Hey! It's C.S. Joseph with CSJoseph.life, doing yet another episode because it seems that all that I do with my life is constantly shoot Youtube or podcast lectures over and over. But hey, what is there to live for after all, right? Anyway, this is season 15 episode the third tool that could be utilized to determine one's temperament. Now, I will say: Take this tool with a grain of salt, because this tool is probably the hardest one of the three to understand. We first talked about abstract versus concrete, which is how you tell the difference between someone being a sensor or an intuitive temperament. What we talked about last night in this scary, eerie, dark lecture- because I was exiled by my children. If you notice, I'm doing this in my car and that's because I'm still exiled by my children. Because when my children visit, they take over my home completely and that's because I live in a very small, small apartment because the Bay Area, and I'm paying off debt instead of like putting myself into debt and having some big house. I could technically afford it, but like I'm not gonna do that, so I'm gonna be an intelligent fiscally responsible human being and pay off all my debt and I actually made a huge headway on that recently- thank God. And I'm getting closer and closer to paying off all my debt every day because I want to be debt free, so that no longer can I walk around to be like, "Wow that homeless guy over there is probably way better off fiscally than I am. You know what I mean? Don't really like having that experience. So, definitely not going to be doing that Now you know where my wallet was because I lost it and it's in here now, so okay. Found my wallet. Awesome!
2:00 - So, a little disclaimer- we've talked about about concrete versus abstract. We talked about affiliative versus pragmatic and today we're going to be talking about systematic versus motive or interest tonight. These can be pretty confusing with the temperaments because everyone's like, "I am pragmatic or or I am affiliative." Or I am well, let me say this: Everybody's everything. That's a fact- everybody is direct, everyone is informative. Everyone is responding. Everyone is initiating. Everyone is control. Everyone is movement. Everyone is pragmatic. Everyone is affiliative. Everyone is concrete. Everyone is abstract Everyone is systematic. Everyone is motive focused. What's the point then? Why do we even care if everyone is everything? We care because people, though they are everything, they are half of the everything more often than they are the other half. It's about primary versus secondary. That's the point. That is the importance. You want primary versus secondary with each of these tools. Some people are primarily direct, specifically the In-charge or structure interaction style and also the finishers or the see-it-through types. They're also direct. And the other half of them are informative, like the starter types where I am. I'm informative primarily, but I still have a direct INTJ shadow, also known as my unconscious. But my my shadow or my unconscious is out less often because I'm primarily in my ego. So, again, we're just focusing on what is primary. And I noticed one of my comments earlier was someone who claims to be an ISTJ. "But I'm very independent all the time. And I'm an ISTJ and I'm very pragmatic." Yeah. I could see the argument for that because the example that she was using was the example of "I'm doing classwork and I would rather do all my classwork by myself because I don't want these people to lower my grade." That's classic Te parent and that's kind of normal for an ISTJ to have that point of view. That is actually in a secondary situation because they're in their ESTP shadow or unconscious who is actually more pragmatic. So, it helped them deal with the fact that they need to be more independent because their Te parent is aware that these people would be potentially reducing their grade potentially. They'll want to be more independent, but that does not make them primarily pragmatic. That is not making ISTJ primarily pragmatic because let me tell you- ISTJs are the world's best accountants. They're the world's best lawyers. Because they know the rules. They know the process. They know about asking permission and what the rules are as a result of permission from an affiliative standpoint. This is why ISTJs are primarily affiliative. But they have an ESTP shadow or unconscious, which just happens to be pragmatic. So, it's not to say that an ISTJ can't be pragmatic. They can be pragmatic. It's just primarily, they are affiliative. So, that's the difference.
5:34 - You have to be aware of these primaries and secondaries when it comes to these different tools that you are using to identify somebody's interaction style or temperament. You have to do this in order to have some kind of mastery over the type grid so that you can use utilize the type grid to type someone accurately, with 100% accuracy. And then the more you master it, the more you get used to it, the more you understand how people interact with each other, how they communicate, organize their life, what roles they take on, etc. To the point where you could do it within 30 seconds of meeting somebody. So, you just have to be aware of these different things. You have to be aware of these different nuances, right? It's all about primary and secondary, like a Yin and Yang equilibrium. Everyone can do everything. It's just what they do primarily. And I know an ISTJ would often argue with me, "Well, I'm more pragmatic. I'm not affiliative." Actually, you are because of all the types, you have the highest respect for rules and authority to be honest. You are the more of the type that would ask permission rather than ask forgiveness, because you're not gonna put yourself at risk. Which means Si hero, you are affiliative. So, just be aware of that. Like I'm just using this ISTJ example because that's what somebody commented on last night's lecture about, which I staunchly and vehemently disagree with. The reason why is because people get confused between primary versus secondary roles. And remember- we're just focusing on primary because we're trying to identify someone's ego. Once we have identified their ego, we know all four sides of their mind from that point. We also know all their cognitive functions and we could get to understanding that person and optimizing our ability to communicate with that person to get the best possible result. That's why we do this. That's why we care about type, right? And this helps us in our relationships, our friendships, parenting children, our professional relationships, in the bedroom- there are unlimited applications. Wherever more than one human being interacts- oh wait, this also counts towards interacting with yourself. This is why this form of depth psychology is relevant. So, anyway, I think I beat that dead horse pretty well here. It's kind of nice to be filming in a car again. You know what I'm saying? You have to do what you got to do, right?
8:02 - Anyway, we're gonna be talking about how people focus their attention today. We're gonna be talking about being systematic and having systematic intent and focusing attention on systems, versus focusing your attention based on people's motives or their interests. So, we have SJs and NTs- they are systematic people. They utilize frameworks- it's all about systems. Whereas the other folks who are the SPs and the NFs are more focused on motivation. What interests this person or why why do they do what they do? That's just how it goes between the two different little tools to go between. So, people with their temperament primarily are either very systematic or they are very focused on motives or interest. So, it's how you're focusing your attention. So, again, this is according to the theory as put forward by. Dr. Linda Berens. She wrote the book series Understanding Yourself and Others. I recommend you buy the books in the series. They are very good- she uses different terminology than what David Kiersey has used or what the MBTI has used or whatever. Probably because she doesn't want to get sued, because people do that. But I'm not plagiarizing. This is not my own work. How we use interaction styles and and the temperaments is all according to Dr. Linda Berens. This is why I personally completely reject David Keirsey and want to get away from David Keirsey. I completely reject him and his interpretation of the temperaments and I largely reject the MBTI's everything. Because again, the MBTI is nothing more than a test. That's all it is. Nothing else. There is nothing more about MBTI other than the fact that it's just a test. And at best it could ballpark what your type is. It's not guaranteed to work every time, and in my opinion their relationship with the science has been waffley at best, very flimsy, very tinfoil, because they constantly change their content for the sake of making sales. And that change of content could actually get people further and further away from the truth, because they're just trying to sell more tests or trying to sell more certifications. It's a business, right? But that doesn't mean they are actually trying to stay as true to the science as they possibly can. So, again when you think about the MBTI you have to consider it for what it is- a test. That's all the MBTI is- there's nothing else about it. So, we we could practice Jungian analytical psychology or depth psychology, as people call it. And this is where we get Dr. Linda Berens. Thank God for Dr. Linda Berens for providing us with this information so we can learn about how to type ourselves and others by using the type grid and a type grid is a design that came as a result of understanding Dr. Linda Berens' interpretation of the temperaments versus the interaction styles. So, then we're able to actually understand how people work, where their temperaments come from, and what their interaction styles come from, and then a times tables. If we understand their interaction style and we understand the temperament, we instantly know what type they are with 100% accuracy. I know, the dead horse that I've just beaten the crap out of.
11:55 - So, back to focus. So, we have systematic and we have interest-based focus. So, let's talk about people who are very systematic. Now this is not to be confused with people who are control based and go at their own pace, who take their time, who kind of need a plan, and are trying to reduce chaos because that's how they get progress in their life. From a control standpoint, progress cannot come in the midst of chaos. They have to remove that chaos. They have to bring that organization. being systematic means you think in terms of systems, and there's always a kind of framework or a label or a model that you can attach another human being to. That's the point of it. It's about it's about putting people or focusing on or paying attention to what the order is or how it's organized. How is this sequenced? How does this put together? How how is it built together? How does it fit together? Where is the missing puzzle piece or where is the place in the puzzle that needs to have a piece added to it? That's the kind of focus that a systematic person has. It's important because they have to have some kind of way of doing things- like a methodology to be able to deal with life's problems. Systematic people are very methodical- it's all about methodology. They literally pay attention to methodologies and they develop methodologies to solve problems. This is how they solve problems constantly. It's all about methodologies and then they can come up with processes. And if they're a control type, they can implement those processes as plans. If they're a movement type, they could just follow that one process that one time, and then they'll throw it away and create another one later. So, you have NTs and SJs who think in terms of these systems- who pay attention to systems or try to develop systems. They try to put life or aspects of life into these various frameworks, or matrices. It could be rules, social norms, professional norms.
14:28 - Here's an example of a professional norm that is systematic. You always make sure you are dressed up properly for a job interview. So, if you notice something, if you look at someone who's getting a job interview- and this is all anecdotal evidence because I've hired people. I've also gone to job interviews with other people at the same time, where we had group interviews and whatnot. And I've experienced it personally and many other people I know have also seen this as well. Oh my gosh, my allergies are just bad right now. That's why I keep rolling down this window. So, job interviews. Here's an example of being systematic versus interest with your focus of attention. So, an SP and an NF shows up to a job interview, or an SJ and an NT show up for a job interview. What are they wearing? So, the SJ and the NT are looking sharp. They're there to make a really nice first impression. Statistically, a majority of the time they're really well dressed. They got the hair done. They're super professional, kind of overdressed. Maybe they're wearing a suit, but they’re dressed to impress. The NTs and SJs take that very seriously. However, statistically NFs and SPs don't always do that. I have seen NFs and SPs show up to job interviews in a Hawaiian shirt, wearing shorts, or just wearing a random button-up shirt that was not tucked in. Obviously, that doesn't always happen. There are plenty of SPs and NFs that have figured that out. But earlier in life if they've had less job interviews, they kind of don't understand the norm of getting a job and following this process that the systematic people figure out- "Hey, there's this framework and there is this process that you should do if you are going to get a job. That's culturally acceptable, because we're very systematic and we understand the systems of culture." Whereas an SP is like, "I don't care about the systems of culture. All I know is what I want to do or what I'm motivated to do here. And I'm motivated to Get a job right now. So, I'm going to do it now." Sometimes they recognize after failing to get a job a few times that they probably should dress up for that. "Okay. Now I'm motivated because it wasn't so easy for me to get a job. So, now I'm actually gonna dress really well for it." Whereas, it's more of a default method that is followed by the systematic types. I am that way. I am very systematic. I mean, I'm talking about Jungian analytical psychology, presenting a system or models and methodologies to you folks as my audience on a regular basis. This is what I do, right? So, you can see how I'm very system based, you know NTs and SJ's are very system based as a result That's not to say SPs and NFs are not. They have the ability to be system based. But it's secondary, not default. It's not primary. Again, when I say primary versus secondary, primary also means default. SPs and NFs do not default to follow these methodologies, particularly when getting a job or or just doing anything, because guess what? It could be different this time. Whereas with NTs and SJs, no, we have a method and we have an expectation. We understand what's at stake here. We're going to make it happen. And it's not going to be different this time. We're going to do it the same expected way that it should be. So, that's what it means to be systematic in that way.
18:45 - If things are not systematic like when you take someone who is systematic and there's like a clear lack of structure in a situation and there's a clear lack of process and rules, like total anarchy, they can't function as well. Now that's funny, because I know a lot of SJs who politically would actually be all for anarchy. Like ISTJs and ESTPs. They would be definitely all for Anarchy. They would they would appreciate that absolute libertarian approach and that's fine. But even then at the end of the day when you talk to them about it, they would recognize that we do need some loose structure here and there. And they would still agree that a structure would be good. Whereas an NF would probably argue for a commune. It's technically more anarchist to have just a bunch of little communes everywhere instead of just one grand commune. Tribal, right? Just to kind of give you a difference there. It's about outlines, rules, norms, methodologies, and models when it comes to a systematic person. And they care about the order of things. How are things organized? Very org chart. SJs and NTs could probably create an org chart for their family or their church or anything. People are here or people are there. There's always some kind of loose framework or loose method or loose process involved with what they pay attention to. Although there is a weakness to being systematic. You could be really focused on the details, and you can miss out on the purpose behind why people are doing things. The purpose behind people's behavior. It's kind of like looking at the forest but missing the trees. That can be a problem for systematic people, because sometimes people do not always apply to their methodologies. Sometimes people do not always apply to their systems. That could be an issue. That's why SPs oftentimes have to test the rules and the norms, because they're like, "I don't think I apply to that system." This is really prevalent in ESTPs and ISTPs, because they are like, "Okay, rules exist to be tested. I need to break this rule to see if this rule is worth having. I need to see what the consequence of my actions are to see if this rule is worth having." "Great. I've tested this rule. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have done that. I understand why this rule exists now." It's different. They're not systematic. Whereas systematic folks have a higher respect for the rules and the norms. But to NFs and SPs, the rules are kind of arbitrary. They can be really really arbitrary. But only primarily- they see that some rules are absolutely necessary, when it's up to their personal choice at the end of the day. But that's a secondary outlook. I'm talking about what's primary here, right? So, let's look over to the interest and motive people.
22:13 - Basically, it just comes down to what other people like and what interests other people. "What is their interest? What are they trying to get out of this right?" So, SPs and NFs to do this thing: they're constantly like, "Okay. What's in it for me? What's in it for this other person?" That's what they're focused on when having a conversation. They're not really focused on this framework or methodology, because every interaction with each human being or anything that happens could be new this time around. And because it's new this time around, we have to be aware of people having an agenda. I have my own agenda. So, because I know I have my agenda with what I want to do here or what experience I'm looking to receive, other people have that as well." That's not to say that SJs and NTs don't do this. They do tha- it's just a secondary function. It's not primary. It's not default to them. So, they're like "What's in it for you?" That problem is probably the best way that I could use to describe an interest focused person because they're trying to figure out what interests other people have in a given social situation. Or what person's interests or agenda is. If you talk to an SP, they're like, "Okay, what's the experience that this person's trying to get from me right now?" Or you talk to an NF and it could be that same thing. What's the experience they're trying to get from you? Or if you're an NFP, you could be like, "What do they want? Like, what's their angle here? What's their agenda?" And those are for the more interest-based of people.
24:01 - These people, they're most comfortable when intentions, motives, or people's interests are very clear. They want those things up front and clear, because they use that as a boundary to organize their life instead of using a methodology to organize their life or as a boundary. They use the interests of other people, because once they know what the interests of other people are, they know that they have a framework from which to work with based on someone else's interest instead of just living by a generally accepted framework or methodology, like the common methodology used to get a job. You dress very well. You have a resume. You have a cover letter. You have your references. You have your LinkedIn profile. Etc. That's the methodical, normal way of doing things from the systematic point of view. But an interest focused person is more like "Hey, here's what I want out of it. Here's what you want out of it. Okay. Now that I know what you're interested in, I can get it for you." And it's very transactional. Every interaction is on a case-by-case basis and it's very transactional. I know what that person is interested in in this situation, and I can get it for him. That might give me power or maybe we could do a trade. Or I know what I'm interested in and I could share that with this other person. Then maybe they're motivated to help me or maybe I'm motivated to help me. It's all about motivation with interest focused people, whereas with systematic focused people, methodology, rules, and norms are what motivates them to do things. Structure, frameworks, or matrices. Scaffolding with their interactions. Kind of like what my cousin would call "putting people in boxes." Because they're following rules and procedures. Human interaction is based on some kind of procedure. I don't know how many times an SJ has told me, "Well put together a proposal and let's see what you can do." And I don't want to put it together a proposal. I just want to actually tell you about it and give my elevator pitch, then see how you feel or think about it. No, but they want me to actually write them out in an official a proposal and give it to them. Stresses out my ESFP superego, but the other sides of my mind are like, "Yeah, I could do that." Then I do I put together a proposal and I can convince the SJ to give me money or to do whatever, because the proposal itself is what they need to be convinced. Whereas with an SP and NF, I have to state up front. "Yeah, I want your money. Yes, I'm trying to persuade you." And they want it out front, because then it sets expectations. It's all about level setting expectations with interest-based people, because your expectations are based on the interests of other human beings, not based on norms or accepted rules and situations. Now a lot of people would argue with me. "Well, I'm an NT. I'm not like SJs where I'm very accepted on norms." Actually, yes you are. Ever heard of the scientific method? NTs often espouse the scientific method, and guess what? That's a norm. That's a method. That's a model. It's just that your norms, methods, and models are manifesting differently than would for SJs. It's more strategy focused, whereas with SJs, it's just more commonly accepted common sense rules, norms and outlines. That's just how it is. It's different for them. But for interest-based people, it's even beyond that. Again, they still need to understand that people's interests are clear. It has to be clear. All the guesswork has to constantly be removed. Gosh, my nose is just itching like crazy. I guess this is like the nose itch show, you know what I mean?
28:11 - The way NFs approach interests is that they're trying to find the greater meaning or the deeper purpose behind what's happening. So, when they're looking at people's interests, they are like, "What's the meaning of this? What's the hidden meaning here? What's the purpose of this?" Because the point can be different. "What's the point of this rule or norm or methodology? What is the point of this person talking to me right now? What's their game? What are they not telling me?" "I just really need to know, and sometimes I'm even nefarious like that. I just need to know what they want so I can get it for them." So, there's no guessing anymore. Or "I just want to know what would make them feel better so that I could have a better relationship with them." It's those types of things. It's those types of considerations that are really important. It's not a bad thing. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're constantly questioning other people for their intentions or motives. Kind of like what an extraverted intuition Nemesis person would do, which are INTJs and INFJs. That's not what I'm saying. It's just that they need to understand the interests of people around them, especially those closest to them, so that they know how to interact with those people. They are idealists. So, they need to know, what other people's interests are so they could act ideally. "Okay. I know this person and I know what this person's interests are and I want to provide the ideal solution to this person." "But I can't provide them the ideal solution until I know what they're interested in." That's why it is very important that people do that. It's the same thing with SPs. It's like, "You're trying to get me to give you a good experience here. Maybe I'm building something for you. Maybe we're working on something together. Maybe I'm building your house and I'm doing it with my own hands. I need to know what it is you want me to build." Because they need to know what your interests are. "Oh, are you interested in having me build it this way? Are you interested in having two stories or three stories? Tell me what you want. Tell me the experience you're trying to receive here so I could build it for you. Tell me what your ideal situation is so I can bring you your ideal. That's what an idealist is trying to do. They're just trying to do it from four different directions because they are four different types. That's what it means to be interest focused. So, it's it's all about trying to find that deep purpose behind the behavior.
31:00 The problem, though, is that they don't really keep track of all the details. So, They have the purpose behind behaviors or interactions but they're not really paying attention to the details and some things can be lost in translation, which can lead to miscommunication. Where with a systematic person, it's like "I have all the details, but I've lost the deep purpose." And they get caught up in the details, and then, they don't even know what the purpose of the interaction is to begin with. Then all of a sudden, they're going off on tangents and it's like "Oh wait a minute, the actual issue is this. Why didn't you say it? And it's like, "But I did say so." But they just get caught up minutiae. Systematic people are focused on minutiae, whereas the interest-based people are focused on the purpose. What's the point? What is the point of us doing this? And then you can almost see them tapping their foot a little bit as they're waiting for you to get to the point. I'm sure SPs are like "Yeah, that's totally me. Get to the point!" "Speak man, speak. I don't have all day." So that's just another interesting point of view. For systematic people, it's about rules, norms, strategies, methodologies, minutiae. Whereas interest focused people are more focused on the deep purpose behind behaviors. Why people do what they do. What interests these people. They need those interests to be able to build a house or to create the ideal situation. Where a systematic person, in order for me to be organized or to help you organize, we need to have some kind of system. We need to have some kind of methodology. The scientific method is one of them. Or the tax code is another one for you STJs out there. The process to reach physical fitness- ESTJs care about that a lot. Or the procedure on how to care for somebody for those ESFJs who are nurses. These are just loose examples. Again, everyone does everything. NTs have other sides of their mind who are more interest focused. But those are secondary traits. It's primary versus secondary, guys. I'm trying to talk about what people do by default or what they do first and what they do primarily the majority of the time. And SJs and NTs are systematic, and SPs and NFs are Interest-focused. So, you’re systems-focused or interests-focused, right? And that's the difference between the two.
33:52 So, let's look at some examples. We're gonna type someone right now and let's say that I'm a woman and I'm interested in dating a man. I'm a woman and I came across An INTP and I happen to be an ENTJ woman. I've been very successful and we had this really good relationship or whatnot, but I'm losing interest in him and then all of a sudden, I'm gonna be going for his friend. You don't know what type this friend is, so you start interacting with them and you're like, "Wow, he's really informative. Just like my other friend that I was interested in, but not anymore. Just introducing me, because we're still friends to this other guy. And this other guy, yeah, he's informative, great. So, he's either a starter type or a behind the scenes or background type. Okay, so I keep talking to him. Oh, wow. He's moving really quick and he's darted through all these ideas. And I could definitely keep track with that. So, he's definitely movement oriented- awesome. So, he's a starter type. So, he's either an ESFJ, ESFP, ENTP, or ENFP. Then I talked to him more. Okay, he's very abstract. So, then he's definitely an ENTP or ENFP, but he's constant talking about systems and methodologies the process by which he changes oil on his car, or talking about this new program that he's been working on with certain people and he's telling me about the four pillars of self-intimacy for some reason. But again, that's a method and a system. Okay, so he's very systems focused. Well, that means he's an NT, ergo he is an ENTP. I'm super compatible with ENTPs, and that's definitely someone I want to be in a relationship with. I'm going to ask him out to coffee, and then they do, and then off to the races and it's a great relationship. Because you know coffee is that great apparently, but you get my point. Or you could do it backwards, like with an INTP. They're very systems focused. They're abstract, they're pragmatic. Very independent. So, all you have to do is utilize these different tool sets and compare and contrast each of the tools within the three different levels. Because we have at the top concrete and abstract, and then we have pragmatic versus affiliative, we have systematic versus interest, and once you have those three things, you can identify anybody's temperament using those three different tools. And then identifying their interaction styles- its direct versus informative, control versus movement, and initiating versus responding. You have those three tools as well, and to figure out their interaction style, all you have to do with the Type Grid is identify their interaction style and temperament, and then, like times tables, you instantly know which type they are. Bingo.
37:15 - Anyway, I'm actually going to be doing another lecture in the next episode of this lecture series. It may be the final one or it might not be the final one. I might add some bonus lectures to it. But it's going to be in front of a white board, where I'm going to be white boarding out the type grid and we're gonna be doing some examples and you're gonna see how all of this information fits together. So, we could literally type any type of person that we come into contact with using the type grid, and using all these tools and you'll see exactly where it fits and how the information flows from point to point on the grid. Just so that everyone understands. "Okay. Yeah, that's where direct fits. Yeah, that's where pragmatic fits. Yeah, that's where systematic fits." You know. So, you can understand where they belong and then use it for yourself when you do a couple loose examples and just see how it all fits together in general. That way, you could utilize these lectures for the definitions of each of these tools but then you can use the final lecture in this series as a general overview of how it all works. You can get the Type Grid at the home page of my website. I'm also going to have a new Type Grid redone and republished that includes all this updated additional information from Dr. Linda Berens so that you guys can utilize that as a free resource. Anyway, this lecture is a little bit longer because it's kind of difficult to explain the difference between systematic or interest focused people. So, I just wanted to spend a little bit more time with it and also being that I'm in a car,I wanted to like get it all out as much as possible and kind of beat some of the dead horses that we've been having. Added that little disclaimer because we were having a little bit of confusion. But I think the next overview lecture that I'll be doing to complete this lecture series, which will be episode 8, should be able to have all of the misunderstandings quelled. And everyone should understand how to use the Type Grid by the end of this lecture series. Awesome. So, if you found this lecture useful, helpful, educational, enlightening, insightful- and I'm sure I'm going to come up with a new adjective eventually- leave a like on this lecture and subscribe. Please subscribe to the channel here on YouTube and also on the podcast while you're at it. We're on iTunes, Spotify, and Google Play. If you haven't joined the discord, the link is in the description. If you haven't joined our meetup group yet and are in the Bay Area, California towards San Francisco or will be visiting it sometime soon, go ahead and join the meetup group as well. If you would like to join the meetup group and start up a CSJ related meetup group somewhere else in the country, join the meetup group and then contact me and we'll definitely have a conversation about what we can do to get that started. So, again, if you have any questions or concerns about what it is to be systematic or interest-based, please leave it in the comments section below and I'll do my best to answer your questions or concerns. Awesome. I think I'll have episode 8 out tomorrow. And then I begin my trip to Ohio and yeah, that'll be interesting. So, I will see you guys tomorrow. That being said, have a good night!