Gurwinder Bhogal traces gamification’s origins to B.F. Skinner’s 1930s experiments, where corporations adopted addictive mechanics like variable rewards (e.g., Facebook’s "like" button in 2009) to prioritize profits over societal good. China’s decentralized social credit systems—ranking cities like Huangshu—exploit competition for hollow validation, mirroring Western trends where young men trade real achievement for digital illusions. Bhogal argues resistance lies in personal "metrification," reclaiming technology for self-designed goals, framing today’s conflict as authoritarian control versus libertarian freedom against dehumanizing systems. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Clavin with this week's interview with Gerwinder Bogal.
You know, one of the reasons I don't write a lot of book reviews is I don't like panning books.
I know how hard it is to write books and it's easy to pan them.
It's easy to be funny while you're tearing somebody's work apart.
So I don't write a lot of book reviews.
But one of the meanest book reviews I ever wrote was in 2011 for the Wall Street Journal.
I reviewed a book called Reality is Broken by Jane McGonagall, who had the hilarious title of the Director of Games at the Palo Alto-based Institute for the Future.
And I've always regretted writing it because I'm sure she's a nice lady and I tore the book apart, but I don't take back a word of it.
Her thesis was that real life isn't as fun or as rewarding as video games, and so all of life should be fixed to be more like the games.
And at one point, she wrote about the game Halo, which I'm sure many of you have played, extremely popular first-person shooter.
And they had this thing where they had a great war.
And when they announced that they had scored 10 billion kills of the Covenant, who were the bad guys, McGonagall wrote that players were carried away by a sense that their actions in the Great War had meaning.
And she wrote, Halo is only a game, but she says, just because the kills don't have value doesn't mean they don't have meaning.
Meaning is the feeling that we're a part of something bigger than ourselves.
It's the belief that our actions matter beyond our own individual lives.
And I responded, no, that's actually not what meaning is.
Meaning is when those feelings and beliefs refer to something true.
What I didn't realize is that this was part of a movement in Silicon Valley of gamification.
And one of the things Gerwinder Bogall has been writing about on his excellent substack, which I think is just called Gerwinder.
I'll check that with him, but it's just a terrific substack, is he's writing about the gamification of just about everything and what it is, why it hurts us and what we can do about it.
I've been listening to him on podcasts and reading his sub-stack.
He is absolutely one of the best new voices out there.
Gerwinder, thank you so much for coming on.
It's a real pleasure to meet you.
It's a pleasure to be here, Andrew.
Thank you.
So I didn't realize until I heard you talking about it that there was an actual thing called gamification, that when I was reviewing this poor woman's book, that it was a real thing.
Can you explain what gamification is and where it comes from?
Okay, so simply put, gamification is the application of game elements.
So things like scores, points, leaderboards, badges, into non-game activities in order to make them fun, basically.
So it sounds pretty innocent, but increasingly it's being used as a way to sort of direct behavior.
There's a certain thing in behavioral economics known as nudging, which is you try to nudge people towards certain outcomes.
You try to get them to behave in certain ways.
And the reason that gamification is taking off everywhere is because corporations and governments alike have realized that the best way to get people to do what they want is to make it fun.
So I mean, when I reviewed Jane McGonagall's book, I pointed out that Tom Sawyer and Mary Poppins had figured this out a long time ago.
So this starts in Silicon Valley.
I mean, is this where the idea comes from?
Well, the roots really, I think, go back to the psychologist B.F. Skinner, who was a behaviorist psychologist.
And he did experiments on rats and pigeons in the 1930s in which he tried to control their behavior using very simple stimuli.
So, for instance, one thing that he wanted to do was to get a pigeon to peck a button as many times as he possibly could.
And he basically established certain rules about this in order to make this behavior addictive.
So one of the things was, for instance, that there was a thing called the variable ratio schedule, which is that he wouldn't give you, he wouldn't give the pigeon a reward every time it pecked the button.
He would only give it a reward sometimes at random.
And so this actually made the pigeon peck the button much more than if it had been offered a reward each time.
And you can see this applied to things like slot machines, where you don't have a reward every time you activate the machine.
Sometimes you win big, sometimes you lose.
And it's that uncertainty which creates the compulsive behavior.
It sort of supercharges your curiosity, makes you want to know what's going to happen next.
And so this is one of the mechanics, for instance, that we see everywhere.
We see it on social media.
And social media has very astutely sort of applied these principles.
So for instance, when you post something on social media, you don't know how many likes your post is going to get.
You don't know how many shares it's going to get.
It could go viral.
It could blow up and you could be famous or it could be completely ignored.
So it's similar to a slot machine in that respect.
And that uncertainty makes the behavior addictive because the curiosity gets activated.
You want to know what's going to happen when you press send.
If you know what's going to happen, if you have a predictable response every time you press send, it becomes boring.
But what makes it fun is the uncertainty and the unpredictability.
So that's one way in which Skinner's ideas have been applied.
But Skinner came up with a very wide range of different sort of strategies to gamify behaviors.
And this was later sort of in the early 20th century, this was applied to purchases.
So things like frequent flyer air mile points, McDonald's happy meals, which have a toy inside the box, and you don't know what the toy is going to be until you actually buy the thing.
So, and also things like Boy Scouts, they have house points, which they award you.
These systems like scores, points, badges, leaderboards, these were gradually introduced in the 20th century to purchases by corporations in order to make the act of purchasing fun.
But what happened in the sort of 21st century was a digital revolution, and that completely changed gamification.
That for the first time now, you could keep score in your pocket with your device.
So if you had a phone or a laptop or whatever, you know, you could keep score of pretty much anything.
And they could keep track of your behavior also.
So they could know what you were responding to and what you were not responding to.
So this system of metrification that occurred with the advancement of smartphones and the digital age generally, this allowed everything pretty much to begin to be gamified.
And the first great success of gamification was in social media.
So we saw how I think it was in 2009, Facebook adopted this new point system, which they called likes.
It was originally called thumbs up, but then it eventually became the like button.
And as soon as Facebook used the like button on their on that app, what happened was it completely transformed Facebook from an app in which you find out what your old school friends are doing to an app where you're basically playing a status game.
Everybody started competing for likes because likes was the score.
And as another thing that Skinner showed was that things like likes and shares and retweets and all these sort of metrics that we use, people create the connection in their minds between the score and their own self-worth.
Because what they do is they essentially games are a way for people to establish hierarchies of competence.
You can see this.
I mean, Will Storr's written this brilliant book called The Status Game, in which he actually tried to work out why we play games.
And he found that in remote tribes out in the middle of nowhere, people play all kinds of games.
For instance, they'll try to grow the largest vegetable.
You know, that becomes a game.
And essentially what he found was that the reason we play games is to establish hierarchies of competence.
We want to know who's the most competent and therefore who's most fit to lead.
And that's how we established sort of leadership roles in the early sort of in early human history.
And this has sort of kept with us, this idea that scores are analogous to competence.
And so everybody wants to get the high score because everybody wants to be seen as competent.
And social media has really sort of exploited this little evolutionary quirk of our brains.
It's allowed people to feel a sense of worth if they blow up online, if they get a post which gets loads of shares, if they get a lot of friends online, a lot of followers, suddenly they feel like they have this sort of this ineradicable self-worth about them.
You know, it makes them feel good about themselves.
And so when this system was applied to social media, it turned all of social media into a status game.
It made it addictive because people were now obsessed with trying to compete with others to get the highest score possible.
And that was really the thing that made corporations sit up and take notice.
And they realized, hang on a second, if we could make social media addictive by creating this point system, what else could we make addictive?
And so now you're seeing this same principle being applied to all these other areas of life.
You're seeing it in dating apps.
You're seeing it in banking apps even.
You're seeing it in trading apps.
You're seeing it in audio books, seeing it even on Substack, which I write for.
You're seeing it everywhere where there's systems now of leaderboards, points, in order to get people to compete and to keep each other in the game, to keep each other sort of playing the game.
And so, yeah, that's basically what brings us to where we are now.
So this is fascinating.
For one thing, it explains why people use slot machines.
I see people doing this like they're machines themselves.
It's the least interesting form of gambling there is.
It is as boring as hell and it just eats your money.
And yet people just sit there like they're hypnotized by it.
But also that sense you have when you play a game.
You know, for instance, I've played the game Pictionary where I just wanted to kill the person across from me for not doing it well, you know, and I, who can't even draw a straight line.
So that explains a lot.
But now one of the things that this book by McGonagall was about was about utilizing this to get people to do good things, presumably.
It still sounded awful to me.
She said, for instance, people had solved crimes together, that people had, you know, would work on environmental things together.
Is that the basic idea?
Is that what we're looking at?
Or is it simply about getting more money?
So when I worked in tech, which was a long time ago now, that was about 15 years ago, gamification was just sort of the, it was just becoming known in Silicon Valley.
It was becoming a buzzword.
And everybody was talking about how it was going to sort of create the perfect society, how it was going to make people greener, it was going to make them fitter, it was going to make them more ethical, all of these things, you know, and there were, there was a little bit of evidence to suggest that there was promise in that idea.
For instance, around that time, around 2008, there was a very big breakthrough in, there was basically a bunch of scientists who were trying to find the ways in which a AIDS virus protein folds.
And they were having a lot of trouble trying to do this.
I think it was the University of Washington.
And they couldn't do it.
They couldn't find out how this protein folds.
And so they had this idea of turning it into a contest.
And they basically got a lot of people who were gamers, professional gamers, to actually have a go at this, providing sort of basic incentives for cracking this puzzle.
And what they'd failed to do in over a decade, gamers were able to do in a matter of weeks.
So this was amazing.
They thought, wow, if we could do this and maybe we could cure cancer just by turning it into a game.
This was one example.
And then there were other examples like OPAWAR was a company and it's still a company now.
In fact, it's actually a very lucrative company, which basically turned energy saving into a game.
So what it did is it created a leaderboard in which you could see how much energy you were saving and compare it to your neighbor.
And this created a contest, obviously.
So people wanted to save more energy than their neighbors on the leaderboard.
And so this ended up, I think, as of today, OPAWA has saved over $3 billion in energy, billion.
So that's a lot of money saved from energy.
So there were a lot of these things happening.
There was also another thing with Volkswagen where they had people, they turned a staircase into a piano.
And so this was basically to try to get people to exercise more.
They didn't want people to use the elevator.
They thought of people using the elevator, it's going to be boring.
So they turned the stairs into pianos and piano keys.
And so when you walked up the stairs, it basically played a tune.
And that was successful because that increased the number of people using the stairs by 60%.
So there were a lot of these little studies, you know, which really showed a lot of promise at the time.
And I mean, I'll admit, I was kind of swept up in it as well.
I thought, this is going to be amazing.
This is going to really change the world.
People are going to, we're just going to use fun to just make the world a better place.
But then what happened was very quickly, you know, I was disabused of that notion.
I was just going to say, you should have known.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because it basically what happened was one of the things that Skinner in the 1930s had found was that the pigeons would respond a lot more to short-term rewards than to long-term rewards.
So one way he found this was that when the pigeon pecked the button, if it got an immediate reward, it would be a lot more likely to continue to peck that button than if there was a one-minute delay or even a 30-second delay in getting that peanut or whatever it was that he, you know, a little grain that it would get.
So basically, immediate rewards are a lot more addicting than delayed rewards.
And the same thing happened with gamification.
The same thing happened with the corporations that were trying to gamify the world.
So the corporations are like Skinner's pigeons.
What they did was that they were favoring immediate rewards over long-term rewards.
So what they were doing is they were favoring the shareholders report, the next quarterly report, over the long-term endeavors that they had.
And they found that they could make a quick buck by gamifying in much more, in much less wholesome ways than had been suggested.
So just by addicting people to apps, for instance, they could get a lot of money in the short term.
And that would be very good for their bottom line.
It wouldn't be good for humanity as a whole, but it would be good for their bottom line.
And obviously that's what they were focused on.
They were focused like pigeons, they're focused on the short-term rewards.
And so because it was corporations that were driving the gamification, they obviously, and they had incentives, they were incentivized to try to maximize their profits.
They found that it's much easier to just use gamification to addict people to apps than it is to try to create this fancy utopia that people have dreamed of.
Creating Utopia Through Gamification00:02:17
And so that was the sort of thing that took over.
That was the way of gamifying that became the dominant way.
There are still people out there who are trying to create this utopia, but they're sort of disappearing by the wayside.
And really the big corporations now are all focused on trying to get people addicted to apps.
So, and there was also, there was one way in which people tried to use gamification for a utopia, and that was the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party.
And they created a view, they created social credit programs within China.
And there's this idea that China has this one social credit program, that sort of, you know, where everybody is on this leaderboard and basically, you know, if you.
Behave well, you get a high score, if you behave badly, you don't.
That's not actually true.
What it is is um, China actually has a few different social credit scores, which are all kind of dispersed around the country, and there's no central social credit scheme.
There's only a few different ones and um, it's actually quite scary.
I mean, some of them are actually really strange.
I mean, there's some towns and cities in China, such as Huangshu and Rongcheng, which have fully adopted a full gamified city, but where what they do is they actually have these big billboards with leaderboards on them and they show you who is the highest scoring citizen in in the precinct.
Yeah, and so you know, there's a little photo of each, each person, and they're like, you know, it tells, it tells you what their score is, and so people see it and they're like oh, you know, I want to be like that.
You know, it's in a similar way to when people see, you know, a famous movie star on the red carpet, and they see them dressed a certain way and they want oh, I want to be like that, you know.
So it's like it has this power that people want to.
These people that are really high scoring, they become almost like celebrities, and so people want to emulate them and so, in a way, it does actually work.
You know, you can create, you can, in a very sinister way, you can shape human behavior at a, at a state level probably even, you know, definitely at a municipal level uh, to do what you want them to do, to abide by certain behaviors.
Um, just by creating this competitiveness between people, where you know you have a score and then you have leaderboards and you reward people with badges and all this sort of stuff.
Policy Genius Revolutionizes Insurance00:02:12
So really, you know it's the promise of gamification being used to create a utopia really was just mostly science fiction, and what's actually happened is it's being used to control people for the benefit of the gamifiers, but usually at the expense of the gamified.
Life is full of surprises.
Your insurance should not be one of them.
Policy Genius, your trusted partner for navigating the complex world of insurance, is changing the way we shop for life insurance.
Policy Genius has licensed award-winning agents and technology that make it easy to compare life insurance quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks to find your lowest price.
Their platform is incredibly easy to use.
I've used it.
It really is.
You can compare quotes from top providers right from your phone or computer, all in one place.
Plus, policy Genius has a team of licensed experts ready to answer all your questions and guide you through the process.
They'll make sure you get the coverage you need without any of the hassle.
What happens if you leave your job?
Does that policy follow you?
Does it offer enough protection for your family?
Getting life insurance for you and your family will give you peace of mind, knowing that, if something were to happen to you, your family can get back on their feet.
With policy genius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just 292 per year for 1 million dollars of coverage.
Some options offer same-day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams.
Save time, money and provide your family with a financial safety net.
Using policy genius, head to policygenius.com slash clavin, or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com slash.
How do you spell it?
K-l-a-v-a-n.
You know, it's funny, as I'm listening to you, it occurs to me.
Last night I was playing Final Fantasy 614, whatever it is, and I got into this kind of fight with a monster.
That must have literally lasted 45 minutes.
But I've noticed I've been playing games since they started, which is way like Pong, right?
And so I noticed that it was kind of easy.
Like it was, you couldn't lose.
It was a long fight.
Why We Left GWinder00:12:17
It was, you know, it was stressful, but you couldn't actually lose the fight.
And this is something that's really changed about games since I started playing.
And originally, when you played Super Mario, if you died, you were thrown way the hell back to like the beginning.
So you lost a lot of ground, whereas now you lose nothing.
So if games are evolved to help us establish hierarchies, we're essentially establishing false hierarchies because you can go on X with a good conspiracy theory that's complete nonsense and get zillions of hits and go on with the truth and get nothing.
So it's kind of false.
It's kind of creating a centralizing a false system, right?
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
So there's an evolutionary psychologist called Diana Fleischmann, and she actually has a term for this, which she calls counterfeit fitness.
And it's basically the idea that the sort of the signals that people get from winning games are no longer aligned with reality.
So the example that she gives is that somebody could spend their entire life living in their mom's basement, whatever, playing video games for their entire life.
They could never, you know, they'll never leave.
Maybe they get home delivery shopping or whatever for their whole life, never leave the house.
And what happens is that their success in the video game satisfies their need for sort of self-actualization.
It satisfies their own feelings of self-esteem.
So they feel that they're winning in life because they're winning in this video game.
But outside of that room, they have not achieved anything.
They've not maybe found a family.
They've not done anything work-wise.
They've not got any career.
All their entire life is within that one room.
But it feels so real to them because the signals that they're getting from the game are so real, that the sort of dopamine hits that they're getting whenever they beat a very particularly hard boss or something, that gives them a sense of accomplishment in their life.
And that accomplishment essentially sedates them from going out there in the world and seeking true fulfillment.
And I think that this can actually explain why there has been sort of why there are a lot of men, particularly young men, who are not economically active in the West.
So there's this idea that sort of employment has increased.
But the thing is, is that that's because that doesn't count the number of people who are economically inactive.
There's a lot of people who just aren't on the radar.
They're not paying any taxes.
They're just not registered for anything.
They're not even registered for welfare, many of them.
So they have some kind of way of supporting themselves, but they're not actually in the workforce.
And what's happening is that this is one aspect of the problem.
Another aspect is that people are not getting married as much.
People are not having as many children.
People are not going out there and seeking relationships with people.
And all of this, I think, is partly, probably not wholly, but partly a result of the fact that gamification is giving people a sense of accomplishment, a false sense of accomplishment in their lives that keeps them happy just enough to stop them from actually going out there and seeking true fulfillment.
Wow.
Wow.
You know, one of the things that's very interesting, and am I right, your sub-stack is called Gerwinder, is that?
Yeah, well, the Earl is gwinder.blog, but the actual name for it is the Prism.
The Prism.
Okay, sorry.
So one of the things I noticed is some of the things you write about are things that you've learned over time and words of wisdom that you found helpful.
And as somebody who is approximately 150 years older than you, I can actually certify that many of the things, unlike most of the wisdom I see on the internet, many of these are actually quite wise.
And I guess my question now is, if we have people who are motivated to control us and certainly motivated to milk us for money in ways that actually limit our true effectiveness in the world and fool us about whether we do, how do you strike back against that?
Is that purely a matter, a personal matter or are there political solutions?
How do you feel about that?
I think that the best solution is bottom-up.
I think it's an individual one.
And I think that it's interesting because the people that would try to oppress us have actually given us the tools for our own liberation.
They've actually allowed us to gamify anything that we want.
Because now, you know, with this kind of metrification that we have, with the smartphones can measure everything now, you know, every smartphone has a gyroscope in it.
It can measure your heart rate.
You know, there's so many different ways that you can measure things now.
So you can actually create your own games.
You can create your own scoring systems.
You can create your own incentive structures.
You can create the ideal activities that you really want in life just by gamifying them.
And I think there are certain rules that if you follow them, I think that they will be a way to avoid being controlled by these groups of people.
One of the rules that I would say would be to play long-term games over short-term games, because it's usually short-term games that are used to control you, not long-term games.
When people are trying to get you addicted to apps, what they're trying to get you to do is usually to just do some short-term thing, like check your matches on Tinder or see what people have been saying about you on X or Twitter or whatever it's called now.
Those are short-term goals that people tend to get locked into.
If you play long-term games and you ask yourself, if I do the same thing that I did today, every day for the next 10 years, where will I be at the end of it?
That's a good way to establish whether you're being controlled or not.
Because if you would be in a place that you don't want to be, then that means you're acting against your own interests, which means you're probably acting in the interests of somebody else.
But if you would be in 10 years in a place that you would actually like to be, then this is a sign that you are moving towards your own desires and not somebody else's.
That's really, really interesting.
I want to ask you, I'm just curious about this, and I don't want to put you on the spot so you can not answer, but where do you fall now in the political spectrum?
First of all, are you based in America?
Are you based in England?
I'm based in England.
Okay.
So you guys are having, as we're speaking, you guys are having a new Labor government come in.
Where do you fall on the political spectrum, seeing what you're seeing?
So I think that the political spectrum is largely obsolete now.
I think it's a relic of the 18th century.
I don't think it's able to articulate the nuances of modernity.
And, you know, as an example of that, you know, just think of universal basic income, for instance.
That's not really left-wing.
It's not really right-wing.
It's something completely of its own.
It's got some aspects of left-wing in terms of redistribution.
It's got some aspects of right-wing in the terms that it shrinks the state, but it's not anything in particular.
And I don't really have a decision on UBI, but for me personally, I am more about, I think that the real struggle is not really between left and right at the moment.
I think the real struggle is between those who want to control us and those who want to be free.
So authoritarian and libertarian.
And I'm very much against authoritarian, whether it comes from the left or whether it comes from the right.
And I've found friends and like-minded people on both sides of the spectrum, fortunately enough.
I think that's the real struggle at the moment.
And particularly a struggle against technology and the use of technology to essentially dehumanize us.
I think this is going to be the big struggle of this century.
I don't think it's going to be about wealth distribution or anything, you know, left or right.
I just think that those are 20th century struggles.
I think this is going to be a lot more about trying to be free in a world where everything is trying to make us not free.
Yeah, I completely agree with that.
I mean, I did a show on Friday, a podcast on Friday.
That was the subject.
I really do think that we have to get away from the right and the left and get to the point of freedom, which is what it's all about.
You wrote something kind of complimentary about the manifesto of Ted Kaczynski, the famous Unabomber.
Now, I read this manifesto, and he was obviously a brilliant guy and I think a schizophrenic.
But I didn't find anything in there of real use.
I found it was a lot more generalities.
What is it you found about his, obviously, you're not recommending violence in any way, it has nothing to do with that, but what is it you found about his philosophy that actually moved you?
Well, to be honest, I actually disagree with Ted Kaczynski on quite a lot of things.
I actually consider him to be somebody who got it pretty drastically wrong, I think.
But I also think he's a highly intelligent guy.
And I think that he should be read and taken seriously, because I think the questions that he asks are a lot more important than the answers that he provides.
One of his, I think, central sort of points is this idea that the kind of world that we're in now is the world is a world we didn't evolve for, essentially.
It's a world we're not adapted to.
And, you know, whatever you believe about evolution, you know, we're not adapted for the kind of world that we're living in right now.
It's completely alien to our senses because for 300,000 years, we lived as hunter-gatherers.
We lived in small communities.
We sort of were constantly on the move.
We, you know, we kind of, we didn't have to, we didn't have to think about what was happening in other countries all the time.
We weren't being constantly bombarded with all the information.
We weren't constantly being fed these really unhealthy foods.
You know, the kind of living that we have now is alien to our bodies and to our minds.
And Kaczynski essentially recognized this quite early.
He probably wasn't the first to recognize it, but you think he was one of the first to really articulate this idea.
And he said that essentially, because a lot of our meaning and a lot of our purpose is being taken away from us in this age, and he was sort of echoing the work of Durkheim, who was the founder of the field of sociology.
So I'll just quickly give you a note about Durkheim.
So Durkheim, during the Industrial Revolution, Durkheim basically did an analysis and he found that there'd been a spike in suicide rates with the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
And he attributed this to a loss of purpose and meaning as a result of industrialization.
What had happened is that this new kind of mechanistic urban living had sort of taken away the things that people had depended on for their purpose and meaning.
You know, the old traditions, God, family, and, you know, work and all of these things have been drastically changed.
And Kaczynski echoed this point.
And he said that essentially because we're sort of losing this purpose and meaning in our lives in this new world that we're living in, it's creating a void.
And that void is being filled by governments, by corporations, by people in power who are trying to control us essentially by giving us the kinds of purposes and meanings that they want us to follow.
Okay.
I have to stop you there because I'm out of time, but now I understand what you see there.
And obviously his solution was not the solution, but I do understand what you're saying.
Listen, Gwinder, I hope you'll come back and talk again.
This is really interesting.
I think you're seeing a lot of important things.
Tell people, because I messed it up, tell people where exactly they can find your work.
Sure.
Yeah, so you can find me on Substack.
It's gwinder.blog.
And I'm also on Twitter.
If you just type in Gwinda Twitter into Google, it should lead you there.
Okay.
It's really nice talking to you.
And again, I enjoy your work.
I think you're seeing a lot of important stuff.
Thank you for coming on.
It's been a pleasure, Andrew.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's really nice to hear younger voices who are seeing into the thing that's happening because it really is different than things that have happened before.
New Solutions Needed00:00:15
And I think we need new solutions, new ideas, but also a new perspective of what's happening.
And Gwinder Bogal, one of the guys who is really coming up with some interesting stuff.
And another person you can find on Friday at the Andrew Clavin Show.