Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast with Doctor Scott
Speaker 1: Barry Kaufman, where we give you insights into the mind, brain, behavior,
Speaker 1: and creativity. Each episode will feature a new guest who
Speaker 1: will stimulate your mind and give you a greater understanding
Speaker 1: of yourself, others, and the world we live in. Hopefully
Speaker 1: we'll also provide a glimpse into human possibility. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening and enjoy the podcast. So today it's great to
Speaker 1: have doctor Eric Turkheimer on the podcast. Doctor Turkhimer is
Speaker 1: the Hugh Scott Hamilton Professor of Psychology at the University
Speaker 1: of Virginia. His lab studies how interactions between genes and
Speaker 1: environments shape the development of human behavior. Today, we'll be
Speaker 1: focusing mostly on Turkimer's research on intelligence, genetics, and family background.
Speaker 1: The topic of intelligence is a favorite here the Psychology Podcast.
Speaker 1: Some of our previous guests discussing this topic include Christopher
Speaker 1: Shaburri and Stuart Ritchie. I personally have studied this topic
Speaker 1: since the beginning of my career, so I'm always eager
Speaker 1: to engage in respectful, mature discussion on the topic. If
Speaker 1: you'd like to join in the discussion, please go to
Speaker 1: the Psychology podcast dot com and leave comments on the
Speaker 1: post for this episode. Eric. Great to have you on
Speaker 1: the show today. Nice see us, Scott. Let's jump right
Speaker 1: into this. What is intelligence? How do you define it?
Speaker 1: What's your personal conceptualization? I think intelligence is the ability
Speaker 1: to process information and solve problems. I mean, that's pretty basic,
Speaker 1: I guess. I mean there's more technical definition of intelligence,
Speaker 1: of course, but I don't know. I guess I think
Speaker 1: that's a pretty good starting place, Okay. And then there's
Speaker 1: so there's two issues of the question of a definition,
Speaker 1: and there's the issue of measurement. Now what do you
Speaker 1: think are some of the best measures of what you
Speaker 1: just defined that are out there right now? Well, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't know what you mean specifically. But
Speaker 1: there's of course an entire universe of intelligence tests IQ
Speaker 1: tests so called, of various different kinds, and those range
Speaker 1: from formal IQ tests that you might take with a
Speaker 1: professional psychologist too. In my opinion, things like the SATs
Speaker 1: that you take in high school are more or less
Speaker 1: a kind of intelligence test. They're formulated and conceptualized a
Speaker 1: little bit differently. So it sounds like you're saying IQ
Speaker 1: test that's the answer, it sounds like you're saying because
Speaker 1: one could say that it's you know that IQ is
Speaker 1: a very limited measure of intelligence, and there's been arguments
Speaker 1: in that effect and et cetera. So I just want
Speaker 1: to make sure that we're on the same page, that
Speaker 1: everyone understands exactly what you're saying at every step of
Speaker 1: this way. Yeah, and I think if this is where
Speaker 1: you're headed, that some of the more general things that
Speaker 1: people sometimes talk about as intelligence, social intelligence, and in
Speaker 1: our personal intelligence and emotional intelligence, those are all really
Speaker 1: important things in the world. But I guess I do
Speaker 1: think of those as separate from what I think of
Speaker 1: as intelligence per se, which is more about problem solving
Speaker 1: specifically than it is about the kind of much broader
Speaker 1: activities that people have to conduct in the world. Yeah. Sure,
Speaker 1: but you know, so one could make the argument that
Speaker 1: certain kinds of problem solving are very contextual, based on
Speaker 1: the mean specific areas of human adaptation throughout the course
Speaker 1: of human evolution. So it sounds like when you say
Speaker 1: problem solving, you talk about a general problem solving ability
Speaker 1: that's captured by what we can talk about the G factor.
Speaker 1: We can talk about the chief factor if you want yeah,
Speaker 1: we should talk about the G factor because I have
Speaker 1: fairly particular ideas about the G factor that may aren't
Speaker 1: necessarily the same as other people you might talk to
Speaker 1: about it. Great, I'd love to hear what your thoughts
Speaker 1: are on the G factor, and you can understand why
Speaker 1: I want to make sure we qualify how you think
Speaker 1: about intelligence and how you think we should measure it,
Speaker 1: because you know there is no objective, you know ten
Speaker 1: commandments that God gave us saying this is the measure
Speaker 1: of intelligence, and this is how we should defind So
Speaker 1: you know, that's why it's very important for people to
Speaker 1: quarify their terms. So tell me what the G factor is? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, what the G factor definitely is? I mean,
Speaker 1: and I think the question is whether it's more than this,
Speaker 1: But what it I think it indisputably is. Is a
Speaker 1: statistical construct that describes the fact that ability tests, very broadly,
Speaker 1: ability tests are positively correlated with each other, and people
Speaker 1: who do well on one ability tests tend to do
Speaker 1: well on other ability tests. People often speak as though
Speaker 1: the positive of correlations among ability tests mean that there
Speaker 1: is only one kind of intelligence that explains all of
Speaker 1: why tests go together and I don't think that's the case,
Speaker 1: even though it's the case that the correlations among different
Speaker 1: ability tests are positive. But in any event, as a
Speaker 1: statistical matter, anytime you have a number of tests that
Speaker 1: are positively correlated with each other, it's possible in a
Speaker 1: statistical way to extract from that matrix of tests something
Speaker 1: that's called the first principal component, which describes the way
Speaker 1: that those tests correlate together. And that literally is what
Speaker 1: general intelligence or G is. It's the first principal component
Speaker 1: of a matrix of positively correlated intelligence tests. Now, at
Speaker 1: that point, I think there comes a theoretical fork in
Speaker 1: the road in the history of thinking about intelligence. That
Speaker 1: one school of thought about intelligence, and I think probably
Speaker 1: it's safe to say the dominant school of thought about
Speaker 1: intelligence that goes back to Charles Spearman, says that this G,
Speaker 1: this statistical G thing that describes the positive correlation among
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of ability tests, must represent some kind
Speaker 1: of actual thing inside human beings that causes those tests
Speaker 1: to go together, something in our brain that represents G,
Speaker 1: something in our genes that represent G. I don't agree
Speaker 1: with that conclusion. I think it's much better to think
Speaker 1: of G as a descriptive thing rather than a causal thing.
Speaker 1: G is a way of describing the way mental tests
Speaker 1: go together. It's not a way of explaining why mental
Speaker 1: tests go together. Beautiful. That is in line with a
Speaker 1: lot of recent research on statistical modeling of G showing
Speaker 1: that it's a better model to look at G as
Speaker 1: reflective variable, you know, in a structural equation model, as
Speaker 1: sort of the emergent property of multiple indicators of cognobility
Speaker 1: as opposed to the causal force. So even from like
Speaker 1: a from a statistical model and then from a brain
Speaker 1: model theory kind of oh, you know, I'm referring to
Speaker 1: recent statistical models of G that have tried to model
Speaker 1: it as either a causal force or an outcome, you know,
Speaker 1: and research shows that it does make more sense to
Speaker 1: think of it, you said, descriptive, and that's exactly what
Speaker 1: the research suggests, is a better way of things as
Speaker 1: an emergence. You know, it's not a thing, it's an
Speaker 1: emergent property. And also it's that seems in line with
Speaker 1: the recent research on G not making any sense as
Speaker 1: existing in an individual brain. It has to do with
Speaker 1: individual differences, you know. Even Arthur Jensen, who a lot
Speaker 1: of people malign or you know, who's done a lot
Speaker 1: of good scientific work on this topic. And we can
Speaker 1: get to some of his more controversial stuff later, but
Speaker 1: he has done some significant scientific work. You know. He
Speaker 1: made the case that G intelligence has no meaning if
Speaker 1: you're the only one in a desert island, if you
Speaker 1: can't compare your G leveled anyone else in that island,
Speaker 1: it makes no sense to you can't measure your G.
Speaker 1: So all that I just want to say is consistent
Speaker 1: with what you just said. Yeah, and I think to
Speaker 1: get back, I think I've placed a marker on something
Speaker 1: while we're getting to where we are about the uni
Speaker 1: dimensionality of G and intelligence, because I think that's very
Speaker 1: important that, you know, going back to Charles Spearman, who
Speaker 1: came up with this idea in the first place. People
Speaker 1: have asked, once again a statistical question about whether all
Speaker 1: of the various covariation along the many the infinite number
Speaker 1: of mental tests that you could give to people can
Speaker 1: be fit by a single common factor. And the answer
Speaker 1: to that question, going back to Spearman, is no. In fact,
Speaker 1: as domains of tests go, it's true that intelligence is
Speaker 1: fairly well fairly well described by a single factor, more
Speaker 1: than say personality or something thing. But Spearman himself showed
Speaker 1: that G per se, one single factor was not enough.
Speaker 1: And I think, people, well, it's two things. People. It
Speaker 1: can be very easy to think that because all tests
Speaker 1: are positively correlated with each other, that means that there
Speaker 1: must only be one thing that's causing them, and that,
Speaker 1: as a statistical matter, is not the case. And second,
Speaker 1: once you come up with this statistical thing called G
Speaker 1: and describe it mathematically and name it as G, it's
Speaker 1: very easy to fall in love with it a little
Speaker 1: bit and think that, well, now that we have this
Speaker 1: thing called G, and it does describe quite a bit
Speaker 1: of the variation and intelligence, that it must be the single,
Speaker 1: one and only thing and the whole domain of describing
Speaker 1: something as complicated as intelligence with latent factors like G,
Speaker 1: it's way more complicated as soon as you have more
Speaker 1: than one factor to work with. Great points, And I
Speaker 1: really like the Johnson and Bichard model that has really
Speaker 1: done some systematic analyses of the fundamental group factors of
Speaker 1: G and shown in verbal, nonverbal, and spatial are some
Speaker 1: pretty essential group factors. Yeah, so you one can reduce
Speaker 1: all these different cognitive ability tests to a single dimension,
Speaker 1: and one can do that and that does have predictive value.
Speaker 1: Something my mentor Nickel I did my master's agree with
Speaker 1: Nicholas McIntosh at Cambridge, who I think wrote the best
Speaker 1: textbook on this topic. And you know, he constantly has
Speaker 1: made that point that you know, G, this positive manifold
Speaker 1: doesn't stop with cognitobility. There are a whole nexus of
Speaker 1: socioeconomic status. I mean, this normalogical network of G is
Speaker 1: very broad. And one thing that is difficult to do
Speaker 1: is disentangle, you know, all of these causal forces and
Speaker 1: disentangle which is causing what you know within this normalogical network,
Speaker 1: because that it's no easy feed, is it. No? That's right, yeah.
Speaker 1: And one school of thought that I'm sure we'll get
Speaker 1: into is to sort of take G and put it
Speaker 1: at the center of that universe and say that everything
Speaker 1: else that happened is caused by this G thing, rather
Speaker 1: than seeing G as part of a much broader descriptive network. Good.
Speaker 1: And you know, one analogy that I've been kicking around
Speaker 1: some is with the idea of health. Let's say you
Speaker 1: took a whole bunch of medical measurements from people. You
Speaker 1: got their blood pressure and their BMI and their lung
Speaker 1: capacity and how fast they could run, and all those
Speaker 1: various things, and got correlations among all those things. They
Speaker 1: would be I would imagine positively correlated. Maybe not quite
Speaker 1: as positively correlated as mental tests are, but you'd still
Speaker 1: be able to take a first principal component out of
Speaker 1: them that describe the way all these various health measures
Speaker 1: go together, and you can call it health. And some
Speaker 1: people at any given moment are healthier than other people.
Speaker 1: We're very accustomed to talking about it this way, and
Speaker 1: on surveys you ask people a single question, you know,
Speaker 1: how good would you how would you describe your health
Speaker 1: on a scale from one to ten. But it wouldn't
Speaker 1: occur to us to think of health as this special
Speaker 1: inner quality that people carry around, And it wouldn't occur
Speaker 1: to us to start looking for the health center in
Speaker 1: people's brain body, or start to ask, well, what are
Speaker 1: the specific genes that cause people to be healthier than
Speaker 1: each other. We recognize health as just what you say.
Speaker 1: It's a health is a way of describing a certain
Speaker 1: domain of covariation in a very complicated network of things.
Speaker 1: But it's not a cause of those things, it's a
Speaker 1: description of those things. I love that. And then it
Speaker 1: also taking that analogy, it seems like it would be
Speaker 1: incredibly uncompassionate and immoral to apply that same argument to say,
Speaker 1: you know, the cognitive lead argument, but we make the
Speaker 1: health elite argument and say, you know, if you take
Speaker 1: the same logic and say people who are west ces
Speaker 1: are doomed to be low sees because they have little health, well,
Speaker 1: so therefore we should give all interventions to help people
Speaker 1: be healthy. I mean that would it's not just politically,
Speaker 1: you know, put a correct thing to say. It's called
Speaker 1: like just being a fundamentally having humanity, and it misses
Speaker 1: that health is at least as much an effect as
Speaker 1: it is a cause. Absolutely, Okay, I'd really like to
Speaker 1: transition here to the question of is IQ heritable? And
Speaker 1: when you're answering this question, you know, when you define
Speaker 1: what heritability means, if you could please add some caveats
Speaker 1: and nuance that often gets missed in that answer to
Speaker 1: the effect, where you let people know that heritability has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the modifiability. Okay, well, yes, I
Speaker 1: mean the simple answer the question is that IQ is terrible,
Speaker 1: and I mean as good a description of my career
Speaker 1: as any is. It's been about understanding the complications of
Speaker 1: saying that's some kind of individual difference, like intelligence is heritable.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what I do. And first, my preferred
Speaker 1: way of saying what it means for something to be
Speaker 1: heritable right now is this that there is a correlation
Speaker 1: between how genetically similar any two people are and how
Speaker 1: similar their intelligence is. Right, so you can think of
Speaker 1: them in the classic way to think about that is
Speaker 1: in terms of identical and fraternal twins, and pairs of
Speaker 1: identical twins are more similar than pairs of praternal twins,
Speaker 1: and the IQs of identical twins are more similar than
Speaker 1: the IQ's of paternal twins. You can do with other
Speaker 1: kinds of or what you can do with siblings and
Speaker 1: half siblings the same thing, and nowadays you can do
Speaker 1: it with pairs of people who aren't related, just in terms,
Speaker 1: because we can now calculate how much DNA any particular
Speaker 1: pair of people share, and you get technically different but
Speaker 1: more or less similar answers when you do it that way,
Speaker 1: And so that's what it is. It's a correlation between
Speaker 1: genetic similarity and similarity in whatever it is that you're
Speaker 1: interested in, And as such, it doesn't show that there
Speaker 1: are genes for anything in particular, it doesn't really tell
Speaker 1: you anything about why it's the case that more genetically
Speaker 1: similar people are more similar for whatever. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: avoid using the word phenotype here, which is just a
Speaker 1: technical word for the observable ways that people are similar.
Speaker 1: That's one thing. The other thing that you have to
Speaker 1: think about, even while I'll get the malleability in a second,
Speaker 1: The other thing that you have to think about when
Speaker 1: you think about the heritability of intelligence is what en
Speaker 1: That's not something interesting and special about intelligence that Wow,
Speaker 1: how do you like that? It turns out that intelligence
Speaker 1: is heritable. Everything about human beings is heritable. Any difference
Speaker 1: among human beings that you can measure is heritable. So
Speaker 1: your personality is heritable, your risk of having a mental
Speaker 1: disease is heritable. And then you can get past things
Speaker 1: like that, how much television you watch is heritable, how
Speaker 1: liberal and conservative you are is heritable. Everything about people
Speaker 1: is heritable. And all that means is that in general,
Speaker 1: people who are more genetically similar are more similar. Whatever
Speaker 1: that as we go through the course of our lives
Speaker 1: becoming whatever it is that we've become. I think of
Speaker 1: it as our genes have their finger on the scales,
Speaker 1: and they are always nudging us in one direction or another,
Speaker 1: so that wherever we come out, well, our genes had
Speaker 1: a little bit to do with how we got there,
Speaker 1: so it's not a specific characteristic of any one thing.
Speaker 1: One more before I get the malleability. The next thing
Speaker 1: is that now, in the last fifteen or twenty years,
Speaker 1: that we can study these things not just with identical
Speaker 1: and fraternal twins or parents and children and stuff like that,
Speaker 1: but with actual measured DNA biological DNA that we get
Speaker 1: out of our bodies. We have made the amazing discovery
Speaker 1: that for something like intelligence that's heritable. There are a
Speaker 1: lot to be said about this, but in a simple sense,
Speaker 1: there are no genes for any of these things. There
Speaker 1: is no gene that, in a known biological way, causes
Speaker 1: people to be smarter. There are genes that, in a
Speaker 1: known biological way cause people to be less intelligent because
Speaker 1: it gives them major diseases. But leaving that aside, there
Speaker 1: are no big genes for intelligence. You could say there's
Speaker 1: a lot of little genes. But I think even that
Speaker 1: is too strong. So anyway, the genetics of intelligence exists
Speaker 1: in this matrix of everything being intelligent, and that our genes,
Speaker 1: like your grandmother said that, you know, the apple doesn't
Speaker 1: fall far from the tree. That our genes in very
Speaker 1: general ways influence everything we become. Because it's so general,
Speaker 1: doesn't have a lot of implications ultimately for the way
Speaker 1: we think about ourselves. I think most of us always
Speaker 1: knew that our genes placed a certain amount of constraint
Speaker 1: on what was likely to happen to us. And it
Speaker 1: seems surprising the first time you hear it. Once you
Speaker 1: stop and think about I don't really think it's so
Speaker 1: surprising at all. So anyway, malleability, I think when you
Speaker 1: the first time you think about something being heritable, and
Speaker 1: the first time you think about your genes having some
Speaker 1: kind of input into an outcome, it's natural to think
Speaker 1: of it as well, this is an aspect of us
Speaker 1: that's more fixed than we had thought that it might be. Otherwise, Well, gee,
Speaker 1: you know, I thought that my intelligence was just the
Speaker 1: result of my hard work, or how my parents raised me,
Speaker 1: or how good my school is. Well it turns out
Speaker 1: it's in my genes. There's not that much we can
Speaker 1: do about it. And that is formally, mathematically, bio logically
Speaker 1: not the case. The two things. They don't really have
Speaker 1: a whole lot to do with each other. There are
Speaker 1: a whole lot of very standard examples that I didn't
Speaker 1: think up about it. One good one is height. Height
Speaker 1: is an obviously heritable thing, and nobody is surprised to
Speaker 1: hear that height is heritable, and we don't, in fact
Speaker 1: even think of ourselves as being able to do anything
Speaker 1: to control our height. But the fact is the height
Speaker 1: of various populations of people has changed enormously in a
Speaker 1: very short period of time. Japanese people now are about
Speaker 1: five inches taller than they were before World War Two.
Speaker 1: That's not a genetic change. Height was very heritable before
Speaker 1: World War Two, very heritable after World War Two, and
Speaker 1: height has increased an enormous amount in Japan over that time.
Speaker 1: You can tell the same story in an interesting way
Speaker 1: with Dutch people. Before World War two, Americans were on
Speaker 1: average several inches taller than the Dutch. They are now
Speaker 1: several inches taller than us. It was heritable then, it's
Speaker 1: herritble now there's been a big change One more example,
Speaker 1: a slightly different one that gets added from a slightly
Speaker 1: different angle, is a disease called phenol keatonuia. Phenel keatonuria
Speaker 1: is a metabolic disease that, unlike everything else we've been
Speaker 1: talking about, is controlled by a single dominant gene. It's
Speaker 1: not like all these complex things like intelligence and height.
Speaker 1: There is a gene for phenol keatonurea. If you have
Speaker 1: the dominant gene, you're unable to metabolize a naturally existing
Speaker 1: chemical called phenolalanine that exists in food, and if you
Speaker 1: eat foods with phenylalanine, it poisons you and causes severe
Speaker 1: metal retardation and eventually death. So that's a very bits
Speaker 1: of genetic disorder in a straightforward way. However, it turns
Speaker 1: out that if you avoid foods with phenylalanine, everything's fine.
Speaker 1: So it's a genetically call disorder, and the treatment for
Speaker 1: it is entirely environmental. Good. You said a lot of
Speaker 1: really interesting things that I hope clarify, So I want
Speaker 1: to further quarify something. So this July behavior geneticis will
Speaker 1: nounce over six hundred smps statistically associated with educational attainment,
Speaker 1: which we know is correlated with IQ. Even if let's
Speaker 1: do the Thur experiment, Even if it comes back and
Speaker 1: says one hundred percent of individual differences in educational attainment
Speaker 1: is explained by the combination of six hundred small smps,
Speaker 1: that still wouldn't mean that the environment couldn't influence an outcome.
Speaker 1: Is that correct? Yep? Absolutely so. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people aren't aware of that, And not only not
Speaker 1: aware of that, but a lot of my listeners are like,
Speaker 1: what the hex and SMP. You could explain that a
Speaker 1: little bit. Well, it's literally something called single nucleotide polymorphism.
Speaker 1: I usually just refer to it as a snip. I
Speaker 1: think that's usually the way people say. A snip is
Speaker 1: a single unit of DNA A you know, the in
Speaker 1: the ACGT sequence that makes up chromosomes and genes are
Speaker 1: long collections long strings of ACGT. There are certain particular
Speaker 1: locations that only take one of two values acgt. Those
Speaker 1: are referred to as snips. And I'm not, frankly very
Speaker 1: good at the biological technical side, so I hope I
Speaker 1: don't get any of this wrong. But we are now
Speaker 1: able to put I think two million tests for those
Speaker 1: snips on a single chip a snip chip and determine
Speaker 1: which of the two a particular individual has. And there
Speaker 1: have been very, very very elaborate detailed maps that allow
Speaker 1: us to go from which particular values of snips you
Speaker 1: have at different locations on your chromosome and how that
Speaker 1: maps on to what genes you're carrying. So the sort
Speaker 1: of current state of the art in gene hunting is
Speaker 1: to do the hunting at the level of snips, and
Speaker 1: simply it's a very simple process of looking for individual
Speaker 1: paired snips and where one value seems to be associated
Speaker 1: with having a higher educational attainment than another value, and
Speaker 1: then there's inferential work can be done on top of
Speaker 1: that to try and identify genes, though that starts to
Speaker 1: get very very complicated. There's I think one other important
Speaker 1: thing to say about this overall process. By the way,
Speaker 1: I don't think you used. This is called juas or
Speaker 1: association study. Is this process of searching for snips associated
Speaker 1: with and so we're now doing this process for all
Speaker 1: of the many human traits that we discovered were heritable
Speaker 1: fifty years ago, using twins and siblings and adopt these
Speaker 1: and all that kind of stuff. And it's interesting that
Speaker 1: we're able to do this now, and it may well
Speaker 1: turn out as time goes by that we learn important
Speaker 1: things from doing this. But it's not surprising for all
Speaker 1: these heritable traits that we're able to find snips that
Speaker 1: are associated with them once we knew that intelligence was heritable.
Speaker 1: Another way of saying that is to say, well, there
Speaker 1: are differences in DNA that are associated with intelligence. We
Speaker 1: knew that was true, and so a lot of modern
Speaker 1: snip finding, from my point of view, is a matter
Speaker 1: of confirming what we already knew. It's finding out the
Speaker 1: same things about heritability that we already knew from twins
Speaker 1: and siblings and families. I think there's a tendency to
Speaker 1: sometimes that, even now that people have gotten used to
Speaker 1: the idea that behavior is broadly heritable, to make the
Speaker 1: same mistake you were suggesting of thinking, wow, now that
Speaker 1: we're finding out that there are actual little bits of
Speaker 1: DNA that are associated with these behaviors, that must really
Speaker 1: be fixing it. You know that we're really finding the
Speaker 1: education genes or more and more commonly, the IQ genes here,
Speaker 1: and I personally don't really think we are. I think
Speaker 1: it's safe to say the jury is still out And
Speaker 1: I think there are a lot of people who think
Speaker 1: that at least we're at the beginning of a road
Speaker 1: that's going to end up with a actual genetic biological
Speaker 1: understanding of something like educational attainment. I myself am quite
Speaker 1: a bit more skeptical. But you would never you could
Speaker 1: never do without the socialization process in this no matter
Speaker 1: what is found. If you want to increase educational team.
Speaker 1: Even if it turns out that some people have greater
Speaker 1: genetic potential for the ultimate heights of learning and rate
Speaker 1: of learning, et cetera, et cetera, that still doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that we should provide the most challenging opportun coortunities for everyone, right, Oh,
Speaker 1: of course not so. I think that kind of gets
Speaker 1: missed sometimes in these discussions. Is you know, we can
Speaker 1: get so lost in the weeds that so like so
Speaker 1: what you know, like, you know, what's the practical implication here? Now,
Speaker 1: some people have written some thoughtful books about a genetic
Speaker 1: understand how genetically informed understanding of school could lead us
Speaker 1: to teach an individualized learning for different people, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And I think there are some thoughtful things
Speaker 1: out there about that, but still doesn't get rid of
Speaker 1: the teaching part. No, of course not. I know you say,
Speaker 1: of course not, but I do think that is missed
Speaker 1: in somebody's well yes, no, and no. I mean I say,
Speaker 1: of course not by way of agreeing with you. But
Speaker 1: it it's an incredibly difficult and complicated problem. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've spent my entire professional life trying to think about
Speaker 1: exactly what it means that our genes might be related
Speaker 1: to how much education people wind up obtaining. And you know,
Speaker 1: if you put me on the spot and say, okay,
Speaker 1: you've got three minutes explain exactly how that works, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure I could do it. And it's a very
Speaker 1: very deep and difficult theoretical problem. When you have a
Speaker 1: problem like that, I think what happens is that the
Speaker 1: two poles of the problem, the two easy ends of it,
Speaker 1: become magnets for people. And you find people saying, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we got the genes, you know, and people are just
Speaker 1: born that way, and some people are born smarter than others.
Speaker 1: And then you have people on the other side saying,
Speaker 1: how could you say such a thing that the genes
Speaker 1: have something to do with educational attainment, That that's determinism
Speaker 1: and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and want to
Speaker 1: argue that genes must have nothing to do with it,
Speaker 1: and neither of those two polls is ever a good
Speaker 1: answer good. I would not want it to be the
Speaker 1: case that our intelligence was one hundred percent determined by
Speaker 1: either the environment or one hundred percent determined by our genes.
Speaker 1: Either situation would really suck if you think about it, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, then you would have no free will either way.
Speaker 1: Kind of. But people don't realize is that the way
Speaker 1: the reality of the world is is actually pretty neat
Speaker 1: in a way. There is something that it means to
Speaker 1: be you, but there's also a lot that you can
Speaker 1: do to construct yourself and become who you consciously want
Speaker 1: to be. And also, I want to say I abhore
Speaker 1: the process of the idea that someday we'll be able to,
Speaker 1: as early as possible, measure people's genes and then use
Speaker 1: that as a forecasting utility value to differentiate people into
Speaker 1: different tracks as early as possible based on their genetics. Now,
Speaker 1: I really really do not advocate for that. I agree
Speaker 1: with you, Yeah, not just from like a there's a
Speaker 1: moral standpoint, but just from like a human potential standpoint.
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced that doing that would maximize Yeah, it
Speaker 1: would be. I mean, the fact is people think of
Speaker 1: it as something we could do off in some science
Speaker 1: fiction future. But the fact is we could do it today.
Speaker 1: About how we could do it today shows I think
Speaker 1: why it's morally wrong. Here's how you predict kids' school
Speaker 1: performance from their genes. You look up their parents' IQ scores,
Speaker 1: and parents' IQ scores are really powerful predictors of children's
Speaker 1: IQ scores. I mean really much much, much better than
Speaker 1: anything we could do with genomic information. And much of
Speaker 1: the reason for why parents IQ scores predict kid's IQ
Speaker 1: scores are genetic. So why not just say, well, we
Speaker 1: should take parents who are really smart and give best
Speaker 1: resources to their children because they have the best genetic potential.
Speaker 1: You can't do that because people have a right to
Speaker 1: make the best of what they are, regardless of your
Speaker 1: judgment of what their genetic potential is. I couldn't agree more.
Speaker 1: Maybe I don't know if this is plain Devil's out
Speaker 1: it be kid a little bit, But I want to
Speaker 1: ask you a question I just thought of. So if
Speaker 1: we agreed that the inhritability coefficient of a pt or population.
Speaker 1: And by the way, heartability is a population variable related variable,
Speaker 1: and it has to do with individual differences. There's no
Speaker 1: other thing as a heritability within a person, just like
Speaker 1: there's such a thing as a cube within a person.
Speaker 1: And it also means that for me, the question what's
Speaker 1: the heritability of intelligence is a really bad question. Intelligence
Speaker 1: doesn't have a erritability. It's like a property of it
Speaker 1: that it carries around from place to place. The heritability
Speaker 1: of intelligence depends on the particulars of the situation in
Speaker 1: which of the population in which that intelligence is measured. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: so that's one part of it. But so if we
Speaker 1: can agree that heritability is not a good proxy for
Speaker 1: the ability to change, then you've shown done research interests,
Speaker 1: a very interesting research showing that heritability coefficients are not
Speaker 1: the same magnitude across social classes. Now, even if that
Speaker 1: is true, and I'm kind of playing table's advocate for
Speaker 1: a second, Even if that is true, and we already
Speaker 1: just concluded that ritable is not a proxy for the
Speaker 1: ability to change, then what's even the practical implication of
Speaker 1: your own findings in that regard? Do you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, yes, it's funny. I mean, if I'm honest
Speaker 1: as somebody who's sometimes critical of people obsessing about what
Speaker 1: the heritability of this or that is, I do think
Speaker 1: it's hard to say exactly what it means that the
Speaker 1: heritability of intelligence, which is what that research is about,
Speaker 1: is different in some places than others. But I do
Speaker 1: think you can put meat on the bones of that finding.
Speaker 1: And the finding is that the heritability of intelligence, and
Speaker 1: I should add it seems like it's in the United
Speaker 1: States is lower in poor people than it is in
Speaker 1: well off people, middle class and better people. Doesn't seem
Speaker 1: like that happens in Europe, which is the main other
Speaker 1: place that's been studied, probably because there's less economic and
Speaker 1: equality there, and especially educational inequality. And I frankly can't
Speaker 1: prove this. I think this is informed speculation about what
Speaker 1: that might mean. A variant on a standard example for
Speaker 1: thinking about genetic differences. I suppose you have a bunch
Speaker 1: of seeds that are vary genetically for how tall plants
Speaker 1: are going to be, and you plant them in really
Speaker 1: excellent soil, and some plants wind up taller than others,
Speaker 1: and that they're all in the same soil, the same
Speaker 1: good soil, and some wind up taller than others, and
Speaker 1: that's genetic variation in the seeds. You then take the
Speaker 1: same handful of seeds or another handful out of the
Speaker 1: same population and plant them in sand. Well, two things
Speaker 1: are going to happen. First of all, they're all going
Speaker 1: to be shorter, we all know that. But they're also
Speaker 1: going to be less varied because they're all going to
Speaker 1: be stunted. Even the seeds that had the genetic potential
Speaker 1: to produce tall plants in the good soil are going
Speaker 1: to wind up stunted. And of course if the soil
Speaker 1: is bad enough, they're not going to grow at all.
Speaker 1: So it makes sense that individuals need a reasonably supportive
Speaker 1: and vironment in order to express their genetic variability. And
Speaker 1: if people are in an environment that doesn't permit them
Speaker 1: to seek out the environments that they can use to support,
Speaker 1: as you said, who they're going to become, well, then
Speaker 1: that's going to cut down on the variability. And with
Speaker 1: heritability as a way of describing variability, so you know,
Speaker 1: I think that's what's going on. Then you can take
Speaker 1: a kid who has the potential to be a genius
Speaker 1: and raise that kid in an environment with a different
Speaker 1: family and crummy schools and a terrible neighborhood, and that
Speaker 1: kid is not going to be able to find the
Speaker 1: resources to help him or her become really, really smart.
Speaker 1: And so it's a leveler. I say the rest of
Speaker 1: this podcast, let's talk about the most controversial topics, because
Speaker 1: I think that's it feels right to transition into those now.
Speaker 1: So when we talk about sees the cause of SES
Speaker 1: differences in this idea, you know, Charles Murray has the
Speaker 1: CTD of the cognitive elite as kind of being a reason. Now,
Speaker 1: it's a reasonable thing to say that there are IQ
Speaker 1: differences between different SES groups. Just to say that is reasonable,
Speaker 1: But to me, it seems to ignore all the you know,
Speaker 1: it kind of puts too much focus on this one variable,
Speaker 1: you know, when there are so many other variable one
Speaker 1: could pick any one variable and write a whole book
Speaker 1: of assigned the key causal role to that barrier. It
Speaker 1: doesn't see intelligence as part of the network of good
Speaker 1: things that happen to people when they're in a successful
Speaker 1: society and have resources. It sees them as the cause
Speaker 1: for why they're in that position. In the first place.
Speaker 1: And you know, it brings us back to just everything
Speaker 1: we were talking about the beginning. That g is this
Speaker 1: property that exists inside people and causes them to express
Speaker 1: all those good things that happen to them. That's the
Speaker 1: Bell curve basically. And like you say, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not a I don't think that's a crazy idea or
Speaker 1: a evil idea particularly. I just think it's wrong. I
Speaker 1: just think it mischaracterizes the role that intelligence actually plays
Speaker 1: in life. It's not the inner causal agent that causes
Speaker 1: any more than health is to say. You know, like
Speaker 1: you say, you could talk about there's a health elite, right,
Speaker 1: not even health. We could add to this list any trait.
Speaker 1: We could say aggression. Let's take aggression. I've seen some
Speaker 1: fabulous research come out recently by Daniel Nettell and others
Speaker 1: from an evolutionary point of you're showing just minor social
Speaker 1: economic changes you make that reduce the aggression level significantly.
Speaker 1: Now in some studies, I've seen their aggresion levels produced
Speaker 1: so much that there's no difference anymore between well SS
Speaker 1: and high SS. Once you make some minor system wide
Speaker 1: tweaks to a really unstable and harsh environment, that people
Speaker 1: are living in. So one could make argument they are
Speaker 1: the way they are because they have low impulsivity, because
Speaker 1: they have aggression. But if you instead view it as
Speaker 1: the smaller we're talking about as these are all outcome
Speaker 1: indicators kind of barometer, a barometer of what environmental experiences
Speaker 1: interacting with genes that we all have, that any of
Speaker 1: us could become in a way with certain environment Christians,
Speaker 1: that's a different way of thinking about it, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a much more complex way of thinking about it,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't locate all the causation in one particular variable.
Speaker 1: So let's go to the most controversial topic. Let's go
Speaker 1: right there. Okay, race differences in IQ. Now, look again,
Speaker 1: it is not an unreasonable thing to say that there
Speaker 1: are race differences in average IQ scores between whites and blacks.
Speaker 1: That's just an observation fact. And that gap does not
Speaker 1: seemed to narrow in the past twenty five years. Okay,
Speaker 1: I narrowed a little bit. It's not a topic I'm
Speaker 1: an expert on, but some of my common co authors,
Speaker 1: Jim Plann, dick nisbet Bill Dickens, who know more about
Speaker 1: that than I do, I think, argue very persuasively that
Speaker 1: it's down by a third over the last thirty four years. Okay,
Speaker 1: so it's down, but there's still exists. Way, it hasn't
Speaker 1: gone away. Okay, now there, and then there's the other question,
Speaker 1: what are the causal forces? Just we have the same
Speaker 1: discussion about sees Lyell and let's you know, we could
Speaker 1: talk about group. Okay. The thing about this issue is
Speaker 1: that Okay, so first of all, we know that just
Speaker 1: because IQ is heritable, there's nothing in what we learn
Speaker 1: about the hritle bit of IQ that can be directly
Speaker 1: applied to understanding whether or not genes explain the difference
Speaker 1: between blacks and whites. So we can have a whole
Speaker 1: discussion as we are having on this podcast, agreeing that yes,
Speaker 1: there is a genetic contribution to individual differences in IQ
Speaker 1: in the general population, and that doesn't have anything to
Speaker 1: say about whether or not to the extent to which
Speaker 1: genes explain differences between different groups. Now, do are we
Speaker 1: grid in that as well? Absolutely? So here's a question
Speaker 1: I have is racist social construction. Does it make sense
Speaker 1: even in the first place, to look for genetic environmental
Speaker 1: factors that explain difference between whites and blacks in America. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not sure I have the same You
Speaker 1: ask two questions, and I'm not sure I have the
Speaker 1: same answer to both of them. The first one is
Speaker 1: race to social construction, and the second doesn't make sense
Speaker 1: to talk about genetic environmental great point, because one could
Speaker 1: be yes, the other one can be right yes as well.
Speaker 1: I'm a moderate sort of on that whole social construction business.
Speaker 1: And in some funny way, that's a question that people
Speaker 1: have argued about for so long, and it doesn't really
Speaker 1: seem very complicated to me. In a way. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of things that we know are true. The
Speaker 1: human evolutionary story is a real thing, and we know
Speaker 1: a lot about where human beings came from and how
Speaker 1: they came out of Africa and how they spread around
Speaker 1: the globe over a very very long evolutionary time span.
Speaker 1: It's also the case that in more recent times, people
Speaker 1: who live together in certain parts of the world are
Speaker 1: more genetically related to each other. People who live in
Speaker 1: Lithuania and think of themselves as Lithuanians are more like
Speaker 1: each other than they are like Japanese people who are
Speaker 1: like each other, and so it's not like the difference
Speaker 1: between Japanese people and Lithuanians. Is this imaginary social thing
Speaker 1: that we made up. There's biological reality, but the evolutionary
Speaker 1: story and the geographical sorting of people around the world
Speaker 1: is by and large continuous and dynamic. There aren't bright
Speaker 1: lines dividing groups of people Lithuanians from Slovs. From those
Speaker 1: lines that we impose on that biological reality are yes,
Speaker 1: socially constructed. Now does that make them wrong? No? Does
Speaker 1: it make them useless? No? It makes them artificial boundaries
Speaker 1: that we impose on a very complex biological reality. So
Speaker 1: one more example, just to make the point that I
Speaker 1: was just thinking about. It's a kind of a trivial example,
Speaker 1: but I think it gets the point. Ski slopes are
Speaker 1: very complicated things. They differ in slope, they differ in
Speaker 1: how many moguls they have, they differ in how long
Speaker 1: they are, they differ in how narrow they are, all
Speaker 1: sorts of things, and there are all sorts of ways
Speaker 1: we could think about the difficulty of ski slopes. But
Speaker 1: what do we do. We come up with yellow, blue,
Speaker 1: and black, and we classify ski slopes as though there
Speaker 1: were just three kinds yellow, blue and black. Now, if
Speaker 1: we ask, are there really three kinds of ski slopes
Speaker 1: in the world and only three kinds of ski slopes?
Speaker 1: Of course not right. Ski slopes are much more complicated
Speaker 1: than that. But sometimes under some circumstances, it's useful to
Speaker 1: break them up in these those groups, as long as
Speaker 1: we remember that the three part and the exact borderline
Speaker 1: between yellow and blue is not given by nature. That's
Speaker 1: something that we do. So that's the answer to that
Speaker 1: A too long answer to the is it a social
Speaker 1: construction question? Should I go on to looking for intelligence difference? No,
Speaker 1: because I want to talk about the nittigree of this
Speaker 1: now again. I refer people for a really nuanced review
Speaker 1: of the current state of evidence. I refer people to
Speaker 1: read Nicholas mcintosha's second edition of IQ and Human Intelligence.
Speaker 1: He's a whole chapter on this, and I was say,
Speaker 1: in a nutshell, after reviewing carefully all the evidence, there
Speaker 1: is no good evidence that genes whatsoever play a role
Speaker 1: in explaining differences between blacks and whites. The perspective I'm
Speaker 1: coming from is, you know, education is such a crucial
Speaker 1: gateway to opportunities in life. When I see the evidence
Speaker 1: that blacks and whites differ on average in educational attainment
Speaker 1: standardized test scores. Things like this, I immediately go into
Speaker 1: like intervention mode, like I want to know, like what
Speaker 1: are the whole causal factors? What are the things we
Speaker 1: can do to change the culture, perhaps in some ways
Speaker 1: to motivate show people who are in low sees environments,
Speaker 1: for those who are difficult circumstances, that there's a future
Speaker 1: for them. And all these factors have been shown to
Speaker 1: help reduce the gap, little by little, lots of little
Speaker 1: factors add up. Now the question is, even if they
Speaker 1: don't all add up one hundred percent? To explain the differences,
Speaker 1: I have this so what question? And Charles Murray was
Speaker 1: recently on the Sam Harris podcast As You Know, and
Speaker 1: Sam Harris asked him, you know, the so what question?
Speaker 1: And the only answer Charles Murray had to the purpose
Speaker 1: of finding out detaining the genetic information was implications for
Speaker 1: college entrants for you know, And I don't feel like
Speaker 1: I understood whatsoever. I still left that podcast not understanding
Speaker 1: the so what question? Can you convince me at all
Speaker 1: that there's any practically meaningful societal other than just knowledge
Speaker 1: for the sake of knowledge of knowing that even like
Speaker 1: five percent of the differences between different groups can be
Speaker 1: not one hundred percent deterministic but are influenced by gene differences.
Speaker 1: I have, again, I've complicated feelings about this. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: not one who would think that there's ever a valid
Speaker 1: scientific reality out there that we shouldn't go to because
Speaker 1: the consequences are bad and we don't see the utility.
Speaker 1: I mean, And in addition, as a practical matter, I
Speaker 1: think it's generally impossible to keep those genies in the
Speaker 1: bottle anyway. And if it's true and real, sooner or
Speaker 1: later it's going to out and everybody's going to know
Speaker 1: it anyway. So and I guess I do think that
Speaker 1: for something that is on a sound theoretical footing and
Speaker 1: has real meaning and it's true, we should go there.
Speaker 1: And so I actually don't like the defense against genetically
Speaker 1: based race differences, which says this is a bad thing there,
Speaker 1: nothing good can come of it. Why should we know it?
Speaker 1: I mean, if it were true and if it made sense,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it makes sense, it's going to
Speaker 1: happen anyway. By the way, I agree, I don't think
Speaker 1: that knowledge should be censored and I encourage more research
Speaker 1: on whatever someone wants to research. So I want to
Speaker 1: be very clear about that. My question, the so what
Speaker 1: question I'm asking is not the so what in terms
Speaker 1: of like we shouldn't be doing the research. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, the so what is like I've been asking
Speaker 1: so what a lot today, Like when we talked about
Speaker 1: the fact that i Q might be heritable, Well, how
Speaker 1: does that help me, as an individual think about what
Speaker 1: is possible within me? So my question is people act
Speaker 1: as though it'd be so forbidden if we found that
Speaker 1: some small proportion of race differences was correlated with genetic differences.
Speaker 1: But I'm trying to say, is even if we gosh
Speaker 1: forbid found that, would that change change? I think would
Speaker 1: be really bad. Frankly, tell me more, because what would it?
Speaker 1: I mean again, I ultimately don't think this concept of
Speaker 1: genetically based differences between groups makes any sense, and it
Speaker 1: makes me nervous about talking about the consequences as though
Speaker 1: it did make sense. But if we really knew that
Speaker 1: an entire group, the only thing I can imagine that
Speaker 1: meaning that statement meaning is that this group of people
Speaker 1: has lower IQ than that group of people, and there's
Speaker 1: nothing you can do about it. That's not what that
Speaker 1: would mean, right, Well, I think would If it doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that, then what sense does it make to say
Speaker 1: that the mean difference is based in the genes, right,
Speaker 1: If you can make it go way environmentally, then it
Speaker 1: wasn't based in the genes in the first place. We
Speaker 1: really don't know that because of the genes an individual
Speaker 1: has that there's a limitation to what their IQ could
Speaker 1: be under any possible environment that we could expose them to.
Speaker 1: We don't know that short of them having some major
Speaker 1: genetic disorder or something. And actually, I think that's a
Speaker 1: very important idea that it's very important that we know
Speaker 1: basically at asolutely nothing about the biology of why some
Speaker 1: people are smarter than others from a genetic point of view,
Speaker 1: because that really means that, as a matter of potential,
Speaker 1: our malleability is practically unlimited. And it brings us back
Speaker 1: to your original point that knowing that intelligence is heritable
Speaker 1: does not put a limit on the malleability of that intelligence. Right. So,
Speaker 1: if what you said is true that the heritability of
Speaker 1: IQ is independent of the malleability of IQ, it's not
Speaker 1: the case that printing out my genome when I was born,
Speaker 1: gives you information that allows you to say that it's
Speaker 1: impossible that the world might have turned me into a
Speaker 1: Nobel Prize winner much smarter than I actually am. And
Speaker 1: what we know about group differences in intelligence is that
Speaker 1: the magnitude of them is smaller than we absolutely know
Speaker 1: the malleability of intelligence to be in a number of ways,
Speaker 1: that when children are adopted out of poor homes into
Speaker 1: well off homes, the amount of change in their IQs
Speaker 1: is larger than the modern difference between blacks and whites.
Speaker 1: The difference in the average iq of white people in
Speaker 1: the United States now and white people in the United
Speaker 1: States in nineteen fifty is larger than the difference between
Speaker 1: blacks and whites. So that we know, we know that
Speaker 1: average IQs are malleable well within the range of that difference.
Speaker 1: So knowing that, I simply don't see how it makes sense.
Speaker 1: And you know, and when you were talking before about
Speaker 1: mining to turnout, well that it's just a few percent,
Speaker 1: just five percent, the whole percent thing, which is problematic
Speaker 1: enough at the individual level, it makes no sense at
Speaker 1: all at the group level. There is no group heritability
Speaker 1: coefficient that can come out to be equal to a
Speaker 1: particular number. If you go look at the articles the
Speaker 1: very by the people who really believe in genetic differences
Speaker 1: between the races, and in their own way take a
Speaker 1: very scholarly and serious approach to the problem. It's not
Speaker 1: like they're listing studies and saying this one shows that
Speaker 1: it's twelve percent heritable, and this one shows that it's
Speaker 1: twenty eight percent heritable. Because there's no mathematical model to
Speaker 1: produce those numbers, the idea of the group difference being
Speaker 1: x percent heritable doesn't make sense in terms, there's no
Speaker 1: quantitative genetics that produces those numbers. One more and then
Speaker 1: I'll stop, because I think this is the key important idea.
Speaker 1: You know, if it made sense that groups might differ
Speaker 1: in complex behavior, that the groups like different complex behavior
Speaker 1: in a way that's partially in some percentage, wouldn't it
Speaker 1: be the case that there were other group differences in
Speaker 1: behavior that we'd already figured out. You know that Japanese
Speaker 1: people are more introverted than people from the Dominican Republic.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, and we've done some research and it turns
Speaker 1: out that's genetic. On the other hand, you know, Chinese
Speaker 1: people are better table tennis players than people from Kenya,
Speaker 1: And hey, how do you like that we did the
Speaker 1: research and that turns out to be environmental? Right, there's
Speaker 1: not a single complex human trait that has ever been
Speaker 1: shown to be genetic or environmental in any proportion, because
Speaker 1: to me, it's not really an empirical question. The empirical
Speaker 1: question is how malleable are these things? And to the
Speaker 1: extent we know they're malleable, and things are way more
Speaker 1: malleable than we think, to the extent they're malleable, we
Speaker 1: can't prove that they're fixed genetically. Eric, I love that point.
Speaker 1: I want to end on the point that the idea
Speaker 1: of how niable things is a separate issue. I think
Speaker 1: that's a theme of this whole discussion today, separate issue
Speaker 1: from what's the herod ability? Explit good? And I want
Speaker 1: to leave for the last thirty seconds on a very
Speaker 1: personal note. I don't want to belabor it, but I
Speaker 1: would be remiss not to say that I personally saw
Speaker 1: what it was like to grow up with people expecting
Speaker 1: very low things from you because of your IQ score,
Speaker 1: because of a learning disability and auditory learning disability. I
Speaker 1: had a very low measured IQ and that really I
Speaker 1: was labeled a slow learner, and it really did affect
Speaker 1: how people looked at me and treated me, and then
Speaker 1: it affected my own self esteem and then what I did.
Speaker 1: And it took a couple of people to really believe
Speaker 1: in me and kind of look past the labels before
Speaker 1: I was inspired to see what I was capable of achieving.
Speaker 1: So I want to just say that some of these
Speaker 1: researchers might want to spend some time digging more into
Speaker 1: different perspectives. I look forward to reading your book. It
Speaker 1: looks fascinating. Thank you so much for such an interesting
Speaker 1: chat today. Okay, good, that was a pleasure. Thanks very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the chat. Have a good day. Okay, yep,
Speaker 1: I'll be in touch. Bye bye. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: The Psychology Podcast with doctor Scott barrk Kaufman. I hope
Speaker 1: you found this episode just as thought per booking and
Speaker 1: interesting as I did. If you'd like to read the
Speaker 1: show notes for this episode or hear past episodes, you
Speaker 1: can visit the Psychology Podcast dot com.