 When I was in college, I took a course in anthropology, very basic course, like Anthropology 102. And they told us a story about a researcher from, I don't remember where he was from, but some prestigious university, Berkeley someplace. And he went to New Guinea, and he found this very, very remote, very, very primitive tribe. And he asked people, I see you have babies here. He said, this anthropologist went to New Guinea, and he asked, where do your babies come from? And they said, from the mother. And he said, no, no, no. But how is it that the mother becomes pregnant? And they said, jungle spirits, particularly during the full moon. And so the guy went back and wrote this up. And then somebody came maybe from the University of Chicago the following year and said, there was a guy here previously who asked you about where babies come from. And people in this very remote jungle village said, that was just amazing to us. That guy actually did not know where babies came from. We told him this ridiculous story, and he just wrote it down and believed it. People in other places are just amazingly naive. I hope I won't offend you, Dan. If I say, when I looked at your questions, I thought, some people are so naive. How could this be a question? I mean, to me, it just seems obvious that, which I think I'm just agreeing with my fellow panelists, liberals tend to believe liberal things, and conservatives tend to believe conservative things. And I think that I'm not adding very much, but let me just restate, I would say, in terms of what Scott Sumner just said. Yes, different epistemic worldviews. I'll give a slightly different formulation to the one that Don Boudreau gave. And I don't know why you want to hear from a non-economist about how different economists think, but it just seems to me the common sense of this is. There's two questions, like basic ones. There's a line in the Federalist Papers. I think it's Madison, who says, we want a government which has the wisdom to discern and the virtue to pursue the common good. And so I would slightly reformulate what Don Boudreau said to say, if you are a, would you call him, a marketist? If you're a marketist, you believe the economy is incredibly complicated and therefore dispersed knowledge is the most important knowledge. And private decision-making is likely to be much more informed. And so you believe society unconstrained or less constrained is likely to make better decisions than the government. The government does not have enough wisdom to improve on market processes. That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it, maybe I'm adding a little bit here. I'm sure you all know this, but if you subscribe to public choice theory, you think the government doesn't even have the virtue to pursue the common good. If you say, let's have more public spending, you're going to have a whole bunch of interest groups saying, don't give it to them. I want it more. I'll take care of you, do it for me. If you say, let's have more regulation, you're not going to say what will improve the country overall or the economy overall, you're going to have a whole bunch of people pushing and shoving, including a lot of people who work in the government thinking about, what's this doing for me? So it's not at all surprising, I don't think, that the sort of people who think, no, I trust the government not only to know better, but to act on its knowledge. They believe this both about regulation and about spending. And it's not surprising that people who are skeptical about government knowing better or actually having the discipline to follow its supposed insights. The people who are skeptical are skeptical, both of regulation and spending. I mean, it just doesn't seem to me a lot to be explained here. It seems to me like, of course, this is what you would expect. But I had to talk for 15 minutes, so I'm going to just add some other things. I think those two things are probably quite enough. But let me add two other things. And one is the way that Dan is presenting this. It's like, ooh, really, a little bit interesting. It needs to be explained, because these are, like, really different categories. I don't know, somebody could think they're different categories, but maybe the people answering this actually are paying attention to government policy, and they know that in the real world, they're actually not that different. I mean, they are actually tangled up with each other. Just to give two examples from the questions. Do you support tighter water quality regulation? Anyone who knows a little bit about that knows that it isn't just regulation. It's going to be the government, the federal government, financing, sewage treatment plans, water treatment plans. It's going to be actually a package of regulatory controls and spending. Those are not different categories. I would say the same with spending more on public schools. Anybody who has paid even a little attention to it is aware that, well, local communities feel kind of like we're spending as much as we can, so the money has to come from some higher level of government from the state, or even better from the federal government. They don't just give away money. They give away money with strings. They want to make sure the money is spent for what they think it should be spent for. So you're going to have a combination of not to spending, but spending in regulation. So maybe people answering this survey don't even have the background assumption that you do that these are different categories, which should be different. And then finally, just to pick up on what Scott Sumner was saying, it may be this is very much my suspicion about this. People look at this survey and they think, OK, I know what you're really asking. And they're not actually responding my considered judgment because I know a lot about it. It is, yes, I'm for this, but no, I'm not for that. Maybe they're just responding to use your excellent word tribally. Like my team is in favor of this. Let me just give you two examples where I think not from this list, but just how this works in the world. If somebody asked me, I'm from the Gallup, Gallup company corporation, we're from Gallup. And we're just calling you up. Are you for sensible gun control? Well, I'm not for crazy gun control. I mean, if we're going to have gun control, I hope it's sensible. And actually, I mean, I don't believe the kind of controls we have now. It's absolutely perfect. So maybe we should go more in the direction of the sensible. But I wouldn't respond that way because I understand that what they're actually asking is, which team are you on? And I do not own a gun. I've never had a gun, but I'm not on the gun control team. And all my colleagues are big gun enthusiasts. So I really don't want to undermine support for their view. But I would just say no, even though I don't think anybody in America could, with total honesty, say, my view is I hate sensible control. But it's coded. People get it. I mean, I tried to think of a sort of liberal counterpart to this. I think if somebody asked you, are you in favor of government help or programs to help teenage girls or unmarried women deliver healthy babies? Again, I think no sensible person could say, I'm in favor of unhealthy babies. But a lot of people might hear that as you mean they should be discouraged from having abortions, and I'm not on that team. So they might answer this just by saying, you're really asking about abortion, and actually I'm in favor of pro-choice. I suspect a lot of people going through your questionnaire thought they were being asked, what team are you for? Cass Sunstein, that was the most amusing thing I thought in the published responses. I don't know if any of you saw this, but Cass Sunstein was the head of the office in the Office of Management and Budget that reviews new regulations. And he said, well, wait, these aren't good questions that you're asking. Should we have tighter water quality regulation? The question you need to ask is at what cost with what benefit? And that's what we think of in OMB, and that's where I have to think of it. And this was, I thought, comical, because it was completely irrelevant to what you were obviously seeking, which team are you on? And if Cass wants to be on a team, which is just him, just him alone, or him and Mrs. Obama, I mean, OK. But yeah, when you get a very short question in the air like this, I mean, you just ask a bit of less than 20 questions which are kind of unrelated to each other, and probably for most people unrelated to their own expertise. It's not surprising if they say, you're asking which side am I on, and I'm going to answer accordingly. So I would say, in conclusion, I think it's a somewhat interesting finding that there is as much polarization as there is, which is what I take to be the finding here. And I think that's kind of sad and disturbing, but just give this caution. Probably we shouldn't make too much of polls. OK, great. Thank you.