 Yes. No, absolutely. And so let's let's talk a little bit about altruism and kind of how it cripples that ability because we hold that as a standard and it kind of, you know, I think psychologically makes it very difficult to people to acknowledge their self interest and therefore acknowledge that they should be integrating it or would integrate it. How do you think people hold altruism because they're not acting altruistically not consistently in any kind of way. It more to me seems like a something I mean for most people it's more something that prevents them from being self interested in something that actually makes them at least in any kind of consistent way be altruistic. Altruism and there are two, at least two senses of that word. Even even taking it as a, a moral philosophy rather than just a tendency people have or a type of motive and there are more meanings when you take it that way but taking it as a principle like that here's what the principle of altruism says to do. One of you is that you should live for other people. And that's the what August Compte, who coined the term said, right live for others with his meaning of it. And the other is just, and this is what ran thinks is the essence of it really sacrificed yourself. And those two go together, because in the live for others context of the premises that there's a conflict between what's good for you and what's good for others. And you want to sacrifice or beat down the good for you element only gratify it or satisfy it in so far as doing so is also good for others. The way I think people hold it. Not the way they hold the word altruism but the way this effects and impacts them is the way that galt says it says in his speech, which is by taking the self as the standard of evil. So I don't think they have a very clear, there's not a general agreement in our society over what the good is. What there is general agreement about is that whatever it is. It's something that you're compelled to sacrifice yourself to at least some of the time. And if you look at moral philosophy the way it's worked since Kant like technical what people write in journals. That's what the common core is. That's what's coming out of Kant and that's in some of the more insightful books of people who are trying to do this you see them noticing that that's what they're doing. It's morality is what it is that I'm obligated to sacrifice to. And so it starts by this idea of the standard of self as as evil. And again people wouldn't put it that way but you see it in the kinds of things they reach for when they're looking for non controversial moral statements like serve something above yourself, the kind of things that come out in campaigns or rent we pay for living or one conviction should bind us at the measure of a person's character is how much he's willing to give of himself. All of this something higher something other than the self something which is always left kind of fake and then people reach for different things to put in it and what they reach for to put in it depends a little bit on, you know what particular background they have but it's the nation or whether it's the disadvantaged or underprivileged or whether it's other people or whether it's glorifying God. In so far as someone thinks all of these things are most of them count as noble or could count as noble. It's because they think well they're all something that's not me that I could sacrifice what's good for me too. And I think that's how people hold it. And then you can see that at work in the people who are thinking. Take the things that are clearly good for them like their personal relationships with people they love and wanting to ennoble them by treating the things they do for them as though they were sacrifices. They exporting them from their self interest, which is what you get in the, you know, the kind of position to talking about earlier. Yeah, and you know, even in, yeah, it affects everything that they do because they need to hold it in their mind to hold it in their mind as virtuous. They have to hold in their mind as sacrificial. Yeah, and that I think is the really killer, killer premise to someone thinking. So instead, if you have a kind of motley collection of drives, drives is too strong to psychological, a motley collection of motives things that are, seem appealing to you in different moments, right? Yeah, you can act on all of them all the time. You have to make choices. And what people think of is something external to them that has to tell them which of their desires they're allowed to act on, rather than building something from themselves that and based on their own understanding of their nature and of where these desires come from and of what it would take to fulfill them, building something in themselves that integrates the best of these desires, elevates some of them as best because they're the most valuable to you. And then lets you achieve those that are achievable or those that you choose to achieve in a in a context in a causal context where you're noticing that all of these have a fact that all of these have causes you have to enact to get to them. You kind of, therefore, out of that, instead of having many discreet desires, have a vision of some whole thing that you're acting towards. And then you use that to guide you towards something rather than away from various desires that you have to be guided away from, because God or the Pope or society or Crogman or someone thinks they're bad. All right, we're going to just