« Freakonomics Radio

379. How to Change Your Mind (Rebroadcast)

2019-11-27 | 🔗

There are a lot of barriers to changing your mind: ego, overconfidence, inertia — and cost. Politicians who flip-flop get mocked; family and friends who cross tribal borders are shunned. But shouldn’t we be encouraging people to change their minds? And how can we get better at it ourselves?

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This podcast dynamically inserts audio advertisements of varying lengths for each download. As a result, the transcription time indexes may be inaccurate.
Friggin amongst radio sponsored by progressive insurance were customers save an average of more than seven hundred fifty dollars when they switch in save visit, progressive dot com to get your car insurance quote. It only takes about seven national annual average auto insurance savings by new customers surveyed in twenty nineteen potential savings will very, if you'd like to listen to for economics, radio without ads the place to do that is sticker premium five dollars. and you can get a free month trial by going to stick your premium dot com and use a promo code freak. You also get access to all our bonus. Episodes and you'll be supporting our show to that sticker premium, dot, com, promo code, freak thanks, either its deepened up here? If you live in America, where we celebrate Thanksgiving, there is a good chance. You found yourself breaking bread this week with family members,
you may not see that often and who may not see the world at all. As you see it, so we thought it might be helpful to replace episode from our archive called how to change your mind, It's also useful, even without thanksgiving. So even if you don't live in Amerika, that's ok, too, by the way Nearly one third of our listeners are outside the Eu S. It's. This feeling to know we travel so well soap, wherever you are thanks for here's an interesting fact, legit leaders in several Republican controlled states are pushing to eliminate the death penalty why's that interesting, because Most Republicans have typically been in favour of the death penalty. They have said it's a deterrent against the most horrific. I mean and fitting penalty when such crimes do occur, but lotta republicans have come to believe Death penalty does not deter crime, which happens to be
We offered evidence for infrequent comics They also say the lengthy legal appeals on death penalty cases are too costly for taxpayers, summer, Applicants also cite moral concerns with the death penalty and so a lot of them. If chain their minds with all changed her mind, some point about something maybe you were a cat person. He became a dog first maybe you decided the place you lived or the person you loved the religion, you followed that they were working for you anymore the changing your mind is really easy It's not something you set out to do, although, if you like most p, You would very much like other people to change their minds to think more. Like you, because, as you see it, its impact for the world to progress to improve. Unless some, People are willing to change. Our minds, but, like I said it won't be easy,
changing your mind, means admitting on some level used to be wrong it can be seen as an active weakness, even heresy. Today economics, radio, how to change minds, or at least try to well, there's no silver bullet just present, some compelling facts, this man, where people just take facts and draw conclusions is completely wrong. Vincennes are also tricky if they were to change their Chuen, everybody would see them as a loser. from stature and Gunnar productions. This is Reaganomics radio broadcasts and explores the inside of everything. Here's your home,
Stephen Dubner tell me something that you believed to be true for a long time until you found out, you were wrong. this. This endless, I used to be very serious pianist and whose monoliths not nosed classical one Suez, appalled by like admirers of Ethel, Merman and trombones blasting the background and who knows what else, then the wonderful person I'm married turned out to be a musical theatre. Fanatic and in fact, my musical fewer director, so it wasn't just a case of too accommodating out of love and and familial attachment. Your actual preferences changed o riddle. The excitement to
like seeing a bunch of barely remembering their lines. High school students stumbling their way through music manner. Actually that much I still loathe. Usually I actually have become too like, like musicals large she arrived and nineteen of them now together is she's directed then sort of the rehearsal pianist elbow. Are you really when you crossed the border, then fully? Yes, yes, is this guy, and why should we care these changed? His mind Robert suppose, I'm a professor of under a science at Stanford University hand, I'm kind of half Neuro biologists have primate ecologist Ferber. thirty years, I've divided my time. between your basic rat, lab neurons growing in PETE Dishes, and
studying populations, a wild, my wounds in the Serengeti in EAST Africa. So Considering that I'm not a neuroscientist infect, pretty much is far from it as could be I do have a sense that the brain and the mind- maybe two separate things, but I love you to come the relationship between the two I am completely of the school there mind is entirely the manifestation of brain. So why there is a change in mind. There's gotta be a a underpinning supposed. Ass. He noted earlier has changed his own mind quite a lot. He started early. I was raised as an orthodox two major neighbourhood specializing about in Brooklyn and somewhere when I was about fourteen something changed and that change probably like involved updating every man
Pollock, you want my body and then I should have realised this. Nonsense. Theirs God has no free, will there's no purpose, and I have not been capable of a shred of did osity or spirituality ever since, and was there a familial schism? Then? Oh, I was one of those terribly nerdy, scholarly, passiveaggressive kid where I never said. A word to my highly They just and demanding father, and he went to his having no idea no kidding. How old were you and he died, in my thirties. So had you come home Ben Gunn, too young to poor with him and faked it or wanted that work. Here and not just rely wholly days, come home for three days,
visiting, and you know what talking to change? He doesn't need sort of had acre heart ache at this wait, so whatever it just would have been very hurtful to someone of enormous importance to me one thing supposedly noticed about mine changing is that easier when you're younger, just noticing the general phenomenon that we get open to novelty as we get older. So a survey to look at people's preferences in food. good music and so on what you we have seen is basically if you are not listening to a certain style of music by the time. You're twenty hate or so ninety five percent ants you're, never going to buy aged thirty. Five if you're not eating sue she'd. Lady farmers, chance you never will
In other words, these windows of openness to novelty, close but then as a biologist. The thing that floored me, if you take a lab rat and you when in its life it's willing to try a novel type of food and the exact same curve, equivalent ten year old, lab rat hate broccoli as much as ten year old humans do and laid adolescence early adulthood. There's this sudden craving for novelty and that's when primates pick up and leave their homes troops and transfer it to new ones and then The time you're like a middle aged adult rat you're, never gonna, try anything new. For the rest, your life's the exact same curve, which fascinated me did make you say, my goodness, I'm I'm biologically programme to never want to try any new music food experience again and therefore I'm gonna push through that. Or did you accept your fate? It had it no impact on me whatsoever,
I one of those like scientists, professors types use, cable live like lecturing I'm subject and paying no attention to what I'm saying like my whole life studying about the adverse effects of stress on your health in your psyche and, unlike the most frazzled stressed person around I've, I've cleaned Absolutely nothing useful from any of my life work There are a lot of reasons why you'd be easier to change your mind when you're younger. It could be the fact that your brain is simply more plastic, then something scientists assumed for a long time, but now are starting to question. or it could be, that your positions are less entrenched, so it's less costly to change them or it could be that the stakes are lower the fate of the world, not hinge on whether you are pro broccoli or anti broccoli, but as life goes on
Now, there's nothing wrong with a little indecision as the stakes rise. As long as your job does in any responsibility. Changing your mind can get more costly, John Kerry. Changed his mind on all these important issues when method You said: Senator John Kerry ran for President against Incumbent George, W Bush in two thousand for carries campaign began to crater after shown that he changed his position, or at least his votes in the Senate on a number of issues. you thought you might want to change your youtube, so I think you know that's the way that politics itself works. That's Francis Fukuyama he's a political scientist at SAM my work really centres on research and practice about political institutions in ninety. Ninety two fucking Amr wrote a book that became a cent, asian. It was called the end of history and the last man him then,
nineteen eightys as I was following events in the Soviet Union. I said well to the extent that there is an end of history is gonna. Look like liberal democracy tied to a market economy. in other words, democracy head, essentially one not just the cold war, but the future, and yet a lot of the recent political momentum is going in the other direction towards populism and authoritarianism with a backlash its globalism. So to what degree do you think your argument was wrong or at least premature how for an hour you there we are seeing. Now is just a backlash and not actually reversal or an entirely new strain. I'm sorry, Oh reasonably confidence in the way I've formulated. My hypothesis right from the beginning, was that you needed to show not just that there was unhappiness with liberal democracy
but you need a deposit, some other form of social organs. station that was superior or that was somehow going to displace liberal democracy in the way Communism, you know asserted that it would displace liberal democracy ultimately- and If you look around the world right now, there are competing systems that are not liberal or democratic. So the Chinese have one Saudi baby and IRAN have their versions of it, but I actually don't think that any those alternative models are likely to become in oh universal in the way that liberal democracy has become an end in a fairly impressive way. The default form of government from very many cunt. The round the world. So Fukuyama has not changed his mind about his most famous assertion, although he is open to it. If it
years, China is bigger than the United States. Richer continues to be stable continues, growing faster than I have to say. Well, if you know, maybe that is the alternative model, but he did change his mind on something else. It goes back to that. Bush, Kerry, IRAN and the Iraq war. in which direction would John Kerry led Gary voted for the Iraq war, opposed it supported it opposes it again at the time Fukuyama was well established as a prominent political thinker, different writing a landmark book. He done to students, in the state department. So his who's on the Iraq war were taken seriously, I say, onto a letter. You know a couple of years before the war zone, the United States ought to take military action. He wasn't opposed to the? U S desire to intervene and topple dictator. In this case, Saddam Hussein. I think that that's happened in the past. then it's had good effects, but as
Invasion drew near Fukuyama did have a concern. The main concern was whether the United States was ready to actually stay in Iraq and converted into a kind of stable, decent country. The United States has not had a really great record in in doing this and central American Vietnam and so forth, and in the months Prior to the war. I began to get increasingly worried that we weren't prepared to actually stick it out, but I was astonished at how bad the planning had been and how faulty assumptions were that we were gonna, be greeted as liberators and that there would be a rapid. Does position just like in Eastern Europe to something that looked like democracy. In retrospect, I wish I had taken a much clearer stand against it before the war actually happened, the? U S, invaded Iraq. In March, two thousand three, I was at a dinner.
at the American Enterprise Institute in February of two thousand forth. The DE is a conservative think tank in DC their What's the featured speaker and everybody in the room was sharing like this- was the biggest success for american foreign policy that you know they could imagine him and just looked around at the people at my table- and I said me: why are these people clapping cuz clearly, this thing is turning into a huge fiasco and that's the moon. That I decided these people are Not I mean they're they're, so invested in seeing this as a success that they can't see this reality. That's just growing right in front of their eyes, and stay I mean it did. It does seem strange. To me that a lot of the people that were strong supporters, The war even today are not willing to admit that that was a mistake. The investment that you're describing, how would you characterize, it was more personal. Do you think or more political was the thing
king, more emotional or logical and using logic to fine facts. It supported the underlying argument. Well, it's it's. Both I mean there's been a lot of Research and social psychology lately, like this model, where people just take facts in. our conclusions from them and then base their opinions on that is completely wrong. I'm election The way people think they started with an emotional commitment to a certain idea, and then they use their formidable com. The two powers to organise facts to support. What they want to believe anyhow, so the partisan affiliation comes first and then the reasoning process by which you justify it comes second and unfortunately, I think affects all we tend to see the world and cherry pick facts that support our version of the world, and it takes a really big external shock that just
clearly proves you wrong, so I understand that, even though you are seen as having defected from or abandoned the NEO conservative movement primarily were the Iraq war that you were not met so warmly by the left. Were you move to you said in two thousand six, gotten many emails. It said in effect, well you're trying to apologize you ve got blood on your hands. We don't accept your apology. Without this interesting You know what you're using a similar process with a lot of other NEO cons right now, the NEO cons as a group have been the core of the never trump conservative move. All of My big big supporters of the Iraq WAR and of George W Bush of really turned against tramping, in a big way, and there are a lot of people that are not willing to accept. I say you know it's too late. Exactly those words you ve got blood on your hands and I think that that is a
unduly a rigid position, because in that case, no one should ever change their mind. They should never be here, the head with reality and then realize that you know they got a different position that they should. when we talk about changing your mind, we need to acknowledge that every situation is, of course, different, but Someone in your family hold the position that you find odious. Why do you find a bonus? maybe you think they're ignoring the facts, but can't people. Different positions based on the same facts. Maybe you feel their position lacks moral reasoning, but who said morality is one size fits all or maybe just maybe they hold the opposite position simply because it is the opposite Suppose a person has some idea about something which doesn't correspond to reality.
it may be that they derive pleasure from having this idea in itself, but jewish threats, she's an economist at Christ's College Cambridge. I study people's decisions empirically in order to understand better what drives people and, in the case of someone deriving pleasure, from an idea that you disagree with. In that case, you have to ask yourself whether it's actually to their best fats for them to be changing their mind. This idea that we can be so invested in our beliefs, even if we suspect they are wrong. Threats, has found evidence of this. In her research the incorrect vision of the world may actually deliver some benefits to them and she found this effect. Not just in models or lab studies, but out in the real world where people are making decisions about their work, their families their lives. It seems to be a very
written question whether the beliefs we hold about the outside world are somehow connected to this beliefs about ourselves when there is a link between these beliefs. It's not so clear that we should be changing our minds and what are the costs and benefits of this? Consider, for instance, an expert whose dedicated their career to a certain policy or line of thinking what happens in the future new information to seriously reconsider your long hair, position and go against the tide you ve been swimming in a lot of times. You just you know you just fuel, comfortable, if you say things that disrupted consensus and you just don't wanna do it for you Fukuyama is recalling his change of mind on the Iraq war, a lot of my friends, very, very heavily in on the other side- and I lost a lot of them when you know that I haven't spoken
several of these friends. Since then, there are two separate questions, whether persons should change their mind and what they facts are for him and then would their facts are, for other people there's another factor. Julius VAT, sees as contributing to our reluctance to change your mind, confidence or, more accurately, overconfidence our own belief that we are right, even in the absence of evidence,. just how much unearned confidence is floating around out. There consider a recent study by Fettes in some colleagues, that surveyed over two hundred managers at british restaurant chain. They average more than two years on the job and their compensation was strongly tied to a performance bonus. I mentioned the bonus because Israel,
did. The survey that threats administered the managers were asked to recall their past performance and predict their future performance. Presumably they should have had a pretty good grasp of their standing. What they fund is that only about thirty five percent of managers were accurate about the queen tile of the performance distribution they were falling into? In other words, barely a third of them were able to career. We say whether they fell in the top. Twenty percent of all managers were the bottom twenty percent or another twenty percent block summer in the middle and forty seven purse, of managers were overconfident about it, and these were people who had detailed feedback about their performance. Every court which is a lot more than most employees get so the net question we asked is: how is it possible that people. a remains overconfident when
they have so much information. This is where memory comes into play here. Maybe you'd call it optimism or delusion people who did worse in the previous competition tended to remember slightly better outcomes. People seem to be exaggerating their own past performance in their head when this performance is bad. So what we conclude from this is that people use memory selectively. There remember good outcomes and they tend to forget bad ones. Thriving
Not so much at people refuse to change their minds or refuse to update their priors. Is economists like to say: maybe they just have self enhancing selective memories, the data they observe a consistent with them, making a choice to suppress some past information, but there is also the possibility that people have been at something for awhile who may consider themselves expert that they simply don't believe that non experts have information. That's worth attention too. So I was in the state Department in the policy planning staff in nineteen. Eighty nine Frances Fukuyama again in May of nineteen. Eighty nine after there had been this turmoil in Hungary and Poland, I drafted a memo my boss Dennis Ross who's, the director of the office that sent it on to Jim Bakker? Who is the Secretary of State saying we ought to start thinking about german unification cuz, it didn't make sense. Maybe you could have all this turmoil,
right around EAST Germany and EAST Germany not being affected the german experts in the State Department when Billy stick at this. You know they said this is never gonna happen, and this was said at the end of October. The Berlin Wall fell on November eleventh, and so I think that the people that were the closest to this situation, something I was not a german expert at all, but it just seemed to me logical. You know, but I think it's true that if you are an expert, you really do The big investment in seeing the world in a certain way, whereas if you're an amateur like me you can kind of say whatever you think. As you can see, there are a lot of reasons. Why given. Person might be reluctant to change their mind about a given thing: ego, selective memory, overconfidence, the cost- losing family or friends, but, let's say but you remain committed to changing minds
own or someone else's. How do you get that done? the secret may lie not in a green theoretical framework, but small mundane objects, toilets since Hers and ballpoint pens we'll get into that red after this. freak anomalies, radio sponsored by capital one with no fee is or minimums on checking and savings accounts. Banking with capital the easiest decision in the history of decisions like choosing to listen to another episode of your favorite podcast and with their top rated app you can deposit, x and transfer money anytime anywhere making capital. One and even easier decision. That's banking re! Imagine what's in your wallet terms, apply capital one. A member of the icy
financed radio sponsored by Petsmart Petsmart, makes it safe and easy for you to care for your pet at Petsmart, the health and safety of employees, pet parents and pets are its most important, which is why they require face coverings. Social distancing and Stop plexiglas shields and enhanced cleaning to follow CDC recommendations for contact with him. Thing just order online at Petsmart, not com or on the Petsmart app joint, easy curbside, pick up for same day, delivery powered by door dash free through January thirty. First, two thousand twenty one check out: Petsmart dot com for more details, Think of something you have a really strong opinion about may be the best way. to address climate change, the perils of income inequality, how to balance privacy and security
nothing about why you have such a strong opinion, how Well, do you think you could explain your position if you're forcing an explanation? You have to really understand- and you have to confront the fact that you might not understood it, whereas you give reasons than you do. What people do around the Thanksgiving dinner table? They talk about. There feelings about it. What they like, what they don't like, that Stephen Sloman, a professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences at Brown University, and that means in a nutshell, that you'd try to understand what I try to understand how people think easy question. First, how do
you get someone to change their mind. Well, first of all, there is no silver bullet. It's it's really hard, but if you can try, the first thing it should do is try to get them to change their own minds, and you do that by simply asking them to assume your perspective, an x Why you might be right if you can get people to step outside themselves and think about the issue. Nodding necessarily from your perspective, but from an objective perspective from one that is detached from their own interests. People learn a lot
So given how hard it is for people to assume other people's perspectives, you can see why I started my answer by say: it's very hard won. Experiments Foeman is done, is asking people to explain, not reason, as you pointed out, but to actually explain at the nuts and bolts level how something works: people don't we'd like to engage in that kind of mechanistic analysis required for a causal explanation. That's true! only four big, thorny issues like climate change or income inequality, but even for things like toilets and zippers and ballpoint pens. Unless you are a plumber or you make zippers or ballpoint pens, you probably can't explain these very well, even though before you asked the question, you would have thought you could this gap between what you know what you think you know
is called naturally the illusion of explanatory depth. So the illusion explanatory depth was first demonstrated by a couple of psychologists, engrossing little Kyle, and they asked people well. They understood how these things worked and people gave him. between one in seven and then they said. Ok, how does it work explained in as much detail as you can how it works? people struggled and struggled and realize they couldn't and so when they were again asked how well they understood their judgments tended to be lower, in other words, people themselves admitted, but they had been living in this illusion that they understood how these things worked when in fact they don't. Where does this illusion come from? We the source of the illusion is that people fail to this. which would they know from what others now were constantly, depending on other people and the act,
we'll processing that goes on is distributed among people in our community. In other words, someone knows how toilet works. The plumber- and you know the plumber or even if you don't, the plan we know how to find a plumber, it's as if the sense of understanding is contagious right when other. Well understand you feel, like you understand you can, De how the illusion of explanatory depth could be helpful. In some scenarios, You don't need to know everything for yourself, as As you know, someone who knows someone who knows something but But also mentioned scenarios in which the illusion could be problematic. So we ve shown that that's also true in the political dummy swollen and his collaborator, Philip Fern Buck, basically repeated the rose in Britain, Kyle experiment, but instead of toilets and zippers, they asked people about climate change and gun control.
gave people political policies. We said how well we understand them and please explain them. Unsurprisingly, most people were not able to explain climate change policies in much detail, but here's what's interesting the level of confidence in their understanding of issues which participants were asked report at the start of the experiment. was drastically reduced after they tried and failed to demonstrate their understanding, in other words, asking people to explain deep polarized. The group now Was this a case of simply slowing down and thinking the issue through? Could it be that were often inflexible in our thinking? Simply because we come to conclusions to quickly? Apparently, not, if, instead of saying explain how the policy works, if what we to them was give us all the reasons you As for your view on this policy, then we didn't get that effect at all that.
reduce people sense of understanding it didn't reduce their hubris The ability to change your mind. Would you say: that's really important. As a human I see the mind as something that's shared with other people. I think them find is actually something that exists within the community and not within the skull and so when you're changing your mind, you know you're doing one of two things, either dissociated yourself from your community and that's really hard, and not necessarily good for you or You have to change the mind of the entire community and is not important well, the closer we are too,
the more likely we are to succeed as individuals as a species, but its heart. Do you think that most of us hold the beliefs that we do because the people around us hold those beliefs or do you think, more likely to assemble people around us based on the beliefs that they and we hold. I think the former is more often true. That is, we believe what we do, because the people around us believe what they do. This is the way humanity involved. We depend on other people it's not simply a matter of getting us to think more independently. I actually think that this is one of these. major problems with, kinds of solutions people are talking about today for our current political problems, I don't
think the solution is, give people the information they need. More information can be good if it's very well filtered in curated, but that's not easy to do an unbiased way. It's Matthew, Jackson, an economist at Stanford. Yes, I realized Episode, is leaning heavily on Stanford professors anyway, Matthew, Jackson, studies, social and economic networks, in particular, how the structure of do interactions affects people's behaviors, anything from our opinions form to whether we decide to vote for a certain candidate. Here's something Jackson is changed his mind about. One thing I used to think was that people you gave him the same kinds of information. They would make decisions the same way. They might have different experiences in their past different influences, but somehow,
the fundamental ways in which they think about things and process. Things is the same. That, however, is not what the data say The more you look at data in particular the more you look at experiments where people are faced with facts or in for me, you realise that some people are very single minded in one expert. Jackson also asked people about climate change. He had. Everyone read the same batch of abstracts from scientific articles. We asked people their opinions before they went in to the study and you could be that people looking at exactly the same article would interpret it very differently depending on what their initial position was but again, information isn't necessarily the solution. In fact, information can be weapon eyes. There was a group of about a quarter to a third of a sub
who actually became more polarized, who interpret this the information heavily in the direction of their priors and actually ended up with more extreme positions, I'm after the experiment than before. We talked about this phenomenon before, on the show that well created people who consume a lot of information tend to hold disproportionately extreme views, apparently because they're really good at seeking out information that confirms or priors and ignoring information that might run counter one aspect of people saying exactly the same information and coming way with different conclusions: is how we interpret in store information in their brains. It's very easy to sort of snow. things into small little p. is that we can remember of this was for or against. We don't like breaking things down in detail, which is
kind of most of us like to have a superficial understanding, Stephen Sloman again, why do you say go care is good or bad. Whatever you think about it now, the fact is the most people have very little to say about that. Most people just have a couple of slogans right they have. The republican slogan have the democratic slogan but think don't actually know about Obamacare, because after all it to twenty thousand page document, I would like to say: even Obama doesn't understand Obamacare, but even if Obama does understand about there is the question whether he's understanding is unduly circumscribed by the people around him. People to associate with other people who are very similar to themselves so that we end up talking to people mostly
I'm, who have very similar past experiences and similar views of the world in, and we tend to underestimate that people don't realize how isolated their world is. You do people wake up after an election that are quite surprised that that anybody could have liked it a candidate that has a different view than them soap, one antidote, too inflexible. Thinking is simply balance in world network is well balanced and we were actually eventually incorporating everybody's viewpoint. the system worked extremely well. Unfortunately, a great many of us are quite bad at creating diverse, well balanced networks and there's a reason for this. Isn't he struggled to listen to opposing voices and therefore have a time changing your minds? We are basically hard wired. divide the world into us and and to not.
Then a whole lot. That again, is the half Neuro biologists have Prime ecologist Robert Support. Ski who is changed his own mind many times The domain that are most interested in these days is that change thing of tat them into us, it is, and how do we do that and what the but he's tend to show, is take somebody else's perspective. Try Let it go through what somebody else's rationalizations whore individual somebody break them out of being automatic them and think about. Do they like the same path, but you do do they love their kids? Look at a picture. I'm singing lullabies to their children. Look at a picture enjoying the same like food that you do contact, and this has been floating around for decades free, give people of them enough contact with each other, and they turn into us as an turns. A contact works,
There are special circumstances, you gonna spend a bunch of time with them and us isn't them need to be an equal number sending the neutral setting and you gotta have a shared sort goal: gold clean all of these work to at least some degree the peoples we hated in the past our allies. Now there are groups that spent centuries been persecuted, where we don't even know what the word refers to anymore In all these cases, there's something resembling biological pathways that help them to stop being so objectionable. So before this precision! If you would, me: what are the primary barriers that keep someone in a been situation from changing their mine. I would have certainly opted for the social and economic explanations, but it sounds so you're saying a Lord, Your share would go to the physical
logical and biological reasons is that right The really irritating thing I would say is that the two were one and the same. We are, nothing more or less than the sum of our biology Every time you learned something from something profound There's something idiotic. Some changes in your brain every time, you have a sense? Threed experience, and your brain is constantly rewiring and major ways this idea, but the brain continues to change physiologically through EL. I realise this is yet another idea that supposedly himself to change his mind about this is a key aspect. My field, where I have missed the boat. Every step when I started off as dogma had been in place for, like a thousand years worth of intrude in neuroscience classes and which is the adult
brain, doesn't make new neurons. This is the basic premises while the miserable untreatable neurological diseases out there, starting in the sixties, there was one loan profit named, show all men whose career was basically ruined, because he was about thirty years ahead of the curve, then laid eighties early, Ninetys and technique a lot more sensitive and able to show adult Neuro Genesis in the brain like crazy and it became the hottest subject in the field and I kept now- that's a real phenomenon I was like we blew it on that one it turns out. That there's a little pocket population of stem cells sitting in the hippocampus making new neurons. and what was even better was hidden maiden at all. The logical poems in response to learning.
stimulation exercise and a ton work that these new neurons actually are useful when their critical. for new types of learning, so that ushered in this whole new world. And then this beautiful new edifice the came potentially crap and how about a year ago in stream Lee, I think important and well done paper well dip in the journal. Nature showed that, despite the clear presence of tat, of Nero Genesis in Road and bring throughout the lifetime. In my he brains, and there was a lot of reason to think that novel, under the same occurred in the human brain that's a lot of the prior evidence, for it was pretty circumstantial and, as you might expect, the specialists, field have been stabbing each other over this whenever sense, and it's not clear what the resolution as it doesn't.
Much more matter than that, a bunch of scientists, changing their minds and trying to change others minds about what the brain changes when we change our minds, Robert suppose, these own research, ices and thence led to one more change of mind for support schemes are achieved, This thing that came out of that is, I am, and every fibre of my soul, a profound pessimist and like sitting obsessing for three four years on what we know about the biological routes of Hugh being rotten to each other and humans being kind to each other disasters a fair amount of room for optimism, so your belief was humans are disproportionately cruel to each other. That was the old belief in, and the new belief is that that is not necessarily the case. It won't work many lousy to each other with amazing paradox of humans is signed
obviously we are, most miserably violent species on this planet, and we are the most cooperative. We do. Tough which, from the standards of evolution, cooperation, game theory? All of that would make the o stickleback fish just flabbergasted at how while operative. How altruistic we are, how often we could do that for strangers, each one of us, depending on the context, can be off can be wonderful, were and big obviously somewhere in between next time on for economics. Radio, are you one of those people who comes up with inventions at home? Some of these inventions are driven by efficiency. My job was to cut the firewood so force. I made an automated device inside
by me. If I could just drink the produce box, I would be fine, but I was paralysed, but this kind of invention has fallen awfully As a result, we have this malaria in the economy, and so we need to work on that home production. turns out is a secret ingredient for a thriving economy, its next time and for economics. We radio is produced by sticker indefinite productions. This episode was produced by met Hickey. Our staff also includes Allison, Craig Low Gregg Ribbon Zactly speak Harry Huggins, Daphne, Chin and Cornwallis, enter he's been shaman and help this week for Milly, Arthur Song is MR fortune by the hitchhikers, all the other music, composed by the great we scared you can subscribe to. economics, radio and apple podcast or every get your progress. The entire archive is about.
go on stitched up or for economics dot com. Will we also published transcripts and show notes if you want to hear our entire archive ad free, plus lots of bonus episode? but you did your premium dot com, flash for economics. We also every week on medium short text version of our new episode go to medium dot com, slash for economics, radio. We can also be found on Twitter and Facebook and linked in You can reaches the email at radio at for economics that come for trade, also plays on many NPR station to check your local station for day in time. Thanks for listening. Stitcher.
Transcript generated on 2021-01-18.