The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad - Evolutionary Psychology Informs the Social Sciences and the Denial of Science (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_835)

00:00:00.000 You're listening to the Unsiloed Podcast with Greg LeBlanc, produced by UniversityFM.

00:00:09.140 Unsiloed is a series of interdisciplinary conversations that inspire new ways of thinking

00:00:13.540 about our world. So wherever you are, enjoy today's episode, and here's your host, Greg LeBlanc.

00:00:21.660 Welcome to Unsiloed. This is Greg LeBlanc, and I'm here today with Gad Saad, who is a professor

00:00:27.200 both at Concordia University in Montreal and also on leave visiting Northwood University.

00:00:34.200 And your position at Concordia, it's a little interesting. I mean, you were, I guess you're

00:00:38.920 at the Molson School of Business, but you have a chair in behavioral consumption. I bet you're

00:00:45.160 the only person on the planet that has that title, right? Well, the official title is, by the way,

00:00:51.500 I no longer hold it. I held it for 10 years, from 2008 to 2018. The official title was Concordia

00:00:57.700 University Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption.

00:01:03.320 Darwinian Consumption, right? And also the author of a couple of books. I have two of them with me

00:01:07.500 here. This one, The Consuming Instinct, What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift-Giving

00:01:12.000 Reveal About Human Nature? And I think this is preceded by a more academic book on Darwinian

00:01:17.520 Consumption. And then I guess it was in 2019 when you released this one, The Parasitic Mind,

00:01:22.540 How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. And you have another book that just came out last

00:01:26.900 year, which unfortunately I didn't get to. I'll ask you some questions about, on happiness. And I'm

00:01:31.820 guessing that one is flying off the shelf because everybody seems to want happiness. So first of all,

00:01:37.040 welcome, God. It's great to be with you. Thank you. I know that we've been going back and forth for

00:01:41.140 a while to make this happen. So I'm glad to finally be on your show. Thank you for having me.

00:01:45.500 Well, look, I mean, you mentioned a story in, I think it was in The Parasitic Mind,

00:01:49.620 when you talked about how you went and gave two talks at University of Michigan, same talk actually,

00:01:54.460 to two different audiences. One was psychology and one was in the business school. And the talk

00:02:00.680 was really about how you can use evolutionary biology and psychology to understand consumer

00:02:06.800 behavior. And you said that in the psychology department, you got a warm reception. Everybody

00:02:10.500 was asking you interesting scientific questions. And then when you went to the business school,

00:02:13.860 you encountered a lot of resistance and people were not receptive to your ideas and very dismissive.

00:02:19.760 And I think that if I were to make a prediction and you were to make a prediction, and I think

00:02:23.860 David Buss in the introduction to your book made a prediction, we would have predicted that fast forward

00:02:28.780 10 years or so, the business schools would be more like the psychology departments and we all would

00:02:33.920 have been more open to these ideas. But I think strangely enough, we've actually seen the opposite

00:02:39.160 in that business schools continue to be resistant to these ideas. And now psychology departments

00:02:45.420 are resistant to these ideas. And this just seems particularly strange because going back,

00:02:52.760 I don't know, 100 years ago, was it Dub Shansky who said, nothing in biology makes sense except in the

00:02:57.520 light of evolution. I mean, I've always thought nothing in the social sciences makes sense except in the

00:03:04.560 light of evolution. And I remember it was 25 years ago, I started teaching a course in biology and

00:03:09.900 economics. And it seemed relatively uncontroversial and kind of exciting and new at the time.

00:03:14.360 But now I don't even think I could offer a course like that, even though I smuggled the material in

00:03:18.220 most of my courses on behavioral finance and economics and so forth. So how do we explain this

00:03:23.920 trend? It seems, well, first of all, we'll talk about the uses of evolutionary biology, but we can start

00:03:28.480 by just saying, are you surprised by the kind of lack of adoption of these fairly obvious insights?

00:03:36.420 Well, I am surprised in that, frankly, it was my first exposure to what parasitized minds would 1.00

00:03:43.800 look like. So, and I think offline, before we started, you said that pretty much your evolution

00:03:48.960 psychology work leading up to parasitic mind kind of captures the trajectory of your career. That is

00:03:54.700 exactly right. Because when I first finished my PhD and I was starting my first professorship,

00:04:00.220 the goal was to Darwinize the business school. The idea being that you can't study anything involving

00:04:08.420 any creature, let alone human beings, let alone human beings in a business setting, whilst pretending

00:04:16.180 that the biological forces that shape our behavior are somehow non-existent when we put on our consumer

00:04:22.760 hat or our employer hat or our employee hat or our decision-making hat, how could it be that every

00:04:28.620 other species on earth, you would never dream of studying it void of its philogenetic history,

00:04:34.540 but human beings, yeah, of course, we're only a culture animal. So that was, in a sense, my first

00:04:39.180 exposure to how supposedly perfectly reasonable and educated people called professors, in most cases,

00:04:45.920 social scientists, in many cases, housed in business schools, could completely have parasitic

00:04:50.640 pensions. So in that sense, I had sort of a sense of epistemological indignation. How could you be

00:04:57.500 such morons? Like, what could be controversial about the fact that hormones should affect our 1.00

00:05:02.380 behaviors? Who wouldn't know that? Who wouldn't agree to that? So the next question would be, well,

00:05:07.560 why is it that there is such an animus that social scientists, although in many cases, even natural

00:05:15.400 scientists will exhibit towards evolutionary psychology? And I say natural scientists because you take

00:05:20.560 for example, someone like Richard Lewington and Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard, they were professional

00:05:27.140 evolutionists. So it's not as though you needed to convince them that evolution was a veridical theory

00:05:32.880 to explain speciation. But once you try to apply evolution to the study of this one species called

00:05:40.220 human beings, well, then you're a quack, you're a Nazi, you're so on. And so in their case, it's because 0.52

00:05:46.300 they were Marxist. So therefore, their ideological commitment did not allow them to afford the

00:05:52.680 possibility that evolution could have shaped the human mind. So that was, if you'd like, a marriage

00:05:58.160 that I just gave you between my evolutionary psychology work and then eventually writing

00:06:01.800 the parasitic mind. Maybe I can mention just a few of the reasons why people have such animus

00:06:06.880 towards evolutionary psychology, which exactly purports that evolutionary psychology and evolutionary

00:06:13.000 biology should be applicable to every species, but that it transcends, human beings transcend those

00:06:18.760 forces. Or it might explain why we have opposable thumbs, but surely don't use evolution to explain

00:06:25.900 everything that's above the neck. Okay. In some cases, people could be a bit more flexible in saying,

00:06:32.120 well, it explains very primal urges, why I want to eat a juicy burger, but it surely can't explain

00:06:39.960 higher order reasoning. What do you mean? Where do you think our cognition comes from?

00:06:45.040 And so even though I'm completely used to, at this point, facing all the animus, it still surprises

00:06:51.600 me because to me it should be banal and trivially obvious that, of course, evolutionary psychology

00:06:57.580 explains our human behavior.

00:06:59.140 Well, look, I mean, there are two dimensions of resistance to it. One is just simply that folks

00:07:04.680 like economists, they're just not interested in getting into the black box. So they'll just say,

00:07:08.820 look, here are the preferences. Let's take preferences as given and going into final

00:07:14.900 causes. Let's just box that off, partition that, leave that to other people. And we're just going

00:07:21.720 to focus on the decision-making, you know, we'll measure a demand curve and there it is. And let's

00:07:26.820 not worry about it. Okay. That's one form of resistance. Then the other form of resistance is

00:07:30.880 let's crack into the black box, but let's only use certain types of explanations or models. I mean,

00:07:37.200 I think the first one is less important now. I think we've come around to the idea that

00:07:42.080 interdisciplinary research is more acceptable.

00:07:45.260 Yeah. So I'll address both of those causes. Table for a second, the first one, the economist

00:07:50.560 one. There are additional forms of animus to evolutionary theory in general and evolutionary

00:07:55.940 psychology in particular. So some people who succumb to sort of the fallacy of biological

00:08:00.560 determinism think that if you somehow offer an evolutionary based explanation for something,

00:08:06.340 then you are just a passive executor of your genetic imperatives. Whereas of course, we know

00:08:11.880 that it's a complete interaction. Even genes are turned on or off as a function of environmental

00:08:16.560 input. Other people hate evolutionary theory because they think that a whole bunch of really

00:08:21.500 nasty folks have misused it. The Nazis, eugenicists, British social class, elitists in the 19th century.

00:08:27.700 And therefore, let's create a new worldview where biology ceases to matter because then hopefully

00:08:34.440 we can all sing Kumbaya and so on. And so there's a whole range of reasons. And I've only given you

00:08:40.860 three or four, but there's many more that explains that sort of visceral animus. But to your first point

00:08:46.500 regarding the economist there, I think the important distinction to make is the distinction between

00:08:52.720 proximate explanations and ultimate explanations. Most, not just economists, most scientists of

00:09:00.860 any ilk in any discipline operate at the proximate level, which is understanding the how and the what of a

00:09:07.580 mechanism. Most Nobel Prizes are won in the proximate world. There's nothing wrong with that. The ultimate

00:09:13.180 explanation is not ultimate in a superior sense. By the way, you mentioned earlier, the animus I face at the

00:09:19.720 University of Michigan. One of the sources of the animus, amongst many others, was when I used the

00:09:25.580 term ultimate as if I'm sort of epistemologically superior. I am giving you the ultimate explanation.

00:09:31.540 That's not at all what it means. It means ultimate in the unfolding of the causal chain all the way to

00:09:38.560 the ultimate Darwinian why. So if, for example, I tell you pregnancy sickness, women experiences since

00:09:46.440 time immemorial. It occurs in a very predictable way. It happens exactly during the period of organogenesis

00:09:53.380 in the first trimester where the organs are forming in utero. And there is a million proximate

00:09:58.400 questions I can ask. If I were an OBGYN, how does the fluctuation of a woman's hormones affect the 0.99

00:10:06.300 severity of her symptoms? Look, I use the word how or I could say what are particular smells that might

00:10:12.060 trigger pregnancy sickness? That's a what question. The ultimate Darwinian question is why has that mechanism

00:10:19.120 evolved? And the answer is a beautiful one. It's because it protects women during that very important

00:10:25.400 period from potentially ingesting teratogens, foodborne pathogens that could wreak havoc during organogenesis on

00:10:33.540 the forming organs in utero. Now, it turns out from a practical perspective, if you go see your OBGYN because you're

00:10:40.660 having these really unpleasant symptoms, he or she will give you a pill to try to reduce those symptoms. That is the

00:10:47.640 perfectly incorrect thing to do from an evolutionary perspective. But because more pregnancy sickness symptoms 0.84

00:10:53.520 results in a better outcome, there's less likelihood of miscarriage, better outcome of the child being born

00:10:59.260 healthy, precisely because those unpleasant symptoms are an insurance protection mechanism. And so understanding any

00:11:07.980 phenomenon at both levels of analyses, at the proximate and ultimate, offers you the possibility

00:11:14.340 of fully understanding something. Economists, not only do they not care in what's happening inside the black

00:11:20.560 box, as you said, even if they cared about what's happening in the black box, they would only care about

00:11:26.020 it at the proximate level. So there's a wide range of interesting explanations that they are foregoing by not

00:11:32.340 understanding that other level. So for someone who's trying to make decisions, why do we care about the

00:11:39.320 ultimate level? I mean, if I'm just interested in prediction, presumably I can just look at the

00:11:44.640 empirical data and, you know, look at variation and back out the predictions of what works and what

00:11:50.580 doesn't work. So why would, say, a marketer be interested in understanding these underlying causes?

00:11:57.340 No, I got that. And I specifically try to address that when I'm teaching, say, MBAs, who many of them

00:12:04.200 may not be there for intrinsic reasons. I just want to learn. But every syllable, how can I monetize

00:12:09.640 what you're saying, professor? And so I've got to give them the practical implications. A good marketer

00:12:14.560 is one that is wedded to a solid understanding of human nature. So even if the marketer does not

00:12:23.340 describe themselves as an evolutionary psychologist, by virtue of themselves being a walking Darwinian

00:12:30.200 being, their marketing solutions will either be all other things equal effective or not, if they are

00:12:36.280 wedded to an understanding of human nature. Now that sounds all sort of unclear. So let me give a concrete

00:12:41.000 example. If you want to understand female sexuality and female mate preferences, there is one consumatory

00:12:49.280 product that you absolutely have to study, and it's called romance novels. Because romance novels

00:12:54.940 are almost exclusively read by women around the world. And the romance novel always has a male

00:13:01.900 protagonist. That male protagonist borders, if you are using an AI system for plagiarism detection,

00:13:08.960 it would be bordering on every single romance novel ever having been written, having plagiarized from

00:13:14.400 some original romance novel because it's the exact same guy. The guy is tall. The guy has a royal title.

00:13:21.100 He's also a neurosurgeon. He also is very feckless in his risk-taking. He cannot be tamed except by the

00:13:28.820 love of this one woman. He also wrestles alligators on his six-pack and comes out victorious. I just

00:13:34.560 described every single romance novel. Now there was a company, I can't remember the details, but that

00:13:39.760 apparently was trying to create a new romance novel line. This is marketing, right? It's creation

00:13:45.760 of a new product. And because they wanted to eradicate the toxic masculinity, because they wanted 0.72

00:13:53.340 to create a new line of new male that women should be fantasizing about. Now that's coming, linking it 0.72

00:14:00.680 to parasitic mind, it's coming from a parasitic idea called social constructivism. Everything is due to 0.68

00:14:06.320 social construction. We are born tabula rasa. And then it's socialization that makes me prefer the types

00:14:11.840 of women I'm attracted to, or makes women prefer the types of guys they're attracted to. It's Hollywood

00:14:16.640 images. It's Elle magazine. It's Beyonce videos. Of course, it's the exact opposite mechanism. Hollywood

00:14:22.160 images exist in their form because they cater to evolved pensions, okay? So this particular group of

00:14:27.760 marketers at this particular company had the wrong impression of human psychology, whereby they've had the

00:14:35.600 audacity to say, I will teach you what types of male you wish to fantasize over because you're

00:14:41.600 born tabula rasa. Well, it didn't go too well for them because women were didn't say, you know what? 1.00

00:14:47.840 Yes. If you tell me that I should be attracted to pear shaped guys who have nasal voices and cry while 0.93

00:14:54.720 sucking their thumbs because they're so sensitive while watching Bridget Jones diary, that was fair enough. 0.96

00:15:00.000 Then that's what I will be attracted to. They said, no, sorry, that's not what I'm attracted to. 0.99

00:15:03.760 And so that gives you a good example of a marketer who decides that based on their understanding of

00:15:11.360 the human mind, they will create product lines. If it's not wanted to evolution psychology, it will

00:15:17.520 fail. But look, I mean, marketers know this stuff, even if they don't know why they know the what,

00:15:23.280 I mean, they've been doing this for decades. If you walk into a casino, there'll be a scantily clad

00:15:29.040 woman dealing the cards. And this is not by accident. They figured it out. They know it works. 0.57

00:15:34.480 They'll tell you sex sells, et cetera. They might not know anything about Darwinian evolution,

00:15:39.840 but they seem to have figured it out. I mean, do market forces ultimately lead to effective

00:15:46.880 discovery of these insights? I mean, what can we add when we bring in the theory?

00:15:52.240 I said at the start that a good marketer is one who by virtue of them being a Darwinian being

00:15:58.000 already comes equipped with that knowledge. But there is a countervailing force and that is

00:16:04.560 ideological capture, right? Hence parasitic mind, right? If you get other marketers who are parasitized

00:16:10.800 with ideas that are contrary to human nature, then maybe it becomes valuable to read the parasitic mind

00:16:16.640 and take Professor Saad's course. Because we know that certainly within the ecosystem of the

00:16:21.360 university campus, it is now questionable whether we know exactly what is male or female. We knew

00:16:27.760 until about 15 minutes ago, the 117 billion people who had existed on earth were able to completely

00:16:33.840 navigate through the conundrum of what it is to be male or female. But now we no longer know,

00:16:38.560 as the latest addition to the US Supreme Court explained to us, she's not a biologist. How could she 0.69

00:16:43.200 know what is a woman? So you're right that most people come into the world and navigate the world 0.94

00:16:49.520 with certainly a folk understanding of Darwinian principles. But that doesn't mean that there

00:16:54.000 aren't unique insights that are gleaned from understanding those things. Let me give you a

00:16:58.720 specific example. My first exposure to evolutionary psychology, Greg, was in my first semester as a

00:17:04.560 doctoral student when I took a course in advanced social psychology with Professor Dennis Regan.

00:17:09.760 And about halfway through the semester, he signed the book called Homicide.

00:17:13.040 Daly and Wilson. Daly and Wilson, look at you. Regrettably, Professor Wilson has passed away,

00:17:18.560 but I think Martin Daly is still kicking out. I'm not sure how productive he is these days. They were

00:17:24.160 a husband and wife team at McMaster University back then. I met them both at HBS back in like,

00:17:29.200 I don't know, late 90s or something. Oh, okay. Well, I mean, Daly and Wilson in their book,

00:17:33.920 Homicide discuss a wide range of patterns of criminality spanning across cultures and time

00:17:41.520 periods, but that can very, very elegantly and parsimoniously explain these phenomena.

00:17:46.880 So let's take one example, child abuse. And maybe you already know where I'm going with this,

00:17:51.520 or maybe, but you do. Okay. Most people absolutely can't guess it. So when I tell people,

00:17:56.800 can you please tell me what do you think is the number one predictor of child abuse? And people

00:18:01.680 offer all sorts of explanations that some of them, there is a causal link, but whatever they come

00:18:07.440 up with, and they never come up with the right answer is a hundred fold lesser than the most

00:18:12.720 important factor, which is if there is a step parent in the home. Now, surely that has huge

00:18:19.120 applicability in the sense that if I am a social scientist trying to develop ultimately downstream

00:18:25.440 some public policy, knowing that singular factor has more predictive ability than all of the other

00:18:33.040 factors that social scientists have come up with combined, there has to be some practical

00:18:37.840 applicability beyond just, oh, it's an interesting scientific phenomenon. So again, rooting your

00:18:43.520 understanding of human nature and subsequently the actionable outcomes of that knowledge has to be

00:18:50.480 rooted in a correct understanding of human nature. Well, I mean, it seems like so many of the

00:18:56.640 challenges that we're encountering in academia stem from one of the most basic fallacies that goes

00:19:03.200 all the way back to Hume, which is the failure to distinguish between the positive and the normative.

00:19:08.400 I mean, we had a colleague who was teaching marketing, who was basically fired for his job for

00:19:14.080 discussing segmentation by on gender lines. Now, look, you don't need to think it's a good thing

00:19:21.040 or a bad thing. Maybe you want to ban it. Maybe you want to regulate it. That's a completely separate

00:19:25.200 question as to whether or not you get lift when you engage in the practice. So, I mean, are we

00:19:32.720 essentially foreclosing these conversations simply because we don't like the, what we might imagine to

00:19:39.760 be some normative implications or because we just want to jump to the normative intent that we have?

00:19:46.320 I mean, is that one of the key fallacies? Yeah. So, related to what you're saying,

00:19:51.200 remember earlier I said there's a whole range of factors that causes the animus. So, I'm going to

00:19:56.400 mention one now that is not identical, but certainly linked to what you're saying about the difference

00:20:01.600 between normative and so on or naturalistic fallacy and so on. Oftentimes, when you use evolutionary

00:20:08.080 theory to explain what are reprehensible behaviors, child abuse, domestic violence, infidelity in a

00:20:16.480 marriage, infanticide, people immediately interpret that as justification for that reprehensible act.

00:20:26.480 And therefore, oh, so you're saying that here's the reason why people cheat on each other. So you're

00:20:31.200 saying it's okay because you have a scientific explanation. Oh, so you're giving a justification

00:20:35.600 for why child abuse happens because it's separate, which of course has the same level of intellectual

00:20:42.080 acuity then as saying, if I'm an oncologist and I explain cancer, that means I'm justifying it. I'm

00:20:48.800 pro-cancer. I want to justify its existence. It's silly. But now, there is a deeper reason why people

00:20:55.920 hate evolutionary theory. I think it's because in many cases, it attacks people's most foundational

00:21:03.920 ideological commitment. So if I'm a radical feminist, I hate evolutionary theory because 0.75

00:21:09.440 you're arguing that there are innate sex differences due to sexual dimorphism. I don't like that. If I'm

00:21:16.400 a postmodernist, I hate evolutionary psychology because it certainly purports that there are human

00:21:22.080 universals as part of our shared biological heritage. Whereas in postmodernism, there are

00:21:27.200 no universal truths other than the one universal truth that there are no universal truths. If I am

00:21:32.560 religiously minded, I don't like evolutionary theory because are you saying that all of the exquisite

00:21:38.240 design and nature is not due to my preferred God, but it's due to some randomness? So for a wide

00:21:45.280 variety of reasons, people agree on why evolutionary theory is truly a dangerous idea. Now, on the one hand,

00:21:53.200 it's very frustrating for me because it doesn't matter how well I do my job in trying to convince

00:21:59.520 people of the veracity of evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology. There is a new generation

00:22:04.800 of imbeciles that come up and that I have to now fight an ever ending tsunami of the exact same 1.00

00:22:10.800 counter arguments. But on the other hand, what's exciting about it is that I never have a dull day. 0.99

00:22:16.000 In other words, there's almost nothing that I could ever say to anybody, whether they love what I'm

00:22:20.800 saying or hate what I'm saying, where it goes unnoticed and people go yawn. I'm in the thick of things,

00:22:26.560 I'm discussing ideas. So in that sense, I've made the right career choice, I suppose.

00:22:31.120 Well, this book, The Parasitic Mind, I mean, I think the title is a bit deceptive because when you

00:22:36.240 turn your eyes to academia or to the scientific community and what ideas percolate to the top and

00:22:44.560 which ones have trouble, and obviously it's not just the scientific community, but the broader

00:22:49.200 community, you actually offer up a couple of different theories. I mean, one is this idea of

00:22:54.320 parasitism. But there are other ones that would suggest these ideas are not parasitical,

00:23:01.920 but rather functional in some ways. So whether it's with respect to signaling one's loyalty to

00:23:09.280 a group, which is clearly functional, similar to the way religion operates. You also talk about the

00:23:15.200 sneaky fucker strategy and so forth. So I mean, why did you focus on the title, 0.96

00:23:20.720 just the parasitic hypothesis rather than the symbiotic or functional hypothesis?

00:23:26.960 So as I was trying to come up with a very strong metaphor for why it is that human minds can be

00:23:37.120 haplessly led to the abyss of infinite lunacy, I started scouring. One of the things you do as an

00:23:43.200 evolutionist is you often will look at other species to draw homologies or analogies in the

00:23:50.640 behavior. So for example, if you're trying to demonstrate the sex specificity of toy preferences,

00:23:56.160 you might demonstrate that vervet monkeys, rhesus monkeys, and chimpanzees exhibit the exact same

00:24:01.360 sex specificity of toy preferences, suggesting that it's probably not due to social construction.

00:24:06.160 Okay. So in my case, I started scouring the literature and I came across the parasitology

00:24:13.600 literature, but parasitology simply discusses host parasite interactions, but the location of where the

00:24:21.920 parasitism takes place doesn't have to be at the brain, right? So a tapeworm parasitizes your intestinal

00:24:27.760 tract. Now, neuroparasitology is when the parasite looks to end up in the host's brain

00:24:36.480 altering its circuitry to then suit its benefit, usually its reproductive benefits. So for example,

00:24:43.360 a wood cricket, it negatively impacts the fitness of the host.

00:24:47.520 It does. I mean, to the point of killing it, right? So, and hence, that's why I started using

00:24:52.240 the word of, it leads you to the abyss of infinite lunacy because you are literally jumping into the 0.99

00:24:57.760 abyss of infinite lunacy when some women have nine inch penises and letting in immigrants who are avowed to 1.00

00:25:05.440 destroying your culture is perfectly fine because you're a kind and empathetic human being. So it 0.99

00:25:09.920 not only literally could mean your death or the death of your civilization, but it certainly leads

00:25:15.840 to the death of common sense, of reality, of logic, of science, of anything epistemological.

00:25:21.920 So, but just to finish the point about wood cricket, the wood cricket abhors water,

00:25:25.920 wants nothing to do with water. When it is parasitized by a hair worm, the hair worm needs

00:25:30.240 the wood cricket to jump into water so that it can complete its reproductive cycle in water.

00:25:36.320 And guess what the wood cricket does when it is parasitized? It jumps and commits suicide

00:25:40.160 to the service of the parasite. And so that was my eureka moment. Aha, it's not memetic. So I'm 0.99

00:25:46.720 very careful in the book, if you remember or notice, I said, yes, I recognize how some people might think,

00:25:52.080 oh, but isn't this just a meme? A meme doesn't have inherently a valence attached to it. A meme could be

00:25:58.640 positive, it could be neutral, or it could be negative. But a neuro parasite has no benefit

00:26:05.760 to the hapless wood cricket, right? So it's queers for Palestine. How could that be? I mean, that's, 1.00

00:26:11.840 by the way, there's a class of people. And of course, I can say it because I'm Jewish. I hate 1.00

00:26:16.480 that game, by the way, where only black people can say the N word and only Jews can say certain. No, 0.99

00:26:21.920 anybody should be able to say anything. But in any case, I call them wood cricket Jews. Wood cricket 1.00

00:26:27.280 Jews are Jews who are the first to line up to condemn Jews, to condemn Israel, to be pro Hamas, 0.98

00:26:35.440 to be pro Gaza. They are so much more enlightened than people who operate in the earthly reality 0.84

00:26:42.080 that the rest of us rubes operate. They transcend that. Therefore, they are queers for Palestine, 1.00

00:26:47.840 they are Jews for Hamas. So yeah, there's a real strategic reason why I picked the neuro 0.95

00:26:53.840 parasitological framework. But look, the existence of these parasites is, it impacts the fitness of the

00:27:01.280 host community, but it also impacts the relative fitness of the individual host.

00:27:05.920 But there are other explanations which you allude to, like sexual selection, which as a whole,

00:27:11.040 there's a huge deadweight loss for the species. But for each of the individuals, it makes sense for them

00:27:17.840 to play that game. So, you know, I teach a course on behavioral finance and we walk through all these

00:27:23.440 things, hyperbolic discounting and framing and positional pursuit of status and so forth.

00:27:29.120 And all those things are deemed irrational by economists. But when you view them through a

00:27:35.120 biological lens, they make perfect sense. They're ecologically and biologically rational. So

00:27:39.680 couldn't the social justice nonsense that you're referring to, I mean, couldn't this

00:27:45.680 be individually rational for people to engage in?

00:27:49.280 So there may be individual fitness maximizing reasons why someone adopts some of this parasitic

00:27:57.760 stuff. And as you alluded to earlier, and maybe some of the people may not have understood the

00:28:02.880 term that you use. So sneaky fucker is a term that was introduced in the seventies in the zoological 0.93

00:28:07.600 literature. The fancy term is kleptogummy, the stealing of mating opportunities. But sneaky 0.99

00:28:12.880 fucker has a much nicer colloquial link to it. 0.99

00:28:15.920 And it's frequency dependent. So it only works if you are in a minority or there's a certain 0.99

00:28:20.960 percentage of the population engaging in this.

00:28:23.200 Exactly. But just to explain it in the animal kingdom, you may have two phenotypes of a male.

00:28:28.640 There's kind of a prototypical dominant male with the classic secondary characteristics of masculine

00:28:36.160 phenotype. But then you have another type of male that mimics how a female would look like. And so

00:28:42.000 the dominant male sees the sneaky fucker, thinks it's a female, lets him through, and then he 1.00

00:28:47.680 surreptitiously then engages in some copulatory acts while the dominant male thinks that he just 1.00

00:28:52.880 let in another female in, right? And so I take that principle, which by the way, to my earlier point 0.93

00:28:57.360 about scouring the animal kingdom literature, I wouldn't have been able to come up with that link

00:29:02.320 if I hadn't wedded myself to the animal literature. That's what's important about comparative psychology,

00:29:07.760 studying the psychology and behavioral patterns of other species. And so that's when I had my

00:29:13.760 eureka moment, right? I didn't come up with the term sneaky fucker, but I came up with the concept of 0.97

00:29:19.520 male feminists as sneaky fuckers, right? And so the idea there is I'm so sensitive. I cry when I put gas 1.00

00:29:26.800 into my car because I know that the evil juice is resulted from the raping of Mother Earth. I really

00:29:32.960 care about being vegan. I wear a foulard because I'm very, very sensitive. And hopefully by you having

00:29:38.720 me around, I mean, to a female, then I appear as though I'm not threatening and maybe that would

00:29:43.840 let you put down your guard. I mean, not for me to sexually assault you, but to fall in your good

00:29:48.720 graces. And so it's one of a multiplicity of strategies that men can use to try to get close

00:29:54.160 to women. And so to your point, in that singular case, me adopting that strategy has fitness maximizing.

00:30:02.240 But certainly there are no fitness maximizing benefits to this thing called science via the

00:30:11.440 adoption of postmodernism, because has postmodernism advanced anything of any value in science? No.

00:30:21.280 Have we built better bridges? No. Have we solved cancer better? No. Have we developed better

00:30:27.200 applied econometric models to study consumer choice? No. It's a nihilistic thing. It's

00:30:32.480 intellectual terrorism. So I suppose whether it's fitness maximizing or not depends on who is the

00:30:39.360 unit of analysis. But certainly on the epistemological level, it's pure shite, as we say. 0.99

00:30:46.080 Well, but another way to look at it is as a form of new religion. Religion didn't do much for the 0.99

00:30:51.600 advancement of science, but it has plenty of other functional purposes, one could say. And so, I mean,

00:30:58.960 as a young scientist myself, I was exposed to popper and falsifiability criteria. I mean,

00:31:04.720 this seemed to be an integral part of our education as grad students in most disciplines.

00:31:09.760 Why is it that we continue to see people in academia who are at relatively high status universities who

00:31:20.080 don't seem to be familiar with Popperian falsification and have sort of, I mean, do people just sort of have

00:31:27.040 a blind spot? I mean, because so many of the things that you describe, they seem to be immune to any kind

00:31:34.880 of falsification. Yeah, so true. I agree with you that there should be required reading for all

00:31:39.440 sorts of reasons. I would say, even if you're not a behavioral scientist or psychologist type,

00:31:45.360 the Fisk and Campbell 1959 paper on multi-trade, multi-method matrix is a must. Another one that I

00:31:54.560 would say is a must would be the 1971 paper by Davis titled, that's interesting exclamation point,

00:32:03.520 where he gives 12 criteria by which you could judge whether research is interesting. I mean,

00:32:10.000 it's one thing for research to have internal and external validity. And most reviewers on academic

00:32:15.440 journals will judge, did you control the right things? Did you tease out that it was due to this

00:32:20.960 effect? Was the literature review adequate? Was the theoretical foundation appropriate? Did you use

00:32:26.320 the right data analytic procedures? Okay, all that is important, of course, crucially important. But the

00:32:32.400 final finding, do we care about it? Was it interesting? Is there any value to that? And I would argue,

00:32:38.400 Greg, probably 70% of the time that I ever reviewed an academic paper, I've been now a professor 31 years,

00:32:45.280 so that's a lot of papers. Probably, I could have taken the same cut and paste sentence where I say,

00:32:52.400 great job on methodological rigor, blah, blah, blah, but who gives a shit about this finding? So you 0.98

00:32:57.600 found basically, that customers who were satisfied with an establishment were more likely to return to

00:33:04.080 this establishment? Holy shit, who could have ever imagined this? Who could have known this? But you 0.99

00:33:08.640 used LISRL modeling and pathway that used moderation media, so it walked like a duck,

00:33:14.320 it quacked like a duck, it sounded sciencey, therefore it must have been sciencey. And in that

00:33:19.280 sense, it was methodologically rigorous, but on a completely unimportant point. All this long-winded

00:33:24.320 thing to say is that I support your point about, you know, Popperian falsification and so on, and too

00:33:28.880 many academics don't know any of this sort of philosophy of science stuff. But I want to explain what makes

00:33:35.600 those parasitic ideas so alluring, because that kind of ties a couple of the threads that you've

00:33:41.120 been asking about. Right, this is, I think, this new discipline of, I guess, I don't know,

00:33:47.520 memetic parasitology. I mean, I think we actually ought to have a subfield in our psychology department.

00:33:55.440 I love it, I love it. Epidemiology of mind pathogens.

00:34:00.240 I agree. But in any case, as I was writing The Parasitic Mind, I needed to make sure to at least

00:34:06.640 cover, but why? How could anybody believe this? Like, what causes you to actually, I mean,

00:34:13.520 you're not literally lobotomized, what could be alluring about this? And so here was the explanation,

00:34:19.920 and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it. So I argue that each of these parasitic ideas

00:34:26.880 starts off from a noble place. And let me give you a concrete example. Equity feminism is great, 1.00

00:34:33.280 it says there should be no institutional barriers in terms of how you treat men and women. And so

00:34:39.280 based on that metric, then most reasonable people say, yeah, sign me up, I'm an equity feminist. 1.00

00:34:44.880 Then radical feminists come along and say, well, that's not enough. In order for us to squash the 1.00

00:34:50.480 existing sexist patriarchy, we have to promulgate the idea that men and women are indistinguishable.

00:34:56.800 So in the service of what started off as a noble goal, right, which is eradicate real sexism if it

00:35:03.280 exists, if we have to murder and rape truth in the service of that noble goal, so be it. So and that's

00:35:09.680 how I then get into this distinction between deontological versus consequentialist ethics.

00:35:15.600 Because certain principles, freedom of speech, presumption of innocence, freedom of inquiry,

00:35:21.520 defense of truth, have to be deontological. The second that you say, I believe, but you say,

00:35:27.920 but you're an asshole, okay? There is no but. There is no but, right? Because then you fall into, 1.00

00:35:34.400 I believe in presumption of innocence, but not for Brett Kavanaugh, because in his case,

00:35:39.840 it's too important, the job that he's going to have. I believe in freedom of speech,

00:35:43.920 but not for Donald Trump when he was kicked off Twitter. It doesn't apply to him. I believe in

00:35:48.560 journalistic integrity, but not when it came to shutting down the Hunter Biden story and so on.

00:35:55.120 So no, it has to be deontological. So each of these parasitic ideas actually starts from a noble place.

00:36:02.960 And in the service of that really laudable noble goal, if we have to rape truth, so be it. So

00:36:09.600 transgender activism is exactly that. I went in front of the Canadian Senate in 2017. I mean,

00:36:15.120 literally, you could go listen to it. I predicted everything that's happened, okay? And I don't,

00:36:18.880 I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back. It's just because you could clearly see what was

00:36:23.280 coming down the pipeline. I said, look, I support the right of all people to live free of bigotry.

00:36:28.800 So based on that metric, count me as a very socially liberal person. I'm pro-trans. On the other hand,

00:36:35.120 if you ask me to murder and rape truth in the service of making a small minority live out their 1.00

00:36:42.880 personhood better than a few, no. So I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I believe that 0.58

00:36:49.760 transgender people should be free of bigotry, but no, men cannot menstruate. So I think that 0.80

00:36:55.760 is a broad explanation for why all of these parasitic ideas are so alluring.

00:37:00.720 But look, as someone who is schooled as an economist, we get utilitarianism through osmosis.

00:37:07.200 And so from a utilitarian perspective, ideas, in fact, they can cause pleasure, pain. And so

00:37:14.400 it makes perfect sense that you might want to distribute falsehoods if it increases, you know,

00:37:20.720 welfare makes perfect sense. But I think you're suggesting that there's some kind of

00:37:25.600 triggers like self-deception that kicks in. I mean, because you can imagine a world where people

00:37:32.000 are like, well, of course, we all know that men and women are different, but we're going to say

00:37:36.800 that they're not because we know that this will advance our goals. I think the number of people who

00:37:41.920 do that is actually vanishingly small. I think that most of the people who say these things,

00:37:47.520 they believe them. They just cannot believe something that is going to undermine their desire to advance

00:37:54.640 the utilitarian goal that they have in mind. Why is that necessary? I mean, he wrote this book before

00:38:00.720 the COVID epidemic, and there was a lot of discussion during the COVID epidemic about whether

00:38:06.160 as a public health official, you should tell the truth or say the thing which is going to yield the

00:38:12.400 desired result. And I think long term, you could see that there's been some negative consequences

00:38:18.080 for embracing the utilitarian view. But I think that, you know, the issue is real. Why is it that

00:38:23.760 so few people can embrace the kind of cynical view? So I hope that what I'm going to answer in either

00:38:30.560 in a direct or bleak way addresses your question. It's difficult to tell, and I've struggled with this

00:38:36.240 question myself, how many of the parasitized people in the deepest recesses of their mind, when they put 0.99

00:38:43.120 their head on the pillow, know that they're full of shit versus truly have internalized it to your 1.00

00:38:48.720 traverse self-deception argument. And we can debate here what that number would be. I do think, for 1.00

00:38:55.200 example, and I do mention that in the parasitic mind, that the French postmodernists, I absolutely 1.00

00:39:01.520 believe that they knew that they were full of shit. I don't believe that Lacan and Derrida and so on 0.99

00:39:08.000 said all those things thinking, gee, no. Actually, to our earlier point about sexual selection,

00:39:13.600 I think that there is great power in me appearing up on top of the podium at Princeton

00:39:19.120 with a bunch of really looking in awe at me, beautiful young students, and I start espousing

00:39:25.520 gibberish. And then I look around, I say, people are taking this seriously and actually think I'm a prophet.

00:39:31.520 Let's ride this baby all the way to the bank. And so I think, and by the way, Michel Foucault said that

00:39:36.960 to John Searle, and I mentioned that exact interaction, that there's an element of full 0.96

00:39:41.440 profundity bullshit that is part of the game. So notwithstanding what percentage of people truly

00:39:47.600 have internalized the parasitic ideas versus simply signal it, we can debate that. I think,

00:39:53.600 to the more general question, the parasitic mind is a book on what happens to our cognitive system when

00:39:59.840 it is parasitized. But that's why my next book is Suicidal Empathy, which is what happens to our

00:40:06.480 emotional system when it is parasitized. You need the one-two punch to completely zombify me,

00:40:12.960 because I am a thinking and feeling animal. So what happens to the people who say,

00:40:19.840 you can't, because you mentioned COVID, who say, you can't go say goodbye to your dying

00:40:26.000 grandmother because COVID is too important, but don't you worry about going with 100,000 people on

00:40:32.000 top of each other at the BLM rally. As a matter of fact, a thousand of us really important public

00:40:36.880 health officials have signed the document that settled science. It won't spread through 100,000

00:40:41.840 people, but don't you dare say goodbye to grandma. It can't be that there isn't some kind of

00:40:47.120 zombification that's taking place there. Now, in that case, I would argue, I mean, there is a

00:40:52.000 cognitive parasitic element, but there is certainly a suicidal empathy element, which is,

00:40:57.840 is it okay if I just get into the explanation of suicidal empathy? Because it's going to hopefully

00:41:01.600 tie the whole thing together. I might have to have you back when that book comes out, though.

00:41:05.280 Absolutely. I will commit right now on the record to coming back. But anyways, empathy is a wonderful

00:41:11.920 emotion that there are very clear evolutionary reasons for why it has evolved. We are a social

00:41:17.040 species. Being able to certainly the cognitive element of empathy, having theory of mind is important.

00:41:23.520 Affective empathy is also important. So there are very, very clear evolutionary arguments for why

00:41:28.320 we would have evolved that. But as Aristotle explained to us 2,500 years ago, everything in

00:41:33.200 the right amount at the right place, right time, and so on. So what happens to empathy when it misfires,

00:41:38.480 that's the whole point of the book, is akin to what happens with OCD. So OCD is the environmental

00:41:47.360 threat scanning mechanism goes haywire. It makes perfect sense if I meet you at a cafe, you say,

00:41:53.440 hey God, how you doing? And you sneeze in your hand, and then you come out to shake my hand,

00:41:57.600 that when you're not looking because I don't want to offend you, I go to the bathroom and I wash my

00:42:01.440 hands because it looks like Greg has got a bad flu and I don't want to catch it. But if I spend the

00:42:06.400 next eight hours locked into a repetitive behavior, cleaning my hands, and as the skin is falling off,

00:42:13.360 and I can't get to my work and I'm fired, well, now that becomes OCD. So what started off as a

00:42:18.880 perfectly adaptive mechanism, when it misfires, in this case, it's hyperactive, it becomes maladaptive,

00:42:25.120 it becomes a psychiatric dysfunction. Exact same principle I argue for empathy. Empathy is great

00:42:31.760 when it is within the proper regulated zones, and it is targeting the right people. But if for whatever

00:42:39.360 reason MS-13 gang member become more worthy of my empathy than American vets, then we have a problem.

00:42:48.320 If it becomes incredibly important for me to be astoundingly empathetic towards one religion called 1.00

00:42:55.360 Islam to the detriment of everyone else, we have a bad case of suicidal empathy. So what I argue in the 0.99

00:43:01.520 book is that much of the disasters that we are seeing both in domestic policy and foreign policy,

00:43:08.800 at least when it comes from the progressive politicians, stems from dysregulated empathy.

00:43:13.520 Right. Well, I look forward to that. But I mean, another thing that you allude to is this solidarity

00:43:18.720 that one gets from belonging to a community that shares the same religious faith, I suppose you

00:43:25.920 could call it. And so it seems like if you're a researcher or an academic, at some point there's

00:43:30.880 going to be a tension between your group affiliation and your desire to signal to your group that you

00:43:37.840 are a loyal member of that group and your pursuit of truth. And, you know, religious people, I think

00:43:42.640 traditionally we've had enough centuries of religion and science coexisting that with traditional

00:43:47.680 religions, I've met plenty of very, very religious scientists who have the ability to sort of just

00:43:54.800 put in a box their religion and do like fantastic scientific research. Is it perhaps that this new

00:44:01.600 religion is just so fresh that we haven't, they haven't figured out how to put it in its box yet?

00:44:07.360 I mean, it is, of course, there are many elements of the parasitic ideological rapture that is akin to

00:44:13.840 your point of a secular religion, right? They are revealed truths that are impervious to falsification,

00:44:19.360 right? I mean, I mean, literally. So they are very, very clear epistemological analogies that you could

00:44:25.520 draw from a religion and these quasi kind of woke parasitic religions. So to that point, you're exactly

00:44:32.160 right. You can be a Christian geologist, but the claim that the world was created 4,000 years ago, 0.50

00:44:37.520 that particular piece of your Christian faith, you've deleted that, you know, that part you've

00:44:42.400 deleted. Actually, I call that cafeteria religion, right? You go to the buffet of cafeteria and you

00:44:49.280 pick the ones that you think are, that's exactly what happens, for example, with a lot of Islamic 1.00

00:44:54.240 people that I chat with, right? We say, oh, but it's not true. Well, no, no, it is true what I'm telling

00:44:58.960 you about codified canonical Jew hatred. You choose to ignore that part, right? There isn't a form of

00:45:06.000 Judaism that I practice whereby eating shrimp and pork is okay. I don't practice light Judaism.

00:45:13.760 I simply ignore the parts, culinarily speaking, that I don't wish. But Judaism is Judaism. It 0.98

00:45:20.080 exists independently of what my practice in cafeteria Judaism is. So that you're exactly right. 0.94

00:45:25.760 But your earlier point about how you're part of a group and you have your identity and you

00:45:30.160 don't necessarily want to speak out of this identity. Of course, scientists suffer from that.

00:45:34.240 But Solomon Ash experiment already explained that to us, right? I always tell my students when we come

00:45:40.720 into class, you know, there's a couple of classic experiments that are perfect to discuss for several

00:45:47.520 reasons. One of which is that you don't have to have convoluted experimental designs in order to prove

00:45:55.520 something that is unbelievably profound about the human spirit. So the Solomon Ash experiment is

00:46:01.200 very simple. I won't get into all the details, but you show people three lines of varying length,

00:46:06.720 but that it's so clear how different they are that a legally blind person could tell. And then you show

00:46:14.000 another line that is the same length as one of those three other ones. So that it should be absolutely

00:46:19.440 clear that it's line B. That's the same as line X. But what you want to do in the experiment is you

00:46:25.600 want to see what happens to people if they are presented with other people that are giving the

00:46:31.360 wrong answer. Will they acquiesce to what clearly is a wrong answer? Their lying eyes are deceiving them.

00:46:37.520 Or will they look and say, are you insane that you're giving a wrong answer? Why are you a moron? 1.00

00:46:42.640 And of course, the brilliance of Solomon Ash experiment is that a disheartening number of 1.00

00:46:48.400 people. I mean, if it were one person, you wouldn't believe it, but that's a lot more than

00:46:52.800 one person. They just nod their head and give the exact same wrong answer, knowing full well that

00:46:58.960 can't be the right answer. But there's nothing scarier than me standing out in the group. And it's

00:47:04.560 literally, I mean, when you ask people, what is your biggest fear? People are more afraid of public

00:47:10.080 speaking than death. That's literally true, right? So it's not the natural reflex for most people to

00:47:17.680 defend truth if it will ostracize me from the group. And to your point about finding the fitness

00:47:24.160 maximization, there are clear evolutionary reasons why I should stick in the group, right? By the way,

00:47:29.840 there's a great book, which I'm almost starting to feel upset that I'm giving it so much free

00:47:35.120 publicity. I should be getting royalties from their book. The book is called The Enigma of Reason.

00:47:39.440 Absolutely. I've had Hugo Mercier on the show.

00:47:41.600 Oh, so have I. Did you enjoy it?

00:47:44.160 Ah, it's fantastic. It's also in the business of selling his books too.

00:47:48.400 Exactly. And so what Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argued is that the faculty of reasoning

00:47:54.400 in humans did not evolve to seek some objective truth, but rather it evolved to win arguments,

00:48:02.960 right? I loved Elon Musk, but now he's no longer on my team. It doesn't matter if he now

00:48:08.800 cures cancer. He's a bad Nazi. And so now the reason why I wanted to put that in chapter seven 0.99

00:48:16.000 of the parasitic mind is because I wanted to be fully honest in the difficulty of seeking truth.

00:48:22.880 Here I am offering you in chapter seven, an epistemological tool for seeking truth,

00:48:28.640 but I'm also telling you that the problem with my mind vaccine is that most people go,

00:48:33.840 la la la, I don't want to hear it. I'm not having your mind vaccine. And so that becomes a challenge.

00:48:39.280 How can I get you to change your opinion if I know that there is probably nothing I'm going to say

00:48:44.240 that's going to move you one millimeter off your anchored position?

00:48:47.920 Well, look, last question in your book, in the parasitic mind, you spend a lot of time talking 0.84

00:48:53.280 about the parasites that are most common in academia. And I think you have a lot of critics

00:49:00.400 on Twitter. I'm not a big Twitter guy or X guy, but I know you are huge on social media. And a lot

00:49:06.640 of people have criticized you for offering up an unbalanced approach. Now I'm probably one of the few

00:49:12.960 people at UC Berkeley that actually has friends who voted for Trump. And I can say that the mind

00:49:20.000 parasites, they don't discriminate. They are equally represented on both sides. Do you anticipate 0.98

00:49:26.240 maybe looking into the mind parasites of that other side, or is there enough research being done by so

00:49:33.600 many of our academic colleagues that you don't need to do that? No, that's a great question. I actually

00:49:39.040 addressed that very early in the book, where I exactly predicted that could be a concern. And

00:49:45.600 with full transparency, I said, look, it is clear that the capacity to be parasitized transcends time

00:49:52.080 periods, transcends cultures, transcends political aisles. I will be focusing on specific set of parasitic

00:49:59.600 ideas that emanate from academia. And as it so happens, since academia is astonishingly leftist,

00:50:09.040 those parasitic ideas happen to be originating. Their genesis is from the left. That doesn't mean

00:50:16.080 that people on the right can't be parasitized. And I give a specific example of what I just said

00:50:21.760 from evolutionary theory. So resistance to evolution is much more likely to come from the right.

00:50:28.640 Right. Resistance to evolutionary psychology is much more likely to come to the left. That exactly

00:50:36.000 proves the point that you are asking. But in the same way that you don't go see diabetes physician

00:50:43.200 and say, wait a second, are you saying that melanoma is not important, diabetes doctor? He looks at you

00:50:50.320 and says, you're a moron. Yes, it is important, but I specialize in diabetes. So the fact that I specialize 1.00

00:50:57.600 in parasitic ideas of the left because I am a man of academia where all the left rules doesn't mean 0.99

00:51:04.640 that people on the right can't be abject morons also. Well, we will at some point have a general 0.98

00:51:10.960 science of mind virus epidemiology and you'll be a part of that group. So maybe since you've agreed to

00:51:19.280 come back another time, we can talk about particularly what business schools can do and what

00:51:24.480 people in academia can do to help resist infection. And so until then, thank you so much, God, for

00:51:31.920 joining me. I really appreciate it. And we'll talk again soon. Thank you so much. I really enjoyed it.

00:51:36.800 Thank you. Thank you for tuning in to the Unsiloed Podcast, produced by University FM.

00:51:43.840 If you enjoyed today's episode, please give us a five-star rating and review in your favorite

00:51:47.920 listening app. To listen to our other episodes, please visit our website at www.unsiloedpodcast.com.

00:51:57.120 www.unsiloedpodcast.com.pp

00:52:04.160 To listen to our episode today's podcast, please visit our website at www.unsiloedpodcast.com.pp

00:52:05.840 Thank you.

00:52:06.240 Bye.

The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad - May 14, 2025

Evolutionary Psychology Informs the Social Sciences and the Denial of Science (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_835)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript