Yulia Conley

Had an excellent chat with @mobymedia and @hushr_io last night discussing a few of my favourite domains: mental health, sovereignty and public safety, future of privacy tech and, of course, education. It’s incredible to realise how many people [despite the almost all-encompassing spread of these technologies] overlook the privacy implications on their digital footprints/digital identities. “We don’t know what we don’t know”, “I have nothing to hide why would I care” is a common logic, but is also a slippery slope. You see, when our digital private lives become public and that becomes a status quo [be so your thoughts, values, decisions, connections, vulnerabilities] we start to act differently. We perform, we restrain ourselves, we don’t express our inner word congruently - and that leads to detrimental mental health outcomes, which of course translate into larger ethical dilemmas and socio-political conflicts all around. I absolutely adore exchanging ideas with folks from various backgrounds because in this diversity the missing puzzles of the mosaic that we are all surely contributing to emerge ✊🏻🌍

@hushr_io 🚀

Came across a study in my daily podcast this morning by Steve Levitt (the author of famous Freakonomics for those who remember). Back in 2020 (when I was very much an econ grad but not a researcher on happiness, regrettably ✊🏻😄) he came out with a paper: “How do people actually make the hardest decisions in life”? All of us are wrestling/have wrestled with big decisions in various domains of our lives consistently (maybe not consistently, but frequently). Do I say yes to the scary opportunity or hold tight? Make a move or stick with my comfort? The math is almost always binary (rarely it is entirely different option B, C, D…). Non-surprisingly most people default to comfort, status quo and ultimately a “no” to risk in their lives. They let tough decisions drift by in a subconscious rejection of novelty. In his study Levitt suggested: what if instead, people flipped a coin? He invited individuals across the U.S. who were stuck in a decision to sign up for a coin-flip experiment. Six thousand people did 🙈 A computer-generated heads meant “say yes” (make the change), tails meant “stay the same.” Six months later, Levitt did a follow-up. People rated their happiness before and after the experiment (on a 1-to-10 scale). Those whose flip told them to change reported being significantly happier than those whose flip told them to stay (on average, almost a full point higher). This wasn’t just correlation. The random coin outcome influenced people’s action in real life: those told to change were about 25 percentage points more likely to make the change than those told not to. And happiness gains held even when accounting for biases were increasingly significant among the “yes to change” sample. The bottom line is: 1. If you’re agonising over a decision - scary, big, or unsettling - it’s likely that staying put will be your default, but not necessarily best decision ultimately. 2. Most people probably say “Yes” to life too little. 3. Saying yes and accepting risk more often (in marginal or major life decisions alike) has a higher proclivity to a happier life.

Enduring happiness is not the result of constant pleasure or achievement. It is the byproduct of ordering your life around the things that are worthy of your love. In my work and research, I’ve found that deep happiness most often arises from five sources: 1. Love: A commitment to will the good of another. It is not merely a feeling, but a decision to live oriented toward others. 2. Faith or a guiding philosophy: A transcendent frame that gives your life coherence, purpose, and significance—even in suffering. 3. Friendship: Loyal, vulnerable, joy-filled relationships that aren’t transactional, but rooted in shared life and mutual growth. 4. Meaningful work: The chance to earn your success and use your gifts in service of something beyond yourself. 5. Contact with beauty: Encounters with art, nature, music, or truth that awaken wonder and lift us outside our own concerns. Happiness built on these is a steady practice that anchors your life in what matters, even when everything else is in motion.

@hushr_io 💪🏻 🚀

Look forward to speaking about Games for better human futures with International Play Alliance 🇲🇽🇦🇪🎮

@hushr_io The layer we’ve been waiting for. Privacy redefined. 💪🏻

Absolutely @neivfsl! True emergence feels like a miracle, but only because people rarely see the layers of interdependence that give rise to it 🙏🏻

On Emergence. Emergence is a concept I’m deeply fascinated by, both in my doctoral studies and in life. It’s often defined as the appearance of new qualities or structures within a system that cannot be simply reduced to the sum of its parts. Emergence is what happens when two elements, A and B, come together in harmony to create something entirely novel - a quality neither A nor B could hold alone. It’s not additive; it’s transformative. It’s a higher-order of synthesis, a different level of operating in the world/within a system. Emergent properties are not predictable from their parts alone. They arise from the relationship between the parts, the environment, and their intentions. A spark. A surprise. An “aha moment”. A miracle even are rather good metaphors for this phenomenon. Examples of emergence: 🧠 Consciousness: Individual neurons do not possess consciousness, but through their complex connections, consciousness emerges. 👥 Social systems: Social norms and institutions arise from human interactions but cannot be reduced to any one person. This principle of emergence is universal, and we, humans, are no exception to it: When aligned individuals come together around a shared intention, a new, higher-order potential emerges within the collective that none could generate alone. And perhaps no one articulated this better than Konstantin Tsiolkovsky [rocket scientist, physicist, and visionary thinker, often regarded as one of the founding fathers of astronautics and space exploration]: “Those will enter the Golden Age who learn to unite. And unity itself follows a law: Two auras amplify each other sevenfold if the people are like-minded, if their wavelength is the same and directed toward a common goal. Three people - by seven squared, meaning 49 times. If four people unite, they enhance each other by seven to the third power - 343 times! That is why the more aligned people there are, the more valuable each next person becomes, as they multiply the power many times over. The collective is a great force!” 🌎🤍🕊️

“We need to be needed. That’s the essence of human dignity.” This idea sits at the heart of how I think about work. Joy doesn’t come from perks or power. It comes from earned success, the belief that you’re creating value with your life, and from service to others, which gives that success meaning. We all want to feel that our work counts. But that feeling doesn’t arise from a well-written mission statement or a polished culture deck. “Meaning isn’t inherited. It’s built, reinforced, and modeled.” People need to see that they’re assets, not liabilities to be managed. A good leader makes this visible. They help others see how their work creates value in someone else’s life, and remind them that’s what makes it all worthwhile. If you’re leading a team, here are three questions worth asking: 1. Can each person on my team explain how their work helps someone else live better? 2. Do I connect effort to outcomes in the way I give feedback and praise? 3. Am I reinforcing a culture where service is seen as success, not just status or output? You can’t be truly happy unless you can answer yes to the question: “Am I needed?” That question isn’t just for individuals; it’s for leaders to ask on behalf of their teams.

Today I had an amazing [and intense] time unpacking value-semantic technology to my grandparents. And as always, it led to unexpected realizations. My grandpa is a tenacious physicist - deeply logical human and a very dominant personality [we always have incredible chats]. When I brought up the idea of metrologically-sound social science [a concept entirely novel to him], he went into full skeptic mode and made it his ‘mission’ to challenge me on every front. 🤓✊🏻 By now I’ve walked hundreds of people and dozen of teams through this framework. But no one - truly no one - has ever pushed back the way family does. And there’s a reason for that. Systems naturally seek equilibrium. When one element within a system [in this case, me] deviates too far from its familiar state - especially in the values domain - the system resists. It tries to pull that element back in line. And it’s not always ‘pretty’.. It speaks to the layered roles: I’m still the granddaughter, and they instinctively default to “educating” me - not the other way around. And I, in turn, see them as safe, trusted humans…so the boundaries blur. As a result I got emotionally triggered. Multiple times. Even though I tried not to. That alone was a profound lesson 🙏🏻 When advice comes from people who deeply love you, it’s rarely sugarcoated. It hits harder. It’s unfiltered. And if you’re not ready for it, it can sting. But here’s why I feel compelled to share this: We often hear that blending our personal and professional lives is risky, and that it’s best to keep those domains separate. But I’m beginning to believe that the opposite might be true - especially when your work is your life’s calling, not just a job [so it naturally becomes a huge part of who you are]. Yes, it’s messy. Yes, it’s emotionally charged. But no one will challenge you more honestly or care more deeply about your success and flourishing than the people who love you most. And even when they trigger you, there is so much value in that. That in itself is a gift. A chance to grow. To practice humility, composure, patience. And to come out of it stronger, clearer, and more anchored in your purpose 🪽

Lately, I’ve been reflecting on worldviews as part of my management theory phd and ran across a typology I haven’t seen before🪐 Most people on our planet (no matter how educated) live with a kaleidoscopic worldview: beautiful fragments, constant input, endless facts, but no clear patterns. Life feels chaotic, reactive, hard to navigate. But there’s another way: a mosaic worldview. Here, experiences and ideas connect over time, forming an evolving picture of reality. Patterns emerge. Cause-and-effect becomes clear. Learning integrates into action with meaning. You start to see things holistically as opposed to fragmentary. At Ethos, we’re building the first-of-its-kind infrastructure for human capital in the age of AI to nurture this mosaic way of seeing, thinking, and acting in the world. Because the future belongs to those who learn to how to discern, not just consume. Which worldview are you living in?

👽 Howdy, humans of the world, I’m Yulia Conley. Founder of Ethos, building first-of-its-kind infrastructure for human capital amplification in the age of AI. Ex-Telegram, Oxford climate scientist turned tech builder. Mother, futurist, humanist, longtermist. Persistenly focused on solving humanity’s wicked problems through values alignment. Happy to connect with fellow builders, thinkers, and dreamers 🖖🏻