Title: Jonah Lehrer: Brain Science for the Rest of Us

" I'm Christopher -- dishes open source from the Watson institute at Brown University. The American conversation with the global attitude -- call it. This one is with the dazzling young writer John Valero. Still in his twenties he's scientist enough to sail through. Oceans of bringing science lab reports. But he's literature bug in humanist enough to remember that the study of men is still about you and me the whole of us. Jim Lehrer wrote Proust was a neuroscientist two years ago. It was a brief for art as the forerunner. Of scientific discovery about the brain. -- new book how we choose. Which reads like -- sequel is about the limitations on reason. And by implication the limitations and science itself."

" Joe Lara I count on used to give us I civilians -- kind of notion of where. Neuroscience is going your first book proves to listeners scientists made the argument. A little Contra science but that artists get their first and for all America as a brain science. People light -- Stephen Walt Whitman Emily Dickinson Virginia -- Had a notion. The new book makes a connection but other do you have to say what it is. Well blending guiding these."

" First connection is it in the first because very much trying to reconcile -- two things at first glance. Too -- opposite art of fiction since trying to give us facts. I think -- book is trying to reconcile another. -- gives them that has infected human culture for a long time which is just divide between rationality into motion for most part we've. Denigrated emotion and held oppression it's what separates this goes back to played on the ancient Greeks. Rationality is what makes us human -- defining feature of human thought it's what separates us from all the other lower animals. An end and I think that that divide just like the Argentines divide. Is it is is -- fallacious and I think you can look at the brain. You mean they're all sorts of ways to collapse this ancient distinction drifted. Rationality isn't something to aspire to that I think as -- the book. Pure reason that the people can experience -- pure reason isn't a gift from the guys pure reasons it disease. -- people have nothing but rationality inside their heads to pathologically indecisive. This is the work people continue to -- So so sites so so won -- try to do in this book was. Shattered these categories of thought. Which which you know go back from played those destroyed. -- faith in the foundation of modern economics. Dave you know informed cognitive science. Ending and I think when you look at the brain and this is the beauty of look at the -- to -- category bluster. And then look at the bringing you see that these categories the ancient categories aren't quite as for durable and -- who thought. -- Chester -- I think was right he madman is not the man who has lost his reason the man managed to man has lost everything except his reason. -- An -- I talk with them -- in terms of psychopaths. Which is a very well studied. Mental disorder and what you -- with psychopaths is that their promise and locker rationalize psychopath on average from to have higher than normal like cues they're promising a teams -- defects in motion numbering in the premier called seeming to and it's intuitive pathways doesn't properly respond to human suffering."

" So when the rest of us were normal people see someone else and pain are bringing it up as if we were in pain Adam Smith. Called this fellow feeling and he believed. Very controversy the time along with David -- that more human more -- was founded upon our emotions on the east. Settling -- we had on on this on these feelings that. -- did that compelled us to not hurt someone else's feelings and this was the root of altruism was -- fairness. Then people like Colin -- notes he can defend all morality rational terms it turns -- look at the brain. Adam Smith was on to something that and then what keeps us from hurting the people is the fact -- according someone else makes us hurt. Did that we literally internalized the feelings of someone else. And then it turned to be crucial component of public keeps us from hurting the people aren't psychopaths. Their problem isn't lack of rationality autonomy don't understand talking morality it's that they. They lack -- thing underneath that they lack the the -- of impulse that keeps us from doing wrong in the first place. So Adam Smith innocence qualifies as one of those artists who anticipated. The findings of the brain science -- he -- talks in in the book he was most proud of wasn't his book on economics whose book -- morality. And in that book he he very you know I think. There's some great city to be written about how mirrors -- that time which is becoming -- You know hot new bourgeois. Things ever put their home and I think Adam Smith has great -- on -- An -- mears in the sense speaking his metaphor for. How people. Understand morality that we match the mirror each other and now you can talk for that in terms of mirror neurons and then we can talk about the circuitry behind it but I think he was very sensitive to human behavior. In in that book he really tries to unpack what goes to his mind and body would -- make a moral decision. And and what he noted like David Hume was -- These decisions don't seem to be rational we're not thinking through the -- in logic wouldn't make a fair offer. Or when we choose to be next to someone who we choose to give money to a -- he's got a great example of that. That -- rational decisions we may rationalize the after the fact but humans are rationalize yours. Not rational creatures and and data I think was. Smith's big insight in his book and that there was really just simply studies from his own life a steady from his own. Listening eavesdropping on his own brain. And and into the -- I think after the factor in years later we can go and talk listen term steaming them. -- the pre frontal cortex a brain areas like that but but I think we're really just give me anatomy to which he called fellow feeling."

" These are such old and an interest in questions. Choice I'm thinking of Tolstoy and important piece it's all about why they did Napoleon headed east from president and he doesn't really. No and he doesn't really believe that Napoleon was in charge of the position anyway but I'm also thinking of one of my favorite novels Henry James's portrait of lady. In rich Isabel archer. New England and being told that a young lady should be. In dead the kind of Clark did she asks her hostess -- to -- To give her all the rules a little little annoyed and -- two churches so you can break them if she's just."

" No so as to choose. And of course to hold knowledge about how she chooses. The wrong husband but the -- about her freedom to. To do about that big question. I mean I eggs I -- my favorite lines are subject is that William James quote which is my first act of free will shall be to believe him pretty well. Which which I yeah I think is the inadequate I think questions of free will determine -- and those are never a question you talk a decision making a thinker. In a sense beyond my pay grade and and I think -- on the beyond the findings of science I'm. Yeah at least now and for the foreseeable future I think it's deed he's a lofty lofty philosophical questions are no grander questions. And I think it's very tough I think Sunni sites eroded. -- standard. -- in her car -- notion of freeware which is that I think can therefore I am and that -- in the driver's -- on -- I think. We can all sorts of ways you can -- tweak. -- in college is bringing comprising people you can flash some stuff subliminally and affect their thoughts and behaviors actions. So so sitting we've begun to -- at the the old fashioned notion of -- well but but I think the idea. Even as you've done that -- also come up with all sorts of ways to confirm. I think when we all know to be true which is that how you think can affect the way you think that every thought you have. Feedback on your brain itself and changes the chemistry of it can can can rewire your cells. And so I mean there are some great studies for example you know of a Buddhist monks people who practice was called meta cognition everyday thinking about how they think. What you find is that these Buddhist monks -- varied. Abnormal as a loaded word but very usual brain activity that that they've been able to change green areas like -- delighted scientists thought. We simply beyond the realm of control dead dead dead were simply fixed and said they were primal they were right to alien they were. -- we share with all sorts of rodents and monkeys and all the rest. It turns out that that. Practiced. Deliberate thinking conscious thought can actually change the way these very primitive brain areas process the world and so so I think. Even as word in a sense eroding these conventional notions of free well that they go all the way back to. You know the ancient Greeks in the enlightenment hey -- I'm also demonstrating the tremendous power. Of -- just thought of of of the way we think can actually change the brain itself in very profound I think surprising rise. You -- also."

" Especially about Tom Brady you know under pressure. Three receiver is five receivers making an instant -- that. It's not irrational but it's not and that's not a considered. Option exactly either or pilots in a plane where. All of their hydraulic systems have been disabled. Figuring out what is the chance of landing this babies safely and what in the world is going through their mind I mean nothing but choices. One a second that they have to deal with. I KG you're. You're sort of -- me bottom line to be in effect that. It was a pastor who said chance favors the prepared mind but that in the end it is the decision made on things that you. You know what you don't know how you know them they're not the reason that."

" Work yet well what I think and one of the great teams. Of modern neuroscience has been tremendous power of the unconscious and I think -- way to demonstrate that is by talking mad -- simple crossing powers if it were computer until you look at the rational brain pre frontal -- its human brain area which was great the larger human evolution is responsible for things like logic. And philosophy and deliberate Stockton. Conscious analysis. That's magnificent comedian brainer and you can only handle about seven. Bits of information plus or minus student at the moment so it's a very bounded machine to very limited computer. Being conscious and contrasting emotional brain this network of practicing brain areas scattered to route. You know get get the cortex. In process far more information can take it all these tax. Editor Tom Brady or baseball player that allows you to act. Act on information that that you may have no conscious awareness of the guest Tom Brady how he chose to throw to the receiver whether running back in the flat or the -- and you don't midfield. Cause I don't quite know you're stuck there right got to go to he he you know he'll talk -- terms of feeling in terms of these. These subtle emotions a driver behavior and when you look at the brain that's actually sees happening is that. Can -- just takes in all this information. And then throws at emotions to kind of motivate us there in the -- of emotions and will -- which is to move. And in what he's he's he's subtle emotional signals. Cigna also settled we often don't register the emotion we don't realize were scared when you look at the you know one receiver going deep. Com but but he's so emotional signals do driver behavior there and since the output. The conscious that -- the unconscious -- way of telling us what to do this and all the information is taken in and processed outside of conscious awareness. So so until -- do that on on the one canister one the great teams and modern neuroscience is affected consciousness. Is just the tip of the iceberg. That that the brain knows much more than we know. And then we're always taken all this information which allows us to. Swing in fastballs. And find the open man in three and a half seconds before were sacked. And choose which serial plans to -- the dead all of our decisions are sheep but he's emotional signals which is why -- cut off from his emotional signals. People become pathologically indecisive. Dad said I think one the other great teams of decision making signs the last couple decades this goes back to economy -- ski. And I think the lots of its recent work in our economics which is that. As wise as the emotional brain is as profoundly intuitive as it can be affected knows more than we now. He can also be incredibly dumb incredibly idiotic and it's all about the situation you put this -- brain mechanism which can be so wise the football field. All of a sudden you have to pick stocks. Or or you have to try to figure which mortgage to get. It's going to be. Just make the worst decision possible. So citing what I Clemens entered in this book was was. Constructing -- decision making it wasn't about we should always blink can -- got there we should always be rational like home economic us. But has led the way you make decision to depend on the kind of decision making -- You have to begin with the situation diagnose the situation be pragmatic about it. And then work backwards from that and try to kill your thought process which are capable of doing to the situation at hand."

" This is isn't choosing the bad mortgages is is the story of the day. I mean greatly living in sort of lending city whether it's made us investors or. The mortgage market or Wall Street in general. I also hope we'll get to this question of why in our foreign policy we seem to be in a repetition compulsion. Pattern and in doing things over and over again that we know don't work. But. I'd like you to put the whole. The whole idea of how we decide in the context of all the books that the general reader like me and lots of us you know sort of familiar with. George click off don't think an elephant and blink as you say but also going to demolish Leo upon. The that you the emotional. Factors in choices but the tests on steam look a nudge which we've talked to him about this so much out there now. We're being bombarded with things like Steve -- blank slate the real nature of the mind. Where you coming from in that whole context and what the big big ideas behind this whole splurge of interest in the brain."

" What are the things motivating I think this whole new genre of books. -- it did that try to turn psychology. Beaver economics from now on -- science. Into kind of a genre of self help is effective for the first time. Neuroscience become a source becoming practical science. I think most of the last few decades we've made tremendous progress in terms of understanding are synapse is working -- enzymes and all these pathways had a brain. And and yet decides to often seems so abstract so far removed from. -- human experience until the last couple years. Thanks to new tools you know patch -- majoring individual -- renowned among its course juice and and of course brain scans. That -- we've been able to. Begin to applied this basic research to. Everyday questions to how should I shop in the supermarket how ocean -- car stuff like that I think. A lot of what we're seeing. Com is is simply the you know deep fascination with here's our own brain. This disk or you know we've really not understood in the black box and finally -- black box -- being broken open. And I and I think that is inevitable quality consequences and inevitable interest to people who want to know how the mind works and how they can make it work better. In in terms of how my book slots and I think what I try to do is. Would books like imagine a great pumpkin and it looks like the Lincoln and predictably irrational metal genre. They did they don't talk about the brain maybe talk a lot that gave economics not psychology. But I want to do is take that back to the brain. Palm -- that think you know in in the end you you know I think you'll be gratuitous -- you don't want to talk with the brain to can talk about -- I think you can often. At a new dimension to the research. Flesh it out to. Two -- degree in the you know I think one example that that is on the minds of everyone down and reached mentioned sub prime mortgages. -- 220 mortgages were so learn these things which apply for from from her -- rational perspective. Make no sense -- paying far more."

" Far more interest over thirty years but he gets back to the temptation again to do what he's hard wired flaws and emotional brain which is that. Your emotions are -- dealing with now but but they just think about that and that's -- good -- thinking about the future so for example. Cast -- and Richard Daley is as rich -- thing as work. They day they were a nudge and he showed that one way to get people to invest more in 41 K. Is in in the form case simply ask him if you're gonna start saving six months the future and what that does is. This work done by Jonathan -- and Princeton. You get people to him like gift certificates one -- and its ticket pretend our -- have now. Or in a week they can evidently gets stiffed it for fifteen dollars or whatever the exact amount may be what she sees that. Country economic theory these two choices -- two very different -- systems that. The emotional brain your reward systems activated by the option for now you won in value and the gift certificate now. He -- to give a week is cut -- you activates the rational brain cinco fifteen dollars more than ten dollars. And and into these different kinds activation. Lead us to think in different ways independent which act which which brings systems has more activation. You can -- people's choice is pretty accurately. It I think this gets back to bring back to 220 mortgages. What this allows you to begin to understand as wide as mortgage why this very bad ideas very irrational mortgage was -- because it. Did it basically. Potentially it's triggers. There there emotional -- it truck loads of a very low interest rates the first two years next 28 years but the distant future of emotional reason worrying about that. And into get this alluring offer and you not so -- to contemplate the future and so. That that I think was he mistake people -- I mean you know another big thing that I think. Brain research can help explain his credit card debt hard thing -- more rational thing to do then to put stuff on your credit card that you can't quite afford. And then even if it's on sale if you're paying 25% interest that's a standard interest rates for a lot of credit cards now. It's not going to be very good deal months from now when you have to carry his -- Tony -- industry and the question is why do people spend so much of the credit cards. And this gets back to think a very interesting experiment. That looked at how people make shopping decisions would you prize when people make shopping decisions. The thrill of getting something new you showed them a new iPod or -- George Foreman grill are new sweater. That activates a breeder called an implicit confidence which secret feelings of pleasure makes us happy we think about how happy and iPod or make us. They jump the price tag how much that I pod cost is what it cost. You -- brain area called the -- turn into generates negative feelings it's often associated with things like. Discussed and bodily pain and turns out the pain of paying for something to. But then we give people pay with a credit card -- to less less after the normal. That's in the because he transactions abstracted because -- literally taking cash out of their wallet their wallets -- related -- swiping a piece of plastic and that in thirty days we'll show opening bell. But but it literally fight just loophole in the brain so to speak deemed so let's let's turn on until they spend too much money -- less sensitive. How much money that paying and so the result as they puts up from the credit card that they would have bought they had to pay with cash so so that. That that -- example. Of of life sometimes. It's important -- look at the brain itself because this gives you a new perspective. On why we do the things we do on on why at first glance running lots of credit card and credit carded a huge problem in America right now it's a very expensive thing. To have -- very high interest rates. You get people seem to do it did it in gets incredibly popular way to two grown up expensive bills the question is why and I think. By looking at the insulin displaying little brain there he can begin to understand why people do this thing which seems very irrational at first glance. Would you take -- bracket some of the public."

" Choices. That that trouble me from this perspective then there -- and you do too. About the fact that. -- or on risk people are more concerned about loss than they are about -- gain there also. Easily dig into a position where war. For our side looks like a good deal and we'll hope for the best even when we. When is a very sound. Reason to say no -- this is a bad idea and we've been here before. Knowing what we know about the brain how do we played its irrationality. It's is wrong choices over and over again."

" Well I I no simple answers -- loss aversion may very well studied phenomenon which is that people losses hurt to pad twice as much as gains feel good which have all sorts of big implications for example when people and I stock portfolios. Which you find people much like you to sell stocks that have gone up in value because they don't make the lost tangible and postpone the lost. -- this means overtime December with a portfolio that's composed entirely of shares in a losing money. You know so -- anybody can sodium in Berkeley has found that the shares people sell. Outperformed shares they keep three and a half percent which is a lot that's simply due to loss aversion. And the only way to avoid loss aversion is to know about it is -- do it. Take advantage of self awareness take major -- we can think about how we think. It's a way to myself in the stock because they should Soto because they don't take a loss or take a loss and other stock. So so so it sends the first step really the only step to avoiding hard wired flaws we can't help team this way this is just the way and essentially been programmed. To field and in the process losses and gains in its very irrational to pick up it's him mental make up. Is is to be aware of it. And and to think about it before you make decisions which involve losses. So so I think this is again where the secret recipe is. Kim Camilo deflating it's that there is no secret recipe just have to be very attuned to your own flaws you have to know these mistakes everybody makes it lest you think in America. In terms of foreign policy and obviously it's a very complicated question that gets back to the fact that. I mean I would I would tend to explain I think the last eight years. We've had administration which. Loves believing it to right which which comes in these models. These models of how things should go what they want to do and then those models what you said in place are very tough disturbed. What you found the brain it's a very well state phenomenon goes back to cognitive dissidents in the fifties. I think would be great -- of social psychology which is that the brain loves being right. And it's very tough words that brings convince its right to prove it wrong and we tend to filter the world to confirm what we are believed to to confirm or preconceived notions. -- you know. This I think is also is on vacation just why liberals want to MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox News it's. It's it's we constantly filter the world to to to justify what we think and I think in terms of foreign policy and we all saw. With devastating results. Given what can happen when when when that process is an interrupted when you convince Iraq has WMD. All the evidence in the world to the contrary he's going to. Dislodge that belief. An -- I think especially group's foreign policy is made by committees and groups for the most part I think. You know you've you've you've got this this this basic rated for -- very basic mechanisms. Does that work -- plus group thing plus affecting groups naturally tend to conform. 22 and allowed his voice. To settle on a tell an idea and it's very tough -- and youth groups and think I think you saw a bunch of -- flaws come together and a perfect storm. I mean I I talk in the book about a mile. Really really well don't say by Philip 10 o'clock a psychologist at Berkeley. Who he studied political pundits experts and follow them for. You know almost fifteen years and he had to make predictions geezer he saw a couple hundred of these guys give the Talking Heads -- cable news. And he fell led you know I think most people talk -- setting terms of -- failure of most experts the fact that. If you give experts three options you know will will George Bush be re group -- you ask him questions about. You know current events so will George Bush be re elected we'll South Africa make a peaceful transition for part tied. Will Quebec succeed secede stuff like that what you -- is on average they perform works grandkids. So monkey throwing darts. You know at these same questions will do better than most professional pundits. Sosa that citing the first lesson of study but -- the more interesting lesson. Is that there are few experts who did better who did much better. And these were the experts in general who were able to -- pretty ease -- on their own thoughts who knew when they were stuck in the certainty Trapp who knew when they were. -- you don't think excluding evidence that contradicted what they may believe who were sensitive to their own ideologies and made sure they did let these these ideologies run amok. An end and said that dad to me is a lesson we can all take away that stated that it's a very well -- empirical study. Dead dead shows that in just hound. Just how dangerous. This natural tendency can be quite so important to I think. Deliberately take steps stacked against him which I think is something. Obama to his credit seems to be doing you know very very much modeling his team of rivals approach which is trying ideas what to dissonant information as possible. And not being afraid of facts in voices that may contradict each other. That's what you want you know -- realizing that a very a very dangerous flaw for people in power. Is to settle these ideologies and not to exclude information contradicts them says I'm a very encouraged by adding the initial evidence that he seems to very much be encouraging. This this this internal dissent."

" don't know there's another big slice of this scientific story that everybody alludes to but I haven't heard sort of -- to the source and that is. And totally demolish your right to -- he wrote about it George Blake suffered a lot about it but it is. A brain science confirmation that we are for all our contentiousness. It cooperative species the altruistic. Gene or the the sympathetic instinct. What is the truth of this discovery who made it and how we get to apply it. Well you. You I think he's the modern merit."

" For the most part I think the twenty century did little to two to dislodge -- that were hubs and routes where these. You know amoral selfish Darwinian creatures were buckets of selfish genes we just out for ourselves. And speaks -- real drastic. You know it's just that we can explain away in terms of kids election it's just anomaly but that if left George devices we geologists each other. You know and in it and and look at for ourselves or may be our first cousins because they share when he -- for jeans a pretty cynical view of human nature and -- look at the brain. Is it that section on all the case and we coming down with this very powerful set of moral instincts. We should reduce the emotional brain they keep us. -- pretty each other and as we talked earlier this gets back to Adams this notion of fellow feeling. Which is he puts -- their brains can you show most scared face or face of someone in pain. And their own brain lights up as if they were in pain. That that it hurt us to hurt someone else. And -- just wish look at this is in terms of psychopaths people who lack the set of moral motions and then they are -- in -- did -- they are missing and it's very basic set. A more ticks that's why don't -- to kill someone else. In order to accomplish you goal what's which was instrumental violence. So social I think you know -- it's uplifting the idea that because we're social prime mates because we had to learn to live in a group. Because we never lived by ourselves we get to develop these these hard wired notions and instincts. That keep us from hurting each other you know we can't just kill each of them Cambridge of that so illiterate group he had to learn to get along -- and so this set of moral emotions is in the sense. You know the DD the end result of that basic mechanism that need effectively had to learn to live in Tribe's way back in the pleased to there. Now that said I uniting obviously humans are perfectly moral creatures -- are -- ways to kind of get around these instincts or two rationalized. That away after the fact. Type a talking book that's more than by bright green at Harvard University who he studies. -- And and you notice that all of you -- the tracks are five work on track -- you turn the wheel you'll run over these five people we will all die. If you turn the -- to go on the right track. There's one worker and you kill him what do you do what you find is that yes it was question Madden 95% will say oh I'll turn the wheel to the royals to one hand better kill one person or five people. Pure simple arithmetic makes perfect sense. However now let's try that puzzle again except this time going to foot bridge overlooking the trolley traction what you see is that this runaway trolleys on a track and -- Doesn't stop it'll kill five people but it can't stop the run -- trolley but right next use a very large hand if -- You notice that if you push him off the foot bridge and he's leaning over so just take a little shot. He would follow the tracks and blocked the trolley -- five and would be saved the five workers will be saved. To what do you do now he finds that ninety -- and people say oh I would never pushed me and I couldn't do that. And into this is a clear example this green calls -- personal moral situation because activates a moral circuitry because -- to literally pushed the man. You know it's an act of personal violence. That's at least feels wrong where is just turning -- we all that doesn't activate the same circuitry -- need to consider breeds can you see different patterns of activation. From a philosophical perspective too that the same puzzle it's five verse one to legions seem rational outcome and yet because -- because because once scenario activates. This this innate moral circuitry one doesn't people respond very differently. So so this is a neat way I think of exposing. How we've got these very unique moral instincts and get the fragile island it's very easy to kind of step around them to get around them. And had to rationalize them away. Who gets credit as the sort of Louie Pasteur or Charles -- went of the moral instinct the hard wired social altruistic. Impulses in the species -- hard work. It's tough to just name one person I think there's been a confluence of work I think the Wallace -- some great work. I'm primate. And I tell the story and in my book of one of his experiments where. Where you set up monkeys. And you train monkeys to think Poland -- they get lots of food the food they really enjoy. People achieve be they get less of food don't collect quite as much and actually course all the monkeys -- to Poland -- and -- train them that this had solidified for couple weeks. And it one day a murky pools and gene changed a monkey crossed the hall. After the what he -- on changing the Tina gives it lots of food logs this -- get shocked. So so they see the monkey get electrical shock it screams out in pain when these monkeys do they all stopped pulling and Cheney for several days. Most -- upload a king B for several days to -- murky starved self for twelve days in question is why it's because they were so scared it would hurt another monkey. Dead dead is hurt them so much to what other monkey tree getting paid wouldn't -- this chain. That that was enough to get them to literally starve themselves for two weeks. So so I mean you know I think you can do experiments like that these experiments have been done for a couple decades. That they've been got people thinking about these other primate who -- to commit them as such Bruce. Just like us and yet they seem very -- responsive. To to the pain and suffering of others. Then things over the last couple years work like. That -- we just talked to which I think is located this instinct in the brain. I think John hate universe Virginia's to have some really great work. And showing how you can give people ethical puzzles. And and they come up with -- is very strong reasons why it. It's wrong for people to do certain stuff what's wrong to hurt someone else or to sleep with your sister or two. Clean your toe with an American flag -- it once you strip away the reasons. All the rational reasons they may have for Clinton's belief the belief is still there what to suggest to him is that. Our morality isn't about rational reason to be company's reasons after the fact in a very lawyerly way we're defending. These instincts but the but but but at the core is this instinct is this emotion into even when all the reasons are taken away we still have the -- and still know it's wrong. To you know to to do this or to hurt them or to clean your -- with the American -- even though we can't explain why we just know what's wrong -- I think it's it's been a large confluence of lots of scientists who are slowly chipping away -- think. You know these these these selfish -- idea the idea we're just out for ourselves that that that can that we are just -- he groups."

" You know I think the threat in your two books that I read John is this notion that you can study science. As best -- sort of civilian can and not be totally. Seduced by -- as the ultimate answer your first book about proves to who was neuroscientist. Really argued that artists get their first. And they get the deepest and most memorably. The argument of the new book might just be I would I would summarize that is saying in effect that come much as we know about the brain. We discover that art. And love and prayer and even. -- lessens the moral lessons in religion may well be the abiding truths."

" Yeah I you know get a commitment I think. One of the recurring themes of the book is out. Is is you know I love spring cleaning quotes from everyone from decade to Adam Smith people who had no access to FMR -- machines. But but yet yet. The gore or jester -- Which he talked about earlier adding yet our -- he's very profound true -- about the way our brain works. So -- that that actually is I think -- consistent team in both books. -- Very sensitive observers have their own mind. Tend to have -- there were better so in the same way political pundits who who are more sensitive to the way they think who can really. Flex he's -- in -- muscles. Who who think about how they think constantly. Dated thinking better added I think a lot of knowledge we don't need to -- in its fourth in the stuff we know intuitively. And yet would raise kids and but -- so good at doing is. Come a long after the fact really clarifying theories constraining -- theories. Showing us you know that that may feel true but it's not quite true. Stuff like that but I think for the most part. Most cities they talk about this but can -- site institute to explain and justify these are new ideas people don't for a long time long before we knew how -- Durham to work -- signal all the rest all those details I talk about. We knew that. That that experts -- for the investment study what they got wrong. And then then look at how experts learn they really learned by looking at their mistakes this commute unpleasant way to live because who it's to get home after a long day's work and ignore all the stuff he messed up that day. -- and yet you know. That that can't give very effective way to learn is you know Beckett said fail -- better fail -- better you know justice -- just it's it's it's that process of we let's that we all make mistakes we all fail. Again you would great experts tend to do. This is a I think a big threat of expertise is is succeed mistakes as an opportunity to learn. You know as Bob Dylan but it isn't a success like failure. And failures that success at all so -- obviously. We'd move we don't need know person to -- and can show us said contingent placing greater emphasis on the second show us to. Can help explain why this works that's maybe because more attuned to it more sensitive to it. And and and really focus our efforts on. -- from six I think you've talked at the work of Carol black. At Sanford as she shows how. Teaching kids about how their brain actually -- Shaping the can can really alter the way kids learn again allotted to learn much more effectively."

" I've -- that play but it struck me Paul flew -- low IQ across a new book that the great ones. I have a doctrine really of learning from the mistakes early Ted Williams. Hit that way and and catalog pictures that way bottom -- is due to how does the rest of us. You know study even at the end of the day okay. How can we make the next round better. Well I mean I'd talk when."

" Terms of a variety of domain that talk renters or backgammon player after every match even matches she wins he goes back looks all the moves he did badly at. That congress soap opera director who. After -- day of shooting. You know he'd -- he gets home support to sixteen hour day gets home puts that brought -- that day and forced himself to make a list of thirty things he did wrong. Thirty mistakes a minor no one else has noticed them. It did he forced himself to catalog. You know. Tom Brady Tom Brady watches game tape for hours every week she's on watching him he's -- the for the passes he did well it's into the passes he messed for the open man he didn't find. You know to get back to work of Carol black she showed a second graders. Dead -- the ultimate single line of praise -- kids for being smart or praised -- for trying hard that shouldn't that single line of praise has dramatic -- kids to. Think they're smart to a preacher being smart they would new. You know keep that self identity so they're less likely to take the harder -- than less likely to make mistakes due to put themselves in situations. -- gonna fail because that's inevitable because he's taken this test too hard for them and having kids to get praised for. Trying hard they're much more interest in taking it. Hard test and then look at their mistakes and try to learn from their mistakes would you see over the course a few months. Take kids were praised for trying hard. And in doing much better on the same test and you took place to be smart to do because they're more likely to load from their mistakes there that separate they're they've got a different way of thinking about learning. -- just had to be much more effective setting us you know. DDD. These single piece of -- is simply we need to think about how we think about learning and and -- he had few mistakes as the inevitable. The inevitable component of learning that you can't learn at a very fundamental level unless you get stuff wrong. It's a not to feel are mistakes not to load them not to be so scared of making them but to realize that that we have to -- celebrate them. Dead dead they are an inevitable component of learning you can't learn without them that's true at the very most fundamental level of floating in your brain cells your brain cells learned of it's called the prediction air mechanism which is. They're literally make predictions and instead -- mismatch between what they predicted what actually happened so silly -- their mistakes Taylor had to do right by studying what they got wrong."

" Larry you remind me of the conversation I had probably ten or dozen years ago with Antonio DiMaggio -- scientist and I was. I was desperately afraid is as he did deeper and deeper into neurons and pathways and mapping the whole bloody brain. That that he was going to take the mystery either darkness the joy of of not knowing out of life I think you restore that but some -- is ridiculous. As wallowing in the mystery we probably will be wallowing in the mystery. Is as long as a species last what do you think. Obama while lower. This you know."

" You know I think. What of the things that fascinates you most about the brain injuries and I love writing about it and learning about it is that. In -- the more we know about it the more mysterious it becomes. You know -- I think twenty years ago you talked scientists they assume that uh oh you know where -- so much progress in twenty years. What -- just to solve will no guarantees he called the bridging principal. He'd be magical phenomena that somehow turned escorts and their transmitter and you know electrical transmissions between sells so well. We know -- that gave rise at least three pounds of -- this -- gave rise to the mystery of subjective self consciousness subjective experience the -- of a red painting the -- of an -- to taste of an apple. The you know all the things that define our first first experienced the we somehow know how. You know the body yet pressed the mind of how the water the water of the brain gave rise the land of the mind. And you know I think now don't even ask that question anymore we don't need to know how to ask that question let alone have an answer. Of -- since I think -- where were farther away now from my understanding. Is most fundamental questions modern neuroscience. Then didn't did we were twenty years ago -- would not even bloody good begging the question anymore we don't even know has skipped. And -- to be I think one indeed. Great ironies -- a nurse and is that it's you know dismantling our brave deconstructing it. Understanding it is very fundamental level the level of synapse is themselves and channels all the rest. They can get the water reality kids described what reality you can't describe in terms of these neurons and synapse Susan. And and and material phenomenon is the only reality will ever know which is the reality of subjective experience the reality -- of consciousness because we feel -- more than just some Parcells. So so that's that's I think. There will always be this wonderful mystery. The and the mystery of how come this exists how come this here now is real to us. That it -- sciences will be able to penetrate at least -- with the tools and methods it has now we're in the foreseeable future. So so I don't worry too much about deducting a place to wallow. That bad -- conducting a mystery. To explore. And and for novelists to write about it for all of us to celebrate."

" What we're trying to be my last question really. Do you stand with the novelists and poets and musicians the the mystery mongers and away who who deal imaginative the -- is with all that team. Who you've talked about a lot of scientists who are the the artists writers imaginative. Vote in our world today that best show us ways to deal --"

" Our consciousness. Yet -- you know I think. You know anything can rattle off all the great novelists of of the twentieth century and I think they've they've all shown us how are mine works but the -- Phillip Roth there Saul bellow or. You know I mean there's there's Lohse we've had no shortage of of great number -- I think. In particular I think 11. The last few decades we've also. I great novelists who have I think showed us how to deal with this new knowledge we have this knowledge of the fact that we are just. As as -- could -- story sacks of walking upright tripe. And then you know had to deal with -- said dad -- there is no ghost in the machine so to speak that we are just the hub of the machinery. And and and to I think you know -- their -- even Q and up dikes in the out there. Richard powers. -- can rattle off and give -- my bookshelf. You know I think with these people allow us to do is stupid but this -- context. 22 kind of understated. Bye -- explored it to the prism of fiction of a novel they allow us to to -- to the lenders in its troop locations in its full implications. The I I ended cruised by talk -- into cubes -- Saturday. This this really magnificent novel -- neurosurgery -- are searching for a couple of years and there are some people meditations on I think. The deep paradox modern neuroscience which is how -- this this or -- gives rise to consciousness the cinema of consciousness. So you know. That I think is what will always in -- for. And -- art for period dead dead in the end I think besides shall always. BBD bracketed by this this profound mystery. The deep mystery of college assistant coach experience. And and -- I think thank god we have artists. Do to help us explore. Not just not to semi in everyday life not just -- the industry wants the world telling us what it feels like -- going to buy flowers for dinner party. But also understand the implications. Of of its research to actually really consider the facts. People like Richard powers who who I think I'm -- Richard Paris regional nature and science every week. And and always to produce signs to kind of transpose it to fiction to exercise setting its -- DD DD need for. You know great artist is in the sense more than ever it's not enough anymore just understand how we think in the way and modernist novelist struggled to. You know compress. Consciousness the stream of conscious on the page thing that we artists not just do that but to also help us understand what the scientists telling -- successful applications. Journal."

" It's a joy to read your book how we decide who has enjoyed tutored listen to you. In conversation on open source thank you enormously for everything you do. Thank you so much it's always such a pleasure."

" Paul McCarthy edited this conversation with -- Lara. With help from our brown undergraduate in turn had not Olson. Please join the conversation on how we choose. When -- own head as the -- here riding the horses and your emotions. And tell us how it all comes out the art and science of it and our website. Radioopensource.org. And Christopher -- thanks for joining end."