 how do we find that balance of when the optimism is right for us and when we're steering ourselves astray with being toxic in our positivity? We totally understand the backlash against toxic positivity and it's fair. I think what toxic positivity is saying is that if the messages just cheer up, if you decide to be happy, you can be happy. That's sort of like end of story period. That is what toxic positivity backlash is against. It's like, yeah, something really, really existentially terrible could have happened today and I can't just think, oh, I'm going to be happy about this. I'm going to look back on this and it's going to be okay. That's not fair and we agree with that. But there's this concept, I'm going to go science again on you Colin, but there's this concept of the hedonic treadmill that comes up sometimes in psychological research and it basically says that when something good happens, our happiness goes up. When something bad happens, our happiness goes down. But at the end of the day, our happiness always reverts to this default baseline level for each individual and that could be different for you than it is for me and different for Colin than it is for someone else. But we all default to our baseline. And so as we were talking to all of these successful people and sort of crystallizing the concept of pathological optimism, what we realized is that what they're doing is they're creating habits that are ultimately raising that baseline level of happiness. So no, they are not happy when a tragic thing happens to a family member or when business goes bad one day, like really bad. But over time, because of the ability to look back and to reframe certain situations and to be a learner, they're able to increase that default level of happiness. And that's really what we mean when we're talking about pathological optimism is that in the long term, that's the mindset and that's the trend that they're going after. And the byproduct of pathological optimism, if you walk into a conversation with someone and you assume they're going to buy, then you're having a conversation with someone where you don't need anything from them anymore. If they've already bought, how different is that conversation? You're having a raw conversation with someone, like you're actually telling them how you could help them when you think that they've already bought. You talk about Steve Jobs and Martin Luther King Jr. That conviction came from, duh, obviously you want this in the power of your hand. Obviously you want equality. That's not the hard part. I assume that's what you want. That's crazy. People wanted keyboards of blackberries. That pathological optimism is what helped change the world. So I tell the story all the time to the students that students are always thinking this is worst case scenario. Because at the age that they are, they haven't had enough time to reflect. And I'm like, look, in 2009, there was this thing called the Great Recession. I had to move to Northern California. My life was taken from me. All my friends still stayed in LA. I hated it. Then I finally moved back. All my friends were living with each other and I didn't have a place to live. And I ended up having to live with roommates that I just met that were here from New York. And they would always have people over. And one day some people came over that were living in New York and visiting and that person is now my wife. And I would have not been on this podcast or had this book or taught at USC or any of the successful things that had happened to me like post 2009, if it hadn't been for that damn recession. So I can look back and be like, okay, this is obviously not worst case scenario. Like I just don't know yet. But if I have the mindset of like there's a reason this is happening, that's not necessarily pathologically optimistic. It's logical. It can't be worst case scenario because I'm here right now.