Episode Transcript
00:00:15] Speaker A: Welcome, everyone, to the LibOwl, the podcast of the Sabbagh library at the learning Commons of ACS Athens.
We have a very welcome guest Angela Chamosfakidis. She is one of our teachers here at ACS. She teaches IB Psychology and Theory of Knowledge. And more important than anything else, she is truly beloved by her students and her colleagues. She is an expert in learning by doing. She has been at ACS for ten years after graduating in Canada at McGill University and having worked in Greece previously. So, Angela, great to have you. Very exciting to have you here as our first conversation. How are you doing?
[00:01:10] Speaker B: It's great to be here. Thank you for having me, and thank you for the honor of being your first guest.
[00:01:17] Speaker A: Well, it was a no brainer, really. This is something that I don't know if you remember or not, but my first year as a librarian here, I came here in 2018. I started, took over the library in 2019, and one of my first actions was to reset the library, restart building our collection, building the online collections, implement a new cataloging system, finding new ways to engage students. And now, finally, everything is coming together. I remember it was the first professional development section we were having here at school, and we were all invited to say something we are thankful for or to thank somebody from the staff or the faculty to share with people. And I remember that you were the one that said, I would like to thank Doctor Crevilaro for his work here. He's trying to be very helpful for everybody that stuck with me.
[00:02:12] Speaker B: I remember that, too.
[00:02:13] Speaker A: Oh, you do remember.
[00:02:14] Speaker B: I meant it. And I still do. Thank you for all you do.
[00:02:18] Speaker A: I appreciate it. Thanks. You see, that's why we invited here. No, it's okay. But I believe that that shows how loving and caring you are, not just with your students, but with your colleagues as well. And again, it's easy to.
[00:02:32] Speaker B: We all care here at school from different capacities. I think we all care for our students, and our students care back for us, which is wonderful.
[00:02:40] Speaker A: I agree. Yeah. We often hear from students who come to visit after they graduate. They come here and they always say, you know what I miss the most is that people do care about us here. Every university, in every college, they go, it's unanimous. They never find the kind of, not just academic support because, okay, that comes with the territory, that comes with the. But they know that we care about their well being as a student and individual as people. That does make a difference. As we said when we were preparing for the episode and we decided to have you as our first guest, you propose as a main starter to talk about Doctor Kahneman's work, which was Nobel Prize winner has been called the most influential psychologist alive until he passed the last 27 March of this year. I would say very muchd eserved fame, but I would like to hear your thought why that was deserved in your opinion.
[00:03:45] Speaker B: Well, when your students came to me asking about potential topics to discuss during this LibOwl, you call it LibOwl. I love the name.
[00:03:54] Speaker A: We are gonna go there later. Yeah.
[00:03:56] Speaker B: So I started thinking of different topics and, you know, the possibilities were endless. But I was trying to come up with something that perhaps is also recent in, you know, going through the news. His passing kind of stayed with me because I knew of his work and we've studied his theories in university and it's also part of the syllabus for the IB Psychology. So his theories keep coming up on a daily basis for me as we're discussing this with students as part of the curriculum and also, as I see it, being applied in everyday life. So I thought, what better way to kind of start, you know, a conversation with this amazing work. And he wasn't by himself. It was also Amos Tversky that he worked very closely with. But he was awarded the Nobel Prize because I think first already in economics. Yeah, but for his profound contribution in kind of incorporating psychological concepts in economics. So I thought perhaps this is a topic that would be also interesting to people, not only for the applications in economics, but also the applications in learning and curriculums and schools and students and how we all teach and learn. So that's why I proposed that. And I'm glad you liked it as an idea.
[00:05:20] Speaker A: It was very insightful. It's recent, as you said, it's been months since Doctor Kahneman passed, and it has, as you mentioned, so many different ramifications, applications, implications. I love of his work. We might recall that the published work he's most famous for is Fast and Slow, published it in 2011, so relatively recent in comparison to other seminal works in psychology. And we can honestly say he is probably the founder of the concept of behavioral economics. And I found it fascinating, and it is something that we have conversed in the past already, that we tend to have this idea that economics is a science, which can be an agreeable concept, but the notion of science relies on the fact that a phenomenon can be studied, analyzed, repeated, foreseen, predicted. There is an interesting statement made by Doctor Kahneman. It was picked up by the Guardian for a profile they did about him in the past. And it's from an interview that he gave in 2015. About his past and his life: “I had limited ambitions. I didn't aspire to great success. I was hardworking, but I didn't expect to be a famous psychologist. And that's where really strikes with me. I'm quite capable of great enjoyment, and I have had a great life”. And to me, this idea that you are so highly regarded in your field, you never sought fame, you never really thought of that. You just wanted to do your job, and you wanted to do it at the best of your abilities, to the best of your skills. And what actually matter is that you enjoyed doing it, and in the end, you had a good life and you're happy. And that's it. That's why anytime I see our students, our colleagues, enjoying what they're doing, being happy to be here, that actually makes me happy. It means that, okay, yes, we're doing something right. So it does make a difference again in what we do.
[00:07:34] Speaker B: I think it's very interesting what you're saying, because I'm thinking that the way that he simply says that, you know, I simply enjoyed, makes me think of how wise he was in the sense of, you know, kind of realizing what happiness or what well being may mean, because this is very vague and very difficult to measure. So I'm thinking back to, and I'll quote from what he said in another podcast, and he said that experience and how you think about experience are two completely different things, two separate things, where experience is the reality, let's say, and how you think about experience is this biased judgment that we engage in as we're thinking of what we experienced, which.
[00:08:22] Speaker A: Was one of the tenets of his behavioral economics, that cognitive biases and in the racial emotional paradigm.
[00:08:31] Speaker B: Right.
[00:08:32] Speaker A: So it perfectly applies to.
[00:08:34] Speaker B: So the extent to which we can perhaps have awareness of this biased judgment or thinking and decision making can perhaps influence the extent to which we are satisfied with life or the extent to which we feel happy.
[00:08:50] Speaker A: There was another quote of fears that is actually being selected by Shaya, who's a member of the library club. He once stated, nothing in life is as important as you think it is while you're thinking about it, which is, again, very inspirational, very wise. It echoes something that I had read in the past. Right now, I don't recall when actually, and about pretty much anything that happens in life. It goes as nothing is as good as you hope or as bad as.
[00:09:23] Speaker B: You expect or you expect.
[00:09:25] Speaker A: And that gives you the right distance among your own fears as much as from your own hopes. That can be sometimes delusional, sometimes excessive. We have the tendency of seeing everything very dark or too rosy, and we need to strike a balance. And as long as you know, okay, it's probably not gonna be as good as I hope, but not as bad as I expect. It's the right perspective. I agree. Going back to Kahneman's contributions, and I always found it fascinating that in a field that is widely considered a science, and agreeably so, he introduced this element of lack of predictability, the idea that we assume that economic trends are something rationally understood, rationally planned. And instead, he brought forward the idea that, no, we are also emotional beings. Emotions are not rational, and we act also on an emotional basis, even in the fields of economics. The idea that sometimes you don't buy with your head, you buy with your heart, you buy the story that's behind something, the history of the brand, the heritage, gravitas that has on a certain brand, or you buy into the experience that a brand or a service promises you of giving. I found it fascinating, actually extremely insightful, especially in a field like economics.
[00:11:01] Speaker B: And I think that's why he's deserving of that Nobel Prize, because he kind of laid the groundwork there for something totally new that went against, I guess, traditional economics, and kind of proposed this new, new idea that we're not that rational as we would like to think we are, because humans like to think they have a reason for everything. But a lot of the time, we are acting intuitively, or we are acting based on past experience, as something that Kahneman calls system one, thinking from his dual process theory. So this idea that we can make decisions based on, perhaps some psychological reasons, such as, for example, loss aversion or risk aversion, we don't like to lose.
[00:11:44] Speaker A: And we are creators of habit. Actually, we like the routine because it gives us a sense of stability, it gives us a sense of control. I know what's gonna happen. Therefore, I have no fear. The thing is, and on another level, we can agree that nothing exceptionally good or groundbreaking has always been born out of comfort. In order to innovate, in order to understand more and better, you need to get out of your comfort zone. If you're safe, if you are perfectly risk free again, you will never risk anything. You will never really gain anything. I remember that there was an old joke I heard years ago. I was in high school nearly 30 years ago now.
[00:12:28] Speaker B: Don't give yourself away.
[00:12:31] Speaker A: And the joke goes that Italy in the 16th century was divided by religious wars and numberless political entities. And everyone was squabbling with everybody else. The economy was divided, the culture was divided. Well, the culture, not so much, but politics were divided, religion was divided. And Italians gave the world the Renaissance with the highest artistic achievements that humankind, at least in the western civilization, has known up to that moment. And Switzerland was perfectly safe. Everyone was happy, stable, safe, and they gave people cheese, which is very unfair to Switzerland because it has much more. But the idea is there that conflict brings some creativity, then safety doesn't. Remember that Heraclitus, one of the presocratic philosophers, used to say that Polemos is the father of all things. Polemos being war, in terms of conflict, modern war per se, is the father of all things. Because if no one is in conflict, if no one shares anything, we don't grow just to build up on what you were saying.
[00:13:43] Speaker B: And this is how theories come to develop, I guess, through disagreement, expert disagreement, or, you know, testing of hypotheses and conflicting hypotheses, as you were saying.
[00:13:55] Speaker A: As we like to be predict, we like to be in control. We also like to be right, obviously. The point is that if we are always right and if we always talk to people that agree with us, there's no growth whatsoever. There is no exploration, there is no discovery, there is no new things to care about. You agree with me. I agree with you. Yes, we are both very smart. And where does it leave us?
[00:14:20] Speaker B: And the more I think people realize the biases in human thinking, or the more they realize the limitations, I guess, of human knowledge, the more open they become to listening to other perspectives and taking that into consideration.
[00:14:36] Speaker A: Well, you know, that my wife once told me, you know, I believe that travel, traveling is the best education. And Chatwin used to say that the difference between the tourist and the traveler is the return ticket. That's what that very wise woman I married meant, that if you travel, you educate yourself because you see things differently, and you will be seen differently than you see yourself. We go back to the cognitive bias and the biases that Kahneman was mentioning, right? That nothing is. Life is as important as you think it is, not even you. And you are a different person according to whom you're dealing with and in different situations, etcetera. The idea that we are not monodimensional, we are multidimensional, multilayered human beings. Remember that in the Odyssey there is this beautiful definition of Odysseus, Homer called Odysseus “polymetis”. It's very hard to translate. For example, in Italian, I remember translated “dal multiforme ingenio” literally means that “of the multi talented” polymetis has “poly-” in the root, right? So it implies several layers, several things. What I found beautiful about Kahneman's work, that he factors this element in the economics field. We are emotional beings. We are not just rational. And we need to consider this.
[00:16:10] Speaker B: And those two systems, I guess, come to demonstrate or to showcase the differences or the multi dimensional, as you put it, systems that coexist in humans nature. Because according to him, system one is, you know, this fast way of thinking that is more effortless or intuitive or automatic. And it's weird because it also creates the sense of confidence. Although it's fast and prone to errors, we feel more confident using it because that's what we're used to do. Like you said before, we're creatures of habit. So we're used to answering fast based on past experience. And we feel that this is good, this is a good answer. And this system is where all the biases kind of stem from, because we are prone to errors, because we use it so often. Whereas system two is supposed to be the reasonable system, the one that uses reason. And it takes more effort. It takes more time, but it's less prone to errors. Not to say that system one isn't skillful. It is because it's based on experience.
[00:17:18] Speaker A: Each on their own.
[00:17:19] Speaker B: It's on their own at their merits. They have the merits, yeah. And we need both, I guess. But it's important to perhaps be aware, I guess, of our tendency, perhaps to engage in system one thinking more.
[00:17:33] Speaker A: You know, that reminded me an old comic strip by Charles Schultz, who's the inventor of the peanuts, Snoopy, Charlie Brown, et cetera. At a certain point, Snoopy is elected Grand Beagle, which is the head of all dogs in the world. So you can see in this episode that Snoopy is very proud. And he said, I've been elected Grand Beagle today. Then at the end of the day, he's typing on his typewriter: “Today, I made 182 decisions”, and then in the end,”All wrong ones”. Because we have this idea that if you do a lot and if you do it fast, then you're doing it right. Yeah, not really. I mean, good things take time. And sometimes you need fast decisions, emotional decisions out of emergency, out of instinct. And sometimes those are the right ones. Some other times you need time to study, to compare, to analyze, and to decide accordingly.
[00:18:36] Speaker B: Yeah. And this is where a nice application to learning may come in, in the sense that, you know, educators can, in a way, use this knowledge to promote more analytical thinking in students and use that to further contribute in how we do learning and assessment. So if students are aware that, you know, I need to become more analytical and kind of resist my intuitive reactions or answers, I guess automatic answers, then they can kind of adopt a different approach. But again, as you said before, system one is also very important because it's also very skillful and it helps us survive in a way. So we need both.
[00:19:18] Speaker A: Well, you know, this will be both academic and personal, but in the great debate, jungian and freudian, where do you stand? Freud or Jung?
[00:19:26] Speaker B: I would say Jung.
[00:19:28] Speaker A: Yeah, me too. Because to me, he's more philosophical, is…
[00:19:32] Speaker B: More artistic, there's more depth in explanation.
[00:19:36] Speaker A: Yes, I agree.
[00:19:36] Speaker B: Well, to be honest, at the time, there was so much. I think his work is groundbreaking for the time, almost literally, because he did.
[00:19:46] Speaker A: Literally groundwork for everything.
[00:19:48] Speaker B: He's considered to be the father of psych, obviously.
[00:19:50] Speaker A: Well, but the thing is that he started as a medical doctor, so his education, his training was heavily on medicine. And I think he dabbled in chemistry as well, if I'm not mistaken. While Jung, of course, built up on Freud's work. But what you were saying now about system one goes deeply into the Jung's concept of archetypes, that there are things that are inside us that transcend time, transcend culture there. And we react to them because they are part of our collective consciousness, whether we are aware or not. The difference between emotion and rationality is that in rationality, you are aware of what you're doing, you're aware why you're doing it. Emotionally, you are not necessarily aware, you're the more likely than not unaware of why you're reacting in a certain way. And the thing is that denying them brings us nowhere. We need to consider that we are a mix of everything. I always found interesting that the paradigm that Kahneman developed, okay, provided that Think, Fast and Slow, comes after decades of work, of other published work, that was the book that made a sensation among non specialists, let's go with that, but he had published articles after articles after articles on his research in the decades before. And it was in the 2011, as we said, which is interesting because, and this is something we have talked about previously, I'm a classical philologist by training, so I always go to the source to as older sources as possible. To me, it mirrors very closely the idea of Apollonian and Dionysian. The concept was in the birth of tragedy, it was 1872 published. And the idea that the Apollo oversees the rational s way of thinking and praising individuality and self affirmation, while Dionysus pertains more to the wild, emotional side of our personality and the collective experience, which is also interesting because more or less at the same time, Stevenson was publishing Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde. And there the idea of separating the good from the bad leads to the destruction of the subject, meaning the two parts need to coexist. Mister Hyde is as valuable to the person as much as Doctor Jekyll. Doctor Jekyll is a mix of his best self, rational, well behaved, respectful of the laws, loved by his patients and by his friends. But he also needs Mister Hyde, who's selfish, without control, violent evil, et cetera, et cetera. They are both part of the same person, and if you separate one from the other, the person ceases to exist. They find it interesting because both Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy were published at the end of the 19th century, where pretty much the whole world had been discovered. So basically, if we talk about geography, what we know in terms of lands now is the same as we knew 120 years ago, 150 years ago. So the moment we finish to explore the world, it starts the study of what's inside us, which is not far from the time when Freud started his studies in Leipzig. Everything happens in those 30, 50 years.
[00:23:32] Speaker B: Everything comes together.
[00:23:34] Speaker A: Everything. In French, it's tout se tient. Right? So everything is kept together, everything comes together. It feels like at the time that humankind, at least as we know it in the western civilization, we finished exploring the world. There is not much in terms of physical land to explore. We start looking inside of us and with concepts that, again, the emotional versus the rational side, the good and evil, the fast and the slow. Yeah, which I can relate because, you know, the Dolce farniente is way too often associated with the italian way of life. Okay, so we go back to can.
[00:24:18] Speaker B: We go back to can. And I like to think more about it as system one or system two, although this doesn't make sense at all. And he says that, you know, system one and system two doesn't really exist in the brain. It's just a way for me, he says, to kind of conceptualize those two different modes of thinking. It actually helps to think of those different modes as different miniatures in the brain. I'd like to think about it instead of evil and good. I'd like to think more about it as more intuitive or more reasonable. And I like how he's kind of emphasizing that all those cognitive biases may stem from our intuitive reaction to the world. And the more awareness where we become of them, the more we can perhaps address them, I guess, and learn more effectively to bring the connection to learning, because I'm thinking the different biases. For example, we talked about prospect theory, the theory he suggested in terms of economics, and our aversion to loss, or our aversion to risk. If taken in the context of education, we can think of the different ways that we can perhaps frame learning or frame even assessments in a way that makes the gain more visible to the students instead of the risk. So make it more about the learning and how you, you know, build competence or skill instead of, you know, the grades and what grade you're gonna get, and if perhaps it's gonna be a failing grade or whatever, which represents the loss for the student.
[00:25:51] Speaker A: So is it a loss to you if you see growth, intellectual, personal growth, in one of your students, they still fail from an academic point of view, do you feel it is loss or.
[00:26:03] Speaker B: Is it's never loss, but for the student to take the risk, they have to see the gains. This is what we do as humans. We go for the gains, we go for the wins. So if we as educators know that, then we can, you know, frame everything in the way that is presented, because everything is in reality what you said, it's never a loss, particularly when it comes to learning. But the more we frame it as such, and we intentionally present it as a win, as a gain, then perhaps we can motivate more.
[00:26:38] Speaker A: That's the thing, because in the ideal world, obviously in education, specifically, a student comes to school because they want to learn, and the gain is that they actually learn. The point is that we are required to assess the progress of the learning through grades, through tests. And I remember this as a student, and I hear it from our students. Now, sometimes I feel like the students, generally speaking, believe that we like giving tests, we like giving grades. I don't know a single teacher who loves grading, who loves giving tests. It's a nightmare.
[00:27:17] Speaker B: Yeah, I think no one does.
[00:27:19] Speaker A: I never like giving grades as a teacher. I mean, grades are important, but what we need to understand what we, as a general population, because educators know this very well, grade is only a measurement of a very specific aspect of who you are, is the measurement of how you're doing from a specific point of view, on a very specific matter. It doesn't reflect on who you are or what you are best at or what kind of person you are.
[00:27:48] Speaker B: Absolutely.
[00:27:49] Speaker A: It only says that according to certain parameters that we apply in this environment, on this subject, you are given a number that expresses specific standards. But that's nothing. You are, and that's not even why you are here. You are here to learn. Sometimes learning means also failing means also getting a bad grade.
[00:28:10] Speaker B: Yes, absolutely. And the extent to which grades are important, I guess, or to the extent that I guess they're needed for something. So that's the, you know, we need.
[00:28:21] Speaker A: To measure hard numbers.
[00:28:23] Speaker B: Yes, yes. But I guess the important takeaway here and to connect to the theory is that here's what's more important than that. Here's your learning, or here's your gain for life, not just for, you know, this test, that assessment. Here's what you take away with you as a human being from the learning process, which is an incredible gain, and it's an incredible way to also think about it. You know, what you said, growth failure doesn't have to do with anything here, because every time you try, you grow a bit more. So in that sense, this idea of positive framing and making sure that our students understand this in terms of the gains is so important, I think.
[00:29:09] Speaker A: Yeah, because if we also think again of Kahneman's approach to economics and knowledge and cognition, introducing the emotional side into the equation does make a difference, because for some reason, we tended to identify rational with positive and emotional in a negative way. And, for example, I am more on the rational side. So the way I usually approach things is more rational than emotional. But that doesn't mean that I'm often wrong, and it doesn't mean I'm right. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. When you said there is always room for growth, that's something we need to factor in, too. You don't grow if you always do right, if you never make mistakes. It's a delusion. I believe that starts in the probably 19th century with positivism, that the idea that everything needs to be positive, anything needs to progress, and it will relentlessly and constantly progress. And in economic terms, some people have also called it the curse of capitalism, because a deeply capitalistic society is doomed to always do better than before, that whatever you are making now, next year.
[00:30:38] Speaker B: Needs to double this constant pursuit of more and better.
[00:30:43] Speaker A: And it can't be always more and better. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. And a large part of the society, I don't want to sound too simplistic, but at least as a collective idea, we have it, this concept that we need to do always more and better, and that's not always possible. Sometimes we are stagnant. Sometimes we grow. Sometimes we stop, rethink, and go for better.
[00:31:13] Speaker B: The idea is exactly that, that failure or trying again is part of the process of learning. So it's a success, really. It's not something that is considered failure. It's just the human mindset, perhaps is kind of inclined to think of successes in terms of, I guess, measurable successes or whatever success is conceptualized as. And we tend to not think as much of the meaning of those, I guess, the experiences which, at the end of the day, I think, what is the meaning?
[00:31:46] Speaker A: Well, that's an entirely, much bigger conversation.
[00:31:50] Speaker B: Learning is part of it. And it doesn't have to be all positive or all, you know, great.
[00:31:56] Speaker A: Sometimes it's hard. I mean, learning, growing, developing, it takes effort, it takes time. It takes a lot of commitment. And you know that when you were talking now about failure. One thing of the Trojan war, no one ever likes Achilles because Achilles, at least how he's portrayed in Homer, he's very hard to love because, yes, he's great, he's the strongest, he's the bravest. Yes, he's also invulnerable. Everyone is strong and brave if they are invulnerable, if they know they cannot lose. And I remember when, as a student and also in university, when you studied Iliad and Odyssey and classical literature about the Trojan war, everyone always loved Hector because Hector is the defeated hero. And his greatness is that he's vulnerable, he's human. And he dared to challenge this invulnerable superhuman. And of course he loses, but his greatness lays in the fact that he tried. It's too easy when you enter the battlefield and you know you're gonna win because you are better than everybody else. What it takes, real skills, real courage, real character, is when you know you cannot win. Yes, but you still try because you will still learn something. You will still gain something from that experience.
[00:33:23] Speaker B: Yeah, there's win there, too. Absolutely.
[00:33:25] Speaker A: There is another passage in Seneca, stoic philosopher, first century, and he describes his reactions towards a boxing match. It's a very famous passage of his letters. And he describes the beauty, the pathos that a defeated boxer has and the struggle he needs to put in place in order to get up and fight again. And for Seneca, that is the nobility of what he's doing. Not winning, but being knocked down and finding the strength to get up again and keep fighting.
[00:34:03] Speaker B: And there lies the meaning, I guess, you know, the meaning or whatever we mean by the meaning in those experiences.
[00:34:11] Speaker A: It's valuable, and it's one of the beauties of being alive that you find new things. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But at least you can find something positive, something to gain. Even when you lose, you cannot always be the first one or the best one or the bravest one. Sometimes you are not, and it's still okay.
[00:34:34] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what makes us different, just to make a remark, because I was listening to his podcast, the latest one, and he was making connections to AI, and I thought, that's interesting to kind of see how he thought about it. I think that's what makes the difference between human learning and deep learning or deep learning. The machine learning, as you know, Daniel Kahnemandhe, he said that machines, they represent system one in the sense that what machine learning does is that it matches patterns, anticipates what's going to happen, and it kind of gives you the answers. It doesn't have the ability to reason. It doesn't have the ability to represent this meaning that we were just talking about, which, if it's ever going to happen in the sense of how we do it, how humans do it, because things are moving a lot faster than anticipated. This is what's lacking at this point. And there's also another big difference in that we humans learn by being offered a few examples. Let's say kids don't need a thousand examples. They see something once, twice, they learn it, whereas machines, we feed them with thousands of examples. So, you know, this anticipation of expectations or experiences is lacking there. Whereas for us, it's kind of the learning happening like this.
[00:35:47] Speaker A: Well, again, it's the effort you put in place.
[00:35:49] Speaker B: The effort, yes, exactly.
[00:35:51] Speaker A: For machine learning, the issue is that they belong to system one because they don't make mistakes.
[00:35:56] Speaker B: They don't.
[00:35:58] Speaker A: Well, when fed the right information, they do make generative AI make a lot of mistakes. Yeah. The idea is we don't make mistakes because we are machines. We don't factor in the possibility of a feeling.
I think we went above our time, recommended time. And that happens when you have a nice conversation.
[00:36:29] Speaker B: Okay, it was a nice conversation.
[00:36:34] Speaker A: Thank you so much for this conversation.
[00:36:37] Speaker B: Thank you for having me the same.
.
[00:36:38] Speaker A: Bye.
