Phil Fernbach

That's right, Shankar.

The illusion of explanatory depth or the illusion of understanding is the very human tendency to feel like we understand things in a lot more depth and complexity than we actually do, to treat the world as much more simple than it actually is.

That's exactly right.

In a typical study, what you would do is ask people their initial feeling of how well they understand some object or phenomenon or process.

Typically, as you just mentioned, what people feel is that they understand it in some depth.

But then the trick is you ask them to explain it in detail how it actually works.

And what then typically happens is people realize that they don't understand it as well as they had initially thought.

Their feeling of understanding decreases.

Their assessment of how well they understand it decreases.

They become a little bit humbled.

Sure.

This is the sort of jargony way that cognitive scientists talk about this.

Explanatory depth means the depth with which you can explain some phenomenon.

And we have an illusion that we can explain things more deeply than we can.

So if I ask you about pretty much anything, you mentioned toilets and we talked about that previously.

People feel like they have sort of an annotated plumbing diagram somewhere in their minds, but they don't.

So they feel like they can explain it in some depth and then you say, oh, how does it actually work?

And they go, hmm.

Well, I guess you push the handle down and it flushes.

So that's the typical pattern.

That's a really wonderful question.

And I think it gets to what cognition is really all about and what it's for.

Why did we evolve the ability to think?

We evolved the ability to think so that we can act more adaptively in our environments.

And storing a ton of detailed information isn't necessarily that useful because in the world that we live in, we're faced with very different situations that might have some deep structure in common across different situations, but the details are often different.

So what we really need to be able to do is extract the more fundamental principles that allow us to behave adaptively in new environments.

And retaining all of that detailed information might not necessarily help us.

I think that's right.

You know, that's just one area of life.

And if you think about trying to maintain a giant database of complex information about every area of your life, it quickly becomes really intractable.

And that's why human society has experts in different domains because one individual can't possibly master everything.

That would be futile.

That's exactly right.

So we live in what we call communities of knowledge where the expertise is distributed across the community.

And what we found in our studies is that just by virtue of participating in that community of knowledge, we come to feel that we understand things that are actually understood by others in our community.

You know, a good example of this is politics.

If you think about whatever the complex issue of the day is, when we hear people talking about it, we sort of nod along as if we ourselves understand.

And that process of nodding along with our community members and knowing that the information is out there in other people's minds sort of gives us a little bit of an inflated feeling that we ourselves understand.

I think that's right.

The fact that we have all of human knowledge in our pockets, it's the most amazing community of knowledge that's ever existed on planet Earth.

And I think that does give us a very strong feeling of understanding and knowledge because we have very easy access to that.

Just by virtue of searching the internet, we come to feel that we understand things better than we do or that we have more knowledge than we do.

If we subsequently try to perform, take a test, or perform some task without the internet, we actually do worse than we expect.

And this has really important consequences, for instance, in education.

Students who can look things up might actually not master the material and might do poorly on exams and things like that.

What I think makes this really interesting and exciting at this moment is with the advent of artificial intelligence, meaning...

that our search of the internet, it's no longer a Google search.

Now it's something, you know, orders of magnitude, more intelligent, more capable.

And so there has begun to be some really interesting research looking at what the effects are of using AI on people's levels of confidence.

And I'm excited to see where that research goes.

Absolutely.

Dennis makes a beautiful point that has actually been made by some of the greatest minds throughout history.

People like Aristotle and Einstein have said similar things.

And that's precisely right.

What happens with expertise is that we develop more of an understanding of the boundaries of a domain.

If you are a novice at some task, you might think that there's not that much to know.

But as you learn more and more, you realize how much there is to know and how complex things are.

So Dennis is absolutely right about that.

I think to some extent that's correct.

The more we learn and the more we realize that how complex and nuanced most things are, that might make us more habitually sort of careful about jumping to really strong conclusions or opinions on issues.

That being said, people aren't that great about generalizing their knowledge from one domain to another.

So I might...

learn a little bit about some topic and become more humble about that topic.

But then tomorrow, I might jump right back into feeling like I'm an expert on some other topic.

That's a very human tendency as well.

Absolutely.

And that's why I got so interested in this topic, because I realized it's not about toilets.

It's about pretty much everything that we argue about, both as individuals and as a society.

If you think about, say, your financial well-being, if you feel super confident about your ability to beat the stock market and you start taking on more and more risky bets, you can get yourself into a lot of trouble on a personal level.

At a societal level,

Our core beliefs about policy issues and social issues are what determine the laws that we pass, the decisions we make as a society about how we're going to set up our government, when we're going to go to war.

These really kind of important decisions are determined by our strength of belief about whatever the underlying issue is.

That's a great observation.

And in fact, I started a project a few years ago on precisely this.

We called it the WebMD effect.

And the idea was people were going and Googling their symptoms and doing a few minutes of diagnostic work and then going into the doctor and being super sure that they knew what they were talking about.

But of course, medicine is a highly complex field and the body behaves in ways that are very hard to predict and understand for someone who doesn't have detailed training and knowledge.

And so I very much relate to what your doctor friend was saying.

Well, Rob makes a very insightful point.

And this is something that I've struggled with and thought about so much over the last 10 years or so.

When people are challenged on their knowledge, they may become defensive.

And the goal of a dialogue is not to make someone feel stupid or ignorant.

So I think that the key when engaging in this kind of dialogue, which I do think can be very productive, is to set some ground rules first.

The idea is...

I'm not trying to grill you to show that you don't know what you're talking about.

But I'm acknowledging that I don't know what I'm talking about either.

And we're going to work together to interrogate both sides.

We're going to interrogate both positions.

And then I think both people are in equal footing.

And that can be a very productive discourse.

I think Rob's insight is exactly right, that if the dialogue is one person interrogating the other and trying to make them feel stupid, you're not going to get anywhere.

That's right.

The Socratic method implies that you have a teacher and a student, and the teacher knows the answer and is helping the student to come to their own realization of the answer.

In a typical discourse around some public policy issue, both interlocutors aren't going to

have all the answers.

And so the goal should be a little bit different.

So it shouldn't really be a guided interrogation like a Socratic kind of approach where one person is leading.

I think it should be more of a joyful approach where both are conversing in this more open-minded questioning way.

I think to me that would be more helpful.

Yeah, Kate raises another really interesting point, which is facts are another place where the world is a lot more complicated than we often give it credit for.

We often speak about that something can be true or false.

Most complex issues, what goes into a fact or a statistic or whatever it is, there's a lot of background and context that determines what that fact or statistic means.

And so part of the discussion is,

really has to get pretty deep, I think, in terms of understanding exactly what that fact is and what it's predicated based on.

I think that most people are generally reasonable, but some people are unreasonable.

And if someone is unreasonable and they're unwilling to actually engage in that deeper discussion about what the fact means, and they just want to assert that as true, regardless of anything else, then maybe that's not a great person to have political discussions with.

Maybe you should talk about something else.

Yeah, the flat earthers are a great example and really fun to talk about because the core overarching belief is preposterous.

But what I found when I was at this conference was that it's based on a whole set of

knowledge and facts within this community that they believe they have established.

And what you find when you get into this is that individual facts are hard to refute because there's so much that goes into it.

And I myself am not an expert, right?

I can't tell you what an eclipse should look like from a certain vantage point on the face of the earth or whatever it

the relevant fact is.

That's really difficult for me to do.

And so I didn't go in there with a goal of trying to convince those people that they are wrong.

I don't think that that's the correct goal in a dialogue most of the time.

The goal should be to try to develop a deeper understanding of where the belief comes from.

And so I found that to be more productive.

Asking these people about, oh,

Why is it that you believe this in trying to understand all of the nuance to their position?

Yeah, Rob makes another really wonderful point here.

I like to think about intellectual humility as the goal.

What that means is that we have calibration between how well we understand something and how well we think we understand that thing.

Underconfidence is sort of the other pole of

relative to the illusion of understanding, our feeling of understanding is even lower than it should be.

And that can be equally detrimental to people's experience.

Moreover, human beings tend to like people who are confident and express confidence.

If you think about the leaders in your organization or our political leaders, your favorite athlete,

they tend to exude a lot of confidence, maybe even more confidence than is warranted.

And people like that and they respond to it.

So people who are chronically underconfident can suffer a great deal because they're not put into positions of power or leadership.

They can lose their self-efficacy and so on.

So if you are a person who tends to be chronically underconfident, I think it's really important to appreciate that the world is really complicated.

And it's okay not to know everything and to understand everything.

And a lot of the people around you who are going around expressing tremendous confidence about whatever it is, it's not because they necessarily have much more mastery than you do in the topic.

It might be that their psychology pushes them to be more confident.

And so getting comfortable with the fact that we can't know everything and that the world is really complex and it's important for us to take positions on issues regardless of that is really critical.

What we're trying to do is act with wisdom or prudence, right?

We want to do the best that we can given the situation.

And that determination can be pretty challenging because to take a position on an issue, it's just not practical to study it as if you were going to get a PhD in that topic.

At the same time, to jump to some really strong opinion based on nothing, based on, you know, having read half of one article or seen one post on Twitter—

That's also really bad, right?

So what we need to be able to do is find some common ground, some middle path, as you said.

And exactly where that middle path lies, that determination is a pretty tricky one.

But if we get in the habit of trying to aim for somewhere in the middle of that distribution, I think that people are pretty reasonable and we can do it.

So having a little more discrimination and deliberation than we normally do, but not going so far to think that we need to know everything about a topic or an issue before we have a position on it.

Somewhere in the middle, you're going to be better off than where you are right now.

I think absolutely.

And this is a habit that I've gotten in myself, which is practicing checking your understanding.

Nevio asked if there's a way to stop the illusion.

I don't think there's a way to stop the illusion.

What I think we can do is we can experience the illusion and then we can mentally calibrate after we've experienced it.

So when I jump to a strong position on something,

I can habitually ask myself after that to try to explain, to really test whether I know what I'm talking about.

And then when you notice that there's a big gap,

sort of make a mental note of that.

Maybe even write it down and see how many times that's occurring over the course of your day.

And I still, you know, I've been studying this topic for many, many years.

And I can promise your listeners that I fall for this all the time still.

But I have gotten better at habitually checking my understanding.

And that practice, I do think, has made me more humble about my knowledge overall.

Well, I think the knowledge illusion occurs both for things that we care about and for things we don't care about.

I mean, who cares about how a toilet works, right?

However, I think your intuition is right that things that we care deeply about, we're more prone to an even stronger illusion.

And let me give you an example of that.

I've done some work looking at the opinions of people who have very strong counter-consensus beliefs.

views about science so people who are very anti-vaccination or very opposed to genetically modified foods and things like that and what we find is that the people who have the most passionate strongest views often know the least about the issues and one reason that could be is because that passionate strong view is backed up by a strong feeling that they understand the issue already

And because they have that strong view and they feel they understand the issue already, it's very hard to reach them with new information.

They're not going to look for new information because they feel like they already have mastery of the topic.

And so I think issues where we feel like we've really studied them and that we care about them a lot, we're going to be even more closed off to new perspectives, different perspectives on those issues.

That's such an interesting observation from Zach, that being in a new environment can prompt this curiosity.

I really like that.

I don't know, for your listeners who have children, young children, they ask why questions all the time.

There's a never-ending string of questions that they'll ask about some topic because the world is endlessly complex, as we've been talking about.

As we grow, we stop asking those questions so much.

We sort of forget about all the complexity in the world.

Part of that is our brains...

and our minds sort of protecting us from all that complexity and trying to focus us on what's actually gonna improve our lives, be functional for making decisions and all that kind of stuff.

What is gonna force us into actually asking those why questions?

I think it is being in a very novel environment where things seem different.

Right.

So if we're just in our normal environment, we just go along as if everything is explained and we've already done the hard work of thinking through all of the possibilities and complexities.

And when we're put into a new environment, it's like we're a child again.

Oh, I've never seen that before.

That's curious.

So these things kind of jump out to us, I think, that need to be explained.

And that can probably prompt people to be more curious about asking those why questions.

I love that idea.

We sort of have a license to be dummies, which can be a very powerful thing because when you're in your profession or in your friend group or whatever it is, you do feel this pressure to be sort of a master of that domain because it's the one that you live in.

And when you're thrust into something new, everybody knows you have no idea what's going on.

So it sort of frees you up to ask those questions.

And that's a very wonderful idea.

I like that.

Thank you so much for having me.

It's great to be with you, Shankar. Thank you.

It's great to be with you, Shankar. Thank you.

It's great to be with you, Shankar. Thank you.

This was one of the most fascinating periods in American history. It was the development of the nuclear bomb at Los Alamos in New Mexico. And these were very eminent physicists who were testing the reaction of the fissile material in the bomb, the plutonium.

This was one of the most fascinating periods in American history. It was the development of the nuclear bomb at Los Alamos in New Mexico. And these were very eminent physicists who were testing the reaction of the fissile material in the bomb, the plutonium.

This was one of the most fascinating periods in American history. It was the development of the nuclear bomb at Los Alamos in New Mexico. And these were very eminent physicists who were testing the reaction of the fissile material in the bomb, the plutonium.

And this particular experiment, which the physicist Richard Feynman, as you said, called Tickling the Dragon's Dale, it was a very delicate experiment that involved taking two hemispheres of beryllium that were surrounding the plutonium core and moving them closer and closer together to test the reactivity of the plutonium. So the plutonium is radioactive and gives off neutrons.

And this particular experiment, which the physicist Richard Feynman, as you said, called Tickling the Dragon's Dale, it was a very delicate experiment that involved taking two hemispheres of beryllium that were surrounding the plutonium core and moving them closer and closer together to test the reactivity of the plutonium. So the plutonium is radioactive and gives off neutrons.

And this particular experiment, which the physicist Richard Feynman, as you said, called Tickling the Dragon's Dale, it was a very delicate experiment that involved taking two hemispheres of beryllium that were surrounding the plutonium core and moving them closer and closer together to test the reactivity of the plutonium. So the plutonium is radioactive and gives off neutrons.

Those neutrons rebound off of the beryllium and create the reaction.

Those neutrons rebound off of the beryllium and create the reaction.

Those neutrons rebound off of the beryllium and create the reaction.

As the hemispheres get closer together, you get more of that reaction. What's so delicate and dangerous about this experiment is that if the hemispheres get too close together, it can create a chain reaction that releases a burst of radioactivity that can be very dangerous.

As the hemispheres get closer together, you get more of that reaction. What's so delicate and dangerous about this experiment is that if the hemispheres get too close together, it can create a chain reaction that releases a burst of radioactivity that can be very dangerous.

As the hemispheres get closer together, you get more of that reaction. What's so delicate and dangerous about this experiment is that if the hemispheres get too close together, it can create a chain reaction that releases a burst of radioactivity that can be very dangerous.

He was. He was one of the developers of the bomb and was an extremely eminent and experienced physicist. He was... the most important member of this experimental team because he was the one who was actually engaged in the process of bringing those hemispheres of beryllium closer together. How was he doing it? What was he doing? Well, this is the crazy part of the story.

He was. He was one of the developers of the bomb and was an extremely eminent and experienced physicist. He was... the most important member of this experimental team because he was the one who was actually engaged in the process of bringing those hemispheres of beryllium closer together. How was he doing it? What was he doing? Well, this is the crazy part of the story.

He was. He was one of the developers of the bomb and was an extremely eminent and experienced physicist. He was... the most important member of this experimental team because he was the one who was actually engaged in the process of bringing those hemispheres of beryllium closer together. How was he doing it? What was he doing? Well, this is the crazy part of the story.

He was actually using a common flathead screwdriver to keep the two sections of beryllium apart. Unfortunately, at the critical moment, The screwdriver slipped. The two hemispheres of beryllium crashed together and they released this intense burst of radioactive radiation. Slotin, who was right next to the apparatus, took the worst of it.

He was actually using a common flathead screwdriver to keep the two sections of beryllium apart. Unfortunately, at the critical moment, The screwdriver slipped. The two hemispheres of beryllium crashed together and they released this intense burst of radioactive radiation. Slotin, who was right next to the apparatus, took the worst of it.

He was actually using a common flathead screwdriver to keep the two sections of beryllium apart. Unfortunately, at the critical moment, The screwdriver slipped. The two hemispheres of beryllium crashed together and they released this intense burst of radioactive radiation. Slotin, who was right next to the apparatus, took the worst of it.

And he actually died in the infirmary eight days later of radiation poisoning. The rest of the physicists in the room, all eminent scientists, all survived the initial burst. Some of them unfortunately died before their time, potentially due to the radiation dose that they received.

And he actually died in the infirmary eight days later of radiation poisoning. The rest of the physicists in the room, all eminent scientists, all survived the initial burst. Some of them unfortunately died before their time, potentially due to the radiation dose that they received.

And he actually died in the infirmary eight days later of radiation poisoning. The rest of the physicists in the room, all eminent scientists, all survived the initial burst. Some of them unfortunately died before their time, potentially due to the radiation dose that they received.

There certainly was. For instance, an obvious way to do it would have been to suspend one of the hemispheres of beryllium, and then the other hemisphere could be raised from the bottom. In that case, if anything slipped or there was any problem, gravity would have just pulled the two hemispheres apart, and that would have been much less of a dangerous way to conduct the experiment.

There certainly was. For instance, an obvious way to do it would have been to suspend one of the hemispheres of beryllium, and then the other hemisphere could be raised from the bottom. In that case, if anything slipped or there was any problem, gravity would have just pulled the two hemispheres apart, and that would have been much less of a dangerous way to conduct the experiment.

There certainly was. For instance, an obvious way to do it would have been to suspend one of the hemispheres of beryllium, and then the other hemisphere could be raised from the bottom. In that case, if anything slipped or there was any problem, gravity would have just pulled the two hemispheres apart, and that would have been much less of a dangerous way to conduct the experiment.

I think Slotin, like any other person, by virtue of his experience, did not foresee this potential problem. He became overconfident in his ability to conduct this experiment because he had done it so many times before and he had so much experience in this domain.

I think Slotin, like any other person, by virtue of his experience, did not foresee this potential problem. He became overconfident in his ability to conduct this experiment because he had done it so many times before and he had so much experience in this domain.

I think Slotin, like any other person, by virtue of his experience, did not foresee this potential problem. He became overconfident in his ability to conduct this experiment because he had done it so many times before and he had so much experience in this domain.

A stall is a very scary thing. So that's when an airplane loses airspeed and literally starts falling out of the sky. Every pilot, when they learn how to fly an airplane, this is one of the most important things that they train for. So they actually will purposely put the airplane into a stall and then learn how to take it out of the stall. How do you take a plane out of a stall?

A stall is a very scary thing. So that's when an airplane loses airspeed and literally starts falling out of the sky. Every pilot, when they learn how to fly an airplane, this is one of the most important things that they train for. So they actually will purposely put the airplane into a stall and then learn how to take it out of the stall. How do you take a plane out of a stall?

A stall is a very scary thing. So that's when an airplane loses airspeed and literally starts falling out of the sky. Every pilot, when they learn how to fly an airplane, this is one of the most important things that they train for. So they actually will purposely put the airplane into a stall and then learn how to take it out of the stall. How do you take a plane out of a stall?

Well, actually, what you need to do is point the nose of the plane down counterintuitively. You want to go up, but you actually have to point the plane down. You have to increase your acceleration. You have to regain airspeed, and then you can actually achieve an altitude correction.

Well, actually, what you need to do is point the nose of the plane down counterintuitively. You want to go up, but you actually have to point the plane down. You have to increase your acceleration. You have to regain airspeed, and then you can actually achieve an altitude correction.

Well, actually, what you need to do is point the nose of the plane down counterintuitively. You want to go up, but you actually have to point the plane down. You have to increase your acceleration. You have to regain airspeed, and then you can actually achieve an altitude correction.

When they recovered the black box from this airplane, surprisingly, what they found was that this very experienced pilot had done was exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do in a stall situation. He was actually trying to pull the plane up, but without any airspeed, that's just impossible. There's no way that the plane could recover.

When they recovered the black box from this airplane, surprisingly, what they found was that this very experienced pilot had done was exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do in a stall situation. He was actually trying to pull the plane up, but without any airspeed, that's just impossible. There's no way that the plane could recover.

When they recovered the black box from this airplane, surprisingly, what they found was that this very experienced pilot had done was exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to do in a stall situation. He was actually trying to pull the plane up, but without any airspeed, that's just impossible. There's no way that the plane could recover.

And so, unfortunately, this led to this devastating outcome.

And so, unfortunately, this led to this devastating outcome.

And so, unfortunately, this led to this devastating outcome.

Yeah, they did very extensive analyses to try to figure out what went wrong. And one of their overall conclusions was that pilots in general have become too reliant on automation and have lost some of their basic flying skills. Modern airplanes, especially modern jetliners, are so technologically sophisticated that a lot of the time the software and the airplane are doing most of the work.

Yeah, they did very extensive analyses to try to figure out what went wrong. And one of their overall conclusions was that pilots in general have become too reliant on automation and have lost some of their basic flying skills. Modern airplanes, especially modern jetliners, are so technologically sophisticated that a lot of the time the software and the airplane are doing most of the work.

Yeah, they did very extensive analyses to try to figure out what went wrong. And one of their overall conclusions was that pilots in general have become too reliant on automation and have lost some of their basic flying skills. Modern airplanes, especially modern jetliners, are so technologically sophisticated that a lot of the time the software and the airplane are doing most of the work.

The pilot is almost like an observer watching the airplane do the job. The pilot, of course, has to be there to intervene in unusual situations when something goes wrong. The problem is that those situations are becoming more and more rare because the software is becoming more and more capable.

The pilot is almost like an observer watching the airplane do the job. The pilot, of course, has to be there to intervene in unusual situations when something goes wrong. The problem is that those situations are becoming more and more rare because the software is becoming more and more capable.

The pilot is almost like an observer watching the airplane do the job. The pilot, of course, has to be there to intervene in unusual situations when something goes wrong. The problem is that those situations are becoming more and more rare because the software is becoming more and more capable.

So in cases where an intervention is necessary, the pilot might not be as prepared as they should be because they become too reliant on the automation.

So in cases where an intervention is necessary, the pilot might not be as prepared as they should be because they become too reliant on the automation.

So in cases where an intervention is necessary, the pilot might not be as prepared as they should be because they become too reliant on the automation.

I've had the exact same experience. In fact, I've heard stories of people driving into lakes because that's what the GPS tells them to do. Yeah. My own personal experience with this is I use self-driving software all the time when I'm driving now. It works remarkably well. But one thing I've noticed over the last few years is that I've actually become a worse driver.

I've had the exact same experience. In fact, I've heard stories of people driving into lakes because that's what the GPS tells them to do. Yeah. My own personal experience with this is I use self-driving software all the time when I'm driving now. It works remarkably well. But one thing I've noticed over the last few years is that I've actually become a worse driver.

I've had the exact same experience. In fact, I've heard stories of people driving into lakes because that's what the GPS tells them to do. Yeah. My own personal experience with this is I use self-driving software all the time when I'm driving now. It works remarkably well. But one thing I've noticed over the last few years is that I've actually become a worse driver.

No one wants to admit to themselves that they've become a worse driver. But for me, the evidence is kind of incontrovertible at this point because I've gotten into a few fender benders recently. Over the last few years, which I've never done before. And so I've asked myself, what is going on here?

No one wants to admit to themselves that they've become a worse driver. But for me, the evidence is kind of incontrovertible at this point because I've gotten into a few fender benders recently. Over the last few years, which I've never done before. And so I've asked myself, what is going on here?

No one wants to admit to themselves that they've become a worse driver. But for me, the evidence is kind of incontrovertible at this point because I've gotten into a few fender benders recently. Over the last few years, which I've never done before. And so I've asked myself, what is going on here?

And I really think it's because I've become so reliant on the car doing the work that I've lost my situational awareness. And then when something unusual happens and I need to take over, I'm not ready to do it. Just like a pilot on an automated airline.

And I really think it's because I've become so reliant on the car doing the work that I've lost my situational awareness. And then when something unusual happens and I need to take over, I'm not ready to do it. Just like a pilot on an automated airline.

And I really think it's because I've become so reliant on the car doing the work that I've lost my situational awareness. And then when something unusual happens and I need to take over, I'm not ready to do it. Just like a pilot on an automated airline.

The financial crash in 2008 was in a great part due to a massive decline in the value of these financial products, a certain kind of financial product called a derivative. Derivatives are really complicated financial instruments, and it's really hard to predict exactly how they're going to behave.

The financial crash in 2008 was in a great part due to a massive decline in the value of these financial products, a certain kind of financial product called a derivative. Derivatives are really complicated financial instruments, and it's really hard to predict exactly how they're going to behave.

The financial crash in 2008 was in a great part due to a massive decline in the value of these financial products, a certain kind of financial product called a derivative. Derivatives are really complicated financial instruments, and it's really hard to predict exactly how they're going to behave.

Traders like derivatives because they can often generate really good returns in Financial markets return is always correlated with risk.

Traders like derivatives because they can often generate really good returns in Financial markets return is always correlated with risk.

Traders like derivatives because they can often generate really good returns in Financial markets return is always correlated with risk.

So if something has a high return, it's also gonna have a high risk The problem with derivatives is because they're so complicated It's often impossible to see the risk or it's very hard to see the risk the risk only emerges in sort of unusual situations so it's like

So if something has a high return, it's also gonna have a high risk The problem with derivatives is because they're so complicated It's often impossible to see the risk or it's very hard to see the risk the risk only emerges in sort of unusual situations so it's like

So if something has a high return, it's also gonna have a high risk The problem with derivatives is because they're so complicated It's often impossible to see the risk or it's very hard to see the risk the risk only emerges in sort of unusual situations so it's like

that the product is, you know, it seems to be behaving just very safely, but then something changes and all of a sudden, instead of losing 10% of its value, it loses 90% of its value or something like that.

that the product is, you know, it seems to be behaving just very safely, but then something changes and all of a sudden, instead of losing 10% of its value, it loses 90% of its value or something like that.

that the product is, you know, it seems to be behaving just very safely, but then something changes and all of a sudden, instead of losing 10% of its value, it loses 90% of its value or something like that.

Now, what ended up happening in the financial crisis was that these derivative products were ending up in places where they didn't belong, in places that should not have been taking on this amount of risk. Things like pension funds that should be relatively safe investments. Why did they end up there? Because the people buying them just did not appreciate or realize how complicated they were.

Now, what ended up happening in the financial crisis was that these derivative products were ending up in places where they didn't belong, in places that should not have been taking on this amount of risk. Things like pension funds that should be relatively safe investments. Why did they end up there? Because the people buying them just did not appreciate or realize how complicated they were.

Now, what ended up happening in the financial crisis was that these derivative products were ending up in places where they didn't belong, in places that should not have been taking on this amount of risk. Things like pension funds that should be relatively safe investments. Why did they end up there? Because the people buying them just did not appreciate or realize how complicated they were.

And so what happened was when the price of real estate in the United States started going down, these products, which were tied to the value of real estate and like the default probabilities on mortgages, they crashed in value.

And so what happened was when the price of real estate in the United States started going down, these products, which were tied to the value of real estate and like the default probabilities on mortgages, they crashed in value.

And so what happened was when the price of real estate in the United States started going down, these products, which were tied to the value of real estate and like the default probabilities on mortgages, they crashed in value.

And there was this huge amount of risk in our financial system because these products had entered into all these different areas and they were highly represented in all these different areas.

And there was this huge amount of risk in our financial system because these products had entered into all these different areas and they were highly represented in all these different areas.

And there was this huge amount of risk in our financial system because these products had entered into all these different areas and they were highly represented in all these different areas.

And all of a sudden, kind of everybody was caught by surprise that the pension fund was losing a huge amount of its value because it had exposure to these very risky things because people didn't realize that the risk was there.

And all of a sudden, kind of everybody was caught by surprise that the pension fund was losing a huge amount of its value because it had exposure to these very risky things because people didn't realize that the risk was there.

And all of a sudden, kind of everybody was caught by surprise that the pension fund was losing a huge amount of its value because it had exposure to these very risky things because people didn't realize that the risk was there.

That's absolutely right. And I think it happens at more than one level. So if you think about a pension fund manager who knows what a derivative is, but isn't a super expert in a derivative, he's relying on the people who do the analysis of the derivatives to kind of think, oh, this is potentially like a good investment vehicle for my portfolio. He's not thinking in terms

That's absolutely right. And I think it happens at more than one level. So if you think about a pension fund manager who knows what a derivative is, but isn't a super expert in a derivative, he's relying on the people who do the analysis of the derivatives to kind of think, oh, this is potentially like a good investment vehicle for my portfolio. He's not thinking in terms

That's absolutely right. And I think it happens at more than one level. So if you think about a pension fund manager who knows what a derivative is, but isn't a super expert in a derivative, he's relying on the people who do the analysis of the derivatives to kind of think, oh, this is potentially like a good investment vehicle for my portfolio. He's not thinking in terms

super careful detail about what the risk profile is of that instrument. And maybe he or she should be, but they obviously didn't. But it also occurs at another level, which is the person who actually is the super expert on the derivative, even that person, it turned out, didn't understand completely how these things were going to behave.

super careful detail about what the risk profile is of that instrument. And maybe he or she should be, but they obviously didn't. But it also occurs at another level, which is the person who actually is the super expert on the derivative, even that person, it turned out, didn't understand completely how these things were going to behave.

super careful detail about what the risk profile is of that instrument. And maybe he or she should be, but they obviously didn't. But it also occurs at another level, which is the person who actually is the super expert on the derivative, even that person, it turned out, didn't understand completely how these things were going to behave.

So the big banks who were developing these instruments and selling them they would have a mathematical model that would determine exactly how these things would behave. The problem is that those mathematical models work really well most of the time, like an airplane that's highly automated, but they actually break down in very unusual situations, a black swan event, so to speak.

So the big banks who were developing these instruments and selling them they would have a mathematical model that would determine exactly how these things would behave. The problem is that those mathematical models work really well most of the time, like an airplane that's highly automated, but they actually break down in very unusual situations, a black swan event, so to speak.

So the big banks who were developing these instruments and selling them they would have a mathematical model that would determine exactly how these things would behave. The problem is that those mathematical models work really well most of the time, like an airplane that's highly automated, but they actually break down in very unusual situations, a black swan event, so to speak.

And that's exactly what happened. So the models failed. And so the super experts on derivatives even they completely misunderstood the amount of risk that was present in these products. So it was across the entire financial system that there was these sort of miscalibrations in understanding.

And that's exactly what happened. So the models failed. And so the super experts on derivatives even they completely misunderstood the amount of risk that was present in these products. So it was across the entire financial system that there was these sort of miscalibrations in understanding.

And that's exactly what happened. So the models failed. And so the super experts on derivatives even they completely misunderstood the amount of risk that was present in these products. So it was across the entire financial system that there was these sort of miscalibrations in understanding.

And there was this cascade effect that started with, you know, some slight decreases in the price of housing and then just cascaded into this massive crash and devastation that not only affected the United States, but affected... countries all over the world because the entire global system is so connected nowadays.

And there was this cascade effect that started with, you know, some slight decreases in the price of housing and then just cascaded into this massive crash and devastation that not only affected the United States, but affected... countries all over the world because the entire global system is so connected nowadays.

And there was this cascade effect that started with, you know, some slight decreases in the price of housing and then just cascaded into this massive crash and devastation that not only affected the United States, but affected... countries all over the world because the entire global system is so connected nowadays.

That is a paradox, and that is the paradox at the heart of humankind, I think. On the one hand, we have visited the moon and created incredible artificial intelligence and all these other sort of almost magical abilities. On the other hand, everybody knows that people can engage in behavior that's incredibly ignorant and extreme and foolish.

That is a paradox, and that is the paradox at the heart of humankind, I think. On the one hand, we have visited the moon and created incredible artificial intelligence and all these other sort of almost magical abilities. On the other hand, everybody knows that people can engage in behavior that's incredibly ignorant and extreme and foolish.

That is a paradox, and that is the paradox at the heart of humankind, I think. On the one hand, we have visited the moon and created incredible artificial intelligence and all these other sort of almost magical abilities. On the other hand, everybody knows that people can engage in behavior that's incredibly ignorant and extreme and foolish.

And we've all done it ourselves and we've all seen it in others.

And we've all done it ourselves and we've all seen it in others.

And we've all done it ourselves and we've all seen it in others.

The illusion of knowledge is the idea that we think that we understand the world in much greater detail than we actually do. In cognitive science, this is sometimes called the illusion of explanatory depth. There was great research done by a psychologist at Yale named Frank Kyle and his colleagues in the 1990s. And that's precisely what they were interested in.

The illusion of knowledge is the idea that we think that we understand the world in much greater detail than we actually do. In cognitive science, this is sometimes called the illusion of explanatory depth. There was great research done by a psychologist at Yale named Frank Kyle and his colleagues in the 1990s. And that's precisely what they were interested in.

The illusion of knowledge is the idea that we think that we understand the world in much greater detail than we actually do. In cognitive science, this is sometimes called the illusion of explanatory depth. There was great research done by a psychologist at Yale named Frank Kyle and his colleagues in the 1990s. And that's precisely what they were interested in.

How well do people understand how everyday objects work, things like toilets or ballpoint pens or zippers? And in these studies, what they asked people to do was to first just give a sort of impression of how well they understand things. And what's fun about this experiment is that your listeners can actually do this experiment on themselves right now. So think about it.

How well do people understand how everyday objects work, things like toilets or ballpoint pens or zippers? And in these studies, what they asked people to do was to first just give a sort of impression of how well they understand things. And what's fun about this experiment is that your listeners can actually do this experiment on themselves right now. So think about it.

How well do people understand how everyday objects work, things like toilets or ballpoint pens or zippers? And in these studies, what they asked people to do was to first just give a sort of impression of how well they understand things. And what's fun about this experiment is that your listeners can actually do this experiment on themselves right now. So think about it.

How well do you understand how a toilet works? And if you're like most people, you're kind of nodding your head right now and saying, well, I have a decent understanding of how a toilet works. You think that somewhere in your mind is something like an annotated plumbing diagram that you could tell us about. But here's the trick.

How well do you understand how a toilet works? And if you're like most people, you're kind of nodding your head right now and saying, well, I have a decent understanding of how a toilet works. You think that somewhere in your mind is something like an annotated plumbing diagram that you could tell us about. But here's the trick.

How well do you understand how a toilet works? And if you're like most people, you're kind of nodding your head right now and saying, well, I have a decent understanding of how a toilet works. You think that somewhere in your mind is something like an annotated plumbing diagram that you could tell us about. But here's the trick.

In the next part of the experiment, what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask you to explain to me in detail exactly how it works. And when I do that, something really remarkable happens. People reach inside and they realize they have just about nothing to say. It turns out that we tend to know remarkably little about the way that the world works.

In the next part of the experiment, what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask you to explain to me in detail exactly how it works. And when I do that, something really remarkable happens. People reach inside and they realize they have just about nothing to say. It turns out that we tend to know remarkably little about the way that the world works.

In the next part of the experiment, what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask you to explain to me in detail exactly how it works. And when I do that, something really remarkable happens. People reach inside and they realize they have just about nothing to say. It turns out that we tend to know remarkably little about the way that the world works.

And yet, that initial impression we have is that we do understand in a lot of depth. And that's what Kyle called the illusion of explanatory depth and is sometimes referred to more simply as an illusion of knowledge or an illusion of understanding.

And yet, that initial impression we have is that we do understand in a lot of depth. And that's what Kyle called the illusion of explanatory depth and is sometimes referred to more simply as an illusion of knowledge or an illusion of understanding.

And yet, that initial impression we have is that we do understand in a lot of depth. And that's what Kyle called the illusion of explanatory depth and is sometimes referred to more simply as an illusion of knowledge or an illusion of understanding.

So that's actually most of the time pretty much all you need to know about how a toilet works until the toilet breaks and you have to fix it. And then you realize, actually, there's a lot more going on.

So that's actually most of the time pretty much all you need to know about how a toilet works until the toilet breaks and you have to fix it. And then you realize, actually, there's a lot more going on.

So that's actually most of the time pretty much all you need to know about how a toilet works until the toilet breaks and you have to fix it. And then you realize, actually, there's a lot more going on.

So the most popular flush toilet in North America is the siphoning toilet. And by the way, this is a really ingenious mechanism that was created. Its most important components are a tank, a bowl, and a trapway. The trapway is usually S or U-shaped, and it curves up higher than the outlet of the bowl before descending into the drain pipe that eventually feeds the sewer.

So the most popular flush toilet in North America is the siphoning toilet. And by the way, this is a really ingenious mechanism that was created. Its most important components are a tank, a bowl, and a trapway. The trapway is usually S or U-shaped, and it curves up higher than the outlet of the bowl before descending into the drain pipe that eventually feeds the sewer.

So the most popular flush toilet in North America is the siphoning toilet. And by the way, this is a really ingenious mechanism that was created. Its most important components are a tank, a bowl, and a trapway. The trapway is usually S or U-shaped, and it curves up higher than the outlet of the bowl before descending into the drain pipe that eventually feeds the sewer.

The tank is initially full of water, and when the toilet is flushed, the water flows from the tank quickly into the bowl, raising the water level above the highest curve of the trapway. This purges the trapway of air, filling it with water. As soon as the trapway fills, the magic occurs.

The tank is initially full of water, and when the toilet is flushed, the water flows from the tank quickly into the bowl, raising the water level above the highest curve of the trapway. This purges the trapway of air, filling it with water. As soon as the trapway fills, the magic occurs.

The tank is initially full of water, and when the toilet is flushed, the water flows from the tank quickly into the bowl, raising the water level above the highest curve of the trapway. This purges the trapway of air, filling it with water. As soon as the trapway fills, the magic occurs.

A siphon effect is created that sucks the water out of the bowl and sends it through the trapway down the drain. It's the same siphon action that you can use to steal gasoline out of a car by placing one end in the tank and sucking on the other end.

A siphon effect is created that sucks the water out of the bowl and sends it through the trapway down the drain. It's the same siphon action that you can use to steal gasoline out of a car by placing one end in the tank and sucking on the other end.

A siphon effect is created that sucks the water out of the bowl and sends it through the trapway down the drain. It's the same siphon action that you can use to steal gasoline out of a car by placing one end in the tank and sucking on the other end.

Well, I think we should test that with a plumber, not with me. But I think you did a pretty good job.

Well, I think we should test that with a plumber, not with me. But I think you did a pretty good job.

Well, I think we should test that with a plumber, not with me. But I think you did a pretty good job.

I think we both should. But what this highlights is just how complicated the world is. Whoever thought, you know, there's this ingenious mechanism in this object that we use every single day and we never think about.

I think we both should. But what this highlights is just how complicated the world is. Whoever thought, you know, there's this ingenious mechanism in this object that we use every single day and we never think about.

I think we both should. But what this highlights is just how complicated the world is. Whoever thought, you know, there's this ingenious mechanism in this object that we use every single day and we never think about.

I think this reflects a really deep fact about the nature of the mind and what thinking is actually for. Thinking evolved to make us more effective at acting in the world. The world is extremely complex. And to be able to choose effective actions in the world really requires acting in environments that are very different from one another. We almost never see the same exact situation arise twice.

I think this reflects a really deep fact about the nature of the mind and what thinking is actually for. Thinking evolved to make us more effective at acting in the world. The world is extremely complex. And to be able to choose effective actions in the world really requires acting in environments that are very different from one another. We almost never see the same exact situation arise twice.

I think this reflects a really deep fact about the nature of the mind and what thinking is actually for. Thinking evolved to make us more effective at acting in the world. The world is extremely complex. And to be able to choose effective actions in the world really requires acting in environments that are very different from one another. We almost never see the same exact situation arise twice.

And so our minds have to be really effective at generalization. They have to understand that this situation is similar to this situation in some way to be able to act effectively. So storing a huge amount of detail about the world and the way that it works is actually counterproductive.

And so our minds have to be really effective at generalization. They have to understand that this situation is similar to this situation in some way to be able to act effectively. So storing a huge amount of detail about the world and the way that it works is actually counterproductive.

And so our minds have to be really effective at generalization. They have to understand that this situation is similar to this situation in some way to be able to act effectively. So storing a huge amount of detail about the world and the way that it works is actually counterproductive.

What we really want to do is throw away all of the irrelevant detail and just retain the deeper principles, the deeper generalizable structures that are going to allow us to choose effective actions.

What we really want to do is throw away all of the irrelevant detail and just retain the deeper principles, the deeper generalizable structures that are going to allow us to choose effective actions.

What we really want to do is throw away all of the irrelevant detail and just retain the deeper principles, the deeper generalizable structures that are going to allow us to choose effective actions.

That's exactly right. The world is so complex. When you start digging into the details of almost anything, you realize how complicated it is and that you don't necessarily appreciate that complexity off the bat. I remember hearing a story about a rock, paper, scissors tournament. Do you know the game rock, paper, scissors? Yes, yeah. Very simple game, right?

That's exactly right. The world is so complex. When you start digging into the details of almost anything, you realize how complicated it is and that you don't necessarily appreciate that complexity off the bat. I remember hearing a story about a rock, paper, scissors tournament. Do you know the game rock, paper, scissors? Yes, yeah. Very simple game, right?

That's exactly right. The world is so complex. When you start digging into the details of almost anything, you realize how complicated it is and that you don't necessarily appreciate that complexity off the bat. I remember hearing a story about a rock, paper, scissors tournament. Do you know the game rock, paper, scissors? Yes, yeah. Very simple game, right?

It seems like there's nothing to learn and nothing to understand about that game. How could you have a tournament? You just throw randomly. Right. Well, actually, it turns out that there's a group of people who have gotten really good at rock, paper, scissors. And what do they do? They master the details of how the human mind chooses—

It seems like there's nothing to learn and nothing to understand about that game. How could you have a tournament? You just throw randomly. Right. Well, actually, it turns out that there's a group of people who have gotten really good at rock, paper, scissors. And what do they do? They master the details of how the human mind chooses—

It seems like there's nothing to learn and nothing to understand about that game. How could you have a tournament? You just throw randomly. Right. Well, actually, it turns out that there's a group of people who have gotten really good at rock, paper, scissors. And what do they do? They master the details of how the human mind chooses—

what to throw and how it engages in pattern matching and other kinds of things. And they can identify certain kinds of patterns in what a more novice rock, paper, scissors player will do and take advantage of that.

what to throw and how it engages in pattern matching and other kinds of things. And they can identify certain kinds of patterns in what a more novice rock, paper, scissors player will do and take advantage of that.

what to throw and how it engages in pattern matching and other kinds of things. And they can identify certain kinds of patterns in what a more novice rock, paper, scissors player will do and take advantage of that.

That's exactly right. It's a funny kind of dumb example, but something where when I first looked at it, I said, there is no way that somebody could develop any level of expertise in that area. But it turns out, no, there is actually something to be learned there.

That's exactly right. It's a funny kind of dumb example, but something where when I first looked at it, I said, there is no way that somebody could develop any level of expertise in that area. But it turns out, no, there is actually something to be learned there.

That's exactly right. It's a funny kind of dumb example, but something where when I first looked at it, I said, there is no way that somebody could develop any level of expertise in that area. But it turns out, no, there is actually something to be learned there.

Yeah, this is a super fascinating example. So hyperthymesia is also called highly superior autobiographical memory. And these are people who literally remember everything that's ever happened to them. And so you could talk to a person with hyperthymesia and say, what happened to you at 10.30 in the morning on August 15th, 1985. And they can relate to exactly what occurred.

Yeah, this is a super fascinating example. So hyperthymesia is also called highly superior autobiographical memory. And these are people who literally remember everything that's ever happened to them. And so you could talk to a person with hyperthymesia and say, what happened to you at 10.30 in the morning on August 15th, 1985. And they can relate to exactly what occurred.

Yeah, this is a super fascinating example. So hyperthymesia is also called highly superior autobiographical memory. And these are people who literally remember everything that's ever happened to them. And so you could talk to a person with hyperthymesia and say, what happened to you at 10.30 in the morning on August 15th, 1985. And they can relate to exactly what occurred.

They basically have perfect recall. So before I described how our minds are very good at throwing away irrelevant detail. If you have hyperthymesia, it's the opposite. You retain everything that's ever happened to you. It sounds like a superpower, but it actually makes life really difficult. And there's an amazing short story by the Argentinian writer Borges, which is called Funes de Memorias.

They basically have perfect recall. So before I described how our minds are very good at throwing away irrelevant detail. If you have hyperthymesia, it's the opposite. You retain everything that's ever happened to you. It sounds like a superpower, but it actually makes life really difficult. And there's an amazing short story by the Argentinian writer Borges, which is called Funes de Memorias.

They basically have perfect recall. So before I described how our minds are very good at throwing away irrelevant detail. If you have hyperthymesia, it's the opposite. You retain everything that's ever happened to you. It sounds like a superpower, but it actually makes life really difficult. And there's an amazing short story by the Argentinian writer Borges, which is called Funes de Memorias.

And it describes exactly this, a man who falls off a horse and develops perfect autobiographical memory so that he remembers every little detail of his life, and it drives him crazy. And that's because the purpose of thinking, the purpose of cognition is really not to store detail. It's to throw the detail away to be able to generalize. And that's such an important function of cognition.

And it describes exactly this, a man who falls off a horse and develops perfect autobiographical memory so that he remembers every little detail of his life, and it drives him crazy. And that's because the purpose of thinking, the purpose of cognition is really not to store detail. It's to throw the detail away to be able to generalize. And that's such an important function of cognition.

And it describes exactly this, a man who falls off a horse and develops perfect autobiographical memory so that he remembers every little detail of his life, and it drives him crazy. And that's because the purpose of thinking, the purpose of cognition is really not to store detail. It's to throw the detail away to be able to generalize. And that's such an important function of cognition.

If you have this hyperthymesia, it actually makes life really difficult.

If you have this hyperthymesia, it actually makes life really difficult.

If you have this hyperthymesia, it actually makes life really difficult.

In fact, it would be futile to try to know everything. The world is just way too complex. We've already talked about that. There's just no way that an individual can know enough about the world that it would be effective to store all the details about everything. That's just part and parcel of what it means to be a human being.

In fact, it would be futile to try to know everything. The world is just way too complex. We've already talked about that. There's just no way that an individual can know enough about the world that it would be effective to store all the details about everything. That's just part and parcel of what it means to be a human being.

In fact, it would be futile to try to know everything. The world is just way too complex. We've already talked about that. There's just no way that an individual can know enough about the world that it would be effective to store all the details about everything. That's just part and parcel of what it means to be a human being.

It is a problem that we don't appreciate the extent to which we don't understand.

It is a problem that we don't appreciate the extent to which we don't understand.

It is a problem that we don't appreciate the extent to which we don't understand.

This is a crazy story. So this guy... was under the impression that he would be invisible to the cameras if he put lemon juice on his face. You remember when you were a kid, you could create invisible ink by putting lemon juice on the paper. So he thought for some reason that this would apply to making him invisible to the camera.

This is a crazy story. So this guy... was under the impression that he would be invisible to the cameras if he put lemon juice on his face. You remember when you were a kid, you could create invisible ink by putting lemon juice on the paper. So he thought for some reason that this would apply to making him invisible to the camera.

This is a crazy story. So this guy... was under the impression that he would be invisible to the cameras if he put lemon juice on his face. You remember when you were a kid, you could create invisible ink by putting lemon juice on the paper. So he thought for some reason that this would apply to making him invisible to the camera.

So he actually went in to try to rob a bank with no mask, no subterfuge whatsoever, just lemon juice on his face. So his image is broadcast on the news. Within minutes, the police arrive at his door to arrest him, and he is completely incredulous. How could they have possibly known it was him because he had the lemon juice on his face?

So he actually went in to try to rob a bank with no mask, no subterfuge whatsoever, just lemon juice on his face. So his image is broadcast on the news. Within minutes, the police arrive at his door to arrest him, and he is completely incredulous. How could they have possibly known it was him because he had the lemon juice on his face?

So he actually went in to try to rob a bank with no mask, no subterfuge whatsoever, just lemon juice on his face. So his image is broadcast on the news. Within minutes, the police arrive at his door to arrest him, and he is completely incredulous. How could they have possibly known it was him because he had the lemon juice on his face?

And in fact, it turned out that he had tested the method by taking a Polaroid of himself and And making sure that his face was indeed invisible to the Polaroid camera. It's never been discovered why the Polaroid didn't show his face. But one possibility is that he missed because his eyes were filled with lemon juice.

And in fact, it turned out that he had tested the method by taking a Polaroid of himself and And making sure that his face was indeed invisible to the Polaroid camera. It's never been discovered why the Polaroid didn't show his face. But one possibility is that he missed because his eyes were filled with lemon juice.

And in fact, it turned out that he had tested the method by taking a Polaroid of himself and And making sure that his face was indeed invisible to the Polaroid camera. It's never been discovered why the Polaroid didn't show his face. But one possibility is that he missed because his eyes were filled with lemon juice.

it's been well documented that people tend to be very overconfident in their capabilities in terms of beating the market. Um, and that can lead to really disastrous outcomes. Like people take on too much risk. Um, and it actually turns out that the more people actively trade, the worse they do.

it's been well documented that people tend to be very overconfident in their capabilities in terms of beating the market. Um, and that can lead to really disastrous outcomes. Like people take on too much risk. Um, and it actually turns out that the more people actively trade, the worse they do.

it's been well documented that people tend to be very overconfident in their capabilities in terms of beating the market. Um, and that can lead to really disastrous outcomes. Like people take on too much risk. Um, and it actually turns out that the more people actively trade, the worse they do.

And active trading is sort of a, an indicator of being overconfident in your ability to, to beat the market. Um, this is a paper that I wrote with, um, Dan Walters and, um, What we found in this paper is that one reason for the overconfidence, the reason that people feel that they can beat the market, is because they tend to remember the good outcomes and forget the bad outcomes.

And active trading is sort of a, an indicator of being overconfident in your ability to, to beat the market. Um, this is a paper that I wrote with, um, Dan Walters and, um, What we found in this paper is that one reason for the overconfidence, the reason that people feel that they can beat the market, is because they tend to remember the good outcomes and forget the bad outcomes.

And active trading is sort of a, an indicator of being overconfident in your ability to, to beat the market. Um, this is a paper that I wrote with, um, Dan Walters and, um, What we found in this paper is that one reason for the overconfidence, the reason that people feel that they can beat the market, is because they tend to remember the good outcomes and forget the bad outcomes.

So if I make a trade and I do great on it, that one's gonna stick in my memory more so than when I make a trade and it does poorly. That's not to say that if you have a really disastrous trade that you're not gonna remember that. You certainly would. But on average, you're going to tend to inflate the good over the bad.

So if I make a trade and I do great on it, that one's gonna stick in my memory more so than when I make a trade and it does poorly. That's not to say that if you have a really disastrous trade that you're not gonna remember that. You certainly would. But on average, you're going to tend to inflate the good over the bad.

So if I make a trade and I do great on it, that one's gonna stick in my memory more so than when I make a trade and it does poorly. That's not to say that if you have a really disastrous trade that you're not gonna remember that. You certainly would. But on average, you're going to tend to inflate the good over the bad.

And one reason for that is because we tend to remember the things that help us maintain a positive self-image. We want to believe that we're smart and good at investing. That's a very natural human tendency to want to remember the good and kind of forget the bad. And so this doesn't just occur in the domain of investing, but can occur in other domains as well.

And one reason for that is because we tend to remember the things that help us maintain a positive self-image. We want to believe that we're smart and good at investing. That's a very natural human tendency to want to remember the good and kind of forget the bad. And so this doesn't just occur in the domain of investing, but can occur in other domains as well.

And one reason for that is because we tend to remember the things that help us maintain a positive self-image. We want to believe that we're smart and good at investing. That's a very natural human tendency to want to remember the good and kind of forget the bad. And so this doesn't just occur in the domain of investing, but can occur in other domains as well.

Yes, and that is what made me so passionate about these ideas. Because it turns out that the reason that we should care about this illusion is not because people don't understand how a ballpoint pen or a toilet works. But I realized at some point that the illusion applies to just about everything that we grapple with as a society and as individuals. I was doing this work

Yes, and that is what made me so passionate about these ideas. Because it turns out that the reason that we should care about this illusion is not because people don't understand how a ballpoint pen or a toilet works. But I realized at some point that the illusion applies to just about everything that we grapple with as a society and as individuals. I was doing this work

Yes, and that is what made me so passionate about these ideas. Because it turns out that the reason that we should care about this illusion is not because people don't understand how a ballpoint pen or a toilet works. But I realized at some point that the illusion applies to just about everything that we grapple with as a society and as individuals. I was doing this work

in the midst of a political environment in the United States that was becoming more and more polarized. And as I was doing this work, I had this big insight that, wow, we are arguing with incredible vitriol across the aisle about issues that are extremely complex and that nobody understands in a lot of depth and detail.

in the midst of a political environment in the United States that was becoming more and more polarized. And as I was doing this work, I had this big insight that, wow, we are arguing with incredible vitriol across the aisle about issues that are extremely complex and that nobody understands in a lot of depth and detail.

in the midst of a political environment in the United States that was becoming more and more polarized. And as I was doing this work, I had this big insight that, wow, we are arguing with incredible vitriol across the aisle about issues that are extremely complex and that nobody understands in a lot of depth and detail.

And yet we have these passionate, strong views and are unable to compromise across the political divide. And that was a core issue that really got me interested in this stuff.

And yet we have these passionate, strong views and are unable to compromise across the political divide. And that was a core issue that really got me interested in this stuff.

And yet we have these passionate, strong views and are unable to compromise across the political divide. And that was a core issue that really got me interested in this stuff.

I think in many cases they are wrong. And actually we've demonstrated that in experiments. So what we've done is something very akin to the toilet experiment that I described earlier. We bring people into the lab and we ask them about their position on the issues of the day, the things that we're arguing about as a society. And then we ask them how well they understand those issues.

I think in many cases they are wrong. And actually we've demonstrated that in experiments. So what we've done is something very akin to the toilet experiment that I described earlier. We bring people into the lab and we ask them about their position on the issues of the day, the things that we're arguing about as a society. And then we ask them how well they understand those issues.

I think in many cases they are wrong. And actually we've demonstrated that in experiments. So what we've done is something very akin to the toilet experiment that I described earlier. We bring people into the lab and we ask them about their position on the issues of the day, the things that we're arguing about as a society. And then we ask them how well they understand those issues.

People tend to say, oh yeah, I understand it pretty well. And then we ask them to explain the mechanism, explain in detail how it works. And we find this large decrease in the sense of understanding. So people are humbled by that because they try to explain and they realize, wow, I just have a talking point or two. I actually don't understand this thing in detail.

People tend to say, oh yeah, I understand it pretty well. And then we ask them to explain the mechanism, explain in detail how it works. And we find this large decrease in the sense of understanding. So people are humbled by that because they try to explain and they realize, wow, I just have a talking point or two. I actually don't understand this thing in detail.

People tend to say, oh yeah, I understand it pretty well. And then we ask them to explain the mechanism, explain in detail how it works. And we find this large decrease in the sense of understanding. So people are humbled by that because they try to explain and they realize, wow, I just have a talking point or two. I actually don't understand this thing in detail.

So I've studied this in the context of controversial scientific issues. So things like the safety of genetically modified foods or the reality of climate change. In those cases, there's a substantial minority of the population who expresses really extreme, strong counter-consensus views. views that are counter to the scientific consensus.

So I've studied this in the context of controversial scientific issues. So things like the safety of genetically modified foods or the reality of climate change. In those cases, there's a substantial minority of the population who expresses really extreme, strong counter-consensus views. views that are counter to the scientific consensus.

So I've studied this in the context of controversial scientific issues. So things like the safety of genetically modified foods or the reality of climate change. In those cases, there's a substantial minority of the population who expresses really extreme, strong counter-consensus views. views that are counter to the scientific consensus.

And what we find in that case is that the people who have the strongest

And what we find in that case is that the people who have the strongest

And what we find in that case is that the people who have the strongest

Counter consensus views have the highest levels of subjective understanding They feel like they understand these issues the best which makes sense because if I feel like I understand it really well I'm gonna have a strong opinion But when we measure their actual understanding of the issue in a variety of ways They actually have the lowest levels of objective knowledge so when you put those things together

Counter consensus views have the highest levels of subjective understanding They feel like they understand these issues the best which makes sense because if I feel like I understand it really well I'm gonna have a strong opinion But when we measure their actual understanding of the issue in a variety of ways They actually have the lowest levels of objective knowledge so when you put those things together

Counter consensus views have the highest levels of subjective understanding They feel like they understand these issues the best which makes sense because if I feel like I understand it really well I'm gonna have a strong opinion But when we measure their actual understanding of the issue in a variety of ways They actually have the lowest levels of objective knowledge so when you put those things together

the people who have the most extreme counter consensus views have this huge gap between what they think they know and what they actually know.

the people who have the most extreme counter consensus views have this huge gap between what they think they know and what they actually know.

the people who have the most extreme counter consensus views have this huge gap between what they think they know and what they actually know.

I think that that's right. So if I feel like I understand something and I feel like I know it well, I'm gonna be less likely to listen to counter evidence and counter explanations or to do more research into the issue to learn more about it. If I already feel like I understand it, it's really hard to reach me with counter evidence.

I think that that's right. So if I feel like I understand something and I feel like I know it well, I'm gonna be less likely to listen to counter evidence and counter explanations or to do more research into the issue to learn more about it. If I already feel like I understand it, it's really hard to reach me with counter evidence.

I think that that's right. So if I feel like I understand something and I feel like I know it well, I'm gonna be less likely to listen to counter evidence and counter explanations or to do more research into the issue to learn more about it. If I already feel like I understand it, it's really hard to reach me with counter evidence.

And so the people whose views seem to be the most out of line with what the scientific community says are the ones who are hardest to reach because they already feel like they understand the issue.

And so the people whose views seem to be the most out of line with what the scientific community says are the ones who are hardest to reach because they already feel like they understand the issue.

And so the people whose views seem to be the most out of line with what the scientific community says are the ones who are hardest to reach because they already feel like they understand the issue.

So we're not in the habit of engaging in a lot of explanation. most of the time. We just take things for granted, as we've been discussing. And so when we get in the habit of doing that, it's sort of hard to hide from ourselves that we don't understand things as well as we thought we did. A great example of this comes from work by Rebecca Lawson on people's understanding of bicycles.

So we're not in the habit of engaging in a lot of explanation. most of the time. We just take things for granted, as we've been discussing. And so when we get in the habit of doing that, it's sort of hard to hide from ourselves that we don't understand things as well as we thought we did. A great example of this comes from work by Rebecca Lawson on people's understanding of bicycles.

So we're not in the habit of engaging in a lot of explanation. most of the time. We just take things for granted, as we've been discussing. And so when we get in the habit of doing that, it's sort of hard to hide from ourselves that we don't understand things as well as we thought we did. A great example of this comes from work by Rebecca Lawson on people's understanding of bicycles.

So if you ask somebody, do you know how a bicycle works? A lot of people would say, oh yeah, I kind of know how that works. But then in the study, what she did was she asked people to draw bicycles. And if you sit down and try to do it, I encourage the listeners to try to do it. It's much more difficult than you might have anticipated.

So if you ask somebody, do you know how a bicycle works? A lot of people would say, oh yeah, I kind of know how that works. But then in the study, what she did was she asked people to draw bicycles. And if you sit down and try to do it, I encourage the listeners to try to do it. It's much more difficult than you might have anticipated.

So if you ask somebody, do you know how a bicycle works? A lot of people would say, oh yeah, I kind of know how that works. But then in the study, what she did was she asked people to draw bicycles. And if you sit down and try to do it, I encourage the listeners to try to do it. It's much more difficult than you might have anticipated.

And that's just a great example of, in that case, it's impossible to hide from yourself the gaps in your knowledge. They've just become revealed on the page as you try to draw.

And that's just a great example of, in that case, it's impossible to hide from yourself the gaps in your knowledge. They've just become revealed on the page as you try to draw.

And that's just a great example of, in that case, it's impossible to hide from yourself the gaps in your knowledge. They've just become revealed on the page as you try to draw.

That's right. A test that is designed to actually gauge knowledge. understanding of the way things work as opposed to a test that is merely regurgitating facts. So a test that's well designed to actually evaluate whether somebody understands the details or mechanisms of the way that something works would indeed reveal those gaps.

That's right. A test that is designed to actually gauge knowledge. understanding of the way things work as opposed to a test that is merely regurgitating facts. So a test that's well designed to actually evaluate whether somebody understands the details or mechanisms of the way that something works would indeed reveal those gaps.

That's right. A test that is designed to actually gauge knowledge. understanding of the way things work as opposed to a test that is merely regurgitating facts. So a test that's well designed to actually evaluate whether somebody understands the details or mechanisms of the way that something works would indeed reveal those gaps.

I have a colleague who was recently telling me a story about one of his classes where he was just imploring students, if you are using artificial intelligence to try to help you with the class. Make sure that you understand this and not just are using the artificial intelligence. And yet, when the test came around and they'd all been using ChatGPT, they learned that they

I have a colleague who was recently telling me a story about one of his classes where he was just imploring students, if you are using artificial intelligence to try to help you with the class. Make sure that you understand this and not just are using the artificial intelligence. And yet, when the test came around and they'd all been using ChatGPT, they learned that they

I have a colleague who was recently telling me a story about one of his classes where he was just imploring students, if you are using artificial intelligence to try to help you with the class. Make sure that you understand this and not just are using the artificial intelligence. And yet, when the test came around and they'd all been using ChatGPT, they learned that they

did not understand the material as well as they thought that they did because they had been relying on the artificial intelligence. And they got very upset with him. And he sort of explained to them, look, I tried to tell you, but this is such a natural human thing to overestimate our understanding. that it's very hard to actually appreciate the gaps in our knowledge.

did not understand the material as well as they thought that they did because they had been relying on the artificial intelligence. And they got very upset with him. And he sort of explained to them, look, I tried to tell you, but this is such a natural human thing to overestimate our understanding. that it's very hard to actually appreciate the gaps in our knowledge.

did not understand the material as well as they thought that they did because they had been relying on the artificial intelligence. And they got very upset with him. And he sort of explained to them, look, I tried to tell you, but this is such a natural human thing to overestimate our understanding. that it's very hard to actually appreciate the gaps in our knowledge.

It's so natural for us to go through life just not really questioning and assuming we know more than we do that we don't really see it. And that's why getting into this habit of questioning yourself and questioning your understanding is a very powerful tool for dispelling the illusion.

It's so natural for us to go through life just not really questioning and assuming we know more than we do that we don't really see it. And that's why getting into this habit of questioning yourself and questioning your understanding is a very powerful tool for dispelling the illusion.

It's so natural for us to go through life just not really questioning and assuming we know more than we do that we don't really see it. And that's why getting into this habit of questioning yourself and questioning your understanding is a very powerful tool for dispelling the illusion.

So in our studies, we've often compared two different types of explanations. One is this mechanistic explanation. How does it work? And the other is more about why you believe what you do. So reasons. And you can think about those two modes of thinking as being more explanatory or mechanistic on the one hand, and then more argumentative on Or advocacy-based, on the other hand.

So in our studies, we've often compared two different types of explanations. One is this mechanistic explanation. How does it work? And the other is more about why you believe what you do. So reasons. And you can think about those two modes of thinking as being more explanatory or mechanistic on the one hand, and then more argumentative on Or advocacy-based, on the other hand.

So in our studies, we've often compared two different types of explanations. One is this mechanistic explanation. How does it work? And the other is more about why you believe what you do. So reasons. And you can think about those two modes of thinking as being more explanatory or mechanistic on the one hand, and then more argumentative on Or advocacy-based, on the other hand.

I think we are much more commonly engaged in this argumentation or advocacy when we're talking about things like political issues. We very rarely engage in this kind of mechanistic or explanatory kind of discussion. But it turns out that the mechanistic or explanatory mode leads to a little more open-mindedness.

I think we are much more commonly engaged in this argumentation or advocacy when we're talking about things like political issues. We very rarely engage in this kind of mechanistic or explanatory kind of discussion. But it turns out that the mechanistic or explanatory mode leads to a little more open-mindedness.

I think we are much more commonly engaged in this argumentation or advocacy when we're talking about things like political issues. We very rarely engage in this kind of mechanistic or explanatory kind of discussion. But it turns out that the mechanistic or explanatory mode leads to a little more open-mindedness.

It gets people to be a little less certain about their positions because it reveals the complexity of issues. And this has been demonstrated to some extent in our work where we simply ask people, how do you feel about these issues afterwards? But I think even more interestingly and meaningfully, there's a great paper by El-Nakori Hun and Grossman a few years ago

It gets people to be a little less certain about their positions because it reveals the complexity of issues. And this has been demonstrated to some extent in our work where we simply ask people, how do you feel about these issues afterwards? But I think even more interestingly and meaningfully, there's a great paper by El-Nakori Hun and Grossman a few years ago

It gets people to be a little less certain about their positions because it reveals the complexity of issues. And this has been demonstrated to some extent in our work where we simply ask people, how do you feel about these issues afterwards? But I think even more interestingly and meaningfully, there's a great paper by El-Nakori Hun and Grossman a few years ago

And they asked people on different sides of the political divide to have political discussions. And then they measured different things about the discussion, like how well it went and how open-minded people seemed to be and how much they were listening to the other side and those kinds of things.

And they asked people on different sides of the political divide to have political discussions. And then they measured different things about the discussion, like how well it went and how open-minded people seemed to be and how much they were listening to the other side and those kinds of things.

And they asked people on different sides of the political divide to have political discussions. And then they measured different things about the discussion, like how well it went and how open-minded people seemed to be and how much they were listening to the other side and those kinds of things.

And what they found is that the discussions were more productive when people engaged in this more explanatory kind of discussion.

And what they found is that the discussions were more productive when people engaged in this more explanatory kind of discussion.

And what they found is that the discussions were more productive when people engaged in this more explanatory kind of discussion.

It does. They move to the middle a little bit. The challenge with that is that people get defensive as well. So if you challenge people with their understanding, they might actually double down and say, no, I know what I'm talking about. Because people naturally tend to be a little bit defensive. So the way to actually implement such an intervention can be

It does. They move to the middle a little bit. The challenge with that is that people get defensive as well. So if you challenge people with their understanding, they might actually double down and say, no, I know what I'm talking about. Because people naturally tend to be a little bit defensive. So the way to actually implement such an intervention can be

It does. They move to the middle a little bit. The challenge with that is that people get defensive as well. So if you challenge people with their understanding, they might actually double down and say, no, I know what I'm talking about. Because people naturally tend to be a little bit defensive. So the way to actually implement such an intervention can be

a little bit challenging in its details because, again, human beings are not simple. They're complex. So if you reveal people's lack of understanding to them, it may have the effect of making them a little bit more humble or more moderate, but it could also make them double down on their position a little bit.

a little bit challenging in its details because, again, human beings are not simple. They're complex. So if you reveal people's lack of understanding to them, it may have the effect of making them a little bit more humble or more moderate, but it could also make them double down on their position a little bit.

a little bit challenging in its details because, again, human beings are not simple. They're complex. So if you reveal people's lack of understanding to them, it may have the effect of making them a little bit more humble or more moderate, but it could also make them double down on their position a little bit.

The key is to be curious. about the other side's position. So if you start from a perspective of the other side is not as smart as me, is not as ethical or moral as me, they're bad, they're stupid, then you're not going to be likely to have a very productive discussion. If you start instead with the perspective of the person that I'm talking to is as smart as me,

The key is to be curious. about the other side's position. So if you start from a perspective of the other side is not as smart as me, is not as ethical or moral as me, they're bad, they're stupid, then you're not going to be likely to have a very productive discussion. If you start instead with the perspective of the person that I'm talking to is as smart as me,

The key is to be curious. about the other side's position. So if you start from a perspective of the other side is not as smart as me, is not as ethical or moral as me, they're bad, they're stupid, then you're not going to be likely to have a very productive discussion. If you start instead with the perspective of the person that I'm talking to is as smart as me,

and as moral as me, then you become curious. Why is it that they maintain a strong position that's so different from yours when it seems like the right answer is just so obvious to you? And then when you become curious, and if both sides are mutually curious, and they want to understand what is behind the other side's position, then you can have a more productive discussion.

and as moral as me, then you become curious. Why is it that they maintain a strong position that's so different from yours when it seems like the right answer is just so obvious to you? And then when you become curious, and if both sides are mutually curious, and they want to understand what is behind the other side's position, then you can have a more productive discussion.

and as moral as me, then you become curious. Why is it that they maintain a strong position that's so different from yours when it seems like the right answer is just so obvious to you? And then when you become curious, and if both sides are mutually curious, and they want to understand what is behind the other side's position, then you can have a more productive discussion.

And I think what you will find is that when you engage jointly in this explanatory kind of discussion, it's more of a collaboration than it is an argument. And that collaboration is going to reveal, likely, that both sides don't know as much as they thought they did at the beginning. That's going to be the most common outcome.

And I think what you will find is that when you engage jointly in this explanatory kind of discussion, it's more of a collaboration than it is an argument. And that collaboration is going to reveal, likely, that both sides don't know as much as they thought they did at the beginning. That's going to be the most common outcome.

And I think what you will find is that when you engage jointly in this explanatory kind of discussion, it's more of a collaboration than it is an argument. And that collaboration is going to reveal, likely, that both sides don't know as much as they thought they did at the beginning. That's going to be the most common outcome.

I agree with that 100% because we all have beliefs that are incorrect, and we all have beliefs that we have much more strength and conviction in than we should. And conspiracies are a bizarre sort of extreme example of this, but they're part and parcel of the same kind of mechanisms that lead to all of our beliefs.

I agree with that 100% because we all have beliefs that are incorrect, and we all have beliefs that we have much more strength and conviction in than we should. And conspiracies are a bizarre sort of extreme example of this, but they're part and parcel of the same kind of mechanisms that lead to all of our beliefs.

I agree with that 100% because we all have beliefs that are incorrect, and we all have beliefs that we have much more strength and conviction in than we should. And conspiracies are a bizarre sort of extreme example of this, but they're part and parcel of the same kind of mechanisms that lead to all of our beliefs.

Yes. So there's been a lot of research in the psychology literature on overconfidence. People tend to be overconfident in a lot of different ways. The reason for overconfidence is what's called confirmation bias. That is, we're preferentially disposed to find evidence for the position that we start with, the one that we want.

Yes. So there's been a lot of research in the psychology literature on overconfidence. People tend to be overconfident in a lot of different ways. The reason for overconfidence is what's called confirmation bias. That is, we're preferentially disposed to find evidence for the position that we start with, the one that we want.

Yes. So there's been a lot of research in the psychology literature on overconfidence. People tend to be overconfident in a lot of different ways. The reason for overconfidence is what's called confirmation bias. That is, we're preferentially disposed to find evidence for the position that we start with, the one that we want.

Some of the work that I've done is looking at another reason that we're overconfident. It's not just because we tend to preferentially weight the evidence for our positions, but also that we tend to neglect all of the unknown information. And that's part and parcel of all of the themes that we've been talking about today, that the world just seems simpler than it is.

Some of the work that I've done is looking at another reason that we're overconfident. It's not just because we tend to preferentially weight the evidence for our positions, but also that we tend to neglect all of the unknown information. And that's part and parcel of all of the themes that we've been talking about today, that the world just seems simpler than it is.

Some of the work that I've done is looking at another reason that we're overconfident. It's not just because we tend to preferentially weight the evidence for our positions, but also that we tend to neglect all of the unknown information. And that's part and parcel of all of the themes that we've been talking about today, that the world just seems simpler than it is.

If the world seems simpler and we're confronted with an issue, then we're going to tend not to think about all of the stuff that we don't know. we're going to tend to think about the stuff that we do know. And if we thought about all the stuff that we don't know, it would make us more moderate in our positions because, wow, there's a lot more to know about this.

If the world seems simpler and we're confronted with an issue, then we're going to tend not to think about all of the stuff that we don't know. we're going to tend to think about the stuff that we do know. And if we thought about all the stuff that we don't know, it would make us more moderate in our positions because, wow, there's a lot more to know about this.

If the world seems simpler and we're confronted with an issue, then we're going to tend not to think about all of the stuff that we don't know. we're going to tend to think about the stuff that we do know. And if we thought about all the stuff that we don't know, it would make us more moderate in our positions because, wow, there's a lot more to know about this.

What we find is that when people search the internet for financial information, they become overconfident in their knowledge. And not only do they become overconfident in their knowledge, but that leads to downstream behaviors like taking on more risk.

What we find is that when people search the internet for financial information, they become overconfident in their knowledge. And not only do they become overconfident in their knowledge, but that leads to downstream behaviors like taking on more risk.

What we find is that when people search the internet for financial information, they become overconfident in their knowledge. And not only do they become overconfident in their knowledge, but that leads to downstream behaviors like taking on more risk.

This has been a really fun conversation, Shankar. Thank you so much.

This has been a really fun conversation, Shankar. Thank you so much.

This has been a really fun conversation, Shankar. Thank you so much.

I was sitting on an aisle and I will never forget the way that it felt to try to sit still. It was impossible. I couldn't stop moving. The strength of the emotions was so intense. I really stood out and I felt like people were avoiding eye contact with me. They weren't really sure what to do with me. And partway through the flight,

I was sitting on an aisle and I will never forget the way that it felt to try to sit still. It was impossible. I couldn't stop moving. The strength of the emotions was so intense. I really stood out and I felt like people were avoiding eye contact with me. They weren't really sure what to do with me. And partway through the flight,

I was sitting on an aisle and I will never forget the way that it felt to try to sit still. It was impossible. I couldn't stop moving. The strength of the emotions was so intense. I really stood out and I felt like people were avoiding eye contact with me. They weren't really sure what to do with me. And partway through the flight,

this man came up to me I was sitting on the aisle on the right side of the plane so he came up to me and he crouched down next to me on my left side and he was so gentle he made direct eye contact with me and he spoke softly and slowly and he was really sincere and

this man came up to me I was sitting on the aisle on the right side of the plane so he came up to me and he crouched down next to me on my left side and he was so gentle he made direct eye contact with me and he spoke softly and slowly and he was really sincere and

this man came up to me I was sitting on the aisle on the right side of the plane so he came up to me and he crouched down next to me on my left side and he was so gentle he made direct eye contact with me and he spoke softly and slowly and he was really sincere and

And he said, I know you don't know me and I don't know what's going on for you, but I want you to know that if you need anything, I'm here. And I said, thank you. I never ended up going to him during that flight, but knowing he saw me. You know, I felt like I was in this cavern of just like untenable emotion and that I was deeply, deeply alone.

And he said, I know you don't know me and I don't know what's going on for you, but I want you to know that if you need anything, I'm here. And I said, thank you. I never ended up going to him during that flight, but knowing he saw me. You know, I felt like I was in this cavern of just like untenable emotion and that I was deeply, deeply alone.

And he said, I know you don't know me and I don't know what's going on for you, but I want you to know that if you need anything, I'm here. And I said, thank you. I never ended up going to him during that flight, but knowing he saw me. You know, I felt like I was in this cavern of just like untenable emotion and that I was deeply, deeply alone.

And, you know, having lost a brother, we were so close in age. We grew up just one year in school apart. And knowing that I was on a plane with somebody that could see me and that knew that I needed something even if I didn't know what it was, even if they didn't know what it was, was an incredibly powerful experience. I will forever be grateful for him. It was a really powerful moment for me.

And, you know, having lost a brother, we were so close in age. We grew up just one year in school apart. And knowing that I was on a plane with somebody that could see me and that knew that I needed something even if I didn't know what it was, even if they didn't know what it was, was an incredibly powerful experience. I will forever be grateful for him. It was a really powerful moment for me.

And, you know, having lost a brother, we were so close in age. We grew up just one year in school apart. And knowing that I was on a plane with somebody that could see me and that knew that I needed something even if I didn't know what it was, even if they didn't know what it was, was an incredibly powerful experience. I will forever be grateful for him. It was a really powerful moment for me.