[00:00:00] Dan: Hello, and welcome back to We Not Me, the podcast where we explore how humans connect to get stuff done together. I'm Dan Hammond.

[00:00:13] Pia: And I am Pia Lee. Dan Hammond, any disagreements recently?

[00:00:18] Dan: I'm feeling very agreeable today, actually, I think I know we're, we're revisiting, Matthew Bellringer today and talking about disagree, how to disagree. And yeah, I was caught actually on by, to be honest with you, there are still news stories I try to avoid and when people talk about them around the place, I just like to say, I don't know, because I'm not interested. But anyway, but this one kept on coming up and I had to go and have a look, see what it was about.

[00:00:44] Dan: So there was a bakery in the UK was approached by the agency of the influencer, I think a TikTok influencer, who's having a big birthday coming up, and they were asked to provide cakes for free for this event in exchange for publicity. And I dunno the full details 'cause it's one of those stories I sort of just try to avoid. But it just went off and they started us, you know, the good old Twitter spat, they were arguing about this and that and there's sort of three parties, the bakery, the agency, and the, 

[00:01:14] Pia: the influencer 

[00:01:15] Dan: And the influencer, exactly, and 

[00:01:18] Pia: And it was a bun fight?

[00:01:19] Dan: Oh Pia, you absolute legend. I don't even think anyone's even tried to use that excellent, excellent pun. But yeah, you know, just unnecessary and it did make me think as we were revisiting the second half of Matthew's, our conversation with Matthew, how disagreements. We're just not good at it. And I guess in that case, there might be some motivation to disagree publicly, but we're not taught, we're not very good at it. Probably culturally, the Brits are terrible at it because we're so nice and everything is happening under the surface. But Matthew, in the second half of our conversation, really focused on this and he's got loads of insights to share. So let's get over and hear what Matthew has to say now.

[00:02:06] Dan: So Matthew, we're now gonna talk about disagreement in teams, I guess is, and, and, you know, your, your, uh, your podcast is a delightful dissent. Let's start with what could potentially be an obvious question, but who knows what the answers might be. Why should we disagree?

[00:02:26] Matthew: Fundamentally, the reason we disagree is because none of us have privileged access to the truth. None of us have the whole picture. We have to make assumptions. We might be able to, well view the world through a range of lenses, but we don't have all the lenses, and we also don't know whether those lenses are the right ones to use or the best ones to use in the circumstances.

[00:02:55] Matthew: So that idea of disagreement of that, that we, we are coming from different perspectives is an important thing because it gives us a clearer picture of the actual world and the nuance, the complexity, the different aspects that we, from our perspective might have overlooked. So we, the, the value of disagreement is, is huge because it, underlying it is the fact that there are different ways to see the world out.

[00:03:30] Pia: And I guess that's, uh, there's a powerful bit of that, which is being able to articulate a view and being able to hold it and not trying and annihilate someone else's view, which is sort of what can happen in some disagreements cuz they escalate. So how do you do that? 

[00:03:48] Matthew: Dis disagreement as a positive skill is, is again, I, you know, I, that, that this idea of there's a, there's a set of skills that we don't get taught, and sometimes aren't incentivized in the environment as well. This is another thing is we have a, a lot of, particularly, again, particularly at work, but more in generally, we have quite a big attachment to certainty and to being right, and a big fear of being seen to be wrong, being seen not to know something. And that fear only seems to increase as we go up organiza as we go up the organizational hierarchy. That's a very dangerous thing. Particularly as we go up the organizational hierarchy, because people are more likely to just go yes, without arguing.

[00:04:37] Pia: Yeah. 

[00:04:38] Matthew: Um, But the skill of integrating to perspectives, it requires skill on both sides as well. This is the other, the other, aspect of it, it is a, it is a work to create a mutual understanding. If we have a disagreement, then we have an opportunity to create a better understanding between us than our either of us held in the first place that integrates aspects of both. So to disagree is to be willing to have our position changed, but also to be willing to change someone else's position. 

[00:05:13] Matthew: And that is a real challenge when we are often set up to a situation where, It feels like, and often it is perceived as that if we change our position, we have lost in some way, where actually the, the opposite is true. We have lost, if we've had a discussion and we haven't learned something, we haven't changed our position.

[00:05:37] Matthew: You know, I, for me, that that fundamental curiosity about what lies outside of what I know, what can invalidate the assumptions? How can I make better assumptions? Is a really important part of this. And, um, I think the idea simply that we are making assumptions always isn't well known or well understood. And that's partly because for a lot of people, the assumptions they are making, they never really get to the edges of those. They never have to consider the assumptions. And so the fact that they are assumptions, this whole edifice that everything is built on is not the absolute fixed natural inviable truth, is a difficult thing to encounter, and it encounters a lot. You know, when you do prod it, it creates fear.

[00:06:35] Matthew: And so then if you are not skilled at managing your own emotions and you don't understand where that fear comes from, you can end up projecting it on the person who, who presents that alternative perspective. Yet that perspective might be the most important thing that you encounter for a long time.

[00:06:56] Dan: Matthew, you've talked quite a bit about mindset and that, and the, the, you know, your, your understanding that you don't see the full picture, your willingness to change your mind and to change the mind of others, fit, how do you, how can you nurture that? Is there anything, is there any practical steps you can do? Because I can see that fear that need to be right. I've thought about this, I'm sort of somehow attached to it. It, there's some challenging, there are some countervailing wins, aren't there here? Yeah, so how, how can you nurture that mindset? First of 

[00:07:29] Matthew: Yeah. So on a personal level, the main thing is, is curiosity. Is to cultivate curiosity as a practice, which means doing really strange things in domains you don't understand fully.

[00:07:43] Matthew: You know, particularly as adults, we tend to do what we do and know what we know, and we, we, we don't operate in a completely new domain. You know, so this might be entirely depending on how you approach it, might be just reading a book from a, a different academic practice or like a, from a, a, non nonfiction book about something that you don't work in that's completely alien. So, you know, if you are a people person, something from a, from a physics perspective or an engineering perspective. If you are, you know, and the opposite is also true, something from a biological perspective. Particularly, and I, I really like biology for this because the emerging sciences, the edges of biology are so weird now that they're quite good at just challenging those fixed assumptions. So, so like things that are gonna push the edges of how you think.

[00:08:37] Matthew: And actually if you are thinking about thinking, one of the other really good ones is, is non-human intelligence. So, you know, thinking about how other animals think, uh, particularly other mammals. Then thinking about how birds think. You know, cuz we see, you know, crows, cort, they're clever, but their intelligence isn't like ours in any way. And then you look at things like cephalopods, so octopus and things like that. Their clever, but their intelligence is so alien. And trying to kind of put yourself in that perspective is quite a playful way of building up some of these tools and encountering that challenge in a way that isn't overwhelming.

[00:09:21] Matthew: On a team basis, in an organizational basis. It's actually to make it okay to design a situation where, where being wrong is not only okay, but is incentivized where we're, where our curiosity is rewarded. Where it's okay to make mistakes, where it's okay not to know. If you are senior in an organization, the more that you can do for a team is to say, I don't know, you know, and to say, tell me. Explain what ex, you know, rather than to have to come up with an answer, and to be able to practice saying I don't know. I am uncertain about this. Maybe, you know, maybe none of us know and we need to find out. Maybe none of us know it, actually, it doesn't matter very much. But to be able to acknowledge the uncertainty, acknowledge the edges, and say, we are uncertain about this. We need to get more certain, or we don't, rather than fearing or like, you know, pretending like it doesn't exist. And, and coming up with these very, surface level, things that are just, this is how it is 

[00:10:46] Dan: Yeah. So that, that makes perfect. So, and actually I think about it with a typical corporate environment is actually about nurturing this sense of certainty and this environment of certainty, isn't it? And, and knowing, and this is the answer, we're gonna go and do this. Whereas actually, I think what I can see you are talking about, I love those, those ideas to, for self, to build the flexibility. It's like you wanna be flexible where you've gotta do your stretching and you've gotta stretch into these other areas. But for the team to build this sense of knowing that we don't know, I think that is different from that traditional sense of a sort of corporate team, really building a sense of awareness of under of, uh, of that these are assumptions we're working on. Sort of just releasing all of those things that bind us, I think a little bit.

[00:11:32] Matthew: It, it's, it's to be willing to play with them, to explore them. It's not necessarily to throw them on out because we do need some degree of order. We do need some degree of predictability. Organizations need some structure. Structure is to a point a very healthy thing. But what we want is we want scaffolding to build on. We don't want a straight jacket. You know, we don't want something that constrains the direction further than it's, than is beneficial.

[00:12:01] Matthew: And we build what we know, when we know. Um, sometimes we find out things that change that. So that itself is an ongoing process, and I think it's giving some space to that, that, step back question. It, it, it forms a virtuous cycle eventually. You know, it's like, we do want predictability and we do want order, but the way that we actually obtain that is by engaging with the unpredictability and the uncertainty and the disorder that exists in the environment.

[00:12:38] Matthew: Because if we ignore it, it just grows. We don't engage with it. And that's what makes organizations very brittle. Where they do a thing, they keep doing a thing regardless of, you know, it's like this thing worked. Well actually, whether or not it worked very often, what we really do in organizations is we did a thing and a thing we liked happened, and that's the limit of how much we investigate those two things. So it's like literally we just, we have no sense of causality. We have no sense of how those things relate, whether we could have done something better, whether it would've happened anyway. And it just, you know, we, we just did a thing and it was essentially, you know, it, the, the we, we don't understand how that came about, whether if there was a causal relationship.

[00:13:36] Matthew: So really being able to. Think outside of that, reconsider our relationship with the outcomes and whether they're desirable in what we do is a really important part of that. And that that does mean engaging with that uncertainty and with that bit that we don't know because we can get more precise, we can get more accurate, we can get more nuanced about how we then engage. And that is incredibly valuable because it tells us much more. Because if something changes in the environment, some, some situation changes and that we don't understand that relationship, well, it can have a, an existential, it can be an existential threat for an organization.

[00:14:20] Matthew: And particularly with my background, you know, this is why my work often ends up being in the space of innovation. Is there a, the world is littered with companies who had the opportunity to do something different and didn't, and now either don't exist or exist in name only.

[00:14:42] Matthew: Off the top of my head, Blockbuster Video. They actually had someone in the house who proposed something very similar to Netflix. They had the opportunity to buy Netflix. None of those things happened. And now there's one blockbuster left. And, and ironically, I think that the, the cruelest irony there is Netflix are making a series about,

[00:15:04] Dan: That's 

[00:15:05] Matthew: um, 

[00:15:06] Dan: harsh. That's, 

[00:15:07] Matthew: it's, really is. Um, but also Kodak. You know, Kodak huge, huge company, developed digital cameras. They actually developed, they have, they hold some of the patents on digital cameras. Developed them in the 1980s and didn't launch them because they were a threat to the existing business, and they couldn't work out how to kind of position and transition to a different operating model. And now they barely exist or they're, they're, I think they're a name owned by someone else actually. And Yahoo similarly had the opportunity to buy Google.

[00:15:46] Dan: And netflix again, I think.

[00:15:48] Pia: I think bit of a, a bit of a graveyard there. Um, I do wanna go back to the nature of disagreement because when I hear you, I hear a, a logical and quite, and obviously an intelligent approach to it, but I feel we haven't talked about the emotional part that goes on because the brain gets hijacked. And if I look at my three children on the school dropoff disagreeing, there is no trying to think about anything else. It is just a survival. And I question how subconsciously we project the sort of traumatic experiences we've had in our families disagreeing and how we take that into the workplace. And that overrides the logic cuz that's, it's hard to get out of yourself when you are plugged in really hard. 

[00:16:47] Matthew: if if we experience existential threat, if it comes down to, if it feels like survival, whether or not it's anything related to survival, if it feels like survival, we are not going to, but we are not going to argue we are, and we are also going to use any means necessary to win, to say, to stay, safe, which will include doing very destructive things for ourselves and for the rest of the organiz, you know, for the organization.

[00:17:13] Matthew: If we are in survival mode, we won't be doing things in the interests of, in our long-term interests, in the interest of the team, in the interest of our colleagues. We will just be sc scrambling to survive. And you are right when we are triggered into that, when we tip into that, it's kind of too late, honestly, the answer is step out of it, tease it apart if you can. Like what is it?

[00:17:41] Matthew: I think the, um, affect as information, as a concept is really helpful for me in understanding this. And, you know, emotions are valid. They give us important contextual information. What they don't do is give us the precise details in that specific scenario, that's what the thinking brain is for, the details. But the emotions frame that and hold that. Anything that's, we can't think outside of the framing that of our emotional context. It just doesn't, it is not actually something that, that, I'm not sure. I, I think it's probably a design thing actually, but it doesn't seem, doesn't seem to be something we can do.

[00:18:21] Matthew: So actually being able to think about the emotional context and, and to say whether the emotional context is helpful. Again, is this a, if you are pitting people in a competitive way, way where they are facing threat to identity, to status, to autonomy, to all of these things that we, we, that really matter to us. And, and, and they do represent, you know, I think we don't, we talk about these things like they're, they're just feelings or whatever. They are linked to existential things, and, and they're rightly linked to existential things. We are a collaborative species. We, we, that's how we do well.

[00:19:03] Matthew: As an individual, humans on their own are not likely to succeed in our evolutionary history. That's why, um, people being, um, thrown out of the city was a serious punishment was, was the most serious punishment. So we are attuned to the possibility that that might happen. Because if we are thrown out of the group, there's a bit in our brain that's saying, you are gonna be alone in the jungle. You are gonna get eaten by something bigger than you. This is not a place you want to be. And so if we trigger that threat, our brains are gonna respond accordingly.

[00:19:49] Matthew: And unfortunately, a lot of organizations actually set that up without necessarily intending to, I think. Um, but when we put all this stuff at risk, we can't have open conversations. We can't be curious. We can't make mistakes either. You know, e e every, every conflict becomes a fight to the death. 

[00:20:13] Dan: That's really powerful. I think Matthew, I had never quite joined that. You know, it's like, I was thinking, thinking about the naughty step, you know, the, the, the, the, the sort of, that's the most powerful thing you can do to, to discipline a child is to exclude them. And, and yeah, I, I'm, I'm sure that disagreement has this, to Pia's point about emotion has this, if I disagree, am I going to be excluded?

[00:20:36] Dan: Am I gonna be as seen as other and, and outside? That makes perfect sense to me. And then you are into the, all these limbic responses in the brain.

[00:20:44] Dan: Um, could I go to a really practical end of this whole thing? I was thinking about Jane Austen and these powers of dialogue. Um, this is really practical, but what, what sort of skills can we have? And even things, phrases that we can use, things that we can do practically to disagree better?

[00:21:05] Matthew: The first thing is to, to be clear about what we don't know in a converse, in a disagreement, because very often that's actually what we're, what we're talking about. The other thing is to get to assumptions quickly because it's, you know, there's a, there's a, a cartoon that's been going around the internet of two people standing at different, at the opposite ends of a, a figure on the ground. From one perspective it looks like a six, and from the other it looks like a nine. One of them is arguing very, that it's a six and the other that it's a nine.

[00:21:41] Matthew: And so if we understand our perspective, if we can, we can, and to situate our perspective, it's like, why am I positing this, you know, where am I coming from? Rather than going straight further and to speak about that. To share that this is why I am thinking this way, and this is why I am feeling this way, because that's also part of it. So to, to situate our position.

[00:22:13] Matthew: And in some organizations, in some contexts, I wanna say, that is a deeply unsafe thing to do because it will give someone else ammunition to attack you. So we need to be in a context where that is safe first. That's, that's a really important part of this.

[00:22:28] Matthew: And, you know, one of the interesting things, you know, one of the s really significant risks for neurodivergent people is to experience bullying and harassment in organizations, is, is, is anyone who holds a different perspective is at risk. There's a, there's a kind of normative social immune system thing going on with bullying and harassment. The difficulty is it chills all different perspectives and punishes them socially. So it is very much an an anti-patent for innovation. So we need to be in a situation where if we lay our position out, we are not going to be attacked.

[00:23:12] Matthew: So that is an important thing, but we can edge into this. You know, we don't have to lay it all out, um, necessarily. So, but to begin to be able to situate ourselves is a really important skill. And that would be the first thing.

[00:23:30] Matthew: Because then we can start to say, we can start to talk about assumptions and actually to know that you are making, you know, if you are not aware of the assumptions that you are making, then you need to be trying to figure out what those are. Because you might be making different assumptions. Very often our disagreements are just, we've taken a different frame and we are both looking at the same thing. And actually it becomes, okay, well we can look at it from this angle and that's useful in this context, and then we can look at it from that angle and that's useful in another context. And so we can understand when it is useful to use the different perspectives and that they're both true.

[00:24:05] Matthew: So for me, really being able to understand that, contextualize the conversation and understand why we've assumed what we've assumed is a really helpful thing. But again, that might be a, that that's, that's a skill to develop over time. But to be able to state those assumptions, this is why I'm thinking this way or feeling this way. This is what I'm thinking about the situation. And to be able to step back.

[00:24:30] Matthew: There is a concept that I use a lot in, uh, in this work of positive deviance. You know, and I love, I love these kind of apparently contradictory phrases. Uh, you might have noticed with delightful descent and all of the other. I love that there's a tension, you know, this, this, this like tension of things. How can you have?

[00:24:52] Matthew: So positive deviance is an idea really that within all of the behavior, there are some people not doing things the conventional way and doing things better. Because we have this assumption that any deviance from the, from the norm is wrong is a problem. And we can see this in, you know, and particularly when organizations. Adopt a, something like a a, a quality model, something like Six Sigma for knowledge work, this can sometimes happen. And I don't want to criticize Six six Sigma for its original use, which was creating very highly consistent parts for manufacturing. It's good at that, but what it is, is it's all deviance is a problem. That's the whole point. It doesn't matter if it's better. No, there is no, you know, within six Sigma, tradi conventionally anyway, I think they've revised it now, but like the, the, the original approach, any deviance is a problem and a lot of organizations think that way. Whereas actually there's a big opportunity there in this.

[00:25:57] Matthew: And so actually thinking about, you know, we're looking for people who are constructively breaking the rules or constructively working outside of the rules very often, which leads to, this is back to the assumptions that different set of assumptions you're working outside of the rules. And not treating them as outcasts, pariahs. And also, you know, on a more emotional level, not seeing that as a threat to the team, as rocking the boat, as threatening the wellbeing of the organization. As seeing it as a positive, as a gift, as an offering, as a part of the value that people offer rather than as an act against the group. That I think is, is, is something I'd really like to, you know, so when we are disagreeing, we can see that everyone is disagreeing hopefully because they want the best for everyone rather than because they are trying to break and damage things upon which we all rely.

[00:27:10] Dan: And that is how we can go our own way together, I suspect. Which, uh, which you said earlier and really stuck with me. Um, thank you for taking the time with us and for bringing your, um, your unique insights to us. Thank you so much.

[00:27:25] Matthew: Oh, thank you very much. I really appreciate such an interesting and wide ranging conversation. It's a, it's always a, a joy to to, to explore the edges of this with people who ask such interesting questions as well, cuz there are a lot of much less interesting questions that often come up. 

[00:27:41] Dan: Good,

[00:27:43] Pia: I, I couldn't agree more with that then. 

[00:27:45] Dan: We passed that little test. That's a big, huge relief and, and probably just a massive fluke. But anyway, but seriously, thank you so much Matthew, and we'll look forward to seeing you around. 

[00:27:54] Matthew: Great. Thank you very much. 

[00:27:56] Dan: What really jumped out there was something Matthew said right at the start, which was that none of us have privileged access to the truth. That's such a great little phrase that should be written on all our walls everywhere, particularly for us analytical types who've spent a lot of time getting things right in our heads. It's easy to think that, but actually there are other perspectives, and that seems to be the foundation of this, is to recognize that you don't have that privileged access, and there are other ways to look at this, and that's the essential ingredient to start positive disagreement, I think. 

[00:28:38] Pia: What do we get out of it? What's the payoff of being right? And, and that, because that, that, you know, if you make an assumption, so there's two things that happen. One is our attention to detail is getting poorer and poorer, and our ability to, to critically think through things and to accept sometimes that the truth is a right old mix of different things that actually create a lot of grey, and we're just not interested in doing it. We want a quick fix and we want to be right. And I really question whether sometimes we're just, we're being played by the system because this is just, it just divides people. It's a really great mechanism, divide and conquer.

[00:29:20] Dan: it is, yeah. I suppose there are some benefit, you look, if you can be right, then you're sort of, competent, you can be valuable to the group. I thought it was interesting where he went that sort of mammalian brain, sort of saying that the last thing people want is exclusion. But strangely, and Matthew talked about this, you can actually get into another virtuous cycle where actually your ability to understand others and disagree positively can bring you more into the group, but it seems like we try to establish our own sort of rightness instead of actually exploring the other person's view.

[00:29:57] Pia: And we know this just from basic neuroscience that if you are feeling that you are under threat or perceived under threat because somebody else has a different view, then you're going to want to kill them metaphorically to get your point across. You're either gonna give up, that's a fight or flight response, and you're missing, you're missing the front part of your brain, the prefrontal cortex to make a more, a more executive functioning decision. So, and you know, that's why I asked him the question about that emotional part because I think we've become, Emotional. We become, we attach emotion to this, and then you've got to ask yourself, why is that happening? So, you know, is there a bit of scar tissue there? What's happening to us that we're not able to take more of a breather? We are getting really plugged into things, triggered by stuff.

[00:30:47] Dan: Oh, definitely. And I mean, if I think back to Brexit, you know, here in the uk, which, which you know, is a, actually a global phenomenon. It's a sort of a little sub-branch of Trumpism in a way. But you know, I was, I definitely took a position there, as I, uh, that I had to have had to sort of really observe myself in that situation, disagreeing with people who wanted to Brexit, and I've had to do a lot of work to sort of, and I, to, to really exercise the mind of actually under getting empathy and compassion for the other view. What is it that's driving them? I mean, and I would say, I suppose this, this is. Possibly not the right thing to say, but you know, objectively, Brexit is bad for Britain, you know, and as we get further away, it's really obvious and actually the country's swinging. So, you know, I was actually sort of right in that case.

[00:31:39] Dan: But actually, that's not the point. The point is, what are people actually saying who are supporting Brexit? And where I got to was, okay, I understand now. They are hurt, they're in pain, they're suffering. They've had years of wage stagnation, things not going well. And you know, a friend of ours, um, who used to be a, a trade union leader, he, he leader, he said to us, he was anti Brexit, but he said you need to go to a, to a, to a windswept estate on the Northeast and understand, just be there and understand why people would vote for Brexit. And, and, and it's absolutely right. You've got to relate to it.

[00:32:17] Dan: But, but it was a big, as I say, even sort of while the, the sort of decision, I think I ended up on the right side of history. What I, where, where I had to really work and why I probably wasn't right. Was really understanding why some would take the opposite view and that would've been far more constructive to be, to be perfectly honest.

[00:32:32] Pia: And so, we have a similar thing here in Australia. So, in November, we have a referendum for the voice of Indigenous representation. In federal government, and that is already divisive because it's become political. And again, the information that you're given and the way the press presents it, it's very difficult to ascertain in a complex, adaptive problem of which we're all part of it. You know, our heritage is part of the problem that's created it. But we're being asked a simp, simple question. And it's a complex and we're not, and I, and I dunno whether we are having the right level of discussion around it. So, you know, that's a, that's It's another thing.

[00:33:20] Dan: It's exactly so, and I think that's a good lesson we can generalize actually. One is that, I think you've often said, widen the lens and sharpen the focus. Unfortunately at the moment, this is the end of our season, Pia, so we can sort of end up on a big point, I think. There. Unfortunately at the moment, it's politically advantageous to divide us and we're being played. That's the first thing we, we have to know. And that we shouldn't allow that. And we've got to where there is another side, we have to reach out to them and understand what's, what's happening, what, where they're, what's hap you know, where you can relate to them.

[00:33:57] Dan: So I think that's a that's the thing we need to really recognize and particularly in these times, both in both of those issues, and many others that keep coming up, we shouldn't, we can't allow ourselves to be divided and the start of the start of positive disagreement, which is a much more debate is to avoid the yes no, those sort of false dilemmas, false dichotomies, I mean, and just reject those and say, no, actually, there's something else in the middle here.

[00:34:25] Dan: In one of our debates recently, one of our MPs tried to create a middle ground, but he was sort of laughed at, really, for sitting on the fence. I think we should all get, as they say in the UK, splinters in our arse for sitting on the fence. Yeah, it's a good place to be, trying to see both sides. I think it's become almost a weak position, whereas actually, it's a position of strength.

[00:34:45] Pia: Hear, hear. And I think that takes all of us. I think it takes all of us. taking a breath, trying to. I mean, I thought it was a wonderful thing that Matthew talked about and animals, if you really spread it out, you know, then animals have got perspective. Well, gosh, that's definitely taking it to an nth degree, but we have a sense that we are entitled to having the opinion that we have. And actually, we're part of a huge ecosystem, which is part of nature. We could go down another route of like, how much are we contributing to climate change? We're part of all of that. And we have to take responsibility for that.

[00:35:22] Dan: Yeah, indeed. Indeed. And that's complex in itself. So and yeah, maybe that's a lovely place to end today. I love Matthew's surprising advice, but so wholesome to say expose yourself to other things. You know, read about other, other disciplines. If you're, if you're sort of very scientific, get into the creative side. If you're creative, just, you know, read quantum mechanics. Just, um, and, you know, he mentioned mycology, you know, Understand what fungi and fungi are doing, , you know, and I thought that was a lovely thing to do that we can all do practically just to exercise this brain of, this, this muscle in our, as it were, of, of being able to understand more, to see more broadly and understand other viewpoints. Um, a wonderful place to end.

[00:36:09] Dan: But that is it for this episode and this season. We'll be back at the end of September. You can find show notes and resources at squadify.net. Just click on the We Not Me podcast link. If you've enjoyed the show and the season, please do share the love and recommend it to your friends. If you'd like to contribute to the show, just email us at wenotmepod@gmail.com. We Not Me is produced by Mark Stedman of Origin. Thank you so much for listening. It's goodbye from me.

[00:36:35] Pia: And it's goodbye from me.