YouTube team keep it clean. What's going on is engraving here with another video and in this video We're here to talk about the game that we all just finished watching. It was a game of the week and this game was between the cowboys and the Seahawks but This was an elimination game. I didn't even realize what was at stake At this game or for this game during this game To the commentators kept mentioning it over and over again, but I didn't have a problem with them mentioning it over and over again because That is such a big implication This was for the playoffs. Well, maybe for the playoffs The winner would have a chance to get into the playoffs not a guarantee, but they would have a chance to get to the playoffs Because they steal and since the Seahawks one what they need in order to get to the playoffs is one to win next week against the Cardinals That's no give me and then two They need the Falcons to lose against the Bucks. I doubt that's gonna happen But you never know you never know anything is possible This is an NFL season things change every single week and like I've said before This season has been so much crazier than any other season. It's been so much crazier It's been so much crazier than any other season Anyway, before we get into this, let me introduce myself Me I'm engraving vids. This is my YouTube channel engraving vids and I'm a Ravens fan Even though I'm a Ravens fan on this YouTube channel. We just talk football period So if you are Ravens fan, if you are cowboys fan If you a Seahawks fan, if you just love football period and got respect and love for the game like I do Make sure you subscribe to the YouTube channel. Make sure you turn your notifications on for this YouTube channel So you never miss not one single video and like my guy Ryan mallet said Make sure you leave a like on the video to leave a like on the video click the thumbs up button and You can follow on Twitter Instagram and snapchat all three All three are engraving vids Now Before we get into this, let me read this comment from the Cowboys fan himself my boy little Eric He said I don't ever want to hear people say Zeke is overrated when he is the only thing that's relevant on the Dallas Cowboys offense Yes, and apparently so Zeke Elliott was the only thing relevant today because Dan Bailey sure wasn't He sure wasn't I put it on Twitter. I say I don't ever ever ever Want to hear and I said this before because when I first put it on Twitter my boy Eric He mentioned to me. He said hey, then better been dealing with injuries this year, but I've been saying this even before this year I don't ever ever want to hear anybody even mention Dan Bailey's name in the same sentence as Justin Tucker ever again ever again ever again ever again and That I can't I can't really buy the injury thing because if your kicker is really that injured if a kicker is really that injured He shouldn't be kicking at all. He shouldn't be kicking at all period point blank whatsoever because Injuries especially if it's lower leg injuries or whatever it was He can't he shouldn't be kicking because that's gonna put his team in a bad position But I don't want to ever hear anybody even mention Dan Bailey in the same don't even don't even put them in the same thought together Because Dan Bailey and this I said this even before this year So this ain't nothing new because Dan Bailey he kicks in a dome eight games out of the year. He kicks in the dome No, whether I said the only the only way that he can miss a kick that the only way one of his kicks in the Dome will be affected by weather is if they got the AC turned on high other than that. No No, but anyway, this ain't about what it is about Dan Bailey because he missed two big field goals in this game and That was a big part of the reason that it cost him now more importantly than um Then Dan Bailey though shout out to there's Brian I was also talking to my guy Eric about um there's Brian because I saw I said I think the Cowboys are gonna cut him Like this offseason. I still believe that I still believe they're gonna shout out to the chef for dirt What's up there? But I know you love Dan Bailey right now. My boy Shaffler Derp is a Seahawks fan So he was one of Dan Bailey's biggest fans today, but um, there's Brian. I was telling my boy little Erica I think they're gonna cut him. I still think they're gonna cut him. I think he will not be a cowboy next season I think they will be getting rid of there's Brian. Now there's Brian. He is Just how crazy NFL is y'all saw in the um Was it third or fourth quarter? I think it was third either way Excuse me. Y'all saw in the game That press got running for his life who that boy was he was running for his life all night That press got was running for his life looking searching down a field There's Brian running right to the left and that black press got sees there's Brian throws it to him There's Brian catches it makes such a nice catch on the sidelines and it was confirmed He cost that one. He definitely didn't drop it Beautiful catch beautiful sideline tiptoed drag swag catch. It was beautiful beautiful. I love that catch I was like, okay, there's I see you man Very next play I believe or was it two players later either way same drive same drive Same drive there's Brian that press got throws a perfect ball a perfect ball perfect ball There's Brian throws the perfect pay. I mean that press got those the perfect pass to there's Brian Dropped it and to make it worse The drop was a tip drop. So he not only dropped it, but it tipped up in the air KJ right interception KJ right interception KJ right interception And you know, it's crazy because I believe after there's Brian made his big catch He was talking he was talking it looked like friendly trash talk So it might not have been that bad but he was definitely talking trash to Earl Thomas and And another one of the Seahawks defenders, but definitely Earl Thomas Joe Flack he said he said there's Brian be hanging with Basha impairment. I don't know Basha caught his passes last night He caught his passes last night, but um There's Brian he makes such a great catch Then the next play a couple plays later He makes that big drop and that big drop results in interception and You can't put that one on that that did his thing That did his thing and even with that press got he Continuously this game was ugly. It was ugly for both sides. He continuously put his team in positions to compete but They just didn't They didn't Dan barely missed the field goal. There's Brian with the With the drop pass that ended up being an interception and I don't want to show no disrespect Because I don't want to just keep talking about the bad things that the Cowboys did We got to talk about the good with the Seahawks, too so shout out to that dude who has to always Again, a lot of people a lot of people a lot of people Whenever you talk about some of the top QBs in the league They do not mention Russell Wilson's name and you have to you have to You have to you got to mention Russell Wilson's name Some of the stuff that he does some of the plays that he creates Nice man. The dude is a monster Russell Wilson is one of the best in the league Now in this game because both defenses were playing so well for the most part That both Dak Prescott and Russell Wilson had to make a lot of the same plays They had to make a lot of the same plays a lot of the same plays Because both of them quarterbacks They were getting constant pressure from both defenses both of the quarterbacks were getting pressure that press got probably a little more than Russell Wilson, but both will get in a lot of pressure all game Especially towards the end of the game But both quarterbacks had to step up in the pocket had to run around the pocket had to make plays on the run Countless number of times in this game countless number of times in this game But Only one's receiver didn't drop a pass that ended up being an interception. I mean intercepted. What's up Raven adult? and See the funny thing is For some people that's new to death Brian that don't really get to see many cowboy I mean whether wherever you had in the world you get to see Cowboys games period So because they always on TV But They may not be used to this Brian But I know for Cowboys fans.  It's nothing new Nothing new There's Brian is a receiver he can make some great catches make some great plays But then he will he'll be Guaranteed that he'll do something like he did in this game.  I see a lot of people talking about Jimmy G in the comments section Yeah, that dude is apparently looking like the real deal out over in the 49ers I don't mean to talk about that that game when we talking about this game, but really quick he The fact that he's winning and what weapons does he have what weapons does Jimmy Garoppolo have over in the 49ers? What weapons does he have and for him to put up all those points against the number one defense to Jaguars? What weapons is he doing that with who does he have? cow juice check the full back Who else Carlos had to run him back? 44 points. Wow 44 points, but anyway back to a good win the receiver. I mean Then he got no bodies man the dude got no bodies but anyway Oh steel rodeo say Carlos Carlos had his underrated and how get doves right under that say Carlos is sloppy Good one wasn't even an option today Man, I gotta look at the highlights for that game because I want to see I mean the highlights won't obviously won't show everything But I want to see how did this do Jimmy G? This dude Jimmy G was a rookie last year, I believe right wasn't he a rookie last year and and He plays in how many games did he play for the Patriots three? I believe he played three games for the Patriots last year. Oh No, it was his second year last year. It was a second year. Oh His third year. Oh, he played three games for the Patriots and it was his third year I thought it was the second year. I thought it was the second year last year This is Jimmy G's third year, right? Okay. Yeah, I'm talking about last year. So I was right So last year was his second year and First time playing well. No, did he play them the year before that? I think maybe he played the year before that for like what like a quarter something like that, but either way he Last year was his first time starter Last year was his first time starter he started three games started three games and He did a thing in those games But He had one start last year. What I Could have swore he had three. I thought Jacobi Bresset started one game, too When mr. Brady was suspended, let me know if I'm wrong though. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again but either way Jimmy G He ain't started that many games in the league and for him to go from Patriots to be in a backup quarterback and get traded in the middle of in the middle of a season not start for the first like what one or two games and To to come out on a 49ers team the 49ers team is dead in the water Got got nothing over this at least on offense or defense that what do they have over there? They got nothing over there for him to be winning like this when he fought when I remember on his first His first drive he got a touchdown with like two seconds left in the game But the 49ers had already lost the game They just put him in for like the last drive or something like that whatever and people were getting all like hyper Oh, yeah, Jimmy G Jimmy G Jimmy G like okay You get a hyped over a last second touch a last second touchdown in a game that was already over But then he came out the next week in one and I was like, okay He came out the next week in one like hold up and then this this week really says something for me Him beating the Jaguars like that That says a lot for me man That's crazy, so I think the Patriots regret letting them go No, because um Shout out to the DGP. I don't know if he's still in here or not, but the Patriots They got a system there They got a system there. Oh my kill the great already answered, but they got a system there And a lot of people complain and say Brady is just a system quarterback But um the Patriots they have a system there that works And it works for every single quarterback they put in there It works It works it works it works so while most people complain about the system I said, why would you complain over a system that works if it's working for them? and if they can come up and just If they can come up offer If they can um, man, oh What's the word I'm looking for? What's the word I'm looking for? I can't think of it right now It's it's it's slipping my mind where you um It's slipping my mind but if they if they can come up to where they can trade out these quarterbacks that are part of this system And trade them for second round picks first round picks third round picks, whatever If they get they're profiting off of these quarterbacks or profiting off of these players Or really quarterbacks because of the system thing Then why not continue doing it? Why not continue doing it? Why not continue doing it? But here's what it is. Cowboy is excited to say what happened to the Cowboys today besides Interceptions now you tell me man You tell me the system has interchangeability Hey, it works It works And why fix what's not broken? Why fix what's not broken? So Here's what it is man But anyway back to this game Shout out to the seahawks, man The seahawk season isn't over and it's also not necessarily continuing yet They still got work to do they still got work to do Um, and they need some work to also be done for them, too They also need work to be done for them, too um The seahawks did it they did have a big this was a big bounce Big bounce back game for them big bounce back game for the seahawks because they In their own home last week in their own home last week They got absolutely destroyed by the rams rams just murdered the seahawks And it wasn't even it wasn't anything nice about it Todd girly had a career day Jared golf had a career day. I mean jared golf been having career days his whole year He's obviously having a career year I know it's it's only only his second year in his career But the dude has taken leaps and bounds forward and I That's why Sean Mc I mean not Sean McDermott. Um, what's uh, what's that coach's name? What's what's ram's coach name? Whatever ram's coach name is. I know y'all y'all will know it. Um, but that's why he is going to be The coach of the year this year I can almost Guarantee it. Oh McVay, there we go. Appreciate it EGP. He's gonna be coach of the year this year I mean they could give it to the the vikings coach zimmer But I still think it's gonna be ram's coach reason being is because he took one of the worst teams in the league One of the teams that had consistently been one of the worst teams in the league and he transformed them and now they wanted the best Now they wanted the best Yeah, more be know it be you right. He said I give the seahawks credit the better team won. You're right Derp said the the Browns coach should get I think uh, it might be a little argument on the little debate about the browns coach getting it versus McVay, but we'll see how it goes. You never know Larry McMillan said I can't wait to hear what steven a smith had to say about what jeff fisher said Oh, yeah, jeff fisher did say oh that those are my players But he said those are my players about the ram's players but If these were your players then why weren't you doing this with them? What's the difference So either way Is what it is Omega said rams will average just needed to coach to motivate them and that might that might be what it is The dude is 31 years old. That's insane to me. He's 31 years old The guy is is 31 years old and maybe it's because the players he's able to relate to the players a lot more I don't know if that's it. I mean that can be that can uh That can have a big impact on you at a workplace if your manager if he can really relate to you a lot more He or she but oh shout out to anthony bring. Oh anthony bring is back online. Wow. Shout out to mr. A B. Haven't seen that guy in a long time. I know dgp know what i'm talking about Yeah, 31 he could play you're right. He could play. He could put on pads and play but The ram's left tackles older than a hit. Wow. That's crazy man. That's crazy. That's crazy but either way Little buddy pigs say how about everything coming together for the chargers and sneaking to the wildcard spot It will take a lot for them to get in there It will take a lot for them to get in there. I don't think it's gonna happen, but I don't it will take a lot to get in there Um, so hey, let's see sitting the goat. Uh, he said Dallas is trash I mean they got a lot of work to do They got a lot of work to do but seahawks like we were saying earlier This doesn't this isn't the end of the of the season for the seahawks. This isn't The playoffs have already started for the seahawks, but They do need some things they will not some things they just need to win next week They need to win next week and they also need The falcons to lose to the bucks next week as well If the falcons win next week, even though they lost today to the saints if falcons win next week, they in If falcons if falcons win next week, they in that's it They don't need any help. They don't need anything if they win next week. They're in But if falcons lose next week and seahawks win next week seahawks take the spot seahawks take the spot Eric said that's crazy how three three Jeff Fisher old QBs in the playoffs who golf um, who else What other ones? Panthers not bucks.  Yeah. Yeah, you're right falcons play panthers. So appreciate that. Thank you for correcting me dirt I know and I know you know since you a seahawks fan. I know you know, thank you for correcting me on that I appreciate that Oh foals. Oh keenerman foals. Hey, well, that says a lot about him. Appreciate that king. Andre That says a lot about jeff fisher if he got three of his old quarterbacks. It's in the playoffs It shows that you you couldn't get it done with him Well, nick foals is different because he didn't lead his team into the playoffs They were led by Carson wintz, but he he's just taken over um, but case keener more so case keenerman and golf So, but still even with those two Says a lot man Quality control said I hear all the controversy, but don't know if I should take it serious or what what did rbz say? Let me go back to rbz real quick NFL rules can't put a player twice. Oh the erin rogers thing. Yes erin rogers supposed to be a free agent He's supposed to be a free agent With cheese say bandwagon. I don't know what that word is bandwagon is actually b a n d w a g o n I don't know what bandwagon is. You definitely missing the d. Um, but I don't know what he's talking about though Anyway, um, packers may be forced to cut a ride because they violated the rule. They sure did They sure did they sure did Um, and rogers. Yeah, he's supposed to be released He's supposed to be released Oh He is supposed to be released. Yes, the ravens apparently are interested in them. Baltimore best and we'll see what happens with that We'll see if anything comes of that. Uh, we'll see man. Oh, there it goes. Now. He spelled it right bandwagon There you go with cheese. I appreciate you correcting that but either way, whether you spelled it right or wrong Uh, you still remain not right and you're wrong. Um, so definitely not a bandwagon But anyway, appreciate you coming through with cheese. Thank you Um, and the raven went change the gain of the seahawks. I think next year if dallas gets a good a good wiring See but not there's brian. I like cold beasley though. I like him He got some nice hands and I remember on that fourth and three, um, I thought he was gonna drop it I thought it was gonna get poked out. Um, but no, he had he held on to it and that's when the game was on the line and Uh, that went to cold beasley not there's brian not anybody else He went to cold beasley and cold beasley showed that he got some hands and he called it man He called it. So shout out to him, man Paul johnson rogers to the jags. He might cry. Let's see We'll see It's a larentio. What car have you got bro? What do you mean, man?  I gotta do some raven video Because we got to talk about their playoff situation their playoff scenario And what is going to be done for them to get in what they need to do to get in what they need to happen for them to get in And who they may play if they do get in and But let me get on up out of here. I appreciate y'all. Shout out to the seahawks, man. Cowboys Maybe next year we'll see how it goes I'm out, man. Y'all have a good day. I'll see y'all in a little bit. I'm out


Welcome to the session and with no further ado, I would like to tell you to talk to you about leadership. My vision is that anyone is a leader. Any one of us is a leader. And my mission is to reveal the leader that is in everyone of you. One of the questions I want you to ask to answer, it's in the bottom of the poll, what are the qualities of your role model leader? If you care to answer that. And that was the first one. Think of a leader who is a role model for you. And then answer to the poll, what are the qualities of that role model leader? Is it authority? Is it great listening? Is it protection, inspired creator, aligned exemplarity or supportive for people? So the answer is supportive for people. Great. Thank you, Sanjal. Can you move to the next slide, please? Now think of the best manager you had in your professional experience. And you are invited to answer the second question of the poll. So the answers are the same. What are the qualities of the best manager you have ever crossed? Either it was your manager or another manager. So what were the qualities you admired? Authority, great listening, protection, inspiring creator, exemplarity, supportive for people. So you have one, four, three, four, zero. I hope the poll was... And can you share the results? Share the results with you? Yeah. So the results are great listening. There's a problem with the sharing of the presentation. No, that is fine. Okay. It's there in the discuss tab. Nareesh has shared this. Okay. Okay. Great. Brilliant. So thank you, Nareesh. So what we see is that as a role model, 54 of you answered that it's supportive for people. 33% majority of great listening. And there's something about protection. So the qualities supporting, listening, great listening, and a little bit of inspired creator, what we perceive as the qualities of a great leader, and it always works like that, is can you share the next slide, please? Great leaders are at the service. Great leaders are always at service of other people, of their teens, of the customers. And that is why, for me, really the leaders for tomorrow, we need to shift the pyramid. To shift it in the way that you can you put the next slide. So they put the greatest leader at the button. Flip the hierarchy pyramid. And really people, if we don't flip the pyramid, we won't have a customer centering organization. If you just look at a traditional organization, what is happening? Frontlines have managers. Managers have directors and they're the C level and then the CEO. And in a traditional organization, the front line is at the service of the line managers because they depend on them. And the line managers are the service of the directors and the directors are at the service of the C level people and the C level people are at the service of the CEO. Where are the customers? The customers are forgotten at the bottom. Who cares about the customers? In the traditional, my truly belief is that in a traditional organization, customer and user centric is only wishful thinking. And the way we can do it is to flip the pyramid. So the people that are the most important people are the front line people. And line managers, front line people that serve the customers are in direct contact with customers. The line managers are serving that teams. Directors are serving the managers. The board of directors are serving the other levels of director and the CEO is at service of anyone. So I truly believe that this is the answer for customer centric organization. And there's a problem with this because it's very hard to flip the pyramid. And why is that? My experience with leadership and coaching leaders is that actually when we serve our managers, we serve our ego. It's our ego who needs some protection. And that protection comes for the hierarchy. The goal is to go and really grasp the leadership that we have all in ourselves. And for that, what I would like to work with you now is work on the ego to access leadership, to get a bit out of our ego. But that's not that simple. We say, let go of the ego. That's not simple. We have a very long story with our ego. And actually it is back from when we were children. Can you put the other slide? Thank you. The next slide. So let's go back when we are kids. So I know this is a little bit scary, but still it's the path we need to embrace, I think. The inner self is how we get on the world. We are born in the world as children that we are open to unconditional love. We work by being linked to each other. Of course, the first thing is our parents. The first ones are our parents. But also the other ones. So we come into this world open. And what we think, well, the therapist, and this is a model by William Schultz, is that what we are here for is to share love and have love back. Now this is the plan we have. But the reality doesn't stick to this plan. Can you put in the next slide? Thank you. The plan is that everything is all around us that is not exactly very open for love. And there is the emotion of fear that is the first one that comes in. Just to re-relax about fears, fear is good for life because it opens up what is the first signal of a danger. So fear is for survival. It's a very, very healthy emotion. Can you change the slide? Thank you. So why we become fearful? Because we have at the beginning when we are children, we have five fundamental wounds that transform into fears. And the first one is rejection. If you remember as a child, sometimes as a baby, our mother just says when we want to play, it says we don't have time for that. So I would like to do something else right now. This is not a big thing for the adults, but for us as children, this is the first wound that is stamped on us, is the rejection. Parents are rejecting us. Can you change the slide, please? The second fundamental wound we carry in our life is abandon. Imagine that mom, when you are a baby, you are sleeping and she went to the neighbor to grab something and she chatted a little bit with her about five minutes and then he heard a huge cry. Of course she comes back and when she comes back, you are crying. Of course she hugs you and she assures with all the love. But in our system of beliefs that is very ancient, this second wound is pasted on us. It's the wound of abandon. Can you change? The third one is betrayal.  Of course mom is there and parents are there to protect them and if they say that they will never lie, that is true.  And in that moment, it's too late. We have in our luggage and our legacy the wound of betrayal. People that we trusted most betrayed us. Can you change the slide please? Thank you. So the fourth one is the humiliation, the wound of humiliation. If you were at school and something happened, someone dropped something on the floor and it was broken. And the teacher tells you, you have broken this and you are so messy. And that's the moment where another wound of humiliation is packed in our legacy. So we have four. The fifth one, thank you, you can change the slide. The fifth one, imagine a sister, the older sister that has a cake or a toy. And the younger brother, actually it's his toy but the older sister wants to play with that toy and wants to take it. And maybe the younger brother even doesn't really like that toy so much. And there's a little bit of dispute and mom says to the older sister, this is his toy. It's not a toy for you. This is the moment where we bring in our legacy of wounds, the wound of injustice. The younger brother doesn't even want to play with that but because he's the younger brother, because it's his toy, mom says that he will play with it whenever he wants it and you can't. So what are they doing all this fundamental wounds so that's rejection, abandon, humiliation and injustice. With all these ones, what we do, we create a system of adaptation. Can you change the slide, please? Yeah. So these are the fives, rejection, abandon, humiliation, betrayal, injustice. Maybe you can just take a moment here with me and feel what is the one that you feel the most for you. What was the most important, the deepest for you? So I don't want you to share it because all is personal but just think which one comes up. Ten seconds. Right. I hope you have it. This comes from a model that is called Human Element from William Schultz. This is for you to know if you want to know more about it. So all these fundamental wounds, what do we do with them? We have them in our legacy baggage and we create beliefs. We create a system of beliefs. Then we adapt to what we think the world expects from us. So we can be loved by parents and then by other people that we cross, including colleagues, managers in our professional lives. Can you change the slide? So we create this adapted system. And this adapted system is our ego. And what are the behaviors that we build in? So we can somehow heal those wounds. The first one is control. The first one of them is control. When we have the wound of rejection, we want to control the world so we will never be rejected again. Power over people. So when we have power, no one ever, ever would humiliate us anymore. Recognition. The others recognize us and because we are linked with the others and we see recognizing the eyes of others, we will never, ever be abandoned. And self-protection or self-justice. I'm just putting in some examples that it's not that linear. It doesn't mean that control is exclusively linked to rejection. So I think it's a helpful way to just see how that works on creating the adapted system that we carry in life and that is called our ego. So you can see, I hope, that letting go the ego, it's not such an easy task. We have the ego from our early life and ego protects us. The way that we deal with fear is with our ego. And we arrive with this adapted system of ego in a new environment. Can you put the other slide? Thank you. The next slide. We arrive in the professional adapted system, which is also an adapted system with its own ego. And we create another layer that I call the pro-ego, the professional ego where we have the same behaviors, control, power, validation of other. We seek for social status. So you see, you can have this. We are here, the true self, the inner self. We create an adapted system, which is the ego. And then in the professional life, we put it another system, which is the professional ego. So we walk in life and in interaction with our teams, our managers and our pairs like that, armored. So very much armored. These are not good conditions for leadership. Can you change to the next slide? Thank you. So to become a true leader at service, as we've seen at the beginning of the presentation, you all said that a true leader, a great leader is the one that supports other people, listen other people and help them grow, is inspirational. So to go back and create a true leader, what I like to invite you and us all actually is to go back to the true me and bravely face our fears. The fears that were created by all are called the fundamental wounds. Can you change the slide? So the fear, we fear we carry in our professional environment. Can you change the slide? It was just to say that we carry our fear that we have from here. We carry it in our professional environment and we behave accordingly. If you can change the slide, thank you. So do you remember, fear is good for life. So the rest of the session, I will invite you to work a little bit on your fears, on our fears. And I wanted to remind it as a gentle reminder that fear is good for life. So there's no problem with fears. Can you change the slide? Fear is not the problem. The way we respond in our environment to fears is a true problem. And can you change the slide? So that's okay. That was that rejection is a way that we carry it also in, it's just an example. Rejection in the pro field, we also can be rejected and feel exactly like the baby that was rejected. There's no difference. There's no difference. The inner self is that baby or child that wanders and is connected with everyone else. So can you change the slide? Also, thank you. So remember, professional adaptive system, control validation power, social status, pro-ego. Let's try to move them a little bit away. Can you change the slide? Because in today's business world, the main source of fear is ego. Exactly. If you go back to one slide, Sonali, the one with the adaptive system, yeah. So everything that in this professional adaptive system, what is really the source of fear is our professional ego. So go further on the other side. Okay. The idea is to how we can, in a very gentle, compassionate way, work with our own ego. As we said, ego is very strong and he knows, or it knows, it knows how to manipulate us a lot. The way to work with our ego is the first thing is to recognize that we have it. This is the first act of vulnerability. The second one is to recognize that it was helpful. It helped us, protected us through our life. So one thing that I can invite you to do is just a brief moment, five seconds, thank to your ego. Okay. But now let's try to something else. Try to go to that fundamental for wound and fear and work around it. This is what I invite you to do right now. And to make, I hope, the thing a little bit easier. So these are the questions, what is the fundamental fear and ego? Sorry, wound or fear, you think it's most important for you. And what is your ego behavior? If you try to reflect on that for 30 seconds, while I'm giving my own example, my fundamental wound and fear, the most important because we all have it. And this is not a question of having unhappy childhood. We all had a very happy childhood and had some little things that happened. So my wound is humiliation. And the fear I developed because of that is the fear of disappointment.  Even right now, you know, I'm looking and I said, how many thumbs up do I have? So this is a fear of disappointment. If I don't have enough, then maybe I'm not good enough. So I disappoint you. What is the way that I've worked my ego behavior, working with that, dealing with a fear of disappointment, was to create for myself a behavior of a rescuer. Always be at the service of people even if there was no help solicited. I won't enter into that model, but that was my ego behavior. It was not my true self that said, hey, maybe I can give you an advice on this and I can give you an advice on that and maybe you want this. It was a way for me to make myself seen and to make myself seen and to make myself protected by the disappointment. We'll come back. I've just seen in the discussion fear must be replaced by love. Yes, absolutely true. Now, what I think we need is to have that power to deal with our fears because fear is a fundamental emotion I'm telling you once again. It keeps us alive. So it has a very high priority in our brain. If there's a danger, fears come up and it's a lot of work to do on that. Can you change the slide? Thank you. So access self leadership means dropping the armor of our ego by facing the fears and by facing the fears, I think we can reach love to answer the comment that was in the discussion. So can you change? So to face our fears, which is scary just saying it face your fears is oh my God. We're not want to talk about that. I would invite you to change the perspective of fears. Think that when you're afraid of something, this is good news. What if the fear was a lighthouse that tell us what is really important for us? We never fear something that is not a stake. Something that has no meaning for us, no importance won't rise fear. So the first thing is to think for a moment that fear is a lighthouse. It's not something to oppress or overcome or hide. But on the contrary, turn and look at it and ask what does it want to tell us? Can you change the slide please? Thank you. So this is very quickly because there's a tons of material. But this is a way, a model that I created to shift perspective on fears and access the selfless leadership with Theory U by Otto Scharmer. You state the current situation. So I said, what's the current situation? What am I afraid about? Look at them. Redirect the attention and say what is important behind that? Letting go of different beliefs. The ego might melt down. And face the chaos that is the moment of true fears when we've let go of our behaviors. But we feel so vulnerable that we just want to go back and the other say this. Letting come the new ideas saying what is truly important actually for us? Crystallizing a new behavior and prototyping the new behavior when we are more vulnerable. By the way, being vulnerable is also an act of generosity. People usually answer to vulnerability in a much better way than in front of armors. So a little exercise for the next five minutes. Can you change the slide? The little exercise to stay with your fears and transform your fears. Remember a situation that you'd like to change. Probably a professional situation might help. And try to see what is to think of what is stuck there. I will leave you for one minute or maybe less to write that down. Okay, okay. Can you change the slide now that I hope you have it? You might maybe in the discussion you can put it. It's fine for me. I have it just a way to track that there's advancement. And now I would like I invite you to do this exercise. Answer these questions in that situation that you feel stuck. How do you feel? What would you like to change? And if you were to change that, what are your current beliefs? You know, the beliefs are our armored ego. How does that belief relate with your fears? Then just let's have one minute of presence, everyone that is. We are all here and we know that we are all here. Stop thinking. We are just together. Just breathe. Just feel that we breathe all together regardless of what time is with you all around the world. Late morning, evening, early. We breathe all together for one minute. Right. Now I hope you have the answers to the first two questions. And I invite you to answer the fourth question. What is your need behind that fear? What is truly important? No, we have we've made the journey belief fear and behind the fear. What is truly important? And if you find that try to write down how you can otherwise serve that need. Or that thing that matter that is important for you. That matter that matters. And how you can be better realigned with what is important for you. Okay. If you can put in the discussions just some comments saying I'm done or not. Because if not, I hope you this this question is worth more than three minutes to go through. But you can take them and try to reflect more on them on them by your own. What I appreciate or I said that we are here together. And while each one of you reflects on this theory idea there your own answer to these questions. There is a holding space where when we are all together. Thank you. Can you change to the next slide, which is the last slide. I hope you've got some good answers. And with this exercise know that you can empower yourself. When we talk about empowering, no one can empower someone else. You can all only empower yourself. And you have that choice to be a leader to be a leader from yourself. And also what you can do is to support other people as leaders to empower themselves also. Thank you so much. I think we have three minutes or so for questions. And you can join me talk to me on Twitter, my mail. There's a ton of other material on leadership. I'm passionate about working on. I don't know if they're okay. I'm going to the discussion. How do you distinguish between ego and self-esteem? They're a very good question. So the self-esteem is the way that you appreciate yourself. And when the people that are self, when we are have a self-esteem, we are kind to ourselves. We know that we what we bring is value. Ego is an armor that it's always wants to do some avoidance behaviors that will protect us from being confronted to a world that is hostile or threatening. So, for example, my self-esteem is I'm very passionate about this material and what I've brought to you. As I said, so I really, I really bring it as a gift. And so this is the way my self-esteem, the ego in me would ask you the question, did you like it? Can you tell me what did you like about it? It's a way to have a recognition. For example, by the way, in retrospect is our feedbacks. Actually, I today I ask more the question, what was helpful for you? What did you learn? It's not about how give me a feedback of what how well did I do? Did I perform? Or so what did you learn? What what did you wanted to learn more and you didn't have enough, you know, so to but never really a feedback about about how well I perform. This is my example. I hope it helped as a as an answer. So there's another question. How do we help people understand that sometimes our reaction of behavior is driven by self-respect dignity and not because of ego? Oh, this is this is a passionate topic. This reminds me of a protocol that is called nonviolent communication, by the way. When you if you want the people to understand that you act by respect, the idea is that you put boundaries. And it's to be very clear about those boundaries, what is OK for you and what is not OK for you. And if you have a specific situation, you can say that in this situation, this is what happened, you know, the facts and then say that this facts made you feel in a way that was not OK for you. So this is also the difference between boundaries and ego. If you are explicit about what your boundaries are, this is not ego. The ego is really the the biased behavior we have to protect ourselves in while in the same time we are fully adapted to the system that is that we interact with. The self esteem and and the the dignity is we are who we are in the system. We don't really adapt to be to please the system. Ego always please the system. So so to satisfy the way we look for external comments and probably external good and satisfying comments. Yes, this is only an example. It was an easy example for me and because we are in a conference, it was also a way for me to show up in vulnerability. But there are other examples, you know, the people that don't I mean, I don't want to be judgmental, but it's another example. If I don't say something something that I think it's wrong in a meeting.  This is the ego that tells you to that you are modest and you want to show up. This is a way to be protected to protect yourself. So one, I'm sorry to interrupt you but running short on time. So guys, you can take your questions to the VIP section. Okay, of course. Okay, so thank you so much for this session and sharing your experience with us today. So I would request everyone to read the session by clicking on the poll section, which is there on your right. And one of the people for next one hour in the VIP section. So you all can join over there and continue with the questions over there. Of course, of course, I will be more than happy to ask the questions I didn't ask. I wouldn't have time for us. Thank you for being here for me with me. And let's keep the conversation going. Bye.


Good afternoon and welcome to House Judiciary Committee. It is Wednesday, January 19th. And we are continuing our consideration of age 546 and actually relating to racial justice statistics. And we have with us Monica Lieber from the Department of Correction. So welcome and thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. So would you like me to just kind of move into, I have some, you know, brief statements and then we can move into question and answer if that pleases the committee. For the record, I'm Monica Lieber. I'm the Administrative Services Director with the Department of Corrections. And I'm here today in a couple of capacities. First, just to let you know that I am the Department of Correction's designee to the ARDAP panel. And I've been part of the panel since it was established. So I've seen the workings of that panel for a number of years. And certainly, as you all know, data has been really central to the work of that panel for a long time. I'm sure you've all read the multiple reports that ARDAP has submitted and data, the need for data, the governance of data has been a consistent theme throughout the reports. And of course, the last report that was submitted in November specifically, you know, at your request really focused on data and data integration. So I appreciate the fact that this bill has been introduced and that the committee is taking all of the time that it's taking to hear the testimony, to understand, you know, what it might mean to actually establish a division of racial justice statistics and create that structure and that supports data integration and data analysis. In my role at the Department of Corrections and primarily I think why I was designated to be on ARDAP, I spend a lot of time moving data around from the Department of Corrections to other internal departments within state government to external stakeholders, researchers. You know, a noted example you're all aware of is, you know, working with the Council of State Governments on Justice Reinvestment II that required a significant amount of data. There's a lot of different examples. But in that role, what I would say is I understand what it means on a very technical level to be able to move data around. Can you also hear me? Because I see that my video is frozen a little bit. Okay, there, it's just... But I just, you could hear me, okay, good. So that's an important part that I tried to sort of bring that perspective to the ARDAP panel in terms of bringing along people who may not have such like experience, deep experience working within the state system. So just I'm speaking from that perspective and reinforcing some of the testimony that other witnesses brought forward for you. So first, you know, I think that the bill itself, H546 is a very good representation of the report and what ARDAP was expecting. I think you've heard that from other people. I know that there are specific issues on different areas related to records retention. And I heard the testimony from the state archivist yesterday and I hope that you will be informed more from the agency of digital services about their perspective on it. And because I think that'll be really important. What I know about this type of work is it takes a fair amount of time. And that's one of the things that I just want to reinforce. I think a number of people mentioned this to the committee. And I see the first year of this work really being around doing that administrative work. The MOUs, the data sharing, the understanding what it's going to mean to transfer data back and forth, setting up the advisory panel, getting people informed. And then the division really needs to sort of understand its work and if it's going to do rulemaking, do the rulemaking. I don't necessarily see a lot of data analysis happening right away. I think there are a lot of data sets that could come into that division. For instance, the Department of Corrections has a public use file. I believe that was mentioned in previous testimony. It's there right now for any researcher to go and access. If there was data beyond the public use file, that was requested by the Department of Corrections. We'd have to go through all of the processes that are in place in the state to move that data, which we'd certainly engage in. But I think that's what one of the things I noted is that the bill is really addressing, sort of putting the division together. It's resourced the staff of the division. And I think that there will be more resources required around the infrastructure, than nothing both actually retaining the data. I don't mean retention from the records archivist perspective, the actual like taking the data from one place to another, keeping it on a server, making it secure and allowing other people to access it. Those are some of the things that I believe will be a little bit more in the weeds, not necessarily something that has to be in the legislation but something that I think is important for people to be aware of as it sort of creates a division with the scope of work. Just looking at my notes here to make sure that I didn't miss anything in particular. And also just to affirm that the Department of Corrections is certainly looking forward, I guess to engaging with the new division as it starts to do at work. We'll do our very best of course to contribute as needed to the data sets that are required in terms of setting up everything that's needed for the division, because I do see that the commissioner does have a place on the advisory panel. And I would see that would be a really important role for some of the department to engage in. So other than that, I feel like I'm gonna stop there and see, because I have a feeling there might be some more appointed questions people may have for me. Well, thank you. And we certainly do appreciate the department's support. So I'm looking first on the Zoom screen. I don't see any hands. How about in the room? Okay, there you go, Martin. Yep, Martin. I do, I have a couple questions. Actually, I was starting it in an area that we really haven't, I haven't really asked other folks, we haven't really talked that much about it, but I think would like to ask you a couple of questions. So as far as resourcing the division, I think you make a very good point that there will be costs presumably for data infrastructure, but it seems not likely that we're gonna see that cost in the budget that we're putting together for this next year. But I will ask just to confirm, I guess on your side, do you see any resource needs at DOC at this point in the game if we're putting this into place starting in the summer of this year? Well, yeah, I think one of the things that will, all the departments that would contribute to this division we'll have to figure out is how to, depending on what data is requested of the department, how accessible is that data from our end and how can we transfer it from our department to the division? I would say over the course of the past few years the Department of Corrections has been able to increase our capacity to be able to do that. When we first, we have a new data system, I guess it's technically new 2017, I don't know when it stops being new, but it's when we first started with that system, we had a really hard time actually accessing the data that we were putting into this system. Over the course of a few years, we've been able to increase our capacity to do that. It requires some pretty technical skills in terms of being able to, which I don't have by the way, I have people who work for me who do that, to be able to access the data and put it into a format to be able to transfer it. So every department is going to be really different. Right now I feel pretty comfortable about the Department of Corrections ability to do that, but it really just depends on how much data people are asking for. And that is one of the concerns that I sort of have in general, thinking about this. People who are interested in data like lots of data, but sometimes lots of data is really not what's needed. And so hopefully there's a balance and I would think that that may come through the advisory panel and some of the other work around, what do we really need? How can we get it and making sure that they're working very closely with the departments to be able to access it in a reasonable way? I hope that answers your question. I'm sorry, but as far as coming here, it seems like there's going to be the work of standing up the council hiring the individuals to staff this. And then we'll get into what the data requests are and presumably tell me if this is right or wrong. At that point, we may have a better idea of what the costs might be for infrastructure for different agencies. It's really hard for us to predict at this point on what those costs are. So the costs really are going to be the staff for the division. And that's the amount of money we have in there. I don't know if you have any opinion on staffing, what we base this on, our DAP did not say particular people that you need to hire four people, five people, whatever. They had some different ideas of what the different individuals should address. But for purposes of just getting a figure last year, and we have to update this figure still, we had the joint fiscal office give us the cost of having an executive director, two data analysts, IT people, and an administrative assistant. Does that sound along the lines of what you would think from your experience would be necessary or is that an unfair question for you? Well, I think what that resembles is what our DAP presented to the committee. And we had a lot of discussion over that and we really wanted to make sure that there was the appropriate skill set within the division. And those were the types of skills that we thought were needed. I think to start, that sounds like it's a good group of people, a good set of people. And then as we start to move forward and uncover sort of the breadth of work, maybe there would need to be a different makeup of the staff. I also think that as the division is working to set up its structure, and you mentioned this in the bill itself, it's going to be working with the agency of digital services. And there is, I don't wanna presume to explain ADS and I hope that they can come and discuss their services with you, but they're an internal service organization and that there's usually a cost associated with engaging with them. And it's a new division, it would be set up in the agency administration, presumably the agency of administration already has an arrangement with them. So those are the types of things that would need to be worked out. If there's another set of resources needed to make sure ADS can stay engaged. I appreciate it. I have one other question and that goes to a question I've been asking other folks and if you have a viewpoint on whether we should be defining the data. I think pretty much it's been uniform that people don't think we should be defining details in legislation as far as the data, but the question really is rulemaking versus policy. And with the policy, it would certainly still require consultation with the racial disparities, with the RDAP and with the advisory now. But do you have a strong viewpoint of either of those roots for defining the data? I have been thinking about this question because I've heard you ask everyone. And I think there's definitely pros and cons to it. From a perspective of like the Department of Corrections, of course, having something in a rule, it's helpful because it's there. It's sort of known rules aren't necessarily subject to the same kind of change that maybe a policy would However, I think that it could also be done through policymaking at the panel level within the division. And I think both of those processes seem to have the ability for a lot of engagement. The panel's got a lot of people on it. There are a lot of different community perspectives and provider perspectives that I think would be necessary. Rulemaking, of course, has the commons period and the ability for other people outside of the panel to potentially engage. So they both have their benefits. My real issue around the data elements it sort of goes back to this idea of, are we just asking for lots of data or are we gonna be able to on the panel come up with a set of questions or focused areas that we wanna investigate that would inform which data we want to maybe focus on collecting first. That's what I... Do you think that the bill allows that flexibility? I think it does. I think it does. I do, I do, yes. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody, anybody else? Anybody hands on missing? No, don't see anybody. Well, thank you. Yeah, my pleasure. Thank you so much. And as we move forward with this, if you have anything else you would like to add or let us know, please, please be in touch. I certainly will. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. So I think that is, yeah, that's all we had. We are hearing from agency of digital services. I think tomorrow, is that correct? Yes, tomorrow afternoon, Kristen LaFleur is scheduled. Amber, did she come in on that she is gonna be? Yeah. So yeah, she's gonna be here. Okay. A couple other people as well. I wonder if, can we take a moment or two to discuss kind of some of the stuff we've heard since we have a little extra time on chair? Sure, heard on this bill. Sure, absolutely. And then if we can save, you know, 20 minutes or so just to talk about some other things as well, that'd be great. So, okay. Go ahead. Yeah, I guess the main thing is that I wanted to work with Eric to propose an amendment unless everybody says it's a terrible idea to change from the concept of rulemaking to policy. We don't have to make a final decision on which route to go but since we've been talking about that a lot, I'd like to kind of have it scoped out and see what it looks like because I would see, for instance, needing to change. And I'm looking on page five, needing perhaps, and I haven't discussed this with legislative council, so I'll have to find out. But in the subsection A2, where it talks about the division shall be granted access to the data of any state agency or department it designates by rule. If we're taking the rulemaking out, I think in statute, we want to make it clear that the state agency or departments have to provide access to the data if it's not going to be in the rule itself. Also, I will try to work to address the issue with respect to public records with Tanya from the archivist. Those are the main items that I had that I wanted to work into this, but if there were other things I'm missing, if anybody else wants to weigh in and I'm anything else that we need to, that I might put into proposed amendment. I've got a couple of questions. Yeah. This is quite an extensive structure, shall we say. I guess I'd like to see some form of a flowchart as to I see it's going to be placed in the agency of administration on ethanol. Where are they going to be physically housed? Where is the top here as it funnels down? Who answers to who? There's five positions. And I'm concerned about oversight whether it be this division or any other divisions. I want to ask the question to follow up along what Martin was saying. I know we've got $540,000 targeted here and we've already discussed it as relooking at that because it's a different year, but aren't there going to be other costs associated with this and do we have any idea what that may be? So the IT stuff and so on and so forth. Yeah, I think those are excellent questions for the witness we have tomorrow. Kristen McClure from the agency of digital services because and that was in part some of the questions I was asking Monica Weber to see if she could identify any other costs, but I think agency of digital service definitely want to ask that question of Kristen. Cause yeah, I think perhaps after the testimony tomorrow there may be some further changes that we may want to put into a proposed amendment, but those two questions you just mentioned probably we haven't had the witness to address that yet. Maybe Susanna Davis, if we have to bring her back and are there other folks that you think, Chair Graf that could address that? How about, I think you did ask JFO to update their fiscal note, is that correct? Yeah, I was going to wait until we heard from Kristen to case we, I didn't want to have them redo it if we have some different information after talking to Kristen McClure. Well, one of the things if you recall when we were doing the assisting judiciary with the roll out of the new system there the agency of digital services is like that umbrella group that does all of the behind the scenes work. So, they actually physically do the purchases, assist with the technical aspects around contracts, with support services. If there's a certain system, similar to the justice, the judiciary one, where it had to be able to do very specific things, all of that was assisted by ADS. They're like the hub for all of the IT services. For state government, and when you look at their budget, when you're analyzing the total state budget, that thing is huge. But then you go, wait a minute, but that's all of state government too. It's not just this separate division. They're the hub for information. So, but I think the questions are, I would agree that the questions are good ones. We should be able to get a lot more detail from Kristen McClure, because she'd be able to more clearly say, this is how it works for each division. And this is what we do as far as providing services to those different divisions and how that piece works. I did have one follow-up question. I believe it was Dr. Tom Longo stated that Connecticut has something very similar to this, and they have a three-person division. I just wondering where we come up with a five and why, I mean, Connecticut, Vermont, population-wise, they've identified five here and the Connecticut has three. We have four, but it's still one more than Connecticut. Yeah, just to correct that. What we have listed is one executive director, two data analysts and an administrative assistant. And- In terms of deputy directors, we want to be appointed in here. No, no, no, I don't believe it unless I missed. I don't think so, as I recall. So that as much as anything, Bob, is a placeholder until we talk to some folks such as the witness tomorrow, such as perhaps follow-up with Director Davis to nail down really what do they need. So it's almost a placeholder as much as anything. So I may have been confused on page two, line three. Yeah, I think that I probably shouldn't have called an executive director. That's what I meant by executive director. Yeah, I know you gotcha. No, no, no, it's a good point. This is old information that I'm looking at from the JFO report from last year, when we call it. If you look at, I guess, the more recent discussions and the RDAAP report had referred to the previous information, Bob, but the construct that we're looking at is a division and usually divisions have directors, not executive directors. So from a structural perspective, it would be housed in the office of racial equity. As a division of that office. So structurally, Susanna Davis, who is the executive director of the office of racial equity, would be at the top of the organizational structure. If you're looking for a standard structure, even though there is still an advisory committee that would be supporting that division. But what we can do is we can put a map together so that you can see it visually, because the picture's worth a thousand words. So we'll have that ready for tomorrow. All right, thank you. So I'm just, I just want to make sure no other things at this point, as far as recommendations to work on language, as far as the proposed amendment, although there may be more after we hear the testimony. Which makes sense. Right, good, thank you. Any, anybody else? Some more testimony needed, anything else? And again, we can, I think tomorrow will be very helpful and we can regroup after that, but if anybody has any other thoughts that they want to share.


Okay hello good morning. So today and on Friday we'll look at Fodor's causally symmetry theory and then on Monday we'll sweep triumphantly on to Wittgenstein on following a rule a different part of the forest and today what I really want to do today is just to set out what Fodor is doing here there's a general problem he calls a disjunction problem that you will probably recognize from the Dretschke and then his causally symmetry theory which I'll state then next is his solution to that disjunction problem then we'll do a little bit of a workout a very simple workout on the causally symmetry theory and then I want to look at there's something puzzling about what the general problem is here and I'll try and indicate that at the end and then on Friday we'll move on to a blistering critique of Dretschke and Fodor but today all I really want to do is set out what the idea is and the general problem I've been saying this right since the first lecture is there are standards are right and wrong for sentences we want to be able to say there are standards are right and wrong for sentences in virtue of something or other and then whatever that something or other is is going to be something from the natural sciences and the whole world is a natural world and the whole world is describable by the natural sciences so since there is language since there is thinking in a natural world since language and thought has standards of right and wrong for them we have to be able to explain how that can have happened how common a natural world there are standards are right and wrong and what Dretschke is trying to do with his talk about biological functions and so on is to explain how that can have happened I mean even if you just look at this general form of the problem it's kind of obvious that it's going to be really difficult to get a convincing solution because in terms some of you at any rate will recognize this is a problem about deriving an ought from an is about deriving remarks about what right and wrong consistent how you ought to think or talk from statements about what in fact is the case and it's notoriously difficult to do that but we have to look at the details so the general structure of the answer that we were working towards all the time is something like this the sign X refers to X's in virtue of the fact that the use of the sign X is typically caused by X's yes good old refers to good old in virtue of the fact that the same good old was caused by good old yes water refers to water in virtue of the fact that uses of the same water were typically caused by water in these terms there is junction problem is this suppose that X's cause the use of the sign X to be caused the use of the sign X suppose that Y's cause the use of the sign X well take anything you like that produces an illusion of X-ness take any ringer for X anything that might cause you to falsely say X then that's a then anytime an X is produced wrongly there's some why that was causing it but if it's X is causing X to be produced that makes X refer to X then anything that's wrongly causing the production of the sign X should also be something that the sign X refers to let me go over this the puzzle is there are going to be some things that cause you to produce the sign X rightly namely the X's there are going to be some things that cause you to produce the production the site to produce the sign X wrongly let's call them Y's and why do we say that the sign X refers to X's rather than to the Y's how can we distinguish the causal connections that are fixing the reference of X from the causes of the production of X that don't fix the reference of X and a factor produced by things that X doesn't refer to that's the general structure of the problem and the basic constraint on a solution is we have to explain that in naturalistic terms we're not going to presuppose anything from outside the natural sciences so we're getting a distinction between two types of causation one that matters for the fixing of reference and we've got to understand why that kind of causation should matter for setting standards of rightness and wrongness so we really need an example here that's a bit abstract so here's Fodor giving an example I see a cow which stupidly I misidentify so this is what it's like when you're out for a walk in the country with a philosopher you see a cow the philosopher takes it to be a horse and then says horse it's really different when you're going out and about with Fodor and when you're going out and about with Oscar Wilde but anyway that's that's a kind of dialogue right the point look for he's looking right at the cow and he says horse so Fodor is a city boy so how come your utterance of horse means horse well because of a causal connection between horses and uses of the word horse right that was a lesson of all that stuff about water and twin earth and all that yeah the reason you word horse refers to horses is that horses are the things around here that cause cause the use of that word but then if cows can produce utterances of the word horse to then why don't we say that the word horse actually refers to cows to and the folder good at right there what we just learned from that example was that you can be making a mistake something that's not a horse can be you causing you to use the word horse and since there are some called these causal relations between uses of the word horse and cows why not say the word horse refers to cows to if the causal relations are the same and if causation makes representation well how can the semantic connections not be the same too that's a very simple example but it's obviously quite general because anytime you make a mistake there's going to be something or other that caused you to make that mistake why not say that causal connection means that you're referring to that thing so just put it abstractly you've got two kinds of connection from horses to the what use of the word horse and from cows to the use of the word horse and we say the causal connection on the left means that the word horse is referring to horses the causal connection in the right does not mean that the word horse is referring to cows why is that they're both causal connections what's as special about this one on the left how how come that one generates reference and the one in the right doesn't? That's the disjunction problem. And we go to explain in naturalistic terms, in terms of the natural sciences, why there's that asymmetry, why there's that difference between the two kinds of causal connection. And ultimately, we want to understand, get some explanation of why it is that this kind of causal connection is generating standards of rightness and wrongness. So that's a very simple example, that cow's horses thing, but obviously I think the problem is really general. And until you address it, then a causal theory can't explain the distinction between rightness and wrongness. Are you comfortable with that? That's where the disjunction problem is. And you see, it's really a very general form of the kind of problem when he was saying, how come the magnetosome is representing this magnitude rather than that magnitude? Okay, are we all on board? Okay, so this is the problem. Explain the difference between the causal link on the left and the causal link on the right. Here comes Fodor's answer. If horses didn't cause the word horse to be produced, then cows would not cause the word horse to be produced. I mean, presumably, if horses didn't cause the word horse to be produced, it's really a bit early for this kind of thing. I mean, I really do sympathize with that. But anyway, if horses didn't cause the word horse to be produced, well, why would that be? I mean, presumably that would be the word just meant something altogether different, something like that. Yeah, that could only be what was going on. So then, I mean, if horses meant were named for some bit of an engineering machinery or car components or something, then cows wouldn't cause the word horse to be produced. Yeah, so that's pretty plausible. If horses didn't cause the word horse to be produced, then cows would not cause the word horse to be produced. But even if cows didn't cause the word horse to be produced, suppose that cows didn't cause the word horse to be produced. I mean, presumably, if all the city guys were sent to some agricultural training college and given some kind of animal awareness, elevating your levels of animal awareness so that everybody got much better at distinguishing the two species, then hot cows wouldn't cause the word horse anymore. Everybody just got better at telling the difference between cows and horses. You can imagine that, yes? Now, if that happened, if everybody just got better at spotting that cows are non-horses, then would horses still cause the word horse to be produced? Yes, you just got better, right? So even if cows didn't cause the word horse to be produced, horses would still cause the word horse to be produced. So there's a difference between the two causal relations. Suppose that the one on the left vanished with the one on the right vanished. Yes, that's what we just agreed to. If the one on the left vanished, the one on the right would vanish. Yes? But if the one on the right vanished would the one on the left vanish? Aha, so they're different, yes? That was easy, right? So Fodor puts that by saying the connection between cows and the word horse is asymmetrically dependent on the causal connection between horses and the word horse. That's to say, I mean, it's not very technical. The one on the right depends on the one on the left because if the one on the left went, the one on the right would go. Yes? But the one on the left doesn't depend on the one on the right because if the one on the right went, the one on the left would be just fine. So the one on the cow's horse connection is parasitic on the horse's horse connection. The cow's horse connection is only coming in because cows look kind of like horses. The one on the right is kind of piggybacking on the one on the left. So if this one got thrown off, the one on the left would still be there. But because this one is piggybacking on this one, if you took this one away, then that one would go, yep? That's why we say this one is the one that matters for reference. That's the theory. The causal connection between cows and the word horse is asymmetrically dependent on the causal connection between horses and the word horse. Is it perfectly clear what that means anyway? What are you saying? Why hold an asymmetric causal dependence? Yep? Okay. So if there's an asymmetric dependence between horse's cause X and cow's cause X, well, if one of these is asymmetrically dependent on the other, the dependent causation is the one that's causing the mistakes. The non-dependent causation is the one that generates reference. This is a little bit abstract, but it's very, very simple. If everything's not perfectly clear, then stop me. Yeah? Sure, yeah. If zebra's cause the word horse, then okay, suppose he did, right? I wouldn't be surprised.  He's just not very good at that kind of thing. I mean, no disrespect, but yeah. Okay, but what of it? Oh, okay, there are two things here. One is that zebras are causing the use of the word horse and the other is that horses are not causing the use of the word horse. Yeah? Okay, well, suppose we have that scenario. Okay, so suppose we have... So what we've got up here is zebras, right? Well, then, and suppose we have the asymmetric dependence like this, then the word horse would be referring to zebras. That's the theory. I mean, the idea is it wouldn't make sense to say that, and it wouldn't make sense right now to say that all of us have been mistaken the whole time about which things are horses. It's actually the zebras that are horses. Well, it's even hard to state this, but it couldn't be right to say that what's been causing us to use the word horse all the time is actually something to which the word doesn't apply. It was actually the stripey things that we were referring to, even though they never, ever caused anyone to use the word horse. That makes no sense. That's the idea. So when you consider a situation in which the independent causation, the causation that doesn't depend on anything else is between zebras and the word horse, then you're considering a situation in which the word horse refers to those zebras one, two. Zebras and cows look a little bit alike. Okay, sure. Yes, that's right. Oh, I see. I see. Was that your point? Okay, I missed that. Okay, right, right. Right, so if you install IC, IC, okay.  If the reason this causal connection went was that you'd put zebras in there, yeah. Then you'd still have that. So you could have this one going, but that one staying. So this is not dependent on that one. I mean, that's absolutely correct. Okay, I didn't get that in the first line. Okay, that's really important. The question is, when you consider, it's all right if I call that a counterfactual, figure hand-off, if that's not a problem, if I call that a counterfactual. Okay, some, but not all. Well, I just mean something that says something about what would have happened. I should be being through all this possible world stuff. What's going on in some other possible world, right? So we're talking about a possible world in which cows don't cause horse to be produced. Yeah, and we're talking about what goes on in that world, yeah. And the question you guys are raising is which world are we talking about? Yeah, and in general, and in general there's always that issue with counterfactuals. I mean, I just think of these standard examples from the literature. If Bill comes, it'll be a great party. Yeah, if Bill comes and the carpet catches fire, it'll be a great party. Yeah, it doesn't, right? It's not always clear exactly which world you're talking about. That's what politicians really mean when they say, well, you know, suppose Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction. What then you say, well, I'm not going to answer that because I don't really know exactly which possible world you're talking about is what they mean, yeah. So when we're talking about cows not causing the word horse to be produced, I don't mean because you'd substituted zebras. It's like I don't mean and the carpet catches fire. Yeah, but then there really is a question how are we going to specify which world exactly we have in mind? Yeah, I mean, the simplest way to get the effect you want would be to suppose, no, the zebras are causing horse to be produced, but suppose it happened that cows started causing horse to be produced in a non-dependent way. Yeah, suppose a word, I mean intuitively, suppose a word just came to mean cows, then cows would still be causing the use of the word horse. Yeah. I know this, everything that's being said here is very simple but I realize it has this air of rigmarole to it so pause me if any of this is not making sense. Okay, there's another question. How did horses cause us to call horses horses? It wasn't the horse? Yeah, I mean, it's not as if there was some kind of formal introduction where we said to the horse, we are humans, what are you? That's what you mean. It's not as if it kind of manipulated us into it. Yeah, that's right. That's another question about exactly what the kind of causation here is. It's not that they formally introduced themselves, it's that we said, well, look at them, we better give them a name. Yeah, what are we going to call them? So we were responding to that presence and we said we better give them some name or other and then we whipped up the word horse. Why it was horse we produced is a further issue. Yeah, why it was that sound rather than any other.  Yeah, if you say, they need to be fed three regular meals a day and no baked beans or whatever you say using the word horse. They are the ones that are making you do that. Is that addressing the question? Yeah. You could think of it in terms of the initial baptism or you could think of it in terms of the ongoing dominant source of your uses of the sign. Yeah, so these same issues we talked about with Kripke and Evans, both causation either way. Okay, so so much for the causal asymmetry theory. So the causal connection between cows and horse is asymmetrically dependent on the causal connection between horses and the word horse. And these questions that people were raising, I said you can put that in terms of possible worlds. So the unnatural way to put it is to say, you remember our little blue friends? Yeah, so if this is us in the actual world and in the actual world horses cause the use of the word horse, then what that counterfactual, what that statement if horse didn't cause horse anymore. What that's talking about is the nearest worlds in which horses don't cause horse anymore. Yeah, so you know that some possible worlds are very close and some are very far away. How about that? That's a good question. I mean, maybe, maybe not. I'm not really sure. It depends on exactly what the phonological constraints are on the generation of words. I mean, there are lots of words. That's right, that's right, that's right. So I think this is the right framework to address that question. Whether, I mean, there are lots of words missing in English, right? So you can say, let's see, you can say, pan, pen, pin, pond, pun, right? So they're all words except pond. There's kind of a missing word. Or tin, tan, tin, tin, tun, tun, t-u-n. There's no such word as t-u-n. Why not? So there's kind of missing words. So if horse went, it would probably be just a missing word like that, right? And if we're saying, I mean, the idea that some possible worlds are very close and some are very far away is very intuitive, yes? You can say to me something like, well, that's a very remote possibility, yeah? I say, suppose some madman comes running in. We should barricade the door. Suppose some madman comes running in here with a hatchet and you say, well, the contingency is very remote, right? What you mean as well is a possible world which happens all right, but it's very far away, yeah? So let's not bother barricading the doors. You see what I mean? Yeah, that's how we think. So when we say, what's the nearest world in which horses don't cause horse? Well, I guess that's because we're using a different sign for them or something like that, yeah? Sorry? Or we don't use, yeah, we don't use horse at all, yeah? Oh, yeah. So the nearest world in which that happens, the minimal adjustment you have to make to this world to get that effect is one where it's simply not being caused by anything, yeah? So not zebras, not kangaroos, not anything, yeah? So here we're talking about this world here, whereas the zebra's world is presumably a little bit further out. Yeah, something like that, yeah? That's the idea, anyway. So the nearest world in which horses don't cause horse, that's some subset of the nearby worlds we're talking about, yeah? And in those, cows don't cause horse either. But the nearest worlds in which cows don't cause horse, they're the worlds in which we've all had our agriculture awareness heightened. And so in those worlds, which are a different set of worlds in which cows don't cause horse anymore, in those worlds horses still cause the use of the one horse. Okay, there we go. There's the asymmetric dependence theory. I think it's fair to say that's really photo's point. There's something else? You see what I mean? I think it's a relatively simple theory. I think the exposition is baroque, I mean, but it's a great theory. I mean, it's very simple, it's very general, it's very austere in what it's appealing to. But yeah, the exposition is not so great. Okay, so that clear what the theory is? Okay, I just want to do a little bit of a work out in this. Suppose you've got a sign that really is disjunctive. Suppose you've got a sign that applies to both horses and cows. Right? Let's say D. So when photo points to a cow and says D, that's right. When he points to a horse and says D, that's right too. Yeah? So cows cause D and horses cause D. So if horses didn't produce D anymore, would cows still produce D? No, because D would be meaning something different. Yeah? So there's no reason to think either of them would still be causing D. So horses didn't produce D anymore. That could only be because D didn't mean the same thing. And in that case, presumably cows wouldn't produce D anymore either. Yeah? So in that case, the cow arrow is causally dependent on, is counterfactually dependent on the horses arrow. Yeah? Because if you didn't have the horses one, you wouldn't have the cows one. And it goes round the other way too. If cows didn't produce D anymore, that could only be because D didn't mean the same thing anymore. And so horses wouldn't produce D anymore. So if we've got these two, then this one depends on this one and this one depends on this one. Yeah? You take this one away. You take that one away. What do you think? The two different situations? That's right, the two different situations where you're describing if cows didn't produce D anymore and if horses didn't produce D anymore. But they have the same upshot. Namely, neither of them is going to be doing the causing. This is like a simple test of whether you're at home or let's talk about causal asymmetry, yeah? Asymmetry dependence, yeah? Is this idea worth it? No, it surely, I mean, just as a matter of fact.  But not for the rest. But no, for the rest, yeah. I think that's right, yeah, yeah. And that would just show that the causal connection between don't build platypuses and the use of the word mammal was not a reference fixing one. That was a mistake, yeah. If you don't get this, if you don't get what I'm saying here, you really have to complain because it's a very simple idea, and it just means I'm not explaining it very well if it's not kind of obvious. Some of you look extremely puzzled, and I'm, yeah, exactly, right, right. So the point of the exercise is just to try and bring out what's meant by asymmetric dependence, yeah? And so this is just a kind of simple finger exercise to see what it means asymmetric dependence. That's right. Do you refer to both or to either? Both, I mean, to both of those, it means it's either a horse or a calf, yeah. I mean, the photo might well result to using such a sign, right, if he gets enough ridicule, right? He would say, well, that's a D. It's one or the other, right, yeah? Call it a D, yeah. So then you've got two causal chains, two causal connections, but they're symmetrically underdependent in one another, but they're symmetrically dependent. So one of them does not get singled out as a reference-fixing relation. I don't know why you're looking so puzzled, folks. Okay, it does seem fine. Okay, maybe it's just a habit, okay. So if D stands for being a horse or a cow, then horses cause D, cows cause D, and they're symmetrically dependent on one another. Yeah, go happy with that, comfortable with that. Okay, suppose D is ambiguous. Suppose that there are some uses of D in which it means horse, and some uses of D in which it means cow. Then you've got two causal connections. You've got a causal connection between horses and D, and a causal connection between cows and D. But if the causal connection between horses and D goes, will the causal connection between cows and D go? No, I mean, if you think about it, if you say, well, banks can mean either river banks or financial institutions, yes? And river banks stopped causing us to use the word bank. Would banks still cause us to use the word bank? Yes, of course they would, yeah? I mean, there is two different ways in which the sign is used, and the fact that one of them was lost wouldn't mean that the other one was lost too. Yeah? If there are three different bills, then any one of them might cause you to use the name bill, right? But if you find out that one of them is an imposter and his name is not bill after all, will the other two still cause you to use the word bill? Yes, of course, right? Okay, so in that case, you get the two causal connections. Does either of them depend on the other one? No, they're independent of each other. This one's independent of that one, and that one's independent of that one. So they're symmetrically independent. Yeah, some other questions? Okay. So if you have an asymmetric dependence, if you've got a sign X where horses cause X and cows cause X, but the dependence is not symmetric, well, then if it's not symmetric, you know that the meaning is not disjunctive, and if there is a dependence, you know that it's not ambiguous. So there's only one answer. It must be a term that only stands for one of these things, not for both of them, and it must be the one that is independent and the other one is depending on. Isn't that great? So there you are, causal asymmetry theory. If you get this, you get everything. If you don't get this, you should really put your hand up and say, please, what is going on? Okay, can you put your hand up and you're comfortable with this? Okay, very good. Not quite all, but just about. You can't have it in this situation. That's right. It doesn't mean both because if it did mean both, then there wouldn't be an asymmetric dependence. There would be a symmetric dependence. Yeah. Do you want me to talk through why? Oh, sure. If X meant both horses and cows, then if you took away horses causing cow, horses causing the use of the sign X, that would mean that X didn't mean what it always meant. It would just have changed its meaning, lost its meaning. So cows wouldn't cause the use of the sign either. Yeah. And if cows didn't cause the use of the sign anymore, that would be because the sign was now being used in a different meaning if it was being used at all. So horses wouldn't cause its use either. So you'd have a symmetric dependence. Yeah. So you know it doesn't mean both. What about horse and cow? That's meant to be an example like that. Oh, you mean a word that covers two different kinds of things? There is a juncture thing. Well, take horse. There was someone in the class who knows about horses. There are two different kinds of horses, right? There are big horses and small horses. Well, I mean let's... It's small. No, I don't see that. At the moment we use horse indifferently as a word for small horses and big horses, right? So small horses stopped causing us to use the word horse. Why would that be? That would only be because we'd started using the word in some quite different way. Nothing to do with horses. That could happen. Yeah. Well, when you start pressing this, right? I think you're getting back to the question which possible word exactly are we looking at? Yeah. So all I've said so far is the nearest ones. Yeah. But if you say, well, which one exactly is the nearest one? Is it one where the sign just has a different meaning altogether? Or is it one where the sign narrows in meaning? Yeah. I think that's fair enough. I want to go on, actually, in just a moment to say some more about that problem. Is it picking up on what you had in mind? Yeah. So it's not exactly you can't think of cases. It's that you have to specify very explicitly just which counterfactual situations, which possible worlds you're talking about when you're talking about the dependence here. But the general line here is dependent causation is causation of mistakes. Yes. No. Disjunction is symmetrically dependent. I hope I'm keeping track of things here. But in the case where D is disjunctive, so it means either horse or cow. Sorry? Well, yes. So we're saying if you're going to sign X, and X has this asymmetric dependence condition, what's another question of whatever? No, I'm saying this is how you diagnose. There's an error. The theory says suppose you've got these two causal connections and you find that there's an asymmetric dependence between the two causal connections. Then you can conclude from that, from the fact of the asymmetric dependence, that is not disjunctive. Because if it was disjunctive, it would be a symmetric dependence. And if it was ambiguous, there wouldn't be dependence at all. So it must mean one rather than the other. So the cow's thing being the dependent one must be an error generating arm. This is the whole thing. I think it's a beautiful theory. I mean, there is really something very intuitive about this. I think it's about force, how things work, how they come to fight back. Right, yeah. And it's a young state's reference. Right. So what do you say about this? Well, some of them think it's disjunctive. Is that right? Have I picked it up right? Well, what do they argue about? Some of them think it refers to horses and some of them think it refers to cows. Okay. It's going to have to be a pretty fancy case of this. I mean, the simplest case would be it's just ambiguous, right? Like, I'm not managing to think of an example of it off my head, but there are cases in British English where a word means something different than what it means in American English. Yeah. But it would really, it would not be intelligent to come to blows or have a big row about this. You see what I mean? What you need is a case like, what you need is a term like democracy or something like that where you're talking to some political leader in Iran and they're saying, look, by democracy I mean this. You think that's not a democracy. That's what I mean by a democracy. Yeah, this is what a democracy is. And that can be a real row. Yeah, that can be a real argument. Yeah, actually you could have a row between a Democrat and a Republican about what you mean by democracy. You know, what it takes to be democracy. But in those cases, there's more fixing the meaning than just the causal connection. Yeah, a notion like democracy is very complex and there's a lot going on with that. It's not like folks are going into a field and saying, horse, you know, it's not that you just land in a foreign country and you say, ah, democracy! You see what I mean? These are much more complex terms. So I think the kind of situation you're describing does our eyes have more complex terms, but it doesn't really... It's hard to see how it could really come up with these more basic uses of language. Yeah. That's right. Or it's like British English and American English. You could say that, but I think in the case of democracy, you wouldn't because everybody cares about the term. Everybody wants to seize hold of the term and make it their own. You see what I mean? That doesn't mean there's a lot going on with it. You're not going to just give up the term and say, all right, you convinced me. I hold to my Republican ideals and I give up my belief in democracy. Nobody's going to give up the word like that. You see what I mean? It means too much. Okay. I've been going to proceed to blister and critique, but I don't know. We just have three minutes to go. So what about that as a general point? That's what Fodor's theory is. Dependent causation is causation of mistakes. Asymmetrically dependent causation is causation of mistakes. So far we've looked at the theory stated and we'll go on to critique next time, but any last questions on just what the theory is? Later today? Completely comfortable with that? Yeah. Yeah. I do know what you mean. Right. I was making fun of Fodor with that simple example of horses and cow, but there's a really serious point here that the example is a simplification and there are many uses of language that are really that simple. And it is true, I think, that bank is a very special case because you've got two meanings that just seem so similar, I mean just seem so clearly distinct. I once read on the back of a potato chip packet that the most ambiguous word in the English language is set, S-E-T, set. And so I went and looked it up and there were something like 57 definitions, you know, entries for set. But if I ask myself, are they clearly distinct meanings? You should try this, try this new favorite dictionary. Look up the meanings and ask, are they really 56 distinct meanings? Ambiguity in ordinary language is really a much more complex phenomenon than having clearly one meaning or clearly another. These things, intuitively these things just seem to shade off into one another in a way that's very distressing for the theorist of meaning.