「科学系ポッドキャストの日」とテーマ「社会」
Hello Len. Hello again Asami.
All right, all right. So it is the time of themonth where we do our monthly installation of 科学系ポッドキャストのインスタレーションをしています。
And in April 2026, it is hosted by sort of likethe OG 科学系ポッドキャストの人。
We met him, do you remember? In like November inShibuya.
Was that at the Spotify event?
Amazon, I think. Amazon Music.
Was that Amazon? That was Amazon Music. Yeah,okay. I think I was just mixing them up.
They're both big companies that I have problemswith, but...
Yes, big conglomerates that host our podcasts.
Right. Well, we... I mean, never mind. Let's notget into that right now.
So, it was great. We had a good time.
But anyway, we met him. We met him and got totalk.
He's one of the... I think he... He does a dailypodcast about astrophysics.
I did not realize that was daily. That is a lot ofwork.
He has done 2000 episodes. That's roughly 10 timesmore than us.
He's been doing this for years. Anyway, Ryo-san isthe host of this month's 科学系ポッドキャスト.
And as usual, we at 科学系ポッドキャスト, we sort of have acommon theme set by a host.
We talk about it in our own interpretation of it.
This month, the theme is 社会. Society.
And specifically, he's like, you know, anythingand anything we can talk about,
anyone is welcome, but it's like, let's talk aboutscience that changed the society, right?
And that's a lot of things because science has along history of changing society.
That moment of silence was a moment of...
I want everybody in the audience to understandjust how large that statement is.
Just how heavy and massive.
The weight. I want you to feel the weight of thatsentiment right there.
Yes. Yes. But okay, coming back to the reality of,you know,
you know, coming back from zooming out from thisimmense history,
what do you have to bring on this podcast?
What do you have to bring into this massive,massive thing?
Right. So I sort of took the lead on this one as
技術と社会の相互作用：印刷術の事例
a lot of things that I tend to talk about andteach on or poke around with
are some sort of connection between, you know,human and social relevance.
I am by no means an expert in any one particularfield on this.
I find myself being, you know, a sort of hypergeneralist
with a lot of really sort of deep cuts intospecific fields
as I try to dig up more information, right?
All right. Which is?
Which is, in this case, we're going to talk abouthow...
I was going to do a drum roll and then I realized
I don't know how that will come out on themicrophone.
So we're not going to drum roll the table.
We're just going to, you know, imagine everybodyin your mind
sort of a, you know, that sort of thing.
And then I hit the microphone stand after that.
But so, so I saw this and said, all right, well,
I do a lot of talking with, you know, you know,tech, AI, of course,
you know, we just had a previous chat on this aswell.
And some of my direct sort of dive ins right now
are how the tech influences people
and how people end up using the tech, right?
And this sort of interplay between the two.
And something that got me started on the process
for our Shokai Kagakuke was the, a snippet of aninterview
with Ada or Ada Palmer on a podcast
that I believe is called Dwarkesh.
We can include maybe links in the show notesafter.
Yes, links will be found in the show notes.
And it was originally just an Instagram real snippet here.
And there's a whole, I think like two hour podcastinterview,
which seemed very interesting.
But the snippet that I got was Palmer talkingabout
how the printing press, which, you know,
we all think of perhaps as a,
the printing press is what brought us
all of these books, right?
It's what brought us all of the connectedinformation, right?
The shared awareness of things, the ability to...
Right, democratization of knowledge.
There it is. Yep.
Whatever.
That's the coin phrase, right?
Democratization of knowledge.
And that is partially true, right?
It's part of how we arrived at having,
you know, many books and things.
But I think what Palmer was getting out
in this particular interview,
and there's definitely more to it
than I had the time to fully dig into.
So please go check it out
if you want to have your own questions andthoughts.
But the printing press itself
was not the root of having more books, right?
It was a result of an already changing
cultural desire to have more books.
And so the sort of setup here is 1410s-ish.
So the year 1410s, that era,
had a, I guess, a library boom.
They were already starting to have more libraries,
build more things, want more books, right?
They were trying to find out
how to print smaller books,
how to print with different materials,
how to make them more accessible,
more available, more whatever, right?
And there's probably more cultural context
around this, right?
For why that was happening and everything.
But that was the situation at the time.
And as a consequence of that,
you get to the point where Gutenberg goes,
Hey, I bet you I could build a thing
that would be able to do a lot of printing, right?
OK, so like you're saying that
sort of the common conception
that Gutenberg's printing press,
printing method?
Yeah, printing press, yeah.
Is it didn't come out of like a vacuum
of sheer stroke of genius or anything.
It's just like there was already a demand
for more books, cheaper books,
more available books.
And that had been built up for
God knows how long prior to this invention.
Right, yeah, it was not a vacuum
and it had other factors
leading to an invention like that occurring.
Right, right, to fill the sort of need
and the desire of society, right?
People were influencing
the upcoming tool to be designed, right?
The upcoming techniques, right?
And Gutenberg then did
make the printing press, right?
Which as a result of having the tool
was now able to print the books
and now people were able to act on the tool,right?
So now I, as a person who makes books, right?
Is going to use the tool to do that
or to, you know, for instance, you know,
shift, it's not just books, right?
It's pamphlets, it's newspapers,
it's all this other stuff
we're trying to share out in text form.
And then there's a, you know, a jump off of that
and then the tech changes again, right?
And people change again.
So this, not a vacuum and a culturally driven,
but I would say then an interplay
where, you know, people and culture drive the tech
and the tech as it exists
is then sort of brought back into the culture
and then the culture pushes back.
So I found that to be a nice example of thisexchange
that I felt, you know, obviously existed.
We see it, we see it with lots of tech
and I'll get to the AI one in a minute,
but I wasn't sure how we were framing it
or how people had been describing
this type of interaction.
And so I had to do a little bit of digging
to be like, how do I explain this idea, right?
How do I capture this concept
of people influencing the technology
as the technology influences the people
and the ways that they talk about it,
use it, you know, want it, right?
Or something like that.
社会構成主義（SCOT）フレームワークの紹介
Okay, okay.
And there's apparently a couple
of ways to talk about this,
which is not surprising.
But within the sort of
bundle of science technology studies,
like the way in which science and tech
kind of affects things.
There is one framework that I picked out,
which is called the Social Construction ofTechnology
or SCOT, S-C-O-T for short.
Okay, okay.
So this is basically just, it's a framework,
which means, you know, for most people,
like a lens, a way of looking at the situation
and trying to capture what's happening,
who is involved, how do they affect each other,
you know, explaining the things
that are occurring at any particular time.
And SCOT,
the Social Construction of Technology Framework
is a way of showing how different social groups
perceive or influence tech, right?
In different ways and for different reasons.
Okay, okay.
That sort of makes sense?
Following, yeah, yeah.
And so you can apply this to a bunch of things.
I think the, so the original framework comes from
two guys whose names,
one of which I think I am safe to pronounce
and the other one, I am sure I will get wrong.
So give me, like, let me, let me do one thing.
I'll double check.
I'll double check on the spelling of these names.
I can trim this out later if needed.
But where is it here?
So where'd they go?
I was joking before this recording
that I have about, you know,
probably 25 different windows open
on two separate computers.
So, so Bijker, as in B-I-J-K-E-R and Pinch.
So those are the two authors
that I think originated this.
And then there was, as you expect,
when people, you know,
present a new framework for something,
there's a bit of exchange back and forth.
This was like, I guess it was like 30, 40 yearsago.
Yeah, 1984.
Not news.
So this was not a new idea.
And it's had some backs and forth,
you know, with other academics.
And they've made more statements on it since then.
And of course, if we continue to move this up,
right from something like, you know, printingpress.
I think their original example,
which was just a sort of thought experiment.
Thought experiment,
because some of the comments later said
that's not quite how it worked.
It was about bicycles
and how the idea of a bike
sort of got taken in many different directions
by many different people.
You know, regular person
who has to travel to work every day
would take the bike and its idea
and consider it to solve the problem of traveling
right from afar with greater ease.
But somebody who is, say,
they've been looking to be able to,
you know, go long distances, right?
Like extraordinary distances, right?
Maybe the mail system or something
is trying to find a way
to get people from one place to the other.
And they, you know,
the exchange between, do we use horses?
Do we use these things called automobiles
that are going to appear soon?
Or do we use like a bicycle?
Well, you might use the bike,
but you might have to design it a different way
because it has a different problem it's solving,right?
It has to, like, go for longer periods of time
and it has to go over differentterrains,
you know, something like that.
Or a sportsman, right,
wants to come up with a new game,
you know, racing bikes, right?
All these things you then get to now.
And this is where we've arrived at.
Well, what's the big tech right now
that everybody's talking about?
And it's AI, right?
AIと社会構成主義：異なる視点
So if AI is a technology,
if AI is an artifact that somebody has made
and it has been extended to the world,
then there are many things at play.
There are the groups
that have, you know, designed the tech.
They had their motivations behind the tech,
the reasons for developing the tech in one way.
And now that we see it present
and it's being introduced, right,
you have people perceiving, understanding
and using the tech for different things, right?
So there's a paper that I found
which is not super recent.
And I tried to find a couple more recent ones
that dove at this specifically,
but I wasn't super successful in doing that.
This is by another name
that I might be failing to pronounce,
Enon, E-Y-N-O-N.
And young.
This is from 2021.
And it's basically investigating
under that Scott framework
how different groups, academia, industry andpolicy,
so I think government in that last one,
actually kind of think about AI,
in particular for lifelong learning.
So this gets back to our other conversation aswell
about learning with AI, right?
Or how does learning change as a response to AI?
And so this group, in short,
broke them up into how does academia see it?
How does industry or commercial business see it?
How does government, policy things see it?
And they noted that, quote,
I think there was very little overlap
if I remember the quote correctly.
Let's see, let's see, let's see.
It's somewhere in here.
Basically that these groups
understood AI very differently from each other
and that they tended to, you know,
think about them, apply them
or, you know, consider them in a different way.
So much so that they titled the academics one
as AI as methodology.
They titled the industry framework as AI aslegend.
And they titled the policy government one
as AI as rhetoric.
And this we can get super deep,
but we're not going to go that deep on this onehere.
I mostly just wanted to point out
that speaking of society and the impacts,
there is clearly a back and forth on these twothings.
And it's not just one industry playing a role,right?
We hear a lot that AI is like the company,
open AI and Anthropic and, you know, Google,right?
You know, they have their way of trying tointroduce
and make things happen with the result of theirAI.
But the people and the groups that are actually
either taking it in or rejecting
or, you know, toying with these tools
are going to be playing a huge part
in how it actually gets used.
Yeah, I can say more,
技術と社会の非線形な関係性
but does that make sense so far?
It makes sense so far as I feel like
there was a lot of words and frameworks
thrown around to describe
what I think is a fairly simple concept,
which is that technology does not exist in vacuum,
that, you know, its implication,
its consequences,
its ability to improve,
all of this is influenced by the world in which itexists,
the society in which it exists
based on all these different parties who areinvolved
or different stakeholder groups that are involved.
And that's like,
that seems fairly not so hard to imagine that'sthe case.
It seems like it's not a...
Am I missing a point?
No, no, no, right?
I think you've nailed it, right?
There shouldn't be a question
that these things affect each other, right?
I think what I saw in this
and what I saw when we were given this Kagakikeitopic,
was like how society is changed by technology.
And I think the assumption is usually
it's changed for the better.
I see, I see.
OK, OK.
So you're kind of questioning the one
sort of like a linear and one-way,
one-direction way that technology often getstalked about
in society,
which is that it did A and cause B in society
after the next invention, kind of.
Right, yeah.
When in fact, it's more nuanced
than just this one-way road of innovation,
but it's more of a whole environmental factor,
historical factors and all these other things
that give different sort of like playground
for this technology to exist in different ways.
And it's a non-linear process.
Right.
It's non-linear.
And I think the fact that it's both non-linear
and as this sort of Scott framework tries to pointout,
like you need to find the relevant groupsinvolved,
there are different ways of receiving, reacting
and then acting with the new technology
which might not be in agreement with each other.
Right.
So like I'll give you the sort of final step here,
which is one that I actually didn't dive into more
because I think it doesn't get to the main point.
But at the extreme end of this, right,
instead of just, you know,
how is AI seen by academics and industry
and of course those are at different ends of thespectrum
and they both got different things
that they would want as like a learning process
with them and different concerns.
Right.
So it'll change how they develop.
But the other one that concerns people
デュアルユースと多角的な視点の重要性
when it comes to something like AI, for instance,
is I think what they're calling dual use.
And that seems very neutral to me.
But this dual use framework seems to be
when the tool has one intended positive outcome
and yet there is very easily
an opposite and dangerous alternative outcome,
i.e. or for example, a AI in quotes tool
that helps to identify
new chemical compounds for medicinal fields.
Right.
Like we're doing new synthesis of new compounds
and so on and so forth.
Whereas if you kind of flip the switch
on a particular thing like that,
you can very readily make the pattern matching
go towards highly toxic compounds.
And you can essentially reproduce
chemical warfare compounds
and alternatives with the same tool.
OK, OK.
Once again, though, like not to criticize you.
I know this is probably just the nature
of the framework thinking.
But I feel like, again, this is like
that we needed to be spelled out in order to...
100% yes.
I won't even...
I'm not even going to like drop that one.
You might be thinking about that,
but I am sure that if you ask general
like or anybody that's not within a particularfield
that's related to these things,
not everybody's thinking about it.
Right?
Even those relevant groups, right?
I see, I see.
OK, so I think...
I think this framework encourages a really...
The one good thing that this really encourages
the user of this framework is that
it forces you to sort of
consider multiple perspectives
and like different vantage points.
And maybe by training, by nature,
I or you tend to do these things
kind of automatically.
But maybe it is often for
like just kind of like human nature
to only latch on to one easy linear narrative
that is concise and easy to understand
that has a clear causation relationship
and...
But this framework reminds us
that that's not the whole story.
And it's true, I think in like a lot of these
like tech bro talk is...
Like the reason why I have such allergic reaction
to tech bro talk is precisely this, right?
Like this ability to completely ignore the nuance
and be so confident presenting
in this one narrative
that they want to push towards.
And I understand that
that's sort of the nature of business pitch,maybe.
This is like too much shark tankification of theworld.
But like...
Did I coin that term just now?
I don't know.
Maybe, you might have.
But, you know, like everyone wants to
sort of like have a catchy argument,
a strong position to argue from.
And considering the other perspective
kind of weakens their argument
is what they kind of fear.
And I think...
Generally speaking, it's not...
The current modern world doesn't afford
people to hold spaces for all of these differentperspectives
or consider multiple views of the same thing.
And we better fucking think about those things.
Don't get me wrong.
I knew that the intensity was rising,
but I was completely thrown off
by you suddenly jumping in
with a good like, you know, F-bomb in there.
That was...
It was appropriate, entirely.
That was an appropriate, intentional use of profanity.
Yeah.
Make sure to intentionally use your F-bombs,everyone.
Comment me, bro, if you have problems.
Yeah, especially in English.
If you're learning English,
you better learn how to use the word fuck
in all of its appropriate cases.
When used appropriately, it can be powerful.
It can be very, very powerful.
We already...
I think we already talked about interjections
or there's another word for this, right?
But when you can put like a curse word
in the middle of a word.
Yeah.
So...
Yeah, like, I'm so fucking lousy.
Yeah, exactly.
But yeah, this...
So I think you've latched on
to why it's important.
Not necessarily.
And I can do this with a lot of stuff, right?
We can throw away the framework.
Like, we don't need...
There are people that will get mad at me for this.
But I'm going to say it,
and then I'll come back to it.
We don't need the framework like this, right?
What we need is people to be able to engage with,
as you were pointing out, right?
A conversation that has many sides of a thing.
And kind of be uncomfortable with it.
「曖昧さとの共存」と情報過多な時代
And sit with that.
Yeah, like, have a bit of imagination
to consider other people's perspective.
Right.
But, and this is...
There is a limit on everybody's ability
to do this for every topic in the world.
Right, right, right, right.
Which is fair.
And having a framework, to get back to it,
helps us put this down in a way that says,
if I'm trying to capture,
encapsulate
all of this idea,
this is how I'm going to do it.
And you can also try to do it this way.
Does that mean that you have to?
No.
What it does do, though, is reveal that,
like, if I start to do this,
those differences and those factors that are atplay
for how a technology might change,
become a little bit more apparent, right?
They become clearer.
Yeah, okay, okay, okay.
No, I see the sort of...
Like I said, not criticizing the framework itself.
It's just, it did feel a little bit like
a lot of words to say something that,
if you had a tiny bit of imagination,
you can get there.
But...
I mean...
It's a lot to ask to these days,
like, to many people, you know?
And having this framework, I guess,
you know, puts words to this kind of
wishy area of thinking.
That's exactly what I think it's trying to do,right?
Like, you know, we don't have to,
but that's if you start
from a position of already thinking that way,
which puts us as people who are...
It's not as if that elevates us.
What it does, though, is put us outside
of perhaps what the norm is, right?
And if we're outside the norm,
then it looks like, well, why would you need to...
And it's not like general people
are reading about the social construction
of technology, right?
Like, the people who are interested...
I didn't even know that there was a wiki page
dedicated to that.
I was going to say, there must be, right?
I ended up stumbling into the papers,
but there's got to be a wiki page for it, right?
And so, like, the frameworks exist
as a way for us to interrogate it,
obviously, within academia, right?
Because this is a way...
Right, right, right.
If I pull this out of academia
into what do people get, right?
What does society get
from us trying to unpack this?
Well, if we can communicate,
as you were doing, right,
the important bit where it's saying,
hey, just because you,
person within society who uses X tool
or an AI tool for this purpose
and thinks this way,
you are not the sole version of this reality.
There are others.
And it would be great
if the people designing the technologies
become more aware of this type of thinking,
which is what many universities
are trying to do as well.
For instance, MIT, I know about
because I gave a chat with them
at one point, right?
Like, they're trying to mix the humanities
into a lot of their science
and engineering programs
so that there's an awareness
of, like, human culture.
Right, yeah, because most of the time
we're developing technology for humans
and not for squirrels.
And it's important to think about humans.
Yeah, squirrels don't care.
Squirrels are like, you give me that.
I'll use it for weapons immediately.
I need more acorns.
And this is the only thing that I have on mind.
But yeah, so that's what I was trying to get outthere.
That's where those other frameworks are comingfrom.
But basically, it's messier
個人の主体性とシステムの影響
and it deserves some attention.
And I really hope that everyone
can sit with it to see
where you're sitting around a technology,
where others are,
and try to just, you know, take steps.
Yeah, I think I find myself
coming back to this conclusion time to time
across various different topics
of discussions I've had lately
with friends and colleagues and whatnot,
which is, like, the ability to withhold indecision.
Yeah, to sit with indecision or to just, like...
Yeah, to sit with this.
Because when you are considering
all these different perspectives
and multiple different views of the sametechnology
and different consequences of different people,
it takes time.
It takes time to consider all these options
and synthesize sort of a newer meta perspective
that encompasses all of these things.
It takes time and brain power to do that.
And that's usually not instant.
It doesn't happen immediately.
But sort of the way in which
how we navigate the world now,
people cannot wait for delayed gratifications.
They want answers instantly.
And if it's not instant and catchy and cool,
it's, like, don't even consider it, you know,worthy.
And that might be part to do with, you know,
our ever-faster-processing technologies.
But it's also, like, we have kind of caught up
to the point where, like,
technologies are way faster than humans can think.
And now it's our turn to, like,
intentionally slowing down to protect ourbandwidth
from sort of, like, unwanted effects
of uber-fast technology
is more important than ever, I think.
And it's like this sitting in this messiness,
keeping messy things as messy things.
You know, not to oversimplify,
not to, like, make it clean-cut and catchy andbite-sized.
Like, that should be a valuable skill.
And I think some people are sort of noticing
that it has become a thing.
But I think still largely in this world
where cool, catchy, bite-sized things gets themoney,
you know, that's where the resources tend to flow.
Yeah.
If the motivations are driving that,
that's a whole other, right?
Like, if you are motivated to do a thing a certainway,
that is also a system, right?
Maybe instead of it being a social group,
but the system is affecting the social groups,right?
Yeah, the system architecture itself
is impacting how these new technologies
gets integrated to society.
But I think it's important to remember
that at the end of the day,
like, I still like to believe
that the power belongs to the individual user
on how exactly you engage with whatever
that you're presented in,
in whatever environment you're in.
And it's your call to accept or reject
or partially accept and partially reject, right?
And it should be up to us.
And I think if you give up
on how you're going to decide,
on to what extent,
that's on you.
It's on you just as much
as now the systemic situation
is not necessarily on you as an individual,
but it is within that space,
within the privilege one has,
within the stability one has,
the decisions that are, you know,
within a certain risk level that you can take,right?
For choosing how to use things.
Some people are like,
their job is requiring them to use an AI tool.
They need that job.
There is a tug of war in some of those tensions,
but your intentionality, we hope,
is the thing that is being not just prioritized,
but that you can try to find ways
where you can still be you
and the human agent of your decisions and actions
in all things that you do.
And there is, you mentioned the system,
and you mentioned that you hope
that there is this sort of control.
And we can, right?
You don't have to use a lot of these services.
物語の力と進化する視点
There are cases where people do have to use
like the tech and the services to say,
get information,
but you see some of the information sourceschanging,
you know, people trying to find different ways to,
what was it?
Blue Sky was a response to,
you know, the dead bird app becoming a dumpsterfire.
And do you know what Blue Sky is?
Or...
No.
No? Okay.
But I understand from your description what it is.
It's another version of that.
And like, so that's one.
I actually would say that on,
in the space of kind of countering
the bite-sized information channels,
you have individuals
as they sort of have moved together,
found this, like,
we want to make longer form stuff
and more dedicated stuff.
And they've created things like,
I think, what, CuriosityStream?
Is like the sort of YouTube,
not YouTube.
It's the creators that have made their own versionof things.
And they, like, will post things there.
Then you have, of course, individual creatorschannels.
You have an entire comedy news station
called Dropout that I'm aware of, right?
Who is doing an entire business model
and the company who, like,
is like, to me, at least from outside
and from all the stuff inside,
is like a wondrous different way to go aboutmaking media.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So there are actions to take,
but I do think that there is a,
it's hard to take those actions.
People step back away from those actions
because you're already exhausted by a lot ofthings.
And so, like, you know.
Right.
But, like, I think,
noticing that you're exhausted, right?
Is a step.
And sort of within that,
there are definitely limits to one's imagination.
There's limits to what one can do in society.
You know, if we think too hard,
we get to the whole, like, matrix situation
of, like, you know, like,
do, like, does free will exist kind of thing.
But, like, without going that far into it,
you know, it's still like this ability to
withhold judgment,
like, sort of, kind of
keeping messy and complicated things
as messy and complicated to understand
without oversimplifying,
like, that level of things,
I think we can practice on a daily.
And we can be more mindful
on when you're engaging with this
kind of catchy, bite-sized media
to then realize,
oh, this is a catchy, bite-sized
saccharine media that I've been fed, right?
And just that kind of awareness
is definitely a practice, I think.
And also, like,
this sort of
now my automatic mode of thinking
of this, you know,
considering multiple perspective and whatnot
is purely training-based.
I wasn't born this way.
And, like, it's just years of doing
scientific education and research
and thinking and thinking and overthinking
that led me to be this kind of,
like, I cannot be conclusive on,
like, anything immediately
or I tend to refuse to
and use very limiting words, right?
Like, to confine my meaning
and avoid hyperbole at all cost.
And, like, it's training-based.
And I guess unintentionally
kind of prepared me for this
age of information bombardment.
And, yeah, age of AI to a certain extent, right?
まとめ：技術と社会の複雑な相互作用
Like, you know, when you can even outsourcethinking,
like, what do you even think about?
And so, long way to say that I think...
OK, so, like, sort of two takeaways
that I got from your sort of introduction
to this framework, for me at least,
is, one, technology does not exist in vacuum
and that it always exists
within the context of the society
and the culture and history.
And that leads to my second takeaway
that there are always multiple stakeholders,
multiple perspectives, multiple users
and their respective ways of using thistechnology.
All of it sort of in, like, in a nonlinear way
influence technology
and how they exist in society
and what's their course of evolution,
I guess, over some period of time.
Right, which, yeah, is, as you, I think,
pointed out nicely, is nonlinear,
which is why we keep going back to thesequestions,
which is why whenever we investigate
a new technology and how it's sort of unfolding,
like AI, it might fit
some of the frameworks and things
that we understood before,
but it's also kind of complicated
and sometimes you have to look again
and see if anything has changed
or is different, right?
Is it the same as the calculator
or is it different, right?
And, you know, the answer is that it's different,
but to what extent and in what ways
and so on and so forth.
Yeah, yeah.
You mentioned something I'll add as well,
because I think the way you were describing it
brought up that essence of, say,
like people recognizing, you know,
they are tired, right?
Or that they're, they,
this is what they have control over, right?
This is how they can act in some way.
And it reminded me of a colleague sharing,
he shared a quote, but,
and I don't have the whole quote,
but the essence of it, I think,
comes from Arthur Frank,
who I think wrote a book about, like,
basically the stories we tell
ourselves when, like,
going through illness and things.
But the importance that I drew
from the shared quote was that
the stories we tell ourselves are important.
And I think this is connected
to that understanding of
if you are telling the story
of how things are nuanced and complicated
and they affect each other
and there's more than one narrative, right?
I think there's a relationship to that.
And there's also that risk of the narratives
that are being told to both themselves
and from companies, you know,
of people that are like,
the only narrative is my narrative
and my narrative says that this is a good idea.
That's just as, you know,
just as powerful as the stories
that we ourselves can tell,
which are more nuanced in other ways.
Yes, yes.
So consider your stories, folks,
and maybe...
Consider your stories
and allow your stories to change.
Allow your stories to change.
That can change.
Yeah, you know,
and you don't have to change
at every, like, blow of the wind, right?
Of every, like, you know,
random tech pro posting on, you know,
Dead Bird app to switch to something else.
Don't let them tell you what to think,
but you are allowed to evolve.
Yes, you are allowed to revolve.
Not revolve.
You are allowed to revolve around the sun.
You are allowed to evolve.
I hope so.
It'd be a weird rule to suddenly come into place.
You just stop
and Earth just keeps going, right?
So...
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
So, yeah, that's...
I don't know.
That was the idea.
Yeah, and one last thing is just, like,
have a bit of imagination, like...
You were so...
エンディング
Yes, yes.
I'm so adamant about this.
Just, just please...
Specifically in the sense of imagining
other, like, situations, right?
Other options, other things, right?
Um...
Yeah, I would agree, right?
Take some of that effort and time and energy,
albeit people might have various levels of that,
and use it on, you know, spreading the brain,right?
Seeing other ways of looking at something,
imagining something.
Yeah, yeah.
Please imagine.
All right.
Well, thanks, then, for this very, uh, mind...
Um...
Not mind-boggling, but...
I almost said mind-altering,
and that's not right either.
Okay.
That's not right either.
It did not alter my mind,
but very mind-chewy, uh, topic to think about.
Yeah.
I'm glad that I could give your mind...
Very chewy food for thought.
I'm glad I could give your mind something to chewon.
It definitely gave me something to chew on.
I mean, it was obviously in my, sort of,
apparently what's becoming more and more of mywheelhouse,
but, uh, yeah.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Thanks for...
Thank you for, uh, taking some of those pointsaway
and pointing out, right,
that this could just be an understood thing,right?
Like, it doesn't have to be super complicated.
Because that also helped us go,
Right, but it's because we're in a certain,
relevant social group
that it's...it's just easy for us to see, right?
Or to start from that.
Oh, right.
So...
Yeah.
I really appreciate the...the back and forth, so...
All right.
All right.
Okay.
Well, that was our Society Kagaku-kei.
Thanks for listening.
Yes.
And as usual,
you can listen to everyone else's Kagaku-keipodcast
on a Spotify playlist that I will link in the shownotes.
All right.
Thanks, then.
Thanks, Asami.
Bye-bye.
Bye, everyone.
That's it for the show today, folks.
Thanks for listening.
You can find us all next at Eigo de Science.
That's E-I-G-O-D-E-S-C-I-E-N-C-E.
See you next time.
