Why are some places more corrupt than others, Why do we go through sometimes where we seem to have tons of innovation and other times where we seem to have none. Where did religion come from? And why is Europe, for example, so different from the rest of the world. The only way to answer these questions is if you had a theory of everyone, and that's exactly what doctor Michael Muthakrishna has. He is an award winning Associate Professor of Economic psychology from the London School of Economics, and in his new book, A Theory of Everyone, he offers some really remarkable ideas on why we are the way we are, and more important, what we can do to actually help direct our society. This is a bit of optimism. Michael, first, blush connecting with you. I'm completely struck by your humility. You wanted to write a book with your theory about everything, but instead, in your true humble self, you just wrote a book a theory about everyone. So I just wanted to point that out exactly.

Why are some places more corrupt than others, Why do we go through sometimes where we seem to have tons of innovation and other times where we seem to have none. Where did religion come from? And why is Europe, for example, so different from the rest of the world. The only way to answer these questions is if you had a theory of everyone, and that's exactly what doctor Michael Muthakrishna has. He is an award winning Associate Professor of Economic psychology from the London School of Economics, and in his new book, A Theory of Everyone, he offers some really remarkable ideas on why we are the way we are, and more important, what we can do to actually help direct our society. This is a bit of optimism. Michael, first, blush connecting with you. I'm completely struck by your humility. You wanted to write a book with your theory about everything, but instead, in your true humble self, you just wrote a book a theory about everyone. So I just wanted to point that out exactly.

It could have It could have been bold, it could have been ambitious, it could have been everything. It was just everyone.

It could have It could have been bold, it could have been ambitious, it could have been everything. It was just everyone.

It's just everyone, you know. Walk me backwards. How does one come up with a theory of everyone? Like what walk me back to sort of how you even came to having a point of view that deserved to be a book.

It's just everyone, you know. Walk me backwards. How does one come up with a theory of everyone? Like what walk me back to sort of how you even came to having a point of view that deserved to be a book.

I mean, just just to be clear, I don't have a theory of everyone in the sense like I didn't just develop a theory of everyone. And if if you know, if you had someone on your show who is like I single handedly have developed the theory of everyone, you should be skeptical.

I mean, just just to be clear, I don't have a theory of everyone in the sense like I didn't just develop a theory of everyone. And if if you know, if you had someone on your show who is like I single handedly have developed the theory of everyone, you should be skeptical.

Right.

Right.

I've been working on the problem of human evolution, so why is it that we're so different to other animals?

I've been working on the problem of human evolution, so why is it that we're so different to other animals?

Yeah?

Yeah?

And I was, you know, working on an area within that called cultural evolution. So this is the way in which ideas and entire societies and our companies and institutions evolve and change over time. This area of science actually merges out of population genetics. It's a bunch of mathematical models that really weren't tested till the early twenty first century. And as I was working in this area, I realized this is a huge breakthrough, Like we have an ability to understand humans and predict things as we have never had before. It's this moment of alchemy turning into chemistry. And there's so many conversations happening around the world around conflict, around business, around government, and so on, and I was like, people need to know about this, Like I just you know, they say, don't write a book because you feel like, you know, it's this moment in your career to write a book, write it when it's bursting out of you. And that's what it felt like, Simon, like it was bursting out, like I just needed to tell people, like it was driving me crazy, and so that was kind of what motivated me to write this all time.

And I was, you know, working on an area within that called cultural evolution. So this is the way in which ideas and entire societies and our companies and institutions evolve and change over time. This area of science actually merges out of population genetics. It's a bunch of mathematical models that really weren't tested till the early twenty first century. And as I was working in this area, I realized this is a huge breakthrough, Like we have an ability to understand humans and predict things as we have never had before. It's this moment of alchemy turning into chemistry. And there's so many conversations happening around the world around conflict, around business, around government, and so on, and I was like, people need to know about this, Like I just you know, they say, don't write a book because you feel like, you know, it's this moment in your career to write a book, write it when it's bursting out of you. And that's what it felt like, Simon, like it was bursting out, like I just needed to tell people, like it was driving me crazy, and so that was kind of what motivated me to write this all time.

So what specifically was having you crazy.

So what specifically was having you crazy.

What was driving me crazy, was that we have questions, right, like why are some places corrupt and other places not corrupt or less corrupt? Right? Why does it feel like sometimes you know, we're in these moments of innovation and excitement in the world is getting better, and in other moments it feels like everything is coming apart. How do we design, you know, an immigration policy or a multicultural policy, or handle edi diversity, you know, in a way that recognizes that there's a duality to it, right, Diversity is divisive and it's also the engine of innovation. There were all of these questions that seemed like they were disconnected, like how did religion emerge? Where where did that come from? Why do we have companies today where people can freely choose where they want to work, whereas in the past it was tied to families. Why does Europe look so different to the rest of the world. So all these questions and the hallmark of a of a major breakthrough of the kind that you know we had with Newton and Einstein and you know, alchemedic chemistry, with the periodic table and Darwinian evolution, is that suddenly what looks like this chaotic, confusing world comes into clarity, comes into focus, like everything suddenly makes sense. And I think that's the moment we're really you know, we're at We know the rules now by which humans became a different kind of animal, and the rules by which societies and entire companies are changing. When we know how things like innovation happen in a way that we've never understood before.

What was driving me crazy, was that we have questions, right, like why are some places corrupt and other places not corrupt or less corrupt? Right? Why does it feel like sometimes you know, we're in these moments of innovation and excitement in the world is getting better, and in other moments it feels like everything is coming apart. How do we design, you know, an immigration policy or a multicultural policy, or handle edi diversity, you know, in a way that recognizes that there's a duality to it, right, Diversity is divisive and it's also the engine of innovation. There were all of these questions that seemed like they were disconnected, like how did religion emerge? Where where did that come from? Why do we have companies today where people can freely choose where they want to work, whereas in the past it was tied to families. Why does Europe look so different to the rest of the world. So all these questions and the hallmark of a of a major breakthrough of the kind that you know we had with Newton and Einstein and you know, alchemedic chemistry, with the periodic table and Darwinian evolution, is that suddenly what looks like this chaotic, confusing world comes into clarity, comes into focus, like everything suddenly makes sense. And I think that's the moment we're really you know, we're at We know the rules now by which humans became a different kind of animal, and the rules by which societies and entire companies are changing. When we know how things like innovation happen in a way that we've never understood before.

Okay, there's a lot on the table there. Let's start chipping away at some of it. Let's start dissecting some of this, right, do it? So let's start with, I mean, the thing that distinguishes human beings from other animals is our neocortex. We're the only animal that's got one, the Homo sapien brain, we have the capacity for rational and analytical thought. It's a blessing and a curse.

Okay, there's a lot on the table there. Let's start chipping away at some of it. Let's start dissecting some of this, right, do it? So let's start with, I mean, the thing that distinguishes human beings from other animals is our neocortex. We're the only animal that's got one, the Homo sapien brain, we have the capacity for rational and analytical thought. It's a blessing and a curse.

Okay, right, So it is true we have giant brains three times as large as the chimps, three times as large as our ancestors, But that's not an explanation. That's actually part of the puzzle because brain tissue is about twenty times as energy expensive as muscle tissue. And if you think like big brains are better, then you should wonder like why do more animals have big brains? Like why isn't the animal king filled with these big brain genius creatures like ourselves. Yeah, and the reason is that big brains, because they're so calorifically expensive, need to pay for themselves. They have to be able to engage with the environment to find calories, evade predators, and so on, so that they can pay their energy bills. The other thing, you know, you mentioned reason and rationality. It's true humans can do this, but a lot of that is actually not thanks to anything we're born with, but thanks to a cultural download that we get from our schools and societies, and we can only really see this when we go to places that haven't yet had a kind of educational revolution.

Okay, right, So it is true we have giant brains three times as large as the chimps, three times as large as our ancestors, But that's not an explanation. That's actually part of the puzzle because brain tissue is about twenty times as energy expensive as muscle tissue. And if you think like big brains are better, then you should wonder like why do more animals have big brains? Like why isn't the animal king filled with these big brain genius creatures like ourselves. Yeah, and the reason is that big brains, because they're so calorifically expensive, need to pay for themselves. They have to be able to engage with the environment to find calories, evade predators, and so on, so that they can pay their energy bills. The other thing, you know, you mentioned reason and rationality. It's true humans can do this, but a lot of that is actually not thanks to anything we're born with, but thanks to a cultural download that we get from our schools and societies, and we can only really see this when we go to places that haven't yet had a kind of educational revolution.

Give me a real life comparison.

Give me a real life comparison.

Yeah, y'll give you. So. Alexander Luria is this Russian psychologist. He goes out to Uzbekistan. He wants to understand there's no education revolution and he asks people if P then Q reasoning questions. This is a classic thing. Yes, so he says, where it snows the bears are white in Novas and leah, it snows? What color the bears? He asks people with education, They're like white right now, this is a question. By the way, you immediately got it. My six year old immediately gets that. Anyone in our society would get it. He asks people who hadn't gone to school yet, Yeah, he has them. They're like, I don't know, I haven't been to noviasily, I've seen a brown bear, ones probably brown, and Lurie is like what just wait, what hang on, let me just say this again. Where's snows the bears are white? Innovisimbly, you know it snows? What color are the bears? And they're like, I'm really not sure. So this kind of if P thanke reasoning, as it turns out, is something that we're kind of trained into. We're trained into thinking in these abstract ways, so you know, we have the same data we I have a field site at the border between Namibia Angola where there's another educational revolution, and we ask people, we say, you know, in this other place they make boats out of sand. I've got a boat from this other place. What's it made out of They're like, I don't know. Would They're like what And you ask people like could it be made out of sand? And they just laugh at you, like that's crazy. Because humans really think in this without kind of being trained out of it, think in this very embedded, real, concrete way where these abstract hypotheticals are not part of the game. The reason that humans are so different to other animals is that we move from just a reliance on hardware, so think brawn, think brains, whatever, to reliance on hardware and software. So our societies have been culturally evolving. Ideas, concepts have been culturally evolving and getting transmitted from generation to generation to the point where actually humanity or our cultural corpus or whatever you want to call it culture if you like, is more intelligent than any of us. We are like nodes in a collective brain. You know. One of the strongest piece of evidence that we are so reliant on this software package is that when we grew our brains, we also shrunk our guts and we weakened our jaws to the point where we can't really survive on anything other than cooked food. Like, our brains are so calorifically expensive. We can't sit there like a gorilla chewing on leaves. You wouldn't get enough calories. You can't do it like a cow or something. But we don't have genes for cooking. Like ask any college student. It's not a natural thing. You know. We have genes that maybe attract us toward fire, but we don't have genes for making fire. Right, It's really hard. It has to be culturally transmitted. Yeah, So in other words, you emerge into a world where you have to have this kind of software package just simply to survive, and you were reliant on it being transmitted.

Yeah, y'll give you. So. Alexander Luria is this Russian psychologist. He goes out to Uzbekistan. He wants to understand there's no education revolution and he asks people if P then Q reasoning questions. This is a classic thing. Yes, so he says, where it snows the bears are white in Novas and leah, it snows? What color the bears? He asks people with education, They're like white right now, this is a question. By the way, you immediately got it. My six year old immediately gets that. Anyone in our society would get it. He asks people who hadn't gone to school yet, Yeah, he has them. They're like, I don't know, I haven't been to noviasily, I've seen a brown bear, ones probably brown, and Lurie is like what just wait, what hang on, let me just say this again. Where's snows the bears are white? Innovisimbly, you know it snows? What color are the bears? And they're like, I'm really not sure. So this kind of if P thanke reasoning, as it turns out, is something that we're kind of trained into. We're trained into thinking in these abstract ways, so you know, we have the same data we I have a field site at the border between Namibia Angola where there's another educational revolution, and we ask people, we say, you know, in this other place they make boats out of sand. I've got a boat from this other place. What's it made out of They're like, I don't know. Would They're like what And you ask people like could it be made out of sand? And they just laugh at you, like that's crazy. Because humans really think in this without kind of being trained out of it, think in this very embedded, real, concrete way where these abstract hypotheticals are not part of the game. The reason that humans are so different to other animals is that we move from just a reliance on hardware, so think brawn, think brains, whatever, to reliance on hardware and software. So our societies have been culturally evolving. Ideas, concepts have been culturally evolving and getting transmitted from generation to generation to the point where actually humanity or our cultural corpus or whatever you want to call it culture if you like, is more intelligent than any of us. We are like nodes in a collective brain. You know. One of the strongest piece of evidence that we are so reliant on this software package is that when we grew our brains, we also shrunk our guts and we weakened our jaws to the point where we can't really survive on anything other than cooked food. Like, our brains are so calorifically expensive. We can't sit there like a gorilla chewing on leaves. You wouldn't get enough calories. You can't do it like a cow or something. But we don't have genes for cooking. Like ask any college student. It's not a natural thing. You know. We have genes that maybe attract us toward fire, but we don't have genes for making fire. Right, It's really hard. It has to be culturally transmitted. Yeah, So in other words, you emerge into a world where you have to have this kind of software package just simply to survive, and you were reliant on it being transmitted.

So let me say it back to the is what I'm clear right, which is if I live in a fishing village and my father was a fisherman, my father's father was a fisherman, and my father's father father was a fisherman or agrarian society where we're all basically subsistence farmers, we're passing down the unnecessary skills of farming, and so my whole worldview is farming. Whereas if I'm in a different society where there are technological advancements, then those learnings and those ways of seeing the world are handed down, and so I have the ability to see the world beyond farming or fishing. And so it's not the ability to accumulate knowledge, it's the ability to pass knowledge from generation to generation. So I don't have to relearn every lesson, but I can build upon the lessons of previous generations.

So let me say it back to the is what I'm clear right, which is if I live in a fishing village and my father was a fisherman, my father's father was a fisherman, and my father's father father was a fisherman or agrarian society where we're all basically subsistence farmers, we're passing down the unnecessary skills of farming, and so my whole worldview is farming. Whereas if I'm in a different society where there are technological advancements, then those learnings and those ways of seeing the world are handed down, and so I have the ability to see the world beyond farming or fishing. And so it's not the ability to accumulate knowledge, it's the ability to pass knowledge from generation to generation. So I don't have to relearn every lesson, but I can build upon the lessons of previous generations.

Correct. Correct, You don't even need to understand the world.

Correct. Correct, You don't even need to understand the world.

You don't understand ways, you know.

You don't understand ways, you know.

Like the other example, I was going to give you something that I think is really compelling is numeracy. Right, You and I can count, and you know, most people you meet can count, but humans, for the longest time couldn't.

Like the other example, I was going to give you something that I think is really compelling is numeracy. Right, You and I can count, and you know, most people you meet can count, but humans, for the longest time couldn't.

Right.

Right.

There are some small scale societies, and our ancestors counted like this, one, two, three, many, and it took a while, you know, so initially some societies count on their own body parts. So we use ten, not because ten is specially but we use ten because we've got ten fingers. And other societies used you know, twelve for the phalanges or whatever. But it was when we were using stones or body parts or notches or something that we could develop numbers. But we only got to you know, for the purposes of trade. We only got to natural numbers above one. So the reason for that is that zero is a really difficult concept to understand, and it's not well represented, and.

There are some small scale societies, and our ancestors counted like this, one, two, three, many, and it took a while, you know, so initially some societies count on their own body parts. So we use ten, not because ten is specially but we use ten because we've got ten fingers. And other societies used you know, twelve for the phalanges or whatever. But it was when we were using stones or body parts or notches or something that we could develop numbers. But we only got to you know, for the purposes of trade. We only got to natural numbers above one. So the reason for that is that zero is a really difficult concept to understand, and it's not well represented, and.

I don't need it, right, Like I have one sheep. If I have zero sheeps, I don't need to conceive of zero.

I don't need it, right, Like I have one sheep. If I have zero sheeps, I don't need to conceive of zero.

Because it's nothing. I've got zero sheep is zero everything like.

Because it's nothing. I've got zero sheep is zero everything like.

What I don't need to think about it.

What I don't need to think about it.

Yeah, got no shoe exactly.

Yeah, got no shoe exactly.

Okay, Okay, let's let's move here, because as interesting as this all is, it is just that interesting, right, Let's get into some of them, the deeper stuff here, because you raised a lot of interesting questions like why is one society corrupt and another as less corrupt? Let's uncover that. I love where this is going, but I need to take a quick break and then we'll get back into it. Why is one society highly corrupt, and one culture it doesn't seem they can get out of their corruption way, and some are you know, reasonably functional. Low there is corruption. We would call it low level corruption.

Okay, Okay, let's let's move here, because as interesting as this all is, it is just that interesting, right, Let's get into some of them, the deeper stuff here, because you raised a lot of interesting questions like why is one society corrupt and another as less corrupt? Let's uncover that. I love where this is going, but I need to take a quick break and then we'll get back into it. Why is one society highly corrupt, and one culture it doesn't seem they can get out of their corruption way, and some are you know, reasonably functional. Low there is corruption. We would call it low level corruption.

Yeah. While I didn't create all of this theory, this is one of my contributions the understanding of corruption as scales of cooperation competing with one another. Cooperation is a big puzzle for economists, for biologists or whatever. Two thousand and five Science Magazine actually laid it out as one of the top twenty five puzzles. And the reason for that is often I'm better off being selfish. Yeah, I'm better off taking for me than I am to help other people. Right, And so you need a mechanism that allows you to scale up beyond yourself into larger and larger groups. And we've identified all of these different mechanisms. So one mechanism is that many people may have heard of kin selection or inclusive fitness. This is the idea that genes that can identify and that favor copies of themselves will spread at the expensive genes that don't. So across the animal kingdom, this is the reason we love our families. A lion comes in it kills the cubs of another lion and then replaces it with its own cubs, but it doesn't kill its own cubs. Yeah, and that's because it has means. It recognizes in the you know, in its own cubs, and it goes, we need to favor those cubs, right, which.

Yeah. While I didn't create all of this theory, this is one of my contributions the understanding of corruption as scales of cooperation competing with one another. Cooperation is a big puzzle for economists, for biologists or whatever. Two thousand and five Science Magazine actually laid it out as one of the top twenty five puzzles. And the reason for that is often I'm better off being selfish. Yeah, I'm better off taking for me than I am to help other people. Right, And so you need a mechanism that allows you to scale up beyond yourself into larger and larger groups. And we've identified all of these different mechanisms. So one mechanism is that many people may have heard of kin selection or inclusive fitness. This is the idea that genes that can identify and that favor copies of themselves will spread at the expensive genes that don't. So across the animal kingdom, this is the reason we love our families. A lion comes in it kills the cubs of another lion and then replaces it with its own cubs, but it doesn't kill its own cubs. Yeah, and that's because it has means. It recognizes in the you know, in its own cubs, and it goes, we need to favor those cubs, right, which.

Is which is why, which is why dictators look after their children.

Is which is why, which is why dictators look after their children.

You've jumped ahead of me, So, yeah, you know, we have other mechanisms like direct reciprocity. You scratch my back, guy scratch yours, I for an I tooth for a tooth. Yeah, indirect reciprocity, reputation or whatever. So all of these mechanisms exist at the same time. Now in societies that are less corrupt, what's going on is that we have securitized trust or securitized cooperation via well functioning institutions like governments and police forces and judiciary and courts and so on. Right, So it's not like, you know, if you steal some stuff from me, I'm not gonna be like We're gonna come get you, simon, I'm gonna come. No, I'm gonna like call the police or something.

You've jumped ahead of me, So, yeah, you know, we have other mechanisms like direct reciprocity. You scratch my back, guy scratch yours, I for an I tooth for a tooth. Yeah, indirect reciprocity, reputation or whatever. So all of these mechanisms exist at the same time. Now in societies that are less corrupt, what's going on is that we have securitized trust or securitized cooperation via well functioning institutions like governments and police forces and judiciary and courts and so on. Right, So it's not like, you know, if you steal some stuff from me, I'm not gonna be like We're gonna come get you, simon, I'm gonna come. No, I'm gonna like call the police or something.

Right.

Right.

Corruption is not the puzzle to be explained. The puzzle to be explained is how the hell are some societies like that? Yeah, because favoring your family is inclusive fitness, right, Favoring your friends is direct reciprocity. Or you know, when a manager gives a job to a friend or a friend of a friend, that is, it's absolutely natural and most animal engage in similar behavior. Right, So how is it that some societies and now we have an answer to that. What you have to do is undermine these smaller scales and create incentives where it is better to work together in a larger group than it is to work together in a smaller group. So think of a company, right, Like, if I get start a company all by myself, keep all the equity, I don't need any funders. I'm gonna bootstrap this whole thing. I'm gonna do that. You know, if I can start a unicorn all by myself, you don't think I'm gonna do that. Of course I'm gonna do that, But I can't. I need to get other people. And that is because the potential payoff, even when it's divided up by all of the people who have equity, is higher than what I would get working by myself. So that's step one, yeah, go on, go on. The second half is you want to undermine. So we used to have companies for a long time, but there were family firms. People could only trust those that they were related to. And this idea of a Western style non family corporation is a very Western idea. And what happens. So my collaborator Joe Hendrick has this very nice paper in science where you show this is crazy. But the Catholic Church bans cousin marriage. It stops you from marrying your cousins, and it does a bunch of other things to marriage, where it basically says, look, you can't marry your god daughters. You can't. You can only marry one person. It's gonna be for a long time. You don't get to divorce or whatever. It changes family structures. Now in most of the world, even today, people marry their relatives right, like in Afghanistan it's about forty I think forty seven to fifty percent of people are marrying their cousins. Now, what does that do. What it does is it ramps up cooperation via kin selection or inclusive fitness. So my uncle, he isn't just my uncle, he is related to me by this line, and this you have family webs, not family trees, and by undermining that lower scale, you destroyed the ability of kind selection or inclusive fitness to rise up and create tribes that would otherwise undermine governments.

Corruption is not the puzzle to be explained. The puzzle to be explained is how the hell are some societies like that? Yeah, because favoring your family is inclusive fitness, right, Favoring your friends is direct reciprocity. Or you know, when a manager gives a job to a friend or a friend of a friend, that is, it's absolutely natural and most animal engage in similar behavior. Right, So how is it that some societies and now we have an answer to that. What you have to do is undermine these smaller scales and create incentives where it is better to work together in a larger group than it is to work together in a smaller group. So think of a company, right, Like, if I get start a company all by myself, keep all the equity, I don't need any funders. I'm gonna bootstrap this whole thing. I'm gonna do that. You know, if I can start a unicorn all by myself, you don't think I'm gonna do that. Of course I'm gonna do that, But I can't. I need to get other people. And that is because the potential payoff, even when it's divided up by all of the people who have equity, is higher than what I would get working by myself. So that's step one, yeah, go on, go on. The second half is you want to undermine. So we used to have companies for a long time, but there were family firms. People could only trust those that they were related to. And this idea of a Western style non family corporation is a very Western idea. And what happens. So my collaborator Joe Hendrick has this very nice paper in science where you show this is crazy. But the Catholic Church bans cousin marriage. It stops you from marrying your cousins, and it does a bunch of other things to marriage, where it basically says, look, you can't marry your god daughters. You can't. You can only marry one person. It's gonna be for a long time. You don't get to divorce or whatever. It changes family structures. Now in most of the world, even today, people marry their relatives right, like in Afghanistan it's about forty I think forty seven to fifty percent of people are marrying their cousins. Now, what does that do. What it does is it ramps up cooperation via kin selection or inclusive fitness. So my uncle, he isn't just my uncle, he is related to me by this line, and this you have family webs, not family trees, and by undermining that lower scale, you destroyed the ability of kind selection or inclusive fitness to rise up and create tribes that would otherwise undermine governments.

Okay, so the Catholic Church bans the marriage of cousins not because they care about incest. It's because they recognize that kinship bunds are so strong and so powerful that they fear that any family could become more powerful than the Catholic Church.

Okay, so the Catholic Church bans the marriage of cousins not because they care about incest. It's because they recognize that kinship bunds are so strong and so powerful that they fear that any family could become more powerful than the Catholic Church.

This is interesting, so we don't know why exactly. So you know, it could be in cesto version, it could be this is a good financial but.

This is interesting, so we don't know why exactly. So you know, it could be in cesto version, it could be this is a good financial but.

The logic has to be that by weakening kinship bunds it ensures the strength of the church.

The logic has to be that by weakening kinship bunds it ensures the strength of the church.

Correct, correct, So it's it's also by finances. Right. So normally, if you've got a big family, land stays within the family. They don't have descendants or give a few where it goes to the church. There's a variety of different reasons why the church may have done this, but it removes the churches.

Correct, correct, So it's it's also by finances. Right. So normally, if you've got a big family, land stays within the family. They don't have descendants or give a few where it goes to the church. There's a variety of different reasons why the church may have done this, but it removes the churches.

Do they're breaking these kinship bunds for self preservation.

Do they're breaking these kinship bunds for self preservation.

Destroying European tribes.

Destroying European tribes.

Destroying European right and flash forward a few hundred years. What ends up happening is because the kinship bunds have been broken, we learn to build groups, tribes, companies, cooperations that are beyond our families. So we've we've been forced to learn how to build trust, which allows us to build companies that are not kinship based.

Destroying European right and flash forward a few hundred years. What ends up happening is because the kinship bunds have been broken, we learn to build groups, tribes, companies, cooperations that are beyond our families. So we've we've been forced to learn how to build trust, which allows us to build companies that are not kinship based.

So got it, you got it.

So got it, you got it.

So in Italy this ripple has a massive impact on European business that may not be seen, for example, in the Middle East or in the Near East, something like that.

So in Italy this ripple has a massive impact on European business that may not be seen, for example, in the Middle East or in the Near East, something like that.

Right, that's right, that's exactly that's exactly right. Honestly, people should go read the papers, a beautiful paper by Jonathan Schultz, Jonathan Boucamp, du mound Rad and Joe Henry. But so what happens then is these companies. First off, it creates individualism, It creates the ability to move away into other towns, and so ideas start to flow around. You're laying the foundations for you know, the Enlightenment and so on. But then what happens is that we discover energy, We discover stored sunlight in the ground. A little backwater of the Roman Empire Britain where I currently live. That backwater has cheap and available coal. Now, when you combine that with these ideas flowing around these individualism, these non family corporations, you can use this coal to outcompete other companies. You can create the East India Trading Company for example. Right, you can start the process of colonialism right through these European tribes. And so you empower everything you do thanks to millions of years worth of pete turned to black rock that we call coal, and later you know, zooplankton and algae turned to oil and natural gas. You can empower your ability to do anything by cooperating and working together to outcompete those less energetic civilizations and steal all their stuff. And your companies, your civilization, your groups are going to outcompete everybody else.

Right, that's right, that's exactly that's exactly right. Honestly, people should go read the papers, a beautiful paper by Jonathan Schultz, Jonathan Boucamp, du mound Rad and Joe Henry. But so what happens then is these companies. First off, it creates individualism, It creates the ability to move away into other towns, and so ideas start to flow around. You're laying the foundations for you know, the Enlightenment and so on. But then what happens is that we discover energy, We discover stored sunlight in the ground. A little backwater of the Roman Empire Britain where I currently live. That backwater has cheap and available coal. Now, when you combine that with these ideas flowing around these individualism, these non family corporations, you can use this coal to outcompete other companies. You can create the East India Trading Company for example. Right, you can start the process of colonialism right through these European tribes. And so you empower everything you do thanks to millions of years worth of pete turned to black rock that we call coal, and later you know, zooplankton and algae turned to oil and natural gas. You can empower your ability to do anything by cooperating and working together to outcompete those less energetic civilizations and steal all their stuff. And your companies, your civilization, your groups are going to outcompete everybody else.

Right, the cultural evolution of all of this discussion, you have to have a very, very long point of view to look at these things, and you see a lot of them weren't done prescriptively. They were done reactively. There's just the one example of the Catholic Church banning marriage of cousins. They had no conception of what could happen. It was done for self preservation in the moment. And so what I find fascinating is the motivation for self preservation accidentally in some cases has created group preservation.

Right, the cultural evolution of all of this discussion, you have to have a very, very long point of view to look at these things, and you see a lot of them weren't done prescriptively. They were done reactively. There's just the one example of the Catholic Church banning marriage of cousins. They had no conception of what could happen. It was done for self preservation in the moment. And so what I find fascinating is the motivation for self preservation accidentally in some cases has created group preservation.

That's right. And different civilizations or different people around the world have gone down different paths, not because they were thinking about it, yeah, but because you know, for whatever reason they went, they started to think about the world in this way. You know, even the ideas like the world is ordered, you know, there are laws to be discovered. If we study the world, we might understand the creator. Whatever. These kinds of ideas lead us down one path versus a different path. And then these different paths are competing with one another. So in the same way that natural selection and genetic evolution can create complexity with three simple rules, you know, variation or diversity, transmission, and selection, cultural evolution is doing the same thing. There's a variety of different ideas. There's a variety of different societal organizations. There's a variety of different ways you can run your company. There's a very they're getting transmitted because we're learning faithfully and we're learning selectively, Like we don't copy anyone off the street. We're like, who are the billionaires? What are they doing? You know, who are the successful people? Like I want to copy their way of speaking. I want to copy their way of dressing. I want to live in the same city as then, you know, I want to do what the celebrities are doing. That psychology, combined with the transmission, combined with the variation, is sufficient for the system to evolve beyond conscious awareness. And that's why we didn't think about it like we had to reverse engineer what was going on with our species. And that is a theory of everyone.

That's right. And different civilizations or different people around the world have gone down different paths, not because they were thinking about it, yeah, but because you know, for whatever reason they went, they started to think about the world in this way. You know, even the ideas like the world is ordered, you know, there are laws to be discovered. If we study the world, we might understand the creator. Whatever. These kinds of ideas lead us down one path versus a different path. And then these different paths are competing with one another. So in the same way that natural selection and genetic evolution can create complexity with three simple rules, you know, variation or diversity, transmission, and selection, cultural evolution is doing the same thing. There's a variety of different ideas. There's a variety of different societal organizations. There's a variety of different ways you can run your company. There's a very they're getting transmitted because we're learning faithfully and we're learning selectively, Like we don't copy anyone off the street. We're like, who are the billionaires? What are they doing? You know, who are the successful people? Like I want to copy their way of speaking. I want to copy their way of dressing. I want to live in the same city as then, you know, I want to do what the celebrities are doing. That psychology, combined with the transmission, combined with the variation, is sufficient for the system to evolve beyond conscious awareness. And that's why we didn't think about it like we had to reverse engineer what was going on with our species. And that is a theory of everyone.

We have to take a quick break and we'll be right back. I have a theory that I need to share with you cultural evolution. I think for the pejorative, which is, we live in this very divided society. It seems more selfish than ever. We're quick to stab each other in the back. And you know, if we go back to the Second World War, the stories of young men who committed suicide because they weren't drafted, because they weren't called to action, was significantly higher than the opposite. And like for our generation to even hear that that's insane, right, that the shame of not being called to serher, you know, was overwhelming. And then after the Second World War, we get into the Cold War where you have this great power competition. And one of the advantages of great power competition is it helps us understand what we stand for because we can clearly see what we stand against. And so even though we still have our political divisions, at the end of the day, what we have in common is we're against that and we fear that external existential threat. The Soviet Union collapses and goes bankrupt, falls out of the game, and we are left without a great power competition. Our values start to become fuzzier because values are ethereal where enemies are tangible, and we can no longer quote unquote see what we're against, and everything that you're talking about starts to blossom. In other words, self preservation is still the driver, whether it's cooperative or not cooperative. We're all in self preservation mode. But now because of the external existential threat being gone self preservation, now I don't have to cooperate with you. I can fight against you. And we start to see a change in business theory. So you see the rise of Jack Welch, you see the rise of Milton Friedman economics. You see the rise of shareholder supremacy, you see the rise of short termism, and all of a sudden in the name of business, quote unquote, we see a massive rise in selfishness that then ripples throughout our society, into our politics, and into almost everything we do. And now we are where we are, this incredibly selfish society where we put ourselves before anyone else. We're now much more tribal to your point about not so bad as kinship, but highly politicized ship are becoming the new tribes. And I can't trust anybody outside of my narrow politics. And this is on both sides of the aisle. So we've evolved into this pretty awful sort of group of people. The cultural evolution that is a foot in the United States, We've lost our moral authority in the world. We're no longer viewed as the example of what democracy could look like or should look like. In fact, in places like China, they're using our own democracy as evidence like that's the size society you want to live in, Really you want that, you know. So we're starting to see that the Western ripples that may have begun with the Vatican, you know, at least this version of it that we're talking about, are now starting to crack and break. And the theory I have is and I'm uncomfortable with this theory, and I keep coming to the same conclusion, which is, you need an enemy in order to develop a cooperation system, because if you don't fear something or someone, no need to cooperate. An absence an external existential threat, I will look inside to find an enemy to help me define what my tribal barriers are, what the sides of the sandbox are, and those sandbox sides will get much wider and more inclusive if the enemy is outside the borders. I'm curious to get your point of less.

We have to take a quick break and we'll be right back. I have a theory that I need to share with you cultural evolution. I think for the pejorative, which is, we live in this very divided society. It seems more selfish than ever. We're quick to stab each other in the back. And you know, if we go back to the Second World War, the stories of young men who committed suicide because they weren't drafted, because they weren't called to action, was significantly higher than the opposite. And like for our generation to even hear that that's insane, right, that the shame of not being called to serher, you know, was overwhelming. And then after the Second World War, we get into the Cold War where you have this great power competition. And one of the advantages of great power competition is it helps us understand what we stand for because we can clearly see what we stand against. And so even though we still have our political divisions, at the end of the day, what we have in common is we're against that and we fear that external existential threat. The Soviet Union collapses and goes bankrupt, falls out of the game, and we are left without a great power competition. Our values start to become fuzzier because values are ethereal where enemies are tangible, and we can no longer quote unquote see what we're against, and everything that you're talking about starts to blossom. In other words, self preservation is still the driver, whether it's cooperative or not cooperative. We're all in self preservation mode. But now because of the external existential threat being gone self preservation, now I don't have to cooperate with you. I can fight against you. And we start to see a change in business theory. So you see the rise of Jack Welch, you see the rise of Milton Friedman economics. You see the rise of shareholder supremacy, you see the rise of short termism, and all of a sudden in the name of business, quote unquote, we see a massive rise in selfishness that then ripples throughout our society, into our politics, and into almost everything we do. And now we are where we are, this incredibly selfish society where we put ourselves before anyone else. We're now much more tribal to your point about not so bad as kinship, but highly politicized ship are becoming the new tribes. And I can't trust anybody outside of my narrow politics. And this is on both sides of the aisle. So we've evolved into this pretty awful sort of group of people. The cultural evolution that is a foot in the United States, We've lost our moral authority in the world. We're no longer viewed as the example of what democracy could look like or should look like. In fact, in places like China, they're using our own democracy as evidence like that's the size society you want to live in, Really you want that, you know. So we're starting to see that the Western ripples that may have begun with the Vatican, you know, at least this version of it that we're talking about, are now starting to crack and break. And the theory I have is and I'm uncomfortable with this theory, and I keep coming to the same conclusion, which is, you need an enemy in order to develop a cooperation system, because if you don't fear something or someone, no need to cooperate. An absence an external existential threat, I will look inside to find an enemy to help me define what my tribal barriers are, what the sides of the sandbox are, and those sandbox sides will get much wider and more inclusive if the enemy is outside the borders. I'm curious to get your point of less.

I mean, let's unpack this. So, I mean, the first thing is absolutely true. The scale of the competition affects the scale of cooperation, right like if you are at war and it's existential.

I mean, let's unpack this. So, I mean, the first thing is absolutely true. The scale of the competition affects the scale of cooperation, right like if you are at war and it's existential.

I want to say that again. Well, that is a very important line. The scale of the competition affects the scale of the cooperation. And if the competition has become local or regional but definitely not international, then there's no need for national cooperation.

I want to say that again. Well, that is a very important line. The scale of the competition affects the scale of the cooperation. And if the competition has become local or regional but definitely not international, then there's no need for national cooperation.

Then it's inter elite competition with yeah, exactly exactly. The other half of it is also that not only is the greater latitude for diversity, but we don't have common sources of information. Right, so you think about software being written. You know, people used to call it the you know, the Walter Cronkite effect, where everybody watched the news, there was Walter Cronkite. He was talking to everybody, and then the next day you chatted about what Walter Cronkite told you. And now there isn't just one Walter Kronkite. There's like a million stations and a million podcasts and a million you know, places to get your information from. And so you know, as a result of that, there's a lot more diversity. There's also a cultural diversity. There's a there's a whole bunch of division that exists within a society. Now that isn't a problem if the scale of competition is higher because you band together across your differences because you've got this common enemy. But when that's not there, those fractures that are always there in society crack and come apart.

Then it's inter elite competition with yeah, exactly exactly. The other half of it is also that not only is the greater latitude for diversity, but we don't have common sources of information. Right, so you think about software being written. You know, people used to call it the you know, the Walter Cronkite effect, where everybody watched the news, there was Walter Cronkite. He was talking to everybody, and then the next day you chatted about what Walter Cronkite told you. And now there isn't just one Walter Kronkite. There's like a million stations and a million podcasts and a million you know, places to get your information from. And so you know, as a result of that, there's a lot more diversity. There's also a cultural diversity. There's a there's a whole bunch of division that exists within a society. Now that isn't a problem if the scale of competition is higher because you band together across your differences because you've got this common enemy. But when that's not there, those fractures that are always there in society crack and come apart.

Yeah, can you can you help me understand why on a biological, on an evolutionary level, cultural evolutionary level, why is it that we fear each other more than we do the threat of the complete inability for human beings to survive on the planet, which is climate change? Or why do we fear each other more and the policy, the political policy of each other more than the threat of a pandemic that could you know, annihilate populations, Like why do we fear each other more than natural threats?

Yeah, can you can you help me understand why on a biological, on an evolutionary level, cultural evolutionary level, why is it that we fear each other more than we do the threat of the complete inability for human beings to survive on the planet, which is climate change? Or why do we fear each other more and the policy, the political policy of each other more than the threat of a pandemic that could you know, annihilate populations, Like why do we fear each other more than natural threats?

Because it's not in the cultural corpus anymore, It's not in our spectrum of ideas anymore, you know, everything does that mean?

Because it's not in the cultural corpus anymore, It's not in our spectrum of ideas anymore, you know, everything does that mean?

What does that mean? It's not in our spectrum moment.

What does that mean? It's not in our spectrum moment.

So when the pandemic happened, right for a lot of people, it was unbelievable. They've never heard of you know, even even our leaders, right, like they vaguely heard about something called a pandemic, an epidemic you know, in high school or something, you know, like they didn't know what that actually meant. You know, they didn't know they hadn't read about the nineteen eighteen Spanish flu or something like that. They had no idea what to expect. The places that were actually better prepared, a least initially with those that experienced stars, which was you know, a kind of proto version of that. The same with climate change, like it's too difficult to imagine the kind of world that's being painted by these simulations and models, and it's just not part of what we can think of cultural evolution and genetic evolution, and even a human it relies on feedback in order to learn, and the lag and the delay on the feedback from our actions and what happens in the world is too long and delayed for us to learn from. So it's like, you know, control theory describes these feedback loops. So if you imagine, like you're trying to adjust a shower or something, you know, and you're in a hotel. It's got one of these old showers and there's a delay on the hot water adjusting when you move the tap, what do you do? You oscillate, You're like, because it's hard for the system to learn because the delay is too long. Now imagine it's decades, right, Like, in a couple of centuries, we've burned up millions of years worth of stored sunlight, re releasing all of that carbon. We depleted those batteries in a couple of centuries.

So when the pandemic happened, right for a lot of people, it was unbelievable. They've never heard of you know, even even our leaders, right, like they vaguely heard about something called a pandemic, an epidemic you know, in high school or something, you know, like they didn't know what that actually meant. You know, they didn't know they hadn't read about the nineteen eighteen Spanish flu or something like that. They had no idea what to expect. The places that were actually better prepared, a least initially with those that experienced stars, which was you know, a kind of proto version of that. The same with climate change, like it's too difficult to imagine the kind of world that's being painted by these simulations and models, and it's just not part of what we can think of cultural evolution and genetic evolution, and even a human it relies on feedback in order to learn, and the lag and the delay on the feedback from our actions and what happens in the world is too long and delayed for us to learn from. So it's like, you know, control theory describes these feedback loops. So if you imagine, like you're trying to adjust a shower or something, you know, and you're in a hotel. It's got one of these old showers and there's a delay on the hot water adjusting when you move the tap, what do you do? You oscillate, You're like, because it's hard for the system to learn because the delay is too long. Now imagine it's decades, right, Like, in a couple of centuries, we've burned up millions of years worth of stored sunlight, re releasing all of that carbon. We depleted those batteries in a couple of centuries.

Your analogy is an uncomfortably good one. I call it the temporality, the personality of a shower, you know, which is every shower has its own temporality and you have to learn the temporarity. I know my own showers, I don't know exactly where to put the knobs in the and it's perfect every time. But when I go into a new place like a hotel, I have a steep learning curve. And sometimes it's a very good shower where the learning curve is quick because it's so reactive. Like the hot is the hot, the cold is the cold. I know where to put it. But to your point, sometimes it takes like four or five or ten seconds for the temperature of the water. And if I overcompensate and I go in one direction, and then it's incredibly hot, and I've burnt myself because the reaction the delay is slow. Not only is the learning curve slow, but the potential for damage is high. And so now instead of eight seconds on a shower, it's thirty years on an environment, and we turn the dial too far one way, and now we burn ourselves and you're like a shit, you know, And the question is do you have another thirty years to try the dial back again? Michael as an as an expert and all of this stuff. How do we modulate in a manner, how do we allow the culture to learn in a manner where we may not have the time to learn the ripples, because everything you and I have been talking about so are very long ripples of unintended consequences, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst, usually for both.

Your analogy is an uncomfortably good one. I call it the temporality, the personality of a shower, you know, which is every shower has its own temporality and you have to learn the temporarity. I know my own showers, I don't know exactly where to put the knobs in the and it's perfect every time. But when I go into a new place like a hotel, I have a steep learning curve. And sometimes it's a very good shower where the learning curve is quick because it's so reactive. Like the hot is the hot, the cold is the cold. I know where to put it. But to your point, sometimes it takes like four or five or ten seconds for the temperature of the water. And if I overcompensate and I go in one direction, and then it's incredibly hot, and I've burnt myself because the reaction the delay is slow. Not only is the learning curve slow, but the potential for damage is high. And so now instead of eight seconds on a shower, it's thirty years on an environment, and we turn the dial too far one way, and now we burn ourselves and you're like a shit, you know, And the question is do you have another thirty years to try the dial back again? Michael as an as an expert and all of this stuff. How do we modulate in a manner, how do we allow the culture to learn in a manner where we may not have the time to learn the ripples, because everything you and I have been talking about so are very long ripples of unintended consequences, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst, usually for both.

Yeah. So you know, the great thing about the scientific process is that it speeds everything up because we don't have to just rely on cultural random you know, figure this stuff out. We start to build models of the world that allow us to act on the world. Obviously, physics has been one of the most powerful demonstrations of this. Like you don't have to like shoot the rocket this way and that way and eventually you get there. You can write down equations that tell you where that rocket is going to go right, and most of the time you can land it on the asteroid right. You remember I said that this book was bursting out of me. It was bursting out of me because I do think we have the tools now to understand where those switches are, what we should be wiggling, and what we should be doing. So what should we be doing? Well, Look, I mean I'm antioneered by any actually, and the reason that I decided to turn my eye on taking those models from engineering and apply them to the human and social sciences. Was because I was concerned that everybody in terms of climate change was worried about mitigation. And I'm like, hey, listen, maybe we'll slow the economy to save the planet. Maybe wouldn't that be wonderful? But if we don't, Let's look at what the world looks like in a post climate change world and are we prepared to not end civilization? Can we buy ourselves a little bit more time by investing in the tools for adaptation? What does that world look like?

Yeah. So you know, the great thing about the scientific process is that it speeds everything up because we don't have to just rely on cultural random you know, figure this stuff out. We start to build models of the world that allow us to act on the world. Obviously, physics has been one of the most powerful demonstrations of this. Like you don't have to like shoot the rocket this way and that way and eventually you get there. You can write down equations that tell you where that rocket is going to go right, and most of the time you can land it on the asteroid right. You remember I said that this book was bursting out of me. It was bursting out of me because I do think we have the tools now to understand where those switches are, what we should be wiggling, and what we should be doing. So what should we be doing? Well, Look, I mean I'm antioneered by any actually, and the reason that I decided to turn my eye on taking those models from engineering and apply them to the human and social sciences. Was because I was concerned that everybody in terms of climate change was worried about mitigation. And I'm like, hey, listen, maybe we'll slow the economy to save the planet. Maybe wouldn't that be wonderful? But if we don't, Let's look at what the world looks like in a post climate change world and are we prepared to not end civilization? Can we buy ourselves a little bit more time by investing in the tools for adaptation? What does that world look like?

Well?

Well?

How are you going to deal with mass migration when a million Bangladeshis or people in South Pacific go on underwater? Can India or Australia cope with that many people flooding into their country? These are people with a very different culture. Like can your governance structures operate under that kind of infrastructure pressure? Like there's not enough space in schools and hospitals anyway? And now you got all these new people. Are people going to be at each other's throats? Are we in trouble? How do you build a society that works?

How are you going to deal with mass migration when a million Bangladeshis or people in South Pacific go on underwater? Can India or Australia cope with that many people flooding into their country? These are people with a very different culture. Like can your governance structures operate under that kind of infrastructure pressure? Like there's not enough space in schools and hospitals anyway? And now you got all these new people. Are people going to be at each other's throats? Are we in trouble? How do you build a society that works?

Isn't that ironic that the most anti immigrant policy you can come up with is the most pro climate change, Like if you really hate immigrants, you really want to protect the environment.

Isn't that ironic that the most anti immigrant policy you can come up with is the most pro climate change, Like if you really hate immigrants, you really want to protect the environment.

Right right? Right? No, oh man, this is this is a bigger thing. By the way, one of the best ways to keep people from you know, from coming to your place is make their place better, right, you know, like if you place your place. Yeah, exactly. I mean, you know, it's easier to be nice when there's more to go around.

Right right? Right? No, oh man, this is this is a bigger thing. By the way, one of the best ways to keep people from you know, from coming to your place is make their place better, right, you know, like if you place your place. Yeah, exactly. I mean, you know, it's easier to be nice when there's more to go around.

Based on the work that you've done. What is one change that we can change in our lives to help move our society back to something that's more cooperative and less self preservation in the pejorative sense, like not US preservation but ME preservation. How do we get more to an US preservation and less to us a ME preservation? And by US I mean the bigger US, US, including people I disagree with.

Based on the work that you've done. What is one change that we can change in our lives to help move our society back to something that's more cooperative and less self preservation in the pejorative sense, like not US preservation but ME preservation. How do we get more to an US preservation and less to us a ME preservation? And by US I mean the bigger US, US, including people I disagree with.

Yeah, we talk about how evolution is this kind of population level process. There are attempts at creating alliances within a country or within a society, and that then try to compete with others. And I think that there are actually a large reasonable silent majority or you know, people who are not extreme on the politicals and they're just less noisy, they're just less noisy. They don't have time. They're busy, you know, looking after their kids and working their lives or whatever. They don't have time to be like engaging in this way. And I think returning us to normalcy, if you like, you know, a coalition of the normal, the coalition of the middle, the silent majority, reaching across the aisle, because actually the distance in the middle isn't that far right, It isn't that far. It's far at the extremes, but it's not in the middle. Like there is a reasonable position on any political topic you might care about in the middle. And if those individuals and groups that sit squarely in the middle were to find one another and form a block, a radical centrist or whatever you want to call it, they could try to compete with these smaller, noisier extremes that we are otherwise kind of forced and dragged into. There's a one of my favorite in mind you underrecognized models within economics describes how intolerance for a diversity of views actually creates polarization. If you allow people to express more views and you only punish people at the extremes, like when they're calling for genocide or something, right, then people will occupy this middle block, whereas if you say any deviation from the accepted line is going to be punished, then what you do is the only people who will bother to speak up are those people who are already at the extremes, and they're just like, look in for a penny, in for a pound, this is what I believe. And so then the next generation only here's these extreme views rather than that middle that you wanted to courage. Yeah, so another part part of this is free speech, the importance of tolerance and steel manning rather than straw manning the opposition in the pursuit of truth. Like when we argue with one another, I'm not trying to win the argument. You and I are fellow truth seekers trying to get at the truth, and you've got a piece of it and I've got a piece of it, and I should be helping you to make your argument as best you can, and you should be helping me to make my argument as best they can, because we're not perfect in doing that, and in the recognition that what we want to get to is the truth, not to win the argument.

Yeah, we talk about how evolution is this kind of population level process. There are attempts at creating alliances within a country or within a society, and that then try to compete with others. And I think that there are actually a large reasonable silent majority or you know, people who are not extreme on the politicals and they're just less noisy, they're just less noisy. They don't have time. They're busy, you know, looking after their kids and working their lives or whatever. They don't have time to be like engaging in this way. And I think returning us to normalcy, if you like, you know, a coalition of the normal, the coalition of the middle, the silent majority, reaching across the aisle, because actually the distance in the middle isn't that far right, It isn't that far. It's far at the extremes, but it's not in the middle. Like there is a reasonable position on any political topic you might care about in the middle. And if those individuals and groups that sit squarely in the middle were to find one another and form a block, a radical centrist or whatever you want to call it, they could try to compete with these smaller, noisier extremes that we are otherwise kind of forced and dragged into. There's a one of my favorite in mind you underrecognized models within economics describes how intolerance for a diversity of views actually creates polarization. If you allow people to express more views and you only punish people at the extremes, like when they're calling for genocide or something, right, then people will occupy this middle block, whereas if you say any deviation from the accepted line is going to be punished, then what you do is the only people who will bother to speak up are those people who are already at the extremes, and they're just like, look in for a penny, in for a pound, this is what I believe. And so then the next generation only here's these extreme views rather than that middle that you wanted to courage. Yeah, so another part part of this is free speech, the importance of tolerance and steel manning rather than straw manning the opposition in the pursuit of truth. Like when we argue with one another, I'm not trying to win the argument. You and I are fellow truth seekers trying to get at the truth, and you've got a piece of it and I've got a piece of it, and I should be helping you to make your argument as best you can, and you should be helping me to make my argument as best they can, because we're not perfect in doing that, and in the recognition that what we want to get to is the truth, not to win the argument.

The word is that strikes me through this entire conversation is irony. All of this stuff is fraught with irony, which is the more, you know, we try and create tolerance, it's creating intolerance, just like in this drive for self preservation to the extreme, we're actually destroying ourselves. And we talk about silent majorities, which is, how dare we allow our society to be dictated by people who occupy the minority on either side? Like, how dare we My feeling is exactly and how do we come together in civilized fashion? Brother and sister arm in arm to say, I may disagree, but I want to hold space and I love you and I care you know, and I want you to do the same for me.

The word is that strikes me through this entire conversation is irony. All of this stuff is fraught with irony, which is the more, you know, we try and create tolerance, it's creating intolerance, just like in this drive for self preservation to the extreme, we're actually destroying ourselves. And we talk about silent majorities, which is, how dare we allow our society to be dictated by people who occupy the minority on either side? Like, how dare we My feeling is exactly and how do we come together in civilized fashion? Brother and sister arm in arm to say, I may disagree, but I want to hold space and I love you and I care you know, and I want you to do the same for me.

The world is complicated. It's don't make progress by you know, bullying other people into believing that they're bigots. We may progress by finding out what people think and why they think it, yeah, and you know, and assessing that against what we think and why we think that.

The world is complicated. It's don't make progress by you know, bullying other people into believing that they're bigots. We may progress by finding out what people think and why they think it, yeah, and you know, and assessing that against what we think and why we think that.

And just to put a bow on it, where the hell are the idealists? Where are the leaders we need in the times not to take advantage of our divisions, but to bring us together. And it sounds corny and idealistic, and I think that's the point. I think we need more corny idealism, and it sounds like evolutionarily culturally, evolutionarily, we need it more than ever.

And just to put a bow on it, where the hell are the idealists? Where are the leaders we need in the times not to take advantage of our divisions, but to bring us together. And it sounds corny and idealistic, and I think that's the point. I think we need more corny idealism, and it sounds like evolutionarily culturally, evolutionarily, we need it more than ever.

I couldn't agree more, Simon, I couldn't agree more.

I couldn't agree more, Simon, I couldn't agree more.

Thank you so much for coming on, Thanks for having me on the show.

Thank you so much for coming on, Thanks for having me on the show.

That was fun. That was a lot of fun.

That was fun. That was a lot of fun.

You you enjoyed this podcast and would like to hear more. Please subscribe wherever you like to listen to podcasts, and if you'd like even more optimism, check out my website simonsinek dot com for classes, videos and more. Until then, take care of yourself, take care of each other.

You you enjoyed this podcast and would like to hear more. Please subscribe wherever you like to listen to podcasts, and if you'd like even more optimism, check out my website simonsinek dot com for classes, videos and more. Until then, take care of yourself, take care of each other.