 Here's an idea of how I think SE works. There's a model for it. That's a picture of me. I took the flash too high, but yeah it's pretty good. This, you guys are a good crowd. I didn't know if I could put that joke out. The last time I did that joke everyone was like, can we laugh at that? Is that okay? So we tend to hold on to our conclusions in the same way we hold on to a balloon. And what I mean by that is like if someone tries to pop my balloon with like pointed questions, the immediate knee-jerk reaction is me grabbing that balloon and holding it even closer to me. I'm like, no dude, don't pop my balloon. This balloon, I need this balloon because I don't know how to be a good person without this balloon. My pastor gave me this balloon. I inherited it from my parents. It lets me feel calm. I have a deep and personal relationship with this balloon. I don't know what will happen to me after I die if I don't have this balloon. People will be naturally defensive of their conclusions, and if you attack them with questions, they're just going to hold on to them more tightly. Likewise, people don't like targeted questions pointing at them directly. It makes them defensive. What I find to be the better target is what connects the person to their conclusion. And that's that string that connects the two together. There's so much less ego invested in that string. And that string represents that reasoning, that methodology that they're using to go from themselves and their personal identities to an outside conclusion that they've reached. Is that path they used reliable? Can we talk about that together? Is someone believes in God because of a gut instinct? And they're 100% confident that this God exists based on this gut instinct. Can we agree that gut instincts are 100% reliable? No? Then why are you 100% confident? What else is getting you there? Because it's obviously not that string. You just cut that string. What other strings do you have that ties you to that balloon or that conclusion? If you don't have anything else, maybe you've just freed yourself from having a really bad conclusion. And it's nothing that I did. It's something that they did themselves just by recognizing that they don't have a way to connect themselves to that idea anymore. That's the idea of street epistemology. I'm not targeting the conclusions that they've reached. I'm not attacking them personally. I'm strictly talking about the epistemology, the method that they use to write their conclusions. And I'm working on that with them to see if that method is reliable. If it's not reliable, they will recognize that themselves. I don't have to show them. I don't have to tell them. I don't have to do anything. Aside from help them get from point A to point B. And if we can't get there together, that's much more telling than me telling them outright that, hey, maybe you could do something better than this whole volcano explosion thing. Are you sure about this? Zeno thing? All right. Anyway, I want to show you guys an example.