Dr. Jesse Bering - "The Incredible Afterlives of Dr. Stevenson" (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_966)
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 4 minutes
Words per Minute
160.21953
Summary
In this episode, Dr. Jesse Behring joins me to talk about his new book, The Belief Instinct: Why is the Penis Shaped Like That? and other reflections on being human nature. Dr. Behring is a research psychologist and Professor of Psychology at the University of Otago, and Head of the Science Communication Program at that university. He is also the author of the book, "The Idea of the Afterlife: The Incredible Afterlives of Dr. Ian Stevenson: One Scientist s Epic Quest for Evidence of Reincarnation, Parapsychology, and Other Matters of the Soul."
Transcript
00:00:00.000
I'm delighted to report that I have joined as a scholar the Declaration of Independence Center
00:00:06.120
for the Study of American Freedom at the University of Mississippi. The center offers
00:00:12.300
educational opportunities, speakers, internship, and reading groups for the University of Mississippi
00:00:18.340
community. It is named in honor of the United States founding document which constitutes the
00:00:25.340
nation as a political community and expresses fundamental principles of American freedom
00:00:31.060
including in the recognition of the importance of Judeo-Christian values in shaping American
00:00:37.300
exceptionalism. Dedicated to the academic and open-minded exploration of these principles
00:00:42.720
the center exists to encourage exploration into the many facets of freedom. It will sponsor a
00:00:50.640
speaker series and an interdisciplinary faculty research team. If you'd like to learn more
00:00:56.340
about the center please visit Ole Miss that's O-L-E-M-I-S-S dot E-D-U slash independence slash
00:01:05.240
Hi everybody this is Gad Saad after a couple of weeks of break because I was away in Israel
00:01:11.480
I'm back with another fantastic guest Professor Jesse Behring. How are you doing sir?
00:01:17.740
Good how are you Gad? Good to see you. Likewise so I wanted to just read very briefly a very small
00:01:24.660
portion of your bio and then the book that your latest book which is coming out in April I believe
00:01:30.720
so you are a science writer you are a research psychologist professor of psychology at University
00:01:38.260
of Otago and head of the science communication program at that university you are the author of
00:01:44.100
the belief instinct why is the penis shaped like that and other reflections on being human nature we
00:01:51.040
could certainly talk about that perv and suicidal and your latest book coming out soon please go out
00:01:57.960
there and pre-order it the incredible afterlives of Dr. Stevenson one scientist's epic quest for evidence
00:02:06.060
of reincarnation apparitions poltergeist and other matters of the soul wow that's a mouthful let's
00:02:14.240
start there how do you decide like how does this guy come into your radar that you say you know what
00:02:20.420
I'm going to spend the next 12 14 18 months writing about him take it away well I mean I my own my own
00:02:28.100
research program is on the psychology of afterlife beliefs my earliest research as a PhD student was
00:02:35.940
looking at how children think about the mind after death so for my dissertation for instance I had a
00:02:45.340
little puppet show and in that show a character a mouse character died and we asked children of different
00:02:52.900
ages um whether the character could have a variety of different types of psychological states so you know
00:03:01.840
thinking smelling tasting loving you know all these types of uh psychological capacities but by the way
00:03:09.440
before you go on your doctoral supervisor is a very well-known evolutionary based developmental
00:03:15.800
psychologist David Bjorklund correct correct yeah okay take it away we can see well I mean
00:03:21.900
my earliest research was on children's reasoning about the afterlife and the most shocking thing
00:03:27.580
really was that the younger the child the more likely they were to say that mental states survived
00:03:34.200
biological death which went against the grain of common sense and what people sort of understood about
00:03:40.420
afterlife beliefs because people just assumed that we learn about the afterlife through religious
00:03:47.880
indoctrination and so on but in fact it seemed to be that there's an innate basis to the
00:03:57.320
idea that the mind survives death I've been sort of operating on the assumption as a site as a scientist for many
00:04:05.240
years that this is all explicable through psychological processes these are cognitive biases that
00:04:13.160
that um it was just kind of a non-starter to me that uh when you die that's it the brain stops working
00:04:20.680
therefore any psychological states that are dependent on the brain stop as well and um I spent many years
00:04:29.320
writing about um the afterlife through the lens of that materialist assumption that um that when you're dead
00:04:38.280
that that's it and I still I should say I still sort of lean in that direction but over the over the years
00:04:46.360
I came across some theoretical work including the writings of Dr. Ian Stevenson um who got me thinking
00:04:54.440
I guess a little bit more deeply about possibility perhaps that um that there's something a little bit more
00:05:02.120
complicated about um life and death had you did you know of him early on in your doctoral work or is this something
00:05:12.760
that you know recently you came across that okay let me drill down this guy he wasn't on my radar at all until
00:05:19.400
about 2000 and um 2012 2013 when um I wrote an article for Scientific American about his research program
00:05:31.000
um and um that um that sort of precipitated me going deep deeper into his his line of thinking and his his work
00:05:41.160
and it was you know me approaching this from the perspective of a skeptical psychological scientist who
00:05:46.520
believes that the afterlife can be explained through cognitive biases innate predispositions um social cognition
00:05:55.960
and coming you know face to face with these arguments from a parapsychological perspective which is quite
00:06:05.240
different where he's saying that I'm aware of all these things that you're talking about but still look there is
00:06:12.040
evidence that lends itself at least to the interpretation that the survival of consciousness after death is possible
00:06:21.240
so me writing this book was kind of trying to reconcile these discrepant views me as a scientist a
00:06:28.280
materialistic sort of hard-nosed empiricist and um the parapsychological perspective where he's at least
00:06:36.760
arguing that there is evidence that the mind survives death if if you started I don't know I don't want to put
00:06:42.360
a number in your in your mouth but if you started at a skeptical level of zero belief in this stuff
00:06:49.640
subsequent to you know understanding his own research and writing this book what's the number zero is not
00:06:57.800
at all 100 you're fully convinced what's your number well I started at negative zero for sure
00:07:06.040
it wasn't even a question that I was willing to indulge it just seemed strange to me and patently obvious
00:07:12.680
that um when there's no neurological activity and the brain's dead then mental states cease um what was
00:07:21.720
more puzzling to me for all these years was the fact that people the majority of people um seem to
00:07:29.560
ignore the importance of the brain in generating psychological states and are simply willing to say
00:07:35.320
that when you're dead you still have these abilities after writing the book I would say I'm
00:07:43.240
at least on the positive side of the scale that could be a one it could be a one um I mean I think
00:07:50.600
my my task in this book at least as I saw it was not to convince anybody but to present as strong a case
00:07:58.280
based on his evidence Ian Stevenson's evidence as possible and let the reader come to their own
00:08:03.160
conclusion but I would say that I I'm not quite as ardent um a disbeliever as I was and at least I'm
00:08:10.680
willing to entertain the possibility that I've been wrong this whole time well so a couple of as I was
00:08:16.840
kind of reading very quickly through some of the the biographical details of Stevenson's life you know
00:08:23.800
as often happens with this you know serendipitous life that we live a couple of connections to yours
00:08:31.080
truly number one he's born in Montreal um yeah I've been in Montreal since 1975.
00:08:37.240
he was associated to McGill and I think subsequently got his medical degree at McGill right and then
00:08:42.840
bequeathed uh some stuff to you know the history of socials go ahead he left his he he left um
00:08:50.840
um um a significant amount of his will to McGill yes exactly yeah I did an undergrad and MBA at McGill
00:08:59.480
and thirdly he spent a bit of time at Cornell correct yeah I did my MS and PhD at Cornell and
00:09:07.000
fourthly you're not gonna necessarily be able to predict this only a few days ago and a very rare
00:09:15.720
occurrence I purchased a fiction book usually I'm a I'm a I'm a very avid reader but 99% maybe not 99%
00:09:25.240
but very very high percent non-fiction I bought this beauty first edition 1955 now I say maybe the French
00:09:34.680
pronunciation Aldous Huxley but apparently I was corrected it's Aldous Huxley and tell us the link
00:09:41.880
between Aldous Huxley and your guy in that book so just to back up a little bit so Ian Stevenson was um
00:09:51.800
one of the reasons that he appealed to me was that he was not your traditional sort of stereotypical
00:09:56.600
believer in the paranormal he was a very respected psychiatrist um a medical professional sorry that
00:10:04.840
could go either way that could either demonstrate that you've got scientific credentials or you're a
00:10:09.960
perfect bullshitter because you are a psychiatrist so I'm not sure well he yeah I mean he would be
00:10:15.320
he would be cognizant of those discrepancies as well but he was um the so he he like you said you know
00:10:24.680
he got his medical degree from McGill um and developed a really strong reputation basically as a um
00:10:33.240
um psychiatric interviewer so he wrote textbooks on psychiatric interviewing techniques um his
00:10:41.320
specialization before he got into parapsychology and all this paranormal business was psychosomatic
00:10:47.160
medicine so he was interested in how emotional states induce physical changes so um you know he was
00:10:55.640
part of these uh groundbreaking studies back in the 40s and 50s where you know you would get a you would get a
00:11:02.520
patient or a participant to think about a distressing situation in their lives so you know a cheating
00:11:08.680
spouse or money problems or you know whatever else is going on in their lives and he would actually see
00:11:15.000
how this these negative emotional states would affect their physical organs so he could actually tell
00:11:21.000
that the you know like the colon would change colors or texture um just simply because of these really
00:11:27.560
potent emotional ruminative states so that's important for his belief in reincarnation we'll
00:11:34.760
get back to that in a moment but from there he became an expert in these interviewing techniques
00:11:40.920
with psychiatric patients and he wrote these books about sort of proper ways to handle um people with
00:11:48.760
mental illness and psychiatric conditions in the examining room and how to kind of navigate the
00:11:54.200
conversation with them to get the information that he needed so he was um you know a prominent
00:12:01.880
psychiatric figure he by the time he was 38 39 he was the head of the neurology and psychiatry department
00:12:09.320
at the university of virginia which is a good school um and he's still doing his sort of mainstream
00:12:15.160
conventional work in that area and um he only kind of shifted to uh the paranormal research i think what
00:12:24.760
kind of led him in that direction was and this is where alvis huxley comes back into it because uh he
00:12:31.960
was one of the first investigators to study psychedelics right so yes this was before timothy leary
00:12:40.520
all of that stuff um he was really a leading figure in that field where he he was trying to interview
00:12:48.840
people who had taken mescaline or lsd and trying to get a sense of what phenomenologically what it was
00:12:56.840
like to be in the head of somebody experiencing um these altered states and he did cross paths without
00:13:05.480
aldous huxley he was very much influenced by um huxley's book doors of perception um which is an
00:13:13.880
incredible read a short but incredible read but he wanted to empiricize it he wanted to kind of
00:13:19.720
discipline the discipline of psychedelic research anyway through all the through all of this he
00:13:25.960
he began to kind of question the relationship between mind and body because on these trips because
00:13:31.240
he used himself as a subject in some of the psychedelic research and all these on these trips he thought
00:13:36.440
he had um some recollections of a previous life and that motivated him to begin to take seriously the
00:13:47.080
possibility that maybe um there is a scientific way to approach these paranormal questions got you
00:13:57.880
now if if there are two things that one can do i mean there are maybe more than two but you can
00:14:03.400
just identify the occurrence of paranormal phenomena uh and and i actually i did a quick search and and this is
00:14:13.080
not uh like a pejorative recrimination but i checked your book for daryl ben only oh yeah yeah only because
00:14:21.880
he you know he was a very mainstream highly respected research similar yeah research psychologist from my
00:14:29.080
university at cornell absolutely who then did the whole esp but now some people have looked at it again
00:14:34.520
and said oops it looks like it was a pure big moist pile of bullshit uh so number one we can identify
00:14:42.520
occurrences and then we can debate whether they're genuine occurrences or not but then number two is
00:14:46.920
the so what is the mechanism by which these these things happen was he largely focused on the
00:14:52.440
documentation the former or did he tackle both levels of of analyses well i would say definitely
00:14:59.640
the former he had he had some sort of speculative ideas about mechanisms um but he invested most of
00:15:06.840
of his energy in terms of researching the phenomena itself to try to document the occurrence of these cases
00:15:13.480
so um and one of the differences between his approach for instance and daryl bam was that
00:15:19.240
he thought that um that we'll get most traction in terms of research from what he called spontaneous cases
00:15:29.320
not experimental laboratory derived experimentation about these anomalous phenomena because he thought
00:15:36.760
that they were largely driven by strong emotions they were unpredictable they couldn't be simply conjured
00:15:44.120
up in a laboratory setting because it didn't replicate naturalistic conditions where these phenomena
00:15:50.360
would typically occur and that's antithetical of course to what you and i do in terms of controlled
00:15:57.320
laboratory methods and replication the importance of replication but um the to me the most convincing evidence
00:16:05.640
probably is with the spontaneous cases um if you trust the um i guess the the veracity of his investigations
00:16:15.720
themselves interesting uh what percent i don't know if that data exists but what percentage of
00:16:23.480
of surveyed i mean we can just restrict it to psychologists or more generally you know academics
00:16:31.080
what percentage do we think or know are open to believing that such phenomena are possible um
00:16:41.960
i don't have the current statistics but um i do remember quite a while ago that it was quite
00:16:46.840
quite quite low and they were disciplinary differences okay let me see if i can if i can uh predict what's
00:16:55.080
up so disciplinary would be at the level of social sciences versus natural sciences or is it yeah oh just at
00:17:01.480
that level not we're not going more granular no we're talking sort of humanities versus um you know hard
00:17:08.920
sciences i guess um okay so humanities are more likely to believe in it than hard sciences yes i mean
00:17:15.960
i think that that that that was demonstrated yeah okay but but is it in the order of you know one percent
00:17:22.440
believe it or is it the 22 percent believe it um i don't know the figures offhand but it was it was quite
00:17:28.520
low in terms of people with um hard science advanced degrees i guess i'll put it that way just because
00:17:36.760
they'd be so much more predisposed to being sort of having a materialist ethos is that the general idea
00:17:43.080
correct yeah so yeah so i guess the the fundamental distinction in these conversations are you know
00:17:50.360
boils down to um you know traditional mainstream what ian stevenson would call orthodox scientists who
00:17:58.760
believe in the sort of materialist view that the brain generates consciousness causes psychological states
00:18:07.320
versus those that um are more open to the possibility that there's some type of dualism
00:18:15.480
that perhaps the brain is a a sieve or a filter for some consciousness that's out there so the brain
00:18:22.120
isn't actually causing or generating or producing consciousness it's simply the the lens through which
00:18:28.200
consciousness is expressed is there beyond the the disciplinary breakdown that we just mentioned are there
00:18:35.160
other predictors of how likely i am to be a believer in paranormal so let me think of a few off the top
00:18:41.400
of my head uh does my religiosity score affect the likelihood of my believing in paranormal and my
00:18:49.720
a priori hypothesis would be more religious more belief in paranormal is that is that right that's correct
00:18:56.520
and i mean really if you if you think about religious believers i mean they believe in the
00:19:01.720
believe in the supernatural they might not like to sort of consider themselves to be believers in
00:19:05.560
paranormal or supernatural phenomena but i mean if you get into the weeds in terms of their actual
00:19:11.240
uh epistemology it is paranormal right so we kind of quarantine religion as this sort of sacred space that
00:19:19.720
um we can't dig into more deeply uh about the the sort of falsifiability or empirical nature of their
00:19:26.200
claims but you know whether you believe that um you know bigfoot is real or you know your dead
00:19:35.800
grandmother um is in heaven watching you you know categorically they're not that different in terms of
00:19:43.480
explanatory value how about personality traits first so the one i was going to think about i was going to
00:19:50.760
propose but then i could think of it going in opposite directions there's a hypothesis open-mindedness
00:19:58.360
at first could seem as though well the more open-minded i am the more i am open to the possibility of
00:20:04.520
believing that there is something beyond it but oh but for example i'm extremely open-minded i think
00:20:11.560
but yet i am so wedded to a materialist perspective that then that shuts down the possibility of my open-mindedness
00:20:18.680
being open to the stevenson stuff does that does that make sense um yeah i think so i mean um
00:20:27.080
there there have definitely been studies on individual differences and um psychological
00:20:32.440
personality traits and likelihood of um subscribing to paranormal or supernatural beliefs and um
00:20:42.840
the big five traits for instance and openness to experience would certainly be one of those
00:20:46.360
those um and that's you know one of the reasons i think that i struggled so much to even read ian
00:20:53.480
stevenson's cases you know i think you know you've got to somehow allow yourself the um intellectual license to
00:21:04.040
even explore or indulge in this literature to um you know to judge it adequately and that's what i that's
00:21:14.280
what i did in this book have have there been other biographies written on him or is this the inaugural one
00:21:21.400
no surprisingly not and it was a very difficult book to write because um he's got a very um
00:21:29.480
protected legacy i guess people are very defensive about his reputation he's got this sort of cult following among
00:21:38.200
um believers in reincarnation and paranormal phenomena that he was he was the investigator who provided
00:21:46.280
solid evidence of life after death mostly in the form of these uh case studies of reincarnation but other
00:21:53.960
other uh categories of evidence as well and um i had a hard time for instance interviewing some of his
00:22:02.600
contemporaries because they saw me as a skeptic and didn't even want to open the door to have this
00:22:09.880
conversation with me because i don't think that they they trusted me to handle um his story in the
00:22:17.000
way that they wanted the narrative to be told and if they read it now would they say that they were wrong
00:22:22.680
and you you were very fair to him i think that they should i would hope so because i think i was quite
00:22:27.880
sympathetic to um him as a figure and i do have enormous respect for him as a scientific investigator
00:22:36.200
and um sort of rogue figure that went against the grain and um fought against the majority um you know
00:22:46.760
not in any other way but you've got a lot in common with him in that sense because i think that he was
00:22:51.640
willing to forge a path that was courageous and brave and um something that his contemporaries um
00:23:00.120
you know wouldn't give the time of day and um you know his arguments at least from a sort of
00:23:07.800
philosophy of science perspective about why we just simply assume that you know there's no consciousness
00:23:14.840
after death without actually digging any deeper i think he was right i think it is a genuine
00:23:20.120
scientific question um that deserves a scientific approach and because parapsychology has been
00:23:28.360
so sensationalized over the years and you know has found itself sort of in the grips of the
00:23:33.720
entertainment industry and you know really um uh it's not highly regarded at all now i think it's
00:23:40.760
unfortunate because i think there are still a lot of questions that that could be approached from
00:23:45.480
a scientific perspective like he was trying to do i was gonna say that one of the reasons by the
00:23:49.560
way thank you for the kind words in your earlier comparison uh one of the reasons why i asked you
00:23:54.520
you know did you start at zero and then what was your eventual number is that when i've been asked
00:24:00.440
previously actually by a psychiatrist it was i was on a british show and the the host of the show was
00:24:07.480
is a psychiatrist and at the end of the show he asked me in all your years you know as a professor and
00:24:15.240
as a behavioral scientist what what has been the singular phenomenon that has surprised you the
00:24:19.720
most about the human condition which surprisingly is a question that i've never been asked before so
00:24:24.600
i had to really very quickly kind of think on my feet and then my answer and you'll see how it's
00:24:28.600
related to my question to you about have has your number moved i said well the inability for people
00:24:34.840
to change their opinions once it is anchored irrespective of how much evidence that you show
00:24:41.400
them so for me if nothing else the fact that you were open to the possibility of having your number
00:24:49.960
go from zero to a positive number is exactly the kind of epistemic humility that we should all hope to
00:24:57.000
have a scientist the second very quick point and then i'll see the floor back to you is so i said daryl
00:25:03.000
bem who's you know a well-respected uh academic who dabbled the only other person that i could think
00:25:09.800
off the top of my head that straddled both would be susan blackmore of memetic fame who also i think
00:25:21.320
had literally a position as a you know parapsychologist and he went in the opposite direction yes right so are
00:25:29.240
there other famous or infamous typically psychologists that we could think of that were able to straddle
00:25:37.800
both sides of the yeah um one of i mean one of the figures that i write about in the book and i had a
00:25:44.440
colleague of ian stevenson who actually played a central role in his work was um gardner murphy who was a
00:25:52.360
a well-known social experimental psychologist um in the 1940s through 60s i would say um who was not
00:26:02.440
only the president of the american psychological association but also the american society of
00:26:08.440
psychical research oh wow so he saw no obvious sort of um tension or contradiction between his belief i mean
00:26:19.560
and and and he was like ian stevenson i mean parapsychology is a very broad i guess discipline
00:26:25.960
if you want to call it that in terms of anomalous phenomena but these people were primarily interested
00:26:31.000
in the question as am i about whether the mind or consciousness survives biological death gardner murphy
00:26:36.920
was definitely primarily interested in that question and um he he thought that at some point we would
00:26:46.680
have a sort of comprehensive understanding of these phenomena that would lead to a reproachment between
00:26:54.440
um psychological science and parapsychology but yeah he walked in both of those worlds
00:27:01.480
um and you know i think people either thought that that that but either they either held that against
00:27:09.560
him they thought that well he can't possibly be that bright a mind if he actually believes in these
00:27:13.160
phenomena or they thought that well maybe there's something to it if somebody's so prestigious and
00:27:18.280
somebody somebody who knows this much about our our discipline um is giving the time of day to this
00:27:24.120
question are there can one go to many well-reputed universities and get a phd in parapsychology
00:27:34.760
um that's a good question they've definitely um they've definitely fell to the wayside fall into the
00:27:43.480
wayside um there was one in um edinburgh um i don't know what degree offerings the university of virginia
00:27:53.320
have at the moment in terms of postgraduate or graduate research um but the parapsychology unit that
00:28:01.160
ian stevenson founded is very much still at the university of virginia it's part of the medical
00:28:05.080
school wow um they don't necessarily like to regard themselves i think some of the staff there as
00:28:13.160
parapsychologists they've kind of shifted their focus more toward the psychology of anomalous phenomena
00:28:19.400
so for instance they study near-death experiences but they're looking more now at how those types
00:28:25.160
of experiences changes the individual psychologically right how they view the world then whether it was
00:28:31.320
real or not well you know i as as you're speaking both about psychiatry and about near-death experiences
00:28:39.320
it i can't help but think that there used to be if you remember in the 90s this craze of repressed
00:28:47.640
memories that the therapist would then elicit from you it's latent it's hidden
00:28:54.920
it's oh if you weren't sexually abused in this life then it must have been when you were
00:28:59.880
napoleon so there so i can see how there is a potential bridge from some therapeutic approaches
00:29:09.400
within the mental health profession so is that exactly what happened is it is was that his bridge
00:29:15.960
in that he was no no in fact ian stevenson had a very strong aversion to past life regression
00:29:22.200
therapy he thought he thought it was fraudulent he thought that these were therapists taking
00:29:25.960
advantage of vulnerable patients because he believed that putting people into these hypnotic
00:29:32.200
states would just sort of induce these dream-like sequences that seemed very real and powerful and
00:29:37.560
emotionally evocative to the patient but in fact had no basis in reality and it couldn't be investigated
00:29:45.480
from a scientific perspective because it was typically somebody saying that i was you know i was a peasant in
00:29:51.320
you know 16th century belgium and you know there's no record of their existence so you couldn't actually
00:29:56.520
investigate the case try to find that person who lived um so he felt very strongly that these past
00:30:03.800
life regression approaches were bullshit and um he was primarily focused instead on um children's
00:30:14.840
seemingly spontaneous recollections of previous lives and these sort of unbidden conversations
00:30:20.920
that they would have at a very early age two to five years old for instance where they're giving
00:30:27.720
you know names and descriptions of places and you know describing the interior of a house and what
00:30:34.280
they did for a living and you know all these types of things and then he would try to he would try to sort of
00:30:38.920
interrogate the child separately from the family of the person that died ideally before they had any
00:30:47.240
contact and see if they lined up and sometimes he had autopsy records and medical reports um that
00:30:58.600
showed you know how the person died the previous existence the previous personality he called it and
00:31:03.960
whether it mapped onto what the child was saying and um you know i have to say there are a couple
00:31:09.640
there are a handful of cases that are hard to explain if you if you take ian stevenson at his word
00:31:15.080
and i actually think he was a really meticulous scrupulous thoughtful scientific investigator and
00:31:22.200
that's why i had trouble just simply explaining away some of these idiosyncratic cases wow but you have
00:31:28.600
to get in you have to get into his work to actually read the case studies to understand the convincingness
00:31:34.920
of them and and i want to come back to near-death experiences in a second so it's filed in the back
00:31:39.240
of my mind but just to to continue with the point you just raised the ones where you thought were very
00:31:45.320
compelling that sort of had your ears perked up were you able you yourself to rule out all of the
00:31:55.160
cognitive biases that would otherwise perfectly explain that for now and let me before you go on
00:32:01.080
let me explain one such example which probably for you will be real you know you'll you'll know it but
00:32:06.760
maybe some of our listeners won't so for example there's something in in psychology of decision making
00:32:11.400
called the cell a bias i actually used this explanation when i was talking in one of my
00:32:16.360
chats with jordan peterson because he's a huge youngin guy and he was all into this synchronicity
00:32:21.400
youngin synchronicity and then i offered him this explanation and he just said you know what i think
00:32:27.240
you got me so let's see if we can have a similar success right here so the cell a bias basically is the
00:32:32.680
following uh when i say you know every single time that i get into the shower my phone rings it's
00:32:40.360
unbelievable right well the reality is that there are four possible states of the world i can get
00:32:45.800
into the shower or not get into the shower and the phone can ring or the phone cannot ring my brain
00:32:52.760
only codes when i get into the shower and my and and the phone rings so that's cell a so that's coded
00:33:00.440
as an occurrence in my brain whereas the three other cells by by the very nature of that state
00:33:06.840
are not coded in my brain therefore i have an overestimation of the number of cases where these
00:33:13.160
two events happen so yeah so if we take that example or any one of a bunch of other well-documented
00:33:20.760
cognitive biases could we and i'm not trying to be you know injurious to his legacy but would we be able
00:33:28.520
to quickly erase most it's not a geography i should say i mean it's i definitely am critical with his
00:33:35.160
work right um so i don't believe simply everything that he wrote and argued um but there are individual
00:33:44.200
cases i mean he had thousands and thousands of cases not just of reincarnation but apparitions and
00:33:49.400
mediums and all these types of things and within them is kind of this corpus of cases that
00:33:58.040
i guess would strain credulity in terms of the skeptics ability if you take it at least at his
00:34:05.400
word which again i do because i i think he was a valid sort of trustworthy meticulous scholar um are hard
00:34:14.120
to explain by these types of processes and it's mostly because of the specificity of the information
00:34:21.320
that you know in these reincarnation cases for instance a young child would give not only
00:34:25.320
you know you know i died in a car accident but you know i died on on you know on this route in this
00:34:33.400
town in this car that was this color that you know i was in the car with this person you know very
00:34:40.360
specific details that um i don't know how to explain you know how how you know and that's where that's
00:34:48.520
where i ran into the sort of brick wall as a psychologist um and accounting for those studies
00:34:58.440
very interesting i mean i can't rule out the possibility that you know it was all made up who
00:35:03.240
knows but now i really want to know about his legacy and his background and his approach and his right
00:35:09.320
i read everything that this guy ever wrote over you know 40 years of a career and he was a he was a
00:35:15.960
respectable serious scientific figure so would you consider yourself the current leading scholar on
00:35:25.080
ian stevenson i should be if i'm not um and i think you know there are people certainly that have
00:35:34.440
invested a lot of time and energy in researching his cases and writing about him but i i think that you
00:35:40.920
know many many people have been just kind of i talk in the book about motivated reasoning that people
00:35:46.520
kind of have these talk about psychological biases they they want to see what they already believe
00:35:52.680
and find confirmation of their beliefs going into it i think i was far enough removed as a skeptic
00:36:00.440
but also a not a sort of mean-spirited debunker or anything like that that was trying to take him down
00:36:06.040
right but i think i was far enough removed from him as an individual as a person um but also the
00:36:12.680
um the cases themselves to do them justice um and you know at the end my publisher was saying well
00:36:22.600
what's your conclusion here and um i kind of hesitate this is this is true for probably all of my books
00:36:31.240
because i you know most of my books i kind of just want to take the reader for a ride with you know some
00:36:35.320
interesting studies and issues and you know getting to think a little bit more deeply about
00:36:40.120
complicated uncomfortable material um but i was you know basically i basically kind of you know again
00:36:49.400
i i want the reader to decide here's the strength of the evidence you decide for me i felt like i was on
00:36:55.160
a journey with you know don quixote or something that you know it was kind of like this all of his cases
00:37:01.160
were so intricate and involved and complicated that um you don't know exactly what you're seeing
00:37:08.760
you know and that's where the motivated reasoning biases come into full effect because you you can
00:37:13.480
interpret them in terms of the survival of consciousness after death but um if you're a
00:37:18.920
non-believer going in you'll just assume that something must be wrong in his data collection or his research
00:37:23.800
right um so like i said at the beginning you know i kind of i left it thinking
00:37:31.400
maybe i'm wrong you know you know maybe you know all these years i've been operating on this false
00:37:37.320
presumption that the brain stops working after death and therefore the mind stops working after death
00:37:42.360
maybe it's a little bit more complicated than that at least i'm now willing to entertain that
00:37:46.600
possibility and i think it is a genuine scientific question right i was just gonna say one more thing
00:37:51.640
about this general topic and then maybe we can get into a bit of evolutionary psychology um so i as i
00:37:58.440
said earlier i read you know i'm a voracious reader uh largely of non-fiction but and and i've often read
00:38:04.760
biographies but recently for whatever reason i've been on this like orgiastic kick of only reading
00:38:11.080
biographies so i recently read a biography on leonardo da vinci i read a biography on uh abraham maslow by the
00:38:20.840
the way fantastic biography uh i'm looking here i just finished a biography on francis bacon i just
00:38:27.400
finished a biography on cleopatra so from the perspective of a reader i can see sort of the
00:38:34.040
the unique style of reading a biography versus you know some other book from your perspective as the
00:38:40.280
author of these different genres did you find that your writing style or discipline or process was
00:38:49.160
different for this biography than some of the other books and if so how yeah i think i found myself
00:38:55.400
stepping back a little bit more in this book and inserting fewer anecdotes and kind of my story i
00:39:01.160
mean occasionally i'll kind of bring them in just to have a juxtaposition between cases that he was
00:39:06.600
highlighting and experiences that i've had that i can't explain um but this was his story and i wanted to
00:39:13.960
do justice to it so i wanted to give him the stage basically so it was backing off a bit um trying to
00:39:21.880
be a little less intrusive in terms of my own theoretical scaffolding and argumentation and letting
00:39:28.760
him make the as clear an argument as he can take can make through my own words i guess you know you know
00:39:37.240
like i said he had hundreds of articles many books very involved complicated cases and for me the trick
00:39:44.280
was synthesizing this material in a way that somebody who'd never heard of ian stevenson has no idea who
00:39:49.880
this guy is or what he you know what his his objective was um to tell the story clearly right you know it's
00:39:58.920
interesting because earlier today i uh published my inaugural article on x on platform and i i actually
00:40:09.240
posted it just for subscribers so far and then eventually i'll release it and in that article i was
00:40:15.720
sort of using the fact that i have a forthcoming book uh coming out soon to then discuss my writing
00:40:23.960
process and how i go about it and at one point i talk about that you know it really in my case but
00:40:29.640
i think in in any author's case it's part top down in that you know you start off with a you know pretty
00:40:38.920
accurate table of contents and then you populate that table of contents as you go along so that's the
00:40:44.520
top down but then there is a bottom up organic part whereby while doing my research on empathy and
00:40:52.680
suicides because my book is about suicidal empathy i i get into cross-cultural instantiations of suicide
00:41:01.080
that i didn't necessarily a priori have a clear road map that i was going and those are some of the
00:41:07.880
most fun nuggets by definition because i wasn't prepared to go there that's part of my discovery
00:41:14.040
during the process of writing this book and so at an even more meta level the fact that you probably
00:41:20.440
decided to write this book is not something that 15 years ago i could have asked you you know down
00:41:27.480
the line do you think you'll be right exactly and it was the same thing for me for example for the
00:41:32.760
happiness book where is it's this one uh i after parasitic mind i would be lying to you if i said oh
00:41:40.280
my next book was going to be on happiness but what ended up happening is that many people would write
00:41:45.080
to me jesse and say how is it that you deal with all of these very complicated thorny controversial
00:41:51.080
issues but you always seem like you're joking around there's a twinkle in your eyes you're funny
00:41:55.400
you're satirical what's your secret professor what's your secret i said you know what let me let me take
00:42:00.040
a shot at writing a book so do you agree that part of our intellectual lives that makes it so enriching
00:42:07.640
is that you get these organic bottom-up stuff coming up yeah i mean the proposal for this book looked
00:42:13.480
nothing like that result um i was originally you know i was originally writing a book about
00:42:20.040
you know the illusion of the afterlife and how psychology can explain why people believe in such
00:42:23.960
an outlandish thing and over the course of this i went deeper into the ian stevenson work and i'm like
00:42:30.200
well maybe i'm being a little presumptuous here and that changed the complete direction of this book
00:42:36.040
book but um yeah i mean and it was this book took me two years to write i mean i didn't have
00:42:43.240
a lot of um background in parapsychology you know because i just never gave it the time of day
00:42:48.680
but um so i had to become an expert in a literature that was relatively foreign to me but you know the
00:42:54.520
best way to learn about a topic is to write about it right i think and um so that's what i did and you
00:43:00.600
you know it was as you know you probably can relate you know that sort of an immersive process
00:43:06.120
of losing yourself in the writing it's unbelievable i wrote about that today it's therapeutic you know
00:43:11.800
it's it's taking you outside of your life i mean i felt like i was i felt like i developed a relationship
00:43:17.080
with ian stevenson like i got to really know him and that kind of added this sort of meta level to
00:43:24.360
the afterlife question because here i was like almost having conversations with him across time i mean
00:43:29.240
he's been dead for almost 20 years now and um nevertheless through these intimate correspondences
00:43:35.400
these letters that he wrote um you know his his arguments i felt like i was having a conversation
00:43:41.560
with him um i loved it yeah do you once you finish a book and it's gone do you ever so i maybe i'm
00:43:51.080
being too hyperbolic or maybe not uh at least for my first book many years ago much more so than now
00:43:57.240
but i still sort of get it i get almost like a postpartum depression because i am so enthralled
00:44:06.440
in the process of right like i can't see right i can't see left i get up i go to the cafe i open the
00:44:13.400
laptop and i'm gone for the next eight hours oh i have dream i have dreams where i'm actually working
00:44:18.040
on lines in the book is that right yeah editing lines and different words and that sort of thing so but
00:44:24.440
then when that finishes do you sort of wake up and you're like what what do i do with myself today i
00:44:29.480
mean that you know that immediate purpose and meaning i experience that um you know usually
00:44:36.200
there's another project i need a project in my life to work on i mean that's just simply my happy space
00:44:40.600
is to find a project and you know i've got one that i'm trying to sort of segue into now that hopefully
00:44:47.960
will you know um fill that need but yeah i mean i i did feel like i i said everything i could
00:44:54.040
possibly say about ian stevenson's work and i i felt like it was a very exhaustive process and there
00:45:00.360
was very you know not much else i could do right with it i think as far as i possibly could um so i
00:45:06.200
felt like i came to the end of the road with it but yeah there's a bittersweet sort of feeling at the
00:45:11.160
end of it so if you you're for for the people who don't know i mean you're trained as an evolutionary
00:45:17.960
psychologist uh very much you know within that paradigm todd shackleford also who was at florida
00:45:26.680
atlantic university so there are many well-known evolutionary psychologists that you've dealt with
00:45:30.760
you've published papers in academic journals and evolutionary psychology how do you compare
00:45:35.160
your happiness or fulfillment level today yeah when publishing your next academic paper versus
00:45:45.800
the book and i don't mean to imply it might seem as though i'm it's a leading question where i'm
00:45:50.600
asking you to say i much rather write books now so yeah whatever the answer is it's fine take it away
00:45:57.240
um i i still have yeah i still like both yeah me too you know i one of the things that happened
00:46:04.920
with writing this book about ian stevenson was that it kind of rebooted my interest in doing research
00:46:11.480
on afterlife beliefs so as a consequence of this i'm kind of returning to my roots i mean my earliest
00:46:17.880
research was on the psychology of afterlife beliefs and because of writing this popular book you know i'm
00:46:24.360
i'm thinking more seriously about you know laboratory studies proper investigations of um of the afterlife
00:46:33.800
you know maybe not parapsychology but um maybe as well you know maybe i can add a bit of that in
00:46:39.560
there in there too so i think that there's like you you know it's it's balancing both worlds you know
00:46:45.640
having a foot in you know maintaining a solid foot within your academic discipline and your area of
00:46:51.480
training and specialization you know research that you're passionate about but also you know you know
00:46:57.640
trying to tell good stories and making an impact in the world and um so i would say it's balanced right
00:47:06.680
i mean i would say it's also balanced for me but it is increasingly tilting towards broader audiences
00:47:14.040
because we live as we i mean we didn't need thomas soul to tell us this but we live in a world where
00:47:20.920
there are trade-offs where there are opportunity costs and in an infinite resources world i want to
00:47:27.960
do everything perfectly full throttle right but like you know uh let me address the third round revision
00:47:38.040
of some journal that i've been fighting with for 18 months which if that paper will be incredibly
00:47:44.040
successful i could hope to have it cited maybe 200 times or let me write a book which is going to be
00:47:51.640
translated into 25 languages and read by a million people well and i don't even enter money into the
00:47:58.040
equation just in terms of reach right where we create knowledge and we disseminate knowledge and my itch
00:48:04.200
for dissemination is no longer being scratched when i get 72 citations of my next paper yeah no i completely
00:48:11.960
understand that and i think that that's what um motivated me to begin you know writing for
00:48:16.920
scientific american and slate you know all these places because you get um because you're you're
00:48:22.440
passionate about the research itself and you want to talk about interesting science and you want people
00:48:27.320
to understand it and be engaged with it and it's just kind of quarantined or lost within these these
00:48:33.320
echo chambers these very small academic communities that you know it never gets out of that space
00:48:38.280
um you know interestingly enough ian stevenson's work kind of spoke to that because he
00:48:46.520
he like i said he had this really strong aversion to his science being i guess bastardized or kind of
00:48:56.520
um you know popularized in a way that you know unscrupulous tv executives would see some story about
00:49:05.160
paranormal phenomena and sort of want to make a big you know hair raising the you know movie or story
00:49:12.040
about it he thought it belonged to science and he wanted to talk just to scientists and people who
00:49:16.920
would take the work seriously so i think some of it has to do with the subject matter i guess if that
00:49:22.840
makes sense yeah yeah no i get it what are some things that uh are exciting you let's let's let's
00:49:29.400
geek out a bit on some of our own interests in evolutionary psychology what's some of the stuff
00:49:34.440
that you're excited about from an evolutionary psychological perspective um well i'm still
00:49:41.160
writing about sex you know i i had a sort of detour in my career where i was writing quite a lot about
00:49:47.240
human sexuality and evolutionary foundations of of sex um so i've been writing this weekly column for
00:49:54.520
laplante and familiarizing myself with the literature you know getting re-familiarized with
00:50:01.240
the sort of um uh ongoing research in evolutionary psychology and there's still loads of fascinating
00:50:07.720
stuff i'm my next piece is going to be about um uh the tactics tactics that people use when they're
00:50:14.840
in relationships to detect infidelity and and also um the counter tactics that people that are in
00:50:21.080
in some sort of extramarital relationship used to hide the old evolutionary arms race the arms race
00:50:28.440
for sure yeah so there's some really fascinating work with um interviewing people about their sort
00:50:33.720
of everyday techniques for figuring out whether their partner is really cheating on them or not
00:50:39.240
um and you know i think so i i think i've got a taste for and this might be kind of contradictory to
00:50:48.760
what i said i've got a taste for you know sort of sensational sort of fascinating attention worthy
00:50:54.280
topics in evolutionary psychology because that's what attracts people's attention and gets them
00:50:58.440
thinking a little bit more deeply about the theoretical basis yeah of the field do you does it frustrate you
00:51:06.600
uh the extent to which never mind our academic colleagues who are still the tractors of evolution
00:51:12.840
psychology but just everyday people and certainly in in social media i i never cease to be amazed by the
00:51:20.200
extent to which people who know almost nothing about what i do are so convinced that it's all
00:51:26.520
quackery charlotte yeah right i mean we we sit around with a martini with a cigar psychology to them
00:51:32.200
yeah exactly and we just come up with bullshit just so stories that have absolutely no basis when of
00:51:37.320
course the exact opposite epistemologically is true right if someone has rigorous exactly
00:51:43.960
before you before you commit to the idea that something is an adaptation the type of
00:51:49.080
nomological network of cumulative evidence that you have to build to support the idea that's an adaptation
00:51:55.560
is astoundingly more rigorous than all of the other sciences but apparently i'm just a
00:52:00.520
bullshitter who come who concocts you know kipling stories sure yeah no it's enormously frustrating
00:52:06.520
um and it's usually you know people who have a very thin sort of superficial understanding of the
00:52:13.560
discipline and they've heard about evolutionary psychology and their gender studies or sociology
00:52:19.480
coursework um and just have a very knee-jerk reaction to it um without understanding that the
00:52:26.120
you know the main point about proximate and ultimate causation and um separating those explanatory
00:52:34.440
um levels uh so yeah do you feel that it is an indelible part of the architecture of the human mind to
00:52:47.080
always be resistant to evolutionary theorizing regarding human behavior or could we ever slay permanently that
00:52:58.040
phoenix to never arise from the ashes again i think it has something and this you know may have something
00:53:05.320
to do with my long-standing interest in the afterlife because i think a lot of it has to do with our fear of
00:53:09.880
mortality and what evolutionary explanations ultimately mean about human existence and our finite
00:53:18.920
um place in the world um our very ephemeral nature and i think that's terrifying and frightening to people
00:53:28.680
um and ultimately those types of existential um anxieties to me seem to be at the heart of a lot of
00:53:38.840
people's aversion to evolutionary theory we are we are animals you know we are biological organisms
00:53:45.480
i saw a lot an old interview with rodney dangerfield and he was on howard stern or something and
00:53:50.920
and he was an old man at that time and he was near death and howard stern asked him asked him basically
00:53:55.320
if he believed in the afterlife and he said well we're gorillas you know do gorillas come back from
00:54:00.920
the dead you know is there an afterlife for gorillas and you know that's the sort of question that i've
00:54:06.520
struggled with too like um why would just human beings have this kind of uh continuation of consciousness
00:54:14.360
after death what about a termite or a sand fly or our dogs or a gorilla whatever um what does the
00:54:22.040
afterlife look like for them um and yeah so i hear you i'm sorry that went off on a bit of a tangent but
00:54:31.000
yes i've had i have that same uh frustration i guess with people who think they understand evolutionary
00:54:39.720
psychology but um don't at all all right next question and before i ask you about any other
00:54:48.360
projects that you might be working on beyond the forthcoming book that you're so oh i have one that
00:54:54.120
you might be interested in but yeah so hold on hold on hold on uh so this might it may or may not go
00:54:59.640
strictly to my uh exclusive subscribers uh in my last book in the happiness book i have a chapter on the
00:55:07.000
the psychology of regret where i actually talk about work actually by one of my former uh professors at
00:55:14.600
cornell thomas gilevich who did empirical studies of a lot you you're familiar with this stuff so
00:55:20.360
regret due to action regret due to inaction regret due to action i i regret that i cheated on my wife and
00:55:26.520
now my marriage is over regret due to inaction i regret that i became an accountant because my dad and his
00:55:33.880
dad were accountants but in reality i wish that i would have become an architect because i've always
00:55:38.200
been interested in that and i think you probably know jesse that most people's biggest looming regret
00:55:45.800
is one associated with inaction that the road that i did not take uh so if i were to ask you now you're
00:55:52.920
still a relatively young man uh if i were to say to you 50 wow there you go if i were to say to you
00:56:01.640
today so far what might be your biggest looming regret could you share it with us and will it
00:56:09.960
coincide with what thomas gilevich told us about action versus inaction um yeah for sure for me i mean
00:56:17.960
you know i've written extensively about the fact that i'm gay and you know i didn't come out of the
00:56:22.520
closet until relatively late i was in my sort of early 20s when i came out to my mother i sort of
00:56:30.120
sublimated i would say my sexuality and really threw myself into academic research and and um my romantic
00:56:39.400
and sexual life sort of took a back seat to everything else and i think i lost precious time
00:56:45.480
from that um i mean i've been with my partner now for 20 years and i'm very grateful for that um but
00:56:52.280
i think i got a bit of a late start uh coming out as late as i did um but it was also you know as an
00:57:00.280
artifact of growing up in a conservative town in the midwest and you know not knowing any gay people
00:57:06.280
and having you know these sort of stereotypic assumptions about what homosexuality was and
00:57:11.080
all these types of things and um so i guess that would be my biggest so but is the regret due to
00:57:17.000
the fact that you carried that burden longer before it came out or that you missed opportunities that
00:57:24.920
oh both i would say probably the latter actually um you know youth is you know it's it's it's fleeting and
00:57:34.440
um i feel like there were missed opportunities for sure in terms of sex and dating and romance
00:57:40.840
and all those types of things um but but also just that guilt and anxiety and shame and you know
00:57:47.880
all these horrible feelings that sort of go along with um uh coming out of the closet it was complicated
00:57:54.600
for me you know because my mother was i i my mother was dying at the time she was sick and i didn't
00:58:00.440
want to burden her with that you know about but me um but um yeah i guess if i had to say any any sort
00:58:09.400
of big regret it would be not being more uh open and honest with myself and with others earlier
00:58:17.240
wow what an amazing answer uh all right tell me about the project that you were so excited to tell me
00:58:22.200
about well um i i know you know who solomon ash is yeah come on man so um i i mean his work that you
00:58:35.480
know the famous line study where unconformity i mean i eat breathe and sleep that study absolutely i mean
00:58:42.920
it's so simple but so profound and it it has always made an enormous impact on me um because
00:58:51.880
i think that it spoke so much about human psych human social psychology and uh majority influence
00:58:58.760
and conforming all these types of things anyway um nobody's ever written his biography oh my god sign
00:59:06.840
me up first reader of that book so last month i went to um the museum of the history of psychology at
00:59:16.920
the university of akron of all places that's where they have these this incredible archives repository
00:59:21.320
of university of akron yes yeah as in ohio correct i didn't think ohio was a real place
00:59:29.160
it's a it's a arm of the smithsonian it's um got this enormous collection it's been around for a
00:59:36.680
while but it's quite i don't think it's on many people's radar anyway the the estate of solomon ash
00:59:43.080
left all of his files and his letters and his records to to this to this collection this library and i
00:59:52.760
i found um his memoir you know his autobiography thousands of pages that he wrote that he never
00:59:59.960
he never got around to finishing and you know it talks about growing up as a boy in poland um he
01:00:08.600
didn't move to the us till he was 13 didn't know can i just remind you that he's jewish yeah that's and
01:00:13.800
he was influenced by the holocaust for sure with those studies so the memoir talks a lot about being
01:00:20.280
jewish and and growing up in this village in poland um moving to the us in 1920 you know this incredible
01:00:27.640
story and that's what i'm digging into next so hold on just so i understand first of all my excitement
01:00:34.200
level is at 100 so that number one number two are you saying that you'd like to help in uh publishing
01:00:42.680
his autobiography or is it that you'd like to write a biography using access to his autobiography
01:00:49.800
both i would say a little bit of both you know it's but but i'm also trying to make his work
01:00:56.280
relevant to what's happening today and looking at looking at his famous studies and his sort of core
01:01:02.360
ideas about conformity and influence through the lens of contemporary conversations um well i mean it's
01:01:09.080
almost impossible sorry to interrupt you forgive me it's almost impossible to think of a set of studies
01:01:16.760
that are more relevant to everything exactly more than solomon ash for sure yeah so nobody's done this
01:01:24.840
before no there is a um there's a very slim volume that's kind of like a set of memorial essays to him
01:01:34.520
with a very with a very short autobiography that he wrote but no proper treatment in terms of his life
01:01:41.800
story and he was a good guy like he was completely sane and sober and clear-headed and brilliant and um
01:01:52.600
uh and but also had very deep humanitarian interest uh he was of course milgram's advisor
01:02:01.800
and um just crossed paths with so much that was happening and at the the height of social psychology
01:02:08.040
in the 1950s and 60s that's amazing so i wonder if he would have crossed at all with maslow because
01:02:16.200
as i mentioned uh the biography oh by the way the guy who wrote the biography on maslow is still alive
01:02:24.040
i reached out to him and you might imagine i mean he wrote this biography i don't know maybe in the 70s
01:02:29.720
and here's this guy who was borderline and diapers in the 1970s not quite uh and i'm writing to him now
01:02:36.680
and so i'm hoping to get him on on the show that's cool soon so that that should be really cool so what's
01:02:42.120
the timeline for this project oh i'm on sabbatical this year and you know putting together the proposal
01:02:48.520
it's pretty early days um but i've got all the material and um the next step would be tracing his story
01:02:56.600
you know maybe talking to his grandchildren who are still alive wow uh maybe going to poland
01:03:04.760
to visit his hometown and seeing sort of where he grew up but also i mean they've been as you know
01:03:10.120
there have been you know it's been decades since that work and there have been thousands of studies
01:03:16.520
iterations with the lines and conformity so you know it's got it's gonna be a pretty formidable project
01:03:23.240
oh my god i'm so excited for you i can't wait let make sure to come back when you when the book
01:03:27.880
comes out oh yeah make sure to send me i mean i knew it would speak to you because oh my like it's
01:03:32.280
almost i mean short of you telling me that you're meeting leonardo da vinci next week
01:03:37.160
to discuss his work that would be right up there so uh yeah you're exactly right uh listen it's uh
01:03:44.440
what a pleasure it is to talk to you i hope that we'll get a chance to see each other in person
01:03:48.440
in new zealand soon working on it i know i know you are thank you so much say hello to
01:03:54.840
your colleague at yes uh he was a lovely fellow i met him at university of buckingham and uh
01:04:00.520
come back anytime stay on the line so we could say goodbye offline and again let me just read
01:04:05.880
the title of the book before you go the incredible afterlives of dr stevenson coming out this april
01:04:13.320
university of chicago press go pre-order right now people thank you jesse thank you yeah