Jakob Voldum on Design & Curiosity

Jakob Voldum is Director, Insights and Strategy at Designit in Copenhagen. Prior to that he was a Senior Consultant at ReD Associates, having joined the company at the beginning as an intern. At Designit, he is co-hosting the event “Beyond the Lens: How ai is changing creative workflows" with the hybrid image agency Scenes.

Thank you for agreeing to do this. I start all these conversations with the same question, which I borrowed from a friend who teaches oral history. Because it's a beautiful question, I over-explain it. Before I ask, you should know that you're in total control. You can answer any way that you want or not answer. The question is, where do you come from?

That's an interesting question, one that I could potentially answer in many different ways. Maybe I could start from the top, or from one perspective - the overarching, big picture perspective. I come from Denmark, a small country in northern Europe. It's known for its pretty and windy coastlines, for smørrebrød (open-faced sandwiches), very delicious. But probably what I'm most proud of is the extensive welfare society.

We might have one of the highest tax rates in the world. But on the other hand, healthcare and education are mostly free. I can try to zoom in further. Denmark is a small country, but there are quite a few people here. I come from the capital, Copenhagen. It's a highly livable city, optimized for bikes. We've got bike lanes all over, so someone like you who enjoys biking might appreciate that.

Zooming in further, I'm from a first-row suburb of Copenhagen. I grew up in a large two-family house with loving parents and a sister. My parents - one is a teacher, the other is a lithographer; she used to work with retouching images for magazines. It was a sort of liberal, left-wing household with strong family values. I think I was always encouraged to follow my passions. I was told that should be the most important selection criteria for what I should choose to spend my time on.

This two-family household was also quite unique because we grew up with two families under one roof, two separate apartments, but with a lot of companionship and community within the household, sharing dinners. We were four kids together, more or less similar ages, so we could play together and explore the neighborhoods.

To this day, I'm quite fortunate to have most of my family and friends around Copenhagen. Interestingly, I've actually gone full circle. When I came of age and moved out of the house, I lived in the city for a while and traveled the world. But now I've moved back into my home. My parents are a little bit older now. I bought half the house and I'm living with my parents. So we're kind of like a multigenerational household now, which is great.

How's it been? What's that like?

It's been really good. It wasn't a decision that happened quite quickly because we had a great apartment somewhere else in Copenhagen. But all of a sudden, this apartment became available. My mom called me and said this could happen. We have to make a decision now. I think she hit us at the right moment. We were just about to have our second kid. I thought it might be nice to have some extra hands around to help raise the kids.

They're both retired now, so I think it works pretty well. It's nice to be close to parents. It's nice to be close to someone who loves you almost unconditionally and to see my kids actually build a strong bond with them as well. Of course, there are issues, but nothing that we haven't been able to solve so far. So I think it's nice.

You were encouraged to follow your passions. Do you have a recollection of what you wanted to be when you grew up?

The first thing I wanted to be was a zoologist. I was always super interested in insects and animals. I had this friend in kindergarten whose father was a zoologist. He was always telling these tales of fieldwork in remote parts of Africa, coming home with super interesting stories of looking for new species. I thought that was really cool and interesting.

But I didn't end up choosing zoology. I ended up choosing something that would feed my need for curiosity and exploration of other places and cultures. I chose a field called ethnology, which is in the social sciences. It's a unique Northern European or European phenomenon. Ethnos means people or nation, and the logic part is the teaching of them. So it's understanding people, closely related to anthropology and sociology.

I remember when I was trying to figure out what to study, I was looking at this leaflet from the University of Copenhagen. I was always very interested in history and anthropology. I thought it was fascinating to go out and try to understand cultures and meet people, to be bombarded with new experiences like that. I was also interested in philosophy and sociology. When I read the description of ethnology, it seemed like I'd be getting this full package of all these things combined in one.

What's unique about ethnology is that while it has the whole methodology of anthropologists - learning to do participant observation and the whole qualitative toolbox - it also uses history to teach you something about change. It encourages you to look at both the past and the present and combine those two views, which I think was super interesting. A guy I look up to when I read his books is Noah Yuval Harari. He has this notion that history is not just the study of the past, it's a study of change. I try to carry that with me as well. It's kind of supposed to be sense-making to practically make sense of where we're going and why.

When did you discover that you could make a living doing this, studying people?

That happened by chance. As I was studying, I was preparing for the graduate program. In the university system, there's an opportunity to do an internship as part of your master's program. I saw an ad for an intern for a famous design agency here in Copenhagen. I went to the interviews and got the internship.

But when I was supposed to start this internship, some of the partners in this design agency had broken out and started their own thing. That became a company which has become quite well known within social science-driven consulting, human-centric innovations. It's called Red Associates, with offices in Copenhagen, New York, and elsewhere.

I ended up being one of the first employees at Red Associates. I think we were six or seven people at the time when I started back in 2005. By this time, I hadn't even finished my studies yet. I was lucky to enter the world of applied anthropology, applied social science with a really interesting group of people who would quickly send me around the world on fieldwork for global companies and even for some of the ministries here in Denmark. I couldn't have wished for a more exciting beginning to my career, getting access to all these interesting questions, domains, and contexts.

What do you love about the work? What's the joy in it for you?

If anything, I think curiosity is my superpower. I do a lot more than anthropology these days, but that was the bulk of what I did for a long time - go out into the world, understand something, and be driven by my curiosity. I think it's very difficult to be curious without also having some sort of foundational empathy. So I think those two have been my key drivers in terms of having done what I do, and having done it successfully - curiosity and empathy, and just wanting to understand what's going on.

That's still what I try to do. These days, it might be some of my team members who end up doing the fieldwork, but I simply can't help being involved to some extent because I want to understand how things work, how the world is changing, and how we can create change. I think today, in this day and age, there are so many big, hairy problems that we need to solve. We sometimes get the opportunity to make our best shot at solving them for some of our clients.

One of the moments I really love is the eureka moment, the aha moment. The first time I had that, I remember, was in university when I was introduced to some of the theories around anthropology. Is that really how the world works? Wow, is that how a nation is constructed? Is that really something that you can actually construct? As you educate yourself and read books by smart people, you start to understand a bit more of how the world really works.

Anthropology is a great facilitator of these aha moments. Sometimes it's a minuscule thing, just understanding what really motivates someone. But sometimes you can connect the dots and come up with grander visions or understandings of why a certain market works the way it does, or why a certain culture in a given company is dysfunctional. That feels so rewarding for me - to understand something and be able to convey that so you might actually inspire some sort of change.

So beautiful. You mentioned that with ReD Associates, the business world runs on numbers, and they were coming at it from a very different point of view. I'm wondering, what kind of conversations do you have with clients around the role of qualitative? I mean, I imagine people self-select, right? They're going to come, they want that kind of work. But for you, what's the argument that you make for qualitative? I can often feel kind of doomsday about things becoming less and less human, and it becoming much easier to avoid the work of qualitative. But I'd love to hear you just talk about the proper role of qualitative. And how do you pitch it to the C-suite, if it were?

There are multiple different insights into this, but also multiple trend lines. First of all, it's really about getting to the why. We might have all these numbers about the way things worked in the past, and we've been trying to project that and say, well, then it'll probably work like this in the future. But we can't say that with certainty. No one can predict the future, not even the most expansive data sets.

If you want to understand why something is happening, you need to understand the people who have a stake in it, whether it's the consumer, the employees, or whoever else it might be. Every company is part of an ecosystem populated by people. Those people make decisions and are driven by certain things. You need to understand why they do what they do, and for that, you're going to need the whole qualitative apparatus.

There are two big groups of clients. There are the very mature clients who are used to working with design tools and qualitative research. For them, it's more about how much, where, timelines - more practical aspects, because they respect it and have it embedded in the way they think. Then there are the more immature clients that don't necessarily see the value of it or have a very instrumental way of proceeding. That's a completely different ballgame. You need to start from scratch, educate them, show the work that you've done, the difference that work has made, and tailor that to whatever problem they're sitting with.

Right now, we're being hit by all these LLMs and synthetic research. You look at the entire design process, and there are new tools emerging every week trying to automate some parts of it. I still think it's going to take a while before we actually figure out the use cases. Of course, we're experimenting with it, but at the end of the line, for things that really matter, we're going to need to have someone in the loop - someone who really understands and has an intention and understands the priorities. For that person, the qualitative knowledge of how people act, how they understand the world, what motivates them, what drives them is just super crucial.

I don't see a future where we can just automate this. Yes, for some aspects, probably some of the more tactical stuff like testing a new digital flow, parts of that can be automated. But for the big, fundamental things of really trying to understand what's at stake, I don't see us automating research anytime soon.

So how do you see that practice changing? Let's say we're in the future, and a lot of parts have been automated. But it leaves this space for the big qualitative. How do you see that practice changing? Is it just more of the same, just sort of goes untouched? Or do you see it operating differently?

I do see it operating differently. For myself, experimenting with AI tools, both in research and in concept development and design process, has been really rewarding so far. I'm curious by nature, so I like to think I'm trying to understand how things work and how I might benefit from it.

What's been beautiful about it so far is that we've been able to automate some of the parts that are not necessarily the most interesting parts of it. The actual interaction and relationship between people, establishing that rapport, establishing an empathetic relationship with someone to understand a given context - I don't see how you can automate that. But maybe some of the planning, some of the thinking about how to structure the fieldwork, field guide, observation guide - stuff like that, you can very well use LLMs for, not completely automating, but at least using it and then editing with a human in the loop afterwards. For those aspects, just like any writing tasks these days, there are some obvious use cases.

When you move to the analysis as well, I think every anthropologist or social scientist who's done large-scale fieldwork will respect that it's a big task to come home, sift through all the research, do all the documentation in the right way, in a structured way, and then actually synthesize all that information before you can start to distill what everything actually means and how to enable your strategy or your concept. For some of those tasks as well, if you upload all your field notes into an LLM that you've trained, and that's secure and all that stuff, of course, it can do a great job of actually helping enable analysis in a quicker way.

I think we'll be able to do things much more efficiently. But I like to be an optimist and say we're going to choose the ways where we can actually see a gain. But for the human connections and for the all-important sense-making in the end, it's still going to be us who's doing it.

That's amazing. Tell me a little bit about your current position and company and the other things that you're working on.

After I left ReD Associates, I needed a change. I think that's probably natural after you've been in a company for many years. This was my first job, so I needed to travel a bit and try to figure out what to do. But then I figured out that there was a need for someone like me. So I actually ended up freelancing for a few years, self-employed, working with different companies.

You said, “a person like me.” How do you think about yourself? How do you talk about your particular skill set?

I think it's evolved a bit. But I thought of myself as a business development consultant using ethnography tools primarily. My skill set is primarily around research, but of course, also making sense of that research and using that to strategize and to develop concepts creatively, grounded in my expertise within research and social science.

That's what I did for a few years. Then a design agency, the same agency I'm in right now called Design-it, came knocking and offered me a position. At the time, they were growing quite rapidly and could see a need in the market for someone like me. So I came on board and quickly got the opportunity to build a team around what we call Insights and Strategy.

Basically, I built a team with the capabilities of handling everything in the front end of the design process. From engaging with the clients to understand their need in depth - for me, that's also a big part of the capabilities of an anthropologist, to empathize with your clients, to understand where they're coming from and what they really need, and be able to challenge them in the right way and actually meet their need with a precise brief and process.

But then, of course, the whole front end of the design process, from understanding the client's need to figuring out what we should do, what kind of research we should be doing, who we should be talking to, what kind of new methods might be cool to start working with, how the design field is evolving. So basically building out a team that could tackle the entire front end of the design process up until you start developing concepts, to start bringing in more visual designers to bring things to life, whether it's a digital product or a physical product.

I did that for a few years and I'm still here. I'm still a design director. I'm not leading the Insights and Strategy team anymore, but have a little bit more of a thought leadership role slash commercial role. Of course, owning the pipeline together with one of my really good colleagues and driving new bids and rebids and trying to figure out where to take our different clients. But then also trying to have an opinion about important topics of our time.

I appreciate that. You guys have really taken a point of view on AI, which you've already talked about a bit. What are the positions that you guys are taking? Was it Beyond the Lens? Is that what it was?

Yeah, that's exactly right. The event was called Beyond the Lens. We had it back in April, and we actually have another event coming up in the second-largest city in Denmark called Aarhus because we also have a satellite office over there. We thought we'd take it there after it had pretty nice attendance here in Copenhagen.

Essentially, it's a two-part event. It's an after-work thing for people within the design community, but also for clients of ours. We know everyone's talking about AI these days, trying to identify the use cases. So the purpose of that talk was really to discuss how generative AI is changing design and creativity. That's kind of the first bit, a bit of a tour in the helicopter, but also looking back and saying, how did we get here? What's going on? What are the use cases that are emerging? What might we need to be aware of at this stage?

Then the second part - an old colleague of mine started a new creative agency. He has a long career within branding, and he's teamed up with a friend of his who's a professional photographer. They're basically doing commercial photography, hybrid photography, merging real photography with AI and applying that for brand development purposes of all sorts, campaign work and so on.

The idea with the event was really to say, okay, there's kind of a more philosophical track. Let's try to make sense of this together. And the other part is really about actually showcasing a unique emerging use case, which is that now we can do these amazing images using AI tools, or at least combining real photography with AI tools.

How would you describe your relationship with generative AI right now?

It's complicated, I would say. Part of me is quite excited. I've gotten a lot of fuel for my curiosity. I think it's really interesting to follow how this is evolving. And I think it's interesting exploring in the context of my work. I think it's interesting to figure out some of these use cases that really make my work more enjoyable.

That's the professional, personal angle. But in the bigger picture, I'm also really concerned, to be honest. I think it's going super fast. I think there are some things that just don't really add up. All the tech giants are investing billions of dollars into chipsets. A company like OpenAI was positioned as the pioneer. But people are leaving the company. There are all these speculations about the billions of dollars that they're burning through to get to AGI. And can they really get there and all that.

I think there's no doubting that we're in the middle of a huge hype cycle. Whether it's a bubble or not, I don't have the insight to really offer you a perspective there. But I think something is definitely going on. I think a lot of the tech giants were in need of a new story in the wake of the pandemic. And I think AI fit the bill.

I'm not neglecting that this is a revolutionary set of tools and I'm experiencing that myself. But I don't think it's society-altering or revolutionizing to the extent that some are trying to make it. So I think it's about stepping back and asking, where are the adults in the room?

Can you tell me a story about your ideal experience with generative AI? You said you've had moments where you've been tinkering and enjoying it. What are you using it for?

I think I talked about this a little bit earlier. Let's say you're doing qualitative research - there are some obvious low-hanging fruits of how you can ally yourself with ChatGPT or whatever large language model you're using. You can train it on a particular problem you're working on, and then you can actually have it generate a question guide, for example. That's a low-hanging fruit.

It becomes like a writing companion, and you become the editor. You're not just outsourcing, but you have someone to do the bread-and-butter writing, and then you can actually edit and improve it.

I think that's a very common use case. Most people will probably recognize that. But then we think about design - you might be familiar with the double diamond method, it's about diverging and converging.

First, you try to figure out what problem to solve. You explore that problem broadly, and then you figure out which part of the problem you can most ideally solve and which might make most sense to invest the most resources in. Then you get to ideation, trying to ideate potential ideas to solve the problem you've identified. Ideation is a bit of a volume-dependent activity.

You need creative people in the room. We can probably all agree that there are principles that make for a good ideation session - having people with diverse perspectives, different backgrounds and age groups, people who come at the problem from different angles. But at the end of the day, you want to be able to generate a lot of ideas.

If you actually prep a lot of language models, you can get them to output a lot of ideas quickly. So ideation being a volume-dependent activity, I think it works really well to give you some of that volume. I'm not saying you're outsourcing the ideation or the solution to a large language model, but you're using it as a contributor to an ideation session.

Similarly, once you get to a prototyping stage, because you can use these tools, you can actually develop more prototypes simultaneously. So I think everything that's volume-dependent within the design process, it makes a lot of sense to figure out how to use large language models for parts of it.

One thing on my to-do list is to explore some really sophisticated, smaller large language models where you're basically building a project repository in a cloud. While you're doing that, you're also training a large language model. So you start to be able to interact with all your data from the original brief and proposal, whatever field guides you might've been using, all the field notes and so on. You start to have it all in one central place.

Because you've trained a large language model, you're actually interacting with all that material. The large language model essentially becomes a version of your project that you can have a dialogue with. I think that's really interesting.

That's something we're looking to experiment with. And then there's knowledge management. I think there's an obvious use case there.

A lot of companies have gone down this route by now. I know no clients who've done it, but imagine if you have - so we have 15 offices around the world, 700 employees, and they're all unique in their own ways. They're all producing knowledge of some sort every day. While we're pretty good at maintaining our staff, people eventually go on to pursue other dreams and careers. When they leave, some of that knowledge leaves.

Yes, you might get access to your employees' files and folders, but are you ever going to get through that? Not really. So a lot of stuff gets lost in translation.

Imagine if you could actually interact with the entire knowledge repository of your company in a large language model. Show me the three best cases within this industry, the most recent cases. Have it actually summarize the key insights, and so on.

I think some of those are the big use cases that we really want to pursue at a company level going forward.

What's it been like? How have you responded? I've had some interactions with clients where it feels like the house is on fire. Do you know what I mean? It was like, "Oh God, we got to figure this out." And then other people are very cautious and they're just not even really paying attention. But what's it been like being on the inside, trying to orient Design-it for this moment?

I think it's actually been quite easy because most designers, most of our employees are curious, explorative, experimenting by nature.

So valuable. You keep coming back to that. Tell me more about why that's so vital right now.

In most big companies, things happen top-down, and you don't feel like you have the mandate to do something unless it's been mandated by management and it's within official policy or priorities. So when I go down to, let's say, one of our digital designers, I can be sure that he's already looked at all the different tools that are coming out. He's already tried to make images using Midjourney when it was still in beta mode because, oh, this is interesting. I need to understand that.

So I think a lot of what is happening is very organic. For us, it's more about making sure that we don't compromise our clients, that we are respecting all the boundaries and that we have the right guardrails in place. That's definitely difficult, and I do not have all the right answers to that. But I think a lot of the methods or tools are being explored naturally.

We are owned by a large technology company called Wipro. It's headquartered in India. They have 250,000 employees. They're obviously also investing heavily in AI. I think they've earmarked north of a billion US dollars for AI initiatives across the company. So of course, they're also supportive of it.

What impact has it had on client relationships? Has it changed that in any way?

To be honest, not so much yet. We are having dialogues around sense-making around AI. We might have a client who is interested or intrigued about potentially understanding how we might use some of these tools for brand work or for imagery, image creation, maybe for concept development.

There are some dialogues around creating AI-enabled sprints. We've also hosted a few events where we have actually done quick and dirty design sprints leading into AI tools. One of the cool things, because we were able to prep in advance, we could actually prototype some of the best ideas that were produced in the sessions.

We had basically created a series of prompts where we could then quickly try the right brand colors and create tangible experiences. That was really cool because it made the participants, who were not necessarily designers and not necessarily capable of creating great illustrations, able to quickly sketch up something that looked like their actual idea, but also felt like an actual product or experience that they could put into the world. So I think it's still emerging.

Some clients are very much on top of it and some clients are still trying to make sense, for sure. But definitely more and more dialogues, and a lot of them, of course, related to some of the more or less proven use cases around imagery and basic design stuff.

How different are the worlds of LLMs and visual AI like Midjourney in our conversation? Have you been talking about both or have you been talking exclusively more about the design side?

I've been talking about both. The main applications we're using, of course, we've talked about OpenAI, Claude, as you mentioned yourself, the big ones. But apart from that, there's also GitHub Copilot, and then Midjourney and a few other image generators.

Those are the primary ones. But then there are also some more niche ones that are emerging, specifically within UX design, for example, or specifically within logo design. I can't remember all the names, but there's so much coming out.

It's really about understanding that the hype cycle is on fully. So you need to be careful not to end up wasting your time. But Midjourney and ChatGPT are two very different things.

Obviously, Midjourney is text-to-image, which OpenAI can also do, but I think the general opinion is that Midjourney is quite far ahead in terms of being able to prompt an image that resembles your intention. You can actually start to have some sort of consistency, you can create commercial-grade photography and so on.

And then there's all the combining workflows. We're starting to see workflows where people start in OpenAI to describe the type of image they want to generate, then take that prompt into Midjourney and go back and refine. So there's using these different tools on each other in different ways. It's interesting and inspiring as well.

I'm curious about synthetic research. Have you had any interactions with it? What are your impressions?

I've come across some of these companies, there's one called Synthetic Users, I think. I haven't used it personally. I've experimented with the workflows using it. Let's say, okay, now I'm trying to understand the world from the perspective of this particular user who is 50 years old, lives there.

For that, it works well. It's quick at least. It's quick to build a persona for whatever purpose you're doing. I wouldn't necessarily say that it completely replaces personas built on actual data, but the times I've tried it, it's worked pretty well.

Can you give me an example? When you say it's worked pretty well, just walk me through what that looks like. I'm very naive.

Sure. One example could be that we're working within the obesity space. You might be aware of the new medications within obesity. We're working quite a lot with that recently. As we've been working with our clients, we've also been trying to, when we've conceptualized experiences, tailor those experiences to a persona. We basically describe the persona and then try to say, okay, if this is the persona, how might that implicate the ideal experience?

So we're describing the persona in detail, maybe using the LLM to refine that persona and then maybe defining an experience across a number of steps. I can say, okay, if we were to appeal to this persona, what would then have to change in the different steps? That could be one way of thinking about it.

So again, mostly it's creatively trying to make sense of something and then saying, okay, can I use these large language models to help me actually get ahead or get a jumpstart on thinking about something in a particular way? That's kind of the gist of it.

How do you think about generative AI? What's the metaphor or analogy that you use? What's the best analogy for how you interact with it?

I think for me, it feels mostly like having a PhD intern of sorts. It's a very smart and very efficient intern. You can ask them everything and they will respond promptly. Sometimes you need to go back to them and say, well, that's not exactly what I was looking for. Could you try again?

For orienting yourself in a particular domain, prepping yourself for a meeting, as a writing assistant and so on, I also like to think about how the role of the designer is changing. Maybe someone who's actually doing something hands-on - you can imagine us becoming more like curators or editors.

We're still there with our intention, our craft, and our wisdom. But we are actually getting help from these systems to do parts of our work. So I like to think that we're becoming curators and editors of sorts.

And again, you can't really be a very good curator and editor without actually having deep knowledge and experience of your craft. A while back, actually way before the whole AI hype cycle started, we had this futurist team. It was mandated to explore the future, apply foresight methodology, say what's happening, what's changing, what do we need to make sense of?

I think it was back in 2019 or maybe even 2020, we did this huge global research with experts, thought leaders, and creatives all around the globe and tried to say what's happening. What are some of the big themes that we as designers need to tackle? The big thing that emerged from that was actually artificial intelligence, but then artificial intelligence broken down into some sub-themes.

The first thing, which I thought was really interesting and still is super relevant, was around trusting invisibility. How many of us are actually capable of describing what's going on inside a large language model? None of us. Well, it's something about it consuming all this data and spitting out these amazing answers. It can understand what you're saying and sometimes also where you're trying to go. But other than that, it's a crazy complex system. It takes a lot of experts to build and train those.

It's an effective yet invisible system. So this will be a key challenge for us going forward. How can we trust these invisible systems and what do the tech companies need to do to gain our trust? I think that's hugely relevant as we start to embed these technologies, not just AI, but any digital technologies into our workflows, our everyday lives, from our daily workflow to smart cities and stuff like that.

A second finding was this notion of playful unlearning. When we start to embrace these new technologies, there's going to be a need for us to unlearn some of the stuff that we've actually spent years honing and learning. Like we talked about before, if you're an anthropologist, you're going to need to figure out how you can lean into these technologies and optimize the way you think and learn based on those, and then adapt your workflows based on that.

Big organizations face these challenges on a much larger scale than you and I. So how can you do that? I think this notion of it has to be playful - it's not just the whip and the stick. It has to be about trying to figure out how you can actually bring people along in a way that becomes meaningful and value-creating, not just commercially, but actually also on a human level.

And then the third one, I think, is maybe the one that's being talked about most these days, which is this notion of enhancing humanity. How can we ensure that these technologies are not used to develop weapons of mass destruction and scam schemes and deep fakes and all that stuff? Unfortunately, that's already happening in my opinion - like Facebook is imploding with artificial content that's just disrupting and destroying the experience, to be honest.

But this is an opportunity for us to enhance not just humans, but humanity. Sam Altman and some of the other gurus like to talk about that. I like to think that there is some truth to what they're saying, that it's not all just a ploy to increase valuations and so on, but that this is actually a force, potentially a force for good. And I think it's a sign that we're quite good at being optimistic and taking something new and trying to figure out how we can actually use this in a deeply meaningful way. I'd love to see more of that happening, more experiments.

Beautiful. It's a wonderful moment to stop the conversation. Thank you so much. It's been a real pleasure. I learned a ton and I really enjoyed talking to you. Thanks so much for sharing your time and your point of view.

No problem. I enjoyed it as well. Thanks for inviting me.

Yeah.

Get full access to THAT BUSINESS OF MEANING at thatbusinessofmeaning.substack.com/subscribe