Because their point is that certain types of morality are associated with certain types of political positions. This is what Haidt's research focuses on - the relationship between morality and politics. Personally in my case, my moral values did push me towards conservatism for example. If it wasn't for my moral values, I probably wouldn't have been a conservative. — Agustino

The only thing the test is doing is exposing our failure to separate politics from our moral - personal - values; the only political system necessary is one that enables freedom to choose without causing harm to others and any system that may jeopardize this freedom should ultimately be reconsidered.

Why? It's not superficial at all if most people are engaged in it. — Agustino

Did you miss my quote from good ol' Bertie?

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” — Bertrand Russell

Your point fails precisely because society cannot avoid using mechanisms of peer pressure to enforce social norms. Whether these norms are hedonism or Phariseeism, it will still be one of them :P - you think that just because you don't have people knocking on your door asking you to come to Church, there are no mechanisms to indoctrinate you... of course there are, and because they are not even known, they are more insidious than ever. At least if you have the Communist coming to your door to indoctrinate you, you know who he is and what he's there for. But when you're just watching a movie... you have no idea, what's really going on. — Agustino

Are you talking to me or are you talking to yourself out loud because you clearly are not talking to me. If you were, you would realise that most of what you say is what I already said but you are saying it in your own way. :P

Democracy (as understood today) is a bad political system - one of the worst, according to Plato in fact - only tyranny is worse than democracy according to him. Democracy, capitalism, consumerism, hedonism - these are one and the same. Democracy has no aristocratic principle - it has no principle of pulling people towards the higher. Since it seeks equality so rampantly, it leads to everyone being reduced to the same common denominator - everyone being leveled down and becoming equivalent to Nietzsche's Last Men. In a democracy we all tend to become equally bad.

I come from a communist country, but communism was only worse than democracy simply because communism was tyrannical. But democracy isn't much better. My grandfather who lived under constitutional monarchy, communism and capitalism used to tell me as a child how constitutional monarchy was the best in his opinion, and we discussed this for a long time and well into my teenager years actually. Monarchy has an aristocratic tendency, and since the monarch is guaranteed almost life-time rule, he's not going to be searching for power, since he already has it. His efforts will be elsewhere. — Agustino

Parliamentary systems clearly build coalitions that reduce the probability of authoritarian outcomes and representative democracies are - whilst not utopian - certainly more successful. Adding a dash of ideology through a constitutional monarchy can solidify the restrictions of power. I think it is certainly successful in my country.

As for reducing people to the same common denominator, this is perhaps more a result of the structural factors vis-a-vis economics.

The only thing the test is doing is exposing our failure to separate politics from our moral - personal - values; the only political system necessary is one that enables freedom to choose without causing harm to others and any system that may jeopardize this freedom should ultimately be reconsidered. — TimeLine

Okay but remember you were questioning whether it is a moral test or a political test. The facts are that it is a moral test, and the purpose of the authors is to see how morality is associated with political views - which may not be your purpose, and you may even think it is a stupid purpose. But they are investigating an empirical connection between certain moral evaluations and certain political affiliations.

enables freedom to choose without causing harm to others and any system that may jeopardize this freedom should ultimately be reconsidered. — TimeLine

I'd say freedom to do whatever you want so long as you don't harm others is only one of the many factors that a political system has to consider - it's certainly not the only one though. And I doubt there's any system - including liberal democracy, which grants freedom to choose without causing harm to others. In fact, I see many people harming each other in liberal democracies based on their choices.

Did you miss my quote from good ol' Bertie? — TimeLine

No :P In fact, I distinctly remember reading them while sitting at my desk, and agreeing with most of them apart from the "comfortable myths" one :P [ let me explain why as well lol - Bertrand Russell aims that against religious belief, but just as religious belief can be construed as a defence mechanism against a fear of death (and it is true that it can lessen fear of death for the believer), so too atheistic lack of belief can be construed as fear of accountability/responsibility - one doesn't believe in God because one doesn't want to be accountable for the kind of life they lead on Earth (and this too lessens fear - in fact atheists often use this as an argument for atheism - you no longer have to worry about the afterlife) ]

But please note that you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant that it's not a superficial issue in terms of importance (and not in terms of intellectual depth). Because so many people are affected by it, it's not an unimportant issue at all, quite the contrary. And whether those people are stupid or not makes little difference to its importance. That it is intellectually shallow I agree, but intellectual shallowness isn't a political consideration in judging the importance of something. And so it is not an error in using it as a criticism of liberal democracy - liberal democracy systematically leads to this clearly bad outcome.

Are you talking to me or are you talking to yourself out loud because you clearly are not talking to me. If you were, you would realise that most of what you say is what I already said but you are saying it in your own way. :P — TimeLine

lol :P Don't punch me too hard O:) haha xD

Parliamentary systems clearly build coalitions that reduce the probability of authoritarian outcomes and representative democracies are - whilst not utopian - certainly more successful. — TimeLine

Okay, but reducing the probability of authoritarian outcomes isn't the only relevant consideration. As if the world is politically perfect if we just avoid tyranny...

As for reducing people to the same common denominator, this is perhaps more a result of the structural factors vis-a-vis economics. — TimeLine

Our economic system is the result of our political system, or at least the two of them are well-correlated together. You pretty much cannot have one without the other, hence why I said capitalism is democracy.

As for purity, its involvement in the political domain is highly dangerous to civil liberties and traverses a landscape that could set a social structure that renounces our humanity. — TimeLine

I disagree, morality is a political consideration of importance in structuring a society. If you create a political system with no concern for morality, you've clearly created an abomination. In fact, that's what tyrannies consist in - political systems with no concern for morality. Since purity is part of morality, it is a consideration that needs to be thought through when judging a political system.

It is not necessarily rearranging but rather when one transcends to a moral consciousness that is individual and free, their emotions transcend along with it to a sophistication necessary to work in line with reason. The courage to face geworfenheit by creating our own family through choice - the love you accept from a partner, the friends you choose to have in your life, the people in your community - rather than ones pre-existing biological and social environment that lacks this choice means that you overcome learned prejudices, ideas and even psychological decoys. It is not abandoning or being disloyal but rather approaching the world around you consciously without allowing your emotions to guide you along some subjective path because that is just the way that it is.

Our emotions promote feelings where conscience is concerned and thus ethical principles are an inevitable result of this; if our emotions are a mess, what exactly happens to our conscience and morality? Reason may appear cold, but it is quite the reverse; you become emotional for the right reasons when your mind is clear enough and this clarity is only possible through free-will.

As for purity, its involvement in the political domain is highly dangerous to civil liberties and traverses a landscape that could set a social structure that renounces our humanity. — TimeLine

I agree with the gist of that. Reason plays a role in the morally conscientious - those who are morally conscious and strive to act morally - and differentiates the morally conscientious from those who just act emotionally without guidance from their conscience and without the use of reason. I suppose you could think of the former as a sort of transcendence over the latter, and the former does also seem to be more sophisticated. Sometimes you need to think things through, and to get your priorities in order, in order to reach the right ethical conclusion.

But emotion is primary, in my view, in that it is the primary guiding force, whereas reason has secondary functions. I get this powerful intuitive feeling about what is right or wrong, and I think of that as my conscience, and try to follow it in order to be ethical. This conscience is foundational, whereas reason is like a tool which can be used in an attempt - which might or might not be successful - to control conflicting emotions, and to arrange priorities. Being conscientious is no guarantee of acting morally, but I cannot go against my conscience in good faith without thinking and feeling that I have done wrong.

It is important to overcome prejudice, bad ideas and psychological decoys - even if that means being disloyal, since loyalty is worthless and ought to be eschewed if it is loyalty to that which is immoral. And loyalty should always be a secondary consideration. That which is moral warrants loyalty more than anything else which is not necessarily moral, whether that be family, tradition, religion, nation, some abstract concept, or any personal quality deemed to be a virtue.

I agree that notions of purity could be dangerous in the political domain, hence I think we should be wary in that regard. And in the ethical domain, I think that it should not be the focus. I have seen it expressed in what I judge to be trivial matters or expressed in ways I find offensive or repellent.

...atheistic lack of belief can be construed as fear of accountability/responsibility - one doesn't believe in God because one doesn't want to be accountable for the kind of life they lead on Earth (and this too lessens fear - in fact atheists often use this as an argument for atheism - you no longer have to worry about the afterlife) — Agustino

Sure, it can be construed in that way, but it'd be wrong in a lot of cases.

Sure, it can be construed in that way, but it'd be wrong in a lot of cases. — Sapientia

:-} Yes, just as Russell's construal would be wrong in a lot of cases...

I knew you'd say that. Perhaps not so many. It's definitely mythical, and definitely seems comforting in a shit load of cases, whether people care to admit it or not.

Perhaps not so many. It's definitely mythical, and definitely seems comforting in a shit load of cases, whether people care to admit it or not. — Sapientia

Oh yeah, more bullshit. I totally dislike this hypocritical bias when you admit something on one side, but not on the other. How is it comforting knowing that you might spend your eternity in hell? :s

Oh yeah, more bullshit. I totally dislike this hypocritical bias when you admit something on one side, but not on the other. How is it comforting knowing that you might spend your eternity in hell? :s — Agustino

I acknowledged it on both sides, actually. But it'd be dumb to assume that they've equivalent in terms of the quantity of people these theories respectively apply to on each side, since that is incredibly unlikely and without warrant. So when I said "perhaps not so many", that was a reasonable thing to say.

Do you deny there are any comforting aspects? How many people think they're going to hell? How many people think they're going to heaven?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/520033697/Most-believe-in-heaven-and-think-theyll-go-there.html

How many people think they're going to hell? — Sapientia

Quite many, the fear of hell is a source of anxiety for many religious people... really your ignorance on these matters is quite painful.

Do you deny there are any comforting aspects? — Sapientia

There is the possibility of comfort, but nothing more than that. In fact, it could be argued that death with no afterlife is more comforting and liberating as a view - it removes a possible source of worry. If death is the end, nothing to fret about.

Quite many, the fear of hell is a source of anxiety for many religious people... really your ignorance on these matters is quite painful. — Agustino

Quite many? Relative to what?

An overwhelming majority of Americans continue to believe there is life after death and that heaven and hell exist, according to a new study. What's more, most think they are heaven-bound.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans in the national survey said that they believe they will go to heaven. Only one half of 1 percent said they were hell-bound, according to the poll by the Oxnard, Calif.-based Barna Research Group, an independent marketing research firm which has tracked trends related to beliefs, values and behaviors since 1984.

So I needn't have said "perhaps", and I understated it. The claim that there are not quite so many relative to both atheists and other believers is backed up by evidence.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of ignorance in these matters?!

There is the possibility of comfort, but nothing more than that. — Agustino

You sir, are in denial.

Quite many? Relative to what? — Sapientia

Relative to their authentic belief, obviously.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of ignorance in these matters?! — Sapientia

Right, another poll citing fool (not to mention how you upload that link way after I had already responded, and then act as if I ignored it... :-d ). You should know that most people who identify as Christians don't even know what their religion teaches. You can prove anything with statistics, you should also know that. They've even proved that non-existent particles exist. Unless you put that brain of yours to work, looking at statistics is useless. That's not science. That's not how science is done. Science is founded on both reason and empirical investigation, not on empiricism alone.

You sir, are in denial. — Sapientia

No, you are in denial of the simple fact that the possibility of Heaven does not entail that one would go there, and therefore it is bullshit to claim that belief in afterlife reduces fear of death. What reduces fear of death is belief that YOU will go to Heaven - that's more than just believing in an afterlife or in the possibility of going to Heaven - or whatever Russell would identify as "comforting myths". No religion teaches that you are destined to go to Heaven regardless of what you do - so if people believe that, well, then they're idiots, end of story - and they're not even religious believers belonging to any of the large religions in fact, since that's not the teaching of most of these religions. And what clearly reduces fear in atheists is the belief ("comforting myth") that there is no judgement after death and no hell. These are facts - undeniable. Whether people are aware of them or not is irrelevant. They are at work, psychologically.

I think about how things are, and I try to match my thinking so that it reflects reality. — Sapientia

You make this sound so easy, lol. Really, I'd love to have a piece of this revelation, Sappy, it would help me very much (Y)

And the reality I see involves loyalty as what must surely be a vice, since it is present in immoral situations — Sapientia

So, loyalty is a vice, now?

- think about the Mafia - in which the right thing to do would be to break off this loyalty, even if it means betrayal; and, furthermore, since loyalty can and - in some situations - does make matters worse, leading to further immorality.

What is the basis of your morality? The prevention of further immorality or suffering in future? I can't see how that can be since I distinctly remember you being in favor of bringing children into the world.

Loyalty to a heinous organisation which commits immoral acts is surely a vice. How can it not be? — Sapientia

Again, here you seem to prop up a kind of consequentialism, which still doesn't make any sense to me. Are you judging what comes before, what is acted out, or what comes about as a result?

Because it would ruin your quaint little idealised notion of loyalty as a virtue? Sorry, but that's just how it is. You can either face up to this harsh reality or stick your head in the sand. Your choice. — Sapientia

given the nature of virtue — Sapientia

Which is? What makes loyalty a virtue as opposed to when loyalty is a vice if loyalty in itself is not a virtue?

Sappy seems to have a quaint notion that loyalty is neither a virtue nor a vice, but rather amoral, that would be the only way to make sense of his position - which isn't saying much actually :P

Heister, actually I must ask you, how do I begin my study of the real Meister? >:O What works would you recommend to start with? O:)

Heister, actually I must ask you, how do I begin my study of the real Meister? >:O What works would you recommend to start with? O:) — Agustino

https://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Thought-Meister-Eckhart-Nothing/dp/0824519965/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

This is a great introduction. McGinn has also translated Eckhart's sermons, but you could try those after, or perhaps follow along with the references as you read the book I linked above. The last chapter in that is perhaps the most revealing. It's what cemented my fascination with Eckhart. And I suppose that we all have that one thinker that every word reads like revelation, and Eckhardus is mine at the moment! (Y)

Okay, thanks very much! I will acquire it soon :D

Trust me, you'll get a hard-on for Eckhart >:)

Trust me, you'll get a hard-on for Eckhart >:) — Heister Eggcart

>:O I've had to order it from your amazon, because Sappy's Amazon wasn't delivering to me :-}

Loyalty, good man :-!

Loyalty, good man :-! — Heister Eggcart

Yes the British certainly have shown their "loyalty" many times... Like here:

KILL THOSE FILTHY VEGETARIANS

So, loyalty is a vice, now? — Heister Eggcart

So, you're reading things into what I say, now? I spoke of reality involving loyalty as a vice, but that isn't the same as your careless misunderstanding above. If you were paying enough attention, you'd know that I think that reality also involves loyalty as a virtue, and that it is neither one nor other in itself.

What is the basis of your morality? The prevention of further immorality or suffering in future? I can't see how that can be since I distinctly remember you being in favor of bringing children into the world. — Heister Eggcart

Your memory isn't as good as you think it is. I'm not in favour of bringing children into the world, I just don't see anything wrong with it in numerous cases, so I'd defend those cases. And I don't accept as my basis for morality anything as simplistic as the prevention of immorality or suffering in future. I'd have to add qualifications, and by doing so, your implication about an internal inconsistency wouldn't apply. I argued against such a principle at length in the anti-natalism discussions on account of it being too simplistic and absolute, among other reasons. I take the anti-natalist argument and turn it against them as a reductio ad absurdum. If you start with such a principle, and if it were universally adopted, then, in light of the consequences, I'd conclude that the principle, in its original form, should be rejected, at that it would need to be revised.

Again, here you seem to prop up a kind of consequentialism, which still doesn't make any sense to me. Are you judging what comes before, what is acted out, or what comes about as a result? — Heister Eggcart

I don't understand why it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, I tend to think along consequentialist lines, and have done so in this discussion. I might've been using one type of ethical reasoning more than others. But I'm not tied down to think only along those lines. I can judge immorality in light of various respects, rather than just a single respect. I think that to suggest otherwise would be another oversimplification.

In the example under discussion, it can be immoral in all three respects that you mentioned in your question. It's immoral if you knowingly intend to commit your loyalty to an organisation which you know to be immoral, without good reason. It'd be immoral to commit immoral acts as part of such an organisation that you're loyal to. And it'd be immoral - or even more immoral, if it is already so - if there are immoral consequences (or further such consequences) as a result.

Which is? — Heister Eggcart

I thought I'd made that clear by saying: virtue, good - vice, bad. The nature of virtue is good. It can't be otherwise, or it wouldn't be virtue. So, given that loyalty can be bad, it can't in itself be a virtue.

What makes loyalty a virtue as opposed to when loyalty is a vice if loyalty in itself is not a virtue? — Heister Eggcart

I've said this already, too. I mentioned two conditions. Have you forgotten them, or did you not read them in the first place? Perhaps you were too busy trying to think of a sarcastic comeback or find a suitable GIF to use.

I mentioned balance and being put to good use. If you want a little more detail, see my previous posts.

Why is fairness so low for you?

So, you're reading things into what I say, now? I spoke of reality involving loyalty as a vice, but that isn't as same as your careless misunderstanding above. If you were paying enough attention, you'd know that I think that reality also involves loyalty as a virtue, and that it is neither one nor other in itself. — Sapientia

So, loyalty is amoral, now? Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

I'm not in favour of bringing children into the world, I just don't see anything wrong with it in numerous cases, so I'd defend those cases. — Sapientia

You're not in favor of bringing children into the world, but you don't see anything wrong with it? Uh, so why are you not in favor of procreation? Certainly something has to be wrong with it, otherwise you have no reason to be against it.

And I don't accept as my basis for morality anything as simplistic as the prevention of immorality or suffering in future. I'd have to add qualifications, and by doing so, your implication about an internal inconsistency wouldn't apply. I argued against such a principle at length in the anti-natalism discussions. I take the anti-natalist argument and turn it against them as a reductio ad absurdum. If you start with such a principle, and if it were universally adopted, then, in light of the consequences, I'd conclude that the principle, in its original form, should be rejected, at that it would need to be revised. — Sapientia

Much ado about nothing, here. You still failed to answer my question.

I don't understand why it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, I tend to think along consequentialist lines, and have done so in this discussion. I might've been using one type of ethical reasoning more than others. But I'm not tied down to think only along those lines. I can judge immorality in light of various respects, rather than just a single respect. I think that to suggest otherwise would be another oversimplification. — Sapientia

Ah, so you're a moral relativist that prefers to meander around in whatever ethic suits them best in a certain situation, (Y) (N)

In the example under discussion, it can be immoral in all three respects that you mentioned in your question. It's immoral if you knowingly intend to commit your loyalty to an organisation which you know to be immoral, without good reason. It'd be immoral to commit immoral acts as part of such an organisation that you're loyal to. And it'd be immoral - or even more immoral, if it is already so - if there are immoral consequences as a result. — Sapientia

Why? Again, I ask, what dictates moral behavior in whatever ethic you're trying to peddle me? Please, this is a very simple question.

I thought I'd made that clear by saying: virtue, good - vice, bad. The nature of virtue is good. It can't be otherwise, or it wouldn't be virtue. — Sapientia

Yes, yes, and I'm a college student and you're awesome - but do either of these facts explain anything at all? Nope. Merely differentiating between words like virtue and vice gets me nowhere closer toward understanding how you're defining said words.

I've said this already, too. I mentioned two conditions. Have you forgotten them, or did you not read them in the first place? — Sapientia

As far as I remember with regard to your responses to me, it is actions and their consequences.

Perhaps you were too busy trying to think of a sarcastic comeback or a suitable gif to use. — Sapientia

So, loyalty is amoral, now? Why didn't you just say that in the first place? — Heister Eggcart

What?! You mean he should've said Agustino saw through his ploy? :-O

Sappy seems to have a quaint notion that loyalty is neither a virtue nor a vice, but rather amoral, that would be the only way to make sense of his position - which isn't saying much actually :P — Agustino

>:O

So, loyalty is amoral, now? Why didn't you just say that in the first place? — Heister Eggcart

Are you trolling me? In itself, yes, loyalty is amoral. But that didn't just happen now. I have been saying that since the start of our discussion. I may not have used that word, but it shouldn't take a rocket science to figure that one out. My meaning was clear. Even Agustino understood.

You're not in favor of bringing children into the world, but you don't see anything wrong with it? Uh, so why are you not in favor of procreation? Certainly something has to be wrong with it, otherwise you have no reason to be against it. — Heister Eggcart

It's just not something that appeals to me. I'm not enthusiastic about it. I don't promote or encourage it. There doesn't have to be anything wrong with it, unless this lack of appeal or favour counts. (But that's just my personal opinion, so I don't really see why it should). And, like I said, I'm not against it, I'm just not in favour of it. The two aren't equivalent, so don't conflate them.

Also, I don't think that it's sensible to treat this issue in a way which rules out or overlooks a case-by-case approach. The devil is in the details, so I find your oversimplifications problematic.

Much ado about nothing, here. You still failed to answer my question. — Heister Eggcart

I answered your second question, which partly answers your first question. Your first question is very broad and could be the topic of an essay, so I'm disinclined to answer. But I've already touched upon some of what it is that forms the basis of my morality in this very discussion. Yet you act as though you're oblivious to much of this discussion. Why don't you just look at the results of my moral foundations test? Or you could read what I've already said about it in this discussion. Why not do both? Are you just being lazy?

I would've been fine talking about suffering, which you yourself brought up, since that plays a part in my ethics. I just objected to your unsophisticated way of putting it, and said that I'd have to add qualifications.

Ah, so you're a moral relativist that prefers to meander around in whatever ethic suits them best in a certain situation. — Heister Eggcart

That's not a very charitable way of putting it. Why needlessly limit oneself in the way you suggested?

Why? Again, I ask, what dictates moral behavior in whatever ethic you're trying to peddle me? Please, this is a very simple question. — Heister Eggcart

That's not a very sensible question. As I said, I tend to think along consequentialist lines. If that answer's not good enough for you, then tough shit. Not my problem.

Yes, yes, and I'm a college student and you're awesome - but do either of these facts explain anything at all? Nope. Merely differentiating between words like virtue and vice gets me nowhere closer toward understanding how you're defining said words. — Heister Eggcart

Look, it's your fault for not paying attention when I explained it in more detail the first time around. You asked what the nature of virtue is, and I answered that question. I'm not sure what more you want. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.

As far as I remember with regard to your responses to me, it is actions and their consequences. — Heister Eggcart

Actions and consequences can be relevant with regards to virtue and vice, yes.

If you mean to enquire about what it takes for something to count as a virtue or a vice, I've answered that multiple times now, and you've replied to both posts in which I mentioned my criteria by quoting much of what I said, but leaving out that part in particular. Surely you must have seen it. I'm now determined not to repeat that unless I have to, so I refer you back to those previous posts. And I'll assume you have nothing to say or ask about it, since you've chosen not to address it on two separate occasions. It's just got hot air, in response, it seems.

There was no ploy. It's hardly a ploy if I said, explicitly and multiple times, that, in itself, it is neither one nor the other. That's the very definition of "amoral", for Pete's sake!

I honestly don't know. I found the questions a bit weird. I answered neutral with cases like whether it is morally "OK" or "not OK" if Betty kisses two lads on a night out, who cares? If she wants to get shafted by 15 blokes on an adventurous night, laissez faire, though I would not consider her marriage material.

Furthermore, I had no problems with John hiring the more attractive one rather than what the author deemed as the more competent one. If it is his business -- that is how I interpreted the context of the question -- it is up to him what he prefers.

I forgot most of the questions.

I forgot most of the questions. — Emptyheady

I can't remember a single one. X-)

Do you think that the results reflect your moral priorities in the right order and proportion? I think it roughly does so in my case, but if it does so in your case, I find it hard to wrap my head around why you'd think so little of fairness - at least in relation to the other values.

(I've edited this comment because I've just realised that that's a different set of results from before and that they relate to a different moral foundations test).

I see that in the last test, your results for fairness are quite different, and not as disproportionate. Maybe that one was a better reflection.

I just did that test because csalisbury commented that the original test was "terribly designed." I answered the questions and tried not to over-think the questions I got.

My guess is that I am quite libertarian (i.e. indifferent) to personal choices that does not infringe on human rights. I think that most of the questions regarding fairness was answered indifferently by me, because I compartmentalise my negative emotional response from a moral one. If I would not have done that, the results would probably be less odd.

For a deeper introspection, I should look back at the questions one by one, but my overall impression of the test is quite negative -- the questions were really off.