 People have goals and priorities besides just living longer. The way we can learn what those goals and priorities are is a highly technical procedure. We ask them, but we don't ask. In medicine we don't ask. Less than a third of the time do we ask people what their goals and priorities are if their health worsens. When we do, however, that group of people end up with less suffering because they tend to stop their aggressive therapy sooner. They have less days in the hospital or in the nursing home. They're less likely to die in an institution. They're more likely to go on hospice towards the end of life. And the irony is they live longer. Lung cancer patients in a randomized trial lived 25% longer, one-third lower costs. And that just means we're making bad decisions as we come to the end. The most important ways that these folks who are good at it do it is by asking certain basic questions that allow you to tune the care appropriately. And those few questions are, what's your understanding of where you are with your health or your condition? Prognosis is very hard as a subject, but people will often tell you exactly what they're experiencing. What are your goals and priorities if time becomes short? What are your fears and worries for the future? What are you willing to sacrifice and what are you not willing to sacrifice? Based on those, we don't ask them in our nursing homes. We don't ask them in our medical world. We have treated it as if doing so might be a death panel, but I think that's changing remarkably. I think we're finally accepting that we can ask these questions and then demand that our answers are honored, our wishes are respected. The dirt roads in rural villages and the streets of urban slums are filled with the carcasses of development programs that died. Because no one understood culture. And so one of the reasons I'm excited, and you may have read because I posted something this week. I spoke last week, I did the keynote at the Jeff's Gold Forum at Oxford, and I talked about this question of art, culture, development, activism. And so we are going to be looking at that intersection of how we use culture for storytelling. Because we know that people's perceptions and their ability to absorb knowledge information and to determine their viewpoint is often not... Well, in fact, we know the neuroscience tells us actually the facts are not more than 50%. The fact is less than 50% of a person's... The part of the brain that processes the fact has less influence on the outcome of a person's perception than a host of other inputs. Absolutely. Culture is the primary. And so whether we're working on ending child marriage, which if you're working on ending child marriage or FGM, you don't start by talking about a UN report or appropriating some culturally specific thing that a group of feminists in the United States believe ought to be the storyline. You start by in the village asking the carriers of the culture. How do we change your tribe, your communities' views on whether women should be subjected to this kind of torture? How do we change that? That's how we start, but that hasn't been the way we've operated for most of our history.