Now on cspan2s book tv. Television for serious readers. Hi, everyone. On the executive director of the Harvard Law School library. I can vaguely see you in the distance. A great lineup of authors, we are super excited to share the work we do. I just want to share a few housekeeping items. We are recording this talk and will post it on our Youtube Channel next week. I hope you will check out online to find out more. Thank you for the support for this Book Talk Series and a big thank you to our team, parker and teresa for helping put this together in this remote space. We welcome your questions and we invite you to use the q and a teacher throughout the talk. For our sponsor. I encourage you to local bookstore, visit the harvard life very library. It is my great pleasure to introduce the Robert University professor at harvard. Director of the program on the economic Public Policy possible. In 2019, the pies from the government of norway, sometimes described in the equivalence of the nobel prize. In 2020, the world health organization, chair of Technical Advisory Group in scientist for help. 2009 to 2012, administrator of the Regulatory Affairs and after that, he turned on the intelligence and Communications Technology and pentagon defense board. Testifying before congressional communities, the un, the world bank and issues of law and Public Policy. Serving as advisor for behavior. His writing is today to discuss his recent book, too much information, understanding were they want him now. Information professional, too much information is how to sift through the Information Available and finally, how to determine whats useful or valuable, questions i regularly ask myself. Insights into our information retrieving behavior and seeks to find the boundaries of when and what too much information is. Thank you so much for joining us and i turn it over to you now. Thank you, thanks everybody this close my personal loan. This makes me especially delighted to talk to you about this. I went to give you from tales that involve numbers talk about what the topic is and what their concerns are. Recently i asked the group a lot like america in terms of demographic diversity and a lot of people. I like to know about the first crush back on you and the answer was 58 said yes which was an english major, i know that 42 said no. It is a 5050 split which is moderately surprising. I asked, those people who want to know, asking a very large class what they thought and 99 said they want to know. Basically, one person didnt want to know. Okay, thats a puzzle. Why do they get a 50 50 split . Lies harvard one 100 . Lets some numbers, youre going to hear some more. When i was in the u. S. Government, i was skiing on information disclosure, regulatory and legal approach to helping people in crisis. We had an active debate in the white house about our calorie label rule and whether it should apply only to restaurants like donalds and burger king or whether it should apply also to Movie Theaters. Given the Health Problem of the calorie labels were attempting to respond to, this was a good idea. As it continued, we propose not to include Movie Theaters but when we finalized public comments, which had some data in them about health risk, we did decide to include Movie Theaters. I sent a note to a very good friend celebrating this decision and her answer to me at three words. Cast ruin popcorn. He was also thought profound because what she was doing was drawing attention to the fact that when people go to the Movie Theater to see kenneth who i recently saw, highly recommend, they dont want to be having a negative relationship to their food. They want to have a fun night out. The concern about popcorn isnt the decisive objection to information provision or calorie labels but if we are thinking about the consequences of information provision, its something that matters. Okay, here is my next tail that goes back decades. My dad, when he was in his 60, a relatively young man was very active tennis player but he started stumbling on the tennis court. Mother and i brought him to the hospital for tests and he had a battery of tests and my mother came back in the afternoon where we were having a late lunch and said to my dad, i have fabulous news, test results are in and you are completely fine. There is no serious problem here but they are going to keep you overnight for further precautionary tests in your basically fine, dodged a bullet. Lets celebrate. We had a very happy lunch there in the hospital, all of us. When it was over, my mother brought me to the car, going back to Harvard Law School she was a little like, maybe a lot like an actor whose emotions were able to switch instantaneously. This wasnt acting. Her emotions switched to an expression of never seen on a human before, which was despair. She said hes going to die, he will die within a year, he has a brain tumor in spite of that, nothing they can do but im not going to tell him and youre not going to tell him either. Okay, that was a life defining moment and it involves something more dramatic than, the popcorn but in the same universe, the thought was that she wanted her husband to have a good final year and not a tombstone of a final here. She also wanted herself to have a good, however much time there was, even though she saw the tombstone. At least she could live a life of a degree of normality she was thinking with her husband for as long as his health held up. Its agnostic on whether she made the right call, every family would make a different call, i think, in those circumstances, there wasnt a onesizefitsall. I believe she made the right call given that her husband and herself, okay. Okay. Motivated by this story which is the further recesses of my mind while in government and by my experience, ive embarked on a Research Project on the topic of information, seeking information appointments implications for law and Public Policy. Ill tell you three pieces of it and then there will be questions. The first part is that government need to do a much better job taking about popcorn, the human consequences of providing information this is true not just of government but people around libraries, doctors, nurses, thanks, lawyers, people in all walks of life need to think much more systematically about the actual consequences of providing information. Ill give you one example is regulation of law, there is a new law in place that requires disclosure of genetically modified organisms and food. The Trump Administration finalized its rule and it is clear from the Trump Administrations analysis, the obama administrations analysis would be very similar. The government doesnt believe the rules will help at all. No evidence of that. Nor does it believe the rules have environmental, no evidence of the so the governments claim is in terms of health and environmental, weve got nothing. We do have cost, its inexpensive rule, crazy expensive but expensive. The labels will cost something. Were going to cost on consumers and no benefits. Its a little worse than that because there is data suggesting some people will see the labels and respond all my gosh, danger. That suggests the human consequences of this information disclosure may be more money, more health, not more Environmental Protection but more fear and avoidance of a product doesnt cause health homes. So to think about those consequences. The second has to do with acquisition of information by government. When i was in government, i oversaw the paperwork reduction act just one they hear a production act but in the law, when i left the government, we imposed Something Like 9 billion annual hours on the american public. Im not proud of that, the number now is over 11 billion hours and those hours, lets call them sludge, consisting of paperwork, part of a universe fiction that people face when they attempt to navigate life. Maybe it comes from harvard, to be from massachusetts. It might be from the department of health and human services. It might come from the department of family security. What is being acquired with that 11 billion hours with a window is on to that problem which is much bigger than that 11 billion. Its often very important but often it really is imposing the only time tax on people who cant afford it but also is like a barrier, a wall separating people from something that could make their lives better. That is too much information. Going to tell you something about social media so were going to start with information as its provided by government mandates then talk about social media. Intrigued by the rules and popcorn claim, ive done a series of survey, data from 11 countries, what the world thinks. What information the world wants and doesnt want and what information the world is willing to pay for and what information the world is willing to pay not to get. Some people are willing to say i dont want to hear that and ill pay you real money if you will shut up. Okay, here is some data. No about 58 of people, a large sample in america want to know whether the prison in which they have a crush have a crush on them. The old tv show, wonder years were everyone in the show seems to want to know whether the person who may have a crush has a crush on them. 42 of americans want to know the calories in their meals for the next year. 57 dont. I already dont want their popcorn to be ruined. 27 of people want to know the year of their death and thats approximately the number we are getting across the world in 11 countries. Strong majority doesnt want to know. 47 of people want to know if they are going to get alzheimers, 58 want to know if they show a tendency to cancer, only 42 want to know what their friends and family really think of them. Because over that one, would you . Why . Why dont they want to know what the family and friends really think of them . 42 minority want to know how much warmer the planet will be in 2100. Only 57 of people want to know if their partner or spouse. 53 want to know if there is a heaven. A bare majority, only 44 want to know if there is a hell. Some people want to know if theres a heaven dont want to know if theres a hell. Respect to relative policy, 67 want to know safety ratings for their tires. 65 want to know side effects pain relievers basically for the kinds of disclosures that they are often interested in providing, we typically get a majority of people interested but it is not overwhelming majority once i acquired this data after about nine months not testing hypothesis, i felt baffled about what i had and while i published as a working paper, i didnt have an account, he was just like random data. An effort to provide an account with the help of neuroscientists the university. Three things going on here. The first is, people care a lot about whether information is useful. That is not shocking discovery. Its more implication than its obvious. Some information is useful in the sense that you can save money or improve your health if you get. Some information is useless in the sense that already know it or if you would, with care. Some information is affirmatively harmful to you in the sense that you will live your life worse if you get it. Okay. Some people are thinking, i am sure, i want to know if i have previous his recent increases speciation if i will get alzheimers. That will help me in my family account better. So please do tell me. Some people by contrast, think i dont want to know that because its going to make me sad and its not going to be had affect my behavior at all. Some people want to know the calorie labels because they think it will help me avoid health risk. Diabetes, obesity, etc. Please tell me. Others say i dont have a health risk. I am fine, its not information im willing to pay for. Others think im overweight. I dont love it but im okay with it. Im still going to the chocolate croissant even if i see the calorie label. It has no impact on me. Lawyers want to know whether there client hiring. The hiring foreign entity might be alert to the propensity to discriminate or the propensity of their employees to discriminate so they might think i dont want to know anything about race or gender of applicants. Its too much information, it will leave me, despite my better self potentially to take into account something i dont want to take into account. Attitudes suggest people deploy discrimination or maybe discriminators and it suggests too much information problem is real and some of these contexts. The second part, which my mother, sorry, my dad. With their own two, emotional impact of information. I want to make a plea for more intensely to this element of information provision and we typically do. By week, anyone in a position to provide or compel the provision of information which isnt the only factor by any means but if people think this information will make me scared or sad, that is lost to their life and also the clue that information provision is less likely to be effective it would be otherwise. If you terrify people with information, it might be that not only will it ruin their day or potential year, it might make it harder for them to take the steps necessary to eliminate the source of terror. Im thinking of the pandemic were an Information Campaign only makes people really scared without also making people feel they have hope, its likely to be doubly imperfect. First it creates a bad. For the emotions. It might be less likely they would do what they can to improve the situation. If we put these two things together, instrumental value and emotional impact, we can Start Testing hypotheses in time, which means kind of now and also understand what probably lies behind the unruly data data i described to you. Some people think this information about my health risk is useful even though it will make me sad, i want to know. Others think its useful, i admit that but i dont want to be made scared so please dont tell me. Others think in respect to disclosures, safety features of things you by, thats useful and i can certainly handle it. Others think its not very useful and i will have to think about that. That provides a global mind material to think about stuff of relatives to policy and help. Let me tell you about those in sequence and policies, but i do, health is not my expertise so i will be a little reckless on the second. Some of you may know that regulators are required by executive orders that have persisted under democratic republican president s, sometimes relevant to Court Proceedings also, costs and benefits. Whether you love costbenefit analysis or not, lets stipulate it is a corner of it. The Government Agencies have often been stymied thinking about how to analyze costs and benefits of cigarettes, having labels, things involving information about sunscreen and whether it will help you avoid skin cancer, nutrition labels, fat labels, explicit fat, etc. , etc. Much more. Have to notice that if we focus on instrument of value and emotional value, we will have a road to thinking about benefits of information disclosure. Latest thing we have in respect to calorie labels, it gives us clarity in respect to the impact. The concerning news is my friend who talked about pooling and popcorn, she was really onto something. People who have selfcontrol want the information and are willing to pay for it. Did you behave differently once they get. People who dont have a lot of control by good independent measures dont want information and are not affected by it. The calorie labels are going to help people who least need them and they are going to have no impact, negative emotional impact of those who most need them. The good news is, the people who want calorie labels want them more than the people who dont want calorie labels dont want them. To give you a little data, my survey which has representative samples finds for basically everything we tested, people are willing to pay more for information even if they are a minority in the population than in accurate, people who dont want information are not willing to pay. In general, information provision seems better willingness to pay which is the gold standard. Lets just say it is a way of measuring, its a good idea. In terms of thinking exactly how good it is, will not have more clarity on how to approach that question because we have a framework in which to do that. The government regulators to thinking not, we have no idea, as they sometimes say or we are going to focus on the Health Benefits. That is important but not the whole picture. If you have Health Benefits that make people miserable, the Health Benefits are missing something. The suggestion is, we not only can do better and thinking about what other effects of the information disclosure but we also should be able to do better figure out what disclosures are best. Which of the impacts which are most likely to change behavior. Which is least likely to trigger information. If we can do that, maybe we can save a lot of lives. If you think about covid19 and Vaccine Hesitancy or mask wearing, soul and life. Okay. Thats about government regulation. Now to talk about health in general, this will be a little reckless but lets speak up on it by talking about behavioral economics first. The framework so far has suggested people are rationally thinking about the instrumental value and emotional impact of information. What we know from decades of work, human beings suffer or benefit from present bias, which means today really matters tomorrow, probably. The next month, certainly the next year, it might be a foreign country. The information provision present bias can screw us up. Present bias and lead us to avoid information that will make us sad but could if we could change our lives for the better. People are less likely check their stock portfolios when the economy is moving. Doesnt make a lot of sense. The abstract, you shouldnt stop checking when the economy is crashing and when the economy is doing well. The reasons seems to be when the economy is doing well, people want to smile and when its doing that, they dont want to scout and they know the information will be joyful in one context and depressing in another context. But it might be good to know what is happening to your portfolio. You can think of this with respect to any number of things. I notice, maybe you have seen this, too, those who dont think that well in the class sometimes they dont want to check their grade or pick it up. Okay. Good. Present bias can lead people to avoid information even though i am balance, would be a good idea together. In radical context, who avoid negative Health Information are often much more resilient than they think. Get information as to blow the have some diabetes but within a month or two, they are basically line emotionally and resilient and adjust. Is going to turn out really well in both of those can be when i thank you so useful to focus on his present bias as a discouraging factor. An optimistic bias which can lead to people not to learn things about health and safety money. Or the world. And it can be very good to learn. Now Mental Health, if you look at two conditions, depression and anxiety. Their associated with different impacts on information seeking. Depression is associated with information of avoidance and information seeking. And it can be so depression the information avoidance can make the depression worse and anxiety and information seeking can lead to seeking information which may intensify anxiety. And these are things that the Mental Health professionals might be wanting to explore in the context of treatment. Now lets turn show way to floods. If you remember anything from these remarks, i hope it is 11 million hours and paperwork burdens on american public. President trump and candidate biden disagree on any things. Best not to mention information we are ready have that information. But with respect to that 11 billion hours. A confident about President Trump and Vice President biden would say what are we going to do about that. That is to buy. Neither the democratic nor republican minute administrations have had wars on this for we have had scrimmages and this is kind of a confession that in mind time government monitor the problems seriously. I wish i had done more. The reason that is problematic as it is because first and foremost that people of all kinds often are drained by the fact that you got an occupational license or taken apartment or to get Financial Aid for education. Or to get a visa to come to the United States or england. Ive learned a lot about sludge from people at harvard which is always been bad. In the eye of the states british seem to be worse now for obvious reasons. But whatever your policy views its on domain. Its just a cruelty. And not only because of the time but also because of the deterrence effect on getting the relevant thing in the first instance. So just going to give you an example. Earned income tax credit is one of the most successful antipoverty programs in the United States. To take it up is. Good. The last object it was in the percentage of 80 percent. The means 20 percent of core americans are not getting the earned income tax credit which has positive effects on only on their economic situations but on their health, the health of their children, the longterm health and Educational Opportunities of their kids. That is the love of americans that 20 percent. Its a little sludge. We could easily reduce it or taken away. And the reason its hard on people has been as not just, behavioral economics. This is that human beings have wounded bandit in their heads and essentially, if youre poor, poorly educated, suffering from some illness, physical or mental. For elderly, sludge can be a devastation read because inertia and bias often interact with those characteristics of life such as bandwidth to being a prohibition effectively. Sometimes government officials are alert to this not particularly sad about it. Money been used sludge is a device for federal resources. But often, the adverse effect of the sludge particularly in the distribution effects are not intended in our inadvertent prorated his problem of core program design. What we need at Harvard Law School, their one, not the worst offender by any means. In fact but any institution can benefit from this and is to have the sludge audit. They can be formal or informal. The mechanism by which to understand this volumes of sludge and are being imposed on such as patients but would be folders or students or recipients of some program for people who need it. What is the level of sludge and is it justified. If that seems a little fanciful. Actually the government is supposed to do this allotment of year. Information for collection of the United States. Not at the top of the New York Times list but it has an aggregate number and an agency by agency encumber framing of the department of treasury is a big sludge impose are parted with the department of education opposes a lot of the sludge biden said as the department of energy. So does the department of transportation and sludge audit could be motivating for sludge reduction parted if that sounds itself a little science fiction, the covid19 pandemic has resulted hand of war on sludge. We expecwith respect to health y theres been an awful lot of effort by Public Officials local state and National Governments to take sludge away. The say for example, you need an interview to get this. What you say, we are going to simplify the form. To say it is really automatic, you will get the check in your bank account. You will not have to do anything extra. Or to reduce waiting times. So this is yet to be fully explored. And we see it simultaneously, the sort of la catechins sludge. Which have had very good effects. Some increases in sludge which had been designed to reduce the likelihood that people will travel from one place to another reduce the likelihood that people from an infected place, and rated so americans are now banned from going to foreign countries, they often have a lot of sludge to navigate. Now my will have public justification so we can think of sludge as being a good way to reach a Program Eligibility sometimes and sometimes being justify level device. But the basic employee of the argument here is that the government is acquiring too much information from too any people to be justified. And i promised to tell you something about social media. And i am going to resume that promise threat. This will give you a little data points per unit so did a nationally rep. Survey and how much people are willing to pay to use social media platforms. We will start with that. And i asked america how much are willing to pay to use baseball, youtube and twitter etc. And i didnt one by one targeted what are the people said nothing. I am willing to pay zero. In a million amount was typically low, five or ten so the mental people who are willing to pay to use social media small. Thus a puzzle. This surprised me. And then we get to explanations which may be tell us something about the human mind and surveying policy. Explanation number one is that some respondents think i use social media. Elise the dana applies to the users, people who are nonusers. And that numbers surprisingly still look. Close. I used it but im wasting my time. Lets call it a wasting time goodie. Wt g. And for wasting time goods, people are willing to pay nothing. They duets. But if u. S. Congress, would you sell out for it. They will sell zero. I think this category is of interest. And has not been explored parted things that people do that they dont really value doing. It but if you take it away from them and u. S. Them much for the paper, they would say healthcare. Because the other explanation is that people value social media there used to getting it for free. We asked them how much of willing to pay, they get mad and they say nothing. Not because they dont value is. No because its wasting time. A bit because it is a protest answer. That has implications for part of the morality that we are facing. Were something that is free, suddenly gets a charge. There is going to be some rebellion at least in the short time. That is the first experiment in the second experiment, i asked america basically how much would you have to be paid to get off facebook. Or youtube for month. How much would you have to be paid. Now the answer is not significant. 50 or hundred dollars. People demanded Something Real to get off of facebook. What is going on there. Is there a better measure. Willingness to pay, are they supposed to be the same. And here we get a disparate its crazy. Often ten 140 what i found to be experiment is not what i expected. Which is that replication of a behavioral economics findings. But on steroids. The finding is harvard mug and some on the say, how much would have to pay you to give you give me the harvard mug. Im hoping youre going to like the harvard mug. It would be typically the double a method to would be willing to pay to biotin the first place. So in principle we could do this experiment online. I can say, everyone who, have of you have my book. Too much information for and its arriving in mail within the next 15 minutes. For a certain price. In the other half of bs, how much would you be willing to give her the book. And it typically the first group, much would you demand to give up. They would demanded twice as much as the number that would be provided for willingness to party. It works for lottery takes tickets in months and pence. But i have a super effect. Two one not two to one. I dont fully understand it. But i think the willingness to pay figure for the reasons given in the willingness to accept that number is high for similar reasons. People are saying that youre trying to take me away from the way that i connected with people. And on that you will have to pay me a lot. Since a major protest answer and speculating. The last thing that i will give you an social media is a simple punch languages social media is providing too much information and people should probably scale down their use by about 10 percent. I am making that up. With that is consistent with the data im about to tell you. So other experimenters found a similar set of numbers to what i found. With respect to how much people would demand to get up up use of facebook for month. It 1500 bucks. They took the offer from people who demanded 100. In the measured how month was for the people who without facebook for month. On every measure, the wellbei wellbeing, the month was better. Better than a month and the control group which stayed on facebook and demanded 100. So the Treatment Group, they can control group demanded 100 and stayed off. The Treatment Group showed lower levels of profession and anxiety and higher levels of happiness and more satisfaction with life. And then people were asked after doing that, and how much would you pay to be off for another month. In the immediate answer was 87. If left and 13. Okay i think that is profoundly interesting. It went down some people learned. But it stated. High even though people have a good month. And i give it to explanations which map onto what what we have been discussing throughout. Explanation one which i think the researchers prefer is that the facebook users who got off did not forget they had slightly happier months that they were willing to trade open and much help the part enjoy the race more information. So they got less political information in a less about politics and less connected by definition and they were willing to think. Its not everything. I would rather know about my country and i what is happening in my community than being a little less anxious. That is a good trade. So the 87 is picking up on maybe the instrumental value of information. Even if its not increasing in the economic value of life. And there we go. The alternative explanation which i confess, i prefer for reasons i cant identify retrospection prior to find it more fun. Is that the people who are demanding 87 and making a mistake rated that they are in the grip of the habit or mild addiction. Maybe is more than mild and they are missing the fact that if they were off of it for month reduced if they would be better off in the demand for a significant amount of money to be office inconsistent with the fact which they dont quite yet which is that they would be better off with at least less or Something Like that. But we dont of the integrated iva plea and then some literature. And then we will end up with these remarks. The plea is what unifies these comments about social media sludge and too much information as a recipe for policy with respect to the side effect of that location and consequences of buying a mortgage and all of those pages and pages of things and that confusing really fast verbiage that you curated tv had when they say this thing will help you if you have disease decks. And then really rapidfire, there are seven things that are bad side effects that might happen. In the plea as that in all of these contacts, about what is the most precious thing that human beings are privileged to have. In this connection my own mind and also connection i hope in all of her mind is with the situation in which the world faces today with the pandemic. One thing have. They were blessed to have. Time. Lets find a way to give people more of it. And in my Closing Remarks are not for me. They are from two works of literature. The first is owed on a destin prospect of the college. In the last lines you will probably know. It fits his home which kind of has a cliche, almost unbearably, iphone about an author of unclear age. Nice young party to writing about people like most of you i think in here 20 so younger. Who have joined openness and promise and a sense of tough conditions of wonder and amazingness of life. It was a poet is saying that things will get tough. And then he writes yet why should they know their fate. The sorrow never comes too late and happiness too swiftly flies. Thought would destroy their paradise. No more. Ignorance is bliss and to folly to be wise. In the other passages from a and takes a different take on the human condition. And see this as a signal of what was almost the title of the book, which with power but ignorance is bliss. It here is a passage, very brief from a novel called possession, the greatest english language novel ever. Dont argue. Squatting elixir authoring a letter that the hero of the book is to his lover to be. And seems to be about reading but it is really much broader. Its about the life. This is really about their relationship with about human inclinations. In the photo runoff rise to his lover, i cannot bear dustin in the enough detail. I will rip the most trivial things. Only at a feverish grade to be able to swallow the ending. Switcher or sour and to be done with what i need never ever embarked on. It are you in my case are you more discriminating reader. In the unprofitable. Thank you so much. We have our first audience question for you. The question is a letter to an extent you found the processes as unjustified pledge, the Government Agencies themselves, the micromini from seeking beneficial action that they may have otherwise taken. In other words, have they done sludge audit. And if so what did it find. It. Cassis a great question. We weret is our processes and imposing decisional over burdens that justify themselves. So maybe i should talk about the process what it involves. The regulation involving forprofit schools. Maybe trying to protect students against exploitation or something. It would be submitted and then i wrote will submitted to National Economic council. In the advisors and department of labor and department of commerce. In the policy counsel. Multiple other agencies which would make comments on the rule. And then there will be a deliberative process in which people decide what the rules best formal take. Most of the deliberation and any of the cases certainly the most important cases involve ira itself and involves other parts of the government weighing in and trying to make the best rule. There are cases where the urgency of the problem is such in the process the just described needs to be sped up rated city could see it. How long the rules are under review and ira. And sometimes its a short process. And sometimes less. And considering that the rules often a multi month is not a lot of sludge. And sometimes its any any months. They worked really hard and ira to get rules out in the face of Interest Agency disagreements. And these rules were very important. But if there disagreements, lets say the cabinet since this is nonsense. And it will create terrible problems. To work out the disagreements might be quite challenging. And ira, to override a cabinet head who has strong objections to a rule, it would not do that lightly. It might take a delay. As it was to quantify the tax benefits of the process just described. It lets kind of an informal sludge audit about how things are going basically that mainly something that i did. Thank you. The next question from the audience. How do you think through the value and dc the number of hours to the sludge focusing on making sludge less intolerable. For example, more predictable and userfriendly. And more of a feeling of control. Cant tell us more about that. Cass that is a great question. So first with the hours. Youre completely right, youre making an original point but theres hardly any literature on freedom of the no is a recent paper i think on intent unpublished. And not surprisingly found that the value of time differs of the depending on what people are doing. Theyre doing something they hate, thats a very valuable costly power. People are doing something that is kind of fun like a game. Im not fond about this except but you are completely right, to reduce the hours is kind of been the easiest but to make the hours, constant, the house would be a good thing. Professor, it looks like we might have one more question. Cass if u. S. The question, theres some chance that you would get a bug. If you go online, there would be some chance, some chance to get another market, for something comparable in value that you really want. But only if you ask a question. Asking questions is so important. I thank you so a great last . If you are in your first Year Law School right now. But you somehow knew most of the stuff that you know, majority of law would you choose to focus on. Would you follow the path you have taken so far would you change path. Cass i kind of love administrative law. My job, and appeared to reminded me that it left him more than i love administrative law. I think it would follow the path that i took just because a really enjoy whatever gone. But i cant rule of possibility the value if i had taken some other side, but there are plenty of areas that are interesting for you really interesting and they had to make you into a different person elisabeth. So start to think or make yourself that person and think which would be happier. Or more interesting. But ive been following Administration Law behavioral law of economics lets call it, those have been joyous to me. Do you know where your path comes from and sometimes sticking with it and learning from everything. And a great path to take so in retrospect. Ignorance can be blissful. And continue to strive and learn for you think that is one of the great examples that you sent for our students. We are so delighted to have had you with us. We look forward to talking to you about your next book. Cass thank you. Thank you for your time. Cass hopefully we will meet in person someday and on line someday send party to. See you soon and take care and see what everyone. Care some of the current bestselling book sprint according and off the list the essential scalia, the essential scalia. Edited by jeffrey sutton. Then followed by writings about the south and where i come from. Then in sicily 43, other james remembers the invasion of italy during world war ii. After that the late author winston examines Alexander Hamilton and john adams in the patriots. And wrapping up a look at some of the best selling books, is the sentinel, the latest and author fiction series. Seventys authors appeared on book tv and you can watch their events online at booktv. Org. Hello everyone. On the coat director and the executive director of Global Innovators Group in Aspen Institute number thank you all for joining us here tonight for what will be a fascinating conversation while the pandemic has prevented us from gathering in person, were so excited to continue to host informative and inspiring as conversations between Health Practitioners artists scientists and