Sex

Sex is a word of convenience that conflates many different concepts into one word. What we need is to define precise terms that are harder to argue about - as vague language makes everyone fight with each other. "Sex" can be divided into several, separate ideas:

• Chromosomal sex (e.g. "I have XY chromosomes")
• Gonadal sex (physical sex) (e.g. "I have testes")
• Self-identification (e.g. "I am a man")
• Sexual orientation (e.g. "I am attracted to women")
• Sexual intercourse (e.g. "I want to do sexy things with women")

To discuss sex, "male" and "female" need to be defined as well; here, we define "female" as the sex that generates the egg, and "male" as the sex that generates the sperm.

Chromosomal sex: This is sex according to genetics. The sex chromosomes of most mammals is XX (female) and XY (male), as defined by the above (for birds, it is ZZ (male) and ZY (female) - so if we had decided that same-pair sex chromosomes = female, then we would have to call hens male and roosters female). Roughly 99.8% of humans are either XX or XY, but many other combinations exist as well, often with varying levels of disability. In some disorders, XX or XY sex chromosomes may not result in the expected phenotype as well. Chromosomal sex is, of course, fixed.

Physical (Gonadal) sex: This is sex according to natural physical features; in adults, the differences are functional, i.e. to enable sexual reproduction (see below). In (most) mammals' case, gonadal inspection would suffice; for animals without visible sexual organs, other physical features can be used for differentiation. As mentioned above, occasionally chromosomal and gonadal sex can be different. The Guevedoces of the Dominican Republic are an interesting example of chromosomally male (XY) children who are physically female as children, but who sprout penises and become physically (and functionally) male after puberty. (Many animals, such as some fish, are able to actually change their physical sex to change their sex, and potentially become both mothers and fathers.)

Sexual self-identification (Gender): This is sex according to one's view of oneself, influenced by society. Not limited by biology (the two aspects above), self-identification need not be limited to human phenotypes only - for example, one could identify as the emperor of the world, or as a unicorn, or as a dog, and expect to be treated as such. (In ancient India there were some ascetics who lived and identified as animals such as cows or dogs.) Perhaps a more spiritual way of looking at this aspect could be to call it the "sex of the soul" - but we don't know if souls have sexes.

Sexual orientation: This refers to the target of one's sexual attraction (see below). Generally, humans are attracted toward other humans, sometimes only specifically (e.g. "redhead or brunette women of a certain size and shape"). Also not limited by biology, sexual orientation is also not limited to human phenotypes - not only could one be attracted to men and/or women, but also dogs, horses, trees, grapefruits, and so forth. Similarly, animals sometimes are reported to seemingly be sexually attracted to humans (from dolphins to horses to ostriches - this can be a frightening experience), but of course we cannot know for sure as we cannot reliably communicate with such animals.

Sexual intercourse: This refers to those sexual acts of pleasure and reproduction that biology (generally) gives us a powerful desire to engage in. These acts are related to one's sexual organs and targeted at one's sexual orientation(s) (see above). This desire often powerfully controls us (and other animals), whether at any time (e.g. humans, cats) or only during certain periods (e.g. estrus or musth) when many animals seem to "go nuts." Many religions and philosophies pointed out desire as something that needed to be controlled in order to exceed the lower animal state and rise to a higher level. Some animals have apparently no sexual desire (asexuality).

Thus, as per the above, we have 5 separate "sex" ideas. Although many combinations are possible, the most common combinations are:

• "Men:" Chromosomally male, gonadally male, identify as male, are attracted to females, and desire to have male-female sexual intercourse.
• "Women:" Chromosomally female, gonadally female, identify as female, are attracted to males, and desire to have female-male sexual intercourse.

Although "sex" is not binary, we can say that human sex is "mostly" binary. Binary sexual systems are most common in the animal kingdom, probably due to simple function. Even one-celled ciliates seem to have a binary sex of some sort - which we call E (even) and O (odd), since we cannot reconcile them to our own ideas of male and female.

What does this all mean?

Considering "sex" via clearer and more differentiated terms can be useful in considering different issues.

• In athletics, physical sex is the issue that affects results. (Chromosomal sex is influential only in as how it exhibits physically; self-identification (gender), and sexual orientation have no physical effect at all.) If, despite doing what felt like the right thing results in clearly unfair results - it is time to rethink what the right thing is.
• In corporations, physical sex or sexual orientation should of course not be a factor in hiring or evaluations. On the other hand, corporations were never fair systems in the first place, with bias being the top factor in making staff decisions. For example, it's well known that male CEOs tend to be tall, muscular, and have deep voices. The obvious way to get rid of discrimination in staff decisions is to create systems where aspects discriminated against become invisible.
• Sex is not a virtue. Chromosomal and gonadal sex are just aspects of our physical bodies that we should accept. Self-identity (gender) is a kind of "me" belief of how we want to consider ourselves that is highly influenced by groupthink; this is something that we should observe but not let go out of control. Sexual orientation and sexual intercourse is related to one of animals' most basal desires, which, again, we should observe and understand, but not allow to control or lead our lives. As humans, we have the ability to reason, which is our nature; while we still retain the impulsive nature of animals as well, losing our reason to let our desires run wild is not ideal or something to praise.

Anti-Intelligence: 4 Components of General Intelligence

Intelligence is the single defining trait of humans that sets us apart from other animals; it is thus that while humans can accept low measurements of physical attributes like strength or speed, they find it difficult to accept low evaluations of intelligence, e.g. via IQ tests.

Luckily, now people count many types of intelligence - some have created lists of 8, 12, or more types - ranging from logical intelligence to emotional intelligence to musical intelligence to visual intelligence or even sexual intelligence; hopefully we all can be scored highly in at least one type.

However, when measuring general intelligence, it is important to consider not only the additive intelligence traits, but also the subtractive anti-intelligence traits. The ancient Greeks noted that humans have the unique trait of logical reasoning (logos), but also retained the emotional, impulsive, desire-based aspects of animals (thymos) as well - the idea being that we struggle in between these aspects, but as humans we should orient ourselves toward our human nature, not our animal nature.

So what are the additive intelligence traits?

• The first is pure intelligence - logic, reason; we can call its measurement "IQ," the Greeks called it "logos."
• The second is sensory sensitivity - qualities like empathy, tactile sensitivity, a good eye or a good ear, etc. - we can call its measurements "Sensory Quotient" or "SQ." While not the ability to reason per se, it is an information source that is key in order to understand related concepts, etc. Most "intelligence types" found in lists popular today can be found here: such as EQ or visual intelligence or spatial intelligence or lingual intelligence. EQ is particularly important if only because emotions are so ubiquitous in life.

The additive intelligence traits are your "base" intelligence potential at any given time. You can also work at increasing these (it is easier to increase a specific SQ trait than the general IQ trait). Unfortunately, most of us are plagued by subtractive anti-intelligence traits that "turn off" our intelligence in many situations, stimying our potentials. These traits are ultimately facets of what the Greeks called "thymos" - the animal traits.

So what are the subtractive anti-intelligence traits?

• The first is groupthink susceptibility (in-group signalling) - from our tribal, pack-like animal heritages, we have various levels of susceptibility to groupthink; in other words, we have a tendency to "give up" our reasoning ability and simply follow the pack's rules, slogans, and ideologies. This is how an accomplished doctor or physicist can also be a raving racist or suicidal zealot or card-carrying Nazi - the result is that the IQ is used only selectively, while it is turned off when the groupthink susceptibility takes over. We can call the trait to resist this "Groupthink Independence Quotient" or "GQ."
• The second is self-bias (unconscious self-deception) - this is the tendency to favor decisions that benefit the self over others; basically, this is control by desire, another main "thymos" trait. This is how an accomplished engineer or architect could also be entirely convinced that his beautiful secretary is the best choice to hire, or that of course he should be the one allotted the biggest pool of bonus money this year. It is why people treat you differently based on your role and possible positive benefit to them. Since humans have both reasoning and desire, what happens is that desire takes over the decisions, while reasoning works to make excuses to justify those decisions - after the fact. The counter to self-bias is morality and ethics - the ability to understand the virtue of doing what is good for all, not just good for oneself. We can call the trait to resist self-bias "Virtue Quotient" or "VQ."

So, overall we now have 4 traits: the additive intelligence traits of IQ and SQ, and the traits of resisting subtractive anti-intelligence being GQ and VQ. Another way to think of these are that we have 2 "yang" traits and 2 "yin" traits. The yang traits are visible and obvious, while the yin traits are invisible and unseen - yet their effects are clear. We can also think of the yin traits as wisdom traits - matching the idea that while intelligence aids the adding of knowledge, wisdom is the paring down of the dross in order to allow the wisdom to emerge.

Overall, this gives us generally 4 domains of general intelligence, as follows:

Intelligence (action/yang): IQ (Intelligence Quotient), SQ (Sense Quotient)
Wisdom (non-action/yin): GQ (Groupthought Independence Quotient), VQ (Virtue Quotient)

• IQ is a general measure of how quickly and deeply your mind works; it is generally difficult to change. Basically, this is potential.
• SQ is a general measure of various senses that you have acquired; it includes aspects such as EQ, etc. Basically, this is sense organs. As there are numerous senses (including combinations), each should be gauged separately (EQ - emotions, MQ - music, AQ - art, LQ - language, NQ - nature, etc.); there is no "total" SQ. (One can be well-rounded by working at least one for each sense category though, e.g. visual, audial, tactile, olfactory, )
• GQ is a general measure of how resistant you are to group susceptibility, i.e. the unconscious absorption of the groupthink and then belief in groupthink as if it is your own thinking. Basically, this prevents "hacking" of the mind via the group bias. People with low GQ are susceptible to groupthink and conformity, tend to be loyal and patriotic, cannot distinguish their own beliefs and their group's beliefs, and will join idiot mobs.
• VQ is a general measure of ethical foundation, basically wisdom and compassion and understanding and being able to explain wisdom and compassion consistently; it is also a general measure of how resistance you are to self bias, i.e. the unconscious replacing of logic with self-benefit in decisions and thought. This prevents "hacking" of the mind via the self bias. People with low VQ are selfish and Machiavellian, do not understand morality and cannot consistently describe it. Their minds are focused on themselves, and cannot encompass others within it.

Examples of high and low scores of each are as follows:

• High IQ: good at math and logic, quick thinkers and learners, high curiosity, many interests.
• Low IQ: struggle at math and logic, slow thinkers and learners, low curiosity, few interests.
• High SQ: keen senses for certain specific skills (perfect pitch, empathic, etc.)
• Low SQ: dull senses for certain specific skills (tone-deaf, daft at reading emotions, etc.)
• High GQ: independent and not really identifying with a group; ideas are own and not adopted from an identity group
• Low GQ: strong group identity, ideas parrotted from group subconsciously due to inner desire to identify, speaks in slogans
• High VQ: decisions and beliefs not linked to own desires, ethical beliefs and interpretation consistent
• Low VQ: decisions and beliefs from desires, beliefs are interpreted loosely to justify desires

Loyalty

Loyalty is an oft-touted "virtue," but is it really a virtue?

Loyalty means the blind following or favoring of an individual or group, irrespective of their actions being right or wrong. Loyalty is related to other vices like nepotism and cronyism, yet unlike these concepts, it is often given a positive connotation - why? The reason is that loyalty is an extremely useful trait to the rulers, who depend on it to exercise unlimited power, and who thus support it.

Loyalty is what enabled the Nazis and others famous for genocide and other atrocities. Loyalty is the fuel that enables lunatics to achieve their horrendous goals - that they could not achieve by themselves. Loyalty is often paired with totalitarianism, which uses fear and punishment to further strengthen loyalty (including weeding out those who ask too many questions or don't follow orders). Education and the media is used to foster group idiocy (slave mind), too, encouraging slave-like loyalty to the masters.

If loyalty is a virtue, we need to be loyal not to fallible individuals or groups, but rather to universal ethics:

• Don't kill
• Don't rape
• Don't steal
• Don't lie

These are of course 4 "red flags" stemming from the "mother" virtue of compassion.

If humankind is loyal to these universal ethics, then they will not be willing pawns to a crazy, sociopathic leader who calls for war or genocide. Leaders are fallible, just like anybody else. As human beings, we have the capability to know right from wrong, and have the responsibility to be loyal to that.

This is the right kind of loyalty that is in fact a virtue, along with faithfulness to one's partner (which is often confused with "loyalty").

Universal Ethics

The various religions and philosophies have vastly different moralities; from Christianity to Buddhism, Islam to Daoism, capitalism to socialism, Zionism to libertanianism, few share the same definitions of these complex (and changing) terms, and thus debates are usually unfruitful and meaningless, yet most of the time we focus on futilely fighting with each other.

Generally, ethics can be compared both quantitatively and qualitatively.

• Quantitatively: How many people are benefited by the morality?
• Qualitatively: In what way are they benefited?

So the quantitative part means, for this religion or philosophy, to whom are we do be kind to?
And the qualitative part means, for this religion or philosophy, how do we act in order to be kind?

And the quantitative part is simple to compare - as it is just a type of magnitude. In the quantitative sense, "more" is "better."
The qualitative part is more complex to compare, but regarding the qualitative part, generally we find that there are certain rules that appear to be universal or near-universal - our universal ethics.

A short list is:

1. Don't kill
2. Don't rape
3. Don't steal
4. Don't lie

This is thus a short list to "test" your ethics and morality - if, for example, you are killing somebody in the name of your religion, philosophy, or other -ism, you are using it to justify your committing those heinous acts.

Of the above, the 4 universal crimes are, of course, not of equal weight.

1. Killing is the worst, because it is permanent (a killed person can never be revived and is gone forever).
2. Raping is the 2nd worst, because it is sometimes permanent (can result in the birth of new life, as well as lifelong trauma).
3. Stealing is the 2nd least, because it is sometimes reversible (stolen goods can often be returned by the thief).
4. Lying is the least, because it is reversible (lies can be corrected, by the liar or even others with evidence).

In other words:
Life > Love > Value > Truth

But all of these virtues (the reverse of the crimes above) all stem from one "mother" virtue: compassion - the core attribute that we need to live harmoniously with others. Conversely, the "mother" detect is selfishness, from which apathy towards the harming of others is born.

The above list of four is simple to learn and simple to follow. Simply do not do those things. Use the list as a simple "evil test."

If evil is being committed, analyze it using the Evil Triangle.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence was popularized by author Daniel Goleman in 1995 as a counter to the then-popular IQ test for measuring general intelligence. Goleman argued that emotional intelligence was even more important than IQ for success in professional life, and those with low IQ scores were of course overjoyed to be vindicated. Today, corporations continue this same message, but if EI is more important than IQ in professional life, that perhaps is more a problematic symptom of corporate systems where politics and favor are more important than intelligence and skills.

Nevertheless, EI is an important skill to have in such environments. Unlike IQ, which is a score designed to assess general intelligence, EI is a specific subset of skills relating to emotions, which can be improved with practice (unlike IQ, which is difficult to increase). In Goleman's model, emotional intelligence involves the following skills (paraphrased):

• Self-awareness - observing one's own emotions
• Self-control - controlling one's own emotions
• Empathy - observing others' emotions
• Social skill - controlling others' emotions

The above model is reasonable and complete; however, Goleman also adds a fifth skill: Confidence - which is redundant and unnecessary, as this is part of self-control for many of us, and a character trait for a few of us. (Actually, Goleman himself removed the fifth skill in his current EI model, too.) It is also important to remember that, like IQ, EI is an ability measurement and not related to personality; both high IQs and high EIs can be used for good or for evil.

With the complete 4-Part Model, we balance two axes: self and others, and observation and control. (The observation aspects can be thought of as sense organs.) This model focuses on these aspects only, removing character traits, which should be studied separately. Thus, EI survey questions that relate to personality (e.g. enthusiasm about goals - which is related to temperament, not EI) are removed as well.

So, the burning question remains - what is my emotional intelligence score?

Use the levels below and click the button at bottom to calculate your EI score. (This is a self-evaluation, so try to be humble and objective with your answers.) Like IQs, this score is normalized to have average scores of 90-110, with higher and lower scores indicating various levels of superiority and inferiority. In addition, separate scores are given for the 4 different skills as well, so that test takers can then resolve to make individual improvements on skills found to be weaker. (Right-click the generated graph to save as an image for reference.)

I can explain my actions in detail

I can explain my strengths and weaknesses in detail

I can accurately describe my emotions as I feel them

I can accurately predict what I will do in what situations

I know how to stay calm in difficult situations

I know how to manage frustration or misery into positive actions

I know how to avoid losing my temper

I get carried away and do things on a whim

People have told me that I am a good listener

I easily sympathize with others' plights

I can easily read others' emotions

I am sensitive to the feeling of a group's atmosphere

I am good at organizing groups

I am comfortable talking to any type of person

I can predict how others will react in a situation

I am good at somehow smoothing out emotions when conflict appears

My EQ is:

Your browser does not support canvases.

Group Idiocy

Group Idiocy is the phenomenon where people unconsciously yet voluntarily forgo their own independence of thinking and reasoning, in order to submit to and join with others; often this leads to the phenomenon of idiot mobs, the control of which are in turn are fundamental to politics (group power) and organized religion (political religion).

This idea was first described by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor who staunchly and bravely opposed the German Nazi regime, paying for his heroic acts with his life when he was hanged in a concentration camp, just 2 weeks before its liberation. Bonhoeffer simply called the condition Dummheit ("stupidity"), but here I rename it to distinguish from other forms of stupidity.

The "stupidity" referred to here is a state where reason is voluntarily given up to be replaced by groupthink. (In philosophical terms, specifically, practical reasoning ("what to do?") is discarded, while speculative reasoning ("how to do it or explain it?") is retained - the latter of which is generally activated to imagine justifications for the actions decided by the groupthink).

It is a form of stupidity unrelated to IQ or other types of intrinsic intelligence; many seemingly "intelligent" folks are group idiots - e.g. doctors, engineers, etc. who nevertheless were willing Nazis, cultists, or the like. It is thus important to distinguish group idiocy stupidity from low-IQ stupidity, as they are independent traits that should be observed separately.

Group idiocy can also be called slave mind, as such minds are effectively "switched off" for matters decided by the groupthink. People with higher extroversion and stronger group identity are higher in group susceptibility, a key risk factor for group idiocy. Conversely, those who are low in group susceptibility are more likely to have independent mind, with minds still active, objective, and independent - not (voluntarily) enslaved to some group. This form of intelligence is arguably the most important of all, far more important than IQ, EQ, or the like, in that it has a major role in preventing mass atrocities; the greater the ratio of independent minds in a population, the less chance that idiot mobs will form to wreak atrocities. (The ability to resist this anti-intelligence factor is GQ.)

The difference between slave mind and independent mind is stark and easy to see: an example is the 9-year old who points out contradictions to the adult who identifies with a religious organization - the 9-year old's mind is still undeveloped, yet his mind is already "active," curious to know why and how, while the older adult, despite having a more developed mind, has a voluntary "slave mind," active only to concoct explanations within the bounds that his organized religion has allowed him; he is unwilling to think outside of those bounds.

Some of the symptoms of group idiocy are as follows:

• Hive mind: somehow one's beliefs "coincidentally" very closely match that of their group identity.
• Strong group identity: the "us vs. them" mentality naturally leads to group idiocy; basically, the desire to belong to a group pushes one to discard inconvenient independent thought that would naturally result in differences with the group.
• Catchwords and slogans: group idiots copiously use convenient, prepared words that they parrot from their group. These allow the group idiot to remain in shallow thought, with no chance to diverge from the group by actually thinking deeply and independently.

Group idiocy is particularly dangerous in that it unfortunately cannot be reasoned with.

• Minds Switched Off: one cannot argue against it, as arguments will not be believed or just ignored; generally catchwords and slogans will be copiously thrown in response.
• Emotions Reign: as the reasoning mind is turned off in favor of bias (emotions), emotions reign and thus idiots are easily angered and goaded, especially as the rational mind that would normally seek caution is turned off. (Compare with intoxication.)
• Obliviousness: as an unconscious phenomenon, group idiots are unaware of their state and cannot be convinced of it. Unlike outright evil, people do not get a feel of unease from it; group idiocy is devious and sneaky by nature. Once the group idiocy reaches a peak and the idiot mob appears, mass violence and other outright evil ironically is unseen as the mob is blinded to it.

Introverts are less likely to become victims of group idiocy than extroverts, simply because they are less influenced by groups and thus more often remain masters of their own minds. Those who are more invested in group identity (group susceptibility) will of course be more willing to voluntarily (yet unconsciously) give up their independent thinking to bask in the "safety" of the groupthink instead. Unfortunately, those who cherish membership in the groupthink are exactly the sort of people who choose to become politicians (harnessing groupthink is the core of political skill), thus group idiocy of course becomes the norm in that class of people.

We see group idiocy in many situations:

• Corporate yesmen who find that they "coincidentally" yet wholeheartedly agree with everything the executives decide
• Political mobs whose opinions happen to exactly match with their chosen group identities
• Religious zealots whose beliefs are perfectly aligned with each other but not with their holy canon (which they don't read independently, anyway), yet nobody seems to notice

As human beings, our greatest power is the ability to reason; yet ironically the vast majority of us have voluntarily turned this power off.

In the many upheavals, massacres, and so forth of history, we consistently see mobs of people who have surrendered to group stupidity and served as the mindless tools of the powers that both controlled and goaded them. Religion is a common example of a group that easily is used for group stupidity (often leading to mass killings), but is by no means the only type. Sadly, idiot mobs are a natural form of "policing" to ensure that the group idiocy remains in power.

How can we cure society of group idiocy? It is never easy, but some methods to start are as follows:

• Knowledge: if people know what it is, they have a better chance to recognize it, which is the first step to possibly control it.
• Liberation: liberating people from the group power hierarchies that pressure them to voluntarily forego ownership of their own minds will also naturally lead to less group idiocy.

KPIs

KPIs, or "key performance indicators," are rarely actually data sets that are good indicators of performance, because such data is most often not easy to identify and/or measure. Instead, KPIs in reality are usually facile data sets chosen solely for their ease of measurement and ideation (copying whatever others use in an industry) - a more accurate name for these would be "facile non-indicators of anything" (FNAs).

They are also a symptom of data disease wherein leaders feel empowered by pretending to be data scientists, pointing to numbers and graphs, but without really grasping what data is and how it should be used. A basic concept in data science is "garbage in, garbage out" - if your original data is worthless or questionable or unrelated, then even the best analyses of said data can only be worthless or questionable or unrelated as well.

Today, KPIs pollute the minds of executives everywhere, and they remain the bane of many employees, but the word "KPI" is not old. According to Google's Ngram Viewer, the words "KPI" and "key performance indicator" only appeared in the late 1990s, starting to gain popularity from the early 2000s. Their older cousin "scientific management," however, was extremely popular from much earlier, peaking in 1913; certainly Frederick Winslow Taylor's popular book, The Principles of Scientific Management published in 1911 influenced this. Taylor mostly considered manufacturing and manual labor (e.g. shoveling), where production was easily quantified, and in these cases, providing bonuses to those who produced more predictably resulted in more production.

But scientific management had roots in another industry - slavery, which many workers compared Taylor's system with in 1911. The very popular Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book published in 1847 or 1848 by Thomas Affleck had detailed instructions for plantation owners to:

• Track cotton production of each slave (per acre, per bale)
• Evaluate the asset value of each slave ("negroes accounting")
• Depreciate values of slaves due to health or age (e.g. at middle age)
• Providing bonuses to productive slaves and dealing punishments to less productive slaves

Today, modern corporations sadly sound quite similar, but repetitive labor like cotton-picking is much easier to measure than the complex and unstructured work that modern corporations today focus on. Irrespective of what is being measured, employees' negative perception of the slave driver's whip and stopwatch has not changed.

More often than not, executives push and shove their KPIs down employees' throats, feeling as they have accomplished something - but what is the result? Certainly not increased performance.

• Moral damage: distrust of leadership, (accurate) fear that the new KPIs will be used to "catch" and punish staff.
• Motivational damage: disconnect between arbitrary KPIs and perceived actual value will foster unhappiness; simplifying people's contributions into mere numbers will also generate the perception of treating people as robots, drones, or slaves.
• Perverse incentives: KPIs very often create perverse ways of attaining "success" in the arbitrary data points chosen to define success - for example, if a writer is paid per word, then of course the writer will naturally write wordy, long-winded documents; however, wordiness is not real value.
• Material damage: increased turnover as staff decide to move elsewhere; few people enjoy being treated like slaves. Effectiveness falls as well, as executives fervently focus on the easily measurable aspects, while discarding valuable aspects that are not easily measurable, despite their importance.

It is important to remember that these methods were originally developed for managing slaves, who had no ability to quit or resist. It is also important to remember that data naturally predisposes people to focus upon it, thus overlooking information not included in the data. The ease of measuring something in no way is related to how important it is.