Why Bad Decisions Happen | Anja Kunkel (EN)

This talk explores the complexities of decision-making and the reasons behind bad decisions. The speaker, who has extensive experience in IT and a background in political studies, emphasizes that our evaluations of decisions often depend on temporal perspectives and knowledge that may not be fully understood at the time of decision-making. Key concepts discussed include the Rumsfeld matrix, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and how personal motivations like autonomy, mastery, and purpose influence our choices. The importance of understanding power dynamics between individuals, especially in group decisions, is highlighted along with tools for self-reflection and decision analysis, such as the decision KP map and influence mapping. The session wraps up by encouraging curiosity about others' perspectives to mitigate irrational decisions.

[music] Hi everybody. >> Ah, people still awake even on Thursday afternoon. Nice. Let's quote uh start with a quote for today and please ask yourself if you would agree to it. I'm objective. I'm rational. I'm neutral. [laughter] Check. Thanks. It's not me. It's not my statement. But we will come back to this quote later in this talk. And yeah, you you were all laughing. Seems like you're

on on my topic. Quite nice. But let me follow up with if we would be objective and rational, would we be capable of good decisions? Yes and no. Still. So, let's go for the talk of the day. Why do bad decisions happen? Provocative title, I know. And I also know that probably everybody has an immediate answer in their mind to that. some example of why a bad

decision might happen somewhere or has happened. Probably everybody has seen that somewhere in their life. Okay. But first of all, who am I and why do I want to talk about this? Uh first part, uh when you're looking for me, you should look close to coffee. Look for the coffee station, you usually find me. Uh what's important about me? Two things. Uh I'm in IT by now

also for more than 10 years which feels a lot. Uh so I've seen a bit of bad decisions happening around me. My background originally is really IT. So I'm still a software engineer staff engineer by today. But I also have a bit of background with politics because for all the time even when I studied I felt like it only is a bit too technical. In the beginning

I was also studying mathematics and I was like okay this is very technical proofdriven and so on but it doesn't feel like the whole reality. So that's why I moved to politics instead as a second degree and now with this talk you see how it all might come together. So yeah that's my background that's why I'm here and that's why I want to talk about bad decisions.

So I usually and I will also do that today start with the first question and that is what is actually a bad decision because the definition is always nice to start. So let's go. My personal definition of a bad decision is that you at some point conclude given your your own knowledge based on your own knowledge that another choice would have been better. That's my perception. There's

a lot interesting parts in this. For example, there's you. So there's a person with opinion that is involved. That is not something There is a point in time means knowledge in time and perspective. It might be that at a different point in time something else happens. There's and all the stuff you don't know. And the other choice that would have been better. Yeah. means there's multiple choices

and maybe you're not even aware of all the choices. So that's a very abstract of okay a lot of what is bad decisions cool I want to talk about most of the things here in some way the most interesting part for me is the word you already but before I go in there's one thing that I would like to mention about the decision and uh which is

important about the point in time usually when we judge bad decisions we judge that afterwards means we don't judge the decision we usually tend to judge the outcome of the decision. That's already an important distinction because given the moment of the decision, the knowledge of the people was different than the moment where you judge it. So important to uh keep that apart. Okay. But now let's go.

How do I want to do this? Uh these are the people involved. I didn't want to put female or male or inclusive smiley. So we have light bulbs. I hope everybody feels like a light bulb for today and that's fine for you. And what I would like to do is uh I would like to go by the number of people involved in decisions. If zero people are

involved, they are all inactive. It's relatively easy because no decision will happen. But the first important statement about that actually not deciding something is a Please think about that already. And now we start with having one person one person doing a decision. The first thing uh thought is okay that sounds quite rational because there's only one person involved. I don't think that's true because there's uh already

a lot that I would like to talk about for that one person. It is knowledge awareness of our knowledge. it is uh decision criteria and motivate motivating factors of that person. I would like to walk through all of them and it's all only one person so far that is doing the decision. Let's start with knowledge. This is Rumsfeld matrix. I don't know how many of you know

that it is quite a famous decision matrix. It's at the same time simple and helps helpful. Uh has four parts. It's split by does that work? Yes. Oh, it does. Uh awareness of uh uh knowledge and understanding stuff. The easy part that people think about knowledge is the stuff that we are aware that we know. That's what we usually consider knowledge. So the stuff we know that

we know. What we usually also are kind of aware is the stuff uh where we know that we don't know. That's also uh uh something we are aware of. But the other two are equally interesting because there's also the part that we actually know but we're not aware of. What could that be? For example, cultural background. That stuff that's somewhere in the back of your mind. you're

not uh actively thinking about it ever, but you know that stuff that it could be unknown knowns and then there's something I would call it completely unknowns. You're not even aware that this might be knowledge that some other people might have. It's really unknown unknown territory. Run matrix comes from military and in the US. So there this is a risky stuff obviously [snorts] but also the unknown

knowns are an interesting area. So already the thing about what do we know is a bit bigger than in first thought. Second part is here it was already about awareness of knowledge and there's a different angle to it that is the so-called Daning Kruger effect also quite a known one. Yes, I see quite some nodding. Different angle. Uh once again only two lines. Uh the one is

how much confidence you have on a topic on your The other is how much competence you actually have. In an ideal rational world, how would it look like? For me, it would be the perfect diagonal. Either you know stuff and then you're also confident or you don't know and you're also confident uh not confident. That would be nice and easy. That's obviously not the reality at all.

The first thing is on the very left. If you learn a new topic, and that happens to all of us, we get super confident on that in the beginning. It's a so-called peak of Mount Stupid in the official papers. Going to the Ramside matrix, you know what you know. So now you're confident, but you have no idea what you don't know about the topic. You're only beginning.

So the second thing is you start to learn about the stuff you don't know. So it goes down to the area where you actually do have some knowledge and you learn quite something but now you feel quite desperate because you also aware of all Uh this is the so-called uh uh valley of despair. Also [snorts] quite a nice name. I love this uh paper for the names.

And the last part is when you through that valley, this is where your confidence grows again because you're now actively working on your unknown known unknowns. What's super important here? Actually, this line basically never hits rationality. You're always either overconfident or underconfident. It's never correct. Your your own assumption of what you know is always in a way wrong. that quite important already for for yourself. If you

try to do a decision on a topic, you either feel like you have no idea, but maybe you do, or you feel like you know what you're doing, but maybe you don't. So, you're always somehow wrong. Next thing, this is a quote where my uh uh start came from. People walk around thinking that other people are capable of being irrational and illogical and they have flaws in

their thinking but not I. I'm neutral, I'm objective, I'm rational. So this is the context of that statement. It's coming from Adam Grant who's quite famous on his research um around a lot of topics how our brain works. The good thing about this it's an important bias actually even if we are all aware that we are not what usually happens next is that we believe that we

by knowing that we get which is not true because we just once again move moving closer to the target but not hitting the target. So that's once again wrong. Plus, the same is about your assumption of about other people. So once again, you're always a bit off in any direction. It's never just right with your perception of who's how rational they are, how rational you are and

all that. And then there's a whole another dimension which I would love to mention and that's the thing even if we would be rational what how would we decide not only by facts because uh there's a question of what's actually the things that we want to achieve with our decisions. It's usually not as simple as saying the best business interest because that's not our personal motivators. uh

what's actually driving us is different things and this is just one version how you could look like uh the this book is super nice to read and super easy that's why I quote it here it's uh Daniel Pink and D the book is called drive he puts it together as we have three main drivers in our life and in our perception of reality super easy one is

autonomy we want to be capable of deciding what we are doing and when we are doing it and with whom we are doing it. This is something that is important to most of us. Yeah. At least I feel like it. Yeah. Fine. Uh, one thing is mastery. All of us at some some point in some area in their life want to feel good at it and get

better at it. And at least in my perception, this is especially true for software engineers. Most of us want to get quite good at engineering, which is fair. And then there's a whole third dimension with purpose that is like we want to aim for something and we want to have some kind of bigger impact. First thought is usually religion. Doesn't have to be religion obviously. Purpose can

also be something completely else can be uh supporting your family. Can be working uh uh for the on the environment for the environment can be a lot of things but for most of us in some way this is an important thing. I mean you can ask yourself what's important for you out of these three and what's the most important fair? I will bring an exercise for that

in a second. But what's interesting here why do I bring those different motivating factors usually even in a business context in some way this is stuff that drives our behavior it's usually not only about hey which is the one that brings the most money for the company even if I alone can decide stuff I have this somewhere in my mind that if I go A or B

which one might support me for example on mastery because I can learn a new tool No, this is not the rational way to decide stuff, but it is in it's always included in a way. And once again, even if you believe you don't, usually you're wrong. Okay. Uh those three were super abstract. So here's the first thing that might be interesting and takeaway to uh if you

want to play around with that. Uh there is a a game called or moving motivators. It's from an whole initiative management 3.0. O from a time back when HI was still a cool term. So a few years ago. What is this about? It's 10 cards and you can play different games with it. It's all different motivating factors that can be in your life a bit more distinct

than the three super general ones I had before. Uh you probably cannot read it because uh I never found a picture with a with decent enough graphics. So uh here's my example of what could be in uh one card for example is curiosity and the subnote is I have plenty of things to investigate and to think about. This is something that can be super motivating for people.

Once again something that might is quite frequent for software engineers and I see some nodings. So yes, the most typical game you can play with that is a self-awareness game where you get those 10 cards and your job is to order them by your personal priority like what is the most important thing and what is a bit less important and so on. And when I played that

for the first time together with a coach, it was surprisingly hard. I can tell you there are some cards that are super easy because you're just like, "Nope, not me." And there are some, "Yes, okay, for sure." But there's some surprisingly hard decisions in that where it's not as easy as it looks. So yeah, that's the thing about what's motivating yourself. So a lot about self-reflection here.

So by now I talked about a bit of stuff that is involved once uh we have one person in a decision usually ourselves. You can imagine what's coming next multiple people and for that uh I take two now and we go to a higher number later because two is already nice and makes it a bit more structured. Why two? Uh first of all you cannot be both

at the same time means you now we start with the assumption making about the other person [laughter] and uh if you have two you have a relation between the two and the relation is an interesting thing but first about the knowledge let's stay let's stay with a if everything would be rational it would be easy track I I still like it even though it's wrong let's go

with knowledge we have P1 and P2 nice vend diagram diagram of knowledge. What does it mean? The green area is obviously what P1 knows and the orangeish one is what P2 knows and they overlap. Good that they overlap. So they have some shared knowledge and then there's all the stuff that none of them knows. For two people it's quite easy to assume. And now the interesting question

is what's the stuff where they think they have overlap in comparison to reality because uh just because this one was the one where the reality is overlapping of their knowledge doesn't mean that any of them knows that it's probably they don't. So I just randomly decided how it could look like what P1 thinks that P2 As I said this would be the right one. This would be

P2 knowledge and this is what P1 assumes that P2 knows. What is interesting about the super abstract diagram? There's a lot of stuff that P2 knows but P1 has no idea about. So that might be hidden knowledge and important in in discussions. There's the stuff that where P1 is right. That's the easy one. But there's also things where P1 thinks that P2 would know about. And actually

P2 has no idea. That's also in a discussion a quite important part where you think, hey, they would know. I don't need to talk about it anymore. And you're wrong. And the last part about this diagram is this tiny area here. This is where they where P1 is actually right about shared knowledge. It's not that much. So even with two people, it's not that much. You can

probably try to imagine how it would look like if P what if I would try to try to paint how it would look like if P2 thinks what P1 knows. It would be just another bubble with a different placement and probably also wrong. So yeah, this picture while at the beginning it looks trivial at least for me it's actually quite helpful to keep a awareness of hey

just because I know some stuff I don't know a lot of other and then there's a whole thing of uh relation between the two that we had and relation usually for me me means there's some kind of power dynamics [snorts] between people. I always looked for good definitions of power dynamics. It's hard. So my favorite one so far is Jacam Kaplan Moss who is one of the

co-founders of Jungo. So also IT background did one article about how he defines power and he has three kinds of power because uh I like it because it's different than what you find for example on Wikipedia and it's from my perspective better. The very formal definitions are always there as formal power. Everything that's written down by law and similar and everything else is informal power feels too

abstract for me. This is how he did it. Feels a bit better. Just to go through it. Ro power is close enough to formal If if I go to our job, what's role power? Ro power is my job my boss who's allowed to tell me what to do. Like, hey, this is your next project. Work on it. This is his role to decide that and his role

to tell me. There's relationship power. This at least in job context is somebody who has not officially a role to tell me something. But I know that guy. He's trustworthy. If he tell if if he says to to do it like that, he's always right. This relationship power, I know him from background and this this is his power. Even though formerly he has none. It's usually in

some way related to expertise power. This is often something higher individual contributor roles have. They don't have formal authority but they but they are the experts on stuff. So people usually trust them and and yeah this is a typical typical expertise like you are the expert on os tell me how I should do it. I will trust you in your in your story because I'm not the

expert you are. This typical expertise power all of them also exist outside of it obviously but all also apply to our job and all usually they all come in some way parallel. So it just because there's role power doesn't mean that there's not also the other two at the same time and yeah different ways of it. What is also at least one of them usually in some

way exists even to people you don't know that well if somebody's close enough to you that you in some way are related to do decisions together usually you have some kind of that if it's not your relationship power that you trust them it might be the relationship power that you don't trust them so there's some way of power dynamics between you usually it's rarely ever completely neutral

because you had your interactions in some way otherwise you wouldn't do a decision together. Now, uh this is a bit going to a talk that I did last year. Uh and I would like to start with reading the quote before you all read it. Uh the opinion persists that power excludes freedom. However, this is not the case. Ego's power reaches its maximum precisely in the constellation in

which Alta voluntarily submits to his will. Sounds super abstract. I know this is from when I started researching is power a good or a bad thing? And the just to give you the background at least German perception is usually that power is a super bad thing with the history of the last 100 years. So uh this is actually the newest kind of uh uh research that they

finally start again to think about maybe there's good and bad parts in power. But it's also why did I put it here? It's quite interesting. The usual perception of power is power is bad or I don't like people to have power over me at least and quite some of us feel also like I don't want to have power over people because it feels scary and all of

that might be too short uh uh uh or wrong because actually there's also more or less optimistic view on power that power can be a good If you do it in a way where people voluntarily follow one more thought because I see people uh having a hard time with this and that's fine. um hierarchy top down hierarchy that's a typical perception of power but uh a bit

uh different question who has the most power in a top- down uh organization is it really the person on top if it's completely top- down I would tend to say no if if it's a big organization reason is the top person cannot decide everything by knowing everything They need to have consultants somewhere that they trust. And usually that's the people who actually decide more than the person

on top. All right. Uh enough on power and theory. Bit more of a different view is a different book if you want to have it a bit bit more optimistic. Probably the last book I quote is G give and take by Adam Grant which we already uh had in that talk uh with a quote that I like uh uh quite a bit but let me talk about

for a second before I show it. Sorry. uh what what Adam Grant in this book uh did is how do people interact in a way of do they voluntarily give to other people or take from other people like how does the interaction between two of two people work. His grouping is there's people who like to give all the time without looking for if they get back something

back from you or not. That's a group called givers. they are frequent. There's also a group of people who always take whatever they can get. They take your advice. They take your time. They take your knowledge, but they never want to give anything back. That's takers. You you can think about if that if you know people like that or if you maybe even see yourself in that

group. The third one is matchers. Uh that's the people who give but also want to get something back at some point. So it feels fair for them. for example, that's me. I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing, but I start giving, but at some point I also feel like maybe I should get something back from that person. Otherwise, it feels bad. And all

three of them are not a good or a bad group. But the interesting one is how do they interact and who's successful in a business context. Yeah. And that's the quote. So when takers win, there's usually someone else who loses. What a surprise. [snorts] Research shows that people tend to envy successful takers. Not not a surprise. Givers succeed in a way that creates a ripple effect enhancing

the success of people around Or in other terms, while giving first sounds selfless and maybe in in business background inefficient, it actually does have positive effects. And now my question for every for everybody is like who is actually the one that's statistically most often on top of a bigger hierarchy? Is it giver or taker? Any feelings? Who says it's takers? Okay. Who says it's givers? Also a

few. Anybody who says matches by the way the the least. Let's phrase it like Okay. It is uh Statistically, it can be takers and givers. Both is right. Metas are usually not that successful, unfortunately. H what's the background? Uh the ones that's always at the bottom of a big hierarchy is givers because they are the ones who most often don't don't start to get successful by only

giving. takers usually get quite high, but there's a few G givers who have long-term wins from everybody seeing that they give out so freely. So, they can reach the very top with that strategy. It's not a clear answer if it's give us or take us. Both can work which other way around doesn't mean like doesn't says don't adjust your strategy. Both both can be fine. But self-reflection,

what is actually your natural strategy? That's helpful. Plus, in interaction with people, it can be helpful. If you are somebody who's more giving and your person next to you is is a taker, that might be a dangerous position to be in Even though in the bigger picture, it's not a bad thing. And just as anecdote, there's a fourth group that I didn't mention. It's the least successful

of all. It's the so-called fakers. Please don't be faker. Means you pretend to be a giver, but you're actually a taker. Don't do that. It doesn't work. Be honest. Okay, that's a lot about how two people have interacted, right? Potential strategies uh uh in relation power dynamics between two people. How do they relate to decision making? I would say a lot because it influences how you work

together and how you interact. Now, as I said, more people involved. The good thing about more people involved is there's nothing, let's say, substantially different here. This is just the big number of onetoone relationships in a way. >> [snorts] >> where all of them have that complexity that I just mentioned and there's one thing if you are one of them now you have to do assumptions about

relations about between others because you're not involved anymore and now who can imagine what I do my favorite game of drawing diagrams I don't do it that that long it this time but we we can roughly do it P1 knowledge P2 knowledge you know that one with the P3 one and P2 and the assumption I added P3 I didn't add four and five it was too hard

to get the picture going and we have what P2 thinks what P3 knows similar style as P1 and P2 fine interesting is that actually P2 and P3 don't have any overlap in my picture but P2 thinks they have okay and now the question is what's that uh I can give you the answer. This is what P1 thinks, what P2 thinks, what P3 Aka, it's completely off. But

if you have a bigger picture, this is important to think about in a in a bigger group. Who talks to whom about what? I don't need to talk about to this person because I probably already know that this person ah first mistake. I don't need to talk to that person because another and so on. Next mistake. So this diagram, as weird as it looks, is helpful to

think about in bigger groups. The assumptions uh of who knows what go off more and more and more people you have in. Now what I did the game with N people aka that soft. I would like to also give a bit of tooling of what you can do with that stuff except being uh now destroyed and desperate and all is bad and our biases will not help

us. So now a bit of the positive side what can we do? Uh I have four tools how you can analyze situations of decision making. The good thing is all of them not only work in hindsight but also while a decision is still made. So it can also be used as an influence tool. Once again and I go from small to big. So we start with something

you can do for yourself alone. [snorts] That's something that I come on already mentioned this game. I've already shown it. This is something that I actually recommend to do once in your life. You can find find the cards online. You don't have to buy whatever if you want to do it alone. But it's also a nice thing that you can do as a coach with other people

because it's quite helpful on the self-reflection of what is your personal motivators and goals and why are you do behaving like you behave. If you play such a game in a group for example in a team where you know each other quite well, it can be interesting on the answers. But yeah, this is the easiest one because you can do it for yourself. No big uh and

it's mostly about yourself. Next one is a bit bigger um but it's still something you can do alone ideally with a coach. It's uh something from coaching actually and it's systemic consolation work. If you get a coach that can explain that to you and do it with you. Perfect. Uh very quick example. Uh how does it work? Usually usually you play it uh in in a 3D

space like this room and your job is for the problem you have right now please put all the important people at paper on the ground somewhere like I'm here I put somebody here I put somebody here it's roughly like those uh uh figures and the coaching part is okay I want the to be different I want this and that to change. How can I get there? Usually

what people do is that person needs to move. And usually what coaching tells you is the only person you can move in your picture is yourself. So you can move around, but you cannot move anybody else around. But yeah, the anal analysis work of who's actually where, who is close to you, who's far from you, who's somebody who you trust, who else is close to each other.

That's a quite an interesting uh tool. You can obviously do it on paper as well, but I do get and I do believe it's different if you do it in a 3D space. Your brain works differently then. So if you have the chance to do it in a 3D space, go for physical moving around in a room. Let's go one more complex analyzing situations where multiple people

are Uh this is you don't need to read it all, but I think you can actually read it hopefully. This is the so-called decision KP map. It's from Andrea Mayoski, who I love as a coach and as an as a person. She's amazing. Uh decision KP map uh KP because uh both terms have more more than one meaning. So it can be knowledge and power. But she

found also other potential full words for K&P. So it stayed with KP. What is it? It is a as you can see it's a diagram about uh on one dimension like who can make change happen. could be a translation of who has power And on the other dimension is information, knowledge, who has accepted knowledge on top and who hasn't or even misinformation that's on the bottom. And

the tool is for a decision, put all the relevant people onto this map where you think they belong. Obviously with all the the assumptions you're making that are usually in a way wrong but still do it. Here's some examples on it. One example for example top right that's the absolute expert on a topic. That is somebody who has expert knowledge and people know that that person has

expert knowledge. That's somebody with a lot of knowledge and a lot of influence and that's kind of Another example that's interesting can be somebody. Oh, let's go for that intern. Uh has a bit of knowledge but not a lot. It's an intern but people say it's an intern. So no change possible. That's somebody who has close to no option to change anything in a bigger corporate. And

the last one is I I like the term propaganda writer. Somebody who is kind of influential. people trust that person but actually writes misinformation. So given you have these three for the the ideal world once again as in the beginning with the other matrix would be a diagonal. People who have knowledge have influence and now you see that you have two big mismaps matches. Sometimes you can

move so if you want to have it as a tool for changing something you want to move people around. Sometimes you can make people more if you are in a position where you can that would be a nice one like invite the intern to the important meeting because they have important knowledge. That's a way to uh move them to the But what could also work and that's

usually easier is mo moving people up. Give them more information at least if they don't uh spread misinformation on purpose but only by missing knowledge. Giving out more information is usually doable. So you can move them uh uh more to the top. So more to the diagonal you want to align the knowledge and the importancy/ power part. That's quite a nice tool. Can be helpful. Once again,

it's a lot of reflection work that you have to do to understand who's rare and who's actually important. But it gives you a relatively clear direction of who you could try to move in the direction that you want. Given the assumption that's important that if knowledge and influence are aligned, you get what you want. That's not always true. [snorts] If you have a case where that is

not true, you need a bit of an even more complex tool. And that's the last one for this session. It's a so-called influence mapping where we're not not anymore on correctness or not. Now it's only about does somebody support what I want and who who in how influential is whom wait a sec exactly that in this kind of diagram you always have D which is decision maker

that's somebody who's in and you have yourself who's obviously supporting your what you want because the stuff you want. And then you have other people. And how the diagram works is you have people who check get a check mark. That's the people who support you or who you convinced. You have uh this triangle. That's the one with a different opinion. You have the big question marks. That's

the one where you have no idea. And because it's not a trivial one, the arrows actually also are important. Which of them are sick? Means who has how much influence on whom. This nice group of triangles has a lot of influence on our decision maker. So they are objecting what you want but they have a huge influence on the decision maker. Not good obviously. And those kind

of diagrams can be super helpful to understand what's going on because for example you have actually no direct relation to the decision maker. Usually if people want to convince somebody they go there and tell their arguments. In this kind of situation that will not help at all. They will not trust you. They will just say okay cool fine. No. In this kind of situation what could we

work is you have a super good relationship to John. John knows Naja quite okay. Maybe can convince Nacha of what you want. Nacha and Anushka are related and Anushka has a good relation to the decision maker. Sounds super complex but that might be the way to convince somebody. That's how this kind of diagram works. It's the most complex tool that for from all all the four obviously

it even more assumptions because for all the thicknesses of arrows for all the positioning of people it's a lot of assumptions of what you believe who is rare but it's still helpful and I can really recommend to once try that to draw something like that if you have a situation where you want to understand how to influence something it's super part. It takes way more time than

I thought it would, but it actually is helpful as a tool. Okay, we're [snorts] very close to the end. So, where I would like to go now is uh to the summary part. I've walked from one person doing a decision to a lot of people doing decisions and all the factors of why we are not rational in doing that. I've tried to show four tools of how

you can still try to understand and influence. The big theme is probably it's all incomplete and you're always wrong. [snorts] So it can be quite a depressing one. [laughter] let me phrase it a bit more positive, not that judging because it's always wrong and politics as bad is quite a judgy way of looking at all this. I would say see it a bit differently. Honestly, I think

it's fine to do all that and to try to influence people as long as it's to everyone's best interest what you're doing and not to only to your be own best interest and you honestly believe that it's everyone's be best interest what you're doing. That's the first part. And then it is super hard to completely technically break down decision- making. it doesn't work. There's so many and

going by people are bad. You're really going down a very uh negative path. The alternative and I see probably that as the overall theme out of all the theoretical and abstract ways of uh going for it is in the end a relatively simple one. The only two solutions is staying curious about the people that because it helps you to build the empathy to understand what they actually

want and how they actually behave and only with all that knowledge you can actually influence decisions and maybe prevent the next bit bad decision from happening. Thanks. [snorts] [applause] So I didn't put the slido link. I don't know if anybody still puts something there. So I will check that immediately right now. Nope. So uh if anybody has a question do it in the room. I'm here otherwise

ah there is somebody. Okay. Please try as loud as you can. So repeating the question first of all, how would you deal with propaganda writers who deliberately do that with the example of maybe saving or saving or securing their position? Hard one obviously. Uh probably the answer is uh getting other people on your side [snorts] because you cannot really change that person. It pro they probably have

good reasons for their behavior either. You can change the situation that the reasons don't exist anymore then they can behave differently. That would be the very nice and coachy way of maybe like hey if they would be in a more safe situation they wouldn't need to spread misinformation but that can be a huge long way of working and maybe not the thing you want to do. The

other thing is probably influence more people to be aware of that misinformation spreading, which is also not a nice thing because you're actually isolating them and uh making the situation even more more hard for them. But it's probably your only two ways decreasing their influence or increasing their situation. That's what you can do. Not a very good answer but the best I can give. Any other question

otherwise I'm also around for a few more minutes. Okay. Thanks.