The third screen side chat I want to have this week concerns whether ambiguity is good. And I noticed there's quite a bit of upvoting on it so I would like to address it. it was asked by a former student Megan Easley Walsh. And she said, is it simply that ambiguity is important to a coalition, because in the grey areas there can still be something in common. But when things become too black and white, then there is no longer unity, or any cooperation, for the coalition. In other words, can we say that the members of the coalition may exist on different sides, but in the grey area there is a place for them to come together and therefore ambiguity is good. A variety of you, you responded to this, for example Misha Pavlovic argues that, you know, more ambiguity is better and he kind of implies certain things there which is that, you know the grey area is where the coalition holds. You know, to have a coalition, you need to have strange bedfellows, otherwise it's a different kind of organizing. It may be that you want to get out of a coalition situation, and that's why ambiguity isn't good. But in terms of a coalition, which is, you know a situation where there's multiple actors with very different preferences and identities You know, that creates all sorts of ambiguities and with that ambiguity, you know,we end up with exchanges of sorts that, horse trading, log rolling and things like that, that form a coalition of diverse interests. And so it's partly a matter of definition that ambiguity could be good. another person wrote, I think Nana Ganraze that ambiguity allows for bargaining, and I, I want to read hers if i can find it really quick. she says's it's Nana Gabraze ,and she wrote you know depends on ambiguity is understood and applied in a coalition of multiple actors with inconsistent preferences and identity. ambiguity loss for better flexibility and permits, adopting the goals and processes to a changing political, social, economic and or cultural context. So it's ambiguity here is for strategic reasons, right? So such flexibility leaves more room for maneuvering, not to say manipulation and forming strategic alliances and partnerships, improves odds for inter-space bargaining, increases the coalition's capacity for rapid reaction And survival. She goes on and says as mentioned by some other classmates earlier the importance of ambiguity, flexibility would vary among the coalition members based on the role within the coalition. As core members have higher incentives to remain ambiguity in order to have better control over the coalition's rules. Resources and preferences of the members, whereas the specialist would require more clarity of the objectives, processes and the rules to persue and ensure their specific interests. In turn one would not expect the peripheral members to be much concerned about the ambiguity as long as their immediate objectives are achieved and the coalition serves it's purpose. You know, with comments like that, I kind of feel like my role here is, is diminished and unimportant, but it also makes me excited, because it feels like you guys get everything and understand it deeply and Nana that's absolutely right. Merso, Stephan Gulavicci also has a nice insight that I'm going to quickly read. And he argues, you know, look, coalitions are there to attain goals which none of the members could reach on their own. You know, when things are black and white one can easily calculate returns and utility leading to less influential members leaving the coalition or being less committed. So uncertainty motivates each member to seek higher influence inside the coalition to maximize their own gains. He goes on to say, when ambiguity is gone, all members will ultimately, immediately seek their egoistic self interest at the expense of their former coalition partners. So, makes it kind of a rational choice argument for coalitions, that ambiguity gives the reasons of why you want to hold together a coalition. So that's also helpful others of you said, you know, ambiguity undermines. And I think Pablo Muso had a nice example of that and others of you probably did too. I mean, there are cases where these coalitions fall apart from chronic ambiguity. So I think there's a point at which it's too much, where distrust and strange bedfellows are too temporary and too uncertain. That it's difficult to even believe an exchange will come through. And I think we need to keep that in mind. And finally Mars Sanchez makes a interesting kind of suggestion. I don't know if you fully imply this, but I took it that way. That perhaps core members with each other, you know inside versus outside perceptions of a coalition. Will require you know, clarity within and this might be a way to reconcile Pablo's view with this, which is that core members within the coalition may need clarity of goals and consensus, perhaps of their ideals. Whereas outside, prephrial specialists and all those tag alongs. there, you might want, ambiguity, with them. From the core to them. Meaning, and this kind of gives. Maybe explains why we have this appearance of, of, of coalitions. That they appear one way and then operate internally differently, right? So there's all this kind of wheeling and dealing inside. And then on the outside it looks like there's this unified front. And this may have to do with,uh, kind of how people are presenting ambiguity toward which audience. And I think that, that might be a way forward too. so nonetheless I think it's important to think about, ambiguity and uncertainty and how it leads to the need for a coalition, as well as kind of what kind of bargaining potentials one has within those contexts. So because of that we end up with this kind of nee, set of coalition dynamics and the need for a coalition and the ability to sustain it. once that disappears we end up usually in a different kind of organizational mode and that may be what many of us want, particularly given how uncomfortable, or temporary, some coalistions can be. But nonetheless, it's a particular kind of organizing process, so hopefully you're beginning to see that distinction and I think a lot of you did on the forum. So again, thank you for your comments.