Well, that's great. Yeah, exactly. And that's two things to say about that. The first thing is about the last thing you just said. And, you know, most people when they quote, Rogers, they quote, the early definition of, of, of Rogers, his definition of empathy early on, I think, in the 50s 59. Got the book here, I'm gonna check. But they quote that early one, and they totally ignore the later the latter one when he talks about care, you know, so, so, so yeah, he defines this. And this is really fun to do when you read people's work. And they define empathy differently over their lifespan. And he talks about you, there's no way to be empathic unless you care, right, and how care is so important. He's really speaking a lot with the psychologists approach to the patient that that psychologist must care about the patient's well being. And that's how he defines that you can't have empathy, psychologists without caring about the patient's well being. So when I saw that I'm like, Okay, this is because I've always felt like, what am I going to put care into this? Right? So then I saw that Rogers, and that was an ad or 70s, you know, and so I go back. And I found, like, where the transition happened, where the change, and it was so lovely to find it, you know, because I wanted to create this, this, these three, this Tripoli relational model, but then I didn't want to like not have the evidence. And so because I felt that was the case and according to contemporary literature, so then I go back, and I look at what happened after lips. And what happened after after Titchener, translated einfuhrung into empathy. And what happened was, is you start seeing the rise of social psychology, and the social psychology with a study specifically, specifically of children, right? And then the story is like, Okay, let's try to see if children have empathy for each other early on, after all, we're going to talk about empathy as a real thing, we should see it somehow as something developmental. Let's see what age it actually happens, because you know, a one year old can't perspective take, right at least what most of most of the evidence shows. So let's look at it. This is like the 20s 30s and 40s. Let's look at childhood play. And then they start talking about empathy as caring. Why did little Johnny hit Sally doesn't have empathy. He doesn't have enough feeling to care. And so that's where part of the narrative changed again. And as I mentioned before, Steven Pinker, in his book talks about this change, in his section on empathy is one of his better angels. So this really arises from George Herbert Mead, right, who's a pragmatist, but also right, on the first social psychologists, you have Meads influence of, you know, childhood or development and how we can have perspective taking he speaks mostly his perspective taking at a certain age. And from me, you see this this flurry of Childhood Studies. And then, you know, if you look, with a lot of, again, a greater expansion of the meaning with I think, friends, devolves has a very broad definition, understanding, as we do as well, I mean, his he and he his definition and his model, right, involving many of the things many of the relations we discussed, but then there are just many different people after Rogers I spoke of empathy is caring, right? So then, you know, and then if you listen to contemporary culture, if you hear how people talk about it, you don't have enough empathy for me. In other words, why don't you care more? It's not saying you're not taking my perspective a lot in these situations. So just hearing that some of the contemporary ways how people use it, I said, Okay, this is justify to do this. And again, I don't think necessarily that it was always just in these different historical time periods that they developed. I think there's evidence of all three of these relations and each time, but it was interesting to see those shifts because, you know, in philosophy, some philosophers like Nietzsche and Foucault talk about how concepts or ideas over time shift, or they, they break, there's a break, like so Foucault is famous for this talking about madness. He says, let's look at madness in the Renaissance, the Mad were considered to be connected with the Divine, you know, and just don't care about this silly world. And then it's shifted, and the Mad then became the unproductive and then you send them down the Ship of Fools. So he goes through and looks at the concept of madness. I think it was, it's a really good method. It's, it's very creative. It's not as scientific but it's it's it's very creative method of reading history, and the changes of different language games, or whatnot, and how that happens. So most of the book is that that's that party's three of the chapters of that story, those changes. And for all those changes, the reason why is because there's some outstanding problem to address. And so the meaning of empathy isn't always important as the problem. And that's why would the expansion of the mean of empathy into the future I have no problem, whatever it can mean, as long as it relates back to a problem, it's not showing what empathy absolutely is. And now I know what reality is. It's how the model or how the idea, or the definition focuses in on a problem.