 For all of us, we tend to, as AJ had mentioned, and you so eloquently put in the book, that we tend to overestimate how we view other people and what they're thinking, and we really don't have an idea of how we feel in our own mind. And I think a lot of this can be seen. I mean, if you take one of these personality tests, my answers one day will vary from another time and taking that test. And of course, the result is going to be completely different. I'm sure everyone here has taken several Myers-Briggs tests, and I'm sure there's a default where those things set, and that's how you think you're going to be feeling, and you can predict that. But if you had a bad day, your answers are going to be drastically different. And the analogy you used in the book that I thought I painted a good picture of this was the long held myth of the iceberg, right? That we have this 10% and there's this 90% that we're not using or they're not in control of. And in the book, you mentioned why that appears to be wrong and what you, how you would like to, the analogy that you would like to use. Would you share that with our audience, please? So this is in the chapter on introspection, where we're talking about how well people can know what's going on in our own minds. And the common sort of the illusion that goes back to Freud is that we only use 10% of our brains. Of course, we're using 100% of our brains. There's no portion of our brain that's not being used. But the mistake that we sometimes make is that we do think we have access to the way our minds are working in ways that we don't really have. So one thing that psychologists have learned, this goes back, well, this goes back to the early 1900s, the very dawn of our field, but was really documented most clearly in the 1970s or so, is that the people are pretty good at saying what they're thinking or feeling. So, you know, if I'm asking, if I want to know if you're happy today, I ask you if you're happy. How are you feeling right now? And you can say that. You can report that. What we're not so good at is psychoanalyzing ourselves. That is looking inward and identifying what's causing what, how our neurons are firing, figuring out exactly why we're feeling that way. We're kind of telling stories. And those stories are not giving us direct access to the workings of our mind. They're inferences we make about ourselves, right? John, you might think you're feeling great today because you got this bright red shirt on and that just lifts your mood. It may have nothing to do with that, right? It might be that that you got to control the thermostat today. So the room's just the right temperature. Well, I'm in Florida and it's hot in this sheer shirt. It's just right for you. Well, you know, you mentioned something there that I have to just laugh at. And you brought up Freud and perfect example of somebody when we think of psychoanalysts, we think of Freud. But if you start reading his literature, you're just like, this guy was on way too many drugs and he's, and he's, it is a lot of psycho babble in what he had produced. And so if you're going to hold him up as the grandfather of psychoanalogy, well, we can generally see just how wrong and how much we just don't know. But the, the iceberg analogy, which I love about this, and I think this is why people have held on to it and it's burned into their mind because everyone, everyone thinks of it as, well, if this is me using 10% of my brain and I'm pretty awesome, imagine when I tap into that other 90%. I'm going to be crushing it. The analogy that I used instead of the iceberg, which I think, which I think, which I think represents conscious experience and the brain a little better is more like a house, right? Where there are parts of it you can look around and see. So, you know, AJ, if, if I asked you, you know, you know, what your house was like to describe it, close your eyes and tell me, well, you probably walk me through your house right now. You could, you could tell me what's all there, right? But what you can't do is tell me how it got there. Like what, you know, what do the carpenters do to get these walls up and what was it like before then? And, and why is the wall this way and not that way? And why is that room there? And is this a load bearing wall or not? Right? You can't, you can't look beyond what's immediately visible to you to introspect on why things necessarily are as they are. Or we can think about, like if you're sitting in a classroom, for instance, you're going to be able to, you're going to be able to tell, tell me what's on a, on a screen in front of the room, right? You're going to be able to say what's up there. But you're not going to really be able to say what, why is the projector able to do that? Like, you're just not going to be able to work through or be able to see all of those causal processes in our brains are kind of like that, which is we've got access to the mental contents, right? What's projected on the screen, what we can see when we're inside a house looking around. What we don't have such access to is exactly the causal processes that are guiding it underneath. But we often think we do. That doesn't mean that Freud was right to propose that he could, through careful introspection, create all these amazing motivations underlying it. A lot of that's nonsense. But at least he did get one part right, which was, you know, our brains working ways were not necessarily aware of it. At least that part was right.