The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society

Transcript

• 00:00Biomedical ethics seminar.
• 00:03We're,
• 00:05very fortunate to have a,
• 00:08you know, a real star
• 00:10of academic medicine,
• 00:12bioethics, and sociology
• 00:14today. And and really one
• 00:15of my personal
• 00:17research heroes.
• 00:21Nicholas Christakis is a sociologist
• 00:23and a palliative care physician
• 00:25who directs the human nature
• 00:26lab within the Yale Institute
• 00:28for network science.
• 00:30His his current research focuses
• 00:31on the social, mathematical, and
• 00:33biological rules
• 00:34governing how social networks form
• 00:37as well as the social
• 00:38and biological implications of how
• 00:39social networks influence thoughts, feelings,
• 00:42and behavior.
• 00:44The author of, four books
• 00:46and over two hundred articles,
• 00:47doctor Kruskas was elected to
• 00:48the Institute of Medicine, the
• 00:50National Academy of Sciences, and
• 00:51is a fellow with the
• 00:52American Association for the Advancement
• 00:53of Science and the American
• 00:55Academy of Arts and Sciences.
• 00:57I would just say on
• 00:58a, personal
• 01:01perspective,
• 01:02doctor Krzyszka has been a
• 01:04researcher of mine going back
• 01:05to to medical school.
• 01:08His ground breaking work showing
• 01:10that smoking behaviors and obesity
• 01:12transmit through social networks
• 01:14is really an it's an
• 01:15example of the kind of
• 01:16elegant science
• 01:18that seems self evident in
• 01:19retrospect and yet radically changes
• 01:22our perspective and enhances
• 01:24our understanding of an important
• 01:25aspect of the world. It
• 01:26was really an inspiration to
• 01:27me when I was a
• 01:28medical student,
• 01:29and I'm I'm just beyond
• 01:31thrilled to,
• 01:33to have him here with
• 01:34us in in person today.
• 01:35So thank you so much.
• 01:36Thank you so much.
• 01:40Thank thank you so much
• 01:42for that introduction, and thank
• 01:43you for having me. I
• 01:44don't know the norms of
• 01:45this community, so I think
• 01:46we have an hour and
• 01:46a half. Is that right?
• 01:47We have an hour and
• 01:48a half. We would like
• 01:49to reserve
• 01:51at least twenty minutes. Yeah.
• 01:52That's easily question there. Yeah.
• 01:54So the question is, should
• 01:55we do this University of
• 01:56Chicago style,
• 01:57which is you would just
• 01:58start asking questions immediately,
• 02:00which I'm very happy with.
• 02:02I'm happy to do it
• 02:02that way. So if you
• 02:03wanna just interrupt at some
• 02:04point, we have plenty of
• 02:05time. I've got fifty minutes
• 02:06of remarks. So we can
• 02:07do that style or you
• 02:08just let me go and
• 02:09then until I run out
• 02:10of steam, and then we
• 02:11can talk as long as
• 02:12you want.
• 02:13So, so thank you for
• 02:14the introduction. It's nice to
• 02:15be back here. I I
• 02:16come to the medical school,
• 02:17not uncommonly, but it's been
• 02:19a while since I've been
• 02:19in this room.
• 02:21So for for too long
• 02:22in my view,
• 02:24the scientific
• 02:25community and the person on
• 02:26the street for that matter
• 02:28has been focused on the
• 02:29dark side of our evolutionary
• 02:31heritage, on our capacity for
• 02:33selfishness
• 02:34and mendacity
• 02:36and tribalism
• 02:37and cruelty
• 02:39and violence.
• 02:40But I think that the
• 02:41bright side has been denied
• 02:43the attention it deserves
• 02:45because our species also evolved
• 02:47to be good
• 02:48and to manifest wonderful qualities
• 02:50like
• 02:51love and friendship
• 02:52and cooperation
• 02:54and teaching.
• 02:55And these good qualities must,
• 02:57in my view, have outweighed
• 02:59the bad qualities
• 03:00or we wouldn't be living
• 03:01socially in the first place.
• 03:03Every time I came near
• 03:04you, you stole from me,
• 03:06or you filled me with
• 03:07lives, or you beat me,
• 03:08or you killed me. I
• 03:09would be better off we
• 03:10would all be better off
• 03:11living atomistically.
• 03:12Of course, we don't do
• 03:13that. We live socially, which
• 03:14means necessarily in my view
• 03:16that the benefits of a
• 03:17connected life must have outweighed
• 03:19the costs.
• 03:21And indeed, our species has
• 03:22evolved to a particular kind
• 03:24of good society, as I'm
• 03:26gonna try to persuade you
• 03:27today.
• 03:28Now we humans evolved
• 03:30not only to live in
• 03:31groups like herds of, zebras
• 03:34or groups of crocodiles,
• 03:36but also socially.
• 03:37And in a very particular
• 03:39way socially, actually, equipped equipped
• 03:41with a very particular set
• 03:43of innate capabilities.
• 03:45And we have very specific
• 03:47sorts of social
• 03:48interactions.
• 03:50And we manifest this social
• 03:51ability
• 03:52very early,
• 03:53in life.
• 03:55Many people have argued, for
• 03:56example, that one of the
• 03:57primary functions of play in
• 03:59childhood
• 04:00is to prepare us for
• 04:01living socially. There's actually quite
• 04:03an interesting literature on play
• 04:05in children and in other
• 04:06primates and other social animals,
• 04:08and that one of the
• 04:09functions of this innate inclination
• 04:11of the youngest of ours
• 04:13to play with each other.
• 04:14Some of you may even
• 04:15know the expression homo ludens
• 04:16or playful person or the
• 04:19people or the primate that
• 04:20plays,
• 04:21you know, that that that
• 04:23this is the reason that
• 04:24we play is so to
• 04:25practice for living socially.
• 04:28So the question is what
• 04:29kind of evidence might we
• 04:31use to ascertain
• 04:32the kind of social order
• 04:34humans are universally predisposed to
• 04:36make and that in some
• 04:38sense comes naturally to us?
• 04:40Now, if you were a
• 04:41mad scientist, the kind of
• 04:42experiment you would love to
• 04:43do would be to somehow
• 04:45take a group of newborn
• 04:46infants
• 04:47and abandon them on an
• 04:49island and contrive to have
• 04:51them be raised aculturally
• 04:53and with no social exposure,
• 04:55but still somehow grow to
• 04:56adulthood safely, provisioning them with
• 04:58all necessary resources,
• 05:00and then come back, you
• 05:01know, twenty years later and
• 05:03see what kind of social
• 05:04order,
• 05:05did those those animals, those
• 05:07humans,
• 05:08build,
• 05:09for themselves.
• 05:11And the question would be,
• 05:12would they actually
• 05:14build a kind of social
• 05:15order like birds innately programmed
• 05:17to sing a particular song?
• 05:19I don't know if you
• 05:19know this, but, like, roughly
• 05:21half bird species can sing
• 05:23their innate song from birth.
• 05:25They don't need to be
• 05:26taught it. The other half
• 05:27need to be taught it.
• 05:27They need exposure to the
• 05:28parents singing before they can
• 05:30also sing their songs. The
• 05:31question is, would we build
• 05:33what kind of society would
• 05:34we make if we weren't
• 05:35taught to build any kind
• 05:37of society?
• 05:38Now, of course, it's impossible.
• 05:39It's cruel and unethical
• 05:41to do this kind of
• 05:43thing, and it it's been
• 05:44contemplated for a long time,
• 05:46however, and it's been called
• 05:47the forbidden
• 05:48experiment.
• 05:50But such an experiment, as
• 05:51I said, has been contemplated
• 05:53and actually attempted by various
• 05:54monarchs
• 05:55who have typically been interested
• 05:57in what sort of language
• 05:58comes naturally to us. So
• 06:00according to Herodotus, for example,
• 06:02the Egyptian pharaoh, Psamtik the
• 06:03first, had some children
• 06:05raised without being spoken to
• 06:07in an attempt to determine
• 06:09if they possess an innate
• 06:10language. So, typically, these experiments
• 06:12involve taking a pair of
• 06:13children and having them raised
• 06:15by a mute shepherd up
• 06:17in the mountains, a shepherd
• 06:18who couldn't speak, and then
• 06:20come back, you know, twenty
• 06:21years later and see what
• 06:22kind of language did these
• 06:23two people. So ancient
• 06:25ancient scientists, ancient leaders were
• 06:27wondering, you know, what kind
• 06:28of innate language, might we
• 06:30have.
• 06:31And, I think James the
• 06:33fourth of Scotland, who did
• 06:34this experiment in the, in
• 06:36the fifteenth century,
• 06:38was actually very interested in
• 06:39what kind of language did
• 06:40Adam and Eve speak.
• 06:42And, so that's why he
• 06:44tried to do this experiment.
• 06:45And, allegedly, when they came
• 06:46back to the children, they
• 06:47spoke passable Hebrew,
• 06:49was the conclusion of that,
• 06:51experiment.
• 06:54So,
• 06:55so but, clearly clearly, we
• 06:56cannot do this much as
• 06:58I would, like for us,
• 07:00to do that.
• 07:01So what might be some
• 07:02proxies for such an experiment?
• 07:04Now there are a number
• 07:04of possibilities.
• 07:06And one possibility that occurred
• 07:07to me was that we
• 07:08could think about using shipwrecks
• 07:10as an example where people
• 07:11are thrown together without intending
• 07:13it and left to make
• 07:15society anew. So what, you
• 07:16know, what if we took
• 07:17a group of adults like
• 07:18you guys and I just
• 07:19shipwrecked you on an island,
• 07:21and then I came back
• 07:22ten years later to see
• 07:23what kind of social order,
• 07:24did you make for yourselves?
• 07:27And, out of a out
• 07:28of over nine thousand shipwrecks
• 07:29that occurred between fifteen hundred
• 07:31and nineteen hundred during the
• 07:32European exploration of the world,
• 07:34I was able to identify
• 07:36twenty where the castaways numbered
• 07:38more than nineteen people and
• 07:39where they were stranded for
• 07:41more than two months, pertinently
• 07:43without contact with anyone else.
• 07:44So if you were if
• 07:45you were shipwrecked and immediately
• 07:47to enslaved,
• 07:48or if you were shipwrecked
• 07:49and you were trading with
• 07:50some other peoples nearby, that
• 07:52didn't count. I looked at
• 07:53this, and this is a
• 07:54sort of archipelago of shipwrecks,
• 07:56my data sample that I
• 07:57used for this this particular
• 07:59study shown here on this
• 08:01map. And I studied in
• 08:02detail what sort of social
• 08:04order these people made for
• 08:05themselves. So I took all
• 08:06of it. Oh, the other
• 08:07criteria, of course, is that
• 08:07someone had to survive the
• 08:09wreck to be able to
• 08:09write about it afterwards.
• 08:11And there's one incredible tale
• 08:13of, these these shipwreck sailors
• 08:16managed to catch an albatross,
• 08:18and they tied a note
• 08:20to the albatross's leg identifying
• 08:22where they were wrecked and
• 08:23let the albatross go. And
• 08:24miraculously, this albatross was caught,
• 08:26like, three thousand miles away
• 08:28with instructions on where the
• 08:29wreck crew and a ship
• 08:30was dispatched to go find
• 08:31them, and they just found
• 08:32bones. They were all dead.
• 08:34So there was no way
• 08:35to know what happened there.
• 08:36But someone has to survive
• 08:37the shipwreck. And,
• 08:40and, actually, if you're interested
• 08:40in, you know, the citations
• 08:42to all of this stuff
• 08:42I'm saying are in the
• 08:43book. So if you actually
• 08:44wanna hunt down the Albatross
• 08:46story, I don't remember right
• 08:47now, but the citation is
• 08:48in the book. Anyway,
• 08:51so,
• 08:52so, so someone needs to
• 08:53survive. They need to write.
• 08:54So I read all the
• 08:55available accounts by these people,
• 08:57and sometimes more than one
• 08:58survivor wrote their own account.
• 08:59And there have been a
• 09:00lot of archaeological
• 09:01excavations of these wreck sites,
• 09:03which can often give you
• 09:04insights into the social order.
• 09:06So you can see, for
• 09:07example, did they build separate
• 09:08quarters for the passengers and
• 09:10the crew or for the
• 09:11officers and the enlisted men?
• 09:12Do they have, like, social
• 09:13hierarchy, or did they all
• 09:14live together? Or were they
• 09:16able to work together to
• 09:17build, like, a fire tower,
• 09:18for example, that no one
• 09:19person could build? So there's
• 09:20some evidence of collective action
• 09:22in the assembly of this
• 09:24of this type of, artifact
• 09:25that they made. So I
• 09:26did looked at all of
• 09:27those things. I studied in
• 09:28detail
• 09:30and,
• 09:31and to try to get
• 09:32a sense of of what
• 09:33kind of social order in
• 09:34these natural experiments might occur.
• 09:36And one particularly powerful pair
• 09:38of cases involved two crews
• 09:40that were stranded on opposite
• 09:41ends of an island that's
• 09:43north of Antarctica and south
• 09:44of New Zealand
• 09:45that were stranded at the
• 09:47same time in eighteen sixty
• 09:49four, though they were unaware
• 09:51of each other's fate. And
• 09:53this was almost a perfect
• 09:54natural experiment in social,
• 09:57order. So on the, on
• 09:58the northern part of the
• 09:59island, the Inverco
• 10:02wrecked. And in in eighteen
• 10:03sixty four, nineteen men lost
• 10:05ashore.
• 10:06And on the southern part
• 10:07of the island, the Grafton
• 10:08comes into this bay, and
• 10:10it wrecks, and five men,
• 10:12come ashore.
• 10:13Now there's a very interesting
• 10:14difference in what immediately happens.
• 10:15On the Inverco,
• 10:17the the boat, hits the
• 10:19rocks.
• 10:21Nineteen men wash ashore. They
• 10:22have a little salvage, a
• 10:23little hard tack in their
• 10:24pockets, some matches. And then,
• 10:26hilariously,
• 10:27they try to light the
• 10:28fire with the matches, and
• 10:29they, they light the fire,
• 10:31and then all the matches,
• 10:32you know, light like you
• 10:33might see in a movie,
• 10:34and so they lose all
• 10:34their matches.
• 10:36But, and they get a
• 10:37little salvage. But, pertinently, one
• 10:39of the men, had a
• 10:40broken leg when he washed
• 10:42ashore.
• 10:43And these the other,
• 10:44eighteen people decided on that
• 10:46very first couple of days,
• 10:48they they washed ashore on
• 10:49a little beach, and there
• 10:50were these high cliffs to
• 10:51abandon this man to his
• 10:53death. And the eighteen of
• 10:54them scrambled up the cliff,
• 10:55and they moved on into
• 10:57the island. And in that,
• 10:58those nineteen those remaining eighteen
• 11:00guys,
• 11:01all but three of them
• 11:02died, and there was, like,
• 11:04an unfortunate episode of cannibalism,
• 11:06during the, escapade,
• 11:08as well.
• 11:09Now the Grafton, on the
• 11:10other hand, when the boat
• 11:11wrecks, four of the men
• 11:12make it ashore, and the
• 11:13captain had had a fever
• 11:15and was in his cabin.
• 11:17And the other four men
• 11:18contrived at the great personal
• 11:19risk of their lives to
• 11:20set up a rope chain
• 11:21between the shore and the
• 11:23offshore wreck so that a
• 11:24rope would connect the shoreline
• 11:26to the wreck, and they
• 11:27swam back and forth the
• 11:28great danger to themselves to
• 11:30retrieve,
• 11:31the captain. And this is
• 11:32the drawing from, one of
• 11:34the, one of the books
• 11:35about this event. These shipwreck
• 11:37stories were like bestsellers in
• 11:38the nineteenth century. People avidly
• 11:40consumed them.
• 11:42So this is how they
• 11:43saved the feverish captain's life.
• 11:45And this wreck therefore begins
• 11:47with a saving of a
• 11:48life with the people working
• 11:49together to save this man's
• 11:51life. And all five of
• 11:52these people survived two years
• 11:54on the island, and they,
• 11:56successfully,
• 11:57made it,
• 11:58off.
• 12:00And just to be very
• 12:01clear, it was not very
• 12:02pleasant to be the subject
• 12:03of these unintentional,
• 12:05natural experiments.
• 12:06This is the hut that
• 12:07they,
• 12:08built for themselves,
• 12:10working together,
• 12:11until they finally constructed a
• 12:13boat. They build a forge.
• 12:15They clubbed a seal to
• 12:16death, and then they use
• 12:17the seal skin to make
• 12:19a bellows. Actually, the ability
• 12:20to fabricate a bellows is
• 12:21often a key predictor in
• 12:23survival on these island escapades,
• 12:26because then you can forge
• 12:27iron to make nails to
• 12:29assemble a boat to escape,
• 12:31which is what these guys
• 12:32did.
• 12:33And they also one of
• 12:33the guys remembered an old
• 12:34recipe for Roman cement. They
• 12:36collected shells. They crushed the
• 12:38shells. They they, burnt them
• 12:40to make lime, and they
• 12:41built, they were able to
• 12:43make some, some cement foundations.
• 12:45It's just an extraordinary,
• 12:47leadership,
• 12:49and experience
• 12:50of, of the Grafton crew.
• 12:52Now what was fascinating
• 12:54is that they were both
• 12:55on the island at the
• 12:56same time in the same
• 12:57year, and one of them
• 12:58did well and one of
• 12:59them did very poorly. And
• 13:00in the Grafton account, they're
• 13:02exploring the island. And in
• 13:03on the on the diary
• 13:05of the captain, it says
• 13:06on a particular day, they
• 13:07thought they saw a column
• 13:08of smoke up north. And,
• 13:10they went to see if
• 13:11they could find the column
• 13:12of smoke, but they didn't.
• 13:13And I'm convinced that they
• 13:14saw smoke from the Inverco
• 13:15crew. And I spent a
• 13:17year trying to find in
• 13:18the Inverco records, did they,
• 13:20in approximately the same day,
• 13:21talk about being further south
• 13:22and lighting a fire? I
• 13:24would have loved to be
• 13:24able to do that, but
• 13:25I was unable to prove
• 13:27that they actually,
• 13:28almost came into contact with
• 13:30each other.
• 13:31And I also looked not
• 13:33only at unintentional shipwreck communities,
• 13:35but at intentional communities
• 13:36such as nineteenth century communes
• 13:38where people deliberately set out
• 13:40to remake society
• 13:41possibly in a new way.
• 13:43And people have been doing
• 13:44this since Roman times. For
• 13:45thousands of years, we have
• 13:46records of people saying society
• 13:48is all screwed up. It's
• 13:49totally screwed up. Let's go
• 13:51and start again and try
• 13:52from scratch,
• 13:54to make a new society.
• 13:56So people have been assembling
• 13:57themselves into these intentional,
• 13:59communities.
• 14:00And I looked also, for
• 14:01example, at the shakers and
• 14:03other communitarian movements at the
• 14:04United States and at twentieth
• 14:06century communes too and at
• 14:08settlements of scientists in Antarctica
• 14:10isolated from the rest of
• 14:12the world for months. So
• 14:13as you many of you
• 14:14know, we maintain a we
• 14:16the Americans maintain a a
• 14:17scientific
• 14:20site on the South Pole
• 14:21and, every year about fifty
• 14:23or a hundred people winter
• 14:25over in the South Pole.
• 14:26And for nine months, they
• 14:27have no contact with anyone
• 14:27else. There's no getting in
• 14:28or out there. So these
• 14:29people isolate themselves in the
• 14:31South poll. And I looked
• 14:33at online worlds. You know,
• 14:35I thought, well, you know,
• 14:36we're creating all these new
• 14:37online worlds. You know, if
• 14:38people are given the freedom
• 14:40to make any kind of
• 14:41social order they want unrestricted
• 14:43from a corporeal,
• 14:45situation, what kind of social
• 14:46order, would they make? And
• 14:48many other examples, including experiments
• 14:50I've done in my lab
• 14:51with over forty thousand research
• 14:53subjects where we've created temporary
• 14:55artificial societies of real people,
• 14:58and we engage in social
• 14:59engineering with these thousands of
• 15:00people, putting them in groups
• 15:02and in a godlike way
• 15:03manipulating different aspects of their
• 15:05lives to see, could we
• 15:06get people, for example, to
• 15:07cooperate and work together if
• 15:09we arrange their social interactions
• 15:11one way versus another way?
• 15:13Or must their social interactions
• 15:15be organized the way real
• 15:17human social networks are structured
• 15:19in order for them to
• 15:19even be able to cooperate
• 15:21at all, for example, or
• 15:22manipulating the amount of inequality
• 15:24in these artificial worlds, making
• 15:26some unequal societies or some
• 15:28very equal societies
• 15:29and testing how much inequality
• 15:31is corrosive to the social
• 15:33order. And in still other
• 15:35examples such as nuclear sub
• 15:36crews, Latin American prisons, minors
• 15:39trapped deep under the earth,
• 15:41and communities formed by displaced
• 15:43persons in the wake of
• 15:44natural disasters.
• 15:47And what I found in
• 15:48looking at all of these
• 15:49examples is that there are
• 15:50some deep and fundamental principles
• 15:52that constrain us to only
• 15:54one way of being social.
• 15:57And I'd like to illustrate
• 15:58this by reference to a
• 15:59very famous example of the
• 16:00so called world of all
• 16:01possible shells that was also
• 16:03popularized by,
• 16:05by Richard Dawkins.
• 16:07And this work was originally
• 16:08done in the 1960s
• 16:09by a paleontologist
• 16:11at University of Chicago, a
• 16:12man by the name of
• 16:13David Raub,
• 16:14who became fascinated by shell
• 16:16morphology
• 16:17and whether it was possible
• 16:18to unify the world of
• 16:19shells
• 16:20within a single equation.
• 16:22Could we somehow could all
• 16:24the shells, all the different
• 16:25shapes of shells, could they
• 16:26be understood by reference to
• 16:28a single mathematical equation?
• 16:30And he defies the he
• 16:32devised the following way of
• 16:33thinking about it, arraying shells
• 16:35in three-dimensional
• 16:36space that he called a
• 16:38morphospace.
• 16:40So there are there are
• 16:41three axes on this cell.
• 16:42So on the y axis
• 16:44going up on the on
• 16:45the back there,
• 16:47is I'm sorry. This axle.
• 16:49So this is the x
• 16:50axis. This is the y
• 16:51axis.
• 16:53Not Are you I'm on
• 16:54the x. Can you hear
• 16:54me? Just so people can
• 16:55hear me. Oh, hear me
• 16:56on the Zoom. Yeah. Okay.
• 16:57So well, alright. So I'm
• 16:58gonna this is very difficult
• 17:00for a Greek like me
• 17:00to stay put in one
• 17:01place, I have to say.
• 17:03So I'm gonna stay here
• 17:04in the microphone. Okay. So
• 17:05there are three axes. So
• 17:06on the x axis, the
• 17:07y axis, and the z
• 17:08axis. The y axis is
• 17:10the distance,
• 17:11and that is the rate
• 17:13at which
• 17:14the opening of the shell,
• 17:17moves away from the central
• 17:18axis like a coil of
• 17:19stamps. Okay? So you can
• 17:21have a tightly coiled coil
• 17:22of stamps or a loose
• 17:23coil of stamps, and that
• 17:24can be quantified by one
• 17:26parameter.
• 17:27On the x axis at
• 17:28the bottom, but you can
• 17:29see the top illustrations
• 17:31that illustrates the x axis,
• 17:33over there,
• 17:35you have what's called, the
• 17:37translation,
• 17:38and that's the rate at
• 17:39which the opening of the
• 17:40the shell moves up and
• 17:42down the axis like a
• 17:43slinky. You can have a
• 17:44really compact slinky or a
• 17:46really loose slinky. Okay? That's
• 17:47the second parameter. And the
• 17:49third parameter on the z
• 17:50axis on the far left
• 17:51is called the expansion,
• 17:53and that's the rate of
• 17:54change of the opening in
• 17:55which the animal lives. So,
• 17:57for example, is it like
• 17:58a cylinder? If you were
• 17:59an animal walking into the
• 18:00shell, would it be constant
• 18:02diameter all the way to
• 18:03the from the beginning to
• 18:04the end, or does it
• 18:05get narrower and narrower, and
• 18:06what rate does it get
• 18:07narrower?
• 18:08And if you did this
• 18:10and you allowed all these
• 18:11you allowed, you know, zero
• 18:12to one variation in distance,
• 18:13zero to one variation in
• 18:14translation, normalized distances, zero to
• 18:17one variation in expansion.
• 18:19Raub found that you could
• 18:20array all possible shells in
• 18:22this space.
• 18:23That is to say every
• 18:25shell that had ever that
• 18:26existed or had ever existed,
• 18:27you could find a specific
• 18:29spot in this three-dimensional
• 18:30space and put
• 18:32that
• 18:33shell. But then he made
• 18:34the discovery, which is that
• 18:35actually only a small part
• 18:36of this theoretical morphospace
• 18:39ever had any shells that
• 18:40existed. Of all the shells
• 18:42that could possibly exist,
• 18:44only a tiny fraction of
• 18:45them had ever come into
• 18:47existence.
• 18:50So many types of shells
• 18:51were theoretically conceivable, but nonetheless
• 18:54never had existed.
• 18:56So now imagine that we
• 18:57define some axes for societies,
• 19:00like how friendly the society
• 19:01is. You know, do people
• 19:03have no friends in this
• 19:04society or one friend on
• 19:05average or two or three
• 19:06or five or ten friends
• 19:07on average? Or how cooperative
• 19:09the society is, like, if
• 19:10they're playing a public goods
• 19:11game or an economic
• 19:12dictator game, or many of
• 19:13you may know about these
• 19:14behavioral economics games where you
• 19:16test the altruism or generosity
• 19:17of people. Are they really
• 19:19sociopathic and they don't help
• 19:20anyone, or are they, like,
• 19:22pathetic empaths and they give
• 19:23everything away at the other
• 19:24extreme? And you have that
• 19:26kind of a a range.
• 19:27Or how much hierarchy is
• 19:28in the society? You know,
• 19:29are they really despotic
• 19:31hierarchy, or are they completely
• 19:32egalitarian? And if you could
• 19:34imagine all these relevant axes
• 19:35to social life and you
• 19:37it created a morphospace in
• 19:38three or more dimensions,
• 19:40it would turn out that
• 19:41all human societies
• 19:43occupy a tiny fraction
• 19:44of this morphospace.
• 19:46And the question is why
• 19:48is that the case? And
• 19:50the answer is natural selection.
• 19:53The key capacities that we
• 19:54humans have that characterize our
• 19:57societies
• 19:57and that we need so
• 19:59as to be able to
• 20:00form a functional society, in
• 20:01my judgment,
• 20:02are these eight that are
• 20:03listed here that I call
• 20:05the social suite. This is
• 20:06identity,
• 20:08love,
• 20:09friendship,
• 20:10networks,
• 20:11cooperation,
• 20:12in group preference, that's the
• 20:13one that depresses me the
• 20:14most,
• 20:16mild hierarchy,
• 20:17and teaching.
• 20:19These are genetically encoded attributes
• 20:22shaped by natural selection that
• 20:24we express among ourselves,
• 20:26not as isolated individuals.
• 20:28So I call my lab
• 20:29the human nature lab, and
• 20:30I'm interested in that part
• 20:31of human nature that we
• 20:33express interpersonally.
• 20:35So there are many parts
• 20:36of human nature that we
• 20:37express just in by ourselves.
• 20:38You know, for example, your
• 20:39risk aversion or your bravery
• 20:42or your pancreatic function. You
• 20:44know, those are things that
• 20:45you express as individuals, right,
• 20:47that you can do by
• 20:47yourself. Doesn't need someone else.
• 20:49But, you know, things like
• 20:50that are listed here, like
• 20:51cooperation. You don't cooperate with
• 20:53yourself. You don't befriend yourself.
• 20:54Right? You don't, you know,
• 20:56love yourself. I mean, you
• 20:57can, but that's not what
• 20:57I'm talking about.
• 20:59You know, these are things
• 21:00that you express interpersonally. And
• 21:02furthermore,
• 21:03for them to be in
• 21:04my list, they don't don't
• 21:05include things like, you know,
• 21:06types of manners of attire,
• 21:08you know, that all most
• 21:09human societies, you know, cover
• 21:10their genitals, for example. That's
• 21:12not included in the in
• 21:13the social suite because that's
• 21:14not genetically encoded. There aren't
• 21:16specific genes that that, you
• 21:17know, give rise, to that
• 21:19type of behavior. That's culturally,
• 21:21constructed.
• 21:23So so they're genetically encoded
• 21:24attributes shaped by natural selection
• 21:26that we express among ourselves,
• 21:28not as isolated individuals. And
• 21:29in fact, they are adaptively
• 21:31useful,
• 21:32even crucial
• 21:33for making,
• 21:34a society.
• 21:36And indeed natural selection
• 21:38has shaped not just the
• 21:39structure and function of our
• 21:40bodies,
• 21:41not just the structure and
• 21:42function of our minds and,
• 21:43hence, our behaviors,
• 21:44but also the structure and
• 21:46function of our societies.
• 21:47And these traits are universal.
• 21:49They are seen in every
• 21:50society, and I'm gonna spend
• 21:51a little time walking you
• 21:52through some of them, not
• 21:53all of them,
• 21:54today.
• 21:56Now one of the greatest
• 21:57paradoxes
• 21:58about mammalian social life
• 22:01is that the capacity to
• 22:02be a distinctive individual
• 22:04is actually an essential predicate
• 22:06for living socially.
• 22:08The ability to express
• 22:10and to recognize individuality
• 22:12only evolves when it is
• 22:13beneficial,
• 22:14and these two capacities are
• 22:16extremely rare in the animal
• 22:17kingdom. In other words, it's
• 22:18uncommon for animals to be
• 22:20able to signal, I am
• 22:21me, Just me. No one
• 22:23else. And for you to
• 22:24be able to detect, that's
• 22:25Nicholas. That's not Ben or
• 22:27someone else. Okay? Or Mark,
• 22:29which is hard to I
• 22:30mean, you can tell me
• 22:31and Mark apart pretty easily.
• 22:33Why? But ask yourself why?
• 22:34Why can you tell me
• 22:35and Mark apart so easily?
• 22:36What what's the what's the
• 22:37evolutionary advantage to that? Right?
• 22:40And it turns out
• 22:41that if you do not
• 22:42want others to attack you
• 22:43mistakenly,
• 22:45or to forget that they
• 22:46had sex with you, or
• 22:47to provide parental care to
• 22:48a different child and to
• 22:50neglect you as an infant,
• 22:52or to neglect to repay
• 22:53your kindness, then it is
• 22:54advantageous to have some way
• 22:56to signal this is me,
• 22:57not someone else, and to
• 22:59have other people recognize the
• 23:01signal.
• 23:01So such social interactions
• 23:03require,
• 23:05paradoxically
• 23:05that we have the ability
• 23:07to communicate our individuality.
• 23:09And in our species, we
• 23:10use our faces for this
• 23:11purpose.
• 23:12So ask yourself why
• 23:14why do we all have
• 23:15different faces?
• 23:18Why don't we have we
• 23:18could make for have a
• 23:19male face and a female
• 23:20face to tell the genders
• 23:21apart.
• 23:22Or we could have, like,
• 23:23a baby face and then
• 23:24an adolescent face and then
• 23:25an adult face. Like, you
• 23:26would transition, you know, from
• 23:28babyhood to the you would
• 23:29go from the baby face
• 23:30to the adolescent face and
• 23:31so on. But that's not
• 23:32the case. Each of us
• 23:33has a different face, and
• 23:34we can we can recognize
• 23:36this face. And it turns
• 23:37out that the genetic variability
• 23:39that gives us the ability
• 23:40to express different faces is
• 23:42costly.
• 23:42It's not it's not trivial
• 23:44for us to be able
• 23:44to express different faces. It
• 23:46would be,
• 23:48less,
• 23:49demanding from a physiologic and
• 23:50genetic point of view to
• 23:51all have the same kind
• 23:52of face. So it's a
• 23:53evolutionary luxury that we have
• 23:54different faces. And a huge
• 23:56part of our brain, people
• 23:57with prosopagnosia,
• 23:58for example, suffer terribly. Right?
• 23:59It's a condition. A big
• 24:00part of our brain
• 24:02detects the faces.
• 24:03So all of that has
• 24:04evolved for some purpose,
• 24:07in fact.
• 24:08And, and, actually, recent discoveries
• 24:10have shown that the genes
• 24:11that are responsible
• 24:12for the different shapes of
• 24:14faces we have, ironically, are
• 24:15the same genes or that
• 24:17play a role in the
• 24:18the adaptive radiation of Darwinian
• 24:20finches. You know, the classic
• 24:21result that the finch the
• 24:23beaks shape and the Darwin's
• 24:24finches on the Galapagos Islands
• 24:26were all variable? Well, the
• 24:27same genes that give rise
• 24:28to different shaped beaks in
• 24:30Darwin's finches play a role
• 24:31in our having different faces
• 24:33actually
• 24:34amazingly.
• 24:35And, another way you can
• 24:36get an insight into this
• 24:38is that,
• 24:39you know, we don't recognize
• 24:41each other from our hands
• 24:43or our knees.
• 24:44Right?
• 24:45So and one of the
• 24:45reasons is that our hands
• 24:46are much more similar. If
• 24:47you took all the men
• 24:48in this room and lined
• 24:49up their hands, they wouldn't
• 24:50be as dissimilar
• 24:51as their faces are or
• 24:53all the women, you know,
• 24:53but men and women have
• 24:54different sized hands. But you
• 24:55could tell the men and
• 24:57women apart pretty easily by
• 24:58their hands, but not, within
• 24:59the sex. And, and and
• 25:01if you study that, what
• 25:02you find is if you
• 25:03plot if you plot the
• 25:05length of a man's hand
• 25:06and the height of a
• 25:07man's hand, and and this
• 25:08is this is not my
• 25:09work. This is work done
• 25:11by others of, like, you
• 25:12know, a hundred thousand military
• 25:13conscripts,
• 25:14you find that there's a
• 25:15very tight correlation
• 25:17between the length of a
• 25:18man's hand and the height
• 25:19of his hand. If you
• 25:20plot the points, you get,
• 25:21like, a nice line that
• 25:22goes up diagonally. As one
• 25:23gets bigger, the other gets
• 25:24bigger. Is everyone with me
• 25:25still? But if you did
• 25:26that with people's noses, looking
• 25:28at the height of their
• 25:28nose and the width of
• 25:29their nose, there's no pattern
• 25:32because noses we want maximum
• 25:35variability in noses. We don't
• 25:37want, as your nose gets
• 25:38bigger, for it to get
• 25:38wider. We want all parts
• 25:40of the quadrant to be
• 25:41possible. And in fact, the
• 25:42same thing happens with our
• 25:43ears, how far apart the
• 25:44ears are, whether they are
• 25:45attached, how big is the
• 25:46lobe, the forehead size, eyebrows,
• 25:48interocular distance. Every feature of
• 25:50our faces is widely variable.
• 25:53It's not consistent,
• 25:54in a way that vindicates
• 25:55the belief that it serves
• 25:57some kind of a purpose.
• 26:01And another trait is love.
• 26:03Love is a universal trait.
• 26:05Our species is unusual among
• 26:07mammals in that we don't
• 26:08just have sex with our
• 26:09mates, we bond with them.
• 26:11We form a sustained emotional
• 26:13attachment to them. We love
• 26:15them.
• 26:16And love is not essential
• 26:17to mating as most of
• 26:18you know, but we do
• 26:20it anyway.
• 26:21And in part, we do
• 26:22this because it helps us
• 26:23stay raise our young. So
• 26:24in the book, I have
• 26:24an extended,
• 26:26exploration of work done mostly
• 26:27by other scientists on the
• 26:29evolutionary origins of love.
• 26:31And, I mean, I think
• 26:33in this, there's a a
• 26:34very
• 26:35it's a bit sexist, but
• 26:36it I think it's a
• 26:37true statement about the world
• 26:38that, there's an argument about
• 26:40what are the do you
• 26:41guys know about,
• 26:43something called acceptations?
• 26:45People know what an acceptate
• 26:46it this a classic example
• 26:47of an acceptation is,
• 26:49feathers in dinosaurs, which probably
• 26:51initially appear in order to
• 26:53insulate the body of the
• 26:54dinosaurs, but then were available
• 26:57for use in flight. So
• 26:58we evolved to fly by
• 27:00exploiting the preexisting
• 27:02emergence of feathers. So the
• 27:04feathers were an acceptation.
• 27:06Okay?
• 27:07So so the argument is
• 27:08where does love come from
• 27:09in our species?
• 27:11And there's some evidence, which
• 27:12is very interesting, that, the
• 27:14experience of love in men
• 27:16and women originated from different,
• 27:19neural circuits.
• 27:20And that in, in in
• 27:21this and that in women,
• 27:23initially, women evolved to love
• 27:25their babies, to be attached
• 27:26to their babies.
• 27:27And that was like the
• 27:28feathers in a dinosaur then
• 27:30was used for flight, was
• 27:31used to love their partners.
• 27:32So so the love that
• 27:34women feel in heterosexual couples
• 27:36for their male partners
• 27:37is is an acceptation of
• 27:39the love of babies.
• 27:40And men, it is argued
• 27:42originally in our primate past,
• 27:44evolved an attachment to their
• 27:46territory,
• 27:47and that this territoriality
• 27:49was then the predicate for
• 27:50the evolution of love male
• 27:52love for women. K. Now
• 27:54I did not make up
• 27:55all this, this work. I'm
• 27:56just summarizing this work and
• 27:58going on a dangerous aggression
• 27:59in any audience, but I
• 28:00think there's some truth to
• 28:02this that that there is
• 28:03an evolutionary predicates for the
• 28:05that the attachment we feel,
• 28:07for our partners that we
• 28:08didn't necessarily,
• 28:10have to have, but we
• 28:11do. Love is not essential
• 28:13for mating, but we do
• 28:14it anyway. And the reasons
• 28:15are that it helps us
• 28:16to raise our young. The
• 28:17sentimental attachment we have with
• 28:19the people with whom we
• 28:20reproduce
• 28:21is actually life prolonging for
• 28:23our offspring,
• 28:24makes them more likely to
• 28:26survive. And that's the argument
• 28:27as to why we evolve
• 28:28the capacity for love.
• 28:30And even though marriage systems
• 28:31vary around the world as
• 28:32shown here, this fundamental fact
• 28:35of bonding and love does
• 28:36not vary.
• 28:37So in monogamous or polygynous
• 28:39couples or polyandrous couples,
• 28:42it's not the number of
• 28:43partners you have. It's the
• 28:44attachment you have to each
• 28:45of them that's the important
• 28:47thing that you feel the
• 28:48sentimental attachment. You don't just,
• 28:50sexually reproduce with that person.
• 28:54Now one of the interesting
• 28:58things about all this
• 29:01is that we don't just
• 29:02mate with each other, we
• 29:03befriend each other.
• 29:05Now we're coming to the
• 29:06kind of work that I've
• 29:07been doing for the last
• 29:08twenty five years. Because humans
• 29:09are unusual as a species
• 29:11in that we form volitional,
• 29:14long term, nonreproductive
• 29:16unions
• 29:17with unrelated individuals.
• 29:19Volitional,
• 29:20long term, nonreproductive unions with
• 29:22unrelated individuals,
• 29:24namely we have friends. That's
• 29:26like the scientific,
• 29:27definition
• 29:28of, of friendship.
• 29:30And, and this is seen
• 29:31in every society. There is
• 29:33not a society on Earth
• 29:34that where where, the, the
• 29:36animals,
• 29:37don't, have friends.
• 29:40And the key attributes of
• 29:42friendship are also quite and
• 29:43so as part of the
• 29:44work I did for that,
• 29:45there there's a famous,
• 29:47a corpus of ethnographies that
• 29:49have been written by traditional
• 29:50societies all around the world.
• 29:51You can look at all
• 29:52those ethnographies. You can systematically
• 29:53study them, and you can
• 29:55see how common is it
• 29:55the case that there's a
• 29:56society without friendship or, by
• 29:58the way, a society without
• 29:59play. There's, I think, one
• 30:00documented society where when children
• 30:02try to play, the parents
• 30:03will, like, burn their hands
• 30:05to keep them from playing,
• 30:06which there's that's another whole
• 30:08digression I could go on,
• 30:10but I won't. Resist the
• 30:11temptation. But, anyway, so,
• 30:13so friendship is common, and
• 30:15the attributes of and are
• 30:16universal. And the key attributes
• 30:17of friendship are also quite
• 30:18consistent around the world, and
• 30:20they include, for example, mutual
• 30:22aid. It feels very natural
• 30:23to you that you would
• 30:24help your friends. Right? That
• 30:25that's one of the key
• 30:26attributes of friendship. And then
• 30:27in fact, most of you
• 30:29would actually take satisfaction
• 30:30in your friends doing well.
• 30:32Right? Like, the mark of
• 30:33a true friend
• 30:34is that you can call
• 30:35them with good news.
• 30:37Right? You can call bad
• 30:38news. It's not the same.
• 30:39My best friend can call
• 30:40me when he's had something
• 30:41good happen to him in
• 30:42the cool confidence that I
• 30:44will not be envious of
• 30:45him, that I'll be happy
• 30:46for him and proud of
• 30:47him for what he has
• 30:48done.
• 30:49And also positive affect. So
• 30:51the kind of positive sensibility
• 30:52we have. And the fact
• 30:53that experiments show that in
• 30:55the company of your friends,
• 30:56your physiology changes.
• 30:58Why do you feel good
• 30:59in the company of your
• 30:59friends? Why do you have
• 31:00that warm glow? Why does
• 31:01your heart rate go down
• 31:02and your systolic blood pressure
• 31:03go down? Why do your
• 31:04immune parameters change when you're
• 31:06in the company of your
• 31:06friends? You evolved to be
• 31:08that way because it is
• 31:10life enhancing to be with
• 31:11your friends. Out on the
• 31:12Savannah,
• 31:13those of us who had
• 31:14friends survived more than those
• 31:15of us who didn't have
• 31:16friends. So we evolved
• 31:18this very unusual phenotype. I
• 31:21should say, by the way,
• 31:22because I didn't say it
• 31:22a moment ago,
• 31:24that this phenotype of friendship
• 31:25is extremely rare in the
• 31:26animal kingdom. We do it.
• 31:28Certain other primates do it.
• 31:30Elephants do it, both Asian
• 31:31and African elephants, and certain
• 31:33cetacean species like dolphins and
• 31:35orcas and sperm whales,
• 31:36have friendships.
• 31:39And, and it's otherwise very
• 31:40rare, in the animal kingdom.
• 31:44Now my lab has fanned
• 31:45out around the world to
• 31:46study friendship and to map
• 31:48the social networks that friendships
• 31:49give rise to. For instance,
• 31:51in one study, we compiled
• 31:53a photographic census of adult
• 31:54Hadza to look, in,
• 31:57to look into,
• 31:58in the field. So we
• 31:59they're only the Hadza are
• 32:01people who live in Tanzania.
• 32:03They, live like all humans
• 32:04did until in the Pleistocene.
• 32:06They hunt and they gather
• 32:07for their food. They live
• 32:08in our ancestral environments
• 32:10around Lake Ayase in Tanzania.
• 32:12They sleep out under the
• 32:13stars. They have very few
• 32:13material possessions. Every six weeks,
• 32:15they move camp. There are
• 32:16only about a thousand of
• 32:17them left. We made a
• 32:18photographic census of all living
• 32:20adult Hadza, printed them on
• 32:22posters like a kind of
• 32:23Hadza Facebook, and and we
• 32:24took it into the field.
• 32:25And then my my postdoc
• 32:27at the time, Corinne Apicella,
• 32:28this paper was published in
• 32:29Nature in twenty twelve.
• 32:31My postdoc at the time
• 32:32who's now a professor at
• 32:33the University
• 32:34of Pennsylvania,
• 32:36she just set up camp
• 32:37around Lake Ayase and just
• 32:39would wait there for a
• 32:39Hadza. You know, you can't
• 32:40make an appointment with a
• 32:41Hadza person. You just have
• 32:43to wait till you bump
• 32:43into one. And she just
• 32:44would wait till someone would
• 32:45walk by, and she would
• 32:46say, excuse me. Who are
• 32:47your friends? And they would
• 32:48identify their friends. And off
• 32:49they'd go, and then she'd
• 32:50wait, like, another week for
• 32:51the next person to walk
• 32:52by. And who are your
• 32:53friends? And they would post
• 32:54they were very entertained by
• 32:55this. Who are your friends?
• 32:57And then we slowly map
• 32:58the social networks of the
• 33:00Hadza.
• 33:01And what we found was
• 33:02that when we map the
• 33:03social networks of the Hadza,
• 33:05they looked just like our
• 33:06social networks.
• 33:07That the social networks of
• 33:09the Hadza were mathematically and
• 33:11visually indistinguishable
• 33:12from the structure of social
• 33:14networks made in modern American
• 33:15society.
• 33:16So even though in the
• 33:17intervening ten thousand years, we've
• 33:19invented
• 33:20agriculture, we've invented cities, we've
• 33:22invented telecommunications,
• 33:24there's something deep and ancient
• 33:26about the way we make
• 33:27friends that is unaffected
• 33:29by all of those intervening
• 33:31technologies.
• 33:32And in fact,
• 33:33we fanned out now my
• 33:35group and we've mapped networks
• 33:36in many places around the
• 33:37world, in Honduras, in India,
• 33:39in Uganda, in Sudan, in
• 33:41Tanzania, in the United States.
• 33:43And these are villages that
• 33:44we have studied in three
• 33:45different locations.
• 33:46Every dot is a person.
• 33:48Every line is a social
• 33:49relationship between two people. And
• 33:51if you look at these
• 33:51villages, you should instantly be
• 33:52able to say, my goodness,
• 33:54there's something very similar about
• 33:55the social networks in all
• 33:56of those different, locations,
• 33:59different cultural settings,
• 34:01different geographic locations, different environmental
• 34:03pressures, and yet there's a
• 34:05startling consistency
• 34:06and universality
• 34:08to human social network structure.
• 34:11Very permanently, however,
• 34:13elephants and dolphins
• 34:15also have friendships,
• 34:16and their networks look very
• 34:17similar to ours. This is
• 34:19an elephant network, and the
• 34:20friendships among elephants, every god's
• 34:22an elephant, and the lines
• 34:23represent elephant friendships.
• 34:25And there are some differences
• 34:26with the human social networks,
• 34:28but the basic picture is
• 34:29that the networks that elephants
• 34:31make are very similar to
• 34:32the elephants that, that we
• 34:34the elephants the networks that
• 34:36we make. And our last
• 34:37common ancestor with elephants was
• 34:39over eighty five million years
• 34:40ago, and that was a
• 34:41small shrew like animal. So
• 34:43what this means is is
• 34:44that we and the elephants
• 34:46independently
• 34:47have evolved the capacity to
• 34:48make social networks. And by
• 34:50convergent evolution
• 34:52have wound up making the
• 34:53same kind of social networks.
• 34:56And,
• 34:57and and and
• 34:59and and what's amazing to
• 35:00me about this is is
• 35:01the following. So these these
• 35:02are two cute creatures
• 35:04last year at a common
• 35:05ancestor two hundred million years
• 35:07ago that looked nothing like
• 35:08this, and yet they independently
• 35:10involved in such similar ways
• 35:11in the more recent past.
• 35:12This is, an echidna,
• 35:14a marsupial in in, Australia,
• 35:16and a hedgehog,
• 35:17shown on the right.
• 35:19Now this observation about convergent
• 35:21evolution of friendship
• 35:22and of social networks leads
• 35:24to another paradox.
• 35:26Because to the extent that
• 35:27we resemble animals in our
• 35:28propensity for friendship
• 35:30or other traits like our
• 35:31capacity for cooperation,
• 35:33we gain insights into our
• 35:34own common humanity.
• 35:36So ironic to me that
• 35:38we can better appreciate what
• 35:39we share in common with
• 35:40each other when we see
• 35:41what we share in common
• 35:43with Griffiths.
• 35:43Right?
• 35:44That, you know, there's more
• 35:45that binds human beings together
• 35:47and cultures around the world
• 35:48in my view than that
• 35:50divides them.
• 35:51Because surely, if we can
• 35:53share the capacity for friendship
• 35:54with elephants, we can share
• 35:55it, as I said, universally
• 35:57with each other.
• 35:59Now the actual structure of
• 36:01our networks matters
• 36:02to our life experience.
• 36:04Think about these two objects.
• 36:06As you all learned in
• 36:07high school chemistry, they're both
• 36:09made of carbon.
• 36:10And if you connect the
• 36:11carbon atoms one way, you
• 36:13get graphite,
• 36:14which is,
• 36:15soft,
• 36:16and dark. And connect the
• 36:17carbon atoms another way, you
• 36:19get diamond, which is hard
• 36:21and clear.
• 36:22And there are two key
• 36:23intellectual ideas here.
• 36:25First of all, these properties
• 36:27of softness and darkness and
• 36:28hardness and clearness
• 36:29are not properties of the
• 36:30carbon atoms. They are properties
• 36:32of the collection of carbon
• 36:33atoms. Atoms. They are properties
• 36:35that emerge from the carbon
• 36:36atoms. And second, which properties
• 36:38you get depends on how
• 36:40you connect the carbon atoms
• 36:41to each other. Take the
• 36:42same carbon atoms and connect
• 36:43them one way, you get
• 36:44one set of properties, connect
• 36:45them another way, and you
• 36:47get a completely different set
• 36:48of properties.
• 36:50Similarly,
• 36:50the pattern of our connections
• 36:52affects the properties of our
• 36:53social groups.
• 36:55It's the ties between people
• 36:56that make the whole greater
• 36:58than the sum of its
• 36:59parts.
• 37:00New properties
• 37:01such as health and happiness
• 37:03and cooperation and innovation
• 37:05can emerge because of the
• 37:07connections, because of the ties
• 37:08between people, and not necessarily
• 37:10because of the people themselves.
• 37:12So it's not just what's
• 37:13happening in the people around
• 37:14us that matters. Our experience
• 37:16of the world also depends
• 37:18on the actual structure of
• 37:19the ties around us near
• 37:21and far.
• 37:22And if I had time,
• 37:23I would show you experiments
• 37:25we've done in my lab
• 37:26where we I could take
• 37:27you guys and I and
• 37:28I and I, you know,
• 37:29I don't know. There are
• 37:30fifty of you over here
• 37:31and imagine I had a
• 37:32hundred connections
• 37:33and I arrange the connections
• 37:34in a particular pattern, and
• 37:35there are fifty of you
• 37:36over here. And I take
• 37:37another hundred connections, and I
• 37:39arrange you in a different
• 37:40pattern. So you're his friend
• 37:41and he's her friend and
• 37:42whatever the pattern I engineer,
• 37:44I could make you guys
• 37:45really sweet to each other.
• 37:47And these guys mean sons
• 37:48of bitches to each other.
• 37:49So same people,
• 37:51different connections,
• 37:52I can cause different properties
• 37:54to emerge just like the
• 37:55darkness and lightness and hardness
• 37:57and clearness. You understand? It's
• 37:58it's not who you are.
• 38:00It's not your your intrinsic
• 38:02cooperate cooperativity or in your
• 38:03intrinsic altruism. It's the pattern
• 38:05of connections between you that
• 38:06can make this group kind
• 38:07and altruistic and this group
• 38:09vicious and mean.
• 38:11So this is one of
• 38:12the arguments about why we
• 38:13evolved to have networks with
• 38:14particular structure optimized
• 38:17for a good society, optimized
• 38:19to advantage us in particular
• 38:21ways
• 38:22because these collective social structures
• 38:24can have emergent properties
• 38:26and social order, which we
• 38:27are prewired to make matters.
• 38:31Now the traits that make
• 38:32up the social suite, as
• 38:33it turns out, are mutually
• 38:34supportive. Many of these play
• 38:36roles in the others. Identity
• 38:37is crucial for love and
• 38:39friendship. You need to be
• 38:40able to recognize your friend
• 38:41or your lover and tell
• 38:42them from day to day,
• 38:43in order to manifest those
• 38:45properties. Friendship is, of course,
• 38:46important for networks, and networks
• 38:48are important for cooperation.
• 38:51And all of these things
• 38:52are, you know, these other
• 38:53things in group preferences and
• 38:54model hierarchy are in turn
• 38:55important for other ones that
• 38:57are, on this list.
• 38:59I can't speak about all
• 39:00of them, but I would
• 39:01like to say a few
• 39:02more words about teaching, then
• 39:04I'm gonna close with some
• 39:05remarks about artificial intelligence and
• 39:06then a final idea, and
• 39:08then we can, I guess,
• 39:09do our non University of
• 39:10Chicago style, questions?
• 39:13So I wanna say a
• 39:14few words about teaching, which
• 39:15lies at the root of
• 39:16our capacity for culture.
• 39:18Many animals learn. For example,
• 39:20a little fish,
• 39:22swimming in the sea can
• 39:23learn that if it swims
• 39:25up to the light, it
• 39:25will find food there. And
• 39:27that's called independent learning when
• 39:29an animal has contact with
• 39:30its environment.
• 39:31Now some animals also learn
• 39:33socially. So, you know, you
• 39:34put your hand in the
• 39:35fire and you learn that
• 39:36it burns,
• 39:37or I watch you put
• 39:38your hand in the fire
• 39:39and I learn that it
• 39:40burns. Now that's very efficient.
• 39:42Right? Because I gain almost
• 39:44as much knowledge that fire
• 39:45burns, but I pay none
• 39:46of the price. My hand
• 39:47isn't burned. So social learning
• 39:48is incredibly efficient.
• 39:50And that's less much less
• 39:51common than independent learning, but
• 39:52still exists in the animal
• 39:53kingdom. But we do something
• 39:55even more amazing than that
• 39:56is as we teach each
• 39:57other things. We affirmatively set
• 39:59out to teach each other
• 40:00stuff, not just passively
• 40:02mimicking
• 40:02each other.
• 40:04And this is extremely rare
• 40:06in the animal kingdom. The
• 40:07teaching of explicit teaching by
• 40:09one animal of another animal
• 40:11how to do something
• 40:12is is seen in our
• 40:13species, but it's very rare
• 40:15in, in elsewhere in the
• 40:17animal kingdom.
• 40:18But this ability allows us
• 40:20to cumulatively
• 40:21create and store knowledge and
• 40:23transmit it across time and
• 40:24place. It allows us to
• 40:26be a cultural animals, in
• 40:27other words. And the knowledge
• 40:29that we transmit across time
• 40:30and space by teaching is
• 40:32a fundamental driver,
• 40:34of economic growth. So one
• 40:35of the things I like
• 40:36to talk about when I
• 40:38when my kids were still
• 40:38young is I was like,
• 40:39isn't it amazing that when
• 40:41you were born, calculus had
• 40:42already been invented and you
• 40:44can learn it in high
• 40:44school?
• 40:46You know, that's a miracle.
• 40:47Right? You you didn't have
• 40:48to pay for the calculus.
• 40:49Newton had already and Leibnitz
• 40:50had already invented it. It
• 40:51was just there. And all
• 40:52of us were born into
• 40:53a world where all the
• 40:54animals had been domesticated,
• 40:55and metallurgy had been figured
• 40:57out how to forge iron,
• 40:58and the roads had been
• 40:59built, and the cities had
• 41:01been mapped. Here here's a
• 41:02map of the city. You
• 41:03didn't have to pay a
• 41:03damn thing for it. Someone
• 41:04else figured out how to
• 41:05map the city, and calculus
• 41:07had been invented, and the
• 41:08Iliad had been written. And
• 41:09you can read it and
• 41:10weep still two thousand years
• 41:12later, you know, when when
• 41:13Andromache mourns Hector's departure for
• 41:16battle. So, you know, all
• 41:17of these amazing things were
• 41:19just given to you as
• 41:21a fund of knowledge,
• 41:22and it makes you enormously
• 41:24wealthy
• 41:25and capable of doing thing
• 41:26more things in a day
• 41:27than you could have done
• 41:28if you've been born a
• 41:29hundred or a thousand or
• 41:30two thousand years ago because
• 41:32of this capital, this this
• 41:33fundamental fund of knowledge, which
• 41:35you got for free on
• 41:36the day you were born.
• 41:39But this and and that
• 41:40is, in fact, one of
• 41:40the arguments about one of
• 41:41the fundamental drivers of economic
• 41:43growth is cumulative culture, actually.
• 41:45Why do economies keep growing?
• 41:47Well, it's because knowledge keeps
• 41:48growing,
• 41:49is the argument.
• 41:50But it turns out that
• 41:51this capacity for culture shapes
• 41:53us even more. Our genes
• 41:55affect our capacity for culture,
• 41:57and our culture affects our
• 41:59genes.
• 42:00And the best example so
• 42:01far of how macro historical
• 42:03developments
• 42:04could affect our genes
• 42:06is the evolution of lactose
• 42:07tolerance in adults.
• 42:09Now prior to about ten
• 42:11thousand years ago,
• 42:13all human beings, they made
• 42:14lactase, the enzyme that digest
• 42:16the sugar in in milk,
• 42:17which is lactose.
• 42:18They made lactase in our
• 42:19stomach so that when we
• 42:21were infants and we were
• 42:22suckling at our mother's breast,
• 42:23we could digest the milk
• 42:25that we drank.
• 42:26But then right around the
• 42:27time we would be weaned
• 42:28around two or three, our
• 42:30body stopped producing lactase.
• 42:32Why? Well, because we never
• 42:33drank milk again for the
• 42:34rest of our lives, and
• 42:35it would be pointless and
• 42:36inefficient biologically
• 42:38for us to continue to
• 42:39make a useless enzyme for
• 42:40the rest of our lives.
• 42:41We only needed the enzyme
• 42:42while we were breastfeeding. After
• 42:43that, we never needed it
• 42:44again.
• 42:45Then what happened? Multiple times
• 42:47between three and eight thousand
• 42:48or nine thousand years ago,
• 42:50human beings domesticated milk producing
• 42:52animals, camels and goats and
• 42:54sheeps and cows and so
• 42:55on, for example. And by
• 42:56that cultural innovation,
• 42:58the domestication of those animals,
• 43:00the creation of all the
• 43:01knowledge and how to care
• 43:02for those animals, all of
• 43:03that stuff, all that culture
• 43:05that we had to invent,
• 43:06what did we do? We
• 43:07changed our environment.
• 43:09With our culture, with our
• 43:11agency, we changed our environment.
• 43:13And now the environment had
• 43:14milk in it.
• 43:16So those humans among us
• 43:17who mutated
• 43:18to have lactase persistence into
• 43:20adulthood
• 43:21could out compete, out survive
• 43:23the humans that didn't have
• 43:24that mutation.
• 43:25Because now we those humans
• 43:26that had lactase persistence had
• 43:28another source of food as
• 43:29adults and a source of
• 43:31clean hydration
• 43:32if the water was spoiled.
• 43:34So the argue and and
• 43:35that's why and that and
• 43:36that is why the genetic
• 43:38distribution of lactase in the
• 43:39world today is completely different
• 43:41than it would have been
• 43:42had we culturally not made
• 43:43those innovations that we made.
• 43:45So this is an example
• 43:46of culture over macrohistorical
• 43:48time reshaping the course of
• 43:50human evolution.
• 43:51Actually, I believe, and many
• 43:52other scientists believe, that these
• 43:54sorts of forces are operating
• 43:55on even shorter time scales.
• 43:57I think we're all becoming
• 43:58more myopic in part because
• 44:00of medieval lens grinders.
• 44:01So I would have been
• 44:02dead ten thousand years ago.
• 44:04The lion would have eaten
• 44:04me. I wouldn't have seen
• 44:05it coming. Okay? Or if
• 44:07you think about modern medicine,
• 44:09and I'm I'm not saying
• 44:10this pejoratively or in any
• 44:11way to suggest we shouldn't
• 44:12invent modern medicine. Please don't
• 44:14misunderstand what I'm saying right
• 44:15now. But with modern medicine,
• 44:16we are saving many lives
• 44:17that otherwise would have died.
• 44:19So the gene pool is
• 44:20changing,
• 44:21not over the last hundred
• 44:22or two hundred years, but
• 44:23the kinds of humans that
• 44:24are alive a thousand or
• 44:25five thousand years from now
• 44:26will be completely different than
• 44:28that would have been alive
• 44:29had we not invented this
• 44:30extraordinary powerful thing culturally that
• 44:33we've invented, which is which
• 44:34is modern medicine.
• 44:36There are actually Kevin Lalanne
• 44:38Kevin Lalanne has written a
• 44:40wonderful review, and this is
• 44:41all cited in the book,
• 44:43of many different cultural things
• 44:44like languages, how languages. For
• 44:46example, there's a set of
• 44:47arguments about how tonal languages
• 44:49in many Asian societies,
• 44:50how actually,
• 44:52the the there's a different
• 44:53distribution of genes related to
• 44:54hearing
• 44:55in in people who grow
• 44:57up in societies
• 44:58where actually telling the difference
• 45:00between tones is very important
• 45:01and has been for thousands
• 45:02of years.
• 45:03Many examples like this. So
• 45:06so,
• 45:07so, so our genes and
• 45:09our culture in a sense
• 45:10are in a conversation.
• 45:12And as I said, there
• 45:12are many other amazing examples
• 45:14of this. Now there are
• 45:15a number of applications of
• 45:16all of these ideas
• 45:18about how we have evolved,
• 45:19to make societies,
• 45:21and I'd like to briefly
• 45:22focus on,
• 45:23on one illustration
• 45:25before I close.
• 45:26Because, for instance, we humans
• 45:28have begun to modify our
• 45:30social systems
• 45:31with artificial intelligence,
• 45:33and we increasingly
• 45:34are adding machines
• 45:36such as driverless cars or
• 45:37automated checkout clerks or warehouse
• 45:40robots or digital assistants and
• 45:42autonomous agents such as online
• 45:44bots to our social systems.
• 45:46And these machines will act
• 45:48in human like ways on
• 45:49a level playing field as
• 45:51if they were human and
• 45:52what I call hybrid systems.
• 45:55And these hybrid systems of
• 45:56humans and machines
• 45:57offer opportunities
• 45:59for a new kind of
• 46:00social artificial intelligence
• 46:02because the AI might act
• 46:03socially
• 46:04or might also actually affect
• 46:06our social organization.
• 46:08So one of my toy
• 46:09examples of this
• 46:10is imagine a digital assistant
• 46:12like an Alexa.
• 46:14The manufacturer of an Alexa,
• 46:17is very interested in optimizing
• 46:18the human machine interaction. So
• 46:20they make that product so
• 46:21that you like it. You
• 46:23would never buy an Alexa
• 46:24if every time you had
• 46:25to speak to it, you
• 46:26had to say,
• 46:27excuse me, Alexa. I'm very
• 46:29sorry to interrupt you.
• 46:31If you don't mind,
• 46:32would you please tell me
• 46:33the weather tomorrow? This level
• 46:35of obsequiousness would drive you
• 46:36nuts. You would never buy
• 46:37that kind of a machine.
• 46:38You expect to be able
• 46:39to say, Alexa, weather, and
• 46:40the machine responds. And that's
• 46:42fine until you bring that
• 46:43machine into your house and
• 46:45your children, in speaking to
• 46:46that machine, learn to be
• 46:47rude.
• 46:47And then they go to
• 46:48the playground, and they are
• 46:49rude to other children.
• 46:51So the introduction of these
• 46:52machines into our social systems
• 46:54changes how we treat each
• 46:56other. So what my lab
• 46:57has been studying for the
• 46:58last ten years, in addition,
• 46:59other stuff that we study
• 47:00is this, is how the
• 47:01introduction of forms of artificial
• 47:03intelligence
• 47:04into social systems
• 47:05changes the capacity of human
• 47:07groups to solve collective action
• 47:09problems.
• 47:10Do we lose our moral
• 47:11agency, for example, when we
• 47:13add these AI systems? If
• 47:14people increasingly can
• 47:17rely on AI agents to
• 47:18help them make decisions, does
• 47:20the natural morality that we
• 47:21evolved to have
• 47:23decay and go away? Do
• 47:24we become more
• 47:26amoral, not just immoral in
• 47:27the presence of these machines,
• 47:29for example? Does our natural
• 47:30capacity for cooperation
• 47:32go away? Does our natural
• 47:34capacity for coordination to work
• 47:36together to solve problems? Can
• 47:37it be affected by the
• 47:39introduction of different kinds of
• 47:40programming into our midst? So
• 47:41we've done quite a few
• 47:42experiments with this.
• 47:44And what we've been doing
• 47:45in my lab because we're
• 47:46not a computer science lab,
• 47:47so we're not able
• 47:48to invent super smart AI
• 47:50like chat g p t
• 47:51or alpha go or alpha
• 47:53fold.
• 47:54What we do is is
• 47:55we're not trying to invent
• 47:56super smart AI to replace
• 47:57human interaction.
• 48:03We want simple forms of
• 48:04artificial intelligence,
• 48:05which because they have been
• 48:06added into the midst of
• 48:07smart humans,
• 48:09act like platinum in an
• 48:10organic chemistry reaction, like a
• 48:11catalyst,
• 48:12facilitating the ability of human
• 48:14groups to solve problems.
• 48:16So we just need a
• 48:17little bit of sprinkle of
• 48:18AI to make it easier
• 48:19for us to share information
• 48:21or reduce
• 48:22bias among ourselves
• 48:24or you'll cooperate,
• 48:25more.
• 48:26Can simple forms of AI
• 48:27when added to groups of
• 48:29much smarter humans help the
• 48:30humans to help themselves?
• 48:32And we think so. Let
• 48:33me show you two experiments
• 48:34we've done, with this.
• 48:37This experiment involved simple AI
• 48:39that we deployed
• 48:40to exploit our understanding of
• 48:41the evolutionary blueprint,
• 48:43for human groups.
• 48:44Now cooperation in human groups
• 48:46is challenging,
• 48:47and various mechanisms are required
• 48:49to sustain it, although it
• 48:51nevertheless
• 48:52usually,
• 48:53decays,
• 48:54with time. So just before
• 48:56I show you the top
• 48:57experiment I can't step away
• 48:58from the mic. Do you
• 48:59guys remember in high school
• 49:00sorry for all my high
• 49:01school illusions. It was a
• 49:02very traumatic period in my
• 49:03life.
• 49:04But do you remember in
• 49:05high school when the teacher
• 49:06said, okay. You four are
• 49:06gonna do a science project,
• 49:07and you four are gonna
• 49:08be on another team, and
• 49:09you four are gonna be
• 49:10another team. And you get
• 49:11put in this team here,
• 49:12and, you're very hardworking and
• 49:14you wanna get an a.
• 49:15And they're all lazy, and
• 49:17they don't give a crap
• 49:18about what they do. So
• 49:19now you have two choices.
• 49:20Your choices are you do
• 49:21all the work and they
• 49:22get credit for it, or
• 49:24you also do none of
• 49:25the work and you also
• 49:25get enough. And both of
• 49:27those choices suck. Right? Those
• 49:28are very unappealing choices. What
• 49:30you want is the group
• 49:31to be able to cooperate
• 49:32and everyone contribute.
• 49:34Now it's been quite it's
• 49:35been shown in multiple experiments
• 49:36over the last twenty or
• 49:37thirty years with human groups.
• 49:39If you take a group
• 49:39of people as shown in
• 49:40the upper left
• 49:42and, the blue people are
• 49:44the nice cooperative people, you
• 49:45you and you drop them
• 49:46in a network and you
• 49:47introduce them to their neighbors.
• 49:48So I say, you are
• 49:49friends with those two and
• 49:50they are friends with whoever
• 49:50else they are friends with.
• 49:51You make a little network
• 49:53and you give them a
• 49:53little bit of money and
• 49:55they can share the money
• 49:56with their neighbors and act
• 49:57altruistically,
• 49:58playing up what's called a
• 49:59public goods game, which I
• 50:00won't go into right now.
• 50:01But it's a measure of
• 50:02how kind you are to
• 50:03your, neighbors.
• 50:05And,
• 50:06and then the the blue
• 50:07people, they generously give to
• 50:08their neighbors, and their neighbors
• 50:10benefit, and they and they
• 50:11pay a price. The red
• 50:12people are are are leeches.
• 50:14They're like the people. They
• 50:15don't help you with the
• 50:16assignment. They just rely on
• 50:18on you doing the work.
• 50:19They just say, I'm not
• 50:20gonna contribute anything. I'm just
• 50:21gonna let everyone else contribute,
• 50:23and I'll benefit from it.
• 50:24So they're the defectors.
• 50:25And what's been found in
• 50:27our experiments and in many
• 50:28other labs experiments is that
• 50:29what happens over time is
• 50:30that cooperation takes I'm sorry.
• 50:33Defection takes over the system.
• 50:34So you start out being
• 50:35nice to your neighbors, but
• 50:36they exploit you. And after
• 50:38a few rounds of this,
• 50:38you say, well, I'm not
• 50:39gonna be a dummy. So
• 50:40then you switch to defection.
• 50:41And by the end, the
• 50:42world is overrun with defectors
• 50:44where no one is nice
• 50:45to each other. In a
• 50:46different branch of the experiment,
• 50:48what we did is is
• 50:49we we added some bots
• 50:50to the system
• 50:51shown by that little cartoon.
• 50:53And the bot had some
• 50:54very simple programming in it.
• 50:56All the bot did is
• 50:56it was connected to a
• 50:57certain subset of people like
• 50:58a real human would be,
• 51:00and it would look around
• 51:01at its neighbors and it
• 51:02would make recommendations to the
• 51:03neighbors. You know what? You
• 51:04might wanna cut the tie
• 51:05to that person that's taking
• 51:06advantage of you. Don't be
• 51:07friends with them anymore.
• 51:08And that tiny little intervention
• 51:10was able to preserve and
• 51:12increase the level of cooperation
• 51:13in the system. So a
• 51:15little bit of rewiring, a
• 51:16little bit of social engineering
• 51:18where these bots,
• 51:20working,
• 51:21in a decentralized way. There's
• 51:23no police officer saying, be
• 51:25nice. Each little bot just
• 51:27just looking at its own
• 51:27immediate neighborhood, making small changes
• 51:30in who's connected to whom
• 51:31allows the human beings to
• 51:33sustain the cooperation with which
• 51:35they were naturally endowed and
• 51:36which they might have begun,
• 51:38at the beginning.
• 51:40So by exploiting ideas about
• 51:42identity, networks, cooperation, and social
• 51:44learning, simple artificial intelligence
• 51:46can increase the cooperation
• 51:48of groups.
• 51:50Now in other recent experiments,
• 51:51we've also begun to add
• 51:53bots with AI
• 51:54to face to face groups
• 51:55of humans,
• 51:56and show that we can
• 51:57make it easier for groups
• 51:58of humans to work together
• 52:00by helping them to overcome
• 52:02friction in their social interactions.
• 52:04And we've begun to experiment
• 52:05with physical systems,
• 52:06seeing how physical robots, again
• 52:08endowed with simple kinds of
• 52:09AI,
• 52:10can change how people interact
• 52:12with each other.
• 52:13For instance, in this experiment,
• 52:16which was just published in
• 52:17P and S a few
• 52:17years ago now by, my
• 52:19former graduate student, Maggie Traeger,
• 52:20in the sociology department,
• 52:23what we did in this
• 52:23experiment working with Brian Scassellati's
• 52:25lab, a roboticist at Yale,
• 52:27is we, we took groups
• 52:28of four people I'm sorry,
• 52:30three humans and one humanoid
• 52:31robot,
• 52:32and we made a little
• 52:33game that was played on
• 52:34a tablet computer where it
• 52:36was like like like Thomas
• 52:37the Tank Engine game where
• 52:38you had to, like, lay
• 52:39railroad tracks. They were straight
• 52:41pieces and curved pieces to
• 52:42connect point a to point
• 52:43b. So the group had
• 52:44to work together, everyone taking
• 52:45a turn laying a piece
• 52:46of track to get from
• 52:48point a to point b.
• 52:49But we secretly contrived sometimes
• 52:51to make it impossible to
• 52:52connect the two points. There
• 52:53weren't enough left turning and
• 52:54right turning pieces to get
• 52:56from point a to point
• 52:56b. So sometimes the game
• 52:57is very frustrating. It literally
• 52:58couldn't be solved even though
• 53:00they're taking turns. And what
• 53:01we did in this game
• 53:02is is we experimentally
• 53:03manipulated
• 53:04whether the robot
• 53:06told dad jokes.
• 53:08Now
• 53:08What? I'm not kidding. And,
• 53:10actually, turns out, by the
• 53:10way, that dad jokes are
• 53:11cultural universal. If you go
• 53:13talk to the Kapauku Papuans
• 53:14in New Guinea or the
• 53:15Tsimane in in Amazonia,
• 53:17they say, oh, yes. The
• 53:18dads here tell awful jokes
• 53:20and the kids can't stand
• 53:20it.
• 53:22And, it's felt that this
• 53:23is actually a kind of
• 53:24a way yes. It's a
• 53:25kind of way to toughen
• 53:26up your kids. It's like
• 53:27a cultural universal like that
• 53:28dads tell dad jokes. Anyway,
• 53:29we program these robots to
• 53:31tell really silly I can't
• 53:32even remember how stupid they
• 53:33were. They were like, trust
• 53:34me. They were stupid dad
• 53:35jokes. Like, you know, why
• 53:36does a robot not have
• 53:37friends or something? I don't
• 53:38even remember.
• 53:39And to show vulnerability in
• 53:40other ways. And then we
• 53:42had video cameras on these
• 53:43groups, and we looked at
• 53:44how often the humans spoke
• 53:45to each other.
• 53:47And, and the thickness of
• 53:49the lines indicates gaze and
• 53:51the communication
• 53:52between the human beings.
• 53:53We sometimes the robot had
• 53:55very neutral statements like, you
• 53:57know, we are we just
• 53:58played the sixth round, and
• 53:59we did not succeed.
• 54:01Or the robot would say,
• 54:03we just played the sixth
• 54:04round and I made a
• 54:05mistake, so showing vulnerability.
• 54:07And we found that the
• 54:08volume of communication between the
• 54:09people, the satisfaction the people
• 54:11had with their social group,
• 54:13and and many other outcomes
• 54:15were optimized
• 54:16by simple, tiny, trivial changes
• 54:19in the communication that we
• 54:20endowed these robots to have.
• 54:24Shifts in robot speech have
• 54:26the power not only to
• 54:27affect how people interact with
• 54:28robots, but also how people
• 54:30interact with each other, offering
• 54:31the prospect for modifying social
• 54:33interactions
• 54:34via the introduction of artificial
• 54:35agents into hybrid systems of
• 54:37humans and machines.
• 54:40So in short, humans can
• 54:42learn to interact better by
• 54:43having bots among them and
• 54:44not just among those humans
• 54:46directly connected to the bots.
• 54:48The bots help the humans
• 54:49to help themselves. And we're
• 54:50building on this work to
• 54:51design and add simple bots
• 54:53to these as shown here
• 54:54in other situations
• 54:55involving diverse social dilemmas
• 54:58and collective action problems. So
• 54:59we've shown that we can
• 55:00program simple bots to enhance
• 55:02the human ability for coordination,
• 55:03cooperation,
• 55:05communication,
• 55:06evacuation, navigation,
• 55:07and sharing.
• 55:08And my argument is that
• 55:10hybrid systems will need to
• 55:11respect the social suite if
• 55:13they are to facilitate a
• 55:15utopian
• 55:15rather than dystopian future. It's
• 55:18not hard actually to imagine
• 55:19how you could reverse engineer
• 55:20some of these ideas and
• 55:21make us worse off, not
• 55:23better off.
• 55:25Okay. I'd like to close
• 55:26with two slides and one
• 55:28final,
• 55:28big idea.
• 55:30Because our focus on the
• 55:31social origins of goodness
• 55:33also highlights something else that
• 55:35is very profound in my
• 55:36view.
• 55:37Most human virtues are social,
• 55:40arising,
• 55:41from the investment in the
• 55:42lives of others.
• 55:44We do not care very
• 55:45much if you love yourself
• 55:46or are kind to yourself
• 55:48or are just to yourself.
• 55:50We care whether you manifest
• 55:51these virtues to other human
• 55:53beings.
• 55:54And so I'd like to
• 55:55close with a final idea,
• 55:56which is to ask, what
• 55:58accounts for our species general
• 55:59success in living together in
• 56:01the face of all of
• 56:02our defects
• 56:03and differences?
• 56:05How can we understand the
• 56:06goodness of the social world
• 56:08despite the badness?
• 56:10Now in theology,
• 56:11this is known as a
• 56:12question of theodicy.
• 56:14How is God to be
• 56:15justified in the face of
• 56:16all the evil in the
• 56:17world? Right? This is an
• 56:17ancient problem. You know, if
• 56:19God is omnipotent, omniscient, and
• 56:20and beneficent,
• 56:22now the ancient Greek gods
• 56:22weren't beneficent, but, you know,
• 56:24the monotheistic god was supposed
• 56:25to be beneficent, how come
• 56:26there's so much suffering in
• 56:27the world? How come there's
• 56:28so much evil in the
• 56:29world? How can this be?
• 56:30This is a difficult and
• 56:31old theological problem.
• 56:33But I would like to,
• 56:34because but I believe analogously
• 56:36that we can focus on
• 56:37what I call sociodyssey.
• 56:39And this is the vindication
• 56:40of our confidence in the
• 56:41virtue of the society
• 56:43of society
• 56:44despite its numerous failures
• 56:46so obvious to everyone. Right?
• 56:48Like, you can look at
• 56:49any century and it's replete
• 56:50with horrors, with pogroms, with
• 56:52slavery, with colonialism, with violence,
• 56:54with torture, with cruelty. I'm
• 56:56not ignorant. I'm not unaware
• 56:58of these horrible capacities that
• 57:00we have. But equally, we
• 57:01are capable of great goodness.
• 57:03And so the question is,
• 57:04how can we reconcile these
• 57:05two things?
• 57:06And to my view, it's
• 57:07in keeping with the Japanese
• 57:08aesthetic philosophy of wabi sabi,
• 57:11which highlights the flawed beauty
• 57:13of natural and artificial things.
• 57:15So to the Japanese eye
• 57:17and to my eye, this
• 57:18is a beautiful bowl. This
• 57:20is a magnificently
• 57:21beautiful bowl. And think about
• 57:23how this aesthetic is different
• 57:24than the the kind of,
• 57:26you know, Versailles porcelain. Right?
• 57:28So the Versailles porcelain is
• 57:30absolutely perfect, perfectly symmetrical, beautifully
• 57:32painted, no flaws, and that's
• 57:34considered beautiful in a kinda
• 57:35more western kind of aesthetic.
• 57:37Or look at the difference
• 57:38between topiary and Versailles where
• 57:40the bushes are, like, made
• 57:42into circles and pyramids and
• 57:43so on or bonsai trees.
• 57:45Right? I think bonsai trees
• 57:46are miraculously beautiful. Right? Broken,
• 57:49bent over, asymmetric.
• 57:50Right?
• 57:51Flawed in some way, but
• 57:53still so beautiful and natural.
• 57:56And so so so this
• 57:58this perspective
• 57:59on human beings, this this
• 58:01vindication in our confidence in
• 58:02their goodness despite
• 58:06idle
• 58:07optimism. Rather, it's a recognition
• 58:09of the fundamental good that
• 58:10lies within us. As I
• 58:12said, it's tempting to look
• 58:13at human history as full
• 58:14of abject misery and dysfunction
• 58:17and as replete with horrors.
• 58:19And there was, of course,
• 58:20a dramatic inflection for the
• 58:22better that occurred in the
• 58:23eighteenth century with the arrival
• 58:25of the enlightenment
• 58:26and the philosophical values and
• 58:27scientific discoveries that happened at
• 58:29that time. So Steven Pinker
• 58:31and others have been advancing
• 58:32the argument correctly in my
• 58:34view that that the European
• 58:36enlightenment, which began these philosophical
• 58:37ideas, antislavery ideas, democratic principles,
• 58:41commitment to reason, which started
• 58:43in Europe and gradually spread
• 58:44around the world. By the
• 58:45way, monogamy,
• 58:46starts in Europe and spreads
• 58:47around the world.
• 58:49All of these things that
• 58:50began during the enlightenment plus
• 58:51the scientific advances unequally applied.
• 58:53I am well aware that
• 58:55commitment to democracy wasn't uniformly
• 58:56applied everywhere. But the idea
• 58:58starts and then begins to
• 58:59spread. And the steam engine
• 59:01is invented. And electricity is
• 59:02figured out, and magnetism is
• 59:03figured out, and these things
• 59:05begin to spread around the
• 59:06world. And Pinker and others
• 59:08have argued that it was
• 59:09these philosophical and scientific innovations
• 59:12that have led to tremendous
• 59:13improvements in the human condition
• 59:15in the last couple of
• 59:16hundred years. Life became longer,
• 59:19richer, freer, and more peaceful.
• 59:22But my argument is we
• 59:23do not have to rely
• 59:25solely on such recent historical
• 59:27developments to make the world
• 59:28better.
• 59:29As I've tried to show
• 59:30you,
• 59:31more ancient,
• 59:32more powerful, and deeper forces
• 59:34are at work propelling a
• 59:36good society.
• 59:37So in my view, the
• 59:38arc of evolutionary history is
• 59:40long, but it bends towards
• 59:42goodness.
• 59:43Thank you.
• 59:54Thank you so much. That
• 59:55that was, like, a a
• 59:56a masterwork,
• 59:57of a of a talk.
• 60:00Such a pleasure to to
• 01:00:01participate in that. I have
• 01:00:02a a lot of follow-up
• 01:00:03questions, but I I I
• 01:00:04don't want to be selfish,
• 01:00:05so I wanna turn to
• 01:00:06the audience. I just a
• 01:00:07couple of quick announcements.
• 01:00:09The the sign in for,
• 01:00:11ethics concentrators
• 01:00:13is over there, and the
• 01:00:14CME code is over here.
• 01:00:16And with that, I wanna
• 01:00:17open the floor up to,
• 01:00:20to to questions from the
• 01:00:21audience.
• 01:00:23First of all, thank you.
• 01:00:24We're we're we're we're Coming
• 01:00:26with the microphone.
• 01:00:30I'll not yell. I'll talk
• 01:00:31in the microphone.
• 01:00:33By the way, I like
• 01:00:34I find it I get
• 01:00:35so full of energy and
• 01:00:36as you can see, me,
• 01:00:38I I would I could
• 01:00:39have done this without a
• 01:00:40microphone. It would have been
• 01:00:41more comfortable actually without it,
• 01:00:43But yeah. Yeah. I don't
• 01:00:44mind you yelling is my
• 01:00:46point. Sweet. I would, but,
• 01:00:47you know, they love the
• 01:00:48microphone. We we get a
• 01:00:49lot of things if we
• 01:00:51don't use it because of
• 01:00:52Yeah. Then the people online
• 01:00:53can't hear it. For sure.
• 01:00:55I love I know. But
• 01:00:56the part of me that
• 01:00:57likes to disobey bureaucracy, the
• 01:00:59disobedient part of me, it's
• 01:01:00like resents that too. You
• 01:01:01know? I know I have
• 01:01:02to do it, and it's
• 01:01:03the right thing to do.
• 01:01:04It's also for people who
• 01:01:05are hard of hearing. Yes.
• 01:01:06You're right. I know. So
• 01:01:07that's actually a great segue
• 01:01:09into my question. Okay.
• 01:01:10So you talk about the
• 01:01:11theory of being able to
• 01:01:13have a level of a
• 01:01:14utopia due to social engineering.
• 01:01:16And when looking at the
• 01:01:17outcomes of your,
• 01:01:19as you described,
• 01:01:20stupid AI or just little
• 01:01:21robots making little differences that
• 01:01:23impact,
• 01:01:24human behavior, what's the what
• 01:01:26do you think is the
• 01:01:27realistic scalability
• 01:01:29of that impact, especially when
• 01:01:30you start running into auxiliary
• 01:01:32human behaviors like demand avoidance
• 01:01:34or wanting to stick it
• 01:01:36to the man or Yes.
• 01:01:37Any of those things. So
• 01:01:38first of all, I need
• 01:01:39to be very clear that
• 01:01:40I I am not engaged
• 01:01:41in a utopian project.
• 01:01:43I am not I in
• 01:01:44fact, I have I'm very
• 01:01:45skeptical of efforts to create
• 01:01:47utopias. I what I'm arguing
• 01:01:48is is that within us,
• 01:01:49we already have the capacity
• 01:01:50for a certain kind of
• 01:01:51utopia. And really what we
• 01:01:52need to do is get
• 01:01:53out of the way. So
• 01:01:54typically, what you find with
• 01:01:55the with the totalitarian regimes
• 01:01:57is, you find efforts that
• 01:01:59attempt to
• 01:02:00suppress the social suite almost
• 01:02:02inevitably fail. So for example,
• 01:02:04in Kibbutzas, they all started
• 01:02:05with, this incredible communitarian ethos
• 01:02:08and, collective child rearing. Collective
• 01:02:09child rearing, by the way,
• 01:02:10is a very old idea.
• 01:02:11Plato talks about it in
• 01:02:12the republic. It goes way,
• 01:02:13way back. Every time it's
• 01:02:14been tried, it doesn't work.
• 01:02:15You can't make parents not
• 01:02:17want to be with their
• 01:02:18children, maybe for one generation.
• 01:02:20But by the second or
• 01:02:21third generation, it goes back.
• 01:02:23Or if you look at
• 01:02:24how many,
• 01:02:26the the the the communes
• 01:02:27that tried to cope with
• 01:02:29marital love or or sexual
• 01:02:30love, romantic love, And they
• 01:02:32they actually had paradoxically two
• 01:02:33different ways because they want
• 01:02:35you to feel devoted to
• 01:02:36the group, and they want
• 01:02:37you to feel devoted to
• 01:02:38dear leader. They don't want
• 01:02:39you to feel devoted to
• 01:02:41a particular person within the
• 01:02:42group. So they either go
• 01:02:43the polyamory route that say
• 01:02:44everyone can have sex with
• 01:02:45everyone else, or they go
• 01:02:46the shaker route and say
• 01:02:47no one can have sex
• 01:02:48with anyone else. Both of
• 01:02:49those eventually fail. Because people,
• 01:02:51they they want to have
• 01:02:52a romantic attachment to a
• 01:02:53particular person. It's part of
• 01:02:54our it's like it's like
• 01:02:55your pancreas wants to produce
• 01:02:57insulin. It can't help but
• 01:02:58produce insulin. You can't help
• 01:02:59but love the person that
• 01:03:00you're having sex with, it
• 01:03:01turns out, or befriending them.
• 01:03:03Or like the Stasi that
• 01:03:04tried to suppress friendship in
• 01:03:06in their society by having
• 01:03:07everyone be suspicious of everyone
• 01:03:08else. Yes. With a tremendous
• 01:03:10cultural pressure, you can suppress
• 01:03:12some of these desires
• 01:03:13for a while, a generation
• 01:03:15or two, but eventually, they
• 01:03:16come back. So I what
• 01:03:17I'm trying to argue is
• 01:03:18is that we have the
• 01:03:19seeds of utopia within us.
• 01:03:21We and what we really
• 01:03:22need to do is either
• 01:03:23get out of the way
• 01:03:24or gently support it. So
• 01:03:25the AI coming back back
• 01:03:27now, I hope, to what
• 01:03:27I've understood is your question.
• 01:03:30My argument is just that
• 01:03:31these AIs that we invent
• 01:03:33or that we're developing,
• 01:03:35if we are to avoid
• 01:03:36them leading to a dystopian
• 01:03:37future,
• 01:03:38must be designed in a
• 01:03:39way that is sensitive to
• 01:03:40the arguments I've been making
• 01:03:42here today. Otherwise, they will
• 01:03:43lead us to to misery.
• 01:03:45So they they need to
• 01:03:46these these forms of AI
• 01:03:47need to be designed in
• 01:03:48a way that is respectful
• 01:03:50of our innate tendencies. So
• 01:03:51it's a little bit like
• 01:03:52changing your diet to, you
• 01:03:54know, like, you you can't
• 01:03:54eat, like, the diet of
• 01:03:55a pal. Right? Like, if
• 01:03:57I change your diet to
• 01:03:58only have roughage,
• 01:03:59you would die. You know,
• 01:04:01I you you you you're
• 01:04:02adapted to a certain kind
• 01:04:03of environment, and and that's
• 01:04:04the kind of argument I'm
• 01:04:05making. Now did I answer
• 01:04:06your question? I'm not sure
• 01:04:07I did.
• 01:04:08Halfway. Okay. Yes. Go back
• 01:04:10to yeah.
• 01:04:11Go back just a little
• 01:04:12bit.
• 01:04:14Yes. Halfway. Sorry for taking
• 01:04:15up so much detail. But,
• 01:04:17then the second half of
• 01:04:18it is with that said,
• 01:04:19to what
• 01:04:20level would that be able
• 01:04:21to be scaled to a
• 01:04:22systemic level? Would it have
• 01:04:23to be different pockets of
• 01:04:25individuals using these things?
• 01:04:28And, yeah, again, with the
• 01:04:29human behavior such as demand
• 01:04:30avoidance,
• 01:04:31that is there,
• 01:04:33like Yeah. I think I
• 01:04:34think these things are scalable.
• 01:04:37I'm very wary of making
• 01:04:38predictions about AI because I
• 01:04:40keep thinking of Reptevia
• 01:04:42in the, in the middle
• 01:04:43of the town square of
• 01:04:44Anatevka
• 01:04:46when,
• 01:04:47when there's this big argument.
• 01:04:48And a set of people
• 01:04:50make one point and Rep
• 01:04:51Tevye says, you're right. Yeah.
• 01:04:53And then someone makes the
• 01:04:54opposite argument and he says,
• 01:04:55you're right too. And then
• 01:04:56the third person says, Rep
• 01:04:57Tevye, they can't both be
• 01:04:58right. And he goes, you're
• 01:04:59also right.
• 01:05:00And this is how I
• 01:05:01feel when I I listen
• 01:05:02to people more expert than
• 01:05:04me in artificial intelligence. So
• 01:05:05I go to these conferences
• 01:05:06and I listen to these
• 01:05:07these computer scientists and tech
• 01:05:09billionaires, and they think AI
• 01:05:11is gonna bring forth the
• 01:05:12greatest, you know, realization of
• 01:05:14human,
• 01:05:15flourishing that is imaginable in
• 01:05:17a great futuristic world. And
• 01:05:19I'm like, I I can
• 01:05:20see that. And then I
• 01:05:21go to some another one,
• 01:05:22and they say, no. This
• 01:05:22is a complete disaster. I
• 01:05:23went to a conference where
• 01:05:24Sam Altman said very nonchalantly
• 01:05:26that there was a two
• 01:05:27percent extinction risk from AI.
• 01:05:30And I'm like, woah. You
• 01:05:31know? That's you know? I'm
• 01:05:32very worried about that. You're
• 01:05:34right too.
• 01:05:35But they can't both be
• 01:05:36right. So I have stopped.
• 01:05:37I'm gonna avoid your question
• 01:05:38by saying I I don't
• 01:05:39have a fixed idea
• 01:05:41about,
• 01:05:42they are scalable. Yes. They
• 01:05:43are scalable.
• 01:05:44But I don't know whether
• 01:05:45they will in fact scale
• 01:05:46in a way that's good
• 01:05:47or bad for us. And
• 01:05:48I'm not prepared yet to
• 01:05:49make a prediction.
• 01:05:51And that but they will
• 01:05:52be both good to be
• 01:05:53clear. They will be both
• 01:05:54good and bad things that
• 01:05:55happen whether the good outweighs
• 01:05:56the bad. I'm not yet
• 01:05:57willing or able to predict.
• 01:06:02Question.
• 01:06:03I guess a question
• 01:06:04just in trying to understand
• 01:06:06fully the argument you're trying
• 01:06:07to make, initially, it sounded
• 01:06:09like you were trying to
• 01:06:10argue something about how, like,
• 01:06:11evolutionarily,
• 01:06:12genetically, we've sort of are
• 01:06:14predisposed to some of these
• 01:06:16good natured ways of acting.
• 01:06:18And then you were also
• 01:06:19describing all these ways in
• 01:06:20which almost
• 01:06:21those impulses are fragile, like,
• 01:06:23they're dependent on the collection
• 01:06:25of networks. And, you know,
• 01:06:26if things are arranged this
• 01:06:27way or that way, it
• 01:06:28can be drastically different.
• 01:06:30And I'm just trying to
• 01:06:30square those two in my
• 01:06:31head. Like, are we
• 01:06:33evolving genetically towards the good
• 01:06:35societies, or is it we're
• 01:06:36evolving culturally through these kinds
• 01:06:38of No. Mostly, I would
• 01:06:39argue there are definitely cultural
• 01:06:40things that are happening. Culture
• 01:06:42is hugely important to human
• 01:06:43affairs. I don't want anyone
• 01:06:44to misunderstand. I'm not a
• 01:06:45genetic determinist. I'm not saying
• 01:06:46that only only genes matter.
• 01:06:48It's not what I'm saying.
• 01:06:50I am saying, however, that
• 01:06:51underneath the culture, under the
• 01:06:52veneer of culture, there's a
• 01:06:53foundation of genetic
• 01:06:55determinism or or genetic structuring
• 01:06:58of human social interactions.
• 01:06:59They can be sensitive. So
• 01:07:01just like your body, you
• 01:07:02know, if I put you
• 01:07:03in a famine,
• 01:07:04your body will be changed.
• 01:07:05Your growth will be stunted.
• 01:07:06You had a natural tendency
• 01:07:07to grow up and be
• 01:07:08five foot ten and have
• 01:07:09a functioning kidneys and functioning
• 01:07:11pancreas, but you're in the
• 01:07:13Amsterdam,
• 01:07:14famine during the second World
• 01:07:16War and your growth and
• 01:07:17reproduction is stunted. We wouldn't
• 01:07:19say that was your natural
• 01:07:20body. Right? We wouldn't say
• 01:07:21that's what you were fated
• 01:07:22to do. We would say
• 01:07:23that the environment in which
• 01:07:24you grew up has redirected
• 01:07:26you, deformed you, moved you
• 01:07:27away from what you otherwise
• 01:07:28would have made. So I
• 01:07:29acknowledge and say, for example,
• 01:07:31most of my arguments about
• 01:07:33the natural order of natural
• 01:07:35social order assumes plentiful resources
• 01:07:37or adequate resources to support
• 01:07:39the population.
• 01:07:40If you take a group
• 01:07:41of people and put them
• 01:07:42in a place where there's
• 01:07:43just no food at all
• 01:07:44for all of them, well,
• 01:07:45they're gonna fall upon each
• 01:07:46other and be less able
• 01:07:47than if you arranged it
• 01:07:49so that they weren't as
• 01:07:50constrained.
• 01:07:51So I'm not saying that
• 01:07:52the environment plays no role.
• 01:07:54I am saying, however, we
• 01:07:55have these natural predilections
• 01:07:57and, which we need to
• 01:07:58support and and nourish. Did
• 01:08:00I answer your question?
• 01:08:01I can see you're skeptical
• 01:08:03even with my difficult vision.
• 01:08:05Yeah. I think you've answered
• 01:08:06it sufficiently. Yeah.
• 01:08:11Hi. Here. Hi. Yes. Yep.
• 01:08:13Hi. Thank you so much
• 01:08:14for your for your talk.
• 01:08:17I wanted to ask you,
• 01:08:18what's your definition of goodness
• 01:08:20and Yes. And if you
• 01:08:22think that's a universal,
• 01:08:24thing
• 01:08:25or or not, this is
• 01:08:26my question, my first question.
• 01:08:28And then the second question
• 01:08:30is, relative to the attributes
• 01:08:32of friendship
• 01:08:33and if based on your
• 01:08:34research you found,
• 01:08:38like, what basically, how do
• 01:08:39they change
• 01:08:42based on, like, same sex
• 01:08:44friendship
• 01:08:45and opposite sex friendship?
• 01:08:48So first of all, I'm
• 01:08:49gonna go take a tangent
• 01:08:50and tell you there was
• 01:08:51a
• 01:08:52a political commentator, a right
• 01:08:54wing political commentator
• 01:08:55called Bill Safire that used
• 01:08:57to publish,
• 01:08:58I didn't agree with his
• 01:08:59politics particularly though he was
• 01:09:00a smart man.
• 01:09:02But the last page of
• 01:09:03the New York Times Magazine
• 01:09:04used to have a very,
• 01:09:05you know, on language, he
• 01:09:06wrote this very nice column.
• 01:09:07And Bill Safire, as he
• 01:09:08got older,
• 01:09:10developed this heuristic for dealing
• 01:09:11with complicated questions he got
• 01:09:13from audiences.
• 01:09:14Because what he found was
• 01:09:15that people would ask, professors,
• 01:09:16you know, mister Safire have
• 01:09:17three three part question, and
• 01:09:19and there would be three
• 01:09:20parts. And then he would
• 01:09:21answer the first part and
• 01:09:22answer the second part, and
• 01:09:23then he would forget the
• 01:09:24third part. And so he
• 01:09:25developed Bill Safire's floating third
• 01:09:27point, which was a universal
• 01:09:28answer you could give to
• 01:09:29any third question, which is
• 01:09:31that there are no easy
• 01:09:32answers.
• 01:09:33So, actually, if you go
• 01:09:34back and look at Safire,
• 01:09:36he does this a lot.
• 01:09:37You know? You'll see an
• 01:09:37interview with him, and then
• 01:09:38you'll get the and from
• 01:09:39the third one, there are
• 01:09:40no easy answers. Anyway, you
• 01:09:41stopped short of the third
• 01:09:42one, so I was so
• 01:09:43glad I didn't have to
• 01:09:44use Bill Sapphire's. And I
• 01:09:45think I can remember the
• 01:09:46first two questions. So the
• 01:09:47first question had to do
• 01:09:48with how do you define
• 01:09:49goodness? So
• 01:09:50so, actually, here, I rely
• 01:09:52on a bit of, post
• 01:09:53second World War moral philosophy
• 01:09:55by Philippa Foote. Do you
• 01:09:56guys know Philippa Foote? She's
• 01:09:57a genius. I mean, she
• 01:09:59is just unbelievable.
• 01:10:01So she has a very
• 01:10:02famous, book on moral philosophy,
• 01:10:05and I'm I'm blocking on
• 01:10:06the title of the book
• 01:10:07right now. But it has
• 01:10:08you know how the you
• 01:10:09know how the first line
• 01:10:10of, hundred years of solitude
• 01:10:12is many years later when
• 01:10:13he was facing the firing
• 01:10:14squad, Juan Remedios remembered the
• 01:10:16day his father took him
• 01:10:18to discover ice. Like, I
• 01:10:19think the best first sentence
• 01:10:21of any novel ever written.
• 01:10:23Philip O'Foot has the best
• 01:10:25first sentence of any philosophical
• 01:10:26book I've ever read. And
• 01:10:27the the sentence is, in
• 01:10:29moral philosophy, I think it
• 01:10:31is helpful to think about
• 01:10:33plants.
• 01:10:34Like, what the hell is
• 01:10:35this woman talking about? You
• 01:10:37know, I open a book
• 01:10:38of moral philosophy, and that's
• 01:10:39the first sentence. And what
• 01:10:40she argues in that book
• 01:10:41is that you can make
• 01:10:42the the the the dilemma
• 01:10:43that the moral philosophers faced
• 01:10:45after the second World War
• 01:10:46given the holocaust
• 01:10:48is how can you explain
• 01:10:49or justify the existence of
• 01:10:50any kind of morality in
• 01:10:51human beings? Is it all
• 01:10:52just might makes right? How
• 01:10:53do you get to foundational
• 01:10:54morality?
• 01:10:55And Foote's answer to the
• 01:10:57question is that you can
• 01:10:58get to the foundation of
• 01:10:59a morality
• 01:11:01by arguing that things are
• 01:11:03moral to the extent in
• 01:11:04which they allow the thing
• 01:11:06to comport with its its
• 01:11:07essence. So for example, she
• 01:11:09she asked the question, what
• 01:11:10do we what do we
• 01:11:12say when we mean that
• 01:11:13this plant has good roots?
• 01:11:16We mean that these roots
• 01:11:17allow the plants to thrive.
• 01:11:19Or what do we mean
• 01:11:21when we say a plant
• 01:11:23a a clock is a
• 01:11:23good clock?
• 01:11:25We mean that this clock
• 01:11:26tells time properly.
• 01:11:27That the clock is a
• 01:11:29good clock insofar
• 01:11:30as it can function as
• 01:11:31a clock. This is sort
• 01:11:33of her argument. I'm summarizing
• 01:11:34it.
• 01:11:35And so this is my
• 01:11:36solution to the problem when
• 01:11:38I get to the last
• 01:11:39chapter of the book, is
• 01:11:40to say that
• 01:11:41a good society is one
• 01:11:43which is endowed with qualities
• 01:11:45that allow it to be
• 01:11:46a society, that allow it
• 01:11:47to thrive. It's not I
• 01:11:49don't just rely on the
• 01:11:49fact that all of us
• 01:11:50would probably agree that love
• 01:11:51and friendship and cooperation are
• 01:11:53good things. That'd be a
• 01:11:53little bit too expedient. But
• 01:11:55those things are required
• 01:11:56for us to be a
• 01:11:57social animal. We we couldn't
• 01:11:59even be social. We couldn't
• 01:12:00live as social animals if
• 01:12:01we didn't have those qualities.
• 01:12:03So that's my answer, I
• 01:12:04think, to your first question.
• 01:12:06Your second question had to
• 01:12:07do with same sex and
• 01:12:08discordant sex,
• 01:12:09friendships.
• 01:12:11Now we've looked at this
• 01:12:12a little bit in our
• 01:12:13network. So, for example, if
• 01:12:14you map the social networks
• 01:12:15in Saudi Arabia,
• 01:12:16you find, very few opposite
• 01:12:18sex friendships
• 01:12:20because of the cultural overlay.
• 01:12:22I don't think that's natural,
• 01:12:23by the way. I think
• 01:12:23humans naturally and certainly chimpanzees
• 01:12:26and other primates will have
• 01:12:27cross,
• 01:12:28sex,
• 01:12:29friendships.
• 01:12:31And I have many, one
• 01:12:32of my best female friends
• 01:12:33is in the audience right
• 01:12:34now as it turns out.
• 01:12:35She I talk to her
• 01:12:36every week and, you know,
• 01:12:37she's a great friendship.
• 01:12:39So I certainly have, most
• 01:12:41of us have discordant, gender
• 01:12:42friendships. And so far as
• 01:12:44we can tell,
• 01:12:45in the societies in which
• 01:12:46this is permitted, there's not
• 01:12:47a lot of difference in
• 01:12:49terms of the the
• 01:12:50the high level stuff. Now
• 01:12:52the the content of the
• 01:12:53interactions may be a little
• 01:12:54different. I get something different
• 01:12:55from my male friends and
• 01:12:56my female friends. I behave
• 01:12:57more stereotypically male.
• 01:12:59Actually, I behave more stereotypically
• 01:13:00male in both ways. With
• 01:13:02my male friends, I'm more
• 01:13:03like a
• 01:13:04like a wonky guy. And
• 01:13:05with my female friends, I'm
• 01:13:06like, you know, a more
• 01:13:07vulnerable guy. Whatever. But, you
• 01:13:09know,
• 01:13:10there are some differences in
• 01:13:11how we interact. But the
• 01:13:12fun but at the high
• 01:13:13level, the existence of the
• 01:13:14friendships, the main attributes of
• 01:13:15the friendships, mutual support, and
• 01:13:17so on, and this mathematical
• 01:13:19structure of the networks is
• 01:13:20not different so far as
• 01:13:20we can see. Did I
• 01:13:21answer your second question too?
• 01:13:23Yeah. Good.
• 01:13:24Question here.
• 01:13:27I think the book is
• 01:13:28Natural Goodness. I'm sorry. I
• 01:13:29can't hear you.
• 01:13:31What is You'll have to
• 01:13:32yell. I think the book
• 01:13:33is Natural Goodness by foot.
• 01:13:34It's natural what? Goodness.
• 01:13:37Natural Goodness. Yeah. Originally, the
• 01:13:38title of the book was
• 01:13:39Natural Born Friends.
• 01:13:40We saw Natural Born Killers,
• 01:13:41and we thought, oh, that's
• 01:13:42a great title.
• 01:13:43Then we thought, no. No.
• 01:13:44That's not where we wanna
• 01:13:45go. Yeah.
• 01:13:47But, yeah, thank you for
• 01:13:48the talk.
• 01:13:49My question just relates to
• 01:13:51it feels like through
• 01:13:54through the entirety of the
• 01:13:55talk, you endorse a version
• 01:13:57of
• 01:13:58social behavior
• 01:13:59that is very engineering oriented,
• 01:14:02that these are
• 01:14:04networks and connections that are,
• 01:14:05like, edges on a graph
• 01:14:06that have been exquisitely
• 01:14:08arranged.
• 01:14:10As someone who comes from
• 01:14:11a different school of thought,
• 01:14:12I'm curious, are there examples
• 01:14:14in your research where
• 01:14:15social and cultural conditions actually
• 01:14:18overdetermine
• 01:14:19or sublimate these biological drives
• 01:14:21that you were talking about?
• 01:14:22Yeah. So first of all,
• 01:14:24my you're right. I'm making
• 01:14:25an analogy between kidneys around
• 01:14:27the world work the same
• 01:14:28way, and and muscles around
• 01:14:30the world work the same
• 01:14:31way
• 01:14:32and and,
• 01:14:34and brains have very similar
• 01:14:36have worked the same way.
• 01:14:38And and I'm argument is
• 01:14:39that there are certain aspects
• 01:14:40of society which work the
• 01:14:41same way everywhere in
• 01:14:44the world. That's correct. By
• 01:14:44the way, this is an
• 01:14:44old project in anthropology of
• 01:14:45trying to define cultural universals,
• 01:14:47but they approach it from
• 01:14:48a very different point of
• 01:14:48view. They say, you know,
• 01:14:49every society has forms of
• 01:14:50adornment, and every society has,
• 01:14:53you know, sporting events. But
• 01:14:54I'm not so interested in
• 01:14:55those things because those aren't
• 01:14:56encoded in our genes. You
• 01:14:57know, whether you play, you
• 01:14:58know, soccer or cricket is
• 01:15:00not something that's genetically determined.
• 01:15:01So
• 01:15:03so I I'm very careful
• 01:15:04to define, like, what is
• 01:15:05my scope of interest.
• 01:15:06It's absolutely the case that
• 01:15:08culture plays an important role
• 01:15:09in shaping some of these
• 01:15:10things. So, for example, like,
• 01:15:11we just gave the Saudi
• 01:15:12Arabia example, whether it's deemed
• 01:15:14permissible
• 01:15:14to have cross sex friendships,
• 01:15:16for example, is a cultural
• 01:15:18overlay. But it is that.
• 01:15:19It's an overlay.
• 01:15:20I'm trying to get beneath
• 01:15:21the surface. So, you know,
• 01:15:23even though the, even though
• 01:15:25the the, the genes expressed
• 01:15:27in a vegetarian society might
• 01:15:28be very different than the
• 01:15:29genes expressed in an omnivorous
• 01:15:31society, even given the same
• 01:15:32gene pool,
• 01:15:34but just different expression,
• 01:15:35the fundamental genes are the
• 01:15:36same. So that's sort of
• 01:15:38where what I'm after. I'm
• 01:15:39not negating culture. Like, one
• 01:15:40of the metaphors I use
• 01:15:41in the book is that
• 01:15:43in some ways, I think
• 01:15:45my project in this book
• 01:15:46is a very happy project
• 01:15:48because I think we're so
• 01:15:49focused on human difference that
• 01:15:51we forget human commonality and
• 01:15:53our common humanity. You know,
• 01:15:54we we it's like we're
• 01:15:55up on a high mountain
• 01:15:56plateau and we see that
• 01:15:57there are hills that are
• 01:15:58three hundred feet high and
• 01:15:59nine hundred feet high. We
• 01:16:00say, oh my god, that
• 01:16:01hill is three times the
• 01:16:02size of this hill. But
• 01:16:03if we step back from
• 01:16:04the plateau, we see that
• 01:16:05this is a mountain that's
• 01:16:06ten thousand three hundred feet
• 01:16:07and that's a mountain that's
• 01:16:08ten thousand nine hundred feet.
• 01:16:10Actually, they're not so different
• 01:16:11at all. It's just that
• 01:16:12we are focusing on the
• 01:16:13superficial differences right on the
• 01:16:15surface,
• 01:16:16losing a deeper vision into
• 01:16:18our universal capacity for love
• 01:16:20and friendship and cooperation and
• 01:16:21all these nice things I
• 01:16:22told you about. Which if
• 01:16:24we do, because in some
• 01:16:26sense, my scientific project is
• 01:16:27connected to a certain ideological
• 01:16:29project, which is I want
• 01:16:30us to feel connected to
• 01:16:32the whole of humanity. I
• 01:16:33want us to to feel
• 01:16:35like that our common humanity
• 01:16:37is shared and valuable and
• 01:16:38work preserving,
• 01:16:40but I'm trying to get
• 01:16:41to that. I I won't
• 01:16:42say my primary objective is
• 01:16:44ideological. It's not, but I'm
• 01:16:45aware of what I regard
• 01:16:47to be the good ideological
• 01:16:48implications
• 01:16:49of what is fundamentally for
• 01:16:50me a scientific project, which
• 01:16:52is understanding social order. And
• 01:16:54I think I think we're
• 01:16:55a magnificent species actually. I
• 01:16:57I think it's just incredible,
• 01:16:58like, how we are. I
• 01:17:00I I'm deeply impressed
• 01:17:02impressed with our,
• 01:17:04species. And, you know, I
• 01:17:05and I'm
• 01:17:06despite all of the evils
• 01:17:08in our history and the
• 01:17:09challenges in the world today,
• 01:17:10I remain optimistic about ourselves.
• 01:17:13Anyway, that's a long winded
• 01:17:14answer. Culture is important. I
• 01:17:16don't mean to negate it,
• 01:17:17but I'm interested in studying
• 01:17:18something different, which is below
• 01:17:19culture. And I acknowledge that
• 01:17:21culture can reshape some of
• 01:17:22these things, but not,
• 01:17:24you know, like that one
• 01:17:25society that suppresses play by
• 01:17:26burning kids' hands.
• 01:17:28They apply a lot of
• 01:17:29force to stop the innate
• 01:17:31desire to play.
• 01:17:34So so Nicholas Yeah. Thank
• 01:17:35thank you. So so you
• 01:17:37couldn't I couldn't help but
• 01:17:38think when I was listening
• 01:17:39to your talk that a
• 01:17:40lot of what ails us
• 01:17:41as a species,
• 01:17:43wars, genocides,
• 01:17:44dissolution of democracy,
• 01:17:47to some extent comes down
• 01:17:48to things like polarization
• 01:17:50and in groups and out
• 01:17:51groups.
• 01:17:52And even on smaller scales,
• 01:17:54like within a school, for
• 01:17:55example, you have cliques and
• 01:17:57you're either in or you're
• 01:17:58out.
• 01:17:59And the persistence of this
• 01:18:01notion of in groups and
• 01:18:02out groups makes me wonder
• 01:18:03whether there's some sort of
• 01:18:04counter to
• 01:18:06your thesis
• 01:18:07that maybe there is something
• 01:18:09that drives the species to
• 01:18:11create exclusivity.
• 01:18:14And with that and where
• 01:18:15does that fit into your
• 01:18:16life? So that was on
• 01:18:17the list. Right?
• 01:18:20And but I didn't discuss
• 01:18:21it because I didn't want
• 01:18:22to.
• 01:18:23I did say
• 01:18:24it's it's number, five on
• 01:18:26our list, in group preference,
• 01:18:28which it makes very uncomfortable
• 01:18:29for me.
• 01:18:30And, it is a part
• 01:18:32of the social suite, and,
• 01:18:34we are very groupie species.
• 01:18:35Now there's a very it's
• 01:18:36all discussed in the book
• 01:18:37with lots of references.
• 01:18:39We are a very groupie
• 01:18:40species.
• 01:18:42But, you know, there's a
• 01:18:43big difference between saying,
• 01:18:47we are,
• 01:18:49you know,
• 01:18:50we
• 01:18:51love our group and and
• 01:18:53and we don't love the
• 01:18:54other group
• 01:18:55and or we love our
• 01:18:56group and the other group
• 01:18:57should be exterminated.
• 01:18:59And so the question is
• 01:19:00where does that desire come
• 01:19:02from? Now taking a step
• 01:19:03back first on the why
• 01:19:04do we preferentially love our
• 01:19:05group, there's an interesting set
• 01:19:07of arguments about how in
• 01:19:08group preference
• 01:19:09actually was necessary for the
• 01:19:11emergence of cooperation.
• 01:19:12And let me see if
• 01:19:13I can illustrate this point
• 01:19:14with a little bit of
• 01:19:15a thought
• 01:19:16experiment. So the idea is
• 01:19:18imagine if I there were
• 01:19:18a thousand of you,
• 01:19:20and I told you,
• 01:19:23be nice to each other.
• 01:19:24All of you be nice
• 01:19:25to each other.
• 01:19:27Well, you might start being
• 01:19:28bumped into someone of the
• 01:19:29thousand. You might be nice
• 01:19:30to them a little bit.
• 01:19:31But after a while, you
• 01:19:32might never bump into that
• 01:19:32person again. You might have
• 01:19:33no expectation of a return.
• 01:19:36You can't even track the
• 01:19:36person. There are a thousand
• 01:19:37faces. You can't remember who's
• 01:19:39who.
• 01:19:40And and and if I
• 01:19:41measure the level of cooperation
• 01:19:42at the outset and then
• 01:19:43I came back a few
• 01:19:44hours later after you guys
• 01:19:45had or days or weeks
• 01:19:46or whatever the experiment is,
• 01:19:48I would find that there's
• 01:19:49very little cooperation in this
• 01:19:50group of a thousand people.
• 01:19:52Now imagine instead that I
• 01:19:54issue I divide you into
• 01:19:55ten groups of a hundred
• 01:19:56and give you a purple
• 01:19:57flag and a green flag
• 01:19:58and an orange flag. And
• 01:19:59I just say to you,
• 01:20:00I get up on a
• 01:20:00podium and I say, okay.
• 01:20:02Just be nice to the
• 01:20:02people holding your own color
• 01:20:03flag.
• 01:20:05And even hearing my telling
• 01:20:06the story, you immediately intuit
• 01:20:07that that's a much easier
• 01:20:08challenge. First of all, you
• 01:20:10can track the hundred people
• 01:20:11more readily.
• 01:20:12When you bump you don't
• 01:20:13have to be nice to
• 01:20:13all thousand. You know, when
• 01:20:14you bump into the wrong
• 01:20:15color flag, you're just nice
• 01:20:16to your own color flag.
• 01:20:18And and in that type
• 01:20:19of the world, if I
• 01:20:20came back months or days
• 01:20:21or whatever later, I might
• 01:20:22find a lot of cooperation
• 01:20:23in that group of a
• 01:20:24thousand. So it turns out
• 01:20:25that mathematically, this is known
• 01:20:27as adding structure to the
• 01:20:28population. Turns out if you
• 01:20:29if you subdivide the population
• 01:20:31either into groups or into
• 01:20:32networks
• 01:20:33so, like, you are not
• 01:20:34nice to everybody. You are
• 01:20:35actually a very nice person.
• 01:20:36You are nice to almost
• 01:20:37everybody, but you're especially nice
• 01:20:39to your friends.
• 01:20:40Right? You're also a little
• 01:20:41nice to strangers, but you're
• 01:20:42nicer to your friends than
• 01:20:43you are to strangers. K?
• 01:20:45So every one of us
• 01:20:46is nicer to our friends
• 01:20:47than we are to strangers.
• 01:20:48That's the same solution. The
• 01:20:49emergence of social networks in
• 01:20:51our evolutionary past is to
• 01:20:52help solve this problem. So
• 01:20:54it turns out that in
• 01:20:55group preference, it is argued,
• 01:20:56and I believe it is
• 01:20:57true, and there's some evidence
• 01:20:58for it on the evolutionary
• 01:20:59record,
• 01:21:02was required for the emergence
• 01:21:03of cooperation in our species.
• 01:21:05But the question remains, okay,
• 01:21:06it's one thing that why
• 01:21:07do you have to hate
• 01:21:08the other group? Why Why
• 01:21:09do we have to be
• 01:21:09warlike to that group? And,
• 01:21:10actually, this is also an
• 01:21:11old sociological question. I'm blocking
• 01:21:13on the name right now.
• 01:21:13Spencer, I think was his
• 01:21:14name. It's either Spencer or
• 01:21:16Summers. It was actually a
• 01:21:17guy at Yale a hundred
• 01:21:17years ago. Do you remember
• 01:21:18which one it was? You
• 01:21:19don't remember, Julia. I'm looking
• 01:21:20at you.
• 01:21:21But, anyway, there was, putting
• 01:21:23you on the spot. It
• 01:21:24was either Spencer or or,
• 01:21:26or or,
• 01:21:28or the other guy I
• 01:21:29just mentioned. Summers. Summers. I
• 01:21:31think it was Summers.
• 01:21:33He he talks about this,
• 01:21:34like, warlike tendency and, like,
• 01:21:36the the fact that, you
• 01:21:37know, when when you're fighting
• 01:21:38another group, you would lead
• 01:21:40to solidarity in our group.
• 01:21:41In fact, some people believe,
• 01:21:42and I think it's true,
• 01:21:44that the fall of the
• 01:21:44Soviet Union was one of
• 01:21:46the things that leads to
• 01:21:47our present divisions in our
• 01:21:48society because we're not united
• 01:21:49against the common enemy. So
• 01:21:51we've fallen upon ourselves.
• 01:21:53So,
• 01:21:54so, yes, so in group
• 01:21:55preference, there's a whole chapter
• 01:21:56on it in the book.
• 01:21:57If you're interested in more
• 01:21:57than that, it's there. It's
• 01:21:59unfortunately part of our social
• 01:22:00suite. It's it's the least
• 01:22:01nice part. The mild hierarchy
• 01:22:03doesn't bother me,
• 01:22:05for a variety of reasons,
• 01:22:06because,
• 01:22:08for example, I have no
• 01:22:09musical ability, and I am
• 01:22:11so grateful that there are
• 01:22:12talented musicians that have are
• 01:22:14above me. I mean, I
• 01:22:15benefit from those musicians so
• 01:22:17much. And, you know, my
• 01:22:19physics is good, but I'm
• 01:22:20not a quantum physicist. And
• 01:22:21I am so grateful that
• 01:22:22there are quantum physicists who
• 01:22:24do what they do. So
• 01:22:25I think and Thomas Jefferson
• 01:22:26makes a wonderful argument about,
• 01:22:28you know, it would have
• 01:22:29been odd for God to
• 01:22:30endow us for well, he
• 01:22:32didn't mean God, but to
• 01:22:33be to be placed into
• 01:22:34a social state and not
• 01:22:35be given the talents enough
• 01:22:37to regulate ourselves.
• 01:22:39So I think the heterogeneity
• 01:22:40across humans and abilities is
• 01:22:42actually a blessing for human
• 01:22:44beings, not a not a
• 01:22:45vice. You know? Just one
• 01:22:47final comment about your point
• 01:22:48about in in group preference.
• 01:22:50I've heard some people say
• 01:22:51that the emergence of sports
• 01:22:54actually was
• 01:22:55almost like a solution to
• 01:22:56war. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
• 01:22:58And I'm sure that's true.
• 01:22:59Yeah. Absolutely.
• 01:23:00Absolutely, that is the case.
• 01:23:02It's grafted onto the whole
• 01:23:03the the whole obsession with
• 01:23:05sports and the playing of
• 01:23:06sports
• 01:23:07is clearly a desirable outlet.
• 01:23:09By the way, this is
• 01:23:10the same argument that's used
• 01:23:11by by free speech defenders
• 01:23:13that we would rather have
• 01:23:14people talk to each other
• 01:23:15than than kill each other.
• 01:23:17Right? I'd rather hear violent
• 01:23:19words than experience violent acts.
• 01:23:20So we should protect speech
• 01:23:22and restrict acts. So, you
• 01:23:23know, we should have lots
• 01:23:24of sporting events and avoid
• 01:23:26warfare. Yes.
• 01:23:28Yes. Back in the back
• 01:23:29there. Nice.
• 01:23:31Okay.
• 01:23:32Thank you so much for
• 01:23:33wonderful talk and wonderful topic.
• 01:23:34I love
• 01:23:36it. Do you think it's
• 01:23:37feasible to have a tool
• 01:23:39or commercialize a tool that
• 01:23:40can intentionally
• 01:23:42shape social connections
• 01:23:43in systems like factories or
• 01:23:45labs or residency programs
• 01:23:48to improve cooperation?
• 01:23:49Yes. And if yes, where
• 01:23:51is the ethical line between
• 01:23:52just facilitating teamwork
• 01:23:55or manipulating,
• 01:23:56social dynamic?
• 01:23:58So we we have done
• 01:23:59that. We have we have
• 01:24:01done those experiments. We've also
• 01:24:03consulted with different kinds of
• 01:24:04firms, you know, how to
• 01:24:05decrease bullying in school by
• 01:24:07changing seating arrangements in classrooms,
• 01:24:09how to reduce accidents on
• 01:24:11factory shop floors by manipulating
• 01:24:13who's connected to whom on
• 01:24:14the shop floor, changing in
• 01:24:16shifts. You know, like, if
• 01:24:17you stagger shifts in a
• 01:24:18particular way, you reduce friendships.
• 01:24:21So, actually, there's there's a
• 01:24:22cost you pay by staggering
• 01:24:23shifts,
• 01:24:24and you can and there's
• 01:24:25a trade off.
• 01:24:26So but and you can
• 01:24:27judge. Like, people are more
• 01:24:28friendly with each other if
• 01:24:29they all start work at
• 01:24:30the same time that leads
• 01:24:31to more social connections that
• 01:24:32actually might reduce,
• 01:24:34accidents on the shop floor.
• 01:24:35So all of those things
• 01:24:36are done. But it's absolutely
• 01:24:37true as well that everything
• 01:24:39I've told you today could
• 01:24:40be reverse engineered and used
• 01:24:41by our opponents and is
• 01:24:42being used by our opponents.
• 01:24:43So China and Russia are
• 01:24:45quite explicitly,
• 01:24:46intervening in our society in
• 01:24:48a way to foment dissension
• 01:24:50and privilege
• 01:24:51in group bias and and
• 01:24:53so on. So so every
• 01:24:55single thing I've talked about
• 01:24:56today could be used for
• 01:24:57good or for ill purpose.
• 01:24:58Of course, in my lab,
• 01:24:59we just are focused and
• 01:24:59and use it for good,
• 01:25:01but I have no doubt
• 01:25:02that people are using this
• 01:25:04and,
• 01:25:04for evil purposes.
• 01:25:06So, so, yeah, like, if
• 01:25:07you're trying to,
• 01:25:09increase you know, amongst
• 01:25:11I talk about this with
• 01:25:12other doctors my age. So
• 01:25:13Mark and I, we have
• 01:25:14this dinner group with four
• 01:25:16four docs,
• 01:25:17in this,
• 01:25:19at Yale where we meet,
• 01:25:21like, once or twice a
• 01:25:21year and talk about the
• 01:25:23time of the Ironman when,
• 01:25:24you know, we were house
• 01:25:25officers.
• 01:25:26And,
• 01:25:27and, you know, kids these
• 01:25:29days, they don't seem to
• 01:25:30have the same commitment to
• 01:25:32patient care that we we
• 01:25:33did, you know, when we
• 01:25:35are I'm joking. I'm like,
• 01:25:37I know, Mark. I know.
• 01:25:38I know. He did not
• 01:25:39say that. I'll just take
• 01:25:40advantage of the podium. So,
• 01:25:41like, in fact, if anything,
• 01:25:43he's the big defender of
• 01:25:44kids these days.
• 01:25:45But,
• 01:25:46you know,
• 01:25:47so but but, actually, there
• 01:25:49is a sense in which
• 01:25:50there is a kind of,
• 01:25:51mentality. I I believe I'm
• 01:25:52gonna say this for my
• 01:25:53I'm not gonna speak for
• 01:25:54any of us, for myself.
• 01:25:55My understanding of modern,
• 01:25:57doctors in training is they
• 01:25:58have a much more workman
• 01:25:59like ID attitude and less
• 01:26:01professionalized attitude towards their job.
• 01:26:03They punch the clock more.
• 01:26:04When I was a house
• 01:26:05officer, you didn't leave the
• 01:26:06patient's bedside if they were
• 01:26:07sick. It didn't matter if
• 01:26:08your shift was over. You
• 01:26:09just didn't go.
• 01:26:11And we would work eighty,
• 01:26:12ninety hours a week. I
• 01:26:13recognize that could have caused
• 01:26:14other problems. Nobody cared about
• 01:26:16my work life balance.
• 01:26:17You know, but there was
• 01:26:19a kind of sense in
• 01:26:20which the patient came first
• 01:26:21no matter what. And by
• 01:26:22the way, this resolved other
• 01:26:23dilemmas. Like, now there's a
• 01:26:24lot of discussion. Like, should
• 01:26:25we care for racist patients?
• 01:26:27My answer to that is
• 01:26:27an immediate yes. You know,
• 01:26:29I remember there was a
• 01:26:29murder that was brought in
• 01:26:30when I was a house
• 01:26:31officer at, Hop at the
• 01:26:33University of Pennsylvania,
• 01:26:34and, Dan Brokoff, who was
• 01:26:35my attending,
• 01:26:36in the, ER,
• 01:26:39we were we were like,
• 01:26:39what should we do with
• 01:26:40this guy? He had just
• 01:26:41killed someone else that was
• 01:26:42brought in with glistening brain
• 01:26:44in his scalp. You know,
• 01:26:45we got both the decedent
• 01:26:46and the and the killer.
• 01:26:47The police told us the
• 01:26:48story.
• 01:26:49And and, Dan was like,
• 01:26:51there's no moral dilemma here.
• 01:26:52You save this guy's life.
• 01:26:52I mean, this is obvious.
• 01:26:54I mean, this is our
• 01:26:54commitment is the patient, and
• 01:26:55there's a kind of moral
• 01:26:56clarity that comes with that
• 01:26:57that's very freeing, actually.
• 01:27:00You know, that our job
• 01:27:01is that's not our our
• 01:27:02job is to care for
• 01:27:03the patient in front of
• 01:27:04us to the best of
• 01:27:04our powers. So
• 01:27:07what I sense amongst some
• 01:27:09house officers these days is
• 01:27:10a kind of movement away
• 01:27:12from some of those what
• 01:27:13I would regard to be
• 01:27:13foundational commitments. And the reason
• 01:27:15I'm bringing it up in
• 01:27:16response to you is you
• 01:27:17might be asking me, was
• 01:27:17there anything we can do
• 01:27:18from what I'm telling you
• 01:27:20that might help push the
• 01:27:21culture back towards a more
• 01:27:23desirable culture, if that's your
• 01:27:24question? I'm reading a lot
• 01:27:25into your question. I'm drawing
• 01:27:26my poor friend into my,
• 01:27:28you know, spiel, which he
• 01:27:29doesn't necessarily wanna go with.
• 01:27:31But,
• 01:27:32but,
• 01:27:33but I think the answer
• 01:27:34is yes, actually. There are
• 01:27:36ways that you could organize,
• 01:27:39work
• 01:27:39assignments,
• 01:27:41that could either degrade
• 01:27:43or support the kinds of
• 01:27:45commitments that you might wish
• 01:27:47to,
• 01:27:48support in in the training
• 01:27:49of young physicians. Did I
• 01:27:51remotely answer your question? Yeah.
• 01:27:52Five four. Thanks. Yeah. So
• 01:27:55I wish we could
• 01:27:57I really wish we could
• 01:27:58con continue all night, but
• 01:27:59we we do wanna be
• 01:28:00rigidly
• 01:28:01adherent to our time unless
• 01:28:03we wanna respect people's time.
• 01:28:05Thank you so much for
• 01:28:05coming, and and thank you,
• 01:28:06Doctor. Kasai. So much. It
• 01:28:07was a real contest.
• 01:28:10Thank you for having me.