Now That's What I Call... Behavioural Economics!

[Music] Hello and welcome to Economic Sin 10 with Pete and Gav. In this special about award-winning podcast, we're going to be like pop pickers of old, Pete's mashy, pop's astick, and I'm nice to see and we're going to do a rundown of the top 10 heuristics and biases from behaviour economics. We've selected them based on what we think are the most influential in society today, but you can obviously disagree. Once you've had a listen, we'd love you to kind of let us know your thoughts and tell us what your favourites are or even come up with your own top 10. Can you decide about it, Pete? I'm very excited about it. Can I just explain the smashy and nicely reference, because you go for it. Ever anyone on the 40 or not from England will have absolutely no idea what we're talking about? Yeah, so do you want to explain? Especially in the I.C. were two characters created by Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse. That's right, yeah. And they were DJs weren't they? DJs, doing a work for charity. You've done a kind of crude theme to organise our look at heuristics. Yeah, we're doing like a top of the pop vibe here. Do you want to explain what heuristic is? No, you go for it. So heuristic is a kind of rule of thumb. Rule of thumb, it's called the same thing. A mental shortcut that all humans make as part of our decision making process, but it can get us into all kinds of trouble. Yeah, a rational behaviour. A rational behaviour. And we're going to go through basically 10 of these kind of things. And what we're going to do to help us, we've got basically a really interesting plaque of playing cards called behavioural economics playing cards. And I was once given this to me by a lovely gentleman, Mr Atkinson, who I taught his as a daughter, who worked for Ipsosmorey. And they basically created these behavioural economics playing cards for a kind of presentation they were doing. It's everyone are there, but I was lucky enough to be given one when he came in and spoke to us at school. Yeah, that must be quite a collector's item. I hope so. Yeah. I mean, I haven't looked on eBay. But we're going to start off. But funny enough, the first one we're looking at Pete, our number 10 in our countdown, as it were, is not actually featured. But I'm going to be using the decision lab, which is a fantastic resource for looking up different biases and stuff like that to explain the first one. So Pete, what is the first one? So the first heuristic is priming. Priming, okay. I'm going to do a definition. Go on then. Priming, or the priming effect, occurs when an individual's exposure to a certain stimulus influences their response to a subsequent prompt without any awareness of the connection. These stimuli are often related to words or images that people see during their day-to-day lives. So why is it so important, Pete? Well, it gets people to buy stuff they don't really want. Yeah. Yeah, simple terms. You're going to explain and give some examples? Yeah, I mean, ultimately. I mean, this has kind of been known for a long time, I suppose, within certain industries. I mean, housing market is a kind of classic one of that. Remember when you're trying to sell your house? You kind of had that idea, wasn't it? But I'll put some coffee on, you know. Make the nice kind of smell. Nice candles. Yeah, get that going. That will create a nice vibe that is homely. This gets in the oven. Yeah, just don't burn them. If you go to the supermarket, you know, around the kind of bakery section, they pipe in kind of nice bakery smells that make you think, oh, I want a bit of bread. You know, that kind of stuff. So it's kind of encouraging maybe your consumption. But it could also be used in a kind of positive way. There was kind of an interesting one of kind of using, suppose priming to kind of, to get rid of kind of, Asvo, Pete, kids as it were, kind of, in the old days, as it was known. Yeah, anti-social. Yeah, as the anti-social behavior orders, we had basically naughty children, basically hanging around shops that you don't want to go into. So what they had to prime that area, making it a bit more upmarket, by piping in some kind of classical music. Do you know, we use classical music, or have done in the past, in our, we have an inclusion unit in the school. Hmm. We've put classical music on there. And that creates a calming effect? Yeah, sort of. Some of the kids hate it. Yeah, don't put me in now with that music. There's a really good case study as well, that once came up on the one show, which I show, where they, there was a study done with regards, the smell of lemon, basically creating kind of cleanliness. And on the one show, they repeated the experiment, I think that was done in Holland, where they put two train carriages with lemony smell, and then two carriages that weren't. And at the end of it, they weighed the amount of rubbish that was left. So no one noticed that there's different smells, you know, thought it was a normal journey, and yet at the end of it, there was a big difference in the kind of the kilograms in terms of how much rubbish was left behind. So it's a really powerful kind of tool, potentially, to influence behavior without people kind of recognising it. Just give you a couple of my examples. Yeah, go for it. Go for it, Chris. Well, in one experiment, if you were exposed to the word 'professor', before you did some trivia questions, you performed much better than you were exposed to the word 'soka hooligan'. So one made them perform better than the other. So it's almost like hearing the word 'professor' seemed to prime clever thoughts. Yeah, I came across the lemon scent one. The other thing I came across, which I thought was interesting, is that inadvertently, you can do some kind of anti-priming, or accidental priming. All right, apparently this is some public sector campaign. And it said, 'I'd post and say, 'We're here for you.' But all the staff was sat behind mirrored glats. So it kind of like primed distance and not care. You know, the mirrored glats. I don't really get that. Well, like, so they had a particular message. Right. But another thing, the glats primed a different sort of fee-listing. Yeah, I thought I was interesting. Apparently, displaying money-induced images. This is slightly depressing. It's more like to induce selfish individualistic behaviour. Yeah, that doesn't surprise. There's something to do as well. I'm sure on test papers related to maths between kind of boys and girls. And something about kind of undermining the evidence kind of priming effect to make kind of girls and potentially not feel as confident about their mass ability. And there's kind of a priming link to that as well. It's basically loads of studies that have shown this. Now, one of my favourite things to do in class, I'm sure you probably do this bit. But let's do it now for the audience. We want everyone to join in at home. Okay. So you're going to be the audience. I'm the audience. They will join in. Yeah. Okay. And then we're going to see whether this priming activity works. It's pretty one. I'm not going to lie. Rip it off due to you. Fine. Very good to kind of resource base. And it's this. Ready? I'm ready. Any questions? What colour is snow? White. What colour is a classic ghost? Why? What colour is a polar bear's fur? White. What colour is the cube or in snooker? White. What the cow's drink? Milk. Hey! There you go. And of course they don't drink milk. They produce milk. Yeah. So there you go. So you're primed to say milk. Isn't that exciting? Very clever. Yeah. Are we happy with that? I'm very happy with that. Okay. Let's go. That's our first one. Done and dusted. Okay. Number nine in our countdown. What is it, Pete? So it's the eye care effect. Are you going to define that? Yes, I'm into the cards now. The eye care effect. People often overvalue the things they're personally created because of the effort invested. Why is this so important, Pete? I suppose it can again end up with you accumulating things. Or what do you know? It's like some anti-maric condo effect. A maricondo? Yeah. Don't have anything in your house that doesn't spark joy. Yeah. So you might cling onto something even though it's had its day because you made it. Yeah. Do you know what I always love about maricondo? What? She gave all that advice. Oh, she gave you all my check-its. Yeah, kids. I could have told you. And then basically had the eye care effect continually. You know, it's one of the things that's so funny. But there you go. Yes, so that's true. You can't basically get the garbage out of your house. I mean, I'm sure of you. Well, yeah, of course it's. I mean, I'm sure this stuff, you know, as you know, I make very, well, I've made three of you ever and I have put faces out of clay. And, you know, even though they're rubbish, I can't get rid of them, Pete. Because they're review. You know, also because they're of me, or is it because you made them? It's a bit of both. It's a bit of both. But the thing is, is that I make a lot of kind of bad art. Does any of your wife quietly get rid of this? Yes, well, she can. Also, not quietly does it. It just breaks it. It says, "Oh, I thought this was broken." But we don't have to bend it now. But that is the kind of stuff, you know, that you kind of get so caught up in stuff. It always makes me laugh when I think about my mum, when you go around to her house. And there's still like, you know, the kind of, bird thing that you made in Year 7 CDT. Oh, right. I mean, that kind of stuff. Or the boot scraper. You make him in a boot scraper, and you make him in a boot scraper. I wasn't particularly gifted to do it. Just do it again. she gives it to me, she's the piece of metal with a sharp edge, I think you scrape your boot with. But there's lots of stuff like that. We have the kids B, B house, you know, like in the same house, they made that in a year, right? But, you know, you can't get rid of it because they made it. It's still got a mug that my daughter made for me. Do you know, I've still got a very aged mouse mat and it is a bit tattooed now, but because it's got, well, actually, that's them making it, though, it's not you making it, isn't? Yeah, but it's still the IK effect because you don't want to get rid of it because you made them. Oh, didn't you say as well, there's sort of flip side, you can get horrid children to eat healthfully if they've helped cook. Yes, if you, you know, that's a positive use, it's a great parental tip. This, isn't it? If they're struggling with trying to eat different foods, if you can cajole them into kind of saying, look, why don't you join in or when you're choosing activities, if they're really kind of like, you know, annoying you and you want them to do something, engage them in the process and because they've made that decision, then they basically want to do it. Yeah, I think I do do that, actually. I think I do sort of cook with the kids in a bid to make them sort of broadener pellets and if they've cooked it, they're more likely to eat it. Yeah, that's, though, I don't know, I think I tend to do things I know they like already. Like, have my son tell me make Yorkshire Puds when he sort of, who was them up? Yeah, that's not the I care effect. No, no, maybe I should try it more with, well, when we were in France, we, we bribed him my elder son and just said, if you can eat 10 foods that you've not eaten before, we will bar you a Lego toy. Brilliant. And he was fine. Yeah. Well, you've done that, though, he's reverted back to the capital system, haven't he? Yeah, it's not really the reverse I guess. It's not the I care effect. But it was so funny when he got to have a cardo who's practically in tears because he just hated it. So the text of it, really? Can't you barely taste those? Please don't make me. I'll try anything else. I wouldn't have thought it, though, Glockham, really? I mean, that wasn't Gwacomol. Oh, sorry, yeah, every cardo. Yeah. Yeah. Do you reckon if you've blended it? I don't know. I don't know. It's nice. Yeah. Anyway, that was always, we sound quite cruel, doesn't it? There was always the advice, isn't it? Just blend, blend vegetables, isn't it? Yeah. We do chucks the fin, like bolognaise, get a bit of sly, red pepper and carrot and celery in there. Yeah. That's just being the, the obvious, the obvious neck. That's not the I care. Not the I care effect. If you're a parent, maybe consider thinking about the I care effect. If you want someone to, to, to kind of do something, bring them into the process. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Blimey, we're getting into parenting, aren't we? Yeah. Fantastic. Right. We're moving on in our countdown. Number eight, we are looking at what Pete, we're looking at the gambler's fallacy here, the gambler's fallacy. Okay. Here's the definition. The mistake and belief that future probabilities are altered by the frequency of past events. When in reality, odds of that event happening are unchanged by previous events. Yeah. Well, why is this important, Pete? Well, why is it important? I'm not sure. What kind of behaviour is it? Well, with all simple terms, it affects the behaviour of gamblers themselves, which is problematic, shall we say. In society, any can keep thinking are, you know, black, like, on a roulette table, reds got to come up next. Yeah. And actually, the, the likelihood of red coming up next, there's not changed. Yeah. It's just, yeah, just not understanding that kind of probability. Yeah. No, I mean, I think it is, you can see why it occurs as a mental shortcut. It, it seems sort of logical in it, but commerce doesn't it? Ah, if it's happened this many times before. Yeah. There's a limited range of things that can happen the next time this must happen. Yeah. You can see why people would come to that conclusion. Should we try it now? I've got a coin here. Yeah, go on. So you've got a call, heads, his tails. So what do you think is going to happen next time? I've got your tails in it. Well, you've now just our tails. Yeah. It's on a run. It's on a run. But I would have thought that sometimes it's known as a hot hand fallacy, isn't it, I think, where, where you kind of think this hot streak is going to continue. Yeah. Yeah, ultimately, I think that's kind of an American version of it. I tell you where it probably really played an important role is in the financial crisis. Kind of this idea, wasn't it, that people just assumed because house prices have gone up, they'd continually go up. And so you, you know, you just, you're all in, you know, and it kind of takes you back to the big short, you know, where, is it the strip or whatever is buying like the seventh house because it assumes it's an investment opportunity. Yeah. It's always going to make money and it's not really understanding again. Yeah. It kind of probably wouldn't see behind markets and understanding that. Yeah. Well, I don't think there's, I think, lots of people can fall into that kind of thinking. And as you say, it kind of significant impacts on, well, certainly financial markets. And then you get the, the negative externalities which subsequently follow from yeah, crashes. Exactly. Do you know that's going to happen with AI? Well, maybe you could see it. I mean, the big points are really nice example of that, isn't it? The gambler's fallacy related that I suppose. You know, people just assuming it will continue, you know, on the, on the merry rise and now it looks like it's bummed out. I mean, this is at this time of speaking, it could do again. I think we're definitely in bubble tape. It could rebound. What with AI? Yeah. Yeah. Really. Maybe. Absolutely. I think the, I think I would digress in there, aren't we? We're talking about doing an AI specialist's point, weren't we? Yeah. Even though we're obviously peculiar on that, on qualified to do so. But that's never stopped us with anything. No. No. No. But I do think, I don't know, increasingly, I think the impacts sort of overrated. Yeah. I'm sure in some areas it is, but I think everyone's going all in huge, huge investment. Well, I assume that is the gambler's fallacy because there's this kind of expectation that when you've had, I suppose, what did I argue, technical advances that would eventually feed for productivity, you kind of just make in the assumption, which is perfectly acceptable to do, isn't it, that AI will create eventually, long-term productivity gains. And you kind of think, but quite a will it, you know, and what's the artifact? Can I just say the main reason where I think about gambler's fallacy, by the way. And I don't think you do this anymore, is it? It's fantasy premier league. No. When you're choosing your fantasy premier league team and you choose a striker who's banging in the goals and you think, oh, my word, get this guy in, dries up, dries up. And then suddenly, you know, you pull them out of the team again. What do they do? That's cool. Start scoring again. Gambler's fallacy. So frustrated. If you know that they are scoring, they're a 15-a-goal man. Just stick with them. Yeah. You know, this is something I don't do. I'm a sucker to this. It's interesting, isn't it? Because football's a good example of that. You look at someone like Marcus Rashford, one season, one season only, where he got 30 goals. I think I've a sense that the people have fought. Oh, yeah. Yeah. It'll happen again. You think it'll happen. Yeah. Yeah. I suppose that's the kind of, is it linked to that? Gambler's fallacy regression to the mean? You know, that he overwent and then he's just gone back to him. Yeah. That kind of idea, kind of. I'll do it. I'll come and play over. Yeah. Well, there you go. Right. Okay. Do you like it? Do you like a flutter? I, when, when I was at university, and I still do it now when I meet up with a university body, so we do a 10-P win lucky 15. Right. So you basically bet on four horses, 10-P and on the nose. Right. So they've got to win. Okay. And I pick all round them outside as basically based on their names. Yeah. Obviously never win. Yeah. Okay. Are you? No, not really. I did the one time. We went on a, we went on a, so we could see enough of my stuff. Do you remember that? Uh, do we? Yeah. I mean, just the, oh, I thought I was thinking about the horse track. We were a little bit of a day of gambling, actually. I've been not done much gambling at all. We had a whole day of it. I probably didn't gamble. I must have done a bit. Yeah. I've stayed clear, I think. I remember my brother, who is super bright, very talented, sort of mathematician amongst other things. Yeah. Going into the casino and claiming he had a system. Yeah. And coming out hundreds of pounds lighter. Well, there you go. There you go. Right. Okay. We want to, uh, number seven on our countdown. Okay. And what is it, Pete? Confirmation bias. Okay. So this is searching for or interpreting and remembering information that confirms our own beliefs. Why is this relevant, Pete? Well, I think this is enormously relevant. Yeah. Which should do because we're getting to our number one. It should, we should be ramping up the relevance. But I think this one is particularly relevant and slightly depressing in that it's probably one of the reasons why we live in such a divided world. Well, a polarized world in the political sphere. And I want to say that because I'm one of life's optimists, I do think it is in the political sphere. We can get people away from politics. Then often you can find common ground quite readily. But I do think that people are just look for, uh, evidence, which already supports their views. And actually they pick upon media products which inevitably re-informed it. or whatever view they have already, and it's sadly, and I do think the social media platforms, it's playing for this, well, algorithm's play party, not too dumb, they just sort of, you've seen one thing, you've seen to like it, so we're gonna pile more of that on. - Yeah, confirm your biases. - Yeah, and I think you were saying, weren't you radio discussions, complete waste of time? - Yeah. - That's no one really changes our views, do they? They just sort of, they'll pick out the bits that they want to be reinforcing, and the people listening to them, who agree with them, who just hear that. And then the opposite side will do exactly the same, and it's very rare you get some kind of middle ground there. But, and it does, to use that kind of term, it creates these echo chambers, which are incredibly damaging. I think a really good one of that at the moment, was all the kind of talk around Biden and his dementia, and like, people confirm their beliefs, the Republicans, and this guy's got dementia, this guy's a dementia. And yeah, you've probably got something like relinked Trump, similar vein, and they're looking for everything that dispels the fact that he's probably got dementia, you know? And that has taken us down a really rocky road. And yeah, you know, and it's funny as well if you're, and we'll get to this kind of at the end as well, when we, a bit further that, let down the line. But, you know, if you've got all this, stuff going on about that, London is broken, you know? And so what confirms your bias is, well, just watch, you know, a load of videos of, you know, people stealing bikes, or whatever, you know, just in the middle of the street, or whatever, that kind of stuff, or, you know, and so you just, again, want to see that, you know, that kind of confirmation. Oh yeah, look at it, not, not, you know, so much other stuff. Whenever I go into London, I never feel unsafe. Oh, I know, it's the most honest thing. It's so bizarre, we do have international listeners thinking of visiting London. Yeah, it really is a safe city, you know? I mean, particularly the central areas, it's really like when you got a new York, and you wander around Manhattan, you think, oh, this is nice, and it's like, I imagine there's parts of New York, and there's parts of London, but not the bits anywhere to go to. There's loads of rubbish about lies, and like, sharia law in London, it's just complete nonsense. And, you know, shame on the people, you know? (laughing) So yeah, but the way, I think the American, kind of administration of moment is a great example of where they really are trying to confirm people's biases, say, for the guy who basically recently, unfortunately, got shot, you know, they're trying to confirm that bias in terms of, oh, no, he was definitely, you know, Antifa, whatever, and, you know, he'd created trouble before, and done all this, and you're trying to paint him in his light, you know, to confirm, you know, his supporters' biases, and he's like, this is mad, you know, but there you go. What can you do? To press him? Yeah, okay, now, I think Trump and Co, I'm gonna get probably quite a few mentions today, which is kind of quite sad in many respects, but Pete, this is, you know, number five in our count down, or number six, and this is the Dunning Cruger effect. So what is that, okay? The unskilled or incompetent may believe in their own superiority, because they aren't able to judge what constitutes as competence. You can understand why maybe I bought up Trump again, or Johnson, and so on, okay? Yeah, I think you were gonna say as well, you sort of see it to a small extent at school level, where you're going to get clever girls who think they're rubbish, and overconfident boys who think they're marvellous, which is a stereotype, but it's not a stereotype without some truth in it. I mean, obviously that's not true of most girls or most boys, but there is a, you know, you can think of examples of that. Yeah, the kind of reverse of a Dunning Cruger effect is ultimately imposterous in here. Yeah, and you have that, you know, this is what I kind of think about, we should be reveling in Johnson's Dunning Cruger effect, who thinks he's absolutely marvellous, not realizing he's probably incompetent, because it gives us all hope, doesn't it, to kind of reach it? If you ever want to, I think I've said this before, get over imposter syndrome. Just look at that guy. How could you ever suffer imposter syndrome ever again? But, you know, oh, I'm glad to put examples of that. Yeah, there are, aren't there? But there's a great, you gov survey that came out, you know, a while back, which was, they found that one in eight men, so 12% felt confident they could win a point against Serena Williams at their best compared to 3% of women in decay in this perception gap. You know, it's your classic stuff, isn't it? I can be, I can, I can beat her in a game of tennis. You know, and that kind of stuff is like, you don't realize how good she is or whatever, and that kind of, you know. Yeah, 12% of men think they can get, basically, a point offer. When I was looking this up, there was something called the Mount Stupid Peak. Like, no. So this is the idea that confidence can skyrocket to a peak after minimal learning, you know, the kind of little knowledge it's a dangerous thing. But then some people then, the confidence dips as they genuinely get an understanding of the complexity of the situation. And then it gradually rises with actual sort of mastery, as it were. So in a sense, we all have a little bit of this. Oh, once you've learned a bit, oh, I know all about X. And then when you actually study it, you think, oh, God, I know nothing. And then when you study it more. But I think this is the problem with someone like Trump and Johnson. They don't, they're not curious enough to learn anymore. To understand the complexity. So they think, I know this, this is, you know, and this is why you can come out with stuff that is just like, that's nonsense, that's absolutely, you know, kind of creating this chaos. I think as you say, though, you need a bit of curiosity and also humility. Yes. And think, to be honest, I see a bit of my own teaching career. I think when I was younger, I thought it was marvelous. Well, I'm marvelous, but you know, I thought, I am a really good teacher. And then as you get older, you think, you look back and think, I'm better now than I was then. But then I thought I was good, you know what I mean? So I don't know. Yeah, because I think you don't understand what true mastery is. Yeah. If you don't mean until, I'm not saying I have achieved mastery as a teacher, but you get closer to it, the more experience you are. As long as you remain curious and humble and open to learning. You know, one of those people who says, oh, we tried that before. It didn't work and all this nonsense. There's a really good book actually I read about mastery by a guy called, oh, I said, call something knee bone. I must look up. He's a, he was a, he was a GP. What was it? Which way route? No, he was a surgeon, but then retrained as a GP. Right. I think it's that way around. And it was quite interesting because he got to a level of expertise and switched across into what you think is a, should be possibly easier or related. And yet he found himself going back to a sort of real novice. Sort of staging his development. But it's a, it's a really, it goes into lots of different fields about the development of genuine mastery. Now I think he meets people like Taylor's, you know, start off just sewing button, buttons on and doing pocket squares. And then eventually they sort of graduate to doing full suits, but like after a long sort of apprenticeship in which they develop genuine mastery. I think I'd say it's a 10,000 hours kind of thing, isn't it? Yeah, yeah, but it's a, it's a really, I'd recommend that. I think it, I think the guys called Roger Neibon. I might have to look that up. Yeah, you can share it on social media. Well, I really enjoyed it as a book. But again, I think it is about that sense of being open and curious and humble. Yeah. And there's loads of people, sadly, who rise to top in politics. And to be a certain extent, that's not a party political point. You look at sort of people across the political spectrum and think, you think you're marvelous. So actually, you know what? But I wonder if that's some sort of system. I was thinking about this quite a lot recently. Just like who goes into politics now? It's either the sort of kind of dull, worthy, think-hearstharma, or it's the brash shameless, think Johnson, Farron, people like that. And in some respects, sort of normal people, who might have a bit of a history, you know, might have done a few dodgy things when they're younger, but learn from them, and grown. They're not going to go into politics, because they'll just get rubbish in the media. Like, oh, yeah, you talk Coca-Cola, you know, whatever. By the way, I didn't take Coca-Cola, you know what I'm saying? But you know, it's that kind of thing. You know, so you think you're not going to get anyone who has made mistakes and grown going into politics now because of the media exposure. So you either get dullards, or you get people who think, yeah, I don't care being exposed, because I'm shameless. Yeah. So, and the problem as well is that sometimes we, in itself, will lack information to challenge what they are talking about in many respects. I saw a really interesting kind of sort of tweet about this the other day, where a bloke came on and said, "When I heard Elon Musk talk about cars, I didn't know anything about it, so I thought it was a genius." When I heard him talk about SpaceX, I didn't know anything about space, so I assumed it was a genius. And then it's like, then I heard him speak about AI, I know loads about AI, I really think he's completely incompetent, and he goes and now I'm thinking, oh yeah, the other stuff. Yeah, did I think the same, like that was he just a classic dune in Kruger, you know, where he has, you know, believes his own superiority, because they can't constitute what is competence. Yeah, even like tonight, you know, James Rackliffe, the Manianighted part owner, he was talking in the media, and he basically said, oh, immigration's terrible, it's grown too much, and yeah, I think 2020 it was, the population was 58 billion, it's now, like, no, it wasn't, it's like 22,000 it was, but it's just this sort of plocking figures out of the air, but doing so with the utmost confidence, and he's thinking, I don't want to admit it mate, you're talking about, but yeah, he's got a platform, and he's probably, lots of people going, yeah, yeah. Well, and what we'll do is, in many respects, I suppose we'll kind of get onto this later, is that there is a lot of crossover on there between these biases, because what we're also kind of dealing with is probably what we're going to talk about, and number two there, a little bit, so this kind of combination of dooning Kruger, with something else. [Music] Okay, what is Pete, our number five? The sunk cost fallacy. This might be probably one that people are more familiar with, yeah, here's a definition for it, the inability to see potential problems or failures once a venture has been heavily invested in, also known as throwing good money off the bat. All right, go on then, why is it so relevant? Well, I think you can link it to big, I'm infrastructure projects that want you ploughed a bit of money into it, I mean HS2 is a classical example. No one can seem to let go of it, because a lot of money has gone into it already, any kind of thing, either go for it or don't go for it, but don't carry on going for it because you put money into it already, if it's the right thing to do, do it, but a good reason to do it is not because a lot of money has been ploughed into it. You know what, you mentioned it earlier, you can say that about AI. These businesses have gone sort of all in on it and now it's like, right, we are going to have to sack staff and get AI to come in because we need to generate something from this rather than accepting, yeah, we've thrown good money off the bat, maybe it's not going to work in the ways that we hoped, we might have to bring back a lot more staff, so we've got a classic example there of sunk cost balancing. Yeah, I think on a more prosaic level, you can see it when people don't walk up films that they hate in. Yeah. Would you ever walk out with films you've ever done that? No. I don't know. And because I've paid money for it, that's classic sunk cost, they've put the money in. Yeah. Therefore, even I'm not enjoying that, I'm going to carry on with it. Yeah. I've seen, yeah, and there's been some kind of interesting, like, articles about that, about people freeing up their time, like the kind of really appreciating the opportunity cost of reading a bad book or watching a bad film, and it's like, you know, like I used to kind of say, I'd give it a hundred pages for a book, and then if I didn't like it, Bosch, it's gone. I've done it. To be honest, I've never done it with films. I'd do it with books. Yeah. There's books like, you know, you kind of, you feel like you're supposed to like a mighty name, this is a classic example. I've just got to remember working with a guy like, "I must read a mighty name." Yeah. Sounds like, "Okay, okay, okay, okay." And I just kind of hated it. I hated, I don't know, I just really didn't like it on quite a visceral level. But I think I finished one of them, then for never again. All right. Well, there you go. I don't like Sam Nushti either. I tried reading one of his. I just thought. Not in person. These books, yeah. Oh, no. He shows a great guy. No. You know, I quite like him actually, in media interviews, but I've never been able to finish any of his books. Yeah. But you go because, well, we don't suffer from the sunk cross fallacy there, do we? I'm sure I do. On the book point of view, mate, we don't. But definitely films are probably there, I think. I'm watching this after rubbish, and you know, you can extend it to a relationship. Yes. We did this in our love special. Still out there for people to listen to. Yeah. You know, where you've been years in a relationship, and you kind of think this isn't really going anywhere. But you spend so much time and money investing into that relationship, but, ultimately, don't throw good money off the bed. Yeah. What a nice thought, just as we're a day or two out from Valentine's Day. Yeah. Let's go. Right. We're on number four, on Alice. We're working our way down to number one. It's very exciting. What is this one, Pete? So this is a representiveness. Yeah. Okay. These are judgments made based on how representative a given individual cases believed to be, a subjective average example, e.g. stereotype, and independent of information about his actual likelihood. Representatives, why is that so relevant, Pete, right now? Well, I think it can lead to a lot of fear of particular groups that may have been represented in the media in a negative light yet. And then from that, you make assumptions that everyone from that group is the same. Yeah. Yeah. We've got some great examples of that. Yeah. Well, you give some examples of that. But you've got this kind of idea of grooming gangs. When you kind of see someone being put on the front cover of a different ethnicity, it's like you then represent that race with grooming gangs, even though statistically, it fits in with the kind of demographics of the UK. So you kind of have that going on. The one I always used to kind of think about, which is quite funny, is in the '80s, if you're watching a film where you had a bit of a geek, or you know, we were wearing glasses when they used to be classic, geeks and glasses in the '80s films. And you can see at the moment, there was a really interesting way of Trump again, just making the assumption, you know, because this is what he sees, is tattoos bad people. You've got a tattoo, you're not coming over here for good reasons, you're going to be better sitting. That's a Trump thing, isn't it? Yeah, he said he's made some announcements, he says, these guys with tattoos, you know, it's not as if they're going to be coming over here and actually doing something decent in their lives. That's a tattoo of these guys. Well, there you go, so I mean, that's it. And so that then also then feeds into, you know, profiling and policing, you know, in terms of what you kind of see, I mean, some people say it's kind of, there is some data-driven stuff there, but a lot of the time it is a representative-ness bias. But then I suffer in many respects, it's because-- I'm sure we all do. Yeah. We should say that, by the way, with all of these, it's a very human characteristic to want to find a mental shortcut to reduce your cognitive load. Yes. We all do it. It's just, we should all probably, if it does have some of the negative outcomes that it can challenge ourselves, but we all do it, it's almost like we'd be very inefficient as human beings if we didn't do it, you know, but equally, some of these biases can have very negative consequences for some groups and some people. I've got a really funny example of everybody. Yeah. Go for it. So one of our coveners, she's a woman and she works in the City of London in the financial sector for sort of decades, really. And she was at some Black Tire van and she's there standing near the door, talking to someone and some guy basically handed her his coat, he came to, so she just dropped it on the floor and carried on talking. It was a great thought, though, because obviously the assumption there is, oh, you're a woman, you're at this sort of male only do, you must be sort of some kind of, sort of, I don't know. Yeah. And it probably feeds into the kind of biases that you see with women in economics, you know, it's kind of like, there was always that thing, wasn't it? When you Google business person, you know, what turns out to be a man and there's always those studies done, isn't there where it's like, you say to little kids, you know, draw us a pilot, draw us a fire person, draw us this and they're all again, the representiveness kind of bias, you know, within the media feeds into this kind of stereotype, which is incredibly damaging for loads of people and lots of industries. And then you end up with that lack of diversity, which then in itself causes even further problems. There's lots of examples of Black people in certain contexts, oh, you must be the cleaner kind of thing. I think there's been cases of MPs like that. But there's that, you know, there's a story the other day, wasn't there about, I think it's eight years. Do you remember that when the guy's doing an interview on TV and in the background, you see his kid walk in. Yeah. And then the baby comes in on a stroller. Yeah. And then you see out nowhere, you know, the woman is like a vaginal descent as it were. And everyone's first thought was, there's the Nanick, not that he could possibly be married. And they've got this lovely photo of them, you know, now, they've been kind of growing up and stuff like that. And it's just, it's just incredible how this happens. But I mean, that's a kind of, I say a light hearted thing, but you know, it makes me expect to, that light hearted thing. You know, I mean, in terms of like, it's a funny clip or whatever. But the actual stuff behind it is incredibly important for us to appreciate. And, and when you say this about how it's easy for us to do these mental things, I mean, we're going to kind of go on to recommending books. But obviously this is the idea of slowing sometimes that thinking down, you know, and appreciating, this is our, to talk in the kind of Daniel Carnival terms, thinking fast. And so this is our system one, you know, kind of taking over and just saying like, these are our rules of thumb. So this is what we think. And because historically, efficiency is really good in terms of that, like you say, cognitive load, but sometimes it's like a system to, yeah, no, if you think it in top your evolution in terms, just thinking something out of the colony of your eye might be a woolly mount, say to Tiger, I've got a white quickly. You don't want to be too reflective. No, I've had that. But equally, that's had its day to a certain extent. And if we perceive threats when they're not there, yeah, then it can have negative consequences for all parties. Yeah. Exactly that. Right. Okay. We're on to the top three now. This is very exciting. Okay. So what is number three on Alice Pete? Number three on Alice is anchoring anchoring. Here we go. So here's the definition of this. During decision making, we use an initial piece of information, the anchor to make subsequent judgments. Well, why is that born Pete? Well, it's important in a sort of a sort of retail context, first of all, in that it can certainly affect your sort of decision making about whether something provides value for money. Yeah. TK Max is a great example for this. But what's called in America? Not TJ Maxx. Oh, there you go. It's a revelation to me when I went to America. So. But if you've got something, the RRP retail recommended retail price is £200. I could get it if a 40 quid. Yeah. You might not need it. Yeah. But because the initial anchor is so much higher, the perceived value for money is so great that you might buy something fairly impulsively because of that sort of anchor in effect. Yeah. I think this could be used advantageously in some sort of context. So you could go in salary negotiations. Yeah. You might have a, you want to earn 50 grand. Yeah. Just go 80 grand. Yeah. 80. And then if someone gives you, you end up at 60, they'll think they'll have, we've got them down from 80. Yeah. They're 60, you know, something like that. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. That's it. We can see it with setting houses as well, kind of having an anchor number straight away. Yeah. Over the top. Amazon Prime does a really good one on that. Yeah. Because you know, they're trying to sell you this dream that is massively reduced and then what you find out is that throughout the year, it's been that same price. So it's always good to do your slowing down, do a bit of research. Now people might not notice. I didn't know it to about six months ago. My mate, Johnny, he said gone to this cycle camel, camel, camel. Good of it. Nope. Go on a camel, camel, camel. Yeah. It seems a bit weird. And then you take your Amazon link. Yeah. And you basically paste it into this search engine and it will tell you all the prices for the last like year or so. Right. Okay. So what you can do is when you think you're getting a good deal, you can check, oh, double second, six months ago, it was slightly cheaper. Yeah. Let's go do that with our wine as well, I think. Yeah. So you've had periods where they might be very temporarily put some sort of slightly minging wine to a much higher price. And then later it will go down. You think, oh, God, this has come down from 15 quid. It must have been brilliant. Well, Tesco Club Guard deals have been criticized for that. You know, is kind of overinflating in many respects. The big yellow sign that you have kind of priming you that you get in this fantastic deal, you know, using an anchor. And then actually you think, hmm, is it really? You know, I think they've got criticized by the advertising standards authority for it. I think so. It's certainly used by retailers to influence purchasing. Do you know why I say to my students? What? It's probably not the greatest device I give them because I sometimes say to them, look, if you want to go out at night and your parents are sort of maybe concerned about the lateness of your night, go big, anchor, you know, if you want to kind of stay up till say 12, you know, and normally your parents don't know yet, say 2 a.m. in the morning, anchor 2 a.m. Your parents will then go, I'm not happy with that. What about 12? And you go, yeah, okay. I'll be missing out on so much dad, but yeah, it's actually, you've got your just a little win. Obviously, so I'm sure parents from your school would like to be delighted by that. Well, you can do it with like jeans as well, you know, like if you're buying stuff, you can say, you know, you go big on some jeans, you've seen some nice jeans for 50 quid. Yeah. Then you say the classic, I've seen some nice jeans for 80 quid, can have the money. Yeah. No, you can have 50, boom. Yeah. Oh, there you go. Anchoring all the time. It's been loads of, again, kind of, what's it called, like research done? This is what they kind of do, stuff linked to. I think there's one about Gandhi, what AG died, you know, and if you kind of have a low anchor versus a high anchor, you know, where you come to your averages and groups and stuff like that. So there's loads of kind of experiments on that that have been really interesting. Yeah. But particularly in a commercial sense, you know, when you next go to a restaurant, and see there's that ridiculously expensive stake, don't go all over the one next one down, because I'm getting a really good bargain, because you're probably not. Yeah. Okay. We're at number two. So number two is it Pete? It's the halo effect. Okay. Overall impression of the person's influences, our feelings and thoughts about that person's character. Well, why is this so significant Pete? Well, I think this is very, very topical. Very topical. With the sole epstein affair. Because you look at him and you think actually in plain sight, he's abusing young girls. Yeah. He's procuring young girls for his rich friends. But everyone thinks he's rich. He's got nice teeth. Yeah. He's quite charismatic. Yeah. He's all right. You know, even after, it's not like, oh, I didn't know anything. This is after in many cases. He's had a conviction for, you know, basically, was it traffic in minors or, you know, but lots and lots of people were sucked in, sucked in by that. And it's the classic case of where if someone's attractive, you make other subconscious assumptions about their character, oh, they must be intelligent, kind, trustworthy. And he was seemingly none of the above. But lots of highly intelligent Pete were seemingly suckered in by that. Yeah. So they say that, don't they? There was kind of day it came out as an edit. Basically, tall people, kind of a lot of time, were sent to the top point. They kind of quit because that's the game. The assumptions that you make about tall people, you know, that they're kind of right away. But there is, I mean, this is why for me, Halo Effect is at number two is because just the way that, you know, you've had these scandals break, clearly Epstein, but you can sit with Jimmy Savile in this country, you know, and Hugh Edwards is another one of these people that you really look up to. You think, well, they can't be possibly doing anything bad, you know? But it also links in with, you know, seniority. There's a kind of, kind of classic, kind of stories of where people don't want to challenge people's decision-making. So, you know, plane crashes have been exempted of this in the past. Yeah, that was, you know, is that a Matyside book, Black Box? Yeah, I think it was. It was also one that I think that also influenced teapots, manifesto, whatever it was. Because the one about the Korean Airlines, and I think career at the time, or stereotypically, has a sort of a deferential, sort of culture you respect, or sort of superiors. So, the first officer on the plane is thinking, what the hell is the captain up to? Yeah. But didn't feel confident enough to challenge him, even though that resulted in, you know, a plane crash. And this is what I know, I think, that they then bought in this kind of, sure it's like the, I can't remember, it's a tick tick box, manifesto, whatever. So, just making sure you've just got these rules that you follow. Check this manifesto. I've all gone there. Yeah. And so, therefore, you don't like, because you're just going through the processes. Yeah. But you can see it, again, going like, you just feel sorry for lots of people who have been miscelled stuff, you know, and it's like, you know, influenced, you know, like, you see it with the Trump coin, again, going back to him. Like these people kind of look like, see it's like, I think, like these people are grifting, you know, this basically Trump dumpers, you know, it's like Trump, you know, sell this coin, because he says it's going to be valuable. People buy in, when they buy in the value goes up, all is in a circle, basically dump it, you know, and they realize, you know, and it's, what are the things I also think about? Because it's, no one talks about anymore, really. Like, NFTs, man, there's not a fungible tokens or you know, suddenly it was a big thing and all these people were saying, "Oh, you know, they will remain valuable in life." All these people with monkey pictures. They're kind of thinking, "Munky pictures." You know, it's crazy. I mean, the question I've kind of written on here is, is ultimately, does capitalism amplify the halo effect? You know, because if you speak to youngsters about people with money, whatever they say must be true, you know, and it's kind of like, "Why is that?" "Oh, because they've got money and not because you respect people with money." And you kind of think, "They don't know anything?" Like, going back to the Jim Radcliffe thing, isn't it? You've got a kind of a cross there between the Doona Krueger, someone who believes that he knows loads of stuff. But also, everyone listening to him thinks he must know it, because he's in charge of, you know, any else, whatever. And you kind of think, "Yeah, I think we've got kind of doubling up there, haven't we?" Yeah, and it's the kind of sort of idea that it being impressive in a particular domain gives you sort of a voice in other domains. And you do get it with like, I suppose you could see it, you know, actors and actresses, that's the part of their views and everything. It's like, "Who cares?" And I'm like, "Who cares about Jim Carey's?" I'm just picking him out there. I really get Jim Carey's view about anything. I think every time I see Gary Neville's about some stuff about economics, I think, "Why are they asking him?" We're not that anything, it's football chat's good. But it does make you think, "Just ask an economist." Why don't you ask an economist instead of getting some. No, but it is. That kind of sense that if you've got. Well, just if you're famous, then that means that you must have a view about, you know, I mean, it's kind of ace, but if it's someone like Lawrence Fox, I mean, yeah. How did he get to this sort of ridiculous platform? He's an actor. And suddenly, he said to the odd controversial thing, he's on question time. But who cares what he thinks anyway? You know, it's like, but there's a lot of that, I think, where people are asked their views and then you think, "But people do, they listen to them." But this is also some of the problem, I suppose, where they've tricked some of the overseas been coming in recently about platforming people, you know, that then kind of doubles down the halo effect. Or they must be on TV, so they must know stuff. No, they don't. You know, so. There are some sort of criminal elements who take advantage of the halo effect as well. If you think about someone like Martin Lewis, the sort of money expert in the UK, he's a very trusted figure. So he's often having a fight back against people using sort of. He's a guy, isn't it? Yeah, he's in sort of a fake images of him, sort of say, not by this useless NFT or whatever it is. I think it's marvelous. And he's like, "No, that's not me." But they're taking advantage of that. Yeah, yeah. He's actually that. Incredibly powerful halo effect. Yeah, hence the reason why it's our number two. Now, before we reveal that number one, what we're going to do is we're going to kind of do our. Like we're DJs. And it's the top of the pops. That's an old music show, by the way, if people don't know it. Countdown of our top 10. And what we've done is we've put in some amusing song titles we hope that connect with the band names, which are the biases/eristics. Okay, are we ready? I'm ready. So, at number ten is probably with. I must buy some bread. Oh, I'm doing number nine, sorry. And number nine is I care effects with. But I made that. At number eight is Gambler's fallacy with hot streak. And number seven is confirmation bias with. Didn't you see that? At number six, the highest column with powerful idiots is the Duning Cruever effect. And number five is sunk cos fallacy with set me free. Still a number four is represented with a blur cover, stereotypes. A brand new entry at number three is the anchoring with. That's a steal. And last week's number one is this week's number two. It is the halo effect with. Scandal. And the number one, the new number one, is availability bias with London is falling. There you go. So, we're finishing with availability bias. Okay, here's the definition. We judge things as either more likely or as frequently occurring if they come to mind readily. If something can be recalled easily, it must be important. So, why is this so important? Well, you can see this all the time. I mean, part of it you could see in a really simple example of people's fear of flying, because people can quite readily bring to mind big sort of plane accidents. Probably, realistically, you're enormously by many multiples, more likely to die in a car crash. But because it more readily comes to mind, playing crashes, probably because of it makes big use or there's been films about playing crashes, that's like that. It's available. And then that colours people's views about a likelihood of something happening. You mentioned as well about crime in London. There's always stories about crime in London. So, the assumption, therefore, is. Oh, well, because I can think of crimes that have happened in London, it must happen all the time. Yeah. I mean, ultimately news is always going to be portraying stuff that is sensationalist isn't it, isn't it nature? And so, therefore, it's always going to be pretty negative. You're going to see a murder, you're going to see some debris or whatever. And because, you know, there is so much news and factual progress kind of like that, you know, like 24 hours of police custody or whatever life is in the team as well now. Continually, if you didn't know any better, you'd assume there's like Mug is going on everywhere. And yet, you know, we're going to do kind of book recommendations. And I wasn't going to recommend this, but there's a classic book as in this Steve Pinker, the better angels of our nature, why violence has declined. You know, if you ask people, and this kind of goes back to the Ipsosmory, guys, who basically wanted to know people's perceptions. Oh, that's what it's from. It's from the perceptions in days. You know, and people thought that obviously violence was continually going up and up and up. When in reality, it's going down and down and down. And that's exactly what's happening in London at the moment, when you hear about kind of knife crime, I think it is or something like that. No, no, it's declining. Yeah, declining. And yet you would not know that for a million years, if you were kind of basing it on Tommy Robinson's kind of, you know, vids, whatever. And, you know, he's gang and just news generally, you just see. Yeah, yeah. And that's why it's incredibly, well, it's why it's kind of our number one. I mean, obviously, people can disagree with this because, you know, this is that kind of idea where I think there's a newscaster actually made me realize, we basically said we should end with some good news, you know, at the end because let's try and change the availability bias to say, a lot of people are nice. You know, it's not bad stuff going on in the world. Yeah, I mean, news is interesting in that. If you think like as this huge sort of highly populated planet on any one day, lots of things happen. Yeah. And yet, there will be a selection. I mean, going back in the day for let's say the nine o'clock news, 10 o'clock news, and obviously we're we're so beyond that with 24 hour news cycles. But even within that 24 hour news cycle, five to 10 things will sort of make it from all those things that happened in the world. They're invariably miserable. Yeah. And I think they're selected for their newsworthiness, rather than their representiveness. Yeah. So they will be extreme. But if they're on the news, people can then think, well, that's that's the normality, this behavior or this act is representative of a broader picture. It might actually be newsworthy because it's rare. Yeah. And yet, it has the opposite impact on our perceptions of the likelihood of something happening. And it's massive in economics, in many respects, because you think about how, you know, we've portrayed developing countries through again, the imagery that we have, the availability by, you know, what, what do you think of when you think of Africa, you know, a little kid with flies around his neck with a big extended belly wherever, you know, and that again plays into, well, they must be helpless, therefore we must go over there and help them. We must do this, you know, and you kind of think, why don't you show, you know, the fantastic kind of skyscrapers that being built, you know, in these countries, you know, like the real development that has gone on. That website, I think it came from Hans Rosley. Yeah. So foundation, the dollar street. Oh, the dollar street one. Yeah. So it's a really good website because it shows you like what, it's like just pictures of people at different income bands in different countries because you can assume, let's take a random sort of relatively poor inadvertent comments country in Africa like Zambia or something like that. You can assume everyone is Zambia's poor. Yeah. And of course they're not. You know, there's middle classes, there's rich people, obviously, the averages will be lower, but not, not everyone has the same sort of lifestyle. Yeah. And that was the news. And it shows you like what, what dollar income would buy you in different countries and just little photographs of people existing at that income level in different countries. Yeah. It's a great website. But that's a bit - A bit of an antidote. - Yeah. - Challenge your. I mean, it says it on the tin, factfulness, you know, what do you think of how many kids in developing countries go to primary school, you know, do you think it's 80% or 50% 30%, most people think it's 30% or whatever, and it's actually 80% how much electricity is there, it's this, you know, but again, what we dealt with, we dealt classic poverty porn, I suppose, that's kind of the way that you used to describe it, didn't they? So, and that's kind of not really helping the world that we're living in. Well, it's a cognitive distortion, isn't it, about reality, and that's never going to be outfall in terms of making wise choices, either at the governmental level or the individual level. But there you go, so that's it, that was our number one, like we say, you can disagree, we've tried to do them in an order that we think is kind of the relevance to the world that we live in. Obviously, if you go on to, you know, the decision lab site, and again, within this pack of cards I've got, you know, there's obviously 52 kind of different heuristics, biases and so on. There's so many to look at, and we kind of had a few that we call, oh, I'm in an hour in about, we dropped a few, you know, but we hope that you like the 10 that we have chosen, we hope we've kind of explained why we think they are important. Now, we have got books. Oh, yeah, we have to read. So, would you like to? Yeah, I mean, classic and we have done an episode about his work, Daniel Kahneman's thinking fast and slow, I really liked as well, the biography by Michael Lewis of him, I can't remember the name of the biography, but because obviously he was part and under which many people forget by Amos Tversky. Yes. And it's about their relationship, but also how they developed a lot of the analysis of heuristics, which we've talked about in this episode. Another classic nudge by Tyler and Sunstein, and another one that I've read and enjoyed inside the nudge unit by David Halpen, and that was where I think it was the Cameron government, wasn't it? Yeah, tried to use behavioral economics and some of these heuristics to nudge human behavior and positive directions, a governmental level, any you'd recommend apart from those. Well, yeah, I mean, it's interesting because probably the book that really started off, I suppose, behavioral economics and thinking about this, is Daniela's book, predictably irrational. Right. And it is a fantastic book, but what's interesting about him is why he's appeared in the Epstein files, and so he's now kind of been looked upon quite rightly. Yes. And also he's been caught up in the kind of replication kind of crisis within social sciences, where a lot of the stuff that he did was done with students, and then when they've tried to kind of replicate it, have struggled to do it. But it is incredibly readable book, and so is as a follow up as well. But yeah, I mean, his name, ultimately, is slightly mud at the moment. Irracheanity by Stuart Sutherland, fantastic book, the art of thinking clearly by Rolf of the belly, the choice factory, Richard Shotten, another really good book. Paranormality is a bit of a weird one, because this is Richard Wiseman, who kind of, like kind of magic circle-y type guy does tricks and stuff like that. But it's just a really interesting insight into why people join cults, you know, kind of linked to the halo effect and stuff like that. And full by randomness, nice, nothing Nicholas Taleb, who basically kind of looks at like data sets and stuff like that, people just not understanding, probably probability. So there you go. So we've mentioned quite a few books tonight. Yeah, well, yeah. And what was that Michael Lewis book? It's going to, it's going to nice, isn't it? I don't know the name, but it's a biography. Yeah, it's a versky. Yeah. I can't remember. The magic, something like the magic, something, isn't it? We'll put it on social media. The undoing project. The undoing project. Yeah, undoing project. There you go. Anyway, it's all come flooding back. Exactly. Now, we hope you enjoyed our dive into the world of behaviour economics. Thanks always for listening. And also, we'd like to thank Nick, the Mark Ronson of Economics in 10. And feel free to follow us as always on our socials. And you can contact us at [email protected]. We love feedback, good or bad. And if you want to leave a review on iTunes or whatever platform you listen to our podcast on, we would be delighted. Yeah. Maybe let their system to, oh, I don't know. Do we want system one or system two doing our reviews? Well, if you're a media kind of impulses, you know. Yeah, if you've listened beyond 10 minutes, system two. You're a very good boy. Oh, not that giggling person, okay? So there you go. Right. Well, thanks very much for listening. Have a lovely evening.