Categories
podcast

Understanding the behavior of autistic people, with Barry Prizant

A talk with Barry Prizant (barryprizant.com), author of the influential book Uniquely Human: A Different Way of Seeing Autism, and co-host of the Uniquely Human podcast (www.uniquelyhuman.com). The focus of our talk is on understanding the experiences and behaviors of autistic people.

Topics discussed include: understanding the underlying causes behind the sometimes seemingly inexplicable behaviors of autistic children; the various types of experiences contained within the label of ‘autism’; the role that sensitivity to sensation and associated anxiety plays in autism; the question of how empathetic autistic people are; the causes of autism. 

Episode links:

Links to ideas or resources mentioned in the talk:

TRANSCRIPT

Zach Elwood:

Hello and welcome to the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zach Elwood. This is a podcast aimed at better understanding the people around us, and better understanding ourselves. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com. If you like this podcast, please leave me a review or rating on Apple Podcasts, or the platform you listen on: that is hugely appreciated. 

On this episode, I talk to Barry Prizant about autism. Barry is the author of the well known and influential book Uniquely Human: A Different Way of Seeing Autism. He’s also the co-host of the podcast Uniquely Human, where they cover autism-related topics. You can find that podcast at uniquelyhuman.com, and find barry’s main site at barryprizant.com. His last name is spelled PRIZANT. 

Barry’s book is fantastic: I read it years ago and was rereading it recently. Even if you aren’t that interested in autism, and are more just interested in understanding behavior, it’s a great read. A lot of the ideas in the book are related to behavior and reading people: part of the book is focused on better understanding the behaviors of autistic children, because so often people will write off the behaviors of autistic children as lacking meaning and being random, but Barry walks through a lot of examples of digging into the hidden causes and meanings behind various behaviors. And another focus is the difficulty autistic people have with reading neurotypical, so-called “normal” people: the things neurotypical people take for granted are alien and not obvious to autistic people, and a lot of the work autistic people do in their pursuit of communicating better with other people and fitting in more, is about trying to read people better; trying to deduce the things that others may take for granted. 

I think you’ll like this talk a lot. Barry and I talk about the nature of autism; we talk about the huge range of behaviors and experiences that can be found under the label of ‘autism’; we talk about the causes of autism; we talk about the idea that some autistic traits are due to being too sensitive to stimulation and feeling overwhelmed; we talk about some examples from Barry’s book of reading the causes of some verbal and nonverbal behaviors of autistic children; we talk about Ron DeSantis, who some people think is a bit autistic; and along the way I talk a bit about some of my own autistic traits (including my discomfort with making eye contact that I had from a young age); 

In this talk Barry and I reference quite a few books and other resources, and if you’re curious about some of those things, I’ll include links to those resources on the blog post for this episode on my site.

Okay, here’s the talk with Barry Prizant, author of Uniquely Human. Hi, Barry, thanks for coming on the show.

Barry: It’s my pleasure.

Zach: So, a big part of your book Uniquely Human and your work in general is about explaining the importance of asking ‘why’ when people are faced with confusing seemingly random behaviors of autistic people looking for the motivations and the hidden causes behind people’s behavior. And in your book, you include a lot of examples of these kinds of things, which is one of the things I found most interesting about your book from a behavior perspective. And I’m curious, what’s top of mind for you when it comes to some of the stories that you tell about the hidden causes behind autistic people’s behavior?

Barry: Yeah, I believe that one of the great injustices that happens with autistic people is they are misunderstood. So I give lots of examples and I continue to do so when I see people making assumptions about why an autistic child or an autistic adult reacts in a certain way. It’s important to ask what I refer to as the ‘deep why’ because very often there are so many assumptions that are made that are just simply inaccurate; such as a child, for example, being non-compliant. And the example I give in the book is a child that I’m walking with– a young child– outside, and he keeps dropping to the floor on the sidewalk. And it looks like well, he doesn’t want to go for a walk or he’s being uncooperative. When in that situation, it ended up that he has hypersensitive hearing and was hearing a dog in the distance and he was afraid of dogs. And there are just so many more examples I could give both of behavior that is nonverbal as well as the types of speech that is used, especially echolalia, which is the tendency to repeat speech. Sometimes kids will repeat things that they’ve heard and they associated particular meaning with that phrase. For example, many years ago I was working with a child and at the time on television, they had this commercial for a toilet bowl cleaner and it was called Ty-D-Bol. And he would sing the Ty-D-Bol song when he needed to go to the bathroom because he made that association. Some people just thought it was cute, okay? But it was really communicative. Unfortunately, many people on the spectrum develop idiosyncratic ways to communicate that very often have real meaning behind it but are seen as either meaningless or are seen as undesirable ways to communicate, especially when a child is dysregulated or upset.

Zach: One interesting story that I remember from your book is the child who would go around the classroom and would stare in people’s faces and make [duaa] sounds. Can you talk about that story?

Barry: Yeah, yeah. That was a young child, a five-year-old little boy, and he would come up to us and this was something we hadn’t seen before. And he would stare us in the face and say, “Duaa,” while opening his mouth wide and holding it open. And then if we didn’t respond, he’d go “Duaa,” again. So, we didn’t know what to do or what it meant. And this was very early in my career, I was working with a wonderful teacher who said, “Well, let’s call David’s mom up and figure out what’s going on here.” And so she did that during the lunch break and she said, “Oh, he must be getting a cold or feeling a sore throat. Because when I think he’s getting sick, I tell him to come over and open his mouth and do ‘a-ha’ so I could see if his throat is inflamed.” And he was clearly letting us know how he felt because he associated that phrase that his mom had said to him with not feeling well.

Zach: The anecdotes are just really interesting in your book and the ties between the things that children pick up from shows and movies and use that to communicate. You had one where a child liked to greet people with the phrase, “Are you a good witch or a bad witch?” Can you talk a little bit about that one?

Barry: Yeah, that’s one of my most favorite and delightful examples that a parent shared with me. This was a youngster who he was only three, but he had a lot of phrases that people call scripting. Actually, it’s an area of great interest now in my field in speech and language pathology called gestalt language processing. That is processing language and using language as memorized chunks. So he would come up to people, especially if he didn’t know them, and with his cute little posture he would kind of cock his head and say, “Are you a good witch or a bad witch?” And where that came from was the movie The Wizard of Oz! And if you go to a particular scene, it’s just after Dorothy landed in Munchkinland. After a house crashed in Munchkinland, there’s a little bubble in the air that gets bigger and bigger and bigger and when the bubble bursts, it’s Glinda the Good Witch of the North. And what does she say? She says to Dorothy, “Are you a good witch or a bad witch?” So what it seems like this little boy extracted from observing that was this is how you greet people. I mean, it’s a very profound greeting, you know? Here’s this person who comes out of a bubble and then greets Dorothy. And I’ll never forget what his mom said when we said, “Well, we should really help Jimmy maybe say, ‘Hi, I’m Jimmy,’ or ‘Who are you?” And his mom said, “Oh, but he’s so cute when he does that. Do we have to change that?” [chuckles]

Zach: Yeah. And like you said in the book, it really captures so much of the social interaction. When you meet people, you’re communicating and you really want to know, “Are you good or bad? Are you gonna be nice to me or not be nice to me?” You know? Yeah, so I love those anecdotes in the book. And I really like the general theme of asking ‘why’ about people’s behavior, which is just a general good strategy in life about everyone trying to figure out the hidden causes and not jump to conclusions about why people did something basically.

Barry: Well, and I think the bottom line is it’s respectful of other people. We do this all the time in interactions with anybody. We try to understand what their true meaning is, what their intentions are, and of course the neurotypical culture, we put on all these layers of masking and deceit and everything else that goes on. And the one thing that I’ve always enjoyed in my 50-plus year career, especially in my relationships with autistic people, is the sincerity and the honesty. But unfortunately, we went through many many decades of people just trying to make autistic children and adults look normal by changing their behaviour. And if we didn’t understand what somebody was trying to communicate or if it seemed to be idiosyncratic or we were confused, we’d always try to just fix that. And autistic adults are now telling us, “That was wrong. You need to understand… You have to understand my deep why.”

Zach: That can be traumatic and stressful to be forced to repress the natural inclinations and ways of being.

Barry: Absolutely. And if you want to take it to the next step, an area that I’m finding interesting that people are just beginning to talk about in autism culture is should we understand that there is a different culture of communication in autism not being interested in schmoozing and small talk? As you know, for many people, feeling uncomfortable and the social requirement of looking at people in the eye when you’re talking with them. So many autistic people are now saying all of this has been labeled as deficient in the past because it doesn’t fit neurotypical, especially Western culture. And I always like to emphasize, there are many cultures– and I’ve had students from Africa who feel very uncomfortable looking me at the time as a professor in the eye, and they averted gaze. And they would say to me, “It’s a sign of disrespect, I can’t look you in the eye because you are my professor when I’m speaking to you.” So a lot of this is culturally determined. But the point is that many autistic people are now saying, “This is not just random behavior. It’s something that’s common across many autistic people, which defines cultural differences in communication.”

Zach: Yeah, a quick digression there because I was going to get into it a little later, but yeah, I’ve always had problems with eye contact and I once did this video for an ex-girlfriend where she interviewed me for a class project, basically. And because of my lack of eye contact in the video, the teacher was asking her, “Is he from another country or something?” [laughs] He thought it was some cultural thing. So, let’s see. Do you see the autism label as containing a great amount of complexity and many factors and many types of experiences and ways of being in that label? Do you feel like the label itself is kind of flattening a wide range of experiences?

Barry: It’s a great question, and it’s a very complex question because the issue of the label of autism and how it’s applied and whether it’s helpful or whether it’s not helpful really depends upon who’s using the label. Just to give you an example, the formal diagnosis comes from the DSM-5, and that’s the American Psychiatric Association manual for diagnosis. And currently, the label is autism spectrum disorder. Okay? And many people, including myself, feel that in a sense it is very unidimensional because ‘disorder’ implies something that is pathological or wrong. So more people, including myself, are looking at or referring to autism more as a condition. Because condition is a more neutral term. Condition could mean well, there are some things that are helpful and positive and there are some things that are challenging. You know, many people in the past when you heard the word autism– and I’m going back a few decades now– when a family or a parent got a diagnosis for their child, autism meant hopeless child, there’s nothing we can do, so think about putting your child in some kind of institution. I’m talking about three, four or five decades ago right now. Whereas now, in part due to the media but even more so due to so many autistic self-advocates being out there writing books, giving lectures and speaking, we’re trying to change the concept which changes the meaning of the label to this condition that very often results in different patterns of strengths but also different patterns of challenges.

Let me just share a quick story with you. I do a podcast with a colleague who’s autistic, he’s an audio engineer. And we interviewed an Ojibwe autistic woman from the Ojibwe tribe. She lives in Minnesota, so it’s upper central US. She shared with us that in Ojibwe language, there’s no such label as autism, there’s not even a label for disability. And she said people are just respected for who they are and accepted and loved for who they are. And both in terms of their strengths as well as their challenges. And what she said was, “I do accept the fact that in Western, especially US Western culture, the label plays a certain function. You can’t get financial support, whether it’s medical support, whether it’s psychological support or educational support without the diagnosis.” So when we talk about the label and the pros and cons of the label, it really depends upon… You know, I’ve met many people who say, “Well, I’m pretty sure I’m on the spectrum. As an adult, I never got a diagnosis. Should I seek a diagnosis?” And my question then is, “What do you think that would do for you? Would it be helpful? Would it not be helpful for you?” And many people feel… I feel, by the way, I skew towards, “Yes, do it.” Because then you could find your tribe, you could find your community. And it helps other people who are in the know to be more understanding of how you’re reacting and how you’re behaving. But the point is that the label in and of itself, getting back to your question, is very complex simply because people have different meanings for the label and apply it differently.

Let me give you one more example that’s very contemporary. Ron DeSantis, who is one of the Republican candidates challenging Trump, apparently many people who cover him (I’m talking about journalists) they talk about the fact that they think he’s autistic. Okay? And they say that because in informal situations– think about your traditional politician going to a restaurant or a diner in the morning when people are having breakfast and shaking hands with everybody– that he comes across as very uncomfortable. He says things that are a little bit off-topic. And then something strange that I read about, that when he’s not wearing his formal suit and tie, that the combinations of the clothes that he chooses are a little bit idiosyncratic and off. Okay? And by the way, this is based upon an article that was published in Politico about three weeks ago. I was interviewed for that article. The author of the article was saying, “I don’t like the fact that some of my colleagues refer to him, “Oh, he’s just autistic that’s why he reacts that way. Because they only see it as negative. They’re only looking at what they see as negative.” And so the article was about we got to get away from using a descriptor of autism only in reference to negative attributes or what’s perceived as negative attributes. It’s a wonderful article. And basically, it says, “Stop it!” And he said in the article, “I need to tell my colleagues to stop using the word autism to characterize a person who seems to be socially uncomfortable, or who does things in a way we don’t expect a politician to behave.” That’s a really good example of the complexity of the term and who is using it and how it’s being applied.

Zach: You’ll now be hearing an ad. I don’t endorse these ads, and I encourage you to remain skeptical of all ads.

[ad plays]

Zach: Right. It seems like we sometimes culturally just really like labels way too much in the sense that not just labeling other people, but also we like to label ourselves too and that can be sometimes kind of self-limiting too. Maybe the healthier way to look at things is that these are just rough labels that we use to describe certain aspects of human ways of being and they can be very rough and be on the very complex multi-dimensional spectrum that’s really hard to describe, and we’re just trying to give these rough labels to these rough assemblies of traits and behaviors. I think the more people embrace that way of looking at things, the better and healthier it gets.

Barry: Yeah, and one other point that I didn’t make that was inherent in your question is that even autistic people that I’ve known– and I’ve known many, and I collaborate, write with, present with many autistic people– they may focus on different aspects that everybody would agree often occurs in the autistic brain. So some people will talk about sensory sensitivities and how to build stating it is when there are loud noises or a visually complex environment. Other people will talk about the issues they feel challenged by for example in conversation. A young man once said to me, “Entering a conversation that’s free-flowing and open-ended is like stepping onto a minefield for me because I’m afraid I’m going to say something that’s inappropriate and wrong and I won’t even know it.” So even autistic people I find, as well as non-autistic people, sometimes focus on specific aspects of what we know is part of the autistic experience as opposed to other aspects. And that’s their personal experience.

Zach: Yeah, that’s kind of what I was trying to get at, just the tremendous range of experiences. For example, I’ll take myself I’ve always had trouble with eye contact, it almost physically pained me from a young age. But I don’t have a lot of the experiences that other people have that get described as autistic. That’s kind of what I was getting at is just this tremendous range of human experiences that get lumped under this simple descriptor. Yeah.

Barry: And a big point of my book is that it also blends into experiences of neurotypical people. Now, I want to say right up front, I don’t like when people say, “Well, there’s a little bit of autism in all of us.” I think that kind of dismisses the special experiences and challenges. But let me just give you an example in my 35-year relationship with my wife and my marriage. I like more alone time, okay? I don’t like going to parties with people I don’t know, especially if I’m not in the mood at all, to just schmooze. My wife, I like to say she has an overabundance of social genes. She will strike up a conversation with anybody. I mean, in a line at a theatre, a person shopping next to her in a market… Whereas for me, I just prefer to kind of go my own way and go ahead. So very often, she will go out and do things socially. Finally, she gets comfortable with that. [chuckles] And I’ll say, “Listen, [inaudible 00:21:45] mood just to hang out with people I don’t know and try to make like I’m having a phone conversation with them.” So there is some blending. I’m focusing on the social piece here in terms of how reticent you are socially, or how outgoing you are socially. And I think it’s based on our brains. I really think that for my wife, when she engages socially with people and gets to know new people she’s never met and have long conversations, I think her brain’s lighting up like a light bulb. It’s feeding what she loves to do. Whereas for me, I feel a little bit of that mild discomfort and stress. Not to the extent that autistic people report feeling that, but I feel like it’s just not worth my effort right now, or I really need to be in the mood, or I need to have a couple of gin and tonics in me and then maybe I’ll go along with that. [chuckles]

Zach: Yeah, it’s kind of like getting into the spectrum of introversion and extroversion areas.

Barry: Exactly.

Zach: Maybe that’s a good segue into… I was going to ask you obviously a hugely complex question, but do you have your thoughts on what you see as the causes of autism? For example, the biological wiring aspect of it, how do you see those things playing a role?

Barry: Yeah, I always like to begin with the caveat that I’ve not studied the neurology of autism as a researcher and I’m certainly no expert in that area. I do like the metaphor of we’re talking about a brain that’s wired differently and that communicates to different parts of the brain that communicate with each other differently. To help explain, in some cases some of the great strengths– for example an episodic and rote memory for some people on the spectrum, almost photographic memory eidetic imagery. For some people on the spectrum, exceptional ability in music, perfect pitch, which I think is more common in autism than in the general population… I think certainly there are brain-wiring differences. The question is, how does that happen? And of course, you’re very familiar with the fact that it is now accepted that at least for some people, there’s a very strong genetic component. It is not uncommon for me to do a school consultation on let’s say a seven-year-old little boy or little girl, clearly accurate diagnosis of autism. And then the parents come in and the dad not only has some characteristics when I meet with the parents, but in many cases the dad– more dad than mom– the dad will say to me, “I wasn’t so different when I was young and I think I understand why my son does what he does and how he reacts. Do you think I could be on the spectrum?” That’s one of the biggest issues that’s happening right now with all the undiagnosed people, many of whom become self-diagnosed or diagnosed as adults. So I do believe there’s a genetic component, not necessarily on all people on the spectrum, but I think for different reasons there are wiring and brain function differences. And many autistic people describe themselves that way right now. “Well, my brain’s just wired differently.” And some people actually suggest let’s describe it that way to kids. It’s not that you have brain damage, it’s not that there’s something wrong that we need to go in as a neurosurgeon and fix that, let’s just understand that we all have different brains and your brain has a particular pattern of functioning. Which is the underlying premise of the whole concept of neurodiversity.

Zach: A small note here just to give an example of the kinds of theories there are about biological mechanisms involved in causing autism. Some studies have shown some evidence that autism may be caused by a lack of normal pruning of synapses in the brain when young. Basically, a neurotypical non-autistic brain goes through a process of trimming a lot of excess brain synapses. And some research has suggested that that is not happening properly during brain formation in autistic people. It’s an interesting theory because it kind of makes some intuitive sense because it would theoretically help explain being overly sensitive to sensations and maybe an inability to combine so many sensations into a coherent narrative. It might also explain some of the more savant-like traits correlated with autism. There were a couple of studies I saw on this one from 2014 and one from 2021 on this idea, and maybe more that I didn’t see. Also, it was interesting because there was some similar theorizing a while back about improper brain synapse pruning playing a role in schizophrenia. I don’t think much ever ended up happening with that theory, though, from what I know of.

Okay, back to the talk. Kind of related to what you said, there’s a theory that seems pretty controversial that the upswing in autism diagnosis is related to more autistic people maybe having children than in the past. The modern world’s made it easier for more autistic people to find a mate and so forth. And I’ve seen that. I once shared that theory on Twitter and I had people get angry at me because apparently it’s controversial. And to me, it didn’t seem that controversial in the sense that if I had a child and they were autistic, I might be like, “Oh, yeah, I can kind of see how that happened biologically.” And it didn’t seem that controversial to me. I don’t know if you have any takes on that particular theory.

Barry: I don’t know how people responded to your post on Twitter, but I think one of the reasons it might have been controversial to people is one of the major arguments is that there is not a significant uptick in the reality of autistic people. Autistic people have always been here on this Earth in the same numbers as always going way way back. What’s changed is that we are recognizing more subtle characteristics that fit under an autism description. And that, in part, is proven by the fact that we have more late-diagnosed and self-diagnosed people than ever before. And when you say self-diagnosed, many people right away think, “Oh, well, they take one little characteristic. They’re really not autistic, but they call themselves autistic.” Actually, that’s not the case. I believe some research has demonstrated that in people who self-diagnosed as autistic when they go for a clinical diagnosis, 90% of the time it’s accurate. So, that’s possibly part of the controversy. And some of this comes out of the well-known book by Steve Silberman who’s become a good friend of mine over the years, NeuroTribes, where he makes the claim based upon he’s a science writer so he studies the history of science. He says, “I’m not an autism expert but I studied the history of autism and also the pre-history of autism, looking at historical biographies of people who were clearly autistic in the 1600s, 1800s and so forth.” And he put forth, “Autistic people have always been here in the numbers that we have them now and the numbers that we’re seeing.” Another reason by the way, again it’s another rabbit hole we could go down, is that it’s believed that women on the spectrum really have been missed. Because they may actually have a very different presentation than men on the spectrum. And they mask more. They’re more successful at masking their autistic traits. Traditionally it was considered to be a five-to-one ratio or a four-to-one ratio male to female, and now some people are saying maybe more like two to one. And we’re talking about biological because the gender fluidity is a big issue in autism now as well. And some people are saying, “No, we believe it’s one-to-one. There are as many autistic women as there are autistic men.”

Zach: Yeah, I think another aspect of people getting angry about that idea was they felt like it was blaming them like the parents of… Whereas that’s obviously not what it’s saying. It’s not saying that every… You know? There’s no blame involved and it’s not even saying that the parents are autistic, it’s just saying that could be one of many factors involved anyway.

Zach: If I could share another story, and this is from the second edition of my book, because the second edition came out about a year ago and I added a lot more information about adults and new stories. I told the story of John Elder Robison, who many people know is one of the best-known and respected self-advocates in autism and neurodiversity. He wrote the book Look Me in The Eye. I saw him at an autism conference a few years ago and he was standing by a woman who had a baby carriage. He obviously knew the woman and she’s autistic, and she was with her baby. So he was talking with her and he looked into the carriage and said, “Oh, your baby’s so cute. I’m sure she’ll grow up to be a fine young autistic woman.” And I gave that as an example of how the culture is changing. That the last thing any parent wants to hear in the past was, “Oh, your child is autistic.” And this mother was celebrating her autistic… I think the daughter was six or nine months old, I forget exactly what it was. And here’s a well-known brilliant autistic man celebrating with her the fact that she is raising an autistic daughter. Okay? That speaks against what you had said as far as how things are changing. It wouldn’t be blaming. In this case, it’s saying, “Hey, due to your autism, you have this wonderful little daughter who’s going to be autistic.”

Zach: Yeah, I feel like culture is really changing quick these days because of the internet and how connected we are. Everything seems like it’s on a very fast-moving track for whatever changes we could discuss here.

Barry: Very true.

Zach: I wanted to ask you about, you know, there’s often the perception that autistic people can be kind of shut down emotionally or lack empathy or lack these things we think of as normal social emotions, whereas some other research or observations show that actually autistic people can be overwhelmed and too sensitive to these kinds of things. For example, with my eye contact avoidance, I always found it super intense and painful to make eye contact from a young age. I wonder if you can talk a little bit about that kind of divergence in the public’s perception versus what’s actually going on with the sensitivity or the empathy and things like that.

Barry: Yeah, that’s a perfect example of getting back to your first question about the ‘deep why’. I definitely fall into the camp unequivocally about autistic people being too sensitive. And to a large extent, it comes from what I’ve learned from autistic people, both in our podcast (we’ve interviewed probably 60 autistic people), my personal relationships, my friendships with autistic people. I see it definitely as a sensitivity to how am I doing. And the issue of self-esteem that I believe you want to talk about as well, it’s been drilled into so many autistic kids that, “You’re screwing up, you’re getting it wrong,” that comes out of self-esteem or it comes out of in terms of the difficulty in social interacting or preferring not to seek out a lot of social interaction, especially with unfamiliar and strange people. I don’t see it as a lack of motivation or a choice to be shut down, only in the sense maybe that ‘this is too difficult for me and I feel more comfortable just not doing that.’ I know many autistic people who are very outgoing. I know autistic kids that I call them little politicians. Because they go up to everybody and they’ll say something like, “Oh, hi, I’m Steven! What’s your name? Hi, I’m Steven, what’s your name?” And usually, those kids have much more of a sense of confidence and of self, if you will. It’s a tough situation but it gets back to the ‘deep why’?

Getting specifically to the issue of empathy, you might be familiar with what is called the ‘double empathy problem’ right now. And that is for so many years people saying autistic people can’t take the emotional perspective of another person, which is what empathy is, and respond empathically. Well, what we’re finding is that autistic people very often do respond empathically but not necessarily the same way that a neurotypical person might. For example, an autistic person might– and again, I’m learning from my friends who are autistic– might feel very upset internally if they see another person in pain or having difficulty. But they don’t know what to do about it. They don’t know how to reach out to help that person in that instance. The double empathy problem is if we can’t, as neurotypical people, empathize and understand the perspective of an autistic person, why do we just focus on their behavior that seems they can’t empathize with other people? So the double empathy problem is, “Wait a second. It goes both ways. We’re not very good at understanding the experience of an autistic person, and they may be not that good at understanding our experience because we come from different cultures and different life experiences.” So I think it’s clearly been pretty much dashed as a generalization that autistic people can’t empathize with others. And some are very highly sensitive to the experiences of other people.

Zach: There’s some presentations of autism that the more catatonic or rocking presentations that I think have made people in the past make assumptions that this person is cut off from the world or they’re lacking in these normal sensations, whereas you can see that those kinds of behaviors as a defense mechanism kind of shutting down to deal with overwhelming sensations and such.

Barry: Exactly. The point you’re raising right now has to do with self-regulation. That very often autistic people will do things in many different strategies when they are feeling overwhelmed, when the neurological system is beginning to ring alarm bells that if a person is sitting there rocking averting gaze, it could be this is my attempt to try to deal with the anxiety or the sensory overwhelm that I’m experiencing right now. And think about this, think about neurotypical people. If you have a neurotypical person who’s feeling very distressed, highly, highly anxious and just unable to cope, you can’t empathize with people under those circumstances. So to the extent that some autistic people may look like they’re engaging in behavior that’s shut down behavior, it actually might be. But it’s not that I don’t want to be with you or empathize with you, it’s that I need to do something to hold myself together so I don’t have a total meltdown and I don’t lose it altogether.

Zach: You’ll now be hearing an ad. I don’t endorse these ads and I encourage you to remain skeptical of all ads.

[ad plays and ends]

Zach: I thought I’d give you some thoughts that I’ve had about autism and maybe you can just shoot some holes in it or give me your thoughts, so I’ll go on a long ramble now. 

Barry: Okay.

Zach: This relates to some things I’ve covered in past podcast episodes because I’m interested in existential psychology. There can be these just fundamental aspects of just being a conscious being in the world that result in a lot of the ways of being that we consider unwell or unhealthy or not normal. We have these, quote, “normal social skills” and part of these social skills is involving a tremendous amount of complexity. We have to keep track of our own minds, we have to keep track of other people’s minds, we have to keep track of how they perceive our minds. We have to juggle all these concepts of various minds, and we also have to have a model of the world that we reside in and we have to place all these minds in it. And just to say that these so called normal social skills that we have can seem so easy to us, and we take them for granted, but they mask so much huge complexity.

And I talked about this in a past episode about AI and consciousness, about the hidden complexity and creating what we would perceive as a thinking, conscious being. There’s just so much hidden complexity I think, personal, I think we’re born with, to some extent, with this wiring that helps us with that, the normal social skills. Then we’re socialized in ways that help us with that, too. You could have normal wiring, but you could have some abnormal socialization as a child that can result in degradation or harming of your normal social instincts and skills. It seems to me that autistic people might be born without some of these wiring in various ways. Just to say that there can be this tremendous amount of ways that these things can go wrong and it can prevent us from forming these normal modeling of this mind over here, my mind, the world, world. And so all these things can go wrong in various ways that can lead us to the symptoms, the ways of being that are classified as autistic. And I’m curious, what are your thoughts on all that?

Barry: Yeah, what you’re actually describing, let me give you another if you will, lens to look at that, which is very consistent with what you said. Ami Klin, who used to be the head of the Autism Research Center at Yale University, he’s now at Emory University, an important person in the field of autism, published a lot initially when Asperger’s was still a diagnosis. And Asperger’s still very active. A number of years ago, I heard Ami describe the basic challenge in autism socially has to do with a lack of social intuition. The neurotypical social brain, to varying degrees, because it varies greatly amongst neurotypical people, has this natural intuition to almost pick up on very subtle social queues, to automatically try to think about what another person is feeling, and it isn’t so conscious. 

So for example, we might be speaking to somebody at a social engagement, and we say something and we notice that the person’s lips tighten up in the corner of their mouth. Right away, we might think, oh, they disagree with what I’m saying? And especially if it’s not a smile, if it’s a tense time tightening. And then we might change what we’re saying or ask them, “Oh, I’m sorry, did I say something that was insulting to you?” Or whatever how we might respond. Whereas many autistic people say, and again, I don’t generalize for everybody, say, I don’t pick up on those very subtle social queues. And it doesn’t come naturally to me to think about what another person is feeling when I’m talking to them. So that could be due to the difference in why hearing of the brain, the social brain. Like I said, my wife just naturally knows how to extend the conversation with a total stranger, where if I’m speaking with a stranger, sometimes I’ll get a little bit, not so much anxious, but like, Okay, well, we’re hitting a dead end. What do I say to keep this going? It becomes cognitive and conscious. And I think what you describe as juggling so many things, different concepts of minds, what’s the context? Many autistic people say that social interaction for them becomes a cognitive exercise. It’s not a socially intuitive exercise. 

Let me just give you some examples from our podcast. Carly Otte, a wonderful woman who I’ve gotten to know personally over the years on the spectrum, she happens to be a bank vice president. She was diagnosed in her late 20s and actually had some very significant mental health issues at that time until she got her diagnosis.She talks about the fact on our podcast about how in a shower in the morning, she will rehearse lines that she needs to say that she thinks she will need to use with certain people throughout the day. So that’s taking what should be, what most neurotypical people believe, should be a very spontaneous natural reaction and social interaction. I’m not talking about a job interview because everybody rehearses and what do I say to that person to impress them to get this job? But she says even for everyday conversations, it has to become a cognitive activity. She needs to think about strategies, learn those strategies, and then apply those strategies. Whereas most neurotypical people will say, “Hey, listen, if I bump into a friend at the supermarket, Hey, how are you doing? How’s your family? What’s going on?” It flows more naturally because it’s intuitive. It’s not that a cognitive exercise. And that makes a lot of sense to me. Again, it’s a different way of being. 

Now, let me give you an example of how it could be very different with an autistic brain in a social interaction. So I was out in LA less than a year ago. And I was having lunch with my friend who actually is a with-author of my book, Uniquely Human, Tom Fields Meyer. And he has an adult son on the spectrum, Ezra. And he actually wrote a book when Ezra was young called Following Ezra. It’s a wonderful book. So Ezra Fields Meyer, and Ezra has a podcast and he loves Disney, he knows everything about Disney. If you tell him your birthday, he will tell you the Disney film that came out closest to your birthday. So he has some savant skills in those areas. So we’re seated outside in a restaurant in Santa Monica, near a corner where there’s a lot of traffic. So I’m having a conversation with both Ezra and his dad, Tom. And then a bus comes by and the bus has a circular on it about maybe the play Frozen or the movie Frozen. And he immediately left the conversation and his brain riveted, “Oh, there’s a poster of Frozen! It’s playing at so and so theater.” And then he started talking about all the characters. So his mind intuitively, almost, went to what was a passion of his and something that he knew a lot about.

And it wasn’t that he was disinterested or avoiding our conversation. It’s just that his brain naturally, almost intuitively, went to something that he loves to talk about and that lights his brain up, if you will. And I think for neurotypical people, that happens in free flowing conversations much, much more easily than it does for autistic people. So I like that concept of social intuition that if we think neurotypicals have more of a social brain, which by the way, has it’s downside in terms of for example, with my wife, I often say I don’t want to get involved in these long conversations with people I’ll never meet again. It’s not relevant to my life and what I want to do right now. So I try to pull her away from that because sometimes it’s a problem that we end up being late for things and other kinds of stuff. So anyway, I like that concept of social intuition, or less of a social intuition, not from a pathology perspective, but from a brain difference perspective.

Zach: Yeah. And I like to think about it in the existential psychology terms of there’s many different ways of experiencing the world. No matter how it comes about, there are understandable ways that a conscious being can experience the world whether it’s whatever causes we could look into. You can understand it as a way of experiencing the world. I can really relate to that. 

The cognitive aspect, from a young age, I don’t relate at all to the whole concept of having rapport with people and all that. Those aspects were totally off the table for me from a young age. My way of being in the world was basically just trying to simulate what people perceived as normal. It definitely felt like a cognitive effort which can lead to all sorts of anxiety and depression. I dropped out of college in my second year, midyear from basically a so called nervous breakdown, but it was basically just extreme anxiety and feeling socially inferior and horrible. Just to say that, yeah, these things can be related. 

Maybe that’s a good segue to someone you had on your podcast who was an autistic therapist, and I can’t remember his name, but he talked about his beliefs that so much of what people view as autistic behaviors were various results results of just being anxious, having high anxiety. I thought he made some really good points about how when anyone is overwhelmed and highly anxious, they can behave in ways that seem autistic. You’ll be unable to act in ways that seem socially normal to other people, shut down or engaging in self soothing behaviors of various sorts. I’m curious if you have more thoughts on that idea that there can be a difficulty in drawing a line between what’s just signs of anxiety and the things we think of as autistic traits. They can feed off each other in various ways and have a feedback mechanism.

Barry: Yes. That professional was Sean Andrew Bitson. Sean is an autistic mental health counselor. What he’s pulling from, not to get too technical here, but is related to what’s called polyvagal theory, and I do believe that there is a big contribution from polyvagal theory. It’s the notion of our neurological system, very often is hyper vigilant, especially when we feel challenged and could put us in fight or flight reactions. And what Sean and I were talking about actually is very much related to our work going back decades. And a theme of my book as well, there’s no such thing as autistic behaviors. That what we’re seeing are human behaviors that are reactions to extreme anxiety. So you gave the rocking example, it might be pacing, it might be self-talk scripting to oneself to try to stay well regulated. That so much of what’s been labeled autistic behaviors are often related to more extreme experiences of anxiety, of fear, of great elation. 

You could see children on their toes jumping up and down and flapping their hands, which many people would consider classical autistic behaviors. And it could be a person is just so excited and so happy, they just don’t know what to do, and that’s how they let out their energy. So I do believe that that is a major contribution. I think in terms of explaining all of autism and the way people react who are autistic, I don’t believe it does that. I believe what it contributes to is more extreme levels of experience that our neurology is reacting to. That in terms of the polyvagal theory is that we do have these neurological alarm bells that go off that put us into fight or flight, but at milder levels that tell us we need to do something to regulate ourselves physiologically and emotionally. And then, by the way, another interesting concept that’s developing, and a number of autistic people are saying this, and that is it’s not so much as an autistic person that I experience emotion the way you experience it, such as happiness and fear. And what I experience is more energy levels. So I know I’m about to have a meltdown when my energy is depleted, when I’m running on fumes. 

So Jacquelyn Fede, who is an autistic psychologist, she works with one of my colleagues in their initiative called Autism Level Up. Jacqueline says, No, the way you describe emotions, I don’t experience that. But I experience different levels of energy, which could be positive energy, which could be negative energy, which could be I just don’t have any energy for this anymore. I’m running on fumes right now. So that’s, again, an example of how an autistic person might experience something differently than a person who’s not autistic, but we try to fit it into the neurotypical paradigm.

Zach: One thing I’ve wondered, is it possible to predict how highly autistic children will turn out? I know of children or hear stories with children who can barely speak, who have horrible temper tantrums, who can’t communicate. I often wonder, how will these people turn out? Is there a lot of variety? Is it hard to predict or do we know enough where examining someone, a child, you can accurately predict what their outcomes will be, whether they’ll lead so called normal social lives and such?

Barry: Your question begs the question of what do we use or what would people who want to predict outcomes, what would they look at in a child? And traditionally in Western culture, it’s been speech and language abilities and cognitive problem solving abilities. Well, one of the great turnarounds that’s happening in autism right now is we’re discovering that many people who are considered to be severely autistic, intellectually disabled, non speaking are ending up, when provided with appropriate ways to communicate, that still might be non speaking. So it could be low-text systems such as spelling boards or picture systems, high-text systems such as using speech generated output on an iPad or a MacBook or an iPhone. We are discovering people who are not only much more intellectually capable, but in some cases, quite brilliant who don’t speak. 

We have interviewed now three people on our podcast. One has not come out yet. Let me just focus on Elizabeth. Elizabeth Bonker is a non speaking autistic person who was considered for many years to be severely intellectually disabled. Given appropriate systems to communicate, she showed how not only bright but brilliant she was, and she was the valedictorian of her college last year. So if our listeners, your listeners, want to look that up, just go on YouTube and Google Elizabeth Bonker, B O N K R valedictorian. And you will see the amazing speech she gave, all of which she programmed into her computer. So we interviewed her. It’ll probably be out next month or the month after we interviewed her a few weeks ago for our podcast. She asked for the questions ahead of time, and she programmed all the answers into her computer. She’s a delightful young woman. She’s in her mid 20s right now. 

Another woman, Jordan Zimmerman, was not only considered severely autistic and severely intellectually disabled, but a profound behavior problem who literally attacked people, trashed environments, was considered so profoundly impacted by her intellectual disability or autism, she was always in highly segregated settings until she was a teenager. And she learned how to communicate through her iPad. And she also recently graduated with a master’s degree in educational philosophy. The bottom line is there are a number of people now, and a few years ago, it was a few dozen. Now there are hundreds of people with an autism diagnosis who are considered to be profoundly disabled by their autism, and in many cases, intellectual disability because they were not speaking, who are proving the world different. As a matter of fact, there’s a film that just came out called Spellers. It just came out a couple of months ago. It’s online and anybody could watch it, which is case studies of six of these people, including Elizabeth Bonker. And it’s turning our heads around. We always knew that a non-speaking person can be much more capable than we thought, but we never really realized how an early picture of a child could change so dramatically once they’re given the capacity to communicate effectively.

Zach: Kind of reminds me of Helen Keller’s book describing how her teacher taught her language and gave her the ability to communicate. And before that, she was just trapped in a dark world where it was very chaotic. You know when we learn ways to communicate, that’s hugely important to people. And if they don’t have the chance to communicate, that can be very traumatic and lead to worse things.

Barry: As a matter of fact, Elizabeth Bonker cites Helen Keller as one of her heroes in her valedictorian speech. 

Zach: Nice. Helen Keller’s book was amazing. I read that pretty recently. Let’s see. I’m curious. Part of the stereotype or cliché about autistic people is that they become very interested or even obsessed with various ideas or pursuits, the Asperger’s thing of becoming very interested and obsessed with various pursuits, do you have thoughts about the causes of that association? For example, there could be the wiring aspect, obviously, for the more savant abilities. But do you think some of it could be because autistic people lack the meaning in social connections and social narratives and such, and so they have more of a drive to find their meaning in pursuits of ideas and concepts and math or whatever it may be. Do you see some connection there in the finding of meaning in non social things?

Barry: Yeah, that’s a great question. From a neurotypical lens, I would say, in addition to finding meaning, it’s finding quality of life. I mean, any person would have a better quality of life if he or she could focus on what’s fascinating to them, what lights their brain up, what rivets their attention. And just to be clear, it’s estimated that the true savant exceptional abilities are present at about 10 to 15 % of autistic individuals, more so than any other condition and more so than in the general population. But certainly, the terms deep interests, special interests, in my book, I refer to these as enthusiasm. And I think it serves a number of functions that in some cases, it might just be highly intellectually satisfying to a person. The same way that may happen to a neurotypical person, but what’s often mentioned in autism is that it might be more restricted to particular topics and particular interests for a person on the spectrum. So I believe it serves the function of emotional regulation, that when we are highly engaged, our mind is immersed in something that’s interesting to us, that’s fascinating. That’s when we’re in the zone. 

The Czechoslovakian psychologist, Csikszentmihalyi, spoke about being in the flow. And the flow is being in this cognitive state where you’re highly, highly focused. Your brain is just clicking with what you’re doing and the activity you’re immersed in. It believes elite athletes get into that zone when they’re doing what they do that’s so good, an artist, a musician. So I do believe that it serves various functions. And a big part of what we do in education and our model, we have a educational framework called the SCERTS model. And a big piece of that is making sure that we put into people’s lives what their special interests are. Be creative, teach academics through, you know, if a person is very interested in aspects of science, teach academics through that. If a person is very interested in cooking and recipes, you could set up whole activities where teaching literacy skills and numeracy skills through that. The other piece of this is that sometimes if something falls outside area of interest for an autistic student, for example, or is just too abstract, that student is not going to learn that just to please the teacher. If it doesn’t light their brain up, they’re going to look for something that does, if you will. So I think that’s another important consideration. 

But I believe, in my experience, we do see those intensive interests more often in autistic individuals than in the neurotypical population. If it is seen in a neurotypical person, then hopefully it’ll be nurtured. It might be a great skill, a great area of knowledge, a great talent. It could be science, it could be the arts. And that’s where we are right now in supporting autistic people, both at the level of leaving school into employment as well as at the level of school. Even at the level of social connection connection, we believe the best way to help, for example, an autistic child who has difficulty connecting with the uncertainty of social interaction, have experiences with friends who have similar interests. Because then they could both the non autistic and the autistic kids could focus intensively on something they both love. And it allows for that what’s referred to as shared attention and joint attention.

Zach: Well, this has been great, Barry. Thanks so much for your work and thanks for coming on to talk about all these things.

Barry: It’s been a pleasure, Zach, and great questions and I’ve really enjoyed it.

Zach: Thank you. That was a talk with Barry Prizant, author of the great book on autism, Uniquely Human, and co-host of the Uniquely Human podcast, which you can find at uniquelyhuman.com. His main site is at barryprizant.com. One area I didn’t get a chance to get into were some questions I have about how some psychological issues might overlap with autistic traits. To take an example from my own life, I had a very bad panic attack my first day of high school. I became extremely self-conscious and anxious that day as I was meeting a bunch of new people. And that panic attack was so painful and disorienting, it kicked off a long period of depression and anxiety for me. And I don’t have much insight into what my personality and inner life were like before that point in time. It’s like I became a completely different person at that moment of the panic attack. It was like suddenly becoming self aware, a real existential crisis of sorts. Suddenly seeing myself from the outside and feeling completely inadequate in dealing with all these other people around me. I don’t remember if, for example, my problem with eye contact was present before that point in time, or if maybe it was present but just not as bad or what. Just to say all these things make me wonder about all the various factors that can be present for these kinds of things. 

Maybe other environmental or psychological factors created the conditions for me to be prone to be highly anxious, and that in turn kicked off or worsened some autistic life conditions and traits I already had. Or is it possible I don’t actually have the biological and brain wiring aspects that some other people with the autism label have? And my own problems are due more to anxiety and depression kinds of things. These things seem really hard to tease apart because, for example, if one has some biological autistic aspects that make it hard to interact with others, that person will often end up being depressed and anxious, and vice versa. If one winds up feeling self-conscious and anxious and depressed for other reasons, more psychological reasons, then one might often end up having traits that seem autistic. 

Anyway, this is just to point out the huge complexity that I see in these things, mainly for the less extreme and more moderate kinds of autistic-seeming traits. And these are reasons why I’m not a big fan of using labels, at least labeling oneself internally. I think labels can be self limiting and oftentimes cover up a huge amount of complexity and uncertainty about things that we just don’t understand. I think there are certain ways of being that we can wind up in from multiple paths just because there are only so many ways to be a functional person in this world. This isn’t to say the autism label isn’t meaningful. I think it’s useful for describing clusters of traits and ways of being, especially when those things are on the more extreme side. I’m just talking about how we think of ourselves internally. 

If you enjoyed this episode, you might like going to my site behavior-podcast.com and listening to other episodes. I have a compilation of mental health and psychology-related episodes there on the site. If you like this podcast, please share it with your friends and family. That’s the most appreciated way you can show your appreciation. Leaving ratings and reviews on Apple podcasts or other platforms is also hugely appreciated, too. Thanks for listening. 

Categories
podcast

How does anxious body language affect a job interview?, with Simonne Mastrella

A talk with Simonne Mastrella, author of the research paper Acting Anxious: The Impact of Candidates’ Anxious Nonverbal Behavior on Interview Performance Ratings. Topics discussed include: the design of the study; her findings; whether results differed by gender or by the nature of the job; how perceptions of anxiety and “warmth” are related; and the challenges of using actors to act out behaviors for a study. 

Episode links:

The following information about related research is from Simonne:

This study looked at all the studies that measured interview anxiety and interview anxiety and found that, combined, more anxious interviewees tend to perform worse than less anxious interviewees: Meta-analysis of the relation between interview anxiety and interview performance.

The following studies compared interview anxiety with how people performed on the job and found no relation (so, more anxious interviewees were not necessarily worse performers than less anxious interviewees).

Does interview anxiety predict job performance and does it influence the predictive validity of interviews?

The role of negative evaluation in interview anxiety and social-evaluative workplace anxiety.

Categories
podcast

What do we owe to our fellow citizens (even when we think they’re very wrong)?, with Robert Talisse

A talk with political theorist Robert Talisse, (Twitter: @RobertTalisse) author of the book Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe To The Other Side. His book is one of the best I’ve read about both American polarization and about the challenges of democracy: I highly recommend it. A transcript of this talk is included below.

Topics we talk about include: the nature of democracy and the limits of what it can achieve; separating expected and healthy polarization from unhealthy, toxic polarization; what we owe to our fellow citizens even when we see them as very misguided and even dangerous; how extreme polarization can make our relationships and coalitions even with politically similar people suffer and fall apart. 

Episode links:

Resources related to or mentioned in our talk:

TRANSCRIPT

Zachary Elwood: Hello and welcome to the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zachary Elwood. This is a podcast aimed at better understanding other people, and better understanding ourselves. You can learn more about it at www.behavior-podcast.com 

On today’s episode, I talk to philosopher and political theorist Robert Talisse about his book Sustaining Democracy, which has the subtitle What We Owe To the Other Side. In my opinion, this is one of the best books on depolarization I’ve read. 

Talisse’s book tackles a very important question: how can we engage in politics and democracy when we hold our political opponents in such low regard, when we view them as morally bankrupt and even dangerous? 

His book emphasizes the important fact that democracy is hard; it’s not easy. Democracy is basically just majority rule; whoever gets more votes can implement a lot of things that other people will strongly disagree with. 

And Talisse’s book contains one of the best explanations of a lesser known negative aspect of toxic polarization: the fact that it makes political groups less able to form coalitions; it makes more people righteous and overly intolerant of other views, sometimes even views not that far from their own, and makes them overly focused on policing the borders of their group, in ways that make them less able to actually do the work of politics and persuade other people and work with other people. And this aspect of polarization I think can help explain some of the worst outcomes of extreme division: because when a society is extremely fractured, it makes it easier for some relatively small extreme and dangerous group to come in and cease power, because resistance has been weakened. People are worn down and stressed, or just apathetic. This is what extreme polarization does to us: creates the breeding ground for bad people to be able to do bad things. 

In this episode, some topics we discuss include: What is polarization? How do we define the problem of polarization? Robert also believes something that I focus on in my book: that the incentives of a lot of the influential political and media systems around us make it unlikely that those same systems and people will help us reduce our animosity, which to me points to the importance of grass roots approaches of spreading the word about these ideas. 

We talk about some aspects of group psychology that play a role in our divides; for example, the tendency for like minded groups to grow more extreme and hardened in their views over time. We talk about that time Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore a dress with ‘Tax the Rich’ on it, and Robert gives some thoughts about how us-vs-them polarization dynamics affected the debate about that on the liberal side.  We talk about how our political animosity can make us more likely to start acting in some of the aggressive, biased ways that we dislike about the ‘other side’; how it can make us into hypocrites: forgiving bad things we and our allies do while judging the same behavior very harshly when it’s present on the other side. 

We talk about common objections people have to seeing extreme polarization as a big problem. 

If you enjoy this episode, I recommend checking out some past episodes about political polarization I have in the library. You can find a compilation of the politics-related ones on my website behavior-podcast.com. 

This conversation was recorded a couple months ago. Since Robert and I talked, I’ve released my own book on polarization, which is called Defusing American Anger, and that’s available at www.american-anger.com

A little bit more about Robert Talisse: he’s currently Professor of Philosophy[1] and Chair of the Philosophy Department at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, where he is also a Professor of Political Science.

Okay, here’s the talk with Robert Talisse, author of Sustaining Democracy.

Zach: What moved you to write this book? What were your motivations, and what problems were you trying to solve?

Robert Talisse: The book, Sustaining Democracy is the title, is a sequel of sorts to a book I published in 2019 which was called Overdoing Democracy. The thesis of the first book, Overdoing Democracy, is that there are certain virtues of citizenship that can be cultivated only when our social lives are not overrun with politics. So it may sound a little counterintuitive, but nonetheless, I think it’s true that when everything we do together is an expression of, or communication of our politics, we become worse democratic citizens. That was the thesis of Overdoing Democracy. We need to sometimes do things together, we need to carve out space in our lives where we can do things together that are in no way organized around our political objectives. And, you know, I’m an academic philosopher, I work in political philosophy, if some of your listeners know anything about political philosophy or political theory, the thesis that it’s possible to have too much democracy or for democracy to play too large a role in one’s life is pretty counterintuitive [laughs] to say the least. So as I was giving talks, I confronted a lot of the standard objections that I’m sure a lot of the people listening to us can already anticipate, but there was one kind of objection or reaction that really got me thinking.

And it was the kind of reaction that went as follows: Some people would say things like, “Well, okay to Talisse, you’ve convinced me that in order to be a good democratic citizen, I have to make room in my life for cooperative but non-political activities or engagements with fellow citizens.” These would be engagements where we’re not suppressing our political differences, we’re reaching across the aisle, both of those kinds of activities put politics at the center after all, but we’re looking for activities in which the political affiliations or alignments of the other participants are simply beside the point or unknown to me. “Okay,” the challenge would go, “I think you’re right about that.

But when we are doing politics, how are we supposed to do it given that we are already inclined, and so strongly inclined to see our political opposition as fundamentally and often irredeemably benighted, ignorant, bigoted, duped, divested from democracy? Isn’t that a problem that, you know, we still have to do politics? How can we do it given that we have such low regard for our political opponents?” So that got me thinking that maybe there was another book to be written. And so the Sustaining Democracy book is an answer to that question. How is it, or is it we might even ask, is it possible for us to do reasonable and responsible democratic politics, given that cross-partisan animosity, distrust, disgust for the other side is so prevalent in society? And that so much of our social life is already sorted and segregated according to partisan affiliation such that it’s increasingly easy, particularly in the United States but not only in the United States, to avoid contact with anyone who’s not just like you in your day-to-day activities. We can talk more about that later if you like.

And so the thought was maybe under the conditions where the cognitive and affective phenomena that we call polarization are already so high, and that the social world is already so divided into different sectors and quarters according to partisan affiliation, what reason can we have as individuals to try to live up to the democratic ideal of trying to be a partner, even with the people whose political judgment we think is terrible, in the common endeavor of collective self-government as equals? That was the question that drives Sustaining Democracy book– the subtitle– as what we owe to the other side. So it’s a book that’s in part about depolarization and in part about some of the ways in which a proper conceptualization of the problem of polarization shows us that some standard strategies for depolarization are unlikely to succeed, and then tries to make a novel case for thinking that it’s still worth the time of a democratic citizen to attempt to uphold properly civic relations with those who may regard as their political enemies. How’s that sound?

Zach: Yeah. No, that’s great. I think the important part about your book is getting at something that is a very important concept, which I think is that democracy is difficult. It’s always going to be a difficult thing, especially as we become more polarised. And you’re arguing for seeing that and facing that difficulty head-on. Because I think in many people’s minds, it almost seems to me like people become kind of spoiled in their thinking about what democracy is. They think it’s just… Their very version of what the world or what democracy should entail is a continual progress of the things I believe are right, whereas the fundamental reality is that you’re going to have political losses, even losses that you believe are very harmful to society. And that is a fundamental nature of democracy because both sides will have narratives about the other side doing harm, and they will have understandable reasons for why they believe– even if we can very much disagree with them, we can understand the reasons why they can see the other side as doing harm in various ways. And I think that’s why your concepts are so important because I think, you know, democracy is difficult and if we’re going to survive and be a stable society, I think more people have to grapple with that fundamental difficulty. Would you agree with all that?

Robert: Oh, I would agree with all of that. I think that we’re so enamored, and I think rightfully so, with the idea of democracy, with the idea of a self-governing community of equals, with the idea of each person counting for one and none for more than one. However, you know, whatever government of ‘by and for the people’, whatever your favorite sloganized version is of the core of democracy, we’re rightly enamored with it. But even at its best, democracy is not an easy pill to swallow. And let’s just think of it sort of… Well, think of it in this way. Democracy is the proposal that you, Zach, can be forced to live according to rules that you reject, simply because other people like those rules. [laughs]

Zach: Right. It’s a majority makes the rules system. It’s not a magical system.

Robert: That’s right. That’s right. And so the idea that in a democracy, we have to recognize that sometimes the state, the government, the political agencies and institutions that run the country, are required and are bound to enact policy that we think, in our best judgment, and maybe in our informed judgment and maybe we could even be correct, that the government is required under certain conditions to enact policies that we know are unjust. That’s what democracy is. That it forces us to recognize the category of legitimately enacted injustice. Now, within certain bounds [laughs] there’s certain kinds of severe forms of injustice that can never really be legitimately enacted, that’s what the Bill of Rights is supposed to help us discern.

But within those broad constraints about fundamental political rights of human beings and so forth as citizens, there’s still a lot of room for where the government is required to enact policy that enjoys a certain degree of support among the people, even when the people are wrong. And so the thought that’s associated with, you know, Jane Addams and John Dewey that the cure for the ills of democracy is always more democracy is often thought to suggest a further thought that I think is less obviously true. In fact, I think it’s untrue that if we just get democracy right, the world will be sweetness and light. [laughs] That every injustice has as its core the failure of democracy. I just think that’s got to be false because part of what it is for us to live together as political equals is that we have to recognize that our fellow citizens get to make up their own minds about things. [chuckles] And when we politically disagree, maybe with respect to certain kinds of issues it’s no big deal who’s going to be dog catcher or whatever, but when we politically disagree over tax policy or environmental policy or over immigration or over health care, that’s a disagreement about what justice requires.

And so if Zach, you and I disagree on one of those issues, I have to see your view as on the side of injustice and as something less or other than what justice requires. So if you get your way democratically, I have to think, “Well, the world is less just than it would have been had I gotten my way.” And so the thought that democracy is this engine that produces justice just seems to me to be false. And I think that we are giving short shrift to the value of democracy when we don’t recognize the slightly less attractive features of it. Because it seems to me that for all of its flaws, Winston Churchill was right. This is the best there is. [laughs] [crosstalk] Right. Good.

Zach: Well, yeah. And one thing I say to emphasize that point of just how fundamentally we can disagree on even the simplest moral problems, you know, there’s the well-known trolley problem that the philosophical or ethical problem. And you can imagine we can disagree on even the simplest problem of whether– for people that don’t know– whether you pull the lever to divert this train and have it kill, you know, as opposed to killing four or five people, have it kill one person. But you have to make the decision to pull the lever. And we can disagree, you know, people have argued over this for a long time. You can even imagine polarization around that issue where, you know, a version of the trolley problem in politics where liberals were on one side and conservatives were on the other and they very much viewed the other side’s stance as completely immoral and unjust. The fact that we can get so divided on even the simplest issue should give us pause when we form very certain confident views about how evil the other side is.

And getting back to your point about the way I view these polarization problems like you were saying, more and more people focusing on these issues can be unhealthy because it’s almost like a magnifying glass effect where you’re focusing all the social energy in one place and creating this destabilizing and anger emotion-producing thing in one area. And even Ezra Klein talked about this in his book, you know? He ended his polarization book with the point, “we focus too much on these national problems that we have no influence over, and we just are becoming more outraged and throwing energy into this divide. Maybe it would be better if we focused on local things that we could actually influence or things in our community as opposed to adding fuel to this polarization fire.” I’m curious if you’d agree with some of that.

Robert: Well, the Klein book is interesting. It’s written for a particular audience, it’s more of a narrative than-

Zach: -I found a very biassed, personally.

Robert: I can see why one might say that. So, it’s of its kind, it’s a perfectly fine book. One thing I think is important, maybe just to take a step back, I think it’s important to sort of introduce some distinctions when we’re talking about polarization. There’s so much, especially in political commentary and in journalism, there’s so much talk about polarization and it’s being bad. That there’s not a lot or not a similar degree of talk about what it is. And I think that there’s too little talk about what it is and why it’s bad. It’s not hard to come across political theorists, political commentators, politicians even, who talk about polarization in a way that I think betrays or suggests the view that animosity among citizens is always bad to any degree. [laughs] Or disagreement always needs to be resolved in some way that leaves all parties satisfied. That rancor is a sign of a democratic dysfunction. I happen to think all that’s false. [laughs] I think that democracy runs on disagreement and division. I think that, again, part of what it is to respect or to fully acknowledge our political equality is to recognize that adult citizens get to make up their own minds about things and they get to make up their own minds about how they should make up their own minds. So what level of information is required, where the information needs to come from, these are all things that I’m not required as a citizen to defer to anybody else’s judgment about.

Now, what that means is that even when we’re all as citizens trying to do our best as custodians of the public good, it’s very unlikely that our judgments about political matters are going to converge on to some common view. So it seems to me that the late 20th-century and early 21st-century political philosopher John Rawls got something right. Political disagreement over pretty central normative matters is the direct implication of our freedom and equality. It’s not, therefore, a mark of some kind of political failing. In fact, Rawls said, “Consensus is suspicious.” [laughs]

So it seems to me that disagreement is inescapable in a society of free and equal people. It also seems to me that political disagreement is disagreement over pretty important values like justice and freedom, liberty, dignity, respect. And so the idea that if we’re doing democracy correctly or properly, there won’t be heated tones and there won’t be real division and there won’t be real animus strikes me as a mistake. So it seems to me that depolarization– or let me put it slightly differently– the problem of polarization cannot be simply the problem of political divisions and divisiveness and dislike and animus. Some degree of divisiveness and animus and dislike is just a necessary part of politics when you’re aspiring to realize the ideal of a society of free and equal self-governing citizens.

So if polarization is a problem, where is it? What is it? Where does it reside? And I want to suggest that the way to think about the problem of polarization is to say, “Well, polarization is the problem of, or the problem of polarization is better understood as follows: Too much of our political division is driven by cognitive and affective forces that don’t track actual differences of opinion. [laughs] Right? Your listeners might be aware of this, but it’s always worth repeating. Forget about parties and political platforms and party leaders and politicians, forget about them for a second. The American electorate is no more divided over ‘rubber hits the road’ political policy questions than it was in the 1990s. In fact, on a lot of pretty central questions of political public policy, in fact with respect to a lot of the questions of political policy that were the main sites of political division in the ’90s– think about gay marriage in the ’90s, stem cells, you know? The American electorate has actually come closer to consensus. That is, we’re less divided over certain kinds of what were once very divisive issues 30 years ago. We’re less divided now. The problem in American politics at present is not that we have these deep divisions among the citizenry about what the government should be doing, it’s that we believe that we have these deep divisions over what the government should be doing. And on the basis of the perceived or the assumed divisions of that kind, we dislike each other more, we distrust each other more, we walk around with caricatures versions of what the other side thinks and what they believe and how they live, despite the fact. So we dislike each other more but have actually relatively less that divides us at the level of policy. That strikes me as the problem of polarization. So our perceived political divisions are a kind of mirage. How’s that sound to you?

Zach: Yeah, I think we’re largely on the same page because in the book I’m working on and sometimes in the podcast, I spend time… You know, defining the problem is important. And the problem, as you say, is not that we disagree or even strongly disagree, it’s that seeing the role of these negative emotions and how we view the other side and the distorted views… Not just about, because like you said, there can be distorted views about how much the other side disagrees with us that the number of people that held X position. But there’s also distortions around the motivations even for the things that we strongly disagree on, like specific issues. You know, immigration, we can have these worst-case scenario interpretations of what the other side’s stances are about and view them as all those bad as the worst people on that side, etc, etc. So I think it’s very important to define the problem, and one thing I often say to politically passionate people to get them to see the wisdom of these ideas– and I think it’s tough because the word ‘depolarization’ is probably not the best word because I think people interpret that to mean we’re going to depolarize your beliefs and move your beliefs to some moderate state. It’s increasingly seemed to me as not a great word because that’s how people interpret it. So it’s not about changing their beliefs or as you say, their emotional investment in those beliefs and political goals and willing to work hard towards things, it’s about examining the role that these negative emotions play. And I try to tell the politically passionate people, “Can you see how this anger and this dehumanization that this worst-case thinking about the other side helps create the very things we’re angry about?”

And to give an example of that, James Druckman and his colleagues had a study showing how higher levels of partisan animosity before COVID were later linked with more polarised and more extreme COVID stances on either side. Like, they either being really for strong COVID restrictions, or practices or being for super laxed COVID reactions and stances. And this is just to say that it’s helping make the case that our anger can be helping create and polarise the very things we’re angry about, and helping shift our beliefs and people’s beliefs to the outside based on that anger. And I’m curious if you think that’s a persuasive argument to people that are politically passionate.

Robert: Well, I think it’s true. [laughs] Sometimes good philosophical insight does not always run in tandem with what’s persuasive. But one thing just to say about the kind of research is it also looks as if strong partisanship was positively correlated with over or under-estimations of the kind of threat and severity. [laughs]

Zach: Exactly. Yeah.

Robert: So, not only was in favor of the policies, it was-

Zach: It distorts our views of reality.

Robert: That’s good. So yeah, I think that’s right. Now, let me just sort of again make a further distinction given what Zach you were just saying, we can talk about polarization as the pulling apart of the parties or pulling apart of the political units, the political movements, that conservatives, the liberals, the progressives and however you want to characterize it, you know, and the consequent falling out of the common ground between them so that there’s this chasm between the left and the right that doesn’t seem bridgeable without somebody making a rotten compromise or conceding something to evil. There’s that. And maybe some degree of even that kind of divisiveness among political units like parties, some degree of that seems to me to be not only inevitable in a democracy, but maybe a sign of democratic health. After all, when you’ve got the parties that are sharply divided over identifiable issues, makes the job of the citizen figuring out where his or her allegiances lay. Given that, as a voter, the agenda is already set by the time you show up at the voting booth. So again, the parties making salient their differences by sort of focusing on their fundamental disagreements and their dislike for one another make the job of being a voter a little bit easier. Now it’s really clear what party stands where on which issues that I care about? All that stuff becomes very explicit and salient. So some degree of that pulling apart of the two parties so that they stand in clear opposition, in part by each one signalling their dislike of the other side and their opposition to the other side, maybe some degree of that isn’t bad.

But as we were just saying, the affective and cognitive side of polarization– and what I would want to say are sort of distinct phenomena that are called polarization– is where I think the right diagnostic focus is. Because, again, it seems to me that the problem is that our political divisions, including the party divides, are kind of driven by a hallucinated sense of who our fellow citizens are. In fact, it seems to me that the political parties and the candidates and the campaign managers and the pundits kind of benefit from this circumstance. That’s why I don’t think that any solution will be forthcoming from large-scale institutions and political leaders and the parties. They benefit from this imagined illusory division.

But the affective and cognitive phenomena– I just want to say a little bit about that– there’s this well studied robustly documented cognitive phenomenon that’s called belief polarization. Belief polarization is the tendency of members of like-minded groups, particularly when they are in one another’s presence, to become more extreme advocates and more extreme versions of themselves. Let me sort of make that distinction one more time. So we can think of political polarization as this sort of sociological phenomenon of the major parties or major political groups pulling to their ideological poles and letting the common ground fallout between them so that they’re results in a chasm and a lot of frustration and log jams and paralysis at the policy level. Belief polarization is something different. Political polarization is a metric, we might say, of the division between the Right and the Left or the Liberals and Conservatives or the Democrats and the Republicans. Political polarization is a metric of some kind of distance between two things. Belief polarization is not a metric of the distance between two things. Belief polarization is a phenomenon that occurs within a like-minded group. If anything, it’s a metric of the distance between your former and your present self. So, when groups of like-minded people interact, they become more extreme, they become more confident, they become less inclined to see counter-evidence as weighty, they become more inclined to dismiss as biased and unreliable any source of counter-evidence to their view.

And even more importantly, as like-minded groups shift into these more extreme doxastic that is attitudes with respect to their beliefs, they also become more ready to act on the more extreme beliefs that they hold. And something that some of your listeners will be familiar with is the phenomenon called the risky shift. The more extreme and confident we become, the more tolerant of risky behavior we become when the risky behavior can be shown to be in the service of the more radical and confident beliefs we hold. [laughs] So, like-minded groups become more extreme in their beliefs and their cognitive attitudes. But at the same time and for reasons that are not hard to discern, our more extreme selves are also more as effectively negatively disposed towards anybody who’s perceived not to be a member of the group or not to be a member of our like-minded group. So as we become more extreme, we also become more distrustful of, more suspicious of, more likely to attribute negative character traits, negative intellectual traits and untoward motives towards anybody we perceive to be on the outside of our group.

Let me put the package together. Interaction among like-minded people shifts us into adopting more extreme beliefs and cognitive stances towards our commitments that makes us more ready to act on their behalf, but it also is positively tied with escalating negative emotions and negative affect towards anybody who’s perceived to be outside our group. And so, if you’ve been to high school you know what this is, this is just clicks. [laughs] Right? When groups become more extreme and more insular in the ways I just described, they also become more hierarchical. Right? They become more and more reliant on tastemakers within the group to establish what it takes to be a member in good standing of the group. Belief-polarised groups become more reliant on internal slogans and behavioral cues that signal to other members their allyship. They begin to dress alike, they begin to pronounce certain words in the same way. In fact, you can already see this. I’m not sure, Zach, if you’re aware of some of this research about the pronunciation of words having a partisan valence.

Zach: Yeah, I’ve seen this a lot. It shifts a lot of things.

Robert: Yeah. Right. So if you’re listening to somebody on the news and you’re wondering where their partisan affiliation lies, wait for them to say the name of the country I R A Q. [laughs] Iraq or Iraq? I don’t even have to say where the partisan identification lies in that, Iran and Iran. Iran is a clear signal and the pronunciation Iran is a clear signal that you’re dealing with somebody who’s a liberal. So the thought is that these heavily belief-polarised groups become not only more extreme but more insular, more hierarchical, and ultimately, they become increasingly fixated on policing the borders between the in-group and the out-group. And I think that strikes me– maybe Zach you’re on the same wavelength– that strikes me as politically counterproductive. When our political coalitions are subject to internal dynamics that lead the coalition members to become more and more focused on detecting posers and fakers within the group so that they can be expelled, it strikes me as– from the point of view of real politics– it strikes me as just counterproductive.

Zach: Right. Building coalitions, yes.

Robert: Yeah. If you want to be an effective democratic citizen, you got to join a choir. You want the choir to grow. You can’t have it shrink. And so it looks to me like polarization isn’t only a diss… I want to even say it in the Sustaining Democracy book. One of the central pillars of the argument is that the dysfunction of polarization is not properly located within the animosity for the other side, the divisiveness towards the other side, the disgust and distrust with the other side. Those might be problems, too. But part of the problem of polarization is the impact it has on our alliances. It makes less able to be a member of a successful political coalition. Can I just give one real quick example? I have some initial mainly anecdotal data in the form of a couple of online threads.

Zach: Sure.

Robert: Zach, you may remember two years ago or whatever it was the Met Gala where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore a dress with a slogan on the back of it. Do you remember the slogan?

Zach: It was something about doing something to the rich or something.

Robert: Tax the rich.

Zach: Oh, right. Yeah.

Robert: Okay. She was wearing this very elegant dress and it had in big red letters and it looked like it was painted too and even spray painted “tax the rich.” For reasons that were incidental, I happened to just be following some social media threads about the Met Gala and all the rest of the night that this was happening, and I saw something very interesting develop with respect to AOC’s dress. And I think it’s a nice illustration of the internal dysfunction, you know, the way polarization undermines our coalitions. So there’s live streaming, there’s all kinds of things, AOC is wearing a dress that says ‘tax the rich’ on the back. And you start seeing people commenting and I love her so much and, you know? Eventually, people on a couple of the threads start posting like, “Yeah, every billionaire! That billionaire is a criminal.” And others would say, “Yeah, Jeff Bezos needs to pay his fair share.” And others would say, “All property is theft.” [laughs] So you started getting different levels or different grades of liberal to progressive to more radically progressive ideas about what the slogan ‘tax the rich’ might mean, ranging from ‘it ought to be a crime to be a billionaire’ to ‘we should have a much more aggressively progressive tax system.’

And I started watching and I’m like, “Well, this is interesting. Because what exactly does tax the rich mean? I guess it’s consistent with a fairly moderate but left argument for progressive taxation. Yeah, Jeff Bezos isn’t paying his fair share, close the loopholes.” You know, this kind of thing. And it could be consistent with more radical doctrines like any earnings above a certain number is just taken back by the state. So I started monitoring this because I thought this was interesting. And what was interesting about it was how quickly the threads devolved, not into sort of disorderly name-calling over the policy. You saw people initially saying things like, “If you think tax the rich just means we need to close the loopholes in the existing tax system, you might as well be Ronald Reagan.” Right?

So there was that kind of initial we’re disagreeing over what the right tax policy is. But that lasted for only a couple of minutes. Ultimately, the threads became a kind of mudslinging about who the real progressives in the discussion were. And that struck me as deeply dysfunctional for a political coalition. The fact that we disagree, we all want something to change and could say the participants in this discussion all wanted something to change about the tax structure, and they wanted changes in the tax structure that moved in a progressive lefty kind of direction, but they gave up on the discussion of what the right tax policy should be and embraced a different discussion, who is the real progressive? And that just looks to me like okay, this is no way to achieve any political goal. It is to succumb so quickly to the tendency to give up on the substantive discussion, and then just try to establish the borders between the authentic progressives and the posers. That’s what polarization does to us.

Zach: That’s what I loved about your book. Yeah, I really liked your focus on the hidden, basically, the less discussed negative aspects of this us-versus-them polarization and how it makes the group’s more fractured and more contentious even amongst people that are quite politically aligned. And you gave a great example, and it’s like we can see this in so many ways on the Left and the Right. People just become more focused on purity. And there was a good article about progressive nonprofits going through chaos in the wake of the George Floyd and anti-racism discussions. It was an intercept and a good article for anyone who wants to look at that. But it was just an example of how even amongst people that are quite politically aligned, we become unable to form coalitions. And politics, for people that actually want to get something done, is about forming coalitions. And I think it’s also related to the saying that perfection being the enemy of the good. You know, your sense of perfection being the enemy of actually getting something practical done, and both sides become more and more fractured in that way and people become less willing to speak up to the more polarised and angry people in their group. Which I think gets back to how I would say us-versus-them animosity helps create some of the very problems that upset us because the more that we give power to the more angry and highly polarised, the more that gives power to the highly polarised on the other side who have a lot of anger and so on and so on. I really liked your focus on that part of it, the internal part of it.

Robert: I appreciate that. Can I just… I want to add one thing. I agree with what you’re just saying. Not only does polarization sort of create the conditions that we tell ourselves with our lamenting and regret, it creates the very conditions that we think are so terrible. I want to suggest one further thought, though. polarization turns us into the kind of people we hate the other side because we imagine they are like that. polarization punctuates within us the character traits that we claim to be the basis of our disgust and animosity towards the other side. Put it this way. polarization encourages in us not only the thought or the idea, but the attitudes, the disposition and practices that are fundamentally organized around the idea that democracy is possible only when everyone is just like me. And that strikes me as a fundamentally anti-democratic idea that there can only be democracy when people are just like I am. It’s fundamentally anti-democratic to think that. But that’s what polarization does. And often, we find ourselves in that heightened state of belief and affective polarization because we’re engaged sincerely in democratic activity. [laughs]

Zach: Yeah, like you say, it’s counterintuitive and a bit… Yeah, it’s hard to examine. It’s hard to solve for a reason because so many of the things, I think, we don’t have analogies for. We have a lot of analogies to the natural world but I feel like this is such a human dynamic that’s very unique that it’s hard for us to understand the complexity of how these dynamics work. It’s something I often think about. Like, if we had better natural-world analogies for this, it might be easier to tackle. But anyway, I know we only got a few minutes left so I want to ask you, when it comes to what we might do about these problems– like say, we could put you and made you king of the US for a while and you were given full rein to to combat this problem. Do you have confident opinions on what we would do at a policy level? Because I know in your book, you do focus on the need for more people to do internal examinations and considerations, which I believe is hugely important to a cultural change. But I’m curious about if you take some specific steps policy-wise.

Robert: Well, I don’t like the framing of being king but… [laughs] I think that we make progress in thinking about polarization and depolarization when we focus on the cognitive and affective aspects of polarization that enables, I think, a pretty solid response that Sustaining Democracy book tries to develop it, to polarization skeptics. polarization skeptics are the people who think that polarization is a false diagnosis because it’s really just a kind of both ciderism or the idea that we need to depolarize is really just a polite way of saying that nobody can really believe anything or that you’ve got to invite the local White supremacists over for coffee and these kinds of things. When you focus on the internal dynamics of polarization and the way in which polarization undermines our capacity to be members of a functional democratic coalition, I think then you get to just a different kind of argument for why we need to start thinking about depolarization, which is that if you want to pursue justice and you want to see justice done, you’ve got to hold the coalition together.

And polarization, forgetting about the people who are your opposition or your obstacles, polarization doesn’t go away when you start ignoring your opposition. It just turns you against your political allies. So, two very quick things. I think it’s important to realize that polarization doesn’t get fixed, it’s not something that can go away. polarization in its cognitive and affective dimensions are just part of our cognitive makeup and affective makeup as the kinds of creatures that we are. So the task is not to fix polarization or to eliminate it or to eradicate polarization, it’s to manage it and to keep it within constraints that render it not so dangerously toxic as current levels of polarization in that affective and cognitive sense or the degree to which that act affective and cognitive sense of polarization has become toxic. We need to contain that and constrain it in certain ways.

Now, I’ve got two pretty counterintuitive suggestions and I don’t know that either of them amounts to much at the level of political policy, although it does suggest certain kinds of policy upshots. First thing to say is that I don’t think that the problem can be fixed at the level of the President and the Senate and the Congress and the law. I don’t think that the problem of polarization is the kind of thing we should count on any existing political institutions or agents to fix. They benefit too much from it. When the citizenry is divided in the way that the US citizenry is divided, it makes the task of a campaign manager and a political strategist a lot easier because it’s so much easier to just talk about and to stoke your allies and your likely voters distrust of the other side. So much easier to do that than to actually lay out the details of policy in ways that can keep your likely voters on board. And so politicians and parties and candidates are the beneficiaries of polarization so we can’t count on them to fix it. Two things– initial thoughts. One is that I think that, as I argue in the first book and what turns out that now is a trilogy– there’s a third book coming. The first book is Overdoing Democracy as I mentioned at the beginning of our conversation, Zach. And there, I said, “Look, we need to reclaim segments of social space and regions of our social environment for engaging in activities where we’re cooperating with others, but don’t know what their politics are like.” That’s not suppressing political difference, that’s just doing something where politics is beside the point. The fact that I’m sure many listeners have found what I just said puzzling– there could be an activity that I’m engaging with others that’s cooperative and politics is beside the point, what in the world could that be? That that strikes us as a strange thought is, I think, a symptom of the depth of the problem of polarization.

So here’s just one very, very quick example. And again, this is not at the level of large-scale policy but as listeners might be able to discern, although I live in Nashville, I’m not originally from Nashville and not originally from the South, that’s New Jersey you’re hearing in my voice. So when I moved to Nashville in 2001, I don’t know anything about country music or I don’t know anything about country music traditions. I know a little bit more now than I did when I moved from New Jersey. But one of the things my wife and I started doing a little while after we came down to Nashville is that we started investigating, as it were, bluegrass and country music as a sort of American musical traditional idiom. And eventually, I started going every now and then– not regularly anymore since the pandemic, although maybe I’ll start up again– I started going to a bluegrass venue. It’s a dive bar in Nashville that has real top-quality bluegrass. Now, part of what was interesting about that activity is that I go to the venue, I don’t know a lot about the idiom of this style of music, I know some things about music but I don’t know anything about this particular idiom. But because the place is just like you sit down at a table and whoever’s sitting down next to you is just somebody who could be a stranger, I started to get an appreciation for the way in which other attendees at this what turned out to be an open mic kind of bluegrass jam night at this one venue, I’ve got a real appreciation for the kind of command that some people who just happened to be sitting around me these evenings had of the music, where you’ll just be sitting there listening to the guy and a stranger sort of leans over and says, “Oh, you know, the mandolin player’s great grandfather wrote this song.” And you say, “Oh, really?” Like, “Oh, yeah. And the bass player is the guy who performed on Johnny Cash’s song.” Eventually, you realize that there’s a tradition and an idiom. And even further with one or two particular attendees at these events, I started getting the appreciation for their aesthetic sensitivity. Eventually, just by showing up, people will say, “Hey, it’s you again.” You know? I don’t know who these people are, they don’t even know my name, but they recognize me.

And listening to them talk about the aesthetic properties of the music or the way in which the song was performed, or how the performers on the stage did something that was unusual in this particular performance of this particular song, these are things I was totally aesthetically completely insensitive to. I wasn’t able to hear. And I’m a musician! I wasn’t able to really hear some of the nuances that these guys who just happened to be showing up like me were very sensitive to. And I thought this was important for democratic politics for the following reason. We weren’t doing politics, right? No. We were talking about we were experiencing the music. The political theorist in me had all kinds of reasons to think that the particular people I’m thinking about right now probably don’t vote for the same people I vote for in national and local elections. They probably have political views that I don’t accept, who knows? But nonetheless, in the course of interacting with these guys about this music, I was able to perceive their virtues in a way that wasn’t so tightly tethered to my sense of who’s on the right and who’s on the wrong side of the political issues of the day. That is, in talking about this aesthetic form, I was able to appreciate these other people’s perspectives on this music.

And that had the following effect: were I to discover what I suspect might be the case that the particular people I’m thinking of right now are my political foes or on the opposite side of all the things I care about politically. Were I to discover that, I would have a much harder time simply writing them off as human beings. [chuckles] Because I engaged with them in an activity that allowed me to see the ways in which they have values that are legible to me as worthwhile, sensitivity that seems to me to be sophisticated and the product of a kind of intelligence and attentiveness. They care about things. [laughs]

Zach: Right, seeing their humanity.

Robert: Yeah, and seeing them in a context where they could display their virtues in a way that’s not tethered so tightly to their partisan identity. I think that was civically deeply, deeply important. So one of the things I would say then is that insofar as it’s possible at the level of policy to create spaces, social spaces and physical spaces that are suited to that kind of interaction, we should pursue that. Now, let me just put a little bit of meat on the bones. The third book in the trilogy which I’m writing now is about the political value of solitude. Part of the argument there is that our capacities for reflection, for imagination, for thinking about what’s possible in our political world, for thinking about how we can get from where we are to someplace better, these are essential reflective introspective tasks for the democratic citizen that our current political environment or saturated social spaces with politics, our current social environments don’t permit. And so part of the argument there, and this connects up with the thought about the bluegrass bar, is that we need to understand that or start understanding that democracy needs an active citizenry, yes, but democracy also needs a reflective citizenry. And some of the present modes– and indispensable, I would even say– modes of democratic action undermine our reflective capacities.

And so part of the task of better fulfilling the democratic ideal of a self-governing community of political equals is to figure out ways to create more social spaces where people can engage in a kind of solitary reflection. And so on this view, museums and parks become really central democratic institutions. Not amenities, not luxuries that well-off districts in the country might be able to afford, but the idea that there’s a public democratic service that museums and parks and even more importantly public libraries play that makes them democratically essential spaces for people to be alone with their reflection is really, really important. So if I were just to go back to your question, Zach, I’m sorry this is a long-winded way of putting it. If I were somebody in charge of this, I’d say, “Yeah, we need a way to combat the encroachment of commercial interests into the entirety of our social spaces. And we need to find ways to preserve, restore, and create social spaces of a particular kind. Social spaces where people can be alone with their thoughts.”

Zach: Yeah, I liked that part about your book, too, focusing on the internal thought. It really spoke to me because some of the things that I think where I’ve reached good understandings of the problem and what to do about it– and understanding the other another side too, you know, the things that other people think– was just me sitting around thinking about it and giving it thought. I wouldn’t have been able to do that in the heat of debate or reading social media or having conversations. It’s something that only came from going inside and thinking things through. But you saw that that was a really important point. And…

Robert: Well, I appreciate that.

Zach: Yeah, this has been great, Robert. Thanks a lot for your time. And yeah, looking forward to your next book and I’d like to read your first book in the trilogy, too. I haven’t read that one. But thanks a lot for your time. I appreciate it.

Robert: Well, thank you. It was really nice to talk to you and thanks for the invitation.

Zach: That was a talk with Robert Talisse, author of Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe to the Other Side. I highly recommend his book; it’s one of the best books on the subject I’ve read. 

And just a note that my own book Defusing American Anger is out now on ebook and the Kindle store: you can learn more about that at www.american-anger.com

This has been the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zachary Elwood. 

Thanks for your interest, and thanks for listening.

Categories
podcast

Analyzing behaviors in aviation security, with Philip Baum

Aviation security professional Philip Baum (www.avsec.com) talks about analyzing behavior for aviation security and risk assessment purposes, and for security purposes in general. Transcript below.

Topics discussed include: looking for deviations from the baseline behaviors normal in an environment; successes of behavioral analysis for security purposes; what can make some of this work controversial; thoughts on what aviation security does wrong. 

Episode links:

Resources related to our talk:

TRANSCRIPT

Zach Elwood:

This is the People Who Read People podcast, with me Zachary Elwood. This is a podcast aimed at better understanding other people, and better understanding ourselves. You can learn more about it at www.behavior-podcast.com. And if you like this episode, you’ll probably find a good amount more episodes you like in my back catalog. I have episodes on security and policing, I have episodes on mental health, I have episodes on reading behaviors in sports and games, and more.

On this episode I talk to Philip Baum, an aviation security consultant and trainer. Our talk is focused on behavioral analysis: the studying of human behavior to detect threats. We focus on the aviation industry, but much of what Philip says is applicable to security and threat detection work in general.

Philip has a long resume and you can learn more about him on his website avsec.com: that’s avsec.com, avsec is short for aviation security. I’ll read just a little bit from his website about his history:

He’s a security professional with more than 35 years’ experience, primarily gained in the international civil aviation environment. He started working in the aviation industry in the 1980s, when he joined Trans World Airlines’ security subsidiary at London Heathrow. From Duty Manager at Heathrow, he moved to TWA’s International HQ where he ultimately became Manager Security Training and Auditing. He left, in 1996, to establish his own company, Green Light, through which he serves as a subject matter expert for the Airports Council International (ACI) in the area of Behavioural Analysis, and runs training courses for them. He also designs and delivers the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) Inflight Security courses.

He devised and developed a security system called Tactical Risk Assessment of People, which is based on non-racial profiling, observational and questioning techniques. He also established, and chairs, the Behavioural Analysis series of conferences, as well as the DISPAX World trade shows on hijacker and unruly airline passenger management.

He served 24 years as the editor-in-chief of Aviation Security International from 1997 until 2021. The general media use Philip’s services when in need of expert comment; he is a regular guest on CNN, Sky News and the BBC.

Philip’s first book was released in 2016: it was called Violence in the Skies: a history of aircraft hijacking and bombing.

Okay, here’s the interview with Philip Baum…

Zach: Hi, Philip, thanks for coming on the show.

Philip Baum: It’s a pleasure to be here. Thank you for inviting me.

Zach: So, maybe we could start with you giving a quick summary of your career and what has interested you in this space.

Philip: I guess I started my professional career within the aviation industry, and I’d always had a dream about aviation. I grew up on the flight path into London Heathrow and would watch all of the aircraft flying in on their final approach from my bedroom. But I never wanted to be a pilot, I was always fascinated by both the people that worked within the industry and the people that were travelling. And so perhaps it was no surprise that I eventually found myself working at Heathrow Airport, and in a security capacity. And the programme I found myself working on was a passenger profiling programme. Now some people might think the word ‘profiling’ is a swear word, but it’s not because I’m talking about non-racial profiling. I’m talking about identifying people that might be a risk. And that was something I was very actively involved with throughout the 1990s. In fact, in 1996 when TWA went into chapter 11, I actually left TWA and set up on my own. I set up my own consultancy programme company called Green Light. For the last 27 years, that’s what we’ve been marketing– behavioral analysis, identifying hostile intent, and hopefully developing systems where we can identify the person rather than the item. So we’ve been less concerned about the gun, the grenade, or the bomb, I’m more concerned about the person and what their intent is.

Zach: What are the specific areas of the airport or flight process that you focus on?

Philip: The two areas of aviation security that I’m particularly interested in are in-flight security, so that’s unruly passenger management and hijacking management, but also in the behavioral analysis and what happens at the airport. I guess, ultimately it’s about the people and about identifying people that might be a threat, and identifying the best way to actually manage those threats in the worst-case scenario. So most of my work has been airport based, very much looking at how you can incorporate behavioral detection or what I’m still happy to call passenger profiling into the security operation, because I firmly believe it should be our first line of defence. And I think if we look around the world, we tend to find that everybody wants to use technology. They all want to actually have a system where the computer says, “This person is a threat.” Whereas I think we should be using the best technology of them all, and that is the human brain. Ultimately, it’s what we tell the general public to do. We tell people to see something, say something. And yet somehow for some reason, we feel that when it comes to airport security, we would rather an archway metal detector or an x-ray machine do the job for us. And all of those technologies are great and they have their place, but they need to be used intelligently. And if you look at the history of attacks against aviation– and I have to say I did write the book on it, Violence in the Skies: A History of Aircraft Hijacking and Bombing– through my research for the book, I found that actually before almost each incident, there was somebody saying that they thought that something was wrong. But they often didn’t act on it. And I’m going back and including events like 9/11. You know, there were 11 out of the 18 hijackers who were identified, but people didn’t act appropriately having been concerned about people’s behavior.

Zach: Do you think a part of that would be a factor and there will be people afraid to be wrong and be perceived as culturally or racially insensitive or things like that? Could that be a factor?

Philip: I think there’s no question that people are frightened of reporting. And yet, I find it really bizarre that when it comes to airports and it comes to airport security, for some reason the general public expect everybody to be treated the same. Now, of course, we’d all love everybody to be treated the same and everything to be fair, but unfortunately, security isn’t fair and security can’t be fair. And what really troubles me is the fact that we want everybody to be treated the same way before they get on an aircraft, and yet we accept the fact that when you get off an aircraft at of an international flight, you go through immigration controls. Immigration don’t treat everybody the same and yet every day they find people doing something wrong after they’ve got off an aircraft. At Customs inspections, there’s the green channel or the red channel. And in the green channel, customs officers pick on certain people because of their appearance and their behavior. And every day they find somebody doing something wrong after they’ve got off a flight. So it always begs the question, why aren’t we doing that before people get on a flight? If we allow behavioral analysis to be used in airports, why don’t we use it within the security pre-flight screening process?

Zach: When it comes to the use of behavior, are there certain things that stand out to you as top of mind for, you know… And I don’t know how much of this you can talk about because I don’t know how much is kind of industry secret knowledge that people don’t talk about, but are there things you can talk about when it comes to behavioral analysis and prediction?

Philip: I think the key to it is actually understanding the baseline. And this isn’t only about aviation security, this is in any environment. If you’re at a sports stadium, you have expectations of behavior from different fans, from the players, from the people that work within the sports stadium, from the people that live in the local environment, from the taxi drivers, from all of the other security services that are operating at a given venue… You could do the same in a retail environment, you can do the same on a beach, in a casino, at a health club. Wherever it is, most people that are working there understand the baseline for the environment that they’re working in. And what we’re actually asking people to do is to identify when somebody doesn’t match the baseline. And if somebody doesn’t match the baseline, we’re not accusing them of anything. We’re just saying that that person warrants further inspection. So if it’s at a train station and somebody is actually giving you cause for concern because of their behavior, you’re not going up to arrest them. But you might actually be going up and actually starting a conversation with them. And that can be done in a very customer service-focused manner. It doesn’t have to be accusatory in any way. And actually, you might, through that conversation, elicit information that will help you resolve your causes for concern. Ultimately, the people in public places and in crowded places that we’re likely to end up focusing on more than any other will be people that are on their own. Because the is less leakage of emotion and behavior by somebody that is on their own than people that are with their family members, with their friends and with their colleagues, where you see the normal banter, the normal interaction and normal facial expressions. So somebody on their own, yes, they might be more likely to be– I’m going to use the phrase ‘picked on’– but they might generate greater concern in the eyes of a trained security officer purely because they’re not actually displaying emotions that are present in normal day to day communication.

Zach: Are there other major things that stand out when it comes to behaviors? I’m wondering if there’s maybe some things about, you know, say on the security line if people are acting a certain way? Or can that be really hard to say because, you know, anxiety, people can be anxious for many different reasons and such.

Philip: There is no question that people can be anxious. And listen, I come from the aviation industry, and it is estimated that actually 40% of people that are arriving at an airport have some degree of concern when they arrive at the airport. Whether it’s fear of flying or fear of the process or fear of losing their luggage, or just concerns about time and queues, lines that they might have to wait in. There’s a lot of stress at airports. So we’re not just looking for the normal day-to-day stress that a trained security operative will be able to identify and distinguish that from somebody that might actually have hostile or negative intent. What we’re trying to do is, as I’ve said, identify deviances from normal baseline behaviors and to identify a whole range of different threats. And the fact that we’re looking for a whole range of different threats actually helps address the concerns that people have that we might end up racially profiling people. Because, for example, we’re not only looking for the terrorist threat, we’re not only looking for the criminal that may be the shoplifter, we are also looking for the person with poor mental health that might be a threat to others or indeed to themselves, we’re looking for the insider threat, we’re looking for victims of human trafficking or the traffickers themselves. And obviously, the list of suspicious indicators that you might focus on will vary from location to location and from industry to industry.

And for me, the classic example of behavioral analysis, both working and not working, I can take you back to the Ariana Grande concert which some of your listeners may be familiar with that took place at the Manchester Arena five years ago, where Salman Abedi actually arrived at the arena well after the concert had actually began. And he was carrying a backpack, which is not how people normally come to a pop concert. He arrived late, he was on his own, he sat in a secluded part of the arena kind of out of sight. He was observed for almost an hour and a half by various people, including one security guard who did absolutely nothing. He was seen first of all by members of the general public, and such was their concern that even members of the general public went up and spoke to Salman Abedi and even said to him, “You know what? It looks a bit strange somebody like you arriving here with a backpack sitting in this location. What are you doing here?” And Salman Abedi said, “Well, I’m waiting for somebody.” And the person that saw him wasn’t happy and went to speak to a security guard. And the security guard had said, “Yeah, I’ve already seen him. I’ve already clocked him. I’m already looking at him.” But he didn’t do anything, he waited for somebody else to come. And then the supervisor or a more senior person came along. And the two security guards chatted with each other about what they would do if Salman Abedi were to do something dangerous. And they actually said, “Well, maybe we’ll jump on him.” But they were both clearly concerned. And that security guard in the inquiry following the event, when he was asked, “Why didn’t you do something?” He said, “I thought I would be accused of racial profiling. What if I got it wrong?” And as a result, many people lost their lives and hundreds of people were injured, because Salman Abedi eventually blew himself up despite having been observed by security staff for nearly an hour and a half. And so it shows that people had concerns and therefore behavioral analysis actually does work. But behavioral analysis doesn’t really work unless you’ve also got the mechanism and the operating protocols to make sure that people do act on their concerns, and that we don’t victimize security guards for getting it wrong. And providing they’re not just picking on somebody because of the colour of their skin or their sexuality or some discriminatory factor, providing they’re doing it because they can actually put into words their concerns that here, using the example of Salman Abedi, was a young male with a backpack that was arriving after a concert began, sitting out of sight of most of the people and behaving unusually, not maintaining eye contact with anybody, and his demeanor was not that of somebody that was waiting for a relative to come out of the concert at the end.

Zach: To your point for 9/11, I remember there were examples of people noticing unusual behaviour, and I think that even included people noticing the behaviours of the terrorists long before the attacks when they were doing their test flights and such. Is that… Am I getting that right?

Philip: Yeah. No, there were people that reported. And even if you go to Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber who tried to carry out his attack a few months after the 9/11 attacks, you know, why did Richard Reid not attack El Al the Israeli airline as planned? Because he did a test flight and he was identified as a possible threat to the flight. And he went away and he said, “I know I’m not going to get through the security system. They are going to pick on me.” So he ended up targeting American Airlines. And indeed, what did Richard Reid do? He turned up on the 21st of December 2001, the anniversary of the Lockerbie disaster, and tried to get through the system. He was identified as a possible threat. He was delayed so much at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport that he actually ended up missing the flight, was sent to a hotel at American Airlines’ expense, and the following day he came back and basically the people in charge basically said, “Hey, we gave this guy a hard time yesterday, let’s let him on the flight now.” So there are numerous examples of behavioral analysis working. Now I think there will be some people that will say, “Yeah, 11 out of 18 hijackers on September the 11th were identified. Why didn’t they do anything?” Well, there are various reasons why people don’t do something. Often, it is the time pressure that is put on, particularly the aviation industry, with the desire for on-time performance. Because of course, beyond those 11 hijackers that were identified, there were probably another couple of 100 passengers that were also identified as being a possible threat that day who were not a threat. And it does take time to actually implement a behavioral analysis system, but personally, I think it is far more effective than the routine X-ray screening of all bags and asking everybody to walk through an archway metal detector. Which is, as I say, it’s great theatre, it looks good, and many of these technologies are very useful tools to have. But we need to find a way to make sure that if people have got concerns, people act on those concerns.

Zach: The Ariana Grande bombing made me think of a very minor incident, but it was one that was interesting to me. It was a thing from a few months ago, a basket ballgame in America where an animal rights activist was trying to run onto the basketball court and was immediately caught by a security guard. It was interesting because I think there were things about that person’s behaviour sort of similar to what you were saying where I think these people arrived at their seat late and they didn’t seem interested in the game, I think they were just kind of like looking tense and looking at the court. And so the person suddenly rushed from their seat to the court and it seemed like the security guard had been eyeing them as unusual and immediately caught them basically right after they got out of their seat. I think it was another of those cases where the security guard just was trained to know this is pretty unusual behavior from this person, they seem like they’re planning to do something.

Philip: It’s interesting because I’ve been involved in security operations at a number of major sporting events and indeed, what we are often asked to do is when we see somebody, we’re told to keep an eye on them. And I always have a problem with that because that might be fine from a police law enforcement surveillance perspective where you keep an eye on somebody, but if you’re brought in as the security professional to prevent potentially a suicide bomber actually reaching their target, you don’t keep an eye on somebody, you act. And as soon as you’ve identified that person, you take steps to try to neutralize the threat. Now, that doesn’t mean neutralize the individual, but it does mean neutralize the threat. And that means you need to interact with that person. You don’t wait for them to get to the security checkpoint. Again, I’m thinking about a sports event where you may be having patrols outside the stadium. You don’t wait for the person to get to the ticket counter to challenge them. Because if they were a suicide bomber and they did have suicidal intent, then the moment you challenge them at the security barrier and they detonate their device at that point, you have increased the number of casualties tenfold. You actually want to intercept that individual in advance of the security checkpoint, or indeed potentially, after the security checkpoint. But not at the most crowded densely packed area of your security operation.

Zach: And I guess the seeming ambiguous nature of some of this work is part of what makes it hard because some people, even if you have your list or your training that’s done well, from an outside perspective, the questioning of one person can seem kind of subjective and random to the outside eye even if it’s done in a great way. So I think that… Would you agree that the subjective seeming nature of it can add to the hardship and the reasons that people can often find it controversial even if it’s done well?

Philip: Yeah, I have to agree. Listen, it is subjective by its very nature. And as I said, we have this great desire to treat everybody equally and everybody the same. But let’s face it, that’s not what law enforcement does. The police when they’re going out on patrol, they patrol some areas more than others where there is a greater chance of there being a criminal act perpetrated. The types of technologies we even implement at different locations are proportionate to the type of threat that exists at that location. And if you are trying to secure a premise, you need to act on concerns. You can’t just act because a system alarms or just because somebody sees something on an X-ray monitor. That is poor security. The number of terrorist plots that are identified around the world by law enforcement communities are not identified because we’re keeping every single member of society under surveillance. They’re identified because the security services are focusing their attention on certain areas more than others. And that is an unfortunate necessity of everyday life. That’s what we are paying our security services to do; to keep us secure. And yes, it will mean that some people are possibly picked on when they are completely innocent. And that’s where the training kicks in. Because that’s where you don’t pick on somebody and victimize them, you actually identify somebody that you’ve got cause for concern. And using a customer service approach, you actually try and resolve your concerns. You have the conversation, and you actually try and elicit the information in a customer service manner.

We have to remember that there is no such thing as 100% security. We all know that. I find it amazing that after each, particularly aviation-type incident, the media often sort of say, “How is it possible that somebody could get through airport security?” And I’m sitting there thinking, “Of course, it’s possible that somebody can get through security!” Look at the prisons of the world. Nearly every prison around the world has got a problem with drugs or with small bladed items or cell phones and mobile phones managing to get onto the inside. How do they get inside? Well, they get through using insiders, they get through by using innovative concealment technologies or concealment techniques, possibly internal carries. Because if somebody has got the will to get through a system, they can find the way to do it. And a person hasn’t got to worry about wait times or customer service, they know that they’re already dealing with people that are supposedly the bad guys in society and their friends and family, and yet things get into prisons. So if things can get into prisons, things can get into airports, things can get into sports stadiums, and therefore we cannot just build a system that is based on screening technologies. And we need to supplement that with a human approach to security that yes, it is subjective, but it’s based on common sense. It’s based on the very thing that we asked everybody else in society to do; to report concerns. To see something, to say something. If you see a bag on a bus or on a train, you’re told to report it. Well, the same if you see an individual that is giving you cause for concern. You need to report it. Then it’s down to the training as to how you respond to it.

Zach: Yeah, that gets into something I’ve talked about in a couple previous episodes about behavioral analysis and security and interrogation situations; the line between what’s a controversial use, and what’s a good use of behavior is how certain you’re acting on it. Like you say, it’s like if you’re using it as a reason to just look into something more, that’s not really going to go wrong unless you do something really bad. But the problems come in when practitioners are too certain, you know, and the stories about cops thinking, “Oh, this person’s guilty because they did XYZ behavior.” That’s really where the problems come in. As opposed to just using that as one of many points and just interrogating someone a little bit differently or something.

Philip: Well, listen, I’m really troubled by a lot of the stories that I see in the press, both from United States, Canada, and indeed from my own country from the UK, where we see excess force used by law enforcement. Those are, of course, in the main isolated incidents and they are extremely regrettable. What I do know about law enforcement, and certainly I can speak about it from a British perspective, is that most police officers are actually almost not acting when they should, because they are terrified of being accused of profiling somebody based on their race, religion, color of skin, or sexuality. Which is why when we are teaching them, we’re saying when you’re describing a reason for arrest or for even having a conversation with somebody, you need to be clear in your mind what it is that is giving you cause for concern. It’s not about their ethnicity, it’s not about their gender, but it is about a behavior. So if you are saying that somebody was behaving suspiciously, write down what does suspicious mean in that context? If you say somebody was standing on the corner of the street looking left and right, looking as if they were trying to identify somebody and perhaps carrying out surveillance for a future attack, then you have actually put into words what you were concerned about. And even then, that doesn’t justify immediate use of force, it justifies an intervention of going to have a conversation with that person to find out is that person carrying out hostile reconnaissance for a future attack, or are they simply waiting for their girlfriend or boyfriend or partner to turn up because they’re late? So for every suspicious behaviour, there is a potentially good explanation for it. And we need to make sure that those people that are implementing behavior-detection programmes and reacting to it are trained to have those conversations using a friendly customer service-based approach. Obviously, in certain circumstances, that’s not always going to be possible. There will be people who will immediately respond to law enforcement– even a polite question– in an aggressive way. And that’s where these things can often start to escalate and we can end up in a place that we don’t want to end up in. But at least you need to justify your initial intervention on the basis of behaviors that you’ve witnessed that have given you cause for concern.

Zach: Any specific behaviours you’d like to talk about? Or do you think it’s mainly about the baseline, as you said, and just noticing major deviations from baseline?

Philip: It is about the baseline. I mean, you can come up with– and when I’m running training courses on this, we’ll often do an exercise in trying to develop a suspicious signs lists based on your operational environment. And you can come up with 100 or 150 suspicious indicators if you wish. The trouble is that you might well witness something that isn’t even on that list of 100 or 150 suspicious indicators. And actually, I think-

Zach: And you can’t keep track of all those in any way.

Philip: Yeah. I think actually it is important to actually empower the security operative to be able to use their common sense and to be able to utilise their own words to describe what it is that they are concerned about, rather than simply having a checklist of concerns. Obviously, there are the things that people always talk about. Somebody that is perspiring profusely or shifting their weight from foot to foot. Well, those may be causes for concerns. But if you’re at a sports stadium and you’re supporting your team, you might well be shifting your weight from foot to foot, you might well be perspiring. If you’re going on a Tinder date, you might be waiting for somebody in a restaurant and be very anxious. There are lots of reasons why somebody might not be behaving exactly in accordance with the baseline set. So it’s all about sensitivity and how you react to it. But you would actually have to customize a suspicious signs list for the environment that you’re going to work in. So yeah, I’ve done programme quite recently for a beach security unit. Obviously, if you are seeing somebody with a heavy overcoat– I’m pushing it to the extremes here to really the absolute obvious– somebody sitting on a beach with a backpack and a heavy overcoat over them. Well, obviously, you’re going to be wondering what is that person doing? But it may be a homeless person that carries their life around with them on their back and is simply going down to a beach. But it would certainly warrant further inspection.

Zach: Is there much use of video training of watching footage of actual criminals and people who did bad things, and using that in the training?

Philip: You definitely can use that, particularly if you’re doing training for retail staff that are trying to identify the behaviours of shoplifters. There’s nothing better than actually showing them how people actually shoplift. There are, of course, lots of TV series that actually even help us. I can’t remember what the American version of Border Force is, but I think in every country now, they show you customs inspections of people arriving in a given country. And you are seeing the video footage of the person that is actually picked up, and their behavior whilst they’re questioned whilst their bag is searched, and the description as to why they were actually identified in the first place. Those are all really useful, but the really best way of training people is to take them down to a live operational environment, the environment in which they’re going to work, and talk to them and shadow them.

And you will see that in most environments, 99% of the people are normal law-abiding citizens. And the people that you will focus on are people who are also law-abiding citizens, but actually they’re not necessarily matching baseline expectations at that given time. I’ll give you an example from a sports event that we recently covered, where we were very concerned about an individual’s behaviour outside of sports stadium. And eventually we went and we spoke to the person, and we found out that they were basically an autograph hunter. And that’s all they were doing. It was that they were waiting for their sports personalities to exit the grounds so that they could actually get an autograph. And their behaviour was different to other autograph hunters, but we got the explanation. And so, nine times out of ten or 99 times out of 100, you have the conversation and actually, you realize that there was nothing wrong. But it doesn’t mean that you were wrong to intervene. And that’s where I get really frustrated with security managers, particularly in an airport environment. When somebody sounds the alarm or somebody goes to intercept somebody and then you don’t find anything on them. And if a security manager turns around and says, “See, you were wrong.” That, for me, is a very poorly trained security manager because-

Zach: -being wrong is part of the… Yeah, the part of the optimal strategy means you have to be wrong a good amount of time.

Philip: Absolutely! People are going to be wrong. And you do not penalize somebody for being wrong because all you’re doing is dissuading them from actually sounding the alarm in the future. And anyway, who’s to say that the person that you did identify that wasn’t carrying anything wasn’t doing hostile reconnaissance for a future attack anyway? Exactly as Richard Reid did with his shoe bomb.

Zach: It’s like in poker, playing the most optimal strategy of that or a lot of games requires you to sometimes, you know, a good amount of the time be wrong with your decisions because it’s a game of incomplete information. So any game of incomplete information, you will, by definition, be wrong with the optimal strategy a good percentage of the time.

Philip: And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. I mean, the other issue I have with many security managers and supervisors is where there is a screening checkpoint– is if somebody raises their concerns about somebody where the supervisor says, “Well, did you find anything? When you X-rayed their bag, did you find anything?” And the screener says, “No.” Or, “Did they alarm the archway metal detector?” And the screener says, “No.” And then the supervisor says, “Well, let them go then.” Now, for me, that does not make sense. The fact that we did not find something prohibited or restricted in somebody’s bag or on their body does not mean that they do not pose a threat. There is the possibility that they might acquire the weapon or whatever it is they’re going to use after the checkpoint using insiders. There are numerous types of attacks that can be perpetrated without the need for a weapon or explosive device at all where somebody can actually pose a threat using their bare hands.

Zach: One thing I’ve wondered about airport security, are they recording conversations very much and analyzing it for an automatic analysis of scary words like explosion or bomb or things like that. Is that a thing that happens?

Philip: In Hollywood, yes, but not in the real world. [chuckles]

Zach: Gotcha. Okay. That’s good to know. It’s something I’ve always been curious about when having conversations in airports.

Philip: There may be very specific locations where there is some kind of analysis going on, and I certainly think that in the future that we might see that utilized more often in future. But the reality is that, you know, I get exasperated every time I see that somebody’s been arrested because they used the word ‘bomb’ at a security checkpoint. I mean, do you really think that a bomber is going to come along and utilize the word ‘bomb’ at a security checkpoint and actually have a bomb? All I feel is that everybody becomes fixated on that person and ignoring all the people that really could be a threat.

Zach: They’d probably be the least likely. Yeah.

Philip: It’s the same with this whole nonsense over the liquids, aerosols, and gels. I mean, talk about a distraction where you’ve got screeners that are almost excited because they found 125 mils of toothpaste or a bottle of perfume or a bottle of water. And that’s what the screeners are looking for. Because they know they’ll find bottles of water and tubes of toothpaste. For me, that is just a huge distraction from actually focusing on trying to marry up the bag, the contents of the bag, and the person that is carrying the bag. And that can be in a retail setting, in an airport setting, at a sports stadium, or in any environment. It’s about building a picture of the entire person that you’ve got in front of you.

Zach: I know you focus on unruly passenger behaviour, and I know that there’s reports and statistics showing that that has gone up in recent years. Can you talk a little bit about how bad that problem is? Has it really gone up as much as people say? And maybe what do you see as some of the causes there? I know that’s a lot of questions I just asked, but…

Philip: Well, there’s a lot of problem with statistics, isn’t there? That they reveal interesting facts, but they also disguise interesting facts. What we do know is that there are more incidents being reported now than ever before. But maybe there aren’t actually more incidents, maybe the people are just reporting them more than they did in the past because that’s what crew members are being encouraged to do. And because of our greater use of social media, there are more incidents that are hitting the headlines because there is video footage recorded on board aircraft that simply people weren’t doing 10 years ago or 15 years ago. But there is no question there is a problem with unruly passengers. And I think what we’re seeing is a gradual breakdown of discipline in society, where people feel more entitled. And I know I sound like some extreme right-wing activist here but I am extremely concerned. Even though I think I’m politically very moderate, I am extremely concerned about the fact that people on both sides of the political spectrum are becoming more and more extreme and more and more opinionated, and some of those opinions then turn into arguments, and often, arguments that have severe implications for public safety. Whether it’s on an aircraft or a sports stadium. We are seeing a greater number of people since the pandemic– and there’s no question that the pandemic had a hugely detrimental impact on people’s mental health, we’ve seen a surge in the number of people having to report poor mental health over the last few years.

And the fact, you know, an aircraft cabin reflects society. You have got people now flying in greater numbers that have poor mental health. And sometimes if you combine that with use of alcohol, use of antidepressants, depriving people of sleep, fear of flying or whatever, that you get this sort of potentially dangerous cocktail that is put together that results in people acting extremely unreasonably. But the airline industry itself also needs to hold its hands up and say, “Some of the ways that we do treat people is actually unacceptable. Some of the stresses that we do put people through is unacceptable.” I’m not saying that it’s done maliciously, it’s not done with negative intent. But as the customer, there are probably times where we all feel that what we’re being subjected to is unacceptable behaviour on behalf of the airline or the airport or the security services. And often, that’s just the result of insufficient staffing, or sufficient staffing but insufficient training, and it’s just a multitude of different factors that all combined together that can, in the wrong combination, have really serious consequences.

Zach: Yeah. And to your point, it’s completely not surprising to me that there would be more incidents. Even if the reporting might be also, as you say, the reporting can be exaggerated for the same reasons, the incidents themselves can be on the upswing because people are just more sensitive to threats and insults and such. But the kind of definition of extreme polarisation which a lot of countries are going through these days, it just makes sense that more people are on edge, more people are willing to say something insulting to people, you know? It’s not surprising to me that we have a pretty good upswing, and then combined with the stress of COVID and such.

Philip: You know, whether we’re in Europe or when we as Europeans are looking at things on your side of the pond, we’re seeing a greater polarisation of political opinions. And that simply reflects society, and that impacts people’s behaviour as well in places like the aircraft cabin.

Zach: So there’s, as you’ve talked a little bit about, there’s kind of a cat and mouse aspect to all the security work in the sense that most people trying to do bad things will be aware, or at least the more professional ones will be aware of the security approaches. And the more aware people are of the security approaches, the less effective those approaches are. How do you see the, you know, when it comes to specific things that the aviation security industry focuses on, how do we balance that risk? Is there maybe a rule of not talking about the specific strategies too much publicly and these kinds of things?

Philip: No, I don’t think there is really. I think that people do talk about their strategies. I find it amazing that the airport screening process is so predictable. We are so transparent about what is going to happen to people. I often wonder why, for example, does an X-ray manufacturer have to have its name on the side of the X-ray machine?

Zach: [chuckles] That’s a good point.

Philip: I mean, let’s face it. You’re not going to sell another X-ray machine to another airport because the name’s on the side of it. It’s not really about the brand at that point, so why have we got it there? Why are we telling the people with negative intent that you’re using a certain manufacturer or system that they can then go away, go online, look up the angle at which the X-ray beam hits the bag, and therefore plan their attack around that? Why are we doing that? Why isn’t it just a black box that you put your bag in on one side and it comes out the other side?

Zach: Are there other aspects of security that strike you as a little bit too obvious and repetitive in that aspect?

Philip: Well, I feel that a lot of what we do is– I’ve said it before– I feel a lot of what we do is theatre. It’s deterrent. But if you actually go to the real world, we do know that the terrorist fraternity out there understands the limitations of the security checkpoint, and they know what works and what doesn’t work. They know what type of devices won’t make it through a security checkpoint and which ones will. And we often, I don’t think, treat the enemy with sufficient respect. That’s why ultimately, the aviation system has always been reactive. We’ve always waited for an attack to happen and then we patch the hole. For example, before Richard Reid, we knew that there was a problem with shoes. But we didn’t do anything about it because nobody had actually tried to conceal a bomb in their shoes. We didn’t deploy common body scanners until Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab went through with his underpants bomb. We didn’t lock cockpit doors and we didn’t restrict box cutters until September the 11th. And there are so many things that you think, “Why does it take an event to happen in order for us to actually implement effective security measures?” And I know people don’t like to hear about the Israeli security system because they get bored of hearing about how amazing the Israeli system is, but the reality is the Israeli system had an attack in 1968 and then they implemented a whole series of measures that pretty much ensured the security of El Al aircraft and other Israeli aircraft ever since. There were a couple of incidents in the early 1970s but once their profiling system was implemented, that was it. Now, you can’t transplant the Israeli system and put it into the United States or the United Kingdom because the scale of the aviation industry is so much greater in the United States or in Europe than it is in Israel. And the tolerance that people have got for more invasive security is much lower. But you can use elements of it. You can deploy common sense. We know that, for example, the terrorists out there are planning attacks that are going to be based on chemical and biological weapons. That’s not a shock, that’s nothing new, I’m not breaching any security by saying that. We know that that is out there. What measures are in place at airports to prevent a chemical or biological weapon attack? Well, I think your listeners probably know what the answer is, I don’t need to put it into words. The reality is we’re waiting for that type of attack to happen before we implement a measure to actually prevent it. But there is a measure that can prevent it. And actually, it is based on behavioural analysis and behaviour detection. And that means making hard decisions about people. That you’re not going to resolve whether or not somebody can get onto a flight or get into a sports stadium simply on whether you detect a threat item in their bag or on their person, it means that you’re going to possibly prevent somebody going into a sports stadium, to a rock concert, to a shopping mall, to a theatre, to an airport, or getting on a bus because you’ve got sufficient concerns about them. And you’re actually going to say, “It may not be fair to that person, but our primary objective here has got to be to safeguard lives and to do what we need to do.” We just need to make sure that the people that are doing it are trained to act sensitively and to be able to question people appropriately, because in 99.9% of cases where concern arises, then you will be able to resolve those concerns by having a friendly conversation with an individual.

Zach: And I think most people are okay with the idea of if me or other people being occasionally inconvenienced is what it takes to save a lot of people, then that is a fair trade-off. I think most people would-

Philip: I think you’re absolutely right. I mean, there is the occasional person that will say, “Why are you focusing on me? Do I look like a terrorist?” First of all, I’ve got no idea what a terrorist looks like and nobody can tell you what a terrorist looks like. But we’re not even only looking for terrorists, are we? We’re looking for anybody that could be a problem, and somebody that could be used by a terrorist, and somebody that could be trafficked, and somebody that is a trafficker as I’ve said before. We’re looking for a host of different people that are out there. And providing we do implement security sensitively, I think we can be far more effective than we are at the moment. And I think we should be actually getting rid of elements of the security system to make the whole system actually more user-friendly and customer service friendly. I think that actually even having the checkpoint… I mean, this was something that was sort of born about 25 years ago, the whole concept of centralized screening in an airport where everybody is screened at the same place, I feel that was detrimental to effective passenger profiling or behavioural analysis. It was so much better than when we used to do it at the gate. Because at the gate, you could have a flight that was departing to Shreveport, Louisiana, and another flight that was going to Cancun in Mexico, and another flight that was going to London Heathrow, and another flight that was going to Reykjavik, Iceland, and you will know that the behaviours of people going on those four different flights will be completely different and that what they will be carrying will be completely different. And you would have a relatively small group of people that you will be able to analyze. But we moved away from that model of screening at the gates and moved it to a big centralized screening area, not because it was better security, but because it was cheaper and because it was better to put all of your resources in one place. And we have to recognize that security does cost. We know from 9/11 and other major terrorist events that short-term savings actually result in long-term huge expense.

Zach: This has been great, Philip. Thanks for your time and I really appreciate you coming on.

Philip: My pleasure.

Zach: That was aviation security professional, Philip Baum. You can learn more about his work at his website Avsec, that’s avsec.com.

This has been the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zachary Elwood. If you enjoyed this episode, check out the back catalog of episodes on my website www.behavior-podcast.com. Some of the more popular episodes I’ve done have been about reading human behavior for security- and criminal investigation- related applications. 

Thanks for listening.

Categories
podcast

Reading poker tells in a hand from the WSOP Ladies Event, with Lara Eisenberg

A talk with poker player Lara Eisenberg, who won the 2021 World Series of Poker Ladies Event, and who got 2nd place in a 2022 World Poker Tour event for $481,000. Topics we talk about include: how her thoughts about poker tells have changed over time; some specific behaviors from a poker hand from the Ladies Event; some behavioral patterns she noticed in herself; the anxiety involved in bluffing; and skydiving, which Lara has done competitively. 

Episode links:

Related resources:

Categories
podcast

The illusions of memory and self, with Anne Wilson

A talk with social psychologist Anne Wilson (annewilsonpsychlab.com) about memory and how we define who we are. Topics discussed include: the nature of self; the nature of memory; the fallibility of our memories; the theory of temporal self appraisal (which is about how we experience ourselves as being close to or far away in time from different versions of ourselves); false memories; the role creative storytelling plays in constructing our views of self and the world; and political polarization. 

A transcript is below.

Episode links:

Resources discussed or related:

TRANSCRIPT

(All transcripts will contain errors.)

Welcome to the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zachary Elwood. This is a podcast about better understanding other people, and better understanding ourselves. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com. 

In this episode, I talk to social psychologist Anne Wilson about memory and how we define who we are. Anne has studied how people build their self-identity using memories, and how we can filter through our memories for the versions of ourselves that we believe really define us, while ignoring or downplaying memories that we decide don’t represent us. And there can be a lot of fallibility and mistakes in that process; sometimes our conceptions of ourselves are based on inaccurate framings, just as our memories are often wrong. 

So in this talk, Anne and I discuss the nature of self, we discuss the nature of memory, we discuss how our memories can so often be so distorted and what purpose it might serve for our memory to be so malleable and imperfect. We talk about false memories and the so-called Satanic Panic of the 80s, where many people were convinced there was a bunch of satanic ritual abuse of children going on, which was based on some people’s false memories. I share a story of mine where I misremembered something quite badly and what the psychological reasons might have been for me misremembering it. 

We talk about some research that blew my mind, which was done on people who had had their left and right brain hemispheres separated, and what that research showed us about the illusions we can construct about the world and our selves. We also talk a bit towards the end about political polarization and how the distorted narratives we can build about the quote “other side” are related to our distorted narratives about ourselves and the world. 

A little bit about Anne Wilson: she’s a professor in the Psychology department at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario. The following is taken from her professor page about her research interests: 

Her research focuses on identity, motivated social cognition, and subjective time. She examines how people’s identities extend across time, how people reconstruct the past and envision the future, and how these temporal perspectives, in turn, affect the present. She’s interested in how these processes work for the personal self, interpersonal relationships, group/social identity, and national identity. 

If you’d like to learn more about her work, visit her site https://www.annewilsonpsychlab.com

Okay, here’s the talk with Anne Wilson:

Zach: Hi Anne. Thanks for coming on the show.

Anne: Hi, nice to talk to you.

Zach: So maybe we could start with something I read on your university page, which was describing your research interests, and you said, quote, I examine how people’s identities extend across time, how people reconstruct the past and envision the future, and how these temporal perspectives in turn affect the present.

I was wondering if you, if you were gonna explain that those research interest to someone completely ignorant of psychology terminology and put it in layman’s terms, how would you describe that?

Anne: [00:04:00] Sure. Um, so that is kind of a fancy way of saying that. Um, I’m really interested in the ways that we tell stories about ourselves, um, as well as about, um, others and the world around us.

So, um. I’m interested in how people think about themselves across time. So we often make up our understanding of ourselves in the present by looking back to the past and forward to the future. But the only part of that reality that we really have direct access to is the present moment, right? So if you think about any kind of objective reality, if that even exists, um, so when we think about the past and the future, we’re always simulating.

Or, uh, try to construct or reconstruct based on whatever, um, cues we have. And we have quite a, a lot of poetic license in, uh, how we end up telling those stories. So I’m really interested in the ways in which those stories are really [00:05:00] malleable. They can change over time, even for the same person. They don’t necessarily stay the same.

And that’s true for how we think about ourselves as well as how we think about many other things in the world.

Zach: Maybe you could talk a little bit about how you got interested in that area of research. What made it so interesting to you?

Anne: Well, one of the early reasons that I became interested in memory in particular and how unreliable memory seems to be is because my mom’s family has eight siblings, and if you ask any one of them to.

Tell you about their childhood experiences, you’ll often come away with the impression that they lived in entirely different universes. Um, and not just because, you know, the, of course there’s gonna be some difference because of birth order and, and context, but very, very different interpretations of just the entire experience of living in that family.

Um, so I was always curious about. How much leeway [00:06:00] people seemed to have in their memory and what ended up leading people to have such different recollections of their past.

Zach: When it comes to a research project in that area that you’re most proud of or, or most excited by, uh, what, what comes to mind for, for those, for that research?

Anne: One of the projects that probably represents that most in terms of how people think about their own memories over time is some of the early work that we did where we were looking at how people remember the very same point in their own past, and we actually. Documented it at the time, right? So we could actually see how people saw themselves in the present.

And then we waited a while and asked people later on to recall that same point in time after a period of time has passed, right? So then you can actually compare people’s. Real experiences at the time to the way that they recall themselves later on. And we find that people systematically tend to [00:07:00] recall themselves as worse than they actually remembered being at the time.

So, um, the tendency that people have that we first documented. Was to retrospectively remember their past selves in a way that allowed them to imagine themselves as marching onward and upward. Always improving bit by bit over time, and that might sometimes be because people are really improving, but a lot of the times it seemed to be because people were retrospectively downgrading how good they were in the past.

So they’re remembering a worse version of themselves in the past than they were experiencing concurrently. So that ended up leading us to start exploring, um, a number of other ways in which people can manage their memories in ways that actually help them to have better self-esteem and wellbeing in the present, and to also have more hope for, uh, who they can become in the future.

Zach: So in that area, if, if I’m remembering it right, it might have [00:08:00] been your work or I might have been reading someone else’s, but if I was understanding it right, it sounded like there was this kind of conflict between. You know, wanting to feel consistent and have a consistent sense of self over time. And then that conflicting with what you just described as wanting to have, have, uh, incremental improvements and feel like we’re on some, you know, upward trajectory to.

Improvement. Uh, did, did I understand that correct? That there’s, this can seem to be this conflict between those two ideas?

Anne: Yeah. I think that there is some conflict between those ideas, um, but that people can have both going on at the same time to some extent. And so there’s one concept called self continuity, and this is the idea that people do want to feel a sense of like a stable self over time, but at the same time, they don’t wanna experience.

Nation. So you can often tell a story of improvement while at the same time still feeling like there’s [00:09:00] something core about the self that remains the same. Um, the other way that this is examined, both in some of my work as well as other people’s is, uh, by thinking about the lay theories that people have about the world.

So some people believe that, um, individuals as well as in some cases, groups of people are, um. Kind of a particular way at core. So they have some kind of essential qualities, um, that don’t really change over time. And other people believe that humans are infinitely malleable. They can change with time and effort and so on.

And depending on what kind of lens we have, we can have different expectations about ourselves and others over time, and that can end up shaping the way that we recall the past and how we end up predicting the future as well. Because of that poetic license that we have, there isn’t one way of recalling the past.

It means that the beliefs that we have at present can really end up [00:10:00] changing the way that we imagine ourselves in the past and the way that we can think about ourselves going forward in the future.

Zach: And, uh, this might overlap with some things you already said, uh, but the, the term temporal self-appraisal is, can you do explain what that is?

Because that, I know that comes up a lot in your work.

Anne: Yeah. So temporal self-appraisal theory is the core framework that we, my supervisor actually in grad school, uh, Mike Ross and I developed. That I’ve been working on, on and off for a couple of decades. And the idea there is really, it ties to some of what we’ve already talked about, but the idea there is that the self is extended in time, right?

So both the past and the future. Um, I also think about the self as extended. Past just the individual self. So, um, thinking about the relational self social identity or the self that we have when we consider the groups that we belong to, right? So we can think about this even in terms of [00:11:00] things like our, our ethnic groups or our national groups and how we extend ourselves in the past, in the future, in those dimensions as well.

And the, the variables that we. Look at, um, with regard to temporal self-appraisal theory have to do with, you know, how do we remember the past? How do we think about the future? How do those conceptions of the past and the future affect our conclusions about the present? We also focus a lot on, um, the role of subjective time.

So this is the idea that even though there’s some relatively objective sense of the passage of time, right? We recognize that there are, um, minutes and days and months and years and so chronological time. Passes, uh, in a way that we generally all agree on. Um, but our subjective sense of time or the psychological experience of time is a lot more fluid and [00:12:00] elastic.

So sometimes we might think about something that happened a year ago and it feels just like yesterday and another time. Something that happened just a month ago might feel like ancient history. Right. And the way that we feel about the subjective closeness or distance of past events or future events can end up really mattering for the, um, relevance that those events have to our sense of self, um, in the present.

And, um, so it’s another thing that ends up being very malleable, that we can push away certain events and pull other ones forward. And. Continue to make them feel more relevant to the present.

Zach: So the idea is that if there are versions of yourself in the past that you like or that you want to feel close to you, you would put those in more prominence in your mind and feel more.

Close to those [00:13:00] moments in time, even if they were quite far away, as long as they were, were versions of yourself. You like, is that, is that an accurate way to say it?

Anne: Yeah, that’s often the case. So, and I’ll, I’ll add one piece though to that. So a lot of times we think about the way that. Someone will consider the past in the, in the future, when they’re psychologically healthy, when they’re doing well, and when, when they wanna think positively about themselves.

Right? So somebody who’s got relatively high self-esteem, um, might feel really close to their past successes and feel like their past failures are often the distance. And, um, someone though with. Who’s experiencing depression or, you know, who’s struggling in some way, may not have that same experience. So, um, we’ve, we’ve looked at that, um, in other contexts too.

So, for example, people who are in happy relationships. Tend to think about a fight that they had with their partner as often the distance, [00:14:00] that’s a long time ago, that’s no big deal. Um, whereas someone who’s unhappy in their current relationship often holds on to those past conflicts and, um. They feel very close, even if they happened quite a long time ago.

So that subjective sense of time can end up having implications for how we feel about our, our relationships in the present, in that context, in the same way as our memories about ourselves can affect our current identities.

Zach: Do you have stories about your own memories and, and self, uh, visions of, of self that you, that come to mind for examples of this that, that you use in.

In your work?

Anne: Well, one thing that I always do when I tell stories about my own past is I’ll sort of have the caveat that like, at, at least as, as far as I remember, this is the way it happened. Um, but I’ve encountered a number of cases where I know for sure that what I remember is not really what happened.

Um, and [00:15:00] so there are only a certain number of cases where. You actually get faced with the reality, right? The documented reality of what happened and how it’s different from whatever it is that you’re perceiving or remembering. Um, I have memories that I swore for years I could remember firsthand. So I have a, a, a memory of, um, being held by my aunt, um, when I was, uh.

In a particular room, in a house that we used to live in. And it turned out that this memory was when I was an infant, when I was a baby. So it was before I could actually possibly have anything, like a real memory that I would’ve been able to hold onto. Um, but I learned later that, uh, that was a, a memory that I held because there was a particular photo.

So I had seen that photo and, um, I had. Mix that up with, um, the actual memory for the event. Um, so certainly I’ve got lots of those little cases and, uh, one of the [00:16:00] things that it’s definitely led me to do is be pretty humble about the degree to which I can claim for sure that I know what really happened in a particular situation.

Mm-hmm. Um, I’m always a little bit suspicious of the validity of my own memories.

Zach: Right. And there’s all that, this work about the, the false memories that people can have and, uh, bringing up traumatic, uh, memories and such. And yeah, it’s, it is smart to be very humble about that because I think we’ve all had those experiences of realizing, yeah, this did not happen at all how I remembered it.

Anne: Yeah. And although I haven’t studied, um, false memories. Extensively in my own work. I will note that when I was in grad school, so this was in a couple decades or so ago, uh, was at the height of some of those, um, I don’t know if you recall these this time. Uh, it’s sometimes. Called the Satanic panic. Mm-hmm.

But the, this period of time where, uh, really there [00:17:00] was just a, a lot of battles going on about the possibility of recovered memories. Um, and then Elizabeth Loftus, uh, as well as some other researchers started to examine how. How possible it was for, uh, memories to actually be constructed really out of whole cloth by certain processes within interviewing, right?

So if you interview people about the same thing, you get them to imagine, um, an event happening over and over again. Like being lost in a mall, for example, was one of the, the classic studies, um, people who. Definitely didn’t actually have that experience on the basis of, um, you know, family reports and so on.

Uh, sometimes actually really came to, to recall that false memory very, very vividly. Um, so I remember those, those battles going on when I was in grad school, and I found that that really profoundly affected me both in terms of my interest in. The subjectivity of memory [00:18:00] and also in, to some degree the, the politics that can go into these kinds of processes, right?

So the, the fights that people were having about recovered memory and false memory were pretty emotional. And it was more than just about the science, but it was also about the implications of. Potentially say, um, denying the, the experience of a victim. Mm-hmm. Uh, nobody wanted to do that. But at the same time, uh, we needed to apply really rigorous scientific standards to evaluating the validity of memories.

Otherwise, in some cases, justice would not be done.

Zach: There was a, I just thought of there, there was this psychology researcher in New York State, I can’t remember his name now, but he, he was known for doing, uh, memory research basically where he. Tested people’s memories even of, you know, very big events like, um, I dunno if it was nine 11, I think it was before that, but it was events like that and seeing how [00:19:00] people’s memories of those even very emotional and, and important memories were, were, were changed over time.

Do you, do you know who I’m talking about by any chance? I.

Anne: Don’t re I I don’t, well, my memory, one of the things about my memory is it’s very, very bad. Um, I don’t remember the name, but I, I do recognize the research that you’re referring to, I think. Um, so flashbulb memories, this is a term that’s been used in the literature.

It’s the idea that, uh, we sometimes for really, really. Profound, um, important events. We may have a, a memory that we feel is just seared into our brain, right? So these, uh, very vivid memories that don’t fade over time. And for quite a while it was assumed that those memories didn’t really follow the same.

Process of forgetting and, um, you know, degrading over time and that they actually stayed really accurate and vivid. And it turns out that they do stay vivid, but they don’t necessarily stay accurate. So as we tell and retell them over time, they [00:20:00] continue to feel very vivid. Um, but the details may still really change, right?

Mm-hmm. Over time. Um, and so we can fool ourselves into thinking that they’re really, um, accurate and seared into our brain when really they’re not.

Zach: It’s almost like we retain the, the element of being certain about what it was like and the emotions, but not the, the details. But we retain the Oh, I’m sure that’s how it happened.

Aspect.

Anne: Yeah. And certainty is not a good predictor of accuracy when it comes to memories. We can be very certain about things that are really not true.

Zach: Yeah. So maybe that’s a good segue into, I’ll, I’ll tell a, a story of my own and you can. Say what you think of it and say if it’s a good example of, of this kind of thing.

But, uh, so I had this thing a few years ago where I was talking to my parents and they were remembering how. The, this thing I did in high school where, uh, I, I played a public performance of the song sending the clowns where I played piano. And a, a girl I knew in high school sang and they [00:21:00] were saying it happened in high school.

And I was, I was saying, no, I’m certain it happened in middle school. And I was very adamant about that. And I was actually kind of angry that they were so certain that they thought it. Was in high school, and then slowly after, you know, several hours, I realized that they were completely correct. And, and I thought about, you know, I was thinking, why, why did that make me a so angry, and B, why did I want to have a psychological, you know, uh, ma maybe motivation to shift it backwards in time?

And I thought there were a few things. There was one, you know, that, that incident kind of reminded me how I was. Felt like a, a bit of a social loser in high school because that, that, uh, when I performed with that girl, we practiced a few times and, uh, I was attracted to her and she was kind of in my social circle, but I felt really awkward around her and, and barely talked to her.

So I had sort of this negative memory about that, that I think maybe want to push it back maybe. And then also there was another thing where that same day I’d gotten [00:22:00] into a. A car accident that made me feel really stupid because it was basically my fault. So I had these various things where I, I think there was a psychological urge to kind of distance myself from that memory and put it back in, in middle school.

And I’m curious if you think is, is that a good example of like, kind of like the forcing out of the, the temporal aspect?

Anne: Yeah, I think that’s a really interesting example and one where probably there’s some self-esteem protection that mm-hmm. Um, causes us to push memories that are painful or that we don’t really wanna associate with what we’re like now into the more and more distant past.

Right. And it seems like that’s an example where you were doing that quite actively, not just saying, oh, it feels like a long time ago, but mm-hmm. You’re actually saying, no, I’m actually putting that back in middle school. Um. It’s also interesting that in that case, um, I’m guessing you probably weren’t driving a car in middle school, so, so there are these objective indicators that would

Zach: stick Well, [00:23:00] I think I, I, yeah.

That, that came to me later where I realized, I, I, I knew that there were two things where I was doing performances, but I’d gotten mixed up and I was like, no, that wasn’t that performance. That was a different performance. You know? So it was, it was kind, it was all convoluted, but I was just very certain in the moment.

Yeah,

Anne: yeah, yeah. And that. Piece about different performances. That’s one of the ways in which we can end up conflating memories. So if there are similarities that, um, we could end up, you know, creating some kind of a mapping, right? So if you were in performances in middle school as well as in, in high school, then you could mix up the details, um mm-hmm.

Because we often really don’t, um, recall things in any kind of a precise way, right? So there’s a lot of reconstruction that’s going on. Um. Often people who aren’t, uh, kinda experts in, in memory think about memory almost as though we’re replaying, um, you know, a, a. Recording of whatever happened at the time.

And that’s [00:24:00] not at all the way memory happens, right? So I think of it more as maybe like a, a paleontologist who’s, you know, digging up bones and then you have to take all of these little bits and pieces and uh, put them together into something that, um, is as close to correct as possible. And we know that sometimes that might.

Makes sense, right? We have the right cues and we put them together. Um, but in some cases we might really get it wrong and, um mm-hmm. And imagine something that’s quite different from what it actually was like at the time.

Zach: Right. It’s kind of like I’ve seen it compared to like every time you access a memory, you’re like creating a new version of it in a way.

Like, you know, overriding it a little bit. Is that, would you say that’s feels accurate?

Anne: Yeah, and it’s also true when we tell stories about memories or you know, if we are. Uh, sort of socially describing them with other people. Then they can get overwritten with each other’s views of the stories, right? So we can kind of conflate things and, uh, tell them and [00:25:00] retell them in ways that can really change them over time as well.

Zach: So one of the most wild. Studies, mind blowing studies I’ve, I’ve read about was the gica studies where they, he studied people with split brains where they had no, uh, what they call the corpus cossum between their right and left hemisphere brains. And uh, so basically for people that don’t know, they did studies where they put dividers between their left and right side and would ask them to do various tasks and ask them questions.

And for example, they would. Ask them to push a button if they saw something specific and one eye would see it, but the other eye wouldn’t. So the, the person’s opposite hand from their eye would, would push a button when, when told they, you know, if, if they see, see something or not. But the person wouldn’t be able to consciously or verbally express why they pushed the button.

And so the, the interesting thing there was the people would often just confabulate and make up reasons for why they did. What they [00:26:00] did and the details of those studies are, are really interesting. Like the, the specific things that people would make up about why they did things or, or why they said things or, or things like this.

Uh, just kind of mind blowing in the sense that it showed how much creative storytelling is a part of being human. And we, we make up these things that are, are running narratives of, of the world around us and, and also our own selves. And, and I’m curious, am I describing. The importance of those studies correctly, and do you see that as very much an indicator of how much we, you know, simply make up things about.

World on ourselves.

Anne: Yeah, I think that, um, there are multiple conver converging pieces of evidence that suggests that, you know, people are really good at making things up as they go along. And there could be evolutionary reasons why this is even adaptive. So in some cases it [00:27:00] may be that we’re not really gonna be most benefited by.

Pure accuracy. Mm-hmm. But rather by, um, you know, telling the most persuasive story, making the pieces fit together, convincing other people. And, uh, sometimes we do that better when we’re also able to convince ourselves Right. Another way, one of. My favorite, I’m not really a brain researcher per se, but one of my favorite, um, observations when it comes to the brain and memory is that it’s, it’s clear that the way that we remember things is often inaccurate.

But what is pretty neat is that sometimes people think about that inaccuracy as as a bug, but it’s. Quite likely to be a feature instead of a bug. So what I mean by that is it’s probably really important that our memories are malleable, that there’s [00:28:00] some room for error in them, in part because the same parts of our brain are used for both, um, what’s called episodic memory, right?

So like the storytelling kind of memory that humans have, not just the semantic memory of like knowing. Things that you’ve seen before, um, that episodic memory and the ways in which it’s malleable happens in the same parts of the brain as thinking about and planning and projecting for the future. So a large part of why humans are.

So capable of, um, envisioning these amazing futures, right? And then building things that even go beyond our own lifetimes and building culture and, you know, passing things on and so on. Um, a lot of that. Capacity for, um, future vision and for planning and for prospection probably is because of the ways in which our systems are [00:29:00] so malleable, right?

So it’s kind of like we’re doing the same thing we do with episodic memory, but we’re putting it into the future direction. And it’s really important for that to allow for a lot of creativity, right? So that we’re not just, um, running the same exact, um, set of. Of scenarios on a loop, but we can change it up each time.

Zach: Yeah. I sometimes think about the, uh, the value, the strength of, of having, you know, certain narratives and, and aligning on a narrative, even if it’s inaccurate. It’s, it’s like having some certainty about what happened to you or what the meaning was. Is, is, is a value, much more value than an unclear and confusing, uh, you know, the, the reality of, of living with this kind of uncertainty and confusion.

Like when I think about. Mental pain or, um, or, or just, uh, confusion about what something meant. It, it, there. I can feel this pressure sometimes to, you know, I have to, I have to pick a [00:30:00] narrative of these competing narratives and just move on, you know? And I, and I feel like it’s kinda like what you’re saying.

It’s like there’s, there’s a value to having this creative structure that allows us to say, this is the way it happened, and, and just move on and build on that instead of like. You know, living with the uncertainty and the ambiguity, which is the reality.

Anne: Yeah, I mean, humans do have a pretty powerful need for, um, meaning, right?

So being able to, um, develop a sense of meaning and have the pieces fit together in a way that doesn’t just seem random and uncertain and like, I’m not even sure what really happened, right? So, so there’s a lot of reasons, uh, both in terms of, um, our, our memories and our. Perceptions of ourselves over time, as well as just the way that we see everything else in the world, um, to, to tell a story and then to stick with it sometimes.

Zach: So, uh, as you’ve worked on this research over the years, is it, is it [00:31:00] difficult, uh, for you to accept that, you know, our, our, our memories and our narratives can be so faulty? Or do, do you have a hard time seeing that in your own life? Or has your work gotten you to more and more realize, you know, I’m living in this kind of.

Uh, you know, often illusory construction and, and, and maybe that’s okay and I can accept that, and then it’s not that, that stressful, if that makes sense.

Anne: More often than not, it has allowed me to have, maybe I’m patting myself on the back for this, but, uh, to have a fair bit of intellectual humility and to be a little bit chill about the fact that we all get it wrong sometimes.

Because like certainly I do and I know everybody else does, and so if I were to hold other people to some standard that I know I can’t achieve myself mm-hmm then that wouldn’t be fair. Um, and that, uh, it’s generally not because we’re choosing to get it wrong, but um, [00:32:00] simply because of the way that we process information.

I think it also. Sometimes allows me to be a little bit more, um, em empathetic and, and forgiving of the ways in which sometimes people who, um, come at things from very different angles might end up having different conclusions about the world. But, uh, you know, we’re all processing information in ways that’s pretty subjective and, um, trying to bge things together, right.

Piece things together, um, without any real direct line on objectivity. Mm-hmm. And so, you know, there’s. I think it’s important to have some acceptance of that and to recognize that that’s just simply the world that we’re all trying to navigate through.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Uh, so this might be a big question, but, uh, we, we, we know each other through the polarization, um, political polarization that’s.

You and I initially, um, knew each other, and I’m curious, how do, how do you [00:33:00] see your work in the, the self identity and memory space mapping over to the work you’ve done in the, the political polarization space?

Anne: Yeah, so I’ll say there’s probably. I’ll, I’ll try to be very brief, but there, there are three things I think that, um, all came together to really influence my interest in political polarization.

The first directly ties to my interest in identity over time, so I’ve talked a lot about. Personal identity, right. Selves over time. Um, but mentioned that I’m also interested in how this plays out, say at group or collective levels. So one of the places that I became really interested in looking at that had to do with how.

People’s psychology about the future may pertain to our understanding of climate change and the ways in which we sometimes, maybe in, in my view at least, were [00:34:00] perceiving the, the risks of climate change, but not necessarily acting on them. So for a number of years, I worked away at that and tried to look at temporal cognition, right?

So all of the subjective ways in which we perceive the future. And how that may affect our reaction to information about climate change. And one thing that I kept coming back to over and over again was that I could find small variations, right? So you could move the needle in small ways, looking at things like temporal cognition.

But there was this huge effect of politics. That I just simply wasn’t accounting for. And one of the best predictors of people’s beliefs about, uh, environmental issues and climate change right now, this certainly hasn’t always been the case, is their partisanship. Mm-hmm. So that led me to take a couple of steps back and think about, okay, well how, how could I approach that problem?

Looking at the. [00:35:00] Bigger issues that might be leading to some of the reasons that there’s a stalemate mm-hmm. Over, um, issues having to do with climate change more broadly though, I also, because of, um, my interest in just the, the subjective nature of our realities, as I became interested in people’s political divisions, I also was really interested in how they, they may be partly illusory, right?

So the idea that we imagine our. Political opponents to be a particular way, may be partly based on fact, but partly based on our imagined enemies. And so that really, uh, struck me as something that was interesting to consider with regard to political polarization because if we’re fighting. Over real elements of disagreement, then that’s, that’s actually, that’s not a kind of polarization I even have a problem with.

I think that sometimes, you know, real disagreement is a super important part of any [00:36:00] healthy functioning democracy, but if we’re fighting about or hating one another for things that are maybe like overblown or in some cases even imagined, then we’re really. Putting our energies into issues that, um, that are maybe taking us away from the really pressing problems of society that we need to be working on together.

Zach: Mm-hmm. I, I was, I, I saw an interesting paper recently. It, it was talking about how, uh, the, the US versus them polarization is. We often focus on like the untrue things or the misinformation or the, you know, or uh, just the inaccurate things. But then there’s also this element of just filtering through things that are real and pulling the things out that align with our, you know, conceptions.

And in the same way, you know, you could make the analogy. To what we do with our memories and our sense of identity. We, we pick out the things that align with the things we want to believe, [00:37:00] right? So it’s like we accentuate the, the things that say our, our political enemies, you know, that we build up the case and, and pull out pieces to, to shore up this case about.

What the other side is like, just like we might do that for our constructs of ourselves and such. Yeah. And you, you had a recent study, uh, that showed how in-group descent can lower anger. And I think that’s a really important point when I learned about some of that research. Can you explain what that work found?

Anne: Sure. So I’ll back up one step and say why we started getting interested in that as, as an approach. Um, so we’d been studying false polarization. This is the idea that we have these illusions of what the other side is like, that are often based on the worst caricatures of the other side, right? So we might be exposed, if you’re a liberal, you might be exposed to deplorable and racist [00:38:00] conservatives through media, through social media and other things like.

That and come to imagine that most conservatives are like that, when in fact we find that it’s actually a, a minority of conservatives who hold those views. But if you ask a liberal, they think that it’s a majority who do. Similarly, a lot of conservatives think that most liberals are extremely, um, intolerant of dissenting or like, you know, different viewpoints, um, might be against free speech, um, and really judgemental and so on.

Again, a lot of times we find that, um, it’s actually a minority of of liberals who hold those views, but conservatives think that it’s a majority. So we often really overestimate. The number of people who hold the views that we might find most unflattering about the other side. So there are different ways to try to address that, right?

If you’ve got something that you find really egregious about the other side, um, and you dislike them, you don’t wanna have anything to [00:39:00] do with them because of those really negative views, you can try to correct that in various ways. But one of the, the things. You know, you sometimes see is that it’ll be somebody from the other side who’s trying to correct that, right?

So somebody pushing back from the other side and often if that’s how it goes, then people within an in-group will circle the wagons, right? They’ll kind of try to bat away criticisms because they don’t want the other side to gain any points. Um, so then that leads to this question of what about in-group descent?

And so we thought that one way of potentially reducing. The degree to which people imagine that everybody on the other side is all the same, right. Or are all the same. Mm-hmm. Would be to, to demonstrate the cases where actually there are lots of different viewpoints on the other side. And we decided that a way of getting at that might be to try to simulate.

The sorts of [00:40:00] situations where people often get exposed to others with different political viewpoints. So we simulated a social media context where somebody was, uh, espousing really extreme fringe viewpoints from one side or another, and then we exposed them to people who. Said that they were on the same side, right?

So this is an, uh, a dissenter who’s coming from the same group as the extreme viewpoint, then looked at whether or not people who are, are, are the political opponents here. So, um, I’ll try to be clear about that. So imagine it’s a, a liberal who’s looking at a conservative with an extreme, uh, viewpoint.

Maybe something like being opposed to, to immigrants who are not white, right? So this would be an extreme, uh, kind of racist viewpoint. And, uh, and then another, uh, conservative speaks up and says, Hey, wait a minute. Um, that’s not what we’re about as Americans. Uh, you don’t have to be white to be an American.

Uh, I think as a, as a Republican, that it’s [00:41:00] perfectly fine for people from, uh, you know, any background to become American. And we, that’s part of what makes our country great, right? So. So the, the notion would be that people from the same side can push back against an extreme viewpoint on that side, and that’s gonna land in a different way to people than if it’s a criticism coming from somebody on the opposing side.

Mm-hmm. And what we find is that that does actually. Do quite a bit to correct people’s views of what the other side is like, and so we tend to dial back on the extremity of our negativity about the other side, how much we think that the other side is all the same. By recognizing that actually there are these varieties of viewpoints on the other side.

Zach: I think that’s just such a hugely important point when I, it, it was kind of like I was, when I was thinking about all my, my depolarization work, I, I was kind of instinctively arriving on that, where I was [00:42:00] like, this is really important to criticize your own group, you know, because we can’t convince the other side and such.

And then when I was, I interviewed Matthew Hornsey, which was one of the most popular episodes of the podcast last year about group psychology and persuasion. And he, he was the one who showed me those, um. Those studies, uh, I think it was by Sge. I’m not sure if they’re pro, if I’m pronouncing their names, but Sge and Helper in studies.

Mm-hmm. Amongst others, I think. But yeah, it just seems so hugely important because the basic point is, yeah, you can’t, you can’t really influence, uh, people who are, you know, on the other side or politically different from you when in a, in a polarized environment, they just view it as, as an attack or, or, or your motivations are, are wrong.

So it’s like we’re, it’s really the only people we can, we can shift. Uh, behavior of is, are those people on our, on our sides. And because it also, because it, it demonstrates to the other side how complex your side is, which is the Yeah. The point of your study.

Anne: Yeah. And I think there’s, [00:43:00] there’s real potential for in-group descent, both for.

Changing our opponent’s views of us, right? So if our opponents think that we’re all the same, that we’re basically write offs, you know, then showing that there’s actually a, a variety of viewpoints may open the door again to more productive engagement between sides, even if you’re not gonna agree on everything.

Mm-hmm. I also think that. Dissent is really important for the ingroup. So in cases where somebody is disagreeing with another person in the ingroup, that can be actually pretty scary. And in some cases it can be socially costly, right? So in some cases, if you disagree with other ingroup members, they might.

I wanna kick you outta the in-group. So it’s, it’s something you gotta navigate in a careful way. There are cases where people are pretty accepting of in-group dissent and other cases where they’re really not, uh, happy about that, right? And they might wanna police the boundaries of what’s allowable, [00:44:00] uh, discourse within their group.

But one of the. Best things and the most loyal things we can do, I think to help our group is to speak up when we think that our group is going off course in some way. It’s a risky thing to do. It can be, uh, a bit dangerous and, um, you know, sometimes costly, but especially if we can convey it in a way that makes it clear that.

We actually have our group’s interest in mind. You know, I think that, that that’s a really important role that we can play.

Zach: Well, this has been great, Anne. Thanks for your time and, um, thanks for coming on to talk about your, your work. Great. Had fun talking

Anne: to

Zach: you. That was social psychologist Anne Wilson.

You can learn more about her research by going to her site, anne wilson psych lab.com or by going to the entry for this episode at my site behavior podcast.com. One thing that struck me from Anne’s talk that I wish I had focused on more was the pathological ways our false constructions [00:45:00] of the world and self can make us more dysfunctional.

Anne mentioned it briefly, the idea that sometimes our illusory constructions about the world and ourselves can be used to bolster depressed and anxious narratives, and I think that’s a very important idea. I know from experience that part of getting healthier emotionally is learning to distrust some of the very negative, pessimistic and scary narratives you can form about yourself or the world when you’re feeling very bad, it can be good to remind yourself that your views can be very inaccurate, that you can fool yourself into believing very distorted things that are not realistic, that are exaggerated to form depressing narratives of all sorts.

And that’s one reason. Talking to other people can be so good when you’re depressed and isolated because it forces you out of yourself and forces you to be a version of yourself that you’re not when you’re alone and reminds you that you can have different narratives. Anyway, with my occasional focus on mental health, I just wanted to throw [00:46:00] that in there as I think it’s such an important point that it’s good to have a healthy distrust of the stories we tell ourselves.

Thanks for listening. Music by small skies.

Categories
podcast

My book Defusing American Anger is out

A short update about my book Defusing American Anger being released, and a few other small notes. You can get the book at www.american-anger.com.

Episode links:

Categories
podcast

The fear and loneliness of leaving one’s cult, with Calvin Wayman

A talk with Calvin Wayman (Twitter: @calwayman), who was raised in a fundamentalist Mormon cult, with four mothers and 44 siblings. This world was everything and everyone he’d known. At the age of 30, he left that world, and was as a result suddenly isolated from everything that had previously given his life meaning.

We talk about that experience with a focus on the existential feelings of isolation and loneliness that accompanied it. Topics discussed include: how he began to question his world; factors he sees as present that made him someone willing to question things; Plato’s allegory of the cave; The Matrix and our willingness to take the “red pill”; how his community and family reacted to his decision; the human desire for certainty; and more.

A transcript is below.

Podcast episode links:

Resources related to or mentioned in this episode:

TRANSCRIPT

[Note: transcripts will contain errors.]

Zach: Welcome to the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zachary Elwood. This is a podcast about better understanding other people and better understanding ourselves. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com.

On this episode, I talk to Calvin Wayman about his experience leaving the fundamentalist Mormon cult that he was raised in. He had four mothers, and 44 siblings. And when he left the church, at around 30 years old, he was essentially banished from the world he had known.

I wanted to ask Calvin about the anxiety involved in questioning his beliefs, and his fears of social isolation. I think isolation, and fears of being isolated, are key drivers of human behavior, and can help explain so much of the extremes of human behavior. So I wanted to ask Calvin some details about that part of his experience: what was it like to think about leaving everything that had previously given his life meaning?

Along the way, we talk about some specific beliefs of the religion that Calvin was raised in; we talk about what factors he thinks contributed to making him someone who’d leave such an environment when others might stay even when they have similar doubts; we talk about The Matrix and people’s willingness to take the so-called “red pill;” we talk about how his family and community responded to him saying he was leaving; we talk about how often the hard part is not being in a cult but leaving the cult; and we talk about how us humans seem to have a big need for certainty, and why that is.

A previous episode that I see as very much related to this one is the talk I had with Stephen Heine about the Meaning Maintenance Model, which is about how we react when our sense of meaning is threatened. So if you like this talk, you might enjoy that previous one, and I have quite a few other episodes about psychology and mental health.

A little more about Calvin in his own words: Calvin is an author, speaker, and entrepreneur. When he left his fundamentalist Mormon family and community five years ago, he left everything he ever knew in pursuit of living a life that felt true to him, vs the life he was taught that he should live. Today Calvin describes his core mission as wanting to empower others to think for themselves and make a life that is their own. He’s the author of Fish Out of Water, which has the subtitle: The Guide to Achieving Breakthrough and Permanently Transforming Into the New You.

[podcast subscription info]

Okay, here’s the talk with Calvin Wayman.

Zach: Hi, Calvin. Thanks for coming on the show.

Cavlin: Zach. Super happy to be here.

Zach: Yes. Maybe we can start with, you know, this is probably a, a pretty big subjective question, but when you say you were in a, a cult, uh, how do you, how do you personally distinguish between, you know, a cult and a and a religion?

Calvin: This has been such a. Evolving question in my mind because for the longest time when I was in it, and even a short time after leaving, I didn’t call it a cult. Um, to me there’s a few factors, but one of the biggest ones is. It’s so high stakes for being in and high stakes for leaving like Mm. Like just no, like it’s us versus them in a very extrem effect [00:04:00] way.

Like there’s this incredible fear of like leaving it, let alone the centralized authority within it. Usually it’s an individual figure, but it could also be like, in my case, like a council of figures and just not having that autonomy. Of moving, not just within it, but the idea of leaving it is incredibly fearful.

Like you could, you know, in my case, go to hell be damned. Um, just feeling like your soul is threatened. Mm-hmm. Um, I, I, I don’t think there’s, like, I, I know there’s like the bite model, how you might need what, you know, is a cult and stuff like that, but. To me, it’s not black and white cult-like behaviors on a spectrum.

I mean, I see it other places in society that aren’t exactly a cult. There certainly are some religions that have cult-like elements. There can be yoga classes that feel culty. But um, yeah, I think the, this whole, like it’s us versus everyone else, but if you leave, you’re like shunned or you’re very afraid of [00:05:00] being an autonomous person moving around it or leaving it.

That’s what, to me, makes it feel. Like an actual cult,

Zach: kind of the, uh, the all encompassing nature of the, uh, of the requirements of being in the group, right? Yeah. Yeah. Um, so are, would you care to give some details about the group’s beliefs?

Calvin: Yeah. So I grew up fundamentalist Mormon. Some people have who are probably listening to this would’ve heard of Mormonism, fundamentalist Mormonism came out of the LDS church when the LDS church started changing some doctrine around, especially polygamy.

So earlier history in the Mormon church. You know, Joseph Smith, the founder, was a polygamist. Brigham Young was a polygamist, but then the federal government started to really pressure the church to, to do away with it. And there were church, uh, properties that were being seized. And it was around the time that Utah was trying to become a [00:06:00] state to be part of the union and stuff like that.

And finally, the LDS Church acquiesced and. Gave up plural, marriage or polygamy, which was at the time taught as like a very sacred practice that was like a commandment from God as the one way to live. That’s why they were prophets or leaders in the Bible, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or whatever that like had multiple wives and concubines.

’cause God was like, this is the way to. This is the way to live. So when the LDS Church changed, that’s where fundamentalism was born. And so the most infamous belief is that the belief in polygamy, of course, there’s other ones that evolved or devolved over time, depending on how you look at it like, uh.

You know, this absolute power and authority in the, the leaders in the church. ’cause they’re the, they’re like, it’s taught that they have this thing [00:07:00] called the priesthood, which is the authority to act and speak for God on earth. And you can kind of a imagine. How that can devolve into things or how power can, major power.

Yes, incredibly so. Um, but yeah, there’s a lot of different paths, pathways we could take as far as like beliefs. Uh, as silly as, you know, I didn’t, I I grew up never, never swimming because for some reason, and fundamentalist Mormonism, uh, the devil controlled water. Hmm. So I taught myself how to swim about three years ago when I left.

Uh, I left more than three years ago. Uh, about five years now, but taught myself to to swim because that was a thing. Um, you know, we had these things called the garments cover your body. Completely. Don’t let the, the world see the garments. So couldn’t wear short sleeves or shorts. My family that something even, uh, particularly

Zach: even that’s something even non fundamentalist Mormons have, right?

Calvin: Yeah, yeah, exactly. They believe in, yeah, they believe in the garments. Um, we kept [00:08:00] ours like, uh, I guess more original because they changed it to be shorter, to, to be easier to, for clothes to cover them. Mm-hmm. Ours were like super long, of course, super traditional beliefs around men and women. Uh, women in my church should only wear dresses, never wearing pants.

My family never celebrated almost all holidays. There’s a few we could do like Independence Day or Thanksgiving, but no Christmas. I grew up with no Christmas, very little birthday celebration.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Calvin: Very much into not having any sort of like worldly view. You know, I was homeschooled so it wasn’t around the public almost my entire life, uh, my first part of my life until I went to college, which that’s kind of a turn into the story, but we were taught that, you know, the outside world was evil and that sort of stuff.

So yeah, was just very kind of shut off from the outside world. And then of course there’s other beliefs around like race and that sort of thing [00:09:00] that we think. Are completely gone and went away. And of course we hear like echoes of the past around racism and stuff like that, but in my church it was like very clear, actively, unapologetically racist.

Zach: Right? In the Mormon Bible, they have something about. Beliefs in about black people being a different kind of people and being cursed or something like that, right?

Calvin: Yeah, yeah. Where it comes from is, there’s this old story of the pre-existence where there was this, before we were born, two people in heaven presented a plan for God, Lucifer, and Jesus, and Lucifer said.

I’m, I’m gonna like, the plan is like, let’s give the spirits a body and like they’ll do, um, they can do no wrong and they can return back into your presence. And Jesus’ plan was like, people can sin, but I’ll die for their sins. And, and the honor goes to you, God, when the devil’s like, the honor goes to me.

And [00:10:00] of course, God chooses Jesus’ plan. And so devil, the devil like Lucifer revolts and creates this strange war in heaven and God has to kick out. Lucifer and one third of the hosts of heaven. This is the story as it’s told and and so that’s what created Hell is one third of spirits that were on Lucifer’s side.

The rest of us, you and I were on Jesus’s side. That’s why we’re even born to this day, but here’s where the story gets crazy. One third was cast out with Lucifer. One third are people like you and I like the fact that we’re born here on this earth, shows us that we chose his plan and fought for him, but there was one third that couldn’t decide whose, whose side to pick.

Couldn’t decide Lucifers or Jesus’ and g us who that one third was. Mm. Yeah. Mm-hmm. African Americans, that’s what we were taught. Mm-hmm. And so [00:11:00] we were taught that like God was gracious enough to give them a life and a body. ’cause that’s why we’re here, is to have a body and to choose good over evil and like evolve and to hopefully evolve far enough that we could ourselves become a God, which is another belief of, uh, Mormonism, but Right.

You get your own planet or something. Right. You get your own planet. That’s a common one. But really what it is, the reason you get your own planet is because you become a God. A god of universes. And some people think of it as like a, a planet, but it could, like, the way I was taught is like a whole universe, multiple planets.

Like we, there was a council of gods that created the universe and there’s other gods and other universes and stuff like that. And if you keep on choosing good, then you’ll keep on moving

Zach: along. The multiverse, uh, must really fit, fit into the Mormon. Uh, you know, they, they have no problem with that.

Totally.

Calvin: Yeah. But yeah, just to wrap up the. The, it was taught that, um, yeah, God was gracious enough to give black people bodies, but they should [00:12:00] be like it. It’s divinely written that they should be like second in line or subservient to everyone else, which of course is mm-hmm.

Zach: Worship. So, uh, how, how common was it for someone in your group to leave and, oh, I guess I should start with how, how big was the community we’re talking about?

It was a pretty, pretty large community, right? So fundamentalist

Calvin: Mormonism, I. As a movement is pretty large. Um, based on some estimates it could be 40,000 to 60,000 people, something like that. Mm-hmm. Uh, which I mean, fairly large, like, but there, there are different factions of it. Mm-hmm. Because so many people in fundamentalism are obsessed over who’s in charge and who has power.

’cause they’re, they’re, it came out of like. We’re the true church, not the LDS church. And so that I,

Zach: right. Who is the true, who? Who has the true truth? Yeah.

Calvin: Yes. And who actually has the, the priesthood authority. And then throughout the [00:13:00] last a hundred years or so, there have been, I. Many different break offs within fundamentalism because it’s like, oh no, we’re the ones that’s truly keeping it on.

So the one that I, the, the one that’s most infamous that people will know is, uh, Warren Jeffs FLDS. Mm-hmm. So Warren, Jeffs is in jail for life, marrying child brides and that sort of stuff. My church and his church was once the same church in my dad’s generation, and then there was a split off. And that split off created mine known as the work or the work of Jesus Christ.

And my league church, uh, had about 2000 members, so relatively small. Warren Jeffs, I think to this day is estimated around 10,000 for just his. But yeah, then there’s like, they’re spread out of different fundamentalist churches that have the pretty much identical beliefs in terms of. Polygamy in terms of what’s known as the plan of salvation, why we’re [00:14:00] here, where we’re going, some of the beliefs I’ve already mentioned today.

Yeah, and the only difference is, well, who? Who gets to have the, the say and every single one of them, the one thing that’s in common is they all have this belief that we’re the one true, true church,

Zach: you know? Mm-hmm. You, you said you went to college, so was it common for people to go out into the world and, and um, for them to let you go?

So it sounds like they weren’t super restrictive in that way. Sorry, is that correct?

Calvin: Uh, so I have um, I have 45 or 44 siblings, and still to this day, I’m the only one of us that has gone to college. Were they upset that you went? So, to directly answer your question, it was not common. I had to convince my dad and my grandfather, who was in, who was one of the church council members to let me go.

I. So I was one, I was one of this. Mm-hmm. I was this curious kid always wanting to like learn truth and knowledge. [00:15:00] And I had completed high school with a home program. I had my high school diploma, had worked in my dad’s construction company for a couple of years. Hated construction, wanted to do something else.

So yeah, I basically had to, like, I first talked to my dad, he was like, I want to go to college. He was not into the idea at all. Mm-hmm. Because of course, that’s why I was homeschooled. Because he didn’t want me out in the, in the outside world to be tainted. And with me being older, he was a little bit more warm to the idea.

And he was like, well, what do you want to go for? And I said, well, I wanna go for business. And so what he did is he was like, go talk to your grandfather and if he’s okay with it, then I think I’m okay with it.

Zach: And so I went to him. Yeah. They can’t, I mean, they can’t be too surprised that you left, I’d imagine, because going to the, the decision to go to college, probably they knew well we’re on the path to losing him.

Right. Would you agree with that? I

Calvin: don’t think so. No. No, not at all. Not at all. Not at the time. Because in the meeting with my [00:16:00] grandfather, there had been some people in the community that have gone to college for, to be a nurse, let’s say. Mm-hmm. When I was talking to him. I said, I wanna go to college. He was just sitting there and he is like, well, what do you wanna go to college for?

And I says, I wanna learn business. And he sat in his chair for a second and was like, you know what? I think that’s probably a good idea because there’s some of us in the community, like there’s so many of us that are in construction again, my dad had a construction company. There’s plumbers, there’s electricians.

There’s no one that has a business degree. Mm-hmm. It might be a really good idea for us to diversify a little bit and for somebody to understand business. And so he gave me his blessing and said, go. But then he gave me some, uh, what’s the words? Like conditions or, uh, strict recommendations. I’d say. He said, so go to college, but here’s what I’ll say, don’t live on campus.

Live at your dad’s house. Go to classes, go home, go to classes, go home. Don’t make friends. Don’t hang out after [00:17:00] school. Definitely don’t go to parties, don’t do any, in his words, extracurriculars. Go there, get education and leave. Mm-hmm. If you do anything outside of these recommendations, then you’re gonna be on the devil’s ground and then the devil can handle you.

But if you do what I say and go to classes and go home, then you’ll be protected and you can’t. Fall away. So most definitely, they, of course, they were concerned and that’s one of the reasons they were like careful when I was getting the blessing to go. But then with those conditions, like I. I don’t think they were like planning on me leaving.

Zach: They’re pretty, they’re pretty confident. ’cause it sounds like they have a pretty high retention rate in, in business speak terms. Yeah, exactly. Not many people are, not many people are leaving.

Calvin: Well, some people, a lot of people leave here and there, but it’s, I mean that’s another thing too, but depending on how fast we wanna forward in the, the story, but um.

People leave and fall away here and there. I was the one of the first ones to leave quite publicly and like post, and I’m like,

Zach: [00:18:00] Hey, I’m out. Yeah. Let’s, uh, let, let’s pause it there and, and I’ll ask you, you know, at, at that point in your time when you were going off to college, did you, were you still pretty much a, a true believer or in your mind, were you Oh yeah.

Say you were. Yeah.

Calvin: Oh yeah. Yeah. I was in it, man, like hook, line and sinker. I wanted to go, not because I was doubting it, I just wanted to keep learning. You know, I was very curious and there was this quote from Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. He said, man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge.

And it was just a quote that was always said in my upbringing. And I was like, that makes so much sense. Like you wanna keep on growing and learning. And so there’s like a belief in like continuing to advance and to learn. And so I was like, I want to keep on learning. You know, I don’t wanna stop. And so, yeah, I was going there just to keep that going.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. When, when you left to go to college, how long after that did you start to question things and what was that decision making [00:19:00] process like? If you could give a, I know that’s a big, a big question. May, maybe you could give a summary of, it’s a big

Calvin: question with a very simple answer within one week.

Zach: Hmm.

Calvin: So I’m, I’m going to school for business. Right. But to get any degree, you have to take general education. And so one of the classes I took, I can’t remember if I, if this was a requirement or if I just needed at least the credits for this, but long story short, in my first semester I had to take a philosophy class.

I. That is where, oh man, it is not, if you wanna wrap one week of philosophy, uh, one day, one class. So one class. It’s one single class. So this class, um, I. First of all, the whole semester was themed off of the Matrix in this class, which was fantastic. I had not heard of the movie in the Matrix before, but it was so cool and my professor taught it, the class that, that the matrix was actually based on a really old, [00:20:00] ancient idea from Plato’s time.

Uh, Plato and Socrates known as a Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, but it was that story of Plato’s Cave that created an internal war within myself. That started the entire thing I call that day, that class, the crack. It was the crack that started internally that started to really, yeah, change everything. I.

Zach: A quick note about Plato’s allegory of the cave and what that is in that allegory, some people are living in a cave chained to a wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them. The shadows are the prisoners’ entire reality, and where they find all their meaning.

Someone escapes from the cave and sees the outside world, the real world, and realizes that their entire existence has been a lie based on meaningless shadows. They go back into the cave to tell the people about this, that they need to leave the cave [00:21:00] to see the real world, but the people don’t want to hear such things and they get angry.

Plato theorized that in such a situation, the cave people would try to kill that man for threatening their meaning. Okay, back to the talk I. It sounds like it was very much an internal process. Were you talking to people? Oh, yeah. At that point, outside of the group? No,

Calvin: not, not about this. Okay. No, like, yeah, because all through college, I don’t think I told maybe one person that I, where I came from, maybe like, but nobody knew who I was, where I came from.

I

Zach: just, you know,

Calvin: went there. So pretty much all your

Zach: friends and and family were, were within the group at that point?

Calvin: Oh, yeah, totally. Yeah. Like at that point, I, 99% of the people that I knew had the last name Wayman.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Okay. The same

Calvin: name as my last name. It was, it was friends, family, siblings, all that stuff.

Cousins.

Zach: So maybe we could talk a little bit about the. The fear of loneliness factor. I mean, I, I, I would think it would [00:22:00] be pretty terrifying to leave the people you know, the people you know and love the surroundings, the whole conceptual experience. Oh yeah. Can you talk about that, that fear that must have been in your hardest soon as you started to question these ideas?

Calvin: Yeah. Um. Well, I feel like those things, fear of loneliness, first of all, there was intense fear, but there was intense actual loneliness because what happened in that philosophy class, long story short, is she told us the story of Plato’s allegory of the cave. At the end, she asks these questions like, who are you in the story?

Like throughout most of my life, I, I thought of somebody as I wanted to pursue truth and knowledge. Uh, of course in Plato’s story, one of the guys breaks loose from the chain, um, from the chains and leaves the cave shatters. His whole reality shatters his whole conception of what was real. ’cause he was chained in a cave his whole life with everyone else there.

And that was their whole reality. They knew nothing else. [00:23:00] And the one beautiful thing in their life is shadows appeared on the wall every day, and that was their ultimate reality. And she asked. Can you say that you are the person that would be willing to leave the cave in pursuit of truth, the comfort of everything, or how do you know?

The red pill? Yes, the red pill. Or how do you know? There’s the red pill and there’s the blue pill, but then there’s the, I. Pill that you think is red but it’s not.

Zach: Mm.

Calvin: And that this is something that’s not talked about. Like, and, and it just really hit me because she was like, how do you know that you’re not the one in the cave thinking you are red pilling or you are looking at absolute reality, but all you’re doing is looking at shadows on the wall that is like a projection from someone else.

And it was the way she phrased it. I did this self-reflection and for the first time in my life I realized [00:24:00] everything that I believed up to that point that mattered. Like the most meaningful things about life, why I was there, the beliefs I held. Every single one of them were from my dad, my grandfather, the other church leaders, the books that they told me to read.

And I realized there was nothing that I had internally discovered outside of that parameter. Yeah, you’d absorbed the world. Yes. That’s where the loneliness kicked in majorly because the possibility that I was in the cave scared me so much. It’s hard to imagine. But not only did it scare me, who could I talk to about it now?

Like I wasn’t talking to anybody in the outside world. I couldn’t tell them.

Zach: Right.

Calvin: Who could I talk about that, that was inside? I like the, the thought of of, of telling somebody that you’re [00:25:00] questioning all of this is like that by itself. Did you talk to anyone? No. One I. No one you like, you can’t, like you the, to, to tell someone.

Like, I, I would probably ask questions in, in like indirect ways, but not, no, like, it was a very like, because if, if you’re doubting and then it’s like, what are you, like, you’re gonna get shunned or maybe heaven forbid you’re kicked out prematurely and you’re like, holy crap. So, yeah, that’s where the loneliness really, really kicked in.

And what it, what it just did that day is it put me in an intense study mode and curiosity mode. ’cause I had decided, you know what, if this is true, which I hoped it was, what I realized then is I had not discovered anything internally and secretly, I still hoped everything that I knew was true. Yeah. Like maybe I can prove it Yeah.

Exactly. To myself. Exactly. Mm-hmm. And so I’m like, okay, if it’s true, truth [00:26:00] exists independently of somebody’s projection of it. So I, I can find it outside of this, so I’m gonna mm-hmm. Study it. And, and I hope to God that it points back to this. And of course they’re there. The journey begins. We know how that ended

Zach: up.

Yes, we do. Uh, I, I want, I wanna come back to the, um, feelings of isolation, but Yeah. I’m curious, do you think there were certain qualities that you had, certain experiences you had as a child that made you more likely to be someone who would question these things and be someone who left? Yeah. The group.

You know, for example, were you an older sibling? Were you more of a leader in the community? Were you, do you think you were. Smarter than average. Do you think you were better at being alone, things like this? Anything come to mind as as to why you and not someone else per say? That’s something I’ve

Calvin: been trying to get, wrap my head around a little bit too.

’cause I’m like, was it a certain combination of DNA, what I’ve, I was certainly more curious, I guess, [00:27:00] than average. Mm-hmm. And honestly, I think what did it is being homeschooled. Because the thing that homeschool did is it taught me to figure shit out on my own, but I was, I was a particularly good. Uh, comparatively even to my siblings at school, in home, at home, not ’cause I was necessarily smarter, but I stuck to things a little bit longer ’cause I wanted to learn and I wanted to gain truth.

I, I particularly fell in love with math. And the reason I love math is it wasn’t, it didn’t feel subjective, it felt absolute, but what I think that ended up doing is to, to fall in love with math and to like math. You have to. You gotta learn logic in a somewhat precise way because mm-hmm you can be somewhat logical, but if you skip things, then [00:28:00] it’s easy to get the wrong answer.

I. I think my love for math gave me that, uh, CRISPR logic that I used all throughout my upbringing with different ways. Like there were some things that didn’t make sense that I argued with, but still was able to maintain my foundation and identity within it. And that same reasoning and logic made me realize, you know what?

You can fool yourself, you can be wrong. And I think that’s such a huge awareness. You can be wrong about something that you can full your own mind and mm-hmm. That’s what the tools of logic are good for. Not just to come to a conclusion, but to check the things you’re already believing and seeing if you’re messing yourself up somewhere along the way.

So, mm-hmm. I think, yeah. The curiosity, uh, the, the autonomy were you

Zach: encouraged by, you know, for, for, for your parents’ faults, were, would, is it accurate to say that they maybe encouraged you a bit in your curiosity? I. Hmm.

Calvin: Not

Zach: [00:29:00] particularly. Hmm. It wasn’t like you were known for like, Hey, he’s the curious one, and let’s encourage that.

It, it was just that you just happened to be curious.

Calvin: Yeah. But I, and I also fell in love with computers early on and, but I was kind of known for, yeah, Calvin’s the one that loves computers and stuff like that, and it was somewhat known that, oh, Calvin loves math and that sort of stuff, but. Like, I was never enrolled into any program or summer camp or anything.

Mm-hmm. Like, it, it, it just was, I was just that way. I just wanted to like, learn how things work. I would open things like electronics and figure, try to figure out why it’s working.

Zach: Were you older than your other siblings or? I

Calvin: was the, the 11th of the 45. One of the older kids

Zach: pretty

Calvin: high

Zach: up

Calvin: there. Yeah,

Zach: yeah.

Pretty high up there. Upper percentile anyway. Yeah, exactly. Um, yeah, so yeah, it’s probably hard to know all the, all the, all the many factors that, that lead to these things. It’s

Calvin: so fascinating though. Like, I want, I wanted to sit down with like child psychologists [00:30:00] or, or, or like a group of people and be like, can you kind of like study my brain a little bit in my life and help me understand.

Myself a little

Zach: bit better. Mm-hmm. Well, I imagine so of this, you know, so much of it’s like these random pathways, you know, it’s like we start being interested in something, you know, you start being interested in. Say computers or, or math. And you go down this, the rabbit hole of that world, you know? And one thing leads to another cascading effects kind of, you know, thing.

Yeah. ‘

Calvin: cause ’cause I’m not the only sibling that has left, a lot of my siblings have left at this point. But there’s a marked difference. Like, did you open the floodgates in a way? No, I can’t say that. But my point is, is like, like some little siblings have left, but it almost feels like they found, not all of them, but some of them have found other cult-like things.

That like, it’s almost like they changed on I feel like replacement. Yeah. Like to me, ’cause mine was such a a, an internal deconstruction. It was, why am I believing this? That’s what really what it came to is like, yes, I did study [00:31:00] like history and none of that made sense, but what, what I really came to is it was a very internal journey, a psychological one.

Uh, of like existential. Yeah, yeah, but existential for sure. But I got really curious of like, why do I feel afraid to leave? Why does anyone like the competing fundamentalist churches? Why do they believe it? And of course, when you’re in my church, you’re like, oh, they were deceived. And then I was like, I could then put myself in their shoes.

And they’re like, wait, they think I’m deceived? Mm-hmm. And I, and we were taught, well, we believe this because it’s the true one. That’s why we believe it. And so it made sense, but then I was like, wait, but they, they think it, they think they’re the true one. And so I learned about like, you know, confirmation bias.

Mm-hmm. And the way we trick ourselves to believing something and then tribalism and why leaving is so afraid. ’cause I’m leaving my tribe, I’m leaving [00:32:00] my camp, I’m leaving. I’m getting shunned by those that I put on pedestals my whole life, like my dad and my grandfather, like they were the people that were in charge of my soul in a sense.

Like I had to, there’s this whole law of, of the one above another, or like you are accountable to someone above you. For me to get advancement in the church, I had to be recommended from my dad to the church leaders so that it was so external and, and so then to. Realize I’m gonna leave and disappoint these people that I’ve been trying to impress my whole life so that I could advance and realize, oh, I don’t, I don’t need that.

It’s so, it, it’s so interesting to me. Like the older I get, it’s actually more interesting and the more I’m out of it just to see the, all the internal

Zach: stuff at play, all the foundation, you’re crumbling your whole foundation, which is, I think people don’t really, unless they’ve lived through something like that, it’s really hard to comprehend how mind.

Shaking, you know, mind blowing [00:33:00] and, and terrifying. That is, I think I 100% agree. And

Calvin: I think also that if you realize that it is an internal battle, I think it’s easier for anybody on the outside to understand why anybody would stay or not leave, because it’s not just about the externals, the externalities of belief systems and mm-hmm.

That sort of thing. It’s all this internal. Stuff, the emotional stuff that can, like that is what is making anybody stay in anything. I mean, you see it all the time, like people, like even in politics and other religions and stuff like that, you actually, I start to identify with the group that you’re in.

Like there’s so many different dynamics. It’s not just about is this true or not true?

Zach: I think, uh, so personally, I think fear of isolation is one of the, probably the most powerful psychological force and in existential psychology, you know, they talk about the core existential fears, which is, you know, fear of death, fear of freedom, fear of meaninglessness, and fear of isolation [00:34:00] and, and fear of isolation, I think doesn’t get enough recognition in the sense that I think it, it helps account for so much.

Stress and the seemingly weird and bizarre and desperate things that people do because they’re so terrified of feeling alone and cut off from Yeah. The world. So, to go into my background for a a, a moment, I, I’ve sometimes talked on this podcast about, you know, my so-called, you know, nervous breakdown in college when I dropped outta college midyear because I, I, I just became increasingly unable to function socially and I, I felt like I was losing my mind and.

A big part of that was, uh, feeling isolated, feeling like I was basically becoming more and more distant from the world of people. And I felt like a, you know, a distant planet floating millions of miles away from other people. And it became increasingly, you know, hard to even have a meaningful connection or feel that I could have a, a meaningful connection.

And, uh, and that I say all that just to say [00:35:00] like, that’s probably much more, you know, mentally unwell and extreme than what you experienced or what. Most people experience when it comes to these things, but I’m curious if some of those things were going on for you. Were, were there like, you know, sleepless nights of feeling like you were Oh yeah.

Going crazy and, and these kind of things. Could you talk a little bit about maybe some of that,

Calvin: where that really felt, where I really hit those things was, um, when I actually left. Because at first there were fears of isolation, but then it was actual because. Living in a cult is one thing, and people always talk about like, what was that like?

What was your childhood like? That must have been challenging. The truth is it, it, it really wasn’t. It wa like my childhood wasn’t that challenging. It wasn’t that it was coming to the awareness. The most traumatic thing was realizing what it was and then actually leaving it. That was the hard part.

Because that’s where the isolation really came in, [00:36:00] because when I left, I wanted to. Own the decision. And so I was already, uh, becoming somewhat public with my life just because I, like, I had quit my day job and become an entrepreneur. And so I started posting on Facebook and Instagram, which, you know, at first the church wasn’t like really into social media stuff, but I was a little bit of a rebel and was like, I’m gonna do social media stuff.

But when I left, I posted about it. Mm-hmm. And. It created a shit storm in my community. Uh, people that I thought I was friends with. My whole life just shunned me. Like overnight. You’re the villain. Yeah. It’s, it’s hard to explain. I mean, yes. Sleepless nights. Yes. Weeks of depression. Yes. Suicidal thoughts.

Yes. And then on top of that, you make this gut wrenching decision that you feel is the right decision. ’cause obviously that’s why I made it. And then you have all of [00:37:00] this, not just existential angst like this. You feel all this like pressure and like breaking all of your relationships and it feels like the whole world is caving in on you, and so then you’re questioning the decision altogether, which I had for a little bit.

Mm-hmm. But at the same time I’m like, no. Like I have to trust my gut in that, that I. I want to live my life. That’s not external, that’s listening to somebody else. I wanna follow my own gut and my own internal compass for the first time, even if that meant I was gonna be damned, that’s what I had to come to.

To finally leave, I had to be okay with damnation, if that meant I was gonna be damned for following my own internal guiding system. And so the isolation and the loneliness was intense. Way worse than I feared. Surprisingly,

Zach: am I understanding correctly that, you know, like we talked about the you, you couldn’t tell them that you were no longer a believer and still maintain connections with them.

You were basically, by [00:38:00] definition, you, they would not wanna talk to you. Is that assumed?

Calvin: Yeah, and, and at the time I was a little bit naive. Because I kind of figured, like I had had some, I knew some people that have left, but I still thought, ’cause different fundamentalist groups are more strict than others.

The, the church that ours broke off of, Warren Jess fundamentalist church, like theirs is probably the most strict. Like if somebody leaves, like I have, I have friends that haven’t talked to their mom in like seven years. Because they left and they’re taught to like, leave, uh, or they’re to the point that if the dad leaves, then his family’s taken from him and like assigned to another man.

Mm-hmm. Like, or even if he’s needing to repent, like they, they will send him off to repent and his family can be reassigned. Like that’s the most extreme. Ours wasn’t as extreme, and so I thought that I would still maintain those connections, but people took it. Very personally that I was like attacking the truth, attacking God, attacking Jesus.

And so [00:39:00] even though I, like, I wanted those connections, it just, it just, it didn’t, I, I couldn’t keep them. And so I don’t know if it was something that they were taught, I think they felt me as like an enemy and. The reason I said ’cause you made

Zach: it public.

Calvin: Yes. Yeah. And that I, and that I wasn’t in it. And so, but the other thing too, even if I wanted to connect to them, like I tried to a little bit, like I didn’t feel seen or heard.

So you can’t, even if you’re around people, like you’re, the connection’s not there. Mm-hmm. And so that breeds isolation too. ’cause I would still, like, I went to a couple parties or saw people and stuff like that, but. The connection’s gone. Like there is no, there’s nothing there to, the wall is up, you know?

Yeah. Yep. The wall’s up. We’re on completely different planets right now. Let

Zach: me ask you about the, the making it public part, because I can imagine, you know, that you, you talking about it publicly, I, I could see as, you know, you basically like a desperate attempt to make other connections and be like, [00:40:00] Hey, the world out there.

I, I wanna make connections with you in, instead of, you know, I’m, I’m questioning my meaning over here, so I want to reach out. To this other world and, and start making my connections. Was there a part of that psychologically for talking about it publicly? At the time, I was doing basically

Calvin: a vlog. It, it wasn’t that it was, I was documenting my life as like an entrepreneur.

This was like another episode of like, I. One of the biggest things of this year is I left my religion and I know I’m now gonna have friends and family that see this. And this is gonna be a big shock to you, but I want you to know where I’m coming from. Like I love everything that I come from. I was very, I was very, uh, what in my view, I.

Kind and gentle. I did not bash the religion. It was very of like measured. Yeah. Um, now some people might be asked, what, are you gonna throw it all away? Do you think it’s all not true? And I’m like, what it feels like to me is I feel like a, a boy in his mid twenties that is leaving his parents’ house for the first time [00:41:00] and what it felt like and how old were you?

  1. And I was like, does when you leave your parents’ house, does that mean. You hate your parents, not necessarily you, you’re grateful for what they’ve given you. It just feels like it’s time to, to keep growing and move on. And, and, and that’s how I framed it. And so I framed it like, here’s the biggest thing in my life, in my entrepreneurial journey, essentially I left and it was the scariest decision of my life, but it’s my life now and here’s to making the most of it.

And so that’s what it was. And so I think it surprised me that I got so much backlash from the community at the time. But it makes sense now because people just felt threatened by it. If you tie back to the Plato story, the guy comes back and tells them that there’s like this whole other world and somebody’s like, what are you, what could be better than our shadows?

And it’s like, don’t you understand? These shadows are nothing very frightening compared to what’s out there. And then they want to kill ’em. Yeah. Because their world is being. Threatened, and it [00:42:00] still happens here and there, like every so often. I, I have, uh, way more love than I have hate, but every so often somebody will see me with a piece of content, hearing something like this or seeing me do comedy, and I’ll get a comment from the community that’s like, um.

The scriptures talks about, you know, selling your soul. Here it is in full display, like used as like an example.

Zach: Oh boy. Uh, do, do you know people or, or do you have a sense that you maybe, that, you know, people in that world who had similar questioning and, and uh, internal, uh, questioning of the beliefs, but decided to stay, you know, because they couldn’t face.

All of that, uh, the accompanying, um, anxiety and, and, and doubt. You

Calvin: wanna know what’s interesting? The, the timing of this is interesting because I just got an anonymous phone call yesterday. The guy didn’t wanna tell me his name, didn’t even wanna tell me which fundamentalist church he’s in. Could be in mine [00:43:00] for all I know.

Could be in Warren’s, could be in another one known as the order could be a different one. And he saw me on a podcast. What, how I was describing it was. His exact experience. Mm. He’s like, I’m starting to question things, but he’s the only one in his family that’s questioning and he’s afraid to tell anyone.

But he just had to talk to somebody that had made that that was out and he saw that I have a life and is like, is it okay out there? Kind of. Mm-hmm. And in the conversation though, this is why I’m bringing it up, that conversations ends. He doesn’t know yet if he’s gonna leave. He doesn’t know if he feels like he, if he can stomach it, if he can.

The, the, the disappointment. He said he knows that his dad would rather he died than leave.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Calvin: And that’s a lot of stress. Yeah. So that, that, to your point, like, I mean finger, like, fingers crossed, like there’s the one thing, having [00:44:00] gone through the process, I sure as fuck didn’t pressure him and tell him that he should.

It has to be step by step because Right.

Zach: Organic.

Calvin: Yeah. It has to be organic and I think that’s what people don’t realize is the psychological potential trauma of your entire worldview crumbling and crashing, and your entire social circle that you’ve known your whole life. It has to be respected. It. I have such a different view on the ethics of truth because yes, there’s something that you might be true, but somebody has to truly be in a place that they can get something.

’cause for you, it might just be, oh, that’s just the truth, but you’re safe. There are some people that it’s not just the truth, it’s not safe. Mm-hmm. It’s, it’s very. Real world consequences [00:45:00] for considering something else. So

Zach: we’ll see how that plays out. Um, when you talked to your dad and, and others in the family about leaving, did they emphasize to you, you know, did they use the, the loneliness factor as kind of a, a weapon to, to scare you with?

Was that something they emphasized? So all up,

Calvin: all my upbringing, it was like if you, it’s talked about if you ever leave, you’re gonna have that, you’re gonna have the fear of, of, uh, loneliness and being like, it’s gonna feel like hell. Like that’s what hell is really, hell is like a, a deep sense of isolation.

And then there’s this, uh, which I believe is true. Yeah, yeah, totally. And then there’s this extra special place in hell for, uh. Called outer darkness or for Sons of Perdition, and it’s for people that it’s like the most torment kind. And so you had all that growing up. But by the time I left, when I tell told my dad, that was like the ripping, the bandaid off that I [00:46:00] was leaving the work as it’s called.

And the main thing he just did is got really sad and like. Asked me why, and then tried to convince me by giving me some books to read. What kind of books? Um, scriptures within the, that’s basically the canon of fundamentalist scripture. There’s like a, of course there’s doctrine and covenants in the Book of Mormon, but then there’s some other scriptures from.

Early prophets like John Taylor and Wilfred Woodruff, and there’s like these prophecies they make. And in those prophecies, it probably speaks to what you were saying where fear of, you know, damnation of your soul, because that’s what it’s so hard to emphasize is you’re taught that yes, not only are you going.

To lose your, your connection to the truth or to your family. There’s this whole other thing that you’re like. Risking your very soul for eternity [00:47:00] like life is. Mm-hmm. We’re taught that life is such a blip in our existence that yeah, if you do this one life right face, whatever sacrifices that the church gives you because you do it well and you bear your cross, then you’re gonna have an eternity.

That’s amazing and you’re gonna keep progressing and be a God someday. That’s really amazing. Right. Big stakes. Big stakes. And if you leave it, why would you, like, why would you give up something so minuscule? For what? For a party to have sex, like, for all of eternity. Like, and, and your soul’s gonna be damned if you do these things anyway.

Like, is that worth it? Are you an idiot? Yeah. Are you stupid? And so that’s what it, like, you have to actually deal with tho and wrestle with those, like, am I willing to risk. Everything. Bet All of eternity. More than everything. Yeah. All of eternity of my soul to make this choice to leave. [00:48:00] And so, yeah, so of course my dad as a good dad would, would wanna save his son.

So he gave me some stuff to, to save me and. Of course that put a kink in our relationship for a while. But the, the, the silver lining, especially with my immediate family, is I’m on good terms with them now. Uh, I’m not on good terms with, um, I’m not on good terms necessarily with people in the community. I.

Especially these days because I, if I notice something radical, I’m open to talk about it. Like my, uh, church leader is quite fiery. The main one, John Timson, like he’ll use fear tactics. Like in church, there’s this church where he’s basically yelling at people. Because my church leaders yell, um, and swear and stuff over the pulpit.

But basically if you even sit in the presence of someone that is speaking against this authority, you know, God’s true priesthood, you’re risking your [00:49:00] very soul, you know, like scaring people, even having friends. Wow. Yeah. In or outside of the church that might dare say. That we’re not God’s amazing anointed humans, you know?

Hmm. They’re putting the pressure on. Yeah. Putting the pressure on. So I’m willing to speak out against that. So I probably, uh, I don’t think I’m gonna have good graces with people in the community at large, but my immediate family, like the siblings I grew up with, like we’re good now. Um, I have the best relationship with my dad.

Than I, that I’ve ever had in my life. Really, just because it’s based on honesty, tragedy can kind of, you know, bring out some good things. And the, um, my dad, uh, after we had a huge falling out and like a fight a year or so after I left, um, just didn’t see eye to eye. Uh, this past year he got diagnosed with stage four cancer.

The thing that did open up is like, you know, [00:50:00] what time is limited. Our whole past and arguments just didn’t matter anymore. And so then we got on like, like worked out stuff. He essentially showed regret for other things that he’s done in his life to me and others and stuff like that. Like basically apologizing, which is something that I never thought I would hear.

And so yeah, I feel really lucky that way. Um. Closer to some siblings than others. You can’t be close to 44. Um, but I can talk to any one of them. We have like a sibling group chat that virtually all of us are in, and then there’s like, I have a, I’m really close to like three or four of my siblings. Of the 44.

So,

Zach: so I’m curious, are you currently religious or spiritual in any specific by the book way, or do you, do you have a sense of spirituality if you don’t have a specific religion?

Calvin: Good question. Um, I, I joke that I joined a new religion that there is currently. One member, and I don’t [00:51:00] think that there are going to be any proselytizing or conversions happening soon.

Basically, the religion of Calvin Wayman. Um, so I definitely, I, in a strange way, I feel more spiritual, like whatever that is. Like, there’s so much loaded stuff around what that means, and does that right? Is that connection to a higher power and stuff like that. But I’m still open to doubting if there is that I, I think I call myself agnostic, but I’ve had some pretty intense experiences that felt really spiritual, if you will.

I. Like, uh, I mean, I’ve, when I left the religion two weeks later, I was in Costa Rica on a seven day Ayahuasca retreat. Mm-hmm. You know, because I wanted to kind of reset and that was amazing. That’s what kind of reset me to like, a core part of me is curiosity and to, and to keep that. But yeah, I’m, I’m open, but I’m very much non-dogmatic.

I, I feel like I’m allergic to dogma in all of its forms.

Zach: That seems to be what [00:52:00] your experiences made you question everything, which I think, uh, and, and I think that actually, uh, I think a lot of people think that skepticism and a sense of, you know, the world being, I. Mysterious and, and spiritual can’t coexist.

But I, I, I’m with you because I Oh, totally. I’m s I’m skeptical of everything. I, I call myself an agnostic because I don’t even, like, the word atheist sounds too certain to me, so I’m just, it feels too dogmatic. Yeah. It’s like I, I like the world. It’s so mysterious and wild to me, like almost nothing you could show me about the truth of it would probably surprise me.

So I think we’re probably on the, on the same page there. Totally. And

Calvin: the, again, the, the thing I was trying to say earlier is like, uh, like the, the, the gift in all of this wasn’t just the externalities of this is what my church believed in. It doesn’t believe that, like coming to this understanding of. Of thinking, the thinking that keeps people in.

I try, I, I notice it in other things that might not even be a cult that’s like, oh, this kind of thinking. [00:53:00] Can make you locked into this other dogmatic thing. I, and I don’t like, I’m very conscious with, of like the kind of thinking I’m having and w like why I would lock myself into something else. Like I.

Anyway, I probably need to think about this more just to even articulate what I’m trying to say, but No, the

Zach: thinking, it makes complete sense. Yeah. It’s, you’re, you’re s sc you, you remain skeptical even of your own, because you know how those narratives can go astray, so you question Yeah. Like people, any, any, anytime you find yourself going down those paths, you question

Calvin: it.

Yeah. Or somebody speaking to me and say, in talking about something that to them is like, so true and so dogmatic. And I say, I see what you’re saying, but. Look at the thinking that’s required to believe that. And if I had that thinking to believe this, then I honestly would still be in my religion because this thinking is required to, to believe something What you’re saying, um, ’cause you’re basing it on just that, [00:54:00] this tradition or what somebody said Trust it.

Yeah. That, that no wonder people are, are in this. So like, I’m always like checking. Those types of the way, my thinking is around anything that comes across my awareness, especially if, like, if something sounds completely absolute, like alarm bells go off in my head, um, when somebody’s like, oh, this is completely

Zach: true no matter what.

Calvin: Right.

Zach: You know? Well, I think it’s, yeah, it’s. To me, a sure sign of someone who’s being unreasonable is, is someone who is, acts certain about something you can’t possibly be certain about. And, and like you say, you, you can, once you start looking for that, you see that all around us where someone’s like, oh yeah, this is gonna happen in the future.

Cryptocurrency is gonna be the next thing. This is gonna be, you know? Totally. It’s, it’s like I can understand. Believing a likelihood of various things, but when, when someone is like, no, this is the way it is, I’m like, um, are you, you might wanna, like you said is like, maybe you should question that thought [00:55:00] process that led you to that.

Exactly.

Calvin: Oh man. That could be a whole other conversation because I remember going to like bitcoin, maxim, uh, Maximus, like, uh, meetings and, and people saying this, this, and this, and I’m like. Yeah, it feels so familiar. And honestly, that’s what I love. I, I love, I genuinely, like, I fucking hated my life for a long time after leaving and I felt jipped by, if there was a higher power or the universe, I’m like, why was I in something so ridiculous?

Couldn’t I just had a, a normal life that parents like fostered my curiosity? Maybe I’d be a little happier and more curious. But the thing I do love is I genuinely love this, this like lens that I see the world now. And, uh, like can, and, and look and see the, the dogma in so many corners of the world and also see the destructive nature of absolutism that is just not gonna help us move forward in so many ways.

Zach: I. I often think that, you know, I, I’ve often said and think that certainty our, [00:56:00] our desire to be certain about things, no matter what it is, is really humanity’s biggest weakness. It’s like we’re so, uh, pressured to be certain because it helps us, uh, fight off the existential meaninglessness and, and fear so that we, you know, we, we have these pressures to be certain about whatever it is, just so we can feel like there’s some meaning there, present that we can.

Clinging to. And I, I think that really is what so much of our, our problems boil down to is that, is that desperation for, for, for certainty.

Calvin: And you can’t grow if you’re like so certain on something. A quote that it helps me all the time is like, you know, a mindful of conclusion has no room for expansion.

Zach: Hmm.

Calvin: Doesn’t mean you have to be so open-minded, as they say, as the quote says that your brains fall out. But be open-minded enough that you, you’re probably wrong because we all are on something. Be open enough that you can expand something you don’t just like full stop every, everything. Don’t just say, oh, this is the way it is, no matter what.

Zach: This has been great, Calvin. Thanks so much for talking openly about all these [00:57:00] things. And do you, do you have anything you want to mention that you’re working on these days?

Calvin: Yeah, yeah. Um, I’m launching a podcast. Um, the exact date is TBD, um, but it’s called cultured. I don’t know if you know this, the play on the word there, but cultured.

Ah, so cult. Yeah, cultured, um, emphasis on that word. But, uh, it’s gonna be a podcast really about, of course. My, my life living in a cult or culture at large or being, or becoming cultured, like trying different things in different cultures, learning from different kinds of people. Because the whole other part of this conversation is, that we haven’t talked about is there also is beautiful truths, I think in humans.

If you see the, the traditions that have carried on, and if you can look at those and see why they, they hold on, like what’s the kernel of beauty underneath it, and so. Um, mm-hmm. I’m into that also. So yeah, uh, you can learn more about that. Um, and also get on the list to being notified when, when it actually launches.

Um, if you go to, uh, cultured [00:58:00] pod.com, so cultured pod.com, um, more information on that and can be notified when it goes

Zach: live. Great. This has been great. Thanks Calvin.

Calvin: Yeah, thank you.

Zach: That was Calvin Wayman. You can find him on Twitter at @calwayman. That’s CAL Cal, and WAYMAN wayman.

This has been the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood. You can learn more about it at www.behavior-podcast.com. If you liked this episode, I have a lot of episodes in the library about psychology and mental health that you might like.

And just a reminder that you can subscribe to this podcast to get ad-free versions and collaborate on episodes.

Thanks for listening.

Categories
podcast

On psychopaths and ‘dark empaths’, with dark traits expert Nadja Heym

A talk with Nadja Heym, a psychology researcher who specializes in dark traits, like psychopathy, narcissism, and sadism, and who has researched so-called “dark empaths”: people with dark traits who have a good amount of empathy. We delve into some nuance in the area of psychopathy.

Topics discussed include: How she defines psychopathic traits; The misuse of the term “psychopath” (and related misuse of other terms like “narcissist”); Can we say from a brain scan if a brain is “psychopathic”?; “Bad seed”-like concepts of how psychopaths arise; Can an environment (like a highly competitive job) make someone have more psychopathic traits?; What are “dark empaths”? 

A transcript is below.

Episode links:

Resources related to or mentioned in our talk:

TRANSCRIPT

[Note: transcripts will contain errors.]

Zach: Hello and welcome to the People Who Read People podcast. This is a podcast about better understanding other people, and better understanding ourselves. On this show, I talk to a variety of people from a variety of professions about their understanding of human behavior and psychology. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com.

Today’s episode is about psychopaths and psychopathic traits. I talk to Dr. Nadja Heym, who is an Associate Professor in Personality Psychology and Psychopathology at Nottingham Trent University in the UK.

The reason I wanted to cover this topic was to examine some nuance in the area of psychopathy, and to get a chance to ask some questions I’ve just been curious about in this area. Which is one of the reasons I like doing this podcast: getting to ask ignorant questions of people who know a lot more than me.

To take one example of something I’ve been curious about: I often see people throwing around the label ‘psychopath’ in ways that seem simplistic and unhelpful. Clearly, as with a lot of psychological labels, the general public and entertainment media often misuse these terms: for example, we can see people calling random people psychopaths all the time, whether it’s a politician they don’t like, or a CEO that’s done some bad stuff. It’s similar with how people throw around the word ‘narcissist’ so much these days.

But I also see people using these labels for themselves in ways that seem to me simplistic and a bit unhealthy. To take a specific example: I’ve seen people take online tests that are meant to tell you if you have psychopathic traits, and then use the results of these tests, which are often pretty simplistic, as evidence to say things like “Yeah I’m a bit of a psychopath.” And some people even seem to take a bit of joy and pride in that, which I think reflects our cultural love affair with villains and anti-heroes. And I’m interested in how the self-labeling can be self-restricting in various ways. If someone thinks “hey I’m a psychopath, that’s just the way things are,” or even take a little pride in it, they’re not going to be very incentivized to change. And that also gets into questions I have about how much of these so-called psychopathic traits are simply aspects of immaturity, in the sense that sometimes when we’re young we have a hard time caring about other people. Or how many of these traits might be just due to people disliking other people and having some anti-social tendencies that they then interpret as something they can’t help, as something intrinsic and unchangeable about them.

And then, apart from the loose ways us regular citizens use these terms, which isn’t surprising, even some knowledgeable people and experts seem to use these terms in seemingly cavalier and loose ways. I recently read Jon Ronson’s book The Psychopath Test, and in there he describes Robert Hare, who is well known for developing the mainstream definition of what a psychopath is, talking very cavalierly about people around him who might be potential psychopaths. In one scene, Bob Hare tells the author that a hotel employee who acted a little rudely might be a psychopath. As Hare tells the author “A lot of psychopaths become gatekeepers, concierges, security guards, masters of their own domain.” They talk about this for a while and Ronson finds this interesting but then later thinks to himself: “Was that a bit trigger-happy? Maybe the guy just had a long, bad day. Why did neither Bob nor I think of that?”

To take another example: there’s a neuroscientist named James Fallon who’s gotten a lot of attention in the last few years for his book The Psychopath Inside. He claims he has a quote “psychopathic brain” based on how his brain scan shows similarities to the brains of psychopathic killers he’s studied. But is it proven that one can look at a brain scan and say that someone is a psychopath? I’ve personally seen no good evidence presented for that, even if there seems to be some evidence that there’s a correlation there. Is it a bit over-the-top and grandiose to say that your brain is “psychopathic”? And some of the things he describes about his own life as ways to show that he has some psycopathic traits simply didn’t sound that psychopathic to me and sounded more like random dumb things that people often do that can be a bit dangerous and irresponsible. Which I think gets back to my general skepticism about these terms.

And to be completely clear: I’m not skeptical that there are people who have a constellation of traits that we can label “psychopathic”. Like any psychological term, these things can be useful labels for various groupings of traits. But I do tend to get a bit skeptical when people seem to throw around these terms loosely and cavalierly. Maybe I’m a bit offbase with my skepticism: i’m admittedly no expert. But I am curious about these things and thought it would be interesting to throw some of these questions at an expert.

I learned about Nadja Heym’s work when I read a piece on Vice.com by her titled There’s a Little Bit of Psychopath in All of Us. In that piece, she examined some of the nuance in that area, and corrected some misunderstandings.

A little bit more about Nadja from her university page:

Dr Heym’s main research interests are in the area of individual differences, psychopathology and antisocial behaviour. She’s an expert in dark personality traits (for example, psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Sadism)…
Her research aims to further our understanding of the neuropsychological mechanisms, such as punishment and reward sensitivity, goal conflict processing and behavioural inhibition deficits underpinning psychopathology and antisocial tendencies. She has published peer reviewed papers on threat processing, impulsivity and anxiety in psychopathology, such as antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, ADHD, depression and self-harm. Her research also focuses on the specific roles of affective and cognitive empathy deficits in the associations between maladaptive traits, as well as different types of aggressive behaviour.
End quote

An interesting research paper by her and her colleagues is from 2021 and is called The Dark Empath: Characterising dark traits in the presence of empathy. To quote from some sections of that paper:

A well-established literature associates these dark traits with empathy deficits; that is an impairment in the ability to take the perspective of others, understand their viewpoints, and share their emotions to attain interpersonal reciprocity …

To this end, the current study … investigates the existence of darkness in the presence of empathy – a combination we refer to as the ‘Dark Empath’.

End quote

Okay here’s the talk with Nadja Heym about those pesky psychopaths.

Zach: Hi, Nadja. Thanks for joining me.

Nadja: Hi, Zach. Thanks for inviting me. It’s, uh, great to, to be here with you today.

Zach: Thanks. Maybe a good place to start would be, how do you define psychopathy and how do you differentiate between psychopathic traits and then, you know, using the label psychopath? I know that’s probably a big question, but maybe you could give your, your thoughts on how you define those things.

Nadja: It’s quite a massive question, in fact. Uh, and, uh, one of, one of the main issues we have here is that, uh, you know, there isn’t just one [00:08:00] conceptualization of what psychopathy is. So there are various different models, um, but in, in, in general, there’s some commonality at least. Um, so when we talk about psychopathy, we probably mean or direct more, more likely, um, the construct of personality disorder.

And when I talk about psychopathic traits, I talk about personality traits, um, that are related to what we see in psychopathy. Mm-hmm. So from a dimensional point of view of personality, we assume that people can, you know, score from very low to very high on a specific personality traits. And there are certain traits that are related to psychopathy itself that, um, are are similar enough, uh, to what we see in psychopathy, but it’s often, it’s a combination of traits that are coming together that might, we might then see as, as being particularly maladaptive or particularly similar to what we see in full blown psychopathy, let’s say.

Mm-hmm. Coming back to psychopathy and what psychopathy is, [00:09:00] uh, one of the most prominent models, I think in clinical psychopathy would be that of, um, Robert Hare. He defines, uh, kind of, uh, uh, two main, uh, factors here. And one is the effective interpersonal factor and one is the lifestyle antisocial factor.

And when we’re looking at the effective interpersonal aspects, um, we distinguish in terms of the affect that might be quite poor, positive and negative affect. Um, it’s defined by callousness, uh, lack of remorse and empathy. So one of the big hallmarks in psychopathy is this lack of empathy in terms of their interpersonal features.

We are seeing an individual who’s quite superficially charming and therefore can be quite adjusted in terms of personal and interaction. However, the individual’s quite deceitful conning and manipulative and quite strategic in in their way in terms of achieving their goals and what they want. They can be egocentric and selfish and engage and, and, you know, pathological align.[00:10:00]

When we’re looking at the other side, there’s kind of antisocial behavior type factors. Uh, there’s a lifestyle aspect. So as an individual’s quite impulsive and reckless and, and irresponsible in their behavior, they might lack long-term goals. They have a high need for stimulations, are sensation seeking, uh, behaviors.

And then we have the fourth aspect there, the antisocial behavior itself. So that’s of course the poor behavioral control that leads to kind of persistent rule breaking and criminal behavior so often. Um, psychopathy of course, is studied in the context of forensic psychology, therefore in terms of criminal, um, psychopathy.

Zach: So the, uh, with the charming aspect, I, I see that, uh, you know, a lot in a lot of people’s concepts or definitions of, you know, what makes a so-called psychopath. A lot of people point to that. That charming aspect. I’m curious, did that come in later? You know, it seems like the definition of psychopath might have drifted a bit over [00:11:00] time, and I’m curious, did the, did the kind of like superficially charming aspect maybe come in later?

Like, was that part of like hair’s definition and how, how do you see that? Do, do you see it as being, as being a necessary. Part of, of a psychopathic trait compilation?

Nadja: Well, actually the charming aspect came from the seminal work from, um, Kley and, uh, the Mask of Sanity, a book that was written in, in the 1970s.

Mm. And this was a early clinical description of cases that had encountered, um, in his work. And he described 16 different criteria there of the prototypical psychopath. Aspects. So officially charming aspect was part of that. So that was part of what he called the positive adjustment, where we have superficial charms, social depthness, absence of nervousness and delusion.

So individuals who seem to be on a surface, you know, uh, quite [00:12:00] well adjusted.

Zach: And, and one of the reasons I, I wanna do this talk was I, I see so many seemingly simplistic use uses of, uh, the word psychopath these days, which is probably just a, a general, you know, uh, misuse in the culture of how we use psychological terms in general, like calling so many people, you know, narcissists and psychopaths and mm-hmm.

And things like this. And, you know, one, the reason I reached out to you was, I, I saw your, your vice article about, uh, you know, psycho psychopathy being a, a spectrum. And we’re all somewhere on that spectrum. And I, and I’m curious, do you agree? You know, we, that we seem to be misusing a lot of these labels, not, not just for how, what we call other people, but I’ve even seen.

People take these online tests that seem very simplistic to me about, you know, whether it’s about, uh, uh, narcissism or, or psychopathy. And then I, I even know people that will like kind of self label themselves psychopaths, and it, it just feels like there’s this simplistic usage [00:13:00] which not only results in, uh, kind of mislabeling, uh, you know, miscategorizing people we don’t know well, but also even miscategorizing ourselves, which can lead to, you know, uh, kind of a lack of willingness to change or just, or just being like, well, I guess I’m a guess I have psychopathic traits and I, and I’m curious, do you see.

Some of that in the, in the culture.

Nadja: Yeah, absolutely. No, especially the, uh, term of narcissist is really, you know, free floating around at the moment, everywhere, isn’t it? Wherever you look, uh, you seem to be stumbling across it. And, um, it’s a little bit of a problem because, you know, it’s, it’s again, that whole notion we, that we might want to differentiate between a personality disorder and, uh, traits.

Mm-hmm. And, and traits and narcissistic traits can be seen. And, you know, uh, elevated, narcissistic traits can be seen in many people, uh, just as we can see psychopathic traits, um, elevated and, and, and, and, you know, everyday people. Mm-hmm. But it doesn’t make them, uh, uh, fully kind of clinically diagnosed, psychopath, or someone [00:14:00] with narcissistic personality disorder.

Um, the other issue is also that, um, what we might need to think about is that psychopathy itself wasn’t necessarily part of the, um, diagnostic, my statistical kind of manual, uh, for a long time. It’s only just been recently really firmly integrated. In the fifth version of the DSM and, and so the term psychopath nevertheless existed in the research literature for a long time.

And in terms of diagnosis, uh, you know, one of the most, kind of the gold standard diagnostic tool is again, um, has, uh, psychopathy checklist. And in order to be diagnosed, you really got to hit a lot of points there. You really need to, you know, there are 20 items across which, uh, you know, you, you need to. A score quite highly, um mm-hmm.

To be diagnosed as a psychopath. And the, the psychopath itself is a very dangerous, um, individual. Yet we can, for each of [00:15:00] these points, we can look at some traits that might be related to these behaviors. So, you know, one of the points will be the glibness and the superficial charm again, you know, and of course there are many people who are very charming, uh, but that doesn’t make them a psychopath.

It’s the accumulation of different aspects coming together that might make a toxic mix. Mm-hmm. Um, or problematic mix that, that leads to more maladaptive forms and more kind of, uh, uh, you know, disordered behavior in the end.

Zach: Mm-hmm. It, it seems like in psychology in general, there’s a, there’s a move away from using, you know, these, these nouns for people like psychopath or, or narcissist, because they can be, you know, the, the stigma attached or, or the, you know, self-limiting nature of the, of the labels.

And, and do you see that, you know, are people. In general, more careful with how they use that. And do they, and do they tend to try to talk more about like psychopathic trait compilations and, and not use the word psychopath these days?

Nadja: Um, certainly when we [00:16:00] study it in the general population, yes. I, I, I would say so.

And it’s really important to differentiate there. Um, I mean, when it comes, you know, the, our diagnostic, um, uh, manuals and tools are important in, in the clinical fields and in the forensic fields. And assessing someone thoroughly to establish if they have a disorder is, can be quite important. Right. Um, so in some cases, you, you need to have a diagnosis in order to receive the right support options, for example, or in order to identify risk and, um, specific needs, uh, depending on, on, on what your problem areas are.

For example, and we know that, you know, individuals who are formally. Properly diagnosed with psychopathy. You know, um, this diagnostic tool has a really high predictive power in terms of risk assessment and recidivism re-offending. These individuals commit more crimes, a larger variety, more violent, more premeditated and instrumental.

Um, they’re four times more likely to commit future crimes, et cetera. [00:17:00] So being able to diagnose using diagnostic tools in specifically, um, problematic populations or dangerous, uh, populations, for example, is important, you know, and so we can’t wipe that away. However, when we study, um, psychopathy or psychopathic traits in the general population, I personally, I think the usage of, uh, psychopathic traits is more appropriate rather than the full blood term there.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Uh, we, some sometimes hear about the bad seed explanation of psychopathy or other personality traits that sometimes psychopaths just come out of nowhere due to their. Genes, there’s something in their brains that, that make it, make those traits inevitable. And I’m curious, I know this isn’t your specialty, but do you have thoughts you’d like to share on the, the bad seed explanations of psychopathy and how much of those kind of dark personality trait compilations are due to genetic versus upbringing factors?[00:18:00]

Nadja: Well, yeah, I mean there’s quite, uh, a lot of research around the genetic underpinnings and, and, uh, brain abnormalities, let’s say linked to psychopathy and, you know, it’s not weak evidence. So there, there’s certain, certainly plenty of evidence around the, um, showing that there might be some, uh, genetic predispositions and that there might be, uh, brain differences, um, in, in psychopathy.

But generally with all personality traits, we assume some kind of heritability, um, we assume some kind of brain or biological markers that underpin, uh, personality traits. And in the same way we would assume that for personality disorders, they’re at the extreme end of personality traits because we, we are taking this dimensional approach where we say, right at the extreme ends of certain traits, we see problematic, uh, behaviors, maybe.

And it’s, it’s not really a matter of, oh, there’s one gene, and if you’ve got that gene, then that’s it. Right? So, um, the explanations are more around combination of [00:19:00] genes, uh, combination of, uh, uh, maybe neurotransmitters, combination, uh, combination of brain abnormalities and brain function that might, um, combine into, um, that one profile or that, that one kind of, uh, construct that we see at the other end.

Mm-hmm.

Zach: And, uh, one, one thing I often wonder about these dark personality traits, I’m a big believer in the impact of the envir environment and, and even mm-hmm. Less obvious, uh, impacts. You know, for example, we, we tend to think of abuse. As the more obvious forms of abuse, like the physical, the sexual, the extreme psychological, but mm-hmm.

Personally, I think that there’s this whole realm of less obvious psychological or abuse or neglect. That’s whether it’s purposeful or not, that parents with various kind of personality defects, like, you know, pathological, narcissism, these things that don’t rise to, you know, being obvious forms of abuse, but that [00:20:00] can mess up their children in various ways.

Mm-hmm. And, and, and I, I think there’s kind of a hidden epidemic of that kind of thing that, you know, is, is is not like it’s purposeful, it’s just, uh, ways that kids can get messed up by the psychological problems of their parents. And that can be hard to see and also just hard to talk about because, you know, we don’t.

Want to imply that that is a, uh, you know, a malicious thing the parents are necessarily doing. But I, I’m curious if you’d agree that, do you think that could be the, some of the cause of some of these, these antisocial personality traits they get, you know, lumped into the, the psychopathic barrel. Even, even if those, you know, like, like you were talking about, have some, can have some genetic predispositions, but I’m curious if you, if you see the environment there as having some.

A, a big amount of, uh, influence in, in ways that aren’t even obvious?

Nadja: Absolutely. There’s a, you know, no two ways about it in terms of, um, you know, antisocial [00:21:00] behavior itself, nevermind whether with or without psychopathy. Um, antisocial behavior has, has quite a, a strong kind of environmental impact. They’ll predictors then.

So it’s a, it can be a combination. So you might have some genetic predispositions and then the environment in which you grow up might then really shape the expression of, of, um, these predispositions and, and whether they, they come, uh, um, to show some kind of full blown problematic behavior. So, for example, in terms of psychopathy, we, we, when, when we study these traits in children, we talk about colors and emotional traits.

Zach: A note here. I myself wasn’t sure what Nadja was saying here, so I thought I’d clarify. She was saying callous and unemotional traits, also known as CU traits for short. This is a label for traits that’s often used in research of antisocial behavior back to the talk.

Nadja: And so there’s a lot of research that has been conducted in children that, um, engage [00:22:00] in, um, impulsive behavior and conduct problems.

And these that can then be kind of split in those who have colors and emotional traits and those who haven’t got the colors and emotional traits. And we know that children with colors and emotional traits, um, tend to have a much earlier onset of antisocial behavior and aggressive behavior and more severe indicators of aggressive behavior.

Um, it tends to be much more stable over time and as less treatment responsive compared to those kids without those CU traits. And there have been some studies looking at the kind of genetic irritability, underpinnings, and environmental factors. There was a, a review by ing, for example, some years ago, and in, in terms of looking at twin studies there and CU traits alone, um, predicted about se 67% of the heritability, whereas antisocial behavior with CU traits together predicted about 81% irritability.

And when we’re looking at just antisocial [00:23:00] behavior without zero traits, there’s a 30% he irritability. And just from the research on. Aggressive and antisocial behavior itself. We know that environmental factors like, um, low SCS and poor peer relationships, for example, so friendships that engage in, in criminal behavior can account for about 30% of antisocial behavior.

Mm-hmm. So they are quite predictive. And this is where the combination of things coming together, right. So if you have a genetic predisposition, for example, and you have the adverse environmental kind of predictors coming together, then the risk is much higher than either one alone,

Zach: you know, the movie or based on the play, the the Bad seed.

Have you seen that? Just a correction here. The Bad Seed was first actually a book, then a Broadway play, then became a movie back to the talk.

Nadja: Um, no, I’m afraid not, but Oh, okay. I shall put it on my movie. Yeah,

Zach: you, you, it’s an old, uh, it’s an old movie. I think you made several remakes of it, but [00:24:00] the, the original movie was from the, um, the 1950s or maybe sixties, uh, black and white movie.

Uh, but it, it’s interesting ’cause I, I think it, uh, it, it kind of informs the cultural idea of psychopathy where it’s like, basically it’s about this young girl who just is a, a coldblooded murderer, like right out of the gate, you know? Um, but I, I, I think it’s an interesting cultural thing because I think that’s a lot of people’s idea of like, oh, you’re just born this coldblooded murder.

Right. Uh, which I think, you know, as, as we’ve been talking about, is a, it’s a lot, it’s a lot more complex than, than that. Um, even if you, even if someone believes it’s, it’s largely, or, or a big genetic component. Yeah. But yeah, recommend that movie. It’s, it’s interesting, even just for the cultural, uh, aspects.

Nadja: Yes. Uh, I shall have a look, and actually there’s, there, there are so many movies out there. Uh, silence of the Lamb was another one classic kind of portrayal there, wasn’t it? Um, and, and you know, they’re probably based on some of the kind of seminal work back in the day, but we also [00:25:00] need to remember, I mean, when these movies were made and what we knew at the time and what we know now might be different.

And, and so these, um, all of this kind of, you know, the evidence base might feed somewhat into it, but then in the end, with movies or mainstream media, you know, it’s meant to be enticing for the viewer. And, and it doesn’t always have to be, you know, based on facts and truth, I guess. Mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Regarding the.

You know, my, basically I’m just giving my various, uh, forms of skepticism mm-hmm. About various things, but I’ll, I guess I’ll continue. Um, so one thing I’ve been a bit skeptical of is, um, you’ve probably heard of James Fallon, who’s a doctor who’s gotten a good amount of press and attention over the mm-hmm.

The last few years for saying that he has a quote, psychopathic brain. And the story goes for people who don’t know that he noticed similarities between the brain scans of cold-blooded killers, uh, psychopathic trait killers that he was studying and, and similarities with his own brain scans, which had something to do with the lack of [00:26:00] activity, uh, in the lower cortex, I think.

Mm-hmm. Um, one, one exact quote from him is I found, I had the brain imaging pattern and genetic makeup of a full blown psychopath, and I’m admittedly an amateur on these things, but the reason I was skeptical of some of this is that. I haven’t seen any specific proof that you can definitely say if you have this type of brain scan, you are high in psychopathic traits.

I, I get that there can be correlations there. Uh, and, and you know, but to say that I have a psych psychopathic brain, uh, just seems like a very certain way to phrase. And I, and I just haven’t seen, you know, that that kind of evidence that, you know, for example, like, can you have that type of brain scan and be high in empathetic traits like I haven’t seen.

You know much about that. And, and I’m curious, I know that this, the neuroscience aspect isn’t, isn’t your specialty, but I’m, I’m curious if you think it’s, it’s okay to, or justified for, for me to be a bit skeptical of that certainty there?

Nadja: No, absolutely. It’s justified that I think I’m, I’m [00:27:00] assuming himself is skeptical about it as possibly as well.

Uh, you know, you might see some genetic makeup that, that might be similar or that might be common across, uh, individuals. Um, but as, as we just said, you know, they, the, uh, nature nurture issue, the inaction between factors and combination of factors that are coming together is important. And I think, you know, in some of the, uh, podcasts.

Uh, uh, James Faller. He, he was talking about, you know, he had a really good upbringing. He had a healthy family relationships, and, you know, he had very nurturing environment as he grew up, and that was probably a good protective factor for him, even if he had some genetic predispositions or some, you know, uh, brain imaging kind of patterns that might be similar to what we see in psychopathy.

But, um, clearly in his case, um, his, his social and interpersonal functioning has been preserved, presumably. I’m not sure whether he ever, uh, did a full diagnostic test, but I’m pretty sure he, you know, wouldn’t quite, [00:28:00] um, qualify as a, um, um, fully diagnosed, uh, criminal psychopaths. So yeah, he had those, uh, protective aspects.

And that’s coming back to Yumi. You were talking about adverse childhood experiences and childhood abuse, and there’s, you know, evidence out there showing that individuals with psychopathy, um, had, uh, were more likely to have some kind of traumatic experiences. But all of this again, goes also back to our conceptualizations of psychopathy and the different types that are out there because we are not necessarily always assuming that the psychopathy is a homogenous kind of construct.

But, um, some people differentiate between the primary and the secondary psychopath, for example, are slightly different. And, um, socioeconomic status, uh, trauma, adverse childhood experiences, et cetera, seem to be more prominent in, in what we call the secondary psychopath, which is. Probably a bit more similar to, um, what we have an antisocial personality disorder.

So, uh, we are seeing someone who’s highly [00:29:00] impulsive and has difficulties in terms of their, um, behavioral, uh, control, for example. And that might not be the case for him as he seems to be behaviorally really, you know, probably well adjusted. Um, and, and he might show some of the emotional detachment aspects, maybe some of the effective or interpersonal aspects, but he might not see the problems, um, that we have and the lifestyle and antisocial factors in terms of that reckless, um, uh, style, that constant need for stimulation or poor behavioral control that then is more likely to lead to antisocial behavior.

Zach: Yeah, and to be a little bit more specific, I, I guess I’m just. It’s strange to me for, I, I just haven’t seen, and I may just because I’m, because I’m ignorant of the, of the area, but I just haven’t seen a proof saying like, if you have this kind of brain scan, like you will, you know, you, you are, you are, you definitely have a, a what we could call a psychopathic brain, even if [00:30:00] you’ve gotten good things to balance out.

It’s, it’s almost like, to me the more accurate way to phrase it would be, I have a brain that has traits that, that is more likely to be correlated with, you know, uh, the, these antisocial or, or psychopathic traits in, in other words, like I haven’t seen a proof that like I. One can’t have that brain scan and then, and then fi we find that they actually have a lot of high empathy traits, you know, but I, I, I think it’s a difference between like the correlation and like boldly stating that I have a psychopathic brain that seems a little bit, uh.

Overly certain to me, but, uh, it might just, you know, maybe I’m just ignorant of, of the amount of proof that’s gone into that or something.

Nadja: Uh, it, it, well, it probably is. And, and, and I think the issue is here, you know, um, if you try to explain it properly, it takes a lot more words, right? Um, you know, as we’ve just seen when you, you’re trying to put it in, in, into the correlational kind of explanation, it, it really requires much more explanation because of the complexity of [00:31:00] the issue, right?

And so sometimes to make just that kind of, um, heading news, you, you, you know, uh, people might use the shortcut to grab attention and, um, hopefully they will then use the space and the attention they get to clarify exactly what they mean. And so, of course when, so when we write papers, academic papers, for example, you know, we, we, we think very carefully how, how we state things.

Um, when things are being translated into media, it often pops out slightly differently. Yeah. And to make it more understandable for people, for example, in terms of lay language, using lay language rather than academic language. Or to make it, you know, shorter briefer rather than giving a long spiel of explaining the exact complexities that might be involved and.

Sometimes that might come through. So I mean, you were talking about earlier in terms of the conversation piece where I refer to a spectrum in, in that piece, and that was actually, um, I would’ve preferred the term dimensional. Right. Uh, a [00:32:00] dimensional, a construct rather than spectrum. ’cause even spectrum, the terminology is not particularly the ideal case to use here.

Right. Um, but it was used because of, um, trying to put it in lay language that people. May be more likely to, to un, you know, to understand and incorporate in the everyday usage of language.

Zach: Yeah, that’s a good point. Even, even the, even the spectrum, the spectrum lends more, uh, nuance, but it’s still a simplistic idea of so many of these things because as you say, yeah, it’s a, it’s a multidimensional, uh, matrix of some sort that we don’t really understand.

Right?

Nadja: Absolutely. It’s a very difficult combination of many traits coming together. It’s not just one trait. It’s many traits coming together and in a multidimensional space, and this is where the complexity lies. And actually, because psychopathy is not a homogenous construct, it might be different combination of traits coming together that are not always exactly the same.

So we’ve been talking about the, the hallmark of the lack of empathy. And [00:33:00] then, uh, more recently we have seen in, in, in our dark empath paper that you referred to earlier, that, you know, there are some individuals who have elevated dark traits, so psychopathic narcissistic Machiavellian traits, but they show really high levels of empathy.

And actually, um, probably in terms of everyday interaction in society, they might possibly be a bit more successful, but less anti-social and perform better. So in terms of the analysis we did, we, we saw that they are more extroverted. For example, we, we see they are less aggressive than, uh, those with dark traits and low levels of empathy, right?

So we see, depending on the combination of those dark traits and whether you have high or low empathy, we already see different outcomes there.

Zach: Do you see the dark empath kind of traits? Is that more likely to be tied to, uh, some sort of abusive or neglectful childhood where somebody basically [00:34:00] enjoys, uh, or, or has a, uh, animosity towards other people?

You know? So, because it seems like that, that that logical way that could come about is you have some sort of, you, you, you’re normal. You’re, you’re normal in the sense that you can have empathy for other people. But maybe you’ve, you’ve had some experiences that made you kind of high animosity or kind of enjoy, you know.

Putting people down or, or, or seeing them, you know, suffer a little bit or something. Do, do you think, is that part of what, what your research has, has been about? Or do you go into that?

Nadja: Um, possibly. I mean the, the dark traits, um, um, because they have that, that kind of, well color and that, that kind of maybe, uh, being less caring, um, about others, uh, might show that.

And then the capacity, capacity to empathize, uh, might, might put a slightly different slant on it. So if you completely, uh, lack empathy for other people, you re, you might not understand that they’re [00:35:00] distressed, so you might not have a kind of inhibitory mechanism to, to tell you that, wait a second, you know, somebody is really sad or frightened upset.

Um, I better just, you know, um, try to make them feel better or, I, I try to, um, uh, care about this and, and, and, and stop, uh, bullying them, for example. So if, if you are lacking that capacity, it, it might just make you keep going because you, you really don’t care about the feelings of the other person necessarily.

Um, however, if you’re a bit, if you have higher levels of empathy, then uh, you know, it, it, it seems to be acting as a little bit of an inhibitory, uh, mechanism that might allow you to control your behavior better, that you then initiate some pro-social behavior towards the individual who is in distress.

For example, quite a bit of research that has shown that individuals, uh, with psychopathy might struggle in terms of recognizing or processing or paying attention towards the distress of other people. Um, [00:36:00] so recognize, recognize specifically sadness or fear in others, and that has always been used as an, you know, as an explanation why they are so antagonistic and why they are so aggressive towards others.

Zach: Whereas like a dark empath might be somebody that actually can feel the other person’s pain and actually can, can maybe enjoy that in kind of a, a sadistic sort of way. Is that accurate to say?

Nadja: Um, possibly.

Zach: Some of them I

Nadja: think sadism is, is in itself against slightly different to, um, uh, um, psychopathy, I guess.

But, uh, yeah, so we don’t know the exact, uh, mechanisms in, in terms of sadism, but one assumption would be that, uh, sadistic individuals might enjoy the pa well, they enjoy the, you know, humiliating others and, and seeing pain in others. So, which makes you think that, you know, they must be able to process that pain another somewhat.

Mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Do you see, uh, so one thing I see around us is kind of a cultural love affair [00:37:00] with, um, psychopaths in the sense that we have all of these movies and shows where the protagonists are, are pretty bad antisocial people. Uh, and I, and I even know, I personally know people that. Kind of like proudly proclaim that they’re psychopaths, you know, they’ve taken these tests online and, uh, they’re like, you know, uh, yeah, that’s, that’s just how I might, how, how I am.

And even my family, you know, tells me that, or my wife tells me that. And kind of a, kind of a proud way. And, and I, and I am curious what you think, is there sort of a. An unhealthy sort of, uh, love affair going on with the, you know, the anti-hero, the, the, the, the psychopath kind of personality traits.

Nadja: Um, sure.

You know, I mean, sometimes, you know, people might just want to stay, um, stand out. Mm-hmm. It might be more of one aspect, different be different, you know? Yeah. And there’s this whole notion about, you know, girls like my boys, uh, type, um, aspects of it, maybe because they’re associated with more sensations [00:38:00] seeking adrenaline, uh, junkies, uh, you know, with more exciting lifestyle, fast paced lifestyle, these kind of things.

And that might make them more excitable, I’m not sure. But, um, to be fair, research shows that in terms of long-term mating preferences, I think, um, the more stable and safe, secure options are preferred relations with. You know, there might be that thing whereby, uh, um, you know, people want to be cool and, and yeah.

And in terms of being cool, you must be a little bit of bad. And, uh, being people don’t,

Zach: people don’t want to give a fuck. Yeah. They always say that, you know, that I, I I give no fucks kind of thing, you know?

Nadja: Yeah, yeah. But that might also just be, um, a wall, a barrier, an emotional kind of, you know, uh, don’t come too close to me.

You don’t know, you know, what, what might be the motivation for, for people in terms of, um, saying that or, or being like that. Right? But in some individuals you truly have that I give no fuck situation and they’re the ones that might be dangerous because they’re the ones that really won’t care about hurting [00:39:00] you,

Zach: like you say, online, especially when, when people are always insulting each other online.

There, there’s that, you know, pe people can say things they really don’t mean in the sense that, like, I don’t, I don’t care what anyone thinks about me. And it’s really just a protective thing to say, your, your words are not gonna. Harm me. Uh, but yeah, my, my joke about that is, you know, who really doesn’t give a fuck is, is psychopaths.

Nadja: Hmm.

Zach: They, they, they, they, they truly don’t. Uh, yeah. Anyway, uh, so I’m curious, do you link, do you see a link with, um, autism? Because I can, I was reading some articles about people that were self-proclaimed psychopaths, and one article in, in the independent, uh, newspaper online was someone admitting that they didn’t care about the Holocaust and admitting to kicking their dog.

And I, and it made me think like, this person just sounds like really autistic. Like in the, in the sense that they would be even willing to say that publicly, uh, made me think, you know? And then, then that got me down a, a rabbit hole of [00:40:00] people, you know? Uh, the overlap sometimes of the, uh, of the autistic and, and psychopathic traits.

And I’m curious, do you have any, any thoughts on that?

Nadja: Um, no. I see them, uh, but yes, I have thoughts, but no, I don’t see them as being similar. I see them as, as very different. In fact, um, I, I think in terms of the, um, empathy capacities and or, or, um, um, uh, deficits is in autism, we see a lack of cognitive empathy.

So that’s the kind of, um, theory of mind. So the mentalizing something that, that other individuals might have a different kind of mental state to your own, and that’s somewhat quite different to, um, what is more the problem seen in psychopathy in terms of their effective de deficit, as in, um, I can’t feel what you are feeling, right.

So one is, I, I don’t understand what you are thinking and that makes it difficult for me to navigate in the world because I find it difficult to predict your behavior, um, which we might see in autism. And whereas [00:41:00] in, in Psychopathy it’s more a, a, a matter of I don’t feel what you feel. I don’t understand what you feel, I don’t care about what you feel, um, and therefore it’s okay for me to hurt you.

So it’s, it’s a very different, uh, um, aspect there. And, and this is, I mean, there, there’s been some very old kind of, uh, studies that, that try to equate the two, but this, it has been mainly kind of, um, debunked nowadays. And, and, and we, we see really, truly very different patterns of, um, underpinning mechanisms, for example, or, or different kind of, uh, correlates and relationships, um, for autistic traits as opposed to psychopathic traits.

So I would, I would, you know, really try and keep these separate. Mm-hmm. As much as possible.

Zach: What do you think it’s, uh, do you think it’s possible some people are just misdiagnosing themselves then when somebody reach, reaches out to a journalist and says, I’m a psychopath, that you Sure. I think the, I think we have to be more skeptical of these kinds of things because, for example, there’s this book by.[00:42:00]

It’s, it’s an anonymously published book that’s pretty popular, and it’s a, uh, I can’t remember the name now, but it’s by a self-proclaimed psychopath. And I read some about this book, and this person’s online and has a online following, but they’re a very unreliable narrator. Like some people think they just made up their past, you know, for attentions to sell books.

Some people think they’re just a, a narcissist who likes the attention. So I think the, uh, you know, when I read some of this stuff, uh, especially about the self-proclaimed psychopaths or any self-proclaimed, any, any kind of category, I guess I, I, I, I think there, I don’t know if you would agree that we, we should be a little bit more skeptical because the self-reporting aspect of these things can be.

Know, I, I think we’re a little bit too trusting where, where we’re like, oh, they said they’re a psychopath and they’re telling us how it is to be a psychopath. And yeah, I think, I think we should be a, be a little bit more skeptical and, uh, take things a little bit more salt maybe.

Nadja: Yeah, absolutely. Unless you have had a full, uh, [00:43:00] diagnosis using a proper.

Probably validated, uh, psychometric tool to do so. I don’t think, you know, you, you, you can, uh, self label or should self label in any case. And the, the problem is we, we, we generally, we always seek my, we see, see a list of symptoms and we say, oh yeah, oh yeah, that might apply to me. That might apply to me.

So I always say, say that to my students. And, uh, when I teach them about, uh, psychopathologies as a, you know, we will go through various different disorders. You will see some symptoms and you might kind of almost tick for yourself those boxes. But please, please just avoid self diagnosing because it’s not okay.

You know, we, we shouldn’t be doing that. Uh, you know, that there are tools that do that properly, but even, you know, as with any psychometric measure, you know, it, it, uh, um, gives a probability, let’s say, but it, it’s not always a hundred percent accurate either, right. So, um, some are more validated than others.

Some have stronger research, kind of, um, um, evidence behind them to be strong psychometric tools than others, et cetera. So with all of this, we have to [00:44:00] be really careful. Um, to be fair and for, you know, for any diagnosis, it requires an experienced person who have been highly trained to know what they’re doing, uh, to diagnose someone properly.

And, and these are experts, these are people who know what they’re doing. So any self-diagnosis is always dangerous. And, and the stigma that one might attach or the, that with that laboring that comes with it, it can be, you know, dangerous as well. Um, as you said, in terms of self-fulfilling prophecy, in terms of, uh, you know, how we interact with other people, how other people will start interacting with us if we say these things,

Zach: right?

Yeah. That, that, it gets into that, uh, yeah, that kind of self-limiting aspect where, you know, at certain points in my life, like, you know, flipping through, I. Various DSM kind of categories. You know, at certain points in my life, I’ve thought I’ve, I’ve had, uh, you know, I thought I was a, uh, borderline personality disorder.

I thought I was a avoidant personality disorder. You know, I, I, I, I could have, uh, really embraced the, uh, you know. Super depressed [00:45:00] label because I have taken, you know, I, I was really depressed at one point in time. Um, I’ve had general anxiety and used to take medications for, for bad anxiety. Uh, but, you know, but I think it gets to this kind of like hypochondriac, or not even hypochondriac, but just.

The fact that we all have, to some degree, these experiences of, of different sorts and absolutely when we read these descriptions, we, there can be this tendency to be like, oh, that, that I felt that way. You know, where it’s like, like you say, it’s, yeah, it’s much more complex. And you feeling that way at a certain point in time doesn’t mean that you always have, you know, consistently have those traits and, and things like that.

Nadja: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And, and this is where more thorough testing comes into play, really to, to fully look at things and also that the time span you’re looking at in which people display certain traits, for example, or certain symptoms, depending what you’re looking at. Um, and, and that again, you know, is, is, is, is qualified by di diagnostic tools in terms of, you know, what’s the time [00:46:00] span of, because yeah, of course we, we might all feel sad when we had sad experiences.

You know, it doesn’t mean that we are necessarily depressed and what depression means a lot more than that is, is, you know, um, and, and it’s a combination of many things coming together, um, that, that qualify as depression, anxiety, whatever it might be. Um, and so, um, yeah, the same for psychopathy. You know, you might be in some situations a bit colors, you know, because for whatever reason you have to, um, but it doesn’t mean you’re a psychopath, you know?

And sometimes we might, um, suppress our emotional response towards others because we need to, you know, get something done. Um, and, and it doesn’t mean we are psychopaths necessarily, it’s just how things come together and how they influence your everyday behavior over a long period of time. That can become quite maladaptive in a way, how you function in society and whether you become a risk to yourself or to [00:47:00] society.

Zach: Do you think, uh, can some psychopathic seeming traits. Especially in younger people, just be a sign of a combination of basically immaturity and, and childlike selfishness and maybe combined with, you know, a, a rough childhood. And, and to give a specific example, I was, uh, sometimes I’d watch these interrogations of, um, you know, killers.

And I was watching one about, um, a kid who killed his dad and two brothers. Uh, and it was a very, he was a high school kid. And uh, you know, I think there’s, there would be a tendency to say This kid is a psychopath. He, he, he, you know, it met all the, probably met all the, the, the traits. But then like, the more I learned about the case, like his, his grandfather after, after the, he had killed his family members, his grandfather said that the dad had been psychologically abusive to him and he was actually defending the sons, you know, messed up mental [00:48:00] state.

And it, and it got me thinking like. You know, some of the things that we can perceive as psychopathic could just be due to like an, almost like a child. Like, you know, we all, we all have that remembrance of being a child and being like, I’m suffering. How can I solve it? I’ll, I’ll think of some simplistic solution that, you know, just makes things worse.

And, and I, and I wonder, you know, how, how much of these things, and it’s not like, it is not like it was a, it was like this well executed plan. It was like he immediately got caught for it and he clearly like, was just a, just a really kind of dumb kid in a way. And it, and it, and it got me thinking, you know, is that psychopathy can, can we say for sure, uh, is it possible that he was just in a really dark place mentally?

And that was like the only way his, his dark suff suffering place knew to, to, to get out of this situation. Uh, things, things like that. Do, do you see some of this nuance for some of those, especially for the, for the, the young kids?

Nadja: Absolutely. I mean, the problem is when we are looking at, uh, [00:49:00] children or, uh, um, adolescents, we shouldn’t be really referring to psychopathy in the first place.

Um, um, you know, like with antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, et cetera, where we are looking at at least 18 years of age before we’re starting diagnosing, because the assumption is that during childhood your personality still develops and it manifests into something that there is an adulthood.

Um, and this is why a lot of the research tends to refer more to colors and emotional traits in children rather than psychopathy. Okay. So that’s, that’s the first thing. So even from a kind of ethic reason, um, uh, I would not like to label children as psychopaths, um, and try to stay away from that. Okay. Um, but yes, we might possibly see colors and emotional traits and, and some children that might be early indicators for a trajectory towards developing an antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy into adulthood.

Um, there’s a risk. It’s a risk. It doesn’t mean it has to be [00:50:00] that way. Um, and yeah, you with these kind of stories, whenever you read about crime and, and, uh, case studies and these things, you need to have sufficient detail to fully understand what underpins and what, uh, motivated their behavior, what drives their behavior, et cetera.

And in this case, I mean, from a few things that you just said, you know, it, it was probably somebody who’s been abused for many years, uh, and um, who kind of reactively kind of in terms of almost, you know, defensively, um, may have resorted in into killing their relative. Um, to me that may not be necessarily psychopathic in, in, in, in general.

Right. In terms of these features. But it’d be difficult to say unless you see, uh, to see, um, all of the kind of complexities of the case to make a full kind of diagnostic evaluation of that, um, person. [00:51:00]

Zach: Mm-hmm. Well, I guess, yeah, maybe that’s a good segue into the general question I have about, uh, you know, it seems like in some cases we, we can make ourselves more psychopathic or, or, or fate in, in some way, or, or a series of events can, can make us sort more psychopathic.

Like for example, that the kid who, who shot his family, like even, you know, it seems like you could easily go down this path, you know, once you, once you start doing horrible things, however it happens, it seems like you, you kind of, uh, you know, one thing leads to another kind of thing and you’re, you kind of have built a, uh, without trying you, you’ve, you’ve stumbled down a psychopathic, uh, kind of cascading.

Pathway, that pathway that where you’ve, you, you know, you’ve, you have to live with the, the bad things you’ve done and you’ve become desensitized and that becomes your new normal or whatever. Um, so, and, and that, and maybe that’s a place to segue into the questions I have about, [00:52:00] you know, some of these traits, like taking the psychopathic tests online.

Some of the questions to me seem like I could, I could imagine if you got into a really cutthroat business, let’s say like a, you know, a really competitive, uh, career, uh, some of those paths seem to me to be more likely to, to instill traits that we would view as more psychopathic. So if you were like a, you know, an a, a high powered lawyer and you, I think you’d be more likely to answer some of those questions in ways that seem psychopathic.

But it’s just a. It’s a, a way that they have to view the world in order to, to succeed. You know, like they, they have to focus on the results and, and not worry about people’s feelings and these kinds of things. And I wonder if you see some of that, like, that we can go down some of these pathways purposefully or not, that kind of instill in us by pursuing a goal or, or just by, you know, a, a random series of events that kind of instill in us more psychopathic traits.

Nadja: Um, [00:53:00] yeah, sure. Of course. They, you know, uh, what we experience over time, um, manifests into who we are, who, how we perceive ourself, our self concept, how we interact with other people, et cetera. You know, if, if you’ve been hurt many, many times, you might become, you might try to toughen more up and, and relationships, for example, in order to avoid being hurt again.

Right? Or if you’ve been ex exposed to severe trauma, for example, during childhood, that that can, has, you know, have, have a huge impact on the way how your personalities being shaped. Um, and how you, you know, view threats, for example, where they become hyper or hyposensitive to towards threats, for example.

Um, and there are different pathways. You know, there’s not always one sure way of this is when X happens, this is how Y will look like. Um, so even with trauma and some children they might lead to, you know, highly in internalizing behaviors in terms of high levels of anxiety and threat, responsivity, et cetera.

And in [00:54:00] some children we might see high externalizing behaviors. So they might actually become quite angry and aggressive because, you know, that’s their defensive response towards the experiences they had. And, and in terms of coping with the trauma, um, or dealing with, with the, those kind of situations.

And that might manifest over long term if it’s not addressed in, into more problematic behaviors later in adulthood. So with many, you know, personality disorders and, and also other disorders, we, we see those adverse childhood experiences and, and, and, um, that may have kind of led to unhealthy attachments, um, or that, uh, um, might lead to kind of, uh, unhealthy behaviors and maladaptive behaviors later on.

And so, even during adulthood, we might shape still somewhat, right? So even though personality is relatively stable over time, it doesn’t mean that it’s not flexible enough to adapt and change. In fact, one of the things that makes our personality healthy is that [00:55:00] we are able to adapt and change to our environments and that we might, you know, change how extroverted we are, how impulsive we are, or how much in sensation seeking we engage, uh, with.

I mean, the older you get, the less sensation seeking usually happens, the less impulsivity happens. And that’s an adaptive thing. Um. And so in personality disorder, usually the main problem is here that we are looking at an inflexibility and a pervasiveness of traits that’s, uh, um, are, are compromised in terms of their psychosocial functioning.

And if that flexibility isn’t there for, for your personality to be able to, uh, for you to behave in different ways and adapt to your environment, depending on where you are and and, and what the requirements are, this is when, when things become problematic. And yes, I mean, you were talking about desensitization in terms of, um, uh, problems when as you develop, clearly we do see that in terms of attitudes and, and, uh, belief [00:56:00] or schemas, belief systems people might have in relation to aggression, for example.

If it is perfectly normal in the environment that you grow up in, that you know people are aggressive and in order to get what you want, you, you engage in aggressive behavior, um, then we might learn this and internalize this and use this as a strategy for ourself later on in life. And this is where it comes back to, you know, having good role models, having good peer relationships, having healthy, uh, nurturing environment in terms of, and, and parental attachments, et cetera.

All of these things that, that might have an impact on the way, what we perceive as what is acceptable or normal behavior or strategies that we learn how we cope with the world.

Zach: Do you think, uh, and it seems like there can be something of philosophy in there too. Like people, people can actively kind of seek a, a more kind of selfish way of, you know, in an active way.

You know, like say you’re a high powered lawyer or, or, uh, you, you actually, [00:57:00] like, you have to Yeah. You, you, you, you’ve actively told yourself, well, this is the way I have to be and I will actively pursue this cold-blooded, uh, way of mm-hmm. Of treating other people. Because that’s what it will take. And you can even perceive that as, as a long-term good thing where you’re like, I’m going to accomplish great things, but in the short term.

I’m gonna help the world, but in the short term, I’m gonna, I’m gonna have to treat people really coldly and do bad things to them. I think that’s, you know, when it comes to some of these like high powered CEOs and, and these kinds of people mm-hmm. Sometimes I think there’s this mentality of, you know, embracing kind of psychopathic or lack of empathy, ways of, of treating other people because they can perceive themselves as doing such great things, you know, and, and, and it gets into the more like philosophy or, or, you know, uh, motives of, of just how people can be.

Yeah,

Nadja: sure. I mean, and we had that construct of, uh, concept of, uh, successful psychopathy, for example. So how, um, in, in [00:58:00] some individuals these psychopathic traits, uh, might, uh, lead to adaptive outcomes or might be successful, right. In terms of. How they navigate the world. And in some professions you can see how being more ruthless and being able to walk over bodies basically is, is important to be successful.

Right. So we do find, um, more elevated traits in some of these professions you just mentioned, for example. So it, it is, um, likely, however, on the, on the other side, you know, if you, if you’re a manager working in HR and it’s really important that you’re able to lead a team well, et cetera, then um, sometimes that can backfire.

You know, um, because if you need to have a team that can rely on each other and trust each other and hold each other’s back, then you know, you need to establish those bonds in a healthy way. And by being ruthless and, uh, deceitful or, um, um, instrumental in some way, it doesn’t necessarily [00:59:00] always work so well.

So it, it depends very much on the environmental context and what is required in that context. And in the end, one of the notions in terms of personality in general is that kind of we seek to be in situations or, or in terms of our vocational interests, we seek to be finding opportunities that suit our traits, right?

So if we are more aggressive, trade, aggressive, for example, then we might seek, um, situations, opportunities, jobs, et cetera, that allow us to express that trait more easily, right. If we are not, then we will find places that, that, that are really calm and, and agreeable and friendly, right? If we don’t like this kind of behavior, then we try to avoid those type of situations.

So even in terms of which job you might end up with or seek or really want to do or are really good at, might be under pinned by your kind of personality traits.

Zach: Um, and maybe we can end with, um, what, what are you working on these [01:00:00] days?

Nadja: Well, we, we still work on, on the notion of the dark empaths to try and, uh, disentangle, delineate a little bit more, um, around that notion.

What happens if you have dark traits and high levels of empathy? How, how? Does that make things different for you? And I mean, we’ve only looked at that in the general population at the moment. I’m not clear. Is would that be a possibility? And, and, uh, criminal forensic populations, maybe not. Maybe the hallmark of the lack of empathy or really low empathy is, is very much kind of exclusive in, uh, those criminal.

Maybe that lack of empathy is that particular problem that leads them to be in that kind of criminal population. Um. So right now we are just looking at the general population in terms of, um, those dark traits and how various factors might be influenced or, or vary as a function of your empathic capacities.

Um, we are also interested in measuring things in more implicit ways. So one, one thing, um, I want to, ’cause often me use self [01:01:00] reports, right? And so in self reports, you know, you might have some social desirability aspects in there that are problematic. Uh, you might have a narcissist, for example, would always say how great they are in terms of, of course I’m great in understanding other people, right?

It doesn’t mean that they are in reality. So, um, we are trying to test various kind of experimental paradigms. For example, we also been working a little bit around identifying some kind of biomarkers or physiological algorithms, et cetera, that might be underpinning various mental health aspects, for example, not just in terms of psychopathy, but um, as, as early kind of indicators that might help to alleviate risk in, in mental health, for example.

But yeah, it’s, it’s trying to disentangle that complexity a little bit more, and not making it just as such a simplistic thing, but trying to understand more the different mechanisms that might be involved and how they might lead to different outcomes as well. [01:02:00] Because we can’t just choke everything into one pod.

Zach: Right. That’s what I liked about your work and what got me to reach out to you was your, your work in examining that, that nuance and the dimensionality there. Yeah. And thank you for coming on, and thank you for, uh, talking about these things and thanks for your work.

Nadja: Thank you, Zach. It’s been great. Thank you very much for inviting me.

Zach: That was Nadja Heim, a psychology researcher who specializes in dark traits. If you’re interested in her work, I’ll put some links to some of her papers and writings on the page for this episode on my site behavior podcast.com. This has been the People Who Read People Podcasts with me, Zach Ellwood. This is a podcast aimed at better understanding other people and better understanding ourselves.

If you’ve enjoyed this podcast and wanna support it, consider signing up for a premium membership, which gets you ad free episodes and some other benefits. Go to behavior podcast.com to learn more about that, or if you’d like to just send me a gift, send me a message via the contact form on my site. [01:03:00] And I’ll send you my PayPal and Venmo information.

Okay. Thanks for listening. Music by small skies.

Categories
podcast

Does our anger at the “other side” help create the very things we’re angry about?

When trying to convince people of the problem of polarization and the necessity for depolarization endeavors, a common objection from politically passionate people goes, “But the other side is horrible, so polarization makes sense.” In this episode, I talk about what is probably the primary counterpoint to that objection: that us-vs-them anger, in a non-obvious way, can help create the very things we’re angry about. For this reason, if one wants to defeat extreme views on the other side (or on both sides), the way to achieve that goal is to take a depolarizing, anger-reducing, de-escalating approach. 

Transcript below.

Podcast links:

Resources mentioned or related:

TRANSCRIPT

This is the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zach Elwood. This is a podcast about better understanding other people and better understanding ourselves. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com; there are also transcripts and links to related materials on that site.   

As I’m recording this today, there are a lot of birds chirping outside, so apologies for the bird noises. 

If you’ve listened to this podcast before, you probably know I sometimes tackle topics related to political polarization. And I’m currently working on a book on this topic, with the working title Defusing American Anger: Why We Hate Each Other And What We Can Do About It. 

When it comes to depolarization endeavors, I think it’s very important to try to overcome common objections. And one of the most common objections I hear is: “but the other side is so horrible, so it makes sense to be polarized.” Some people even think we need to be more polarized, to combat the obvious threat and danger of the other side. 

I have a number of counterpoints to that. One is to point out that people engaged in depolarization efforts aren’t trying to change anyone’s political beliefs, which I think is often what people think. And I think this gets into some of the ambiguity in the term ‘polarization’; because there is ideological polarization, which is about beliefs, and then there is affective polarization, also known as emotional polarization, also known as us-vs-them polarization, which is what I like to call it. 

So when people hear that I and others are working on “depolarization” they can think that we’re trying to change their beliefs, when what we’re really saying is: we are trying to reduce the anger. Or more accurately, we are trying to reduce the expressions of anger — the hateful insults and threats, the angry language — because we can see that those things are what drive our divides. One can have any range of political beliefs, even beliefs many would view as extreme, while seeing the wisdom of taking a depolarizing, de-escalating approach. 

But the main counterpoint I’d make to people who perceive one group as hugely bad and dangerous is this: our us-vs-them anger helps create the very things many of us are angry about. Our us-vs-them anger is not some side event going on while we fight over the issues; it is actually the main event. Because that immense anger can actually shift our beliefs, and make us more extreme in our beliefs, and make us less willing to negotiate. Put in more technical, academic terms: our emotional polarization can create ideological polarization. 

And research helps make this case. One of the most important studies on this, in my opinion, was one by James Druckman and his colleagues; that paper was titled Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. It showed how political animosity pre-covid was tied later to more polarized, extreme covid-related beliefs and behaviors. I’m going to read some excerpts from my depolarization book in a bit, and I mention Druckman’s work in there. 

One reason I wanted to create this episode was to create something that I could point people to. I wanted something I could share when people say “the other side is horrible so polarization makes sense.” And if you care about this cause, maybe you could share this episode with your audience, and explain why it’s important. Or maybe when you find someone making those objections, that polarization is okay, you could share this episode with them. 

Another reason I wanted to talk about this topic was to see if people knew about research related to this. I’ve actually been a bit surprised how hard it’s been to find work related to the idea that emotional polarization amplifies ideological polarization. To me, it’s such an important concept, because it helps make the case to politically passionate people why depolarization efforts are so important. So if anyone has thoughts on this topic, or knows of related resources, I’d greatly appreciate you reaching out via the contact form of my site behavior-podcast.com. 

Okay so next I’ll read a couple excerpts from my manuscript, and just please keep in mind this is from an early version of the book, so it is still pretty rough and unpolished. 

We tend to think that our stances and the other group’s stances are things that exist on their own, apart from us. We tend to perceive that the other side is, suddenly and out of the blue, becoming more extreme and more detached from reality. But understanding polarization dynamics lets us see how our dislike of the other side contributes to creating the very things we dislike. 

As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind, put it in a 2022 talk on the Braver Angels podcast: “Culture wars are different than real wars: the more you attack the other side, the more you strengthen it.”

There’s plenty of evidence that our stances on issues can be affected by our us-versus-them feelings. Our dislike of the other group, our fear of them and anger at them, can make us form more extreme and hardened positions on issues. And this is a hugely important point because it helps us see that our us-versus-them anger is often creating the very things we’re angry about. 

This gets back to the feedback loop involved in these dynamics. Our dislike of the other group makes us form more extreme positions, which increases the other side’s dislike and makes them form more extreme positions, which makes us dislike them more, and so on. 

A 2020 paper by James Druckman and colleagues was titled Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. In that work, they showed how people’s political animosity influenced later stances on covid. The more us-versus-them animosity people had, the more likely they were to have more extreme stances on how to respond to covid: either being for an extensive response to covid, or being for very little response. Importantly, that research showed that us-versus-them animosity came before the covid stances, showing that emotion influenced beliefs (and not the other way around). 

Via email correspondence, Druckman summarized his views on how our us-versus-them emotions can affect our political beliefs: 

Our theory is that as affective polarization increases for someone, they become more likely to align their beliefs with those of party elites. Party elites tend to be more ideologically polarized and thus the more affectively polarized people follow those cues, and that leads them to become more polarized on issues (as was the case with COVID-19 policies). 

In other work, we find this holds across various policy domains, support for political compromise, and norms. For example, those who are more affectively polarized are more likely to oppose checks and balances when their party holds power but then flip to support them when their party is in the opposition. It is similar to policies; they are more protective of their policy and thus become more extreme. 

End quote

So in short, we can see that political animosity, either directly or indirectly, is likely influencing our beliefs.. 

And we can see how this dynamic may be playing out for many issues we fight over. The more we dislike the other side, the more we’ll have an instinctual urge to align against the other side’s stance. 

And each group’s divisive rhetoric will play a role here. When liberals say things like, “Conservative stances on immigration are due to racism,” it’s understandable how it would be that conservatives might feel even more emotionally committed to their anti-immigration stances. Their dislike of liberals will manifest as more committed stances against immigration. 

When conservatives say things like “Liberals want to increase immigration because they want to destroy America” or “because they want to get more votes,” some liberals will feel various pressures to be more committed to pro-immigration stances. 

And we can see real-world evidence of this playing out for various stances. To take one example: A 2020 Pew Research survey showed that back in 2015, roughly 65% of Democrats agreed with the statement “immigrants strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents.” In 2020, that number had risen to about 86%, a rise of about 20 percentage points. We can see this dramatic change in liberal-side views as being a direct result of perceptions that Trump and the GOP were being insulting and threatening to immigrants. We can understand it as liberal-side beliefs being shifted due to a growing perception of the other side’s moral badness. 

To be clear: this is not to say that having positive feelings about immigrants is an extreme belief. It’s just meant to be an example of how our us-vs-them emotions can shift our beliefs. And we can imagine how related beliefs could be shifted in ways that some would view as extreme: for example, we can imagine that dynamic being at play with an increasing number of Democrats saying they’d be for open borders policies or having no border control at all. On the other side, we could also imagine that emotional dynamic being at play for increasing support for a border wall. 

We define ourselves by what our in-group is like, but also by what a perceived out-group is like. We define ourselves partly by the ways in which we are not like a disliked outgroup. This helps explain why it can seem that we can become angrily polarized over anything, especially things that aren’t yet associated with one party or the other: all it takes is one group taking a stance on something, and the other group can have a reflexive instinct to criticize that stance and align against that stance. 

When we’re polarized, there’s a natural feedback cycle that causes things to keep getting worse. And this helps explain why we will naturally keep finding ourselves polarized over new issues, like covid. For my podcast, I interviewed Michael Macy, who with his colleagues worked on a paper titled Opinion cascades and the unpredictability of partisan polarization. In that work, they studied how we can polarize randomly on issues that aren’t yet tied to a political party. Similar to how in many complex systems, slightly different initial conditions can lead to vastly different results later on, early conditions, including early opinion-holders and influencers, can influence a political party to be aligned with one or another stance on an issue. These early choices have a cascading effect, meaning that, for some issues, the political parties could hold reversed positions if things had gone a bit differently. 

Research also shows how the more we view a stance on an issue in moral terms, the less willing we are to negotiate. One study that talks about this was from 2022 and was titled Moral Frames Are Persuasive and Moralize Attitudes; Nonmoral Frames Are Persuasive and De-Moralize Attitudes. That study found that quote “the use of moral frames can increase and entrench moral divides rather than bridge them.” end quote. This isn’t surprising: the more we see something as a moral disagreement, the less likely we are to want to budge on that issue. And the more we perceive the other political group as alien and monstrous and evil, as an entire group, the more of a moral framing all disagreements on issues will have, no matter the issue. So we become more gridlocked and unable to negotiate, and the resentment over that lack of negotiation grows and feeds back into our us-vs-them anger. 

Fathali M. Moghaddam is a psychologist and conflict researcher, and author of the book Mutual Radicalization: How Groups and Nations Drive Each Other to Extremes. In that book, he writes that mutual radicalization occurs when quote “two groups take increasingly extreme positions opposing one another, reacting against real or imagined threats, moving further and further apart in points of view, mobilizing their resources to launch attacks, and finally attempting to weaken and destroy each other.” end quote. Here’s another excerpt from his book on how entrenched and malleable us-versus-them feelings are: 

This work on mutual radicalization highlights a destructive process that can become self-perpetuating, self-contained, and independent from ideology and other characteristics of groups. Irrespective of whether the groups and nations involved are capitalist or communist, Muslim or Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or some other religion, or what their ethnic or gender mix and other characteristics are, once they become entangled in mutual radicalization they can be sucked into a spiraling and ever more destructive process. 

Although individually those entrapped in this process might include highly insightful individuals who can recognize that the collective is going down the wrong path, the sheer force of mutual radicalization often overrides their objections and pushes them along to conform, obey, and speed toward a destructive end. In mutual radicalization collective pressures override individual intelligence.

End quote.

We often fight over which political group has grown more extreme. People on both sides will try to make the case for why one side or the other has grown more extreme in the recent past. But the fact is that there is no one measure of extremity or radicalization. As extreme polarization grows, each group will adjust their stances in big ways on some issues and not so much on other issues. All this complexity means that it’s possible for each group to form narratives about the other side’s growing extremity and have points to back those claims up. 

If you’re someone who thinks that dangerous people with extreme beliefs are hurting America—whether you see that as an issue on both sides, or almost entirely on one side—the way you defeat those people and ideas may be, counter-intuitively, by reducing our collective us-versus-them anger. Because it’s our collective anger that gives power to the most polarized people and views. 

For my podcast, I interviewed conflict resolution expert Guy Burgess, and one thing he said was, “The idea is to see yourself as others see you. Once you do that, then you get a sense of what makes others so mad at you and willing to fight so hard. And you can then start asking questions about, well, do I really need to do those things? Or maybe if we did it this way, I wouldn’t provoke so much opposition but I’d still get the things that I really care about.” end quote.

And again, this is not to say we shouldn’t have passionate stances about things that are important to us: we’re talking about the unreasonable levels of animosity we can have and express towards our fellow citizens. That animosity is the problem.  

Us-versus-them polarization is a powerful, self-reinforcing dynamic: a kind of self-sustaining perpetual anger machine. Like a nuclear reaction or a hurricane forming in warm waters, once set in motion, all the elements are there for the process to ramp up and spiral out of control. 

In Robert Talisse’s book Sustaining Democracy: What We Owe To The Other Side, he writes about the indirect dysfunction caused by us-vs-them polarization. One less obvious problem is that the more polarized and angry we grow, the less able we become to work even with people who used to be or could be our political allies. We can see this dynamic playing out with people in both parties becoming more antagonistic and argumentative with each other. The most polarized people are focused on purity and ridding their side of the impure and the not properly polarized. We can see it playing out, for example, in many progressive-leaning organizations that have become dysfunctional due to internal divisions and fights, something written about in a 2022 Intercept article titled How Meltdowns Brought Progressive Groups to a Standstill. The angrier we become, the more intolerant we become of dissent, and the more we harshly judge even people who are largely politically aligned with us. In this way, more us-vs-them anger makes people less likely to achieve the normal political goals of persuading people and forming large coalitions. It results in a general maddening and meanness, across the board. 

And just a note here that if you’re interested in these topics, I highly recommend Robert Talisse’s book Sustaining Democracy. It’s the best book aimed at American depolarization I’ve yet read. 

Let me skip to another related excerpt from the book

In a polarized society, people in both groups often have blind spots for seeing how their side is contributing. When the other side seems so egregiously wrong, the bad behaviors of people on our side can seem minor by comparison. Either that, or we genuinely don’t see how our group contributes. 

Reading this, you’ve likely had some thoughts like, “I’ll concede that there are a few people on my side who add to our divides, but clearly, the other side is much, much worse, so thinking about how my side contributes strikes me as a bit pointless, and maybe even dangerous.”

When asked to examine how the left might be adding to our divides, some liberals will object that this is making a false equivalency or that it’s a “both sides” argument. They’re saying it’s wrong to speak as if the two groups contribute similarly. But this can be seen as a defensive reaction to avoid the real issue. Acknowledging the flaws of your group is not making a false equivalency or a “both sides” argument: you can see how your group has issues while thinking the other group is worse—even much worse.  

People who study polarization understand that in every polarized nation, both groups in conflict almost always play a significant role in amplifying the divides. 

Even in the case of Nazi Germany, a situation where most people would perceive one group as much worse than the other group (to put it lightly), there was significant violence and aggression from the far left at that time that contributed to the nation’s collective us-versus-them narratives and anger.

The following is from a piece about post-World War I Germany from History.com

Against this background, Germany had to create a new government and try to reinstitute law and order. But the ministers and politicians of the newly established Weimar Republic had formidable enemies: their own people. The new republic saw pitched battles between increasingly polarized left and right-wing groups. The early government was seized by left-wing revolutionaries, and communist uprisings roiled the streets.

In response, private armies called Freikorps fought back. These groups were funded by former officers of the German army, which was now under severe restrictions in terms of both size and scope because of the Treaty of Versailles. The paramilitary groups came and went as political crises erupted. They were staffed by a vast group of discontented men, from former soldiers who were indignant at Germany’s surrender to young men who were angry at being unemployed. Eventually, as many as 1.5 million German men would join a Freikorps group. They represented a growing tide of nationalism and right-wing extremism that would erupt into political chaos and eventually lead to the rise of the Nazi Party.

The new government lacked authority, so it leaned on the Freikorps to fight its battles. The country was plagued with wave after wave of violence, both from workers’ groups on the left and increasingly combative right-wing groups who resented what they saw as Germany’s complete abdication to the international community’s demands after the war. And the Freikorps and other paramilitary groups were in the middle of the often bloody fray—legitimized and bolstered by a government so weak it gave them free rein to terrorize whom they pleased. [end quote]

(And as a quick note here, to be completely clear: this example I chose is not meant to compare current American political groups with those in WW2 Germany.) 

This example was chosen to make the case that, ven in situations where most people would judge one side to be much worse than the other, both groups will almost always have played a role in amplifying the divides. Some will perceive this point as akin to victim-blaming or making excuses for an aggressive group’s attacks, but it’s not. It’s simply recognizing how human conflicts almost always work. It’s recognizing how the roots of our us-versus-them anger form and grow. 

The 2006 book The Anatomy of Peace: Resolving the Heart of Conflict, written by C. Terry Warner and The Arbinger Institute, examines the hidden emotional forces that can help drive conflicts. It explains how, in conflicts—whether a marital fight or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—people on both sides can contribute, sometimes without even realizing it. That’s because when a conflict begins, we stop seeing the opposing side’s humanity and increasingly see them as objects. Even if we believe we’re simply trying to achieve correct and rational goals, if our “hearts are at war” with the people on the other side, those negative emotions change how we speak and behave. And soon, that animosity plays a bigger role than the issues we initially were arguing over. This starts a cycle where our negative emotions induce equivalent negative emotions on the other side. To quote from The Anatomy of Peace: “We begin provoking in others the very things we say we hate.”

Okay, that’s the end of me reading excerpts from my work-in-progress book, which is currently titled Defusing American Anger

Again, if you like what I’m doing with this work, you can sign up for a premium membership to my podcast at behavior-podcast.com, and that will also get you a free copy of my book when it’s ready. Aside from that, I’d highly appreciate you sharing this podcast with others. Consider sending this specific episode to people who you think might appreciate learning more about polarization dynamics and why depolarization is an important goal.  

Categories
podcast

Reading situations and opponents in racecar driving, with Andy Lally

A talk with racecar driver Andy Lally, who specializes in endurance GT (sportcar) racing. Topics we talk about include: What’s the breakdown in skill versus chance in an average race? What are the considerations when trying to pass other drivers, or trying to prevent drivers from passing? Where’s the boundary between acceptable behavior versus behavior that people would consider too-aggressive and dangerous? What are some spots where Andy was proud of his decisions? What it’s like being a vegan in an industry where that’s pretty rare?

Podcast links:

Related resources:

Categories
podcast

Facial expressions and their connection to personality, with Herman Ilgen

A talk with Herman Ilgen, who’s been a negotiator for more than 30 years and who is the founder of the Institute for Nonverbal Strategy Analysis (INSA). Ilgen has researched how facial expression patterns may be connected to personality traits. His paper was titled “Personal Nonverbal Repertoires in facial displays and their relation to individual differences in social and emotional styles.” Topics discussed include: what led him to do that work; what the findings were; how one might make practical use of the findings; and various thoughts on nonverbal behavior and on negotiation strategies.

A transcript is below.

Podcast links:

More resources related to this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

[Note: transcripts will contain errors.]

Zach: Welcome to the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood. This is a podcast about understanding people better. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com.

In this episode, I talk to Herman Ilgen about his research on facial expression patterns and their link to personality. A 2021 paper by Ilgen and his colleagues was titled Personal Nonverbal Repertoires in facial displays and their relation to individual differences in social and emotional styles.

To quote from their paper: “Some people constantly raise their eyebrows, others frequently tighten their lower eyelids, and still others continuously smile. Are these purely coincidental phenomena, or could they reflect an individual’s style in social interactions? We argue that there are individual differences in nonverbal expressions, which we refer to as Personal Nonverbal Repertoire (PNRs).”

To read from another part of their paper:
“Whereas facial reactions are clearly situation-contingent, that is, responses to an event, they can also be considered as more stable dispositions: individuals may systematically differ in the frequency with which they show specific facial reactions, across specific situations. Following discussions in personality research (see also Fleeson & Noftle, Citation2008; Geukes et al., Citation2017; Mischel & Shoda, Citation1995), we believe that the occurrence of a nonverbal behaviour in an individual can be situation-contingent, but at the same time relatively stable over time. Thus, whereas everyone may smile more at a wedding rather than a funeral, some people may smile more than others in both contexts. In the present research, we are interested in such stable individual differences that occur across situations.” end quote

The study was two part: seeing if participants had personal patterns that were consistent over the time window of the study, and then seeing if they could find correlations with the patterns and personality as measured on a few different personality trait tests.

As part of the first part of finding the PNRs, they videotaped 110 individuals for 10 minutes in 2 different situations: one situation was when they were alone in a room answering questions on a computer. The other situation was with an interviewer who asked them questions. The two different contexts is noteworthy because it was an attempt to show that these patterns weren’t just caused by social interactions but were likely a person’s general way of being, even when alone.

They found five PNRs that people had. Those were:

Smiling
Partial Blinking
Drooping eyelids
Tensed eyes, and
Eyes widening

When it came to the PNRs that were linked to personality, to quote from the paper again: “Three PNRs showed weak to moderate correlations with individual differences in social and emotional styles: Smiling is associated with Compromising and Extraversion, Drooping with Yielding, and Partial Blinking is negatively correlated with Extraversion. These findings suggest that some of an individual’s frequent facial action patterns are associated with specific styles in social and emotional interactions.”

If you’re interested in learning more about this, I recommend checking out the paper. I’ll include a link to it from the entry for this episode on my website.

Here’s a little more about Herman Ilgen, which I got from his INSA foundation website, which is at insa-foundation.org:

He’s been a negotiator for more than 35 years and a mediator and trainer for more than 20 years. He’s always been fascinated by the psychology of negotiations and conflict situations. He decided to immerse himselfself in the relationship between (observable) nonverbal communication and unconscious behavior. Working with the University of Amsterdam, he’s conducted research on nonverbal behaviors. To make his insights useful for daily practice he developed the INSA Method.

At the INSA Foundation, they conduct training to people interested in making use of his ideas. People who attend his training include negotiators, lawyers, police officers, healthcare professionals, personal coaches, and more.

In this talk, I ask Herman about his research, about what got him interested in doing that, about how he makes practical use of his findings, and about negotiation work in general.

I also wanted to give a quick thanks to Alan Crawley, who gave me the initial idea for talking to Herman, and who helped me brainstorm question ideas. Alan is a nonverbal behavior expert who goes by the online handle Sin Verba; if you’re interested in nonverbal behavior, I had a great talk with him for the podcast that was one of the more popular ones of last year.

Okay here’s the talk with Herman Ilgen

Zach: Hi Herman. Welcome to the show.

Herman: Hello, Zachary. Nice to be here.

Zach: Uh, maybe we can start with, uh, what led to you focusing on facial expressions in the, in the first place?

Herman: Well, this came from my. Practice as a professional negotiator and mediator is, I thought I saw something happening that might be interesting to know more about. I’ve done 35 years plus of negotiating 25 years plus of mediating, and then you tend to see that whether you get a result or not, uh, is.

It’s not dependent on the issue. It’s not so much, uh, due to the intentions of the people at the table, but there’s also something happening in a sort of an undercurrent. So that got me interested in, uh, in diving into this,

Zach: was it surprising [00:06:00] that there wasn’t much research or, or really. Any research maybe on that topic?

Could you talk a little bit about delving into that research?

Herman: Yeah, it was, it was really a big surprise to me. Uh, I had spent, spent months, uh, of going through literature on nonverbals and, and especially the phase and what it would mean. I. Um, and I only found literature and research on momentary states on what people show in a given moment, uh, like, uh, drawing up raising their eyebrows or raising the corners of their mouth.

And what would that mean in that instant? And the stuff I was interested in is what people are showing all the time. Uh, so not so much momentarily, but structurally. And I didn’t find it. So I, uh, contacted University of Amsterdam. Uh, they have some sort of a specialism in this field. Uh, and I asked the professor, uh, can you put me on the right track to find this literature?

Of which I was co convinced that it would be there. And she [00:07:00] reacted, it’s not there. If you’re interested to talk. Uh, please come by. So this was a big surprise. I was, I’d never imagined that something so obvious. Wouldn’t have been researched already. Mm-hmm. Um, so that, that was the, the initial big surprise and the surprise only became bigger when we started, uh, working on the data of our first research, uh, project.

When I already at an early stage saw that people tend to show certain facial displays 80 to 200 times in 10 minutes. So again, I had the sensation, how come nobody ever looked at this? At, at least in a, in a scientifical way.

Zach: Right. It seems, I mean, it does seem kind of obvious in the, in the sense that like you, we, we would think that there would be, you know, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that there are personal patterns that are, that are common amongst people.

And, and like you said, you, you, you’ve talked about how other non-verbal and, and facial expression researchers have mentioned that they’re. Are [00:08:00] likely, you know, various patterns. Uh, what, what do you think it is about? Why do you think it, the work hadn’t been done? Is it, is it just that it was such a difficult thing to do?

Herman: Well, maybe because it’s, uh, the other surprise was how, how tough and laborious this, this, uh, project was. But, um, but I don’t know, um, uh, maybe people are more interested or had been more interested in, um. Something that happens suddenly. And what would it mean? Is this person maybe even lying? Or is this, is this person showing something of their feelings?

And it’s sort of a, an automatic, um, tendency. I think that science starts off in a certain way, and then there are a lot of others who follow in those tracks and form their own opinions. Uh, I don’t have a conclusive, uh, explanation. Explanation, but it’s not that people didn’t see it. Mm-hmm. Paul und wrote in one of his books that he found it remarkable that some people were [00:09:00] raising their eyebrows, uh, quite a lot.

And then he goes on saying maybe it has to do something with their personality or with the people they contacted when they were learning, uh, speech. And then he leaves it and goes on with his emotions, uh, uh, theory. It’s not been the focus apparently.

Zach: Yeah, I guess it, it, it’s kind of, it might be related sort of in, in the poker tells poker behavior space, you know, or just in general.

I think people like to try to figure out like a decoding kind of like this means that thing as opposed to being like, well maybe there’s like more complex Yeah. You know, personal, uh, set of categories that people fall into. You know, that, that, that’s a much harder. Thing to try to parse in a more nuanced thing, to try to, to figure out than, than trying to reach for these, like, oh, this means that mostly, and we can

Herman: Yeah.

Zach: Try to use that as a code or something.

Herman: Exactly. People are always understandably looking for, for a quick interpretation and a quick fix, but unfortunately or [00:10:00] fortunately, uh, individuals are too complex too. Uh, to draw conclusions like that. And, uh, so it’s also in our, uh, in the method that I, that I developed in parallel to doing the research is that we, we don’t do one-on-one explanations.

We provide a, uh, certain interpretation of what you’re seeing in a phase, and especially focusing on, uh, what it, how it might help you to build contact with a person. Uh, so not judging or, or, or having a, sort of a semi conclusive, uh, uh, interpretation about what you see in the facial display.

Zach: So when it comes to your, your own negotiation work, before you got into focusing on the research, were people’s nonverbal behaviors or, and including their facial expressions, were those playing a role in how you approached different situations?

Were you. Of nonverbals in your negotiation [00:11:00] negotiation work. And is that part of what led you to, uh, well, I guess you, you partially answered that, but maybe you could. Go into a little bit more detail on that.

Herman: Yeah, well, like any negotiator, you get impacted by non-verbal cues that the other person at the table is, uh, is uh, transmitting.

But you do that on, largely on an unconscious level. It’s more intuitive. And of course as you get more experience, you pick up more. But still, I found out when I, I had dived into this, uh, specific field. That even with all my experience, I also had my blind spots in terms of people that I was structurally being surprised by that I couldn’t really see coming, if you know what I mean.

In my case, this was especially people who. Tend to show initial aggressive behavior, which you’ll find at many negotiation tables that the, the negotiator first attacks the person on the other side of the table and [00:12:00] then try to push their agenda. Uh, and of course I always dealt with that and it’s not like.

I was intimidated by it, but it cost me relatively, uh, a lot of energy. And with the knowledge that I have now, I can see it coming. So it doesn’t surprise me and I don’t even have to judge it. I’m neutral about it, and I’ll just do what needs to be done. So it’s more like moving from intuitive to, to having a complete picture and, and as I said, see it coming before it happens.

Zach: Maybe you could talk a little bit about. When it comes to, you know, when you, when you, you are making practical use of these, of these patterns in the, in the wild, what are some of the things that pop out to you immediately when you’re, when you’re studying someone?

Herman: Well, from the method that, that I developed, um, uh, I know I first have to track.

The main style of this person by observing his or her face for a couple of minutes. It takes [00:13:00] a couple of minutes in which I try to look like, uh, a camera looks at someone, which is just noting down what I see and how often I see it. After a couple of minutes, usually five, I have a database which gives me information about information, how this person is best.

To be approached and that differs hugely. Some people you like to get to the point immediately and be clear about whatever you need to be clear about, even if it’s, uh, conflicting interests, other people first want to start quietly, not to quickly have some space to, as it were, land in the situation.

Again, others first want to know. Who they’re dealing with and what they can expect. So people are interested in having some predictability in the situation. And a fourth category is, is, uh, is made up by people who value the, the working relationship, who value you, taking interest in. What [00:14:00] moves them and try to find something like a joint solution or a compromise.

The way you approach these negotiators really differs. And so the first thing I, I want to do, I need to do when I start a negotiation is use the first few minutes when usually nothing special happens to make up my, uh, uh, my database and my analysis and start acting from that.

Zach: Would you say, I’m understanding correctly that it allows you, uh, you’re saying it allows you to form a quicker understanding of their general tendencies, whereas without that knowledge you might reach some of those same conclusions.

It would just take you a longer time. Is that, is that accurate to say that you’re basically being able to reach a better understanding of their, their general personality tendencies quickly?

Herman: Yes. That’s in essence that’s it. And especially focused on what do I need to do to build up contact with this person and create an atmosphere where we [00:15:00] can go, uh, solve problems.

Zach: A note here, next up, I ask Herman for some examples of how he uses these patterns in real world situations, as sometimes happens, as it’s hard to speak off the cuff about such things, Herman wasn’t that happy with how he’d phrased things, so he later recorded a retelling of those stories, and I’ll play that now.

Herman: I have two different examples. Uh, one, uh, is I was hired by a team to help them in a negotiation with a guy they described as a handful, always dominating the discussion, impatient, changing the subject. So when I met him, I saw high frequency of raising eyebrows and upper eyelids, what we would call the acting type.

This type of person generally needs others to be entirely clear and assertive. Plus having a focus on results. So I was going to work accordingly, but I also needed to contain his tendency to improvise and wander off in terms of the content, and of course match his energy level, which was high. What I did [00:16:00] first was asked him, what result do you strive for today?

Then put our goals directly next to his. From there on, I asked how do we structure this meeting to get there, and we agreed on an agenda, knowing that he would tend to digress anyway, which he did seven or eight times. What I did then is ask him, do you now want to discuss this new topic, which means we have to reconsider the agenda, or do you want to go back to the agenda as it is every time he chose the last.

Essential was that I didn’t compete, saying he could not discuss, digress from the agenda, but by asking the question and by being assertive on the agreed agenda, I could contain him. At the end. I would typically ask him, are you okay with the result of today? I. And then a completely different situation. I had to deal with a person who was primarily showing drooping eyelids and raised eyebrows without raising the upper eyelids.

At the same [00:17:00] time, we would call this type primarily adapting and secondarily acting. These are people who are sort of relaxed on energy, a bit secondary in their reactions, but also quite firm on their own goals. What this type needs is to feel you respect them by giving them space for their input, for their thinking, and also give them space to ponder whatever you have said.

Any form of pressure is a bad idea because they’ll immediately distance themselves from you and you will not get anywhere with them. So I took time, I gave him space to express his views, both on the process and the content. And also to think about my ideas and my, my input before he had to react to that and I matched his energy level, which was moderately low.

So initially this makes for a more paced and even slow process if you compare it to the first example. But when he start, started feeling that I [00:18:00] was really respecting him in his interaction needs, the process started speeding up. At the end of this meeting, I would typically ask this person, how do you feel about what we have done today?

So these are two completely different persons and different approaches, uh, which goes to show that being able to read the face will help you, uh, make your, make your approach more tailor made to your interaction partner.

Zach: Next up, I asked Herman about the role of rapport in his model when talking about nonverbal behavior.

A lot of people talk about matching the styles of other people and using that to gain rapport. So I asked Herman how important that is when it comes to these patterns.

Herman: Well, in general, I, uh, I advise people always please be authentic. Don’t do or try to do anything, especially with your face that’s not, uh, authentic.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Herman: Let me give you an example. Uh, if I look at my personal nonverbal repertoire, uh, I’m a guy [00:19:00] who draws up his eyebrows and upper eyelids and also some, sometimes show some white underneath. Uh, my iris. What I don’t do in my, uh, in my, in my personal repertoire, uh, is tense. My lower eyelid. Of course, if I, if I look into the sun, I do that, but normally it’s not something I do.

Suppose I would be negotiating with the guy who is doing that constantly and I would start matching that. I guarantee you it’ll look terrible because my personal nonverbal repertoire will always be what it is. Mm-hmm. Regardless of the situation. So I’m doing something that’s not congruent with that.

But it’s strange in that, and even if this person doesn’t know this, I. Information doesn’t know this method. They’ll pick up on, on, on, on, on, on the, on the noise in my, uh, nonverbals. So, no, that’s exactly what I don’t do. I don’t try to match someone’s expressions or display. I use the information to understand what I need to do.

[00:20:00] To, to build rapport. And that’s in the approach of the, of the conversation. So I don’t change my face. Mm-hmm. Even if I, if I could, but I, which I probably couldn’t.

Zach: Right. So it’s more about matching the Yeah. Your, your general approach. Exactly. And it’s about changing your face. Yeah, yeah,

Herman: exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

Zach: Um, yeah, that, that, I’ve talked about that on a few previous podcasts where I. Yeah. The, the focus on matching people’s behavior in general, I think is, is misguided because it, like you’re saying, it comes across what people don’t understand is like, even if that were, were theoretically. The best way. It’s like people can sense that it’s a fake thing and that makes them uncomfortable, you know?

And so you have all these people trying to do things that just come across as weird and, and kind of unnatural and makes people, uh, not, not like them, basically. Yeah,

Herman: no, you’ll get the opposite of rapport if you do that. Mm-hmm.

Zach: So, I, I was curious, uh, when it comes to. Some of the behaviors, you know, like, let’s, let’s say the, the drooping eyes.

Do you [00:21:00] have explanations about, you know, what are the underlying causes of these expressions? I guess to a certain extent, some of these are, are pretty, you know, pretty easy to understand, like, you know, smiling, obviously being more engaged and, and extroverted. But for the other behaviors, do you have, um, explanations about.

You know, why, why, for example, drooping Eyes is, is more likely to be a, uh. Submissive yielding way of being?

Herman: Well, only very general. Um, what we did in our research is just find out what patterns are there and what combinations apparently are significant. Uh, what we found is that there are four combinations in, in the total data that are, are apparently significant.

And one of those is the combination of the, the drooping eyelids right underneath the iris. And you even see a lot of partial blinking. So people blinking without entirely closing their eyes in this same category. It seems that [00:22:00] the, the, the common denominator here is low muscle tension and low muscle tension, uh, in combination with behaviors like, uh, being able or willing to yield, being inhibited, uh, not speaking out, uh, being withdrawn.

Sometimes it doesn’t sound strange, but it’s not like we. Research the why of what we found. We did an explorative research in, in repetitive facial displays, consistent in. Two different situations and what that says about, uh, uh, the personality of the, of the person. But the exact why, I don’t know yet. I mean, I can guess at it, but it’s mm-hmm.

Something else than knowing.

Zach: Well, you had talked a little bit before, uh, you know, before this talk you had tied in your work with, um, like James Russell’s work on, you know, the spectrum of arousal and the spectrum of

Herman: Yeah.

Zach: Valence or warm cold feelings. Could you talk a little bit [00:23:00] about how you see those ideas mapping over maybe?

Herman: Yes. Well, James Russell did, uh, very important work on how people perceive other people, right? So he was looking from the observers, observers part, uh, in the interaction I. What he found is he put it in a, what he calls a, a bi dimensional model. What he found is that some nonverbals are consistently interpreted like high arousal, which is the eyebrows up, upper eyelids up is interpreted as high arousal and.

Uh, a drooping face, drooping eyelids, uh, are perceived as the opposite, as low arousal. And you found that people who are smiling, uh, and, and, and raising their cheeks are being perceived as, uh, as, uh, pleasant, uh, warm. And people who frown their eyebrows and squint their lower eyelids are being perceived as cold and distant and unpleasant.

This is [00:24:00] all from the, the observer’s perspective. So it doesn’t say anything about the reality of the person who is being observed. At the end of our uh, uh, research, we found that the structure that we, we saw in the repetitive facial displays is more or less the same as the structure of the bi dimensional model that Russell has found.

There, there we match with, with what? With his work. And the interesting thing is that we, uh, we look differently. So we, we got information from the participants themselves about themselves. So we had not the observer information, we had the obs the information of the, the person that were, that was in the, in the, in the project who was being observed.

Uh, and other than Russell, we looked at what was happening in the face all the time. So you could say that what we found is very much in line with what, what, uh, uh, James Russell has done. Mm-hmm. It, it adds to, to his work, I would say.

Zach: And, uh, to make sure I’m [00:25:00] understanding too. Uh, I’m, I’m getting that, you know, because it’s personality length that, that the p and r is that, that you’ve studied because they’re personality linked.

It’s not like you’re, you know, say you’re analyzing someone. You’re finding out something about their, their personality. So it’s not like you’re returning, going back to, to look right. You’re, you’re not like calibrating on the fly, like say in a negotiation you’re you. Or you might be maybe using some other things, but the p and r that, that you’ve researched.

Are meant to be about personality. So even if someone changes their, you know, their approach, like these p and r would not change. So you’ve gotta, yeah. You know, in, in your, and you’re telling, you’ve got a, a sense of of, of who they are at, at a, at a deep level basically.

Herman: Yeah. You see, you see their baseline also in terms of behavior.

And of course people are more complicated than this. We don’t have the, the illusion that we know everything about a [00:26:00] person. We know a certain dimension, and then people are also individuals with their own backgrounds and, and, and, and upbringing and personal development. And so it’s, it’s, it’s not to be taken too simply, but it gives us an, a line of approach and that’s the value of it.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think, uh, I. The, the ideas make sense to me. ’cause I’ll, I’ll say from my own perspective, like thinking about my own patterns, I, it wouldn’t be surprising to me because I know myself, you know, or at least I think I know myself pretty well. Like, I’m pretty, you know, when it comes to interacting with other people, I, I’ve had anxiety and depression issues in the past.

I’m pretty. Actually submissive in, in many ways and, and not extroverted. I’m, I’m pretty introverted and more submissive in my interpersonal reactions, so it wouldn’t be surprising to me that I have, you know, say the, you know, the, the drooping eyelids, the, uh, you know, the, the non, the non extroverted patterns.

Yeah. And I wonder, uh, [00:27:00] actually just thinking about it, when we talked on. Video for our preliminary talk that you and I did. Did you happen to, did, did, did you do any analysis of me?

Herman: Well, not really, uh, specifically, but of course I pick up, uh, information from, from all the work that I’ve, I’ve been doing on this.

I also think that I saw, uh, the, the, the tensing of your lower eyelids in our, uh, video interview. Which would mean mean that you also tend to be, uh, analytic. That you also have the need to get some grip on a situation or a person to, uh, to feel, uh, comfortable and I mean mental grip so that you, you, you are comfort zone especially start when you start understanding if you are confronted with something that you cannot make sense of, it’ll create some sort of, uh, of tension and stress I would imagine.

Do you recognize? Do you recognize that?

Zach: Yeah. That, that, that is accurate. And, and I would, I would agree with that. Uh, I guess [00:28:00] one, one thing I wondered, oh, do, did you have something else to say there?

Herman: No, that’s, that’s basically what I, what I saw. And if it’s in combination with this adapting, uh, uh, profile, which is the, uh, drooping eyelids and so forth, uh, usually people who combine that are people who are very, uh, specific and very.

Uh, details in their analysis. They are not satisfied with a, a general analysis. They want to do a thorough one, preferably. Mm-hmm.

Zach: Do you recognize that? Yeah. Yeah. That for, for sure. Yeah. And, and I wonder, uh, one thing I wonder is, you know, do, do you think that people would be surprised, you know, by these analysis?

Like, ’cause it seems like to me like some of these things would be. I think most people would be like, oh yeah, my, my, uh, you know, these patterns make sense. You know, in the sense that like, you know, tensing your, tensing your eyes more, the partial blinks, you know, to me does map over in a intuitive way to [00:29:00] being more analytical and discerning.

You know, you’re like looking at the world through a more, you know, kind of strained the like, you know, tensed view or whatever. So I’m wondering, do people, are people surprised, you know, by the analysis, or, or do, do you think most people would be like. Oh yeah, that, that makes sense for me. Mostly.

Herman: Yeah. The vast majority of people, majority of people, uh, recognize what we.

Give them as feedback when we have them in personal coaching or in a training. Uh, sometimes, and this is especially the, an analytic type who first starts to question whether it’s, uh, is, it’s correct if it’s researched, because they want to be sure that the information is correct. So, but this is a little bit, uh, teasing you.

Mm-hmm.

Zach: They’re skeptical, which is part of their

Herman: system. So, uh, if I, if I do a presentation about this, uh, this matter, about this method. I always say I would be a bit disappointed if some of the analytical people in the, in the audience wouldn’t be critical.

Zach: Yeah. That, that’s what’s interesting [00:30:00] about your work.

You know, it does map over. In an intuitive way. And, and even if they, they are kind of intuitions we have, you know, that proving it is another thing, right?

Herman: Yeah, exactly. And having now this, this, uh, basic proof that we found in our first, uh, research makes it even more relaxed and more. Well more secure to apply this in, uh, in professional practice.

It’s not like I think I saw some something or I sensed something. You can know what you’re looking at.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Herman: Uh, which makes it more easy to do certain interventions or maybe change your approach when it is needed. Mm-hmm.

Zach: Yeah. And I think it’s, yeah. And the more I’ve thought about your work, it’s, it’s interesting in the sense that like, sort of like we were saying, getting quick reads on people, like you can imagine talking to someone for, you know, a few minutes and getting some of these same reads, but say you saw them, you know, immediately doing, you know, partial blanks.

That, and, and you know, and maybe that’s gonna give you a, uh, [00:31:00] insight that you wouldn’t have had, you know, focusing on, on some of these things. Maybe we could talk a little bit about the. The drooping eyes because I mean the, yeah. In some of your training materials, and I’m not sure if this was, I think this was more like the, your training and, and not necessarily the, the research.

There’s a, there’s a distinction there, but Yeah. In your, in your training materials, you talked about how, you know, there can be four people with the drooping eyes pattern. You know, you can have a valence there of someone being relaxed versus someone being, you know, uncomfortable. So, yeah. Can you talk a little bit about how you see.

Tho those kind of personality traits may be playing out in different scenarios.

Herman: Yeah, well, people are different in the way that they are balanced as a person, that there are at ease in situations and in general, you can expect someone who shows the drooping eyelids to bite underneath the iris and the, and the partial blinks.

If this person is. [00:32:00] At ease. This person will also be, be perceived by others as calm, composed, easy, easygoing, uh, whereas when this same person is out of his or her comfort zone, the perception will also change. There will be more a sense of them being withdrawn, maybe not interested or too passive unclear.

So the way you come across. Uh, with others also has to do with the level of your personal ease of your personal comfort zone. Mm-hmm. And so this will transpire in your behavior, but it’ll also have, uh, an impacts on, uh, how others will perceive you, whether they know what they’re looking at or not,

Zach: and how, uh, what, when it comes to other factors, you know, say, you know, obviously the content of what people.

Are saying, uh, you know, which is obviously huge. How significant do you consider, you know, analyzing some of these? [00:33:00] Patterns, uh, you know, do, do you think it gives a significant, uh, boost to a negotiator’s skillset? Or, or how do you see that, that these things playing into other factors?

Herman: Yeah, as well. The other factors are also important.

And, and I wouldn’t say even that they would, that they are, uh, less important. It’s all a combination. And, and this is, uh, in, in, in my view and from my experience, a clear, uh, add-on to all the other. Aspects and knowledge that negotiators or mediators or lawyers or personal counselors may already have or have it, it creates something extra.

What is also a benefit from this method is that if you acquire this, uh, we will force you to go and look at another person like a camera does. So you have to step out of your perceptions, out of your judgments, and first just register what you’re seeing. And this involves a mindset. That will also help you [00:34:00] listen better and have a better overview of what is happening.

So there’s, in that sense, also a side benefit that this requires, but it also generates a certain mindset in interaction with others

Zach: being more cognizant of, of other people’s styles and, and personalities and such. Yeah.

Herman: It’s like stepping into the helicopter and having the helicopter view.

Zach: Are, are there other facial patterns or other behavioral patterns that you think are reliable and practically useful that you make use of, or that you train about but that you, or that haven’t been formally studied?

Are there, are there some things like that?

Herman: Well, we, we, from our, uh, our core ideas, we tend to stick to what has been researched and peer reviewed, uh, published, uh, material. Mm-hmm. Uh, so that’s, that’s the core. That doesn’t mean we throw away other, uh. Elements like I’m, I also, I also have my intuition.

Mm-hmm. But I, I am wary of [00:35:00] just going by this intuition because I know in my intuitions are also my blind spots are my specific perceptions. Mm-hmm. So it’s not that I don’t use them or, or would discredit them, uh, but I’m more careful to use them. Uh, and this gives me more, well, more certainty of what I’m, uh, what I should do in approaching another person.

I.

Zach: Right. I get that. You know, for, for people that do research, especially like you don’t wanna mix your opinions and, you know, intuitions with muddy the waters with the, the research. But, um, I, yeah, I, I, I definitely get that. Are, are there, is there anything you, you would be willing to share about, you know, say for example, like in your years of negotiation, are there any, you know, tips that you have that you think are valuable and under examined for say.

Approaching certain kinds of people a certain way or maybe like tips on like, uh, lying, deception, these kinds of [00:36:00] things. Anything stand out as things that you, that you use, but while recognizing that they might, you know, be hard to prove or not prove at all?

Herman: Well, let me first say that, um, uh, as far as I know, scientifically speaking, there is no.

Uh, Val validated way to detect lies. In fact, from that point of view, lie detection is sort of a non-issue. But you’ve had more interviews about this. Uh, uh, uh, probably, uh, I think, uh, Alan Crowley also talked about this, uh,

Zach: and Tim Levi, yeah. Had Tim Levi on. Yeah.

Herman: And, and, and maybe you know, the work of, uh, Vincent Denu, the, the Canadian researcher who.

Uh, has done a lot about this in, especially in, in debunking existing theories about, uh, lie detection. Uh, apart from, from, uh, uh, opening my minds to really understand the other person in my experience as a negotiator is always very important to, to manage expectations, to have a clear playing field. Both parties or [00:37:00] all parties know what is the agenda?

What are we going to do and what do we need to be able to do that? This is sort of the, the logistics of the negotiation in my experience, that is a, a, an important one, and it’s often a neglected, neglected one. In the mediations that I do, I find that a lot of conflicts stem either from people not understanding each other, uh, and or.

Uh, failures in, in dealing with, uh, expectations. So those two in my experience are in, in, in terms of, uh, being successful in negotiation are most important. And sometimes I see something happening on the other side of the table apart from the baseline. I see suddenly something happening in the face that is different.

Well, that might be interesting, but I have not a beginning of understanding what it could mean. It could mean anything. I mean this, if I suddenly see my opposite number, uh, frowning and he didn’t do that before mm-hmm. It, it could mean that he, he thinks something about. What I have just [00:38:00] been saying, but it could also mean that he’s thinking about the route that he had with his wife just before he went to the negotiation.

So it’s, mm-hmm. I can only speculate. I have to find out what might be behind, behind it.

Zach: Right. Staying open to, yeah, staying perceptive, but also not reaching any firm conclusions and staying open-minded. Yeah. I think that’s, that’s, I think that’s the risk of. The whole, you know, the thinking that the training that some people do or, or the, the school of thought of some.

Nonverbal behavior trainers in, in trying to communicate like, you can, you can firmly understand these people in these situations. You know, that, I think that’s where the, the risks come in or the, the downsides of people thinking like, oh, I really understand what’s going on here, and having a firm conclusion.

You know?

Herman: Yeah, that’s so scientifically that’s wrong. But also I think also, uh, uh, morally, morally that’s a problem there. I mean, what agenda is behind this way of thinking? [00:39:00] It is the, is the agenda. I know more than you and I’m going to use that. I mean, uh, that wouldn’t be my agenda. My agenda is just the conviction that I need to make contact as a beginning of getting to solutions with mm-hmm.

Whoever is on the table. Um, right.

Zach: I think that gets into the, yeah, like, I, I, that was something I talked about with Alan Crowley is the, the, you know, a lot of people view these things as like exploitative or manipulative, whereas Yes. You know, it’s better to view it as. The proper way to view it is, you know, you can, you can use these things to, to make real connections with people and that’s what being human’s all about.

And so, yeah, it’s a good thing. Yeah,

Herman: exactly. Uh,

Zach: do, do you have, um, police I. Interrogators, uh, police officers that, that come to the training are interested in the, in the training.

Herman: We, we, yes, we have, uh, we’ve had some of those. Uh, there’s even, um, uh, a, a person who has a, a leading position in the Dutch police who is now, [00:40:00] uh, finishing her complete education at, uh, at, uh, our institute.

So she will become, also become, uh, a license holder. Uh, we’ve had people from the Dutch, uh, secret surface. Uh, from customs, uh, from, um, several parts of the, of, of government organizations in the, in that field. So that’s, uh, that’s part of the, the, the groups that we get.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Um, I, I, I’m someone who’s interested in, in verbal, uh, you know, v verbal patterns, uh, basically, you know, content.

Patterns. And, uh, for example, mark, I really enjoyed Mark Cher’s book. I Know You Are Lying, which analyzed mm-hmm. A lot of real world criminal cases for, for language patterns. And I’m curious, did, was it often the case in negotiation where you did, would you ever get like occasional tells, basically based on people’s wording of language that that clued you into, [00:41:00] you know, their, their motivations or, or maybe they’re hidden.

Desires, would that ever happen? Occasionally. And And was that a part of, does, is that something that grows as a negotiation skill?

Herman: Well, it’s still going away from the intuitive part, uh, from, from the way that I look at people and, and experience people. And then in, in negotiations, I sometimes see in their, the style of their verbal communication parallels to what I see in the face.

So, uh, as what we call type two, uh, acting type will be, uh, will be quick in his speech, will be very explicit. Um, a lot of variation in the intonation and especially, uh, uh, a lot of speed and movement. On the other hand, someone who shows the Dr. Drooping eyelids, the, the type one adapting type will be more circumspect.

It’ll take longer. It’ll, uh, initially be more vague than then very explicit [00:42:00] people who, who have the analytical profile. So the, the squinting lower eyelids tend to be more, uh. More structured, more, maybe even more, more rigid in the, in the way that they speak. It’s, uh, uh, and, and people who, uh, are of the affiliating, uh, type, which is the, the smiling, uh, smiling people.

Well, they’re also, uh, moving around a lot. And, and, and in their, in the way that they speak, they, they tend to speak a lot more about we than about I, for example. So they’re always looking for the. The, the, the relationship with whoever they’re, they’re dealing with. So we, we can pick up verbal cues in terms of the, the, the style of speech and maybe also the words that they use, but I’m careful to, to pinpoint a one-on-one there.

As I said, people are more complicated

Zach: and to be a little bit more specific, I, I was talking about like actual content of what they say. So for example. You know, uh, there’s [00:43:00] often patterns of people using more vague or indirect language when they’re avoiding something or, or maybe pausing more, uh, you know, before answering ju just these kind of general, you know, even if they’re not a hundred percent, the, the kind of things that clue you in, like, Hey, maybe somebody’s avoiding this based on the language they’re using.

I’m curious, would those things often do, do, would you often use those kind of. Little, little reads tells in, in, uh, negotiation.

Herman: Well, primarily I’m going to, uh, match with what I hear, with what I see. So if I have this type one adapting low muscle tension person who is, uh, speaking vaguely, I. Uh, and, and, and waiting before he or she reacts.

I, I would interpret that as completely normal and natural, and no reason to, to try to find out what’s behind it. Uh, if I would see the [00:44:00] same with, uh, a type two acting person, uh, well, this would be sort of strange and, uh, that might be a flag for, hey, what might be the matter here? Uh, maybe I should explore a little bit more.

And so it’s, it’s, I I use the, the, the nonverbal in that sense as a, uh, as a measure to see if it’s, if it’s congruent, if it’s logical, what I, what I hear them say and the way they, they are saying it or saying it

Zach: when it comes to criticisms or. Feedback about your work? How, how has the community, uh, nonverbal research community or, or maybe other research communities, how have, how people responded to your work?

Herman: Well, I didn’t have so many reactions from that field. Not much. Uh, the article has been viewed quite well if I see it on online, so that’s not the problem. We had some in, uh, initial interest from. Various universities that people were saying, Hey, this is interesting. Can we go [00:45:00] and do, uh, a next, uh, project, uh, together.

I had a couple of really nice compliments from the scientific community here in the Netherlands, like one, one scientist who said, Hey, you’re opening a complete new avenue in nonverbal research. So that was really nice. And of course you also get some skepticism, but then. If people look at the results in the, uh, in, uh, in the publication, well, they speak for themselves.

So it’s not much, uh, to, to talk about there. Uh, people have, some people have had to get used to the idea that there is a link between the face and personality. I. Because of course, if you go back a century and a half, there were all kinds of ideas about facial features and personality. Uh, I dunno whether you know, this stuff like the, the, the, the low eyebrows and the uh, and the big nose and, and stuff like that’s more static.

Elements, and of course that has been discre, the discredited, uh, uh, kind [00:46:00] of

Zach: chronology sort of stuff.

Herman: Yeah, that’s stuff. And of course that’s in the past and this is something entirely different. Mm-hmm. Um, we, we, we got a lot of, uh, uh, public at attention here in the Netherlands. After the publication, I found myself suddenly, uh, uh, two times in two days on national TV and on the radio and newspapers and, and, and stuff like that.

So that was, that was nice. But no real, um, follow up reaction from the scientific community as yet.

Zach: Yeah, I know you’re, you’re doing some more work on this. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that, but I’m also curious, has it inspired other people to do similar research that you’re aware of?

Herman: Not that I’m aware of.

I hope, I hope for it because this, there’s so much more to find out about this stuff. Uh, and of course we are going to continue to do research, uh, together with the University of Amsterdam. I sincerely hope that others will also pick this up and have their view on it and, and tell me where I, uh, didn’t see [00:47:00] things correctly and, and so forth.

Because then we will get more information, um, uh, altogether. Well, you asked me about the, the next, uh, project. We started it already a few years ago. Um, in that project, we, uh, put the participants in a longer simulation interaction to see if this non-verbal pattern would vary, uh, in, in, in, in, in the phases of this, uh, of this, uh, simulation.

Or that it would be consistent even if you, if you break down the, the, the simulation in, in let’s say two minute blocks. Um, and what we also did there is, and it was a dynamic situation, so it’s not like questions and answers, but it was a simulation of a negotiation. We, uh, we of course, we, we recorded that on video and people had to fill in questionnaires about what they think that they had done in this.

In this simulation, in, in terms of their behavior, but we also recorded it [00:48:00] separately on audio and have some expert coders, people who are, uh, expert in, in, uh, negotiations code the actual behavior. So we have a triangular measurement in our second project between nonverbal, uh, self-report, an observer. Uh, codings.

Well, this is next to finished. Uh, I’m already working on the, on the manuscript. Uh, what we found so far, at any rate is that, uh, yes, the per personal nonverbal repertoire is also consistent in a dynamic simulation over over a longer period. So it’s not like it changes a lot in the course of a conversation.

It’s, it’s consistent. And the other thing that we already can see is that the structure of the nonverbals, the facial displays is even closer to what Russell has found than in our first research. So that, that looks good. Uh, and for the rest, um, you’ll have to wait because it’s still, uh, in the works.

Zach: This has [00:49:00] been great.

Thanks for coming on, Herman, and thanks for talking about your work.

Zach: That was a talk with Herman Ilgen about his research into facial expression patterns and personality traits. His website is at insa-foundation.org. If you’re interested in learning more about his work, I recommend checking out his paper, which was titled Personal Nonverbal Repertoires in facial displays and their relation to individual differences in social and emotional styles, and reading up about the descriptions of the Insa Foundation training on that website.

And if you enjoyed this talk, just a note that I have quite a few episodes in the library about nonverbal behavior and behavioral research in general. One of the more popular ones recently was a talk with Tim Levine about his research into using nonverbal behavior to detect lies.

If you’ve enjoyed this podcast, just a reminder that you can sign up for a premium membership at behavior-podcast.com and help support this podcast.

Okay, thanks for listening.