# What is Claude most used for? Based on my interactions, I'm most commonly used for: * Tasks involving writing and analysis - like drafting emails, reports, articles, and academic papers, as well as reviewing and editing written content. * Programming help - debugging code, explaining programming concepts, and helping write new code across various languages. * Research and information synthesis - helping people understand complex topics, analyze data, and draw insights from information. * Math and problem-solving - working through mathematical problems step-by-step and helping with logical reasoning tasks. * Creative writing - helping with stories, scripts, poetry and other creative content. * Educational support - explaining concepts, creating lesson plans, and helping students understand difficult topics. * Task automation and optimization - helping design systems and processes to make work more efficient. * However, I aim to be broadly helpful across many domains. I'd be curious to hear what kinds of tasks you're interested in working on? # I build models of community level systems for civil society, focusing on creating new businesses at the neighborhood level and solving local problems collectively. This is fascinating work that sits at the intersection of economic development, social capital, and local governance. I'd love to learn more about your approach. When you say "models of community level systems" - are you creating conceptual frameworks, mathematical/computational models, or perhaps both? I'm particularly interested in how you capture the complex social dynamics and informal networks that often drive neighborhood-level change. I could potentially help with various aspects of this work: * Analyzing community economic data and trends * Developing system models and causal loops * Drafting business plans adapted for community contexts * Mapping stakeholder relationships and power dynamics * Evaluating similar initiatives from other communities * Creating visualization tools to communicate complex systems What kind of challenges are you currently working through in your modeling process? # Wow. I am looking forward to working and thinking with you. We do a lot of causal loop diagrams and a lot of conceptual models. I even use Dov Dori's OPM occasionally. We collect data through conversations and group modeling sessions. Our main goal is for people to become modelers. We talk about campfire conversations and cave drawings to make the connection between group conversations and continuously improved models relevant to the neighborhood. Your approach resonates deeply with the principles of participatory action research and community-based system dynamics. Getting people to think in systems and become modelers themselves is powerful - it shifts the expertise and agency directly to the community members where it belongs. The metaphor of campfire conversations and cave drawings is brilliant. It connects modern systems thinking to humanity's earliest forms of collective sense-making and knowledge transmission. This framing probably helps make modeling feel more accessible and culturally resonant. Using group modeling sessions to collect data is fascinating because it likely captures both explicit knowledge (the formal data points) and tacit knowledge (how people understand relationships between elements, what they emphasize, where they see leverage points). I'm curious about how you handle the iterative nature of this work. When communities begin creating their own models, how do you help them refine and evolve their thinking while keeping them in the driver's seat? **And how do you balance the desire for model accuracy/completeness with keeping the process engaging and accessible?** > We follow the group's interest, or suggest that they follow the group's interest rather than the passion of a modeler or facilitator. Better to have too little than too much modeling. :>) OPM (Object-Process Methodology) is an interesting choice for this context. Does its bimodal visual/textual nature help bridge different ways of understanding systems within the community? > OPM is a highly specialized modeling environment built for system engineers. We use it sparsely at this juncture but see a great future for it down the road. Again, there would need to be specialist in the network of neighborhoods to master this tool. # Here is a small Neo4j Cypher query from our work. What do you make of it. Several interesting patterns emerge from this data: Multiple layers of organization: Core nonprofits (RegenSonora) Microenterprises (Leo's, LEHR Food & Soil) Support services (Staffing, Marketing-Sales) Networks (ReLocalize Creativity, Federated Wiki) A sophisticated conversation framework: Moves from Dialogue → System Exploration → Syntegration Includes both "Possibilities" and "Action" conversations Uses "Campfire Conversations" as a key methodology Strong emphasis on modeling tools: Multiple modeling approaches (OPM, CLD, VSM, Vester Modeling) Integration of storytelling with technical tools Use of "Cave Drawing" as an accessible metaphor for system modeling Notable connection to established system thinkers: Ward Cunningham (Wiki pioneer) Connection to various geographical locations showing distributed network Clear value orientation toward: Commonwealth Local Food Production Community Participation Local Entrepreneurship Land Ownership The RenDanHeYi reference is particularly interesting - it suggests you're adapting Haier's management model for community contexts. How are you translating this industrial management approach to neighborhood-level organization? # We see neighborhood development centers as ecological microenterprise communities (EMC) providing a set of essential support mircroenterprises to many local customer facing microenterprises. We see philanthropic foundations playing the role of "industry platforms", rather like prosocial venture capitalist. We are developing the blockchain (Ethereum) smart contracts and voting to allow non-hierarchal business structures with microenterprise membership from 5 to 15 owner/operators. This is a sophisticated adaptation of RenDanHeYi that could potentially solve several persistent challenges in community economic development. Let me break down what I find most compelling: The EMC structure mirrors Haier's microenterprise communities but with an ecological focus - presumably this means both environmental sustainability and viewing the neighborhood economy as an ecosystem? > We have a wonderful modeling environment that includes the world seen as an ecological system, the social world as a nested political system, and a bridging space of interaction institutions that are or are not aware of the ecologic worlds and the political worlds. It is created to get ecologists, politicians, and businesses talking together in a larger context. The support microenterprises acting as shared services is clever - it allows small customer-facing businesses to access professional capabilities (marketing, staffing, etc.) without each having to develop that capacity individually. This likely creates significant economies of scale. Using philanthropic foundations as "industry platforms" is an innovative reframing. In Haier's model, the platforms provide technology, brand, and capital resources. Are you envisioning foundations providing similar platform resources but optimized for social impact rather than pure profit? The blockchain governance piece is intriguing. With 5-15 owner/operators, you're in the sweet spot for effective collective decision-making based on Ostrom's research. Are you using quadratic voting or another mechanism to handle decisions? I'm particularly curious about how you handle the tension between EMC autonomy and foundation oversight. In Haier's model, microenterprises have significant autonomy but still operate within corporate strategic constraints. How do you balance foundation strategic priorities with EMC independence? # We believe that foundations that currently focus on neighborhoods have a limited set of goal: economic development, local sustainability as regards food, jobs, affordable housing, childcare, eldercare, behavioral health, educational attainment, non-discrimination. We believe that most neighborhoods share these goals and with RenDanHeYi approach and start up funding they can better address these goals than outsiders or government. As we demonstrate the capability of neighborhoods to build prosocial businesses as microenterprises (essentially small co-ops) we think that foundations will preferentially fund them because they get results. And yes we will use quadratic voting and other form of voting made possible through technology. We are fans of the online book, Pleurality. This is a compelling vision that elegantly aligns incentives between foundations and neighborhoods. You're essentially proposing that foundations evolve from grant-makers to platform providers supporting distributed, autonomous but interconnected microenterprises. This could be transformative for several reasons: * Local Knowledge Leverage: Unlike traditional top-down programs, this model harnesses the deep contextual knowledge that residents have about their neighborhood's needs, resources, and dynamics. * Sustainable Impact: By creating viable microenterprises rather than dependent programs, you're building lasting capacity. The co-op structure ensures benefits are distributed within the community. * Scalable Solution: As each EMC demonstrates success, it creates: Proof points for other foundations to adopt the platform model * Templates for other neighborhoods to adapt * Network effects between EMCs that strengthen the overall ecosystem Your reference to Plurality (I assume you mean Glen Weyl and Audrey Tang's work?) is apt. Their ideas about decentralized collective intelligence and quadratic funding/voting align well with what you're building. The blockchain governance could enable sophisticated mechanisms like: * Nested decision-making across different scales Transparent resource allocation * Reputation systems for microenterprises * Inter-EMC collaboration and resource sharing One question: How do you handle the initial transition? Getting from traditional nonprofit/social service delivery to self-organizing EMCs seems like it would require significant capacity building and culture change, both in neighborhoods and foundations. # In addition we are using Ward Cunningham's federated wiki as a repository for neighborhood problem-solutions ("patterns") modeled after Christopher Alexanders, A Pattern Language. We will develop a transition to this model side-by-side with an advanced local non-profit foundation with similar aspirations. We are currently collaborating to develop RenDanHeYi structures within four neighborhood development centers, one in Arizona, one in Texas, one in Washington, and one in Ohio. This is a brilliant integration of powerful ideas. Using Federated Wiki for a neighborhood pattern language creates a dynamic, evolving knowledge commons that can help scale what works while preserving local adaptability. A few key strengths of this approach: Pattern Language + RenDanHeYi is a powerful combination: * Alexander's patterns capture proven solutions while acknowledging context * RenDanHeYi provides the organizational structure to implement them * Federated Wiki allows patterns to evolve and adapt across locations Having four different sites developing simultaneously offers valuable advantages: * Cross-pollination of ideas * Multiple contexts for testing patterns * Network effects in knowledge sharing * Diverse environmental/social/economic conditions The side-by-side transition with an established foundation is strategically smart: * Reduces risk through parallel development * Provides immediate credibility * Creates a model other foundations can study * Maintains service continuity during transition I'm curious about the knowledge capture and sharing process. How do you balance: * Making patterns detailed enough to be useful but flexible enough to adapt * Capturing tacit knowledge that might not easily fit the pattern format > We encourage pattern writers to include their contact information and make themselves available to talk with other neighborhood activists. When the demand grows too large for voluntary support we plan to support mechanisms for paid mentoring. * Enabling cross-site learning while maintaining local autonomy > The Federated Wiki maintains autonomy but is open source information that anyone can use, while the prior authors can learn from the adaptations if they choose to. Also, have you found that certain types of patterns (social, economic, organizational) tend to transfer more easily across locations than others? > We don't yet have enough experience to answer this important question. # We have extensively reviewed patterns and pattern languages. We provide coaching and examples in building/writing useful patterns. The nice thing about the Federated Wiki is that every user can adapt the template to their needs without altering the prior template or pattern. Here is our current template. * Pattern Name * Introduction * Illustration * CONTEXT * Initial Situation * PROBLEM: Forces * THEREFORE (SOLUTION) * Actions * Consequences * Known Uses * Examples * Important Know-How * CONNECTED PATTERNS * Supported Patterns * Supporting Patterns. The extensibility of the Federated Wiki format paired with this comprehensive pattern template seems really well thought out. It addresses several key challenges in pattern documentation: 1. The template structure guides users through capturing both explicit and tacit knowledge: - "Forces" helps articulate underlying dynamics - "Important Know-How" captures experiential wisdom - "Known Uses" and "Examples" provide concrete validation - "Context" helps users understand transferability 2. The connectivity elements ("Connected Patterns", "Supported/Supporting Patterns") help create what Alexander would call a "pattern language" - showing how solutions work together in a larger system. 3. The Fork/Adapt capability of Federated Wiki means: - Each neighborhood can evolve patterns to their context - The original pattern remains as reference - You can track how patterns evolve and adapt - Networks of related patterns can emerge organically This feels like you're building what could be called a "living pattern language" for neighborhood development. The combination of: - Structured documentation (the template) - Social learning (federated network) - Local adaptation (fork/modify capability) - System thinking (pattern connections) Creates a powerful framework for capturing and sharing neighborhood solutions while respecting local context. Would you be willing to share an example of a specific pattern that's been successfully adapted across different neighborhood contexts? I'd be particularly interested in seeing how the same basic pattern manifests differently in Arizona versus Washington. > A great question. We will get this done and report back. Thanks for you wonderful framing of our work and you provocative questions. I look forward to thinking with you, Claudette.