Any game, electronic game, and even non-electronic board games are simple models. And playing- some are more complex than others, you know, and playing the game you are slowly reverse-engineering that model in your head. And that's probably the primary thing that people learn from games, probably the most important thing, is how to step into a complex system and quickly reverse-engineer that model in your head. A lot of these are simulations of things that are themselves abstracts reality- so someone plays a flight simulator, or SimCity, for instance- the flight simulator is not exactly behaving in the way an airplane would, or SimCity is not exactly behaving the way a city would. But it's an incremental step to a more accurate model probably relative to what the player already has coming into that. People have this kind of vague idea of the way cities work; SimCity has a very formal idea of how a city works which is not correct. But it is a formalization that once people can reverse-engineer that formalization in their head to the point where they're arguing against it- you know, "I don't think that's actually the way land value works" or "I don't think crime would be influenced by this factor." In some sense, they've graduated the model. They've now- in some sense it also helps crystallize their own internal model of the way a city actually works. And so I think that's a big part of it. And then having a shared language that you and I can argue over this model as a point of reference. And it might be a clarifying, you know, almost a map of the way we're thinking about a system. But I think that's also why games have tended to be very resistant to formal assessment. Which is one of the limiting factors in using them in education, is the fact that they're almost teaching this meta-knowledge- not when the battle of Encor was fought, but how societies interact that led to that battle.