Well, I think, you know, they're the perennial questions, because I don't think we've answered them yet, at least in the field of intergroup communication. What are the triggers to conflict? What are the triggers to rivalry? What are the triggers to friendship and liking? What are the consequences of communicating in a friendly way versus a hostile way? What are the consequences of accommodating? The behavioral consequences but also the social consequences. Does it actually have a big impact on say, lasting friendships? Or, you know, and I mean, that goes to questions like, Why are most of our friends so similar to us? People don't often think about that as a communication issue. Even people in communication don't think of it as a communication issue. But in fact, it is. The people who are similar to us communicate in a similar way, they use the same language, they often use the same speech style, they understand the little communication moves that we make. But I would love to take that one level deeper and say, Okay, why is that? Because I think there's been a lot of, I think, fairly glib and naive research around those issues. You know, if you look like people, you like them better, basic bedrock theory. And of course, it works, it predicts extremely well. And I guess I would argue that it's the communication similarity. Tt's the fact that we talk a lot. The other person could be eight feet tall, or four feet tall, and you know, the other sex, all kinds of different things. But if they talk like you, if they communicate the way you do, then you'll like them. You know, you'll have an easy time with them, etc. And if they don't, even if they're your identical twin, in many ways, you won't like them. So I think we've scratched the surface of that area. We're starting to ask the questions, and we're starting to know what the questions are. But I think there's a huge challenge in the next few years to actually addressing those questions in a meaningful way. One of the things that's held the field of communication back over the years in my view, is the lack of capacity to look at the details of behavior. Looking at the details of behavior is actually quite hard. If you actually want to look at what people say and do, then there isn't any way to do it, except to look at what they actually say and do. And we're only just starting to get ways of actually measuring behavior in an automated way. When I was a young student, I had to sit down and actually record by hand the details of conversations, looking at videotapes, one frame at a time. And that's a tedious, boring, hard, laborious process. And so people have tended to avoid that and look at the easier option of giving people a questionnaire, which is great. I mean, I'm not knocking questionnaires, I think you can get a lot of interesting information off of that. But what you can't get is what people actually say and do in a conversation. They don't know what they did. They know what they intended. They don't know what the other person did. They know what the impact was, but they don't actually know what the behavior was. You've just got to sit there and measure it. And we're only just starting now to get ways of doing that that are sufficiently automated, that people don't get discouraged after two minutes and go on to something easier. And that's been a huge, huge problem over the years.