Welcome Colin Irvin to the podcast Sanity Check. It's great pleasure to be here. Thank you for asking me. Yeah, but I'm glad you said yes. Could you tell a little bit about yourself and your work? Maybe we start there, Yeah. Well, it goes back a long time. I, you know, having been sort of grow up in the 60s and going around the world being a bit of
a peace advocate. I, I went, ended up in the Arctic. I crossed the Arctic by dog team and got, got adopted into an Inuit family and then worked on Inuit land claims settlement in the Canadian Arctic. And then I discovered really that the Inuit were as, as a group of people, well, they're far nicer and better than most of the people around the rest of the world that, that I, that I had a, had a problem with. And it turned out that they're one of the few societies without war.
They can only say, let us go and murder many people. They, and they don't have chiefs that can organise people into, into, into group, group, group violence. And they have many mechanisms for stopping conflict simply because so many young men were dying from hunting accidents. If they had war, there would, there would be no enemy.
They had a culture without war. So I ended up working on land claims settlement in the Canadian Arctic and I worked up with native organizations and I wrote my PhD thesis on how they developed a society without war. So one of the most important elements of that was if you have a really difficult decision to make, everyone has to agree. It has to be by consensus.
And so when I was working on the land claims settlement, at one point we had 300 delegates from all the villages across the Arctic to decide some important decisions in the land claim process. And actually one guy disagreed with what every the other 299 had agreed to and they had to wait. And, and so I guess someone went and had dinner with him one evening and the next day it was, it was Kalujak from Whale Cove. And he said I've changed my
mind. And everybody was greatly relieved because they couldn't have a decision until everyone agreed. So they rarely meant it. I mean, it was a very serious, very serious matter that everyone had to agree. So I kind of learnt that discourse from the Inuit, the successful politician amongst the Inuit is someone who can listen to the different points of view and then try and bring people to a consensus.
And so that when I ended up in Northern Ireland using public opinion polls, we designed with colleagues their public opinion polls to measure consensus. So what you had to do was get all the different points of view on a given issue into the question. And then with a special scale that we used, we could find out where, where the compromises were. And we used that on issues like, should kids go to integrated schools together?
The, the political elites didn't want it and the, the ministers and the priests didn't want it, but the, the parents and the kids wanted it. So we could use public opinion to actually in that case, we, we, we took a human rights complaint to the neighbour and we want it. The people wanted schooling together and in Geneva the human rights Rights of the Child Commission and the Economic and Social Rights Commission, they agreed that that should be the that should be the number one choice.
And that that is really the role of public opinion as as showing the voice of the people is I think about that. I think George Caleb actually also focused on that a bit to say people who understand each other don't go to war against each other. And, and, and looking at the how politics is is using now in demonizing an enemy. It's not just in North Korea and, and this dictators around the world. It's, it's, it's happening in
the Western world more and more. Look at the American election right now, where where especially Trump right now is focusing everything he can on demonizing the other side, making them look much stupider than they are. And and these big polarizations, which when you meet you, you can often find a common ground face to face. You seldom want to make a fight with with people if you're sober, listen, in the middle of the day.
But but yeah, I think this, this is something that so often is, is getting forgotten and then it's being misused in the public space that beware of the enemy. They are evil. They want you bad. And but we see in research that most people are just sane, normal people who actually would just wants to live their lives. Absolutely. That's, that's spot on. People, people want security and they they want a good life for themselves and their children.
Every time I run polls on on conflicts around the world, nine time or more than nine times out of 10/1 can guarantee the result that the the people will be more accommodating and be willing to compromise more than the political elites. The political elites exploit the, the bad, the bad aspects, the unfortunate aspects of human nature, human nature.
We're inclined to fall into groups and and the the group people often say of the Irish, the Irish are the nicest, friendliest, loveliest people in the world, but their group behaviour leaves something to be desired. And that's that's true of actually most people around individually, they're absolutely just fine. It's, it's the group behaviour that's a problem. So how can we get around that? Well, we can use polling. Well, Poland can be used to, to demonstrate polarities in, in,
in societies. I call that partisan polling as opposed to peace polling. The way you design the questions, the way you design the questionnaire, what you publish and what you don't publish. You can, you can use it either way. I mean, all adventures are double edged swords and, and that includes public opinion polls. Let's use it with the good angels and find out. I know what people can agree to. Yeah, but definitely do that.
That is definitely true and, and and was it Mark Twain who said the lies lies of statistics and me as running public opinion polling firm where where we do a lot of we do every type of research. Our focus is not to present numbers, is to present the correct image of the view of the people based on the facts that we get. So, so the explanation is the core of what we're doing, not to fool people with numbers or statistics, but actually give
the relevant statistics. But this is what's happening. This is what we know. This is what we don't know, but that it's very easy to to just take random data point that you want to to prove your point. So yeah. And that's the danger. You have to always put everything in the context. Yeah, and I remember when I started, I was, I was, I was asked by the UN to help them use artificial intelligence for polling.
And the guys who started with this building up these AI models of Remesh AI, they, they had published a paper, oh, this is going back a few years and they said, well, there's there's lots of problems here. One of them would be that, well, we wouldn't understand the context and that that really, you have to really, really appreciate that. So working with the AI, we were doing a lot of that online, particularly during the COVID years, but I found it very
frustrating. I really want to sit down with the people on each side when I'm working on a conflict, have a coffee with them, have a long chat with them as we are now, but maybe even longer chat. And unless you do that, you can really not find out what the real problems are because people will just tell you what the what the, what the party message is. I found the same when, when interviewing politicians to, to
get them to devise questions. Quite often the lead politicians that they would, they would just give me the party line. But actually, what Americans call the staffers would often be far more helpful because they'd be far more experimental and be willing to go outside the party line and look for alternatives to the to the party line. That's a very good point because most of the time the politics right now is just staying in
power or gaining power. I also worked a lot with political consultants and, and the quickest way to get a reaction is fear that that's the most effective, just getting people not to go in in the wrong way, scare them. So if, if these win the election, the world will end. OK, OK, at least you're not doing the it's better if you don't vote than if you vote on the wrong guy. It's part of the entire political structure right now.
And it's being also fueled with the current media logic because that is also the strongest reaction from getting you to share a story is fear. So these two coincide so much and it demonizes everyone who's not in the same group. And it's impossible to understand the other side from these two parts. The politicians aren't interested because they they just want to stay in power. And news media don't think we as an audience is interested but but we are. We just don't want to be drowned
in all these horrible stories. So all the time I tend to to summarize this that people are not stupid, but more and more people think everyone else is because it looks like everyone else is an idiot. Because looking through the media, except the people you know, because they, they, you have the nuances. You, you know them, you, you grow up with them, you work with them.
But looking at the politicians through the eye of the media or every analyst in the official space, it's being like an an entertainment show more than a nuanced person. You have to have your one line. You have to have this thing that introduces some sort of feeling in the audience more than actually building trust. It's going very fast right now from from that perspective. It's really.
I think you're absolutely right about people using fear, particularly that that class of politicians that that I call ethnic entrepreneurs, They exploit the community behaviour and and and identity for their own ends, not for the benefit of
their community. When we were doing a lot of polling in to resolve the Northern Ireland conflict, we always found that we got far better results in our peace polls than general and people would say, well, why aren't people voting more for the Alliance Party and the women's coalition and the center parties? Why are they voting for the extreme parties?
Well, what happens come an election is that the, the politicians, the political elites of the, the, the, the, the, the more extreme parties on, on either side of, of any issue, whether it's in America or Northern Ireland or or Israel and Palestine, whatever it happens to be, they'll, they'll just use fear to, to get people to, to vote for them as opposed to voting for, for the peaceful parties, which would be merits and Labour in in Israel right now.
Or they were Alliance and Women's Coalition when I was working there. Fortunately, Alliance are doing better and better every year now. But it it's taken a, it's taken a long time to get there, but they are getting there. I realized that as well. And I think maybe the US is quite an interesting example right now because when Biden stepped down and Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz became the alternative, they have a different tonality. They more focus on we've got
your back. They have a more positive view on the future and and I think people are starving for that kind of message from a politician because it's such a stark contrast to to the other these two old guys fighting who's the toughest guy basically. And that's not what you really want. But when the alternative is 2 guys fighting, you're you're forced to choose side. Now you can start just listening. OK, what's in it for me really?
Do I really want to fight? No, but if they are punching at me, I have to punch back. So you get tricked into these false, false choices in the public space. Either you're for abortion or either you want to kill children or you want them to live. It's like what? That's not the question, but it's gets so extreme. So you're forcing people to and most people leave this. That's also what I realized in research.
Most people don't want to make the choice of life and death just to make it because Oh no, this is just stupid and they leave. But that that benefits these extremist parties, but it undermines the basis of stability for democracy in the long run and and some democracy for someone else. And suddenly you have this authoritarian leader who who's used oh wow, I can have all the power and you don't have to vote ever again. It's it's happened some places, yeah.
Yeah, it's a very dangerous situation, but we have to be a little bit optimistic. So I, I, I mean, my country, the UK has, has gone through a bit of a cycle in the last few years. We, we went into a period of extreme politics and leaving the European Union and then everybody got fed up with those extreme politicians. And now we have a, a very stable Labour government and help, as long as they don't mess up, they'll probably be in for two
terms. So now everybody's looking, oh wow, UK has got a stable government. Everybody else is going nuts and going crazy in France and in America. Maybe we just went through our crazy spell a few years ago and now the other guys are going through a crazy spell and maybe they'll get over it. Maybe America's getting over it now. Let's hope so. Yeah.
And I think that that that is really spot on and that that's actually the point I tried to make, but I missed it because because you could get to a point where finally politics makes sense again, because in the Western world, I don't think you see any alternatives to a democracy really. But these false choices fully away from the common sense and and the common good. Because you don't see that there's it, It looks like it's a martial law.
Every day is only see murders. You only see death, you only see problems. And the driving factor in populist part is always worry and fear not that much anger because but it's more oh, OK, this is looking bad. Someone needs to do something. But the same people leave basically because the the ones who aren't really afraid, they say, OK, never mind I'll I'll just focus on my own life.
I just taking the kids to school, keep get a better job, let's focus on my own life because this, I can't be bothered with this. But then there comes this tipping points, I think, and probably what's happened in the UK and, and maybe also in United States. I, I, I have a feeling I have been wrong before, but I have a feeling that's what happened now in US as well. Well. That would be great.
I mean, yes, we did reach a tipping point and it and it tipped and Labour got a landslide victory in the last election. Maybe, maybe Harris will pull it off. Let's hope. Yeah, But it looks like that they're mobilizing people who who from Republican perspective should not vote because they will not vote Republican basically because the demographics are not on the Republican side at all.
But I think I think also what most like if, if I remember correctly from your peace polls and also from my research that the silent majority is often the same one, but it's almost often a majority. So when when you let them actually listen to that. That's exactly what peace polls do. They tap into the silent majority. But the silent majority is much bigger than the the polarizing political elites. The ethnic entrepreneurs want to believe in the Northern Ireland
peace process. Senator George Mitchell was in the negotiations and they had all the results of one of our peace polls in front of them. And, and Ian Paisley senior, who was the, the, the radical unionist who wasn't going to accept any kind of a peace deal, he said, oh, something was suggested in the negotiations. They said, oh, my people can't
possibly accept that. And then George Mitchell said, but according to the public opinion polls, your people actually think this is quite a good idea. And then, and then the Reverend Ian Paisley said, well, it was the wrong question and this was the secret with it all. George Maple said, you guys agreed the question. We always got it. The important thing here is to give the ownership of the research to the political parties, to the politicians, so they can't walk away from it.
You, you've got to make them part of the research process. They've got to take ownership of the results. So I mean, you and I, we could probably come up with a, a pretty smart questionnaire to look at some particular issue and find out what the, where the convergence is. But then if the, if the politicians weren't part of that design and that, and they didn't agree the methodology, they're just going to say, well, that was a bad sample or that was the
wrong question. So you you have to bring the parties on board and give them ownership of the research. Yeah, that it's a very good point And, and, and my contact with politicians is that they really want the people's support, but they often get the skewed views because they look at social media and think this is my following because their response is immediate. But that is such a small
minority. And I, I mentioned to you last time we met about the Swedish NATO process that, which really surprised me when I, when I, I realized what happened, because to be part of NATO, you have to show that you have a public support that's part of the application. But it's not a referendum. It's showing that you have the basically opinion poll. And we and, and some other firms in Sweden did track the, the view on NATO.
But what I did, because we published a research on our homepage and we also showed what different supporters for different parties thought and the Swedish Democrats with is the Swedish twist of populist party. It's a typical Swedish populist party because it's, it's not the same as Boris Johnson or Trump. And basically it's, it's a, it's a Swedish twist, but it's still a very populist party. They really want the majority of everyone to, to vote for them.
And they know they cannot get real power if they don't have a majority. So they, they really focused on, on The Voice of the people and tapping into the most urging ideas. But two days after we released our polls showing that the Swedish Democratic voters were for NATO, the party leader said we are for NATO. And I just say, hang on. I did that.
It was not my intention. But I just realized because they don't want to go against their voters because this is not an election issue, because traditionally they have been against NATO. So, so they, they were the furthest away from being part of NATO, but they switched in two days when they saw that their voters actually wanted this. And that is, that is a really shows a little bit the power that we have as opinion pollsters, but but also the
responsibility we have. And, and then the power to actually, when the voice of the people gets out, it actually has an effect. It's good for me because I don't want to misuse that power. I really think it's so important to even show the voice of correct you, otherwise of the people. And then we have to be independent, we have to have reliable methods. It's not just noise, it is actually the voice of the people. But it's fascinating when this
happens. That's why I think polling on peace processes should be done globally all the time, because I mean, one very good example of that is in in in the Ukraine. The polling that was done up to the invasion of Ukraine showed very clearly that the Ukrainian public would resist the invasion
and fight back. And under those circumstances, either the Russian generals didn't look at the data or they were too embarrassed to show it to to Putin, because this, this is this wasn't something he wanted to know. So if, if we can do truth, this is what my supervisor, my PhD supervisor said. We, he calls it truth telling, which we're social scientists, we we're truth tellers. So that kind of truth needs to be told all the time,
everywhere, all the time. The same same with the with the peace process in Israel and Palestine. I was running a peace poll there in two O 8 and at that time I I met with the president Shimon Peres, with Prime Minister Olmert, with I met with Hamas. They were all fined to do the peace poll and do the work. But then Benjamin Netanyahu got elected and he had no interest in making peace.
So after after a couple of years, Senator George Mitchell, who I'd worked with in Northern Ireland, resigned. But what should have happened is that the kind of polling that I did, it should have been done regularly all the time in any conflict. And you just have to keep hitting that same nail on the head and keep making the same
point. The difficulty is that as one of my good colleagues who does a lot of polling around the world for different governments and different agencies, it says calling them there's no money in peace anytime, anytime there's a
war. Our colleagues in the World Association of Public Opinion Research, they're running quite, quite, quite big businesses and it's actually the multi $1,000,000 business to be running public opinion for their clients where there is a war, if just a a percentage of that of that money was spent on doing peace polling. So that we, we could expose the kind of truth which which you presented in Sweden to the political leader there. I mean, and they and they changed their policy.
We need to do that globally. And we have the where we were able to do it. We have all the skills to do it. Yeah, we really do. And and the Gallup model is, is is so magical in that sense that it's extremely cost effective. People say it's expensive. I think it's almost for free because compared to. Yeah, the costs are coming down
all the time. And sadly right after the way poor and and Gallup was all set up right after the Second World War. And the intention of the founders was that we would do polling around the world and we'd work with UNESCO and that would help prevent another war. Well, then the Korean War came along and the people who wanted to do that then got well paid contracts to explore what public opinion was, where the war was. And that became the paradigm. And then the original intention was lost.
But you're right. I mean with your example of the the Swedish politician and him changing his opinion, the same can happen in any country in the world. The same can happen probably and we just be truth tellers. Because the people find fighting wars, plan on war to end and they'll be on the winning side. But you cannot win without the
people behind you. Yeah, so much of these issues that that also we've we've done a lot of view on the environment and climate change and and see that the people are on on the same track. The politicians aren't. Globally you'd get the same result. I'm absolutely certain of it. You know that as well as I do. We talked to our colleagues doing polling around the world and we know that we're of the same mind and the people they
poll are of the same mind. The problem here is the United Nations, they could be doing this stuff, but they don't publish. They do quite a lot of polling and in conflicts, but they don't publish any of it because they don't want to upset their member states. Oh. Yeah, that's right, There are. Five, There are five countries in the Security Council who have
a veto. So all UN missions have to come up and get renewed every year through a vote through the Security Council. And so if they go and upset somebody on the Security Council who has a vested interest either in Israel or in Ukraine or wherever it happens to be, then their mission could get shut down or their research program could get shut down. So the, the the UN actually do very, very good research because I've been involved in quite a lot of it, but it doesn't see the light of day.
And if it doesn't see the light of day, then people can walk away from it and ignore it. We have to find another vehicle for this research. Yeah, that is a really good point. It's it's, it's like when you're the example in the beginning with this 300 person with one who was against it, It's it, it only takes one guy in these
kinds of organizations. It's it's actually, it's really sad because yeah, you've been doing it longer than I have, but I've been doing this for a decade now and I see that people are good people. Most people are, but the good people don't want to fight. But the fighters tend to steal all the tension in the public space and also have self-proclaimed voices for the group they choose.
And nobody's challenging them. So everyone thinks like me, I'm a Christian or I'm a Muslim. And then we who are not part of that, we are the silent minority. We won't challenge this. But they tend to skew the view on on all these these groups all the time.
I mean, 11 good example, which is very domestic for me here in the UK is that during the the Brexit debate, the guys who wanted to leave the European Union, they were getting all kind of funding for their polling and they were running polls to which were what I call partisan polls. They were designed to promote their own point of view.
And then the guys on the other side who wanted to stay in the European Union, they were getting funding too, but nobody was doing polling on what the compromises were, which would be something like the Norwegian model or whatever it happened to be, or just staying in the customs union. I mean, there were lots of compromise models. Nobody wanted to get funding for that.
So actually I ran one of my own polls and I used Google and it must have cost me about £100 just to get a sample and I published it and I did that with the intention. Well, if somebody says well that wasn't a very good sample, OK, give me, give me a couple of 1000 lbs and I'll give you a good sample. So sometimes I don't know, we, we just have to sort of go out there and, and be experimental and say, well, this isn't a very good sample.
I couldn't afford to get a good one and then just publish the result and say, well OK, this is actually what people really want. Yeah, prove me wrong. Yeah. You know, if you don't agree with me, give me some real money and I'll get a I'll get a better sample for you. Yeah. Yeah, it's, it's a it's a good idea and sad at the same time that you have to go that route. And, and it's also, yeah, you can't have a referendum about compromise.
And that's probably, but, but I think also one thing thinking about the Brexit of well, there was so much misinformation. So, so having like a knowledge, knowledge research, what do people really know about the European Union? What is facts? What is propaganda? That that also were no interest, of course, of any of the parties to do. But that probably was the key issue because the voices who voted for leave were surprised they they had problems staying in in France.
Yeah, probably. It's already always a key key issue. Yeah. Yeah, it is. I can't think. I'm just thinking, you know, when did everybody completely understand the situation and then. Yeah, that, that is true. It's something. Stupid. Yeah, yeah, we actually do a lot of like knowledge things for our own say just because what do you know about the climate change? Because people say the climate deniers are so many. And then when I start to dissect this and no, it's like 1-2 percent.
Yeah, it's or the anti vaxxers. Yeah, it's 2%, yeah. This is where a deliberative process can help. So I mean, the nice thing about running polls on peace polls where there's conflicts is that everybody understands the conflict. You can ask almost any question you want, very rarely have to explain stuff to people.
Yeah, but I was working with Open AI on writing governance for artificial intelligence and we were running polls in America and we had to go through about a 1015 minute deliberative process to explain what AI Rs and how it could go wrong and what it could do. And, and before we could start to ask questions. And of course we always in the, in the, in the, in the demographics, we would ask questions. Well, how much do you know about AI? How often do you use it?
And then we could split out our our samples by the people who are familiar with it and the people who are not familiar with it, in addition to the deliberative process of explaining it before we actually got into asking people's opinions. But you don't have to do that in a war zone. People understand the war very well. That is true. So deliberative process can help.
And one can do that in, in a poll, I mean, with the, with the, with the digital dialogues that we've been doing, you can, you can spend 1015 minutes explaining stuff before you start asking questions. Yeah. Yeah. And that then it's basically like a focus group combined with a quantitative research. And that, that it's, it's really fascinating what you can do now with, with like a big online group with, with 1000 people. So you, you can get up to 1000 people and it, it's like having
1000 people in a focus group. And but the, the advantage from my point of view is that, I mean, the advantage of the focus group is you, you have a dialogue, the, but everybody can give their opinions anonymously when they're online. So you're, you're not getting too much, you don't get too much, you don't get groupthink. The trouble with the focus group is you can end up in groupthink. Yeah, especially 1000 person.
Actually, there's a couple of very dominant individuals in the group, but you avoid that with the online digital dialogues, digital focus groups, Yeah. So I think that's a big a big plus. Yeah, yeah, it is. After the pandemic, everyone got got used to online communication It it really boosted the possibility to to use the technology in in our field of work, I think and also using AI to to quickly summarize large bodies of text that that is that that is really useful then the other.
Providing 1 doesn't forget that it's always great to go and sit down and have a coffee with someone for a couple of hours and rarely find out what the what their point of view really is. Yes, I think you should always start there actually. Yes, yes, you should always start there. That's the best starting point.
Yeah, then you can quantify exactly your theory is based on that, because I think there's two different first you have to build a theory base and that that is individual discussions, I think just to get to different views and not just yes or no to Brexit or whatever. It's more what? What are you really talking about? OK, well, it's a great chat. We understand what the problem is Yeah, we and we know how to be truth tellers and we know
that it works. You, you had a, an immediate the impact with your, the political party. You, you had an intent to influence, but you did it works. So how are we going to get to do this globally? How are we going to get to do this all the time? How are we going to make it the norm in society as opposed to the exception? That's that's the thing.
That is the thing because I'm also part of the Board of directors of Gallup International since the year back and then are more active in way for and I realized these two networks have a possibility to do this, but we have to find a smart way of financing because as you said, everything is run by money. That's not what you said, getting the right people because maybe the economy benefits from
war, but not the society. If you start thinking of money in a different way, peace is always more profitable than war. So maybe actually I had a had a 17 podcast with with the economist and I realized that their way of thinking of economy is destructive. That's not. Yeah, because that also drives conflict. It drives war. It drives. Yes it does. Because people have no value in the global economy. But we really need to think of people as an asset in, in a, in a democratic society.
But but finding a way to to actually getting all these people who actually do not want war. They actually want a good open society, not being driven by fear. There, there is something here, but I I haven't found out exactly how, but every discussion that I have with people like you, that's a somehow maybe someday we will figure out how to do something. Well, I, I, I asked that question last towards the end. I guess we're getting on with our interview because I don't
have the answer yet. I'm sorry today if I had the answer I'd be telling you, but I haven't. I haven't gotten an answer. Yeah, yeah. But. Everything but I haven't got an answer yet. Yeah, but you are not alone, and I'm not alone, and that's a good story. Yeah. We, we're both thinking about this because I've been thinking about this for a couple of years and I've met you a couple of times as as well during, during the years. But but there's, there's,
there's something here. It, it, as you said, we have the tools we have, we have the wheel. We just have to find a little bag of money. It's not that much, as you said, it's not that expensive and it has to be independent of bad guys vetoes because that's what's messing up now. And I I have no problem with going and doing a bit of polling on the cheap and say well if you don't like the sample give me some real money and I'll get a
better sum. Yeah, I have problems with that because I'm, I'm always that guy talking about representative sample. If you're not doing, I understand yourself. Of course I do, yeah. Yeah, just to trick people into actually doing good. I think that that could be one way of doing. It, I mean to get to get actually a good global sample cost you about $1,000,000. I mean you can't, you can't get a really good global sample for no less than that kind of money.
So, you know, I'd go out and get something a little less expensive and then just just to prove my point that. Is true. If you don't like it, give me a million and I'll get you a representative sample of the world. Maybe we should trick World Value Service into joining us as well. What do you think? Well, I, I, I mean, we know all these guys. They're all. Let's get more into this yeah game the.
Difficulty is, well, with the kind of stuff I do with wars, I mean, one should have been doing polling and it should have been very public coming up to the war in Ukraine. I mean, wars, wars like that should be tracked all the time. You know, then people would perhaps be a little bit more careful with with what they do. The cost is nothing. The cost is nothing to the cost of war. I mean, exactly, yeah. It's basically a couple of missiles, to be honest. It's weird.
Yeah, it's it's really cheap. But let let's keep thinking about this, OK? Yeah, I'm really glad you wanted to have this discussion with me and hope the people listening would get a lot. Out when you figure it out when you figure out the. The answer to the. $64,000 Question. Yeah. Any day now, give me a call, let's have another chat. Yes, of course. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Very much. Thank you very much. OK, bye, bye.