Hacking The Unconscious | Rory Sutherland

[Music] I will just point out I'm the only part of the day not sponsored by Huntsman of Savile Row. They've disavowed me, but I wanted to make that clear right from the beginning.

Um, well, I have to say, it follows on rather well, actually, from what Gabrielle was saying, which is talking about a new narrative. And I'm going to take exactly that point. I'm going to widen it and narrow it. It's something we can do across quite a large number of areas of economic activity, which is just to change the narrative. It's also something we can do in our own personal life, which is we can also change the narrative. And this is probably my principal discovery, I suppose, from working for 30 years in the advertising industry. I talk about a thing occasionally called innovation. Innovation is the internal obverse of the innovation coin. They're basically two ways you can actually innovate and create economic value. You can find out what people want and then develop a really ingenious way to provide it, or you can find out something you can provide and work out an ingenious way to make people want it. And in fact, they're rather similar. In fact, there's no point in making a distinction between them.

What I'd look for particularly, if I'm looking for some innovation, is understanding complexity economics. And I think one of the things that has to change, if we're looking for a new and better future, is economic thinking. While fine in itself, has become stultified and has a ridiculously narrow idea of what success, progress, and happiness depends on. So that's one of the things is a new and more nuanced form of economics is needed. The possibilities of technology, but also the possibilities of psychology. And I'm actually most optimistic about the third, interestingly, that we can improve the human condition within our own minds rather than through external invention and consumption. And the reason I'm most interested in that is very simple. It's simply that we're really much more wrong about psychology than we are about physics. And so the potential for progress, I think, more progress has been made in reasonable psychology advances, such as behavioral economics, in the last 20 or 30 years than in the previous century. And there's still a great deal of progress to be made.

But among the findings are the really important and very fundamental findings in psychology are: one, that we don't really know what we want, nor do we know or accurately understand why we do the things we do. That most of human conscious reasoning is actually an act of post-rationalization. We essentially do things instinctively and then construct plausible-sounding stories to explain them. Now, that's hugely important because there are enormously expensive mistakes to be made by taking people literally, because the reasons they give for their behavior. It's, by the way, a defense of capitalism as well, that in fairness, you, the only way you can really find out what people want is to make lots of different things and see what they do.

The second thing I think, which is also interesting, where we have this capacity for self-deception. We don't really have introspective access completely to our own behavior. The other thing I think that's a vital in a discovery to understand is simply that we don't really have a concept of anything except in context. The idea of kind of utility, which pervades economics, isn't really accurate. The same thing can be good or bad, entirely dependent on our frame of mind or what we compare it to. And I'm going to show a few examples of that coming up.

But I think it's useful if overly change has got a mantra. This is from the Austrian. They're always three in the room. Austrian school economists are enthusiastic school economics. Where are they? They're usually sitting at the back, being shunned by everybody else. But the Austrian school was right. This is the school, including Hayek, von Mises, other people like that. The Austrian, and of course Peter Drucker, actually, whose dad was Schumpeter's best mate. So we've already had a Peter Drucker quote earlier on today. The Austrians were emphatically right about one thing: that they realized that value was fundamentally subjective. And this is something of his defense of marketing and advertising. He uses the analogy of a restaurant. The idea that a good restaurant purely depends on the quality of the food is a nonsense. The quality of the food multiplied by the setting and the context and the service and the experience and the expectation is what makes a great meal. The idea that it's all about what comes out of the kitchen and not at all about what sits in your head is completely wrong. Economics wants to believe that something hasn't, you know, particular utility. This is undoubtedly a strong subjectivist argument. My view is that psychology is increasingly saying this is right.

I'll just show you an example of this if you boys just a second. Peep shows really, really good. Badly presented, isn't good at all. You can have a kitchen producing Michelin-starred food, and if the smells wrong, or if one of the tines on your fork is out of alignment, or the service is surly, or you're not even led to expect that the restaurant is particularly good, you can completely ruin the effect. And this is really potent. I mean, wine tastes better if you pour it from a heavier bottle. This is the way we perceive the whole world. Analgesics, painkillers, are more effective if they're branded. They're also more effective, you tell people they're expensive. Your car drives better after it's been valeted. Okay. Your cheapest way to get a new car is to have your existing car valeted. It's smoother, faster, more comfortable, everything about it improves. Okay. And similarly, you can have a great thing, you know, arguably in this case, one of those fantastic things in the world, if you present it, frame it, or tell a story about it in the wrong way, you can destroy all this value. And this is a fantastic agent. I think it's a very great example for much of the financial services industry, which is, if you have a great product, but nobody trusts you, you don't have a great product.

And this is a brilliant example of someone who got the hottest entertainer and performer in the world and sold them in a terrible way. Keep on going. Thanks very much. Hey, peep shows. They have a pretty bad name, normally associated with lewd content. But by definition, they don't have to be. So to change that, with just one of the world's biggest performing artists, kept all these clothes on, and set up an Ed Sheeran peep show. Would anyone dare to believe what was written outside and come in to our very dodgy-looking venue?

[Music] That was fair enough, because we dressed Hamish, a fairly shady-looking spruiker, in charge of getting customers. "I got you Sheeran." It wasn't Sheeran. All right. I can hear you. Do you think I'm sharing? I don't think it's gonna be a brave soul. I wouldn't. I wouldn't come into. If there was dude with a beard of the heart and say, like, competencies aid was right. This was going to be tough on paper. Dude, Sheeran for two bucks. Sheeran, do you want to peep at Ed Sheeran? Your loss. What are you ranking, big fella? Got hu in any a beautiful GG hitman sitting on a stool. What do you reckon? Two bucks. Got an edge here and just sit on a stool in there. You want him? Two bucks. Three bucks for a beat. Think about it. It's actually pretty good value. Despite trying, we had a total lack of interest for over 50 minutes. It's been some time. We should have got you a more comfy chair, maybe. Felt like it was here and you need in there. Two bucks each. Urine is a singer? Yeah. Yes. No. I think one of the big problems is people think Ed Sheeran's a code word for a new drug. You guys like it? Cheering. Two bucks. Two bucks for 30 seconds. People, what? Like, are they just saying no? Yeah. Dirt cheap. Paper. Dirt cheap paper. Here we go. Two bucks. Chicken. We're pricing it too high. Here we go, boys. It's a Friday. Get you engineering peep show. Two bucks. Sitting on a stool. Play your song. If someone actually does think it's a peep show, and I quickly give you the go-ahead to take away your clothes, and you're willing to do that? Been drinking a lot of beer recently? All right. You're not a couple of months ago, maybe. But I'm in shape. That's just the shape of a potato. Two hours in, and Hamish was getting more desperate. Sheeran is literally sitting in there on the stage waiting for your $2.00. Where you were feeling in this world? The just thought this had been a giant waste of everyone's fun. Guys, like it's hearing, you love us here. Two bucks. Game show. Just got him sitting on stage. It's welcome to that's gonna cost you two bucks. You only get 30 seconds. I don't come in. But well, there's only one way to find out. We might be on here. Here we go. He's here in Peep Show. He's there. Somebody died. All right, your choice. No, she did this mouthing and walks away. I'm just saying, he guys, whenever guys see me there by himself and probably a busy later on. Two bucks, 30 seconds. I mean, you both can come if you want to see back to him. Everything's aboveboard. I can assure you. Not absolutely not. Like, you can't guarantee what it'll do. But yeah, let's pay two bucks. And after two hours, 23 minutes, including some final hesitation, we finally found people brave enough to take it to the beach. You guys shows a lot of get your clothes on style mistake behind yourselves. Just listen to the announcements. Never give up. Enjoy your pay. Hello and welcome to the peep show. Your title stop. Do 70.

[Music] Baby man, still 420d, and I'm thinking about anyway. It's a really important thing. What the story is, really, really matters. Okay? There's the thing itself, and there's what the story is. I totally agree, by the way, about that point that the tree-hugging narrative, except for five to seven to seven percent of obsessives, will be completely ineffectual at getting people to adopt greener behavior. If you look at public hygiene, for example, you know, companies like Unilever and P&G contributed enormously to human longevity by improving levels of cleanliness, but they didn't have abs that read pears soap and prevent a cholera epidemic. They actually sold it on a more Darwinian thing of status and sexual attraction. It's a really important thing. You can use kind of Darwinian psychology to reach non-Darwinian ends. But the idea that actually what you might call the display of overt altruism and self-sacrifice is going to be a mass behavior, I think, is implausible. I think Gabrielle is absolutely right about this.

The really important thing to understand is that everything we view, we view within context. That's how our brain works. Those two colors that look like blue and green, they're actually the same color green. Our brain just makes them different. In evolutionary terms, evolution doesn't give a damn about accuracy. It only cares about fitness. And it's more important for us to detect a small difference in color than it is for us to judge absolute color. If you look at this, for example, that looks like a gray thing hinged to a white thing. Put your hand across so that you block off the join, and you can only see the top and the bottom, and you'll see that the top and the bottom, in reality, are exactly the same shade of gray. It's our brain that again creates the distinction.

The same applies to price. You probably have, most of you probably have an espresso machine, okay? Now, the uncertainty about Nespresso is, in reality, objectively, it is insanely expensive. If she had to buy a Nespresso coffee in a jar for an equivalent amount of coffee of caffeine, a large jar of Nespresso coffee would cost about $50. And you'd look at it again, that's completely insane. They weren't paying that. It doesn't come in a jar. It comes in a pod. So when you put it in your machine, your frame of reference isn't Nescafe, it's Starbucks. And you think, well, it's 20p down, but it was Starbucks cost me two pounds 20. This machine's practically making me money. Okay? So even, even our perception of price is completely relative.

That's why, ingeniously, Maserati and Rolls-Royce stopped exhibiting their cars so energetically at car shows where they look really expensive and started exhibiting plane shows. If you've been looking at Learjets all afternoon, a 300,000-pound car is an impulse buy. Okay? The same thing can be good or bad, depending on how you frame it. This is really, really important. For years, I've absolutely hated it when I've landed in an airport and there's been a bus. You feel cheated, don't you? Go, bloody hell, you know, I paid for this ticket, they could at least give me a decent air bridge. Now I'm on this bastard bus. All right. And yet, weirdly, once I landed and the pilot said, ingeniously, they said, "I've got some bad news and some good news." The bad news is we haven't been able to get you an air bridge because there's a plane blocking the gate. But the good news is the bus will take you all the way to passport control, so you won't have far to walk with your bags. To my neighbor, that's always true, isn't it? Why don't they tell us that? I'm quite glad there's a bus because, think about it, if you were picked up by a 7 Series BMW and taken to passport control, you'd think it was marvelous, wouldn't you? Okay? So because it's a bus, we automatically assume it's crap until someone changes the narrative. So my joke, the three worst words in the English language are, of course, "bus replacement service." Just the three best words, of course, are "all-day breakfast."

You can also play this trick if you're running a restaurant. Okay? Now, where your mama does an ingenious thing, which is, one, it's Japanese. If you claim to be Japanese, we will accept an enormous level of weirdness. Okay? I said you are ghosts, the retailer. Your greatest tragedy as a brand is that you're not Japanese. You know, if I go for Japanese, we think it was incredibly Zen, wouldn't we? You put a few little bonsai trees and a pebble in the shop, and we think it was the coolest shop in the world. Okay? They will see the brilliant trick, which if you're going to Wagamama, they say, "Have you ever been to Wagamama before?" And if you say no, they'll say, "What you need to understand is it's based on an authentic Japanese noodle bar." Okay? And that means that the food arrives fresh and hot, straight from the kitchen, but not necessarily in the order you'd expect. Now, by being Japanese and focusing you on fresh and hot, not food delivered at random, okay, most of you, without that, without that sentence, my contention is that half the people would leave their first visit to everyone getting complete that incompetency. Right? I order the duck dozer, the starter, track. You're over that bloody coffee. Right? In a French restaurant, that would be intolerable, wouldn't it? Okay? Oh, by the way, I just forgot, here's your soup, right? At the end of the meal. Right? But if you change the frame, you can change judgment. And I think what the advertising industry has historically done successfully for products, I think there's a much, much wider application for what you might call reframing and storytelling and changing, creating value not by what something is, but by how we think about it.

In particular, I think economics at some point has to reframe how we talk about wealth. Wealth really is a proxy measure for the number of options you have, the number of choices you can make. And so there's a really important thing I'd like to look at, which is one of the things that happens both collectively in societies and can happen individually, is what I call sat-nav thinking. Now, your sat-nav is very, very good indeed at optimizing one thing, which is the fastest possible journey to a given destination. The only problem of that is sometimes it's optimizing the wrong thing. It has no concept of a scenic route, for example. The other thing it doesn't understand, just to get into the decision science for a second, it doesn't understand variance reduction. I ignore my sat-navs when I go to the airport because I want to go on a slower route that's always 20 minutes slower, but it is never an hour slower. If I get stuck on the M25, I miss my plane. If I'm 20 minutes slower, pretty much constantly, okay? It's a bit slower, but I don't miss that. There's no risk of missing the flight. So it doesn't understand certain aspects of decision theory. But depending on the nature of your journey, you're optimizing a different thing. Variance reduction is a strategy, just as speed is a strategy.

And I think what happens is that you've got to be very alert. If you want to make yourself richer without actually having more money, you've got to be very alert to the choices you lose. It's very easy as a human being to have a choice and to think you have freedom of choice. Okay? Very profitable sentence in the restaurant industry is simply "still or sparkling." Okay? You're a small, but still or sparkling, right? They love that sentence. Why? Because it makes it really difficult to say "tap." Okay? Every time they use that sentence, there goes two pounds 18. Similarly, a restaurant wants you to drink wine. Why? Apologies to Barry Brothers here, but wine doesn't have an own price anchor. So you can mark it up like a bastard. Okay? You can't charge 30 pounds a glass for a glass of Johnnie Walker Red because people know what that costs in the shops. But you can buy a bottle of Chateau Dibs Cure, you know, 2005 for 6 euros and charge 30 euros for it. And because it's expensive, everybody will say it tastes of blackcurrants. Okay?

So what the restaurants do, and be alert to this, because it happens in your life all the time. What the restaurants do is they make you think you're choosing what to drink, while actually stuffing you royally. And this is how it happens. You arrive, there are wine glasses already on the table. Okay? In fact, in the unlikely event that you don't have wine, they take them away with a bit of a huff, don't they? Okay? With a bit of a sigh. Secondly, they bring you a drinks menu, which isn't good. The drinks menu, it's called, anybody have all the weight on one of them? I'm sorry to bury brothers, I'm a bit of a wine skeptic. I didn't, there's ever an occasion where white wine is better than gin and tonic. But I mean, I also think the spirits pissed is just better than wine pissed. Deep dad. Okay? Okay, let's be right. Now, I suspect about a quarter of the people in the room agree with me secretly, but they've never been able to come out. Okay?

Now, what they then do is, it's not called the drinks list, it's called the wine list. And the choice architecture is about a page and a half of red wine and a page and a half of white wine, and then a small thing at the back, like a crappy little thing at the back for the deviants and perverts who want to drink something that's been brewed or distilled. Okay? And then there's the final touch, which is sheer genius. They only bring one wine list and hand it to one person. Now, there's only one drink that you can all share. So once the guy has the wine list, there's only one question you ask the rest of the table, which is "red or white?" At which point, it's game over for the drink gin drinkers. So, well, I think you've got to be alert to, if you want to be genuinely wealthy, which is, some at some extent, a degree of eccentricity is essential to wealth. Because if you're wealthy, unconventional, what's the point? Okay? Right. I don't mean that quite seriously. You know, now you can be conventionally poor. It's not that different, right?

Now, we've got to watch, and particularly with artificial intelligence coming on, we've got to watch for things that make decisions for you, thinking they know what you want. The property market and the travel market. Every single website assumes it's about speed. If you go down to the South of France, you get under the South West of France, you want to change it Lille, but it takes 40 minutes longer. It's more or less impossible to get a railway website to tell you that because it forces you to go through Paris and waste an hour and a load of time in a taxi, simply because you reach your endpoint about 30 minutes earlier than getting via Lille. That's just dumb. Okay? And all over the place, their decisions that are driving us weirdly. Their airline websites that ask you what class of travel you want before you know what the price difference is. Okay? And the weird thing is that when we're presented with bad choice design, we don't really notice it. It's a really useful insight, this, that when we're presented with exactly that kind of wine situation, where the choice is hugely biased either by what other people do, or because, by the way, the environment's designed, as humans, we don't notice the choices. We don't notice, almost by definition.

In property, for example, here's a weird thing. Okay? If we bought art the way we bought property, okay, Picassos would be cheap. Let me explain. Okay? The way we buy property is place, then price, then number of bedrooms. A lot of things which happen to have a kind of numerical definition. We obsess about the things that are quantifiable, and then we end up with five, and we buy the nicest one of those. Now, if we bought art that way, we'd say, "I'd like a painting, landscape format, about five feet by three, mostly blue with a little bit of green, and I'd like to feature it, feature three cows and maybe a tree." Okay? Under those conditions, Picassos would be cheap, because we'd left the artist, the quality of the artistry, to low down in the choice architecture. Okay? Now, in property, what we need is a Parker score for architecture. If you want to make really high-quality architecture valuable, we need a score, or we need to persuade Rightmove to have a little checkbox for "I want a house of some architectural distinction."

This is where I live. I live in the roof, just in case you're getting a bit envious. I live in the attic. It's the former home of Napoleon the Third. It's Robert Adam, Grade 1 listed. My neighbors are economists. And I said, "How much extra, compared to a totally indifferent building 200 yards away with apartments the same size, how much extra do we pay for the Robert Adam, less of this house?" And he said, "I wondered about that too. He said, it's somewhere between nought and 2%." So the cheapest way to buy art is to buy architecture. That's because the choice architecture is different. But we never noticed that.

So one of the things I'd like to do is to look and just do thought experiments about the things we don't do because something's wrong with the way we're allowed to choose them. If there were a button where you could do a prostate test as a man, and it gave you an instant result, everybody would press it. Fair. Why don't we have a prostate test? My theory is that it's the variable that nobody's looked at optimizing, which is the delay between the test and the results. The human brain absolutely hates uncertainty. You see, if you notice a very successful way on the internet of selling credit cards is to say, "You can be improved within 10 minutes." Take that insight from marketing and apply it to medicine. Maybe the reasons we're not doing things aren't the reasons we state. There's a deep unconscious reason that's putting us off that we ourselves don't know. The only way you'll find that out is through experimentation.

Similarly, what are the choices we can't make because in order to change them, we need a lot of other people to change their behavior? 68% of Americans would like to have more holiday and a bit less money. Okay? I've never understood why no American presidential candidate just goes on a platform of, "Why don't you have a four-week holiday allowance like normal?" Right? Okay. But for some reason, no American presidential candidate has ever tried that. No, interestingly, I've never met anybody in Europe, nobody at all, who's so right-wing they think we should have less holiday. If you, I've never had anybody get moving 2/3% out of GDP if we stop people going off gallivanting off in their spare time. Okay? That's a case where you have a kind of collective mind trap. And I think it's interesting because one of the things we might have to ask environmentally is, do we need to re-in economic theory? It's completely easy to get the balance of work and money and leisure that you want. All economists assume that we work until we reach a point where the gains from leisure outweigh the gains from working, and then we stop working. Actually, that's not true, is it? Because if you're the first guy in the office to ask to work a four-day week, even if actually everybody else in the office wants to work a four-day week, the first person to raise his head above the parapet becomes the lazy guy. And there are lots and lots of areas where what I'd like to look at is experimental legislation, where you just say, "We'll try this for a year and make it compulsory, and then we'll see what people think." Varian Singh in Sweden, when they wanted men to take paternity leave, there was huge pressure not to do it. Nobody took their paternity dams. So they made it compulsory for, I think, just a couple of years. Once you've created the social norm, there's no going back.

I think there are lots of things like on moist lavatory paper. But what's fascinating about moist lavatory paper is it's completely logical when you think about it. I mean, you wouldn't go out of the garden, get your hands dirty potting a plant, and go, "I need to clean my hands. Rub them vigorously with some dry paper." Okay? Okay. The interesting thing about moist lavatory paper is if everybody used moist lavatory paper, and you tried to introduce dry lavatory paper, you'd be arrested, wouldn't you? Okay? But because it happened the other way around, getting people to switch from one equilibrium to the other is just really, really difficult because, to a large extent, our behavior is conditioned by what everybody else does.

So what I'd like to do is to look at both ways, individually and collectively, we redefine wealth as gained choices. I think Uber, which is technology, psychology, and complexity economics. I think Uber provides us with one example. Let me explain. It provides us with the information we need that's relevant at the point at which we we travel through the booking process. Okay? First of all, previously, you had to ring up somebody to find out how long you had to wait for a cab. That doesn't. It tells you that they're right there on the screen. Secondly, it doesn't have to reduce the waiting time. It just has to reduce the uncertainty. We're actually happier. The best thing London Underground did to improve passenger satisfaction wasn't faster, more frequent trains. It was dot matrix displays on the platform. We're actually happier waiting nine minutes for a train, knowing it's nine minutes, than waiting four minutes for a train in a state of not-knowing, in a state of uncertainty. I felt British Airways, I said, the worst thing you can put up on a departure board is just "delayed." You wouldn't "delayed 60 minutes." We're kind of cool about that. We can, okay, I'll work around that. Okay? I mean, if you don't make up a number. I said, yeah, but don't ever just put "delayed." It drives us insane. Okay?

So, but there are a whole lot of, whatever did far more important than it's supposed to. The economic disruption of status was it took a behavior and created an interface which made that behavior natural and easy. You know, you can see, is it, do I need to book a taxi now, or shall I wait? Oh, well, as one in three minutes. Okay? Then emotionally, again, psychologically, the experience, the ego experience is much, much better. Do anybody else do this where you time your arrival on the street to coincide with the arrival of your car, which makes you feel like Keyser Söze at the end of The Usual Suspects, you know? Okay? You know, it makes you feel like Louis XIV. Previously, you had to stand around the street, "Gang, is that our car over there? Maybe he's already gone." Okay? So, design of choices in a way that's in line with our evolved psychology offers, I think, the economy enormous prospects for both changing behavior and actually improving experience.

And just to give a few examples of this in more important areas. In the taxi industry, if you want greater diversity in employment, just redesign the choice system. You don't need to impose quotas. If you hire people in groups, you will automatically hire a much more diverse group than if you hire people one at a time. If you think about it, you know, when everybody had one car, they all had a saloon car. Okay? When families have two cars, they don't have two saloon cars. In fact, they probably don't even have one. They have one small car and one big one. As your number of things you choose goes up, the variance of what you choose increases massively with it. When you choose, when you employ someone for one job, one at a time, you look for conformity. When you employ a group, you look for complementarity. And once we start to understand the way in which choice context really drives behavior, I think the potential for progress in just asking better questions about, "Okay, we, what we're doing seems to be like a logical form of free choice, but is it as good as it could be?" I think the potential for questioning choice architecture is huge.

And on a more trivial scale, we realized that if this is working with a drinks company, if you want men to order a cocktail in a bar, okay, there is no chance they will do it at all unless you have a picture or possibly an illustration of the glasses in which it'll be served. Because if the male brain thinks there's a 0.3% chance it'll arrive in a hollowed-out pineapple, they'll order a beer instead. Okay?

Now, I'll end on this time, a bit over time, but if we start, I'm not suggesting for a second that choice creation is the only metric we need. I'm just saying that reframing wealth in a variety of different ways, you know, are you rich if you have a lot of money, but you have to work six days a week and you have no choice over that? Reframing definitions of wealth, and therefore reframing economic ambitions for a country, and indeed an individual level, seems, I'm not suggesting for one second that that's the only thing we should consider. What we emphatically need to do is we need to experiment with a variety of measures other than GDP. I'll just give one example where if you look at two very similar projects through the lens of a standard transport model versus the lens of choice creating choice and creating opportunity, you come up with two very different results.

So, High Speed 2, of which I'm a skeptic, okay, 60 billion pounds. They first of all, and the model that justifies the expenditure is time saving. They also claim its capacity. Don't want to be rude, but the last train from Manchester to London leaves at about 8:20. If you want to increase capacity on the line, run the trains until midnight. Okay? And give, give everybody who's traveled up from London instead of 60 billion on the train line, just give them a 50-pound voucher for a night on the razz in Manchester. Okay? I mean, you know, it's slightly weird having a capacity argument and then stopping running the trains late. But the point is, what they don't understand, because they haven't lived it from a psychological angle, they've purely looked at it from a sort of instrumental economic angle involving time. The assumption is, by the way, that all time spent on a train is completely economically useless. That's how they justify it.

Now, High Speed 1 saves somebody who moves to Canterbury an hour a day, 200 times a year. That's a big change, right? That gives them a big choice, because now you can go and live in Canterbury and commute to London. Nobody travels between Manchester and London 200 times a year. What you're doing with High Speed 2, with your 60 billion pounds, is you're giving 200 people the chance to save one hour once a year. Okay? One of those projects is massively adding to human possibilities and options. The other one is more or less trivial and irrelevant. But looked at through the lens of time-saving, which doesn't distinguish between saving one person 200 hours and saving 200 people one hour, they look equivalent. So one of the things I'm just, which is something which I think government needs to do, I think we need to do it collectively, but we can also do it individually, is just experiment with the frame and the narrative through which you view things. Try more than one. That's the first point. And also question choice architecture. You can arrive at what seems like a perfect decision simply because you've asked a series of questions one after the other. If you reverse the order of those questions, you will however arrive at a completely different decision. So some sort of experimentation with the way in which we design choices seems to me to offer huge potential for just improving wealth without increasing consumption. So that's me. Thank you very much indeed.