A reader asks:
What's the hardest question you've gotten about the new book? Is there one you were totally unprepared to answer?
This is a slightly embarrassing confession, but one of the most difficult questions I've been asked is also one of the most obvious. It goes something like this:
"What practical knowledge have we gained by looking at decision-making in the brain that we didn't already have, either through introspection or behavioral studies?"
When I was first asked this question, I think I muttered something about the virtue of curiosity, breaking open the black box and fulfilling that ancient dictum "know thyself". In other words, I completely avoided the query, like a slippery politician. While I think those are all valid motivations for neuroscience - there is something epic about trying to understand the three pounds of gelatinous flesh inside the skull - they also aren't particularly practical.
And I think it's also worth pointing out (as I have before) that a tremendous amount of modern neuroscientific ideas have been presciently anticipated by everyone from David Hume to William James to Aristotle to Virginia Woolf. This shouldn't be too surprising - introspection is a powerful investigative tool. David Hume, for instance, summarizes an awful lot of recent work on the importance of emotional signals during decision-making with this famous line: "Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
So what's the added benefit of neuroscientific explanations? If Hume was right, and James was such a genius, and we can learn so much from "mere" behavioral studies, then why bother with the amygdala or dopamine?
The best answer, I think, is that learning about the brain can help constrain our theories. We haven't decoded the cortex or solved human nature - we're not even close - but we can begin to narrow the space of possible theories. We know, for instance, that the rational agent model of Homo Economicus isn't particularly accurate, at least from the perspective of the brain, and that the deliberative prefrontal cortex is often out-shouted by emotional brain areas like the nucleus accumbens, insula, etc. This supports, of course, lots of observational studies that demonstrate that people rarely rely on explicit calculations of utility (or explicit calculations of anything, really) when making decisions. The anatomical details, in other words, can help settle the argument.
Now this might seem rather underwhelming - all those pretty fMRI pictures just constrain our pre-existing theories? - but I actually think it's rather essential. Consider Freud. The man had an uncanny talent for inventing elegant theories. He was a hypothesis machine, churning out one fantastic sounding idea after another. But which of these ideas are true?
Here's where neuroscience comes to the rescue. I think time and experiments have redeemed some of Freud's fundamental theories - the unconscious drives much of our behavior, dreams aren't random narratives, but actually regurgitate scenes and snippets from daily life, etc. - while other Freudian theories have largely fallen flat (your Mom probably isn't responsible for most of your neuroses). We can take something as vague as the id and began shackling it to particular brain regions, like the aforementioned amygdala. (The prefrontal cortex is some fusion of the ego and super-ego.) By recording from hippocampal cells in the rat, scientists can begin to decode the function of dreams, and see how they're a crucial component of memory consolidation. And so on. The point is that, while all of Freud's theories might sound convincing, only a few of them are actually correct. In this sense, neuroscience is what helps us separate the beautiful theory from the definite truth.
How would you answer the question?
- Log in to post comments
Just like you?
Nice anecdote about the meeting with your audience during your booktour.
Can't your final paragraph answering the question be pretty much summarised in one word: objectivity.
If one reliably identifies a neural correlate for some important characteristic (anxiety, depression, attention, recognition), then it becomes possible to measure it objectively rather than relying on external estimates (e.g. of reaction time) or introspections (questionnaires etc.).
Of course, there is the problem that the neural correlate is not in itself necessarily interesting so it's important to be aware of the danger of focussing on a surrogate measurement. I'm reminded of the medication for high blood pressure that has been withdrawn from general use in the UK because it treated high blood pressure effectively but failed to have any impact on the conditions associated with high blood pressure that are the main issue.
But of course, the main reasons for studying the brain are that it's interesting in its own right, and that it's a complex organ of which we know (in an academic sense) too little.
Of course, in reality we know a lot. My brain built itself from almost nothing. Shame it doesn't have that information in the cerebral cortex!
Introspection and behavioral studies have been quite good and answering "what" but fail to answer "why". Neuroscience is beginning to deal with the latter.
Just as early astronomers were remarkably effective at predicting the motions of the heavens well before Newton and Kepler, early psychology was effective at observation and prediction, but only on a limited basis. Anyone who predicts that theory-driven neuroscience will not reveal anything important about the human mind holds company with those who predicted that Newton's theories would have no real effect on our understanding of the cosmos.
Freud's "theories" are one of the greatest embarrassments to science. That theyy were given credibility is disgraceful and undermines amy claim thqt science is "evidence based"
Neuroscience bears stiking resemblances to phrenology. Maybe that's why it's so hard to cite benefits.
Great post. Still, as one who loves brain science but also values âintuitive knowledge,â I wouldnât feel the need to justify neuroscience because it âprovesâ theories. Brain studies seem beautiful to me, just like the study of galaxies. If we find a place in the brain for Jungâs archetypes (heâs my favorite theorist), thatâs fascinating, but it wonât âproveâ the theory to me since Iâm already pretty attached to it. Guess that confirms Iâm not very scientific in my approach but, as you write, humans are emotional first, rational later.
I think this question is like asking "what's the use of a microscope or telescope?" The value is in the extended range of observation. NS is a set of tools and techniques for looking into brain activity while we think, so it gives us access to another level of analysis, and all the value flows from there.
I don't buy the "we knew it all before" argument. That's usually just post facto rationalization ... sure somebody said something in the past that agreed with a NS finding today, but somebody else probably also said the opposite, and how could we choose? Not to be too Popperian, but we need tools to enable falsification if understanding is to progress, as opposed to just fluctuate back and forth based on fashion and current popularity.
NS gives us access to both independent and dependent variables that were/are invisible to us using traditional self-reporting techniques (aka asking people stuff). Things like unconscious priming, incidental exposure, and processing fluency affect things like pre-attentional alerting, implicit emotional tagging and memory facilitation / inhibition. And those things affect decisions in ways that would be opaque to us if we didn't have these tools.
It's all about filling in the causal chain from raw sensory input to action. And there will be surprises, guaranteed.
How do we decide between neuroscience and other arts and sciences that guide our understanding of those 3 pound blobs? We don't have to. As theories and discoveries overlap, expand on, contradict and puzzle us, we get to mix the Cheerios and enjoy the latest from PubMed along with Woolf and James, as we enjoy reading along with music or watching online video of Jonah.
Keen observation is a first step in both science and effective fiction. The further steps involving the expression of the ideas generated and ways to test them vary depending on the discipline.
We'll need all the tools and techniques those three pounds can devise to even begin to figure out how a stray glimpse or note or whiff can evolve into a great work of art.
Well, this stuff seems to provide neurobiological support for the "behaviorist" models such as "operant conditioning." I know that the Skinnerians have been kicked down the basement stairs at Harvard by the ascendent "cognitivists," but your work gives pause.
Neuroscienceâs reductionistic approach to brain study using fMRI and other mechanistic methodologies, is equivalent to trying to deduce a television programâs contents from analyzing the resistors, capacitors, transistors and PCBs which make up the receiver/picture generating circuitry while having no concept of the transmitter/receiver symbiosis, much less the transmissionâs content.
Through careful analysis of the TVâs components, one can deduce that light can be emitted in a raster of infinite patterns from a CRT and that the potential capacity for information transfer exists, but the patterns have no meaning sans intentional arrangement (program transmission) which was generated externally to and displayed by the translation mechanism (circuits/components) in a manner that can be understood via consciousness to create meaning through oneâs perception.
Brains are the transmitter/receiver (translator) for the mind (intention/consciousness) which is the TV program and while the arrangements of its components (neural networks, blood supply, hormones, tumors, and BELIEFS etc.) may alter the mental content and its creations (information/emotions/experiences), it is not responsible for our consciousness or intentions.
Our consciousness/minds translated by our brains, into thoughts/actions, are responsible for our intentions, creations, and experience which is fed back into the brain where it is translated for the mind to ponder.
Of course if one believes that consciousness is an emergent property (currently en vogue) due to a brainâs complexity or that mind is an epiphenomenon, then reductionism is still problematic in that it will fragment the holistic gestalt that is mind/body â similar to vivisection or killing living organisms to discover the nature of LIFE.
@sam k â Introspection is more apt to deduce âWhyâ than âWhatâ. Neuroscience may be useful to stimulate introspection, but as I opined above, reductionism is a blind alley, no matter how sophisticated the technique, or new devices/inventions, the interior cosmos will be revealed through induction and like Edison, what we discover does not illuminate this undertaking.
Clearly, some studies of brain function, in particular selected functional imaging studies, have greater entertainment value than practical value. That's one reason why it's important for the public to have at least some basic knowledge of science and the scientific process. It facilitates a healthy skepticism and promotes questions like: "Why is this study being done?" and "Do these results make any sense?"
Neuroscience has lead us to practical knowledge which is improving our ability to look forward as well as to be able to look backward, and in so doing, reducing the very human tendency towards self-delusion. The failure of this is illustrated by the character Funes, in Funes the Memorious, by Jorge Luis Borges.
Robert A. Heinlein said. "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal." Recent discoveries as noted in Jonah's book reinforces that quote.
I have never seen a conflict between science and faith. If you believe in God as well as science, you will find that scientific discoveries only reinforce your belief. If you believe otherwise, you can use reasoning to support your belief.
By putting doctine aside, I believe that a number of people are actually Christians without realizing it and a number of people who think that they are Christian are otherwise. If you really examine Christ's own words, you will find that he said nothing regarding any group, creed, faith, race or any other category. He understood quite well the flaws that are inherent in generalization. Aristotle struggled mightily with this concept. But, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said "No generalization is worth a damn, including this one." Christ's only lesson was about how we treat each other and they can be summed up in two passages.
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:43-48
When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Matthew 22:34-40
How would I answer the question? Well, given that the human race has persisted for as long as it has by making the right decisions this would seem a very important skill, individually and collectively. And given that some people are born with brain defects, or get diseases or have accidents that damage the brain/mind, so that skillful decision making is not possible, one would want to be able to fix that. This is why I would do neuroscience, to do the mechanical repairs.
Of course there are a lot of repairs that aren't mechanical
which is why I am a life long student of the changes to the brain/mind that can be done without 'lifting the hood'. One
can change the brain/mind of oneself and others very profoundly without getting under the hood. That this is so is one of the great mysteries of life. For other mysteries that science hasn't gotten to, check out Rachel Naomi Remen, MD's "The Will To Live", a 2CD set of talks about her 'repair work' with burned out docs and other patients.
I am particularly excited about the current investigation of mirror neurons and the role they seem to play in empathy.
I'm working in an applied human factors laboratory using so-called "neuroergonomics" to inform system design. If we ever actually pull using brain data to assess the cognitive and/or emotional stressors different systems put on people, and/or leverage that data to rearrange displays or increase information throughput, I'll finally have an answer. Which has been plaguing me ever since mid-graduate school ... "it's cool" is still about the best I can up with, otherwise ...
How about better aiming/designing therapeutic pharmacologic agents? Any neuropharmacologists around?
As i see it, introspection and observation are facets of the scientific process that help produce hypotheses. Closer observation and testing (fMRI, ect) helps reject/verify these hypotheses.
We can come up with a theory of why something works, but if we cannot verify it with all our available scientific tools (including both behavioral and fMRI experiments), then it should be rejected. That's the beauty of having new tools is that, as you said, our world can be more closely or just differently observed and theories can be more finely tuned. This happens for any science with any advancement in technology, and begets scientific progress.
It's funny that no one ever asks why scientists study the heart and its functions. Possibly because of heart attacks and other such diseases... So I think another answer to why we study neuroscience is that there are a lot of people who suffer from a variety of diseases that affect the brain. I mean, just in relation to the title of your new book, drug addiction, ADHD, obesity, why some Parkinson's patients become pathological gamblers, etc have been looked at as (at least partially) aberrations in one's decision-making processes.
Jonah-
First, thanks for two wonderful books. Second, as an educator fasinated by the application of neuroscience to education a question I am always asked when I give supporting neuroscience evidence for a learning principle is "Didn't we always know that?" Yes, but we didn't know why? In essence brain science is the revealing of the magic trick. It's the "Ahhhhh...so that's why!" It also offers itself to new and unique applications. Finally, W. James was brillant in insight. So was Freud, he provided an intuitive theorectical structure whose greatest promise lay in all the work of those who would see it empiracally destroyed.
It's not been too long ago when introspection and thus the subjective or personal perspective was frowned upon as scientifically useless and unscientific because it's lacking "objectivity".
But what use is talking about emotion or any personal experience without taking the personal perspective of each individual into account? Talking about the mechanisms of emotion and their function is only half of what is to know. Experiencing emotions and knowing how they feel is the other half that is as important to get insight into the workings of emotions.
I'm not a neuroscientist but reading Damasio's books confirmed what I and a lot of far wiser people before me have thought about this subjective=unscientific argument.
I think the other Sam K. (#3) is probably closest to how I would answer this (I don't *think* that was me). I think it really strikes at the core of what scientific enterprise is all about. Science seeks to provide more than just descriptions of what happens, but also explanations. Behavioral studies can come up with scientific laws*, i.e. descriptions of what happens, but you need to look deeper to come up with a scientific theory that can make good predictions; and ultimately that's what science is about-- and I appreciate this view is largly Popperian in nature-- creating specific universal statements (laws) based on proposed mechanisms (theories) that can be [relatively easily] translated into falsifying experiments. Without NS (i.e. just behavioral studies), this becomes much more difficult to do, since you don't have access to the parts of the brain that might inspire the mechanisms from which your predictions are made.
However, I disagree with #3 about the analogy to Newton. I think the early astronomers are like psychologists that don't do rigorous studies and Newton is a behavioral scientist. Newton studied the relationships and interactions of matter and came up with absolutely brilliant descriptions of what happens, in a very rigorous fashion. However, while some first principles are expressed in the motivation of Newton's laws, they are few and far between. On the other hand, I think that many 20th century theories do a much better job of explaining why things happen. I think this is evinced by the fact that Newton's laws don't predict much outside their immediate sphere of influence-- i.e. they don't really predict anything that hasn't already been observed. Granted, Newton's laws deal much more with the scale of things that are regularly observed, but that's exactly the point-- they describe what we see but don't provide underlying explanations for why they happen that allows to predict behavior outside of the observable. Most 20th century theories, on the other hand, generally are able (due to their higher degree of explanatory power) to make predictions of the yet unobserved.
That's the difference between neuroscience and behavioral studies: NS has the potential to predict things we haven't yet observed.
*Note: laws don't have to be absolute; they can certainly be probabilistic in nature-- that certainly doesn't mean there's no strict (deductive) relationships involved.
I was going to say the same thing as comment #18. Why do doctors exist? To heal the sick. Neuroscientists study the brain for the same reason.
somehow i think that the dreams of lab rats are mostly going to be nightmares.
The argument is a level-of-explanations argument. The question was hard to answer because it is true that most of the information this man could use for better decision making that is in the book can come from a psychology-based explanation, and the neuroscience is a little irrelevant. Put simply, if he read your book to know how to make better decisions, he can do something about the behavior easily, but not so much the dopamine system. This type of reader is very practical, so I would answer about the pragmatics of neuroscience: that elucidating neural circuits involved in decision making gives insights into helping certain patient populations (lots in the book about this), that it can help AI systems to act more human (good for possible computer-based poker playing in the future), etc.
This is all great for understanding the healthy brain, but I believe neuroscience has also given us wonderful explanations of and treatments for diseases that cannot be ignored. To site briefly, Parkinson's and dopamine and the substantia nigra and subthalamic nucleus. What about better treatment for stroke victims or patients with spinal cord injuries? Such cannot be explained by introspection or behavioralism alone. Demyelinating syndromes such as MS or Guillain-Barre can only be explained and diagnosed and treated with understandings of the molecular nature of the disease, such as the models of molecular mimicry we now abide by. If the mind is an emergent function of the brain, as most of the scientific community now accepts, affective disorders too must be understood at a molecular level.
I can't rewd scienceblogs.com ij IE 3.1, I just though I might tellyoku about it!
I am particularly excited about the current investigation of mirror neurons and the role they seem to play in empathy.
Right to the point and published good, many thanks for the information and facts
I agree that the best way of describing this is "objectivity". To accurately measure certain states of mind where we previously have had to rely only on external signals or manifestations, would be a gigantic step forward!
Are you making this up as you go along?
Are you making this up as you go along?
good post!
you so overmuch for the soured succeed put into the diary send. It's e'er some satisfying. I'll be backward to learn erst again on what all the fill has to say regarding it. I judge I testament but fuck to wait and see if there are any new posts that get from from the remarks manus on here.
The_value_of_neuroscience.. Great idea :)
Your place is valueble for me. Thanks!⦠After study a few of the blog posts on your website now, and I truly like your way of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website list and will be checking back soon.
HalloIch wollte mich nur für die Seite bedanken, echt informativ und nett zu lesen. Danke Gruss Marlene
Nice article, but let me ask if everyone has something in mind to add..
*Hello! I just would like to give a huge thumbs up for the great info you have here on this post. I will be coming back to your blog for more soon.
hi, r egal blog on jobs. this helped.
Hi, I totally agree with you! Just obey my previous comment
I've to concur with Guy McLaren tho:I know men and women who've been victims lately. Can I say the country is corrupt and crime ridden. I donââ¬â¢t believe so.
I disagree with your comments, just don't believe all the facts are researched correctly. I do enjoy reading it, look forward to more!mail forwarder
I really savoured your post. I can tell you put in a lot of thought and time into todays post. I will be back to study more as you post again!
Undeniably believe that which you stated. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the internet the simplest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while people think about worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks
Awesome! Couldn't figure this out myself, so thanks a lot for your help.
Wow, true, that's some good commenting :P, there, buddy. I'd love to subscribe to your RSS feed, but I can't seem to find it, can you point me to a link?
When i please don't make an effort ever again.
Itâs hard to find educated individuals on this subject, however you sound like you understand what youâre talking about! Thanks
Toller Beitrag! Ich freue mich auf weitere Posts zu dem Thema.
Thanks i love your article about The Value of Neuroscience : The Frontal Cortex
Thanks i love your article about The Value of Neuroscience : The Frontal Cortex
grando famotelha mi ciolitina te damorejo guento emeje. amolol te etifupo atuira nos ssespa o ssesvata agombur velia bien.
:trophy: Cool! There is no adjective that can properly describe this. This deserves another 100 comments it is so good
Hello there! I recently wish to provide a massive thumbs upward for the great data you have the following about this publish. I may end up being returning once more for your website for added quickly.
Btw, I second Willa there about finding a new author with a great backlist that I can glom!
my favorite summer must have is flip flops!!! :) i would wear them year round if it didn't snow here
I love your ice cream but I also LOVE your chocolate marshmellow yogart. yum yum
It takes more thought to come up with a good blog comment then a bad one. For instance, it takes much less brain effort to say âyou suckâ than to say âI profoundly disagree with the simplistic drivel that has been touted on this networked opinion delivery system.â As evidenced by the number of moronic comments that are left on various blogs, it appears that the majority of blog readers have the cranial capacity of cattle who spend a lot of time defecating in the same pool they drink from.
By the way nancy, i was writing to the guy whose article you read and not you, your comments were spot on.
This is probably is one of the epic entries I've seen in a while :D !!!
Im also getting caught up on the Desire series that our favorite author is a part of and so far so good. Very good! (Heidiyou did Trevors story right?).
do you really think like that? because i`m not sure at all.
Excellent goods from you, man. The Value of Neuroscience : The Frontal Cortex I have understand your stuff previous to and you're just too great. I really like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you are stating and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it wise. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a terrific The Value of Neuroscience : The Frontal Cortex informations.
Hey mate, thanks again for another great post I really enjoyed going through it. I take it that you know what you are doing in terms of web creation and content creation because your website looks fabulous. I have been taking a brief look at your website in terms of SEO and you currently only have around 300 backlinks (quality backlinks) because of the nature of the niche you are in you should really be looking for some SEO services. I own my own seo company and we offer free competition analysis's and quotes so if your interested please feel free to submit your details to us and I will take a proper look for you. My website is cyberrankings(dot)com :) which can also be found by clicking on my name above this post, I am sure you know what I mean..Oh and by the way your advertisement seems to appear at the top of the page covering some on your content (in firefox) and yet it seems to work fine in internet explorer as I have just checked for you. It may be worth putting the html coding in again as I have had the same problem with one of my websites before and for some reason re-installing the coding seemed to do the job! Just thought I should let you know
The Zune concentrates on being a Portable Media Player. Not a web browser. Not a game machine. Maybe in the future it'll do even better in those areas, but for now it's a fantastic way to organize and listen to your music and videos, and is without peer in that regard. The iPod's strengths are its web browsing and apps. If those sound more compelling, perhaps it is your best choice.
I have seen a lot of useful points on your web page about pc's. However, I have got the thoughts and opinions that laptops are still more or less not powerful adequately to be a wise decision if you typically do things that require lots of power, such as video editing. But for website surfing, statement processing, and the majority of other prevalent computer work they are perfectly, provided you don't mind the small screen size. Thank you for sharing your thinking.
RT quot;TheCrimsonWhite: A video of the tornado moving across Bryant-Denny Stadium courtesy of WabbitsFoot
hey there and thank you for your info â I have certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical issues using this website, since I experienced to reload the website many times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and can damage your high quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Anyway Iâm adding this RSS to my email and could look out for much more of your respective intriguing content. Make sure you update this again soon..
Hi there are using Wordpress for your blog platform? I'm new to the blog world but I'm trying to get started and create my own. Do you need any html coding expertise to make your own blog? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
I dugg some of you post as I thought they were very helpful handy
They all said he wouldn't achieve it with an outlook like this so the people wrote him off and then went about with the agenda.
Rhiorrha whats wrong with the british accent im british americans (for example) think we r all posh we really need to take some over see what its really like
Can you send me a link to where you found this theme?
Hey just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your post seem to be running off the screen in Ie. I'm not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I figured I'd post to let you know. The style and design look great though! Hope you get the problem fixed soon. Cheers
I'm impressed, I need to say. Genuinely rarely do I encounter a weblog that's both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you might have hit the nail on the head. Your thought is outstanding; the issue is some thing that not sufficient people today are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy that I stumbled across this in my search for some thing relating to this.
Great blog here! Also your site loads up very fast! What host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host? I wish my web site loaded up as fast as yours lol
Heya i am for the first time here. I came across this board and I find It truly useful & it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and help others like you helped me.
I am not sure where you are getting your info, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for wonderful info I was looking for this information for my mission.
Very interesting article, especially the question as to why the study of the actual physical matter in our brain matters when we already have behavioral studies, I've always wondered if some of the emotions we have (such as love/hate) are genetically coded into our beings or if we developed these emotions over time.
interesting point of view. smart goals worksheet
Today, I went to the beach with my children. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said "You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear." She put the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had to tell someone!
what ups man what it you dou
Wonderful goods from you, man. I've understand your stuff previous to and you're just extremely magnificent. I actually like what you've acquired here, really like what you're stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it smart. I can not wait to read much more from you. This is really a terrific website.
we now have created some nice methods in which we need to swap solutions men and women, please shoot me a message if interested.