Feb 5, 2014 – Unusual things tend to amuse me. One example would be the manner in which humans cling to their positions and how they approach a debate.
Maybe ‘amuse’ isn’t the right word, ‘fascinate’ might be more appropriate.
I am fascinated by how intractable people can become on a subject. The individuals I enjoy discussions with are those that are willing to consider that there are more sides than their own. Intellectualism isn’t thinking that you know better than the other person. Intellectualism is thinking. Intellectualism is rationalizing, exercising the brain, reasoning, and developing lines of thought. Unfortunately there are those that equate intellectualism with a lack of feeling or a coldness, but that’s not true. Intellectualism is using impartiality to explore ideas and not becoming intractable mired in a position.
I struggle with my students all the time in this area. Even though I teach in a biology based subject area, I find myself repeatedly reminding students that higher education brings with it an ethical responsibility to explore all the arguments equally and judiciously. It means attempting to refrain from bias in presenting information, unless the goal itself is to employ bias to sway favour. But science isn’t supposed to work that way, and when it does, it is questionable science. Rational people make irrational claims/judgements when emotion and bias get in the way.
Bias distorts reason. Prejudice on a position closes the mind to other possibilities. Allowing emotions to enter a debate introduces bias and prejudice and changes a debate into an argument. Emotion also tends to lead to snipes and swipes. This is why so many people, when confronted with a logical alternative position, presented rationally and without malice, respond by attacking character.
There are so many instances of this in BC that crop up in any number of different opinions between advocates of (choose your cause) and those who don’t fully agree.
Individual #1 makes a strong statement against (insert whatever cause here).
Individual #2 makes a valid statement that presents an alternative viewpoint in a formal manner and without insult.
Individual #1 responds to the alternative viewpoint by calling some aspect of Individual #2. into question (political affiliation, former employment affiliation, nationality, gender, whatever…)
See how that went?
“I think…”
“I disagree because….”
“You’re an idiot and don’t know anything because you worked for ….. years ago and therefore are a sympathizer and are probably getting some sort of kickback.” (Or something along those lines)
Yeah, that’s a good solid discussion. Nice and healthy. And people wonder why ENGO’s get all the press and why scientists and most other rational people choose to not engage them. There is little point in taking up a discussion with an individual or an entity that falls back on character assassination as soon as they lose some ground in their argument or have a small hole poked in it.
The ‘If you are not with me, then you are against me’ personality. it’s like religion. Wait, that IS religion!!
“Whoever is not with me is against me…” (Jesus in Matthew 12:30 – according to Wikipedia 😉 )
Once you’ve made up you mind on a subject, you place emphasis, increased weight or value, on the arguments that support your position, and you will discount or discredit the information that goes against it.
Oh, if the world were only that simple, that black & white. But then again, how boring.
When people are faced with subject matter that they feel passionately about, and when the information is contrary to what they feel to be true, most people fail to fully consider it. Instead, they tend to violently reject and denounce it. And then, as time goes on, they hang on even tighter because the alternative of having invested so much energy into something they were potentially wrong about, presents a situation that may involve embarrassment.
Humans hate to admit to any fault of any kind, and the potential of flawed thinking, is about the worst thing to consider for most people.
Better to attempt to assassinate character instead. Dodge and deflect.
Something pulled off a blog I follow, a quote by Carl Sagan. “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)”
The ethical onus on anyone reporting science is the same (to me) of that of a journalist. Information should be presented in a truthful, accurate, objective (!!!), impartial, fair manner, with public accountability. However, information is rarely presented without some bias and selectivity these days. Information should not be provided solely to achieve some goal, to sway thinking, to meet an agenda, not unless there is a disclaimer indicating that this is the intent.
Call me a dreamer.
I think information used to be presented more transparently in the past than it is today. Or maybe Mary Schmich was right. “You, too, will get old. And when you do, you’ll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.”
But something has changed.
Suddenly so much information is available to all on the internet but, unfortunately, the masses haven’t been taught how to filter information well. We trust sources we shouldn’t, and those we should trust may trust sources they shouldn’t, so it becomes a bit of a snowball effect.
There are many ways that bias creeps into our conversations. You may say that you are just reporting the facts, but there can be bias in your choice of which facts you report. A topic can be presented in a balanced manner, but there can be bias in which information is reported, and which is buried or ignored.
Face it, everyone is biased, and that has an impact even on the best intentioned, most professional people. The truth is that we are all vulnerable to distorted decision-making biases that lead to less than rational thinking.
Confirmation bias is the tendency people have to accept information if it supports what they believe and to reject information if it contradicts those same beliefs. Why? Because people give more weight to information that supports their existing beliefs and are more likely to look for such information. By the same token, confirmation bias means that people tend to give less weight to information that challenges their existing knowledge and are less likely to look for it. If they do encounter information that presents an alternative, they are inclined to explain it away or attempt to discredit it.
It’s not always on purpose though. Rather, it is natural and common – it’s not the same as someone deliberately selecting or shaping facts to support their beliefs or an argument that they are making. Sometimes you don’t even know you are feeling bias. Such bias is a challenge for scientists as it can lead them to accept too readily data that supports their hypotheses and to discount data that doesn’t fit these hypotheses. A very good scientist I know once said to a lab-mate of mine during his defence “Believe what you see, don’t see what you believe.” Seeing what one believes to be true undermines the validity and reliability of the results.
There are many types of cognitive bias. Wikipedia lists more than I care to explore right now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
But someone pored those over and pulled out a list of twelve that I enjoyed reading. The 12 cognitive biases that keep you from being rational. I’m sure we can all find ourselves in there somewhere, at least once.
Where the media is concerned, you don’t need to be a genius to recognize that two stories on the same topic can be completely different while both are factually accurate.
Meet the Spin-Doctor.
Suddenly we are holding up non-academics as content experts. We trust pseudoscientists over lifelong academic researchers. We continue to trust those who once were involved closely in research topics, but haven’t been for years. We trust crackpot pseudo-therapists who have taken courses over several weekends before we trust licensed psychologists/psychiatrists/therapists. We trust actors and models over medical professionals. We fail to consider that there are agendas at work.
In a discussion she had with someone I know and respect…and believe…, a well known activist privately said that she agreed with every one of his arguments, but that when she walked back into the discussion she would never admit to that. I personally spent an hour on the phone with her and came to the same conclusion, it really didn’t matter what anyone said, the evidence could be irrefutable, and she would dispute it and would resort to alternative tactics, seemingly merely on principle.
I had an interesting discussion with a woman I’d never met before, at the garden centre on the weekend. Because I had been discussing plants using Latin names, she assumed I was something I wasn’t, a Master Gardener. I said no, I was just a fish biologist but comfortable with Latin names for some uncommon plants that don’t have common names. She immediately brought up fish farms and asked what I thought of the industry being granted opportunities for expansion. When I said I approved she was surprised and we had a fabulous discussion. But when she asked me why more scientists don’t present the real facts and argue the pseudo-science, all I could offer was, “What’s the point of getting into a debate with a person like that? ‘I’m right, you’re wrong, end of story.’ When the rebuttal involves character attack, there is little point to pursuing an intellectual conversation, because that’s not what you are getting.” It’s like the argument skit that Monty Python does:
An argument isn’t just contradiction.
Well! it CAN be!
No it can’t!
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn’t!
Yes it is! ’tisn’t just contradiction.
Have our brains really turned off? Has our ability to think and reason really changed that much in such a short time?
Someone thinks so, and it’s an interesting thesis. Is Google making us stupid?
As Charles Darwin said, “It is not the strongest of species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
154 comments
That’s not right.
And why not?
Because.
Because why?
Because that’s not right.
Shut up and listen to me!!!
Aanndddd scene. One more rehearsal, then we take this on the road!
Sigh….
My all time favourite: Don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up!”
I really enjoy your blogs, Miss Paige! This might be my favourite 🙂
I’d say thank you but I can’t see body language to tell if you are being sarcastic or not 😉
They are the seeds of her next career!
Zero sarcasm, complete sincerity. I’d swear on a bible for the irony, but….
LOL, yes that would be in the realm of irony. 🙂
Double post glitch.
Shouldn’t that be “disdain”?
Yup, thanks for the QC! I wrote the post a few days ago, apparently late and without clear eyes. Thanks for the proof edit 😉
I thought she was typing with a Welsh accent.
Distain, datstain, need some cleanin’s.
All cleaned up now 🙂
Love Monty Python!
SQUIRREL!!!
EXACTLY my point!
LOL Bill!
I wish I could remember where I read it, but there is a psychology to why we can’t accept arguments against something we strongly believe in. It’s not as simple as embarrassment. Ugh…stupid older brain! It was very interesting.
We have an investment in what we think, and that leads to strong cognitive biases. We humans don’t like to think an investment in thinking was wasted so sometimes we will cling to ideas and fight for them at all costs.
Look under “Pride”, “Ego”, “Embarrassment”.
Ignore that my picture may be posted there too!
There is that, but it had something to do with how we evolved. I really wish I could remember it!!
Bill….you seem to have your picture in there fairly often. 🙂
Hmmm, well when you find it, pass it on! I’ve read some good pieces on reasoning for clinging to religious beliefs, and it comes down to investment and fear of repercussions and perceived benefits outweighing believed costs. There is no cost to belief, but there can be a cost to disbelief if the believers turn out to be right.
But I sort of feel that I’ve read something along the lines of what you are referring to as well…
Whoever finds it first must share!
But Paige; are you not confusing academic forums and social forums? Academic discussions can still fall of the rails (Suzuki comes to mind) but tend to have egg heads (sorry; no insult intended) whereas social discussions are just conversations that lead where they may! May I present exhibit #1: Bill Hughes!
Oh oh….he’s hijacking your wall Paige! 🙂
I’ll let George have the floor… 😉
I hope you’ve noticed though Marne; I have kept my promise! 😎
That’s not going to happen, he unfriended me 😛
Marne, Bill always hijacks my threads. And if he doesn’t, then Hans or Randy will take the floor 🙂
And please, Suzuki once was an academic, but he hasn’t been for a very long time. He represents his own agenda and hasn’t been a scientist for many, many years.
My point exactly.
I’m surprised Hans or Randy haven’t stepped in. They must be napping.
Which point would that be Bill? I seem to have responded to three 😉
I was napping…
This is where I have to insult or redirect! 🙂
I like to think I hijack Paige’s threads into interesting directions…… Hey look, a pterodactyl.
Feel free to insult, I promise I won’t unfriend you O:)
Gasp! Implying my posts are uninteresting Hans? I’m wounded!
implying? Who me?
Hmmmm…I have to go with Hans here. I find pterodactyl’s *very* interesting. 🙂
and did you know that pterodactyls were disenfranchised by evolution (an maybe an asteroid)
All of you are insufferable brats!
yet you suffer us gladly.
Marne is an enabler!
It’s true…you could unfriend us all. 🙂
It’s true….. I’m a masochist.
tmi
And Paige is the ultimate troll!
We all already knew that Paige. 🙂
And yet I won’t… I love abusive relationships apparently 😉
now she’s co-dependant
in before the lock
It was all Kirks Hammers that gave her that tingly feeling!
50 shades of debate?
LOL! I love how this discussion has devolved. 🙂
wait, what were we talking about….. oh yeah, pterodactyls.
And it started out as a serious discussion.
Usually the way things go with this crowd….
We are proving indirectly but first handedly Paige’s original postulation as well of course; mine!
True Bill, but don’t we have to descend into name calling now?
http://gallery.zzq.org/d/70468-1/Offtopic.jpg
Or character assassination?
all the Q’s up against the wall
Well Marne; you’re obviously the princess in Frozen!
Ummmm…which one?
LOL! Hans, I LOVE that image!
She lives in an ice palace. I liked the show but I’m not 12: I’m short on details but I did like her! 🙂
not sure Thunder Bay is an “Ice Palace”
Literary licence!
Au contraire! Thunder Bay most certainly IS an ice palace!
Check it out! All photos taken in Marne’s backyard!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/freedom-to-move/sets/72157623464077549/
If I can go off topic a moment: if you haven’t seen “Frozen”; you must! The grandkids hauled me kicking & screaming to it and I loved it! You have a head & heart of stone if you don’t! Animation these days is ridiculously incredible!!!
Hey! We’re supposed to be picking on Paige! I don’t want to play any more.
Did you miss the line where I said I loved her?!?
I always thought that Thunder Bay was more like an Ice Double Wide.
However…admittedly the ice that day really was beautiful.
Awww Bill, I didn’t know you felt that way about me…I’m touched.
Oh, damn, you weren’t referring to me, were you!
And Hans…I said I didn’t want to play any more. 😉
You give happy endings to millions. Who wouldn’t love you?!?
Oooooh, I’m not touching that one….. I know what happy endings are….and no, I reserve them for one person only 😉
Oh no….don’t go there! This thread has gone off the rails as it is.
Thank you for FINALLY sticking up for me “bestie”
I do my best. 🙂
the favourite meal of Pterodactyls was Squirrel.
And there you go…we have come full circle thanks to Hans. 🙂
I have no evidence of this, and you can’t change my mind.
I’m sure you could find something on Google to support your belief Hans.
Sorry, vacating for the new episode of Big Bang Theory!
Sheesh…it’s already been on twice here.
And bedtime for me, so I look forward to seeing where this thread goes in my and Paige’s absence.
No point arguing with someone who has made up her mind already.
Ahhh, but my mind is always ready to be engaged by a solid, well reasoned, and rational debate. I don’t duck and run from a good discussion, but I will end a disagreement that fails to respect the initial topic. I won’t resort to nastiness or derail a dialogue to prove a point that wasn’t a component of the initial conversation. And I won’t unfriend someone because I get my nose out of joint over a difference of opinions.
I repeat:
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion” [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]
Interesting that you came back to look after leaving so abruptly.
Actually, I was going to apologize for unfriending you then saw this post, and was appalled that you would put it up. I came back just now, and was prompted by your post about me to reply.
While you think you have the high ground about derailing the thread, perhaps you might reread the post you yourself made about people whining about how bad they have it here.
I appreciate that you have it pretty good, and you don’t feel threatened by your own government, and good for you. However, you are not paying attention to the evidence if you think that all Canadians are as lucky as you. You chose to shut down the conversation, thereby showing your unwillingness to listen to an opposing view. I have to say I was disappointed in your choice, as I was disappointed in my actions unfriending you.
I apologize for highjacking your thread. I thought I was having a debate with someone who cared about opposing viewpoints. Perhaps I was wrong. I hope not.
You were not opposing the view, you took the thread into a direction that disrespected the original intent. The viewpoints you chose to make had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Again you have put many words into my “mouth” without really knowing anything about my views on where you took the thread. I chose to end what was rapidly degenerating into an attack on everything from aquaculture to social choices, and none of that had anything to do with the topic. It took away from the original intent and misdirected it elsewhere. You reacted, I merely requested an end to a discussion that was deteriorating beyond any purpose.
Randy, did you just wake up from your nap?
Randy has been eating popcorn.
So unlike him, really.
I was out most of the evening, so I missed the shenanigans. Soooo, I’ll just weigh in with this. I’ve never known you to shy away from a debate just because someone doesn’t agree with you. You know some very smart people, and I think you relish the challenge they present when they don’t agree. And I don’t think you’d be capable of your job without the most important attribute of a scientist. The desire to be proven wrong for greater knowledge. Science is the polar opposite of religion. It GAINS from being challenged. To prove a scientific truth wrong requires replacement with a greater truth. You love it!
That is all.
Yeah… I NEVER eat popcorn and only watch the show 🙂
Awww, shucks Randy, you give me too much credit.
But you are right about one thing, I love it when someone provides a stay-on-topic debate that makes me sit back on my heels and say “Huh, I never thought of that!” I enjoy when someone points out something (relevant) that I hadn’t considered adequately. Similarly I love it when a student turns in a paper that completely goes against my own position on a topic, but it is so well rationalized and backed that I can’t help but give an excellent mark, even though I completely disagree.
If there is one thing I learned from all those years in university, it’s how little I really know and how much I still need to think about.
But before you rescind your compliment, I’ll say goodnight and call it an evening.
One problem with trying to present a cohesive argument is trying to defend against a fractured irrelevant rebuttal. Hand waving, chicken littling, and character assassination are the hallmarks of a closed mind. They are, however, very popular and effective methods in grabbing public attention.
…so now we’re on to politics?!?
Paige, you described most of my family…dare to have any kind of opposing thought on any topic and let the nastiness begin. Sad, really, these are intelligent people with myopic, competitive viewpoints on the world. It still puzzles me why they think being entrenched, and being the loudest voice in the room is considered to be a position of power. If only they knew.
Paige, I opposed your view that people here have 1st world problems and are whining if they complain about their treatment.
The original post, which I can’t find anymore, was about freedom of speech. As you brought up the first world whiners, I merely pointed out that we do not exactly have freedom of speech, and it is worth fighting for.
George, your first post in that original discussion immediately deflected from the tragedy of the struggle for freedoms in other countries and suggested that we have equal problems here in North America, that being racially profiled by an individual in a position of power somehow compared. I disagreed. Then you did a great deal more than “merely point out that we do not exactly have freedom of speech…” After deflecting away from what I view as a truly serious human rights issue, you then proceeded to drag the conversation to everything from government politics to an attack on aquaculture and even made thinly veiled personal criticisms including what amounted to questioning my scientific ethics. And not that it had anything to do with the original topic, but you made a comment on “citizen science” and implied that no publicly available excellent research has been done on the impacts of fish farms, thereby negating the reams and reams of data collected, analysed, and published, by respected scientists around the world; governmental and non. You railed against toxins, attacked government, and generally went off in a direction that had no relevance to the issue of corporal retaliation against youths trying to be youths in another country.
I pointed out that you had lost sight of the meaning of the post, indicated that where you were taking things wasn’t constructive, and asked you to leave it alone because you had effectively ended the original debate when you lost sight of the topic and that I felt that action had done a disservice to those whose struggle was depicted in the original post. I posted something I felt strongly about, you trivialized it by comparing a justice system that punishes any expression of freedom to racial bigotry of individuals within a different society.
You can’t find the original post because when I tried to bring to a close that which was degenerating into an increasingly off topic thread and asked you to “Just leave it alone because you’ve lost sight of the topic completely”, your response was to storm out of the digital room and slam the door.
The original post, and all of the resulting off-topic discussion, is still there, visible to FB friends, as it always was, but when you chose to unfriend me, you made the decision to end a connection, including restricting access to your own past posts, on any topic that I hadn’t made fully public. You came into my space and attacked, you made it personal, and then you left when I didn’t play along and agree with your opinions on off-topic (or on-topic) things; I never threw you out for any of that. From my perspective, your response to what (I thought) was a reasonable request to end the now deflected thread was to un-friend me; the digital version of getting unreasonably angry and abruptly terminating a relationship rather than accepting that two positions have reached an impasse and leaving it at that. I respected your opinions even if I didn’t agree with them. Your actions disrespected mine.
I accept your apology on the hijack, but where you had taken things was no longer a debate.
You should see her swing a fish club, George! 🙂
Always willing to continue stirring the pot, aren’t you Bill!
I trust you take it as the compliment intended. You ALWAYS present fair and detailed argument. I’m terribly biased though as I virtually always agree with what you present on this social media platform
I should add; I’m a light weight: no degree’s, jack of all trades, master of none. All I have to contribute is fluff! True story (as if no one has figured THAT one out!)
Oh Bill, “fluff” you are not!
You meant “light weight” 😉
Stop it, you fly, I don’t
Walt Disney was right: Dumbo really can fly! 😀
You are awful towards yourself! Now who can’t take a compliment!
I’m sorry you feel that way. I guess when I saw you posting about how people here are whining about their first world problems I felt the need to defend some of those people.
I personally see people treated like second class citizens because of their perceived social status, and it is wrong.
The stifling of free speech in this country is not a minor issue. When people have CSIS knocking on their door on behalf of an oil company, there is something wrong. Maybe that doesn’t compare to flogging, but then again, the individuals in your post weren’t flogged either. Their sentence was suspended. Intimidating. Hell yes. But so is the threat of losing your job for speaking out.
You brought up my aquaculture comment, so I’ll address that. I really appreciate that you have seen the science that allows you to make an informed decision about the safety of fish farms. I also appreciate that most people wouldn’t understand the science. But when a study gets published showing a potential problem, then that needs to be discussed openly. And yet, on the surface, it appears that the government has silenced the author under threat of dismissal. Flogging? No. Intimidating? Hell yes. Does it have the appearance of impartiality? Not even close.
Oh. One other comment you made caught me by surprise. You said the majority of voters chose this government. That’s not true. The majority of voters split their votes on the other parties. Unfortunately, our system of government has flaws, and we either have to live with those flaws, or figure out how to change things for the better. Unfortunately, voter apathy doesn’t lead to positive change.
George, here are my original words, which you can no longer see because you broke the relationship by unfriending me for simply asking you to stop going off on unrelated tangents.
“I can’t help but be embarrassed when North Americans complain about social injustices. These kids were arrested for simply being happy and enjoying dancing. We have such freedom of expression that others can only dream about.”
I understand that you have very strong opinions on many topics and don’t seem able to let things stop at agreeing to disagree. But from that original statement you went on the attack and leapt from racial profiling to aquaculture, to insulting me personally. And you are still doing it. Whether or not I agree with you on anything from unions to fish farming has nothing to do with the original topic and is still disrespecting the discussion.
I would suggest, George, that you are confusing Freedom of Speech with Condition of Employment. I can’t expect to go off message at my place of employment and stay employed. Does it suck, yes, is it an infringement of free speech, no. I can choose to take the risk and speak out, but I had better be prepared for the consequences. Free speech in Canada is protected, but it is not absolute, never has been. The fact that you have been able to say all you have said so far, with no repercussions of other than being asked to stay on the original topic, is a higher level of freedom that 3/4’s of the worlds population have currently. Should we be outraged about the lady getting a visit by the cops… maybe, but then we remember the Squamish 5. In her case, she was invited into the compound by the oil company to take her pictures after it was determined that she posed no physical threat.
99….
and 100.
So who is the employer for Environment Canada, Fisheries or even the NEB? Is it Harper? The Conservatives? Or are those people working for all Canadians? If it is the latter, then we should be questioning why these people are being silenced.
There is a difference between industry and government. In industry, the rule seems to be that discoveries belong to the employer. Fair enough. That’s a condition of employment that works. Because the government is supposed to work for the people, then they should be open about their discoveries absent any national security issues.
I’m simply contending that the threat of the loss of ones job, or the loss of freedom of movement is intimidation, and not something our government should be doing.
A clear violation of the first rule of Facebook.
a simple offside, or was it elbowing?
Yeah…it’s a major. Butt-ending 🙂
And still missing the point…..or, just choosing to ignore it and keep an unproductive and unrelated argument alive.
Ok, mea culpa, I did “help” in pthat regard in pthis pthread. Should have just stuck to pterodactyls.
Yes, but you made a very salient point Hans.
I pthought so, ptoo!
http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/full/pterodactyl-spelling-fail-1346660.jpeg
It’s frigery, I tell you! Heinous frigery most foul….
Friggin’ frig frig.
OK, back off, this thread is public…no profanity allowed please!
fixed it.
Thank you! 😉 But what’s up with the Bing translation?
I’m not sure frigery is a synonym…
Dunno, it’s actually a nice day.
Bing says it means “my hovercraft is full of eels”.
Edit please Randy. You are violating your own rule….
Sorry, apparently you have to hit enter to make the changy thing work 🙂
LOL! Yes, and thank you. 😉
Hans, I think I still get points for heinous frigery…
God loves you Randy.
It would appear that my own FB wall no longer belongs to me, save for the attention to cleaning up profanity.
just another cross thread post.
and I shall leave it here.
And Paige, you are….?
Hans, for now?
Randy, just a little mushroom
The answer you seek was posted on my wall….
No fish involved, sadly….
Oh! Sorry, you post so profusely that I was distracted 😉
55555
Randy, you warm my heart…555