X : You talk about mapping ethical values.
Me : Yes.
X : What about politics.
Me : Hmmm. In particular?
X : Well, take an Overton window. How do you show that?

Me : Ok, for a single collective then you can map out its values. All those values are evolving. They have done so throughout history.
X : Seen that.
Me : Ok ...

... now normally, I take the top end of the map and then I compress this ...

... down into a pipeline i.e. there are many evolving top level values (and a whole lot of hidde detail). In fact, I usually compress this all down to a square symbol ...

... as show in the culture map.
X : I've seen that.
Me : Good, well let us go back ...

... a single value will have a range of views. Some will think should be more accepted, others are arguging it's poorly understood or should be universal etc. That's your window. Now sometimes you have values in conflict with each other, one set dies off the others dominate. Ok?

X : So, the value evolves towards being accepted, the window is that view on the current position / battle.
Me : Oooh, Yep. I like that.
X : Techniques for influencing?
Me : Same as for other forms of capital .. no different.

X : Can you give examples?
Me : Yep.
X : And ...?
Me : I can is one thing, will I is another. So, no. Not interested. I should update that table with light / neutral / dark arts.

X : Anything you can point to?
Me : Well, in the UK for example, it's interesting to compare the broader range of values to be found on Twitter with the narrower range of values on Parler. It's fascinating to watch ...

X : ... you use Parler?
Me : I lurk, passively monitoring. One of my areas of research is in radicalisation. However, that's getting off the point.
X : Which is?
Me : ... certain actors gain by causing destabilisation within an opposing collective.