So, okay, so perhaps this will be my last question then because I'm also getting mindful of your time. So earlier you mentioned something very interesting when I asked you about technology and feminist principles. You commented a little bit on science as an institution, how it's practiced. So with diversity in mind, do you think then that in the practice of science, the diversity we should have in mind mostly would be cognitive and cultural diversity? Because I mean, I've spoken to people like cultural psychologists, for example, and they talk about how people are different in terms of their cognition, in terms of their perception, for example, holistic versus analytic thinking, just to give a quick example. So is that one or at least one of the kinds of diversity that you think would be important to have in science that is cognitive and cultural diversity?

Well, absolutely, absolutely. Because if you start off with a premise where I start, that cognition permeates everything that you are, so defines your individuality, that defines your identity, right? Then it's going to define it not only at the very basic levels of basic cognition, as I mentioned, which is what sets me aside from representationalism, but also your ways of thinking, right, which would be the cognitive-sized aspect I think that you are referring to. So that is extremely relevant. So whether you're going to be more talented, more natural, more inclination to something, some kinds of ways of thinking, it's quite important to have cognitive diversity. Of course, it is then extremely important to have cultural diversity because of this other aspect that I mentioned before, which is the problems that are going to come up as problems that scream out for solutions, they are dependent on a culture, right? So then you want to have a lab that is representative of a society, right? Such that the problems that would come up within different cultures as special and important to solve within different cultures have a voice, right? So they are not in a void, just all of us pretending that there is a dominant narrative that will suit them all. So it is, of course, extremely important to have cognitive and cultural diversity within our labs and developing our science, developing our philosophy. And then it's also very important to have diversity in our classrooms. Because one thing that I noticed as I interacted with my students and then I talk about this with my staff colleagues in the department is that female students tend to be less confident. So they approach you with less confidence, they tend to graduate in less members because they lack this kind of confidence that, for example, their counterparts, men in classrooms tend to speak up way more, raise their hands way more. So then we need to think about what are the strategies that we need to implement in our classrooms in the university in order to stimulate and overcome those confidence problems. Now imagine that you have stuff that in the department that is majority male, that is majority men, that has been part of the problem is that once you ask a child to draw a scientist, it would be likely that the child would draw a man or philosopher, same thing. So representative also in classrooms, it's also really important. So representative in labs, philosophy, and classrooms are quite relevant. The other thing that is also really important, so it does not stop there because otherwise you would be gatekeeping. It does not stop there. There's another dimension that is important to mention, which is that in doing this research and putting these ideas out there, et cetera, there's another dimension which is science communication. The scientific world needs to stop gatekeeping. It needs to speak to the society. So what do I mean by that? At the end of the day, scientists and philosophers need to ask if the work is having any societal impact. Because if at the end of the day you're just writing papers, polishing papers, and patting yourself on the back that you did a great job, but nobody but it doesn't change anything in the society, it doesn't have societal impact, then it's going to be really slow. So it is important that we do these kinds of things that we are doing here, podcasts, science communication, that we break down the science or the philosophy and make it avail all of these thinking and thoughts available to the society everywhere. This is extremely important. And another thing is to have an open science kind of concept, make all the data available to everyone to have access to as opposed to gatekeeping. So it's important that when we write grants and we do the research that we always have in mind these societal impact, how can these research and these public funds benefit the society as soon as possible? So that's the other side of it, I think. Great.