Mark B. Baer, Inc.

I really wanted to write this article and didn’t want to write it as my Daily Journal column, so I did that which I said I wouldn’t do, which is to publish something in Psychology Today. Never say never!

I’m justifiably slamming lawyers, which is why I published it here.

“The Problem of Connecting Overconfidence With Optimism: Overconfidence can exist along with pessimism.”

The Problem of Connecting Overconfidence With Optimism Overconfidence can exist along with pessimism.

I want to express my thoughts on Mike Pence.

The man helped Donald Trump get elected. Let me repeat that - Donald Trump could never have been elected without sufficient help from Evangelical Christians and Mike Pence is an Evangelical Christian. Mike Pence as Donald Trump's Vice President most certainly helped Donald Trump to get elected. And, Donald Trump's lack of character and integrity has been obvious throughout his lifetime, in addition to all that he said and did while campaigning before Mike Pence agreed run with him as his Vice President.

Mike Pence took the following oath of office before being sworn in as Vice President:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Mike Pence did that which was required of him as Vice President when he refused to overturn the election results. He did what was in accordance with the oath he took. Unlike Trump and many others, Mike Pence is devoutly religious. The last word of that oath he took is God. Still, Pence was considering overturning the election. It was former Vice President Dan Quayle who convinced Pence to certify the election results.

In doing so, Mike Pence risked his life. Why? Because of Trump and his enablers, which had included Pence and which to a great degree still includes Pence.

Now, Mike Pence is paying the price for showing courage, character and integrity by doing his job and complying with his oath of office. He's not supported by Trump supporters, who are needed for a Republican to win office. He's not supported by Democrats because he wants an Evangelical Christian theocracy in this country. So, he's paying the price because he's unelectable.

Here's the thing - Negative expression leads to oppression. Mike pence has used his positions, power and influence to spout negative expression of LGBTQ+ people throughout his political career. He has also used his positions, power and influence to enact policies that oppress LGBTQ+ people. He continues saying that he will do so should he be elected President.

Pence has consistently done to members of the LGBTQ+ community that which Trump did to him. He has used his position, power and influence to put the lives and safety of all LGBTQ+ people at risk. He has led to their oppression. He has led to increased violence and hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people. He has led to increased suicidal ideation among LGBTQ+ people. He has led to an increased in death by su***de of LGBTQ+ people. He has led to the oppression and victimization of LGBTQ+ people throughout his career and continues doing so.

The only way that LGBTQ+ people can hope not to place their safety and lives at risk because of the actions of others because of what Mike Pence has done and continues doing is by living in the closet. And, doing so causes serious mental health issues, which leads to suicidal ideation, among other things.

Harvey Milk said the following:

"Gay brothers and sisters,... You must come out. Come out... to your parents... I know that it is hard and will hurt them but think about how they will hurt you in the voting booth! Come out to your relatives... come out to your friends... if indeed they are your friends. Come out to your neighbors... to your fellow workers... to the people who work where you eat and shop... come out only to the people you know, and who know you. Not to anyone else. But once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake. For the sake of the youngsters who are becoming scared by the votes from Dade to Eugene.”

That's how LGBTQ+ people have received whatever civil and human rights they've received. Yet, because of people like Mike Pence, it takes courage, character and integrity for LGBTQ+ people to live authentic lives and not hide their sexuality.

I'm sorry; however, Mike Pence has done and continues doing to ALL LGBTQ+ people that which Donald Trump did only to him. Pence survived. Many LGBTQ+ people cannot say the same."

I let it rip with this article, which is published in today’s edition of the Daily Journal.

Two days ago, I posted the following on Facebook:

"Can anyone figure out from the following, much of which is included in my upcoming article for my monthly Balanced Scale column in the Daily Journal, what that article covers?

“Unconscious Bias Training

What is Unconscious Bias?

About Unconscious Bias

Bias is a prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another usually in a way that's considered to be unfair. Biases may be held by an individual, group, or institution and can have negative or positive consequences. There are types of biases 1. Conscious bias (also known as explicit bias) and 2. Unconscious bias (also known as implicit bias)

It is important to note that biases, conscious or unconscious, are not limited to ethnicity and race. Though racial bias and discrimination are well documented, biases may exist toward any social group. One's age, gender, gender identity physical abilities, religion, sexual orientation, weight, and many other characteristics are subject to bias.

Unconscious biases are social stereotypes about certain groups of people that individuals form outside their own conscious awareness. Everyone holds unconscious beliefs about various social and identity groups, and these biases stem from one's tendency to organize social worlds by categorizing.”
(https://diversity.ucsf.edu/programs-resources/training/unconscious-bias-training?fbclid=IwAR0OUE_EPTKzXsYPJLc4XDno0Sr1kF2mKKnxmcaz1sXZ_0KSrkJB0xlPJyg)

THE ANSWER IS REDEFINING BIAS. IN MATH 2+2=4.

HOWEVER, HERE, THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED:

BIASES (PERTAIN TO THINGS, PEOPLE AND GROUPS) = EXPLICIT (CONSCIOUS) BIASES (PERTAIN TO PERSONS OR GROUPS) + IMPLICIT (UNCONSCIOUS) BIASES (PERTAIN TO PERSONS OR GROUPS). THINGS DISAPPEARED! 2+2=1.

SO, WE'VE BIASED PEOPLE ABOUT BIAS BY REDEFINING BIAS BY ELIMINATING THINGS. AND, AS STATED IN MY ARTICLE, IF YOU LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF IMPLICIT BIAS PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION'S DEFINITION, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PROJECT IMPLICIT'S DEFINITION, THE PERCEPTION INSTITUTE'S DEFINITION, YOU WILL NOTICE THE ERASURE. APPARENTLY, PEOPLE DON'T HAVE UNCONSCIOUS BIASES PERTAINING TO THINGS. AND, WHEN THEY DISCUSS EXPLICIT BIASES, AS WAS DONE IN THE DEFINITION I SHARED IN THIS POST, THOSE DON'T INCLUDE THINGS EITHER.

I REALLY LET IT RIP IN THIS ARTICLE!

It’s not “anti-LGBTQ+” - It’s sexual prejudice and it’s specifically directed to people who are not cisgender and straight. It’s sexual prejudice against LGBTQ+ people. It’s hatred of LGBTQ+ people.

Let’s use proper terminology. Calling prejudice and hate “anti” whichever group(s) is/are the target of prejudice and hate makes it sound perfectly reasonable in that either you’re for or against something. It minimizes what’s really going on.

A couple of hours ago, I learned that my 2014 article titled Republicans Are Stripping Away Rights That Others Fought So Hard to Obtain was used as a resource in a book titled Moms in Chief: The Rhetoric of Republican Motherhood and the Spouses of Presidential Nominees, 1992–2016.

The following is a link to a program the author, Tammy R. Vigil, gave at the National Archives on June 13, 2019:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gk8vUZ7ygo

"Tammy R. Vigil, Ph.D., is senior associate dean and associate professor of media science at Boston University's College of Communication. Her research interests include political campaigns, persuasion, and women as political communicators."
(https://www.bu.edu/com/profile/tammy-r-vigil/)

The fifth article in my monthly column is in today’s edition of the Daily Journal.

These are screenshots of all four of my Balanced Scale columns, one of which is from the June 1, 2023 edition of the Daily Journal -- today’s edition.

As of this morning, my second monthly column on bias and related issues has been published in the Daily Journal. I cannot share the content of the articles themselves per my agreement with the publication; however, I'm sharing the titles of those two articles.

I’m having so much fun figuring out the value of “stuff” I inherited from my mom when she died in 2005, which is still in my possession, and which I’m not interested in keeping, and selling it.

It’s incredible to me that this towel is worth $575. It’s worth at least that much because I just sold it for that price.

I could never use a towel worth so much money because it would feel like burning money in the fireplace to keep warm.

"Having empathy toward those we perceive as being members of our own tribe is not a skill; rather, it is instinctual. This process cannot be turned off; however, it can be kept in check by being cognizant of it when making important decisions that impact ourselves and others. Doing so requires humility and is known as objective self-awareness."

Empathy and Self-Awareness Personal Perspective: Why Cultivating empathy towards others is a skill.

No bias there, right?

Well, well, well -- My article The Amplification of Bias in Family Law and Its Impact is mentioned in a textbook used to teach family law in law schools.

I'm influencing people! I'm influencing future lawyers!!!

I've attached a screenshot of the conclusion of my Letter to the Editor published in the Daily Journal on February 21, 2023 titled Limiting Biases Could Lead to More Bias.

This is the Letter to the Editor which led to my being asked if I would like a regular column on the topic.

My monthly column Balanced Scale will start sometime in March. I decided that for my first column, I would explain why I selected Balanced Scale as the name of my column.

I’ve been thinking of what to write in that first column since it was offered to me on Friday. I wrote the first draft yesterday.

Earlier this afternoon, the Editor of the Daily Journal asked me if I would be interested in writing a regular column in the publication on the topics of bias and related concepts, which include self-awareness, emotional empathy, and other aspects of emotional intelligence and decision-making. She said, "I can see this is a topic you know a lot about."

I accepted her offer.

The Daily Journal is California's largest legal newspaper.

"In his conversation with Len, Mark conveys the story of a married couple who are also business partners, how bias caused conflict in both their business and personal relationship, and what it took to change that trajectory. The lessons learned have universal applications."

Podclips Mark Baer is an attorney who works as a mediator, conflict resolution consultant, coach, trainer, and educator on implicit bias and emotional intelligence.  He has practiced law for over thirty years, and his area of concentration is mediation, particularly within the context of family law, family ...

“My Personal Experience with ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’: A mother's unspoken rules demonstrate that there are qualifiers for acceptance.”

My Personal Experience with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" A mother's unspoken rules demonstrate that there are qualifiers for acceptance.

When I’ve given my thoughts on bias, empathy, and related concepts, those who disagree with me indicate that their opinion is equally valid because of their personal lived experiences and that any mention by me of the research and writing I’ve done on those concepts, how they’ve been used, and by whom is not useful and is just “resorting to self-importance.”

Here’s my question?

Is that really true when, for example, an article of mine is one of six articles on the topic of empathy that Columbia University cites as a resource for understanding the topic of empathy?

Is it really true that credentials don’t matter and everyone’s perspective has the same weight, or is that a false equivalence in an effort to dismiss, disregard, or minimize information they don’t like?

I’m asking because empathy and bias are related concepts. Left unchecked, biases cause people to constrict and distort the information they are willing to receive, try to understand, and consider in a fair manner. Empathy is involved in the fairness aspect. If you lack empathy for someone, some group, or some thing or your empathy is otherwise not balanced, you may think you’re being fair when you’re not or you may not care that you’re not being fair.

By the way, my article on the topic is the second from the bottom on the list of articles on the topic of empathy from Columbia University’s Ombuds Office.

https://ombuds.columbia.edu/content/november-25-2021

MY article was the “main challenge” for the City of San Carlos, California’s Day 15 of its 21-Day Social and Equity Challenge.

How awesome is that? It is through the Community Foundation of San Carlos.

https://cfsancarlos.org/21-day-equity-challenge

https://cfsancarlos.org/2022day-15

"When people ask if biases can ever be good, they are not typically asking if cognitive shortcuts are good for efficiency purposes; rather, they are asking whether people can make fair and accurate decisions because of their explicit and implicit biases. They are basically asking whether "an unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment" can ever be fair. Under those circumstances, saying that biases can be good or are neither good nor bad is not helpful."

Unchecked Biases Result in Inaccuracies and Impede Fairness There are no beneficial biases.

"Seeing the subjective as objective: People perceive the taste of those they disagree with as biased and wrong

Abstract

People think that they see things as they are in “objective reality,” and they impute bias and other negative qualities to those who disagree. Evidence for these tendencies initially emerged in the domain of politics, where people tend to assume that there are objectively correct beliefs and positions. The present research shows that people are confident in the correctness of their views, and they negatively judge those who disagree, even in the seemingly “subjective” domain of art.... Reminding people of their belief that artistic preferences are “matters of opinion” reduced this thinking, but did not eliminate it. These findings suggest that people's convictions of their own objectivity are so powerful as to extend to domains that are typically regarded as “subjective.”...

We define objective domains as those in which people generally believe that only one claim or perspective is correct, and subjective domains as those in which people generally believe that multiple perspectives are correct or that there is no correct perspective (Goodwin & Darley, 2008; Heiphetz & Young, 2017).

[NOTICE THAT I DEFINE THEM THE SAME WAY. IN FACT THE FOLLOWING IS SET FORTH IN MY ARTICLE "THE AMPLIFICATION OF BIAS IN FAMILY LAW AND ITS IMPACT: "Objective facts are unquestionable."]
..

If judgments in subjective domains are seen as simply a matter of taste, why do disagreements about seemingly trivial preferences about art, music, movies, and food lead to problems such as online harassment of film critics and public outcry over the dietary preferences of politicians? We have suggested that people may say that judgments in subjective domains are just a matter of taste, but when confronted with those who do not share their opinions, their reactions may sometimes belie those claims of subjectivity.

Across seven studies, we found evidence of this effect: participants consistently judged the artistic preferences of those who agreed with them to better reflect reality than those of others who disagreed with them. Our pilot study suggested that people hold lay theories that artistic judgments are subjective. Nonetheless, participants who had formed specific artistic preferences felt that their views were more correct than those of disagreeing others and that those who failed to share their views were more likely to have been influenced by the biasing effects of social influence (Studies 1–3, 5–7) or financial incentives (Study 4). Indeed, artistic preferences felt as objective as political preferences, and disagreeing others' preferences were perceived to be as biased by social influence when about art as when about politics (Study 6). Finally, although prompting people to think about the relative subjectivity of art sometimes reduced this effect, it did not eliminate it (Study 7).

In all seven studies, participants' objectivity convictions led to negative attributions about disagreeing others. These negative attributions took the form of accusations of bias, decreased liking, disparaging inferences about autonomy, leadership potential, and integrity, and even judgments about friendship, neighborhood cultural groups, and voting. In Study 5, we found that negative downstream judgments were mediated by dispositional inferences of bias that participants drew in the face of disagreement. Taken together, the present studies suggest that—counter to lay theories of subjectivity but in line with scientific theories of naïve realism and convictions of personal objectivity—people's impression of their own objectivity is so powerful that it shapes judgments even in domains that people refer to as more “a matter of opinion” than as involving "correct" or “incorrect” views.

Our findings also speak more broadly to the experience of disagreement. Because participants made dispositional inferences in the face of differing opinions about art, it seems that potentially trivial disagreements are not so trivial after all. Rather, when people encounter someone who disagrees with them, they interpret that disagreement as a broader signal about the other's objectivity, leading to dislike and disparagement. This explains how citizens make the leap from, for example, a preference for pineapple pizza to lack of fitness for political office, and reveals why disagreements can so easily escalate to more serious interpersonal conflicts.
..

Attributions about those who disagree can have profound consequences, driving negative judgments, dislike, and conflictual behavior. Understanding the nature of these harsh attributions and of how to mitigate them is critical, as social discord and its conflictual consequences contribute to so much human suffering."

[LOOK AT TWO SLIDES OF MINE FROM A PROGRAM I'VE GIVEN ON BIAS AND TELL ME THEY AREN'T IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREIN. AND, "INSIDE OUT" WAS BASED UPON FACTS AND OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE AND WELL-ESTABLISHED RESEARCH. LOOK ALSO AT THE SCREENSHOT FROM MY ARTICLE TITLED "Engaging in Perspective-Taking Does Not Always Make One Open-Minded: Hearing other perspectives is not the same as truly considering them."]

The information I am conveying on bias is consistent with facts, and evidence-based thinking.

Seriously, nothing I've said about bias should be controversial.

(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathan-Cheek/publication/344616005_Seeing_the_subjective_as_objective_People_perceive_the_taste_of_those_they_disagree_with_as_biased_and_wrong/links/5f848c08299bf1b53e22c431/Seeing-the-subjective-as-objective-People-perceive-the-taste-of-those-they-disagree-with-as-biased-and-wrong.pdf)

I want to say that nothing I’ve said about biases (either conscious or unconscious) conflicts with that which is scientifically understood.

Calvin Lai’s example is similar to the example I gave with flour versus corn tortillas. Whether you favor one over the other isn’t an “unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment,” unless you’re judging a tortilla competition and give an unfair advantage to the competitors whose submissions were flour because you prefer flour tortillas. Same, if you are judging or rating restaurants and your preference for Coke over Pepsi was such that you gave higher ratings to restaurants that serve Coke and lower rating to restaurants that serve Pepsi and those differences were based consciously or unconsciously upon whether the restaurant served Coke or Pepsi.

I also want to say that aspirations for a less biased world make no sense, unless biases are negative.

I’m merely trying to make a complex subject more easily understood because when people think that biases can be beneficial, they tend to think that “an unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment” can sometimes be good. It’s never fair to be unfair. That’s all I’m saying. What’s so controversial about such a statement?

“Clara Wilkins, assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences, says that when she teaches bias in the classroom, she breaks it down into three components that are often referred to as the “ABCs” of bias. The “A,” or affective component, is what we would call prejudice, or negative feelings toward a person that are based on his or her group membership, the “C” or cognitive component is stereotypes, or generalizations about a group, and the “B,” or behavioral component, is discrimination, or the actual actions taken against a person based on their group membership….

Calvin Lai, assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences, says that although the bias we hear about in the news is usually harmful, bias itself is not always negative. He says that, “the way that psychological scientists define bias is just a tendency to respond one way compared to another when making some kind of a life choice.” Sometimes these biases can be completely neutral, like a bias for Coke over Pepsi, and can even be helpful in allowing you to make decisions more rapidly….

Avoiding biased actions

So how do we avoid being biased? When it comes to changing your implicit unconscious biases, like the ones the IAT tests for, research has consistently shown that it is more difficult than you would think. Lai says, “It does seem that trying to change implicit bias right now directly, trying to reduce these associations that swirl around in our head, that seems really hard. They are built up over a lifetime of experience and it seems that if you can change them, it requires a lot of sustained effort.” In other words, a quick diversity training, while potentially helpful in getting people to start thinking about their biases, is not going to immediately change the way their brains associate white people with good things and black people with negative things.

Wilkins similarly says that she does not believe that progress toward a less biased world is linear. As her research has shown, the societal changes that we might see as progress are often accompanied by backlash when threats to the established order cause people to double down on their biases, whether consciously or unconsciously.

In spite of these somewhat bleak findings, however, both Lai and Wilkins are optimistic that there are things that we can do to reduce biased actions, even if we can’t completely eliminate biased thoughts.”

Understanding your biases Understanding your biases By Rose Miyatsu4.25.19 | Faculty, ResearchShareTwo WashU researchers who conduct studies on bias and its impacts, Calvin Lai and Clara Wilkins, explain the roots and consequences of bias and how we can potentially reduce it.If there is one thing you need to know about biase...

When people are talking about “emotional intelligence and decision-making,” and are discussing decisions of importance, they are discussing how not to allow your biases impair your thinking. Yes, biases allow people to make decisions in a more efficient manner. Efficiency is important, especially considering all of the decisions people make in any given day. I’m not talking about what color shirt to wear, what to have for breakfast, and other such things. I am specifically referring to decisions in which accuracy and fairness is important.

Notice the definition I use: A bias is an unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment.

If the opinion is not unfair, it’s not a bias under the definition I’m using. Additionally, even if it’s unfair, if it’s not influencing your judgment because you are aware of it and keeping it in check, the decision isn’t biased.

Words matter. Pay attention to the words and definitions used.

When people say something is biased, they typically mean they think it is unfair. Thus, when they ask if biases can ever be good, they aren’t typically asking if they’re good for efficiency purposes; rather, they’re asking if they are ever fair when making important decisions. That’s the problem. Saying that biases can be good or are neither good nor bad under those circumstances isn’t helpful.

I’m also not referring to benefiting by taking advantage of other people’s biases.

When I say that biases are “unfair personal opinions that influence your judgment,” let’s be clear about that to which I’m referring. I am specifically referring to accurate human decision-making. When, if ever, is inaccurate decision-making on important decisions, good?

Let’s make sure we’re on the same page before dismissing people’s perspective.

I AM GOING TO POST THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT:

The following is the definition of bias from the Cambridge Dictionary:

"the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment;

the fact of preferring a particular subject or thing;

an unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment;

the fact of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment in an unfair way; and

the fact that information is not correct because of the method used in collecting or presenting it"

(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bias)

Therefore, if a phrase contains two words and the second one is bias, by replacing that word with the definition, it would make complete sense.

EXPLICIT BIAS "refers to the attitudes and beliefs we have about a person or group on a conscious level."

The second word in that phrase is BIAS. Therefore, an EXPLICIT BIAS is a conscious "unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment."

IMPLICIT BIASES "are attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner."

The second word in that phrase is BIAS. Therefore, an IMPLICIT BIAS is an unconscious "unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment."

IF ANYONE -- I MEAN ANYONE -- SAYS THAT BIASES, WHETHER EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FAIRNESS OR UNFAIRNESS, THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT OR LYING. BIASES, WHETHER EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT, ARE ENTIRELY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF FAIRNESS. IN EITHER CASE, SUCH PEOPLE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS "EDUCATING" OTHERS ON THE TOPIC -- NONE!

[This is NOT about taking advantage of other people’s impaired thinking by understanding how biases work and using them to your advantage and their detriment. This is about the person whose judgment is impaired as a result of their unchecked bias(es). Notice the definition. A bias is ”unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment." If someone takes advantage of another person’s bias(es), the result won’t be fair, even if it’s ethical and legal.]

I AM GOING TO POST THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT:

The following is the definition of bias from the Cambridge Dictionary:

"the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment;

the fact of preferring a particular subject or thing;

an unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment;

the fact of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment in an unfair way; and

the fact that information is not correct because of the method used in collecting or presenting it"

(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bias)

Therefore, if a phrase contains two words and the second one is bias, by replacing that word with the definition, it would make complete sense.

EXPLICIT BIAS "refers to the attitudes and beliefs we have about a person or group on a conscious level."

The second word in that phrase is BIAS. Therefore, an EXPLICIT BIAS is a conscious "unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment."

IMPLICIT BIASES "are attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner."

The second word in that phrase is BIAS. Therefore, an IMPLICIT BIAS is an unconscious "unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment."

IF ANYONE -- I MEAN ANYONE -- SAYS THAT BIASES, WHETHER EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FAIRNESS OR UNFAIRNESS, THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT OR LYING. BIASES, WHETHER EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT, ARE ENTIRELY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF FAIRNESS. IN EITHER CASE, SUCH PEOPLE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS "EDUCATING" OTHERS ON THE TOPIC -- NONE!