Base-level humans are usually guided by the thought that they are the center of the universe (much like how children think). Culture-level humans always need to be part of a group and are guided by the thought that the opposite group is often wrong. Next level humans understand that the common good is what matters and are constantly working for a healthy debate and a healthy integration.
In this episode, Dr. Jade makes the distinction between the concept of Base, Culture, and Next Level Humans. This concept can be applied to many areas of life, including politics, and it’s important to think about how our choices – and the people we vote for – are influenced by these three states. We shouldn't be avoiding talking about politics, and in this episode, you will learn why and how we should be celebrating the existence of more voices in our society today. Tune in!
Check out the Next Level Human sponsors!
Connect with Dr. Jade Teta
Podcast Intro: [00:14] welcome to the Next Level Human Podcast. As a human, you have a job to do. In fact, you have four jobs; to earn and manage money, to attain and maintain health and fitness, to build and sustain personal relationships, to find meaning and make a difference. None of these jobs are taught in school and that is what this podcast is designed to do. To educate us all on living our most fulfilled lives through the mastery of these four jobs. I'm your host, Dr. Jade Teta and I believe we are here living this life for three reasons and three reasons only; to learn, to teach and to love. In this podcast, I will be learning, teaching, and loving right along with you. I'm grateful to have your company; here is to our next level.
Episode Intro: [01:18] welcome to the show everyone. We have a new party in the United States, a new political party. And we are going to talk about this party, despite the fact that I don't yet know much about it. But I'm gonna share with you what I do know. And the reason for this podcast is very simple. A lot of people do not like politics but this is the next level human podcast, most of you who are listening to this particular podcast, have a desire to understand and learn how to be your best selves, and how to be in learn to contribute in a meaningful way to society. One of the things that we talk about when we talk about the next level human philosophy is this idea that there are three essential ways of being in the world. And of course, we humans are all three, there's the base level human, the culture level human, and the next level human. Now it's called The Next Level human, because it's not better than human, we are not better than a base level human. In fact, we all have base level tendencies culture level tendency is a next level. Tennessee's the whole idea is to grow and mature and spend more of our time in a next level human state. Now that is difficult to do if we do not know what that really entails. And so the way I have defined this work is to talk about this, and help people understand how to know if you're in a base level, state, a culture level, state, or next level state. So as we often do, I review these three different ways of being. And we'll do that first. So that then we can understand why politics is so important, and why it is, in my opinion, absolutely wrong to avoid talking about politics, and to not understand politics, as frustrating as politics is to all of us. So first, let's do that. Let's then let's talk about this new party. And I'll try to give you some of the things that I understand and some of the ways that I think we all should be looking at this. So first and foremost, a base level human, I like to equate with the childhood state. Now, this bothers people because we tend to think of children as beautiful and innocent and not base level. We don't like that idea. But the idea here is course children are beautiful and innocent and just learning. However, as a child, necessarily, you are the center of the universe. Think about it, it's you, and your parents and your family. And it's really all about getting your needs met as a child. It is a form of naive, extreme individualism. A child doesn't know that they're not the center of the universe. They're not conscious in that way yet his back it takes until about six years old that children really start to become fully conscious and aware that other people need to be considered. And certainly around the age of two years old or so we really start to understand how our actions impact other people.
[04:37] And this is done through these mirror neurons where if I'm a child, and I'm playing with Tonka Trucks with another child and I steal the other child's Tonka truck, and they get upset, then I could see them crying and the facial expression of this being distraught. That triggers my mirror neurons in my brain to allow me to feel what they are feeling empathy. And this is when I began to become conscious of my actions impacting them. And this happens throughout childhood. But most of the time, when we think about childhood, it's still that I am the center of the universe, life is about me. And there's this form of extreme individualism. Now we see this all the time in the world, don't we, where it's like, you know, screw you, it's all about me, I'm going to take care of me and mine, and you take care of you and yours, and I'm not going to contribute at all to you. This is this base level human idea. Now, we all have this inner so it's hard not to judge right, we have this sentence, we have the need for certainty and stability, we have our fears around, are we going to have enough money are we going to be able to take care of ourselves and our family. So this is normal stuff, we have to be very careful not to judge it, because it's part of our way of being, we have this base level idea and so base level humans are those who have a major driver of fear and a major need for safety, certainty, and stability, right. So this is what it's all about, to be a base level human. Me and Me alone, take care of me and mine, extreme individualism, and we talk about it in the form of political parties, right, this idea on the extreme right, where it's just, I'm going to cross my arms, you got to take responsibility for yourself, I'm not going to help you, you need to help yourself, the government shouldn't be responsible for helping anyone, everyone needs to help themselves, pick yourself up by your bootstraps. And then of course, on the extreme left, this extreme individualism of I'm wounded, I need to be kept safe. I don't want to hear anything that disagrees with me, I want to cancel people who, you know, don't agree with me. And that's a form of extreme individualism as well, that everything has to be safe for me and comfortable for me. So you can see that these base level extremes reside on either end, especially the extreme ends of the cultural spectrum. These are people coming at this from a very base level point of view. And it is on the extreme right and extreme left, because both of these types, despite what their philosophical, political leanings might be, are still all about themselves all about their personal needs. Everyone else be damned, right? Either bow to my wounds, or I don't care about your wounds, I only care about my wounds. That's what we're dealing with, in this base level way of dealing with politics and how our personal ways of being our personalities impact politics, this is the way I see it. So base level, individuals sort of dominate the extremes. And my way of looking at this now the culture level types, at this point, it moves into the more adolescent way of being right. When you move from a childhood child to adolescence, now you're starting to say, oh, it's not just about me, there are other people involved. And my need goes from certainty, stability and safety, to belonging, and status and popularity. And you know, the major drive here is acknowledgement, you know, so we want to be acknowledged, we want to be accepted. And we're craving, popularity, and status and belonging. And so as we move into the adolescent state, we move sort of away from the base level me, me, me, state to us, us, us state, and we form these teams. So now it's like, now I belong to a team. And part of the way we belong to a team is finding other teams out there to make as enemies. And this is a very dangerous place to be in my mind, the base level state is dangerous, but the culture level state is groupthink is incredibly dangerous, especially when you think about the history of humanity where groups of people, this idea that they can hurt and harm other groups of people by having this divisive dehumanizing language that they will discuss about other sides. And we see this in our political debates all the time. And it is absolutely destructive, in my mind, when a progressive liberal refers to, you know, Republicans and a conservative person as being bad or evil and vice versa. And we and you even see people making things up like this, right? Like just really nasty stuff as if everybody on one team is bad. And everybody on my team is good. And this influences our behavior and our biases. And we run into this confirmation bias where we believe so much that we are right that anyone who does not believe like our team is an enemy to be destroyed. And you're starting to see that when you operate from this culture level place, you create very nasty divisions. And so we do not want to be in this culture level state for long either now, one of the things we need to understand is that the base level state is important. We do need to take care of ourselves and the culture level state is important, we do need to attend to groups and the other. And this is where the next level human state comes in. Because if you get stuck in base level or culture level, what happens is you're either all about me or all about us. Well, the truth of the matter is, we must take care of ourselves and others simultaneously, everything we do, we must take care of us and others simultaneously, because we live in an ecosystem, not a hierarchy. And by that, I mean, the lion is not the king of the jungle because without the bees and the beavers, and things like that, the whole ecosystem falls apart.
[10:40] Now, next level human understands that they understand I must take responsibility for myself, so that I can help others, I must do both. It's not I'm going to take responsibility for myself, and I'm only going to help you if you take responsibility for yourself, like the base level human would be, or I'm going to take responsibility for myself, and everyone on my team, like the culture level human would do this is I'm going to take care of me and you simultaneously, and I'm not going to do things to help you that will hurt me, nor am I going to do things to help me that will hurt you. And this is how the next level human way of looking at this is. And so in a political sense, the next level human is not going to be looking at teams, it's not going to say I'm a Democrat, therefore, I'm only going to vote for Democrats, it's gonna go, I'm gonna vote for the good human, the human with good judgment, and the human with good politics, that helps us all broadly, even if I don't get exactly what I want, because it's for the common good. And this is what the next level human sort of looks at, it's gonna look at this as I don't want to hurt me and my family, and I don't want to hurt other people. And when you're looking at it, that way, you often realize you can't get everything that you want, because it might hurt other people. And you can't give other people everything they want, because it might hurt you. And so there's this consensus that goes on. And this is why politics is so important, because if we're doing it right, we're doing politics, right, then your voice and my voice and the debate that occurs and the more voices, the better. And the bait that occurs gets us to a better place, hopefully, for all of us. Now, the problem in politics is when our politics is a base level politic or a culture level politic, which I would say in the United States, it's a very culture level politic, that creates divisiveness and dehumanization of the other group. Now, most of the people are not these extreme, right and left base level types, most of them are in the middle. And what consensus and broadly agree when you actually sit down and talk with people, even though they might disagree on some of the fringe sort of subjects. And what we do, if we're base level or culture level humans, we pick out the one thing that is most important to us, and we vote on that. And then we make anyone who disagrees with that one thing, evil. Meanwhile, there are 100, other things that we may agree on, that we could get done for society. And that's what a next level human will be thinking about. And so in a sense, when we have a culture level politic, necessarily by the nature of a culture level, politic, people act from their culture level state, and this becomes destructive. And we have seen this again and again. And so what we would need, in my opinion, is absolutely a more broad based next level human politic.
[13:35] Now, what would that look like? Well, first of all, there would be more voices, this dichotomy of left and right, I'm good, you're bad, or I'm bad, you're good at cetera, is exactly what we do not want for a next level human state. It just furthers the culture level, human state of us, versus them, and you can't get anything done when you come at it from that point of view. So from my perspective, anytime you look out there in the world and see a politician who refuses to bend simply to defend their team, you're dealing with an extreme culture level thing. And anytime you see a human who supports a politician, who will not bend simply to beat the other side, you are dealing with this nasty culture level state. Now, I think many of us are frustrated with this. Now the first thing we have to do those we have to look within ourselves and say, am I being culture level is the way I approach politics, culture level or base level. And right away, you'll know if you're a Democrat and you're just angry at any Republican or vice versa, then you're operating from a culture level state. There are many Democrats and Republicans, I would argue most who broadly agree on the things that the government needs to do to help everybody and the debate in the places where we disagree is absolutely necessary and beautiful because we get better ideas. And when you think about this, conservatives are very important because what most conservative mindsets do is they say this has been working, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And progressives are very important because what progressives say is just because something has worked before, doesn't mean it can't work better, and we should improve upon it. And so ultimately, the Conservatives are very important because they solidify what works and don't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. But if it weren't for the progressive side, we would never move forward as a society, and we'd be stuck in some imaginary other place not growing. And so we need both. We need the progressive saying we can do better here. And we need the Conservatives saying yes, but things are pretty good here. And then we work together to get better and better. So from my perspective, this is how we need to look at politics. And why is politics so important? Because we will look at personal philosophies. That's all fine for ourselves the moral standard for ourselves, whether we live a fair, just life, but once you have other people involved, this becomes more complicated. And so we think about an honor code and a personal philosophy. Well, politics is just an honor code and a public philosophy. It's essentially philosophy and a code of conduct and honor that extends out to the entire culture. And if we're going to do that we have to understand and a next level human will understand that we are all uniquely different. And one of the core principles is, every human should be free to explore their humaneness and their purpose potential, so long as their purpose potential isn't manipulative or hurting anybody else. And so this is how you manage this take care of me and take care of you simultaneously, instead of just either take care of me base level, or take care of us. And not you, not them culture level, we need to do both. Now this forward party, let's talk about this for a minute. We just talked about this idea that one of the big issues is that we have this dichotomy, this culture level dichotomy of just two groups, wouldn't it be better and more next level if we had more parties. Now, here's the party line. And this is a very culture level thing. And by the party line, I mean, on both sides, don't vote for a nother third party candidate, because you're going to rob boats from these candidates. And we have to unpack the seats, stories, everybody says this, again, and again, again, then they get upset when they don't like their two choices, and all the nastiness and finagle Ling, and gerrymandering and all the things that both sides do and both sides do them, the quintessential sign you're operating from a culture level standpoint, is if you think only one side does. And so what happens is, you want your team to get ahead, so you give them more power or approach that and you know, or dismiss some of their nasty behavior and immoral behavior on both sides. And then when the other side does it, you point the finger and go, look how horrible they are. Meanwhile, you've completely missed that your side is doing the same exact thing. And in my mind, this is what is going on, you have these two sides, these two snakes that are two sides of a different coin. Now it's okay to believe one side is more problematic than the other during this particular moment in time. But what you don't realize is that if you're voting for and acting this way, that at one point in time, your team might become the divisive, dehumanizing disgusting one and do horrible things. This is why you cannot act from this culture level state. This is why this two party system in my mind is problematic. Now, does this mean that you automatically vote for the forward party to third party? No, it's not saying that it's just essentially saying that one of the things that a next level human would want is more voices they would vote against or be taking a stand against this culture level dualistic us against them political extreme, this is problematic. This is what a next level human if we're operating from a next level human self would be fighting against. And we'd also be looking at the stories that are culture level stories, the idea that don't vote for a third party because you're wasting your vote or you're pulling away from one of these other areas is a problematic story. Because what it's saying is just accept the culture level way it is and the nastiness that has occurred and the fact that we don't get anything done in politics anymore.
[23:52] The more voices we have, the more debate we have with left and right, center and all the rest, the more we can potentially have good ideas that get done. So from my perspective, it would be amazing if we had six, seven different parties all having the debate instead of having these two parties. And this is where a lot of people get triggered. And it's just fine. That's why we're having the discussion here because a lot of people are just adamant about this. But ask yourself, Are you adamant about it because this is just what you've heard. And this is the common phrase or not? I can tell you for me, I think that is a very dangerous way of looking at it. Don't vote for third party because you're going to pull votes away from these two other parties that are really not doing us any good. This is the way I see it. And I'm sharing these thoughts with you because I do not believe that our political system represents the next level human world that all of us in this conversation right now would want. The next level human world says all voices matter. Of course not all voices are equal. Some are good to have better solutions and others, some are going to be kind or some are going to be more virtuous. And we definitely should elevate those voices. And the ones that are dumber, or not as smart or, you know, divisive and dehumanizing, those things need to be pushed to the side, but we won't know that they're there until we have the larger debate. And so we need more people in the system. Now, here's how I look at the forward party, we'll go through a couple of things here. And, of course, I haven't looked completely at their platform. But even before third party would come out, here's how I look at politics is the platform, something that by its nature, protects against the party becoming like the existing two parties just entrenched and beholden to special interests and all of that, what you want as a party who has first principles that protect it from that. So for example, one of the things the forward party advocates for is ranked choice voting. Now to me, this is one of the ideas that I think you need to have, from the standpoint of it checks and balances against all parties, including any third party a wrench of choice vote, let's go through this really quickly. My understanding of this is that right now we have a system, a plurality system, my understanding, which basically means you vote for a or you vote for B, and we have this then electoral college system, that from my understanding, and again, this is not my field of expertise. So anyone listening to this, who says, I have it wrong, please DM me, or send an email and explain to me a better way to think about it. But here's how I my research on this is there is I understand this, our founding fathers did not want to marginalize individuals who were not as big a part of the population but still needed to be protected. For example, let's say you have a group of Quakers up in Pennsylvania somewhere who are need to be protected need to have their religious religions protected need to have a voice in government, but they are vastly outnumbered by everyone else. So if you were just going to have a popular vote in the standard way, these people would constantly have their needs not being met. And so my understanding is that our founding fathers wanted to try to account for that. So they had this electoral college system. Now from what I've read and understand this was the best they could do with the technology at the time, we did not have the ability to be able to count votes in the way that we could now we can count the majority votes directly. Now, we can account for different groups of people. Now, we could if we wanted to have a true, you know, sort of voting system that did account for everyone else. And rank choice voting is one of the things that is put out as a means to do that now. So we have our system in the United States, which is sort of this popular vote based on each you know, sort of region or state, which then goes to the Electoral College, which then essentially gives points, which then determines the election. Now in Europe, in some places, like in France, for example, they have a different system that sort of resembles more of a playoff system, you have a group of people run against each other, then you see who the top two candidates are, then you have another run off. The only problem is when you do that kind of stuff, there's multiple voting, and so not everyone shows up for the second time. Now in rank choice voting, what happens is you have the five candidates or so that are running for president. And you get to rank your choice. So maybe my choice would be, you know, Andrew Yang, from the for Ward party. Number one, maybe yours would be, you know, you know, someone like Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump or Biden or whoever. But whoever you do is you rank who you want, I want him first, her second, him third, her fourth, and this person fifth, and you rank first choice all the way down to last choice. Now, what this does, then is, in order for someone to win, they have to have a majority of the vote. So they have to win 50% of the vote, or more. Now, what will end up happening here is if they don't get 50%, and the more parties you have, they probably will not then the last person who was the fifth, they get knocked away all their first votes go to their second vote, and those second votes become first votes for the people left. And so this is this then repeated, no one has to vote twice. Everyone votes once but you have the ranking there. And this is repeated until someone ends up having the majority of voting. This is how I understand how this works. Now, this is a next level human way of thinking about it from my perspective. Because what this forces people to do is to broadly speak to more Americans, instead of being on the extremes and just talking to their constituents and trying to get just their team riled up and get more of their team out than the other team. What they're essentially doing is saying, I'm going to talk to this group of people. And I'm also going to talk to this group of people. In other words, I want to appeal to the largest group of people. And what this immediately does is start taking away this culture level way of being just in the way it's done. It forces people to speak more broadly to all people that is a next level way of doing things. So one of the things it does is it will begin to make the candidates less extreme and more broadly acceptable to more people. This is a very powerful way of looking at this and this then, rather than having this partisan divide, it gets more and more and more vicious over time, this rank votes joining or ranked vote choices or choices, or what is it ranked choice voting, this style of doing things ranked choice voting would be a solution that actually causes the opposite, that over time, our government will be having more people elected who are more in the moderate, willing to listen to other sides, more broadly acceptable. And all of a sudden, rather than having this thing where government gets nothing done slowly, but surely, we're having more people in government more leaders who are more next level in their mindset. In other words, not just thinking about their team, but thinking about team human. And so when I look at policies, as we move forward with new technologies, we should be looking at is does this particular platform that people are advocating forum for make us more base level more culture level or more next level in our politic? Well, ranked choice voting makes us more next level in our politics simply by design. And it doesn't matter how good or bad the candidates are, because this rank choice voting will always give the most broadly acceptable individuals. So we never have to choose between a Hillary Clinton who we may or may not like and a Donald Trump, who we may or may not like we may not, we're not going to be sitting in this situation where we're like, I don't want to vote for either one of these people. But I got to vote for someone because of this ridiculous idea that people say you're wasting your vote. Now imagine if we go all the way back to Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader and these third parties, and instead of people going, Oh, that was a wasted vote. They just said no, I'm so fed up with this two party culture level system. And I'm going to vote third party by now we might have had a third party, a fourth party and a fifth party. So what I would say is the next level human doesn't go, what is happening today. It goes what can I do? How can I stand for what I believe in so that my children 30 years down the line have third and fourth parties? In other words, if you keep going the way you're going and keep believing the stories that you believe and keep voting for this two party system, you're going to get what you voted for. We are responsible for this divisive, dehumanizing, politic. So funny how we blame the politicians, when we are the ones who vote for this system and contribute to the system.
[33:24] One of the things I love about Thoreau, the row who when he wrote civil disobedience, his book, he basically said, when you have a political situation that you don't believe in, the thing is to stop contributing to it. In fact, he stopped paying his taxes to protest slavery, subject subjugation of women and mostly the American Indian wars at the time, and he did jail time for that. Now imagine if everybody all the next level humans aspiring next level, humans just simply said, I will not contribute to the system anymore. I am going to contribute in a different way. Now, will that make a difference tomorrow in the next election? Perhaps not. Perhaps it will, though. Right? But it will the next election and the next election it will change and people listen to the stories we tell if we say don't do that you're wasting a vote. People listen to that, and they start to believe it. That's a very culture level mantra. It is not true. Think about that. Okay, you wasted your vote. Did you really you just voted for a system you don't believe in and you've been complaining about. So when you vote for one of the two parties, and you don't like the way the government is behaving? Realize that by you voting and contributing to that process. You created that process. This is an Extreme Ownership. Next Level Humans always do this. They go my only job I can't control what all of you do. But I can control my own honor, honor, integrity, and virtuousness. And I can contribute or not contribute to the things I believe or don't believe in. So But the idea here is you do not contribute to things you don't believe in, it's not a wasted vote, you don't vote for something that you don't believe in when you believe that you vote for a or b, and they're the only two choices for you, and you think you have to vote, you could vote, you could write yourself in or write someone else in vote, your consciousness vote your next level, human way of being so that the world will change later. This is what I think we need to consider. So whether or not you believe in what the forward party is about, and I'm going to be looking at this and perhaps doing more on the forward party, what you do want to be looking at as these third parties come in, which I think we all should be supporting. Because we all pretty much do not except for the extremes on the left and the right do not like the way our political system is serving us or others. So we need something different. And the only way to get something different is to stop contributing to the culture level politics of today. And this is something that I want you to then consider. And so I will be taking a very close look at the forward party right away. I like the idea of rank choice voting because to me, it solves one of the big issues that we're that we've had over the last 3040 years of more divisiveness more dehumanization, more polarization in our government. And this one policy starts to reverse that. The other thing that I also like about the forward part of that I know is this idea of human based capitalism. That is sounds a lot like the next level human philosophy, doesn't it? One of the things this state is that right now, when the government makes this decision about spending money, it looks at GDP, looks at gross domestic product, how much are we generating? How much money are we making? How many? How much products are we generating? It does not look at how much turmoil how much work? How much effort were is going into that? And how happy are the people producing these goods? So human based capitalism says, we don't want to just look at GDP and money, we want to look at what are the principles? And what are the situations that these people are working in? Are people happy with their work? Are they feeling fulfilled with their work? Or their working conditions? Good? Are our people getting healthier and happier as a result of the work they put in? Or are they becoming less happy, less, less upward mobility, less fulfillment, working harder for the same amount of money. And so then what happens is the government begins to just based on this, again, this is a philosophy a first principle. So a party says our first principle is going to be not just to look at, you know, market and how much money is being generated, but also to look at how that money is being generated. And what is the cost to actual human lives and happiness that are generating this money and making decisions from that point of view, at from the human perspective, rather than just how much money we are generating. This is a another thing, that if that's where you're leading from, that's the philosophical place that you're leading from you can you see how that begins to change the way government is done, and just one fail swoop similar to rank choice voting. And so to me, this is what we want to be thinking about political discussions, if we are next level humans, we realize that we have to take care of ourselves, full responsibility for ourselves and others, the way we take care of ourselves is our own personal philosophy and honor code, the way we take care of others is through looking at the political arena, and asking what that political party stands for what's their honor code and philosophy. And so that's how you want to be looking at this when you look at the forward party.
[38:49] the final thing I'll say about the forward party is they are coming at this from a place from what I understand, of allowing their candidates to have varying views. In other words, they want in their party to have people who debate and who talk about and who try to come up with the best ideas and don't all have to agree and get in lockstep. This is a another thing that allows this particular party not to become so polarized and entrenched a another first principle that wouldn't we wish that we could have on the other side, what has happened now is that you're not a Republican, if you don't vote with all Republicans, even if you don't believe it's the right thing and same with the Democrats. This party is essentially saying people should basically be able to vote how they want as candidates and there should be vigorous debate, not disagreement, but debate about what is right and what's wrong, and that the leaders of this particular party should be able to have flexibility in their beliefs, instead of having always to run lockstep with the party. And to me, this is another good sign. These are just three areas that I've looked at this seem like next level human principles to me. So I'm going to be looking deeply at the forward party, I certainly will not be voting again, for Democrats and Republicans. And the reason why is I believe wholeheartedly that by myself doing that I am contributing to the political system that I think is broken. So this idea that you don't vote, you're going to waste your vote, I will be voting, I simply will not be voting for the current system. And if you vote in my opinion, for the Republican or the Democrat, you're voting for the current system, make no doubt about it. If you think one is better than the other, from my perspective, you're coming at this from a very cultural level state. They both are have turned into nothing but opposition for each other in my personal opinion. Now, this doesn't mean you need to agree with me. But obviously, it's something I've thought very, very deeply about. And from my perspective, next level, humans take care of themselves and others. And the other part means we have to pay close attention to politics, and we have to pay close attention to the way politics has their first principles and what policies they're putting forward that will either continue this divisive, dehumanizing culture level politic we have in this country, or begin to break it apart. Thanks so much for hanging out on the podcast today. Hit me up with DMS. Let me know what you thought about this episode. Send a message to support at jadeteta.com. I'd love to get your feedback, especially if you're someone who is very into politics understands it much better than I do. I would love to hear your take on whether you think this third party fourth party is a good idea or a bad idea. And let's have a discussion. Thank you so much, everybody, and I will see you at the next episode.