BOOST U! 003 | Motivating Operations, Medical Conditions, and Real-Life Applications

Maddie Duke (00:04):
Welcome back to another episode of Boost U. I am Maddie Duke.
Corey Robertson (00:09):
And I'm Corey Robertson.
Maddie Duke (00:12):
Thank you for joining us today. We are going to continue our conversation on content area B and some questions that we've gotten from our students. So today we're going to talk about motivating operations. So hopefully today we can kind of break that down a little bit for you and help you to understand a little bit. So, I have some like notes here from my reviewing. I had to review a little bit about motivating operations, just 'cause I feel like they're very, I guess with everything with the science, like we can really make things as complicated as we want to, and I like to complicate things. So I wanted to make sure that I was not overcomplicating things in my own internal, private verbal behavior so that my external public verbal behavior was not confusing. So essentially motivating operations, they have two effects, right? They have value altering effects and behavior altering effects. They alter the value, the reinforcing effectiveness or punishing effectiveness of a consequence. And because of that change your behavior.
Corey Robertson (01:36):
Yeah, I think it's helpful. You know, I think the concept is confusing and part of it is the terminology. So, I think a little history lesson might be helpful in talking about this concept. And the first is this notion of drive is the term that Skinner used. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that hungry rats and pigeons work better for food. And thirsty rats and pigeons work better for water. So they would deprive these organisms of water for 24 hours or food, and I never remember what the percentage is, but it's like 70% or 60% of their free food body weight. So they would look at how much they weigh if they had free access to food and then deprive them of food until they were, which sounds unethical, but animals don't eat all the time like, like we do.
Corey Robertson (02:18):
So but that's the first term. And then Keller and Schoenfeld coined the term establishing operation. And the idea is, well, hey, you know, this period of food deprivation establishes food as a reinforcer, but that doesn't explain what happens when the organism has access to food, when it's responding in the operant chamber over a period of time start to get satiated. And so that term establishing doesn't apply anymore. And so I think it was Jack Michael suggested the term motivating operation that would cover any value altering change. But then the issue with that is we're not specifying the direction. So motivating operation is our umbrella term these days. It's not ever incorrect to say it's a motivating operation, but we would prefer to use the terms establishing operation and abolishing operation indicating the value altering effect. And you used the word I love, which is effective because I don't like using the word value.
Corey Robertson (03:16):
In regard to that. First of all, it's not measurable. How much value does the reinforcer have? Well, that's not something we really talk about. We just know whether you're motivated or not. Right. But, but the other thing is, using the term value for punishers is weird. Yeah. if a punisher is more valuable, it kind of sounds like you want it. Yeah. But that's exactly the opposite. So I definitely love the word effectiveness. An establishing operation increases the effectiveness of the consequence as a reinforcer or punisher. An abolishing operation decreases the effectiveness of the reinforcer or punishment. And so we have EOS for reinforcement punishment, and AOS for reinforcement punishment. And I would remind students to use the last names of these when anytime we're talking about antecedents, talk about the consequence to which they're linked, because that's where the antecedent really gets its effect.
Corey Robertson (04:10):
So, and establishing operation for reinforcement increases the effectiveness of a reinforcer and makes it more likely that you're gonna engage in behaviors that produce. It has an an evocative effect on behavior. Right. If you want it more, you're gonna do things to get it. And if we have an abolishing operation for reinforcement, it has an abative effect. You don't want the reinforcer so much, you don't do things that produce it. Those are pretty straightforward mainly because the value altering effects and the behavioral altering effects are in the same direction. Right. Provocative establishing and, and abolishin abative, so those make sense when we get into punishers. So everything gets weird, right? Because they're actually the opposite. If you strengthen the Punisher, then you are not gonna engage in behaviors that produce that punisher. If you have a headache, loud noises are more punishing than if you didn't, and you're not gonna engage in any responses, which would produce loud noises, like using an emergency exit or going to a concert or something like that.
Corey Robertson (05:10):
Yeah. If you weaken the value of a punisher, then you're more likely to engage in behaviors. So, you know, if my parents ground me for coming home late, but this is the last weekend of the summer and I have no plans next weekend anyway. And there's nothing going on. I'm having a really good time with my friends. I don't care if I get grounded next week, who cares? Right. So I'm more likely to then stay out late and, and not, you know, because the, the punishment just doesn't mean anything to me at that moment, so. Right,
Maddie Duke (05:40):
Right.
Corey Robertson (05:41):
So students do struggle with definitely, that MOs relate to punishment because the value altering and behavioral interface are in the opposite directions.
Maddie Duke (05:51):
Yes.
Maddie Duke (05:54):
Okay. I'm trying to think of an example. So let's set up a scene. So this weekend I'm planning on going to get my covid booster, and I always, always, always get this terrible headache after every covid shot I get. So let's say that I'm dealing with this horrible headache and I'm cammed down on my couch, and my friend calls me to invite me to a gymnastics meet. Now, normally I'd say, absolutely, yes, I'm on my way, but this time I would say no, because I have this horrible headache. And so access to a quiet environment has been made more valuable and more reinforcing as a reinforcer because of the aversiveness of my headache. Right.
Corey Robertson (06:48):
Okay. Yeah. But more importantly, what does it do to the reinforcement of joining your friend at the
Maddie Duke (06:55):
It becomes more punishing. It's less effective to be with my friends?
Corey Robertson (07:00):
Well, it's, it's an abolishing operation for reinforcement. I'm not sure that it might become a punisher, but I would say maybe that it's an AO for reinforcement. Right. When you have a headache, those other reinforcers are not reinforcing anymore. It's not, it is, part of it is the escape or the increase of escape from noise, or maybe an EO for noise is punishment. But there's also like, Hey, I don't really wanna come hang out with you even and even have that social time if it was quiet. 'cause They just don't feel good. Right. Right. And that's something very important to recognize about, you know, medical conditions and other things like that is they do alter the value of your other reinforcers. I like popcorn, but if I've got acid indigestion, it's not as powerful a reinforcer and I'm not willing to work for it. You know? Yeah. so that's, that's, you know, an example of something happening that decreases the effectiveness of reinforcers.
Maddie Duke (07:49):
I have a question that I don't know if our listeners will care, but it's a question that I think about all of the time. And I think it's somewhat relevant to this conversation. I have multiple food allergies, like anaphylaxis cannot breathe if I eat them. The, the big question, which it has nothing to do necessarily with motivating operations. But, so one of my allergies is peanuts. Is peanuts a conditioned or an unconditioned punisher for me, because my cells needed no reinforcement history to identify that they don't like peanuts. But I need a reinforcement history to identify don't eat that. And I have, you know, a lot of other conditioned things, right? Like I can smell it and I know that it's gonna be bad, right? But the actual, like eating and ingesting of a peanut. Is that conditioned or unconditioned.
Corey Robertson (08:54):
So the thing to remember for students is when we talk about unconditioned and conditioned reinforcers and punishers, we're only talking about whether that stimulus innately had that effect or whether it had to be acquired. It's not about whether you learn the behavior that goes with it. So if a peanut causes your throat to close up, we are pretty sure that's due to your phylogeny, right? That's your genetics. And we're pretty sure that any behavior that you engaged in prior to eating a peanut or having that anaphylactic shock is going to be weakened by that experience, right? Don't eat peanut, don't put peanuts in your mouth, don't touch peanuts. Don't. Now you learn those things, but you didn't, you didn't have to learn that a peanut was bad. The peanut was bad innately, right? Yes. You learned that not to do the things that caused that peanut that to be in your, in your environment.
Corey Robertson (09:44):
So I would say it's an unconditioned punisher for you. Okay. Now, the smell of a peanut, if it doesn't directly have the effect, might be a condition punisher. I've associated it with the peanut itself, which choked me a no, stay away from that. And there's probably some other things that go on there too. There's probably some respondent processes there as well. You may have an increase in heart rate around the smell of the peanut or other things like that and or have anxiety about peanut butter sandwiches and things like that. And so that, this is where the stuff really gets interesting. This is not just learning some facts from a book. This changes the way we look at the world, right? And this is my favorite thing to do is apply these concepts.
Maddie Duke (10:20):
So this is why this has been on my mind so much. We were, last week we were at FABA and I accidentally ate peanuts. There was a dessert bar, and I should have known to not risk cross-contamination in a room with a lot of drunk people. Yeah. But I did my throat closed. I mean, I was fine. Like I'm fine, right? But I was driving to the conference the next day and I started having trouble breathing and like all, and I, it's respondent behavior, right? because One time that I was in this building, I had an anaphylactic reaction, which I haven't had in years, and is also just generally quite aversive and scary for us humans to not be able to breathe, right? Yeah. so it, I, it was, it's very interesting to me. I'm like, I've been thinking a lot about it and like the, you know, the presence of my husband was with me and he said, yeah, I can smell peanuts on your breath. Like, because I wasn't sure. And I was like, I think I might have eaten one. He is like, yeah, your breath smells like peanuts. That increases the effectiveness of my Benadryl as a reinforcer. Like, oh, really? Like, shoots through the roof. Right? Right. I always have it, it's always available to me. It's not an SD. I carry it with me at all times. Right. But all of a sudden I need that right now. Yeah. Anyway,
Corey Robertson (11:54):
So you, you brought up an important thing, and if we can't talk about MOS without talking about the epic battle of SD versus EO, what I consider to be one of the most difficult discriminations in applied behavior analysis. Yeah. But assuming that our listeners have gone through their coursework or at least some point in their coursework the, the first thing to know is if you know that something relates to behavior on the front end, if it's an antecedent and we know this thing happens and it influences behavior in some way, then it can only be one of two things. It's either a discriminative stimulus or it's an EO. Now, you may have learned about setting events or contextual ecological variables. You show me a setting event. I will show you a motivating operation. It's an old term for, for the same thing.
Corey Robertson (12:35):
And the term motivating operation, I think is a better term. So it's either associated with the availability of the reinforcer or the value of it. It changes the effectiveness of it. So the question you're always gonna ask when you're looking at the role of an antecedent is, does it mean I can get it or does it make me want it more? And then the other thing we can apply is the S-delta proof. If you believe that something is an SD and that it, that the antecedent signals availability, then in its absence, the same behavior will not produce the reinforcer. So if you think it's an SD, then ask yourself, well, if it wasn't there, would that mean I couldn't have it? So for example, you have Benadryl in your purse, you eat a peanut, and you all of a sudden you're reaching for the Benadryl.
Corey Robertson (13:20):
Does the peanut mean that you can get your Benadryl? No, your Benadryl is in your purse all the time, just in case all the peanut did was make you want that Benadryl more in that moment. Right? the sight of the purse though, is probably the SD. If your purse isn't there, you have the, you want it, but you can't have it, you know, and that comes in when we talk about motivating operations related to negative reinforcement. The, and this is, that's exactly what this is, right? You have a peanut, your throat starts closing up, you need escape. The aversive condition is the EO always, it is never an SD, it doesn't apply that. So it's not that a headache makes, you mean you can get rid of it, or the sound of the alarm clock means you can turn it off, or the peanut means you can get your allergy. Me. No, no, no, no. All that is just value. It just makes you wanna get rid of it more.
Maddie Duke (14:04):
So, yeah, I think anybody with chronic health conditions can attest to the presence of an aversive condition does not mean it's going anywhere.
Corey Robertson (14:14):
No. Right. It it just makes you want it more, unfortunately. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that, you know, when you combine, so the first thing about motivating operations is understanding that reinforcers and punishers aren't always the value changes. They're not always steadfast in their effectiveness. And so we have to recognize that. And then that kind of combines, in my opinion, with the matching law, which ties into our previous podcast on schedules of reinforcement. We didn't really get into the matching law, but the matching law talks about allocation of responding in concurrent schedules. When we have choices available to us, how do we allocate our effort? And when you, you really understand motivating operations and, and the matching law, for me, it's the moment in the matrix where you start seeing the zeros and ones, right? The whole world, if anybody's ever seen the, the movie, the Matrix at the end of the movie where the protagonist sees the computer world in terms of the code, honestly, I think that's the life changing moment.
Corey Robertson (15:11):
You look around and you start to understand, first of all, why people are doing what they're doing right now. What are the schedules of reinforcement in effect? Well, if the kid raises his hand, the teacher doesn't call on him. But if he calls out, the teacher immediately recognizes him and says, stop that. What is it? You said, yeah, you're right. But don't do that again. Oh, okay. You know, and, and then, you know, when we take into account those motivating operations, how things change, suddenly you understand why people are doing what they're doing. It gives us the ability to predict with, with some accuracy what people are likely to do in certain arrangements. And most importantly, it gives us the ability to start influencing behavior. We seem like magicians, but all we're doing is adjusting the environment in these little ways to tilt the scales in our favor.
Corey Robertson (15:57):
Little bit of deprivation over here makes that reinforcer more available. A little bit of withholding of this reinforcer over here makes that schedule more reinforcing or accessible. And suddenly the person's doing the thing we wanted them to do. We are not in the business of making anybody do anything. We're in the business of making them want to. That's what we do. And when you understand that, it becomes very interesting. I had a case just touching on that motivating operations and schedules had a case with an adolescent teen who would lock herself in her bedroom. And the father looked at me and said, I don't know what I can do. I can't make her come out of her room. I can't control her. And I said, you don't have to. We don't control her. We control the environment. And I walked over to the circuit breaker and I turned off the electricity to her bedroom where she was listening to her stereo.
Corey Robertson (16:47):
And within 15 seconds, the door came flying open. And I can now talk to her. Right? Right. You know, look at that. And I said, he said, well, that worked this time. I said, well, the next time she goes to school, you could take the door off the hinges. You know, you have that ability. We control the environment. We don't control people. And that's how we exert influence. Now that being said, if you're listening to this and you're saying, wow, Corey sounds kind of mean in situations, this was a pretty severe case. But I, I will say, I firmly believe and constantly you know reaffirm to our students and to my supervisees and trainees, that we are in the business of teaching people skills that help them achieve their ultimate outcomes. That's ultimately what I'm here to do. I'm here to help you achieve your goals through skill acquisition. So anytime we talk about changing problem behavior, anything like that, I just wanna remind people Yeah, we do have to do that sometimes, but it's always in the context of helping a person achieve what they're looking to do.
Maddie Duke (17:45):
Yes. Yes. So let's talk a little bit about conditioned motivating operations.
Corey Robertson (17:55):
Yeah. So the first thing I remember is that, you know motivating operations, just like the reinforcers and punishers that they relate to can be innate. Or they can be acquired. So our innate our unconditioned motivating operations relate to our unconditioned reinforcers and punishers, food, water, shelter, moderate temperature, sexual stimulation, pain. We don't have to learn that if we haven't eaten in a while, food is more reinforcing. And if we have recently, it's not under normal circumstances, right? There are situations where we eat and we're not hungry or drink water even though we're not really thirsty or things like that. But typically those are, those are unconditioned. But a lot of them do come about through ontogeny, through our experience. And we have three named ones. That doesn't mean there's only three. It just means that Jack Michael has identified three, and I've always thought about them related to the processes that lead to learning, pairing consequential operations and signaling.
Corey Robertson (18:58):
That's just the way I framed them. They're not exactly related to that. But the first one, pairing certainly is the CMOS, the surrogate CMO is established, through pairing. If you have a motivating operation combined and paired at the same time as some other environmental event, that other environmental event can become a motivating operation. The example that Jose used to give was of eating salty chips at a Mexican restaurant. And every bar owner knows that that, that, that salty food, everybody knows, I guess not just bar owners, but that salty foods make liquids more valuable. So bar owners will often give you pub mix tortilla chips, bread for free as soon as you walk in the door to, because they get, they have a good profit margin on their beverages. And so if you're in a Mexican restaurant eating salty chips, why not order a delicious margarita?
Corey Robertson (19:44):
Right? But at the same time, you're eating the salty chips. You may be hearing mariachi music in the background. And then you know later on you hear mariachi music and you crave a margarita even though you aren't eating salty chips. Right. You're not really thirsty. You just hear the music and say, oh yeah, Mexican music, I want a margarita. Commercials work the same way the sight of something where it's not actually available. Right? You see a pizza on TV and you think, oh, I don't have a plan for dinner. I'm gonna get that. It looks good. Is an MO And the other thing I always think about is, is couch snacking. I ask my students, which you know, if I sit in front of the TV I want to eat, even though I just had dinner, why? Because it's the place I do it. Yeah. Right? So those pairing food pairings are good examples of probably CMOs. So, you know, pizzas and wings or, or wings and football for me. And if it's a football game on I want wings. Yeah. Those kinds of things are, are surrogate motivating operations.
Maddie Duke (20:41):
I also think of they, they talk about like good sleep hygiene. Right? If you wanna sleep, well, don't do anything in your bed except for sleep. Why 'cause Then your bed only is paired with sleeping. Right?
Maddie Duke (20:55):
I had another one that I was, but I forgot it, but yeah, like that. Why does that work? Because it's paired with sleeping.
Corey Robertson (21:03):
Yeah. So, it makes you tired. Being in a bed makes you tired as opposed to anxious. Right? I tend to do most of my problem solving in bed. I need to stop that , you know? So then the next one is the the the transitive I'll do transitive next. And because I think of that as consequential operations, just because the transitive CMO establishes the value of something you need to get the reinforcer. You need this to get that. We can think CMO TT for tool is a great way. And I just really thought about that like two semesters ago. I've been teaching this for years, and then suddenly was like, oh, why didn't I ever think of this little mnemonic device? So if I give you a bottle of wine as a gift the first thing you start looking for is a bottle opener, a wine opener, a corkscrew.
Corey Robertson (21:50):
Not because corkscrews are your favorite things, and because you collect them or, but because you need the corkscrew in order to open up the wine bottle. And that's often confused for an SD, but again, the bottle does not mean that I can get a corkscrew. It just makes me want a corkscrew. And we manipulate transitive MOs all the time in practice, right? I give the child a, a picture of a frog and a red and yellow crown and wait for them to say, can I have the green crown? Oh, you want a green? Why do you want a green crown? Because there's a picture of a frog. You know, that kind of thing. So those are great ways to evoke mands is by using, you know, manipulating transitive MOs, and lot, you know, tons of examples of he, the waiter in the restaurant when you don't have something you need and that kind of stuff. And then the last is the reflexive. And I think of the reflexive related to signaling, although, you know, it should be pointed out that it's not an SD and signaling is really about discrimination, but, but it's, it's an antecedent condition and, and it makes you engage in behavior that terminates or, well, it establishes a termination as either reinforcer punisher. There are two types. The promise and the threat, the threat CMO are, is the one we hear about the most, and it's related to negative reinforcement. It's the signal, in signal avoidance. It's the thing you wanna get out of before the thing really gets bad. I always think of it as it, it things are about to get bad or worse. Worse. So get out now. Right? Right.
Maddie Duke (23:18):
Yeah. When, when I, most of the time when I'm about to eat something with peanuts in it, I smell it before it gets to my mouth. That smell tells me, yeah, get out now. Stop, put, put down whatever. That's it. Yeah.
Corey Robertson (23:32):
And I know you have a history of headaches. Do, do you get auras associated with those? Do you sense the headache before it comes out? Some people with migraines often have an aura. And that become, it is, it functions as a CMOR. You know, folks will start seeking a quiet, dark place before that headache onset because they have a sense that it's coming. So those are, those are very common. And, and we watch for those. There's been a ton of research on this, again, in clinical literature, because if you have a client who's running from you, when you show up at the door you got a problem because you are, you have become a CMOR, you are increasing the value of escape because of what's happening, because of what you're associated with. So that's the threat type. And then the promise type people don't talk about a whole lot.
Corey Robertson (24:13):
But again, this is where tying things into their consequences helps. For years , in, at Florida techs program as a, as a co-instructor, I called the Promise CMOR, the Black Hole of Behavior Analysis. We know it exists theoretically, but no one's ever seen one or can give you an example of it. But if you start, but if you start tying it to last names, you realize, well, wait a minute. If the, if the threat type CMOR is A CMO for negative reinforcement, it establishes, its, removal as a reinforcer. The promise type is a CMO for negative punishment. It establishes its removal as a punisher. So this antecedent condition says, Hey, as long as things are the way they are right now, things are good, or getting better, don't mess it up. And so if I'm standing in line for the latest iPhone and one of my students comes up to me on the street and says, oh my gosh, Corey Robertson, let me buy you lunch and catch up with you.
Corey Robertson (25:12):
I have to say no. And I do enjoy meeting my students in real life, and who doesn't love a free meal, right? But, I have to say no. And it's 'cause I don't wanna lose my spot. I'm next in line, you know? And so as long as I'm in my line, things are good or getting better. So three CMOs, the reflexive, surrogate, and transitive, and coming up with examples of 'em can be tricky. The biggest thing I think is recognizing them from discrimative stimuli, you know, from a practical standpoint in the, in the real world, being able to understand how antecedents affect behavior is critical. It will definitely make you a better behavior analyst. So if you've been struggling with that topic, spend more time on it. Take the effort it takes to become fluent, because it will, it will make a big deal. And there's lots of different articles and talks and things like that on MOs that you can enhance your learning on.
Maddie Duke (26:02):
Yeah, and I recently, I, can't remember if this episode is gonna come out before or after the one you're listening to right now, but I recently recorded an episode with somebody where I kind of asked her, you know, how do you recognize these things in daily life? And she said, go, people watching . The question wasn't specific to MOs, but she specifically said, go people watching and look at what MOS you think are in place for other people. And obviously we don't know their full learning history and all of that, right? So it's all hypothetical.
Corey Robertson (26:39):
Yeah. I think that, you know, it is fun to do this, and this is sort of a stereotype of behavior analysts right? Are you analyzing my behavior right now? And my, my response to that is always, well, not without consent, you know, or, or something like that, or, or would you have asked me that if I was a proctologist or something like that? You know, try to come up with a funny response. But the reality is, when you really understand these concepts, it changes the way you view the world. And and it's hard not to do it all the time. So I think it is always fun to figure out why people are doing what they're doing. And the first step is, well, can we predict when they're likely to do it? Can you identify when they're, what evokes that behavior and that we might be able to see?
Corey Robertson (27:19):
And those are again, gonna be the MOs or SDs. And then we can start to get to, well, what is it that's happening following the behavior that's harder to see in the moment, right? 'cause They're doing the behavior, but they haven't contacted the consequence yet. And we don't always have access to people's learning history, but we might be able to start as we track, as we observe and start saying, well, they do this when this is happening. And then you can start to relate, well, how does it relate to the behavior? If this is happening beforehand? Is it an EO or SD? And then that starts to point you towards solutions. Well, what if we did this instead? What if we did that instead? And a lot of our antecedent interventions involve manipulating, motivating operations. You know, if you don't want the reinforcer, for example, you don't engage in behaviors to produce it.
Corey Robertson (28:04):
So time-based schedules, you know, in fading in demands, making sure that curricula are appropriate for the individual. All of those things help because we're affecting the value of the reinforcer. Limited access to things that are gonna be a powerful reinforcer. You know, don't let the kid on the iPad all the time, make 'em work for it a little bit, because it's more reinforcing as opposed to having it all the time. And that's true for anything, right? You know if we had ice cream all the time, it wouldn't be as fun. You know, so but understanding all those things, you know, makes us definitely better practitioners. But, again, you're right. You can practice these skills all the time. Look for real world examples. They're all around you.
Maddie Duke (28:47):
Yeah. It reminds me of maybe this is a question to the listener. I, a long time ago, I had the idea to look at specifically like parenting advice and talk about, I don't, I don't wanna throw anybody under the bus, so I wanna pick like good ones and then talk about behaviorally why they work. So, you know, if someone says, if your kid's doing this, do this and they're not a behavior analyst, but then we throw our own little, and this is why it works based on our science would you be interested in that? Because I think it'd be kind of fun to do.
Corey Robertson (29:21):
Yeah. I mean, it's stuff that works just based on behavioral principles. That's the thing. Even if we didn't come up with the solution, right? When you get down into the nitty gritty, the facts are the facts, whether you call it that or not. And, and so I have nothing no problem with that for sure. Yeah. And I believe anybody can learn this stuff too, at a simple level. You know, you can learn about the ABCs of behavior and start to recognize those things. You can learn about motivating operations and value and, and signals and, simple language and start to apply those principles and you know, influence change, for sure.
Speaker 4 (29:52):
Yes.
Maddie Duke (29:54):
Which is good because parent training is a goal for many clinical behavior analysts and so
Corey Robertson (30:04):
Yeah. Well, again, we're teaching those parents skills. That are gonna help them achieve their ultimate outcomes, which is their child's success, you know, helping out. I want to teach them the skills that they need to solve the next problem. I'm not just here to solve the problems, I'm here to teach them the solutions, right. So that I can fade myself out.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Yeah.
Maddie Duke (30:21):
Thank you for listening. And if you have any questions, we are going to have a Google form in the description box where you can submit questions if you have any you would like answered. And we'll see you next time.