Transcription
[Applause] I'll start with a quote by JP Morgan, who once said, "It was probably him. It probably wasn't, to be honest. It never is, is it? But the person to whom a quote is attributed." But he said, "Everybody has two reasons for doing the things they do: a good reason and the real reason." And it's much, much more true than we like to admit. In fact, because there is an official, logical reason for doing things, and quite often there's an entirely ulterior, even unconscious motivation for doing things.
And to understand this, one book I recommend, actually. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber wrote a book called "The Enigma of Reason." And it essentially says that nearly all, or all living things apart from humans, basically get by perfectly well without actually needing a sense of reason. And it's a relatively late evolutionary addition. And there can, that essential assertion is that given that, you know, we effectively evolved as other animals did, to act instinctively without needing to explain what we did, what rationalize what we did. And then very recently in our evolutionary history, we had this capacity to use language to explain what we did. And their contention is really that reason is very little involved in actual human decision-making. We still make decisions largely instinctively. And that reason evolved not to be a kind of Stephen Hawking or a scientist attached to our brain. It evolved to be a kind of George Carlin or a defense barrister, if you like. And like a barrister, our sense of reason has a grossly exaggerated sense of its own importance because it thinks it's making decisions when mostly it's post-rationalizing them. In Johnson's words, the conscious brain thinks it's the Oval Office, when in reality it's mostly the press office. It thinks it's making the decisions when in reality what it's doing is hastily constructing its plausible-sounding explanations for decisions taken somewhere else and made for reasons that it doesn't fully understand.
I'll give you a perfect example of this in the healthcare field, which is, why do people clean their teeth? And there's official, good reason is to prevent cavities, maintain dental health, and to prevent tooth decay. However, I would argue it isn't that at all. And in fact, anybody in the toothpaste industry will tell you it isn't that reason at all. We really clean our teeth, the real reason, as opposed to the official reason, is that we're frightened of having bad breath, which will be unattractive to the opposite, or indeed same-sex, be unattractive to prospective partners, and be socially embarrassing. And that, that's the main reason we do. If you think about it, how often would you clean your teeth before a date, for example? Mostly, right? How often would you clean your teeth after a meal? Almost never. Okay? Now, if you are primarily motivated by dental health, you would actually do the latter and not the former.
And if you want further proof of what I say, I often think, by the way, consumer capitalism is the kind of Galapagos Islands of understanding human behavior. You know, lots and lots of trivial distinctions and behaviors are actually surprisingly revealing. Darwin himself actually could have saved himself a whole heap of travel if he'd simply gone down to his, and indeed my, local Sainsbury's in Oxford, not far from Down House, and got himself some point-of-sale data. He would have discovered that the single most frequently purchased item in all UK grocery shops is, wait for it, a banana. So our evolutionary heritage is kind of revealed even in our shopping behavior. Now, okay, now the interesting thing, if you think about it, if the real reason we clean our teeth is, to be honest, a fear of bad breath, the spin-off benefit is dental health. That one very interesting, I think, support point for this is, if this weren't so, why on earth is 97% of all toothpaste flavored with mint? Okay? If it weren't really about breath freshness and anxiety about breath freshness, you'd have a whole range of flavors, wouldn't you? You know? But the fact that it's nearly all mint, I think, is highly revealing.
And I think there's an important point to be made here, which is, actually, it doesn't really matter why people do it, so long as they do. I think there's a day, particularly in government health activity, which goes, "It's not enough for people to do the thing we want them to do, they have to do it for the right reason." You know, to be honest, I don't really mind if people buy an electric car because they think it's really cool. If you look at Procter & Gamble, for example, and Unilever, I'd say, I probably would say this, wouldn't I? My grandfather's doctor, funnily enough, in Croydon, which is the birthplace, kind of, of the NHS, he said that before antibiotics, most of what you did was kind of a placebo. It was psychological as much as anything else. Most of the gains before antibiotics, not all, but probably the greater part. There's many, many things that Adam Gopnik mentioned in the earlier presentation that really increased human longevity were to do with hygiene and cleanliness rather than conventional medicine. And that the real public health success up until penicillin was just getting people to care about, you know, how clean they were keeping themselves clean and making their homes hygienic and so on. And to be honest, you know, this was achieved mostly not by advertising that said, "Be clean and avoid a cholera outbreak." It was mostly achieved by advertising by Procter & Gamble and Unilever, which actually sold cleanliness on the basis of status and sexual attractiveness, not on the basis of public health benefits. It's actually slightly horrible advertising if you go back to it with a modern sensibility. So the phrase, for example, "Always the bridesmaid, never the bride," was made famous in a Listerine advert. Montages that they washed with pears and prevent a cholera outbreak. They're all about being attractive or not being unattractive to other people.
And I think we've got to ask you a question here, which is, to what extent, when we want people to behave the way we want them to behave, do we really care whether it's for the right reason or not? Because there's a strange thing, I suppose, like, you know, very simple example of this. It's always viewed that anything that constructs a perception or a behavior which is achieved through sleight of hand or hacking people's perception rather than through objective reality is considered free cheating. It's always considered smoke and mirrors. You know, the only correct, acceptable way, particularly in government, to solve a problem is by changing objective reality. So it's very, very acceptable putting more policemen on the beat. It's much more dubious, for example, repainting shop shutters so that people are less violent. We have an absolute horror of psychological solutions. And in some ways, I'd like to know why. I'd like to know why the electronic cigarette aroused so much hostility. No, it's a kind of cheat. I'm the first to admit it. Yes, it doesn't entirely end nicotine addiction. But the fact that people's instinctive reaction was to ban it kind of alarms me. It also alarms, by the way, that perfectly logical and intelligent people, when legislating for where you can use electronic cigarettes, demand that they're treated in exactly the same way as conventional cigarettes, without spotting what is to me a fairly obvious problem, which is, if you force all the vapors to go outside the office and stand right next to all the smokers, they're exposed to an indecent amount of temptation. It's like holding an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in a pub. Okay? Now, you wouldn't do that.
And so I'm always intrigued by the fact that there's a kind of, I think what science has done is created a kind of misplaced purity, to be honest. Which is, the great achievement of science in all areas which are non-psychological, in engineering and bridge building and designing a Boeing 787, whatever it may be, is that science has fantastic objective measures. It overcomes the failings of human perception. Okay? You know, by the way, were huge debates when it came to defining temperature because people said, "You can't just define temperature as how warm it is because depending on things like the breeze and the humidity, it feels different." And the scientists won. And they said, "No, no, temperature has to be an objective measure. What it feels like to us doesn't matter. The temperature is objective." Okay? And distances objective, and weight is objective, and everything else. And those objective measures are fantastic if you are solving a problem for a non-human problem, in other words, a problem where human perception plays no part in the solution. And in that case, that objectivity is a brilliant, priceless, and fantastic thing. But in other cases, I think it's a bit dangerous. But it demands that there's a kind of rational link from persuasion through to action, which may actually be remarkably ineffectual.
And so let me give you an example of what is an astonishing perceptual hack. Nobody thinks we like that your television. Total con. Okay? It does not produce a whole spectrum, despite what the manufacturers will say. It does not produce a spectrum of 174,000 different colors. Do you know why? Because your brain does that. The television produces three. If you wanted to produce an objective TV, it would have to have literally 50,000 different little blobs of color generation within each pixel, and the pixels would be about ten yards across, and a television would cost billions of pounds. The reason your TV works is it completely hacks human perception. It's not remotely interested in what, in creating objective reality. It simply has to create what looks like reality to you. And so the way it does this, by the way, is that essentially, in the cones of the human eye. Now, they're any vision specialists here because I am unconscious, what the, what I'm saying is slightly wrong, but simplified. So I don't want anybody to tell me shreds. But broadly speaking, you have three types of cone in your eye, and they're sensitive to red, green, and blue, and roughly in that area of the spectrum. And color mixing is entirely a biological phenomenon. It's not a physical phenomenon. If you mix red photons and you mix green photons, you don't get yellow photons, okay? You just get a mixture of red and green ones. Okay? What's brilliant about the television design is it's optimized for human perception, not for reality. And if you want to solve a problem which involves human behavior, you could actually say, "Let's not worry too much about objective reality. Let's just worry about what people perceive, the context in which they perceive it, how they feel, and how they behave as a result of those feelings." What they actually think is, to be honest, a bit of a sideshow. What they consciously think.
And your TV does this fantastically because essentially, it doesn't need to produce yellow. That would be really expensive, by the way. Your TV's optimized for you, and other a few other higher primates. I think gorillas would find your telly quite good. You know, they go, "4K, brilliant." Okay? Your dog, or your parents, thinks your TV is a crock of total because it's so select. You know, it bears no relation to objective reality because, for example, pigeons, I think, can detect five colors, including ultraviolet. So they think your television was kind of totally rubbish. Okay? But gorillas and humans, I mean, obviously, because, you know, lower primates don't buy televisions. You don't go into Currys and it says, "Special 4K optimized for higher primates." That's left unsaid. But essentially, the mix of colors it produces basically works like that. And it does even where the things, by the way, if your TV produces red and blue and blue, but it doesn't produce any green, so red and red and green, if your brain is getting equal amounts of stimulus in that spectrum, your brain basically hypothesizes yellow and produces it. So it looks like a banana, even though there are no yellow photons hitting your eyes. Okay? And, and weirder still, if your TV produces red and blue. Now, halfway between red and blue is kind of green, but your eyes aren't detecting any green. So what the brain does, instead of going all furry and saying, "System error," which you should do technically in an objective universe, it produces a color that doesn't exist in reality, which is magenta. Okay? So magenta, technically, as a color, is not green. The color magenta is created by the absence of green. This is all totally biological and it's species-dependent.
The ancient Greeks kind of understood this design for perception thing. There isn't a single straight line on the path. None. It's not designed to be straight. It's designed to look straight. So the, the actual columns curved outwards in the middle, the floor actually bows upwards, and the sides also, because it was designed, as I said, not for objective purposes, but for subjective purposes. And I always think we give a really, really hard time to people who essentially just use human perception as their, as their goal, rather than objective reality. Paul Nurofen in Australia. Okay? They got a whole heap of pain because they sold Nurofen Migraine, Nurofen Tension Headache, Nurofen for Period Pain, and Nurofen for whatever. And some of them were actually chemically identical. But what's completely unfair about this is that if it says "Nurofen for Period Pain" on the packaging, the way the brain works is it will be more effective at treating period pain than if it doesn't. But the placebo effect is viewed as cheating. And I think that's because physics, if you think about it, you have Newton's laws of conservation of energy, you can't create anything out of nothing. Economics got in on the same game with, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Okay? And it's the same miserable, miserable, magic-free philosophy that basically says, "Input in is proportionate to result out." But in human perception, those boring linear rules don't apply. You can actually create alchemy. You can create magic. Okay? Wine tastes better if you pour it from a heavier bottle. Your car drives much better after you've had it cleaned, if you've noticed that. So it's not just a cleaner car, it's actually a better performing car. Right? Painkillers are more effective if they're red. They're more effective if they're branded. They're more effective if they make a specific promise than if they make a generic one. Okay? And they're also more effective if, if you tell people they're expensive. I'm the only person in Britain who complains that you can't buy expensive aspirin. Right? You've got this wonder drug, and you're making it useless by selling it for 69p. I haven't got a 69p headache, for sake. I've got a three pounds twenty-nine headache. Right? And you're completely, economists and rationalists are completely ruining the power of aspirin by putting it in grey containers and selling it for 69p. Madness. Okay?
Now, my view is Nurofen doesn't go nearly far enough. First of all, they should charge even more for the specialty variants. And they should go much further. They should have, "I've lost my car keys Nurofen," and "Nurofen for people whose neighbors like reggae." Okay? They aren't thinking this through. They should go much further. And the placebo effect is kind of magical. Now, here's a guy called Nicholas Humphries, a psychologist at Cambridge. He has a theory which we don't know whether it's true or not, but it's very, very interesting, which is, very large parts of your body can't be controlled by direct acts of will. You know, there are things like your movements, which at least feel as if they're motivated by acts of will, and you can at least have the illusion of free will over arm movements. Then there are things like blinking, which are kind of a mixture of the two. Okay? Then there are things like your heartbeat or pupil dilation or whatever, which you can only control obliquely, if at all. Okay? So you can't just sit there and go, "I'd like my heart rate to go up." Sexuality, or sexual arousal will be another one. You know, you didn't go, "I like level four tumescence, please." Right? That'll be really weird. Okay? So there are lots of things which you can control in your body, but you can only control it obliquely. It's a bit like an automatic gearbox. Didn't really hear, "Drive." I love automatics. Person, I know, it's very lazy. Everybody who, you don't have any sense of control. What happens if you drive an automatic is, after you've driven the same car in the ends of time, you learn to kind of control the gear changes obliquely. You know, if you're nearing the top of the hill, you just throttle off a bit to stop it changing down prematurely, all that kind of stuff. And we control most of our bodily functions kind of obliquely because we can't control them directly.
And Humphries' theory is that essentially the immune system is calibrated for much scarcer conditions than we actually find ourselves in in the modern world. And the immune system had to be really careful not to over-intervene. He suggests that this may be why we get ill more in the winter than in the summer, because in times of scarcity, our body's inner accountant is going to be more cautious than it is in sunny weather. And they're essentially the only way we can get our immune system to kick it up a notch is not by an act of will. It's by hacking it obliquely. It's by effectively going, "Whoa, loads of people are bringing me soup. I've got this fantastic expensive pill to take, which tastes really horrible, and it's bright red." And that essentially, what we're actually doing, just as, okay, you can increase or decrease your heart rate, not by an act of will, but you can go jogging or practice yoga. Okay? If you want to dilate your pupils, you can go into a dark room or promptly look at pornography, for some why that would be, I don't know. Okay? But for some reason that has that effect. So in the same way, if you want your immune system to kick it up again, you can't do it by will. The immune system is too conservative in its deployment because our evolutionary history was in a tougher environment where you might freeze to death in the night or run out of food. And so what we need to do in the modern world is effectively deploy these hacks to make our immune system a bit more extreme.
He even goes further and says that actually very, very large things, large industries are essentially selfless ebbing. So the fashion industry, if you think about it, is denied. I've got two daughters of seventeen, and I kept saying, "Well, you know, I mean, Jesus, take power to leave the house, right? Yeah. What's all this about? Because, I mean, you're only going some pub or whatever." And they eventually said, "No, no, it's essentially L'Oréal. It's because I'm worth it." That being really well-dressed creates a sense of confidence in yourself that you can't auto-generate. Okay? Then it creates the sense of serenity and confidence and being attractive and important and, you know, and so forth, which you can achieve through the oblique application of fashion. Okay? But you can't generate yourself. Much easier if you're a bloke, of course, you just get the same effect with four pints of lager. But but generally, here, I mean, Humphreys goes even further and says there are placebos in the wild. You know, the reason that soldiers blow trumpets and fly flags is that, and they talk to talk of themselves as brothers in arms and create a kind of fictive kin relationship, is that's a way of hacking the unconscious into being a level of bravery which we couldn't achieve through an act of will. And so a surprising amount of what we do may be driven by attempts essentially to change the way in which we feel by oblique means.
But the interesting question is, I think we've got to actually give a little bit of thought to the placebo and not automatically despise it. One of the things you can do with placebos is you can generate happiness, by the way. Pretty much. I'll give you a few examples. Simply by telling a story about something, by presenting something in a different way, without changing objective reality at all, you can actually make something better or worse. One thing, one thing you can do, by the way, which I think the public sector does badly, give customers totally trivial choices. I don't mean you choose your own course of oncology, right? I'm not suggesting we take it that far. But if you actually literally allow people to say, "Would you prefer a ward on the second floor or the third floor?" Totally immaterial choices. People are much happier with an outcome that they've chosen than one that that's been imposed on them. Okay? So there are lots and lots of little tricks you can impose. And we had one car brand we worked with. We couldn't understand why the customer satisfaction levels seemed to be low, even though the quality of the cars was going up and up. And we discovered that it was one of Vauxhall and Ford, disproportionately large number of fleet cars. When your company gives you a car, you'll never like it as much as a car you've chosen yourself. Okay?
Now, the problem is, as I said, you don't want to worry about human perception when you're building a bridge. That's all about objective measures. That's the field of science. Science does that fantastically because you can define a good bridge in terms of, "Will it take this weight, traveling at this speed, with this frequency, over this period of time, in the following climatic and seismic conditions?" That's human free definition of success. Therefore, you don't need to worry about psychology. The second you paint the lines on the bridge, now that's a psychological problem. This is an Icelandic zebra crossing, which is designed as a kind of trompe l'oeil effect to freak out motorists and make them slam on the brakes, but it certainly makes them slow down. When you start painting lines on the road, that's a psychological question.
This is probably the most successful burn in the, in commercial terms, by the way. Now, what I mean by that is, if you'd wanted to compete with Coke, you'd think, wouldn't you, that if you wanted a successful soft drink, it would have to taste nicer than Coke, cost less than Coke, and come in a really big can so people got great value for money. Now, the most successful attempt to compete with Coke basically cost a fortune, comes in a tiny can, and tastes kind of disgusting. Now, it only makes sense as a consumer product if you think of it as a placebo. That if you want to believe that something has psychoactive or psychotropic properties, it's gotta taste weird, it's got to be expensive. And what the can says is that this stuff is really potent because we can't give you the full 330 milliliters because you'd probably go postal. Okay?
Now, I'll end very quickly because I must run. That fundamentally, there's no point in designing objectively because the human world, the human brain doesn't perceive things objectively. It perceives things relatively. You think of that as a white thing connected to a gray thing. Cover the middle with your hand, and you'll see that the bottom and the top, objectively, I've done it on the right. Fear, if you're very lazy, are exactly the same color. Okay? But the brain helpfully goes, "That's probably in shadow," so I'm just going to correct this.
Anybody seen the McGurk effect? Right, you're in for a very quick treat. Haven't got long. We are being bombarded by sensory information. Our brains do a remarkable job of making sense of it all. [Music] It seems easy enough to separate the sounds we hear from the sights we see, but there is one illusion that reveals this isn't always the case. Have a look at this. What do you hear? But look what happens when we change the picture, and yet the sound hasn't changed. In every clip, you are only ever hearing "ba" with a "b". It's an illusion known as the McGurk effect. Take another look. Concentrate first on the right of the screen, now to the left of the screen. The illusion occurs because what you are seeing clashes with what you are hearing. In the illusion, what we see overrides what we hear. So the mouth movements we see as we look at a face can actually influence what we believe we're hearing. If we close our eyes, we actually hear the sound as it is. If we...
Oh, everything we perceive is essentially heavily processed. So the connection with objective reality, essentially human behavior is not like physics. It basically goes stimulus, perception, correction for perception, meaning, emotion, behavior. And you can twiddle with any of those measures, as television makers do, to achieve the desired behavior or the desired perception, not necessarily the objective reality, which is often really expensive. If you want something to seem cheap, okay, price is perceived relatively. Rolls-Royce and Maserati stopped selling their cars at car shows because they look, you know, "300,000 euro car looks really expensive." They started selling them at plane shows, New York shows. If you've been looking at Lear Jets all afternoon, a 300,000 pound car is basically an impulse buy. Okay? You know, it's like the chocolate next to the till. Oh, well, I'll have a couple of those. Okay? The espresso. We've got an espresso machine. If you had to buy in the jar, like Nescafé, it would cost about 40 quid, and you'd look at it on the shelf and go, "That is batshit crazy. There's no way I'm paying that for coffee." Doesn't come in a jar. Most of us, unless you work in procurement, don't know what a single Nescafé costs, right? So when you put your 39p pod in your machine, your frame of reference isn't Nescafé, it's Starbucks. Do you think, "What's 13p will cost me £2.20 at Starbucks? This machine is practically making me money." Okay? And so, you know, don't, don't change it with a reality, it's really expensive and it's tiring.
The bus to the airport. We all hate it. Okay? I've always gone, "God, it's a bus. The engines wind down. You're still a mile from the airport. Oh, shite, it's a bus." You know? And that's because, of course, the three worst words in the English language are "bus replacement service." You know, three best words: "All day breakfast." About a fiver. Okay? Now, I'd always hated the bus and I just thought the bus is rubbish. Okay? And then I land on an easyJet flight. The pilot says, "I've got some bad news and I've got some good news. The bad news is we won't be able to get an air bridge because there's a plane blocking the gate. The good news is the bus will take you all the way to passport control." See how far to walk with your bags? I like you, monkey man. Instant pillow thing. That's always true, isn't it? I'm quite glad there's a bus. I don't have to walk past 30 Toblerone displays just to get to my luggage. Now, next time you're on a plane, try this simple act of alchemy. Just say very loudly, "Actually, I'm glad there's a bus because it'll drive you all the way to passport control." You just synthesized happiness out of nowhere in everybody within earshot. Okay?
Now, it's vital. I'll skip this just for reasons of time. Um, even getting people to choose things. Um, you can make people do things. Okay? I hate to say this, but they don't actually have to choose them. They have to feel they've chosen them. So the way that restaurants get you to drink wine, which has a much higher margin than anything else, because you can't charge 20 quid for a glass of Johnnie Walker Red because people know what it costs in the shops. But you can buy a bottle of like, 2012 Chateau Bollox for four euros and and charge like 25 euros for every ozone marvellous hint of blackcurrants, right? Okay? Anybody else set? Anybody else have wine skeptic? I think it's entirely emperor's new clothes. Yeah, good. Exactly. They're always a few of us. Gin or beer every time, in my book, anyway. But what the restaurant does is it puts glasses there already for you. In fact, if you say, "We're not having wine," they take the glasses away at a bit of a huff, don't they? As if, "Well, we might be taking you very seriously for the rest of the evening." And then they bring you, it's not called a drinks list, it's called a wine list. And the choice architecture of the wine list is five pages of bloody wine of insane variety, followed by a really sad back page for the perverts and deviants who want to drink beer or spirits. Okay? And then cleverest still, they only bring one wine list. So the guy with the wine is, there's only one drink, well, two drinks, I suppose, you can actually share with a whole table. You could say, "Tequila slammers all round." But it's not the most sophisticated. So the guy with the wine list is forced to do as he turns to the table and goes, "Red or white?" At which point, it's game over for the gin drinkers. Okay? So you can actually design choices in ways that achieve the desired behavior or change the perception.
Uber is largely a hack. It just makes waiting less painful because what we hate about waiting is not the duration, which is the objective measure. It's the degree of uncertainty. We did this with British Gas. People said, "Oh God, I hate waiting in for my, you know, my British Gas engineer. You know, it means they're gonna take a whole day off work." Now, we were suspicious of that point. Let's face it, we love taking a day off work. Don't worry. Okay? You know, "Oh, it's terrible, I've got to take a day off work." Right? Okay? Now, we should look, actually, don't worry. The emotional problem is not caused by the duration of the appointment. It's the uncertainty. If you text people 40 minutes before you arrive, the feeling is now, "Okay, I'm in control. I can have a shower. I can pop out to the shops." Rather than the feeling where there's no information, which is like being under house arrest. Okay?
Now, important still, you can do the same wine trick if you want to recruit, if you want greater diversity. Change the choice. Hire people in groups. You'll automatically get every kind of diversity: social, socioeconomic, ethnic, gender diversity. If you hire people to, the only reason I got my job at Ogilvy was because they had four jobs. And when it came to position number four, there a bit undecided, and someone said, "Let's take a punt on the weirdo." Okay? Now, if there had been four people, each hiring for one position, I wouldn't have got any of those jobs. And an awful lot of what we may think to be unconscious bias, ethnic bias, is actually just status quo bias. It's, I'm making a single decision that I want to make it look as unremarkable as possible for fear of blame should it not work out. Okay? It's, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." Essentially, it's, you go with the default because the consequences are lower, and it's an instinctive thing. It's not conscious. Okay? If you hire people in group, to think about it, when everybody had one car, everybody had a saloon car. My childhood, you had a Ford Cortina. If you have a two-car household, nobody has two saloon cars. In fact, they probably don't even have one. They have an SUV and a small runabout. Okay?
So once you understand human perception, the fact that it's linked to objective reality is tenuous at best. What you realize is there's this whole new area for potential intervention, which doesn't involve changing the changing the actual objective reality. It simply involves changing the perception. Why aren't painkillers red? Why can't I buy expensive aspirin? In many cases, by the way, there may be a massive mistake in that. All scientists try and make medicine as easy as possible to take. Whereas the placebo effect might be actually magnified if you had to go through a bit of a ritual and you made it a bit difficult. You know, IKEA. That's called that's called the IKEA effect, which is you have to value this sofa because you think, you know, because you've been through something which is a bit like a tour of duty in Vietnam just to get the thing home. So there's no way you're not valuing that sofa, right? And so it's really, really important we stop trying to pretend that lots of things like engineering, where it's all about objective metrics, in many, many cases, the objective metrics may be surprisingly irrelevant. And what matters is a tiny perceptual thing which does all the heavy lifting at tiny fraction of the cost. The strangest thing about that is this isn't viewed as being highly efficient. It's viewed as cheating. But then, if you made a television without cheating, it would cost 16 billion pounds. So that's me. Let's hear it for placebos. Thank you very much indeed.
[Applause]