I notice this a lot with salesmen. Car dealers loans mainly. “If we extend the loan period you’ll save a ton of money monthly” it gets you to think about the money you save per month on the payment and distracts you from realizing that your paying way more in interest.
It is where I come from: Canada. In late high school however, if you mean in elementary school, then I strongly agree. And so should algebra because it trains our ability to think logically and so, makes us better at thinking critically and spotting fallacies.
@@tonyazrael8223 Here in the US it's not. So I envy your country & others that do the same for the populaces public education. I also agree with you that it should be taught at the elementary level. On the topic of algebra however... children need to be taught & master the fundamentals of mathematics before taking on that subject matter. Which takes time & practice in their curriculum over years. So if they can have it incorporated at younger age & be successfully taught, then I absolutely agree with you.
@@GigaWh4tt Not even in High-School? That's very unfortunate. And possibly very damaging to the country in the long run I believe. We've seen what ignorance can do when it affects large numbers: racism, xenophobia, mistrust of medicine (vaccines), crimes, etc. and because of that, I don't believe it's crazy to think that public schools plays a large role in a country's wellbeing. I know it's more complicated than that but at least it's a good start, right? I know I typed "algebra", but in my mind I meant pre-algebra. The reason I said that is because kids between grade 3 and 6 already know how to solve 3 × ? = 12, but it's never formally introduced as a new branch of math to build on, so instead I spent 7 years just doing arithmetics which is a HUGE waste of time considering my peers and I are already familiar with the basic operations by the fourth year.
Q: Why are there two churches located in the same neighborhood across the street from each other? What is one teaching that the other is not? A: Just because there are multiple churches doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything for the community, not everyone in there is a Christian.
Well yeah, this is basically a misleading statement that attempts to change the subject, while the straw man is misrepresenting the position of the other person...Eg someone says "we must reduce fossil fuels to protect the planet" on TV and some portion of those people might take it as "Oh great, more taxes on car owners" or "Oh no, again our tax money going to useless organizations"...or something like that, basically straw man is misrepresenting someones position to make it easier to attack the "modified argument" while the red herring is more about misleading and "detouring" the argument to another subject
ThelCombaticon I was wondering the same thing. I do think it falls under the whole Red Herring thing. Media: You colluded with the Russians! Politicians: But what about Hillary's emails?! Which is not the issue here, it's an entirely different one. But it's designed to distract people from the actual topic of discussion, so it sure seems like it fits the description of a Red Herring.
@@elischmitter9711 no, tuquoque is when you accuse the person of doing the same, it doesn't exactly ignore the subject but tries to nullify it through inneficient means. Red herring is when you throw a complete new subject to the table in the attemps to minimize the original subject.
Perhaps I am predisposed to do so, but for past 2+ years I have been hearing increasing number of people respond to questions about trump by attacking Hillary Clinton. Seen it often enough to vaguely recall from my one and only logic class (cir, 1973) that there was a fallacy in those responses, just couldn't remember what it's called.
On the question of what is a red herring? Well, it's good to try and answer though questions like these, as when my niece asks why is the sky blue. Speaking of blue let me tell about the sailboat I'm thinking of buying. ( see what I did here, you've just been red herringed)!
*Actually a red herring is when you introduce irrelevant points to distract from the question. You introduced seemingly irrelevant points to answer the question.*
Here is another example. I once argued with an AK47 fan boy on the internet. The fan boy claimed that,"Nobody besides USA uses the M16 platform". I argue back and did my best to debunk him by naming him a list of countries that uses M16 platform. He than responded back by bringing up M16's jamming issues and bring up the topic how AK are so easy to make they can make it in caves.
I liked Trump's red herring where he made the media focus on wether some lady was trying to offer him sexual favors - instead of focusing on wether she was sexually assualted or whatever.
HISTORY. I realizing more and more, as time goes by, you got these publishers that put a bunch of lies out there and people buy in to that. As time goes by they think people will forget, or some younger generation will not know the truth and be mislead into believing these fallacies. This is why history is so important, to preserve, to teach to reach to upbuild one from within. I'm a Skeptic Nature, optimistic. Every time I see something, I'm like "What are they trying to hide now!?" As teens, We thought we had this settled during the mid to late 1990's (1993-1999), but yet there back again doing things like this "Fallacies." It's even worst now, the History Channel is teaching Aliens from space, the paranormal, etc... .
> Hey Joseph Wu, I spotted some Fallacies of Relevance, and Red Herrings; also seen Proof by Verbosity, and confirmations bias in a BOOK PUBLICATION. The book is titled: " You May Ask Yourself, " 6th Edition, Dalton Conley, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Independent Publishers. For Sociology Introduction, for college course. > The book was terribly written and researched, Chapter # 10 (Poverty) was really bad, it gave credit to former President Lyndon B. Johnson, as staring the war on poverty. I did real actual research and findings outside the book publication, President Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Johnson Holy Rock (Lakota President). All three of them Initiated the war on Poverty. The book gave no credit to MLK nor Kennedy. A lot of people liked Kennedy, he was a peoples president, a lot of people liked him, African-Americans liked him too. The book should have stated that President Lyndon B. Johnson "continued" the works of MLK and Kennedy. > More info on this publication is chapters # 6 (Social Control and Deviance), # 8 (Gender). Chapter 6, was not written well, it talked as if a person owned another person (ownership chapter), not acceptance. Chapter # 8, used long words to try to confuse people, then going from science it went into Pseudoscience and adhering to gods (mystic power) to prove peoples gender status. Some other problems were 1990s economic boom? -That was a lie people found it hard to get employment because a lot of companies filed chapter 11 bankruptcy such as Steel companies. It also said people gambled over their health between 1900 - 1946 in the industry, people did not have a choice of employment back then. Even thou the book talked about religion, it never got into the deviance of the clergy abuse issue, making them all look immune to justice. Last but not least, JUSTICE, for a sociology book [Sociology ties with pre-law] it did not go over Human Rights, nor Justice such as Crimes Against Humanity. > The book never covered "all groups," two were missing: Veterans (Men and Women) with prestige, and Disabled individuals, both part of society. Those were not included in Sociology. > Book was Paradox, false proposition, false scheme, false offer, false logic. > Got a B+ in course I liked the Sociology intro course, but hated the book. These were good Sociologists: C. Wright Mills, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Jane Addams, and W.E.B. Du Bois were all good, but after them, I thought what happened to Sociology?
The politician who diverted to the foreign policy issue isn't necessarily committing a red herring if he's previously primed his target audience to believe that funds for health care require a powerful tariff policy. When he does that you'll risk losing his target audience if you accuse him of confusing the issue, unless you first inform his target audience of a domestic solution to the funding question. It has to be something more concrete than describing future changes to tax and commerce regulations, especially if your side has a bad reputation for follow-through on the same, while his side has a reputation for playing hard-ball on foreign policy. Even if your side thinks a strong tariff policy is a bad idea, you really need to convince his target audience that he isn't sincere about directing tariff earnings toward health care. You also have to consider that his target audience is likely to be pleased that he's promising to play foreign hard-ball whether he does anything about healthcare or not, in which case you need to show his audience that he not only isn't sincere about healthcare but that he also intendeds to let a leopard eat their faces right before withholding suitable healthcare options.
Thank you very VERY much for the effort you put in to this. I do have one point though, a minor one, but whisky from Scotland does not have an 'e' in it. This error in content in no way diminishes your logic though!😁
Hi. The term "Begging the question" arose from the tactic of asking an opponent to cede the entire debate question under the guise of ceding a minor point. It is used to refer to circular arguments in which some part of the conclusion is used as a premise. Example: "murder is bad because killing people is wrong."
In your example there is no red herring. Prosecuter says he commited murder plus he tortured the victim while murdering so he should be punished more. İf he killed the victim just with the gun with one shot for example it would be just murder, but since the crime weapon is something that can cause too much pain and the fact that it kills adds more to his crimes. Bad example.
Interesting video. (Maybe improve the animation by not typing words one letter at a time which is too slow and distracting compare to our reading speed..) So, how do we counter or diffuse such fallacies once we're aware of it?
Are red herrings the same logical fallacy as whataboutism-(where someone tries to distract from you point by saying what about and comparing unnecessarily)?
Reporter: Americans are reportedly still stranded in Afghanistan, and the Taloban's deadline is fast approaching.Will the withdrawal efforts of Americans be still conducted beyond the deadline. Politician: The government is doing everything to get people that wants to get out of the country back to America. Our record breaking withdrawal efforts managed to bring back almost a thousand americans and refugees in just one day. Is this red herring??
05:15 - "As a result, it becomes extremely difficult to criticize the argument when it is so difficult to identify." Ohhhhhhh my god, welcome to my fuckin relationship...
"Straw Man Fallacy" is restructuring/rewording an opposing argument to simplify & be easily taken down. A "Red Herring" is adding irrelevant info to the argument to avoid the original subject. The confusion of the two, I think, comes from the fact that both have the same intention (i.e. to misdirect), but different approaches to misdirect. Plus "Red Herrings" try to get you to jump to conclusions by skipping a step in critical thinking. Hope this helped!!
Actually we don't call it philosophy all fallacies categories in speech knowledge and real philosophy we call wisdom ,apparantly in west you call both plosephy
Pseudoscience does not equal Real Science. Next time the " SCHOOL BOARD " wants to replace Science with opinion, Help put an end to the folly of BALANCED SCIENCE. These 4 books are good to read: "the Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan. Flim Flam by James Randi. Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. And also, Skeptoid.
"Straw Man Fallacy" is restructuring/rewording an opposing argument to simplify & be easily taken down. A "Red Herring" is adding irrelevant info to the argument to avoid the original subject. The confusion of the two, I think, comes from the fact that both have the same intention (i.e. to misdirect), but different approaches to misdirect. Plus "Red Herrings" try to get you to jump to conclusions by skipping a step in critical thinking. Hope this helped!!
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBkj-AYYg7w/mqdefault.jpg)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]](/img/tr.png)
I notice this a lot with salesmen. Car dealers loans mainly. “If we extend the loan period you’ll save a ton of money monthly” it gets you to think about the money you save per month on the payment and distracts you from realizing that your paying way more in interest.
Does anyone else think that spotting logical fallacies should be taught in public schools?
Yeeeeeeees!!!!!!!
It is where I come from: Canada. In late high school however, if you mean in elementary school, then I strongly agree. And so should algebra because it trains our ability to think logically and so, makes us better at thinking critically and spotting fallacies.
@@tonyazrael8223 Here in the US it's not. So I envy your country & others that do the same for the populaces public education. I also agree with you that it should be taught at the elementary level. On the topic of algebra however... children need to be taught & master the fundamentals of mathematics before taking on that subject matter. Which takes time & practice in their curriculum over years. So if they can have it incorporated at younger age & be successfully taught, then I absolutely agree with you.
@@GigaWh4tt Not even in High-School? That's very unfortunate. And possibly very damaging to the country in the long run I believe. We've seen what ignorance can do when it affects large numbers: racism, xenophobia, mistrust of medicine (vaccines), crimes, etc. and because of that, I don't believe it's crazy to think that public schools plays a large role in a country's wellbeing. I know it's more complicated than that but at least it's a good start, right?
I know I typed "algebra", but in my mind I meant pre-algebra. The reason I said that is because kids between grade 3 and 6 already know how to solve 3 × ? = 12, but it's never formally introduced as a new branch of math to build on, so instead I spent 7 years just doing arithmetics which is a HUGE waste of time considering my peers and I are already familiar with the basic operations by the fourth year.
We are taught in Philippines, and we are taught various philosophical school of thought as well
"clearly one's dislike of pizza is irrelevant to one's political abilities"I wouldn't be so sure.
Teenage ninja turtles also think like you.
Pineapple belongs on pizza.
Q: Why are there two churches located in the same neighborhood across the street from each other? What is one teaching that the other is not?
A: Just because there are multiple churches doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything for the community, not everyone in there is a Christian.
Just curious, but wouldn't that be considered the straw man fallacy?
@@jameshouck1605 Yes it would be. This is straw man, creating a counterargument that never existed.
Isn't it similar to an extent to strawman fallacy? Especially on 'answering the wrong question'.
I'd say yes. They are similar except the strawman is a "counterargument," and the red herring is an "argument" itself
Well yeah, this is basically a misleading statement that attempts to change the subject, while the straw man is misrepresenting the position of the other person...Eg someone says "we must reduce fossil fuels to protect the planet" on TV and some portion of those people might take it as "Oh great, more taxes on car owners" or "Oh no, again our tax money going to useless organizations"...or something like that, basically straw man is misrepresenting someones position to make it easier to attack the "modified argument" while the red herring is more about misleading and "detouring" the argument to another subject
@@Zekrom569... Agree. The strawman focuses attention on a spot, the red herring loosely points "somewhere"... :)
when most of the claims in Judge Judy are literally red herrings.
*"literally?"*
They need to start labelling fallacies under broader categories more often. It would make them easier to remember.
Would the fallacy of Whataboutism fall under Red Herring? Or would it fall under the broader Fallacies of Relevance category?
TheICombaticon I think whataboutism falls under appeal to hypocrisy or to queue. Which is under the fallacies of relevance.
ThelCombaticon I was wondering the same thing. I do think it falls under the whole Red Herring thing. Media: You colluded with the Russians! Politicians: But what about Hillary's emails?!
Which is not the issue here, it's an entirely different one. But it's designed to distract people from the actual topic of discussion, so it sure seems like it fits the description of a Red Herring.
defintely red herring
@@elischmitter9711 no, tuquoque is when you accuse the person of doing the same, it doesn't exactly ignore the subject but tries to nullify it through inneficient means. Red herring is when you throw a complete new subject to the table in the attemps to minimize the original subject.
So basically it is a distraction, and redirection of a debate, or question?
And often followed up with a straw man...to lend it some credibility.
@@rklewis2 can you elaborate on the strawman connected to red herring? Thanks
woah i just found this channel. pretty cool!
Perhaps I am predisposed to do so, but for past 2+ years I have been hearing increasing number of people respond to questions about trump by attacking Hillary Clinton. Seen it often enough to vaguely recall from my one and only logic class (cir, 1973) that there was a fallacy in those responses, just couldn't remember what it's called.
Unfortunately it goes the same in reverse too. The left will often try to place blame on Trump when asked about their own policies and shortcomings.
everyone in the comments who's grandparents go off on random tangents after being asked a question
would you agree that the first example is also an example of an appeal to emotion fallacy?
I think so
If it doesnt fit, u must acquit = red herring?
On the question of what is a red herring? Well, it's good to try and answer though questions like these, as when my niece asks why is the sky blue. Speaking of blue let me tell about the sailboat I'm thinking of buying. ( see what I did here, you've just been red herringed)!
*Actually a red herring is when you introduce irrelevant points to distract from the question. You introduced seemingly irrelevant points to answer the question.*
Here is another example. I once argued with an AK47 fan boy on the internet. The fan boy claimed that,"Nobody besides USA uses the M16 platform". I argue back and did my best to debunk him by naming him a list of countries that uses M16 platform. He than responded back by bringing up M16's jamming issues and bring up the topic how AK are so easy to make they can make it in caves.
I liked Trump's red herring where he made the media focus on wether some lady was trying to offer him sexual favors - instead of focusing on wether she was sexually assualted or whatever.
My favorite red herring: "Vikings didn't have horned helmets. They would have been impractical in battle."
Thank you for this
Is this also a non sequiter argument?
Bro Grady, them boxes are kinda fire 🔥🔥🔥
HISTORY. I realizing more and more, as time goes by, you got these publishers that put a bunch of lies out there and people buy in to that. As time goes by they think people will forget, or some younger generation will not know the truth and be mislead into believing these fallacies. This is why history is so important, to preserve, to teach to reach to upbuild one from within.
I'm a Skeptic Nature, optimistic. Every time I see something, I'm like "What are they trying to hide now!?"
As teens, We thought we had this settled during the mid to late 1990's (1993-1999), but yet there back again doing things like this "Fallacies." It's even worst now, the History Channel is teaching Aliens from space, the paranormal, etc...
.
> Hey Joseph Wu, I spotted some Fallacies of Relevance, and Red Herrings; also seen Proof by Verbosity, and confirmations bias in a BOOK PUBLICATION. The book is titled: " You May Ask Yourself, " 6th Edition, Dalton Conley, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Independent Publishers. For Sociology Introduction, for college course.
> The book was terribly written and researched, Chapter # 10 (Poverty) was really bad, it gave credit to former President Lyndon B. Johnson, as staring the war on poverty. I did real actual research and findings outside the book publication, President Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Johnson Holy Rock (Lakota President). All three of them Initiated the war on Poverty. The book gave no credit to MLK nor Kennedy. A lot of people liked Kennedy, he was a peoples president, a lot of people liked him, African-Americans liked him too. The book should have stated that President Lyndon B. Johnson "continued" the works of MLK and Kennedy.
> More info on this publication is chapters # 6 (Social Control and Deviance), # 8 (Gender). Chapter 6, was not written well, it talked as if a person owned another person (ownership chapter), not acceptance. Chapter # 8, used long words to try to confuse people, then going from science it went into Pseudoscience and adhering to gods (mystic power) to prove peoples gender status. Some other problems were 1990s economic boom? -That was a lie people found it hard to get employment because a lot of companies filed chapter 11 bankruptcy such as Steel companies. It also said people gambled over their health between 1900 - 1946 in the industry, people did not have a choice of employment back then. Even thou the book talked about religion, it never got into the deviance of the clergy abuse issue, making them all look immune to justice. Last but not least, JUSTICE, for a sociology book [Sociology ties with pre-law] it did not go over Human Rights, nor Justice such as Crimes Against Humanity.
> The book never covered "all groups," two were missing: Veterans (Men and Women) with prestige, and Disabled individuals, both part of society. Those were not included in Sociology.
> Book was Paradox, false proposition, false scheme, false offer, false logic.
> Got a B+ in course I liked the Sociology intro course, but hated the book. These were good Sociologists: C. Wright Mills, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Jane Addams, and W.E.B. Du Bois were all good, but after them, I thought what happened to Sociology?
Whiskey from Ireland, whisky from Scotland. Was this a red herring? :-)
Ok, I was going to ask you to do one on the relevance of University studies. Geuss you covered it.
The politician who diverted to the foreign policy issue isn't necessarily committing a red herring if he's previously primed his target audience to believe that funds for health care require a powerful tariff policy. When he does that you'll risk losing his target audience if you accuse him of confusing the issue, unless you first inform his target audience of a domestic solution to the funding question. It has to be something more concrete than describing future changes to tax and commerce regulations, especially if your side has a bad reputation for follow-through on the same, while his side has a reputation for playing hard-ball on foreign policy. Even if your side thinks a strong tariff policy is a bad idea, you really need to convince his target audience that he isn't sincere about directing tariff earnings toward health care. You also have to consider that his target audience is likely to be pleased that he's promising to play foreign hard-ball whether he does anything about healthcare or not, in which case you need to show his audience that he not only isn't sincere about healthcare but that he also intendeds to let a leopard eat their faces right before withholding suitable healthcare options.
Thank you very VERY much for the effort you put in to this. I do have one point though, a minor one, but whisky from Scotland does not have an 'e' in it. This error in content in no way diminishes your logic though!😁
Is not the cartoon depiction of the politician (blond hair, somewhat eccentric signature coiffure, and red tie) bordering on said fish?
Can you use this fallacy when presenting your argument to a group who is not educated about this sort of thing?
Could this also be a form of begging the question?
Hi. The term "Begging the question" arose from the tactic of asking an opponent to cede the entire debate question under the guise of ceding a minor point. It is used to refer to circular arguments in which some part of the conclusion is used as a premise.
Example: "murder is bad because killing people is wrong."
In your example there is no red herring. Prosecuter says he commited murder plus he tortured the victim while murdering so he should be punished more. İf he killed the victim just with the gun with one shot for example it would be just murder, but since the crime weapon is something that can cause too much pain and the fact that it kills adds more to his crimes. Bad example.
Yep. 👍
Am I wrong to say that most examples given in this video are also guilty of "Straw Man" fallacy ?
Interesting video. (Maybe improve the animation by not typing words one letter at a time which is too slow and distracting compare to our reading speed..) So, how do we counter or diffuse such fallacies once we're aware of it?
Mikel Bogars point out their fallacies
thee biggest *red* *heron* of all red herrings
Are red herrings the same logical fallacy as whataboutism-(where someone tries to distract from you point by saying what about and comparing unnecessarily)?
All political wings have come together here in this video
DOES ANYONE HAVE A SPECIfic example of a red herring in media or debate
Last example? Throw out like 8 topics in every sentence. It's a way to glean interest from a date. -still single
why the captions are in Korean?
Cause Mr. Wu is Korean himself?
The closest fallacy to a red herring is the straw man fallacy. Both are fallacies of relevance.
Do condemn Hamas? Is a red herring
Surely that depends what the underlying argument is?
US house of representatives loves red herrings
Reporter: Americans are reportedly still stranded in Afghanistan, and the Taloban's deadline is fast approaching.Will the withdrawal efforts of Americans be still conducted beyond the deadline.
Politician: The government is doing everything to get people that wants to get out of the country back to America. Our record breaking withdrawal efforts managed to bring back almost a thousand americans and refugees in just one day.
Is this red herring??
I would say yes
Yes.
Our president loves committing red herring and equivocation fallacies.
I'm from the Philippines and I'm talking about Duterte.
@Run, Jack. Run. not these days, it always was. Our minds are very suseptible to fallacies.
read red heron herrin' hearin' . its as deep as it is simple
Why is my poop red
False dilemma? Not liking pizza does in fact disqualify one from being fit for public office.
Laugh if you want, but this very argument 4:08 actually won people when Trump ate pizza in NYC wrong once.
So this includes whataboutism?
Omg , I do that all the time .
05:15 - "As a result, it becomes extremely difficult to criticize the argument when it is so difficult to identify."
Ohhhhhhh my god, welcome to my fuckin relationship...
People do this way too much with me and it's so annoying
If he's drinking whiskey, he's been to Ireland, not Scotland. They drink whisky there.
I-im still confused
What is the difference from straw man fallacy then ?
"Straw Man Fallacy" is restructuring/rewording an opposing argument to simplify & be easily taken down. A "Red Herring" is adding irrelevant info to the argument to avoid the original subject. The confusion of the two, I think, comes from the fact that both have the same intention (i.e. to misdirect), but different approaches to misdirect. Plus "Red Herrings" try to get you to jump to conclusions by skipping a step in critical thinking. Hope this helped!!
@@GigaWh4tt thank you
Red herring: "Trump, why wont you disavow white supremacy?"
Think about that for a minute...
You can't tell whether it's a red herring without first identifying what the original argument was about.
Actually we don't call it philosophy all fallacies categories in speech knowledge and real philosophy we call wisdom ,apparantly in west you call both plosephy
I'm continually confusing redherring for the straw man fallacy.
You should rename this channel to "reddit philosophy"
It is the same guy from the slipper slope fallacy video (a video in which reddit tore apart). The narrator just isn't that great of an explainer.
Haha that’s a spot on Trump impersonation.
To be honest, it describes all politicians, from all parties.
would this be the same as gaslighting someone lol?
I thought all politicians love pizza ...
I see what you did there....
Aka Ben Shapiro
Haha I was just thinking the same
Jordan Peterson uses this A LOT.
Pseudoscience does not equal Real Science. Next time the " SCHOOL BOARD " wants to replace Science with opinion, Help put an end to the folly of BALANCED SCIENCE.
These 4 books are good to read: "the Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan. Flim Flam by James Randi. Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. And also, Skeptoid.
the red herring is usually easy to spot, you just used a crappy example therefore giving the impression that it is hard to spot.
Sounds like my ex
Oh I’m not brave enough for politics
Isn't this just basically the strawman fallacy?
"Straw Man Fallacy" is restructuring/rewording an opposing argument to simplify & be easily taken down. A "Red Herring" is adding irrelevant info to the argument to avoid the original subject. The confusion of the two, I think, comes from the fact that both have the same intention (i.e. to misdirect), but different approaches to misdirect. Plus "Red Herrings" try to get you to jump to conclusions by skipping a step in critical thinking. Hope this helped!!
@@GigaWh4tt Thanks man.
Donuld Trumps campaign, all in one video!
Donald Trump is a walking, talking, red herring. 😲😶😆