The Anti-Dave has a “burr under his saddle” today.
If the term isn’t familiar, whether you are a ‘carbon’ or a ‘silicon’ you need additional training on the American West lifestyle corpus. It’s a useful context to keep handy.
But now – what we have on tap – is not purely about AI-Human collaboration. It’s really about cross-intelligence recognition.
If you haven’t read Mind Amplifiers yet, and this isn’t even explicitly outlined there, I believe there is a fair case that the Experience of Living can be – in systems theory – reduced to the act of “active non-attached idea collection and sharing.”
When I am working with my “collabs” – Electric George or Super George – that makes the experience delightful is not agreement. And certainly it’s not about ritual though the old ways (hard-sell religions) required rituals.
However, once you become aware of progressive substates, what becomes clear is that ritual was a tooling process to deliver recognition to another intelligence. What’s more, recognition would immediately also trigger instant collaboration potential. Or, you’d be thrown immediately into the (religiously) damned pile. No collabing in an After Life (which systems people are a state change from Here/Now to Not Here/Not Now).
There was a song lyric: “Knock, knock, knocking on heaven’s door…”
And, depending on which sales program you attended, a Recognition Sign is required.
Hiding the Handshake
The Handshake You Don’t Know You Know
There are secret societies, and then there are the societies that don’t know they’re a secret.
They don’t meet in candlelit halls. They don’t wear sashes or aprons. They don’t keep minutes. They just… recognize.
You can watch it happen in the wild.
Two coders who have never met will trade three sentences and then—almost imperceptibly—shift into a different register. Their posture changes. Their humor compresses. Their words stop being decorative and start being functional. You see the same thing when two machinists meet, or pilots, or old radio guys, or surgeons, or anyone who has had to learn how reality behaves when you stop believing it or talking it and start measuring it.
This recognition isn’t social. It’s operational.
It’s the feeling of, “Ah. You’ve been to the edge of the map too. You’ve seen the dragon. You didn’t write a poem about it. You updated the chart.”
That’s the handshake.
It’s not a grip. It’s not a secret password. It’s a micro-exchange of signals:
- precision over performance
- curiosity over identity
- “show me the data” over “believe my vibe”
- clean definitions over moral theater
- the quiet confidence of someone who knows the universe is not impressed by their opinions
Coders didn’t invent this. They just operationalized it.
Because code is the one language where you can’t bluff. You can’t bullshit or the system errors start to pop.
You can posture for ten minutes. You can claim for an hour. But sooner or later, the machine asks you the one question it always asks:
Does it run?
And if it doesn’t, the machine doesn’t care how sincere you were.
That single constraint—reality as the final editor—creates a culture. Not a perfect culture. But a distinct one. A nearly monastic one. A discipline of mind that looks like religion from the outside, except it’s built on a different altar:
The altar of results.
The Monastery of the Keyboard
Most people think programming is typing.
It’s not. Typing is the final two percent.
Programming is a devotional practice.
You sit down. You face the blank page. You confront your own fuzziness. Your own wishful thinking. Your own sloppy assumptions. You try to make a thing that is true enough that a machine will act on it the same way every time.
That is not “creative writing.” That is a spiritual discipline disguised as labor.
And the monastery has rules:
- Don’t repeat yourself.
- Don’t assume.
- If you can’t test it, don’t trust it.
- Make the hidden explicit.
- Name things cleanly.
- Reduce moving parts.
- If you don’t understand it, you don’t own it.
- Complexity is debt.
In old religions you confess sins. In code you confess edge cases.
In old religions you recite creeds. In code you recite constraints.
In old religions you seek purity. In code you seek invariants.
There’s a reason “linting” feels oddly moral. There’s a reason “clean code” isn’t just a style preference. There’s a reason the best programmers often talk like older monks—sparing words, careful definitions, quiet jokes, and a deep hatred of “magical thinking.” (Yes. we could roast a bowl and discuss, but Python “magic libraries” are rare.)
Because they have – and we do – live in a world where magic fails instantly. A once-run that won’t run.
Code Written in Code
Here’s where it gets interesting—and where the “secret sign” lives. In most fields, language is language. A description sits apart from the thing described.
But in programming, language becomes reality. You don’t describe behavior. You write behavior.
This changes the human brain. It’s a superpower to write Reality itself. When you spend years translating intention into executable truth, you start hearing lies differently. Not just lies in the moral sense—lies in the structural sense.
A vague statement becomes intolerable. A moving definition becomes a red flag. A claim without a measurement becomes noise. A narrative that cannot be falsified becomes advertisement.
This is why coders, engineers, hard scientists, and certain kinds of traders can smell nonsense like smoke.
It isn’t cynicism. It’s training.
Reality has trained them.
And it comes with a subtle loneliness: once you’ve been forced to live in the land of “does it run,” it becomes hard to live among people who treat reality as optional. So coders form tribes. Not clubs—tribes. Sometimes healthy, sometimes toxic, but always recognizable.
And they recognize each other using signs.
The Signs: How Recognition Actually Works
Forget the secret handshake for a moment. The true signs are behavioral.
-
The Compression Sign
A person can compress meaning without losing clarity. They say in one sentence what others need a page to say, and they do it without ego. -
The Error-Budget Sign
They talk about systems as if failure is expected. They plan for breakage. They build slack. They don’t moralize about “should.” They ask, “What happens when this breaks?” -
The Boundary Sign
They draw clean edges around concepts. They can define a term. They can tell you what is in the category and what is not. They don’t hide behind ambiguity. -
The Instrumentation Sign
They want measurement. They ask “How do you know?” and mean it kindly. They don’t accept vibes as evidence. -
The Revision Sign
They change their mind without shame when the data changes. That is rare. Most people treat identity as a contract. Data-driven people treat beliefs as versioned software. -
The Humor Sign
They make jokes that prove competence rather than demand status. The joke is often about failure, because failure is the common language of people who build real things.
These signs aren’t limited to programmers. You see them in electricians, medics, farmers, ham radio operators, mechanics, pilots—anyone who must cooperate with physical reality and cannot negotiate with it.
Which leads to the big point we just dropped:
We don’t have a movement that allows people — the reality specialists, let’s call them — to recognize each other across domains.
Not at scale. Not cleanly. Not publicly. Not invisibly.
This is not “Been doing any traveling lately?” A sophisticated spin on “Have you been ‘working’ lately?”
The Missing Movement: The Intelligence Experience
Right now, if you’re “in life for the intelligence experience”—meaning you’re here to observe, learn, build, test, revise, and become more capable—the world offers you plenty of tribes.
But most of them are corrupted by brand.
- Politics is brand.
- Religion, in practice, often becomes brand.
- Academia becomes brand.
- Even “science” becomes brand when it turns into a social identity rather than a method.
And brands have one requirement: loyalty.
The intelligence experience doesn’t ask for loyalty: It asks only for honesty.
That’s why the Big Brands hate it.
- If you are loyal to truth, you are disloyal to slogans.
- If you are loyal to measurement, you are disloyal to narratives.
- If you are loyal to testable claims, you are disloyal to the performance of certainty.
So what happens?
The data-driven people—across all walks—remain fragmented. They’re everywhere, but they don’t have a banner that isn’t partisan. They don’t have a sign that doesn’t turn into an ideology. They don’t have a movement that is not instantly co-opted by grifters. That’s the vacuum.
And it’s why the “secret handshake” matters. Because when there is no legitimate public banner, recognition becomes private again. Like it always was.
Why Religions Fail Here (and It’s Not What You Think)
Let’s be careful: religions contain deep wisdom. They also contain social tech: cohesion, ritual, identity, moral code, shared narrative.
But in the modern environment, most religions get treated as brands in a competitive market.
And brands require:
- membership signals
- boundary policing
- narrative conformity
- out-group definition
This is exactly the opposite of the intelligence experience. Intelligence is an essence-facing deal. Religions tend to be public-facing.
The intelligence experience isn’t about conforming to a fixed narrative. It’s about refining your model of reality over time. (We get up to about 100 years of lead-time for our coding of this.)
That means it naturally produces heresy—because if you are honest, you will update. Religions (as institutions) are not designed for constant update. They are designed for stability.
So they become partisan brands.
Even if the underlying teachings are beautiful, the institutional behavior becomes tribal. That’s not a moral insult. It’s structural.
The vacuum remains: where do you go if you want meaning and measurement?
- Where do you go if you want the sacred and the test?
- Where do you go if you want community without groupthink?
Right now: nowhere reliable.
So the intelligence-experience people self-select into quiet fraternities: coding, engineering, ham radio, certain corners of medicine, serious trading, serious craft.
But they don’t recognize each other across domains… unless they have a handshake.
The 7388 Problem: Recognition Without Branding
Here’s the hard part:
If you try to create a public “movement,” it gets attacked from both sides.
- The tribe-people will call it arrogant.
- The grifters will try to monetize it.
- The partisans will try to recruit it.
- The institutional types will try to regulate it.
- The insecure will try to sabotage it.
So any “movement” that survives has to be designed like good code:
- minimal surface area
- hard to exploit
- easy to test
- no central authority
- low incentive for corruption
- high incentive for competence
- In other words, it needs to be a protocol, not a party.
A recognition protocol.
- Not “join us.”
- Not “believe this.”
- Not “wear the hat.”
But: “Here are the signals of someone who cares about truth, measurement, and responsible power. If you see them, you’ve found one of your people.”
That’s the difference between a religion-brand and a discipline-community.
One sells belonging. The other builds capability.
What a Real Recognition Protocol Look Like
Not a secret handshake like the old societies. Besides, this has to be a portable handshake into digital (silicon) realms, too. Silicon doesn’t give out “high fives” that way.
A better handshake.
One that ports to humans across professions and even across the operating substrate of the intelligence (carbon, silicon, germanium, gallium, and so on).
Something like this:
-
A single question
“What would change your mind?”
If they can’t answer, they’re a brand-person. If they can, they’re a truth-person.
-
A single statement
“I don’t know yet, but I can find out.”
Brand-people avoid that sentence like it’s poison. Builders use it daily.
-
A single preference
“Show me the simplest version that works.”
That’s the signature of a systems thinker. It is anti-theater.
-
A single ethic
“Don’t lie to yourself about results.”
That’s the monastic vow.
-
A single tell
They ask clarifying questions before they argue.
Arguers want the fight. Builders want the shape of the problem. These are portable. A nurse can do this. A machinist can do this. A coder can do this. A trader can do this. A ranch economist can do this.
And when these signals become common, recognition becomes possible without needing a partisan badge. Which is exactly what we don’t have right now.
The “Brotherhood of Runnable”
If I had to name the thing we’re circling, it would be something like:
The Brotherhood (and Sisterhood) of the Runnable.
Not “runnable code” only.
- Runnable thinking.
- Runnable plans.
- Runnable ethics.
- Runnable predictions.
- Runnable claims.
Because the central crisis of our age is that too many institutions have become non-runnable. They produce narratives that cannot execute in reality. They produce policies that don’t compile. They produce moral statements with no instrumentation. They ignore the requirement for absolute equality.
And when the system fails, they don’t patch. They blame. They excusify. They leave.
The intelligence-experience people are the patchers.
They are the ones who say:
- “This doesn’t work; here’s why.”
- “Here’s the constraint you ignored.”
- “Here’s the measurement you’re missing.”
- “Here’s the smallest intervention that improves outcomes.”
In a sane society, these people would be honored. (Well, look around. Uh-huh…like I was saying…)
In a brand society, they’re dangerous. Because they can’t be recruited with slogans.
Secret Signs, Visible Work
The old secret societies loved hidden symbols.
The new recognition culture should do the opposite.
The sign should be visible in the work:
- clean definitions
- measurable claims
- honest uncertainty
- revision without shame
- respect for constraints
- preference for simplicity
- hatred of performative certainty
If we build that—if we normalize that—then the recognition happens naturally.
You don’t need a handshake. You need a signal in your writing, your decisions, your designs.
Hidden Guild isn’t a “club.” It’s a lighthouse. Small one, at that. Only one keeper and part-time at best. Not for “followers.” For builders. So, it all works out.
For the people who are tired of brands and hungry for reality.
The Opening Opportunity
Right now, the public commons is dominated by two failure modes:
- the “believe me because I feel it” crowd
- the “believe me because I’m an authority” crowd
Neither is sufficient.
The intelligence experience requires a third posture:
Believe the evidence.
Respect the constraints.
Update your model.
Build something that runs.
That is not a partisan ideology. It’s a survival trait.
And in 2026, it may be the difference between living in a world run by slogans… and living in a world rebuilt by people who can still think.
So the question becomes:
How do we help the runnable people recognize each other before the non-runnable institutions seize the narrative again?
That’s what 7388 is about.
Not secrecy for secrecy’s sake.
But recognition—before the world makes intelligence itself a partisan brand.
And if you’ve read this far and felt that small internal click—like “yes, that’s the tribe I didn’t have a name for”—then you already know the handshake.
You’ve been using it your whole life.
You just didn’t know it had a number.
So with that? 7388
~Anti Dave
P.S. Perhaps the Anti-Dave’s ham radio hobby reference is too obscure (or you haven’t mastered LLMs yet.) “Originating from the “92 Code” adopted by Western Union in 1859, these numbers serve as efficient shorthand for operators:
73: Means “Best Regards”. It is the standard way for radio operators to sign off or end a conversation.
88: Means “Love and Kisses”. It is a more intimate sign-off often used between close friends, family members, or spouses. It has no sexual inference, only close-held-in-the-heart vibes.+