The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad - Nobel Laureate Dr. Daniel Kahneman - Pioneer of Psychology of Decision Making (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_655)

00:00:00.000 So today we're going to be talking about Daniel Kahneman, both some of my personal connections to him and his work,

00:00:07.940 but more generally about his work in Psychology of Decision Making, which is very much the area of my doctoral work.

00:00:18.860 Okay, so welcome to everybody. Thank you for showing up.

00:00:22.440 I did a X Spaces yesterday, impromptu one. It was titled, Things That Are Pissing Me Off.

00:00:31.220 And people said, please have this as a regular series. I just kind of riffed off the top of my head on things that are getting me angry.

00:00:39.060 I talked about four different things. It should be pretty easy to find on my feed.

00:00:47.040 And today I decided to do this one because, as I started saying a minute or two ago, as I was going through my Twitter feed,

00:00:57.840 I noticed Shai Davidae, actually the Columbia University professor in the business school who I recently had on my show,

00:01:06.880 who's been having all sorts of problems with anti-Semitism at Columbia.

00:01:10.040 I first read it on his Twitter feed that Daniel Kahneman had passed away.

00:01:17.920 So what I thought I would do is just, as I said, talk about truly what a gigantic psychologist Daniel Kahneman is.

00:01:29.260 It's really, if you don't know anything about him, that's okay.

00:01:32.540 But even if you're not an academic or if you're not a psychologist, it's worth knowing his work.

00:01:41.620 Some of you may have gotten to know his work in his 2011 book, Thinking Fast and Slow,

00:01:48.440 which refers to System 1 and System 2 processing, fast processing, autonomic processing,

00:01:55.140 versus more deliberative, cognitively effortful processing.

00:02:01.020 And in that book, he kind of went over many of the research streams that he had developed,

00:02:09.320 largely with Amos Tversky, who was his colleague.

00:02:12.680 They're both Israeli originally, both Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.

00:02:16.760 And regrettably, Daniel Kahneman, sorry, not Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky passed away in 1996

00:02:23.840 of an aggressive melanoma, which I think had spread to his kidney.

00:02:31.500 And so, you know, he didn't, he wasn't around to see when Daniel Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics.

00:02:42.760 But in any case, what I wanted to do first, and then I'll get into, I'll drill down into what the research of Daniel Kahneman is

00:02:51.300 and how it shaped my own thinking and psychology and decision-making and so on.

00:02:56.920 I want to read you a passage, a section in my latest book, The Sad Truth About Happiness.

00:03:04.480 This is the chapter where I'm talking about all sorts of correlates to happiness.

00:03:08.620 How does personality affect happiness? How does political orientation affect happiness?

00:03:12.980 How does, you know, religiosity affect happiness? How does culture affect happiness and so on?

00:03:18.320 And so at one point, I'm talking about the link between money and happiness.

00:03:24.060 And actually, it's something that recently I posed for those of you who listened to our, my chat with Elon Musk.

00:03:32.120 I actually, I mean, obviously, I'm talking to the richest man in the world.

00:03:37.040 It seemed uniquely apropos to ask him what did he think about whether money leads to happiness.

00:03:45.080 The research, the classic study on that issue had found that once your basic needs are met,

00:03:52.560 at the time, I think it was $75,000, but this needs to probably be updated a bit given inflation.

00:04:01.420 But once your needs are met, you don't have to worry about, you know, putting a roof over your head,

00:04:08.300 having food for your kids.

00:04:11.800 The utility that you reap from having an extra million or whatever doesn't really add much to happiness.

00:04:17.400 But anyways, so in this section where I'm talking about does money lead to happiness,

00:04:21.940 I'm talking about a personal story regarding a Nobel Prize winner versus, you know, money.

00:04:29.760 So let me just read it for you because the name Daniel Kahneman comes up.

00:04:34.920 And so I'm just going to read to you.

00:04:35.940 It's about a page long, a bit more than a page.

00:04:39.540 It's on pages 20 and 21 of, as I said, my happiness book.

00:04:43.980 So the title of the section is A Nobel Prize or Money.

00:04:48.460 So I'll first read you that section, maybe comment a bit more about that issue,

00:04:52.760 and then I'll drill into the Daniel Kahneman stuff.

00:04:56.560 So here we go.

00:04:57.140 In my academic career, I have had the honor of meeting and interacting with several Nobel Prize winners

00:05:03.140 or eventual winners.

00:05:04.820 My first such experience was as a first-year doctoral student at Cornell University

00:05:09.260 when I took Richard Thaler's Behavioral Decision Theory course.

00:05:13.000 Thaler went on to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2017.

00:05:20.640 In 1992, as a young doctoral student, if memory serves me right, I met Professor Daniel Kahneman

00:05:27.060 and or perhaps his longtime collaborator Amos Tversky, one of the great thinkers on the topic

00:05:32.680 of decision-making.

00:05:34.180 In 2002, as a visiting professor at the University of California at Irvine, I predicted to my MBA

00:05:40.340 class that Kahneman would win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

00:05:45.060 Less than 24 hours later, I learned that he had.

00:05:49.320 I also had brief communications with the other 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics, Vernon L. Smith,

00:05:55.400 as well as with Paul Greengaard, a 2000 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine,

00:06:00.800 and with Kip Thorne, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2017.

00:06:06.720 While each of these encounters was memorable, none was quite as awe-inspiring as when Herb Simon,

00:06:13.260 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1978, visited Cornell University in 1993.

00:06:21.500 My doctoral supervisor knew him well and hence had met him for lunch.

00:06:28.320 I was miffed at the time that I had not been invited to join them, but my disappointment was

00:06:33.380 attenuated when my supervisor sent me a memo, which I still have somewhere, telling me how

00:06:38.260 Simon had praised some of my work.

00:06:41.140 I shared these brushes with Nobel Prize winners to contrast how I define wealth, the richness

00:06:47.560 of one's life experience, with how my more materialistically inclined family members define

00:06:54.460 wealth.

00:06:55.360 During a trip to Rio de Janeiro, I had shared my excitement at meeting the great Herb Simon,

00:07:00.980 one of the truly great polymaths of the 20th century.

00:07:04.640 Rather than sharing in my excitement, my relative smugly stated, quote,

00:07:10.040 Who the hell is this guy?

00:07:11.480 I can probably buy him 500 times over, close quote, 0.98

00:07:15.900 To which I retorted, quote,

00:07:19.400 Perhaps, but while 500 people will wait in line to hear him speak, no one cares what you

00:07:25.420 have to say, close quote.

00:07:27.080 So there you have it.

00:07:29.020 Two ways to accumulate wealth, through amassing brilliant moments or amassing piles of dollars.

00:07:35.540 Both have their points, but the former can enrich your soul.

00:07:39.140 The latter, if it is all you value, can rot it.

00:07:43.120 And so the reason I mentioned that story was because, you know, here was a family member

00:07:48.860 who was so materialistically inclined that he wasn't impressed with the fact that Herb Simon

00:07:55.420 was this great thinker, one of the great polymaths of the 20th century.

00:07:59.540 By the way, Herb Simon won the Nobel Prize in 1978 for his work on bounded rationality.

00:08:06.740 So now I'm going to get into the technical weeds.

00:08:08.840 Okay, so bear with me.

00:08:11.600 This will give you a good sense of what you could expect if you were taking a course with me at university.

00:08:19.720 So Herb Simon won it because he argued that human beings, as decision makers, are boundedly rational.

00:08:27.940 So the concept of bounded rationality means that contrary to what classical economists think,

00:08:34.520 which is that if we are going to maximize utility and arrive at an optimal choice,

00:08:41.280 we should, you know, process all of the relevant and available information prior to making a choice,

00:08:49.500 whether we're choosing between political candidates to vote for or choosing between cars to purchase or houses to buy.

00:08:56.160 We're going to look at all of the available information and go through a very deeply cognitively effortful process

00:09:03.660 because that's the only way that we can make sure that we're going to maximize our utility.

00:09:08.360 And what Herb Simon said is, well, no, we're bounded by the fact that it is cognitively costly to, you know,

00:09:18.520 to acquire information.

00:09:19.820 There is, you know, search costs.

00:09:22.980 There is tedium.

00:09:23.780 So for all sorts, there's time pressures.

00:09:26.340 So we are, yes, we are rational in that, you know, we apply certain decision rules

00:09:32.740 and arriving at hopefully the best possible, you know, option.

00:09:36.440 But we are bounded by all these different things.

00:09:38.780 So that was one of the things I talked about.

00:09:40.340 I'm somewhat simplifying, but that's the general idea.

00:09:42.520 Now, to my point about classical economics, so in classical economics, you have what's called homo economicus. 1.00

00:09:52.440 Homo economicus is the idea that human beings, to the extent that they are rational,

00:10:01.220 they are rational in terms of abiding to certain axioms of rational choice.

00:10:08.300 Now, what does that mean?

00:10:09.080 That sounds like a mouthful.

00:10:10.140 So let me give you an example.

00:10:12.200 By the way, this is called normative decision making, because normative decision making is the idea that

00:10:17.940 if we're to presume that consumers, for example, are rational beings,

00:10:24.840 they ought to adhere to certain norms of rationality.

00:10:29.920 Hence, that's what we mean by normative decision making.

00:10:32.860 So what is an example of an axiom of rational choice?

00:10:37.240 And then I will come to the outlandishly brilliant work of Kahneman and Tversky.

00:10:43.420 So take, for example, the transitivity axiom.

00:10:46.720 The transitivity axiom from mathematics, in this case as applied to choice theory, says that if I prefer car A to car B,

00:10:55.260 and I prefer car B to car C, it has to be that I prefer car A to car C.

00:11:00.940 So if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then it has to be that A is greater than C.

00:11:08.220 So if you violate that transitivity axiom, then you are being irrational in a homo economicus sense. 0.99

00:11:18.060 So economists would say, no rational decision maker could ever do that.

00:11:23.280 Well, guess what?

00:11:24.460 In a paper, I think it was in the late 60s, Amos Tversky, the eventual collaborator of Daniel Kahneman,

00:11:32.500 showed that no, people do make intransitive choices.

00:11:36.880 And he demonstrated it with a very clever set of experiments.

00:11:40.220 By the way, my doctoral supervisor, who obtained his Ph.D. in cognitive and mathematical psychology

00:11:49.080 at the University of Michigan, which is one of the top psychology departments in the world,

00:11:54.640 that's where Amos Tversky also did his Ph.D.

00:11:58.020 And Daniel Kahneman had gone there, I think, I can't remember if it was for a postdoc or for some reason.

00:12:02.920 Well, the first paper that my doctoral supervisor, Jay Russo, ever published is with Amos Tversky.

00:12:11.680 Again, Amos Tversky being the longtime collaborator of Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize.

00:12:16.340 So there is that link.

00:12:18.340 And as I mentioned in the passage that I just read to you, Richard Thaler, who was my professor at Cornell,

00:12:23.500 ended up also winning the Nobel Prize in 2017 for his work in behavioral finance and behavioral economics.

00:12:30.960 Okay, so I just described one axiom of rational choice, which is transitivity.

00:12:39.640 Let me describe another one.

00:12:41.000 This is called the axiom of description invariance.

00:12:45.840 Again, it's a mouthful, but you'll understand it once I give you specific examples.

00:12:50.140 If I tell you that a hamburger is 90% fat-free, or I tell you that a hamburger is 10% fat,

00:12:57.200 those two statements, so the fancy term is they are isomorphically equivalent.

00:13:03.480 Isomorphically equivalent means they are literally the exact same statement, just framed differently.

00:13:09.220 So it's not you're optimistic or pessimistic or you're a half-full cup or a half-empty cup.

00:13:17.780 Saying that a burger is 90% fat-free is identical to saying that a burger is 10% fat.

00:13:23.720 Okay, now, remember that for a second.

00:13:26.420 Or if I tell you that three out of five dentists recommend this toothpaste,

00:13:32.600 it is isomorphically equivalent to telling you that two out of five dentists did not recommend it, right?

00:13:39.900 Again, these are identical statements, just framed differently.

00:13:44.020 Now, from a rational choice perspective, from a homo economicus perspective, 1.00

00:13:50.140 it has to be that a consumer, it doesn't matter whether I make him try the burger that's 90% fat-free described,

00:13:59.540 or 10% fat described, you should arrive at the same final evaluation,

00:14:04.300 because it's the exact same burger described in two equivalent ways.

00:14:09.980 And yet, what Kahneman and Tversky showed, and this became known as the framing effect,

00:14:16.420 that the way that you frame something, even though the two frames are identical logically,

00:14:22.860 can cause people to have preference reversals.

00:14:26.340 Meaning that if you frame it in one way, I choose A over B,

00:14:30.540 but if you frame it the other way, I choose B over A,

00:14:33.960 and hence I'm being axiomatically irrational.

00:14:37.200 Okay, and I'll come back to the framing effect in a second when I talk about a study that I did

00:14:42.740 where I looked at some evolutionary explanations for the framing effect.

00:14:49.180 So, bear with me.

00:14:50.660 Let me describe a third axiom of rational choice.

00:14:56.040 This is called procedural invariance.

00:14:58.820 So, let's suppose I'm going to ask you to choose between two options, A or B.

00:15:06.680 Okay?

00:15:07.440 Now, I'm either going to ask you to choose between A or B,

00:15:11.880 and I present to you the two choices sequentially or simultaneously.

00:15:16.980 So, let me explain what I mean by that.

00:15:18.520 Let's suppose it's two cars, and I say, let's say your name is John.

00:15:22.740 Hey, John, here's car A and car B.

00:15:24.940 I'm showing you both of them.

00:15:26.560 Tell me which one you prefer.

00:15:27.880 And you say, okay, let me look at both cars.

00:15:30.380 I prefer car A.

00:15:32.220 So, that's called a simultaneous presentation.

00:15:35.860 I'm simultaneously presenting you with both choices, A and B.

00:15:39.560 Now, if I were to show you car A and ask you on a scale of 0 to 100,

00:15:45.680 0 is the worst possible, 100 is the best possible,

00:15:49.600 please give me a score of what you think of A.

00:15:51.740 So, I show you A, and you give it a score of 80.

00:15:55.620 And then I show you B independently, right?

00:15:58.300 It wasn't simultaneous.

00:15:59.660 It was sequential.

00:16:01.020 And now B gets a 90.

00:16:03.200 Well, now you've engaged in irrational behavior.

00:16:05.680 How could it be that when I showed you both cars together, you chose A,

00:16:10.340 but when I showed you first car A, and then separately car B, you chose B.

00:16:16.620 Therefore, you're engaging in irrational choice.

00:16:20.120 Well, what Kahneman and Tversky did is demonstrate that all of these axioms of rational choice

00:16:28.020 that classical economists thought is exactly how we ought to behave normatively is complete nonsense.

00:16:35.980 We don't do that.

00:16:37.800 We are not rational in the homo economicus sense of the term. 0.98

00:16:43.500 Now, I won't go into all of their incredible research,

00:16:49.280 but I'll just mention one because it was specifically cited when Kahneman won the Nobel Prize.

00:16:55.280 Because prospect theory is a, I won't go into all the technical details,

00:17:00.160 but the thing that you need to remember is if I tell you, for example,

00:17:03.020 that you could take a bet that causes you to lose $100,

00:17:08.240 or you could take a bet that causes you to win $100,

00:17:13.120 the pain or pleasure of losing $100 or winning $100 is not linear.

00:17:20.480 In other words, your behavior in trying to avoid a loss is much greater than your behavior

00:17:28.620 in trying to, you know, get an equivalent win.

00:17:33.940 And therefore, that became known as loss aversion.

00:17:36.440 And the utility function that captures that loss aversion is part of prospect theory.

00:17:42.040 So, it's actually incredibly powerful research because,

00:17:47.420 so think about the framing effect, which I mentioned a few minutes ago,

00:17:51.040 the one where, you know, 90% fat-free burger versus 10% fat.

00:17:55.940 Now, you might say, okay, well, fine.

00:17:57.220 People behave irrationally, but who cares?

00:17:58.800 They're just, you know, they might make an irrational choice

00:18:01.780 when they're choosing between burgers.

00:18:04.820 Okay, fine.

00:18:05.440 That's true.

00:18:05.960 That's great.

00:18:06.440 But, you know, it's not a big deal.

00:18:08.100 No, it is a big deal.

00:18:09.760 Because let's suppose, God forbid, that you go see your surgeon, your oncologist,

00:18:16.220 and the oncologist has to choose between you having radiation therapy or a radical surgery.

00:18:25.760 It's one or the other.

00:18:27.360 Now, imagine if I were to tell you that if I frame the odds of success in one way,

00:18:35.380 the surgeon will say, oh, we've got to do radiation therapy.

00:18:38.140 But if I frame it in exactly the equivalent, the logically equivalent other way,

00:18:44.480 I can get him to change his opinion.

00:18:47.700 So that he said to you, when I framed it in one way, he said we should do radiation therapy.

00:18:53.880 And when I framed it the other equivalent way, he says, oh, no, no, we should do surgery.

00:18:58.080 Well, that's a problem, because that's showing you that even within the context of expert domains,

00:19:05.620 the surgeon's mind has the exact same architecture as the mind of the rest of us,

00:19:11.760 and he is just as prone, sorry, I should say he or she or they are just as prone to commit that bias.

00:19:22.700 Another way to think about the work of Kahneman Tversky is the following.

00:19:27.160 So many of you have probably seen, say, in an intro to psychology course,

00:19:32.260 when you're studying perception, how your perceptual system can be tricked.

00:19:40.540 For example, some of you might have heard, I think it's called Ponzo's Illusion.

00:19:43.660 If I show you two horizontal lines that are, you know, exactly the same length,

00:19:51.620 but there is, they are surrounded by lines that are, you know, falling from left to right and right to left,

00:20:00.780 meaning that the context around the two equidistant, the equal lines,

00:20:06.580 can cause you to think that line B is longer than line A,

00:20:12.500 even though the two lines are exactly the same length.

00:20:17.260 I don't know if I've explained this well.

00:20:19.100 I wish I could show it to you visually,

00:20:21.320 and hopefully one day soon we'll have the whole visual means to do so on X basis.

00:20:27.540 But in the same way that our visual system can succumb to perceptual illusions,

00:20:35.260 our mind can succumb to cognitive distortions.

00:20:40.380 And so what Kahneman and Tversky did is they systematically,

00:20:47.520 through many, many decades of research,

00:20:51.960 showed that completely contrary to the economic, homo economicus model, 0.97

00:20:58.640 we often succumb to these biases.

00:21:02.100 And they went through a whole bunch.

00:21:03.260 There's something called the conjunction fallacy, the base rate fallacy.

00:21:08.380 There's the overconfidence.

00:21:09.520 There's a million of these, okay?

00:21:10.900 There's the availability heuristic.

00:21:14.760 There's actually, you can go on Google and just enter cognitive biases,

00:21:20.260 and I think that's probably the right search term,

00:21:22.860 and it will list you all of the cognitive biases that have been documented,

00:21:28.540 not just by Kahneman and Tversky, but by that whole tradition of research.

00:21:33.500 And so I very much was trained within that.

00:21:37.880 So that's why, you know, my original work was in psychology of decision making.

00:21:43.280 As a matter of fact, my doctoral dissertation was in trying to address one specific problem,

00:21:50.680 which is, when is it that a decision maker has acquired enough information

00:21:57.460 to stop acquiring additional information and commit to a choice?

00:22:01.320 So let's say I'm choosing between cars A and B.

00:22:03.720 I could look up to 50 attributes on the two cars,

00:22:07.020 but I won't do that.

00:22:08.160 After maybe seven pieces of information that I've collected,

00:22:12.280 I now have sufficiently differentiated the two alternatives

00:22:15.720 that I think I don't need to look at anymore.

00:22:18.480 I'll stop, and I'm ready to buy the Toyota.

00:22:22.320 And so I looked at the cognitive stopping strategies

00:22:25.600 that are used in information search,

00:22:28.580 and that's very much part of this whole discussion

00:22:31.560 because classical economists would say,

00:22:33.360 no, no, no, if there are 50 attributes that are relevant for this decision,

00:22:39.080 you have to look at all of the relevant and available information.

00:22:42.580 Otherwise, you might be making a suboptimal choice

00:22:46.300 that doesn't maximize your utility.

00:22:48.300 So I was very much trained,

00:22:50.080 both because of my doctoral supervisor, Jay Russo,

00:22:52.960 because of my professor, Richard Thaler,

00:22:55.820 who, as I said, eventually ended up winning the Nobel Prize

00:22:58.540 for being associated with Kahneman and Tversky.

00:23:01.340 I regret that I never had the opportunity

00:23:03.500 to publish any papers with Kahneman and Tversky.

00:23:07.300 I do remember my first semester at Cornell in my PhD,

00:23:12.060 I had taken a course by Professor Thaler,

00:23:14.560 and I had gone to his office,

00:23:16.300 and he had pitched some ideas for us to work on together.

00:23:20.040 And to this day, I regret that we never ended up

00:23:22.500 doing some of the work that we had discussed.

00:23:25.380 It would have been great to work with him,

00:23:27.940 a truly brilliant man.

00:23:30.580 There was also at Cornell other very accomplished decision theorists.

00:23:37.260 For example, Thomas Gilevich was also one of my professors in psychology.

00:23:41.980 So you may have heard of him,

00:23:44.740 if you've read my latest book, my happiness book,

00:23:48.340 I have a chapter on regret.

00:23:50.860 And what Gilevich did is he pioneered some of the work

00:23:55.460 on the psychology of regret,

00:23:57.940 specifically the idea that there are two sources of regret that we face.

00:24:05.320 It could be either regret due to action or regret due to inaction.

00:24:10.520 So regret due to action would be,

00:24:12.740 you know, I regret that I cheated on my wife,

00:24:15.140 and that led to my divorce.

00:24:17.040 So because of an action that I committed,

00:24:19.280 it led to a bad consequence,

00:24:20.880 and I regret that action.

00:24:22.800 Regret due to inaction would be,

00:24:25.160 you know, I regret that I never pursued my interest in art

00:24:29.580 and art history and architecture,

00:24:31.860 and instead I became, you know,

00:24:34.660 a pediatrician because my dad was a pediatrician,

00:24:38.600 and that's what was expected of me.

00:24:39.800 So I regret that I never took that other road.

00:24:42.280 Now, it turns out, folks,

00:24:44.960 as perhaps you might,

00:24:48.120 I don't know if you would have thought so,

00:24:51.140 but it turns out that over the long haul,

00:24:54.620 the regret that looms the largest in people's minds

00:24:58.520 is those of inaction,

00:25:00.840 of the road not taken.

00:25:02.840 So in the context of my book on happiness,

00:25:04.840 which I so hope that you get a copy,

00:25:08.280 I mean, it's done reasonably well,

00:25:09.580 but not nearly as well as was expected of it,

00:25:12.020 in part because the publisher was bought out,

00:25:15.220 was going through a complete chaos

00:25:16.620 as my book had just come out.

00:25:18.920 And so, you know,

00:25:20.560 it basically fell through the cracks.

00:25:22.540 I'm hoping now that the paperback version

00:25:24.840 is going to be released

00:25:25.780 with the publisher who bought my old publisher.

00:25:28.240 So hopefully it will find its appropriate attention,

00:25:31.140 but I really hope that you purchase a copy.

00:25:33.300 It's a really fun book.

00:25:34.640 It's a mix of, you know, ancient wisdoms.

00:25:40.040 You know, here come the ancient Greeks,

00:25:41.700 here comes Epictetus,

00:25:42.800 here comes Seneca,

00:25:43.800 here comes Aristotle,

00:25:45.200 here comes Aurelius and so on,

00:25:46.980 because of course they wrote a lot about,

00:25:48.800 you know, the good life and happiness.

00:25:51.200 And it is backed up by contemporary science

00:25:53.640 and positive psychology,

00:25:55.120 happiness studies,

00:25:57.440 you know, hedonic psychology,

00:25:59.240 neuroscience,

00:25:59.680 and then peppered with all of my personal stories,

00:26:03.400 just like the one I just read to you

00:26:04.700 about the, you know, Nobel Prize or money.

00:26:07.180 And so I hope that you get it.

00:26:08.120 But in any case,

00:26:08.920 in the book,

00:26:10.000 the chapter on regret,

00:26:11.220 I talk about that,

00:26:12.800 you know,

00:26:13.040 one of the ways that you could forestall regret

00:26:15.020 later in your life

00:26:16.240 is to live an authentic life.

00:26:18.180 Now, authentic doesn't just mean authentic

00:26:20.580 in that you're a real person.

00:26:22.180 You know,

00:26:22.780 I am an authentic guy.

00:26:24.240 I speak my mind.

00:26:25.300 I don't,

00:26:26.120 I'm not two-faced.

00:26:27.420 I mean, that's true.

00:26:28.160 You should be authentic.

00:26:29.680 But it's,

00:26:30.360 I mean it in a more broader,

00:26:32.240 grander,

00:26:33.060 existential authenticity.

00:26:34.520 Be true to yourself.

00:26:35.540 That's why the old Delphic maxim,

00:26:38.360 right,

00:26:38.800 know thyself,

00:26:39.880 is so powerful,

00:26:41.340 right?

00:26:41.820 It's so powerful

00:26:42.780 because it's so simple

00:26:44.740 but yet so profound.

00:26:46.180 Know thyself.

00:26:47.060 You're going to make mistakes in life

00:26:48.600 if you don't know who you are,

00:26:51.560 right?

00:26:52.020 But if you know that

00:26:53.300 you're going to be happiest

00:26:54.380 being an artist,

00:26:55.740 then maybe you shouldn't become

00:26:56.960 a pediatrician

00:26:57.780 just because your dad said

00:26:59.900 that's the right thing

00:27:01.280 to do in the contemporary market.

00:27:02.700 That's a sure way

00:27:03.780 to wake up at 55

00:27:04.820 and say,

00:27:05.560 I'm facing a midlife crisis.

00:27:08.060 So anyway,

00:27:08.500 so Daniel Kahneman

00:27:09.800 is unbelievable

00:27:12.120 because anyone

00:27:13.020 who does any research

00:27:15.340 in anything resembling

00:27:17.360 decision-making

00:27:18.300 ends up citing him.

00:27:19.940 It could be accountants.

00:27:21.420 It could be engineers.

00:27:22.840 It could be physicians,

00:27:24.640 right?

00:27:24.840 So there's a whole field

00:27:25.960 of medical decision-making

00:27:27.100 and they all cite their work.

00:27:28.420 It could be political decision-making.

00:27:30.460 It could be consumer decision-making,

00:27:32.360 which is,

00:27:32.980 you know,

00:27:33.280 the area that I'm more in

00:27:34.480 or behavioral decision theory,

00:27:36.220 which is the area that I'm in.

00:27:37.780 So I,

00:27:39.100 just earlier before

00:27:39.940 as I was preparing

00:27:41.180 when I first announced

00:27:42.460 that I was going to have

00:27:43.140 an X Spaces

00:27:45.860 on Danny Kahneman,

00:27:46.680 I just went to check

00:27:48.840 his Google Scholar bibliometrics.

00:27:53.460 Now,

00:27:54.260 I don't,

00:27:55.340 I'm not sure if many of you

00:27:56.420 understand what the metrics are,

00:27:57.900 but like,

00:27:58.340 there are several key metrics

00:27:59.620 when you look at

00:28:00.360 the influence of a,

00:28:02.360 of an academic.

00:28:04.140 Number one,

00:28:04.760 it could be just

00:28:05.460 the number of papers

00:28:06.360 that they've published.

00:28:07.280 But if the number of papers

00:28:08.320 that they've published

00:28:09.200 are ultimately not cited,

00:28:11.160 so you could have a person

00:28:12.160 who's published 10 papers

00:28:13.480 and those 10 papers

00:28:14.900 have been cited 10,000 times,

00:28:16.400 you could have another person

00:28:17.860 who's been,

00:28:18.560 who's published 50 papers,

00:28:20.640 but they've only been cited

00:28:22.260 500 times.

00:28:23.620 So even though

00:28:24.500 the latter person

00:28:25.760 has published

00:28:26.680 five times more paper,

00:28:28.260 the influence of

00:28:29.400 his or her research

00:28:30.560 is much lesser

00:28:31.420 in that it hasn't been

00:28:32.420 cited by others.

00:28:33.580 So usually when you go

00:28:34.640 to Google Scholar,

00:28:35.860 you will check a few metrics,

00:28:37.440 one of which is called

00:28:38.200 the H index,

00:28:39.600 which is a way to

00:28:40.560 take a snapshot of

00:28:41.980 how good a researcher is.

00:28:43.820 So an H index

00:28:45.320 of over 30

00:28:46.580 is typically

00:28:47.700 what you would expect

00:28:48.900 of say a full professor

00:28:51.120 that's, you know,

00:28:52.000 at a good university.

00:28:53.560 Well, his H index

00:28:55.100 is 158, I think.

00:28:57.940 I mean, it is,

00:28:58.700 and this is not

00:28:59.400 a linear measure.

00:29:00.300 So it is so

00:29:01.300 astoundingly high.

00:29:03.440 So like,

00:29:04.020 let me give you another,

00:29:05.360 without getting into the weeds

00:29:06.480 of what the H index is,

00:29:07.860 just total number

00:29:09.280 of citations.

00:29:09.940 I mean,

00:29:10.740 if you're talking about,

00:29:12.200 if you're a scholar

00:29:12.880 that has,

00:29:13.740 you know,

00:29:14.020 a few thousand citations,

00:29:16.140 you know,

00:29:16.540 you're doing well.

00:29:17.900 Some of the top psychologists

00:29:19.960 might have 30,000,

00:29:21.680 20,000,

00:29:22.760 50,000.

00:29:24.000 Daniel Kahneman's

00:29:25.240 total citations

00:29:26.940 in academia

00:29:27.720 is 500,000 plus.

00:29:31.460 So he's not even,

00:29:32.660 it's kind of like saying

00:29:33.840 that,

00:29:34.700 you know,

00:29:35.280 it's basically like,

00:29:36.240 like Lionel Messi,

00:29:37.360 right?

00:29:37.500 The average top goal scorer

00:29:39.740 will score 200 goals

00:29:41.980 in their career

00:29:42.580 if they are amazing.

00:29:43.980 Wow,

00:29:44.260 that's amazing.

00:29:44.980 He's got,

00:29:45.500 he scored 200 goals

00:29:46.580 in his professional career.

00:29:48.480 Well,

00:29:48.660 Lionel Messi is well over 800,

00:29:50.600 right?

00:29:50.880 So it's,

00:29:51.320 it's a level of influence

00:29:53.680 that's difficult to,

00:29:55.380 you know,

00:29:57.940 to impart to people.

00:29:58.920 Really an important guy.

00:30:01.460 Now,

00:30:02.140 let me just mention

00:30:02.880 a few things.

00:30:03.620 So I was very much

00:30:05.580 into,

00:30:06.540 you know,

00:30:10.060 Kahneman and Tversky

00:30:11.060 and,

00:30:11.780 I mean,

00:30:12.160 that's,

00:30:12.540 that's exactly

00:30:13.620 what my doctoral dissertation

00:30:14.580 was all about.

00:30:16.260 But then I became

00:30:17.400 slightly disillusioned.

00:30:18.680 And so let me explain,

00:30:19.940 and this is,

00:30:20.800 please don't,

00:30:21.580 I mean,

00:30:21.740 I've been,

00:30:22.140 I've been only saying

00:30:23.260 unbelievably positive things

00:30:24.620 about Kahneman

00:30:25.460 and,

00:30:26.360 and,

00:30:26.980 and nothing that I'm going

00:30:27.940 to say now

00:30:28.540 is going to take away

00:30:29.220 from the fact

00:30:29.680 that I think he's just

00:30:30.580 one of the true,

00:30:31.720 you know,

00:30:32.860 behavioral science giants

00:30:34.260 ever.

00:30:35.840 So please don't take this

00:30:37.300 as,

00:30:37.900 you know,

00:30:38.140 me critiquing him

00:30:39.840 in any forceful way.

00:30:41.780 But let me just explain

00:30:43.300 why I started

00:30:44.380 to slowly deviate

00:30:46.100 away

00:30:47.160 from some of this work.

00:30:48.820 What ended up happening

00:30:50.420 with the behavioral

00:30:51.600 decision making framework

00:30:52.920 is what I,

00:30:54.300 and I think a few others,

00:30:55.820 began calling it

00:30:56.940 the violation

00:30:58.540 of the month club.

00:31:00.000 Meaning that

00:31:01.000 every month

00:31:02.220 some really bright

00:31:03.920 psychologists

00:31:04.600 would come up

00:31:06.080 with yet another

00:31:07.260 clever demonstration 1.00

00:31:08.680 of how idiotic 1.00

00:31:10.560 classical economists are. 1.00

00:31:12.080 So basically the,

00:31:12.980 the thing that was

00:31:14.400 driving the research

00:31:15.840 is classical economists

00:31:18.200 think that we are

00:31:19.620 these hyper-rational

00:31:21.000 creatures

00:31:21.980 and our job

00:31:24.020 as behavioral decision theorists

00:31:25.720 is to demonstrate

00:31:26.560 that they are wrong.

00:31:28.160 Well,

00:31:28.640 I got tired of that

00:31:29.940 because to me

00:31:30.960 it seems like

00:31:31.920 if I spend

00:31:33.000 my entire career

00:31:34.240 as an anatomist

00:31:36.280 proving to you

00:31:37.880 that the pancreas

00:31:39.440 of human beings

00:31:40.720 is different

00:31:42.080 from that

00:31:43.280 of the unicorn.

00:31:45.280 Well,

00:31:45.800 but the unicorn

00:31:46.460 doesn't exist.

00:31:47.400 So rather than worry

00:31:48.460 about demonstrating

00:31:49.840 that our pancreas

00:31:51.120 don't work

00:31:52.220 in the way

00:31:52.700 that the unicorn,

00:31:54.420 again,

00:31:54.800 here the analogy

00:31:55.860 is

00:31:56.260 that homo economicus 1.00

00:31:58.580 the view

00:32:00.180 of decision making

00:32:01.180 as espoused

00:32:01.900 by classical economists

00:32:03.000 is the unicorn.

00:32:04.180 It only exists

00:32:04.880 in the recesses

00:32:05.660 of their minds.

00:32:07.700 And so

00:32:08.000 I got,

00:32:08.940 we got it.

00:32:10.020 Human beings

00:32:10.760 don't behave

00:32:11.740 according to

00:32:12.920 what classical economists

00:32:14.120 tell us

00:32:14.760 how we should behave.

00:32:16.320 What interested me more

00:32:17.980 and now hopefully

00:32:18.600 maybe you're going to

00:32:19.220 get to where

00:32:20.060 I'm going with this

00:32:20.820 if you know my work

00:32:22.220 I'm an evolutionary

00:32:23.540 scientist,

00:32:25.080 right?

00:32:25.240 Evolutionary psychologist.

00:32:27.160 I was more interested

00:32:28.300 in understanding

00:32:29.740 why the architecture

00:32:32.100 of the human mind

00:32:33.660 is the way

00:32:34.280 that it is.

00:32:34.860 So if we do

00:32:36.120 succumb to the framing effect

00:32:37.780 what is the evolutionary

00:32:39.380 reason for us

00:32:40.480 to have that

00:32:41.900 if you like

00:32:43.100 cognitive

00:32:44.420 capacity

00:32:45.540 to be

00:32:46.740 swayed in that way?

00:32:49.400 So rather than

00:32:50.140 simply demonstrating

00:32:51.280 that we don't do

00:32:52.600 that which

00:32:53.700 the classical economists

00:32:54.980 expect us to do

00:32:56.180 just

00:32:56.860 let's study

00:32:57.880 why the architecture

00:32:58.940 of the human mind

00:32:59.580 is the way that it is

00:33:00.220 and that's why

00:33:00.800 I kind of

00:33:02.020 shifted away

00:33:03.520 from

00:33:04.360 psychology of

00:33:05.740 decision making

00:33:06.440 in the traditional sense

00:33:07.480 to more of an

00:33:08.940 evolutionary behavioral

00:33:10.000 science approach.

00:33:10.860 And so now

00:33:11.260 I'm going to come to

00:33:12.460 so how would I study

00:33:14.960 some of these

00:33:18.540 cognitive biases

00:33:19.740 that I've discussed

00:33:20.620 from an evolutionary

00:33:21.860 perspective?

00:33:22.420 So hopefully this will

00:33:23.600 blow your mind.

00:33:24.840 So remember when I

00:33:25.480 mentioned the

00:33:26.300 framing effect?

00:33:28.400 The, you know,

00:33:29.280 if I tell you that

00:33:30.500 a burger is 90%

00:33:31.620 fat-free

00:33:32.180 or tell you that

00:33:32.960 it's 10% fat

00:33:33.960 or if I tell you that

00:33:35.020 three out of five

00:33:36.060 dentists recommend

00:33:36.900 this toothpaste

00:33:37.480 is the same thing as

00:33:38.500 telling you two out of five

00:33:39.360 don't?

00:33:39.680 Well, what Kahneman

00:33:40.780 and Tversky did

00:33:41.620 is demonstrated

00:33:42.460 that the framing

00:33:43.320 effect exists

00:33:44.660 that we don't

00:33:46.340 we are succumbing

00:33:47.300 to this

00:33:47.800 this

00:33:48.900 cognitive distortion.

00:33:50.880 Okay, great.

00:33:51.560 That's wonderful.

00:33:52.800 What I wanted to do

00:33:54.200 is say

00:33:55.160 is there a way

00:33:56.840 that I can

00:33:58.100 put

00:33:58.660 the evolutionary

00:34:00.500 lens

00:34:01.220 to elucidate

00:34:02.820 something a bit more

00:34:05.000 something deeper

00:34:06.180 about the

00:34:06.800 that distortion

00:34:08.340 the framing effect?

00:34:09.680 And so

00:34:10.900 with one of my

00:34:11.460 former

00:34:11.940 doctoral students

00:34:13.920 who himself

00:34:14.800 is now a

00:34:15.340 chaired professor

00:34:16.000 his name is

00:34:17.360 Tripad Gill

00:34:17.980 in 2014

00:34:19.180 we published

00:34:21.040 a paper

00:34:22.040 in evolution

00:34:23.040 and human behavior

00:34:23.840 which is the top

00:34:24.840 you know

00:34:26.060 evolutionary journal

00:34:26.920 in the behavioral sciences

00:34:27.960 where we

00:34:29.600 studied the

00:34:30.660 framing effect

00:34:31.580 from

00:34:32.820 an evolutionary

00:34:33.860 perspective.

00:34:34.860 Let me explain

00:34:35.640 how we did that.

00:34:37.400 By the way people

00:34:38.460 you're getting

00:34:39.480 all this

00:34:40.320 at night

00:34:41.240 for free.

00:34:42.480 Imagine you're

00:34:43.120 doing this

00:34:43.700 in university.

00:34:45.020 This course

00:34:45.420 would cost you

00:34:46.200 $15,000.

00:34:48.080 So

00:34:48.720 do the right thing

00:34:50.060 go

00:34:50.740 subscribe to my

00:34:52.220 exclusive content.

00:34:53.340 For example

00:34:54.020 if you want to have

00:34:55.720 a Q&A period

00:34:57.360 with me

00:34:57.860 well

00:34:58.820 then you go to

00:34:59.800 subscription

00:35:00.620 and by the way

00:35:01.640 you know

00:35:02.280 I do this

00:35:02.740 I love doing

00:35:03.440 this

00:35:03.640 for the mere

00:35:04.060 fact of

00:35:04.660 sharing ideas

00:35:05.900 and I've spent

00:35:07.040 much of my career

00:35:07.820 giving things for free

00:35:08.660 but it's also

00:35:09.560 nice to monetize

00:35:10.360 your time

00:35:10.760 and expertise

00:35:11.240 so

00:35:11.720 as I mentioned

00:35:13.180 yesterday

00:35:13.620 for the price

00:35:14.720 of a latte

00:35:15.340 you can

00:35:16.540 have

00:35:17.180 you could be

00:35:17.700 supporting me

00:35:18.220 and if

00:35:18.420 imagine if I get

00:35:19.200 10,000

00:35:19.840 20,000 people

00:35:20.720 who are subscribing

00:35:21.380 suddenly

00:35:21.820 if I decide

00:35:23.160 that it's too

00:35:23.760 dangerous for me

00:35:24.460 to go to university

00:35:25.320 and I want to

00:35:25.900 quit and just

00:35:26.480 create content

00:35:28.020 all day long

00:35:28.920 for thousands

00:35:29.760 of people

00:35:30.260 I can do that

00:35:31.120 so anyways

00:35:32.100 think about it

00:35:32.820 I hope that

00:35:33.760 you'll subscribe

00:35:34.660 so

00:35:34.980 how did I

00:35:36.980 study

00:35:37.580 the framing

00:35:38.680 effect

00:35:39.180 from an

00:35:40.200 evolutionary

00:35:40.560 perspective

00:35:41.080 well

00:35:41.440 rather than

00:35:43.720 talking about

00:35:44.580 three out of

00:35:45.600 five dentists

00:35:46.360 recommend this

00:35:47.020 toothpaste

00:35:47.400 or two out of

00:35:48.220 five don't

00:35:48.860 what if we

00:35:49.900 look at

00:35:50.480 an evolutionarily

00:35:52.060 relevant

00:35:52.920 problem

00:35:54.240 or decision

00:35:55.180 so let's

00:35:56.340 talk about

00:35:56.860 mating

00:35:57.240 suppose that

00:35:58.500 I tell you

00:35:59.140 I think

00:35:59.700 I hope that

00:36:00.400 this blows

00:36:00.800 your mind

00:36:01.200 I know

00:36:02.960 it will

00:36:03.280 blow your 0.91

00:36:03.660 mind

00:36:03.880 what if

00:36:06.320 I told

00:36:06.800 you

00:36:07.060 I want

00:36:08.120 you to

00:36:08.440 evaluate

00:36:09.140 these

00:36:09.880 prospective

00:36:10.700 mates

00:36:12.140 for you

00:36:12.700 to go

00:36:13.000 out

00:36:13.280 with them

00:36:13.720 and I'm

00:36:14.820 going to

00:36:15.040 describe

00:36:15.500 them to

00:36:15.900 you

00:36:16.160 in one

00:36:16.900 of two

00:36:17.300 ways

00:36:17.720 maybe you

00:36:18.360 see where

00:36:18.640 I'm going

00:36:18.920 with this

00:36:19.280 so let's

00:36:19.620 take

00:36:19.800 intelligence

00:36:20.440 which is

00:36:21.760 an important

00:36:22.420 mating

00:36:22.900 attributes

00:36:23.440 that both

00:36:23.900 men and

00:36:24.220 women 1.00

00:36:24.420 care about

00:36:25.100 what if

00:36:26.900 I told

00:36:27.300 you that

00:36:27.760 eight out

00:36:28.260 of the

00:36:28.520 ten people

00:36:29.100 that are

00:36:29.720 acquaintances

00:36:30.300 of this

00:36:30.660 guy

00:36:30.920 or this

00:36:32.000 person

00:36:32.580 think that

00:36:33.640 he's

00:36:33.820 intelligent

00:36:34.260 well that's

00:36:35.080 exactly like

00:36:35.740 saying

00:36:36.120 two out

00:36:37.260 of ten

00:36:37.700 don't

00:36:38.860 right

00:36:39.180 so for

00:36:40.020 all of

00:36:40.600 these

00:36:40.840 mating

00:36:41.240 attributes

00:36:42.020 I can

00:36:43.340 either

00:36:43.820 frame

00:36:44.640 the

00:36:45.800 description

00:36:46.460 of the

00:36:47.000 prospective

00:36:47.460 suitor

00:36:47.960 using a

00:36:49.220 positive

00:36:49.680 frame

00:36:50.200 or a

00:36:51.280 negative

00:36:51.580 frame

00:36:51.980 you follow

00:36:52.420 I could

00:36:53.180 either say

00:36:53.720 seven out

00:36:54.640 of ten

00:36:55.020 think that

00:36:55.660 she is

00:36:56.000 very good

00:36:56.460 looking

00:36:56.780 or I

00:36:57.940 could say

00:36:58.240 three out

00:36:58.740 of ten

00:36:59.160 think that

00:37:00.080 she's not

00:37:00.480 very good

00:37:00.880 looking

00:37:01.140 those two

00:37:01.680 statements

00:37:02.040 are identical

00:37:03.320 they're

00:37:03.840 isomorphically

00:37:04.720 equivalent

00:37:05.160 but here is

00:37:06.760 the kicker

00:37:07.320 you ready

00:37:07.960 I won't tell

00:37:09.040 you the full

00:37:09.640 details of

00:37:10.160 the study

00:37:10.360 we had a

00:37:10.780 whole bunch

00:37:11.080 of manipulations

00:37:11.740 we looked at

00:37:12.320 short term

00:37:12.840 mating versus

00:37:13.320 long term

00:37:13.780 mating

00:37:13.940 I'm just

00:37:14.420 trying to

00:37:14.640 give you

00:37:14.820 the big

00:37:15.140 story

00:37:15.540 within the

00:37:18.440 context

00:37:19.180 of

00:37:20.000 mate

00:37:20.400 choice

00:37:20.880 who

00:37:22.640 bears

00:37:23.300 the

00:37:23.960 greater

00:37:24.560 costs

00:37:25.460 for

00:37:26.380 making

00:37:27.000 a

00:37:27.520 suboptimal

00:37:28.240 mate

00:37:28.520 choice

00:37:28.880 well it

00:37:29.640 should be

00:37:29.920 easy to

00:37:30.340 answer

00:37:30.620 of course

00:37:31.440 it's

00:37:31.660 women 1.00

00:37:31.900 this

00:37:32.680 comes

00:37:32.980 from

00:37:33.240 the

00:37:33.420 theory

00:37:33.760 called

00:37:34.120 parental

00:37:34.500 investment

00:37:34.980 theory

00:37:35.400 which

00:37:35.640 says

00:37:36.020 that

00:37:36.780 that

00:37:37.620 sex

00:37:38.200 in any

00:37:38.680 species

00:37:39.220 that

00:37:39.880 has

00:37:40.260 to

00:37:40.480 provide

00:37:41.100 the

00:37:41.600 greater

00:37:42.140 minimal

00:37:42.700 obligatory

00:37:43.400 parental

00:37:43.800 investment

00:37:44.340 is

00:37:44.960 the

00:37:45.200 sex

00:37:45.460 that's

00:37:45.740 going

00:37:45.940 to

00:37:46.140 be

00:37:46.420 more

00:37:47.340 sexually 0.61

00:37:48.120 choosy

00:37:48.720 for

00:37:49.400 very

00:37:49.660 obvious

00:37:50.000 reasons

00:37:50.460 because

00:37:51.160 if

00:37:51.840 they

00:37:52.500 are

00:37:52.700 the

00:37:52.880 ones

00:37:53.160 who

00:37:53.360 bear

00:37:53.600 the

00:37:53.800 greater

00:37:54.180 costs

00:37:54.980 in

00:37:55.500 making

00:37:55.800 a

00:37:56.020 poor

00:37:56.240 choice

00:37:56.600 then

00:37:57.120 they

00:37:57.280 have

00:37:57.540 to

00:37:57.680 be

00:37:57.840 judicious

00:37:58.520 in

00:37:58.780 their

00:37:58.900 mate

00:37:59.080 choice

00:37:59.360 this

00:37:59.760 is

00:37:59.940 why

00:38:00.360 in

00:38:01.200 every

00:38:01.680 culture

00:38:02.200 that's

00:38:02.880 ever

00:38:03.160 been

00:38:03.400 studied

00:38:03.840 in

00:38:04.340 every

00:38:04.740 religion

00:38:05.260 that

00:38:05.900 has

00:38:07.000 any

00:38:07.360 prescriptions

00:38:08.020 about

00:38:08.360 how men

00:38:08.780 and women

00:38:09.060 should

00:38:09.300 behave

00:38:09.700 it's

00:38:10.220 not

00:38:10.420 surprising

00:38:11.040 that

00:38:11.800 God

00:38:12.400 seems

00:38:12.780 to be

00:38:13.080 a lot

00:38:13.360 more

00:38:13.580 concerned

00:38:14.160 about

00:38:14.760 the

00:38:14.980 sexual

00:38:15.300 behavior

00:38:15.840 of

00:38:16.280 women 1.00

00:38:16.680 than

00:38:17.240 he

00:38:17.380 is

00:38:17.680 of

00:38:18.020 men

00:38:18.260 apparently

00:38:18.740 God

00:38:19.120 is

00:38:19.360 an

00:38:19.500 evolutionary

00:38:19.900 psychologist

00:38:20.540 okay

00:38:21.340 so

00:38:22.540 we

00:38:23.200 take

00:38:23.540 that

00:38:23.780 principle

00:38:24.240 and say

00:38:24.740 well

00:38:25.160 so

00:38:26.420 applying

00:38:26.920 the

00:38:27.180 evolutionary

00:38:27.880 lens

00:38:28.620 that

00:38:29.140 recognizes

00:38:29.900 that

00:38:30.360 there

00:38:30.580 is

00:38:30.720 a

00:38:30.900 differential

00:38:31.500 cost

00:38:32.280 for

00:38:32.960 men

00:38:33.240 and

00:38:33.460 women 1.00

00:38:33.720 in

00:38:34.040 making

00:38:34.360 a

00:38:34.640 poor

00:38:34.860 choice

00:38:35.280 in

00:38:35.420 the

00:38:35.560 mating

00:38:35.840 market

00:38:36.320 we

00:38:37.440 expect

00:38:38.180 we

00:38:38.520 hypothesized

00:38:39.520 and

00:38:39.740 that's

00:38:39.960 exactly

00:38:40.460 what

00:38:40.720 we

00:38:40.860 found

00:38:41.140 that

00:38:42.040 when

00:38:42.320 it

00:38:42.500 comes

00:38:42.840 to

00:38:43.020 the

00:38:43.260 framing

00:38:43.660 effect

00:38:44.240 but

00:38:44.840 specifically

00:38:45.840 in the

00:38:46.640 mating

00:38:46.940 domain 0.99

00:38:47.500 women 1.00

00:38:48.540 would

00:38:48.940 be

00:38:49.200 much

00:38:49.640 more

00:38:49.940 likely

00:38:50.260 to

00:38:50.520 succumb

00:38:50.820 to

00:38:50.960 the

00:38:51.120 framing

00:38:51.400 effect

00:38:51.900 precisely

00:38:53.020 because

00:38:53.800 negatively

00:38:54.900 framed

00:38:55.560 information

00:38:56.360 will loom

00:38:57.740 much

00:38:58.300 larger

00:38:58.960 in their

00:38:59.460 psyche

00:38:59.840 do you

00:39:00.260 follow

00:39:00.420 what I'm

00:39:00.620 saying

00:39:00.840 when I

00:39:01.600 tell you

00:39:01.980 it's

00:39:02.200 7 out

00:39:02.600 of 10

00:39:02.940 think

00:39:03.280 that

00:39:03.500 he

00:39:03.640 is

00:39:03.800 intelligent

00:39:04.260 it's

00:39:04.900 the

00:39:05.020 same

00:39:05.180 thing

00:39:05.400 as

00:39:05.540 telling

00:39:05.780 you

00:39:05.960 that

00:39:06.140 3 out

00:39:06.620 of 10

00:39:06.920 don't

00:39:07.260 think

00:39:07.440 that

00:39:07.580 he's

00:39:07.760 intelligent

00:39:08.200 well

00:39:09.060 men

00:39:09.640 and

00:39:09.860 women 1.00

00:39:10.220 evaluate

00:39:11.280 the

00:39:11.640 positively

00:39:12.340 framed

00:39:12.760 information

00:39:13.380 similarly

00:39:14.260 but

00:39:15.140 women 1.00

00:39:15.720 evaluate

00:39:16.840 the

00:39:17.220 negatively

00:39:17.880 framed

00:39:18.380 information

00:39:18.960 much

00:39:19.420 more

00:39:19.700 harshly

00:39:20.380 so that

00:39:21.180 cognitive

00:39:21.780 distortion

00:39:22.620 has a

00:39:23.840 sex

00:39:24.160 specificity

00:39:25.160 to it

00:39:25.680 because

00:39:26.360 of an

00:39:27.200 evolutionary

00:39:28.060 reality

00:39:29.020 this is

00:39:29.900 deep

00:39:30.220 each

00:39:31.680 one of

00:39:32.060 you 1.00

00:39:32.260 assholes 1.00

00:39:32.860 owes me 1.00

00:39:33.420 a thousand

00:39:34.060 dollars

00:39:34.600 for

00:39:35.180 sharing

00:39:36.740 with you

00:39:37.180 this

00:39:37.440 kind

00:39:37.760 of

00:39:38.020 depth

00:39:39.140 and

00:39:39.360 profundity

00:39:39.980 now

00:39:40.900 I'm

00:39:41.040 going

00:39:41.160 to

00:39:41.220 get

00:39:41.380 someone

00:39:41.600 but

00:39:41.820 it

00:39:41.960 wasn't

00:39:42.240 nice

00:39:42.520 when

00:39:42.720 you

00:39:42.880 said

00:39:43.100 the

00:39:43.280 word 1.00

00:39:43.440 asshole 1.00

00:39:43.740 I'm 1.00

00:39:44.020 kidding

00:39:44.260 I'm

00:39:44.600 just

00:39:44.800 I'm

00:39:45.000 just

00:39:45.140 being

00:39:45.400 gad

00:39:45.760 okay

00:39:46.420 so

00:39:47.880 let's

00:39:48.160 summarize

00:39:48.500 yes

00:39:49.840 the

00:39:50.060 framing

00:39:50.360 effect

00:39:50.740 occurs

00:39:51.300 but

00:39:52.160 in

00:39:52.360 evolutionarily

00:39:53.400 important

00:39:54.020 domains

00:39:54.700 I

00:39:55.620 can

00:39:55.880 predict

00:39:56.640 a

00:39:57.920 sex

00:39:58.520 difference

00:39:59.180 in the

00:39:59.820 proclivity

00:40:00.540 of

00:40:00.860 succumbing

00:40:01.360 to the

00:40:01.760 framing

00:40:02.060 effect

00:40:02.540 because

00:40:03.400 of an

00:40:04.060 evolutionary

00:40:04.620 catalyst

00:40:05.180 so

00:40:05.920 this

00:40:06.240 is

00:40:06.440 where

00:40:06.900 if

00:40:07.560 you

00:40:07.720 like

00:40:08.100 I

00:40:08.820 added

00:40:09.600 if

00:40:10.280 I

00:40:10.440 can

00:40:10.660 be

00:40:10.920 bold

00:40:11.300 enough

00:40:11.600 to

00:40:11.820 say

00:40:12.120 that

00:40:12.700 I

00:40:13.440 added

00:40:13.880 to

00:40:14.140 the

00:40:14.380 work

00:40:14.780 of

00:40:16.060 Daniel

00:40:16.380 Kahneman

00:40:16.780 because

00:40:17.160 Daniel

00:40:17.520 Kahneman

00:40:17.960 was a

00:40:18.540 lot

00:40:18.700 more

00:40:18.920 concerned

00:40:19.380 about

00:40:19.720 simply

00:40:20.240 highlighting

00:40:21.300 these

00:40:22.060 cognitive

00:40:22.500 biases

00:40:23.060 and

00:40:23.880 I

00:40:24.020 tried

00:40:24.280 to

00:40:24.440 come

00:40:24.600 along

00:40:25.060 in

00:40:25.800 this

00:40:26.020 case

00:40:26.280 with

00:40:26.520 my

00:40:26.840 brilliant

00:40:27.780 former

00:40:28.360 doctoral

00:40:28.760 student

00:40:29.120 Tripat

00:40:29.460 Gill

00:40:29.740 and

00:40:30.220 say

00:40:30.420 oh

00:40:30.660 yes

00:40:30.900 okay

00:40:31.180 there

00:40:31.440 are

00:40:31.920 these

00:40:32.180 cognitive

00:40:32.600 biases

00:40:33.160 and

00:40:34.280 there

00:40:34.900 is an

00:40:35.260 evolutionary

00:40:35.760 logic

00:40:36.420 for

00:40:36.840 why

00:40:37.200 these

00:40:37.620 biases

00:40:39.020 exist

00:40:39.680 in the

00:40:40.080 form

00:40:40.260 that

00:40:40.420 they

00:40:40.540 do

00:40:40.740 okay

00:40:41.380 so

00:40:42.300 that's

00:40:42.760 that

00:40:42.980 I

00:40:43.120 just

00:40:43.280 wanted to

00:40:43.620 maybe

00:40:43.800 share

00:40:44.120 one

00:40:44.520 final

00:40:45.280 personal

00:40:47.220 story

00:40:47.660 that speaks

00:40:48.240 to

00:41:18.240 a

00:41:19.380 bunch

00:41:19.640 of

00:41:19.860 a

00:41:20.240 bunch

00:41:20.760 of

00:41:20.920 his

00:41:21.200 doctoral

00:41:21.220 students

00:41:21.640 went

00:41:21.900 down

00:41:22.160 to

00:41:22.320 Ithaca

00:41:22.660 to

00:41:22.960 Cornell

00:41:23.220 and

00:41:24.300 you

00:41:25.080 know

00:41:25.160 we

00:41:25.280 had

00:41:25.460 a

00:41:25.640 wonderful

00:41:26.180 time

00:41:27.040 with

00:41:27.240 him

00:41:27.500 and

00:41:27.740 to

00:41:28.260 honor

00:41:28.560 him

00:41:28.800 and

00:41:28.920 so

00:41:29.100 on

00:41:29.300 and

00:41:30.000 Jay

00:41:30.520 remained

00:41:31.140 incredibly

00:41:32.200 productive

00:41:32.680 to the

00:41:33.600 last

00:41:34.240 minute

00:41:34.520 as a

00:41:34.820 matter

00:41:34.920 of

00:41:35.040 fact

00:41:35.280 that

00:41:35.940 he

00:41:38.400 held

00:41:39.000 like a

00:41:39.440 seminar

00:41:39.800 the

00:41:40.140 last

00:41:40.440 day

00:41:40.740 with

00:41:41.500 all

00:41:41.800 of

00:41:41.960 us

00:41:42.240 and

00:41:43.080 you

00:41:43.180 would

00:41:43.340 think

00:41:43.540 we're

00:41:43.760 back

00:41:44.020 to

00:41:44.200 being

00:41:44.500 26

00:41:45.200 year

00:41:45.600 old

00:41:45.800 doctoral

00:41:46.160 students

00:41:46.500 because

00:41:46.680 you

00:41:46.940 would

00:41:47.100 think

00:41:47.300 okay

00:41:47.540 he's

00:41:47.760 going

00:41:47.860 to

00:41:47.960 give

00:41:48.120 a

00:41:48.260 talk

00:41:48.740 about

00:41:49.100 you

00:41:49.520 know

00:41:49.740 lessons

00:41:50.680 learned

00:41:51.200 in my

00:41:51.600 long

00:41:52.020 illustrious

00:41:52.700 career

00:41:53.100 as a

00:41:53.840 cognitive

00:41:54.600 and

00:41:55.000 mathematical

00:41:55.540 psychologist

00:41:56.360 and you

00:41:57.060 know

00:41:57.120 business

00:41:57.400 school

00:41:57.680 professor

00:41:58.100 no

00:41:59.060 he was

00:41:59.680 in the

00:42:00.140 weeds

00:42:00.500 he was

00:42:00.840 telling

00:42:01.140 you

00:42:01.420 what

00:42:01.660 reviewer

00:42:02.400 two

00:42:02.700 said

00:42:03.220 in the

00:42:03.720 paper

00:42:04.160 that he

00:42:04.480 had just

00:42:04.860 submitted

00:42:05.320 to the

00:42:05.680 journal

00:42:05.860 he was

00:42:06.360 just

00:42:06.640 going

00:42:06.960 full

00:42:07.220 throttle

00:42:07.560 a

00:42:08.300 real

00:42:08.680 a

00:42:09.260 true

00:42:09.660 scientist

00:42:10.540 through

00:42:11.040 and

00:42:11.200 through

00:42:11.440 unbelievable

00:42:13.180 guy

00:42:13.500 I tell

00:42:13.920 I discuss

00:42:14.700 several

00:42:15.260 stories

00:42:17.640 of my

00:42:18.020 time

00:42:18.440 at

00:42:19.020 Cornell

00:42:19.380 in the

00:42:19.820 happiness

00:42:20.280 book

00:42:20.620 anyways

00:42:21.220 the reason

00:42:21.500 I'm

00:42:21.780 mentioning

00:42:22.160 him

00:42:22.400 right now

00:42:22.740 is because

00:42:23.180 one day

00:42:24.220 he told

00:42:24.640 me

00:42:24.900 we were

00:42:25.920 sitting

00:42:26.140 around

00:42:26.360 Jay

00:42:26.920 is someone

00:42:27.380 who

00:42:27.720 is a

00:42:28.560 very

00:42:28.800 austere

00:42:29.420 guy

00:42:29.680 he could

00:42:30.160 be

00:42:30.380 intimidating

00:42:31.140 you

00:42:31.380 don't

00:42:31.760 mess

00:42:32.000 around

00:42:32.300 with

00:42:32.500 Jay

00:42:32.680 Russo

00:42:33.060 he was

00:42:34.320 a fantastic

00:42:35.840 mentor

00:42:36.220 but 0.97

00:42:36.600 you better

00:42:37.520 know your

00:42:37.940 stuff

00:42:38.220 you better

00:42:38.560 not mess

00:42:39.020 around

00:42:39.320 you better

00:42:39.780 do the

00:42:40.980 work

00:42:41.320 you better

00:42:41.840 be creative

00:42:42.980 you better

00:42:43.380 be hard

00:42:43.800 working

00:42:44.180 he expected

00:42:45.380 the world

00:42:46.100 of you

00:42:46.460 and I

00:42:47.200 of course

00:42:47.780 I thank

00:42:48.140 him for

00:42:48.400 that

00:42:48.600 for that

00:42:49.060 mentorship

00:42:49.420 so one day

00:42:50.580 we were

00:42:50.820 sitting

00:42:51.120 and he

00:42:52.020 says to

00:42:52.460 me

00:42:52.720 you know

00:42:53.920 Gad

00:42:54.340 it isn't

00:42:56.020 very often

00:42:56.820 that I'm 1.00

00:42:58.020 the dumbest 1.00

00:42:58.600 guy in 1.00

00:42:59.040 a room

00:42:59.400 Jay knew

00:43:00.600 that he was

00:43:01.060 obviously

00:43:01.400 a very

00:43:01.760 bright guy

00:43:02.280 now let me

00:43:03.340 set up

00:43:03.860 the story

00:43:04.700 of which

00:43:05.500 room he

00:43:05.880 was talking

00:43:06.280 about

00:43:06.560 so Jay

00:43:07.760 had served

00:43:08.400 on a

00:43:08.820 doctoral

00:43:09.420 committee

00:43:10.060 of

00:43:10.760 of an

00:43:12.100 individual

00:43:12.520 who

00:43:12.920 subsequently

00:43:13.480 himself

00:43:14.100 became

00:43:14.540 a very

00:43:15.720 accomplished

00:43:17.600 professor

00:43:18.640 and

00:43:19.220 decision

00:43:20.020 theorist

00:43:20.560 and on

00:43:22.140 that

00:43:22.400 committee

00:43:22.800 of that

00:43:23.660 student

00:43:24.120 who's now

00:43:24.900 a very

00:43:25.400 senior

00:43:25.700 professor

00:43:26.200 the other

00:43:29.180 committee

00:43:29.500 members

00:43:29.840 so there

00:43:30.080 was Jay

00:43:30.580 who in

00:43:32.420 most rooms

00:43:33.180 will be

00:43:33.540 the smartest

00:43:34.040 guy

00:43:34.420 the others

00:43:36.900 were Herb

00:43:37.480 Simon

00:43:37.820 who won

00:43:39.200 the 1978

00:43:39.960 Nobel Prize

00:43:41.160 and

00:43:42.620 Amos

00:43:43.480 Tversky

00:43:43.980 the gentleman

00:43:45.340 who would

00:43:45.760 have won

00:43:46.200 the Nobel

00:43:46.700 Prize

00:43:47.180 with Daniel

00:43:48.100 Kahneman

00:43:48.560 had he not

00:43:49.180 passed away

00:43:49.820 in 1996

00:43:50.600 and so

00:43:51.880 Jay says

00:43:53.240 to me

00:43:53.660 you know

00:43:54.500 Gad

00:43:54.840 it isn't

00:43:56.200 very often

00:43:56.960 that I am 1.00

00:43:58.300 the dumbest 1.00

00:43:58.800 guy in a 1.00

00:43:59.560 room

00:43:59.800 but whenever

00:44:01.400 we met

00:44:02.100 in that

00:44:02.880 room

00:44:03.240 you know

00:44:04.420 with the

00:44:04.840 doctoral

00:44:05.160 committee

00:44:05.560 of that

00:44:05.980 student

00:44:06.340 I was

00:44:07.740 always 1.00

00:44:08.180 the dumbest 1.00

00:44:08.780 guy 1.00

00:44:09.020 in that

00:44:09.340 room

00:44:09.600 which

00:44:10.320 is a

00:44:10.760 less

00:44:10.940 I mean

00:44:11.260 I love

00:44:11.560 the story

00:44:11.920 because

00:44:12.160 ultimately

00:44:12.520 it's a

00:44:13.080 it's a

00:44:13.820 it demonstrates

00:44:15.240 humility

00:44:15.700 for him

00:44:16.040 to say

00:44:16.300 that

00:44:16.540 notwithstanding

00:44:17.260 that it's

00:44:17.920 probably

00:44:18.580 true

00:44:18.960 even though

00:44:19.560 obviously

00:44:20.120 Jay is

00:44:20.500 an incredibly

00:44:20.940 bright

00:44:21.900 professor

00:44:22.480 but it

00:44:23.680 it always

00:44:24.380 reminded me

00:44:25.140 of the

00:44:25.400 fact that

00:44:26.080 you know

00:44:27.400 life is

00:44:27.900 truly relative

00:44:28.660 right

00:44:28.940 so if

00:44:29.440 you walk

00:44:29.940 into a

00:44:30.380 prison

00:44:30.720 as a

00:44:31.860 super

00:44:32.160 tough

00:44:32.480 guy

00:44:32.880 and you

00:44:33.740 think

00:44:34.140 I've got

00:44:34.980 nothing to

00:44:35.440 worry about

00:44:35.900 in prison

00:44:36.320 I mean

00:44:36.760 people know

00:44:37.800 what a 0.99

00:44:38.540 damn 0.99

00:44:38.840 tough guy 0.99

00:44:39.400 I am

00:44:39.840 guess what

00:44:40.840 there are

00:44:41.600 guys in

00:44:42.080 prison

00:44:42.420 that are

00:44:43.280 going to

00:44:43.700 be tougher

00:44:44.300 than you

00:44:44.780 I mean

00:44:45.100 short of

00:44:45.820 you being

00:44:46.360 Lionel

00:44:46.860 Messi

00:44:47.160 right

00:44:47.540 where

00:44:47.780 you know

00:44:48.240 you know

00:44:48.580 by definition

00:44:49.380 that you're

00:44:50.280 the greatest

00:44:50.680 soccer player

00:44:51.220 ever

00:44:51.500 no matter

00:44:52.700 how good

00:44:53.400 you are

00:44:53.800 in mathematics

00:44:54.500 and how

00:44:55.180 accomplished

00:44:55.720 you are

00:44:56.280 as a

00:44:56.620 professor

00:44:57.020 and how

00:44:57.620 eloquent

00:44:58.100 you are

00:44:58.560 as an

00:44:58.900 orator

00:44:59.360 there's

00:45:00.400 always going

00:45:01.060 to be

00:45:01.620 some room

00:45:02.820 where

00:45:03.720 you're

00:45:05.100 going to

00:45:05.440 eat

00:45:05.740 humble

00:45:06.240 pie

00:45:06.540 which

00:45:06.840 actually

00:45:07.360 is a

00:45:07.840 beautiful

00:45:08.420 thing

00:45:08.800 because

00:45:09.100 it

00:45:09.520 causes

00:45:10.040 us

00:45:10.260 to

00:45:10.380 always

00:45:10.640 want

00:45:10.900 to

00:45:11.040 aspire

00:45:11.480 to

00:45:12.300 be

00:45:12.500 better

00:45:12.820 and so

00:45:13.260 on

00:45:13.440 right

00:45:13.640 I mean

00:45:13.980 Lionel

00:45:15.240 Messi

00:45:15.500 had won

00:45:16.020 everything

00:45:16.580 short of

00:45:17.400 the

00:45:18.260 World Cup

00:45:18.780 and he

00:45:19.260 didn't

00:45:19.520 stop

00:45:19.900 until he

00:45:20.420 eventually

00:45:21.000 did win

00:45:21.600 the World

00:45:21.900 Cup

00:45:22.100 so

00:45:22.380 it is

00:45:23.180 a

00:45:23.320 beautiful

00:45:23.660 thing

00:45:24.040 to

00:45:24.420 compare

00:45:25.580 yourself

00:45:26.040 to

00:45:26.220 relevant

00:45:26.540 others

00:45:27.020 and to

00:45:27.480 have

00:45:27.660 the

00:45:27.800 humility

00:45:28.080 to say

00:45:28.480 yeah

00:45:28.740 I may

00:45:29.300 be

00:45:29.520 a great

00:45:30.600 scholar

00:45:30.980 but guess

00:45:31.440 what

00:45:31.740 there are

00:45:32.440 these other

00:45:32.880 folks that

00:45:33.320 I'd like

00:45:33.580 to emulate

00:45:34.060 that are

00:45:34.680 even

00:45:35.020 crushing it

00:45:36.040 10 times

00:45:36.460 more than

00:45:36.840 I am

00:45:37.180 and I

00:45:37.420 want to

00:45:37.660 be

00:45:37.900 hopefully

00:45:38.960 as good

00:45:39.300 as

00:45:39.440 them

00:45:39.580 and that

00:45:40.060 never

00:45:40.300 stops

00:45:40.660 right

00:45:40.840 I mean

00:45:41.020 I could

00:45:41.280 easily

00:45:41.560 stop now

00:45:42.140 and say

00:45:42.380 hey

00:45:42.660 I'm

00:45:43.620 probably

00:45:44.580 better known

00:45:45.480 as a

00:45:45.760 professor

00:45:46.080 than 99.9

00:45:47.540 professors

00:45:48.100 anywhere

00:45:49.580 but I

00:45:50.940 don't look

00:45:51.280 at it

00:45:51.460 that way

00:45:51.840 I look

00:45:52.740 at my

00:45:53.340 bibliometric

00:45:54.100 score

00:45:54.560 compared to

00:45:55.160 Amos

00:45:55.460 Tversky

00:45:55.960 and I

00:45:56.680 go 0.99

00:45:56.820 god damn 0.99

00:45:57.640 I gotta 0.99

00:45:58.060 find

00:45:58.660 a way

00:45:58.920 to be

00:45:59.160 more

00:45:59.400 productive

00:45:59.840 what 0.97

00:46:00.360 the hell 0.60

00:46:00.840 I'm not

00:46:01.700 1% of

00:46:02.580 what this

00:46:02.900 guy's

00:46:03.160 accomplished

00:46:03.540 in terms

00:46:04.120 of

00:46:04.560 academic

00:46:05.980 bibliometrics

00:46:06.840 and so

00:46:07.900 yeah

00:46:09.060 so that's

00:46:09.560 called

00:46:09.780 social

00:46:10.080 comparison

00:46:10.520 theory

00:46:10.880 right

00:46:11.100 compare

00:46:11.440 yourself

00:46:11.880 to

00:46:12.180 relevant

00:46:12.780 others

00:46:13.200 and hopefully

00:46:13.660 that can

00:46:14.240 motivate

00:46:15.560 you

00:46:15.900 so there

00:46:16.660 you have

00:46:17.020 it

00:46:17.260 today

00:46:17.680 was

00:46:18.060 certainly

00:46:18.840 a sad

00:46:19.380 day

00:46:19.660 from the

00:46:20.000 perspective

00:46:20.400 of

00:46:20.980 a

00:46:21.380 unbelievable

00:46:23.000 academic

00:46:24.360 Daniel

00:46:26.080 Conant

00:46:26.440 passing

00:46:26.860 away

00:46:27.620 may he

00:46:29.300 rest in

00:46:29.720 peace

00:46:29.940 I know

00:46:30.320 that he

00:46:30.700 will

00:46:30.960 certainly

00:46:31.600 be

00:46:31.980 immortal

00:46:32.480 in the

00:46:32.960 sense

00:46:33.180 that his

00:46:33.660 work

00:46:34.040 will be

00:46:35.260 undoubtedly

00:46:36.240 cited for

00:46:37.200 centuries to

00:46:38.200 come

00:46:38.440 you know

00:46:38.960 there are

00:46:39.840 some

00:46:40.080 researchers

00:46:40.580 that ride

00:46:41.840 a fad

00:46:42.400 right

00:46:42.660 they're

00:46:42.960 you know

00:46:43.600 Michel Foucault

00:46:44.920 the bullshitter

00:46:45.900 postmodernist

00:46:46.800 was cited a lot

00:46:48.560 when postmodernism

00:46:50.260 you know

00:46:51.140 was one of those

00:46:52.200 mind viruses

00:46:53.320 that was spreading

00:46:54.140 you know

00:46:54.720 what I call

00:46:55.160 idea pathogens

00:46:55.980 in the

00:46:56.280 parasitic 0.97

00:46:56.600 mind 0.95

00:46:56.900 I don't

00:46:57.940 expect that

00:46:58.400 Michel Foucault

00:46:59.080 in 200

00:46:59.760 years

00:47:00.200 is going

00:47:00.780 to be

00:47:01.140 a bleep

00:47:01.580 on anybody's

00:47:02.220 radar

00:47:02.460 but

00:47:03.460 the work

00:47:04.500 of Amos

00:47:04.960 Tversky

00:47:05.380 and Daniel

00:47:05.780 Kahneman

00:47:06.200 will

00:47:06.640 because

00:47:07.080 there's

00:47:07.440 no way

00:47:08.020 that anyone

00:47:09.080 who wants

00:47:09.580 to study

00:47:09.980 psychology

00:47:10.480 of decision

00:47:11.000 making

00:47:11.440 can ever

00:47:14.020 avoid

00:47:15.060 seeing

00:47:15.740 their work

00:47:16.420 and so

00:47:17.080 he is

00:47:18.060 immortal

00:47:18.440 he may

00:47:19.140 physically

00:47:19.560 be gone

00:47:20.120 but

00:47:20.660 his

00:47:21.520 memetic

00:47:22.120 immortality

00:47:22.980 is guaranteed

00:47:23.460 so there

00:47:24.320 you have

00:47:24.600 it folks

00:47:25.020 I hope

00:47:25.560 that you

00:47:25.880 enjoyed

00:47:26.260 this

00:47:26.640 wow

00:47:27.180 almost

00:47:27.540 50 minute

00:47:28.120 lecture

00:47:28.680 on

00:47:29.020 Danny Kahneman

00:47:29.900 psychology

00:47:30.340 of decision

00:47:30.760 making

00:47:31.080 I'm heading

00:47:32.200 out to

00:47:32.580 spend some

00:47:33.000 time with

00:47:33.300 the family

00:47:33.800 as I said

00:47:35.460 if you wish

00:47:36.160 to interact

00:47:36.920 with me

00:47:37.340 the best

00:47:37.840 way to

00:47:38.180 do so

00:47:38.640 is by

00:47:40.200 subscribing

00:47:41.780 what I

00:47:42.520 what I'll

00:47:42.980 try to do

00:47:43.580 and that's

00:47:43.900 what I've

00:47:44.100 been doing

00:47:44.520 the last

00:47:45.160 few times

00:47:45.580 I've done

00:47:45.840 x-spaces

00:47:46.460 except

00:47:47.440 yesterday

00:47:47.800 I didn't

00:47:48.060 do that

00:47:48.380 is once

00:47:49.260 I finish

00:47:49.740 the general

00:47:50.380 x-spaces

00:47:51.120 then I go

00:47:51.920 into a

00:47:52.380 subscriber

00:47:52.840 only

00:47:53.180 x-spaces

00:47:53.800 where I

00:47:54.760 actually

00:47:55.240 do take

00:47:56.040 the questions

00:47:56.540 of people

00:47:57.020 and we

00:47:57.360 end up

00:47:57.780 having

00:47:58.060 these

00:47:58.300 incredible

00:47:58.860 conversations

00:47:59.420 because

00:47:59.800 as you

00:48:00.820 might expect

00:48:01.480 the people

00:48:02.520 who typically

00:48:03.280 subscribe to

00:48:03.960 my stuff

00:48:04.560 tend to

00:48:06.040 be very

00:48:06.960 intellectually

00:48:07.440 curious

00:48:07.920 oftentimes

00:48:08.320 they're

00:48:09.140 other

00:48:09.360 academics

00:48:09.860 or they're

00:48:10.440 graduate

00:48:10.800 students

00:48:11.320 and so

00:48:12.220 we really

00:48:12.760 end up

00:48:13.100 having

00:48:13.380 these

00:48:13.620 incredible

00:48:14.360 organic

00:48:14.980 conversations

00:48:15.580 so

00:48:16.060 thank you

00:48:16.940 so much

00:48:17.180 for your

00:48:17.400 attention

00:48:17.740 I will

00:48:18.560 probably

00:48:19.380 I mean

00:48:20.260 this will

00:48:20.640 stay up

00:48:21.240 as a

00:48:21.540 recorded

00:48:22.000 x-spaces

00:48:23.160 but I

00:48:23.520 will probably

00:48:24.160 take it

00:48:24.860 and upload

00:48:26.380 it on

00:48:27.460 my

00:48:27.920 YouTube

00:48:29.420 channel

00:48:29.840 and my

00:48:30.360 podcast

00:48:30.720 and please

00:48:31.400 if you

00:48:31.900 haven't done

00:48:32.340 so

00:48:32.600 please

00:48:33.120 consider

00:48:33.540 this is

00:48:34.300 free

00:48:34.560 so I'm

00:48:35.140 not

00:48:35.380 pleading

00:48:36.160 for any

00:48:36.660 of your

00:48:37.580 latte

00:48:38.400 money

00:48:38.760 subscribe

00:48:39.800 to my

00:48:40.380 YouTube

00:48:40.840 channel

00:48:41.280 and or

00:48:42.080 my podcast

00:48:43.260 thank you

00:48:44.020 so much

00:48:44.300 guys

00:48:44.640 have a

00:48:45.040 great

00:48:45.240 evening

00:48:45.580 and I'll

00:48:46.480 see you

00:48:46.720 soon

00:48:46.900 cheers

00:48:47.240 everybody

The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad - April 03, 2024

Nobel Laureate Dr. Daniel Kahneman - Pioneer of Psychology of Decision Making (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_655)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript