Well,

thes one segua from michael brookes oto, your world view is that, i think michael greed with you, that a certain features of your world view, namely, that cogni bias in the human mind distorts perception of events, and the distortion of perception leads to sub optimal forms of engagement and then even possibly less, even more sub optimal forms of outcome. Well,

you could call that a central premise of buddhism as well, right? A that that unless we a, take measures to deal with the problem, our view of the world is distorted, and in ways that hurt us and hurt the people we interact with, and ead lead to suffering for both, right?

So i think one of th things i'd like to chat about is, in thi or series of conversations, i've tried to get you to outline some of the key features of this world view, slash darma of bob a. And over the course of doing that, in reading through the comments of some of your followers on your substack news letter, which is the non zero news letter, which, thank you, i read religious. Apparently ezra kline reads it religiously, and hopefully more people are staring to find their way to it. But one of the comments that i remember seeing was someone mentioning that the to get the the understanding of this lens of an analysis and prescription at a more main stream level, it might behove you, the articulator, to to figure out a les thes jargony terms to use in a way o putting together the picture. I'm not against jargon. I like jargon myself. But, ah, that's something ike a question that i hold up now with you. As you know, having looked at the basic features of it, how does this, how does thes that you're encouraging infiltrate the population? Yes,

ok. And by the way, i don't know ezrekline is a religious reader of my newsletter, but e he read it enough to have me on his podcast recently. And i'm grateful for that, because i it turns out, as i discovered, a lot of people listen to his podcast. Im, ye, and let me say one thing, just to try to do what i think you would applaud givin that that you may be more attuned to the value of good messaging than i am. Im, which is to try to establish the stakes. And i hope not over dramatized the situation, but my view is that it's close to literally true that if we are going to save the world, a people, some substantial number of people, including influential ones, but not only those, are going to have to move at least somewhat closer to enlightenment in the buddhas sense of the term. I don't mean, you know, get there. I view enlightenment as kind of a spectrum, you know, awakening kind of a spectrum. And i think, and you can move short distances in that direction. And i think when you ah to get back to jargon a little, when you do a even partly a neutralize or erode your, your cognito biases, that that can be a form of taking a step in the direction of enlightenment. But i do think that the stakes are this high. I think there're so many problems facing nations collectively and people collectively, that that are problems that are collectively existential. That isif if they all go unsolved, it could be, you know, cablue the end of the whole thing. A that a, we need to do a much better job of working together. When i look at the things that are keeping us from working together, keeping nations from working together, i think it really does come back to a distortions of perception and cognition of the kind that psychologists call cognitive biases, and of the kind that a meditation practice can help address. Not to say that's the only way to address them, but i think there is a big intersection there between the e, you know, thend of theaspir tion of buddhist practice and what the world needs.