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.
For economics, radio sponsored by bear progress is a human and mentioned. We look at our world and imagine how to make it better. It bear scientists developers working with farmers to help shape the future of agriculture like farms were crops and wildlife thrive together in new Digital, tools that allow farms to use less water, land and energy. It science for a better life from bear more about how there is shaping the future of agriculture. Visit crop science, dot bear dot com. Fr. Radio sponsored by bear progress is a human and Mentioned we look at our world and imagine how to make it better. It bear scientists developers working with farmers to help shape the future of agriculture like farms were crops and wildlife thrive together in new digital, tools that allow farms to use less water, land and energy it science for a better life from bear
more about how there is shaping the future of agriculture visit crop science dot bear dot com, It hurts given donor before we get started today, too, quick things. First, if you want to see for economics, radio alive in Philadelphia, Chicago or London, go to free economic that comes live for details. Second, a riddle name, an activity that you probably enjoy, but may still spent eight or ten hours a week doing something you are compelled by people who probably also don't like doing this. You give up. I'm talking now, meetings when's the last time you heard someone say, pose an awesome meeting, a great use of time and full of pertinent infamy I'm guessing the answer is never so, for us
episode on the science of meetings we want to hear from. You tell us that the worst meeting you ever attended make it worse, meaning ever ran or the best me with lots of details, please also your ideas for making meetings better, make a brief audio recording just use whatever voice mammal app is on your phone and email, the file to radio at for economics that come with the subject, mine meetings, please be sure to tell us your name, what you do and where you from banks here's an interesting fact, legit it in several Republican controlled states are pushing to eliminate the death penalty wisely. Interesting, because most public have typically been in favour of the death penalty. They have said it's a deterrent against the most horrific crimes and fitting penalty when such crimes do occur, but a lotta republican.
Come to believe the 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 were the relief you followed, but 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, it's impossible for the world to progress to improve in the sum both are willing to change our minds but, like I said
we'll 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, but can't you just pay some compelling facts, this man where people just take facts and draw conclusions is completely wrong the incentives are also tricky. If they were to change their Chuen, everybody would see them as a loser. I'm happy from stature and make productions. This desperate economics, radio broadcasts explores the inside of everything. Here's your home
Stephen Governor, tell me something that you believed to be true for a long time until you found out, you were wrong, though this endless I used to be very serious, pianist and harassment of a snub, nosed classical ones is appalled by like Mayors of Ethel Merman tremblings blasting the background, and who knows what else and then the wonderful person I'm married turned out to be a musical theatre for, and in fact, my musical fewer director, so it wasn't just stick you accommodating out of love and and familial attachment. Your actual preferences changed o real. The excitement,
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 lot she and nineteen of them now together is she's directed I've been the rehearsal pianist, oh boy, 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 half primate all for by Thirty years, I've divided my time between your basic rat, lab neurons, growing in Petrie 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 comment the relationship between the two. I am completely of the school that man and is entirely the manifestation of brain. So when, there's a change in mind. There's gotta be under a biological underpinning supposed, ass. He noted earlier has changed his own mind quite a lot. He started early I was raised as an orthodox Jew and major neighbourhood specializing about in Brooklyn And somewhere when I was about fourteen something changed and a change probably like involved updating every
You I my body and then I should have realised this nonsense theirs. God has no free well, there's no purpose and I have not been capable of a shred of Luigi, 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 high. We really just demanding father and he went to his having no idea no kidding. How old were you and he died? in my third is so had you come home and gone TED young 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 he's not going to change people's need this sort of the headache, her heart ache at this, wait so whatever that just would have been very hurtful to Someone of enormous importance to me Something supposing 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 you work the survey to look at people's preferences in food, music, and so on. What you wind up seeing is, basically, if you, not listening to a certain style of music by the time. You're, twenty, eight or so. Ninety five percent train you're, never going to buy aged thirty five the fear not eating sushi sheet. Ninety five percent and she never will
in other words, these windows of openness to novelty. Close but then is 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 home, 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 it. 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 it had it in no impact on me whatsoever.
I one of those like scientists, professors, types use, cable love like lecturing I'm subject in 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, A lot of reasons. It may 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 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 well:
is your job doesn't use any responsibility? Changing your mind, you get more costly. John Terry has his mind on all these important issues. When message you said, Senator John Kerry ran for president against the incumbent, George W Bush in two thousand. For he's campaign began to crater after it was shown that he'd changed his position, or at least his votes in the Senate on a number of issues. You thought you might want to change to. So I think you know that's the way that politics itself works. That's Francis Fukuyama he's a political scientist at Stanford my work really centres on research and practice about political institutions in ninety. Ninety two fucking Amr wrote a book that became a station. It was called the end of history and the last man, 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 authoritarian. With a backlash against 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 am still reasonably confidence in the way I've formulated my hypothesis ripe,
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 or innovation that was superior, or that was somehow going to displace liberal democracy in the way that key mean ISM, you know asserted that it would displace liberal democracy, ultimately 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 dont think that any of those old, Her models are likely to become in oh Universal, in the way that liberal democracy has become an end in a fairly us away the default form of government from very many countries around the world
so quickly has not changed his mind about his most famous certain, although he is open to it, if in thirty there's, train is bigger than the United States, richer continues to be stable continues. Growing faster than I have to say. Won't, you know, maybe that is the alternative model, but he didn't change his mind on something else. It goes back to that. Bush Kerry, IRAN and the Iraq war in which direction with John Kerry led carry voted for the Iraq war, opposed it supported it, opposes it again at the time fully am was well established as a prominent political thinker. In addition, writing a landmark book. He done to students in the state Department, so His views on the Iraq war were taken seriously. I signed onto a letter. You know a couple of years be for the war. Are the same
the United States ought to take military action. He wasn't opposed to the. U S desire to intervene and topple addict. 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. My 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 dutch
transition. Just like an 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. This institute in February of two thousand forth. The eighty I is a conservative, think tank in Dc. Dick Cheney was the future 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 you: why are these people clapping cuz? Clearly, this thing is turning into a huge fight. Go, and that's the moment that I decided these people are really. 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.
That a lot of the people that we are strong supporters of the 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 thinker more power. The goal was the thinking more emotional or logical and using logic to find facts. It supported the underlying argument. Well, it's it's. Both I mean there's been a lot of search and social psychology lately like this model, where people just take facts in our conclusions from them and then based their opinions on. That is completely wrong and we left the way people think they started with an emotional commitment to a certain idea, and then they use their formidable cognitive powers to organise facts to supply
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 Thus 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 farmer abandoned the NEO conservative movement. Primarily. Were the Iraq war that you were not so warmly by the left, were you move to. You said in two thousand six: I've gotten many emails. That said in effect well you're trying to apologize, but you ve got blood on your hands. We don't accept your apology,
without this interesting 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 whom had been big supporters of the Iraq WAR and of George W Bush of really turned against Tromp Anna in a big way, and there are a lot of people that are not willing to accept them. They say you nuts 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 hit. Head with reality and then realize you know they ve 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 I d in itself that jewish vets 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 thereby
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's 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 important 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 I wish you'd 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
use of new information do seriously reconsider your long the position and go against the tide you ve been swimming in alone. Times. You just you know you just feel uncomfortable. If you say things that disrupted consensus in 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 other side, and I lost a lot of them when you know I haven't spoken to several of these friends since then, there are two separate questions. Whether the person should change their mind and what they facts are for him and then would their effects are for other people. There is another factor that Julius that 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 related to the survey that threats administered. The managers were asked to recall their past performance and to predict the future performance. Presumably they should have had a pretty good grasp of their standing once 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 correctly say whether they fell the top twenty percent of all managers for the bottom, twenty percent or another, twenty percent block someone the middle and forty seven percent of,
managers were overconfident about it, and these were people who had detailed feedback about their performance every quarter which is a lot more than most employees get so than that. Question we asked is how is it possible that people, remained saw 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 slight 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. Three bids us so much at people refused
to change their minds or refuse to update their priors economists like to say: maybe they just have self enhancing selective memories. The data we observe icons systems with them, making a choice to suppress some past information, but 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 paying attention to I was in the state Department in the policy planning staff in nineteen, eighty nine Francis Fukuyama again and in May of nineteen. Eighty nine after there had been this turmoil in Hungary and Poland. I drafted a memo too, my boss, Dennis Ross, was the director of the office that send it onto Jim Baker. Who is the Secretary of State, saying we ought to start thinking about german unification, cause it didn't makes to me that you could have all this turmoil
right around EAST Germany, in 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, because 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 you have a 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 a given person I'd 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 your own or someone else's. How you get that done. The secret may lie not in a green theoretical framework, but small, mundane objects, toilets and slippers and ballpoint pens we'll get into that red. After this. Fr Economics, radio sponsored by Paraday hidden in each cubic yard of air, or thousands of I allergens You can't see them, but your surrounded your eyes. Each stop you read them all day, but now, relief is just one drop away today, once daily relief contains the number one prescribed allergy, it relief ingredient, one drop, once a day works fast and lasts all day. Turn your
if she allergy idea into a payday now available without a prescription everywhere, everybody, Antique Sumter and I'm an actress, and most recently you can see me on ABC mixed fish. I this is tie Randolph and I'm the boss, a cabin hearts left out loud network, and we the host of the sugar, a sweet space where we are. She to indulge on topics we sometimes get left out of its face by four FAO, brown man, this is a place of community where we want you to feel lots of love peace and laughed aloud now's pragmatism, one that was I oh, when our hair, when I was in labour, I was like I was having a orgasm grow airs. Go now, leave you now somewhere baling, maybe You ve not actually have an eye. This exists. We space.
I would like us to see ourselves and be ourselves get ready to open up top, laugh even cry with our sweet. Should amendment the ship is out now listen on stitches apple podcast. Wherever you get your pat gas, think of something you have a really strong opinion about. May be the best ways 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 forced to give an explanation? You have to really understand and you have to confront the fact that you might not understood it, whereas when you give reasons than you do what people do around the Thanksgiving dinner table, they talk about them.
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, That means, in a nutshell, that you'd try to understand what they 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 and explain why you might be right if you can get people to step outside themselves and think
the issue, not even 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 or to assume other people's perspective. As you can see why I started my answer by saying it's very hard won experiments. Luminous 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 really like to engage in that kind of mechanistic analysis required for a causal explanation. That's true not only for
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 and 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 named resin Little Kyle, and they ask people how well they understood how these things worked and people gave a number between one in seven and then May said. Ok, how does it work, except in as much detail as you can see how it works and people struggled. 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 the day 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 The source of the illusion is that people fail to distinguish what they know from what others now were constantly depending on other people, and the actual processing that goes on is distributed among people in our community. In other words, some one knows how toilet works. The plumber and you oh the plumber, or even, if you don't know the plumber, you know how to find a plumber, it's as if the sense of understanding is contagious right when other people and and you feel, like you understand, you can see 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 better, it also imagined 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 and blatant Kyle experiment, but instead of toilets and zippers, they asked people about climate change and gun control He gave people political policies, we said how well they 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 apparent if, instead of saying explain how the policy works. If what we to them was give us? the reasons you have for your view on this policy. Then we didn't get that effect at all that didn't really. These 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 shared with other people.
I think the mind is actually something that exists within the community and not within the skull. And someone you change your mind: you doing one of two things: you're, either dissociated yourself from your community, 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 to truth, more likely, we are to succeed as individuals as a species, but its heart. Do you think that most of us pulled the beliefs that we do, because the people around us hold those beliefs, or do you think We are 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 the 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 realize this episode is leaning heavily on Stanford professors anyway, Matthew, Jackson, studies, social and economic networks, in particular how the structure of
full interactions affects people's behaviors from our opinions, form to whether we decide to vote for a certain candidate here? Something Jackson is changed his mind about. One thing I used to think was that people a few 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 data and in particular the more you look at experiments where people are faced with facts or information. You realise that some people are very single minded in one experiment: Jackson, all ass people about climate change. He had every one read the same batch of abstracts from scientific articles. We asked for
other opinions before they went in to the study, and you could see that people looking at exactly the same article would interpret it very differently depending on what their initial position was so 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 subjects who actually became more polarized. Who who interpret 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 educated people who consume a lot of information tend to hold disproportionately extreme views, apparently, because
there really good at seeking out information that confirms, or priors and ignoring information that might run counter one aspect of peace, seeing 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 snippet things into small little pieces that we can remember of this was for or against. We don't like breaking things down in detail. We just most of us like to have a superficial understanding, Stephen Sloman again, why do you think Obama CARE is good or bad whatever you think about it now. The fact is, most people have very little to say about that. Most people just have a couple of slogans right they have. The
public and slogan, they have the democratic slogan but think don't actually know about Obamacare, because after all, it's a twenty thousand aged document like deceive, no bomber doesn't understand Obamacare, but even if a bombing does understand about there is the quest of whether his understanding is unduly circumscribed but the people around people and to associate with other people who are very similar to themselves so that we end up talking to people the time who have very similar past experiences and similar views of the world in and we tender. Underestimate tat that people don't realize isolated their world is, you know, people wake up after an election and are quite surprised that has that anybody could have liked it a candidate that has a different view than them. So one antidote to inflexible thinking is
to themselves so that we end up talking to people most of the time who have very similar past experiences and similar views of the world, and then works extremely well. Unfortunately, a great many of us here 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 heart. Time changing your minds. We are basically hardware divide the world into us, and them and to not like them a whole lot. That again, is the half. Neuro biologists have Prime ecologist Roberts upholstery. Who is changed his own mind many times the domain that are most interested in these days? Is that change thing of turning them? to 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 to go through somebody else's rationalizations whore in visual somebody break them out of being. Automatic them and think about. Do they like the same pets that you do. Do they love their kids. Look at a picture singing lullabies to their children. Look at a picture. Enjoying the same like food that you do contact- and this has been flu- around for decades as a theory give people of them enough contact with each other and they turn into asses and turns a contact works and very specialised circumstances. You got to spend a bunch of time with them and us and them need to be an equal number sending the neutral setting and you gotta have a shared, sorted goal clean all of these work to at least some degree
the peoples we hated in the past, our allies, now our group's that spent centuries being persecuted where we know, even though, with the word refers to anymore, and in all these cases, there's something resembling biological pathways that help them to stop being so objectionable. So before this conversation, if You asked me: what are the primary barriers that keep someone in a the situation from changing their mine. I would have certainly opted for the social and economic explanations, but it sounds as though you're saying a larger share would go to the physiological and biological reasons is that right Well, the really irritating thing I would say is that the two were one and the same, we're nothing more or less in some of our biology. Every time you learned something from something profound does something idiotic. Some
changes in your brain every time you who have sent sensory experience, your brain is constantly rewiring and major ways this idea, but the brain continues to change physiologically throughout our lives. This is yet another idea that supposed he himself had to change his mind about. This is a key aspect. My field, where I have missed the boat every step of the way when I started off, this dogma had been in place or like a thousand years worth of the intrude in neuroscience classes and which is the adult brain doesn't make new neurons. This is the basic premise of all miserable untreatable, neurological diseases out there starting in the sixties. There was one loan profit named all men whose career was
basically ruined, because he was about thirty years ahead of the curve then laid eighties early nineties. Some technique a lot more sensitive and we, able to show adult Neuro Genesis in the brain like crazy, and it became the hottest subject in the field, and I kept that's a real phenomenon I was like really We were on that one. It turns out that there's a little pocket a population of stem cells sitting in the hippocampus making new nurse and what was even better was it made him at all. The logical, times in response to learning stimulation exercise and a ton work, through that. These new neurons actually are useful when their credit For new types of learning, so at ushered in this whole new world, and then this beautiful new edifice
of revisionism came potentially crash, how about a year ago in stream. I think important well done paper. That wound up in the journal. Nature showed that, despite the clear presence of tat of Neuro Genesis in road and brains throughout the lifetime in Monkey Brains- and there was a lot of reason to think that not allowed but the same occurred in the human brain and that a lot of the prior evidence for it. It's pretty circumstantial and as you I expect the specialists in the field I've been stabbing each other over this whenever sense, and it's not clear what the resolution is. Doesn't much more Mehta than that a bunch of, scientists changing their minds and trying to change others minds a bow, wow the brain changes when we change our minds. Robert support Turkey's own resource
about us is in them, is led to one more change of mind. For supposing I would say do you that came out of that is. I am, and every fibre of my soul, a profound pessimists and like sitting in obsessing for three four years on what we know about the biological routes of Hugh. Being rotten to each other and humans been kind to each other. There is actually a fairer, no 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's smart work it allows into each other's with amazing paradox of humans is sigh, Malta, obviously, We are the most miserably violent species on this planet and we are the most cooperative we do stuff which, from the standards of evolution
operation game theory. All of that would make the o stickleback fish just flabbergasted at how come 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 who can be wonderful, were and big obviously somewhere in between coming up next week on economics, radio in for the next few weeks. We you ve, been out on the road in LOS Angeles, Cisco, an Philadelphia it's time for you to hear what we ve been learning their most people think of California is a place with a lot of earthquakes. Nowadays, we don't have enough one of our biggest words as air one method, is actually done, for the moon rocks is feeding it
chickens. First, stop LOS Angeles. Its next time for economics, radio becomes radio is produced by Sticker W productions. This episode is produced by met Hickey. Our staff also includes Allison, Craig Low Gregg Ribbon Cyclopean Ski area Huggins, wherein walls. We had help this week from Nellie Osborne. Our theme song is MR fortune by the hitchhikers. All the other music was posed by the great we scared you can subscribe to for global radio and apple pod, or every get your bank the entire. Our is available on the stitched up at economics. Dot com. Will we also published transcripts, show notes if you want to hear our entire archive ad free, plus lots of bonus episodes go to state your premium, dot com, Flash
for economics. We also publish 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 demonstrating also plays on many NPR stations, thanks to Katy D case, your w and, w each. Why why, for recently, partnering with us on these live shows check your local station, for tells of where and when we play thanks for listening. Teacher.
Transcript generated on 2020-04-03.