Imagine trying to shoehorn all of human creativity and human nature into prediction models. We base our perspective of human nature on two-dimensional grids, molding our society and its systems towards these grids. Despite this being the norm, people aren’t so clear-cut as to simply be placed into broad labels.
So how then, do we categorize human behavior? Is there a better approach to what we have now? Perhaps one that encompasses everyone, while still taking into account the multifaceted nature of a person.
In this episode, join Alexander McCaig and Jason Rigby as they tackle human creativity and the variances that make everyone unique.
In the 1960s, a two by two grid was employed by Boston Consulting Group as a model they can show to their clients. Because of its simplicity, it can be easily understood by everyone. More importantly, it is a convenient way to present data.
With systems that involve predictable and binary data, using a grid makes sense. However, using a two by two grid is not the best approach when dealing with human behavior and creativity. We cannot simply force people into one of the four categories within the grid.
A person, whose thoughts and actions are infinitely complex, cannot be placed into a singular label. Everyone is three-dimensional, such as that emotions can’t be numerically described, and therefore cannot be placed into two-dimensional grids with a pen and paper.
With systems that require labels and measurements, using a grid is indeed the most efficient way to do so. For mapmakers, laying out squares to measure land is easy, because of its two-dimensional nature. For geneticists, the Punnett chart is a simple way to predict chromosomal traits and how they blend together. And so, dealing with predictable components using a grid is common sense.
An example of a two by two grid that attempts to categorize human beings is the New York Magazine Approval Matrix. The matrix gets released every week and is a literal grid that places current human events and happenings into one of four categories. They take these incredibly multifaceted aspects of our society and force them to fit within a single two by two grid.
Humans come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. No matter how small, the tiniest difference in personality or thought processes can develop into entirely different people, with unique expressions of creativity. Even a single variation in one’s environment can create a completely unique experience for a person.
With things like predictive traffic models, you can somewhat predict a group of people’s general behavior. During the pandemic, however, a traffic model cannot explain the sudden reduction in traffic. Moreover, it cannot predict the outcome of a virus and how it affects traffic in the future.
Again, a two-dimensional grid cannot be used to describe a person’s thoughts and decisions for their future. For example, a person thinks about a past event. However, this thought relates to how they should act in the future. This causes a shift in ideas and perspective in how they think about themselves. This scenario cannot be described by simply using a two-dimensional system.
TARTLE has figured out the commonality between everyone, and that is their inherent uniqueness and creativity. Every person is an outlier compared to everyone else and should be treated as such.
With that being said, there is a type of system that attempts to approach human uniqueness in an all-encompassing manner. A unity model. An entity should then design systems and models that are for humans, rather than a target demographic. This eliminates the metaphorical walls that divide people into specific groups, without limiting the scope and growth of a given system.
Creativity is an inherent trait that is both unique and ubiquitous to everyone. An expressive painter cannot be labeled as “weird” or “crazy” for being creative in their own way. Rather, it is who they are as an individual.
A person’s label should not be confined within the walls of a grid, but rather a gradient of creativity that cannot be simply described with a word or two. Going back to describing painters, no one should compare one artist’s expression with another artist, with each artist being unique on their own.
Instead of visualizing a system as a grid, we should instead view it as a spherical model. Imagine plotting a single point on a sphere. If this sphere was rotated, it would still be equal to any other point plotted on the sphere.
Each person should be treated as an absolute uniqueness; a gradient of colors that cannot be defined by binary systems. Everyone is inherently creative, and everyone has experiences and thoughts unique to themselves.
Despite our society’s norm of placing everyone into clear-cut definitions, we should instead strive to expand our perspective towards the infinite creativity of human nature. Just because everyone has adapted to this norm, does not mean that it is the correct way to describe people.
What’s your data worth? Sign up for the TARTLE Marketplace through this link here.
Imagine trying to shoehorn all of human creativity and human nature into prediction models. We base our perspective of human nature on two-dimensional grids, molding our society and its systems towards these grids. Despite this being the norm, people aren’t so clear-cut as to simply be placed into broad labels.
Alexander McCaig (00:00):
Can you get your act together?
Jason Rigby (00:08):
I'm ready.
Alexander McCaig (00:09):
Ready after you're spilling coffee everywhere.
Jason Rigby (00:12):
Coffee.
Alexander McCaig (00:14):
Red hot.
Jason Rigby (00:14):
My coffee got spilled everywhere. Oh yeah.
Alexander McCaig (00:20):
Was that good?
Jason Rigby (00:20):
Oh, the coffee ice cubes. The best thing ever.
Alexander McCaig (00:23):
In case anyone's wondering, if you want to get the best cold brew ever, get a Mizudashi. It's about a 13 or 14 hour brew time. And what you do is, you get a pound of coffee, it's literally the whole package. Dump it in the thing, throw a bunch of ice cubes on top. And you let this thing slow drip as the ice cubes melt, for 14 hours straight. And it goes through this little... [crosstalk 00:00:42] Helix coil thing. And then drops this concentrate into the bottom. Talk about getting jacked up.
Jason Rigby (00:48):
Jacked.
Alexander McCaig (00:49):
Yeah. It's the next level for coffee.
Jason Rigby (00:51):
Mine spilled everywhere. Not bad, but it was enough to...
Alexander McCaig (00:55):
It was enough to...
Jason Rigby (00:56):
I had to change my shorts.
Alexander McCaig (00:58):
You're like, oh, that's hot.
Jason Rigby (01:00):
Yeah. It was on the side thigh. I got some side thigh burnage.
Alexander McCaig (01:04):
All that side thigh. You know, can we talk about how we've... We always talk about putting people in boxes.
Jason Rigby (01:11):
Right.
Alexander McCaig (01:12):
Well, we don't do it, but we talk about people putting other people in boxes.
Jason Rigby (01:16):
Right? Those people.
Alexander McCaig (01:18):
Boston consulting group... What was it, the seventies? When did it...
Jason Rigby (01:21):
Sixties. I think 1968.
Alexander McCaig (01:22):
1960s came up with the two by two grid.
Jason Rigby (01:28):
Right. Your basic grids.
Alexander McCaig (01:29):
Right. This is where the cash cows sit. Well anything you can use that makes your consulting look fancy.
Jason Rigby (01:36):
Oh yeah.
Alexander McCaig (01:36):
And it's easy for people to understand.
Jason Rigby (01:38):
Well, you can also take a pen and paper and write it out.
Alexander McCaig (01:40):
Yeah. Well, that's the easiest part. Let's go over this. Let's draw a grid.
Jason Rigby (01:44):
Where are you at CEO?
Alexander McCaig (01:46):
I'm going to show you where. You are bottom left quadrant. You're in quadrant three. From a math standpoint, it does make a little bit of sense, but in a two dimensional world. But what we find is that we force people into one of these four categories. What happens when you take people that are three dimensional and force them into two dimensional mathematics to describe them? Are we missing a whole dimension of description, a whole dimension of mathematics of understanding? Yes. So why is it we found it so prevalent the use of this type of analysis with these quadrants? And it's like taking charge. Is it a human thing? And there's some history in here. Want to take us through the history of the two by two?
Jason Rigby (02:32):
Yeah. Well it's just famous grids. You had two 50 BC, Eratosthenes, or whatever.
Alexander McCaig (02:40):
Eratosthenes. Yeah.
Jason Rigby (02:41):
He's the one-time director of the library of Alexander, sometimes called the father of geography. He was the one that laid grids over maps. And then now they were spaced out evenly and you could put lines and do places of interest and stuff like that. We even have that in our Google maps.
Alexander McCaig (03:00):
Right.
Jason Rigby (03:01):
We look at that. 150 BC, Greek astronomer mathematician, geographer, Hipparchus. Hypocrite.
Alexander McCaig (03:07):
Hipparchus.
Jason Rigby (03:08):
Hipparchus. Yeah. That was just a regular spaced and easier to use grid. And then in 1637...
Alexander McCaig (03:23):
What is a regularly spaced grid? What was the dude before him? A hundred years before doing this grids? This one's a little shorter. This was a little fatter.
Jason Rigby (03:31):
Yeah.
Alexander McCaig (03:32):
It's just like, this place is a more... You know what it was?
Jason Rigby (03:34):
What?
Alexander McCaig (03:35):
Alexandria is of the greatest interest. I'm going to put the largest grid around it.
Jason Rigby (03:39):
Yeah. That's probably how. It's the same with us, with making countries so big, that aren't even the actual size.
Alexander McCaig (03:46):
Well do you know how they framed out most of the borders here in the Western United States? You know how they're all square and stuff like that. The guys would literally go out there, the mapmakers. They had a stake with a chain and another stake, and it was literally: stake chain, mark, move. All day long for ever through the mountains. Best part about a chain is there's no flex in it. Right? This is my guaranteed blank. And you do that all day long. What's the easiest way to map it out, put it in a square. Make a circle with a straight chain.
Jason Rigby (04:19):
Yeah. Luckily you have drones and stuff like that, that are taking pictures and they have grid systems on them.
Alexander McCaig (04:26):
But that's easy for the US. Why? Because you're talking about land. It's two dimensionally, it's flat in the simplest form. It's just a flatness.
Jason Rigby (04:35):
Yes.
Alexander McCaig (04:36):
So it's easy to grid that out. But we go through history here and you've got geneticists with the Punnett chart that comes up with predicting inherent traits depending on the chromosomes and how they're blended. Okay, that guy's using it. All right, so that makes sense if you're dealing with that binary stuff, because if you're talking about chromosomes that deal with sex, it's male or female in the scientific sense. That makes sense.
Jason Rigby (04:58):
Right.
Alexander McCaig (04:59):
But what happens, Jason, when you bring in the dynamic nature of human beings, a three-dimensional nature of thought and action.
Jason Rigby (05:06):
Well, that was the problem in this history. The next one...
Alexander McCaig (05:10):
Tell me.
Jason Rigby (05:10):
Look at 1950, mathematicians began to do something with game theory, but the problem is they begin looking at individual decisions, self-interest, collective outcomes. You can do that in the 1950s when people had worked nine to five and pretty much everybody lived in the same housing development. If you can get people to do...
Alexander McCaig (05:31):
To live a sterile, non catalytic life.
Jason Rigby (05:34):
Yeah. But still, even then. It was so funny yesterday they had, I guess there was this photographer in the 1950s that would surprise people at drive in theaters. So he was like a creep.
Alexander McCaig (05:47):
This guy's a creep. That sounds like a creep.
Jason Rigby (05:49):
He was taking pictures of people making out in theaters. They had, a guy would have a suit on and the girl would have a dress on and they're in these big cars, but it was human nature's human nature. You look great. You go to the Catholic church, you go to the Christian Church, but you get people at a drive in theater and they're alone in their sexual attraction.
Alexander McCaig (06:09):
He's in his own separate grid. He's now left the two by two quadrant. [crosstalk 00:06:14]
Jason Rigby (06:14):
But it's so funny to look at a guy has his hand on this girl's thigh and they're making out, everybody's making out. That's no different than what's happening in 2021. We may wear more casual clothes, Nike or [inaudible 00:06:30] or something.
Alexander McCaig (06:31):
The dynamics of our inner nature [crosstalk 00:06:35] cannot be put into a two by two. It doesn't work. We're frankly not buying it. We're not that binary. Right. We think we are far more complex within ourselves.
Jason Rigby (06:46):
Yeah. They talk about the, which is interesting, the prisoner's dilemma, which is the most famous example. Where two captured criminals, associates, mulling over whether they should rat out their partner or say nothing. So you put them in, and it's very effective, you can put them, if you're a detective, you have the bad cop, the good cop. And we see this in movies. You put them in a room, you tell them the other guy is ratting him out.
Alexander McCaig (07:10):
But why is that work? Why is that algorithm work? Because there's only two outcomes.
Jason Rigby (07:13):
Yes.
Alexander McCaig (07:14):
I go to jail. I don't go to jail. Those are the two outcomes. When you deal with the law, it's a binary system. Did you break the law? Yes or no. That's it. That affords you the opportunity to perfectly work within the probabilities of this two by two grid. But if we change the dynamics, maybe the laws are super flexible. They're different across borders. It doesn't work like this. Maybe there's no concept of law. You can't continue to appropriate data to a two dimensional model on three dimensional people. That's what we are. We're dimensionally more complex than the simplicity of this flat world. But we force ourselves through marketing, researching, so many other things, to limit the amount of vectors we can take. Which is essentially up, down, left, right. Rather than in, out, up, down, left, right, diagonal, whatever it might be.
Jason Rigby (08:11):
I think in this article, Emily Nussabaum, the creator of the New York magazines Approval Matrix, she said this, "I considered a multifaceted, prismatic, five dimensional environment with a hidden wormhole, impossible to fully betray on paper. So Matrix seemed to work as shorthand". She's thinking a five dimensional environment.
Alexander McCaig (08:31):
What does that even mean?
Jason Rigby (08:32):
But a five dimensional environment, quantum physics has already proved, we don't even know. There's dimensions within dimensions, everything's fractal. The list goes on and on. What happens over here. This outcome, this is observed so then this happens. And then there's an opposite you in a parallel universe.
Alexander McCaig (08:55):
Apparently she doesn't understand wormholes.
Jason Rigby (08:59):
What does this even mean? A hidden wormhole?
Alexander McCaig (09:00):
A hidden wormhole? Okay. The wormhole's there. And what do wormholes do? They help you traverse large planes of space in a short amount of time and distance. That means they wrap back into one another. A two by two, flat, two dimensional grid has nothing to do with the wormhole at all. She's just saying things that don't make any sense.
Jason Rigby (09:27):
Yeah, kind of like me. Switch on our other podcast.
Alexander McCaig (09:34):
I consider it a multifaceted, many phases, it can mean many things. It's prismatic.
Jason Rigby (09:46):
Let's pull up her New York Magazine's Approval Matrix. Let's look up the Approval Matrix. Let's see what it looks like.
Alexander McCaig (09:51):
New York Magazine Approval Matrix. This is the problem though. People come with all this highfalutin crazy stuff what's considered [crosstalk 00:10:01] to describe something. Oh my gosh.
Jason Rigby (10:07):
I remember you telling me you're like somebody said, "Oh, we should do the branding and all that stuff for TARTLE. And then marketing gets out and I was like, "We're going to have some guy in some Gucci outfit. He's going to have Gucci loafers on. And he's going to turnaround with his velvet smoking jacket on. And then from Boston or New York or somewhere, and then we're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars".
Alexander McCaig (10:32):
I need $235,000. I'll create a campaign for you. We'll manage the campaigns. You don't have to create any content. Neither do we. We'll repurpose stuff.
Jason Rigby (10:41):
And then they make everything a show for the customers. Here's your logo. And then just curtains, we've had our famous designers and they did this for the Metropolitan Opera and did this and it's showy, bro. It's all bullshit though.
Alexander McCaig (10:57):
It's all smoke and mirrors.
Jason Rigby (10:58):
Look at Google's logo.
Alexander McCaig (10:59):
Smoke and mirrors.
Jason Rigby (11:01):
Google has a white page. They make all their money off of that. But their main page that everybody goes to has colored [crosstalk 00:11:13] looking Sesame street, freaking lower case upper words in different colors. Think about this.
Alexander McCaig (11:20):
The Brits even figured out that...
Jason Rigby (11:22):
And the whole page is white with the box in the middle and a search button.
Alexander McCaig (11:25):
That's it.
Jason Rigby (11:26):
That's what they have going for them. Most successful tech company out there probably. Is Microsoft bigger than Google?
Alexander McCaig (11:37):
I don't think so.
Jason Rigby (11:39):
I don't think so either. I don't think Facebook is either.
Alexander McCaig (11:42):
I think Microsoft has...
Jason Rigby (11:43):
Apple's probably the biggest.
Alexander McCaig (11:45):
Apple's got more cash.
Jason Rigby (11:48):
They have more cash than most countries. People don't realize that. And they're every day buying out a company for an engineer. They'll need just one or two engineers.
Alexander McCaig (11:57):
You don't want to move over to us? Fine, we'll buy the whole company.
Jason Rigby (12:00):
So did you find out the New York Magazine's Approval Matrix?
Alexander McCaig (12:02):
They do these every single week. They got this one for highbrow, brilliant, low brow and despicable. They put people and products in businesses and verbs into these quadrants. They've been taking life, all these different multifaceted prismatic aspects of life and just shoving them into a two dimensional thing.
Jason Rigby (12:28):
But we do that with everything.
Alexander McCaig (12:29):
That's the point. And it's not correct. What if you start doing this with people's genders? Are they going to be happy about this?
Jason Rigby (12:39):
No.
Alexander McCaig (12:40):
Not one bit.
Jason Rigby (12:41):
Especially nowadays.
Alexander McCaig (12:42):
Not one bit.
Jason Rigby (12:43):
No one wants to be put in a box.
Alexander McCaig (12:45):
You want go put them in a box? Go ahead.
Jason Rigby (12:47):
Take people's sexuality and let's make a grid.
Alexander McCaig (12:49):
Yeah, go ahead. Let's do the sexuality grid. It's not going to work. What happens when someone's flying across all the different grids? What if they go through it? What if they transition out of people and go to animals...
Jason Rigby (13:01):
I'm going to go through this, sexual matrix wormhole.
Alexander McCaig (13:02):
What if it's into plants? You know what I mean?
Jason Rigby (13:06):
No, but when you think about it, especially when it comes to people trying to define other humans. This is where the rubber meets the road. No pun intended. Talking about archaic systems. We did a whole podcast on... [crosstalk 00:13:25] with rubber tires.
Alexander McCaig (13:27):
Don't start. Don't trigger me please. I can't be triggered right now.
Jason Rigby (13:30):
But human beings, we have so many variables to mathematically put an equation to a human is impossible.
Alexander McCaig (13:38):
It is impossible.
Jason Rigby (13:39):
Maybe you could predict traffic models, stuff like that, because you have certain outcomes, you have certain predictions because you know from nine to five, these people... But now COVID hits and people stay at home and now more people are working. What are you going to say? What is LA going to turn around and say, "Oh, we had a 70% reduction in traffic". What's the catalyst? Well, there's a virus rolling [inaudible 00:14:05] around. How do you describe that in your mathematical equation?
Alexander McCaig (14:08):
How do you mathematically describe fear? Let me ask you another one. This two-dimensional grid defining people's thought. They use it in psychiatry also. Right? And psychoanalysis.
Jason Rigby (14:21):
They call it the spectrum.
Alexander McCaig (14:22):
Let me ask you something. Say I'm thinking about a past event. Okay? But I'm thinking about it right now in a current state for how I want to decide about my future. And it's causing me to shift my ideas of how I think about it or how I think about myself. Think about how many dimensions of that thought are happening at once. I'm in multiple places of time, acting in one specific vector of time to change my place physically. Think about that. You absolutely cannot describe human beings in a two dimensional sphere. But everything we do, all of our technology, everything that's going, medicine, you name it, marketing. Our whole world is on a two by two matrix.
Jason Rigby (15:10):
Well we just blew consulting firms out of the water.
Alexander McCaig (15:14):
It's a joke.
Jason Rigby (15:15):
This is what they do.
Alexander McCaig (15:15):
Yeah, I know, but it's a joke.
Jason Rigby (15:16):
I don't want to go into the wormhole of marketing, but I know marketing, that's my job. And that's all it is. It's saying, "Well, let's create an avatar of who our ideal customer is. Well there, Jim and he's 43 years old" and they have these fake pictures of people. Here's this single mom and she's doing this. I understand to get a clear picture of your brand and what certain brands gravitate towards certain people, I get that.
Jason Rigby (15:47):
But you don't know. For instance like North Face. I have this shirt on right now and you have Nike shirt on. Let's use these two brands. These brands have been around a long time. Both brands have been relevant and not relevant.
Alexander McCaig (16:03):
You're correct.
Jason Rigby (16:04):
And both brands now is super relevant. And I always judge it off of teenagers wearing this shit. Will a teenager wear a North Face? Now you have a teenager wearing a North Face and you have mom and dad wearing a North Face. How do you explain that? You have an 18 year old and you have a 38 year old wearing the same clothing. Nike and everybody, wears Nike.
Alexander McCaig (16:27):
And they've never climbed Everest before in their entire life.
Jason Rigby (16:29):
Yeah, the clothes are designed for outdoor performance.
Alexander McCaig (16:34):
When you first started, here's our two by two grid. We have super Alpine climbers. We have just enthusiasts. You know what I mean? Now we have children wearing it that are going to school.
Jason Rigby (16:46):
I think majority of their clothes nowadays are probably just based for going from out your door and it's a little cold. Washington State where I'm from, everyone wears The North Face and Patagonia. It's just the branding.
Alexander McCaig (17:00):
I'm thinking about this. You're talking about the marketing sense. If this doesn't work, as we're calling out, okay. If you can't take all these dimensions of a human being and put them properly into a two by two quadrant, how is it that you design things or understand your brand? Well, we figured it out at TARTLE. What is the one thing that everybody shares in common?
Jason Rigby (17:26):
The one thing that everybody shares in common?
Alexander McCaig (17:28):
Yeah.
Jason Rigby (17:29):
Data.
Alexander McCaig (17:29):
Yeah. And they're human beings.
Jason Rigby (17:30):
And they're creating it.
Alexander McCaig (17:31):
They're human beings.
Jason Rigby (17:31):
Right.
Alexander McCaig (17:32):
And they're creative, which means if you're a creative human being, that means you make things individually for yourself, specifically to you, 24/7.
Jason Rigby (17:44):
Well, you also have to look at it, you were talking about this, we're putting people on the spectrum or whatever, because it's labels. Well, this person, I'm a psychiatrist, and I'm looking at this matrix that I believe in. It's a belief system is what it is. I believe in this and so now you have people that... You seem to have two different types of personalities. Well, let me look at my chart, "Oh you're kind of four left, you're schizophrenic". Oh, I am?
Alexander McCaig (18:13):
Oh, snap, I'm schizophrenic. Doc, I need you to drug me out, get me some lithium pills. Let's think about this, right? Because now I'm on this and I'm all jacked up. If human beings are unique. Individually creative.
Jason Rigby (18:29):
It's totally individual.
Alexander McCaig (18:30):
But we are all human beings. There's only one model that works.
Jason Rigby (18:34):
We're all a snowflake.
Alexander McCaig (18:35):
There's only one, in quotation, model that works. A unity model. You have to have one that is respectful in dynamic, in specific, for that human being. If you can model things for humans and not for a specific type of person to buy your brand product or service, now you're actually stepping into the future. I want you to leave this two dimensional quadrant world behind and understand that you are limiting the amount of growth and evolution you have because you've put it into four walls. If you take a unity based approach, it's a spherical approach. It's holistic. It's encompassing of everybody. It does not exclude any specific party.
Jason Rigby (19:23):
Because you can't.
Alexander McCaig (19:24):
Because you cannot.
Jason Rigby (19:26):
We've talked about this before, but you take all the greatest, most creative people in the world and in the history of the world, the most creative humans that have ever existed, they're going to be off your charts.
Alexander McCaig (19:38):
Right.
Jason Rigby (19:40):
I was watching a painter the other day and he was talking and then just started crying and then he started yelling. But he's one of the top painters in the world right now. Just in a conversation. People would think this guy's crazy, but his artwork is breathtaking. That's just part of it.
Alexander McCaig (19:55):
That's part of it.
Jason Rigby (19:56):
That's part of him as an individual of who he is. He's not crazy. He's creative.
Alexander McCaig (20:01):
He's creative.
Jason Rigby (20:02):
His brain works in a whole different way.
Alexander McCaig (20:04):
And what does the two by two also tell you? Oh, the top right's the best. My top right quadrant. What happens when you take a unity model and you place a dot on your sphere?
Jason Rigby (20:14):
How about New Yorker Magazine? How about you go to art and put your matrix on fucking artists.
Alexander McCaig (20:20):
Tell me which art is brilliant, high brow, despicable or low brow.
Jason Rigby (20:28):
On no, greater artists on how creative they are and how crazy they are at the same time.
Alexander McCaig (20:32):
Why is it to you to say that someone's more creative than the next.
Jason Rigby (20:36):
Who gets to label these? That's what I was getting to.
Alexander McCaig (20:38):
That's the problem.
Jason Rigby (20:39):
Who gets to label?
Alexander McCaig (20:39):
And this is what I was getting at? [crosstalk 00:20:41].
Jason Rigby (20:41):
Who labels humans?
Alexander McCaig (20:44):
The importance, this is what I'm saying. You're saying that the humans on the top right corner are best. But what happens when you take a unity based model and you place, you plot a point on the sphere?
Jason Rigby (20:52):
Wasn't somebody in the 1920s, [crosstalk 00:20:55] wasn't there a program of doctors, it started with a capital E, Eugenics saying who was best and who wasn't.
Alexander McCaig (21:01):
But here's my point. You ready for this? Just listen to my metaphor and let me carry us through this. Before I get into Harvard.
Jason Rigby (21:08):
Carry on my way [inaudible 00:21:10] Okay. Do your matrix.
Alexander McCaig (21:14):
Lay your weary head to rest. Don't you cry no more.
Jason Rigby (21:17):
I won't.
Alexander McCaig (21:18):
We take a unity based model. We're going to plot a point on the sphere. Now, if I plot a point on this sphere and I rotate this ball around, is that point any different than another point that I put on there?
Jason Rigby (21:31):
No, because the axis is centered.
Alexander McCaig (21:33):
Is it any more important? No. It's just the outside of the sphere. Correct? So now let's take human beings. I'm going to take you and you're my little point. And I'm going to put you somewhere on the globe. You're my little pinpoint. I'm going to spin the globe around. Let's shake it up. Is you standing in one place more important than another?
Jason Rigby (21:50):
No.
Alexander McCaig (21:51):
No, not one bit.
Jason Rigby (21:52):
Not one bit.
Alexander McCaig (21:53):
Whether it's you as a human being, standing on the earth, or you as a human being in your thought, in your actions, it does not make you any better or less than anyone else. Because you were individually unique within that specific vector of space and time. Okay. As a three-dimensional human being, with a multi-dimensional thought, and you cannot apply two dimensional aspects of mathematics to something that sits in three dimensions on a sphere. There's a difference between a square and a sphere and these are the difference in our systems.
Jason Rigby (22:27):
I see what you're saying, a square and a sphere. Whenever I look at the globe, it's very easy, it's tilted on an axis. And I see somebody in Russia and I see somebody in the United States. What's the difference?
Alexander McCaig (22:45):
There is no difference. It's a unity based model.
Jason Rigby (22:49):
My matrix, my chart shows it different.
Alexander McCaig (22:52):
Your matrix idea is that Russia is different than the United States. It's only different because of political ideology and fake borders.
Jason Rigby (22:59):
But the human interactions and the way they interact. And the things that they do is the same. Humans do the same thing.
Alexander McCaig (23:07):
You know what humans do, they interact? They are humans. They are just what they are.
Jason Rigby (23:14):
To get back to TARTLE and close this out, because we're...
Alexander McCaig (23:16):
No, I'm not done! I'm going to rip all day on this.
Jason Rigby (23:20):
Grids. Somebody creating data in Russia and somebody creating data in the United States?
Alexander McCaig (23:25):
Yes.
Jason Rigby (23:26):
Both of them are on Facebook, let's say.
Alexander McCaig (23:29):
Or VK.
Jason Rigby (23:31):
[R I V I K 00:23:31] in Russia. How do we look at that data? And then how can a company come in and purchase the data from humans?
Alexander McCaig (23:44):
You need to look at that data, not as in a quadrant where you can classify it into some specific category, you need to look at it as absolute uniqueness. You need to look at every single person as an outlier. Malcolm Gladwell said, "Let's just look at the outliers". No, that's a problem. That's a statistical flattening of who we are. Every single individual person's an outlier.
Jason Rigby (24:13):
I read that book a long time ago and I understand what he's getting at. Pay attention to the outliers because they're the ones that are creating the future. So you move your matrix to find outliers. So here's your main matrix and then here's outliers. Now I'm going to move the matrix over here and create a new one based off the outliers. Well, what did you just do? Now we're into looking at data and we're into looking at the past. And that is not cool.
Alexander McCaig (24:47):
No it's not cool.
Jason Rigby (24:47):
We've talked about that a hundred thousand times. When you start to look at data, when you look at past data, what does that do for you?
Alexander McCaig (24:55):
It doesn't do anything good.
Jason Rigby (24:56):
No, you're being passive aggressive and regressive, and you're not getting the full scoop.
Alexander McCaig (25:02):
Very nice. Yeah. What did they say about historical data? It's not indicative of future gains?
Jason Rigby (25:07):
No, exactly.
Alexander McCaig (25:09):
Finance tells you this. Nobody listens to it. You still use all these financial analysis on historical pricing [inaudible 00:25:16]
Jason Rigby (25:15):
You know why charts work so well, it's because everybody's using them. And so if you get statistically...
Alexander McCaig (25:21):
The two dimensional thing works well, no it doesn't. Just because everybody adopted it doesn't mean it was the right way to describe it. [Crosstalk 00:25:28].
Jason Rigby (25:28):
It's multifaceted, prismatic.
Alexander McCaig (25:30):
Five dimensional wormhole.
Jason Rigby (25:31):
With a hidden.
Alexander McCaig (25:33):
Hidden wormhole.
Jason Rigby (25:34):
You find it.
Alexander McCaig (25:34):
Don't step on the grid anywhere, it'll suck you into the wormhole.
Jason Rigby (25:37):
Where's Waldo? Where's the wormhole?
Alexander McCaig (25:39):
Point is you have to...
Jason Rigby (25:41):
What is this point?
Alexander McCaig (25:42):
Take on a spherical, holistic unity based approach and understand that every single piece of data created by human beings are absolutely unique.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
Thank you for listening to TARTLEcast with your hosts, Alexander McCaig and Jason Rigby. Where humanity steps into the future and source data defines the path. What's your data worth?
