Finding something that has some street value, as well as intellectual commitment, is really important. And the word “communication” just never did, or at least as I observed it, it just really never worked. Now, what's fun and exciting for me is the psychology part, we always celebrated that. And we really needed to dig into the psychological theories, and we needed to have a major commitment there, and we needed to be an expert in psychological theories. This is a term from my influential graduate colleague, Joe Cappella, he always would write that media are infinitely describable. And I would say, that's exactly right. And if that's true, we're screwed, there's so many different ways we could define this, which one will we choose, and you needed to be guided by theory and whatnot. Now, because it's just so much more complex, there's so much more content and services, so much more of life is poured into these devices, and it's so much more manipulable, and the breadth of experience, it's everything - sex, drugs, rock and roll, politics, health, friendships, money, it's all these things, and in five second segments. So it's just really tough and interesting, that it's being done in fragments and idiosyncratic ways. And along comes computational methods that can help with the description of that complexity, in ways where we don't have to commit to standard definitions. Now we have data available, about moment-by-moment changes and what these experiences are like. That really excites me. To do well in media psychology right now, you need a good psychological theory, capital “T” theory, preferably one you've named and has a crisp literature that everybody recognizes. That is just embarrassingly unacceptable, with respect to being able to look at any interesting psychological theory, or even pre-theoretical or the inductive part of theory of just diving into this infinitely complex stew and swimming around and seeing what the heck is there. What are people doing? And relax about your theory for a second, just tell me what people are doing. And then we might know what to have a theory about, rather than a preconception that we need to differentiate this particular function from this one. I'm not arguing that research should be atheoretical by any means. But, within this inductive-deductive cycle that we all celebrate, if you wanted to match that cycle, to where we are with respect to the stimuli that we've all volunteered to be interested in, we need a lot more induction right now and a lot more just figuring out what people are doing. Because it's really different than it was five years ago, ten years ago. Ten years ago, most people didn't have a smartphone. It's just hugely different right now. Media psychology, pushing the emphasis to the media part seems exciting.