{"id":13074,"date":"2026-05-13T12:49:56","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T12:49:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/?p=13074"},"modified":"2026-05-13T18:01:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T18:01:00","slug":"the-thinkers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/13\/the-thinkers\/","title":{"rendered":"The Thinkers"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"photo-1763335074118-357374399ced\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

The Thinkers<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Rather than an individual gifting, intelligence is properly understood as social\u2014honed in community, where a group of minds can be more than the sum of its parts.<\/em><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

By Evan Tao<\/em><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

What do you think of when you picture thinking? Our culture\u2019s quintessential image of intelligence, \u201cthe Thinker\u201d sculpture by Rodin, depicts one man alone with his thoughts, but a more accurate portrait of human intelligence would be called \u201cthe Thinkers,\u201d showing two minds in dialogue. Human intelligence is a team sport. Great ideas are produced in dialogue, not monologue, by minds sharpening one another, stress-testing ideas, and reconciling differing perspectives. Our culture thinks of intelligence as an individual feature, measured by IQ and exemplified by the trope of the antisocial genius. But genius doesn\u2019t matter unless you are able to communicate it to other people with credibility. Every genius has, in the words of Isaac Newton, stood on the shoulders of giants. Brilliant science is meaningless if it is inaccessible to others. Excellent music is worthless if nobody hears it. As the apostle Paul put it, \u201cif I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, but do not have love, I am nothing.\u201d Indeed, all intelligence is social intelligence.<\/p>

Human cognition arose from our social nature. Among evolutionary anthropologists, there is general consensus on the social brain hypothesis<\/a>, which posits that the human brain expanded to process complex social information as social group sizes increased. However, this hypothesis can\u2019t fully explain why social intelligence is generalizable to all kinds of intelligence (say, tool use, memory, or abstract thought). The cultural brain hypothesis<\/a> proposes to fix this problem by suggesting that sociality didn\u2019t just make us better at social interaction; it allowed us to exchange and collect information about the world essential to survival. This is supported by neurocognitive evidence showing that newborn infants have a neurological ability<\/a> to learn from others\u2019 actions and their effects on the physical world. Socially transmitted information accumulates across generations in a repository of knowledge: which mushrooms kill you, what the stars mean, how to thresh grain. Put simply, what makes humans the smartest species on the planet is our unique ability to pool our brainpower.<\/p>

The psychologists Andy Clark and David Chalmers describe this pooling ability as \u201cactive externalism\u201d: a process through which humans extend their cognitive systems outside their skulls using portable \u201cmodules\u201d like notebooks and calculators. But before technology, our first mind expansions were to other humans, and Clark and Chalmers hypothesize that the brain evolved to facilitate this exact process. Perhaps this is why we can focus on abstract ideas for longer when we have an interlocutor as opposed to when we are alone\u2014playing catch is easier than juggling.<\/p>

Perhaps this is why we feel smartest when we speak with other people. Our brains were formed with the purpose of acting in concert with other brains. The anthropologists David Graeber and David Wengrow argue that humans spend most of their daily life in autopilot, but<\/p>

when we are capable of self-awareness, it’s usually for very brief periods of time: the \u2018window of consciousness\u2019 during which we can hold a thought or work out a problem tends to be open on average for roughly seven seconds . . . The great exception to this is when we’re talking to someone else. In conversation, we can hold thoughts and reflect on problems for hours on end. This is of course why so often, even when we’re trying to figure something out by ourselves, we imagine arguing with or explaining it to someone else. Human thought is inherently dialogic.<\/p>

That intelligence is social is immediately obvious in non-literate<\/a> oral societies, because when there are no written records, almost all knowledge comes from other people. It is taught using mnemonic devices<\/a> like stories and songs, and learned by apprenticeship and repetition. Information transfer necessarily builds a relationship between student and teacher. These processes point to the necessity of human connection for intelligence. Many Native American philosophers, for example, view intelligence as the discovery<\/a> of one\u2019s place in a cosmological network of relationships, which requires moral character<\/a> and social harmony to achieve. In an oral society, the man with no friends is an ignorant man, because he has no way to learn except by his own experience.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Screenshot\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The Enlightenment thinkers were right to promote thinking critically against authority, but by conflating dependence on institutions with dependence on other minds, they dismissed the social foundation of cognition altogether.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

If intelligence is inherently social, then how did modern Western culture come to view it as an individual trait? Certainly, there is no one cause, but a structural one worth highlighting is the gradual shift from orality to literacy. If language is key to human cognition, so is its medium. In non-literate societies, it\u2019s impossible to forget that knowledge is social, because if you want an answer, you have to question the expert face-to-face. Literacy is fundamentally different. It allows us to think in solitude in a way that orality doesn\u2019t, and while the written word is still technically socially transmitted, the writer usually doesn\u2019t have a direct relationship with the reader. Writing and reading generally take place alone and in private. The social and relational aspects of intelligence are still present in a literate society, but vastly deemphasized. As a result, intelligence is associated less with the other and more with the self.<\/p>

In the first millennium BC, during the dawn of literacy, orally transmitted knowledge was written down for the first time. As stories moved from tongues to tablets, literature shifted<\/a> away from didactic legends about humans and gods to introspection of the individual psyche. Philosophy shifted as well: While Socrates, Confucius, and Jesus had delivered oral dialogues to be recorded by their students, their successors wrote alone. Graeber and Wengrow argue that, to ancient philosophers, achieving independent thought as an isolated individual was only considered achievable for the great mystics, but today, we assume everyone thinks that way.<\/p>

This shift continued throughout the Enlightenment, when Western philosophers sought to replace the dogma of the church and monarchy with independent thought. As public education made literacy<\/a> near-universal, shifting from an elite privilege to the default, Enlightenment reforms completed the West\u2019s transition away from orality. Where the church and monarchy had previously held a monopoly over knowledge, the gospel of the Enlightenment held that every individual should become an independent thinker, whether in science, politics, or ethics. For example, Kant defined enlightenment as breaking free from \u201cthe inability to use one\u2019s own understanding without the guidance of another.\u201d The problem is that Kant, and thinkers like him, threw the baby out with the bathwater. The Enlightenment thinkers were right to promote thinking critically against authority, but by conflating dependence on institutions with dependence on other minds, they dismissed the social foundation of cognition altogether. The result was the myth of a self-sufficient thinker.<\/p>

The egocentric model of intelligence popularized during the Enlightenment is still influential today. Our cultural image of the genius is an exceptional, \u201cgifted\u201d man who is often aloof and antisocial\u2014embodied in fictitious characters such as Sherlock Holmes and Sheldon Cooper, or real-life technocrats like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk (who move fast and break things<\/a>). Intelligent people are imagined to be disharmonious rulebreakers, exemplified in phrases like \u201csmart aleck\u201d or \u201ctoo smart for her own good.\u201d When children misbehave in school, adults sometimes suppose that it is because they are too <\/em>bright for their environment and feel bored. We presume that intelligence sets children apart from their peers, rather than drawing them closer.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"photo-1623219298162-86ab08ba9e29\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

You are not intelligent primarily because of your knowledge and ability, you are intelligent because you have a network of people around you who understand your thoughts and use them to act in the world.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

What is to be done with such minds? Elevate them to the top of the meritocracy, of course. Our educational and economic system purports to identify the smartest minds from across the country in early adolescence, and grant them access to elite colleges and jobs. Even if meritocracy doesn\u2019t always work this way in practice, most people view it as an equitable ideal: seventy percent of Americans believe<\/a> that college admissions should be solely based on merit. But if intelligence is social, shaped by language, culture, and relationships, it\u2019s strange to think that one could uproot the smartest students from the social context from which they derived their intelligence, place them like interchangeable widgets into entirely different social contexts, and expect them to flourish in the same way. Meritocracy assumes an egocentric, not social, model of intelligence.<\/p>

In practice, the meritocratic educational system at best selects for only the narrowest sliver of intelligence that is legible at the individual level. Written tests, our most commonly accepted measure of intelligence, measure a narrow skill: the ability of individual students to think in isolation at a desk, and are inherently designed to divide high scorers from low scorers. It\u2019s true that elite colleges have the potential to be vibrant intellectual environments that foster social intelligence among students, but when admission is predicated on these narrow skills, that vibrancy is limited because there are fewer kinds of thinkers. The goal of an elite education seems not to be conserving a lasting intellectual community of students, but producing a class of skilled individuals that go their separate ways after four years.<\/p>

The discovery of cognitive elites begins early with K-12 gifted and talented programs, which are mandated<\/a> in 37 states, supported by pediatricians<\/a>, nonprofit institutions<\/a>, and favored in the college admissions system. The basic philosophy of gifted and talented programs is that children identified as \u201cgifted\u201d should be separated from their peers and given advanced educational resources. A recent book, Genius Denied<\/em>, written by the founders of an educational institute for gifted children, argues that these programs are insufficiently funded because of \u201cthe pernicious notion that education should have a \u2018leveling\u2019 effect, a one-size-fits-all concept that deliberately ignores the needs of the gifted.\u201d<\/p>

I don\u2019t mean to suggest that gifted children are a complete myth, but that this narrative misrepresents intelligence. Like colleges, elite gifted programs can offer their students a community of like-minded peers, but this risks depriving them of learning how to work and play with others who are not like them. Successful education systems in other countries, especially Japan, explicitly strive for the leveling effect that proponents of gifted and talented programs fear. The anthropologists Joseph Tobin, David Wu, and Dana Davidson observed in a Japanese preschool that the practice of teachers was to actively slow down more talented members of the group because they believed it was better for students to learn how to be sensitive to the needs of their peers, and to feel more secure in the apparent homogeneity of the group. Where Americans think of intelligence as individualistic and amoral,<\/p>

Japanese tend to view intelligence as closely linked to moral action and to associate the terms oriko (smart) and atama ga ii (intelligent), when applied to young children, with traits such as kashioki (obedient, well behaved), erai (praiseworthy), ki ga tsuku (sensitive to others), and wakareru (understanding).<\/p>

In Japan, following group norms, not transgressing them, is a sign of intelligence. And if intelligence is social, balancing the American preference for individualist innovation with the Japanese preference for social agreeability might arrive at a more accurate conception of intelligence. Because interpersonal friction within a group is inevitable, communal thinking cannot take place without the emotional sensitivity and respect for group norms essential for holding a group together. For these teachers, the definition of intelligence was incomplete without social harmony.<\/p>

Aside from misunderstanding the nature of intelligence, there\u2019s a real world danger of teaching generations of children that their genius sets them apart from others: producing an arrogant class of ubermensch <\/em>cognitive elites who believe they deserve<\/a> their positions of wealth and power. The idea that \u201cgeniuses\u201d are inscrutable to average people absolves them of accountability for their abuses of power. Elon Musk, who regularly posts white supremacist canards on X, the platform he owns, said<\/a> in his SNL monologue: \u201cLook, I know I sometimes post or say strange things, but that\u2019s just the way my brain works. To anyone I\u2019ve offended, I just want to say, I reinvented electric cars and I\u2019m sending people to Mars in a rocket ship. Did you also think I was also going to be a chill, normal dude?\u201d<\/p>

So what would it mean to dispense with our individualist notion of intelligence? It would mean recognizing that intelligence never stopped being social. Millions of years of human evolution have wired our brains to think in tandem with others. Humans cannot think without the guidance of others, as Kant suggests, for our cognition is shaped by the language and schemas of our culture. Intelligence should be seen as a quality held not just by individuals, but by groups of minds large and small. A well constituted group is smarter than the sum of its parts, whether it\u2019s a jazz trio, a research lab, or a worldwide project like Wikipedia. You are not intelligent primarily because of your knowledge and ability, you are intelligent because you have a network of people around you who understand your thoughts and use them to act in the world. Intelligence is driven just as much by human connection, social harmony, and moral character as it is by logical reasoning. Imagine how much richer our society would be if we treated intelligence not as a trait that elevates some minds above others, but one that brings all minds together.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Photos by Pedro Correia, Gustavo Alejandro Espinosa Reyes, Julian Gentile, and Marcel Ardivan on Unsplash.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Evan Tao<\/strong>\u00a0is a pastor\u2019s kid, political activist, and writer based in Providence, Rhode Island. He is currently pursuing a BA in Public Policy and Anthropology at Brown University in the class of 2027. His work has been published in the\u00a0Brown Political Review<\/em>\u00a0and the\u00a0Brown Daily Herald<\/em>.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Rather than an individual gifting, intelligence is properly understood as social\u2014honed in community, where a ground of minds can be more than the sum of its parts. By Evan Tao<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":69,"featured_media":13077,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"ocean_front_end_style_editor":"no","ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[8,10,99],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-issue","category-essays","category-issue-38","entry","has-media"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/photo-1758417787428-45a2071c9740.avif","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/69"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13074"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13074\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13213,"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13074\/revisions\/13213"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13077"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farefwd.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}