The Meaning And Value Of A Disagreement | Episode #4

Yo Mike Israel here for the Making Progress Channel. And today, we do video number four: The Meaning and Value of Disagreement. Let's see what the hell it is that we're talking about.

So, last time, if you caught the last video, sweet. It's video number three. And if you didn't, no big deal. Try to catch up really quick. So, in the last video, I proposed a set, what I consider to be, near-universal societal priorities. Stuff that almost everyone can agree on. Like, we should try to work to eliminate or greatly reduce homelessness, crime, environmental stuff, try to make everyone as wealthy as possible. Stuff that disagreeing with is kind of nuts. But you may disagree with some of those things. And even if you agree with the priorities, the agreement of how to get there, what kinds of policy steps to take together as a society, we may really, really disagree on.

So, in this video today, we're going to talk about what disagreement means, why it can actually be a great thing, and how to use it to best support our grand goal of progress.

Okay, just to ground our conversation a little bit, this is going to require a little basic philosophy. I am not a technical philosopher. I have zero formal education in philosophy. I'm not a philosophy undergrad, master's student, PhD candidate, PhD, or professor. At the very bottom rung. But I think I figured out some things that are probably, some philosophy people in the comments will tell me are technically wrong. But let's see how, how much traction I get. The reason we're talking about philosophy is because in order to understand what disagreement means, we have to zoom out a little bit and kind of figure out what world we're really living in and what are the rules of that.

So, here's the deal. Point number one to this. I submit this is my hypothesis for today. That all of us, myself, you, the aliens over there behind Mars getting ready to shoot their phaser cannons at us, and everything else that we can observe and interact with, we are a product of the universe and we live within it as a part of it, created by it. If the universe is a tree, or like the leaves, or apple seeds, or something like that, we do not, seemingly with all the best evidence and reasoning available, at least to me, we do not create the universe by perceiving it. It's not what's happening.

You can disagree with that. To you, I have a thought experiment that I've made up when I think was 15 or 14 years old in an argument. It's held up okay since. Some of you philosophy people may say it doesn't actually work. It's, it's called a semi-truck thought experiment. And it is for people who would like to seriously advance the idea that subjective experience projects the universe and creates it around us. That the mind is the thing that creates the world and not the other way around. That the mind is simply a component of the world.

There are many ways to go about this discussion, which maybe I'll do a video on later if you guys want to tell me, "Hey, do a video about objectivism versus subjectivism." And I'll get into that and make myself look stupid. But a preview of that stupidity is as follows. If someone really believes that their mind, their mind projects the world out around them, then maybe they are inclined to do the semi-truck test. This is a joke, don't take this seriously, though. It is a very interesting thought experiment. Have that person voluntarily, of course, walk into the middle of the street where a semi-truck is approaching them at 90 miles an hour, head-on. If they stick around, they really believe their [ __ ] but they never do, do they? They will at some point run the [ __ ] out of the way because the inescapable reality is that they are simply a system of organ systems made of flesh and bone, including a software generator called the brain. And if a truck hits that at sufficient speed, it destroys the system. Like I would if I took my laptop and slammed it on the ground at 90 miles an hour. That fact, that very few, perhaps no sane people, would step in front of a semi-truck believing that they could just wish it away with their mind, kind of hints at the fact that people intuitively, at least tacitly, admit that they actually do live in a physical, real world with real consequences.

Now, an easy come back to this is like, "Well, Dr. Mike, are you a little bit, uh, you know, out of sorts here? And there are a lot of physicists that say that the world is actually sort of projection. We technically live in a sort of, uh, you know, simulated reality." That may very well be the case. But you are in the same simulated reality as a semi-truck. You are not unique in any way other than the fact that you're on a very impressive side of software and hardware systems. And thus, you interact with the world differently. But a semi-truck will still squish your [ __ ]. You're still gonna die.

So, anyone who seriously thinks that we are generating our world around us by thinking about it, you know how that would work? There are deeper levels to why that's really not the wisest idea. Doesn't ever really think that because they wake up when their alarm clock rings, believing it to actually be the time that it is and not simply projection of their mind. They eat food, they drink water, they seek out medicine when they're in physical agony, and they step the [ __ ] out of the way of semi-trucks. So, that thought experiment, you could do 50 other ways. But I think all the roads lead to the same conclusion.

And here's the conclusion. And this is something that evolution lets us know if we study it. Like, there's not a whole lot of mystery about where we are in the universe or how we belong and what we do. Evolution lets us know that exactly what we are, and what we are, is survival machines for the genes that build us, running natural intelligence-based perception and interpretation software. When you close your eyes and imagine your headspace and what your mind feels like and what it feels like to be you, that's software. You, the individual that you are, is a product of software. The hardware is the brain. The secreted software, so to speak, is the mind. And the rest of you is a survival machine. That's just what it is. That's reality, cold and hard as that may seem. That's what you are.

Now, when we realize that, we come to an interesting set of sort of downstream thoughts. This is point number two. Understanding being that you're in that system, you are inside the universe, and your universe is a part of you, and you're a part of it. Being that we accept that as tentatively true, understanding what's going on requires two computational actions, at least. And I'm probably misusing the term computation, but you can level with me and see where I'm going. The first is perception. Okay, inputs need to flow into your nervous system and be processed somehow. And the second is inferential reasoning about said perception. So, you can see this on my truck. If you can't see it, real bad news. If you can't hear it, also real bad news. And that's cool. But dear, see semi-trucks all the time. The air vision is quite good. But their inferential reasoning is not as good. And then they get squished anyway.

So, then your inferential reasoning goes, "Ah, that's a semi-truck. And I predict that his velocity will [ __ ] kill me. So I'm gonna get the [ __ ] out of the way." Two parts. Both are really cool. And goddamn, human reasoning and perception is [ __ ] impressive. I mean, GPT's large language models are sort of starting on many levels to get to that place. But they even have some time to go. And just basically, essentially through natural selection and random drift, evolution built this [ __ ]. Hell yeah, I love my [ __ ]. You know what I'm saying? Hey, good, good job, evolution. You built a beautiful thing. But in all reality, the ability to perceive, and I mean, as far as your eye works, when it auto-focuses, auto-resumes, and corrects for a ton of abnormalities and lighting, I think that's better than any digital camera currently. They're getting pretty good now. But super [ __ ] impressive, especially at its scale. And the inferential processing is still, still best in class. Machines still can't think, uh, in higher order reasoning like humans can. So, very, very impressive.

But neither perception nor inference is perfect. Thus, we shouldn't think that humans somehow intuit perfect knowledge about the world. We should think that because these are software and hardware, perceiving and interpreting machines, that they will potentially make some errors. We should expect errors in thinking and understanding the world precisely because we are limited, evolutionarily designed beings. Totally, totally expect to.

To that end, point number three is that two different people can have different takes in many different ways. For example, they can have two different perceptual experiences. You see a situation from one angle, I literally see it from another. And I see something you don't, or you see something I don't. We can also have different inferential experiences. You know, you are two years old and you see a big cat coming up to you and it's going, "Meow." And you're like, "Kitty." And I'm like, "Oh, wait. My inference tells me that kitty thinks you're food." So I grab you out of the way and throw you at the cat so that I can survive. Oh, hell yeah. The [ __ ] this [ __ ] it's crazy out here. Two-year-old, learn next time, kid. I'm kidding. I would just run away.

So, different perception and different inference in two different individuals can mean that nobody in a system in which understanding is the goal, necessarily has all the right or wrong answers. Necessarily, somebody could be more right than wrong. But we expect that different perspectives, because of their different inference and their different perceptive abilities, or different perceptive angles, that there could be some different understandings. And different understandings may generate some value.

So, per number one, which was the fact that we are all inside a physical system and our components of a physical system, the reality of what's really going on isn't in either of our heads. Inside of our heads is a simulation of the reality. We actually model reality in our heads. That's how you have thoughts about it. It's how you have an idea about what the world is, or what, how I think about what this table is. I have a mental model of a table. And this fits pretty well. But I don't have the exact construction of this table inside my head that I project out. It's completely in reverse. So, the reality of what's going on is out there, so to speak. Now, like psychological reality isn't here. But sometimes a brain scanner can tell us you're lying, even though you're saying one thing, etc., etc. Reality is in the real world. And that's the world about which we are reasoning.

Each one of us can have a pretty imperfect idea about the structure of the real world in our heads. So, what we think we know, we could be pretty, pretty correct, or pretty incorrect. But we shouldn't be so convinced that we have the perfect understanding of what's going on in the real world. We might have a pretty decent one, but we can't get too cocky. If I have only my own assessment of what the structure of the world is looking like, it turns out I don't actually know that much. If I have yours as well, you have a different perception, potentially a different interpretation, or both, some combination. If we have ours combined, we have the ability to compare notes on assessment. What did you see? What did I see? What did you think about this? What did I think about this? We also have two times the brain power, in literal sense, to reason about them. Two people reasoning is usually better than one. And much lower chance of falling for the same illusions, especially cognitive illusions, which mostly emanate from within our minds. Right? Sometimes the world can look illusory as well. But a lot of illusions we just cook up in here. And the probability that both people cook up the same illusion is generally lower than one or the other. They say, like, "Yeah, that girl's dress was blue." And the other person's like, "Pretty sure it was purple." Man, you really think like it was [ __ ] purple? Yeah, someone's right and someone's wrong. Or maybe it was somewhere in between the two colors. Maybe both people are wrong. But it sure as hell is better to have another opinion than just your own.

Now, I made this really awful graph in PowerPoint where I'm an artiste, of course. And it just shows a couple of different options of how the actual truth is positioned in relation to you and in relation to somebody else. You would point at myself, me, and someone else, or you and somebody else. So, it could be that my estimate of where reality is is like way the [ __ ] over here. Reality is right here in the middle. And your estimate is way on the other end. So, you thought that, like, "How much did that girl weigh that just walked in?" You could be like, "Man, that [ __ ] weighed 200 pounds. Bro, that's a thick ass." You know what I'm saying? Thick ass [ __ ]. And I was like, "Bro, you must be [ __ ] crazy. That vision more like 150 pounds. You must be nuts." Put her on the scale. "Excuse me, young lady." "That's these people called me names." "But I won't stand on the scale." 175 pounds. Boom, right in the middle. And the, and, and somewhere between the two people is where the truth often lies. That's one option. Another option is, I think this is the truth over here. You think this is the truth over here. But the truth is actually right over here on this other end. So, the truth is way closer to you. Rather, your assessment of the truth is way more accurate than mine. Right? It's not in the first instance, we kind of both had some good things going, some bad things going. And maybe the truth was a little bit closer to you, uh, and a little farther from me, or vice versa. But we both had a little bit of the right [ __ ] going. It is entirely possible that pretty much everything you think about a certain assessment is just better than mine. Right? It's like, if, if we have, you go in, let's assume you just took a young person who's smart and chipper and not a ton of formal education yet, because you're in college, just as an example, and a trained spine surgeon. Look at some X-rays of a spine. Now, I don't know if you guys have ever done this, but I've seen a few X-rays in my day. And my wife's a doctor. And every time doctors show you X-rays, they do the same thing. But they put it up and they go, "Damn." And I'm always like, trying to be smart around people. So I'm like, "Whoa, for real?" And no one's ever [ __ ] with me like this. But it's totally valid if they did. They should just be like, "So, what do you see?" I'd be like, "Man, I don't know. Holy shades of gray and [ __ ]. Like, how the [ __ ] am I looking at?" They're like, "Well, you see that's the [ __ ], that's the [ __ ] spinous process." And I'm like, "Spinal? All right. I remember learning about that in school. What is it again?" "This [ __ ] all looks [ __ ] blurry."

It is entirely possible that my medical doctor, which is to say my wife, same thing in my case, is, if medicine is the reality, she's just in front of me on everything. I'm like, trying to [ __ ] peek behind and be like, "Okay, you just know." She's way, way closer to reality, and I'm just way further behind. That is a dynamic that, that happens all the time.

All right, let's piss off people. You guys ready? I'm only saying this as a joke. It's true on the margins, but there's tons of exceptions. Virologist, COVID, insane COVID denier. Oh, I just got the video guy. You know, I had to throw that in there. Why wouldn't I? Oh, I got another one just to balance you [ __ ] out. Person who knows and operates firearms, firearms, insane social justice, anti-gun person who doesn't really know what an assault rifle is, or no, that's not even technical nomenclature in any case. It's totally possible that some person just has a better understanding than another. You know, essentially every possible way to analyze the truth.

Now, of course, there is the other opposite extreme where I'm the person with the closest knowledge of the truth, and the person I'm discussing with is just, yeah, back behind me, right? And I just kind of know everything about this situation that we're talking about, just better. And that person doesn't know it nearly as well. And I may be in the position of having to explain to them. But they may be like, "Well, no, no, I know things." And boom, there we have a disagreement. So, there's at least kind of three types of disagreements we can have. One, in which you know most and the other person knows least. One, in which you know least, the other person knows most. And one of which it's like, uh, the truth somewhere in the middle. Somewhere in the middle, definitely a thing that can happen.

All right, being that we find ourselves in situations like these, in this, most situations of information asymmetry or disagreement, rather, are one of those three or somewhere on the spectrum of those three. Ideally, what would happen is this: you share insightful observations and reasoning with one another. Uh, you share yours, I share mine back. We both see value in each other's views. We both modify our own views based on the extra information we received. And the resulting views are now more similar than they used to be. They're not necessarily the same because we might not have the, the needed info to squash all parts of the disagreement. But they're sure [ __ ] more the same now. And we are likely closer to the truth together. And that's the goal. The goal of disagreement is to eventually get closer to the truth, to reduce said disagreement. That's the ideal.

There are at least, uh, notes here. Three other possibilities. One is that one of us is just much closer to the truth than the other. And thus, the benefit of the flow of information is much more one-way. It's much less a collaborative discussion and much more of a, "Hey, this is how [ __ ] is." And you're like, "Got it." The other possibility is that we can't understand each other's positions well enough to benefit from any sort of discussion. Problem, we'll get to that in a bit. And the third possibility, and sure [ __ ] in the comments section of almost everything on the internet, the most likely that you are to see is that one or both of us is being very irrational, preventing a whole lot of productive closing in and the truth from occurring. And often due to the number one culprit, ego. Case in point, females rarely argue on the internet. Males, every waking second of their lives. In any case, there are upsides to all of these stumbling blocks. Because if you have the ideal, if you're just two information-exchanging machines, you're like, "Yes, I understand. My perception was wrong. You are correct." [ __ ] men. Alien race that comes down to [ __ ] us all up. They're gonna be like that. And we're slowly, as humanity, rising to that level. But we're not all there yet. So, we have these stumbling blocks. But there is benefit to extract from these stumbling blocks. Benefit to extracting these situations of disagreement.

For example, let's take the first situation. If one of us is just way closer to truth than the other. Couple things about this. If you happen to be the person closest to the truth, you can really refine your understanding of the topic by teaching it. A lot of times, if you know you're [ __ ] right, like you [ __ ] know you're right because other science people said so, because it makes sense. Let's say diet soda. You know it's not bad for your health. You know it's a bunch of charlatan [ __ ] Doctor Oz, Doctor X, [ __ ] ass [ __ ] lying charlatan pieces of [ __ ] that say that. You ain't one of them. You followed Alan Aragon, Bradshaw, and all those other guys, maybe even Dr. Mike, who knows. And you're like, "Yes, diet soda is totally fine for you. It's more or less inert. And regular soda is worse because it's got sugar in it. That's not ideal, especially in excess." And they're like, "Well, well, I saw these studies that say it's bad." You may know and be actually correct. As in this case, the literature is overwhelming. Diet soda is really safe. You may know that you're right. But goddamn, hold up. I never had to explain this [ __ ] before. And someone's like, "Well, well, explain those studies." And you're like, "[ __ ] okay." And on your way to explaining them more or less successfully, you can really start to understand the worldview better. You can understand how to position your argument better. You can have a whole bunch of background knowledge stacked into it so that the next time you talk to someone, they're like, "What about you?" "Like the Ramazzini studies?" "Yes, I do know those. There's four of them, and they were all [ __ ] up. And they, the folks got indicted. They couldn't replicate the raw data, blah, blah, blah." "Oh, [ __ ]. You really did think this through." That doesn't happen overnight. That can happen in situations which are still correct, but you've had the opportunity to sort of teach someone else that the truth is what you believe it is to be.

Now, if you're the clueless one, it sounds like you're being insulted. Like, "Man, [ __ ] that. I don't want anybody teaching me." Wait, what? You're getting free knowledge? [ __ ] you're the lucky one in the exchange. So, [ __ ] help you God, someone actually stopped to teach dumbass the truth. Anytime I'm in a situation where I clap back at someone and they're like, "Technically, no, you can't." And they leave me behind because I don't know what the [ __ ] I'm talking about. Your boy's taking notes, man. I'm trying to learn some [ __ ]. This is a person who clearly knows more than me. And that's that [ __ ] obvious when they do. Uh, I want to learn [ __ ]. So, the person who doesn't know a ton in the discussion knows much less. Damn, dude. They're a huge, uh, huge beneficiary to that. So, that's really awesome. That's a huge benefit right there.

If you have an opportunity to explain your position, the person who you're teaching might have some time to noodle on it, to think about it a little bit. And either sharpen the position. They could be like, "Well, actually, you're totally right. And another reason you're right is XYZ." And you're like, "[ __ ]. I'm smarter than I thought, baby. Thank you so much for that. I'll take that with me." Or they could question it in various ways that doesn't destroy your position. That would be sweet, because then you're like, freed from having [ __ ] fake knowledge in your head. But it could refine it. They're like, "I think you're correct about this thing that you said. But, um, this other thing you said, I think it's not, it's not quite right." You know, they could say something like, "Well, you know, Donald Trump's effect on the economy was generally positive. But his protectionist practices with the China trade stuff, most economists think that's not a good idea." And you're like, "Yeah, that's true." Okay, so you don't have to abandon King Emperor God King Trump as my [ __ ] father in my own head. But I do, I can't critique him and be like, "Look, Trump, next time Trump 2024 comes around, let's not do the protectionism [ __ ] because apparently that's so." So, there's absolutely a way to have a lot of benefit even when there is a considerable disagreement. Huge. And you can build through discussions like this where someone knows a lot more than the other person and there's an exchange of, uh, you can build a ton of allyship and consensus. That is super important emotional base to lay down. And a practice space. Like, if you're practicing exchanging with people to build consensus, to build allyship, to build connection and understanding, that kind of [ __ ] is that skill set. And that mindset can help you and that other person be just way better at [ __ ] that requires that kind of social interaction. Like work stuff, like relationship stuff, society stuff, voting, trying to understand people of political views that are opposing to yours. You can get really good at chatting with people, both learning and teaching, and coming to a bit more of a consensus. Which just makes almost every social dynamic better. Remember, society at any level, including just you and your significant other, or the entire globe of Earth of humans, is a team. We're on the same team. Remember the sport of survival? The losing is death, and winning is continued life and betterment and progress. We're all on the same [ __ ] team together. So, if we gel better as a team, [ __ ] [ __ ] happens. You guys seen all them underdog documentaries where like the team finally starts gelling and they're not trying to [ __ ] each other up in the locker room after practice, and then they start winning? Like, there's some real [ __ ] in there that absolutely [ __ ] works.

Now, if you are in this situation and you come off cocky or pedantic, like everything you said was false, and I'm going to enumerate some possibilities for you. Yes, how do people like that talk? Spin over everything. That's why they don't have any friends. In any case, if you're that kind of [ __ ], you get pedantic or cocky or start making fun of people, the value is significantly degraded. When someone is here to teach you things, if they're being a [ __ ] to you, you're probably gonna be like, "Oh, [ __ ] you. How about that? How's that for an argument?" They're like, "Well, you're wrong about vaccines." And you're like, "How about I [ __ ] stab you in the goddamn eye?" And they're like, "Oh, JK." Nobody's learning anything. And if you're a person that's being a dick, you can expect the person that you're talking to, who is on the receiving end of said dick, not in a fun way, it's just kind of at the very least shuts down and probably doesn't do the best job of processing. The best communication from humans comes when we're on the same level playing field of ego, which is to say, no ego. But I'll get to that in a bit. So, definitely some benefits there.

Second upside to the star, or upside to the stumbling blocks that we have and trying to communicate is, you know, you can't just can't understand each other enough to really benefit from the discussion. This can be tractable in a few ways that are also very good practice for other stuff. First, you can try to slow down a bit to establish some deeper understanding and common connections, and you might actually get much more insight than you thought. So, you could say, "Hey, listen, um, you know, electric cars are absolutely just like cleaner than gasoline-powered cars." And the person's like, "No, that's not true." And you're like, "This is definitely one of those times where we're just not communicating. [ __ ] electricity, [ __ ]. There's not physical [ __ ] carbon fumes coming out of the [ __ ] exhaust pipe, dummy." And then they go, "Well, I hear you on that. But I think there's the situation where how the power is produced to charge your battery could be like this nasty coal plant that shits out soot and dust. And actually, if you just use gasoline in a modern engine, it's less, uh, bad for the environment." You're like, "[ __ ] [ __ ]. Thank you for letting me know that." And then you're at a deeper level. And then you can say, "Well, even with that taken into account, especially as solar, wind, and nuclear do this, and fossil fuels do this, electric cars are soon to be cleaner on net balance than gasoline-powered cars." And they'd be like, "Yeah, respect." But it took a step back, a step of deeper analysis because you couldn't understand what one or another was saying.

Secondly, even if you make no headway at all, practice in difficult conversations where it's tough to understand some stuff can help you improve two things at least. One is your understanding skills. If you've never been met with a conversation that you thought was difficult to understand, someone, you're a junior league [ __ ]. They can barely talk to people. If everything's seamless to you, you either Doogie [ __ ] Hauser level of intellect, or you just have been misunderstanding people, or people have just been softballing [ __ ] to you your whole life. So, it's good to be in challenging conversations where you might not immediately understand what's going on and really have to level with people. That makes your understanding skills better, which makes you better at everything else in life because understanding is kind of the core of intelligence. And also, it'll really improve your communication skills because if someone says something in a very unclear way, and you don't have parity as understanding what they're thinking, you have an opportunity to really use your words well and be like, "Okay, so you said this. Can you tell me a little bit more about what you mean about this in context?" Versus being like, "You're wrong," or "[ __ ] you, I'm out." So, a lot of good stuff comes from conversations where two people come together, exchange some [ __ ] that's only somewhat understandable, and then separate. We can still get both, both natural intelligence systems, that is, the two people that came together, get a lot of really good neural network training at the very least. And then they come apart. And when they come together again, or with other people, they're more prepared for more difficult conversations.

Lastly, number three, uh, one of us or both of us is being very irrational, often due to ego. This, if you are in this situation and you're being the irrational one, gives you an opportunity to really clear and clarify your mind state and reduce your internal biases. You can say to yourself, "I know I'm wrong, but I want to win this argument because winning feels good and losing feels bad. And I'm really addicted to how things feel because I'm a [ __ ] child." Oh, wait, no. I'm not. I'm an adult. [ __ ] that. Tell me what's up, man. And if I'm wrong, I'll just straight up admit it. And we'll go from there. That's [ __ ] good for you. It may be the best thing for you. Losing an argument and degrading yourself from "I'm can never be wrong" and "I'm on high to holy [ __ ] I was [ __ ] wrong" is good for your ego because it shrinks it down to peace size. And that makes you more rational, which is a really good thing to have in the rest of your life.

It is also an opportunity for you to learn something way outside of your comfort zone. Like, if someone shatters your worldview about some [ __ ] in a not polite way, you could be like, "Wow, that was like a really intense experience. And I would have never seen it this way unless this person was forceful enough to get in my face about it and tell me this [ __ ]." But you know, because you could say, "Oh, like war is great and it's for national pride." And someone shows you pictures of babies getting killed by bombs long enough, you're like, "God damn, dude. I think it's worth some [ __ ] downsides. I should have thought about that [ __ ]." Which is again, good because you're learning.

And another thing it can give you, lastly, is the opportunity for you to try to maneuver around their ego and their biases and make headway in convincing the other person of what you believe to be is the likely reality. That part is really, really hard. But it can be done. You get better at arguing to convince if the opponent is really bad at talking to you. If all you have is conversations with seamless [ __ ] intelligent agents that never disagree with you or do it super subtly, and they're really good at talking, you could be a shitty conversationalist. You just never know it because everyone around you is so cool. But you get some [ __ ] suckers in the mix, and all of a sudden, in order to convince them of anything, you may have to really level up your game.

So, the tackling of and broaching of disagreement can be insanely valuable because it upgrades your ability to understand, to communicate, to build consensus, and reunify to be on the same team with folks. But because communicating can be really, really tough, it may benefit you to have a skill set that you can use to help improve your ability to parse disagreements with other human beings. And of course, benefit maximally from those disagreements. You benefit, they benefit. And because everyone is closer to the truth, everyone, including society at large, benefits a ton.

So, next time, I'll be chatting with you guys about the basics of how to argue to learn and convince. So, we can all get just a tiny bit closer to the truth together. And I'll see you guys then.