Dr. Jamil Zaki

And that in other work, this is not from Olga Stavrova, but from others, that actually cynics do less well than non-cynics in detecting liars. Because if you have a blanket assumption about people, you're not actually attending to evidence in a sharp way. You're not actually taking in new information and making wise decisions.

No, I think that's absolutely right. And so a couple of things. One, you said that if we know that cynics aren't smarter than non-cynics, why are we deploying them? Well, let's be clear. We know this, meaning you and I know this and scientists know this, but the data show that most people don't know this.

No, I think that's absolutely right. And so a couple of things. One, you said that if we know that cynics aren't smarter than non-cynics, why are we deploying them? Well, let's be clear. We know this, meaning you and I know this and scientists know this, but the data show that most people don't know this.

No, I think that's absolutely right. And so a couple of things. One, you said that if we know that cynics aren't smarter than non-cynics, why are we deploying them? Well, let's be clear. We know this, meaning you and I know this and scientists know this, but the data show that most people don't know this.

that we maintain the stereotype in our culture that being negative about people means that you've been around the block enough times, that it is a form of wisdom. So that's a stereotype that I think we need to dispel, first of all. But I do think that, to your point,

that we maintain the stereotype in our culture that being negative about people means that you've been around the block enough times, that it is a form of wisdom. So that's a stereotype that I think we need to dispel, first of all. But I do think that, to your point,

that we maintain the stereotype in our culture that being negative about people means that you've been around the block enough times, that it is a form of wisdom. So that's a stereotype that I think we need to dispel, first of all. But I do think that, to your point,

When we deploy cynics out in the field, you know, when we say, I'm going to be nice, but I want somebody who's really pretty negative, who's really pretty suspicious to protect me or to protect my community. I think that's a really, again, understandable instinct, almost from an evolutionary perspective.

When we deploy cynics out in the field, you know, when we say, I'm going to be nice, but I want somebody who's really pretty negative, who's really pretty suspicious to protect me or to protect my community. I think that's a really, again, understandable instinct, almost from an evolutionary perspective.

When we deploy cynics out in the field, you know, when we say, I'm going to be nice, but I want somebody who's really pretty negative, who's really pretty suspicious to protect me or to protect my community. I think that's a really, again, understandable instinct, almost from an evolutionary perspective.

We are built to pay lots of attention to threats in our environment and threats to our community. And in the early social world, just to do some back of the envelope evolutionary psychology, if you wind the clock back 100, 150,000 years, what is the greatest threat to early communities? It's people, right? It's people who would take advantage of our communal nature.

We are built to pay lots of attention to threats in our environment and threats to our community. And in the early social world, just to do some back of the envelope evolutionary psychology, if you wind the clock back 100, 150,000 years, what is the greatest threat to early communities? It's people, right? It's people who would take advantage of our communal nature.

We are built to pay lots of attention to threats in our environment and threats to our community. And in the early social world, just to do some back of the envelope evolutionary psychology, if you wind the clock back 100, 150,000 years, what is the greatest threat to early communities? It's people, right? It's people who would take advantage of our communal nature.

The thing that allows human beings to thrive is that we collaborate. But that collaboration means that a free rider Somebody who chooses to not pitch in but still take out from the common pool anything that they want can do exceptionally well. They can live a life of leisure on the backs of a community that's working hard.

The thing that allows human beings to thrive is that we collaborate. But that collaboration means that a free rider Somebody who chooses to not pitch in but still take out from the common pool anything that they want can do exceptionally well. They can live a life of leisure on the backs of a community that's working hard.

The thing that allows human beings to thrive is that we collaborate. But that collaboration means that a free rider Somebody who chooses to not pitch in but still take out from the common pool anything that they want can do exceptionally well. They can live a life of leisure on the backs of a community that's working hard.

And if you select then for that type of person, if that type of person proliferates, then the community collapses. So it makes sense that we depend on cynics from that perspective, from a threat mitigation perspective, from a risk aversion perspective. But it doesn't make sense from the perspective of trying to optimize our actual social lives, right?

And if you select then for that type of person, if that type of person proliferates, then the community collapses. So it makes sense that we depend on cynics from that perspective, from a threat mitigation perspective, from a risk aversion perspective. But it doesn't make sense from the perspective of trying to optimize our actual social lives, right?

And if you select then for that type of person, if that type of person proliferates, then the community collapses. So it makes sense that we depend on cynics from that perspective, from a threat mitigation perspective, from a risk aversion perspective. But it doesn't make sense from the perspective of trying to optimize our actual social lives, right?

And I think that oftentimes, you know, we are risk averse in general, meaning that we're more scared of negative outcomes than we are enticed by positive outcomes. But in the social world, that risk aversion is, I think, quite harmful in a lot of demonstrable ways.