 Now, I've been reading through a lot of different aspects of your work, a lot of your books, reading or rereading. And I've been trying to figure out to myself, what's the underlying unity in the thought and writing of Stephen Pinker from irregular verbs to world peace? And yes, we'll get to that. But let me try to give you my account of what I've taken away, which I'm sure is not the same as yours, but it's a way of prompting you to tell us your view of the underlying unity and all of the things you did. So I see you as very often trying to stake out a midway position. If there are people out there, say like the blank theorists, the blank slate theorists, who don't see much structure to the natural world or the social world or the linguistic world, and you reject that. But then on the other hand, there are people who postulate too much structure. And at least early Chomsky would be an example there. And you're trying to create some kind of intermediate position where there's room for reason to operate, but within laws of nature. So you're trying to re-articulate this modern 21st and 20th century vision of what does the Enlightenment mean for now and how might we apply Enlightenment kinds of reasoning across all the different areas you've written on. And then kind of figuring out, shown in all these books, what are the methodological prerequisites for that? And it's level at which we're willing to talk about structure and levels at which we're not willing to talk about structure. And you staking out this intermediate, what you might call, volunteerist pro-reason, pro-science position. And that's what I took away from the whole corpus of Stephen Pinker. But tell me, what is your take on that? Yeah, I think that's not too far from the way I would see myself. Not so much in taking an intermediate position that's just in find the Goldilocks zone, like, oh, the truth is always halfway in between two extremes. I mean, it is always. On the other hand, I do believe in the Enlightenment vision that by understanding our world, that the world is intelligible, that we can understand it, that progress in understanding and therefore progress in rational action are possible, including, pointedly, ourselves. That is, there is such a thing as human nature. It can be studied scientifically the way other phenomena are studied, that it's good to understand human nature, because then we can discount when necessary illusions that are quirks of our own makeup, that we can understand what it is that give humans fulfillment and satisfaction and pleasure. What are the resources that we have to work with in improving a political system? And I also think that, often, going back to finding a middle ground, that the middle ground isn't finding, say, the arithmetic mean between the two extremes, but rather it's trying to go down a level of more finer-grain causal mechanisms underneath the phenomena and to state a position that may not look like either of the original extremes because it's more precise. So in the case of language, for example, I've always been kind of bored by the idea of, is language innate or is it learned? It's just, it's neither, it's not halfway in between because that doesn't give you any insight either. But rather, there is an innate structure that does the learning, because learning doesn't happen by magic. There has to be something in place that does the learning. Let's characterize the nature of the learning mechanism in terms of its information processing abilities. What is its computational architecture, as the computer scientists say? Once you have that, that is the solution to the nature problem, namely, what's innate is an ability to learn. But since any mechanism does some things well and some things not so well, that gives you insight as to what and how we learn. And that makes irrelevant to the question of, is it innate or is it learned? There is something that it's innate, but it's something the innate stuff allows us to learn. And so it's kind of gets beneath a dichotomy into something that I like to think is more intellectually satisfying.