At the risk of being a bit corny, I’m going to use today – the holiday of Thanksgiving in the US – to write about what I am thankful for.
This isn’t to wave a flag and to offer even more insight into American culture than we already get on a daily basis, but rather, it’s to link the holiday to the act of paying attention, one of the key themes of the RSA’s Social Brain Centre.
As we’ve previously blogged, paying attention to the positive aspects in your life can help to build emotional resilience (for a great exercise, see our late colleague Emma’s post about poetry and attention), and Jonathan wrote about the power of gratitude. So with this in mind, I’d like to declare three things for which I am thankful.
I am thankful that I am lucky enough to work in a field about which I am passionate, trying to learn and understand more about human nature and behaviour, what makes us tick, and how these insights can be applied to some of the many challenges of our time, including climate change and the socioeconomic performance gap in education among others.
I am immensely thankful for my friends and family, both near and far, many of whom will be celebrating today with a roast turkey.
And I am thankful for the great card from Louise, Associate Director of Education, which elicited a laugh and which makes me smile each time I glance at it – see the photo above!
Creating your own gratitude list is easy enough, but if you’d like to share it with others, I’ve just come across the gratitude list website where it looks like you can read what celebrities are thankful for and share your own lists, too.
To those celebrating, wishing you a very happy thanksgiving!
… and to non-economists, too.
A few weeks ago I attended a launch for the book Behavioural Public Policy. The book, a collection of academic papers with considered responses from other academics, is edited by Adam Oliver, and is born out of the suite of seminars he ran at the LSE (London School of Economics) in 2011.
The book launch, held in the LSE’s impressive Shaw library (similarly inspiring as the RSA’s Great Room), comprised an introduction from Adam and some short reflections from Julian Le Grand, Lord Gus O’Donnell, Drazen Prelec, and George Loewenstein. The RSA’s Social Brain Centre explores how a better understanding of human nature can be used to help address some of the challenges of our time, so a book about behaviour and policy sits nicely within our reference library. Here are some highlights of the evening:
Understanding behaviour is key to effective government policy
Kicking off the reflections, Lord Gus O’Donnell began with overwhelmingly positive praise for behavioural economics, explaining that in his view it is the biggest thing to happen to public policy in 30 years. (Despite all this positivity, Lord O’Donnell said he is working with Angus Deaton to investigate the question “when does an RCT go wrong?”).
In a very entertaining way of bringing theory to life, O’Donnell went through each of the components of MINDSPACE to demonstrate how the environment and situation were working to subtly influence our decision about whether to buy the book. For example, looking at the messenger effect, if Adam were to praise the book we would know that he has a vested interest, whereas since Lord O’Donnell was praising the book we can trust his endorsement. Incentives were of the standard economic type: the book was on sale at a special discounted price for the event. But our drive to avoid anticipated regret makes the limited-time discount all the more powerful. In terms of commitment, we had all already chosen to attend the event and made the effort to get there; remaining consistent with this commitment by buying the book would be a natural next step. And in my favourite example, for the affect component Lord O’Donnell pointed out that we had all been served wine.
Julian le Grand continued by summarising some of the key concerns about using behavioural science in policy, namely, that it could be seen to infantilise people, and, referring to the famous Titmuss paper about blood donation, that it is not always obvious how people will respond to incentives.
Better than psychology or just a tempest in a teapot?
Drazen Prelec continued the conversation with a very balanced view of the impact of behavioural economics. On the one hand, “behavioural economics is a tempest in the economics teapot”, in that it is (simply) a deviation from a point of view (the point of view of neoclassical economic theory). He explained that some of the insights from BE are really just a restoration of common sense. But on the other hand, some important findings have emerged and these insights would not have been available if the researchers were not “already marinated in the economics way of thinking”. In this sense, behavioural economics has something different to offer than does psychology.
Prelec offered three aspects of a Nudge approach that should be carefully taken into consideration as it becomes more widespread: transparency (of the nudgers’ interests), accountability for the outcome (is the nudger or the nudgee to blame for a failed intervention?), and neutrality (i.e. what values underpin the ‘neutral’ default option?).
George Loewenstein finished off the evening with his forecast about what will happen now that behavioural economics is becoming less niche and more mainstream, extending beyond academia and now into policy making and elsewhere. Echoing an earlier op-ed piece in the New York Times, Loewenstein asserted that the role of BE is to augment or increase the power of traditional economics. There is a risk that some people have seen it to be a substitute, rather than a complement, to standard econ theory.
Here he quoted Colin Camerer about neuroeconomics with an absolutely brilliant line, and applied the sentiment to behavioural economics: “the problem isn’t that we are overselling it; the problem is that it’s being over bought”. Loewenstein praised the Behavioural Public Policy book for avoiding the over-selling and offering instead a balanced view, and ended by stating his optimism that the field will work together with – not in opposition to – traditional economics.
What was great about the event is also what seems to be refreshing about the book: even-handed and thoughtful discussion about both the benefits and the limitations of behavioural economics, instead of an all-out love-fest. Although I readily admit to being one BE’s loudest cheerleaders, I appreciate that to understand its strengths, one must also understand its weaknesses.
Having attended nearly all of the Behavioural Public Policy seminars that Adam Oliver hosted, the chapter headings are no surprise to me. But the book includes responses to the papers and I expect will be more developed than the seminars, so I am glad that I was there to get a copy and to chat with fellow BE-enthusiasts. And in any case, recalling Lord O’Donnell’s comments, the launch provided entertaining insight into how behavioural science is used in practice – to flog books!
A version of this blog was originally posted here on 5th November 2013.
A discount code for the book Behavioural Public Policy is available here.
“Imagine a classroom where everyone started off an academic year with an “A” grade, and in order to keep the grade, a pupil had to show continuous improvement throughout the year. In this classroom, the teacher would have to dock points from a pupil’s assessment when his or her performance or achievement was inadequate, and pupils would work to maintain their high mark rather than to work up to it. How would this affect effort, expectations, performance, and assessment relative to current practice?”
This is one of the questions we pose in our upcoming paper, due to be published next month, which explores the application of behavioural insight to educational policy and practice.
Specifically, we are concerned with the socio-economic attainment gap – the difference in performance between pupils from affluent backgrounds and those from deprived backgrounds. We’ve been working with the Vodafone Foundation Germany to understand the education context in Germany, where the gap is particularly severe.
While no country has yet to achieve a fully equitable system where educational attainment is not correlated with socioeconomic background, the UK, Germany, the USA, France, Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, and New Zealand, among many others, are worse than the OECD average. So while our paper reviews the German context in particular, the message is applicable across many different parts of the globe.
So what is the big idea with everyone starting with an A? Regular readers of this blog might recognise that this approach taps into our tendency to want to avoid a loss – more so than we want to receive an equivalent gain – a tendency known as loss aversion.
Loss aversion just one of many behavioural insights that we explore, where the term behavioural insight is used to describe the application of behavioural science (comprising many different fields, including behavioural economics and social psychology among others).
Our paper includes the distillation of academic theory that would be expected, but we also turned to educators to get their perspectives on the practicality and value of applying behavioural insight in the classroom. To do this, we conducted focus groups with teachers in Berlin (see Josef Lentsch’s blog post from earlier this year for a glimpse into that experience), ran a survey with YouGov to explore views of teachers in England, and drew on a report that Vodafone Foundation Germany published earlier this year about teacher, parent, and pupil perspectives on a range of educational issues.
The paper be published in both English and German, and we’ll provide another update closer to the date with a link from which you will be able to download the report.
The European Commission will be holding a conference at the end of the month on the theme applying behavioural insights to policy-making.
Here in the Social Brain Centre at the RSA, we too are interested in the application of behavioural insights to various behaviour change challenges across many different policy areas. For example, we will soon be publishing a report exploring the application of behavioural insight to the socio-economic educational attainment gap (the difference in performance between pupils from relatively affluent and relatively poor backgrounds), and in the pipeline is another important piece of work examining the barriers to behaviour change in the context of mitigating climate change.
So the European Commission conference is particularly relevant for our team. According to the conference website, “the conference presentations and discussions will tackle several key questions, among which:
- How can behavioural insights be collected and applied?
- What role can behavioural insights play in informing policy interventions?
- Which are the most relevant examples where the behavioural approach improved the effectiveness of policy measures?
- What are the main challenges and achievements of the trials run at a national level?”
I am really looking forward to attending the conference, not only for the chance to binge on Belgian chocolates, but also for the opportunity to explore these questions in greater depth and exchange ideas with fellow conference participants. If you, as a reader of this blog, are planning on attending, please do find me and introduce yourself.
For more information about the conference please visit the dedicated website.
Readers of this blog may already be aware of the tragic news that Social Brain colleague Emma Lindley recently passed away. Below, I offer to you a poem I selected and read in Emma’s memory earlier this week at a staff gathering in her honour. Tributes by colleagues Jonathan Rowson, Gaia Marcus, and Matthew Taylor are also available.
I’d like to read a poem in Emma’s honour; but first, some background:
Some may remember that Emma wrote a blog post earlier this year about world poetry day. This was the first time I learned that she was a poetry buff and more specifically a fan of poet William Carlos Williams. I am a novice but from my limited exposure I too am a William Carlos Williams fan, so together we had a really lovely exchange about poetry in general and his work in particular.
More recently, when I “discovered” a famous poet of a similar style, Emma and I were in touch again and we had planned on taking some time to get a coffee and chatting more about this genre when she was next in the office.
So I thought it would be fitting to read out a poem today in Emma’s honour, a William Carlos Williams poem that I chose because it illustrates the quality of paying careful attention to the essence of a thing, a quality about which she wrote very elegantly in her blog post.
Emma wrote: “His poems often convey a certain haecceitas – the quality of ‘thisness’ – capturing something very particular. In the Social Brain Centre, we’re interested in the importance of attention, and one of the possibilities offered by Carlos Williams’ poetry is to focus attention very acutely. In a way, I think his poems illustrate mindfulness in action.”
With this in mind, I’d like to read “To a Solitary Disciple” by WCW.
Rather notice, mon cher,
that the moon is
the point of the steeple
than that its color
that it is early morning
than that the sky
as a turquoise.
how the dark
of the steeple
meet at a pinnacle —
its little ornament
tries to stop them-
See how it fails!
See how the converging lines
of the hexagonal spire
that guard and contain
the eaten moon
lies in the protective lines.
It is true:
in the light colors
of the morning
brown-stone and slate
shine orange and dark blue
the oppressive weight
of the squat edifice!
the jasmine lightness
of the moon.
In memory of Dr Emma Lindley.
“I think a lot of what people call intelligence just boils down to curiosity.” – Aaron Swartz
A quick straw poll around the office revealed that when people think about curiosity, the first things that pop into their heads are: cats (presumably killed by their disposition); children asking “why?” ad infinitum; or mad professors.
image by chez andre 1
But there is more to curiosity than that. And to help people explore the concept, three RSA Fellows have collaborated to start an organisation called The Curiosity Bureau.
I had the pleasure of meeting up with Becca, Tom, and Anton last year after the publication of the Social Brain team’s report The Power of Curiosity: how linking inquisitiveness to innovation could help address our energy challenges, and when the Bureau was just starting.
In our report, we explain the many sides of curiosity. Curiosity can be more perceptual and tactile, when you want to touch, smell, hear something, or can be more about information and knowledge acquired through books, for example. It can be directed an answering a specific question, or it can be more exploratory, jumping from thought to thought, making connections between various ideas.
Curiosity is an important driver of innovation, in at least two ways. Curiosity is a valuable ingredient of divergent thinking, or coming up with many different possible options and ways of interpreting a problem, which is helpful in generating creative solutions. It also provides intrinsic motivation, helping the innovator to persevere through difficult or slow-going phases of developing the solution.
Becca, Tom and Anton help others to explore curiosity through a range of services, including events. Since our first meeting, they have kindly kept us updated with the progress of the Curiosity Bureau, and it seems that they have certainly been keeping busy: the Bureau hosted a popular tactile curiosity workshop this summer, and they are expanding to Bergen, Norway. And we were pleased to hear that a recent piece in the RSA Journal has provided them with some further inspiration and provoked thought about the relationship between empathy and curiosity.
We’re always pleased to see when RSA Fellows’ ideas cross over with those we’re exploring through our research – and especially so when they’re putting them into practice in creative ways. We’d love to hear your comments about what curiosity means to you, and/or about how you are connecting with Fellows on a scale small or large.
Curious about the Curiosity Bureau? See their website.
The work of the Action and Research team depends on the generosity of Fellows and funders; find out how you or your organisation can support the RSA.
Nathalie Spencer is a Senior Researcher, Social Brain.
Sam Thomas is Project Engagement Manager, Fellowship.
Saving money can be hard to do, especially given the current economic climate and falling real wages. It can be difficult emotionally, too, with a recent report published by the Money Advice Service finding that many people prefer to spend their money “more on the here and now than on planning for the future.” But with the right help, maybe saving can even be fun.
Picture the scene: you are browsing online just about to purchase a t-shirt. You don’t actually really need another t-shirt, after all it looks exactly like all the others in your closet, but it is 30% off, so for £10 why not? But just before your online checkout, a message pops up asking whether you’d like to add £10 – instead of (or in addition to) making the purchase – to a savings account named “new computer”, “honeymoon fund”, or perhaps more important but somewhat less motivating “unforeseen emergencies”. Or, as you are waiting for the barista to hand you your coffee you eye up the croissants on the café counter. It looks tasty, so you consider adding it to your order, but instead, you use your phone to transfer the £2 you would have spent on the croissant into your savings pot designated for a gourmet foodie weekend in Paris.
image via edudemic.com
This is what ImpulseSave, a small Boston-based organisation is helping savers to do. Their motto, “go on a saving spree!” reflects its basic function of replacing spending with saving. According to this article, ImpulseSave allows you to transfer money into a savings account via text or app, and provides prompts to save while you are shopping online. Similar to some other savings tools, your savings account is named for a specific goal, so you always have in mind what your savings is building towards. Smarty Pig, another savings tool, also uses named accounts to keep the goal salient, but rather than making impulse saves, you set up automatic transfers from an existing account. How it differs from more conventional bank accounts is that you can share your progress online via various social media and friends or family can actually contribute to your savings pot to help you towards your goal.
The Social Brain Centre has argued elsewhere that saving money can be hugely beneficial to people; having a financial buffer can influence upward social mobility, effective decision making, and psychological wellbeing. But despite its benefits, many people find it hard to save.
So what do savings tools like ImpulseSave and SmartyPig offer to help people save more, that more traditional tools such as budget planners, while helpful, don’t seem to provide? Traditional tools assume that as long as people understand their incomings and outgoings, they will behave in such a way as to stay within their means. But just knowing the budget, while necessary, is not sufficient for many people to actually achieve their savings goals. Instead, we are often side-tracked by impulse purchases (the ImpulseSave website cites a staggering 15-20% of our take home pay is spent on impulse purchases “that we don’t need or even remember buying”!), short-sightedness, or lack of social support.
But just knowing the budget, while necessary, is not sufficient for many people actually achieve their savings goals.
The former tools, however, use insight about human nature and what drives our behaviour to help us (once we know our budget) stick to our savings goals. For example, with such busy lifestyles and our tendency to conserve mental energy, we are more likely to do something the easier it is to do. These tools make saving easy, either through automatic transfers or via simple digital tools. By naming the accounts, this brings our savings goals to the front of our attention, and helps keep us motivated by reminding us what we are working towards, even if that is to be spared the stress and anxiety of an unexpected expense (think a broken boiler or car repairs). And the social aspects of these tools may improve the motivation to save by evoking the desire to remain consistent with your publicly stated commitments, and also perhaps in some way by changing social norms around discussing openly what may be still somewhat of a taboo subject.
This is not to say that financial literacy is not important, but rather that beyond learning how to budget we may need some extra help along the way to achieve our savings goals. Tools like those discussed above seem to using behavioural insight to reposition saving from being something onerous to being something fun. So go ahead and try going on a saving spree, and comment below; we’d love to hear how it goes.
We’ve all been there before: you think you could be getting a better interest rate on your current account, but put off the decision to actually do anything about it because it feels too complicated or confusing to compare all the accounts available. Or you aren’t really sure if you’ve just been duped into paying for a mobile phone plan that is superflous to your needs. Or become so overwhelmed by the number of digital cameras out on the market that rather than comparing all the specs, you just buy whichever model you saw a friend using last week…
Confused image from paleoplan.com
There is a growing recognition of the idea that consumers are “real” people, not the wholly self-interested, perfectly intelligent, never procrastinating Homo Economicus. While much of the science and theory are not necessarily new, the appreciation and application of it seems to growing in scale and scope.
The Social Brain Centre here at the RSA has been exploring these views of human nature since the team’s inception in 2009, more specifically in regard to behaviour change. And the Behavioural Insights Team, aka the Nudge Unit, has been working to adjust policy with low-cost tweaks based on the behavioural science put forward in Thaler and Sunstein’s book, Nudge.
Now it seems that behavioural science is extending its reach into areas of consumer protection.
For example, at their launch event at the LSE in April, the Financial Conduct Authority announced that they will be using concepts of behavioural economics to gain a better understanding of consumers, with the aim of a “fresh approach” to regulation. They say: “[Behavioural economics] will help us to understand problems in financial markets and design more effective remedies to make markets work well for firms and consumers alike.”
In addition, earlier this week the Which? Consumer Insight programme hosted an event to launch a new report entitled Consumer Literacy: Capabilities and the real consumer. This report is expected to be the first of a series which will look at the gap between what an ideal consumer is and what a real consumer is. They have deliberately tried to avoid the language often used in behavioural economics of a ‘rational’ consumer versus an ‘irrational’ one.
Which? Surveyed over 5000 people to gauge their consumer literacy across three areas: skills (to recognise cheaper products, calculate basic rates, check receipts), knowledge about consumer rights, and engagement (the propensity to use the skills and knowledge in a meaningful way to get the best product for yourself). Unsurprisingly, and in line with the theories and research of behavioural science, Which? Found that very few people are fully consumer literate, with only 1 in every 250 people scoring in the top 10% of across each of the three areas.
Taken together, these recent events indicate the growing appeal of behavioural science outside of academia. It will be interesting to see how consumer protection is shaped by this greater understanding of behaviour. An awareness of our human nature might not make our decision making much better, but is necessary when designing strategies to help protect us from product suppliers and even ourselves.
Looking around at the environmental degradation, financial turmoil, and increased social inequality around us, perhaps you’ve had the sinking feeling that we are creating our own demise. Presumably you are hoping there is a way that we can work ourselves out of this mess. You wouldn’t be alone.
Robert Kegan, Professor at Harvard University, gave a fantastic, if somewhat haunting, lecture here at the RSA last week. The event, “The Further Reaches of Adult Development: Thoughts on the ‘Self-Transforming’ Mind” chaired by Jonathan Rowson, briefly reviewed Prof Kegan’s work on adult development and introduced the audience to his intriguing theory – lovingly called “Bob’s Big Idea”- about the implications of more people reaching the ultimate stage of development.
image from wrike.com
To get the full effect of Bob’s Big Idea, at least a basic knowledge of his adult development work is needed. I encourage you to watch the event in its entirety, but will very crudely paraphrase the first half of Kegan’s talk here, where he asserts that humans undergo various stages of development of mental complexity. We are “makers of meaning” and to organise this meaning we have basic frameworks through which we look at life. We work through these various frameworks, or stages, over our lifetime. Kegan’s talk focused on the fourth and fifth stage of development (a summary of the adult development stages, produced by Dr Jennifer Garvey Berger, can be found here).
The fourth stage, called the self-authoring stage, is where people start to loosen the reins of others’ expectations. As the name suggests, this is the phase when you are able to begin to write your own identity, rather than viewing life through the lens of what others think of you. The self-authoring stage is one in which “we are able to step back enough from the social environment to generate an internal “seat of judgment” or personal authority, which evaluates and makes choices about external expectations”.
According to Kegan’s research, some people reach the fifth and final stage, the self-transforming stage. If it is reached, it is generally at some point in life after middle-age. In this stage, people can start to hold more than one position. They are able to grasp that even their own way of seeing things might be flawed. With a self-transforming mind,
“we can step back from and reflect on the limits of our own ideology or personal authority; see that any one system or self-organisation is in some way partial or incomplete; be friendlier toward contradiction and oppositeness; seek to hold on to multiple systems rather than projecting all but one onto the other.”
Bob’s Big Idea
Why is the population living so much longer? Not how, but why? Why do we live 20-40 or more years beyond our fertile years?
What if we are living longer so that our older people can figure out how to save our species?
Kegan’s idea is that, as a species, we are trying to figure something out: how to survive. He suggests that whenever a species moves collectively in a direction, it is always for one reason, to ensure survival, and it is exactly the same for us. The self-transforming stage, as mentioned above, is usually reached after middle age, if at all. So the longer we live, the greater the chance that more people will develop into self-transforming level of mental complexity. Kegan notes that we are creating our own demise and effectively asks: What if we are living longer so that our older people can figure out how to save our species? “Are we looking for a way out of hell?”
As RSA colleague Matthew Mezey summarises: old people will save the world.
Is higher better?
So does this mean that we should all be striving to reach ‘level 5’?
The phrases “adult development” and “mental complexity” get banded about the office from time to time, and in the past I was somewhat reluctant to join in the conversation. This partly down to lack of knowledge about the topic, but mostly down to the feeling that this type of language felt terribly elitist to me. It’s not that I don’t believe that people can be at different stages of development (because I do), but more that I am not yet convinced that higher is necessarily better. Is there any correlation between level of mental complexity and happiness or wellbeing?
Speaking to Kegan after the event, I learned that the answer is twofold, and depends on the sense in which we talk about wellbeing. Hedonic wellbeing is about affect and an element of life satisfaction; that is, it is what we mean when we think of wellbeing as being in a good mood, enjoying the moment, and having general life satisfaction. Interestingly but perhaps not surprisingly, there does not seem to be a correlation between stage of development and hedonic wellbeing; people at all stages are subject to a similar rollercoaster of joys and sorrows.
Eudemonic wellbeing, on the other hand, is less about feeling pleasure and more about having feelings of meaning, purpose, belongingness; having competence; being self-accepting. It is imaginable that indeed reaching higher orders of consciousness could be helpful in achieving these components of wellbeing.
reaching higher orders of consciousness could be helpful in achieving these components of wellbeing
When the conversation turned to mental illness, Kegan explained soberingly that paranoia might look very different to someone in a self-authoring stage of development than someone in self-transforming stage of development.
As with so many important questions, the answer is nuanced. This blog post has not done justice to Kegan’s talk last Thursday. I encourage you to listen to the talk, regardless of your views on Bob’s Big Idea, as a great way to learn more about the higher levels of adult development and to open up similar thought-provoking questions.
Nathalie Spencer is part of the RSA’s Social Brain Centre
Flushing the toilet is something that most people do automatically without putting too much thought into it. But given that the average Brit flushes the toilet five times per day and that older toilets can use up to 9 litres of water per flush, perhaps this is something we should be taking more notice of.
According to these websites here, here and here, flushing toilets is the largest single use of a household’s indoor water consumption, making up roughly 30% of indoor water consumed. The average family moving from a single flush to a lower-use dual-flush system could save 80 litres per day. And on a very sobering note, “Many people in the world exist on 10 litres of water a day or less. We can use almost that amount in one flush of the toilet.”
I must admit that I myself don’t often think about flushing the toilet; but recently a sign in a public toilet made me think twice. I was at Federation Square, a building complex and public space in downtown Melbourne, to catch up with Bri Williams, an Australian-based consultant and fellow behavioural-science-enthusiast. The toilets at Fed Square had a dual-flush system with the following sign above the flusher:
half-flush and full-flush buttons at Fed Square public restrooms
Working at the RSA in the Social Brain Centre, we are often looking out for examples of tool that help with behaviour change. So the design of these public toilets stood out for me as a way to help make water conservation easy, salient, and normal.
First, the dual flush system makes it easy to conserve water – at the push of a button, even. No need to contemplate about whether to use the old saying “if it’s yellow let it mellow”…
Next, the request to save water is highly salient – the sign is placed immediately above the flush buttons, right at eye level. You can’t miss it. This is important because the request happens at the time of the behaviour (known as a hot trigger, as opposed to a cold trigger which would ask for an action at some point in the future, decoupled from the time of the request).
And finally, the sign makes water conservation normal. By stating that toilets use rain water to flush the toilets, it shows the ‘user’ that the rest of Fed Square is committed to reducing water wastage. Normalising a new behaviour – in this case water conservation – is an important component of successful behaviour change.
To find out more about the benefits of dual-flush toilets, visit the websites listed above, or even take “the ultimate dual flush toilet quiz” here (it is amazing and somewhat terrifying what you can find googling “toilets”). Big actions, such as building redesign to capture rainwater for practical use, are crucial to make a large impact on outcomes (pro-environmental and other). But changes that each one of us can make to small, frequent actions, such as flushing the toilet, all add up to have a large impact too.