Emma Levine

I think the motivations were the same.

They were benevolent.

She didn't want to stress me out in a situation that she didn't think provided necessary information right along the logic that I've outlined before.

But in this situation, I did feel the information was necessary.

We had different beliefs.

And so the lie felt very paternalistic and unfair, not pro-social as it had before.

I probably should.

I haven't done it, which is, now that you ask, a bit strange because I do give the advice to other people and in my papers that one way to avoid this risk is to have conversations about this, right?

To have explicit kind of social contracts.

What type of feedback do you like in what situations?

Doctors can do this with patients.

How much do you want to know everything and every risk?

Or do you want to just focus...

on each next step in the plan moving forward.

So there are ways to have these conversations so that you can be sure you're erring on the side of benevolence when it's really benevolent, when it aligns with the listener's interests.

We haven't had that conversation and perhaps we should.

Thanks for having me.

It's been a blast.