https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=JU2JlN2T-h0
Welcome back everyone to another episode of Psyche Pathology and Wellbeing. This is on the Cognitive Science Show and I’m here again with Greg Enriquez and Gary O’Venician. And I’m going to turn things over to Gary since he helmed the last episode and we’re going to continue on. But first I’ll just let Greg and Gary say hello. Hey, yeah, I thought that last week was really very interesting and I’d like folks to pay attention. The last three Voices of Verveki episodes, the first was Scott Joyden on Wild Systems and then Rich Splendell and his big history into ecological intelligence and the embodiment of that. And then Mark Miller’s work on well-being and predictive processing. I think that’s really interesting. Have enormous overlap and are really indicative of a convergent validity, chirotic moment, I think, in relationship to where we are in some of the transformations in our fundamental understanding of natural science into cognitive science psychology that situates actually a coherent ontology. And it’s super exciting. So I’m pumped about that. Thank you, John, for all your brilliant work. Thank you, Greg. Yeah, thanks, John and Greg. So what I want to start with actually is just a little recap of last time to And then to sort of identify where exactly we’re positioned on this path to articulating a kind of psyche pathology and account of well-being and then to continue on that path and lay out some next steps for us to take. So essentially the core theme of our discussions has been organized around trying to understand what the transjective space between self and world is about, especially as it concerns the problem of well-being and psyche pathology. So last time I started making the argument that at the core of many of the normativities that psychologists care about, especially when considered from the personality theory perspective, we find recursive relevance realization taking place. In other words, I propose that triple R stands as a criterion of the normative for psychology, or at least the psychologies that we’re considering here. So which is not to say that we wouldn’t make at some point the argument that triple R would count as the normative for psychology in general, but that’s not the argument that I’m making right now. Though I think that is something we would probably agree on all three of us here. So I suggested that and we went over some of the recent work that John and I published together on an activist big five theory, which essentially made the claim that individual differences in personality are essentially differences in styles of optimal gripping. And we extended that and made the claim kind of phenomenological elaboration of EB5T that said that individual differences in personality traits are essentially individual differences in styles of world enactment. That’s sort of where the conversation ended last time. So along the way, I guess I’ll echo this again and sort of give it a more clear sense of shape, I suppose that from the EB5T perspective, there’s five normativities that we can get a sense of, each one pertaining to each of the traits that’s being measured by the So I just want to cover those quickly and make a few comments about the general state that we were left in and then we’ll take it from there. So, trade conscientiousness. We suggested, again building off of Colin DeYoung’s work on cybernetic big five theory and weaving it into inactivism through inactivist big five theory that the function, so to speak of trade conscientiousness is to write conscientiousness is a kind of adaptation to the problem of ordering and planning. To the problem of prioritizing goals across various time scales. Do I prioritize what’s relevant to me and to life in the future, or do I prioritize what’s relevant to me in the here and now? What comes first? Or what should come first? And individual differences along this dimension are predictive of how people tend to prioritize future versus present goals, let’s say. Next, trade neuroticism is an adaptation to the problem of threats, such that people who are higher in trade neuroticism, they tend to be more sensitively attuned to the potentially threatening aspects of the unknown as they confront it. Whereas people who are lower in trade conscientiousness tend to be relatively less sensitive to the potentially threatening aspects of trade conscientiousness as a consequence of which they tend to experience anxiety, depression, and moodiness less frequently than those who are higher on the trade. Next, trade openness. We suggested that it’s an adaptation to the problem of something like cognitive framing. The higher you are in trade openness, the more exploratory your style of considering information and semantic possibilities tends to be, which basically means that when you see two dots and you have to connect them, you’re going to explore all the different pathways, right, to connecting the two dots, rather than just drawing a straight line, which is what somebody who’s lower on trade conscientiousness would tend to do. Openness. Sorry, openness. Thank you for that. That was an interesting slip. I’ll take it up with my analysts later. So, next we have trade extroversion, which we suggested is an adaptation to the problem of reward. In other words, people who are higher in trade conscientiousness, they tend to be more sensitively attuned to the incentive reward value of the unknown. Trade extroversion. I think conscientiousness snuck in there again perhaps. Anyway, we know we’re on extroversion. You know what, this isn’t a psychoanalytic problem, it’s a lack of cath problem. Well, you can go neurocognitive or psychoanalytic, right? So interesting, both conscientiousness and capping start with a C so maybe there’s a letter. That’s obviously the connection. Okay. So with trade extroversion. People who are higher on trade extroversion they tend to appear and present as more enthusiastic, excitable, opportunistic. When they hear that there’s a party going on next door, they’re going to get excited at the possibilities of meeting strangers and building new relationships, whereas people who are lower in that trade will tend to be more indifferent to the incentive reward value inherent in the unknown. And finally, trade agreeableness, which we discussed and we sort of, so the initial argument in EB5T at least that we made, John and I, was that agreeableness is an adaptation to the problem of prioritizing self versus other goals. Now, based on how our conversation went last time, the normativity of agreeableness was left in a kind of semi certain state. And if I recall correctly, the claim that we ended up making or the question that we ended up opening was about the connection between trade agreeableness as an adaptation and the problem of social cognition or intersubjectivity. It was something like that, the way I remember it. If you want to fill in the blanks or add something to that, please do so. Yeah, I mean, all I was doing was I was just dropping this analysis into the Utah structure, especially as it pertains to character adaptations and the evolution of our cognitive consciousness functions, okay, over time. When I do that, the traits organize themselves pretty clearly. They organize themselves at the animal layer where you get an extroverted, neurotic, positive affect, negative affect, dialectic. You drum up at a person layer, you can see conscientiousness and openness. If we’re looking through the stability plasticity lens, those dialectical structures become immediately apparent to you. And all I was saying was if I look at the primate layer, heart layer, with the influence matrix, you see clearly what agreeableness is trying to get at, which is exactly the relationship of self other, okay. And yes, it is the case that a somewhat more conservative approach is to sort of amend yourself to the order of the social world and therefore agreeableness would lean in relationship to stability. However, the layering of self other dynamics embedded in this entire trait doesn’t yield exactly the same kind of stability plasticity dialectic as extroversion and neuroticism relative to conscientiousness and openness does. So it’s a whole other layer of self other dynamic iterative process and it really gets at the other over self dynamic is what agreeableness does. And there’s other stability plasticity dynamics that would need to be teased apart in that dimension. And then so it won’t quite map as clearly on the meta traits as these others do, according for a Utah perspective. So what I want to do then is just bracket that temporarily because the argument I think I’m going to want to make is going to suggest that the kind of optimal gripping dynamic between efficiency and resiliency or when considered from the trade perspective between stability and plasticity shows up in trade agreeableness when considered from the point of view of attachment. That’s the connection I will want to make, I think. So, for now, I suppose we can say that we have more or less the normativities of four of the trades down. And the last one agreeableness is sort of a question mark but we’ll get to that afterwards. I mean, it’s a bounded question we know it has something to do with self other relation, but we also talked about that it might also have something to do with interface between individual and distributed cognition, which isn’t the same map as self other, they’re related. That’s right, not the same and that’s what I think I proposed last time that we put those two similar overlapping but not identical dimensions in will get some of the variance that Greg is pointing to. That’s what I proposed. Right, so there’s a there’s a number of layerings that are operative here so the cognitive angle, and this I would then again phylogenetically go to Thomas cellos work Thomas cells work is going to then show us as hominids, creating an opportunity for collective perspectival taking that is better than other apes and that’s going to create a collective intelligence kind of intersubjective dynamic ultimately given rise to justification. This is by God ski analyses in relation to affording us the capacity to network collective intelligence, and that is going to play another role so there are a lot of there are a lot of layers I think that need to be disentangled myself. But, but yeah, and I’m really excited about doing the attachment thing the influence matrix assimilates, according to its frame, two huge theories one is attachment theory, and the inner subjective, the circumplex model of leery, and essentially the argument is that in other social animals these things are fairly distributed across different modules of relational interaction, and with the hominid structure in our need for inner subjective collective intelligence coordination, these things get fused into a much more effective self other fielding process, but anyway, those are all stuff we’ve got into an attachment theory is going to be very useful in making that bridge. If I could just say one more thing about that is yeah I think I think there’s a difference between the self other relation at sort of the biological animal level, and the individual distributed cognition that shows up on the cultural level overlap but they’re not the same. And exactly. Right. And the last thing I’ll just say then is there’s a bridging function where we’re at the animal mammal into grade eight primate. And then the humans through Thomas cells work few self other cognition and doing things like dance and hunter gatherer activities to manage a mammoth. Yeah, and then that affords symbolic networking and then finally symbolic syntactical networking giving rise to propositional speech the problem of justification, and then the explosion of justificatory knowledge, which fundamentally is collected and distributed through D logos. Amazing. That’s excellent. That’s very good. And I think the cultural level comes with some kind of normativity. Yes, yes, very, very, very slippery to like pin down, at least from my point of view and my understanding. We have to be very careful about distinguishing social animality from person level cultural participation. Those are state one affords the other, and there’s continuity between them but there’s also important differences. And I think what we’ve seen emerging in our dialogue about this or the logos about this is agreeable this is this thing that is mediating exactly that point of continuity. I would say, you know, I would want to add conscientiousness to that bit as well actually. At least when it comes to human beings as a necessary point, because to be able to coordinate oneself in relation to a group as a group as a cultural entity that requires a degree of conscientiousness which if missing. I think there’s a lot of this in people that they tend to, they tend to struggle, sort of, I mean this is the Freudian metaphor right of keeping your shit together. Right, which which essentially means that you neglect and forget about social norms and what’s right what’s wrong you you you sort of shit over the law. That’s the law in the psychological sense and so I think there’s also a relationship to be found between agreeable this and conscientiousness as it pertains to our relationship to culture. Yeah, yeah. Okay, that’s right. So let’s pick up your argument Gary about our argument I guess extending this into attachment theory. Okay, so actually before we do that I was really hoping to make a point of connection with with Greg’s project actually right right bridging the enlightenment gap between, let’s say psychology, on the one hand, right as a third person science of the mind and the psyche as a first person, it geographic locus of intelligence, awareness and relation, relationship to the world, something like that. Perfect. So, and I’d really like to do that with the big five theory actually. So what I’ve done is I’ve prepared a little vignette for us to go over together that I think exemplifies a way of doing this. And so the, the problem really is that if you take a big five test either online or in a clinic or whatnot. What it does is it crunches out certain numbers, which essentially place you somewhere on a bell curve, where you write your trait level or your trade measure is telling you where you stand relative to other people who’ve taken the test on that So, if you score, let’s say like the 57th percentile on trade conscientiousness. What that means is that based on how you responded. You’re more conscientious than 57% of people who’ve taken the test. It’s something like that that’s the logic of that. And so, then these reports generally produce these very general descriptions of what this means about you. So, you have to focus on measures that line, a lie on the extremities of the, of the, on the tail ends of the bell curve, let’s say. So, the problem with that is that you get a kind of classification of the type of person you personality you have from the trade Which gives you these general descriptions of how you’re likely to be and how you’re likely to behave, think, feel, etc, etc. But it doesn’t really say anything specific about your idiosyncratic being in the world. That hermeneutic leap is not made, and it’s left to the reader to the participant, let’s say to make these connections or to the clinician to help to make that leap. But there’s a way of individualizing these kinds of statistical normative findings, normative in this statistical sense. And essentially what I’ve been experimenting with is applying a process of individualizing assessment findings in the nomothetic sense to the idiosyncratic conditions of being with participants in the here and now, something like that. So, the vignette goes something like this. And by the way, if, if this is done successfully then what you, in effect, end up doing or end up having done is bridging the third personal nomothetic statistical generality point of view, right. So, the third personal facts about the person, let’s say, with the first personal experiences that they have without reducing one to the other, which is essentially what the inactive approach is about. What, and also what Greg’s approach of bridging psyche with psychology is trying to do as well. The behavioral phenomenology that we talked about last time. So, actually, I’ll make one little additional discrimination here. And that is is actually the traits are not only third person, but their third person variable aggregate clouds. Okay, a variable aggregate cloud means you abstract the patterns and see them in the analysis of variants, and then you utilize variable aggregate clouds to track an individual level behavior so it’s actually, there’s two jumps. So, there’s actually two variable aggregate clouds at the behavioral level to the skin area and one from the outside in behavioral level. Okay. So there’s actually two behavioral jumps like Skinner hated analysis of variants, if you know Skinner it’s all and have one. So he’s actually outside in and have one, watching the selection of variation selection retention of behavior from the outside and the environmental And so, there’s actually two jumps. And then there’s the psyche from the epistemic, you know, inside out and then John’s recursive relevance realization, which is inner skin or an outer skin or stitched together brilliantly. Which is slightly different than what much of psychology became through its statistical analysis, which is variable aggregate cloudy. Okay. And so those two jumps and then there’s the psyche from the epistemic, you know, inside out and then John’s recursive relevance realization, which is inner skin or an outer skin or stitch together brilliantly. That’s interesting. I just got sort of a horrific image in my mind but yeah. It’s the frankenstein. But it’s actually, it’s actually brilliant. My estimation is really funny. So anyway, funny. Yes, all of that. I just want to say yeah that down. One way of thinking about it, we as clinicians have always been relating to the ideographic, but from the outside in, we can never directly relate inside out the user empathy to do that. Right. Okay, so, so that being said, the, I would say that the, the, the end goal, let’s say of the kinds of reports that the individualized approach the assessment tries to generate is to bridge the outside and and the outside accurate perspectives. And, and, yeah, so, relevance realization obviously will factor into that and maybe we can discuss this actually through the vignette. So, the patient that I have in mind looks something like this. So, they come to the clinic room and they’re presenting concern is that they’ve been experiencing a lot of anxiety, and even panic in the last three or four months. Some sort of background information on the patient, the type of that little entity. So, they graduated from college, where they lived on campus for about four years away from home. So now they’re back home for the first time in four years with family. They’re looking for employment, but they majored in a kind of arts discipline so stable opportunities are really there. I know, right. So, and they’ve got a relationship that’s been going for about three four years but the future of that is uncertain. And a few other examples from their hypothetical lived experiences that whenever they’re driving on the road and there’s a lot of traffic, they tend to get very anxious because there’s a lot of moving targets to track at once. Or when in the part time opportunities that they’ve managed to secure for themselves, their boss gives them or assigns tasks that they’re not already familiar with and lack of sufficient expertise for. So they, again, tend to get anxious because there’s, there’s a lot to sort of manage that’s unknown. Okay. The question is, where is my anxiety coming from and how can I better manage it. So, I go ahead and do a big five with the patient, and it turns out that their scores are as follows. Trade conscientiousness, 92nd percentile trade openness, 94th percentile. Autism 87th percentile trade agreeableness 12th percentile and trade extraversion 15th percentile. Now how do I make sense of this. So, before I go on, do you guys have any thoughts or impressions so far, what’s this like for you I’m curious. I’m not sure what you’re asking I mean this seems plausible to me. Is that what you’re asking or. Yeah, just like what kinds of connections if any you’re you’re starting to make or think, think of. Maybe we can discuss a little bit, unless you’d like me to keep going. So what’s occurring to me is I’m, I’m, I’m thinking that there might be another trade off relationship that’s needed in the recursive relevance realization model between sort of updating the model, using some predictive processing language, which is an internally focused strategy, or changing the world, which is externally focused, and that you want to optimally grip between those two. In some fashion that was actually coming up because of the vignette. I think there’s another important trade off relationship and I think right and there’s two different strategies, right, you can’t write, and of course these map roughly on to assimilation and accommodation strategies. But, but, but there’s an internal and an external version of them. Because when you write when you when the model accommodates you assimilate to the world. And when you write when you change the world. Right, then you’re assimilating to the model. So there’s a weird inverse relationship between assimilation and accommodation inside and outside, which is really interesting because I’ve often thought that affordances actually have that kind of inverted relationship between accommodations inside and out. That was what was in my mind actually so is the, is the implication there that from the predictive processing point of view assimilation is when you act to change your predictions whereas accommodation would be no no no what I’m saying is there’s both an internal and an external version. So I can accommodate the model by changing it. And what I’m then doing is assimilating to the world. So I can accommodate, like I can, I can do accommodation on the world I can make the world accommodate me right and I can change, which means then the world is being made to assimilate to my model. And so I’m, it’s like this. Like they’re inverted with respect to each other, right assimilation accommodation tensions within the model and assimilation of accommodation. And I’ve been sort of working on an idea that a way of specifying affordances in terms of that inverse, inverse relationship between internal virtual engines and external virtual engines. And this is probably getting us too theoretically far away from the field, but this is what right, trying to understand. Right. There’s ways in which internal, internal and external virtual engines fit together in this inverted relationship and that’s constitutive of affordances emerging for us. So that’s what was occurring to me. I know that’s really interesting, because I wonder how this adds up to the phenomenology of this hypothetical patient. I don’t know what I was trying to do is also think of a way of getting various aspects of what Greg was saying to together. Right. And to somehow prioritize prioritize transjectivity. Yeah, I, yeah, one of the things I guess I would want to ask the patient. And this is not the same thing as the introversion extroversion I don’t think it’s more about where the strategies of amelioration. What are they doing, are they concentrating more on updating the model sort of a stoic approach, or are they concentrating more on changing the world sort of a romantic approach. I suppose my will on the world. It’s the latter in this hypothetical case. Ah, the latter. Yep. Right. Yeah, yeah. So here’s, here’s how I hear very similar although in, although it’s going to come from a sort of different frame but the, but the nuance transjective aspects of self modeling world modeling are very much available if you, if you know how to make the transition. So for me the basic issue is here you have somebody in a life developmental stage into transitioning from young adults to adulthood. And with high openness high conscientiousness that actually place a lot of demands it’s actually hard to navigate high openness high consciousness. Yeah, I’m actually very fortunate I’m very high on both, and I can afford myself through my work, that capacity, but actually you do have to navigate the demands think about them as trade off to achieve both is not easy. Yeah. So then you have to somebody also has high disagreeable high neurotic system. Okay, this is actually then going to create certain kinds of structural dynamics and the way in which they manage threat, reactive threat and create interpersonal spaces, so you want high achievement you want to do well you want to do all this other stuff, yet you’re irritable. Okay, and kind of be somewhat self focused, and you want to then control stuff and you then reactive in a particular kind of way. So if you then have all of these standards and you put these kinds of pressures on yourself, and you want to both be an artist and really successful at the same time, and then all of a sudden you’re difficult in this society, geez, how do you actually really succeed, the numbers of people actually able to find that place in society and flourish, yet you’re going to have very high standards be critical of self and others, and be reactive and not necessarily have the affordance of reward seeking that would enable you to kind of know when to differentiate. Now all of a sudden you’re really vulnerable to get in traffic, or starts going wrong, all of a sudden you start reacting right and then you start constricting, and now you’re bitter itself and other in relation, and the entire world’s a threat so you’re just swinging and anxiety. I love that. That was, that was a moment of virtuosity, Greg. That was impressive. That was really impressive. Anyway, this is what I do clinically so that is, that’s my, that is, you know, that’s where I come from in terms of just know I love that that is the process of bridging the nomothetic with the And it’s really interesting how looking at a set of numbers can tell you so much about a person. If you know how to interpret them if you know how to make sense of them. And we’re really Greg that was like that was spot on. I don’t know if you know about this hypothetical patients or anything like that but the, if we if we try to translate this into an activist and phenomenological terms, what we need to do is sort of articulate a set a set of styles that apply to this person as a person, based on their big five measures. And so, you can imagine how, again to sort of echo a lot of what Greg already said, being high in trade neuroticism means that you’re not going to be able to do the same thing And so, trade neuroticism means that you’re keenly aware and sensitive to the negative possibilities that arise in uncertain situations. So when you’re confronted with the unknown, you enact it as a terrible thing. When the future becomes unknown you’re enacting the future as terrible, and something to be afraid of something to be threatened by. Now, then comes in trade conscientiousness, which is right the demand to write structure and order experience. And so, when something goes wrong for this patient, which is pretty much anytime when something unpredictable happens. Right. There’s a, there’s a strong impulse to come in and control and manage the uncertainty that arises. When the future becomes unknown, right, it’s not only enacted as a kind of terrible fearful threatening positive thing that’s about to happen and unfold but something to be managed, controlled. And now comes in trade openness. Man, your neuroticism so you see the bad possibilities, low on trade, extraversion, so you don’t really see the opportunities. If you’re high on openness and you’re going to take the negative and amplify it. And when there’s a lot of uncertainty there’s a lot of bad stuff happening. Right. And your, your creativity and imagination which typically help you to solve problems. In original ways and effective outside of the box ways that’s now working against you. Because now the future is being enacted as a terrible sea of chaos that you have to try to contain in a little bottle, let’s say, to invoke these kinds of metaphors. And then comes trade agreeableness being so low on trade agreeableness essentially means that in light of the unknown, when this person is faced with the unknown. They enact others as unreliable people, right as unreliable entities to draw on. And so they end up enacting their own selves as pretty much omnipotent with the pretense that they can do it all on their own. So there’s a kind of hyper individualism in place, in some sense. And you can imagine how in situations where the unknown is irreducible, like during major life transitions, right, such as the one that this hypothetical patient was going through. And then the very strategies that tend to be there to help the person manage everything that is going on, prove insufficient horribly insufficient, and they’re just drowning. And so, panic and anxiety become virtually inevitable consequences. So, we, we sort of took that and. If that goes on long enough, that will burn itself out into a depressive shutdown, a lot of times. So then you go from the anxiety which is spending energy to try to escape. And eventually once you get so dead ended the system the affective system will shift and shift from that you’re already screwed you’re dead ended there’s no way out of the cage as it were, and it will then drop some of the activity, and then shift you from anxiety, depression, anxiety disorders precede depression disorders about five times as often as the reverse. And that’s why, because the system burns itself out and then start shutting down. So, what I see the two of you doing. And what I see what I didn’t do is, of course I was staying what we’re in sort of the normal logical dimension. And what I saw both of you do was move from the normal logical dimension to the historical. So you went from causal laws to causal pathways. Yes. And so, and of course they’re not identical and they can’t be made identical. What is, what is intriguing to me and trying to use my words very carefully here is how readily. We can make that move, and how well both of you did it. And yet, trying to explain how you do it seems very problematic to me. I mean as I’m wrestling with, how do you know when you’re making the translation from law to history well, and how do you know when you’re doing it poorly. And what was interesting to me is you both sort of you both gelled and you know, right, right, right, right, you converged And it’s like, so I don’t want to I don’t want to be too much on the methodology but I want to slow down here a little bit and zero in on what’s going on in that, because I’ve thought a lot about this how human beings move from laws to pathways and back and forth, and they do it fairly seamlessly I mean, you can do it at levels of expertise, both of you are showing levels of expertise and Greg is showing tremendously level of expertise. That’s readily apparent. I mean, the, the, I’ll just say the intersection of the laws of the lifespan developmental pathways and the phenomenological experience of being to get coherence coordinating that is the task of a skilled conceptualizer, in my estimation, in the clinic room. I agree. I agree. So that is that finding that harmony and it’s absent. That’s a whole point of the unified approach is that there is no, that there is that we are not training and don’t have readily available laws lifespan developmental pathways and phenomenological experiences of being languages that afford then a readily available transjectivity that when we place in the adaptive structure adaptive maladaptive pattern structure that we clinicians need to be able to do ultimately do our work is not available, or at least hasn’t been available, but it can be available And if we have availability there, that’s going to be a game changer. But I agree and I think this is the key phenomena. And I want to zero in on it both for the particular project but for also this proposal that’s deeply analogous to Aristotle’s integration of Sophia and for nieces. I think there’s a proposal here for a key move. That is the instantiation of wisdom in a very strong sense. I propose to you that individuals who can generalize that who can in general map fluently between the from nieces of causal pathways and the Sophia of causal laws are going to be much more capable of flourishing in general. So, I’ll just say the two sides of the tree are mapped by to beam. One is the beam of Sophia, that’s the left side that’s your theoretical be be. And then the other be is the be a for nieces that’s the pragmatic be the unified theory unified approach exactly And that’s the first thing that we’re doing is we’re trying to get the idea of that Aristotelian metaphor through the garden of be in the being process of be of Sophia and be a free nieces and the embodiment then of the capacity of the theoretical structure that to enter into the pragmatic world and that iterative process successfully and coherently is wisdom. That’s great. So then I am picking up on something well, which means totally do it in architecture. How did you do it. So, no, no, no. How did you do it. Like, like, like you did it. Right. That’s not in question, and that it’s an instantiation of wisdom is not in question. How did you do it. So, in this particular case, I have a basic formulaic architecture in which I hear trait based dispositions. I put those trait based dispositions into a character adaptation formulation character adaptation is the recursive relevance in context, right, then back the character adaptation relevance recursive through the vector of physiology into genetics I back it into a hypothetical developmental pathway, and I place it in a broad and brand or socio economic ecological context. And then I structure that. And then imagine myself as the person living their lives in relationship to their parents and relationship to their boyfriend relationship to this developmental stance and think about their systems of justification at the person cultural level, and their systems of experience at the animal level, and their relational influences at the primate level. And I dropped myself into that field and become that person. So the imaginal is playing a very important role in this process. Oh, totally. It’s an immediate imaginal construction in relationship to all that, that I would then bring to the individual and I actually use it building off of Rogers I call my approach directive empathy, I will create my imaginal structure and then welcome Lee drop it into their structure and see if their ego self harmonizes. And if it does now all of a sudden we’ll start to resonate with a particular language to create a participatory dynamic that affords us clarity about these issues and a shared language. That was helpful. Thank you. So, the, the interesting bit about the imagination there actually, because I could very much sympathize with that. The interesting thing about that actually is that the process of individualizing these kinds of let’s say, no more that it findings about a person’s personality traits scores is that you, at least for me I don’t start with the traits themselves. I don’t prioritize the trait measures over what they say nor under what they say, I use them in tandem in parallel with one another, but I started with their experience or rather they’re just descriptions of their experience. The first thing I ask is, what’s going on. Tell me about what’s going on. And I think this is me reiterating a point that I made in earlier episode but what usually brings patients to the clinic room isn’t that they’ve had a single bad day but a whole chain or sequence of bad days. And there’s something non arbitrary about the chain of bad days that has led them to the clinic room. The question is, well what’s thematic about everything that’s been happening that’s led them to coming to seek psychotherapy. And the interesting hypothesis here is that if traits are measures of long term patterns taking place within a person let’s say in terms of their behavior cognition emotion motivation etc etc. If the kinds of problems that lead people to seek psychotherapy take place over longer time scales right there, their patterns, stretching across longer spans of time, then you should be able to use one to make sense of the other, you should be Right descriptions that patients have of their problems, but what’s bothering them and descriptions of their traits from the big five point of view to sort of reciprocally what reveal what’s going on at the level of patterns at the level of right style. And in this case right, you ask them give me. Okay, so you’re feeling anxious, you’re struggling with anxiety. Give me two to three examples of times when you struggle with anxiety. Tell me what was happening exactly where you alone where you with others, where you have What was happening at your job or where you at home, what was happening, tell me the details, make it so that I get a strong detailed rich impression of the situation and the experience, as though I was there myself seeing it and witnessing it. And then you collect two to three examples. And then you write them down word for word, then you look over the transcript if you don’t want to be a good listener in the in the process itself you look over the transcript and you try to catch right what themes are emerging in the examples from the trade perspective, where is neuroticism finding life in this lived example, whereas extraversion or the lack there of finding life, whereas conscientiousness whereas openness. And then you start to get a right there’s a kind of impression that emerges of the dynamic of the traits as styles that are being enacted in the person’s examples. Then you can you can only make claims about what’s happening in the examples as styles, if it’s related in their traits, because traits are what measure the long term patterns that take place right you’re paying attention to traits not states so much, all those states could also be relevant there. And then you come back to the clinic room and let them know. In light of what you told me the, and the assessment that you completed with the big five, let’s say, we have evidence to suggest that you have such and such a style of relating to others at times of stress, or relating to the future, or to your own self to your embodiment, or to the past. Anything really. And that’s the hermeneutical circulation. I would say that sort of I undertake when I went when trying to bridge the first person and third person perspectives, coming at it from the inside out and the outside in. You’re doing reciprocal reconstruction. And then, and Greg’s doing something similar and then there’s the imaginal in both. So this is very helpful. I think this is very helpful and like trying to tease us but I, again, how do you know when you’re doing it well versus when you’re screwing it up. Right. So, I would say Gary, one of the things that we can maybe talk about is from a Utah perspective we may be missing a step. Okay. And that is the step from these dispositional patterns that are as we talked about are actually enactments across wide variety of different domains, they’re really, there be human mental behavioral patterns, which means the person environment patterns. Okay. And the big five people like, you know, Costa McCrae, they actually think of the traits and essentialist internal terms and I actually don’t think that’s a mistake. So I don’t think we should think about traits as purely essentialist characteristics of the individual, but they are dispositional agent arena relational patterns. Yeah, of which the person is constant that we can then track and we can see that the person does tend to generate them but that doesn’t make it essentialist inside the individual. And it’s the case that remember we talked about the lexical hypothesis the lexical hypothesis the origin of these. And so the actual mechanistic and situation of the theoretical formulation of these traits. Okay, meaning if we’re going to make some kind of essentialistic structural functional claims inside the individual about what these traits are, there’s actually an enormous amount of theoretical work that needs to be done to go from, oh, extraversion. Okay, into an embodiment of a character adaptation system that distributes that demonstrates this distributed pattern. Okay. So for me, what I’m doing. All right, when I see extraversion, I’m seeing the positive affect system. On the one hand, also, as its primary structure positive affect system which is basically sensitivity to reward and the energy energetics And then I also see the focus on what’s available in the environment, primarily at the animal level. And then that also then goes up into the social gregariousness at the primate level. Okay, so there’s a dispositional line that affords me clarity of the underlying structure of the animal into primate that extraversion neuroticism. Okay, neuroticism is the animalistic structure to detect threat and idol at negative affect react to the. And then it’s also then going to set the stage for capturing the flavor and content of justification. Okay. And the process by which that dynamic happens gives rise to self consciousness private self consciousness, and especially private self consciousness is vulnerable to a self critic relation, which is an ego self relation meaning the felt sense of anxiety in the one hand, and then the person embodiment of that. And if we look at the facets of anxiety of neuroticism, what you see is depression, anxiety, general distress. You see vulnerability to shame and guilt on one hand, impulsive irritability on the other. The matrix actually maps these, because these are actually the self other dimensions, as opposed to the there’s the animal and then there’s the primate. And then it’s the way it captures the person dimension and internalizes the interject critic of the ego on top of the self. And neuroticism is this then tendency for negative affect system to be animalistically oriented toward threat primate oriented towards loss of influence and either blame self or blame other. Okay. And then it tends to capture the justificatory system and create an internalized self critic. And those are the facets that you see in the big five. Okay. Now notice what I’ve done here is I’ve taken this oh neuroticism. Okay, but then becomes this very generalist, essentialist structure. And now I placed mid level concepts in neuroticism that then complete be placed inside a character. That then afford me the capacity to go to state systems and be like oh this is why this person experiencing this state up they failed this test and then they pissed with their mom and then all of a sudden they went home and ruminated. Okay. And I could see why this dispositional pattern would emerge across time and thus be picked up by the variable aggregates. And at the same time and it affords me this developmental life history and the capacity to drop into this self ego relationship and empathize with a person. Oh, so you felt really negative, and then you felt negative about feeling negative. And then you got in this loop where you were stressed and then pissed at yourself for feeling stressed and that just left you more stressed you almost got into a panic attack. And people like and then they say, yeah, that’s exactly what happened. That’s how you know that they have the system will say yeah that’s exactly right. How did you actually know that. And now you’re dancing with them because what you did by listening to this as a psychological You afforded their ego and enormous amount of sense making that resonated with relevant information and afforded insight to then start to harmonize the variation that was coming at them as a very complex and chaotic set of variables that they couldn’t gain control over. And now they start to harmonize and see music through the noise of their experience. So what the dimension I see you adding, I mean it’s a platonic dimension, right, the levels of the psyche, and bringing the relationship between the levels of the psyche and to add a third dimension so Gary was doing this reciprocal reconstruction this way and you’re saying that’s good, but you need to do it at these levels because the level levels of the psyche are also in these reciprocal relationships with each other is that is that a fair 100% right and then we can do recursive relevance realization scaling variant modeling across that structure, you can then specify the different. And it’s crucial because they’re actually operating different timeframes by the way. Okay, the animals operate at the person timeframe, and they also have different fundamental phenomenological separate rights, like the person narrating ego is different than experiential cell, which is different the embodiment of somatic processes. But what I saw you doing, and it was weird weird in a wonderful way. Right. And this is, and I mean this is a compliment is very platonic, you are actually imagine Lee reenacting right the deep continuity and the emergence, right, and then you are bringing that in as a way of refining the reciprocal reconstruction between right the, the, the events, the narrative events, and right to the big five trait that’s what I saw you doing. Is that is that exactly right. Exactly. Right. That’s all that’s beautifully that’s beautifully platonic but I have one question for both of you still, because there’s a thing that’s still hanging in my mind which is right, I see how you’re both moving this off an essentialist framework. You’re talking about coupling dynamics this way, coupling dynamics that way I think I think this is deeply deeply right. But what I’m not hearing is, if this is actually transjective. I also need. I assume that you need a good description of the environment as well, because if it’s a if it’s a if it’s a transjective relation, it’s being co created by the inner dynamics that you two are talking about, but also, how is the environment unfolding what’s the dynamics of the environment. I’ll say john this is one of the great challenges of being a clinician. Right. Okay. So what you have access to is the reconstructed episodes placed in the context of what brings you here as a problem. Okay. And then you have to situate yourself in their recursive relevance realization self world modeling as what you have access to through the justificatory narrative of both how you translated into language, and how you filter it what they actually tell you if they have sexual fetishes that they don’t actually share and you’re like, Oh, fuck, I knew that. I knew that this would actually I understand the phenomenology a lot better if you’re hiding this big chunk of your psyche. So not only do we actually not know what the mother really is saying, but rather have an episodic reconstruction of it. And so the filtering and what they actually tell you. And so you’re unbelievably impoverished and people, people fail this all the time clinicians as far as I’m concerned, they fail to know how little they don’t know about the environment. Right and they just reconstruct the presumption that what the person telling him is actual. It was anyone else saw it though, or many other people like that’s not what happened. I mean talk to couples, right. You talk to a couple you’re like, Oh, your husband is back. That wife’s kind of a bitch and you talk to the wife and like, Jesus, he was an asshole, you know, like it’s like no it’s a totally different structure. So the awareness of the environment’s unbelievable getting impoverishment of that. And then part of the skill then is dropping yourself into the empathetic structure, understanding what the person’s that specialize, and then the dispositional tendencies by which they And then try to infer what the environment looks like based on that filtering process. Right, right. What the environment looks like as a world. Because the world to them. Exactly. And of course it is the awareness structure that they operate to, you know, like, I’ll give you just one career example one of the most successful cases I had, I may have talked about her, but it was one of the most. So she has an avoidance structure, unbelievable shame based depression. I’m a horrible piece of shit. This is horrible. My life’s gone total reciprocal narrowing and what the world’s unpredictable nightmarish and I’m unbelievably disastrous and an avoidant personality structure for getting into attachment. Okay, she runs away immediately sees the world’s threat. She describes her mom and the way she uses she says home. Yes ma’am. No ma’am. Okay, that’s that’s what Matt oh like I asked for a conversation was like well we hung up and I told her, you know, I’ll talk to you tomorrow ma’am. It’s like wait a minute you said ma’am to your mom. She’s like, yeah. Huh, that’s interesting. Right. That’s diagnostic. And then the whole issue is well, well my mom can be really mad and she gets this and this. So how authoritarian is mom. Okay, I have no idea. I have no idea. And indeed when I actually meet mom she’s clueless that her daughter’s weird, and she’s daughter super sensitive and mom then has her own avoidance structure and doesn’t really know how to talk to her at all. daughter interprets this is distance cruelness. Mom is simply clueless, you know, so now you had no idea when I actually met with her mom’s pretty warm. And if you’re quote normal and she can read you she’s actually really engaged, she tries to read her sister, her daughter her daughter’s like super sensitive mom does clueless about it so she just backs off and says I wish we could talk more, but I guess we can’t so I’m leaving daughters like see she doesn’t care about me at all. So I’ll call her ma’am as a distancing function. I would never have known unless I actually talk with her mother mom of you know I do hypothesize her as whole avoidance sensitivities a function of mom’s cruelty. No, that wasn’t the case at all. It was actually started in the daughter’s head basically. Wow. So, so it’s a tough question john requires us clinicians to generate a lot of thought if we’re thoughtful about it. Is there a possible, I mean, I mean, is there a plausible presumption that because they’re coming in. There is some mismatch between them and their environment. I mean that that were almost by definition. I mean if we define these as entrenched maladaptive patterns and we put them in transjective terms because the ontology of problems are exactly that, then yes. You know, it’s a listen, there are definitely people. I mean, think about Alzheimer’s disease as I use a classic example mental disease, obviously, the system can break on the inside and really no matter what the environment, if it’s that bad granted granted done right. And so you can see certain context of psychotic breaks and other things are sort of like I don’t care what’s happening the system broke, and the system’s going to then dysfunction, but the vast majority of what I deal with internalizing neurotic conditions. Okay, in psychotherapy and what’s amenable to psychotherapy, is it precisely the person environment transjective relation over time, and the, and the fact that there is a mismatch by the which the person’s adjusting to the environment that then constraints them. That’s what a triple negative neurotic loop is bad shit happens in the environment, they get negative feelings about that. And rather than the system being able to hold it in a curious accepting loving motivated toward valued state of being which is the common flashlight. What happens is they get avoiding, they get controlling they get critical, they get attacking, and that ultimately creates an enormous amount of constraints, and then creates the vicious environment person feedback loop that then creates fires after fires that they keep trying to put out with more defensive oil, which spreads the fires into more disasters, and then you call in a firecracker and try to put some constraints on it so the system stops at Bernie. Okay, so I won’t press this anymore but I’m finding this seems to me to be one of the like places where artistry is going to make a big difference in the practice because you’re kind of shadow boxing with the environment, rather than getting a direct pun intended by the way. And that that that’s really intriguing but I guess I do want to because of time I would like to return. Yeah, sorry turn back. I mean, but thank you for this interview because it was helpful for me. Because the space that Gary carved out and then the two of you are resonating in this space between right, you know, laws, what I was calling laws and pathways causal laws and causal pathways and how you’re negotiating that that was extremely important. I really like that differentiation very helpful. Well, yeah, I will too. Because I know Gary was setting this up to make a transition to the next big argument which is to drive to try to do something similar with triple R and attachment theory which is another very powerful theory. Just as an anecdote. And I think that’s a good evidence in the underlying theory and attachment theory does have quite a, quite a bit of empirical backing and theoretical explanation to good hallmarks of a good theory. Yeah, so let’s let’s transition into attachment theory at this point but first by wrapping up what we’ve covered with in trade theory. The, the main point here has been that each of the five traits has its own kind of normativity. And we covered what these normativities were in relatively broad terms and then we specified what they might look like by going through the vignette that we did. So, we’re seeing an outside in perspective with the big five and seeing how individual differences as measured by traits confined life in the lived experiences that patients hypothetical or not, bring to the clinic clinic room, and that there’s a there’s a continuity sort of capitalized on that should be capitalized on in fact by clinicians to make better sense of the ways in which the agent arena relationship has been breaking down for people. So, if we go up from the level of traits to go back to the level of meta traits, we have stability and plasticity. And essentially the optimal gripping that’s taking place at the meta trait level is between how to, on the one hand, accommodate the environment. Right. That’s a, that’s motivated by exploration by plasticity. And while on the other hand had to assimilate the environment to to my needs, essentially, which is motivated by a kind of security based right stability dynamic. And so we get into an interesting kind of terrain now because the claim here is that So, stability functions to promote security seeking behaviors or patterns of enactment and meta trait plasticity tends to promote exploratory forms of enactment. And now we’ve got a basic dynamic between security and exploration going. Now, this is the very dynamic that we see taking place in attachment and attachment formation, and such that individual differences in styles of attachments are essentially indicative of or predictive of differences of how people navigate or negotiate the trade off between security and exploration in the context of relationships, both in relation to familiars and unfamiliar. So, let’s begin with attachment theory now, setting up the stage for next time. And maybe I’ll just go over some of the basic principles and what bullies. Bobby who was the creator of attachment theory and the, I think it was the 40s, Greg, 40s 50s, a little yeah he starts getting interested in that the, you know, I think it starts really making its impact in the 50s to 60s. So, but yeah, coming on the heels of war work doesn’t do. Yeah, so Bobby and I’m worth are really the two faces of attachment theory. I’m worth took Bobby’s paradigm and then popularize or took Bobby’s theory and then set it up into a paradigm of studying and determining attachment styles and infants. So, the entire point of it. So let’s go through a kind of story here. All right. Why did Bobby do what he did, why was he interested in what he what he was interested in. So his approach drew on findings from evolutionary biology from ethology from observational data and then to the from evolutionary biology from ethology from observational data on human neonates with their caregivers and control theory which which is an important but neglected one actually remember studying attachment theory and undergrad and control theory wasn’t covered at all. Good point, Gary. Very good point. Yes. So his his theoretical framework plugs right into dynamical and developmental systems theory. And dynamical approaches to cognition and embodiment and things like that, which is essentially what we’re going to capitalize on in the next episode. Now, Bobby was deeply influenced by Freudian ways of looking at pathology. And so the Freudian way really was that right, the patient comes in, and sooner or later you uncover these unresolved conflicts and that are at the source of what’s going wrong in the patient’s life, and then use sort of right in retrospect in hindsight, make the claim that these conflicts have their origin in the person’s early developmental history. So something went terribly wrong in their early development in their childhood in their relationship with their parents. And as as true let’s say as such a claim might be there’s no way to really make it scientific because it’s not quite testable. You can’t test what happened in the past, in the present, obviously, what Bobby tried to do or one of the contributions of the Bobby approach was to precisely set up the Freudian sort of logic, and in the scientific context where these kinds of claims could be tested. And so the idea was that, depending on the kind of kinds of patterns of relating that infants get into with their caregivers in the first few years of life. That’s going to determine the kind of style of relating that the infant will have to people in general. Right. That’ll follow them well into adulthood, such that we now know that in all sorts of different cases of severe psychopathology, different attachment disturbances are implicated. So, what what Bowlby and then later I’m sorry, did was they, they measured different types of attachment styles and ended up labeling some as insecure, right, as deviating from the normative development of the normal adult, let’s say, normative in a statistical sense there. Isn’t that what you think that there was also an axiological sense. Yeah, so we gotta be careful about that. I wanted to be very we should be clear when we’re meeting one versus the other. And the fact that I think in attachment theory they are blended sometimes legitimately, and sometimes equivocally. And so I think we totally agree with that. We gotta be really really careful. I’m sorry it’s not I’m not attributing any error to you Gary I’m just saying, like, when we when we’re reflecting on this, because I’m thinking of people that are big now like Sue Johnson and others. Right, and wish, and right. And like I said that that imperialism that I just mentioned is a slippage, I think, between the two senses of normative in a way that is not being properly addressed. I just wanted to flag that again and then sorry please keep going. No yeah absolutely thank you for that, we should actually flag that just as you did to get back to it afterwards, because this is one of the critiques that I would like to level against the sort of classical typology of attachment styles that attachment theory has, which labels different attachment styles are as secure or insecure. Whereas what I will want to argue for is that what’s more appropriate is adaptive versus non adaptive, or adaptive attachment, right, right, right, which allows for room for the context sensitivity, whereby context involves or entails also cultural differences, and how the kinds of attachment cells that are value, and the ways in which cultures organize themselves and individuals in their groups, such that if you’re. I mean, this is one of the things right that people experience with culture shock, if somebody comes from a very collectivistic right let’s say, sort of culture, where, you know, it’s like people like to be and tend to be in each in each other’s spaces and in each other’s business and things like that, right, they come to a more individualistic society, and it’s like you’re too much man, like keep your distance, keep your distance. There’s a, there’s more of an emphasis on avoidance, and you can’t say that the way in which the person was was necessarily maladaptive prior to coming to this new culture. Right, so we have to make room for that as well. And our conceptualization of attachments and the adaptivity of attachment styles. Yeah, so. So, I think that’s excellent point I think that’s an excellent point. So just keep going Gary. Yeah, I’ll go for about four or five more minutes and then I’ll, I’ll stop there just to set us up. Yep. So the story goes something like this what is attachment to begin with. Well, if we, if we look at human beings, we see immediately that there’s a, there’s a significant and almost fundamental difference between human infants neonates and non human infants in the animal kingdom. Neonates have the longest dependency period of all neonates ever right, whereas in the first several weeks, you have like, I know, a calf that’s that’s that’s been born, able to walk around and then fulfill its basic biological functions, human infants are john I’m going to quote something you said like 10 years ago at a conference that has stuck with me since right human babies are useless. Right. And if you, if you give them enough love, then they become persons. Yes. That’s the magical thing and this is also the put that on a bumper sticker right john. Well, wait till you hear the next part actually of what john said that it’s like looking at your couch long enough until it becomes a Porsche. Right. It’s this magical leap right human infants are dependent they require attention and care and consistent care sustained care over long periods of time in order in order to develop into effective. Right, mature adaptive adults. So, is this. So how does this relate to attachment. Well, when you’re completely helpless as you are as a human infant, then you can’t do anything for yourself you can’t even hold your neck up. And you need right. If there’s physical separation between you and your caregiver, and something goes wrong. You’re done. So the attachment system. According to Bowlby evolved as an adaptation to maintaining proximity physical proximity between infant and caregiver until infant becomes relatively right incrementally more dependent or sorry independent and individuated. And so, the. Can I interrupt here what for one second. I just want to make clear that that’s like how integral this is to our cognition, our cognition depends on at least these two things. Much much more but at least these two that were bipedal, and we have big brains. Right, and the problem with that design is like you, it puts tremendous pressure on female morphology. Right, you want to open the hips up to open them up the birth canal. And the problem is as you do this you make bipedal is almost impossible, because you’ll create a wall. So, evolution solution was right. And so, widen the female pelvis a bit right and then push the baby through at the brink of destruction about the baby and the mother. Right, and with only 40% of its brain development, having been complete. So, the baby is, is, is minimally viable as possible. It actually has a minority of its brain, and all of this has to take place outside of it. And so, right. So, some of the things that are constitutive of our ability to be the kind of like think about Greg’s point about the mobility of the organism and the bipedalism and the big things that are constitutive of our embodied cognition are are necessarily bound up with attachment. And the, I think Clifford Geertz actually made the argument here that right the the value of being born prematurely like that. So the cost first of all is that you lose a lot of instinctive capacities and functions. Exactly, exactly. And the value of that is that you get to learn a lot more and you get enhanced plasticity neonatally. And his argument was that culture, distributed cognition culture that comes into fill that gap. Yes, I think that’s totally right. Yep. So, Neontiny is an exactive strategy. And one of the ways you can play with the availability of your species, as opposed to the evolution of trait is by playing around with Neontiny. And so, linking this back to the big five theory of personality, especially the two meta traits. Now, on the one hand, as you’re developing as an infant, you got to stay close to your care get close enough to your caregiver to have sufficient security, right, against predators or accidents that might happen that might seriously harm you or kill you. So there’s a strong demand for security that’s mediated by proximity to the caregiver. Right. On the other hand, unless you expose yourself to novelty, then you’re not going to be able to capitalize and make the most of the plasticity that you have the capacity for learning. That’s really distinctly and uniquely human. And so you got to you got to optimally grip between the two. And what you see across development happening is, there’s a lot of dependency at first, not so much exploration, and then the ratio changes and becomes much more tilted towards exploration, less so towards security in the norm, right in normal cases in this statistical sense. Right. Now, unless you explore right and engage in exploratory modes of behavior and interaction with the world, then you’re not going to be able to be able to fare well against the unknown. And the problem with the unknown is that it’s irreducible so you have no choice but to deal with it. And so if you’re, if you don’t grow and cultivate these capacities right for exploration, then you’re going to be at a kind of disadvantage relative to someone who has. So, when we’ve seen it is like you said Geertz, our big advantage is we can plug in culture, but culture requires exploration. Yep. Right, right. Right. Wires exploration. It depends it demands plasticity. So, so now we’ve got this dynamic between exploration and security being played off in attachment formation, and the. Yeah, and attachment formation. And that’s the thematic continuity that I really want to pick up on between the big five, the edit rates of stability and plasticity, and these two basic motives that we see playing out in attachment. And if we do that well then we can integrate the big five theory of personality conceptually with attachment theory thereby producing a more comprehensive kind of human personality that involves not just the structural functional aspects, as described by the five factor model, right, the various traits and the trade hierarchy, but also the developmental aspects as described by attachment theory. That’s excellent and triple R is doing a significant mediating role in that right there. I think we should close it here, I think that was a beautiful place to close and so what we’ll do next time is Gary will be center stage again, we’ll see how much time. Greg might come back also to be center stage we’ll see we split it or how much we need. But we’ll first of all do this attachment. And then as I said, trying to integrate the structural functional with the developmental right through the shared dynamics of recursive relevance realization. And then once we’re doing that, and why Greg will come back center stages. And then fit in with Greg’s very comprehensive onto onto and follow genetic model that he’s actually again making use of today. So valuably. I was deeply impressed by how Greg was able to translate. I don’t use this word pejoratively, right, people who know me know I don’t an abstract theoretical framework into an imaginal enactment that gave him such finesse in the hermeneutics within therapy. That was me for me that was like a gem moment. And then, and then Greg’s overarching argument was fantastic so next time. Sorry, Gary’s overarching argument was fantastic. Really, really good. So, that’s my final word and just let everybody know where we’re going, Greg and Gary, is there anything more, either one of you want to say. It was a blast I feel attached to both you guys. I guess this is a reflection of our healthy attachment relationship, and I feel most secure and forward to exploring further. Exactly. And it does bring out how these dynamics we were talking about intersect with inter afford inter penetrate the dynamics of the logos. So thank you very much for that. Thank you.