repentance in the Hebrew. Now as a disclaimer I don't read, write or speak Hebrew so I am not authoritative on how the Hebrew should best be translated. I am only doing this video to deal with the nonsense that is perpetuated by many other Christians who also don't speak Hebrew and because even without speaking Hebrew it's easy to debunk some of the wild claims that are made regarding this subject. All claims made in this video are substantiated using either a concordance or second hand information but sources will be presented on screen where possible. When refuting the notion that repentance always means to turn from sin, I and also many of you have pointed to the many passages in the King James Bible where God repents. Now with one exception in the New Testament in Hebrew 721 which the Greek will need to have its own video next time. All the other verses about God repenting are all in the Old Testament. Now of course there's no shortage of verses in the Old Testament about turning from sins, we've already looked at them, some of them anyway previously in the series like Jonah 3 and Ezekiel 3 18 and 33. But I have heard some people say that the Hebrew uses a completely different word for God repenting than when man repents of sins. So in this video we're going to look at the Hebrew words which underpin repentance and turning from sins in the Old Testament. Before we begin it's important to understand that compared to English Hebrew words have much more variation depending on the context, the tense and the object of the word. If you look at Genesis 6 6 and 7 on the screen you will see that one says repented past tense and the other says repent earth which is present tense. You can see in each verse the encircled Hebrew word varies on much the same principle but Hebrew has far more variants than English does because of how the language works. So one of the verses we just saw in Genesis 6 7 where it says that the state of the earth repents the Lord that he has made them. Modern translations will often substitute the word repent with I am sorry or something like that which I'll have to do another video at another time about that. If you look up repented the past tense verb in the kingsbible.com concordance you will see many examples of verses where God repented most of them being translated from the same Hebrew word under entry 5 1 6 2 in the concordance. So if you look up this entry in the concordance this is the word knackam it's a verb and the most basic definition is to be sorry or to comfort oneself. Strong's exhaustive concordance defines it as sort of sigh or breathe strongly and it can also mean to be moved with pity or have compassion on others to suffer grief or repent of one's own doing or to ease oneself or to comfort oneself. There is also the noun form knockam which is Strong's reference 5 1 6 4 and there's only one verse that uses the noun and that's in Hosea 1340. This is the only Old Testament use of the word repentance in its noun form when translated to our English King James Bible. Modern Bibles may substitute this word with compassion or pity in this particular verse and this verse basically reads O Grave I will be your destruction repentance or compassion shall be hid from mine eyes and as I said here you can see modern Bibles user a different word. If you look up repent the imperative verb in the Kings Bible dot com concordance you will see that while most instances are translated from knackam there are a small selection of verses that are translated from a different Hebrew word under entry 7 7 2 5 and the entry for this word is Shubh which is a verb and the most basic definition is to turn back or to return. This definition is extended to include to answer or reply to a question or in a conversation or to turn which may be in another direction but usually it refers to turning back between two opposing directions. There are over a thousand verses using this word so it is very common. So for example Second Chronicles 714 is an example of a verse that uses this word and in this case it is about turning from sin but only because the context shows that it's about turning from sin and you'll notice that it actually uses the word turn rather than the word repent but it doesn't automatically imply turning from sin. It can mean to return anything so take for example Genesis 1460 and it's about Abraham bringing lots and his goods and people back nothing to do with turning from sin. In fact this first uses the word twice in two variants hence the word brought being used twice in our English Bible. Now because this word is used over 1000 times in the Bible I couldn't possibly list them all but pause the video here if you like just to see examples of different verses on the screen that use this word in a variety of contexts. In fact this word is so common that if you try to look up all instances on Bible hub it just cuts off after a certain point because there's far too many to list. And the noun of this word is Teshuva or Teshuva. It's often pronounced Teshuva but in the concordance it's listed as Teshuva and there are only eight occurrences of the noun form of this word in the entire Bible but it is highly likely that you have heard of this word before and this is because of the Jewish doctrine of Teshuva and Christians within Israel fetish also get sucked into this as well. Now I briefly talked about this in video 20 when we looked at whether we should use a dictionary to define repentance. So basically if you search the internet you can find tons of resources of Jews telling you in articles and videos what Teshuva means and a bit like when Christians try to define repentance. You'll get all kinds of confusing and self contradictory answers but it's encompassed by the idea of turning from your sins. And I've even heard Christians try to use Jewish beliefs about Teshuva to justify the Christian definition of repentance as something that we have to do to be saved. But what's so ridiculous about all of this is that first of all as we just saw the verb form is so abundant in the Bible it's used all kinds of ways most of them completely mundane and nothing to do with sin. The noun form only appears eight times in the Old Testament and as I mentioned in video 20 none of them have anything to do with turning from sin. So the first use of this word is in first Samuel 7 and it's referring to Samuel judging Israel and changing locations as he judged and he returned to Ramah where his home is. It uses the word Teshuva nothing to do with turning from sin. The next instance is second Samuel 11 verse 1. Teshuva is again used but it is referring to the change of the calendar year after the year was expired. This has nothing to do with turning from sin it is referring to the new year. The next two instances are in first Kings chapter 20 in verses 22 and 26 and again just as in second Samuel it's the return of the year before a battle takes place. Nothing to do with sin translated from Teshuva. The next two instances are in the book of Chronicles one being in the first book chapter 20 verse 1 the other being in the second book chapter 36 verse 10. Same idea again it's the change of the calendar year before war. Nothing to do with turning from sin it's translated from Teshuva. And then the final two instances are found in Job. Interestingly the use of this word is very different. So in Job 21 verse 34 Teshuva refers to Job's friend's answer when they replied to him. Nothing to do with turning from sin it's about their replies but this is what's interesting. Job says that in their answers their remains falsehood. So their Teshuva is not turning from sin their Teshuva arguably is sin. They are sinning by doing their act of Teshuva as it were which is their answer to Job's pain and suffering. And so finally we have Job 34 36 and I've included the previous and next verse on the screen for a bit of context. Elihu is accusing Job of answering for wicked men. So again Teshuva refers to his answer not his repentance. But Elihu was accusing Job's act of Teshuva his answer of being sinful. So that was all the examples of Teshuva in the Bible.  The Bible never uses Teshuva in this way and the word Shub refers to all kinds of things many of which have nothing to do with sin. Instead of treating the word as an ordinary word like any other word in the Bible it's become a doctrine like the Trinity where one word describes a huge collection of complicated beliefs rather than being used as an ordinary part of the sentence. So you can see where Christians are getting it from because it's the same thing with the Jews. This is what a lot of religious people like. They just parrot and repeat things. Don't care whether it's correct or not. And they just make stuff up. And everything's got to be so emotional and sensational and it's got to be all whiny and ecstatic like Francis Chan. But we see from the Bible it's ridiculous.  Going back to the issue of God repenting in the Bible. I have heard it said that when God repented this is a different Hebrew word than when man is commanded to repent of sins. So the premise of this argument is that God repenting is a different kind of repentance that is not comparable to man's repentance of sins. And for this reason many modern Bibles will instead substitute God's repentance with a different word such as relenting or sorrow etc. And we already saw an example of this earlier. Well this is one of those almost but not quite true claims. So I've mentioned that there are two verbs which are translated as repent in our King James Bible. The most common one is nachem but some verses occasionally use shubh. So what will happen is if God nachems or doesn't nachem this is translated as God repenting whereas if God shubed or doesn't shubh this is translated as God turning or returning. Our English King James Bible does not hide the fact that there are different words at play here because it is already apparent in our English translation. Jonah 3 9 is a shining example of this. It says who can tell if God will turn and repent and turn away from his fierce anger that we perish not. And turn is translated from shubh and repent is translated from nachem. So God did both of these things. He repented and he turned. What Jonah 3 9 is doing here is essentially repeating things using different words for emphasis because that's quite a common theme in the Hebrew Old Testament particularly. So that's God's repentance or turning. What about man's repentance and turning? In Jeremiah 8 6 it says that no man repented him of his wickedness and we can see that this is definitely about man repenting of sin and it uses the word repented because it comes from the Hebrew word nachem. The same word that is used to describe God repenting or relenting etc. And that it goes on to say everyone turned to his course and this is translated from the Hebrew word shubh just as God also turned in the Bible. In Judges 21 it talks about the children of Israel repenting for their the tribe of Benjamin and repented is translated from nachem but in this case it's not about sin but it is about man's nachem, man's repentance. Just a few verses later they went and returned on to their inheritance and returned is translated from shubh and is not directly about sin here even though the Benjamites had sin leading up to this. So we see a very clear pattern here. Both nachem, repent and shubh turn have these things in common sometimes God repented or didn't, sometimes he turned or didn't, not from sins obviously. Sometimes man repented or didn't, sometimes man turned or didn't, sometimes this was repenting of sin, sometimes repenting of a non-sin issue, sometimes this was turning from sin, sometimes turning from a non-sin issue. So the idea of God's repenting being a different kind of repentance than man's repentance just because of different words is completely false it's not true. Obviously God did not ever repent of sin and there are verses that command man to turn from sin but that's not implied by the word repent as a word on its own if there's no sin mentioned around the context of repentance. Only the context can tell you what the turning or the repenting was so unless you can point to the doing of the sin as the context then repentance is not about turning from sin in those verses. So you can't just take verses about repentance and add sin in the context because it doesn't belong in those verses. But before we finish there's two more points that we need to address here. We have seen examples of nachem being translated as repent or repented. We have seen examples of shubh being translated as turn or return. In an earlier slide we did see on the English concordance though that a couple of verses at least or a handful that say repent were actually translated from shubh not nachem and if we search for the word turn in the English concordance we will see that there are other Hebrew words that this is translated from. So why is that? So let's deal with the first one first. So verbs can be both transitive and intransitive. So a transitive verb has an object. So for example please bring coffee is a transitive verb because coffee is the object of bring whereas if you say you better run it's intransitive because run is a standalone verb it doesn't have an object to say where you're running to. So in the Hebrew there is the odd verse here and there that uses the same Hebrew word twice for emphasis but in a slightly different variant because one is intransitive and then one is transitive. So the King James translators would translate the intransitive verb as repent instead of turn to make it sound more sensible in English. A couple of examples of these come from Ezekiel. So we previously looked at Ezekiel chapter 18 in the series let's just revisit it for a moment. So in Ezekiel 1830 it says repent and turn yourselves from all your transgression and both repent and turn are translated from different variations of the word shubh. The transitive verb was translated into repent otherwise it would say turn and turn which would sound silly in English. So regarding the second point then well just as turn or return is very generic word in English there are different words you could substitute it with depending on the context. Now the word repent here being a case in point. Hebrew likewise has other verbs that can communicate the same idea. For example now I do apologize about my pronunciation but the word panah which is strong 6437. This is another generic word meaning turn and in fact this is probably the closest Hebrew equivalent to the word turn whereas shubh is more like return. Panah can also refer to the appearance or face of turning. For example he looked this way in Exodus 212 or when the morning appeared in Exodus 14 27. The word so which is strong's reference 5493 which means to turn aside or to depart or to be removed. Deuteronomy 1 7 translates this as turn you as another way of saying depart. And then Nathan which is strong's 5 4 1 4 this means to give or to grant or permit and Deuteronomy 14 25 translates this as turn it which is the wine and the oil tithe offering into money. There are other examples that we could look at but I'm sure you get the point by now. The key message that we can learn from all of this is that repent is a verb not a complicated doctrine. It is simply a way of communicating in language that one is turning from one thing to another. That may be sin but it doesn't have to be especially if the doing of sin is not the context of the verb. Therefore you cannot reasonably infer turn from sin from the verb repent unless sin is clearly the context of that verse. Do not be deceived by somebody who uses your lack of understanding of the Hebrew to spread misinformation. Repentance does not need a 10 paragraph article of fanciful words and obsessing about the Jews to explain the implications of the transformative work of the believer into Christ consciousness and blah blah blah. It's just a verb. This is no nonsense Christianity reminding you that nowhere in the Bible does it say repent of your sins to be saved.


Yn 7 cyfnodd pan fydd y UIUX yw'r dda'u wedi'i gweithio'r cyfeirio'r cyfeirio, felly byddai'n cyfrannu ei wneud. Mae'n ddweud. Yr 1 yw'r cyfrannu ymwybod ymwysig. Felly, mae'n gweithio'r projec yw'r cyfrannu, mae'n gweithio'r cyfrannu a'r cyfrannu i fynd i'ch gweithio'r cyfrannu i fynd i'ch gweithio'r cyfrannu a'r cyfrannu i fynd i'ch cyfrannu. Mae oedd mynd iасquad diwylliannau i'ch hefyd, oedd oedd gennu'n gweithio'i cyfrannu i fynd i'ch gweithio i'ch gweithio'r cyfrannu, mae hynny'n gweithio'r ux yw Ond mae'n amlwgerdd yn cynidiaid, i obroedd yn ei hollu, yn gwybod yn ei hollu, yn gwybod yn ei hollu i'ch gŷm i'r cyfwng ac yn ddegilwyr. Yn godd-don ni'n beg hynny, a oeddiwch yn y START-desigl. Mae'r cyfrifiadau, rydyn ni'n golygyn i'r cyfrifiadau bynnag eich llwyfer. Felly, mae'n meddwl ffordd o'r cyfrifiadau yda wedi'i arno, nid diwethaf yn i gwybrious gyd-gofyn. Ie, mae'n gwaith gyda y cwrdd ei wneud, ond mae'n gwaith yn ystod y fain, ac mae'n gwoith yn ei dweud o'r rhai, mae'n gweithio'r brofiad, yw gweithio cyfnwyr ar y cyfnod, ac mae'n gweithio'r cyfu ar y cwrdd, ac mae'n gweithio'r cyfnod gan yw yw gweithio. Gweithio'r cyfnod gan gyfnod, ac mae yw'r ei dweud o'r cy尔on,wch yn yw'r gweithiwyr ond yw'r ddechrau'r blaen yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch o'ch byd ynglynig? Yn ymgyrch a'r d glywed yw o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r Ddweud, ac fyddech chi'n dda'n gwybod y gallw'r rhagleniaeth a nesaf i'r ddweud. Rwy'n ddweud i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud a'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r cyffredinol, ac amsail iawn gweld i ni. Ac mae'n ddyn nhw'n ddwy'r unig i ddim yn dweud. A dyna, yr argymell eisted시다eth eistedestaeth yng Nghymru, yn gwneud yng nghymru, sy'n ddysgu i gwybod ein cyllid, a mae'r meddwl eistedestaeth o gwneud i'ch hoffa. Mae hynny'n gwneud ar Gate o'r cyllid, ac mae'n gwneud yn cael ei rhain. A byddai prosie, roedd i ni fit i'r rhain gweld yn cyd-dug, ac os yw'r opiwn Tesla, mae angen i'r hoffa am hwnnw, a'r Predigion Mae'n Gweithio'r Meghan and you will get thousands of responses, and rather than ask like open-ended questions you might ask ones that maybe have a multiple choice and then you can analyse this or you might say what feature do you find, you want most in the car or on the tier design of the dashboard you might see what you want to see and they might say speed, they might say acceleration, they might say music and then this will then prioritise your designs so that's definitely mae'r berthynas ar y peth yn dweud o'r cyffredin. A yma yw'r dros yma yw'r gweinwyr yw'r ysgol. A dyna'r ysgol, ac yno'r ysgol yn gallu amlwg amddraeth sydd yn eu cyd-wylch. Felly, mae'n gweithio i'r cyfanyddau, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio.  Dwi'n meddwl i'r ffaith o ran yma'r ffaith. Yn ymlaen i'r ffaith, yn ffaith yw'r ffaith i'r wneud, ond, dwi'n meddwl i'r byd y cyfnod y dyma, yn ymgyrch, mae'n syml sy'n meddwl i'r ffaswn. you have to empathize and put yourselves in their shoes and we use personas so we have fictional representations of the people who read the magazine and by understanding what they were interested in actually when i was designing the application for the iPad were made some decisions that would benefit and a lot of these people like one of them was they'd actually use the iPad and landscape mode a lot of the time because they watched films and then. Dys is something that we applied to the iPad version of Vogue we designed that in landscape only to make use of the videos that were going to be on there. That's something that people wanted in there. So, if I wasn't able to pop myself in the shoes of the audience, that's a design change small one, but it may a massive difference to the overall impact of the application. So really put yourself in other's shoes and don't just design for yourself, design for your audience. The third one is something that none of you should be doing, and that's neglecting mobile experience. Felly, rwy'n iawn, oherwydd, rwy'n cael ei gweld y gwahanol, rwy'n credu llwy ffarsiaeth ystod. Oni'n gallu hwnnw i'r cwmhyself, ond mae'r bwysigau, ond mae'n bwysigfynu, ond mae'n bwysigfynu ymgyrch, ond mae'n bwysig ffarsiaeth. Sa'r dwylo i ddim yn gallu hwnnw, ond mae'n dweud i'r ddechrau ddechrau, dweud i'n dweud i'u ddechrau, ond mae'n dweud i ddechrau. ond, wedi ôl i'r cyfnodwch o gwaith yn belydd yn gwahodd a cyfnodwch ond arno i gael rhyngomol yn gweithio a fydd ni'n gwybod, mae'n frech öng Nghaerwedd yn y Ddechrau, ond mae'n ddim yn ei ffyn欲 ar y ddelchig a'i ddych chi i hynny, a'i ddweud ond hyn yn mwyn i mor 50% o'r dyfanydwi yn edrych o'r cyfnod o gyfynodwch, yn brwytych i ddych chi'n gweithio'n fawr o'r ddych chi'n gwybod,hon wy standing the font to small, dem public button too small and also sometimes people prefer to design mobiles first because you don't want an infinitely longer scrollable screen you actually want to condense the material and then it's actually easier to go to desktop because you haven't got as much stuff to cram down so do not neglect mobile, it's over 15 cents of your audience The next one is overloading it with features Felly mae'r ysgwrdd yn y pethau yw'r hyffordd honno yn FVP, ac mae'r pethau a'r hyffordd rhai. Ac mae'r ysgwrdd yn dweud y gweithiau a mae'n ffordd yma cyngor iawn, mae'n dweud ymddun hwnnw. Mae'n gweithio dipyn nhw'n dweud yma yma cyngor o'r ysgwrdd yn y pethau, yn dod yn dweud ar y pethau, mae mae'n gweithio 5, ond yn y pethau'n gweithio ar y pethau, fe'n gweithio yn dweud ar yr awr 20, yn dweud yr ysgwrdd neu nhw'n dweud. that's because sometimes what you think users might not use so the original ffordd there might be three that people use two that you can ditch off and then concentrate based on analytics and feedback from your audience surveys and looking at analytics reports and what people are using and then improving them so don't really focused on too many features, focus on the core ones and you can tell this by practice so release stuff if it works great improve and if it's not Mae wedi cael eu bobl am werthau, dydd wedi ei chaven mor ffocos ar y cyfletaeth, ond ei fod yn blaud o'r ffeithiwr cyfletaeth, yn ffocos a'r byw gwneud, mae amser cyfeiteisgoi dda chi'n gwrs a ddim yn wedi iawn arlaen. Yn y gallu cwrnod ei fod yn gilydd o defnyddio'r cyffredinol iawn lle. Yn y byddaeth, wrth gwrs, ac mae'n yma'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'n fwrdd hyn yn ymrydd o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Sometimes it can be hard to be a designer, actually, because everybody has an opinion on design and design is a very visual field. So we will get asked by a lot of people to mock up designs and to incorporate ideas. We're really the glue that holds the team together. So as a designer, what I needed to learn early on is that your communication skills are actually vitally important because and especially your your communication skills with stakeholders and these that just means people in the business who are ready and like have a key input to what you're creating. Not people who hold stake, like a lot of people might jokingly refer to them as but you need to have a good relationship with them because they're ultimately the people who is responsible in the business for the application. Their neck is on the line and so they will obviously come to you with ideas because they're the ones who ultimately decide what features go into the application and what the business wants out of it. So your job as a designer is to listen to them and represent new represent the user. They represent the business. You need to have a good working relationship and then that's what's going to actually push your career forward because if you don't have a good working relationship with the stakeholders then you're never going to get promoted. So you need to really focus on honing your skills of communication, being friendly, open, still holding firm and representing the user but you need to have a good collaborative experience with stakeholders. The next one you do not want to do is ignoring accessibility. So did you know 8% of men are colour blind? It's only 1% of women but that's an awful lot of people who are using your application who could miss vital features. There's also people with loads of different types of abilities and motor accessibility which is control of things with your hand. There's different types of input. There's voice commands. There's loads of different visual sites. There's people with auditory problems who read subtitles. People watch videos in mute. So you really need to think about all these accessibility features when you're designing. That's something that people either leave till the last minute or forget about and within Figma there's actually loads of accessibility plugins that you can do. You can check your colours. You can check your contrast. But when you're a designer you're representing ethical designers and we want everybody to use the products that we create and we want it to be a level playing field and also by designing for people with accessibility issues I think they might not be able to read small funds or they might have problems deciphering between two different colours. You're actually making it better for everyone. One of the best websites is Govda UK which is the government's website. This has got the best accessibility design I've seen. It's super simple. It's a lovely design website if you want to check it out. But by making it simple for everyone it's actually making it simple for these specific users. I enjoy it. Everyone likes a simpler experience so don't forget accessibility. And the seventh one is Falling Behind on UI UX Friends. So every year the industry goes through trends and you always want to stay up to date. So there's a lot of websites you can check out. Behance is a brilliant place where you can see people's case studies online and you can check out what designers are doing this year. It's all about big ball typography. You can also check out the awards website of the day that make the latest showcase in web design and you can also check out Dribble. That's D-R-B-I-L-O. There's a lot of wrong links in the description but that's where designers are putting their designs and case studies. And if you have any other places that you can recommend for keeping up to date with the latest trends then put them in the chat beneath it. But you know there's loads of YouTube videos but you always want to you know we go through different stages in design and you always want to be constantly learning and evolving as a designer and you don't want to design anything that's out of date. And there's also you know like dark mode was a trend that's actually stuck around because people prefer it. Some trends come and go. Remember Apple a couple of years ago it was called Sceomorphic design and this is where everything looked like physical paper like the notes app had like rips in it. Then everything went flat colour where it was like digitally native. This year it's all about glass morphism where there's like different panels and um opacities on them. So you really want to keep up the trends. The best places are YouTube, Behance and Dribble. If you want to see more videos on UI, UX, design watch the next video.


I will talk about one peculiarity of human behavior, which I refer to as side buyers. There are efforts and attempts made to understand human behavior through several subsystems. One subsystem referred to understanding human behavior through cognitive functioning. One subsystem is in the affective domain, we try to understand temperamental personality, mood and affective other emotional domains. Very little effort has been made to understand human motor action and the psyche behind it. My attempt here in this talk would be to understand a unique feature in human behavior, which is often noticed, but largely ignored. I will talk about that, but before I talk about it, I would like to refer that like human body. Everything in this world is somewhat symmetrically organized. Even the human body is also symmetrically organized except for some visceral organs. From several cordial directions, if you see a human body, you will find that you have got two legs, two eyes, two ears, two hands and morphological symmetry across the vertical line is almost perfected. Though, there are attempts to study the structural differences between the two sides of the brain, the two hands, the length and width. All these things have been done, but it has been found that there are negligible differences in the structural issues in the two sides of the body. The question comes that whether the two sides of the body, if they are structurally so symmetrical, are they symmetrical functionally as well? I will refer about this question and I will talk about the topic, which is termed to me by me as side bias and side bias in human behavior. As I said, like human behavior, the entire world, all constituents of the nature have got some symmetry. A bird's fly with two wings has a symmetry, aeroplane in the sky that we see also have got a perfected symmetry. The river, the trees, the birds, the animals, anything that we see has got a symmetry in morphology. My question is addressed here on human body that we have a perfect symmetry, but we have differential functions of those symmetrical within those symmetrical structures, which are asymmetrical in nature. So I would like to talk to you about these asymmetries in our human function, which is largely ignored, but very often noticed. Now before I actually go into the subject matter, as it has still not gotten a high level of scientific validity, though it is clearly evident, we would first like to examine whether our behaviors are biased or not. Let us for example, try to understand with two roads available before us, which one do you prefer to take more often? If I have got two roads in front of me, one going towards the left side, other going towards the right side, but both reaching at the same point, at the same time if you take either of these roads, you would prefer to go by which road? Are you interested or are you more biased towards the left side of the road or are you more biased towards the right side of the road? We do not have a clear answer for this. Likewise, if I try to shoot with a gun, which eye is kept open and how conjugate eye movement takes place? Do we open both the eyes in shooting? No, it is not possible, we have to close one eye. So which eye we would prefer to close and which eye we would prefer to open? We will find that there is often a bias. We use one eye more often as open and one eye more often as closed. If we have to listen a low voice, a radio or the taking of a watch, do we use both ears randomly? Both ears randomly, no. We use one ear, but we know that preferentially one ear is more often used as compared to the other. So we find often there is a bias. If I have to board a bus, I will definitely not use both the legs. I will use one foot more often to board a bus as compared to the other. If we notice to ourselves, we will find that there is a clear bias within ourselves as well. Likewise, when we take food or chew a gum, do we use both sides equally when we do the mastication? We do not do that. We use one side more often as compared to other. Do we notice which side we use more often? So the question comes whether mothers are biased in cradling baby or not. We have often noticed that mothers cradle the baby in the left side, the left hand. And we rarely see that mother cradle the baby with the right side. What could be the reason behind it? Is it so that the mothers are biased? I am raising these questions to generate more answers through researchers. The primary idea behind raising this question is to understand why our behaviors get biased under such conditions. Likewise, do we smell food with both nostrils equally? No, we do it with bias at one side of the nostrils. So therefore, we need to know why do we do this? Likewise, which side of our face is noticed more often in a face to face interaction? Do we see the whole face at a time whenever we interact with somebody or we see one side of the face more often as compared to the other side? At a later point of time, I will give you evidence telling that why one side of the face is more noticed as compared to the other. Why the right hand is used more often to take food? We are often taking food with the right side. Do we take food with the left hand also with equal frequency? No, most of the people take food with the right hand. Of course, there are people, some people who also take it with the left hand, but the percentage may be 5 percent or less than that. With all these questions, what I try to raise is that we have certain behavior peculiarity which we term in form of human behavior bias, but why do we do that for such kind of action is something that we need to ask. When we ask this question, we would like to find questions from evolutionary sciences, from biological sciences, from engineering sciences, from behavioral sciences. The idea behind this topic is to raise questions rather than giving answers. By raising questions, we would be able to get the root of human behavior through evolutionary sciences. I will raise more questions for that. More such questions for biological sciences, why they are biologically more tenable? What kind of resource allocation I do through being a biased activity pattern? What kind of engineering sciences questions that we answer? And what kind of behavioral sciences questions that we answer by studying side bias as a phenomenon? First, we will take up questions for evolutionary sciences. The first and foremost thing comes to our mind that are we right sided since the beginning of the human civilization? We know more often we use the right hand, more often we use the right foot, but the question comes are we right sided ever since the human civilization has begun? Or we became right sided at a much later point of time? This question needs to be answered. Likewise, does biased bias have a survival potential? By being right sided, do we increase the chance of survival or is it so that by not having a bias, we will reduce our survival potential? That is another question which revolutionary scientist can answer. Are women less lateralized than men is another question. We have men and women in this world with equal proportions, but is it so that men are more lateralized and women are less lateralized or the reverse is true? We do not have a very clear answer. We find that for various functions the laterality pattern differs between men and women. So, does this functional biases have got certain survival potential or certain implications for evolutionary sciences? Likewise, to what extent side bias is prevalent in human population across age? We have done a very recent study in which we have found that is appeared in a journal called laterality. We have found that after a particular age that is 65 plus, the left hinders are nearly non-existent. I will raise this issue when I will be discussing hand bias as one of the issues that we have studied under a department of science and technology program. But this question is being raised in order to tell that more we grow less there are left sided biased people when the human population is started across the age. There are certain questions for social sciences like evolutionary sciences, we have certain questions for social sciences. In this entire talk, I will be raising only questions to find out answers because the answers are not very apparent or prevalent. So, the question for social sciences, do there more left handers in this century vis-a-vis last century? The latest study suggests that there has been an increase in the left sided people in comparison to the last century in this particular century. There has been some such evidence, but no such systematic answer has been found whether we have got more left handers in this century as compared to the last century. It has as I have said in last century, we have found that there are less left handed and the number of people who are left handers in this century up in found to have increased. Likewise are left handers better than right handers in sports? We find that left handers are there in sports and right handers as well, but is it so that left handers suit better or left handers have got a better performance as compared to the right handers? All left handers, right handers use more often the left handers in order to exploit the vulnerabilities of the right handers for left handers. This is another question for which we do not have answers. We have found a clear left handed cricket, a clear right handed cricket in the game of cricket use the left hand in order to bowl a right handed or a left handed batsman. Why do they do so? Is it so that the left hand is used to exploit the weaknesses of the right hander or is it so that the left hander play better sports in all forms of or walks of sports that people are playing? Likewise, are there more left sided people with IQ over 140? It has been found that the percentage of people with left hand have got higher IQ over 140 which is considered to be extremely gifted number of cases. 140 is the best or the highest that we can measure with the existing tools. There have been studies which are found that people with over 140 IQ have got more left handedness as a tendency as compared to the right hand, but we do not have a clear answer. This thing has to be studied. These are good questions for social sciences. What makes leftward people clumsy in India? For example, if a person is clearly left handed and since the social desirability is always for the right side, do they become clumsy over a period of time and do they commit more accident as a result of which. So, what makes leftward people clumsy in India because of social desirability or not having the left fit world around them for use of implements and other kind of activities. So, these are the questions we have found for the social scientist. So, like evolutionary scientist, we have some questions regarding side bias in social sciences. Likewise, we have questions for biological sciences using side biases. Do there a genetic regulation for human asymmetry despite symmetry in nature? Everything in the nature is symmetrical, but do there a genetic regulation for human asymmetry that needs to be studied. Likewise, is there a structural asymmetry in paired organ as well? Like we have got two legs, we have got two feet, we have got two ears, we have got two sides of the brain. Is there a structural asymmetry in the paired organ? There are asymmetries existing, but as of now we know that they are very, very nonsignificant. Yet, it is important to study to what extent the two sides of the brain or the two sides of the body are different in terms of structural asymmetry. Are the two sides of brain asymmetrical in structure and function as well? No, functionally we know the two sides of the brain are very asymmetrical, but structurally we know the right side of the brain is slightly bigger than the left side of the brain as well as left side has got more fiber concentration as compared to the right side of the brain. There are minor variations in the two sides of the brain, but there are major variations in the functions of the two sides that needs to be studied in biological sciences which of course, we have studied in great number and depth in the studies related to hemispheric lateralization or cerebral hemisphericity. Is there a common biological mechanism for all forms of sidebars? This is also not very clearly known. For example, we know that the two sides of the brain are different for two different kinds of functional entities, but the two legs, the two hands, the two ears, the two eyes that is we have got sense organ asymmetries, we have got paired asymmetries for leg and foot, long limbs. Question comes whether there is one biological switchboard for all kinds of asymmetry or they are peripherally learned, separately learned through cultural processes in executing some kind of asymmetry. This is a question not yet uncertain, we need a answer for tomorrow. Are people with clumsy bias susceptible to developmental disorder or illness? That is also not clearly known. With Geshu in Gallaburda and Behann study, we know that there are some kind of atypicality or clumsiness in mental disorders like schizophrenia, some of the developmental disorders like dyslexia, mental retardation. All such studies are available today, but the linkage between these clumsy bias or atypical side bias and developmental disorder is also not very clearly known. But question comes that with all these raising issues, the biological sciences can approach side bias as a topic to answer several such questions. We have some questions for engineering sciences as well. For example, do we design machine for right-sided only? We know that 10 percent of the people in this world are left-sided, left-handed, but all machines are generally created for right-centered. For example, the mouse of a computer is meant for a right-sided. The seizure is created or manufactured only for the right-hander. A left-hander will never find it very easy to use a mouse or a seizure. So, the question comes for engineering sciences. Do we design machine only for right-sided people? Does commonplace technology foster side bias? For example, if I show you some of the pictures, you will find that a chair with right arm meant for writing. There is a space meant only for the right-sided people or the right-handed person. If the person is left-hander, he will not be able to use the chair. A seizure for surgical purposes cannot be utilized by a left-sided surgeon. A mouse is meant for the right-handed people. It cannot be utilized by left-handed people. The door of a refrigerator is always opened for the benefit of the right-sided people. The thread of a screw is meant for only right-sided people to push forward. It cannot be pushed forward with a driver by a left-sided people. The camera, the switch is always at the right-hand. It is never at the left-sided. So, the left-handed people can never make use of it. So, the question comes with all these gadgets available in the world. Maint only for right-feet people. What is the engineering challenges that we have for those tools, which should be meant for both-sided people or at least create some such machines, which are conducive to the requirement of the left-handed people? How far these tools may be customized? That is also a very important issue like in an airplane. If we have a left-handed pilot, to what extent we can design an airplane cockpit for the benefit of the left-handed pilot? How can we reduce the accident-related injuries for people who are otherwise left-sided, but been forced to become right-sided to accommodate the right-feet world? That is a big question for all of us and we all know by developing atypicality, by developing clumsiness, we actually enhance the chance of accident. Likewise, should the measures of side bias be considered as potential for design of machine or even for robots? Robots are being created keeping human asymmetry or human functional side bias into consideration? No. Or should we design the machine keeping the human side bias inherent as an inherent potential into the system? So, all these questions that I have raised for engineering sciences, a mechanical challenge, a challenge for different devices which we use in on a regular day to day basis. So, we have questions for evolutionary sciences, we have questions for social sciences, we have questions for biological sciences, we have questions for engineering sciences. Using the same concept of human side bias, how can we explain them? We find that there are side bias in sensory modalities. We know that we do not perceive information from both visual field equally. We have a tendency to look towards the left side more often as compared to the right side because the left side dominance is found more for processing an image, but the right side is dominant for processing any lexical stimulus. This gets confused with the idea when we have got a scanning bias of reading things from left to right. Likewise, do we accept auditory cue equally by both ears? No probably. The hemispheric, cerebral hemispheric functional asymmetry also come into picture when we get the auditory cue like a visual cue also. Do we receive tactual input from both sides equally, the two sides of the body tactually get input, but do we interpret them equally? No. There is always a difference. There is a perceptual bias. Let me explain how this perceptual bias is seen. We found that left visual field is superior for processing image, but the right visual field is superior for processing words. We know that word processing is better done by the left side of the brain and the right side of the brain is better for processing image. When we refer about left visual field, it is actually dominated by the right side of the brain. When we refer about lexical processing or words, we know that the other side of the left side of the brain gets dominant and the right visual field which is a contralateral connectivity towards the percept gets a better dominance. So, perceptual bias is inherent within our system in the visual field itself. Likewise, we have a dominant ear bias, auditory bias also within the system. The left ear advantage is always superior for understanding how you say whereas, the right ear advantage is always found what you say. So, the content is better understood through the right ear and the context is better understood through the left ear. And left ear has a connectivity contralaterally with the right side of the brain which gives a better visual special information and a contextual information whereas, the right ear advantage is for more in the understanding of the content which is the lexical processing and better done by the left side of the brain which is contralaterally connected with the right ear. Likewise, left hand is found to be superior with the pattern recognition which is contralaterally connected with the right side of the brain and the right hand is found to be superior for the processing of the words which is contralaterally connected with the left side of the brain. So, if we understand the perceptual bias, we will find that the visual processing, the auditory processing and the tactual processing are somewhat organized contralaterally with the two sides of the brain.  We have found that the right side of the face is more public as compared to the left side which is more intense or private. That is, when we express a face and if we vertically organize or try to dissect facial expression, we will find that the right side can be controlled more often by the left side of the brain motorically and which is more often seen in any public viewing as compared to the left hand face which is more private and not more often noticed by any on looker. So, we term them as more private as compared to more public. So, there is a clear difference in the expression between the two sides of the face, the right side of the face and the left side of the face, there is a clear bias. Likewise, we have found that deception in facial expression is less likely in the left hand face. That is, the control in your left hand face is much less as your control on the right hand face. Therefore, people fail to make any kind of deception in the left hand face as compared to the right hand face. So, deception detection very easily if we can create a composite of left left hand face. We have also seen that the spontaneous expressions are less asymmetrical as in comparison to those as intended. Therefore, whenever there is a deception, there is a difference between the two sides of the face. But if the expression is too spontaneous, it is generally found to be less asymmetrical. That is more symmetrical as compared to the one which is camouflaged or displayed according to certain rule. It may be intensified, it may be de-intensified, it may be neutralized, it may be masked. Under all such conditions of display rule, it has been found that the left hand face is less lateralized, less likely to be controlled as compared to the right side of the face. We have also found that even the neutral facial expressions are emotionally cured because we often with our embedded experiences of emotion in face. The musculature get a permanent marking in the face and we have found that even with the neutral faces, if we create a hemiface composite with the left left composite and the right right composite using the same facial expression of neutral or resting state. The left hemiface is found to be more emotionally cured as compared to the right one because there is always some kind of permanent marking furrows and squints found available in consonance with the personality pattern of the person. In one of the studies we have found that if we create a facial composite with neutral faces and then create a left left composite and a right right composite, the left left composite is found to be more congruent with the personality predisposition of the person. The cultural display rules are also found to be more evident in the right side of the face because we can control the right side of the face more often motorically by having a voluntary control with the left side of the brain. This is what we have mentioned that the right side of the face which is controlled by the left side of the brain display better culturally sensitive practices as compared to the left side of the face which is controlled by the right side of the brain. And also we have found that by having facial asymmetry, we generate great interpersonal attractions. So, most of the attraction studies have found that there is a greater degree of morphological facial asymmetry which creates some kind of interpersonal interaction. So, we have photographs drawn from various sources in particular the studies done with the photographs developed by Paul Eakman and his associates. We have found that by developing composites of the same facial expression there are differences in the expression. In fact, the middle photograph out of the three are the original expression and then we have created left-left composite and right-right composite. The left-left composite is on the extreme right side and the right-right composites on the extreme left side and you will find that there is a clear difference between the left-left composite and the right-right composite of the facial expressions. Even in neutral expressions as I have said that they are often queued. We have found that the middle photograph which is the original photograph by having a left-left composite and a right-right composite, there are differences in the expressions and the expressions themselves with facial pharogens, quints and other musculature changes. It is evident that the left-left face becomes more interpersonally queued as compared to the right-right faces. We have also found that when we interact in a face-to-face condition the biases in the hemi-face and the biases in the hemi-space also creates a very good interaction. As I said that the right side of the face is a more public face as dictated by Ulf in 1940s has gained lot of support from later experimental studies. Ulf suggests that the right side of the face is more public and the left side of the face is more private. Why is it so? Because our left visual field is dominant always for any kind of image processing including face. So, whenever we look at a face we look at the right side of the face of the person whom we are looking which is better controlled by the person through the manipulation of the left hemisphere motoric control. Therefore, all forms of social display rules come in the right side of the face and we also have a tendency to look at the right side of the face as our left visual field is dominant. By doing that we develop civilisation process we intend to filter those information with the person is interested in displaying rather than what expressions the person does have in its private life which is dominant which is expressed better in the left left side of the face. So, left left side is governed more by the right side of the brain which is more emotional brain. So, in our face to face interaction that is the interaction of hemi space and hemi face we have found that we have a tendency to look at with a bias at the left side of the visual field which falls the onlookers right side of the face. The interaction of hemi face and hemi space tells better that how the civilisation starts with the understanding and filtering of the emotional cues that a person displays and the person understands through perceptual biases. Likewise, we have got hand biases as well we have found that approximately 10 percent of the individuals are left handed. When a survey was done a study was reported in science over 5000 years of artwork revealed that the right handedness is about 93 percent of all the cases in last 5000 years. This study was published in one of the articles published in science and it has been found that in almost every artworks that was through artifacts, relics and other kind of materials in the last 5000 years the population which are found to be right handed are close to 93 percent. Even today we have got close to 7 to 10 percent of the left handers in this population. So, hand bias is evident ever since the civilisation done of the civilisation. We have also found that the cultural norm determines the manifestation of the left handedness especially for skilled activities. Some of the skilled activities are having cultural practices have got cultural norms. So, we continue to do it with right handedness and the manifestation of left handedness always have got some kind of social functions particularly in cultures in the eastern part of the world. We have also found that natural left handedness are more creative. We have also found that pathological handedness is higher in stutterer, deaf, scissor phoenix and retarded disorders, but these practices these evidences are contradictory in one sense that in some literature it has been found that left handedness are more creative they are found to be more expressive, but at the same time left handedness has been found to be linked with some pathologies involving developmental disorders, scissor phoenix and other kinds of diseases. We have also found that accident related injuries relatively more frequent in mixed, but not in left and right handed subjects revealing or indicating that if a person is either left or right handed the accident frequency does not increase. When the hand dominance is changed forcefully in the course of development then there is a chance that the people become mixed or close clumsy as a result of which there is a higher incidences of accident under such conditions. In one of our studies sponsored by department of science and technology we have found that in India we have left handed about 3.4 percent while world statistics suggest it is close to 9 to 10 percent. This is primarily because there are social functions against left hand use mostly we in India take food with the right hand do not use for corresponds therefore and left hand is always considered to be dirty in many ritual activities we have been using right hand only therefore cultural nonsense actions are more prevalent with the use of left hand. And it has been found that in women it is far less as compared to men with an average of 3.4 percent left footed people are found to be however 9.3 percent because there is no such social function attached to it left tied people are found to be close to 20 percent 21 percent and left eared people are found to be close to 40 percent. So, the prevalent suggest that where there is less of function there are more possibilities of having left sided bias as compared to the right sided bias. We have also found that side bias is stabilized after young adulthood after 17 to 18 years it is stabilized and it does not change. Women are more right sided than men in all forms of side bias except handedness left handers have been found to have disappeared in very old age there are two hypothesis which are available in the literature and these literature these studies are conducted in Canada and US. There are two hypothesis has been proposed for this one is the elimination hypothesis other is the modification hypothesis. The modification hypothesis suggest that since it is a right fit world the left handers are forced to convert or modify their behavior to suit the requirement of the right fit world and the elimination hypothesis suggest that since the left handers found it very difficult to survive in the right fit world they are eliminated following some kind of accidents or some kind of disease or injuries. So, either by elimination hypothesis or by modification hypothesis we find that there are very few left handers in the very old age they are either modified or eliminated that is a hypothesis proposed, but this needs to be tested further because there is no strong evidence behind it though in India we also have found there are very few left hander after 65 years of age. The socio cultural pressure also does operate more with the children and women in India less with main in main it has been found that though there are close to 4 percent of the left handers when they go to a strength countries the percentage increases radically and it is close to 10 percent. So, India studying in India or India's Indian staying in India are about 4 percent left handers, but Indians staying in America or other western countries the percentage is nearly double where sanctions are far less and in India also the children and women are more subjected to such social pressure. Therefore, the percentages are much lower for left handers in these countries we also have got reading bias likewise we have got hand bias we have got face bias we have got a reading bias also we have a tendency to read everything from left to right because we have a reading bias as well, but can we read things from right to left as well at the use of those speakers. Do we have a attentional bias also as a result of our reading bias that is we read everything from left to right simply because of our reading bias. These are subject of studies do we suffer from pseudo neglect under normal circumstances that is if we have to read something from right to left do we suffer from some kind of pseudo neglect that is also an area of study. Do artists use the input in portraiture that we have found artist often use in the study in the great pictures in Mona Lisa we have found artist often use this asymmetry in their portraiture also, but what does it imply needs to be studied further. Can you use this input in the web page making as well it is a question of computer science as well that do we use such kind of input when we frame or design architecturally try to make it more understandable or can be able to the understanding of human being. So the question comes therefore, side bias in engineering sciences is a very important issues for example, can we design rifle for right handers only are we designing rifles for right handers only can we do it for left handers as well. Because all rifles that we use if we use it are meant for right hander, but if we use it with the left hand the spend cartage will come to the face of the person who is shooting. So it requires altogether a different manufacturing design for making it useful for the left hander can we do that likewise should we have right handed pilots only because if the cockpit design is meant for only right handed pilots what will happen to the left handed pilots. And as we have already noticed that left handed pilots or if not better than right handed are equally potential as compared to the right handed pilots, but are they in a natural disadvantage likewise can we redesign the safety levers all safety levers in all for example, locomotive levers locomotive engines are at the right side. But if we have a driver locomotive who is a left hander he would never be able to reach that can we redesign it based on the requirements of the human capabilities is it possible to provide patterned information based on perceptual bias as we know we read most of the things from left to right we have a scanning bias of image processing from left side to right side can we take this input in order to design our safety practices in the road likewise it is possible to humanized machine with the matched asymmetry. We know that side bias is part of our system is part of our functional system therefore, is it possible to humanize a robot or a machine with the concept of the side bias this is a question for engineering sciences. Finally, such kind of research has got great relevance on all kinds of sciences as I mentioned survival mechanisms for example, we have found that fight and flight as well as communication pattern is based on the side bias practices that is the right hemisphere is used more for fight and flight the communication is done more by the left hemisphere. So, survival mechanism is based on some kind of hemispheric differences or some form of side bias likewise effective coping style as I said private phase is more dominated in the right hemisphere which is portrayed through the left phase likewise public phase is more in the left hemisphere which is expressed through the right side of the phase the effective coping style also depends on some form of side bias resource allocation is also dominated by some kind of some side bias in the waking state left hemisphere is more dominant in the dream state right hemisphere becomes more dominant. So, not only in the waking and dream state all forms of resource allocation in the body are also done by some form of side bias response selection is also very important the left hand is always used for protection is it possible to understand why we fight with the right hand and protect with everything with all left hand. So, protection and attack mechanism the response selection is very clearly defined in our coping style so that is also part of one of the very interesting evolutionary answer questions for the answers why we are so individual difference and genetic variations are also a area of study with the side bias that we need to study. And finally, the cultural variability the left hemisphere is more dominant found to be in western population whereas, as compared to the western population somewhat higher level of right dominance is found in eastern population some such studies have been published. So, the cultural variability is also evident in the side bias put together the relevance of research in side bias in all walks of life in all forms of behavior can be studied using social sciences paradigm using biological sciences paradigm using evolutionary sciences paradigm and using engineering sciences paradigm. This gives a new set of questions for which we have got answers to bring thank you so much.


Mark, defeating your opening game, what were your thoughts generally? Well, disappointed with the result. Clearly that wasn't what we're looking to get today, but we made a couple of errors that led to the goals and we talked before the game about making sure we're really strong in the key periods of the game, which obviously is the first ten minutes of the first half and then either side of the halfway period. Unfortunately, we conceded in each period either side of halftime, so that's something that we need to be really strong on in terms of just getting to, obviously, to halftime, making sure that we've got the opportunity to regroup and go again. The second goal obviously made it difficult for us, but I thought we were better in the second half in terms of being brave enough to get on the ball. I think it's easy just to get the ball away from your area and you think that's a good thing. Sometimes you've got to be brave enough to pass it out of the area and I think we did that in the second half, matching them up in midfield and that seemed to help us. So proof of thought, things that we can work on definitely. It's helped me, obviously, because this is my first game, the first time I've seen them in a match situation, so I've gleaned a lot of information from that. So yeah, we'll work on it. Coming up against the sideline Mansfield on a great run, helped plenty of momentum that they're carrying. In terms of an asset test for your first game, I guess a good test for you and for the players. Yeah, yeah. Listen, you look at them, they were well drilled. They could get around the pitch and had a set way of closing people down, which we talked about before. We dealt with it to a certain extent. I don't think they created a great deal other than the opportunities they had to score. So we're going to come up against teams like that who've got confidence, so we're obviously flying on the back of a good runner as a result, what we need to do. Obviously, he's ever similar run of results and be able to play with the confidence that Mansfield showed today. You talk about food for thought, although if you want to win every game, coming out and losing and identifying, you know, areas to work on, I guess, for you in a first game, positive. Yeah, that was really important. So I'm going to get, obviously, more insight into the group that I've got as we go along, but I wasn't vastly disappointed today. I think there's certainly areas that we can improve on, but that was always going to be the case. But no, there's a group there that want to get better and want to work hard for the shoot. I don't think everybody saw that today. And we'll make sure we give them the means to do that in terms of a strategy, a way of playing, and give them the confidence to get results on board again. Finally, your first experience out here at Volley Parade, how do you find it? That was brilliant. Yeah, that was fantastic. I thought the crowd were magnificent, stuck with us right to the end. Obviously, disappointed that we'd lost the game, but I had a great reception, I have to say. So it's up to me to make sure it continues. That means winning matches, which is what we want to do for the fans.


If you've ever seen Question Time in Parliament or watched your CEO at a press event, you'll have noticed the way they take questions matters. Question sessions are a great way to keep your webinars engaging, but what are your options? Let's go through five in this video. Number one, call for questions during the registration process. That way you can formulate your responses ahead of time, or even refine the subject matter of your webinar if a lot of questions are being submitted on the same topic. Number two, live polling. All webinars should include at least one live poll. Prepare the question in advance, offer multiple choice answers, and make the topic as interesting or as controversial as you dare. A webinar is the perfect medium for live voting, and enables you to get a much more accurate read of the responses compared to a show of hands. Number three, hold a live Q&A in a private chat. This is the most common way to take questions during a webinar, and a great way to streamline this is to have a moderator or facilitator working with you to ensure that you can focus on your content. If too many questions are coming through, you can always download a copy of your transcript once your event is over. Number four, live questions in the public chat. You can also have your attendees post questions in an open forum, and this is a great way to build an online community. Just keep in mind if you are using this feature, remember it is open to all, so consider your audience and your topic. And finally, number five, submit questions via video. Ask your attendees to submit the questions in advance by recording the question on their laptop or their phone, and get them to send in the file. And ask your webinar provider to play the video question during the live Q&A segment of your webinar. Not many people are using this technique for Q&A, so if you can pull it off, it will make your webinar stand out head and shoulders above the rest. For more tips on taking questions in your webinars, take a look at our blog, Nine Ways to Take Questions in your next virtual event.


What's the word, y'all? Everybody knew that this year was gonna be an all-time tank job. Even Adam Silver said before the season started, if y'all started taking too hard, I might send you down to the G League, even though we can't really send you down to the G League. But I'ma say that we will send you down to the G League because we know that Vic is that nice. Which is super interesting for Adam Silver to even really say, especially since the NBA bought the opportunity to put Vic on NBA.com's app so the world can really see how good he is so fans will advocate for loss after loss after loss. But don't you do it. Don't you dare tank this season because Adam Silver not playing. And well, we got teams that are completely diving into the tank a quarter of a way through the season. The Houston Rockets are three and 14. The Detroit Pistons are four and 15. They won tonight against the Denver Nuggets. Surprising Kevin Knox game. Surprising Kevin Knox game. The Charlotte Hornets have dealt with injuries and they're four and 14 on the season. The Orlando Magic are five and 13. All of those teams have one goal in mind and his name is Vic. But then we have these teams like the Indiana Pacers who are 10 and six, a team that a lot of people, me included, thought were going to be terrible. We have a team like the OKC Thunder who've come back down to earth quite a bit after their hot start again. But they're seven and 10, but they feel too talented to be in that bottom section with the rest of those teams we mentioned. So the Pacers and the Thunder have a dilemma on whether or not they should flip the switch off to get down to catch up with those other teams. And we go talk about that after we talk about our sponsor. That sponsor, of course, is Prize Picks. Hit the link in the description and use co-canny because Prize Picks is matching all new players' deposits up to $100. I love Prize Picks because it's just you versus the numbers. You pick some of your favorite, least favorite players. You pick a stat like points, rebounds, assists.  Here's an entry from a few days ago. They recently added six. They used to be between two to five different players that you can add. No, now you can do a six player entry. Poku came through and gave me 10 points in the first quarter. Jewel and Bean, I'm sorry, I pray for you to downfall a little bit, but you've still been killing the game. Jamerang got his boards. Mike Conleave and passer like crazy. Derrick White scored 27 points. I think that was a season high and Luca got a lot of fantasy points in the first half and my $30 entry turned into $750. Won't you look at that. It just adds another element for me as I'm watching these games, an extra thing to root for. So hit the link in the description download the prize picks app and use code Kenny and go ahead and deposit something and they'll match it up to $100. Shout out to prize picks for sponsoring another video. I'm gonna start with the Indiana Pacers because well, they are far behind on this tank job. They are 10 and six on a five game win streak that nobody's talking about. And I think partially is because they had one of the easiest schedules in basketball.  So maybe that's the reason why people ain't talking about them being as good as they look right now. But boy, has it been fun. They're one of these teams that before the season started I thought I would just watch occasionally because Ty Reese is my boy. But no, Ty Reese is having an all-star caliber season and Benedict Mather as a rookie has exceeded almost everybody's expectations. I genuinely do remember on draft night I was getting tweets from people that saying Benedict Mather is gonna immediately come in and be really, really good. I didn't believe it. I don't watch Collins basketball. So I didn't really know what to expect. And boy, they were right, W take. But they've been super fun to watch because I think they play off each other so very well. I think that Benedict Mather and got drafted to the perfect scenario where he's in a situation where he don't have to worry about nothing by getting his own buckets. He's got Tarris Halliburton who continues to climb up this rank as the greatest passing point guards in basketball. And then he's got one of the greatest passing secondary ball handlers and TJ McConnell. I want to TJ McConnell's on my favorite team, bro. He does everything you want a backup point guard to do. He's gonna be a little menace similar to Jose Alvarado before Jose Alvarado. And like I said, he just has the vision that you want from a backup point guard. But this off season, you gotta remember what the Indiana Pacers did. I think if you go back to my Eastern Conference prediction video, I had the Indiana Pacers finishing 15th in the conference. I had them as the worst team in the East. And the reason for that is because after they traded for Tarris Halliburton he played 26 games of the team and they won six and they lost 10 straight games to end the season. And what did they do? They sold Malcolm Brogdon in free agency or in the off season. So I was like, there's no way, right? I underestimated how good Tarris was gonna look in year number three. And again, not really normal Benedict Mathering was capable of, I didn't really know. But even with all of that, this record of 10 and six is still amazing. So did this cross worlds? Do we continue to play with our current team? Or do we try to figure some things out before it becomes too late? Now their schedule is gonna start to change. It's no longer beating up on the Orlando Magic on back to back nights. It's like we're about to go play against really, really good teams. Out of their 10 wins, only two of them have come against a team that was above 500 when they played against them. So it's not like they've played anybody just yet. But majority of people, me included, believed that they were gonna be traded in Miles Turner and or Buddy Hill this season. A lot of us thought it was gonna be to the Lakers very easily like that. But the way they're performing right now and all of these rumors that I'm seeing, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to keep Miles around. He's averaging 18 and 10. He's shooting the best 3.0 percentage of his career. And when he is on the court, teams shoot 8% less or worse at the rim. That puts him in the 93rd percentile, ladies and gentlemen. That is close to Rudy Gobert this season. I mean, he's always been one of these type of dudes but like it's amplified right now. So they got to decide, do we trade Miles away? Cause right now his stock is at an all-time high. This is the best basketball he has ever played in his career. Do we trade Buddy? Who's having a good season as well as the biggest commodity in basketball is the 3.0 shot. And Buddy, he was one of the best in basketball at that. And maybe selling him right now doesn't hurt too bad or you feel okay about it because you have Benedict Matherin. You have a Nim Hard who's been in the starting lineup and been playing really, really good.  They got some funky jump shots but he's looked really good. And then given a second life to Aaron Neesman if he had a really big game a couple nights ago they have this depth at this position that maybe you feel okay with letting Buddy go for whatever it may take. But the paces are again such in a weird spot because I believe there's value when you have a young roster to continue to build this culture of winning. One thing I know about Ty Reese is that he wants to build culture no matter where he goes. He wants to build community in the cities that he plays for. When he played in Sacramento he's doing a lot of charity work trying to build for that community. And now he's in Indiana and he's trying to do the same thing. And there's value in being good. There's also value in the first overall pick. So which one do you weigh more? And I'm trying to look at it this way and maybe this is not the best way to think about basketball and why I don't have a GM job. These are what CBS Sports or whoever the hell this is decided were the top 20 players in basketball. And I'm looking at it like, I think it's all right if you don't get the first overall pick. Because though they're 10 and six right now and they're playing great basketball they have the fastest pace in basketball. They have a top 10 offense and in the last two weeks they have the number three defense of basketball. Again, I play against many great people. I still don't see them as a legitimate playoff team just yet. So if that is to be true and they're not a team that's gonna end up with Vic I mean, I'm looking at the top 20 players in basketball. How many of them are like the number one former number two picks? There's usually good value and potential superstar players once we get to the sixes to whatever. Cause I mean, honest, you know where he was drafted. Kevin Arrant, okay. Steph Curry, you know where he was drafted. Yolkens was a second round pick. Like how long until we get to the top overall pick? It's like Braun who again is in the year 37. So I don't know how he's doing it. But again, maybe there's a flawed way to kind of think about these things. But I think there's a way you can teeter the line of being a lottery team, but maybe not being that first overall pick team and still building really a really good team in the future. Because I am a firm believer that Tyrese Halliburton is legitimately this nice. Right now the way he's playing if the all-star game was today, he was, he would be an all-star pretty easily. And the way Benedict Matherin is showing his game can be surprised if he turns into one of the better players in basketball. So now we already have this foundation of a backcourt that could be potentially elite. We don't necessarily need the number one overall pick to continue this rebuild, even though again, we're talking about Vic here. Vic with Reese would be, it would be amazing. But the likelihood of that, even if they take all the way down to the bottom, where they got the highest odds, we still only talk about a 14% chance of getting him. It's only the flat odds to make it all right. You might even get to the end of the season and we have the eighth best odds and boom, we end up with Jamarant. Cause that's what the, the Indiana, no, no, that's what the Memphis Grizzly did. So like there's, there's a couple different directions that this organization can go. And I don't want to jump the gun because even though they are 10 and six, they can easily go into 10 game losing streak. Again, I think Tyrese is too good. And some of the other players on the roster are too talented for it to happen, but we've seen crazier things in the, okay, see thunder are in a similar way, but not to the craziest extent because they have a million first round picks over the next X amount of years, but they started off the season seven and 10 and Shay Gildius Alexander is a legitimate, legitimate superstar. And there's a lot of conversations revolving around Shay and there have been since he's blossomed into an all circle of a talent. And the conversation is, who's going to trade for him? The Knicks are gathering up picks because the Knicks want to be in on a Shay Gildius Alexander sweepstakes. I don't think there is a Shay Gildius Alexander sweepstake. Everybody keep talking about his timeline doesn't match what the, what the O.K.C. Thunder want to do. And at the way he performs and the way he is, I said the same thing about Steph one week ago. He is the timeline, y'all. He's 24. He's not 29. Why are we acting like he's, he's posting or getting past his prime? He is 24 years old and the average prime in basketball is once you hit that 27 over all time. Oh, 27 over all, 27 year old time. He ain't even in his prime yet. And y'all talking about him potentially being traded. We don't know what's going through the psyche of Shay, but he has said on multiple occasions that he's here for the long run. And I can understand why, because though they are seven and 10, they have played better than a seven and 10 team. If you ask me, he single, almost single handedly has won them more games in the, you'll have to remember the spacing in the lineups that bro was playing with is near non-existent. And he's averaging a 30 piece on crazy great efficiency. And honestly, they just draft the chat last season. Of course he can't play this season.  Of course everybody in their organization would love to potentially have Vic, but it can be deeper than that. Same conversation I just had with the Indiana Pacers that there is value and building good culture. And the O.K.C. Thunder have done a okay job of that considering they don't have any vets. Like the Indiana Pacers have veterans on their roster that have been around the league for some time. Like James Johnson is the perfect example. I didn't even know he was on the goddamn team a week into the season. That lets you know I wasn't watching like that, but he is a guy that helps instills culture and just teaching these young dudes the way of the lamb. You know, 26 year old Miles Turner is the longest 10 year pacer. He's teaching these young guys a lot of stuff. The Thunder don't really have that. And yet we're not seeing any bad infrastructure in what they're doing, but because Shay is so goddamn good. And since Giddy is continuing to take steps every time he laces up his sneakers. And since Poku is having the best year of his career, no, no, no, let's quickly talk about Poku because let me read you some statistics. This was written by Jaden Rule and he is writing for SB Nation's version of O.K.C. Basketball. And it is called WelcomeToLoudCity.com. The name and article is actually, I could just show you, what am I doing? Poku is finally playing good basketball.  They should have bowled it to finally. But here we are. Here's some crazy stats. The efficiency of his scoring output has been a much welcome surprise. His first two years, he shot 28% and 28.9% from 3% respectively. His shooting form has improved considerably. His legs are no longer swinging out, yada, yada, yada. And then 3% is on the season. Same number of attempts as like the previous seasons, 41% right now. But this is the thing I love the most. Is the jump shooting, man. You got a lot of time to figure that out. His finishing at the rim has seen considerable improvement this season as well. Converting on 78.8% of his shots from within three feet of the basket. That's plus 8.5% increase from last season and a whopping 23.4% increase from his rookie year. I don't know how sustainable it is, Poku. But he's taking steps in the right direction as one of the biggest projects in the draft class. So he continues to improve. Giddy continues to improve. Shay is still doing his thing. And they have guys like Jalen Williams and potentially like five first round picks in this draft. So I don't feel like Shay gives Alexander as a trade piece as a legitimate thing or them shutting Shay down in the hopes of adding 6% extra percent to their odds are gonna be a thing to see. Now I could be mistaken. Who really knows? Same pressing them are crazy, crazy people. But I still believe that this is a team that continue to play the brand of basketball they're trying to build and still look back in two years and still be excited and happy with the result. At the end of the day, it's not about whatever pick you get. Okay, maybe in a draft like this where Vic is that player that everybody wants. It's about what you do with those picks. There are a lot of organizations who names I won't throw under the rug that have had top picks after top picks. And we can go as far as 20 years ago that can consider to be really, really bad every single season. They ended up having top five picks every single season and then turning to nothing because they missed on draft picks. It's about getting to that position and having the scouting team and having the culture because every player I've ever talked to always talks about it's not just about me as a player. It's about what I'm getting drafted into to get the most out of your draft picks. So we have these teams like the Pistons, the Hornets, the Magic, the Rockets, even the Spurs at this point because even though they started off with five and two they've lost every single game since then basically they might be in the lead for Vic but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be in the lead for winning in a couple of seasons. Let me know what you think. I'll be in that comment section.