Mimetic theory? Copy that

I. V. M. sometimes we literally break the world.

Sure. Sometimes we just go to Wikipedia and hit the I'm feeling lucky button and then we decide to talk about it. Sometimes we have people who are much smarter than us coming on. We're correction.

I'm feeling lucky is Google. We can be a random page. I mean, for now. For now.

You never know. It could be a startup idea. You make I'm feeling lucky page for Wikipedia article. I'm sure something might not be exist.

It's called random page. So you just go click Land or page and then it's called the Wikipedia avoid it. Very go inside the void and then you never emerge. Again, I think that we have got three ideas for another simplified episode just by.

So in this episode, Naren is going to tell us about something that he came across recently. But before that, let us all talk about our deepest darkest desires. Actually, let's just talk about a desire that got fulfilled recently for me that would actually be my ridiculously expensive headphones, which I've been dreaming about for a while and finally managed to muscle up courage and bank balance to buy them. And now I shall be quiet for a while.

So my darkest desire was to get a Samsung watch, which I've just got. And the reason is I my earlier darkest desire was to have a Samsung phone. So that Samsung watch and Samsung phone are not that friendly to figure out how to really make them they're like they're to talk to each other and things like that. But yeah, I mean, I've always wanted to have a watch that that can find my phone.

I keep leaving my phone around. So if you press a button on the on the watch, your phone starts be big. So that's that's that's I mean, with all due respect to said Korean guy who, why would you aspire to have a Samsung watch and phone specifically? I keep forgetting my phone everywhere.

So I never remember where it is. The thinking process must have gone this way. He bought a phone, which turned out to be a Samsung phone. And now he needs to find said Samsung phone.

Hence, there is a Samsung watch to get said Samsung phone. Did you know by the way, Samsung started off and this is not a joke. It started off actually as a grocery store. Yeah.

Wow. You can hear about this on some episode on season two of The Auto Things. Oh, did you know that? Yes.

I mean, you guys are pretty much set that to one as far as things that you were desiring and you bought. In my case, I think my deepest darker desire for the longest time was I was working at a place for a very long time. And it was this it was practically a thing that even if I wanted to, I couldn't quit. So it took a lot of effort to actually end up leaving that company.

And now I was again, freelancing with that place. And now finally, I'm no longer associated with said company for the first time in a long time. So that itself is a it's both scary, but also a thing that I've been meaning to do for a long time. Wow.

That's amazing. Yeah. Yeah. Liberating.

Yeah. Yeah. Liberating. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I wanted to you guys both wanted something to add. I wanted to share it.

Yeah. Wonderful. I mean, there's not going to be a very natural segue. So I mean, I think you should just take it away from here.

Yeah. So I mean, desires are, you know, we think about desires as something which which comes about in our case, it probably does because the thing that we desire means something to us. Right. So we want it for different reasons.

So you might want. So usually we are talking about objects position, wealth, those kinds of things. And that's because it means something to us. And we everyone takes this for granted, but there's this guy named René Girard.

Okay. So René Girard is an interesting role for two reasons. One is he's French. So French people are always interesting.

Yeah. And the second is he is the Guru of Peter Thiel. Right. Oh, and so Peter Thiel took a lot of.

So this guy is, you know, theories to heart and implemented them in his own way. So it's called a memetic theory and basically what inside Girard had, he was a professor of anthropology at Stanford University. Okay. He ended up teaching philosophy because he developed some philosophical theories out of his anthropological experience.

And here's the theory in a capsule, right? Girard says that we don't desire things like in an autonomous way because those things mean something to us. We actually desire them because other people in our group are tribe desire. So he says, so that is where memetic comes from.

Memetic comes from my me and my me means imitating. So we imitate others and apparently even studies are even taught a show that if you have toddlers and you know, you give them 10 toys, the moment one toddler goes and picks up one toy, the other nine toddlers one that same toy. They have no clue what it is, whether it's cool, whether it's not. And Girard thought that this is the, you know, this is hard to buy it into humans.

This is what he thought. And he developed a theory which is almost as persuasive as the sapiens theory, which you know, he sort of reduced all of world history conflict, everything to memetic theory. So basically his funda was that two of us desire the same thing and there is only one of that thing. So we come into conflict.

Right. And when it's groups of people, those groups of people come into conflict. So that was his insight. That's actually quite interesting because this also reminds me of another one which was about that whole comparison experiment.

And I think they had done this comparison experiment with a couple of apes. I don't know whether they were chimps or apes or something where, so there are two types of food. There was one which is a carrot and one is a grape. The carrot is a standard food for the herbs and grape is a treat.

All right. So there are two chimps. One chimp is given a carrot. It very happily eats the carrot.

Then the second chimp is given a grape. And the next time the first chimp is given a carrot and the second is given a grape, the first chimp throws away the carrot and starts yelling and screaming. Because you can see the other chimp getting a grape and it's like, while for the first time it was perfectly happy to eat the carrot. But the moment it saw the other chimp getting a grape when it started freaking out.

So yeah, this is of course, that's slightly different. That study was, you know, unfairness of compensation. So basically it was a study on two monkeys and those monkeys were trained to do some task and the reward was a vegetable, a character, something like that. And the researcher kept giving one of the monkeys a grape.

So the guy who got a carrot just threw it back. Is there a video? Very interesting video. There is video.

Yeah. So this is very similar. So what Ginar says is that part one is we desire what other people desire which brings us into conflict. Part two, he says there is a lot of tension and violence built up.

And the only way this is resolved is by finding a scapegoat. So it's called a scapegoat mechanism. So he says the moment you find a scapegoat and a scapegoat is punished, the tension results. Yeah.

And scapegoat usually has violence. So this is basically violence towards entire communities also. So yeah, I was thinking about Hitler and the Jews because nothing. Yeah, that's a more safer analogy to use in these times.

But yeah, I was talking about the exchange. Even so, but that's actually a really interesting point because again, historically every time, because it's not just having a scapegoat, but I think as humans and as groups of humans, we like simple linear narratives. Yeah. And I think there is, I mean, in a situation where something's gone wrong, there are probably a lot of parties who are contributory to the negligence or to the problem that's happened in that situation.

But to find a singular scapegoat who was responsible for it gives, like you said, releases a lot of like visceral pleasure in kind of like blaming it all on that scapegoat. And therefore, have not done that. Yeah, the scapegoat has to be punished. Has to be punished.

Exactly. Scapod is oftentimes innocent. Yeah. Yeah, exactly.

But the punishers are convinced of their scapegoats get. Exactly. Yeah. So he's he gives a lot of, he found a lot of a lot of examples, supporting.

There are a lot of it is very intuitively true also from what it will be, obviously, we find oftentimes that you basically need to go and sort of find someone to blame blame it on them and be done with it. Yeah. And the problem is here is where, I mean, that the scapegoat theory also works particularly well in terms of politics is because once the scapegoat has been identified and the scapegoat is being punished, the release of holding any other people accountable from the mass public becomes so much that the issues that continue to persist are ignored because of it. We can again look at it from the Germany analogies where that once the Jews were identified as the scapegoat who needed to be punished, all the other stuff about like, oh, they need to be ostracized from society and that that Hitler to go over as a dictator practically made himself a dictator.

All of those issues don't blind eye to because the scapegoat was getting punished. So everything else is fine. What would be like an evolutionary reason for this is what I'm trying to think like this. Yeah, that's very interesting.

So it's probably to move with social evolution. So human beings evolved to be in society. In fact, there are people who believe that so we accidentally evolved larger brains and usually a larger brain means death because the brain demands far more energy than, you know, than any other organ. But it also enables social communication cohesion and making the group a more efficient finder of nourishment.

So somewhere that accident happened, the second accident that happened was bigger brain and speech. So speech and bigger brain give the ability for humans to band together and they could then vanquish predators and bring down a prey which was much larger than they could individually. So somewhere that accident of evolution happened and then it clicked. And then it became very important to have some position, you know, group dynamics became very important.

So there are very interesting studies that did on baboons on troops of the Savana baboons and Savana baboons, they have an alpha male who gets all the rights, you know, the mating rights and the eating rights and all the other males. Okay, the alpha male needs all the other males in the group to, you know, because they have to function as a band and they have to fight against predators and other groups and everything. But the alpha male doesn't want to part with any of the goodies. So the compromise solution it finds, the alpha male is the alpha male befriends a few males and shares some of the spoils.

And this smaller band manages to subjugate the larger band. This is pretty much like Putin and his oligarchs. This is like every damn society ever. Yeah, this is Putin and his oligarchs and like Hitler and his inner circle.

And that's basically this is that model. And also, I mean, just to your question, the evolutionary reason that point I was just thinking another thing is, and I completely agree with the reins point that our larger brains are a complete quirk of evolution. It's actually, it's in some way like almost a defect that became a superpower. Yeah, about that became a feature feature.

Yeah, about that became a massive feature in some way. But what that did is, however, because it was effectively a bug, our bodies have not evolved, our physical bodies and our brainstem, which controls all the basic functions, has not evolved to live with this larger brain. This larger brain keeps confusing this body. All the time.

I didn't know this. I didn't know this. So, no, this is actually something that I've learned across like some research as well as therapy in some ways that the reason why our bodies like, why anxiety affects our soul massively is because our brains are able to process very complex situations. Our bodies are extremely primitive.

They are currently hosting this brain, which is not able to, it understands fight or flight. So for example, if you're like really stressed for a big beach meeting, your body is considering thinking that you are currently being faced, you're hiding from a tiger. Right. That's what your body is used to.

It is not used to handling the stress. It is not, it does not comprehend what a big beach meeting is. Right. And so that's where this particular phenomenon, now coming to this particular point where your body and again, think of it as having a chimp's body, a chimp in society.

If there is any problem that happens, if there is any translation that's happened against it, there's a very linear reason why that translation is happening. There's a, any means attacking, you have to defend, you have to therefore then kill the enemy and continue life harmoniously. Or run away. Or run away.

There's a very simple, linear way of dealing with nature between. There is no, yeah, there is no, but in normal, in human life with the complexity of the world that we have constructed around us, the brainstem is not able to comprehend this. So if you look at it, it brings a very, that's what they say that the joy is very primal, right? It's a primal kind of joy.

You're getting the joy from your brainstem that, oh, there is a clear skateboard and we have punished it. My body, my overall primitive body is very thrilled. Yeah. So that's, that's kind of some part of evolutionary understanding, which I kind of piece together when I was looking at it.

Yeah. Yeah. That's a great thing. So investigative piece of work.

I think this little joy. So we have this point, take a break and then come back and read that in this visceral joy. Yes. So yeah, see you on the other side.

You know that feeling when you finish a movie and you just need to talk about it, that desperate need to discuss why Cal Hoonahoe hits different. Enter IBM's brand new podcast, Cine5. It's streaming and current just yapping over Hindi cinema every Friday. ROMcom's director will debut skidier defining moments, whatever they're vibing with, they're breaking it down.

Join the podcast on IBM Pub's YouTube or any audio streaming platform. Caution, you'll want to rewatch everything after listening to us. Come join us on Cine5. It feels like everyone's talking about two things right now.

Pickle goal and podcast. So what happens when someone who's lived her whole life on the court decides to bring those two worlds together? I'm Sanya Mirza and I'm bringing you a brand new podcast, Serving It Up with Sanya. I've had some incredible conversations with friends, fellow athletes, artists and entrepreneurs.

Each episode starts with the game of Pickleball and once the rallies are done, the real topic is Serving It Up with Sanya, watch and listen on YouTube and wherever you get your favorite podcast. And welcome back to Simplify. Today we are discussing this really interesting topic of the mimetic theory with Narin being the fun of knowledge that he always is. And Narin was talking a bit earlier, we spoke about the theory of why a scapegoat is needed in society and all of those aspects.

But coming back to that point about Peter Thiel. So Narin you wanted to continue. Yeah, so the reason, I mean Gerard, okay and then one more thing that I didn't tell about Gerard, Renee Gerard, is he was a devout Christian. And his theory was that the ultimate scapegoat was Jesus Christ.

And why what difference Jesus Christ made was Jesus Christ, that's the main theme of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died for your sins. So humanity made him the scapegoat. He died and then he returned from the dead. So he suffered the punishment but he did not vanish, he came back and he taught people the value of forgiveness.

Yeah. So Gerard believed that forgiveness is the way to resolve tensions and not conflict. So the rest of his philosophy builds up on that. Right, right.

And there's also, I mean especially when you bring a religion, this place on this Jesus dying for your sins and returning back plays on two levels. I feel it's almost like there is a, I would have preferred, I would have really loved to have Tony here as a Christian to really give his point of view on it. So forgive me if I'm going on a different tangent but this is my interpretation of it. Is that not only is it that yes, there was a scapegoat but there is also a kind of a transference of a massive mass guilt because Jesus Christ didn't commit the sins that he died for, he died for your sins.

Right. The credibility and the responsibility towards the religion kind of gets built up right there because you're like, I automatically owe this authority for who died for all of my sins. Yeah. Yeah.

That's a different dimension and that basically shaped the religion and shaped the organizations and you know, the followers of the religion, the custom and everything. Yeah. Basically, this guy's you know, insight was that and one of the people he deeply influenced was Peter Thiel and Peter Thiel was a philosophy graduate at Stanford. I think he started off as a law graduate and then he was so impressed by Renee Girard that he gave it up and he became a philosophy graduate or something like that or maybe the other but many ways deeply influenced by him and what he internalized Girard's theories and applied them in his own way.

So his main insight was that people, businesses that copy other people's ideas usually do very badly. Okay. Misery, not badly. Misery, so his example is the airline theory.

Right. So all airlines are such perfect copies of every other airline that everything that one airline does, let us say if the all flights are crammed and one airline figures out some way of readjusting the seats so that you get two inches extra space for your knees. Immediately all the other airlines do the same thing. So there's no competitive advantage.

Yeah. Moment they find out that you know, a particular route is more profitable. Everyone died. So all airline companies are completely miserable.

They make even if they make money, it'll be like in the, you know, fractions of a percentage. Like really, and on the other hand, you take a company like Google, okay, which has absolutely not copied anyone at all and it dictates its own terms and it's profit margin is some 75% of something like that. So Peter Thiel's take away is that unless you can think of something which is completely different, that's why he calls it zero to one. Right.

So his book is called zero to one and he says if you unless your business is built around something that no one else has thought of or can even do ever is not worth doing that business. He takes that extremist view. Wow. And applicable, I guess to most of the big companies, but not necessarily always like, for example, I always like, like Google wasn't the first engines to Facebook, wasn't the first social media platform.

So sometimes also matter of geography, sometimes also matter of access to capital, sometimes also matter of being blatant enough to copy another company's idea. Here's what you Facebook. I guess a lot of those things. But yeah, I think that's those are quirks of modern business, I guess, 2010 onwards with all the quotes of venture capital, et cetera.

But pre that I guess so, what do you think? I think that's an interesting point. What it comes across is so there's two. He's very melodic.

Like he's extremely, very talkative. He's been also accused of being very contrarian because he's advocating being different for the sake of being different, which as you know, it's difficult to believe that it's always the right way. It's probably not always the right way. Yeah, because there's also another line of thinking, which I feel is contrary to this one, which is all about saying that none of the, so if you look at all of the people who did things, I mean, who all the big companies right now, like you said, Google was not the first search engine, Facebook was not the first social network.

The thing was what I completely agree with the thought that they did a zero to one angle. Like they actually did something that progressed and was different from everybody else. But as is the common quote, like among BC circles is that the guy who really opens a new category is the biggest like public servant and the biggest donor of all, because that person takes it in the teeth as far as all the hurdles of the area are concerned. And then kind of leaves down and allows the other guys to walk all over him so that they can build the better businesses in the category.

Because once the initial headway has been made, they are able to build better businesses in the category. Yeah. So back to Clayton Christensen from the previous episode that we did. Exactly.

Exactly. So it's really important to say that, but the people who tend to stick are definitely people who have done something that has really differentiated themselves. And I think it comes down to, see, that's what I think there's different forms of copy, right? You can copy a concept, but if you then improve upon it in a way that really distinctly is not an incremental change, but it's actually a distinct quantum change of some sort.

That is where the differentiation comes in because yeah, like you said, the airline example of you giving those six to three inches, it's not going to be profitable in any way for anybody to create a distinct advantage. But someone like an Amazon with AWS, someone with like Google with its search engine and the scale that they have achieved, they're in the massive amounts of investment that they do with research and stuff like that. What it does is it gives them the distinct research advantage that even if someone decides to copy them, they will completely overpower them. And that I feel is the key difference in some ways.

Yeah. And so also Peter Thiel acknowledges that mimetic behavior or mimetic way of thinking is the default case is hardwired into our DNA. So he goes through great trouble to find out ways to organize his structure, his organization so that people working don't come into mimetic conflict. So also mimetic conflict happens a lot in companies and organization, commercial establishments, where everyone has a job to do and the prize is usually unique, right?

So it's a promotion. So three of us are vying for that. And soon we become enemies because we are all and everyone else in our teams aligns with one of us. So now from an homogeneous team of like 25 people, we probably have three small groups, each gradually growing to eat eat at each other's guts.

And this brings the organization down. So definitely it makes sense for the CEO or whoever it is to ensure that these collisions don't happen. It also raises an important point of as far as mimetic theory, and I think it's an offshoot of it. Not only do I desire what the other person has, but once I achieve a level of success, there is also a lot of visceral and primal joy in ensuring that my success is unique and non-replicable.

So there is also a subtle vying for the failure of the rest once success for yourself. Very true. Very true. So insightful actually.

Yeah. So you did it and you don't want anyone else to do it. You were the first guy. You were the first people who would have done it in other places.

You don't want to achieve whatever you have achieved. It shouldn't be so trivial that anyone else can do it. Yeah. It's really hard for other people.

Yeah. Even if it is like everybody receives the same, say for example, if there is a bonus being given, right? Even if the bonus in itself is a massive thing, if everybody is getting it at the equal level, the value for it goes away. Yeah.

Right. That is actually one of the concepts why a lot of people put a price to, even if they are willing to keep a show or if a comedian is willing to keep a show for free, they usually trying to kind of put a price to it because anything for free reduces value. So people turn up a lot more people at no shows if it's a free show versus if they are made to pay a hundred bucks for it. True.

Yeah. And this discussion between the two of you, one of the capitalism is something that's hard wide into us from an evolutionary point of view. Yeah. You want to protect what we have and the thing.

Oh, for sure. Yeah. Because I mean, that's what, right? Like what this market economy system does is that it comes across to me is that what capitalism does is that it quantifies every in quantifiable effort that you might put, right?

It is, it's a very, very efficient system of quantifying things. And when things get quantified, you're not only looking at how do I get a certain quantum achievement, but how do I make that quantum leap beyond that also? And how do I like, how can I say that I am like capitalism allows you a very measurable view of saying that too cash, I can say I am a hundred times or a million times better than that guy, right? Because my money, my net worth gives me that particular value.

Yeah. And in terms of companies see each other as well. Like many times I wonder in my more reflective moments, I wonder why should companies worry so much about market cap as long as you are getting enough, as long as your company is making enough growth and you're able to increase everyone's size in your company, why should you be bothered about what the other person's doing or what their market share and thing is. So I just saw, so I just this afternoon saw there's a new Netflix documentary about the Boeing crashes, the two Boeing crashes, the line, the line, the line, the line and the Ethiopian airlines crashes.

And they talked about how Boeing and like the downfall of Boeing began when they were taken over by that other company. I forget what Macdull, something they were called. And they were acquired, they acquired Boeing as such. And literally overnight, a company that was all about engineering and safety, they literally put it in your employees manual saying that each employee is responsible for creating shareholder value was language that they infused into like company manuals, like employee manuals and stuff.

And what that did was, and that's why the capitalist culture, their entire thing was how do I increase the stock price for Boeing became the central premise of the company's ethos. And when that became the central ethos, when you're given a target that is, aside from where the company is built on making planes and making safe planes, that is their predominant thing. Right now when I'm trying to, you're going to cut as many corners as you can so that you can increase that share price and gain that much efficiency. It's the system that actually designs human beings to work in that way.

Wow. So that's where suddenly like a company that was renowned for safety, there was a gold standard for safety as far as aviation was concerned, created an entire airline, an entire line, which was made in flight started crashing. Yeah. Right.

So that's actually something really interesting that how about capitalism is it is a efficient system to make human behavior, engineering exercise, but one that is that actually can force people to work against their own self-interest. Yeah. So maybe one way of, I mean, we keep talking about how to make capitalism better, etc. Right.

Maybe one way is that it's almost like every company doesn't try to grow its own market share or whatever it is to try in some way to grow the pie, if that kind of makes sense. Okay. In that way, maybe what the mutual fund industry is doing for once, we are always critics of mutual fund advertising, you and Mr. Kipa.

But this way what they might be doing might be actually like, just trying to encourage people to buy mutual fund because they believe the pie grows and eventually will grow along with the million. Exactly. Maybe that's one way of thinking about it. Do what's best for the industry because rising tide, lift all both kind of firms.

Which is what, I mean, which is what I mean, early stage capitalism was great at doing and that's why it created so much like if you look at the life between post the world world till the early 90s was the single one single greatest period of human advancement and prosperity that went across the entire world. But that's where we kind of entered late stage capitalism where this monster started eating itself. Yeah. We are seeing an other early stage, I want to say it's not exactly capitalism but it's a very micro example which is all the micro breweries that are happening around in India right now.

It's a very collaborative culture like nobody really bitches about each other like if I get growlers from one place and other restaurants is happy to take it. They just replace the labels and they slap their own because they understand okay, it's important to have your consumer, craft your consumers overall rather than just you know, people who are dedicated to my establishment and employees as a result, breweries often hang out with each other during one of those festivals. So it's an extraordinary collaborative culture right now. So there is no scheme for there is no.

But it's actually a feature of a very, very small market like there is I mean there is no scarcity of consumers. The point is right now for consumer I mean for any micro brewery tomorrow there is a new consumer who consumes from any micro brewery that is beneficial to all that person is likely to become coming to the space of consumer like craft brew, craft beer. But so that's where at this point you're just like happy for any kind of market creation. Sure.

Yeah. Also these things work for a naturally differentiated industry right. So something which is so dependent on tastes such as restaurants or breweries are naturally differentiated because no two breweries are alike. They have their own games or no restaurants.

So they are never completely adversarial. But something which is functional such as airline or automotive industry, automotive industry is going more or less and they try their best to differentiate. But a lot of people they're just looking at the utility and they want a car or a two wheeler which takes them from point A to point B. Precisely.

But automobiles have managed to you know they've kept interest in form and function alive to make sure that they don't they're not always you know they're not always in conflict with your father. I mean the automobile industry is an excellent example of what you were talking about Narin because it's I mean in all the technological advancement that happened till I mean even now the predominant form of automobiles that you lose around the world are are automobiles that were developed in the early 20th century. Pretty much the engines that were developed in the early 20th century. They just got better.

They just got better. Yeah. They're not real changed in the internal combustion engine. Yeah.

Right. So the point is only recently are we seeing shoots of like someone like Tesla who's like actually trying to redefine what a car could be like. Right. So I mean there are certain industries that actually show so much like a stagnant as far as evolution because the members is so strong that the magnetic tendencies are so strong in them.

Yeah. So this is my new find I hope everyone liked it. Yeah. That was fascinating to me.

Yeah. To me I was just one part that I wanted to mention over here is like I like a part of that you said about the skateboard right is almost like a skateboard is necessary for human evolution in some way for cooperation. It reminds me of two things like one one is that in order for a group of people to communicate and then needs to be a cooperate rather than needs to be a common enemy. Yeah.

You know something like that and the best example of that probably is just depends on example. And this is a very common line about fiction writing right to all in order to have a good story you need to have a good villain. Yeah. I was like everyone can directly hate or whatever it is towards.

So I guess this is kind of extrapolated towards that. I don't know. In fact that's so true. You know we be a hardwired and we need and if you don't have a baddie in the movie.

Yeah. It's so bland. It's so bland. Yeah.

It's just not fun. Yeah. So I think the baddie can be any good at all and that's how successful movies are made. Yeah.

And that's why also like precisely in that same way you are able to because that that common enemy that's been constructed the closer it is to primal biases the more effective that will and becomes right like the more you are able to show them as someone who's fundamentally different from you someone who is who is evil in a certain way who is opposed to your upbringing who is either physically different from you in some way or the other the differences need to be very starkly I highlighted and repeated right. And when those differences are constantly repeated it becomes something that shorthand for people who are even the most cerebral people can switch that way and those who are not find it in a very easy and equalizing shorthand to kind of like figure out that oh this is my it's almost it's a and now that I use the word shorthand I bring back to my undergrad classes that I'm taking right now it's a brand. Yeah. It's a brand like it's a shortcut for decision making and that's what you're trying to do over there.

Yeah. You said cerebral but like to tie back this entire episode this is all about the shortfall of the brain stem which is not. I think. At all.

Yeah. So yeah. I think we have gone from French theory to brand management to like in the middle and we want to talk about people in largely a positive way which is trying to scale. Is this right to say?

Actually if you could make software which allows you to copy other people's short video reels you should call it mimetic talk or something like that. Ouch. No, no, not at all. It's completely fine.

It's completely acceptable. So can we agree that Renee Gillard was the skate coat OAD. Wow. As opposed to a butcher who will be a scrape goat.

This is why I say it for the scraping goat. Oh, I think I think I've said that. That is literally a non-bed joke. That's not a joke.

You can drink home to your parents. Next time join us for the section on poultry jokes. I think we should stop now. I think unless you unless unless this episode doesn't do well and I you can't escape for this in which case I wholeheartedly accept my role on the show.

Yeah. Stay safe, stay uncopyable and stay simplified. Wow. I mean, I need to say stay unique but stay uncopyable.

Fairly. Bye. Okay. Bye.