the first bullet point.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. So the simultaneous flooding of anxiety and excitement heightens your physiological arousal state to its absolute peak.
SPEAKER_01Your body just redlines.
SPEAKER_00Yep. It dilates your pupils, floods your muscles with oxygen, sharpens your focus, it doesn't paralyze you, it primes you for explosive action.
SPEAKER_01But so you either fight or flight.
SPEAKER_00You are either going to fight or you are going to sprint, but you are forced to make a split-second decision. The brain trades rational calculation for raw reaction speed.
SPEAKER_01Because in a survival scenario, a fast decision is usually better than a perfect one.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell A late decision is a dead decision.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell Okay, I that that makes total sense in the savannah, but I am not hunting in the tall grass.
SPEAKER_00Right. The environment has changed a bit.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell I'm trying to decide if I should sink my savings into a startup or you know move across the country for a new job. We are basically running complex modern financial models on ancient survival software.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell And that mismatch is the absolute birthplace of cognitive bias.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell The glitches in the system.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Because our brains evolve for those rapid survival-based choices, we rely heavily on heuristics.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Which are essentially mental shortcuts.
SPEAKER_00Right. And Condeman and Torsky's prospect theory maps out how these shortcuts routinely glitch in modern environments. Two of the most destructive ones highlighted in Cheryl's chapter are the availability heuristic and the optimism bias.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell So what does this all mean for us today? Let's get into the mechanics of those because I know they trip us up constantly.
SPEAKER_00They really do. So the availability heuristic is the brain's tendency to overestimate the probability of an event based entirely on how vivid or recent our memory of a similar event is.
SPEAKER_01It just bypasses statistical logic completely.
SPEAKER_00Completely. The classic example is commercial flying. Statistically, it is the safest mode of transportation on Earth.
SPEAKER_01Much safer than driving to the grocery store.
SPEAKER_00Oh, by a mile. But if you watch a visceral, terrifying news report about a plane crash on Tuesday and you have a flight on Wednesday.
SPEAKER_01Your amygdala tags that emotional memory with super high priority.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_01Because a fiery crash on the news is way easier to picture than a boring, successful landing where nothing happens.
SPEAKER_00Yes. Your brain accesses the terrifying image faster, so it falsely assumes the event is highly probable. It is prioritizing emotional accessibility over statistical reality.
SPEAKER_01That is wild. And what about the other one?
SPEAKER_00The optimism bias is the other side of that coin. It is our hardwired tendency to overestimate our likelihood of success while severely underestimating potential setbacks.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Okay, yes. Think about that bookshelf you tried to build last weekend, or that uh quick home repair you thought you could knock out in an afternoon.
SPEAKER_00We've all been there.
SPEAKER_01You picture the finished product, your dopamine receptors start caching the check of that anticipated reward, and suddenly you're completely blind to the friction.
SPEAKER_00You just don't see the obstacles.
SPEAKER_01You don't factor in the three extra trips to the hardware store, or the fact that you don't actually own a level because your brain literally edits those negative variables out of the projection.
SPEAKER_00It deletes them. The dopamine hit of anticipation actually prevents you from simulating the friction.
SPEAKER_01It's just pure delusion.
SPEAKER_00But which, again, was an evolutionary superpower.
SPEAKER_01Wait, how is being delusional a superpower?
SPEAKER_00Overestimating success kept early humans pushing forward in a world that was overwhelmingly hostile. I mean, if our ancestors were pure, cynical realists about their chances of survival against saber-toothed tigers.
SPEAKER_01They probably would have just laid down in a cave and given up.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. So optimism kept the species alive.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell But today, it just makes me terribly underestimate project deadlines at work.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Right. Or it causes a CEO to launch a disastrous product because they couldn't envision the supply chain failing. The stakes change, but the glitch remains.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It's the same exact mechanism.
SPEAKER_00It is, but this raises a really compelling divergence in the research.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell Oh, what kind of divergence?
SPEAKER_00Well, if you and I share the same flawed biology and we are both susceptible to the exact same cognitive biases, why is individual risk tolerance so wildly different?
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Right. Because we aren't all making the same choices. If we're all running the same software, why do some people take massive leaps into the unknown while others play it completely safe?
SPEAKER_00It's a huge spectrum.
SPEAKER_01Like, why did my neighbor put their life savings into crypto while I keep mine in a super boring high-yield savings account?
SPEAKER_00To illustrate that delta in risk tolerance, Cheryl points to Amelia Erhart.
SPEAKER_01Oh, that's a great example.
SPEAKER_00He draws from Susan Butler's biography, East to the Dawn, and Erhart is a fascinating study because she wasn't just taking abstract financial risks. She was accepting profound, life-threatening physical uncertainty.
SPEAKER_01The aeronautical technology of her era was famously unreliable, right?
SPEAKER_00It was essentially flying a tin can. It wasn't a matter of if things would go wrong, but when. Yet she made a calculated decision to embrace that danger.
SPEAKER_01And it's not like she was the only pilot who could have done it. Not at all. The book contrasts her with plenty of contemporary aviators who were just as skilled, but who looked at the exact same ledger and voluntarily grounded themselves.
SPEAKER_00They looked at the mechanical failure rates and said, Well, the math doesn't work. It is objectively too dangerous.
SPEAKER_01And they're right.
SPEAKER_00They were completely right. They preserved their lives, but their historical footprint is minimal. Earhart recalibrated the equation.
SPEAKER_01How so?
SPEAKER_00Remember that overlapping anxiety and excitement we talked about?
SPEAKER_01The gas and the brake pedal.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. For most people, that overlap creates too much psychological friction to proceed with a voluntary risk. But for outliers like Earhart, it acts almost like a biological shock absorber.
SPEAKER_01That is fascinating.
SPEAKER_00The anxiety doesn't stall her engine, it actually fuels the excitement. She had a unique neurological and psychological tolerance that allowed her to absorb the terror of uncertainty and convert it into forward momentum.
SPEAKER_01It is almost like she viewed risk as a toll booth rather than a stop sign.
SPEAKER_00A toll booth. I like that.
SPEAKER_01Because it's like buying a lottery ticket where the currency isn't money, but your literal life and your reputation.
SPEAKER_00The ultimate stakes.
SPEAKER_01The price of entry for advancing aeronautical knowledge and for completely shattering societal norms about women at the time was the very real possibility of dying over the ocean. But she decided the payout a permanent place in human history was worth the toll.
SPEAKER_00She accepted the extreme downside to access the extreme upside. But, you know, that is individual risk.
SPEAKER_01Right. A single pilot making a choice about her own life.
SPEAKER_00Here's where it gets really interesting, though, when we talk about scale.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, because Earhart bet her own life, which is one thing. But what happens when the stakes aren't just one pilot, but billions of dollars, national prestige, and the lives of astronauts relying on millions of untested parts.
SPEAKER_00How do you mathematically tame that kind of chaos, right?
SPEAKER_01Exactly. How do you structure the unmanageable?
SPEAKER_00If we connect this to the bigger picture, you are basically describing the Apollo program.
SPEAKER_01The ultimate high-stakes gamble.
SPEAKER_00And as Andrew Chaiken documents in A Man on the Moon, the space race is the modern gold standard for scaling and managing risk. NASA was attempting something with a baseline of extreme, almost comical uncertainty.
SPEAKER_01Comical is a good word for it.
SPEAKER_00A Saturn V rocket had something like three million parts.
SPEAKER_01Three million?
SPEAKER_00Yes. So even if they achieved a 99.9% reliability rate, that still meant 3,000 things would break during a mission.
SPEAKER_01Which is terrifying when you were sitting on top of a controlled explosion in a vacuum.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. So they didn't just embrace the massive goal and hope for the best. They engineered the uncertainty down to the smallest possible margin through obsessive compartmentalization.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell How did they actually do that in practice?
SPEAKER_00They used frameworks like failure modes and effects analysis.
SPEAKER_01Sounds intense.
SPEAKER_00It was literally sitting down and imagining every single way a valve, a wire, or a switch could fail, and then building a redundant system to bypass it.
SPEAKER_01Just endless worst-case scenarios.
SPEAKER_00They simulated those worst-case scenarios so relentlessly that when actual crises happened in space, the astronauts were executing pre-practice solutions, not reacting blindly.
SPEAKER_01So they embraced the audacious reward but fought the risk at a microscopic level.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_01They basically assumed failure was the baseline and built a massive fortress of safety nets underneath it.
SPEAKER_00And that philosophy of compartmentalized structured uncertainty is the grandfather of how modern innovation is managed today.
SPEAKER_01It didn't just stay at NASA.
SPEAKER_00Not at all. You see it directly in Eric Rees's framework in the lean startup.
SPEAKER_01Oh, right. The whole MVP concept.
SPEAKER_00Yes. Instead of a company placing one giant existential bet on a massive product launch and just crossing their fingers, they take small, rapidly correctable risks. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01You release a minimum viable product, you test a single feature, you fail small, you gather data, and you adjust.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. You engineer the risk down.
SPEAKER_01And modern venture capital operates on the exact same logic, right? Just scale across a portfolio.
SPEAKER_00It's the same math. Yep.
SPEAKER_01A VC firm knows that mathematically, 80 to 90% of the startups they fund are going to fail completely.
SPEAKER_00They are banking on it, honestly.
SPEAKER_01Right. The risk of any individual company going to zero is incredibly high. But the system is designed so that the extreme uncertainty is offset by the fact that the one or two massive successes, the unicorns will pay for all the failures, and then some.
SPEAKER_00They are essentially buying a highly diversified basket of volatility.
SPEAKER_01I love that phrase.
SPEAKER_00They aren't eliminating risk at all. They're optimizing their exposure to it. They structure the ledger so that the downside is strictly capped to their initial investment, but the upside is theoretically infinite.
SPEAKER_01But taming the risk mathematically brings up the blast radius of these decisions.
SPEAKER_00The blast radius. That is a very good way to put it.
SPEAKER_01We have talked about how our brains process risk, how individuals like Erhard stomach it, and how organizations structure it. But just because you can mitigate the risk of a high reward endeavor doesn't mean you inherently should.
SPEAKER_00This raises an important question, and it's the final layer Cheryl explores the ethical ledger.
SPEAKER_01The ethical ledger.
SPEAKER_00Because the rewards that drive human behavior aren't just financial, they are deeply intellectual and social.
SPEAKER_01And sometimes those are even more powerful.
SPEAKER_00Oh, absolutely. The ultimate case study here is the Manhattan Project.
SPEAKER_01Okay. Yeah, the stakes don't get higher than that.
SPEAKER_00You had some of the most brilliant minds of a generation, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Robert Oppenheimer. For a physicist, the intellectual reward of unlocking the fundamental secrets of the universe, of achieving total scientific mastery, is the most intoxicating dopamine hit imaginable.
SPEAKER_01Is the ultimate puzzle being solved in real time?
SPEAKER_00Right. But they had to balance that profound intellectual reward against the existential risk of nuclear warfare.
SPEAKER_01Which is a horrifying scale to balance.
SPEAKER_00A miscalculation there, or even just a successful outcome falling into the wrong hands, didn't just mean a failed business venture or a lost fortune.
SPEAKER_01No, it meant the potential annihilation of human civilization.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And Cheryl emphasizes that when a risk scales to that level, the math changes completely. It is no longer just a game of chance or a calculated gamble. It becomes a strict moral obligation.
SPEAKER_01But wait, if we demand that innovators carry the full paralyzing moral weight of every possible negative outcome of their discoveries, doesn't that just kill innovation entirely?
SPEAKER_00It's a really tough balance.
SPEAKER_01Like if the Wright brothers spent all their time worrying that airplanes might eventually be used as bombers, they never would have taken off at Kitty Hawk. You can't foresee every downstream consequence.
SPEAKER_00That is a completely valid tension, and it is the core paradox of progress. You can't foresee everything, and demanding perfect foresight does result in total paralysis.
SPEAKER_01So how do you manage the ethical ledger then?
SPEAKER_00The ethical ledger isn't about demanding perfect clairvoyance. It is about demanding proportionate responsibility.
SPEAKER_01Proportionate responsibility.
SPEAKER_00Right. With the Wright brothers, the immediate risk was primarily to themselves. With the Manhattan Project, the baseline reality of the invention was mass destruction.
SPEAKER_01Uh I see the distinction.
SPEAKER_00The ethical burden scales with the predictability of the harm. It is one thing to gamble with your own ships or your own life. It is entirely different when you are forcibly placing bets with the lives of millions of people who never consented to the game.
SPEAKER_01That is the ultimate burden of leadership and innovation. You have to calibrate your personal biological tolerance for risk with your moral responsibility to the society that has to live in the world you are building.
SPEAKER_00It's incredibly heavy.
SPEAKER_01It forces you to ask yourself: you know, when you make a risky decision that affects your family, your team, or your community, how much uncertainty are you morally comfortable accepting on someone else's behalf?
SPEAKER_00And answering that requires overriding our basic biology. We have to actively fight the optimism bias that tells us, well, it will all work out fine.
SPEAKER_01We have to forcefully apply the prefrontal cortex's logic.
SPEAKER_00Exactly, to simulate the worst-case scenarios, just like the engineers at Apollo did.
SPEAKER_01Wow. We have covered a massive amount of ground today.
SPEAKER_00We really have.
SPEAKER_01We started by looking at how collective belief and perceived value created the total madness of the 1637 tulip bubble.
SPEAKER_00Trading houses for onions.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. Oh. Then we went under the hood of the brain to understand how dopamine actually hardwires us for the thrill of anticipation, and how the overlapping signals of anxiety and excitement force us into action.
SPEAKER_00The gas on the brake pedal.
SPEAKER_01We broke down the cognitive biases, the availability, heuristic, and optimism bias that cause our ancient survival software to just glitch in modern environments.
SPEAKER_00Deleting trips to the hardware store from our minds.
SPEAKER_01We explored individual courage through Amelia Erhardt, calibrating her own biological shock absorber, and how NASA and modern venture capitalists try to mathematically tame chaos through structured uncertainty.
SPEAKER_00Engineering the risk down.
SPEAKER_01And finally, we confronted the heavy ethical blast radius of taking risks that shape society.
SPEAKER_00It is a profoundly complex ledger. We are constantly trying to balance it, relying on flawed biology, imperfect information, and heuristics that were designed for a world that literally no longer exists.
SPEAKER_01Which brings me to a final thought I want to leave you with, building on everything we have just unpacked.
SPEAKER_00Okay, let's hear it.
SPEAKER_01Our brains are biologically wired to anticipate rewards and calculate risks based on a physical environment. We evolve to react to the rustle in the bushes, the tangible flower bulb, the physical danger of an airplane engine failing. Very tactile things. Right. But how will our deeply ingrained risk tolerance and our optimism biases change as we increasingly live, work, and make decisions in digital or AI generated environments?
SPEAKER_00Oh, that's a whole new frontier.
SPEAKER_01We are moving into spaces where the risks aren't about physical survival at all. They are entirely psychological, algorithmic, and social.
SPEAKER_00The ancient software might not know what to do with that.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. Are we walking blind into a new kind of perpetual tulip mania, armed only with ancient survival software? Think about what is actually driving the calculations on your invisible ledger today. And we'll catch you on the next deep dive.