Binary Thinking

Speaker A: 00:00:00

Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast produced by me, Fraser McGruer for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts, we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Peter Coghill and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights, and this week we're discussing whether or not to wear protective face masks. Peter, I notice you're not wearing a protective face mask right

Speaker B: 00:00:27

now. I'm not? Well, none of us are, actually. No. Well, this is... I had a sort of semi-epiphany fairly recently about the sort of prevalence of this kind of thinking or this kind of justification for people taking certain actions. It's not new, and this isn't an original idea of mine at all, but just strike me how prevalent it is of politicians, of people in the public eye, and in everyday life, justifying why they're doing things using what's sometimes called binary thinking. So, the example that Fraser gives is, you know, masks aren't 100% effective, so I'm not wearing one. It's kind of missing the entire point about masks. So, just to drill in quickly to masks. So, masks aren't 100% effective. Nothing is ever 100% effective. I mean, just for

Speaker A: 00:01:19

post-apocalypse future generations who might find this somewhere, we're still actually at the beginning of a second wave of the global pandemic of coronavirus, right? Yeah. And so everyone's

Speaker B: 00:01:30

being told to wear masks. Yeah, or indeed the trans-galactic archaeologists who discover the remnants of the human race and find this podcast. You know, there were people... Ten years from now. There were people who believed that masks were generally a good idea because they were not worse than not wearing a mask. Yes. Okay. So, yeah. So, they're not 100% effective, but even with a small amount of effectiveness, like 20, 30%, they would have benefit. Yeah. And so, wearing one is generally a good idea under certain circumstances. Also, the idea that because it's not useful for me, I'm not going to do it. That's an unrelated issue. So, it's this kind of binary thinking. Like, it's not 100% good, so why do it? Or it's not good. I don't believe it to be good. Yeah. So, I'm not going to do it without any kind of exploration as to what benefits there might be. Yeah. Or what the alternative is, which may be worse. So, it's an interesting sort of common, like, logical fallacy, I think, is sort of out there. Yeah. That is very, very prevalent, certainly. I don't know if it's any more prevalent now, but it seems to be very prevalent currently.

Speaker A: 00:02:44

So, it's a kind of full on or off way of approaching decisions, right? Exactly, yeah. And it's, as you were saying, you feel it's quite prevalent at the moment amongst politicians, but also, I guess, sort of ranty people on Facebook, I suppose. Yeah, I think we've done, we did a

Speaker C: 00:03:01

podcast last year, I think, about polarisation. Right. And that problem certainly hasn't gone away. And I think polarisation, you know, tends, it's either concomitant with, or caused by, or at least causes this kind of thinking. Yeah. Particularly about, you know, so that the way that people approach debates is, if you think about the kinds of things you might be, you know, well, I might express cagey thoughts about something, such as, you know, if I were to say, well, I think the government's made some significant mistakes in its handling of COVID-19. I think, you know, a lot of people would hear that and therefore assume, probably just assume that I must be a big Labour supporter. Yeah, you're a massive communist. And that I hate Boris Johnson. You know, to flip it around, if I said, you know, I don't agree with people tearing down statues of slave owners, a lot of people would hear that and assume I'm a nasty racist. Yeah, a big sort of BNP supporting racist. So I think this is as prevalent as ever. I mean, you know, we looked at a lot of evidence for polarisation. And it does look on many measures like we are more polarised now. So I think we're probably seeing more of this kind of thing now. More of this, you know, yeah, as Peter says, binary thinking. Okay. I mean, basically, there's binary thinkers, and there's everyone else. And I hate binary thinkers.

Speaker A: 00:04:30

Okay, I wish I could remember our previous podcast. Well, so that's good. So we concluded that polarisation has increased. Yeah. And I think this is one of the issues.

Speaker B: 00:04:39

I can send you a link to it if you like.

Speaker A: 00:04:40

Thanks. Thanks, Peter. Thanks. Okay, well, look, so where do we want to go with this? I mean, we're only just starting the podcast. But I mean, so...

Speaker B: 00:04:48

So I think it would help if we... So in the mask case, the mask case might not be inherently useful. Because I think in the case of wearing masks, it's often as a rationalisation of why they don't want to wear a mask. And this is their excuse or their smoke screen, which covers some more fundamental belief or reasoning. So I think, and I think most of the time, when it comes to masks, people don't want to wear one because it's slightly unpleasant and a bit of inconvenience. Yeah. And they come up with an excuse that it's not 100% effective. Yes. But it's what I object to or I'm worried about is the fact that it's seen as a reasonable response is to have this completely binary approach. Yeah, yeah. Rather than, you know, having a more reasoned, more nuanced argument as to why, you know, why one shouldn't wear a mask. Yeah. It's kind of like, oh, it's not 100% effective. Yeah. What's the point? So it's distancing, separating it out from the rationalisation thing. It's not, let's consider, I want to consider it as like a dangerous mode of thinking or a naive mode of thinking that leads you down the wrong path. Leads you down the wrong path, leads you to bad decisions, but something that you can train yourself out of.

Speaker A: 00:06:09

Yeah. And also, I mean, just to say, it does go to the heart of what you guys do and what we talk about on this podcast, which is about analysis and decision making, right? This is purely that. That's exactly what we're talking about. So, I mean...

Speaker C: 00:06:21

hat was first talked about in: 1949

Speaker A: 00:07:34

A Sith. A Sith.

Speaker C: 00:07:35

Of course. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've got no idea what a Sith is.

Speaker A: 00:07:39

I know exactly what a Sith is. What's a Sith? It's that Star Wars thing.

Speaker C: 00:07:42

It is, yeah. Great. Correct. A preference for the familiar over the unfamiliar, a rejection of the unusual or different, a resistance to the reversal of fluctuating stimuli. And so, a premature closure of things and a sort of early selection. And this feels to me like the thing that relates most closely to what Peter's talking about is the early selection and maintenance of one solution in an ambiguous situation, you know. So, to stick with what you know. Yeah. And sort of, I suppose, you know, connected to that is this sort of unreasonable demand for overwhelming evidence before you change your behaviour, you know. A sort of privileging of what's known. So, that's what we mean by ambiguity aversion. And I think that does a pretty good job of capturing what we mean by ambiguity, by binary thinking. So, the things that have been related to a tendency to be averse to ambiguity are authoritarianism, dogmatism. Wait, sorry. Say that again. The thing that... The things that are related to being... So, if you are intolerant of ambiguity... Yeah. You will also have... There will be a tendency for you to have certain other personal characteristics, which are authoritarianism, dogmatism, rigidity, closed-mindedness, ethnic prejudice, lack of creativity, anxiety, and aggression. So, all in all, it's very hard. It's not the portrait of a really likeable person.

Speaker B: 00:09:26

Nobody wants to be that guy, so don't be that guy.

Speaker A: 00:09:28

Yeah. But it is worrying, because increasingly, it does feel in our world that those sorts of traits are to the fore, right? And you can see it everywhere. And especially on, as I've referred to, social media. You do see it everywhere, but anyway.

Speaker B: 00:09:44

Yeah, this is... I mean, whether or not they're to the fore or not, they're certainly the most vocal, and they're certainly the ones that get picked up by algorithms, be they technical ones in Facebook, etc., but also kind of the media, because they sell papers. Yeah. Having these extreme flip-flopping kind of stories. Yeah. Red wine causes cancer, red wine doesn't cause cancer.

Speaker A: 00:10:05

Yeah. I mean, papers have been around for a while, right? So, but yeah, I think it is...

Speaker B: 00:10:09

But this is what I'm getting at. There's like an algorithm manifest in any given kind of media organization that's human-driven, and their algorithm is to maximize the sale of papers. And the way they've stumbled across doing that is by being a bit sort of out there with their story.

Speaker C: 00:10:24

Yeah, it's worth saying that people... I mean, even though we're talking about this... So, it's important to note... It's important not to tackle this from a binary, you know, standpoint. Yeah, that's bad. Like, this is a feature about people, which is sort of higher or lower. It's not like you are this particular guy or not. And, you know, in particular, everyone is averse to some extent, averse to ambiguity. And, you know, there are experiments where you offer people different types of gamble. And in some gambles, you give them more information or less information. And, you know, people tend to go for the gambles that are worse, but where they're more informed about how they're worse, you know. So, it is... I mean, ambiguity aversion. Almost no one really loves ambiguity. It's just... So, this is why it's called, you know, ambiguity intolerance. It's like the extent to which you will seek to remove it from your life, not actually loving it, because I don't think anyone... No one really loves ambiguity. And so, as Peter's saying, new stories that seem to tell us a story which is unambiguous are always going to be appealing, because they tell us a story about the world, which is one that we want to hear.

Speaker B: 00:11:41

Yeah, or it's one that's easy to grasp because it's simple. Building on Nick's point that everyone suffers from it, it's partly the way your brain is wired. You know, your brain is a really amazing machine at quickly making decisions all the time without you really knowing about it. It's sucking in information and very quickly triaging what's vitally relevant at any given time to allow you to continue to exist, to find food, to find a mate, etc. So, often called the sort of heuristics, the sort of decision-making little algorithms that run that quickly help you make a decision. To fight against those sort of system one kind of thinking is hard and effortful and difficult, and it requires you to do lots more research and reading and thinking and weighing up things. That's a very conscious thing to do that most of the time, most of the day, you haven't got time to do. So, it's not a bad thing inherently. What is a bad thing potentially is not realising it's happening to you and not trying to do it.

Speaker C: 00:12:42

Yeah, I think the important thing is drawing a distinction. And actually, it's probably worth saying, I think it's fair to say nobody thinks they're a binary thinker. The sensation of being a binary thinker is not where you go, oh, I don't like the mess in that situation. It's where you genuinely perceive it as a simple situation. So, that you see the simplicity as being in the world and not in your perception of it. So, listeners, if you are inclined to look at something like the education system in the UK and say, well, what I don't understand is why the government don't just pay teachers more, or some other thing like that, where you think, well, this really obvious simple solution must fix these problems, then that's a kind of binary thinking. You think that this is a simple problem with a simple solution, and it never is. No problem in the real world is like that. But that's how it feels. It's like, look, this is obvious. Why don't they just do that? Or these people are just evil, or they're just stupid, or some story like that. And no one thinks, well, I'm being too simplistic. They think, no, the world is simplistic. It's obvious. Those people are being stupid, or evil, or greedy. And if you find yourself thinking like that, then that is almost certainly, it's very, very unusual

Speaker B: 00:14:06

that the world really is like that. Yeah. And that's a very useful tell. You can train yourself to spot very easily that as soon as you grasp at a solution, you think, oh, isn't it obvious? Think to yourself, if I thought that, then dozens of other people have probably thought that. The people who are in charge of making the decisions have probably already thought of that, and not done it for some reasons. What are those reasons? So hold on, let's play devil's advocate for a

Speaker A: 00:14:30

moment. Because thinking about this, one area, for example, that doesn't lend itself to ambiguity, you could say, in decisions, would be leadership. So for example, you want to hear from your president or your prime minister, this is the really simple, this is what we need to do. And it's as simple as that. And people, as we've discussed, would like that. And that's appealing, that lack of ambiguity. But also taking that a little step further, as long as you understand that you're being simplistic, maybe it's okay, maybe not, I don't know. But what about, Peter, this scenario that you might have thoughts on, what about in the military, for example, is there sometimes not room for ambiguity, you just need to do the clear thing. I'll tell you, I'll quote my favourite soldier, okay, Richard Sharp. Okay, yeah, sometimes, so he says sometimes, you know, the historical figure, hero, the military strategist. But, you know, he was saying, you know, sometimes it doesn't even matter if it's a bad decision, just make a decision as long

Speaker B: 00:15:34

as you just do something. Well, I think, I don't see any distinction between the military world and normal business or normal life world. I mean, they're both decision making processes, collaborative decision making processes in all of these places are trying to deal with an ambiguous and uncertain world to achieve some sort of aim, they're equivalent. In the military, there's, it's probably possibly more extreme in certain ways, because in a tactical environment, you're having to make very quick, very high risk decisions, based on quite messy, complicated information. Okay, that might be more extreme than other places. So it might be, it might be more stark there. But yeah, the military doctrine about how leadership and how management works is interesting, because it does, it kind of allows both kind of extremes. So very, very high level, all the way down, like from a target designated by the cabinet officers, or the by the war cabinet, say, bomb that particular target, through to complicated, messy warfare, where actually, nobody knows what's going on, apart from the guy who's right next to the thing going on, empower them to make the decision for themselves, give them the resources they need and trust them to do what they're going to do. So it allows kind of both. And it's, it's perhaps dark, because it's written down in doctrine and expressed in training as how this is done.

Speaker C: 00:17:02

But I think you're, you're, you're confusing two different things there, in the question, Fraser, because ambiguous situations don't necessarily call for ambiguous action, right? So if you're 51% sure that A is the right course of action, and not B, you should wholeheartedly go for A, right? There might be no mix of A and B, like the real world, when you're making a decision, it's an allocation of resources. And, you know, and they really resources can only be allocated one way or another. And if and if one course of action is slightly better, you know, in terms of expected reward, that's the one you should take. That doesn't mean that you should think the world is simple, or that you should round up 51% to 100%. And, and as you're alluding to, you know, in a lot of real life situations, you know, that perhaps in five minutes time, you'll have more information, and you'll be able to make a better decision. But it might be that actually, all of the outcomes will be worse in five minutes, because you'll have missed some opportunity that you're hoping to, you know, hoping to exploit. So So I, yeah, I would say, I mean, there's nothing about being being or holding, you know, a view about the world that the world is, you know, quite, you know, potentially complex and difficult to understand that you don't have all the information doesn't in any way mean that you should be wishy washy about

Speaker A: 00:18:23

the way you behave towards Yeah, quite. Okay, so where do we want to go from here? We're fairly

Speaker B: 00:18:31

close, actually, surprisingly, well, I want, perhaps we can talk about practical steps that you guys are, as I think, as a decision maker, an analyst can sort of think about, let's definitely do that. You know, are you going to give us examples of daily sort of more kind of principles? But like, yeah, concrete outputs from the Aleph Insights podcast shock, who knew?

Speaker A: 00:18:52

But by the way, no, but wait, before we carry on, there's actually I did, I took some of our own advice from a recent podcast. How did it work out? And now you're divorced, and you're having

Speaker B: 00:19:02

to sell your house. I look a bit messy today. Is that why you brought a big bag round to Nick's

Speaker A: 00:19:06

house? Yeah, no, it was we did a podcast on procrastination, I think it was. And one of the things you talked about was engineering certain aspects of your life to remove barriers. Yeah. So quite simply, I took Facebook and YouTube off my phone. Ah, because previously, at some point, I got into a habit of just before going to bed, sort of scrolling through Facebook and just ended up there for two hours looking at videos of face of videos of cats doing and how's it going? It's

Speaker C: 00:19:34

going really well. Yeah. I mean, I think I think that's that will be a really easy top recommendation. I would you know, and I and because you might think, well, you what would else would you be doing in that time? Well, the answer is sleeping. Yeah, getting up earlier the next day being more productive. So actually, it is definitely clearing up that hierarchy. Yeah. Yeah. And in fact,

Speaker A: 00:19:52

something isn't maybe none improves your mood, which as we said, was one of them. And actually, it's not exactly related. But I have got into a new habit recently, which is with my kids in my bedroom listening to Harry Potter on audible. And it just it's great. It just calms everyone down, including myself. And afterwards, I just get lulled into a nice sleep. And I like last night,

Speaker C: 00:20:13

I slept for 10 hours. It's great. So what can we do with? So with ambiguity? Exactly. Exactly.

Speaker A: 00:20:20

Because I'm I'm quite I don't contradict me here. But I know I am quite simplistic in my thinking sometimes. So so so help help me and our listeners out Peter go for it. So I discovered quite a

Speaker B: 00:20:32

useful taxonomy of different types of binary thinking, which lead to like solutions for each type. So it gives you this give you a framework for spotting if you're doing something that is a particular kind of binary thinking, what can I do to address it? And it is from a website called clearer thinking, which I think is more or less run by a guy called Spencer Greenberg. Now he's, I think he's a sort of business practice thought leader, or whatever that means. He sounds like one, doesn't he? I trust a guy called Spencer Greenberg. Yeah, I think he's got he's certainly got some sorts of ties to the effective altruism movements. I've seen him. I've not personally seen him. But I've seen that he has spoken at some effective altruism forum things. Anyway, so there are sort of there are three kind of types. So there's the truth binary. And this is when you're considering a statement or a statement of fact or a piece of information that is either true or false, it's either correct or incorrect. So it's kind of simplifying, taking that little one very one sentence or a paragraph that's probably quite woolly and still allows a lot of scope for possibilities as being true or not. And the solution to that is probably what he calls probabilistic thinking. And this means lots of other things to other people. But it's to consider what are what are the chances of that thing being correct or correct? Does that does that comply with your intuition? What would you expect? What would you how often would you expect that thing to be correct? And what how surprising would it be if it was wrong? So ask yourself those kinds of questions. And that will help you unlock whether or not you're being over simplistic. Sounds really complicated to me. But yeah, go on. It's seriously it does. Okay. The second is the goodness binary. So this is considering things about beings, either inherently good, or inherently bad, good or evil. So things like saying, you know, voting for Trump is bad, because, yeah, it's a sort of moral absolutism.

Speaker C: 00:22:33

So the solution for this is, well, I suppose it's more that it's not, you know, you might think it was bad on balance, voting for Trump. It's like saying, oh, if you vote for Trump, you're there for a kind of evil person who probably tortures cats kind of. Yeah, it's that it's that kind of,

Speaker B: 00:22:46

that kind of assumption. So this is bringing a load of baggage with somebody else's decision or statement, that they're either a sort of evil or morally good person. So the solution for this is what he calls grey thinking. And this is to accept that the things are more nuanced, more complex than they would appear at first glance. So it's kind of like, they assume that they're always upsize and downsize, or good reasons and bad reasons for everything. Not putting kind of more all your moral eggs into one basket. Yeah. So asking yourself, what are the pros and cons of that statement or that decision? Who suffers and who benefits from that particular decision or from that particular point of view? And where's the value? And actively looking for the value in things that you don't like or don't agree with, because it might be that there is some and that unlock as to why it was done that way. And then thirdly, and finally, is what's called the identification binary. So this is, this is very much Nick mentioned this is in a sort of the psychology of things. This is trying to put things in definite, clearly defined buckets with very thick black lines in between them, and accepting that there aren't these hard lines. So this is like thinking and saying, well, if you're not with us, you're against us. This is a thinking that makes you think that people are either left wing or right wing. You're either a citizen of the country or an alien. There's a sort of very binary classification of things. And the solution to this is multifactor thinking. This is to accept that there are fuzzy edges between categories and categories are just labels that are kind of convenient, shorthand, for actually a big bag of lots of attributes that things might have. And so that, you know, a person isn't just left wing or right wing, they have lots of different sliders on lots of different axes, which put them in a certain

Speaker A: 00:24:42

place. Okay, there's a problem with this, though, which is the sorts of people who might be open to this, you know, analysis are precisely the sorts of people who already sort of, let's say, open minded or non binary thinking. Whereas people who are quite binary thinkers, are just going to hear that guy, that's a load of old rubbish that and he's, you know, so

Speaker C: 00:25:04

you're just trying to make us all, you know, denying that the that, you know, actually, the world is clear. Yeah. And you're just trying to bring in a load of mess. It's kind of like you're trying to, like the Russians and trying to trying to devalue conversation by, you know,

Speaker A: 00:25:17

introducing loads of noise into it. Yeah, you know, all this kind of nuanced thinking. Yeah,

Speaker C: 00:25:22

you sort of sheeple joke, you know, go back. But I don't think anyone I don't think that there aren't that many of those kinds of people. I think you're binary thinking your way into seeing that in places where there are some people in on my Facebook feed where I can predict exactly the view they will have based on other things they've posted. And, you know, that's definitely true. Some some people are simpler than others. But But I think people who are, you know, really that rigid in the way they think are pretty rare. And I know that none of our podcast listeners are

Speaker A: 00:25:57

going to be. No, they're not like that. They're not like that. But also, actually, actually, on that note, talking about podcast listeners is, you know, I think it's a truism that the reason why, for example, in the States, you get right wing shock jock shock jocks. But you don't I think you don't really get left wing shock jocks is because it's being shocking and liberal is quite difficult. Whereas being shocking and right wing is actually quite well, I think I think the then

Speaker C: 00:26:23

you could probably analyze that by saying the mainstream culture has so heavily influenced by sort of progressive thought that progressivism doesn't seem shocking. But you know, 50 years ago,

Speaker A: 00:26:33

progressivism was shocking to actually, if you say let's have gay rights and all this stuff, that would be quite shocking. Yeah. But it somehow doesn't lend itself to being sort of shouty and ranty. Maybe. Well, it does. I mean, look at people like John Oliver. Yeah,

Speaker C: 00:26:46

fair enough. Fair enough. Yeah. Okay. What we haven't discussed is where is where Peter should go to live to be among the most ambiguity to people. We need to discuss that in about a minute or so. Okay, so let's discuss it. It's it's so this is we mentioned this chap a few times, actually. Peter Coghill? No, Hjort Hofstede, the guy who does cultural dimensions. Now, I'm, I have put as exactly as much faith in these as I think anyone else should, which is, you know, they're interesting, but that's not they probably, in some sense, don't tell us a great deal. But it was interesting anyway, to look at one of their axes, which is uncertainty avoidance. So they have an uncertainty avoidance index, which looks just looks at in different countries, you know, culturally, the extent to which people want, you know, are happy with situations, which are quite uncertain. Now, this isn't exactly the same as ambiguity, intolerance, I should say that, but it's not no ambiguity and uncertainty. In practice, there's not it's not much of a theoretical distinction between them. But in practice, it comes down ambiguity is about where you don't really know how to think about something, whereas you can have uncertainty when you're very, very clear. So for example, a coin toss, you sort of, you're probably pretty comfortable with 50 50 is not ambiguous, but it is uncertain. Yeah, okay, there isn't actually deeper down. Well, if I said I'm gonna roll a die, but I'm not telling you how many sides the die has, that's ambiguity. But if I tell you it's a six sided dice, and you have to guess on guess what the chance of a six is, that's just uncertainty kind of thing.

Speaker A: 00:28:26

I think for the purposes of our conversation right now, I'm going to personally treat them

Speaker C: 00:28:29

the same. Yeah, okay. So the top the top 10, like most tolerance of uncertainty, the top 10 least avoiding the countries which are most comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. Singapore, Jamaica, Denmark, Hong Kong, Sweden. Now this might surprise you, China, Vietnam, Great Britain, Ireland and Malaysia. So we've got a bunch of Southeast Asian countries. And then we have, you know, we've got sort of Ireland and Great Britain in there. And Denmark, you know, so we could say sort of probably Northern Europe, Europe, kind of broadly. Yeah. And, and Southeast Asia.

Speaker A: 00:29:06

Yeah, coming out top there. I something by the way, it might be you might feel I'm cheating, I would have predicted this preview, because I was gonna say East Asia. Right? Because I was gonna say Japan, which was not in there, but we did get China. And I would say on the other list is going to be surely the US is going to be out there. But anyway, let's go for it. So actually,

Speaker C: 00:29:22

so the the bottom 10, and it doesn't cover every country in the world, by the way, it's only a subset. El Salvador, Russia, Uruguay, Guatemala, Portugal, Greece, I think we're talking about Mediterranean countries and South, South America there. But also Benelux, Benelux, Baltimore. I mean, but the interesting thing is, is, is Russia there and how Russia and China really opposite ends of the spectrum. Yeah. Now, this is where I begin to wonder if these are not just sort of just so stories, but the the apparent explanation for China is that that is that it says, you know, in although there's a lot of rules and laws in China, they're quite flexible and pragmatic about the way they're applied and that the Chinese themselves and the Chinese language, various Chinese languages are kind of full of ambiguous meanings and hard for Westerners to follow because of that. And they're adaptable. They've got adaptable sort of entrepreneurial culture, whereas the Russians at the other end, so both looking at communist stroke, former communist countries feel threatened by ambiguity and have very complex bureaucracies. And they've very they go into a lot of very detailed planning about things. They really like to try and reduce uncertainty about things. That's the that's the allegation. Anyway, that's the story that has been told, explaining those those scores. But there we are. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

Speaker A: 00:30:55

That is interesting. Interesting. Yeah. Look, we have to stop there. Is there anything burning

Speaker B: 00:30:59

you want to say, Peter? Well, just just very quickly, it was a good opportunity to give another shout out. I've done it several times before to a brilliant website. And it forms a good basis for thinking about how you think, which is the the retrological fallacies by information is gone. Information is beautiful website by David McCandless. We'll put a put a

Speaker A: 00:31:19

link in the description. Yeah, check it out. I shall check it out. Let's see what I can learn from this podcast. I think I'm just to start treating these podcasts as self help sessions for me. So so yeah. Okay, we can help you. We can help anyone. So yeah. Well said. Okay. All right. We'll stop there. Thank you as always for listening to the Cognitive Engineering podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Nick Hare and Peter Coghill of Aleph Insights. Until next time. Goodbye.