Despite all of that, you write in your paper that you don't see reasoning as a flawed mechanism. So why is that after everything that we've said about it, why is it still not really considered a flawed mechanism your perspective? It's not because people have been thinking about it the wrong way about it, they've beenthinking about it as a tool for individual cognition. And if that was the function of reasoning, it would be terrible. It would be like the less adaptive mechanism that ever showed its face. If you want to convince someone, having a confirmation by us is exactly what you'd expect and what you'd want. You know, whenever you see something that is well adapted