Dr. Jamil Zaki

And it can be played in a couple of different ways. One is binary, where I would say, Andrew, you can send $10 to an internet stranger, or you can send nothing. And they can choose to send you back half, or they can choose to send you back nothing. Would you do it? Actually, I'm curious. Would you do that?

And it can be played in a couple of different ways. One is binary, where I would say, Andrew, you can send $10 to an internet stranger, or you can send nothing. And they can choose to send you back half, or they can choose to send you back nothing. Would you do it? Actually, I'm curious. Would you do that?

And it can be played in a couple of different ways. One is binary, where I would say, Andrew, you can send $10 to an internet stranger, or you can send nothing. And they can choose to send you back half, or they can choose to send you back nothing. Would you do it? Actually, I'm curious. Would you do that?

Yeah. Follow-up question. In that type of study, what percentage of trustees do you think make the trustworthy decision of sending back the money?

Yeah. Follow-up question. In that type of study, what percentage of trustees do you think make the trustworthy decision of sending back the money?

Yeah. Follow-up question. In that type of study, what percentage of trustees do you think make the trustworthy decision of sending back the money?

55%. Yeah. So your prediction there is quite aligned with most people's. There's a great study by Fetchenhauer and Dunning that found that people, when they're asked to forecast, they say, I bet 50% to 55% of people will send this money back, will make this binary trust decision. In fact, 80% of trustees make the pro-social and trustworthy decision.

55%. Yeah. So your prediction there is quite aligned with most people's. There's a great study by Fetchenhauer and Dunning that found that people, when they're asked to forecast, they say, I bet 50% to 55% of people will send this money back, will make this binary trust decision. In fact, 80% of trustees make the pro-social and trustworthy decision.

55%. Yeah. So your prediction there is quite aligned with most people's. There's a great study by Fetchenhauer and Dunning that found that people, when they're asked to forecast, they say, I bet 50% to 55% of people will send this money back, will make this binary trust decision. In fact, 80% of trustees make the pro-social and trustworthy decision.

And again, what Fechenhauer and Dunning found is that when we have negative assumptions, we're less likely to send over the money and therefore less likely to learn that we were wrong, right? And so that's one of, it's another example of where cynical beliefs, I mean, you're interesting because you had the belief that's a 50% chance, but you still chose to trust, right?

And again, what Fechenhauer and Dunning found is that when we have negative assumptions, we're less likely to send over the money and therefore less likely to learn that we were wrong, right? And so that's one of, it's another example of where cynical beliefs, I mean, you're interesting because you had the belief that's a 50% chance, but you still chose to trust, right?

And again, what Fechenhauer and Dunning found is that when we have negative assumptions, we're less likely to send over the money and therefore less likely to learn that we were wrong, right? And so that's one of, it's another example of where cynical beliefs, I mean, you're interesting because you had the belief that's a 50% chance, but you still chose to trust, right?

So from a Bayesian perspective, when that person actually sent the money back, which they would have an 80% chance of doing, and if I were to ask you again, what percentage of people give back, you might update your perception. Absolutely. Right? But without any evidence, you can't update your perception. Right. And this is just one of many examples.

So from a Bayesian perspective, when that person actually sent the money back, which they would have an 80% chance of doing, and if I were to ask you again, what percentage of people give back, you might update your perception. Absolutely. Right? But without any evidence, you can't update your perception. Right. And this is just one of many examples.

So from a Bayesian perspective, when that person actually sent the money back, which they would have an 80% chance of doing, and if I were to ask you again, what percentage of people give back, you might update your perception. Absolutely. Right? But without any evidence, you can't update your perception. Right. And this is just one of many examples.

It turns out that there's a lot of evidence that when asked to estimate how friendly, trustworthy, compassionate, or open-minded others are, people's estimates come in much lower than data suggest. And this to me is both the... Tragedy of cynical thinking, those heuristics that we're using, and a major opportunity for so many of us.

It turns out that there's a lot of evidence that when asked to estimate how friendly, trustworthy, compassionate, or open-minded others are, people's estimates come in much lower than data suggest. And this to me is both the... Tragedy of cynical thinking, those heuristics that we're using, and a major opportunity for so many of us.

It turns out that there's a lot of evidence that when asked to estimate how friendly, trustworthy, compassionate, or open-minded others are, people's estimates come in much lower than data suggest. And this to me is both the... Tragedy of cynical thinking, those heuristics that we're using, and a major opportunity for so many of us.

It's a tragedy because we're coming up with these simple black and white physics-like predictions about the world, and they're often wrong. They're often unduly negative. An opportunity because to the extent that we can tap into a more scientific or curious mindset, to the extent that we can open ourselves to the data, pleasant surprises are everywhere.

It's a tragedy because we're coming up with these simple black and white physics-like predictions about the world, and they're often wrong. They're often unduly negative. An opportunity because to the extent that we can tap into a more scientific or curious mindset, to the extent that we can open ourselves to the data, pleasant surprises are everywhere.