WEBVTT - Ep25 "Why are we so easy to fool?"

0:00:05.160 --> 0:00:09.720
<v Speaker 1>Why are we humans so easy to deceive? What are

0:00:09.800 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 1>the tricks of the trade, and how can we train

0:00:12.600 --> 0:00:16.640
<v Speaker 1>ourselves to be more aware of these? And what does

0:00:16.680 --> 0:00:20.240
<v Speaker 1>any of this have to do with fahnose or forging

0:00:20.320 --> 0:00:28.200
<v Speaker 1>letters or the shell game. Welcome to Inner Cosmos with

0:00:28.320 --> 0:00:31.400
<v Speaker 1>me David Eagleman. I'm a neuroscientist and an author at

0:00:31.440 --> 0:00:36.159
<v Speaker 1>Stanford and in these episodes, I examine the intersection between

0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:41.920
<v Speaker 1>our brains and our lives, and today's episode is about deception.

0:00:49.800 --> 0:00:53.559
<v Speaker 1>You presumably wouldn't do something to cheat a stranger out

0:00:53.600 --> 0:00:56.760
<v Speaker 1>of twenty dollars, So why are there people who would

0:00:56.960 --> 0:00:57.279
<v Speaker 1>do that?

0:00:57.720 --> 0:00:59.200
<v Speaker 2>And what can we do.

0:00:59.560 --> 0:01:04.120
<v Speaker 1>To be a little more thoughtful and aware and immune

0:01:04.440 --> 0:01:09.080
<v Speaker 1>against deception? So in a previous episode I talked about

0:01:09.120 --> 0:01:13.000
<v Speaker 1>a really impactful event when I was a neuroscience graduate

0:01:13.040 --> 0:01:16.480
<v Speaker 1>student getting my PhD. I was a second year student

0:01:16.520 --> 0:01:19.480
<v Speaker 1>in the department and this new young woman came in

0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:22.560
<v Speaker 1>as a first year student. We'll call her Tanya, and

0:01:22.640 --> 0:01:26.720
<v Speaker 1>everyone could see that Tanya was great. She had great grades,

0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:31.480
<v Speaker 1>top standardized test scores, terrific letters of recommendation, and in

0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:35.560
<v Speaker 1>the interviews she even won over my graduate advisor, who

0:01:35.640 --> 0:01:39.440
<v Speaker 1>was famously spiky towards people. And I tell her full

0:01:39.480 --> 0:01:42.920
<v Speaker 1>story in episode sixteen, but the short version is that

0:01:43.000 --> 0:01:47.480
<v Speaker 1>she faked everything on her graduate school application. She faked

0:01:47.720 --> 0:01:52.240
<v Speaker 1>the school transcript and the GRE scores and the letters

0:01:52.240 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 1>of recommendation, and she was only caught because an administrator

0:01:56.840 --> 0:01:59.520
<v Speaker 1>at the school was so impressed with her that she

0:01:59.640 --> 0:02:03.040
<v Speaker 1>decided to call the professors who had written the letters

0:02:03.080 --> 0:02:06.880
<v Speaker 1>of recommendation to ask how they'd produced a student like Tanya.

0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:11.360
<v Speaker 1>And that's how the whole house of cards came tumbling down. Now,

0:02:11.400 --> 0:02:14.359
<v Speaker 1>for those of you who listened to episode sixteen, you'll

0:02:14.400 --> 0:02:19.160
<v Speaker 1>remember that Tanya's story then got much weirder because she

0:02:19.280 --> 0:02:22.200
<v Speaker 1>went to Yale University and tried to pull exactly the

0:02:22.240 --> 0:02:25.079
<v Speaker 1>same trick, and when she was caught there, they put

0:02:25.080 --> 0:02:28.320
<v Speaker 1>her in jail. And then she and her mother got

0:02:28.360 --> 0:02:32.440
<v Speaker 1>caught doing a drug deal with two undercover agents. And

0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:36.720
<v Speaker 1>then Tanya decided to try murdering a girl who looked

0:02:36.800 --> 0:02:40.480
<v Speaker 1>vaguely like her to avoid going to prison. Now that

0:02:40.600 --> 0:02:43.800
<v Speaker 1>plot failed, but only barely. So that's the quick recap

0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:46.079
<v Speaker 1>of the story. But the part I want to concentrate

0:02:46.120 --> 0:02:50.400
<v Speaker 1>on today is why did none of us see this coming?

0:02:50.919 --> 0:02:53.680
<v Speaker 1>We all thought she was great. And this was a

0:02:53.840 --> 0:02:59.000
<v Speaker 1>neuroscience graduate program full of people who were aspiring learners

0:02:59.040 --> 0:03:03.120
<v Speaker 1>about the human brain and faculty who were presumably already

0:03:03.400 --> 0:03:06.320
<v Speaker 1>experts in the brain. And yet every single one of

0:03:06.400 --> 0:03:09.639
<v Speaker 1>us thought that Tanya was great. None of us even

0:03:09.680 --> 0:03:13.799
<v Speaker 1>had the briefest glimpse of doubt or suspicion when she

0:03:13.919 --> 0:03:19.240
<v Speaker 1>started school, And we were all maximally surprised when we

0:03:19.280 --> 0:03:22.200
<v Speaker 1>saw how completely we had been fooled.

0:03:23.120 --> 0:03:25.120
<v Speaker 2>So why were we so blind?

0:03:26.200 --> 0:03:29.280
<v Speaker 1>Well, first of all, none of us would have thought

0:03:29.360 --> 0:03:33.360
<v Speaker 1>about faking our transcripts and writing fake letters and so on.

0:03:33.440 --> 0:03:34.160
<v Speaker 3>That kind of.

0:03:34.720 --> 0:03:40.040
<v Speaker 1>Deception didn't exist in our mental models, and so it

0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 1>was totally invisible to us when it was sitting there

0:03:42.680 --> 0:03:45.440
<v Speaker 1>right in front of us. And one of the themes

0:03:45.480 --> 0:03:48.040
<v Speaker 1>of this podcast and of my next book is that

0:03:48.480 --> 0:03:52.280
<v Speaker 1>we need to get better at seeing outside the garden

0:03:52.320 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 1>walls of our own internal models. This is really what

0:03:56.760 --> 0:04:01.840
<v Speaker 1>the passage into maturity is about, seeing the limitations of

0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:06.200
<v Speaker 1>our own thinking and realizing that what's going on in

0:04:06.240 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 1>someone else's head might be very different than what's going

0:04:10.000 --> 0:04:13.640
<v Speaker 1>on inside hours even if we're not the kind of

0:04:13.720 --> 0:04:18.240
<v Speaker 1>person to do something, even if it seems absolutely unimaginable

0:04:18.279 --> 0:04:20.200
<v Speaker 1>to us, it doesn't mean that.

0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:21.560
<v Speaker 2>It seems that way to someone else.

0:04:22.080 --> 0:04:24.560
<v Speaker 1>And if you heard episodes twenty and twenty one, you'll

0:04:24.560 --> 0:04:27.159
<v Speaker 1>know that we dove into some of the really awful

0:04:27.200 --> 0:04:31.480
<v Speaker 1>things that happened during wartime. And again, just because you

0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:35.880
<v Speaker 1>can't imagine hacking your neighbors to death with a machete

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:39.360
<v Speaker 1>or shooting your neighbors or bayonetting them, it doesn't mean

0:04:39.880 --> 0:04:44.880
<v Speaker 1>that someone else can't imagine that and won't foment violence

0:04:44.960 --> 0:04:48.800
<v Speaker 1>without having much compunction about it. So an understanding of

0:04:49.040 --> 0:04:55.440
<v Speaker 1>history requires an expansion of our mental models, and that's

0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:59.520
<v Speaker 1>what's required for navigating day to day life as well,

0:04:59.600 --> 0:05:03.719
<v Speaker 1>because if not everyone is just like you on the inside.

0:05:03.800 --> 0:05:09.000
<v Speaker 1>For example, psychopaths make up about one percent of the population,

0:05:09.520 --> 0:05:11.240
<v Speaker 1>and by the way, they make up about twenty to

0:05:11.240 --> 0:05:15.880
<v Speaker 1>thirty percent of the prison population. They don't care about you,

0:05:15.920 --> 0:05:18.960
<v Speaker 1>they don't simulate what it is like to be you,

0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:22.320
<v Speaker 1>and they can be violent towards you because they just

0:05:22.400 --> 0:05:25.320
<v Speaker 1>see you as an obstacle to.

0:05:25.400 --> 0:05:27.080
<v Speaker 2>Flow around to get what they want.

0:05:27.520 --> 0:05:30.240
<v Speaker 1>And I'm going to do an episode on psychopathy soon,

0:05:30.279 --> 0:05:31.839
<v Speaker 1>but the point I want to make right now is

0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:35.520
<v Speaker 1>that if you are not a psychopath, this is very

0:05:35.520 --> 0:05:39.120
<v Speaker 1>difficult to imagine someone behaving that way. But you'll be

0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:43.040
<v Speaker 1>smarter in your daily life if you understand how other

0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:47.160
<v Speaker 1>people can be different from you. Now, sometimes people are

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:50.279
<v Speaker 1>different in wonderful ways, like when you see some situation

0:05:50.960 --> 0:05:53.960
<v Speaker 1>in which someone is braver than you, or just more

0:05:54.080 --> 0:05:57.680
<v Speaker 1>charitable with a higher percentage of their money, or more

0:05:57.800 --> 0:06:00.599
<v Speaker 1>willing to do the right thing, like to climb the

0:06:00.680 --> 0:06:03.560
<v Speaker 1>side of a building to save the toddler hanging off

0:06:03.600 --> 0:06:07.080
<v Speaker 1>the balcony, even though you would be more scared. But

0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:11.160
<v Speaker 1>sometimes we see people different from us in the other direction,

0:06:11.279 --> 0:06:15.200
<v Speaker 1>people who cheat and lie and steal, and it's hard

0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:17.640
<v Speaker 1>to understand because we don't have a good model of that,

0:06:17.800 --> 0:06:21.920
<v Speaker 1>and so we're often caught completely by surprise. I'll give

0:06:21.960 --> 0:06:24.640
<v Speaker 1>you an example of this when I was young. When

0:06:24.680 --> 0:06:27.880
<v Speaker 1>I was sixteen years old, I was traveling with my

0:06:28.000 --> 0:06:31.800
<v Speaker 1>parents in Barcelona, and I was spending an afternoon walking

0:06:31.800 --> 0:06:34.880
<v Speaker 1>around by myself, and I saw a crowd of people

0:06:34.920 --> 0:06:38.400
<v Speaker 1>playing a shell game. You know, this is the game

0:06:38.440 --> 0:06:41.839
<v Speaker 1>where a person puts a small ball under one of

0:06:41.920 --> 0:06:45.120
<v Speaker 1>three cups and then rotates the cups around and around

0:06:45.640 --> 0:06:48.360
<v Speaker 1>and then you have to guess which cup the ball

0:06:48.440 --> 0:06:52.040
<v Speaker 1>is under. So I stopped to watch because there was

0:06:52.080 --> 0:06:55.760
<v Speaker 1>a small crowd and the dealer was moving the cups around,

0:06:55.839 --> 0:06:58.280
<v Speaker 1>and there was this pedestrian like me who had put

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:02.320
<v Speaker 1>down some money. And pedestrian watched the cups go around

0:07:02.360 --> 0:07:04.919
<v Speaker 1>and round, and when they stopped, he pointed to a

0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:06.160
<v Speaker 1>cup and it was.

0:07:06.120 --> 0:07:06.960
<v Speaker 2>The wrong cup.

0:07:07.600 --> 0:07:10.200
<v Speaker 1>But I could see where the cups had moved, and

0:07:10.280 --> 0:07:12.240
<v Speaker 1>I knew it was the cup on the left, but

0:07:12.280 --> 0:07:15.400
<v Speaker 1>this pedestrian pointed to the middle. So the dealer uncovered

0:07:15.440 --> 0:07:18.400
<v Speaker 1>the middle cup, and the whole crowd made a whooping sound,

0:07:18.800 --> 0:07:21.520
<v Speaker 1>and so the pedestrian put down more money to play

0:07:21.560 --> 0:07:24.800
<v Speaker 1>another round, and the dealer shows the ball under the

0:07:24.880 --> 0:07:27.680
<v Speaker 1>left cup, and then he rotates the cups around faster

0:07:27.720 --> 0:07:30.800
<v Speaker 1>and faster, but I kept my eyes locked on the

0:07:30.800 --> 0:07:34.520
<v Speaker 1>correct cup, and again the pedestrian guessed wrong, but I

0:07:34.600 --> 0:07:37.160
<v Speaker 1>knew where the ball was. So this happens a few

0:07:37.200 --> 0:07:40.760
<v Speaker 1>more rounds, and the pedestrian gives up, and the dealer

0:07:40.840 --> 0:07:42.920
<v Speaker 1>looks at me and motions for me to put up

0:07:42.960 --> 0:07:45.960
<v Speaker 1>some money, so I did so he shows me the

0:07:45.960 --> 0:07:48.600
<v Speaker 1>ball and rotates the cups around and around, and I

0:07:48.760 --> 0:07:50.560
<v Speaker 1>keep my eye on it, and when he stops, I

0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:54.679
<v Speaker 1>point to the correct cup and the cup was empty.

0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:57.960
<v Speaker 2>I got it wrong, what was going on?

0:07:58.160 --> 0:08:00.240
<v Speaker 1>So he motions for me to put down more money,

0:08:00.280 --> 0:08:02.840
<v Speaker 1>and I want to win my lost money back, so

0:08:02.880 --> 0:08:05.520
<v Speaker 1>I put down more and he runs the rotations again,

0:08:05.800 --> 0:08:08.200
<v Speaker 1>and I point to the cup where the ball should be,

0:08:08.680 --> 0:08:12.440
<v Speaker 1>and again it's empty. And before I know it, someone

0:08:12.440 --> 0:08:14.640
<v Speaker 1>in the crowd makes a whoop sound, and suddenly the

0:08:14.680 --> 0:08:17.840
<v Speaker 1>dealer folds up the board and the entire crowd disappears,

0:08:18.440 --> 0:08:21.280
<v Speaker 1>and I'm standing there all by myself in the street,

0:08:21.360 --> 0:08:24.160
<v Speaker 1>and I felt like such a fool because I had

0:08:24.200 --> 0:08:27.280
<v Speaker 1>just been deceived. Now this is embarrassing for me to

0:08:27.320 --> 0:08:29.520
<v Speaker 1>tell the story, and even all these years later, there

0:08:29.600 --> 0:08:31.400
<v Speaker 1>is some pain in the remembrance.

0:08:31.720 --> 0:08:32.600
<v Speaker 3>But my hope in.

0:08:32.520 --> 0:08:36.480
<v Speaker 1>Relating the story is that at least one teenage listener

0:08:36.600 --> 0:08:39.840
<v Speaker 1>gets an expansion of their mental model from this and

0:08:40.120 --> 0:08:42.600
<v Speaker 1>doesn't have to play this game. Just in case you

0:08:42.600 --> 0:08:45.720
<v Speaker 1>don't know, there is no honest version of the shell game.

0:08:45.760 --> 0:08:49.040
<v Speaker 1>It's always performed by hucksters who use sleight of hand

0:08:49.080 --> 0:08:51.840
<v Speaker 1>to move the ball from one cup to another, and

0:08:51.880 --> 0:08:55.760
<v Speaker 1>the whole crowd is in on the deception. Now, when

0:08:55.800 --> 0:08:57.680
<v Speaker 1>I did some research on this, I found the shell

0:08:57.720 --> 0:09:01.480
<v Speaker 1>game is very old, so the game of people trying

0:09:01.520 --> 0:09:03.920
<v Speaker 1>to deceive other people is ancient.

0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:05.160
<v Speaker 3>Now.

0:09:05.240 --> 0:09:10.160
<v Speaker 1>Sometimes deception is planned in advance like this, and sometimes

0:09:10.200 --> 0:09:12.400
<v Speaker 1>people are just trying to get out of bad situation.

0:09:12.559 --> 0:09:15.800
<v Speaker 1>They make it worse. Sometimes it's hard to tell. I mean,

0:09:15.800 --> 0:09:18.800
<v Speaker 1>look at the company, Thearrhannos, which you've probably heard of.

0:09:18.840 --> 0:09:21.800
<v Speaker 1>They were a health tech company founded by a young

0:09:21.840 --> 0:09:25.280
<v Speaker 1>woman named Elizabeth Holmes, and they were out to develop

0:09:25.400 --> 0:09:29.720
<v Speaker 1>a biological test that could measure a whole bunch of

0:09:29.760 --> 0:09:33.240
<v Speaker 1>things using just a drop or two of blood. So

0:09:33.320 --> 0:09:37.240
<v Speaker 1>they raised seven hundred and twenty four million dollars from investors,

0:09:37.760 --> 0:09:41.880
<v Speaker 1>including the media mogul Robert Murdoch and former Secretary of

0:09:41.920 --> 0:09:45.560
<v Speaker 1>State Henry Kissinger, and all kinds of big players were

0:09:45.679 --> 0:09:51.080
<v Speaker 1>enthusiastic about this revolutionary technology. But this all came crashing

0:09:51.160 --> 0:09:55.480
<v Speaker 1>down in twenty fifteen when it surfaced that Sarahnos had

0:09:55.520 --> 0:09:59.680
<v Speaker 1>been lying about what their technology could do. Holmes was

0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:03.760
<v Speaker 1>charged with fraud and conspiracy, and she was found guilty

0:10:03.800 --> 0:10:06.960
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty two. Now you probably know this story,

0:10:06.960 --> 0:10:10.560
<v Speaker 1>but the interesting backside of this story is So many

0:10:10.600 --> 0:10:13.240
<v Speaker 1>people here in Silicon Valley have said things to me

0:10:13.840 --> 0:10:18.959
<v Speaker 1>suggesting that they would have never fallen for Farnos, like, oh,

0:10:19.000 --> 0:10:21.800
<v Speaker 1>I would have known right away that couldn't work. But

0:10:21.920 --> 0:10:25.480
<v Speaker 1>that's silly, and I generally don't believe them because it's

0:10:25.559 --> 0:10:28.960
<v Speaker 1>easy to get douped. And if the other people who

0:10:28.960 --> 0:10:31.200
<v Speaker 1>believe in it and invest in it and sit on

0:10:31.240 --> 0:10:35.079
<v Speaker 1>the board are billionaires and big shots, what's to make

0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:38.800
<v Speaker 1>you think that wouldn't have a great gravitational pull on you.

0:10:39.080 --> 0:10:41.400
<v Speaker 1>Because the truth is, when we look at things that

0:10:41.760 --> 0:10:45.320
<v Speaker 1>other people believe in, or even simply things that match

0:10:45.360 --> 0:10:51.120
<v Speaker 1>our expectations, we often don't do any further looking into it. Now,

0:10:51.120 --> 0:10:53.959
<v Speaker 1>this puts us in a tough spot because we have

0:10:54.080 --> 0:10:57.960
<v Speaker 1>to trust other people. We really have no choice, because

0:10:58.000 --> 0:11:01.839
<v Speaker 1>we can't disbelieve every thing or have time to check

0:11:01.880 --> 0:11:05.679
<v Speaker 1>on everything. So how do we work around this bias?

0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:08.880
<v Speaker 1>How can we take some of the tools of science,

0:11:09.320 --> 0:11:13.160
<v Speaker 1>which are all about clear thinking and import these into

0:11:13.200 --> 0:11:17.040
<v Speaker 1>our daily lives. Well, I'm no expert on this. I

0:11:17.080 --> 0:11:20.080
<v Speaker 1>often err on the side of believing everyone, but I

0:11:20.120 --> 0:11:24.360
<v Speaker 1>knew who to call. My colleagues Dan Simon's and Christopher

0:11:24.360 --> 0:11:27.959
<v Speaker 1>Shubrie recently wrote a terrific book all about deception called

0:11:28.360 --> 0:11:30.760
<v Speaker 1>Nobody's Fool. So I wrung them up.

0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:34.760
<v Speaker 4>The most interesting thing we found about what all the

0:11:34.800 --> 0:11:38.679
<v Speaker 4>cons and deceptions have in common is that the con artists,

0:11:38.760 --> 0:11:41.040
<v Speaker 4>the scammers, the swindlers, whatever you want to call them,

0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:44.800
<v Speaker 4>all seem to be taking advantage of sort of the

0:11:44.840 --> 0:11:50.920
<v Speaker 4>same set of our cognitive proclivities and our attentional biases.

0:11:50.960 --> 0:11:53.560
<v Speaker 4>What we like to pay attention to, what attracts us,

0:11:54.160 --> 0:11:58.520
<v Speaker 4>and what mistakes we tend to make, and decision making

0:11:58.559 --> 0:12:00.400
<v Speaker 4>that we may not be aware of.

0:12:01.080 --> 0:12:05.240
<v Speaker 1>That's Christopher Shabri, a professor of psychology and director of

0:12:05.320 --> 0:12:08.720
<v Speaker 1>Decision Sciences at Geisinger Research Institute.

0:12:08.760 --> 0:12:10.800
<v Speaker 4>They may not be consciously aware of, but somehow they

0:12:10.840 --> 0:12:13.840
<v Speaker 4>have sort of learned that adapted their schemes to things

0:12:13.920 --> 0:12:16.800
<v Speaker 4>that tend to exploit these loopholes in our thinking. Not

0:12:16.920 --> 0:12:21.959
<v Speaker 4>loopholes that are sort of design flaws necessarily, they're actually usually,

0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:24.440
<v Speaker 4>you know, good things about how we think. But when

0:12:24.440 --> 0:12:26.320
<v Speaker 4>someone is really trying to take advantage of us, they

0:12:26.320 --> 0:12:28.920
<v Speaker 4>can cleverly exploit those and gain the advantage.

0:12:29.360 --> 0:12:33.600
<v Speaker 1>So what are the important lessons for all of us

0:12:33.720 --> 0:12:36.760
<v Speaker 1>to think about? Given that I'd say there are a few,

0:12:37.840 --> 0:12:41.480
<v Speaker 1>and that's Dan Simons, a professor of psychology at the

0:12:41.600 --> 0:12:48.120
<v Speaker 1>University of Illinois. One is that we have a tendency

0:12:48.160 --> 0:12:52.400
<v Speaker 1>to assume that only the most gullible or naive or

0:12:52.800 --> 0:12:57.080
<v Speaker 1>uneducated people fall for scams. And that's partly because we

0:12:57.200 --> 0:13:00.959
<v Speaker 1>generally only see the results of cons and scams after

0:13:00.960 --> 0:13:03.000
<v Speaker 1>they're over right, So it's easy to see what the

0:13:03.000 --> 0:13:05.800
<v Speaker 1>red flags were when you knew it was a scam,

0:13:05.880 --> 0:13:08.240
<v Speaker 1>you found out it was a scam in the same

0:13:08.280 --> 0:13:12.160
<v Speaker 1>way that we can easily spot, you know, the obvious

0:13:12.200 --> 0:13:15.160
<v Speaker 1>ones in advance, things like the Nigerian prints email scam

0:13:15.160 --> 0:13:17.640
<v Speaker 1>that we know about. We can spot those red flags

0:13:17.679 --> 0:13:20.880
<v Speaker 1>because we've seen them before. But we tend to assume

0:13:20.880 --> 0:13:23.560
<v Speaker 1>that all scams prey on the people who are gullible.

0:13:23.840 --> 0:13:26.560
<v Speaker 1>And one of the key insights we've across all of

0:13:26.559 --> 0:13:29.320
<v Speaker 1>the sorts of scams that we've encountered is that scams

0:13:29.320 --> 0:13:32.800
<v Speaker 1>can affect anybody. Cons can affect anybody if they're targeted

0:13:33.080 --> 0:13:37.240
<v Speaker 1>in the right way to our wants and desires and needs. Yeah,

0:13:37.240 --> 0:13:39.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, I thought about this a lot with Sarahnos

0:13:40.160 --> 0:13:45.320
<v Speaker 1>here in Silicon Valley retrospectively, everyone acted like I would

0:13:45.320 --> 0:13:47.960
<v Speaker 1>have never fallen for that. But it's obvious that a

0:13:48.000 --> 0:13:51.560
<v Speaker 1>lot of good and smart people got sucked up into that,

0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:55.160
<v Speaker 1>And so how do you how do you interpret that? Well?

0:13:55.200 --> 0:13:58.119
<v Speaker 5>I think it's the way we see something like Sarahnose

0:13:58.600 --> 0:14:01.120
<v Speaker 5>is in hindsight, after the fact, in the same way

0:14:01.160 --> 0:14:03.040
<v Speaker 5>that we might watch a heist movie or a who

0:14:03.120 --> 0:14:05.839
<v Speaker 5>Done It movie, where we know there's a heist, right,

0:14:05.880 --> 0:14:08.520
<v Speaker 5>we know there's a con artist, we know that. In

0:14:09.760 --> 0:14:11.520
<v Speaker 5>the context of the movie, we know to look for

0:14:11.559 --> 0:14:14.120
<v Speaker 5>those red flags. We're trying to figure it out, and

0:14:14.280 --> 0:14:17.000
<v Speaker 5>the characters in the movie aren't. But when it's viewed

0:14:17.000 --> 0:14:20.360
<v Speaker 5>from the outside, it's kind of obvious, right, So Pharaohnose

0:14:20.480 --> 0:14:22.760
<v Speaker 5>after the fact, Yeah, there are lots of red flags

0:14:22.760 --> 0:14:24.880
<v Speaker 5>along the way, and they've been reported thoroughly, and it's

0:14:25.000 --> 0:14:28.040
<v Speaker 5>great narrative. But when you're immersed in it and you're

0:14:28.040 --> 0:14:30.360
<v Speaker 5>trying to figure out what's the next best investment or

0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:31.920
<v Speaker 5>what do I want to get in on really quick?

0:14:31.920 --> 0:14:34.520
<v Speaker 5>If you're a venture capitalist trying to kind of get

0:14:34.600 --> 0:14:37.320
<v Speaker 5>in on the next big thing, spotting all those red

0:14:37.320 --> 0:14:40.960
<v Speaker 5>flags is more difficult because you're incentivized to act with

0:14:41.040 --> 0:14:43.560
<v Speaker 5>efficiency and to try and catch things before they take

0:14:43.600 --> 0:14:46.480
<v Speaker 5>off and before people know about them. So those are

0:14:46.520 --> 0:14:49.440
<v Speaker 5>the contexts in which they're the marks, rather than watching

0:14:49.520 --> 0:14:51.520
<v Speaker 5>some interesting, engaging movie.

0:14:51.560 --> 0:14:54.320
<v Speaker 4>In the case of Pharaohose. Also, you know, there were

0:14:54.360 --> 0:14:57.200
<v Speaker 4>people who didn't invest and who didn't join the board

0:14:57.200 --> 0:14:59.040
<v Speaker 4>of directors and so on. They don't get as much

0:14:59.080 --> 0:15:02.800
<v Speaker 4>publicity as the unfortunate ones who did and look like

0:15:02.880 --> 0:15:05.800
<v Speaker 4>marks and suckers and so on in retrospect. But some

0:15:05.840 --> 0:15:09.760
<v Speaker 4>professional investors who specialized in biotech and healthcare investing, they

0:15:09.760 --> 0:15:13.200
<v Speaker 4>asked a lot more questions about the product, about the technology,

0:15:13.240 --> 0:15:15.640
<v Speaker 4>about clinical data, about all of that stuff, and then

0:15:16.080 --> 0:15:20.480
<v Speaker 4>they walked away. And I think one other important point

0:15:20.520 --> 0:15:22.480
<v Speaker 4>about their nose is I think, although I don't know,

0:15:22.480 --> 0:15:24.240
<v Speaker 4>because I'm not inside the heads of all those people,

0:15:24.280 --> 0:15:27.239
<v Speaker 4>but I think a lot of people didn't even consciously

0:15:27.400 --> 0:15:29.640
<v Speaker 4>consider the idea that there might have been a scam

0:15:29.720 --> 0:15:33.680
<v Speaker 4>or a fraud going on. Everything seemed good, everybody was optimistic,

0:15:33.760 --> 0:15:36.480
<v Speaker 4>there was a great vision. Little things that seem kind

0:15:36.480 --> 0:15:38.280
<v Speaker 4>of odd. Maybe you can explain away, this is just

0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:42.080
<v Speaker 4>a quirky company. The CEO is a little odd. You know, Well,

0:15:42.120 --> 0:15:43.840
<v Speaker 4>they've got all these famous people on the board. That

0:15:43.920 --> 0:15:47.240
<v Speaker 4>must be a good thing. Simply considering the possibility in

0:15:47.280 --> 0:15:49.760
<v Speaker 4>a big decision making situation that you maybe are being

0:15:49.800 --> 0:15:52.600
<v Speaker 4>scammed or there's something going on that you're not aware of,

0:15:53.080 --> 0:15:55.280
<v Speaker 4>you know, could be the first step towards like starting

0:15:55.280 --> 0:15:57.960
<v Speaker 4>to see those red flags or look for those red flags,

0:15:57.960 --> 0:16:00.280
<v Speaker 4>and maybe you can actually find some of them if

0:16:00.320 --> 0:16:02.480
<v Speaker 4>you were even thinking about the possibility that they might

0:16:02.520 --> 0:16:06.440
<v Speaker 4>be out there somewhere. We require a lot of trust

0:16:06.840 --> 0:16:09.440
<v Speaker 4>just to get by in life. And so how do

0:16:09.560 --> 0:16:13.120
<v Speaker 4>you guys think about striking a balance of trust and

0:16:13.160 --> 0:16:14.200
<v Speaker 4>a little bit of suspicion.

0:16:15.240 --> 0:16:17.760
<v Speaker 5>Well, trust is essential, right. In fact, we tend to

0:16:17.840 --> 0:16:21.560
<v Speaker 5>assume that when we hear something from somebody it's true

0:16:21.640 --> 0:16:23.960
<v Speaker 5>and until we take time to think about it otherwise.

0:16:24.000 --> 0:16:26.320
<v Speaker 5>And most of the time that's a great thing because

0:16:26.320 --> 0:16:29.120
<v Speaker 5>in most conversations, nobody's trying to lie to you. In

0:16:29.280 --> 0:16:31.840
<v Speaker 5>most interactions, nobody's trying to con you. I mean, the

0:16:31.880 --> 0:16:34.400
<v Speaker 5>odds of any of us being a victim of a

0:16:34.440 --> 0:16:37.200
<v Speaker 5>bernie made off or a their noose is pretty low.

0:16:37.680 --> 0:16:40.520
<v Speaker 5>The odds of any of us receiving fake information on

0:16:40.560 --> 0:16:43.240
<v Speaker 5>social media is pretty high. But we tend to be

0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:46.440
<v Speaker 5>trusting of the information we get, and it's a good

0:16:46.480 --> 0:16:47.000
<v Speaker 5>thing that we are.

0:16:47.120 --> 0:16:47.240
<v Speaker 4>Right.

0:16:47.240 --> 0:16:50.080
<v Speaker 5>If we were constantly skeptical of everything we encountered, we

0:16:50.080 --> 0:16:52.840
<v Speaker 5>could just never do anything. We could never have a conversation.

0:16:53.240 --> 0:16:56.440
<v Speaker 5>You can't check everything. You can't be a perpetual skeptic

0:16:56.520 --> 0:16:59.880
<v Speaker 5>or cynic about everything. You're not going to go check

0:17:00.720 --> 0:17:04.520
<v Speaker 5>in the grocery store if you buy an organic apple, right,

0:17:04.560 --> 0:17:05.840
<v Speaker 5>You're not going to go out to the farm and

0:17:05.840 --> 0:17:09.080
<v Speaker 5>make sure they didn't use any pesticides. Right, It's too much.

0:17:09.760 --> 0:17:12.120
<v Speaker 5>We can't really check that. We have to accept that

0:17:12.320 --> 0:17:13.960
<v Speaker 5>some of the time we're going to have to be trusting.

0:17:14.560 --> 0:17:16.240
<v Speaker 5>And the key is to kind of figure out when

0:17:16.280 --> 0:17:18.840
<v Speaker 5>are those times when we're at the greatest risk, When

0:17:18.880 --> 0:17:22.880
<v Speaker 5>are those times when the consequences could be bad enough

0:17:22.920 --> 0:17:24.520
<v Speaker 5>that we really would want to check and see if

0:17:24.520 --> 0:17:25.160
<v Speaker 5>we're being scammed.

0:17:25.840 --> 0:17:28.280
<v Speaker 2>So before we go on to some other topics, just

0:17:28.560 --> 0:17:31.719
<v Speaker 2>can you give a few examples of hoaxes or swindles

0:17:31.800 --> 0:17:35.720
<v Speaker 2>or scams so that our listeners can understand what we're

0:17:35.720 --> 0:17:36.240
<v Speaker 2>talking about.

0:17:37.480 --> 0:17:39.439
<v Speaker 4>I have a good one that I think a lot

0:17:39.440 --> 0:17:41.679
<v Speaker 4>of people probably haven't heard of, but they really should have,

0:17:42.200 --> 0:17:45.800
<v Speaker 4>which is called sometimes the president scam or the CEO scam,

0:17:46.000 --> 0:17:48.840
<v Speaker 4>and I didn't discover it. It's been it was going

0:17:48.880 --> 0:17:50.960
<v Speaker 4>on for a while and it was documented elsewhere. But

0:17:51.280 --> 0:17:53.560
<v Speaker 4>I think it's a great example of some of some

0:17:53.640 --> 0:17:59.000
<v Speaker 4>of the key ideas. So this French Israeli fraudster named

0:17:59.080 --> 0:18:03.920
<v Speaker 4>Jilbert Shickley developed a scam in which he would call

0:18:04.040 --> 0:18:08.040
<v Speaker 4>up sort of mid level employees of French companies, pretending

0:18:08.080 --> 0:18:11.760
<v Speaker 4>to be the CEO of the company, reaching down through

0:18:11.800 --> 0:18:13.880
<v Speaker 4>the ranks and calling up some middle manager and giving

0:18:13.920 --> 0:18:17.720
<v Speaker 4>them a task to do directly for him. And the

0:18:17.800 --> 0:18:21.359
<v Speaker 4>task always wound up in money being transferred directly to

0:18:21.440 --> 0:18:26.160
<v Speaker 4>some bank account or person or something like that, where

0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:28.280
<v Speaker 4>of course it wound up with Shickley and whoever his

0:18:28.359 --> 0:18:32.240
<v Speaker 4>associates were in their bank account somehow. And I think

0:18:32.240 --> 0:18:35.880
<v Speaker 4>it's kind of an audacious con because it's one guy

0:18:35.960 --> 0:18:38.360
<v Speaker 4>with a telephone calling people up who he's never met

0:18:38.400 --> 0:18:43.359
<v Speaker 4>before and talking them into essentially giving him a lot

0:18:43.400 --> 0:18:47.160
<v Speaker 4>of money. But it does illustrate sort of the idea

0:18:47.160 --> 0:18:49.280
<v Speaker 4>of truth bias that Dan was just talking about, that

0:18:49.720 --> 0:18:51.879
<v Speaker 4>if you don't believe that the person on the phone

0:18:51.920 --> 0:18:54.760
<v Speaker 4>is the CEO calling you, the whole thing goes nowhere.

0:18:55.200 --> 0:18:57.280
<v Speaker 4>But once you believe that, then the scam has a

0:18:57.359 --> 0:18:59.720
<v Speaker 4>chance to get through. And it also illustrates sort of

0:18:59.720 --> 0:19:02.640
<v Speaker 4>some of selection, sort of someone selection bias we see

0:19:02.640 --> 0:19:04.720
<v Speaker 4>in cons Like we hear about the ones that worked,

0:19:04.920 --> 0:19:06.399
<v Speaker 4>but we don't know about all the people who just

0:19:06.400 --> 0:19:08.560
<v Speaker 4>like hung up the phone or deleted the email when

0:19:08.600 --> 0:19:10.480
<v Speaker 4>he tried to talk to you know, to start talking

0:19:10.520 --> 0:19:12.680
<v Speaker 4>to them into it. Just like the millions and millions

0:19:12.720 --> 0:19:15.320
<v Speaker 4>of people who delete the Nigerian prints emails never get

0:19:15.320 --> 0:19:17.280
<v Speaker 4>it mentioned anywhere. You know, it's just a few people

0:19:17.320 --> 0:19:20.680
<v Speaker 4>who actually wind up going through with it. That CEO

0:19:20.800 --> 0:19:24.120
<v Speaker 4>scam or President scam went along for quite a long

0:19:24.160 --> 0:19:26.560
<v Speaker 4>time and sort of morphed and changed into different versions

0:19:26.600 --> 0:19:29.240
<v Speaker 4>where eventually people were pretending to be the Defense Minister

0:19:29.320 --> 0:19:34.520
<v Speaker 4>of France calling, you know, contacting wealthy individuals, especially with

0:19:34.600 --> 0:19:37.560
<v Speaker 4>French ties, and saying that the government of France needed

0:19:37.560 --> 0:19:41.919
<v Speaker 4>their help getting hostages, secret hostages out of Syria and

0:19:41.960 --> 0:19:44.720
<v Speaker 4>Pharmisis and so on, and wound up taking i think

0:19:44.760 --> 0:19:47.359
<v Speaker 4>something like eighty million dollars or eighty million euros in

0:19:47.400 --> 0:19:50.520
<v Speaker 4>total from a number of you know, French companies and

0:19:50.560 --> 0:19:53.240
<v Speaker 4>wealthy wealthy individuals by sort of similar tactics.

0:19:53.760 --> 0:19:55.719
<v Speaker 5>There's a new modern version of this which is much

0:19:55.800 --> 0:19:58.080
<v Speaker 5>dumber and much simpler. It doesn't require any sort of

0:19:58.080 --> 0:20:02.439
<v Speaker 5>sophisticated persuasion. People just send an email purportedly from the

0:20:02.440 --> 0:20:04.520
<v Speaker 5>boss of a company and saying, Hey, I'm in a

0:20:04.560 --> 0:20:06.480
<v Speaker 5>meeting right now, but I need to transfer these funds

0:20:06.520 --> 0:20:08.720
<v Speaker 5>right away or I need to close this sale. Can

0:20:08.760 --> 0:20:10.960
<v Speaker 5>you just go ahead and make this transfer for me?

0:20:11.680 --> 0:20:14.919
<v Speaker 5>And if the email happens to reach somebody who is

0:20:15.000 --> 0:20:18.159
<v Speaker 5>responsible for doing that, then they might go ahead and

0:20:18.200 --> 0:20:20.560
<v Speaker 5>do it without even double checking, when in reality the

0:20:20.560 --> 0:20:23.320
<v Speaker 5>money would just get paid to some other count of

0:20:23.320 --> 0:20:27.119
<v Speaker 5>the scammers. And this is so pervasive that I have

0:20:27.160 --> 0:20:29.560
<v Speaker 5>a cousin who teaches tennis. She runs a tennis club

0:20:29.600 --> 0:20:34.440
<v Speaker 5>and regularly gets her underlings. The other people teaching there

0:20:34.600 --> 0:20:37.879
<v Speaker 5>regularly get emails from her, not really from her, but

0:20:37.920 --> 0:20:40.119
<v Speaker 5>from her saying hey, I'm in a meeting, can you

0:20:40.200 --> 0:20:44.280
<v Speaker 5>run this? Can you make this payment? And her employees

0:20:44.520 --> 0:20:47.239
<v Speaker 5>and coworkers know that that's not true. She's pretty much

0:20:47.240 --> 0:20:49.720
<v Speaker 5>never in meetings, and they're not the sorts of people

0:20:49.720 --> 0:20:52.520
<v Speaker 5>who make purchases. But again, if you send it out

0:20:52.520 --> 0:20:55.119
<v Speaker 5>to enough people, you're going to happen to hit. Some

0:20:55.200 --> 0:20:57.359
<v Speaker 5>who in that moment are busy doing things are used

0:20:57.359 --> 0:20:59.119
<v Speaker 5>to getting emails from their boss asking them to do

0:20:59.160 --> 0:21:01.800
<v Speaker 5>something really quickly, and we'll go along with it without

0:21:01.880 --> 0:21:05.240
<v Speaker 5>questioning it. And this is a major source of business.

0:21:05.320 --> 0:21:05.560
<v Speaker 3>Run.

0:21:06.200 --> 0:21:09.000
<v Speaker 1>Do you guys have any other examples, just something that

0:21:09.240 --> 0:21:12.480
<v Speaker 1>some hoax or swinger or something that you came across

0:21:12.920 --> 0:21:15.160
<v Speaker 1>that you think is really illustrative.

0:21:15.600 --> 0:21:19.000
<v Speaker 4>I can give another example from the world of chess.

0:21:19.160 --> 0:21:21.240
<v Speaker 3>So I'm a chess player. Well, Dan is also a

0:21:21.320 --> 0:21:21.840
<v Speaker 3>chess player.

0:21:22.119 --> 0:21:24.560
<v Speaker 4>I'm probably a more serious player than Dan is, and

0:21:25.320 --> 0:21:29.159
<v Speaker 4>I'm a funnier player. Dan's a funny player. I'm a

0:21:29.160 --> 0:21:33.399
<v Speaker 4>serious player. I'll try to be funnier though. When you

0:21:33.440 --> 0:21:36.560
<v Speaker 4>play chess online, you don't see the person you're playing.

0:21:36.880 --> 0:21:39.879
<v Speaker 4>It's just a screen name and all you see is

0:21:39.920 --> 0:21:42.479
<v Speaker 4>the moves they play on an animated chess board, kind

0:21:42.520 --> 0:21:43.920
<v Speaker 4>of like you're playing a video game, right, You just

0:21:43.960 --> 0:21:47.080
<v Speaker 4>see the moose being made. And So I was playing

0:21:47.080 --> 0:21:49.120
<v Speaker 4>a game once. This has happened to me more than once.

0:21:49.119 --> 0:21:50.760
<v Speaker 4>But the occasion that I remember is I was playing

0:21:50.760 --> 0:21:51.959
<v Speaker 4>a game and it was a guy I had never

0:21:52.000 --> 0:21:55.240
<v Speaker 4>played before and the game started, and he had a

0:21:55.240 --> 0:21:57.880
<v Speaker 4>similar rating to mine, meaning, you know, we were both

0:21:57.880 --> 0:22:00.119
<v Speaker 4>pretty good players. I should be ready for a you know,

0:22:00.200 --> 0:22:03.000
<v Speaker 4>I should be ready for a good game. And every

0:22:03.040 --> 0:22:05.879
<v Speaker 4>move I made, it seemed like he always found like

0:22:05.920 --> 0:22:08.880
<v Speaker 4>a great response, and he never made a mistake. And

0:22:09.240 --> 0:22:11.080
<v Speaker 4>times when I thought I was winning, I really wasn't

0:22:11.080 --> 0:22:14.320
<v Speaker 4>winning because he found the escape. And moreover, he was

0:22:14.359 --> 0:22:16.919
<v Speaker 4>moving quite quickly, like he would make every move in

0:22:16.960 --> 0:22:18.280
<v Speaker 4>like five to ten seconds. And I was like, wow,

0:22:18.320 --> 0:22:19.800
<v Speaker 4>this guy's putting a lot of pressure on me. You know,

0:22:20.160 --> 0:22:22.040
<v Speaker 4>I'm thinking for a minute sometimes on these moves, and

0:22:22.080 --> 0:22:24.679
<v Speaker 4>he comes back in ten seconds all the time. And

0:22:24.720 --> 0:22:26.680
<v Speaker 4>in the end I got checkmated and I lost the game,

0:22:27.080 --> 0:22:29.800
<v Speaker 4>and I thought, wow, that guy like that guy played

0:22:29.800 --> 0:22:31.480
<v Speaker 4>a really good game against me. But then when I

0:22:31.520 --> 0:22:34.359
<v Speaker 4>looked at the game afterwards, chess dot com where we

0:22:34.359 --> 0:22:37.160
<v Speaker 4>played this game shows you exactly how much time both

0:22:37.160 --> 0:22:40.040
<v Speaker 4>players use in every move after the game, and I

0:22:40.080 --> 0:22:42.080
<v Speaker 4>noticed that he was making all of his moves within

0:22:42.119 --> 0:22:45.760
<v Speaker 4>that very tight band of five to ten seconds per move, basically,

0:22:46.040 --> 0:22:48.879
<v Speaker 4>never less than five seconds, never more than ten seconds.

0:22:48.960 --> 0:22:50.560
<v Speaker 4>Maybe it was twelve seconds, I don't remember, but if

0:22:50.560 --> 0:22:52.560
<v Speaker 4>you looked at my own graph. There were a couple

0:22:52.560 --> 0:22:54.119
<v Speaker 4>of moves that I took like one or two minutes

0:22:54.160 --> 0:22:56.719
<v Speaker 4>on and some moves I played almost instantly, like one second.

0:22:57.640 --> 0:23:01.199
<v Speaker 4>The consistency of his timing, and also the consistency of

0:23:01.240 --> 0:23:03.320
<v Speaker 4>the fact that he never made a mistake. All of

0:23:03.359 --> 0:23:06.000
<v Speaker 4>his moves were you know, almost the best move, if

0:23:06.040 --> 0:23:10.480
<v Speaker 4>not the best move according to computer analysis, really reveals

0:23:10.520 --> 0:23:12.439
<v Speaker 4>that all he was doing was being a conduit for

0:23:12.480 --> 0:23:14.960
<v Speaker 4>a computer, Like he was just typing my moves into

0:23:14.960 --> 0:23:17.240
<v Speaker 4>a computer and typing and putting back into chess dot

0:23:17.280 --> 0:23:19.480
<v Speaker 4>com the moves that the computer told him to play.

0:23:19.840 --> 0:23:23.240
<v Speaker 4>And here's an example where the behavior of a human

0:23:23.760 --> 0:23:26.280
<v Speaker 4>you know, really ought to be more noisy in some

0:23:26.400 --> 0:23:29.360
<v Speaker 4>fundamental way than the behavior of a computer. Humans never

0:23:29.400 --> 0:23:33.880
<v Speaker 4>play moves with robotic cadences. They never play the correct

0:23:33.880 --> 0:23:37.200
<v Speaker 4>move forty or fifty moves in a row, and there's

0:23:37.240 --> 0:23:40.280
<v Speaker 4>just much more variability in human decision making and almost

0:23:40.280 --> 0:23:44.320
<v Speaker 4>any human activity than there is in computer based activity.

0:23:44.320 --> 0:23:46.320
<v Speaker 4>So I filed a report. You know, you can report

0:23:46.320 --> 0:23:48.200
<v Speaker 4>any player, and sure enough, like a day or two later,

0:23:48.280 --> 0:23:49.919
<v Speaker 4>chess dot com came back and said, we're giving you

0:23:49.960 --> 0:23:52.600
<v Speaker 4>back the rating. Points you lost. This guy is violated,

0:23:52.640 --> 0:23:54.439
<v Speaker 4>you know, violated our fair play policy. And that kind

0:23:54.440 --> 0:23:56.320
<v Speaker 4>of thing happens all the time in online chess because

0:23:56.320 --> 0:23:59.280
<v Speaker 4>computers are so good that they can be used easily

0:23:59.320 --> 0:24:02.000
<v Speaker 4>to cheat. The real problem is are people using it

0:24:02.040 --> 0:24:03.840
<v Speaker 4>sort of like in over the board and like serious

0:24:03.840 --> 0:24:06.480
<v Speaker 4>tournaments and matches. And that's a whole other controversy. But

0:24:06.560 --> 0:24:09.360
<v Speaker 4>certainly was a case where you know, I was essentially

0:24:09.359 --> 0:24:11.359
<v Speaker 4>the victim of a little minor scam. I happened to

0:24:11.359 --> 0:24:14.679
<v Speaker 4>figure it out, but as a scam based on people

0:24:14.800 --> 0:24:19.000
<v Speaker 4>not noticing that, you know, not noticing the absence of variability,

0:24:19.040 --> 0:24:20.639
<v Speaker 4>which is a critical thing and a lot of and

0:24:20.720 --> 0:24:22.280
<v Speaker 4>a lot of cons I was.

0:24:22.280 --> 0:24:25.119
<v Speaker 5>Gonna say one thing about that that particular case. It's

0:24:25.160 --> 0:24:29.440
<v Speaker 5>a fairly minor scam, right, It's just one element of

0:24:29.960 --> 0:24:33.200
<v Speaker 5>the kinds of habits and hooks that we find really compelling,

0:24:33.880 --> 0:24:37.159
<v Speaker 5>the hook of consistency, right or that. Yeah, it's just

0:24:37.240 --> 0:24:40.520
<v Speaker 5>something that we don't look for the noise when we should.

0:24:40.520 --> 0:24:43.080
<v Speaker 5>But if you look at bigger scams, things like Bernie

0:24:43.080 --> 0:24:46.159
<v Speaker 5>made Us, Ponzi Ski or fairness, they rely on a

0:24:46.200 --> 0:24:48.760
<v Speaker 5>whole bunch of our cognitive tendencies and they appeal to

0:24:49.359 --> 0:24:51.359
<v Speaker 5>a lot of kinds of information that we find really

0:24:51.440 --> 0:24:54.120
<v Speaker 5>valuable and that do help us most of the time,

0:24:54.680 --> 0:24:55.679
<v Speaker 5>but they take advantage of.

0:24:55.680 --> 0:24:58.760
<v Speaker 3>Those to doup us.

0:24:59.119 --> 0:25:01.840
<v Speaker 1>So can you unpacked that a little bit about noise

0:25:02.119 --> 0:25:04.840
<v Speaker 1>in data and what we should be looking for.

0:25:05.520 --> 0:25:08.000
<v Speaker 5>Well, I mean, really, in any human behavior, anything that's

0:25:08.280 --> 0:25:12.879
<v Speaker 5>governed by interaction of people, we don't expect people to

0:25:12.920 --> 0:25:15.120
<v Speaker 5>perform the same way every single time. We don't expect

0:25:15.440 --> 0:25:18.040
<v Speaker 5>a three hundred hitter or three thirty three baseball hitter

0:25:18.119 --> 0:25:20.639
<v Speaker 5>to hit one out of every single every one out

0:25:20.640 --> 0:25:23.560
<v Speaker 5>of every three at bets, right, they will on average

0:25:24.480 --> 0:25:26.920
<v Speaker 5>average about one out of every three. But in any

0:25:26.960 --> 0:25:29.200
<v Speaker 5>game that doesn't guarantee they're going to get at least

0:25:29.240 --> 0:25:32.439
<v Speaker 5>one hit, right, we tend to confuse the sort of

0:25:32.480 --> 0:25:35.840
<v Speaker 5>on average performance with what happens every single time. So

0:25:35.960 --> 0:25:38.800
<v Speaker 5>take the case of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Right, this

0:25:38.920 --> 0:25:41.240
<v Speaker 5>wasn't a sort of classic Ponzi scheme where he promised

0:25:41.240 --> 0:25:43.720
<v Speaker 5>fifty percent returns in six months like a you know,

0:25:43.800 --> 0:25:48.359
<v Speaker 5>current crypto scam. Would his returned eight to fourteen percent

0:25:48.400 --> 0:25:51.439
<v Speaker 5>or eight to twelve percent almost every year for the

0:25:51.560 --> 0:25:53.560
<v Speaker 5>entire life of the Ponzi scheme, with never a down

0:25:53.640 --> 0:25:55.520
<v Speaker 5>year and almost never a down month. It was like

0:25:55.560 --> 0:25:59.639
<v Speaker 5>a smooth, steady growth, And that's not what you expect

0:25:59.640 --> 0:26:01.760
<v Speaker 5>for some thing is complex. As a financial system, you

0:26:01.840 --> 0:26:05.040
<v Speaker 5>expect ups and downs. Sometimes you'll be up twenty five

0:26:05.040 --> 0:26:07.000
<v Speaker 5>percent in a year, sometimes you'll be down ten percent

0:26:07.040 --> 0:26:09.159
<v Speaker 5>in a year, and the average might be eight to

0:26:09.200 --> 0:26:11.920
<v Speaker 5>twelve percent, and that'd be pretty good, But you don't

0:26:11.960 --> 0:26:14.399
<v Speaker 5>expect the average to be true of every single case.

0:26:15.160 --> 0:26:18.439
<v Speaker 5>And this plays out in many many contexts where usually

0:26:18.480 --> 0:26:21.119
<v Speaker 5>consistency is a sign that we have great understanding of

0:26:21.119 --> 0:26:22.640
<v Speaker 5>how things work. We can do it the same way

0:26:22.680 --> 0:26:25.760
<v Speaker 5>every single time. We want things to be reliable, but

0:26:26.840 --> 0:26:30.000
<v Speaker 5>the tendency to have things be too consistent can be

0:26:30.040 --> 0:26:33.320
<v Speaker 5>so appealing to us that we don't realize when noise

0:26:33.320 --> 0:26:36.000
<v Speaker 5>should be present. This is common in a lot of

0:26:36.040 --> 0:26:38.800
<v Speaker 5>science frunt as well, that you find results that are

0:26:38.800 --> 0:26:41.919
<v Speaker 5>just too consistent to be believable, but the people who

0:26:41.960 --> 0:26:43.879
<v Speaker 5>are making it up don't realize that they need to

0:26:43.880 --> 0:26:44.760
<v Speaker 5>make up noise too.

0:27:00.359 --> 0:27:02.919
<v Speaker 1>So a lot of the reasons that we fall for

0:27:03.040 --> 0:27:06.840
<v Speaker 1>hoaxes their scams is because of cognitive shortcuts that we're

0:27:06.880 --> 0:27:09.919
<v Speaker 1>taking so tell us about that and what we can

0:27:09.960 --> 0:27:11.000
<v Speaker 1>do about those shortcuts.

0:27:12.000 --> 0:27:14.760
<v Speaker 4>Well, one of the most important shortcuts, I think is

0:27:15.160 --> 0:27:18.000
<v Speaker 4>it's not even so much a shortcut, it's just an

0:27:18.119 --> 0:27:22.680
<v Speaker 4>un standard operating procedure. We are very good at paying

0:27:22.680 --> 0:27:23.440
<v Speaker 4>attention to things.

0:27:23.520 --> 0:27:23.679
<v Speaker 3>You know.

0:27:23.720 --> 0:27:26.320
<v Speaker 4>Attention is a wonderful thing. We can do things with

0:27:26.359 --> 0:27:28.560
<v Speaker 4>attention that we can't do without attention. Like we couldn't

0:27:28.560 --> 0:27:31.040
<v Speaker 4>even follow a soccer game or a football game or

0:27:31.040 --> 0:27:33.119
<v Speaker 4>a basketball game without attention, and otherwise would just be

0:27:33.119 --> 0:27:35.120
<v Speaker 4>a big blur of bodies moving around and the little

0:27:35.200 --> 0:27:37.640
<v Speaker 4>round thing like you know, flying back and forth. Occasionally

0:27:37.920 --> 0:27:40.240
<v Speaker 4>we'd have no hope of understanding it. But with attention

0:27:40.320 --> 0:27:42.440
<v Speaker 4>we can focus on selected aspects of it and sort

0:27:42.440 --> 0:27:44.399
<v Speaker 4>of put together the plot and the sequence of events

0:27:44.440 --> 0:27:46.480
<v Speaker 4>and what people are trying to do, and understand the

0:27:46.480 --> 0:27:48.560
<v Speaker 4>intentions behind it, all the way up to the strategies

0:27:48.600 --> 0:27:48.959
<v Speaker 4>and so on.

0:27:49.040 --> 0:27:49.760
<v Speaker 3>It's great.

0:27:50.080 --> 0:27:52.920
<v Speaker 4>However, the downside of attention is that when we're paying

0:27:52.920 --> 0:27:56.679
<v Speaker 4>attention to something, we may not notice other things that

0:27:56.720 --> 0:28:01.919
<v Speaker 4>we're not paying attention to. And a Hoover fraudster knows that,

0:28:02.400 --> 0:28:04.119
<v Speaker 4>and they know that if they can get our attention

0:28:04.320 --> 0:28:07.240
<v Speaker 4>on one thing, kind of like a magician, then we

0:28:07.359 --> 0:28:09.639
<v Speaker 4>might not notice other important things that are happening. And

0:28:09.640 --> 0:28:12.520
<v Speaker 4>of course they're not doing magic, they're actually trying to

0:28:12.560 --> 0:28:13.800
<v Speaker 4>deceive us for profit.

0:28:14.240 --> 0:28:15.800
<v Speaker 3>So many of.

0:28:15.760 --> 0:28:21.480
<v Speaker 4>The basic sort of deceptions in areas like marketing, where

0:28:21.480 --> 0:28:23.800
<v Speaker 4>it's sort of not even deception in some cases, it's

0:28:23.800 --> 0:28:25.600
<v Speaker 4>just kind of like the way business is done. You

0:28:25.720 --> 0:28:30.040
<v Speaker 4>get the recipient to focus on what you're showing them,

0:28:30.400 --> 0:28:32.640
<v Speaker 4>and you can count on them usually to not ask

0:28:32.720 --> 0:28:35.040
<v Speaker 4>questions about what you're not showing them. So, for example,

0:28:35.080 --> 0:28:39.280
<v Speaker 4>like a product demo video, like this startup company called Nicola,

0:28:39.320 --> 0:28:43.920
<v Speaker 4>which is still around trying to build electric vehicles trucks.

0:28:43.920 --> 0:28:46.840
<v Speaker 4>In this case, they created a demo video of one

0:28:46.840 --> 0:28:50.360
<v Speaker 4>of their trucks tooling down a highway, looked like going

0:28:50.360 --> 0:28:52.680
<v Speaker 4>at a nice rate of speed, and addingpressive music behind

0:28:52.720 --> 0:28:56.200
<v Speaker 4>it and so on, counting on people not to realize,

0:28:56.240 --> 0:28:59.080
<v Speaker 4>not to think, well, wait a minute, what happened before

0:28:59.120 --> 0:29:01.840
<v Speaker 4>the demo started. What was the angle that the camera

0:29:02.000 --> 0:29:04.240
<v Speaker 4>was at. Actually the camera was tilted a little bit,

0:29:04.280 --> 0:29:07.120
<v Speaker 4>so actually what was appeared to be rolling down on

0:29:07.160 --> 0:29:09.600
<v Speaker 4>a flat surface was rolling down a hill. So the

0:29:09.640 --> 0:29:12.080
<v Speaker 4>thing actually had no functioning motor you know, and so on.

0:29:12.160 --> 0:29:14.520
<v Speaker 4>It just rolled down a hill slowly, and then the

0:29:14.560 --> 0:29:17.200
<v Speaker 4>positioning of the camera and the video, you know, cutting

0:29:17.200 --> 0:29:18.880
<v Speaker 4>did the rest of the work. And those are things

0:29:18.920 --> 0:29:20.880
<v Speaker 4>we just don't think about. Right, We're focusing on the truck.

0:29:20.920 --> 0:29:23.400
<v Speaker 4>It looks nice, it's moving, nice background, and so on,

0:29:23.960 --> 0:29:26.320
<v Speaker 4>and we don't ask what's missing, Like, what information are

0:29:26.320 --> 0:29:28.160
<v Speaker 4>we missing about what's here? What information are they not

0:29:28.200 --> 0:29:29.920
<v Speaker 4>providing to us? Are they telling us about all the

0:29:29.920 --> 0:29:31.640
<v Speaker 4>times they tried to make the vehicle work but it

0:29:31.720 --> 0:29:33.520
<v Speaker 4>just didn't work at all, and just showing us the

0:29:33.520 --> 0:29:38.120
<v Speaker 4>one time that it did. So attention focus is really useful,

0:29:38.480 --> 0:29:41.600
<v Speaker 4>but it creates, you know, it sort of creates a loophole.

0:29:41.920 --> 0:29:45.040
<v Speaker 4>It creates a way for other people to, you know,

0:29:45.120 --> 0:29:46.800
<v Speaker 4>to exploit that well.

0:29:46.840 --> 0:29:50.360
<v Speaker 1>One cognitive shortcut that you mentioned in the book is prediction.

0:29:50.600 --> 0:29:53.560
<v Speaker 1>So how is it that we become victims of our

0:29:53.560 --> 0:29:54.800
<v Speaker 1>own life experience?

0:29:56.440 --> 0:29:58.560
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, And I think that's a great way of phrasing it,

0:29:58.600 --> 0:30:01.120
<v Speaker 5>that it's our life experience. It makes sense for us

0:30:01.120 --> 0:30:03.560
<v Speaker 5>to have expectations based on our past experience and to

0:30:03.640 --> 0:30:06.400
<v Speaker 5>use those predictions. And the vast majority of the time

0:30:07.200 --> 0:30:09.040
<v Speaker 5>we can use our past behavior to predict what's going

0:30:09.080 --> 0:30:10.920
<v Speaker 5>to happen in the future, right, that that's a really

0:30:10.920 --> 0:30:13.880
<v Speaker 5>important thing to be able to do. The challenge comes

0:30:13.920 --> 0:30:18.560
<v Speaker 5>in that we don't tend to question enough the information

0:30:18.600 --> 0:30:22.040
<v Speaker 5>we get when it's perfectly consistent with what we predicted. So,

0:30:22.760 --> 0:30:24.480
<v Speaker 5>and this is something that I think is really interesting

0:30:24.480 --> 0:30:27.520
<v Speaker 5>in the context of scientific errors. So let's say you

0:30:27.640 --> 0:30:30.840
<v Speaker 5>run an experiment and you've got an experimental group and

0:30:30.840 --> 0:30:32.640
<v Speaker 5>a placebo group, and you want to see which one

0:30:32.680 --> 0:30:35.760
<v Speaker 5>does better. Right, and you're predicting your new experimental intervention

0:30:35.840 --> 0:30:38.040
<v Speaker 5>is going to do great. And let's say that you

0:30:38.200 --> 0:30:41.600
<v Speaker 5>find that the placebo condition actually does better than the

0:30:41.600 --> 0:30:45.240
<v Speaker 5>experimental condition. Well, you're going to really dig into those results.

0:30:45.280 --> 0:30:46.680
<v Speaker 5>You're going to dig into the data. You're going to

0:30:46.680 --> 0:30:48.200
<v Speaker 5>look at your code. You're going to make sure that

0:30:48.240 --> 0:30:51.240
<v Speaker 5>everything was coded correctly, that there weren't any data points

0:30:51.240 --> 0:30:54.280
<v Speaker 5>that didn't make sense. You're to make sure you didn't

0:30:54.280 --> 0:30:56.120
<v Speaker 5>swap the names of the conditions so that you got

0:30:56.160 --> 0:30:58.400
<v Speaker 5>it wrong. You're going to look into it pretty carefully

0:30:58.440 --> 0:31:00.400
<v Speaker 5>because it didn't match what you were predicting.

0:31:01.280 --> 0:31:02.080
<v Speaker 3>Had it come out.

0:31:01.960 --> 0:31:04.160
<v Speaker 5>Exactly the way you predicted, you might not dig as

0:31:04.200 --> 0:31:07.280
<v Speaker 5>closely and that's been something that's led to a lot

0:31:07.280 --> 0:31:10.320
<v Speaker 5>of errors. Right, So you have a spreadsheet that produces

0:31:10.320 --> 0:31:12.000
<v Speaker 5>the right results, and you don't double check to make

0:31:12.040 --> 0:31:15.440
<v Speaker 5>sure you didn't fill down the column incorrectly because it

0:31:15.480 --> 0:31:18.280
<v Speaker 5>matched what you were predicting. So that sort of error

0:31:19.000 --> 0:31:21.800
<v Speaker 5>is I think a really common one. We're really good

0:31:21.920 --> 0:31:24.600
<v Speaker 5>at applying our critical faculties when we see something we

0:31:24.640 --> 0:31:27.040
<v Speaker 5>don't like that we didn't expect that we didn't predict.

0:31:27.480 --> 0:31:30.200
<v Speaker 5>Somebody shares something on social media that was counter to

0:31:30.240 --> 0:31:32.920
<v Speaker 5>your views, you can rip into that, and we're all

0:31:32.960 --> 0:31:35.640
<v Speaker 5>pretty good at doing that, But when it perfectly matches,

0:31:35.840 --> 0:31:38.080
<v Speaker 5>we're much more likely to just quickly pass it along

0:31:38.120 --> 0:31:41.840
<v Speaker 5>and retweet it and not necessarily think through carefully is

0:31:41.840 --> 0:31:43.280
<v Speaker 5>it really true.

0:31:43.760 --> 0:31:45.800
<v Speaker 1>Indeed, when we see things that are familiar in matching

0:31:45.800 --> 0:31:48.120
<v Speaker 1>our expectation, we don't look further into it. So how

0:31:48.160 --> 0:31:51.240
<v Speaker 1>do we work around that bias?

0:31:51.960 --> 0:31:54.520
<v Speaker 4>Well, I would say obviously the first thing is to

0:31:54.520 --> 0:31:57.080
<v Speaker 4>be where that we're doing this. That's the first step.

0:31:57.440 --> 0:32:03.120
<v Speaker 4>Second step is to and again like not every moment

0:32:03.120 --> 0:32:05.680
<v Speaker 4>of every day, but when you're making a big decision,

0:32:05.840 --> 0:32:07.600
<v Speaker 4>or when you think that the stakes are high, or

0:32:07.600 --> 0:32:11.440
<v Speaker 4>when someone might be trying to deceive you ask consciously,

0:32:11.480 --> 0:32:16.120
<v Speaker 4>explicitly whether you predicted what just happened, and if you

0:32:16.200 --> 0:32:20.000
<v Speaker 4>did predict it, then actually check it out as well.

0:32:20.080 --> 0:32:21.640
<v Speaker 4>I think a lot of times we don't even sort

0:32:21.680 --> 0:32:24.959
<v Speaker 4>of stop to wonder whether this is coming out exactly

0:32:24.960 --> 0:32:27.120
<v Speaker 4>the way I predict it, because you know, things rarely

0:32:27.160 --> 0:32:29.800
<v Speaker 4>happen exactly the way we predict, you know, especially in

0:32:29.800 --> 0:32:32.440
<v Speaker 4>an environment we don't have a lot of experience with before.

0:32:32.440 --> 0:32:34.640
<v Speaker 4>When we're doing a new experiment, testing a new theory,

0:32:34.920 --> 0:32:37.360
<v Speaker 4>should it really come out exactly like we predict I

0:32:37.360 --> 0:32:40.200
<v Speaker 4>mean maybe if we're the big best scientist ever, you know,

0:32:41.240 --> 0:32:43.960
<v Speaker 4>but often it doesn't go that way. So we should

0:32:44.000 --> 0:32:46.000
<v Speaker 4>be vigilant at those points also to see like, is

0:32:46.040 --> 0:32:47.800
<v Speaker 4>our code right, did we you know, did we make

0:32:47.800 --> 0:32:50.320
<v Speaker 4>a mistake or something like that. The example that Dan

0:32:50.600 --> 0:32:53.120
<v Speaker 4>gave about switching the columns, you know, or switching the

0:32:53.200 --> 0:32:56.000
<v Speaker 4>variable names or something like that is actually exactly what

0:32:56.080 --> 0:32:59.720
<v Speaker 4>happened in a you know, a fairly recently uncovered case

0:32:59.760 --> 0:33:03.080
<v Speaker 4>where where the data totally did not support the claim

0:33:03.120 --> 0:33:06.120
<v Speaker 4>that was being made. This was a study of the

0:33:06.200 --> 0:33:10.040
<v Speaker 4>idea that signing a declaration at the top versus at

0:33:10.080 --> 0:33:12.440
<v Speaker 4>the bottom would make you more honest in what you

0:33:12.520 --> 0:33:14.440
<v Speaker 4>declared on that form. So, in this case it was

0:33:14.880 --> 0:33:18.280
<v Speaker 4>an automobile insurance company. They were asking people to report

0:33:18.280 --> 0:33:20.320
<v Speaker 4>how many miles they had driven their vehicles in the

0:33:20.360 --> 0:33:24.160
<v Speaker 4>previous year. And the test was sign at the top

0:33:24.160 --> 0:33:26.160
<v Speaker 4>saying you're going to be honest in you're reporting, versus

0:33:26.160 --> 0:33:27.880
<v Speaker 4>sign at the bottom saying you've been honest in what

0:33:27.920 --> 0:33:30.680
<v Speaker 4>you reported. The idea was like, signing first would draw

0:33:30.680 --> 0:33:33.080
<v Speaker 4>your attention to honesty, and you'd you know, produce more

0:33:34.000 --> 0:33:36.440
<v Speaker 4>you know, more accurate, more honest results in that case.

0:33:36.760 --> 0:33:37.760
<v Speaker 3>And when.

0:33:39.000 --> 0:33:42.120
<v Speaker 4>When this experiment was done and the data file was

0:33:42.160 --> 0:33:45.840
<v Speaker 4>being looked at by some of the researchers, initially it

0:33:45.880 --> 0:33:47.480
<v Speaker 4>seemed like there was no effect at all, or the

0:33:47.480 --> 0:33:49.600
<v Speaker 4>effect was even the opposite of what they had expected.

0:33:50.040 --> 0:33:52.480
<v Speaker 4>But then one of them said, oh, well, accidentally switched

0:33:52.800 --> 0:33:56.360
<v Speaker 4>the columns, you know. So once the columns were switched back,

0:33:56.400 --> 0:33:58.880
<v Speaker 4>then the effect, you know, turned out to be right

0:33:58.960 --> 0:34:01.040
<v Speaker 4>basically exactly as Dan said, you know, you switched sort

0:34:01.040 --> 0:34:03.680
<v Speaker 4>of the you know, the treatment and the placebo in

0:34:03.680 --> 0:34:07.280
<v Speaker 4>this case, the sign first and sign and sign later columns. Well,

0:34:07.280 --> 0:34:09.520
<v Speaker 4>it turned out in retrospect that the entire data set

0:34:09.600 --> 0:34:13.759
<v Speaker 4>was fraudulent. But once they got the result that you know,

0:34:13.800 --> 0:34:15.960
<v Speaker 4>that fit the theory, or fit the prediction, or fit

0:34:16.000 --> 0:34:19.399
<v Speaker 4>the expectations, then apparently they stopped looking to see does

0:34:19.400 --> 0:34:21.040
<v Speaker 4>the rest of the data make sense? Are there any

0:34:21.040 --> 0:34:22.319
<v Speaker 4>obvious red flags in there?

0:34:22.360 --> 0:34:22.839
<v Speaker 3>And so on.

0:34:23.520 --> 0:34:25.759
<v Speaker 4>I think a perfect example of at least, you know,

0:34:25.840 --> 0:34:30.080
<v Speaker 4>some authors of that paper being satisfied that they're you know,

0:34:30.120 --> 0:34:33.080
<v Speaker 4>the theory had been confirmed and not looking more deeply enough.

0:34:33.440 --> 0:34:35.920
<v Speaker 4>Of course, you know, researchers are taught to look at

0:34:35.920 --> 0:34:37.920
<v Speaker 4>the distributions of their variables, look at all of this

0:34:38.040 --> 0:34:40.600
<v Speaker 4>kinds of stuff and so on, before getting too excited

0:34:40.640 --> 0:34:43.359
<v Speaker 4>about just you know, confirming their hypothesis. But sometimes that's

0:34:43.360 --> 0:34:47.359
<v Speaker 4>hard even for experienced scientists to do so. In our

0:34:47.400 --> 0:34:51.120
<v Speaker 4>own everyday life, we should be more aware of when

0:34:51.120 --> 0:34:54.120
<v Speaker 4>our expectations are being sort of exquisitely satisfied. That could

0:34:54.160 --> 0:34:58.000
<v Speaker 4>be someone deliberately designing something to you know, to take

0:34:58.040 --> 0:34:58.680
<v Speaker 4>advantage of.

0:34:58.680 --> 0:35:02.200
<v Speaker 5>Us, say in a much more mundane case, you know,

0:35:02.280 --> 0:35:05.120
<v Speaker 5>before you repost something or share it on social media,

0:35:05.320 --> 0:35:06.760
<v Speaker 5>just ask yourself, is it really true?

0:35:07.280 --> 0:35:07.440
<v Speaker 3>Right?

0:35:07.440 --> 0:35:08.839
<v Speaker 5>And what would I need to know to be sure

0:35:08.880 --> 0:35:11.239
<v Speaker 5>that it was really true, And that's something you can do,

0:35:11.280 --> 0:35:13.719
<v Speaker 5>whether or not you agree with it, and it just

0:35:13.800 --> 0:35:16.640
<v Speaker 5>takes a second. But once you ask that question, you

0:35:16.719 --> 0:35:18.719
<v Speaker 5>might realize, I have no idea how i'd know if

0:35:18.719 --> 0:35:20.400
<v Speaker 5>that were actually true. You know, I'd have to do

0:35:20.400 --> 0:35:22.000
<v Speaker 5>a lot of digging. And then you know, maybe just

0:35:22.000 --> 0:35:23.880
<v Speaker 5>don't reshare things that you haven't been able to verify

0:35:24.640 --> 0:35:27.640
<v Speaker 5>that might might actually help prevent the spread of information.

0:35:28.320 --> 0:35:30.279
<v Speaker 4>I think most people really do want to only share

0:35:30.320 --> 0:35:32.279
<v Speaker 4>true stuff. I don't think people deliberately want to spread

0:35:32.320 --> 0:35:33.920
<v Speaker 4>false information a lot of time. I think they're just

0:35:33.960 --> 0:35:35.920
<v Speaker 4>not often thinking like whether it might be false that

0:35:36.360 --> 0:35:38.240
<v Speaker 4>they're being swept along by other cues.

0:35:38.280 --> 0:35:41.000
<v Speaker 1>Besides that, I wanted to jump back to the science

0:35:41.680 --> 0:35:43.759
<v Speaker 1>the practice of science for just a second, which is

0:35:44.040 --> 0:35:46.560
<v Speaker 1>I was just talking some colleagues who got a big

0:35:46.640 --> 0:35:49.560
<v Speaker 1>data set and they wanted to prove something in particular

0:35:49.600 --> 0:35:51.600
<v Speaker 1>about it. They got this big thing of police records

0:35:51.600 --> 0:35:54.719
<v Speaker 1>and they had a particular thing that they wanted to demonstrate,

0:35:55.440 --> 0:35:59.799
<v Speaker 1>and they analyzed it and couldn't find evidence for their hypothesis,

0:36:00.040 --> 0:36:02.239
<v Speaker 1>figured out another way to look at it statistically, and

0:36:02.320 --> 0:36:05.080
<v Speaker 1>then another way, and they still could fine and finally

0:36:05.200 --> 0:36:09.040
<v Speaker 1>came up with some way, some statistical trick, and they

0:36:09.040 --> 0:36:13.000
<v Speaker 1>were very proud, they said, to have found finally this

0:36:13.160 --> 0:36:15.520
<v Speaker 1>evidence of this bias that they were looking for in

0:36:15.560 --> 0:36:18.279
<v Speaker 1>these police records. But it made me wonder about it,

0:36:18.320 --> 0:36:21.279
<v Speaker 1>because they clearly went in to find this thing. And

0:36:21.320 --> 0:36:25.319
<v Speaker 1>the question is did they do the right thing by

0:36:25.760 --> 0:36:29.160
<v Speaker 1>continuing to search and search and search with different statistical methods,

0:36:29.360 --> 0:36:32.359
<v Speaker 1>or is it purely that they were trying to make

0:36:32.400 --> 0:36:35.040
<v Speaker 1>the duck quack in a particular way. How do you

0:36:35.080 --> 0:36:37.000
<v Speaker 1>think about these issues?

0:36:37.800 --> 0:36:40.239
<v Speaker 5>It's a really complicated problem because, of course you want

0:36:40.280 --> 0:36:43.280
<v Speaker 5>to be able to explore your data right. The problem

0:36:43.360 --> 0:36:45.719
<v Speaker 5>comes when you don't think about all of the alternative

0:36:45.719 --> 0:36:47.520
<v Speaker 5>paths you could take to get to the outcome that

0:36:47.560 --> 0:36:50.560
<v Speaker 5>you want to report, right. And Andrew Gellman refers to

0:36:50.560 --> 0:36:52.640
<v Speaker 5>this as the garden of forking paths. And I think

0:36:52.640 --> 0:36:55.560
<v Speaker 5>it doesn't imply any sort of malicious intent or intent

0:36:55.640 --> 0:36:58.000
<v Speaker 5>to deceive at all. But we make lots of choices

0:36:58.040 --> 0:37:01.600
<v Speaker 5>along the way that can influence the result, and sometimes

0:37:01.600 --> 0:37:04.560
<v Speaker 5>we don't even think about what those choices were. So

0:37:04.640 --> 0:37:07.239
<v Speaker 5>I think the problem comes not in exploring your data

0:37:07.239 --> 0:37:10.400
<v Speaker 5>really fully. It comes in only reporting the thing that worked,

0:37:10.800 --> 0:37:14.120
<v Speaker 5>the one example, the one analysis that was successful, And

0:37:14.160 --> 0:37:15.960
<v Speaker 5>what you really want to know is, hey, is this

0:37:16.040 --> 0:37:19.120
<v Speaker 5>hypothesis robust to a whole bunch of different ways of

0:37:19.160 --> 0:37:21.640
<v Speaker 5>testing it? And it sounds like in that particular case

0:37:21.680 --> 0:37:23.799
<v Speaker 5>it wasn't at all Right. All of the other ways

0:37:23.840 --> 0:37:25.480
<v Speaker 5>you look at it, you don't find anything. You only

0:37:25.480 --> 0:37:28.680
<v Speaker 5>find it if you look in this one particular way. Well,

0:37:29.160 --> 0:37:31.160
<v Speaker 5>that would be an important thing to know, right, That

0:37:31.239 --> 0:37:33.799
<v Speaker 5>would be important for the science in the field to

0:37:33.920 --> 0:37:37.080
<v Speaker 5>know that this only works in this one study if

0:37:37.080 --> 0:37:39.080
<v Speaker 5>you measure it this way, and if you fish around enough,

0:37:39.080 --> 0:37:42.200
<v Speaker 5>you'll find something that could be consistent, which means that

0:37:42.200 --> 0:37:44.040
<v Speaker 5>maybe we shouldn't trust that a whole lot until we

0:37:44.040 --> 0:37:46.839
<v Speaker 5>can replicate with that particular way of analyzing the data

0:37:46.840 --> 0:37:49.839
<v Speaker 5>and see if that holds up consistently. We should also

0:37:49.880 --> 0:37:51.560
<v Speaker 5>check to make sure that it holds up for real

0:37:51.600 --> 0:37:54.080
<v Speaker 5>reasons as opposed to just something odd about how you've

0:37:54.080 --> 0:37:57.760
<v Speaker 5>constructed the measure. Right, it might be that it's completely

0:37:57.800 --> 0:38:00.359
<v Speaker 5>reliable when you measure it that way, but it's sort

0:38:00.360 --> 0:38:03.560
<v Speaker 5>of an artifact of the structure of data of that sort.

0:38:04.160 --> 0:38:06.279
<v Speaker 5>So I think the most powerful way to do that

0:38:06.320 --> 0:38:07.920
<v Speaker 5>to say, hey, I want to make a claim that

0:38:07.960 --> 0:38:11.400
<v Speaker 5>we've discovered some relationship with some bias. Well, if you

0:38:11.400 --> 0:38:14.200
<v Speaker 5>want to claim that it's a general truth about how

0:38:14.200 --> 0:38:16.439
<v Speaker 5>the world works, you want to be able to show

0:38:16.440 --> 0:38:18.279
<v Speaker 5>that it works under a range of different ways of

0:38:18.320 --> 0:38:20.680
<v Speaker 5>measuring it and under a range of different conditions, not

0:38:20.800 --> 0:38:23.880
<v Speaker 5>just the one special one that you identified. And I

0:38:23.880 --> 0:38:25.320
<v Speaker 5>think this has been an issue in our field for

0:38:25.360 --> 0:38:28.040
<v Speaker 5>a long time, is that you know, there's obviously a

0:38:28.080 --> 0:38:30.120
<v Speaker 5>goal to try and support the theories that you're working under.

0:38:30.400 --> 0:38:32.719
<v Speaker 5>That's a natural thing to be doing, and it's not

0:38:32.760 --> 0:38:34.120
<v Speaker 5>necessarily a terrible.

0:38:33.800 --> 0:38:34.399
<v Speaker 3>Thing to be doing.

0:38:35.120 --> 0:38:39.239
<v Speaker 5>But we haven't been completely straightforward as a field in

0:38:39.760 --> 0:38:43.239
<v Speaker 5>reporting all the things we've tried, and depending on the

0:38:43.320 --> 0:38:46.000
<v Speaker 5>kind of approach you're taking, that can be really misleading.

0:38:46.040 --> 0:38:47.960
<v Speaker 5>If you don't report everything the way it was done,

0:38:48.000 --> 0:38:50.640
<v Speaker 5>it's cherry picking in a sense. You're taking out the

0:38:50.640 --> 0:38:53.200
<v Speaker 5>results that you wanted and ignoring all the ones that

0:38:53.239 --> 0:38:57.080
<v Speaker 5>didn't work, and you're left with the reader only having

0:38:57.120 --> 0:38:59.560
<v Speaker 5>in the paper that you read about it, focusing on

0:38:59.600 --> 0:39:01.400
<v Speaker 5>the information that you've told them. And it's just like

0:39:01.440 --> 0:39:04.239
<v Speaker 5>a magician who's directed you to the thing they want

0:39:04.280 --> 0:39:07.160
<v Speaker 5>you to see and hidden all of the secret methods.

0:39:06.840 --> 0:39:07.719
<v Speaker 3>That get you there.

0:39:08.840 --> 0:39:11.040
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, you, in a way, as the researcher who did that,

0:39:11.040 --> 0:39:13.440
<v Speaker 4>have inadvertently become the con artist, although you had no

0:39:13.480 --> 0:39:15.880
<v Speaker 4>intention to do it, and you're not actually trying to deceive,

0:39:15.880 --> 0:39:18.080
<v Speaker 4>but you're accidentally sort of using some of those very

0:39:18.080 --> 0:39:22.239
<v Speaker 4>same techniques that people could use, you know, to do

0:39:22.320 --> 0:39:25.160
<v Speaker 4>worse things than publish a paper that didn't you know,

0:39:25.160 --> 0:39:27.920
<v Speaker 4>that didn't actually have good evidence for its conclusions.

0:39:28.560 --> 0:39:30.680
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it strikes me that one of the things as

0:39:30.680 --> 0:39:34.719
<v Speaker 1>I was reading this excellent book, a lot of this

0:39:34.880 --> 0:39:37.520
<v Speaker 1>just has to do with taking the tools of good

0:39:37.719 --> 0:39:41.239
<v Speaker 1>science to the way that we interpret the world around us.

0:39:41.320 --> 0:39:45.040
<v Speaker 1>So the things about asking more questions and digging deeper

0:39:45.080 --> 0:39:48.439
<v Speaker 1>and so on. But it's interesting that even scientists don't

0:39:48.440 --> 0:39:49.840
<v Speaker 1>always do good science.

0:39:50.840 --> 0:39:53.880
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, we're all capable of being fooled, right in. Scientists

0:39:54.160 --> 0:39:57.359
<v Speaker 5>and maybe journalists are trained to dig more and ask

0:39:57.440 --> 0:39:59.840
<v Speaker 5>more questions and to think critically about what they're hearing.

0:40:00.640 --> 0:40:03.120
<v Speaker 5>But you know, we're human. We have the same sorts

0:40:03.160 --> 0:40:05.680
<v Speaker 5>of habits and ways of thinking. We tend to like

0:40:05.760 --> 0:40:08.600
<v Speaker 5>results that support what we predicted, and we're drawn to

0:40:08.640 --> 0:40:11.600
<v Speaker 5>the same kinds of information, and if somebody's looking to

0:40:11.640 --> 0:40:15.800
<v Speaker 5>sort of hide what they're doing, they can fool scientists.

0:40:15.840 --> 0:40:18.880
<v Speaker 5>And there are plenty of fraudulent papers out there that

0:40:19.560 --> 0:40:22.200
<v Speaker 5>got through peer review even though there were red flags.

0:40:22.239 --> 0:40:24.800
<v Speaker 5>And just like that sort of heist movie that you

0:40:24.960 --> 0:40:27.040
<v Speaker 5>watch from the outside and you see all of the

0:40:27.080 --> 0:40:28.839
<v Speaker 5>red flags along the way that people are falling for,

0:40:28.920 --> 0:40:30.839
<v Speaker 5>but you're not falling for them because you're watching them.

0:40:31.480 --> 0:40:34.400
<v Speaker 5>In hindsight, they're all obvious, right, but in that moment,

0:40:34.600 --> 0:40:37.319
<v Speaker 5>you don't necessarily see them as red flags until you know, oh, wait,

0:40:37.360 --> 0:40:39.640
<v Speaker 5>that paper was fraudulent. I found out through other means.

0:40:40.239 --> 0:40:41.960
<v Speaker 5>Now I can see all the red flags that are there.

0:40:42.360 --> 0:40:45.440
<v Speaker 1>Yes, So as I was reading the book, the way

0:40:45.480 --> 0:40:48.000
<v Speaker 1>I was thinking about it was, you know, the brain

0:40:48.120 --> 0:40:51.200
<v Speaker 1>is of course locked in silence and darkness inside the skull,

0:40:51.239 --> 0:40:54.279
<v Speaker 1>and it's just trying to make an internal model of

0:40:54.320 --> 0:40:56.800
<v Speaker 1>the world out there, a mental model, and we're always

0:40:57.200 --> 0:41:01.240
<v Speaker 1>we're always very limited in what our internal models can detect,

0:41:01.360 --> 0:41:05.640
<v Speaker 1>can see, And so one of the most important things

0:41:05.680 --> 0:41:11.920
<v Speaker 1>to expanding our model is to ask questions. And in

0:41:11.960 --> 0:41:14.680
<v Speaker 1>a sense this is the same as paying attention to something.

0:41:14.880 --> 0:41:17.400
<v Speaker 1>We ask a question that forces us to attend to

0:41:17.480 --> 0:41:20.960
<v Speaker 1>some aspect and then that updates our model a little bit.

0:41:21.239 --> 0:41:25.160
<v Speaker 1>So in chapter four, you guys had an example of

0:41:25.200 --> 0:41:29.320
<v Speaker 1>a chess grand master that asks his students to always

0:41:29.360 --> 0:41:31.720
<v Speaker 1>ask three questions when they're looking at the board?

0:41:31.800 --> 0:41:33.160
<v Speaker 2>Can you tell us about that?

0:41:34.560 --> 0:41:36.160
<v Speaker 4>Would I would love to tell you. I would love

0:41:36.200 --> 0:41:40.800
<v Speaker 4>to tell you about that. So I actually took a

0:41:40.920 --> 0:41:43.760
<v Speaker 4>during COVID, I took a summer chess camp on Zoom

0:41:43.800 --> 0:41:48.000
<v Speaker 4>with this guy and it was me and like twelve

0:41:48.040 --> 0:41:51.080
<v Speaker 4>people aged ten and under, which was a fun you know,

0:41:51.120 --> 0:41:53.240
<v Speaker 4>which was a fun again because who goes to summer

0:41:53.280 --> 0:41:55.680
<v Speaker 4>chess camps, right, It's like, you know, kids gauge ten

0:41:55.719 --> 0:41:59.400
<v Speaker 4>and under. Very good players by the way. And you

0:41:59.400 --> 0:42:01.759
<v Speaker 4>know one thing that he often that the coach would

0:42:01.760 --> 0:42:03.600
<v Speaker 4>often do. His name is jako Ogard. He's one of

0:42:03.680 --> 0:42:05.480
<v Speaker 4>the most famous chess coaches in the world, and it

0:42:05.560 --> 0:42:07.239
<v Speaker 4>was privileged to be able to sort of be in.

0:42:07.200 --> 0:42:08.320
<v Speaker 3>His camp for a few hours.

0:42:08.600 --> 0:42:11.200
<v Speaker 4>He would constantly say, we need more, you know, you

0:42:11.239 --> 0:42:13.280
<v Speaker 4>need to think of more moves. Right in a chess position,

0:42:13.360 --> 0:42:15.399
<v Speaker 4>there's like thirty to forty moves you can typically play,

0:42:15.600 --> 0:42:18.160
<v Speaker 4>you know, with all your pieces and people are often

0:42:18.160 --> 0:42:21.160
<v Speaker 4>become too focused on one. So he would say, think

0:42:21.200 --> 0:42:23.080
<v Speaker 4>of more candidate moves. Think of more moves you might

0:42:23.120 --> 0:42:25.000
<v Speaker 4>want to play and analyze. And if you're having trouble

0:42:25.000 --> 0:42:27.560
<v Speaker 4>thinking of them, he has specific questions that you can

0:42:27.640 --> 0:42:30.080
<v Speaker 4>use to try to generate ideas, and one of them

0:42:30.160 --> 0:42:33.399
<v Speaker 4>is what's your worst place piece? Maybe you should move

0:42:33.400 --> 0:42:35.080
<v Speaker 4>it if that's the one that's in the worst position.

0:42:35.440 --> 0:42:37.600
<v Speaker 4>Or what's the opponent's idea, Well, maybe you should come

0:42:37.640 --> 0:42:39.839
<v Speaker 4>up with a move that stops their idea. The third

0:42:39.880 --> 0:42:41.520
<v Speaker 4>one is what are the weaknesses? Maybe you should come

0:42:41.600 --> 0:42:43.239
<v Speaker 4>up with a move that attacks something that's weak. I

0:42:43.280 --> 0:42:45.440
<v Speaker 4>mean this is this will make sense to people who

0:42:45.520 --> 0:42:48.000
<v Speaker 4>play chess, but these are they're in almost all fields.

0:42:48.000 --> 0:42:50.520
<v Speaker 4>There are sort of general kinds of things you can

0:42:50.520 --> 0:42:53.319
<v Speaker 4>look at and principles you can use to generate, you know,

0:42:53.360 --> 0:42:55.360
<v Speaker 4>to generate more information and as you say, like you

0:42:55.840 --> 0:42:57.520
<v Speaker 4>I like your way putting it to sort of improve

0:42:57.600 --> 0:43:00.440
<v Speaker 4>your mental model of what's really going on, because in

0:43:00.520 --> 0:43:02.880
<v Speaker 4>order to in order to play good chess moves, you

0:43:02.960 --> 0:43:05.000
<v Speaker 4>have to have a good internal model of what's going

0:43:05.040 --> 0:43:07.839
<v Speaker 4>on on the board someplace in your brain. You've got

0:43:07.880 --> 0:43:09.840
<v Speaker 4>to have it and that's a way of sort of

0:43:09.880 --> 0:43:13.640
<v Speaker 4>generating more ideas, more analysis that then updates that then

0:43:13.719 --> 0:43:14.520
<v Speaker 4>updates the model.

0:43:15.400 --> 0:43:17.040
<v Speaker 5>And most of the time the models that we have

0:43:17.160 --> 0:43:18.680
<v Speaker 5>for how the world works are pretty.

0:43:18.400 --> 0:43:18.759
<v Speaker 3>Good, right.

0:43:18.800 --> 0:43:22.359
<v Speaker 5>I mean, we're not, you know, constantly getting conned. We're

0:43:22.360 --> 0:43:25.200
<v Speaker 5>not you know, we don't have trouble getting around, we

0:43:25.200 --> 0:43:28.520
<v Speaker 5>don't have trouble communicating with other people. Most of the time,

0:43:28.520 --> 0:43:31.680
<v Speaker 5>our models of how the world is working are great.

0:43:31.800 --> 0:43:34.560
<v Speaker 5>They work very effectively. And it's only in those cases

0:43:34.600 --> 0:43:36.520
<v Speaker 5>where we need to dig a little more to update

0:43:36.520 --> 0:43:39.320
<v Speaker 5>our model for the possibility we're being teated or deceived

0:43:40.120 --> 0:43:42.879
<v Speaker 5>that we need to ask a lot more questions. Right,

0:43:43.280 --> 0:43:45.000
<v Speaker 5>most of the time, we've built up these models from

0:43:45.040 --> 0:43:48.279
<v Speaker 5>a ton of experience, and they generally do okay, Yeah.

0:43:48.080 --> 0:43:52.280
<v Speaker 1>And we have expectations about what we're looking for given

0:43:52.320 --> 0:43:55.840
<v Speaker 1>these models, such that most of the time we're filling

0:43:55.880 --> 0:43:58.839
<v Speaker 1>in the blanks. And that is at the heart of

0:43:58.880 --> 0:44:01.600
<v Speaker 1>all these hoaxes and scams that you talk about throughout

0:44:01.600 --> 0:44:03.840
<v Speaker 1>the book, is we're filling in the blanks, and the

0:44:03.920 --> 0:44:06.799
<v Speaker 1>things that aren't said, we assume we.

0:44:06.719 --> 0:44:08.160
<v Speaker 2>Know what they mean.

0:44:08.480 --> 0:44:11.760
<v Speaker 1>So I'm curious what you guys think about the Turing

0:44:11.880 --> 0:44:16.520
<v Speaker 1>tests and for the listeners in case someone doesn't know.

0:44:16.719 --> 0:44:19.760
<v Speaker 1>The Turing test was proposed by Alan Turning to figure

0:44:19.760 --> 0:44:22.719
<v Speaker 1>out when a machine has become as smart as the human.

0:44:22.800 --> 0:44:26.239
<v Speaker 1>The idea is that you are the evaluator and you're

0:44:26.280 --> 0:44:28.760
<v Speaker 1>talking to a machine, and you're talking to a human,

0:44:29.160 --> 0:44:31.640
<v Speaker 1>let's say, by text, and you don't know which is which,

0:44:31.680 --> 0:44:33.640
<v Speaker 1>and the question is can you tell the difference between

0:44:33.640 --> 0:44:36.279
<v Speaker 1>the human and the machine. And the interesting part is,

0:44:36.360 --> 0:44:38.799
<v Speaker 1>because we bring so much to the table in any

0:44:38.840 --> 0:44:42.319
<v Speaker 1>conversation and we fill in the blanks, what do you

0:44:42.320 --> 0:44:45.040
<v Speaker 1>guys think Is that a good, meaningful test or is

0:44:45.080 --> 0:44:46.120
<v Speaker 1>it flawed in that way?

0:44:46.920 --> 0:44:49.080
<v Speaker 4>I think we have a lot of evidence that it's

0:44:49.120 --> 0:44:53.560
<v Speaker 4>not so good from chat, JPT and large language models,

0:44:53.560 --> 0:44:56.640
<v Speaker 4>which I don't think are actually intelligent in the way

0:44:56.680 --> 0:44:59.080
<v Speaker 4>that we should. I mean, I realized there might be

0:44:59.080 --> 0:45:00.800
<v Speaker 4>some dispute about this. Some people make some sort of

0:45:00.840 --> 0:45:04.600
<v Speaker 4>extravagant claims about signs of general intelligence, but I don't

0:45:04.600 --> 0:45:06.920
<v Speaker 4>think they're actually intelligent, or at least not in a

0:45:07.040 --> 0:45:09.279
<v Speaker 4>useful way. And yet they are extremely convincing. I mean,

0:45:09.320 --> 0:45:11.360
<v Speaker 4>I think they show that you can sort of dissociate,

0:45:11.840 --> 0:45:15.239
<v Speaker 4>you know, producing what humans expect to see next, which

0:45:15.280 --> 0:45:18.680
<v Speaker 4>is basically, you know, basically what large language models do

0:45:18.760 --> 0:45:21.040
<v Speaker 4>because they've been trained to sort of, you know, output

0:45:21.120 --> 0:45:23.319
<v Speaker 4>the most probable next token or word and so on.

0:45:23.560 --> 0:45:27.480
<v Speaker 4>You can dissociate that capability from having sort of a

0:45:27.520 --> 0:45:30.359
<v Speaker 4>true understanding of what's going on. For example, you could

0:45:30.440 --> 0:45:32.600
<v Speaker 4>ask an LLLM to play chess with you, and it

0:45:32.640 --> 0:45:34.279
<v Speaker 4>wouldn't do very well. It would produce a lot of

0:45:34.280 --> 0:45:36.080
<v Speaker 4>stuff that sounds like chess and so on. But if

0:45:36.080 --> 0:45:38.239
<v Speaker 4>you really knew the game of chess, you would know

0:45:38.320 --> 0:45:40.279
<v Speaker 4>that this is sort of gibberish. If you don't know,

0:45:40.400 --> 0:45:43.040
<v Speaker 4>it sounds perfectly good, right, You just you just sort

0:45:43.080 --> 0:45:45.040
<v Speaker 4>of you fill it in with sort of the assumption

0:45:45.120 --> 0:45:47.840
<v Speaker 4>that this guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about,

0:45:48.200 --> 0:45:51.359
<v Speaker 4>you know, which is which is not not you know,

0:45:51.440 --> 0:45:54.480
<v Speaker 4>not necessarily intelligence things.

0:45:54.280 --> 0:45:59.759
<v Speaker 5>Like chat GPT they speak with absolute confidence and certainty, right,

0:46:00.200 --> 0:46:03.280
<v Speaker 5>and that's regardless of whether or not they're generating true content.

0:46:03.920 --> 0:46:06.920
<v Speaker 5>You know, they're the consonant bullshitter right in that they

0:46:07.440 --> 0:46:10.600
<v Speaker 5>are equally confident when they're completely wrong and when they're

0:46:10.600 --> 0:46:14.239
<v Speaker 5>completely right. Because there's no grounding to any sort of

0:46:14.280 --> 0:46:16.719
<v Speaker 5>reality in the world. All they're doing is predicting what

0:46:16.760 --> 0:46:17.320
<v Speaker 5>comes next.

0:46:18.280 --> 0:46:20.319
<v Speaker 1>That's true, although I have to say one of the

0:46:20.360 --> 0:46:24.440
<v Speaker 1>things about chat GPT that I've really come to appreciate

0:46:24.560 --> 0:46:28.600
<v Speaker 1>is that almost any question that you ask it, it'll say, look,

0:46:28.680 --> 0:46:31.960
<v Speaker 1>some people think this, some people think that, and in conclusion,

0:46:32.080 --> 0:46:35.120
<v Speaker 1>we need to balance these points of view. And at

0:46:35.160 --> 0:46:37.759
<v Speaker 1>first I found that really annoying, but I came to

0:46:37.920 --> 0:46:42.400
<v Speaker 1>understand and appreciate that it is trying, you know, because

0:46:42.440 --> 0:46:45.239
<v Speaker 1>of the reinforcement learning and so on, it's trying to

0:46:46.160 --> 0:46:49.680
<v Speaker 1>give different perspectives instead of sounding totally confident about just

0:46:49.760 --> 0:46:50.600
<v Speaker 1>a single answer.

0:46:52.320 --> 0:46:53.920
<v Speaker 4>You kind of wish politicians would talk to you that

0:46:53.960 --> 0:46:57.879
<v Speaker 4>way sometimes exactly instead of the way they do it. Yeah,

0:46:57.920 --> 0:47:01.879
<v Speaker 4>well it's it's it's reasonable. I just don't think chet

0:47:01.920 --> 0:47:04.600
<v Speaker 4>GPT believes that both of those things are equally you know,

0:47:04.640 --> 0:47:06.440
<v Speaker 4>are equally likely to be true and so on in

0:47:06.480 --> 0:47:09.200
<v Speaker 4>any in any meaningful way. I think, you know, it's

0:47:09.880 --> 0:47:13.280
<v Speaker 4>the part of the danger I think of of models

0:47:13.320 --> 0:47:16.200
<v Speaker 4>like this is if you don't understand how they work,

0:47:17.040 --> 0:47:19.000
<v Speaker 4>and if you just see this is a I like

0:47:19.040 --> 0:47:20.560
<v Speaker 4>a lot of times you see these posts on Twitter

0:47:20.640 --> 0:47:24.160
<v Speaker 4>that say and A n AI did this that's just

0:47:24.239 --> 0:47:26.839
<v Speaker 4>designed to impress you, right and to mislead you by

0:47:26.880 --> 0:47:29.840
<v Speaker 4>thinking that therefore the results must be created by genius

0:47:29.880 --> 0:47:32.479
<v Speaker 4>and totally accurate. But if you actually understand something about

0:47:32.480 --> 0:47:34.600
<v Speaker 4>how it works, then you will have the reaction you did.

0:47:34.640 --> 0:47:36.600
<v Speaker 3>You'll say, well, this is this is kind.

0:47:36.440 --> 0:47:38.319
<v Speaker 4>Of interesting that it's trying to give you know, sort

0:47:38.360 --> 0:47:41.799
<v Speaker 4>of too equally like probable you know, schools of thought here,

0:47:42.000 --> 0:47:44.480
<v Speaker 4>or you know common you know, views on the topic

0:47:44.600 --> 0:47:47.040
<v Speaker 4>or something like that, but you understand something about how

0:47:47.080 --> 0:47:49.520
<v Speaker 4>they work, so it doesn't you know, they their output

0:47:49.600 --> 0:47:51.799
<v Speaker 4>sort of is more sensible to you than it might

0:47:51.840 --> 0:47:53.160
<v Speaker 4>be to people who don't know.

0:48:08.239 --> 0:48:10.840
<v Speaker 1>I want to come back to just something you mentioned

0:48:10.840 --> 0:48:13.160
<v Speaker 1>about politicians. One of the things I was thinking about

0:48:13.239 --> 0:48:16.520
<v Speaker 1>as I was reading the book was politicians often get

0:48:16.560 --> 0:48:19.480
<v Speaker 1>points deducted if they change their mind on something.

0:48:19.520 --> 0:48:20.880
<v Speaker 2>They're called flip floppers.

0:48:21.520 --> 0:48:26.000
<v Speaker 1>And it's such a shame because we know that if

0:48:26.000 --> 0:48:30.040
<v Speaker 1>people are using scientific reasoning, they might reasonably change their

0:48:30.160 --> 0:48:32.840
<v Speaker 1>mind about some issue.

0:48:32.719 --> 0:48:33.560
<v Speaker 2>At some point.

0:48:34.080 --> 0:48:36.479
<v Speaker 1>The question is, how would you guys see a way

0:48:37.040 --> 0:48:40.520
<v Speaker 1>to change something about the way we educate the public

0:48:40.719 --> 0:48:44.240
<v Speaker 1>so that politicians who change their mind on a topic

0:48:44.680 --> 0:48:47.760
<v Speaker 1>are not considered flip floppers and deducted points.

0:48:48.560 --> 0:48:53.239
<v Speaker 4>Now, I guess I would say that this refers back

0:48:53.280 --> 0:48:56.960
<v Speaker 4>to our taste for consistency. So there's something appealing in

0:48:57.120 --> 0:49:00.360
<v Speaker 4>consistency of a wide variety and consistency and a person's

0:49:00.400 --> 0:49:03.919
<v Speaker 4>behavior is also appealing to us. And many times that's good.

0:49:04.000 --> 0:49:04.120
<v Speaker 3>Right.

0:49:04.160 --> 0:49:06.200
<v Speaker 4>You want someone who keeps their word. You want someone

0:49:06.239 --> 0:49:08.040
<v Speaker 4>who says what they are going to do and then

0:49:08.040 --> 0:49:09.600
<v Speaker 4>does what they said they would do. You want someone

0:49:09.600 --> 0:49:12.240
<v Speaker 4>who's always on time. Like those are generally positive things.

0:49:12.560 --> 0:49:16.240
<v Speaker 4>But when you're talking about complex subjects like what should

0:49:16.239 --> 0:49:19.000
<v Speaker 4>climate policy be? You know, what should tax policy be?

0:49:19.160 --> 0:49:22.000
<v Speaker 4>Any of these kinds of things and so on, facts

0:49:22.080 --> 0:49:25.680
<v Speaker 4>change over time, you know, and that alone, never mind

0:49:25.880 --> 0:49:27.840
<v Speaker 4>you know, using scientific reasoning, but just the changing of

0:49:27.880 --> 0:49:31.480
<v Speaker 4>facts might, you know, might change people's views. I think

0:49:32.920 --> 0:49:37.960
<v Speaker 4>teaching people about the trap of consistency, you know, may

0:49:38.000 --> 0:49:39.879
<v Speaker 4>start to help. I'm not sure there's like an easy

0:49:39.960 --> 0:49:42.440
<v Speaker 4>nudge that is going to make people suddenly prefer the

0:49:42.440 --> 0:49:45.000
<v Speaker 4>flip flopper, because, after all, sometimes the flip flopper is

0:49:45.040 --> 0:49:47.160
<v Speaker 4>just being expedient, right. It's not as simple as saying, like, well,

0:49:47.160 --> 0:49:49.320
<v Speaker 4>we should anytime someone flip flops. We should just assume

0:49:49.400 --> 0:49:52.600
<v Speaker 4>that they are have done some complex ratios nation and

0:49:52.680 --> 0:49:55.719
<v Speaker 4>integration who do information, and now they've changed their mind.

0:49:55.760 --> 0:49:57.600
<v Speaker 4>It could be they're just saying something to a different

0:49:57.600 --> 0:50:00.560
<v Speaker 4>audience because that's what is expedient for them at the moment.

0:50:00.640 --> 0:50:03.040
<v Speaker 4>It's a tough problem to sort out, but certainly I

0:50:03.040 --> 0:50:05.080
<v Speaker 4>don't think we should have the bias against changing one's

0:50:05.120 --> 0:50:06.640
<v Speaker 4>mind that it is really seems to be built into

0:50:06.640 --> 0:50:08.960
<v Speaker 4>the political system, because I do think it contributes to

0:50:08.960 --> 0:50:11.719
<v Speaker 4>some polarization also, Right, in order to be a consistent conservative,

0:50:11.719 --> 0:50:13.000
<v Speaker 4>you always have to do this, in order to be

0:50:13.080 --> 0:50:17.640
<v Speaker 4>a strong you know, it's definitely it definitely has its cost.

0:50:18.440 --> 0:50:21.560
<v Speaker 5>Well, and you know, scientists also aren't necessarily the greatest

0:50:21.600 --> 0:50:23.160
<v Speaker 5>at updating their beliefs in light of evidence.

0:50:23.400 --> 0:50:23.600
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:50:24.600 --> 0:50:26.840
<v Speaker 5>There are plenty of people who get evidence that should

0:50:26.880 --> 0:50:29.560
<v Speaker 5>contradict their claims, but they continue arguing for the old

0:50:29.760 --> 0:50:33.719
<v Speaker 5>position without fully updating their beliefs accordingly, Right, every time

0:50:33.760 --> 0:50:36.879
<v Speaker 5>somebody encounters have failure to replicate their own work, right,

0:50:37.480 --> 0:50:39.560
<v Speaker 5>what's their reaction, Well, I'm going to try and find

0:50:39.560 --> 0:50:41.200
<v Speaker 5>all of the things that were done differently in that

0:50:41.760 --> 0:50:44.880
<v Speaker 5>replication attempt that could maybe excuse why they didn't find

0:50:45.520 --> 0:50:48.360
<v Speaker 5>what I found, And what they really should do is say, Okay,

0:50:48.640 --> 0:50:50.279
<v Speaker 5>you know that may or may not be right. I

0:50:50.360 --> 0:50:52.600
<v Speaker 5>might disagree with it, but it should make me a

0:50:52.640 --> 0:50:55.879
<v Speaker 5>little less likely to believe in my original result. And

0:50:55.920 --> 0:50:58.080
<v Speaker 5>maybe there are alternatives and I need to go test those,

0:50:58.120 --> 0:51:00.880
<v Speaker 5>and if those alternatives don't work out, then I should

0:51:00.880 --> 0:51:02.759
<v Speaker 5>be changing my beliefs. But you don't see that all

0:51:02.760 --> 0:51:05.360
<v Speaker 5>that often. You don't see the person going back to

0:51:05.360 --> 0:51:07.440
<v Speaker 5>the study and saying, Okay, I'm going to prove that

0:51:07.520 --> 0:51:10.799
<v Speaker 5>it was this moderation that explained why they get They

0:51:10.800 --> 0:51:13.200
<v Speaker 5>didn't get it, but I did. More often than not,

0:51:13.320 --> 0:51:16.600
<v Speaker 5>you have a dismissal Right, Well, that's really not all

0:51:16.600 --> 0:51:19.920
<v Speaker 5>that different than what a politician does when they refuse

0:51:19.960 --> 0:51:21.920
<v Speaker 5>to change their views in light of new data.

0:51:22.200 --> 0:51:23.400
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, you know.

0:51:23.440 --> 0:51:25.919
<v Speaker 1>I think this is back to this issue of complexity

0:51:25.960 --> 0:51:29.680
<v Speaker 1>in science, which is that it essentially works by the

0:51:29.719 --> 0:51:33.640
<v Speaker 1>advocacy system, which is that you're supposed to defend an

0:51:33.719 --> 0:51:36.200
<v Speaker 1>idea all the way down until you can't defend it

0:51:36.200 --> 0:51:38.239
<v Speaker 1>anymore and then you give up on it. But so

0:51:38.400 --> 0:51:41.520
<v Speaker 1>when someone says, oh, I didn't replicate your thing, you

0:51:41.600 --> 0:51:43.680
<v Speaker 1>might be the only one who says, hey, I'm willing

0:51:43.719 --> 0:51:47.040
<v Speaker 1>to defend this and really fight for the idea until

0:51:47.080 --> 0:51:49.759
<v Speaker 1>I reached some point. The question is what is the

0:51:49.800 --> 0:51:54.040
<v Speaker 1>proper point? And as we said, scientists are humans too,

0:51:54.120 --> 0:51:57.400
<v Speaker 1>and so they really care about their reputation and their

0:51:57.440 --> 0:51:58.480
<v Speaker 1>previous publications.

0:51:59.160 --> 0:52:01.440
<v Speaker 5>And that's fine, So it's what's what's the point? But

0:52:01.480 --> 0:52:04.160
<v Speaker 5>also what evidence do you use to defend it?

0:52:04.360 --> 0:52:05.040
<v Speaker 3>Yeah? Right?

0:52:05.200 --> 0:52:08.040
<v Speaker 5>So if if the evidence you used to defend it is, hey,

0:52:08.040 --> 0:52:10.319
<v Speaker 5>we can still get our result and we can show

0:52:10.360 --> 0:52:13.400
<v Speaker 5>why you didn't get it, that's great, right, Then you

0:52:13.560 --> 0:52:16.719
<v Speaker 5>then you've bolstered your position. You've let everybody to update

0:52:16.719 --> 0:52:19.560
<v Speaker 5>with their beliefs. Are If your defense is they're incompetent,

0:52:20.400 --> 0:52:22.680
<v Speaker 5>that's not a great defense. It might be true, but

0:52:23.280 --> 0:52:25.040
<v Speaker 5>you'd have to show why and then show that if

0:52:25.040 --> 0:52:26.640
<v Speaker 5>you do it in the incompetent way, you don't get

0:52:26.680 --> 0:52:27.080
<v Speaker 5>the result.

0:52:28.480 --> 0:52:32.240
<v Speaker 4>Well, according to the adage that science progresses one funeral

0:52:32.239 --> 0:52:34.799
<v Speaker 4>at a time, that point is the point of death. Right,

0:52:34.920 --> 0:52:37.200
<v Speaker 4>And so there is a generational aspect to some of

0:52:37.239 --> 0:52:39.160
<v Speaker 4>these to some of these things. I think there's there, seriously,

0:52:39.200 --> 0:52:41.960
<v Speaker 4>is right, there's sort of generations. Generations often are associated

0:52:41.960 --> 0:52:44.520
<v Speaker 4>with particular schools of thought or views that sort of

0:52:44.560 --> 0:52:46.640
<v Speaker 4>pass and.

0:52:45.760 --> 0:52:46.400
<v Speaker 3>And and evolved.

0:52:46.400 --> 0:52:49.080
<v Speaker 4>It would be great if we could get there before then, right,

0:52:50.080 --> 0:52:54.280
<v Speaker 4>So we should get there before that point. But it's

0:52:54.400 --> 0:52:56.200
<v Speaker 4>I don't think I'm not so bleak. I'm not so

0:52:56.280 --> 0:52:58.520
<v Speaker 4>blik on this maybe as some people, because I think

0:52:58.520 --> 0:52:59.920
<v Speaker 4>a lot of times what happens is people just sort

0:52:59.920 --> 0:53:01.960
<v Speaker 4>of drop out of the debate. Right. They may not

0:53:02.000 --> 0:53:04.440
<v Speaker 4>have changed their mind, but they don't become an important

0:53:04.440 --> 0:53:06.799
<v Speaker 4>person in that in that area anymore, or at least

0:53:06.840 --> 0:53:10.080
<v Speaker 4>the next generation who's doing all the interesting work doesn't

0:53:10.120 --> 0:53:13.840
<v Speaker 4>take those people that seriously anymore. They're still alive where

0:53:13.880 --> 0:53:16.399
<v Speaker 4>you know, their funeral hasn't happened yet, but they maybe

0:53:16.440 --> 0:53:18.279
<v Speaker 4>moved on to another topic. They're doing something else in

0:53:18.320 --> 0:53:20.640
<v Speaker 4>science maybe, but they're not like exerting like an iron

0:53:21.280 --> 0:53:23.880
<v Speaker 4>you know, an iron fist, you know, rule over some area,

0:53:23.920 --> 0:53:26.120
<v Speaker 4>like when a science works that way, that's pathological.

0:53:26.200 --> 0:53:26.359
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:53:26.440 --> 0:53:29.040
<v Speaker 4>But you know when when someone's views like you know,

0:53:29.160 --> 0:53:30.799
<v Speaker 4>must be then then we're you know, you're not talking

0:53:30.840 --> 0:53:32.359
<v Speaker 4>about science anymore, right. I think a lot of people

0:53:32.440 --> 0:53:35.200
<v Speaker 4>just sort of move on instead of before it's too late.

0:53:35.640 --> 0:53:37.759
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, And this is the great part about science is

0:53:37.800 --> 0:53:41.120
<v Speaker 1>that it is the only endeavor that's constantly knocking down

0:53:41.160 --> 0:53:41.759
<v Speaker 1>its own wall.

0:53:41.920 --> 0:53:44.800
<v Speaker 2>So with enough time, the truth will out.

0:53:45.239 --> 0:53:48.799
<v Speaker 1>Things are changing really rapidly ever since you, you know,

0:53:48.880 --> 0:53:51.759
<v Speaker 1>finished writing the book and sent it off, And so

0:53:51.920 --> 0:53:54.080
<v Speaker 1>one of the things that I want to ask about

0:53:54.080 --> 0:53:57.040
<v Speaker 1>are things like what's happening with AI and deep fakes.

0:53:57.120 --> 0:54:00.200
<v Speaker 1>What are the new kinds of hoaxes that you see

0:54:00.360 --> 0:54:02.640
<v Speaker 1>coming down the line.

0:54:02.920 --> 0:54:05.319
<v Speaker 5>Well, I'll raise one that's not new, And I think

0:54:05.360 --> 0:54:08.360
<v Speaker 5>it's important to point out that none of the hoaxes

0:54:08.400 --> 0:54:11.200
<v Speaker 5>that have happened over the thousands of years are really

0:54:11.280 --> 0:54:13.480
<v Speaker 5>fundamentally all that different in the way that they take

0:54:13.520 --> 0:54:16.480
<v Speaker 5>advantage of our tendencies, right, And that's the thing that

0:54:16.480 --> 0:54:19.160
<v Speaker 5>we noticed across all of these different domains, from chess

0:54:19.200 --> 0:54:22.600
<v Speaker 5>to sports, to art to science, that they all take

0:54:22.640 --> 0:54:25.720
<v Speaker 5>advantage of the same sorts of tendencies. And new scams

0:54:25.719 --> 0:54:27.239
<v Speaker 5>are going to do that too, they just might do

0:54:27.280 --> 0:54:30.800
<v Speaker 5>it more effectively. And even the Nigerian Prince email scam

0:54:31.080 --> 0:54:35.279
<v Speaker 5>was originally a Nigerian prince mail scam back when people

0:54:35.320 --> 0:54:35.960
<v Speaker 5>sent letters.

0:54:36.520 --> 0:54:38.080
<v Speaker 3>It's more effective in.

0:54:38.000 --> 0:54:40.400
<v Speaker 5>That they don't have to spend as much time and

0:54:40.440 --> 0:54:44.640
<v Speaker 5>effort finding potential victims. Right, some of these scams with

0:54:44.719 --> 0:54:47.840
<v Speaker 5>the advent of AI are going to become more effective.

0:54:48.040 --> 0:54:48.200
<v Speaker 3>Right.

0:54:48.239 --> 0:54:51.680
<v Speaker 5>So one that's common right now is it's either the

0:54:51.880 --> 0:54:55.759
<v Speaker 5>you know your kid's been arrested scam or has been

0:54:55.800 --> 0:54:58.160
<v Speaker 5>in an accident or is being held hostage. It's a

0:54:58.200 --> 0:55:00.840
<v Speaker 5>horrible thing, preying on people's fears. They'll call up a

0:55:00.920 --> 0:55:04.359
<v Speaker 5>parent or a grandparent and say that the kid needs

0:55:04.400 --> 0:55:07.399
<v Speaker 5>to be bailed out immediately, right, and often they'll call up,

0:55:07.600 --> 0:55:10.600
<v Speaker 5>you know, a relative like a cousin or something. Now,

0:55:10.600 --> 0:55:14.879
<v Speaker 5>that scam's pretty effective because people want to quickly solve

0:55:14.880 --> 0:55:17.640
<v Speaker 5>this problem, right, They want to quickly fix what is wrong,

0:55:18.520 --> 0:55:21.240
<v Speaker 5>and often we don't have the preventive measures in place

0:55:21.960 --> 0:55:25.040
<v Speaker 5>to stop that. But imagine how much more powerful that

0:55:25.239 --> 0:55:27.719
<v Speaker 5>is if you're using AI voice synthesis to make the call,

0:55:28.200 --> 0:55:30.920
<v Speaker 5>right and it actually sounds like it's coming from that person.

0:55:31.800 --> 0:55:34.399
<v Speaker 5>That's going to ramp that one up, same principles, it's

0:55:34.440 --> 0:55:35.080
<v Speaker 5>just more potent.

0:55:36.280 --> 0:55:36.719
<v Speaker 3>I think a.

0:55:38.440 --> 0:55:40.759
<v Speaker 4>Whole area which is rife with scams, which is a

0:55:40.800 --> 0:55:43.560
<v Speaker 4>new area, but you know, sort of re scamming based

0:55:43.560 --> 0:55:47.520
<v Speaker 4>on old principles as cryptocurrency, So there are thousands and

0:55:47.560 --> 0:55:51.080
<v Speaker 4>thousands and thousands of cryptocurrencies and coins being issued and

0:55:51.640 --> 0:55:54.160
<v Speaker 4>so on, and you know, as far as I can tell,

0:55:54.400 --> 0:55:58.040
<v Speaker 4>most of that is mostly fraud. But yet it relies

0:55:58.040 --> 0:55:59.640
<v Speaker 4>on all the same principles. You've got sort of like

0:55:59.680 --> 0:56:03.120
<v Speaker 4>famili your celebrities advertising these things. You've got time pressure,

0:56:03.160 --> 0:56:04.920
<v Speaker 4>there's a limited offering. You know, you've got to make

0:56:04.920 --> 0:56:09.080
<v Speaker 4>a decision. Now, You've got these sort of like fake consistency,

0:56:09.200 --> 0:56:11.319
<v Speaker 4>Like people will claim that like our crypto fund is,

0:56:11.480 --> 0:56:13.520
<v Speaker 4>you know, never had a down month in all of

0:56:13.520 --> 0:56:15.719
<v Speaker 4>its three months of existence or something like that, you know,

0:56:15.800 --> 0:56:18.319
<v Speaker 4>but consistently going up, and all the same stuff just

0:56:18.360 --> 0:56:21.040
<v Speaker 4>being applied to a whole new being applied to a

0:56:21.040 --> 0:56:23.120
<v Speaker 4>whole new thing. And I don't really see that, you know,

0:56:23.160 --> 0:56:26.560
<v Speaker 4>getting any better. I as far as AI in deep

0:56:26.560 --> 0:56:30.359
<v Speaker 4>fakes and so on, I do have some optimism that

0:56:30.920 --> 0:56:33.960
<v Speaker 4>it's going to increase the value of truly trusted sources

0:56:33.960 --> 0:56:35.480
<v Speaker 4>who bother to check that stuff.

0:56:35.920 --> 0:56:36.600
<v Speaker 3>Right, So I.

0:56:36.640 --> 0:56:39.200
<v Speaker 4>Noticed during there were not long ago there but this

0:56:39.239 --> 0:56:42.120
<v Speaker 4>is sort of pseudo attempted coup revolution weird thing that

0:56:42.200 --> 0:56:46.279
<v Speaker 4>happened in Russia. You know, a sort of paramilitary group

0:56:46.360 --> 0:56:49.080
<v Speaker 4>kind of turned on the military and started marching to

0:56:49.160 --> 0:56:51.799
<v Speaker 4>Moscow and so on. And I was fascinated by this

0:56:51.920 --> 0:56:53.640
<v Speaker 4>and paying attention to Twitter, and there were all kinds

0:56:53.640 --> 0:56:56.879
<v Speaker 4>of reports on Twitter, people claiming to be like eyewitnesses

0:56:56.920 --> 0:56:59.560
<v Speaker 4>to things and so on, and very little of that

0:56:59.600 --> 0:57:02.839
<v Speaker 4>made it to the mainstream media or to legitimate sources.

0:57:03.400 --> 0:57:06.080
<v Speaker 4>And I thought about it afterwards, I thought, why is that?

0:57:06.200 --> 0:57:08.400
<v Speaker 4>You know, well, maybe some of it was true, but

0:57:08.400 --> 0:57:10.520
<v Speaker 4>probably most of it just couldn't be verified. You know.

0:57:10.560 --> 0:57:12.080
<v Speaker 4>It was like one guy said they saw something, they

0:57:12.080 --> 0:57:13.799
<v Speaker 4>couldn't find someone else who saw the same thing, They

0:57:13.800 --> 0:57:17.520
<v Speaker 4>couldn't find the underlying you know, whatever it was that

0:57:17.640 --> 0:57:20.120
<v Speaker 4>was supposedly the source of the evidence. But nonetheless the

0:57:20.160 --> 0:57:24.160
<v Speaker 4>story that emerged, although a little more vague and abstract

0:57:24.240 --> 0:57:26.480
<v Speaker 4>with less detail, was probably much more likely to be

0:57:26.520 --> 0:57:30.200
<v Speaker 4>true because it was sort of filtered through agents that

0:57:30.280 --> 0:57:33.280
<v Speaker 4>bother to check and try to only pass on verifiable information.

0:57:33.360 --> 0:57:35.080
<v Speaker 4>And they are now faced with the problem of how

0:57:35.120 --> 0:57:37.320
<v Speaker 4>do you tell whether this video of Trump doing X

0:57:37.720 --> 0:57:40.480
<v Speaker 4>is actually Trump doing it or some fake that someone created, right,

0:57:40.520 --> 0:57:42.800
<v Speaker 4>But I don't know who else to put more trust in,

0:57:43.200 --> 0:57:46.840
<v Speaker 4>you know, for sorting that out than journalists and or

0:57:46.880 --> 0:57:48.760
<v Speaker 4>and there are some organizations that they work with who

0:57:48.760 --> 0:57:51.200
<v Speaker 4>are experts at detecting these kinds of things and so on.

0:57:51.720 --> 0:57:55.440
<v Speaker 4>So I think maybe it might paradoxically increase the value

0:57:55.680 --> 0:57:59.120
<v Speaker 4>and the attention paid to more legitimate sources, which I

0:57:59.120 --> 0:58:00.800
<v Speaker 4>think would probably be a good thing on balance.

0:58:01.200 --> 0:58:03.240
<v Speaker 5>I mean, the pessimistic view is that these things get

0:58:03.280 --> 0:58:05.600
<v Speaker 5>increased in scale, right, it makes it much easier to

0:58:06.520 --> 0:58:10.080
<v Speaker 5>scam at large scale and make it sound plausible, right.

0:58:10.200 --> 0:58:14.000
<v Speaker 5>But the optimistic take is exactly what Chris was saying,

0:58:14.000 --> 0:58:17.640
<v Speaker 5>that once we realize that these things are possible at scale,

0:58:18.320 --> 0:58:20.800
<v Speaker 5>maybe we start being more skeptical of most of the

0:58:20.880 --> 0:58:24.280
<v Speaker 5>sort of rapid information that we get, and we withhold

0:58:24.320 --> 0:58:26.600
<v Speaker 5>judgment just a little bit longer until we can have

0:58:26.640 --> 0:58:29.160
<v Speaker 5>some verified sources. And the idea would be if we

0:58:29.160 --> 0:58:32.240
<v Speaker 5>could actually have verified sources again, we haven't had that

0:58:32.280 --> 0:58:34.440
<v Speaker 5>for a while. Now that anybody can start up a

0:58:34.520 --> 0:58:35.919
<v Speaker 5>cable network and say whatever they want.

0:58:36.560 --> 0:58:39.040
<v Speaker 1>This is something I've been wondering about recently, is all

0:58:39.040 --> 0:58:41.600
<v Speaker 1>of these things that we're very concerned about, like deep fakes,

0:58:42.320 --> 0:58:46.120
<v Speaker 1>will the younger generations be much less susceptible to them

0:58:46.160 --> 0:58:48.400
<v Speaker 1>because they're well aware that if you see a video

0:58:48.440 --> 0:58:50.200
<v Speaker 1>of something, it might be real, it might be fake,

0:58:50.640 --> 0:58:53.480
<v Speaker 1>as opposed to know, those of us who are older

0:58:53.680 --> 0:58:56.080
<v Speaker 1>are really concerned about it in a way that we

0:58:56.160 --> 0:58:56.960
<v Speaker 1>might not need to be.

0:58:57.720 --> 0:58:59.080
<v Speaker 3>I think that's a really good question.

0:58:59.160 --> 0:59:01.320
<v Speaker 4>I think the jury still out on that, because I

0:59:01.360 --> 0:59:04.560
<v Speaker 4>think in some ways younger people are a bit more

0:59:04.680 --> 0:59:07.720
<v Speaker 4>naive about some things. They don't have certain experiences and

0:59:07.720 --> 0:59:10.240
<v Speaker 4>so on. On the other hand, as you say, they

0:59:10.280 --> 0:59:12.360
<v Speaker 4>may be more used to the idea that videos are

0:59:12.360 --> 0:59:15.440
<v Speaker 4>not proof the way people who grew up in an

0:59:15.480 --> 0:59:19.080
<v Speaker 4>era of less video and less awareness of video editing

0:59:19.120 --> 0:59:21.640
<v Speaker 4>and so on might not be. I'm reminded of the

0:59:21.680 --> 0:59:24.960
<v Speaker 4>sort of discussion that you heard, you know, fifteen to

0:59:25.000 --> 0:59:27.520
<v Speaker 4>twenty years ago about the so called digital natives and

0:59:27.560 --> 0:59:29.840
<v Speaker 4>how having grown up with technology, they were so smart

0:59:29.840 --> 0:59:30.680
<v Speaker 4>in using it and so on.

0:59:30.760 --> 0:59:32.520
<v Speaker 3>And then when I became a college.

0:59:32.200 --> 0:59:34.240
<v Speaker 4>Professor, I found out that students didn't really know how

0:59:34.240 --> 0:59:36.600
<v Speaker 4>to do a proper Google search, you know, and so on,

0:59:36.640 --> 0:59:39.880
<v Speaker 4>even though they were supposedly natives, like it's not in America,

0:59:40.000 --> 0:59:43.440
<v Speaker 4>not being able to, you know, to speak English correctly,

0:59:43.720 --> 0:59:47.600
<v Speaker 4>So that gives me less optimism. But I think in general,

0:59:47.760 --> 0:59:50.240
<v Speaker 4>across generations. I think there's going to be a rise

0:59:50.480 --> 0:59:54.280
<v Speaker 4>in a rise in skepticism, may be somewhat of a

0:59:54.320 --> 0:59:57.760
<v Speaker 4>decline of truth bias. Truth bias can't decline too far

0:59:57.840 --> 1:00:00.439
<v Speaker 4>otherwise we just can't interact with anybody anymore. But maybe

1:00:00.480 --> 1:00:03.240
<v Speaker 4>a sort of a decline or a specialization of truth

1:00:03.280 --> 1:00:04.960
<v Speaker 4>bias where you have sort of a little bit more

1:00:04.960 --> 1:00:07.520
<v Speaker 4>truth bias in some areas, like when you're talking to

1:00:07.560 --> 1:00:09.800
<v Speaker 4>an actual human being standing in front of you, and

1:00:09.960 --> 1:00:11.960
<v Speaker 4>less when you're watching a video on TikTok. Like that

1:00:12.000 --> 1:00:14.480
<v Speaker 4>would be a nice balance to have, right and not

1:00:14.560 --> 1:00:16.480
<v Speaker 4>to pick on TikTok, but there seems to be more

1:00:16.480 --> 1:00:19.200
<v Speaker 4>nonsense there than most other places, just from what I've noticed.

1:00:20.120 --> 1:00:25.160
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so zooming out, give us some practical advice for people,

1:00:25.720 --> 1:00:29.520
<v Speaker 1>some tips they can take home. Well.

1:00:29.600 --> 1:00:32.000
<v Speaker 5>I'd say one quick one is that whenever you're in

1:00:32.040 --> 1:00:35.760
<v Speaker 5>a situation where the consequences could be big, be willing

1:00:35.800 --> 1:00:38.360
<v Speaker 5>to ask more questions. And it can be socially awkward

1:00:38.400 --> 1:00:40.800
<v Speaker 5>to do that, right, to kind of press for more information,

1:00:41.520 --> 1:00:44.720
<v Speaker 5>but doing that's essential if the consequences of being deceived

1:00:44.760 --> 1:00:47.880
<v Speaker 5>are big, and sometimes you can kind of get started

1:00:47.920 --> 1:00:51.200
<v Speaker 5>on asking questions without actually, you know, being hostile and aggressive,

1:00:51.440 --> 1:00:53.520
<v Speaker 5>like can you tell me more? Is a way of

1:00:53.520 --> 1:00:55.080
<v Speaker 5>getting somebody to talk a little bit more, give you

1:00:55.120 --> 1:00:57.360
<v Speaker 5>a little more information that might actually make it more

1:00:57.400 --> 1:01:01.120
<v Speaker 5>comfortable to ask questions about that more information they give you. Right,

1:01:01.240 --> 1:01:04.600
<v Speaker 5>So the sorts of skills that many of us develop

1:01:04.600 --> 1:01:06.520
<v Speaker 5>an academia. Or you're giving a talk and you can

1:01:06.920 --> 1:01:09.600
<v Speaker 5>stand up and ask the hostile question, or you could

1:01:09.960 --> 1:01:13.280
<v Speaker 5>ask a question that reveals more information, and the goal

1:01:13.320 --> 1:01:15.360
<v Speaker 5>is to try and reveal more information and remain a

1:01:15.360 --> 1:01:19.320
<v Speaker 5>little uncertain until you have that information. One broader one

1:01:19.360 --> 1:01:21.920
<v Speaker 5>is if somebody were trying to scam me in this situation,

1:01:22.000 --> 1:01:24.720
<v Speaker 5>Let's say you're investing in something. If somebody were trying

1:01:24.760 --> 1:01:26.000
<v Speaker 5>to scam me, how would I know?

1:01:26.720 --> 1:01:26.840
<v Speaker 1>Right?

1:01:26.920 --> 1:01:29.000
<v Speaker 5>So, if I'm thinking about investing in crypto and say,

1:01:29.040 --> 1:01:30.760
<v Speaker 5>is that a scam? How would I know if that's

1:01:30.760 --> 1:01:34.080
<v Speaker 5>a scam. If you can't answer that question, then you

1:01:34.080 --> 1:01:35.080
<v Speaker 5>probably should walk away.

1:01:35.960 --> 1:01:36.520
<v Speaker 3>So if you.

1:01:36.440 --> 1:01:40.840
<v Speaker 5>Don't understand how blockchain works and how crypto coins work,

1:01:41.000 --> 1:01:43.400
<v Speaker 5>you probably shouldn't be investing in crypto. Regardless of what

1:01:43.440 --> 1:01:46.200
<v Speaker 5>a celebrity tells you. If it were a scam, how

1:01:46.240 --> 1:01:49.080
<v Speaker 5>would you tell well, and be really hard to tell

1:01:49.120 --> 1:01:52.000
<v Speaker 5>if you don't understand how it works intimately. I'll give

1:01:52.040 --> 1:01:55.880
<v Speaker 5>two practical ideas also. I think one is don't make

1:01:55.920 --> 1:01:59.520
<v Speaker 5>really important decisions all by yourself. We came across many

1:01:59.560 --> 1:02:03.400
<v Speaker 5>example where people were about to make mistakes, big mistakes, like,

1:02:03.440 --> 1:02:05.320
<v Speaker 5>for example, one of those guys was about to give

1:02:06.240 --> 1:02:08.960
<v Speaker 5>to wire money to the fake French defense minister, and

1:02:09.120 --> 1:02:11.200
<v Speaker 5>his friend walked into the room where he was having

1:02:11.440 --> 1:02:13.560
<v Speaker 5>this call with him, and he immediately right away said

1:02:13.600 --> 1:02:15.600
<v Speaker 5>this can't be real. This must be a scam. And

1:02:15.640 --> 1:02:17.920
<v Speaker 5>why was the friend able to notice but the victim,

1:02:18.200 --> 1:02:21.360
<v Speaker 5>the intended victim wasn't. Well, probably the friend had not

1:02:21.400 --> 1:02:23.840
<v Speaker 5>been in on all the previous conversations, so there wasn't

1:02:23.880 --> 1:02:26.920
<v Speaker 5>sort of that sunk costs idea, that idea of a relationship.

1:02:26.360 --> 1:02:26.840
<v Speaker 3>And so on.

1:02:27.320 --> 1:02:29.200
<v Speaker 4>And maybe it was just he had a different mindset

1:02:29.200 --> 1:02:31.040
<v Speaker 4>that day, He had a different attitude, he was thinking

1:02:31.040 --> 1:02:33.640
<v Speaker 4>different things, and he never got sucked into the whole thing.

1:02:33.680 --> 1:02:37.520
<v Speaker 4>So ask a friend, get an outside view before you

1:02:37.560 --> 1:02:39.400
<v Speaker 4>make a big decision. Should I really send all my

1:02:39.400 --> 1:02:42.080
<v Speaker 4>life savings to this guy, you know, just because everybody

1:02:42.080 --> 1:02:44.200
<v Speaker 4>says he's the greatest thing, or is there any other

1:02:44.320 --> 1:02:46.640
<v Speaker 4>consideration I should be using when investing my money.

1:02:46.680 --> 1:02:47.439
<v Speaker 3>So that's one.

1:02:47.960 --> 1:02:51.480
<v Speaker 4>The second one is like, do your work on deadlines,

1:02:51.520 --> 1:02:53.640
<v Speaker 4>but don't like give away your money on deadline. So

1:02:53.640 --> 1:02:55.680
<v Speaker 4>if anybody ever says, like, you know, you've got to

1:02:55.680 --> 1:02:58.240
<v Speaker 4>do this within a certain period of time, the police

1:02:58.240 --> 1:03:00.000
<v Speaker 4>are coming to your house if you don't like pay

1:03:00.120 --> 1:03:04.720
<v Speaker 4>this bill right away, or this offers exploding very quickly,

1:03:05.040 --> 1:03:07.240
<v Speaker 4>you know, or there's only one of these things left

1:03:07.400 --> 1:03:10.800
<v Speaker 4>or whatever, just be aware that, like that's a prime

1:03:10.960 --> 1:03:13.960
<v Speaker 4>environment to not have time to ask questions, not have

1:03:13.960 --> 1:03:15.800
<v Speaker 4>time to think about the information you're missing, not go

1:03:15.840 --> 1:03:18.040
<v Speaker 4>through any of this, and realize that, like, you can

1:03:18.080 --> 1:03:20.200
<v Speaker 4>still buy that thing the next day if you really

1:03:20.240 --> 1:03:22.000
<v Speaker 4>want it, you can still invest your money next week

1:03:22.040 --> 1:03:23.120
<v Speaker 4>after you have checked the guy out.

1:03:23.560 --> 1:03:26.200
<v Speaker 3>You're not going to lose much. I would go with

1:03:26.240 --> 1:03:26.640
<v Speaker 3>those two.

1:03:31.520 --> 1:03:34.920
<v Speaker 1>So that was Dan Simon's and Christopher Shabri. Now what

1:03:35.000 --> 1:03:38.280
<v Speaker 1>we learn from them is that a lot of protecting

1:03:38.280 --> 1:03:42.640
<v Speaker 1>ourselves against deception is about taking the tools of science,

1:03:42.680 --> 1:03:46.440
<v Speaker 1>which is nothing but the tools of thinking clearly, and

1:03:46.520 --> 1:03:49.840
<v Speaker 1>applying those to our daily lives. So, for example, if

1:03:49.880 --> 1:03:54.440
<v Speaker 1>somebody says something is true, whether from their position of

1:03:54.480 --> 1:03:58.360
<v Speaker 1>authority or religious status, or with a trust me on

1:03:58.400 --> 1:04:03.480
<v Speaker 1>this one vibe. The key is to trust, but verify.

1:04:03.600 --> 1:04:06.200
<v Speaker 1>The important thing to get in the habit of is

1:04:06.280 --> 1:04:10.680
<v Speaker 1>just asking the next question. And it's tough because life

1:04:10.720 --> 1:04:14.560
<v Speaker 1>doesn't allow questioning everything. Our schedules just don't allow that,

1:04:15.080 --> 1:04:17.920
<v Speaker 1>and we have to operate on trust for most of

1:04:17.960 --> 1:04:20.480
<v Speaker 1>what we do. And sometimes we find ourselves in a

1:04:20.520 --> 1:04:23.760
<v Speaker 1>situation where someone doesn't quite answer the question we've asked,

1:04:24.080 --> 1:04:27.200
<v Speaker 1>and it feels impolite to keep pressing on it. And

1:04:27.320 --> 1:04:30.760
<v Speaker 1>also what is life if we don't trust? But the

1:04:30.880 --> 1:04:34.480
<v Speaker 1>fact is we can always get a little smarter, a

1:04:34.520 --> 1:04:39.040
<v Speaker 1>little less gullible by knowing that reality can be different

1:04:39.080 --> 1:04:42.760
<v Speaker 1>in different heads. And whether we're talking about Tanya my

1:04:42.840 --> 1:04:46.360
<v Speaker 1>fellow graduate student, or the dealer of the shell Game,

1:04:46.880 --> 1:04:52.240
<v Speaker 1>or Elizabeth Holmes and Farahos or whatever, it's incredibly useful

1:04:52.720 --> 1:04:57.960
<v Speaker 1>to stretch beyond the parochial limits of our mental models

1:04:58.040 --> 1:05:02.000
<v Speaker 1>of the world, because with with more knowledge comes a

1:05:02.080 --> 1:05:06.960
<v Speaker 1>bit more immunity, and understanding the character of our brains

1:05:07.040 --> 1:05:10.240
<v Speaker 1>allows us to move through the world a little bit

1:05:10.280 --> 1:05:20.920
<v Speaker 1>more smoothly than we would without that knowledge. Go to

1:05:20.960 --> 1:05:24.360
<v Speaker 1>Eagleman dot com slash podcast. For more information and to

1:05:24.400 --> 1:05:28.680
<v Speaker 1>find further reading, send me an email at podcasts at

1:05:28.680 --> 1:05:32.520
<v Speaker 1>eagleman dot com with questions or discussion, and I'll address

1:05:32.600 --> 1:05:40.040
<v Speaker 1>those in a special episode. Until next time, I'm David Eagleman,

1:05:40.240 --> 1:05:42.160
<v Speaker 1>and this is Inner Cosmos.