First, we found no evidence of systematic domination of these dialogs by any particular group. We look specifically to whether clergy people that were participating if they were going to dominate the conversations or not, and whether people who were born here, the non immigrants, will be also taking more space in the conversation than the immigrants. And that turned out not to be the case. There was no evidence of systematic domination on the part of any of those those groups, and when we went, when we went deeper into the substance of what people were saying, looking at, you know, the events of immigrant participants and the statements of non immigrant participants, we found that immigrants, when they were talking, they were usually giving perspective, so sharing to other people about how they see the world, the challenges, the opportunities that they face in the United States will lead them to move here. You know how how their life is, and US born participants. A lot of times, they were taking perspective, and they took much more perspective than they gave meaning. They were trying to express empathy. They were asking questions to immigrants, and they were trying to put themselves in their shoes, right? And to me, the combination of on one hand, no group is dominating the conversation systematically. We have US born participants, taking more perspective than giving. There's more room for immigrants to give perspective to me that signals an equitable conversation, and then looking back, the explanation that I give for that is based on the theory of intergroup dialog, and it's an explanation based on the model of dialog that we adopted. It's a model that I call diversal, bringing together diversity and the universal right? So it's the idea of a dialog that tries to integrate unity and diversity without privileging anyone. It is tempting in the practice dialog in communities, and especially in situations of conflict, to focus just on what people have in common, their shared interests, their commonalities, their common goals, their shared spaces. And it turns out, research has shown that that type of dialog tends to marginalize the voices of people who are already marginalized because you're talking only about the beautiful things that everyone has in common, and you don't have space for people who are from historically marginalized groups to express their grievances, to talk about their challenges, to discuss inequality. And of course, we didn't want that, so we created a dialog model that, yes, people talk about their similarities, they discuss common interests and come up with a collaborative plan at the end of the third session. But we also had on talk about inequality, differences, diversity, tensions that people experience in their communities that are associated with integration. I'm going to do a. Two examples of how this diversity, right, diversity and universality appeared surfaced in some of the dialogs. One is, one of the main findings of the book is the black, black, brown solidarity that emerged in the in the dialog. So basically, Latinos and African American participants bonding over their experiences of shared marginality in the United States. So that's something I've observed in several of the dialogs. Any one dialog in participant, there was this moment, this exchange started by an African American participant, a woman. She said something like, Well, when I go to an immigrant neighborhood and I enter a store shop, I try to buy something, and they're talking to me, you know, if it's a Latino neighborhood, they're talking to me in Spanish, even though they can tell that I'm American and I cannot, you know, I don't understand why that's the case. You know, it's a place of business. You know, shouldn't they speak in English with me? Why do they keep speaking Spanish? So she expressed discomfort with that, and in response, several of the Latino participants explained to her, why is it that that happens, that in those ethnic enclaves, you have a persistent persistence of immigrant languages. And why immigrants, you know, of, you know, different nationalities, keep speaking in their home, their homeland, language. And that change continued. And in the following session, I think she was, you know, she had time to reflect this African American woman, and then she started, know, like, you know, going back to something that we had discussed in the previous in the previous session, I realized that both Latinos and African Americans, we're both discriminated on the basis of language. US African Americans, we don't speak the King's English, and we are discriminated because of our accidents. Latino people realize, hearing from them that they face similar situations. So that was, you know, a very interesting moment where we move from attention over linguistic differences to a solidarity on the basis of language, right? So this diversity at play. Another example of that integration of diversity and unity was an awareness that a lot of the US born participants expressed of their of the privilege that comes with just having been born the United States, something that you it's it's not earned, right? You don't have to work to be born United States. You just are right. So that's a privilege, and that emerged usually in the second session, when we had two questions about similarities and differences. So one question was, why do you think that immigrants moved to the United States, and if you were born here, why is it that you moved to Maryland, or why is it that your ancestors moved to here? And then the other question was, what are the problems that immigrants face in the United States, and what are the problems that US born people face in the United States so different participants shared and connected over their similarities or differences, and in many instances, it was a humbling experience for the US born participants To listen to the immigrants, because then they realize, yes, all of us here, for instance, care about our children. We care about more education. We care we want our children to have better economic opportunities in the future. We want good schools. Yes, but then when they hear from the immigrant parents, they hear from the undocumented parent who takes the kid to the same school but is afraid of, you know now, dropping the kid off and picking the kid up from school, or there is the parent that goes to talk to the school counselor or the teacher, and then it's the little child that is bilingual, that has to do the translation, the interpretation for both, or that immigrant parents have to deal not only with those challenges and educate their children, but also with the fact that their children are growing up in a culture that is different from theirs, and all the intergenerational conflict that can come with that, right? So imagine they were talking this about education, and then there were the healthcare versions of this, then there were the workplace versions of this. And so it was a very humbling experience, and you left to us born participants to see, yeah, we are all human beings. We all care for our families. We're all one, one good health. But then you know, when it comes to day by day? Of life. They were humbled by the challenges that immigrants face and that immigrant participants were sharing, and they couldn't come up with something that, you know was equivalent to that, right. So they became aware of their privilege. So again, another example of similarity and difference, you know, unity and diversity getting combined in interesting, interesting ways you can learn more about that in the book and other findings. So now I'm going to jump to the limitations, right? Because it's not like this type of program, even though there was mutual understanding and collaboration that emerge because of those, those dialogs, because of that civic experiment, right? There are also limitations that I found in this in this type of work, first looking at the conversations, there was not much disagreement between people. And on one hand, that can be a good thing, because it's a sign of mutual understanding. And the goal of dialog is to generate mutual understanding, people understanding each other, sharing understanding about whatever is being discussed. And most instances of agreement that I found in the conversations, they were not just people saying yes, ma'am, right, or just, you know, simple, simply with, simply agreeing, you know, with someone else without actually giving thought to it. People are actually elaborating on arguments, uh, corroborating each other points with through storytelling, right? So it was not just a blind, you know, disagreement you know, or something that you know. Didn't involve much critical thinking. People were thinking critically even when agreeing with each other. However,