Adam Kucharski

And as much as I appreciate it, it was not an easy book to write.

I think at times I kind of wondered if I should have taken on the topic.

But I think your last point kind of speaks to that.

I think a core thing is that gap often between what convinces us and what convinces someone else.

I think it's often very tempting as a scientist to say, you know, the evidence is clear or, you know, the science has proved this.

But even on something like, you know, the vaccines, you do get the loud minority who

perhaps think they're putting microchips in people and these kind of outlandish views, but you actually get a lot more people who might just have some skepticism of pharmaceutical companies or they might have, you know, my wife was pregnant actually at the time during COVID and she was, we weighed it up because there wasn't much data on pregnancy and the vaccine.

And I think it's just finding, you know, what is convincing?

Is it having more studies from other countries?

Is it understanding more about the biology?

Is it, you know, understanding how you evaluate some of those safety signals?

And I think that's just really important to not just think what convinces us and it's going to be obvious to other people, but actually think where are they coming from?

Because ultimately, you know, having proof isn't that good unless it leads to the action that can make lives better.

It's not easy to explain why aeroplanes stay in the sky.

A common explanation is that the curved shape of the wing makes air flow faster above and slower beneath, creating lift.

But this doesn't explain how planes can fly upside down.

Another explanation is that the angle of the wing pushes air downwards, creating an equal and opposite upwards force.

But this doesn't explain why, as the angle gets slightly steeper, planes can suddenly stall.

The point is, aerodynamics is complex.

It's difficult to understand, let alone explain in a simple, intuitive way.