https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=O6_HXr7FJYY
So what I’d like to go over today is basically this idea that there’s two different modes that we interact in in conversation in particular. There’s this exploratory thing that we do and there’s this explanatory thing that we do. And I’ve probably covered this before in some form, but it keeps coming up. And so I wanted to sort of highlight some differences that I think that are easy to see as examples and sort of figure out why this is important to sort of understand. Because when you’re interacting with with people, it’s good to know how the interaction is unfolding. And I think there are tips and tricks that you can use to kind of figure out what’s going on. But a lot of this involves introspection, understanding what you’re feeling in the moment so that you’re taking a breath or whatever and taking the time. And I think you can do that, though. And once you’ve been made sort of aware, and a lot of my videos are like this, right, trying to make you aware of things so that you can pay attention to them. Right. Because until you have the concept clear in your mind, it’ll just cause emotions that you won’t be able to understand or control or or better yet integrate. Right. Concepts that don’t fit don’t don’t integrate. So I’m going to go over this. I’m going to couch it in a lot of stuff. So maybe if you’re not familiar with John Vervecky and Jordan Peterson and say their talk, their first talk, some of those arguments will fall on deaf ears. I’ll try to make them more accessible. If you are familiar, you’ll probably get this pretty quickly. You’ll get a sense for it in either case. If I’m if I’m successful and I hope I can be. So I want to go over this idea of, you know, having an interaction that’s about explanation versus about exploration. There’s lots of concepts sort of wrapped up in exploration versus explanation because we don’t think in these terms. If I know something about a subject or I think I know something about a subject, worse yet, I will go into explanation mode and to some extent for some conversations that’s unavoidable. And that’s I’m going to get into that confusion at some point. But when people are in explanation mode, we have a certain reaction to that depending upon who we are and who they are and what our relationship is. And then we have our internal relationship to having something explained or told to us. Explanations aren’t all of one form. So some explanations are just fine. But some explanations, even by the same person, are not fine. And there’s a lot of variables that go into this. And the difference is exploration. What a lot of people are looking for is exploration and not explanation. And again, I don’t think it’s avoidable in some sense. Explanation is something that a lot of times you just you have to start with. So explanation is related to starting points, axioms, right, which are sort of the core ideas that you’re that you’re starting from. They’re related to having some knowledge and authority about that knowledge. So maybe I don’t I don’t know. I’m not an authority on medical issues, but I might be an authority on certain medical issues like maybe that I’ve had and researched in the past. So if you’re having a stomach disorder, for example, or you want to talk about immunity, immune system stuff, I have a lot done a lot of research on that because I had a lot of problems with that. I’ve gone to a lot of the best doctors in the world. Fortunately, good thing to living in Boston. You can go to the best doctors in the world. So I have some authority. I can explain things about that in ways that are maybe unexpected, that aren’t doctory, because I’m not a doctor. So I can’t I can’t embody that perspective in some sense. And those explanations might be useful to people. And, you know, a lot of people want to think in absolute. So they want to think, oh, well, an explanation is only this. It’s like it’s not only that there’s different types of explanations. If I start explaining something to you that you think I can’t possibly know anything about, it’s not going to work. Right. You’re going to get uncomfortable. You’re going to get annoyed. You’re going to feel preached to or you’re going to be made to feel stupid or whatever. Irrespective of whether or not I’m correct. And that’s the interesting part. So that’s sort of a little bit on explanation. And what people are generally looking for is exploration. Not all the time, not all people, not all situations. Right. Like sometimes we just we need an expert or an authority to tell us something because we need to know something or we want to know. So we think we want to know something that happens all the time. But people right now are hungry for exploration. They’re tired of being told what to do. There’s been some tyrannical things going on in the world in various ways. Right. There’s these religions. I talked about the three great religions, modern religions that have popped up. And that can be tiring. And then people want to explore instead. Right. They want novelty and getting preached to or getting told what to do or whatever has no novelty. Right. You’re not you’re not supposed to get novelty out of that. And so the novelty circuit is around exploration. Now there’s something shiny out there or there’s something interesting or there’s a hole. Right. There’s an ignorance. All right. A lack. And you’re like, oh, I want to fill that. And then other people watching other people do that alone is interesting. So that’s why a lot of YouTube is interesting because you see people doing things. So why would you want to watch somebody like run a lathe? Like that makes no sense. And short, you can go, oh, well, Mark, the guys like that more than girls. Sure. But women will watch other women put on makeup. Put on makeup. Right. And they’re also talking while they’re putting on makeup. Whereas the guys stuff, they’re just watching the land and there’s some cool music in the background. Well, why? What is that? Exploration in both cases. It’s exploration because when you’re watching a lathe, what you’re doing is you’re seeing the process by which something is starting from chaos and going to order. When you’re watching somebody put on makeup, you’re watching the woman’s face go from chaos to order. Right. You’re watching her transform. And she’s also talking, by the way. And, you know, it could be going to make this claim, but it could be that the reason why women like to hear other women talk while they’re creating, right, because makeup is an act of creation, right? It’s an artistic act. Effectively. I mean, we can argue about the merits of it, but it certainly is a form of artistic expression. At the end of the day, that’s what they want to look like. They’re transforming their face from what it does look like into something more like what they want it to look like. Is because they need that distraction, right? They’re used to paying attention to multiple things at one time, maybe because they have to pay attention to children, which is roughly speaking impossible. So the fact that they can do it is a miracle. I’ve seen it in action. It definitely is. I couldn’t do that. That’s for sure. I can barely pay attention to anything, much less a child, which is just all over the place all the time, you know, and still get the house cleaned and stuff done and put away and, you know, do their makeup, whatever. Yeah, that’s definitely not a skill that I could ever have. So you can see that, sure, you can make the argument that it’s different for different genders, but it’s actually not like exploration is still there. This transformation, this process, watching processes, what exploration is all about. Finished product is what explanation is all about. You’re jumping to the end in explanation. And look, sometimes you have to. OK, I don’t have time to learn how to program Android apps. If I need to know how to program Android apps, I need to jump to the end. Why? Well, there’s a couple of reasons why that works for me personally. First of all, I know how all this stuff works, roughly speaking, at the processor level. I actually do. I know how programming languages work. I know eight programming languages. Pretty sure I can pick up eight more like nothing if I want to. I have no need to because I’ve got four too many in my mind, but that’s OK. So it wouldn’t be a big deal for me to jump to the end. Now, other people who don’t know anything at all about computing or compute or embedded systems, which is where the cell phone is, they may not want to jump to the end because that may hurt them. Explanation may be bad or maybe they want to learn something. You’re not going to learn something with an explanation, right? You’re going to infer a bunch of things and that may lead to you learning something, but you’re actually being told things in explanation. And again, you’re being preached to and you’re jumping to the end. And sometimes that’s perfect or what you need. And sometimes you’re not necessarily jumping to the end, but you’re being told where to start. And some people don’t like to be told where to start. They want to start where they want to start. And maybe that’s good. Maybe they need to be told. I don’t know. It could be either for you, depending upon the circumstances. So if somebody wants to tell me where to start writing an Android app, unless they know me, they ain’t got no business doing that because I know a lot about these things. They’re just little baby computers. And I know a lot about computers. On the other hand, if they want to talk to me about this, which is an Apple device, yeah, I’m going to need a little help with that. They need to tell me what the starting point is. Again, I know the programming language, but the ecosystem is a little bit different because you get a lot less freedom, but you get to trade that for speed. There’s all kinds of considerations in knowing where to start. But we don’t necessarily like being told where to start. And we don’t necessarily like being told the end of the story. And explanation is one of those two things in all cases. And so and often it’s both like often the explanation starts with maybe an implicit assumption about what you know. So if I start talking about, you know, the war in Syria, first of all, I’m assuming you know what Syria is, that there’s a war, right? The nature of the war, I might assume that and say, well, you see, our forces are right. I might jump into some point in the story of the war in Syria that you may not understand. There’s all sorts of I could be talking about any number of wars in Syria, because turns out there’s been more than one that area of the world is a little contentious, has been for hundreds of years. Nothing new. So there’s all sorts of assumptions built into an explanation about starting point and about your knowledge and about your ending. Usually where we’re going to end up, what it is they’re trying to do. A lot of explanation is to justify. And maybe we want exploration because we want to see how people are reasoning, because how they reason, how they use their skills of logic, how they articulate things and and how they rationalize is interesting to see. It tells us a lot about the person. It gives us a better ability to trust and make them trustworthy so that in the future when we go to them for an explanation, we feel more comfortable. So you can see these two things are tied together. They’re not really separate. And then in a lot of a lot of times in a good conversation, even if somebody is explaining to you, as long as there’s back and forth, there’s at least some exploration, as long as you can ask a question and get a coherent answer, not just any answer. So a lot of people think other people are arrogant when those people give them an answer that they do not understand. So they it may even be a correct answer. And that’s the worst part. They give you a correct answer. You maybe sense it’s correct, but you don’t connect to the answer. So you think they’re arrogant, even though they’re just trying to explain to you and they may not be articulate or they may not understand where you’re at or they may not understand your question because that happens all the time, or they may not give good answers because most people don’t give good answers to questions. I screw this up all the time. It’s hard to know other people’s perspectives. So we fail when we fail to understand that other people have different perspectives and they can’t necessarily recognize our own because it’s like, well, of course, my perspective is the right one because it’s mine. We make that mistake a lot. And so we need to give people a little grace, especially when we think they’re being arrogant, because maybe they’re being right. But maybe they’re just being arrogant. It’s hard to know. So exploration in its purest form is more about questioning and answering and to people talking about a subject they don’t know anything about. Or it can be a subject without an answer. Now, this is a hack. I would say I’m not going to disparage hacks because that is not the original usage of the term. Hacks are not necessarily bad. They can be, but they’re actually primarily good. They’re simple short answers to complicated problems in many cases. That’s the original use of the term. All right. So instead of, you know, neatly arranging all of the electrical wires and stapling them correctly in the correct place, you just kind of jumper one because it went bad and that gets you up and running. That’s a hack. It’s not a bad hack because it works. So hack that John Vervecky uses is he talks about the logos and dialectic and dialectic into the logos. And, you know, he’s got this practice of deal logos. I’m not saying anything bad about his practice. I’m just saying this is kind of a hack. And I think that’s fair. And I don’t think it’s a bad hack at all. The way you do the deal logos in his practice is you talk about a virtue. Virtues do not have answers. You cannot explain the end of a virtue to somebody because A, you don’t know it and B, it’s impossible using words. It just is. It’s too big. But when you’re in exploration mode about a virtue, what you’re doing is you’re forcing what John calls distributed cognition, which is good, right? The cognition that you have and that the other people in the group have around this topic. And because you’re forcing that to happen on something that’s bigger than one person, you get multiple perspectives on the same thing. And that engenders exploration. It’s all exploration, right? It’s all what part of the elephant do you feel? I feel this part of the elephant. What part of the elephant do you feel? I feel this part of the elephant. Ah, we know it’s an elephant, right? That’s the way that you can hack that system. But actually, you know, all things can be exploration. So there’s a way in which I can engage people and talk about computers where I’m not explaining to them. I’m just asking them questions about what they know. And I’ve done this many times before. I don’t do it often enough, probably because people and I seem to be one of those, sadly. And so we get things wrong all the time. And sometimes we’re in a hurry. Even if the other person wants to explore, we just want to explain because we’re trying to get something done or we’re trying to get them the information as quickly and efficiently as possible, which is getting people information efficiently puts you in exploration in explanation mode. Efficiency and exploration are opposites. You can’t be efficient and explore. It’s one or the other. Efficiency implies sort of a straight path or at least a short and easy path. And exploration implies you’re going to go off on a lot of dead ends so that you know where the dead ends are, which is a good thing. And so there’s different modes of conversation. You can engender one by asking more questions. Like I ask people about computers all the time, like, oh, what do you know about this? Have you ever built your own computer? And maybe they say no, or maybe they say yes. And I said, well, what parts do you use? Right. Because it sort of if you built computers in the old days, you kind of know like back in the day you had to put boards in for everything. So if you go back far enough, you had to put a board in to hook up to the hard drives to read hard drive data. You know, those controllers weren’t built in. And then when they were, you still had to put in like five or six cards into an average PC to get things you wanted because sound wasn’t built in and the video wasn’t built in. And some of the port controllers weren’t built in. So, you know, it matters, right? It actually matters because when stuff’s built in, it turns out there are a lot fewer settings. The settings are done by the motherboard manufacturers. And so, you know, that’s about IRQs and things like that, which may be not relevant today. But it tells you what you know about how computers work. And then you can ask them like, oh, OK, well, if all you did was plug in memory, CPU and a video card, maybe you don’t know that much about how motherboards and computers work at the lower levels. Maybe you do. Right. I have to ask more questions, but then I know what questions to ask. And so you can you can have enough knowledge and not explain, but explore and talk to the other person. And when you do that, to give them a sense of expertise for the thing you’re talking about, when you explain things, maybe you don’t. Some people, when they get an explanation, they think they know about a thing. And that’s very dangerous. You see that all the time. Then you ask them for an explanation of how they arrived at their explanation and they can’t give you one. That’s how you know they they didn’t think about it. Right. They can get there on their own. They read about it or they heard about it or they came up with it. You know, sort of magically, you know, more more of that magical thinking. Right. But they didn’t reason or rationalize their way through it. They didn’t use a logical path to get there. It was just sort of given to them. Beware of unearned wisdom. So you can see. Figuring out if somebody can go into exploration mode, can tell you about their explanation and how good it is. And some people won’t go there. Right. They can’t go there. And maybe they are arrogant. If you can’t explore your explanation, that’s not not a good sign. Another way this is talked about. So in the first talk that Jordan Peterson had with John Vervicki, they were very excited because they were exploring this idea of Phylaia Nikea versus Phylaia Sophia. So Phylaia is love. Right. And Nikea is victory. And again, it’s it’s love. And and Sophia is wisdom. So love of victory versus love of wisdom. That’s like victory is explanation. Roughly, I’m trying to make a rough mapping and Sophia is wisdom. That’s roughly exploration. Like wisdom is something we don’t have a handle on. And I think explanation versus exploration is a better way to think about what they were talking about. Now, again, you have to have starting points for conversations. So I don’t think you can choose and say, oh, I want this to be a purely exploratory conversation. I don’t think that’s really an option. I don’t think it’s helpful. Spaces to explore are infinite in idea space, if you will. Right. In the non material world. There are no limitations. That sounds like a good thing until you realize that that means you can’t orient in the world or in the imaginal very well. You need to have starting points. And whether or not you have goals is sort of irrelevant. I would say explanation is more likely to have goals. Exploration is actually less likely to have goals, although either can go either way. Right. You can you can start explaining something without a specific goal to make a specific point. But just to make a bunch of points and see which ones land or if they land or how they land. On the other hand, you can explore with a specific goal in mind to get to an answer to something. And as I said, John Vervik is this dialogos practice formalized, written down, and they have a goal. The goal is to talk about a virtue. Right. That’s a goal. It’s an open ended goal because virtues are open ended. That’s awesome. That’s a perfect exploration in some sense. But you can explore close things just as well. And people learn from that. So people prefer some people prefer exploratory conversations, especially casually, because then they they’re more involved typically. B, no one’s acting as an expert, so they don’t feel like there’s an authority telling them what to do. Right. There’s more fellowship, at least in theory, because it’s something you’re doing together that, you know, Maybe whether or not the other person knows something, at least they’re walking with you instead of leading you along, which is what an explanation does. And it’s important to recognize these things. It’s important to recognize when we’re doing it right when we’re in explanation and Jordan Peterson talks about has talked about this before, where he’s talked about. I’m trying not to be right. And trying not to be right means I’m trying not to explain something to you as though I know it. I’d rather walk with you and explore it with you. And it’s very hard to do again because we’re in a hurry and not just we’re in a hurry. Like we really want to give people answers. Right. And I’ve talked about this answers thing before where we’re looking to tell people something because we want to be useful to them. And they want us to be useful. Right. They find value in talking to us. So we kind of want to give them that value. That seems fair. And so it’s not a bad thing necessarily. It can become bad, but it’s not a bad thing necessarily. We want to give them the answers and we want to do that quickly so that they understand and that you feel better. Everybody would feel better in theory. But sometimes people want to walk with you and see how you do it because maybe they’ll learn something. Maybe you’ll learn something while you’re exploring with them about yourself, about your limitations from them. I learn so much from people asking me questions. First of all, I learned when I’m completely inarticulate because believe it or not, I am completely inarticulate a bunch of times, almost all the time to a bunch of different types of people that I wouldn’t imagine that would be true for. But I never know what perspectives people hold and can hold and which ones they can’t or how their perspectives are broken. I have no idea. No idea. And you probably don’t have any idea either. I don’t know how my perspectives are broken. I don’t know which perspectives I’m missing until people ask me questions. And that’s when I really learn. And I learn a lot from people’s questions when I can. And sometimes I can’t manage it, but sometimes I can. And that’s what we need to keep in mind is managing all of that. So I hope that that gives you a sense. Right. You can explain something to somebody. You can start talking about how, look, this is how computers work when we use them. Right. Or you can explore with them. You can start being more questioning and asking them questions and walking with them and finding out from them, irrespective of what you know or do not know, finding out from them what they know, what their perspective is, how they see things, where they might be going wrong, where you’re going wrong. Because if you’re talking to somebody and they’re not understanding your questions, there’s a framing mismatch there. There’s a perspectival problem. Right. There’s a perspective here and a perspective there. And they’re not close enough or something to make a connection. That’s very much your problem, too. And maybe you can’t fix it. Fair enough. But maybe you can. Maybe you can start to understand the depth of problems and even communication. We a lot of people when they’re communicating to in explanation mode will smile and nod and pretend like they understood what you said, because maybe they know you’re right. But that doesn’t mean they understood it. And this is gets into dogma because a lot of times people believe what they’re told because they know it’s correct, but they don’t know how and they didn’t get there themselves. And we all need to do that sometimes. But if we don’t go back and we typically won’t and do the work to figure out why it’s right and how it’s right, we won’t know how it’s wrong because nothing is completely right. The world is too big for that. And maybe nothing is completely wrong. I don’t know. But we have to be able to get there by ourselves on our own. Now, maybe and this happens all the time. People know something that they can’t articulate, but they actually do know it. That happens for most knowledge that you have to, by the way, you know, things and you don’t know why. And they’re axiomatic to you. Usually that’s something you say, oh, well, that’s just common sense. We usually tell ourselves something’s common sense. So we don’t have to try to explain it because we know that we can’t explain it. At least subconsciously, we know that that’s a deep problem happens all the time. It happens to everybody. That is the sort of thing where you learn a lot by walking with people, by being in exploration mode, by using just enough explanation mode that you can get on the same page. This is what explanation mode is good for. Getting a common frame explaining mode in a conversation is good for getting a common frame so that you can then launch your exploration, even not take some back and forth, obviously. But it can work really well. And as long as you start an explanation mode and go to exploration mode when you’re ready, I can’t tell you when that will be. But once you’ve got rough agreement, then you’ll be in a really good conversation because you’ll feel like you started somewhere and that you ended somewhere and maybe you didn’t get to your goal even, but you ended somewhere and then you get a sense of progress in the conversation. And usually both people feel like they got something out of it in that case or three people or four people, however many are in the conversation. Book clubs tend to work this way because you really see other people’s perspectives on the same thing, the same piece of text, the same chapter or whatever that you read. So that’s a really interesting way to engage with this sort of concept. And just watch out for this, right? Watch out for when people are explaining things and maybe not taking questions or not answering questions or not asking you questions to find out where you’re at. Because if I don’t care where you’re at, I’m just explaining something. And sometimes that’s fine. Like sometimes people have to do that. Maybe there’s too many people to answer questions from. Maybe they’re just trying to get a point across that’s super important. You know, preaching isn’t bad, right? That explaining mentality isn’t bad and people are attracted to it. People listen to Sam Harris all the time. He’s an explainer, not an explorer. He does have exploratory conversations. He’s had them before. He’ll have them again. But generally people have points to make. And we’re attracted to that because we want to know things in the world and we want to hear them from experts. Nothing wrong with explaining mode. I don’t want to demonize one or the other. I just want you to be aware of it so you can understand when you’re feeling bad in a conversation. Maybe it’s because somebody’s in explanation mode towards you and understanding that helps you understand. If somebody’s in explanation mode and they’re trying to explain something to me, is this and I’m not feeling good. Is this because of something in me or is it in them? Because it could be either and it could be a little bit of both because the world is complicated and complex. But it’s good to know that because you can integrate that and say, oh, you know what? I was traumatized by something. My father used to just explain to me that I had to do this and that and I never liked that. Fair enough. That happens. That’s when the trauma happens to people. And anytime somebody has that tone or that attitude or just is explaining something in a very certain way, it triggers me. Fair enough. That happens to people. Happens to most people, actually. And so you don’t like that. But maybe you can go past that and realize they’re just trying to get a point across. And then if your attitude towards an explanation is negative, maybe you can’t engage in a way where you’re asking a question that gets you to a better understanding, that gets you into exploration mode. Right. Well, it gets the other person to exploration mode with you better yet. So that’s something to watch out for. And, you know, maybe maybe your questions aren’t landing because you’re angry and you’re questioning their assertions rather than asking questions that would cause them to explain. So let me give an example of this quickly. And, you know, just to be clear and fair to myself, one of the reasons I don’t do scripts for these things is because I’m very much in exploration mode when I’m trying to explain. That’s why I do most of this off the fly. I try to come in with like I’ve got a topics list and I try to come in with somewhere to start. Right. Concepts to start with, like, like this whole topic. And then I explore from there, hopefully with you. I try to do it with you. It’s harder because it’s a one way medium. But, you know, an example might be if if if somebody is trying to explain something to you and you say. Why, you know, you say something like, well, why do you think that’s true? You’re challenging them directly and you may be doing that out of anger or frustration over a past trauma rather than a desire to engage with the person in the moment. Instead of saying something like I didn’t follow you. Can you explain to me how you came to that conclusion? Right. So. Challenging them with a why may seem like you’re trying to explore with them, and maybe it is, but maybe it’s done out of frustration and anger instead. So that’s something you can watch for in yourself. And it can be too abrupt a question for the other person to engage with in exploration mode. And they may just get upset and shut you down and say, no, I’m the authority. And that just makes the problem worse. Obviously, mistakes on both sides for sure. But you can’t control the other person. You can control yourself better. Maybe you can’t control yourself perfectly or even well. I usually can’t control myself well. But you have the best chance of having the most control over yourself. So focus on that when you can and practice practice these things. Right. Practice feeling what you know, no one can control you. And hopefully take a breath. Right. Do some stoicism, stoic exercises. Try to try to get yourself in the mode where you’re watching so that you can do the best that you can do, because when you do the best that you can do and things break down, you don’t even have to blame the other person. You can just say, hey, they’re at where they’re at and I’m at where I’m at. And we’re just too far apart. And then you can just do the best that you can do. And then you don’t have to be angry at them. Like you don’t have to get angry at Eric Weinstein for not being able to explain something well to you necessarily or not showing his work or whatever it is. Or maybe you’re not angry at the person you’re with for trying to give you an explanation about computers that’s totally past anything that you could possibly grasp. And you can just understand you’re just in two different places and there was no way to bridge the gap because we’re not going to be able to bridge the gap every time with every person. That’s an unrealistic expectation. And yeah, maybe that’s a failing on our part, too. And so that’s OK. We both need grace. You need to give yourself grace. You need to give the other person grace. Then you can move forward without being angry and resentful and feeling imposed upon. Right. And look, explorations go wrong, too. Right. People explore in different directions. People have different assumptions that they don’t make clear in an exploratory conversation. And then you just kind of drift apart. I’ve seen this happen a lot. It’s unfortunate. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but people can feel bad about it because you start out in fellowship and then you move away from that or you start out with the intention of fellowship and you never get there. These are things that can really hurt us deeply, mostly because of past trauma or assumptions or whatever. But it’s good to recognize that in the moment if we can and notice it and really engage with it so that we can get past it, because we need to get past these things. We need to make ourselves better. The world doesn’t get better by us trying to make other things better. The world gets better by us making ourselves better. That’s where you need to focus your time, energy and attention, because that’s where you have the most power. Right. You have the most power, the most control, the most influence on yourself. It’s not perfect, and it may be terrible. You may find out in this process how miserable you are at self-control, how little influence you have over your own thoughts and feelings, how ruled you are by past events, past traumas that you didn’t even realize. And we all go through that. But you still have the best chance with yourself. So give yourself a little grace. Give the other person a little grace. Recognize these modes. Try to do your best to mix them as best as you can in the moment. And hopefully you’ll have better conversations, better interactions with people, and you’ll know yourself better. Introspection is largely a function of understanding things like meditation or prayer. There are prayers that are specific to knowing yourself better. Although all prayer will probably help you get a perspective, a more global perspective, hopefully on yourself. And that would be good. And meditation certainly is more specifically about that. So those are good practices. There are stoic practices, taking breath before you speak, taking a breath when you notice an emotion so that you don’t react to it. But instead, you analyze it first and then decide how to react. Emotions cause us to react sort of without thinking sometimes. And you can control that with stoicism. And savoring and appreciating what’s around you, more the Epicurean ethos, always good to engage with. These are ways that we can help to understand the contrast and the difference between explaining and exploring. And hopefully we can get ourselves into the right modes when we’re speaking, because sometimes people need an explanation and that’s all they need. And they don’t have time to explore or they don’t have the mental capacity to explore. Some people just can’t get there ever. And they just need the explanation so that, again, they can feel comfortable that they don’t need to worry about it because they talk to you. And when they think of them as somewhat of an expert or at least smarter than them on the subject and they can trust you from there, that’s good. It’s not bad just because it’s an explanation. Some people, they need that exploration because they need to know how to think better and they have the capacity to do that on that subject. And there’s no easy answer here, but recognizing the difference will help you. And I just want to thank you for engaging with these videos and this one in particular. I hope that I got my point across without getting too esoteric and without confusing you too much. And hopefully you’ll comment if you have questions or if something wasn’t clear or if there’s videos you’d like to see, feel free to let me know. And maybe I can do videos on them. I can’t promise anything, but maybe I can make things more clear to you. And I just want to thank you for what I’m always most grateful for when you watch my videos, because I think it is the most valuable thing that you have and the most valuable thing that you can give to me in some sense, which is your time and attention.