 Suppose we are interested in tree heights for making our decision. Is this number 22.5? Interesting to us. Go ahead, shout at me. Is it interesting? Yes, it is. Yes. Maybe not. Okay, so this is where I check whether you're following instructions to answer as the typical human because the typical human will here attempt to hedge or avoid answering the question. Maybe perhaps it depends, is what you'll say. Now, when I force a yes or a no out of you. Let's analyze whether that was correct. Are these trees labeled orange? Our population. No, so by legal contract, are they interesting to us? No, they are not by legal contract. That's what it says. They're not the whole population. They're not interesting. So we took some boring trees. We got some data from some boring trees. We then mushed up this boring data. Well, what comes out must also be boring. And I have proven this to you what you have known in your hearts all along. Statistics are boring. So why would we name our discipline after these boring things? Well, it's actually a misnomer, the true name of our discipline in that sense of the name that can summon the wizard. It's a much longer name. It is the digestion of statistics, but that sounded a little visceral. So we shorten it to something approachable like statistics. Let me show you how this plays out. I'm not going to look at all the tree information. I'm going to look only at some of it. And if I look only at some of it, I will have uncertainty about the answer. But hopefully I can still do something reasonable based on that partial information. I can get from that partial information a statistic, digest that into something that tells me about what I do care about, and then hopefully come to a reasonable action. That is what our discipline is all about.