Podchaser Logo
Home
#162 [EN] Tom Chatfield - Amplifying minds: the vital role of Critical Thinking in the Digital Era

#162 [EN] Tom Chatfield - Amplifying minds: the vital role of Critical Thinking in the Digital Era

Released Wednesday, 24th April 2024
Good episode? Give it some love!
#162 [EN] Tom Chatfield - Amplifying minds: the vital role of Critical Thinking in the Digital Era

#162 [EN] Tom Chatfield - Amplifying minds: the vital role of Critical Thinking in the Digital Era

#162 [EN] Tom Chatfield - Amplifying minds: the vital role of Critical Thinking in the Digital Era

#162 [EN] Tom Chatfield - Amplifying minds: the vital role of Critical Thinking in the Digital Era

Wednesday, 24th April 2024
Good episode? Give it some love!
Rate Episode

Episode Transcript

Transcripts are displayed as originally observed. Some content, including advertisements may have changed.

Use Ctrl + F to search

0:00

The introduction in English starts

0:02

around minute 3. Hello,

0:11

I'm from

3:00

the Volta Intrutsum. Today

3:02

we are diving into an enlightening

3:04

conversation with Tom Chatfield, a British

3:06

author and tech philosopher. Tom

3:08

is the author of several books

3:11

focused on improving our thinking in

3:13

today's tech-dominated world, including bestsellers like

3:15

Critical Thinking and How to Think.

3:18

He also teaches these skills to

3:21

a wide range of audiences, from

3:23

schools to corporate boardrooms, and he

3:25

has recently designed a successful online

3:28

course on Critical Thinking and Decision

3:30

Making for the Economist's Education. In

3:33

his most recent book Wise Animals,

3:35

Tom explores our relationship with technology,

3:38

examining the lessons that our ancestral

3:40

past may hold for our present

3:42

challenges. In this very

3:44

thought-provoking conversation, we discussed Tom's advice

3:47

for how to think more critically

3:49

in today's complex world, we talked about

3:51

strategies to combat the influence of cognitive

3:53

biases in our mind, a term that

3:55

many of you probably know from the

3:58

work of the late Daniel Kahneman. and

4:00

the importance and also difficulty of

4:02

challenging our assumptions. We

4:05

also talked about how to better think

4:07

collectively and the importance of creating trust

4:09

in order to be able to have

4:11

open conversations and also

4:13

some techniques Tom advises in order

4:15

to generate deep discussions and good

4:17

decision making in all contexts. In

4:20

the final part we turn our

4:22

focus to Tom's latest book and

4:25

I asked his view on two

4:27

big impacts technology is currently having

4:29

in our society. One of them

4:31

is the change that mass interactive

4:33

media is bringing to traditional democratic

4:36

structures, exacerbating polarization and eroding public

4:38

trust in institutions. And the

4:40

other one, which is probably very close

4:42

to home to those of you who

4:45

have young children, is the troubling rise

4:47

of what many experts refer to as

4:49

the epidemic of mental illness among children

4:51

and teenagers driven by the increasing role

4:53

of social media in their lives. It

4:56

was a fascinating conversation, so let me

4:58

leave you with Tom Chatfield. Tom

5:06

Chatfield, welcome to Coreaty C'est In Graz. Thank you

5:09

very much, and it would be great to be

5:11

with you. I'm a big fan of your work.

5:14

I think I knew it before finding your book

5:16

on critical thinking. Then I

5:18

came across your work in a course you

5:20

put together for The Economist on critical thinking

5:23

and future skills, and then your new book,

5:25

Wise Animals, which we'll also be talking about.

5:28

Let's start. I'm very curious about this. What happened

5:30

so that you ended up writing books on critical

5:32

thinking, technology, and the like? What

5:35

happened? What's your background? How did you end up here? So

5:39

I guess I've always wanted to be a

5:41

writer since I was very young and I

5:43

started out writing fiction and poetry

5:45

and drama and things like that, but

5:47

I also did my Masters and my

5:49

Doctorate and taught a bit at Oxford

5:52

in literature and a bit of philosophy. I was

5:56

very geeky. I also love

5:58

computers And maths and things

6:00

like that. that and it became

6:02

very clear to me that all

6:04

the stuff I cared about Mueller

6:06

did the culture. The idea is

6:08

the morals these big debates would

6:11

being mediated through new forms of

6:13

technology. That technology was touching upon

6:15

all aspects of human life and

6:17

and it also I think became

6:19

equally clear to me that a

6:21

lot of the time the weight

6:23

technologies talked about and discussed is

6:26

not very rich, is not very

6:28

philosophically informed, is not very thoughtful,

6:30

Is quite shallow so she like

6:32

I became almost obsessed with the

6:34

idea what the question? What

6:36

does it mean to think about technology?

6:39

Well, What? Does it mean

6:41

to come to grapple with the modern

6:43

world using all the tools that philosophy

6:45

and social science and literature and so

6:47

on have given us and soak. In

6:50

my work I I wrote my first

6:52

book about video games one of my

6:54

obsessions or began to collaborate with. Academic

6:57

publishers and social scientists and I

6:59

I can have some my way

7:01

towards critical thinking. As. This

7:03

interdisciplinary place where you write

7:06

and talk about. What? It

7:08

means to think well and rigorously. And.

7:10

To do so together and I guess that

7:12

it struck a chord for me. I'm very

7:14

passionate about it and for me. It

7:17

unlocks the digital world for

7:19

people. It. Takes the resources

7:21

we have at our fingertips today and

7:24

and if you give people should help

7:26

people develop thinking skills you know then

7:28

is equips people to make the most

7:31

of the potential sophie of digital age

7:33

rather than be manipulated. So yes, I've

7:35

almost become obsessed with this like as

7:37

I've written quite a few books about

7:40

it. I've taught variously, office on courses

7:42

I work with companies. I sort of

7:44

do everything I can really to explore

7:47

this theme of well with how can

7:49

we be more. Thoughtful. And

7:51

rigorous and the way we engage with with

7:53

the modern world and the skills we need

7:56

to thrive in it. Interesting because they're your.

7:59

Path. Is not very. And like mine although

8:01

Ellerbeck runs are different, mine is in economics

8:03

but for me critical thing he was also

8:05

the natural place where I landed although I

8:07

didn't think of that's in the beginning there

8:09

I think because of what you just described

8:11

it it is both kind of the met

8:13

a skill which is. At the

8:15

basis of thinking about everything. And.

8:18

It's increasingly important ones. Technology gets more

8:20

developed than do and you have an

8:22

overload of information. You have a I,

8:25

you have social media, you have fake

8:27

news so Sinhalese, it was already important

8:29

and it's gets even more important than

8:31

yeah, Absolutely. And to some degree I

8:34

think you've hit the nail on the

8:36

head. Their that sending people to focus

8:38

on the features of technology, walk and

8:40

technology Do what's it's capabilities and that's

8:43

great. That's. Fascinating. But even

8:45

more important is the question,

8:47

Well, one of the features

8:49

of a human minds what

8:51

our strengths and weaknesses and

8:53

I think cognitively we both

8:55

very brilliant and very vulnerable.

8:57

And particularly the work of

8:59

psychologists like Danny Karma Man

9:01

and a lot of others

9:03

you don't Great workarounds that

9:05

have biases and she rustic

9:07

Spider Economics Cylon. There's just

9:09

been such rich recent research

9:11

illuminating both what makes On

9:13

Nibble. On how we can overcome

9:15

this vulnerability is on. When I think about

9:17

ai technology the great question from is not

9:19

what on the technology do. Not.

9:21

What does it mean to be obsessed

9:24

with? it's? it's features. But. How

9:26

can we try to make sure

9:28

that we are robust against manipulation

9:30

that we take a close interesting

9:33

reality in what's really going on

9:35

to win? Not distracted and deceived

9:37

and bewildered and disempowered. So when

9:39

I write books when I was

9:42

on courses, they have these two

9:44

aspects on the one hand, building

9:46

up. Ah, Skills: A

9:49

Logical reasoning through. The.

9:51

Scientific Method. Through.

9:53

Research. That on the other

9:55

hand, understanding. Of under abilities.

9:58

Resisting. Paste. This

10:00

bias. Mental. Show cops

10:02

manipulation. On. It's two things

10:04

for me, the go together to

10:07

defined critical thinking and in the.

10:09

Twenty. First century focusing on the on

10:11

the first and was you've been asked this

10:13

question but of have thought about it quite

10:16

awhile. Who did you find critical thinking as

10:18

the sauce killer high school path? I think

10:20

I guess a soft in some ways I

10:23

like self because it suggests to me that

10:25

it's and that is not as much as

10:27

a science and that it's as much a

10:29

kind of attitude of mind. It's a mindset.

10:32

I think it begins with humility and what

10:34

I mean by that is just the realization

10:36

that individually our minds are. I will use

10:38

a very small. A very limited and

10:41

the quest to become less deceived

10:43

is something we do together that

10:45

we do incrementally. The great danger

10:47

is that we moved to quickly.

10:50

Towards. Generalizations and false

10:52

conclusions to be overestimate our knowledge caught

10:54

him has this great saying he says

10:56

in the route so many errors

10:58

in cook mission is the idea. What

11:01

you see is all there is.

11:03

some the have a look cause he

11:05

got stuff at your fingertips and

11:07

so all of us of course we

11:09

do this. We know a tiny

11:12

amount. And. We assume that tiny

11:14

amount can answer all questions, and the

11:16

great battle is to work with other

11:18

people to get out of that mindset.

11:20

And. Instead to become an investigator's of reality

11:23

together. So for me or that as

11:25

a lot of science in there. It's

11:27

fundamentally a sub still because it

11:30

it begins and ends with self

11:32

knowledge and weaves almost self discipline

11:34

with the discipline to. Not.

11:36

Just leaked conclusions to does

11:38

does or to control your

11:41

own cognition and and directed

11:43

it mindfully. In the service

11:45

of of reality of truth of understanding.

11:48

We're uncommon in been divorced and other

11:50

researchers were were behind his does conclusions

11:52

They develop that mother which which I

11:54

think is widely know know those of

11:56

us to a system in all range

11:58

between system one and system doing. With

12:00

system one it sort of that the

12:03

automatic wonder the one that's based on

12:05

heuristics and the system to is the

12:07

one hopefully we are both using now

12:09

which had we are singing deliberately about

12:11

something and and consciously and then from

12:13

system one we get. Biases.

12:15

Which is when it's not only automatic

12:18

but it's also our reasoning. It's is

12:20

also by as I wonder what's what's

12:22

your view and I'm on my we

12:24

have these biases because it's relatively easy

12:27

to know why we have these automatic

12:29

reasoning Because it's much more efficient in

12:31

terms of resources. It's much faster, so

12:33

much faster to not have to sink

12:36

consciously about something. It is as just

12:38

workouts automatically based on past patterns. But

12:40

the bias is so. This does systematic

12:42

deviations from rationality for me. I'm not

12:45

done. Not that obvious. Where. Where

12:47

we get them from That that's right and

12:49

them. I was lucky enough in a to

12:51

note that economy a little bit into. He

12:54

collaborated with me. And my my

12:56

critical thinking skills testing for his death Actually

12:58

a I say yes yes I did some

13:00

little bits of kind of. Work with

13:02

him in America know lot but I was

13:04

lucky enough to speak to him about this.

13:06

and of course like his work into the

13:08

schism done or in his mother's. Is

13:11

putting you know a new analysis on

13:13

very old ideas and the way for

13:15

me as think about a bias is

13:17

that a bias is a miss Foreign

13:19

Service stick and what I mean by

13:21

that is a heuristic as a rule

13:23

of thumb. And. Mental shortcut.

13:25

That's. Really important when you're evolving

13:27

when you're trying to survive as

13:30

an animal. You. Need to

13:32

be able to act in a sauce decision.

13:34

Appropriate way to. if you see something that

13:36

looks a bit scary or threatening or dangerous,

13:38

you gotta run away from it. You can't

13:41

spend your time analyzing it is something, smells

13:43

bad, luck, some familiar you want to

13:45

avoid it and then ask questions later. And.

13:48

So it's always been the case.

13:50

That fast. Efficient, fairly

13:52

reliable actions are keep us alive

13:55

and then slow considered analysis is

13:57

what we do afterwards to him.

14:00

There is to develop strategies over time

14:02

collectively and humans a supremely good at

14:04

that. But of course the conditions we

14:06

live in now. Look. Nothing

14:08

like the conditions we evolved

14:10

him, and so a heuristic that's

14:13

quite useful one hundred thousand years

14:15

ago that for example, if

14:17

someone or something looks i'm

14:19

familiar, be cautious that now can

14:22

lead us into all kinds

14:24

of problem because if you're

14:26

advertising something, you go for a

14:28

truck dismissed familiarity to create

14:30

a halo and or a

14:32

halo effect. A beautiful person drugs,

14:35

a beautiful car with a symmetrical

14:37

face, or conversely, a stereotype.

14:39

A very in a crude generalization about

14:42

someone who looks different to you encourages

14:44

you to treat them as an enemy

14:46

or to think of them as different

14:48

it to you and in in negative

14:51

ways and that maybe that would have

14:53

kept you safe one hundred thousand years

14:55

ago. but of course it's a very

14:58

very poor way that interacting with fellow

15:00

human beings in the modern world and

15:02

so. I guess the key is

15:04

that a lot of the time Mental short

15:06

a dude and useful. Choose what you have

15:09

for lunch. Choose what you were. You know,

15:11

choose what to do today. How to have

15:13

fun. But. And I'm going

15:15

to quote Done A Again on this

15:17

is of the trouble is when faced

15:19

with a difficult question a lot of

15:22

the time we answer an easy question

15:24

instead without noticing the substitution. So.

15:26

He's a hard question who would be

15:28

in the best? Next. President United

15:30

States. Who would be the what's the

15:33

best plan for the future of the

15:35

European Union? What's a good tax scheme

15:37

is a very hard questions. Very.

15:40

Difficult questions, Very slow to investigate.

15:42

He's an easy question. Which

15:44

of these two people? Looks. More

15:46

attractive and like a strong leader

15:49

which of these people as the

15:51

more symmetrical face which these people

15:53

is more familiar to you. These

15:56

are very easy questions and unless

15:58

we try really hard. We.

16:00

Can to. Swap. With easy

16:02

questions for the hard questions. Unanswered.

16:05

Those instead and that was very

16:07

efficient. In evolutionary terms, it's very

16:09

dangerous in the modern world, so

16:11

it's incredibly difficult. Even. For

16:13

the smart people, doesn't really matter

16:15

how smart you are, incredibly difficult

16:17

to slow down and interrogate your

16:19

own emotions and in a way

16:22

you have to begin with the

16:24

fact that all of us will

16:26

have a strong instant feelings and

16:28

the challenges then to negotiate with

16:30

them. Rather than pretend we can

16:32

become perfectly rational, which is. A

16:34

meaningless idea. And. Was that a

16:36

better rustic know they sort? So. Do.

16:39

You think that's a better restrict because. We.

16:41

Live in larger groups. It's because

16:44

we leaving more diverse society. So

16:46

what? I guess It's a bad

16:48

humor. partly because it leads us

16:50

into Era. So for example, the

16:53

question of which tax scheme will

16:55

be better at preventing poverty or

16:57

incentivizing work. That's an empirical question

16:59

about complex systems and it doesn't

17:02

have an intuitive answer. My gut

17:04

feelings about tax worthless. You know,

17:06

because the question is mathematical and

17:08

economic? An abstract. My gut feelings

17:11

about running. Away from lines of probably

17:13

quite good and my gut feelings about

17:15

people, I know whether I can trust

17:17

someone I know very well as perfectly

17:20

good. And so the trouble is, there

17:22

are situations in which our gut feelings

17:24

are valid and useful, and that broadly

17:26

is when we know a person or

17:28

situation well when we have relevant expertise.

17:31

But outside of that. Our.

17:33

Gut feelings are awesome. Worse than

17:35

useless. My gut reaction to attack

17:37

scheme to a politician to a

17:39

charity appeal to wear money should

17:41

be spent in all of those

17:43

areas. Our intuitions worse than useless

17:45

and so we absolutely have to

17:47

try to. Pause. And

17:49

come up with a context that helps guide

17:52

our intuitions at Under Up and he we

17:54

can do this so for example we can

17:56

try come up with a better question. So

17:58

rather than saying okay, what you. The like

18:00

about tax to like the idea of adding

18:02

very low tax of hard work is just

18:05

get to get rewarded. Or did you got

18:07

there have a very heavy tax is not

18:09

a good thing. Instead you could say to

18:11

people okay here's a visualization of different tax

18:14

game Since gonna show you with visuals the

18:16

distribution of wealth in a soft it's gonna

18:18

do we a graph is gonna show you

18:20

and then you might for example look at

18:23

this graph of the cubbies visuals of sight.

18:25

Well actually this game really penalizes people here

18:27

or this scheme really penalize people. Do this.

18:30

So we can try and come up with better

18:32

frame things. That. Allow our intuitions to

18:34

function better when allow us to think better.

18:37

And that's a big question, right? Ultimately,

18:39

when it comes to technology, Will.

18:42

Result: Official intelligence or just a

18:44

graph of key question for me

18:46

as does this technology. Elevator

18:49

Cognition and encourage us

18:51

to. Make. A better, a

18:53

more reality based decision. Or

18:55

does it try and. Manipulate.

18:57

Us and pushes towards a decision

19:00

not on the basis of evident

19:02

so reason, but on the basis

19:05

of politics or propaganda or oh,

19:07

exploitation. The difficulty I think that

19:09

as you mention a thing though.

19:12

The. Rick Adelman describes his that you will reject

19:14

or never perfect of course of that's why

19:16

are they are shortcuts but they are more

19:18

or less but records or they work well

19:21

when when the environment is. Predictable.

19:23

Enough and you have. Time. Enough

19:25

to gain that experience, rights and

19:27

in most of our current environment

19:29

specially those complex once it's quite

19:31

difficult to have that says what

19:33

you're suggesting. it makes lots as

19:35

you that we frame things in

19:37

a way that the cognitive overload

19:39

these lowering the sense that enables

19:41

people to think about that rationally

19:43

exactly current. His really simple advice

19:45

that I think is really good

19:47

you have limited time. Unlimited

19:49

attention. So when you're facing a

19:52

complex or important question and when

19:54

you don't have enough information that

19:56

friend good information to answer accurately.

19:59

pause and seek

20:01

cognitive reinforcements. It's

20:03

a golden rule, slow down and

20:06

look for something or someone that

20:08

will help you make an evidence-based

20:10

decision and this partly also

20:12

means embracing uncertainty. We saw this during

20:14

the pandemic when a lot of

20:17

the time, understandably, a situation

20:19

of fear and horror

20:22

as well as hope and learning, a

20:24

lot of the time, people were terrified by

20:27

uncertainty, politicians and citizens

20:30

and they desperately wanted a simple

20:32

story to hang onto and answer. It's

20:34

this, it's that, this works, this

20:37

won't work and in some ways

20:39

the most important message which was

20:41

emotionally very difficult was it is

20:43

uncertain and the most important thing

20:45

we can do is seek

20:47

more evidence, is act fast and

20:49

preventatively in this area but in this area,

20:51

keep our minds open. It

20:53

may be that we think wearing a

20:55

mask is very important and then it

20:57

turns out it's not that important compared

21:00

to other things. It may be

21:02

we think the virus spreads by contact and

21:04

then we learn it spreads through the air and

21:07

so on. It's incredibly difficult but

21:09

important to keep an open mind

21:11

and to follow the evidence and to try not

21:14

to get sucked into turning it

21:16

into an ideological or tribal

21:18

battle. That's the enemy of good thinking.

21:20

Suddenly, so many questions that

21:23

are so important these days become

21:25

matters of identity and allegiance and

21:28

that is absolute poison for critical thinking

21:31

because it causes people to judge them

21:33

by tribal allegiances

21:35

rather than by evidence

21:38

and open mindedness. And you

21:40

were mentioning uncertainty

21:42

and that's one of the things we have a very

21:45

hard way to get our heads around.

21:47

So actually it's one of the topics

21:49

I cover in the, in one module

21:51

of my critical thinking program causal explanations

21:54

because we deal very

21:56

poorly with randomness and uncertainty. So if

21:58

what you were suggesting, which

22:00

makes a lot of sense, was emphasised by

22:03

both politicians and practitioners during the

22:05

time of Covid. It would

22:07

have been very difficult for that message to

22:09

pass, as it was very difficult. So saying,

22:11

we actually don't know this, so this is

22:13

still an open question. We'll see. So this

22:15

is the most reasonable response

22:18

that we don't know yet. It's a very difficult

22:20

message emotionally. If you want to seem strong as

22:22

a leader, if you want to give people hope.

22:24

So if we think about uncertainty,

22:27

social media makes it really

22:30

obvious just how

22:32

difficult it is to communicate

22:34

uncertainty effectively. If I

22:36

want to go viral on, you know,

22:38

X or TikTok or whatever, saying

22:41

something like, it's complicated, no

22:44

clear answer, we need to seek more evidence,

22:46

I'm not quite sure. That's pretty much the

22:49

least viral thing I can say. We're

22:51

saying, wow, there's this compelling evidence, there's

22:53

this conspiracy, there's this story, we've got

22:56

to do this. These calls to action

22:58

will get a lot of attention. And

23:00

so we have a very direct conflict

23:03

between content

23:05

and ideas that are emotionally arousing

23:09

and the mindset of truth

23:11

seeking. And I

23:13

think a huge challenge for technology

23:15

and leaders today, which is to

23:17

be eloquent and persuasive, but

23:20

at the same time to admit to uncertainty and

23:22

to change minds, to talk

23:24

in a strong way about I'm

23:26

not sure. And again, in terms of advice,

23:29

I think one of the most powerful and

23:31

useful things that you can say, work

23:35

online in your everyday life is, I'm

23:37

not sure. What do you think?

23:41

What evidence is there? What's the other side of the story? And

23:43

it can be very difficult to do

23:46

that because it doesn't look like strength

23:48

or leadership or decisiveness, but it's really

23:50

valuable. Yeah. And on social

23:52

media, do you think there's a way to square

23:54

that circle? Do you see someone doing that? Yeah,

23:57

of course. Interestingly, I

23:59

think. One of the great

24:02

gifts of social media can be the

24:04

trust that can exist between person and

24:06

their audience. When

24:08

you see how a lot of

24:10

young people use things like YouTube,

24:13

you go to follow someone who's

24:15

a great gamer, who's a great

24:17

streamer, who's passionate about a product,

24:19

who's passionate about engineering. In

24:22

these areas, actually, because

24:24

people's reputation and relationship with their followers

24:26

is so important, they will often say,

24:28

it's really complex, let me take you

24:31

on a journey. It's

24:33

fascinating how complex this is. Did you know how

24:36

crazy the history of Minecraft did? Did

24:38

you know how difficult it was to hand-carculate

24:41

how to get a rocket to the moon?

24:43

Did you know that rocket science is

24:46

really complicated, that building, and so on?

24:48

So there's a lot of great ways

24:50

that you can draw people into the

24:52

story of complexity, the story of uncertainty.

24:55

And I think trust is the key in

24:57

areas that people care about and trust people

24:59

in, where people

25:02

have got skin in the game, where

25:05

the communication is about where you're

25:07

accountable to your audience. We

25:09

have a specific audience to write. That's

25:11

right. So if I'm an

25:13

influencer writing about even fashion, and I

25:16

just talk absolute nonsense, no

25:18

one's going to trust me as a good

25:20

advisor. If I'm writing about video games or

25:22

science, my audience are not going to follow

25:24

me if I turn out to be

25:27

wrong. But of course, there's a

25:29

lot of games online that are just played for

25:31

clout, that are just played for impact, that are

25:33

just where the game people is

25:35

playing is not about truth, is not about

25:37

understanding. It's about influence, it's about

25:40

persuasion, and so on. It

25:42

all comes down to storytelling, really. And for

25:44

me, then this is

25:46

helpful, because actually we

25:48

can tell really good stories that are

25:50

also true, if we are

25:53

willing to bring an audience with us. If

25:55

we have confidence that our audience

25:57

are not idiots, and this is another thing, right?

26:00

can't be patronizing. If you

26:02

treat people like idiots, if you have a low opinion of them, you

26:06

fail to understand why people

26:08

arrive at wrong beliefs or why people disagree

26:10

with you. Often, actually,

26:12

there are very good reasons. For example,

26:15

vaccination. A lot of

26:17

people would distrust for the vaccination for

26:20

good reasons. I think misguided reasons, but

26:22

a lot of people in America and

26:25

elsewhere felt that they were

26:27

being lied to or patronized by the

26:29

government, that the government doesn't

26:31

have their best interests at heart when it

26:33

comes to healthcare. That's quite true in

26:35

America. In a lot of countries, people are

26:38

treated with contempt. And until you

26:40

understand why people are deeply distrustful of what

26:42

politicians say, you can't then

26:44

attempt to persuade them or take them on a

26:46

journey. You can even argue with

26:48

them. So if they distrust the

26:50

source of information, you can't even have

26:53

an argument or discussion with them because there's no

26:56

common ground even at the basic level. That's

26:58

right. And the common ground is so important.

27:01

When you want to talk to someone, you're

27:03

not enemies playing a

27:05

zero-sum game. Maybe you are sometimes

27:07

in some fields, but generally

27:10

speaking, starting with the idea

27:12

that other people have good

27:14

reasons for their beliefs that

27:16

are good and compelling to them and

27:18

trying to understand those reasons, that's a

27:20

powerful way of building coalitions

27:22

and finding, you know, saying, look, we all

27:24

want to get through

27:27

this. We're not necessarily enemies.

27:29

There's a common ground here. Now, we

27:31

can't always do that, of course, but

27:34

the ability to build coalitions with diverse

27:36

views, incredibly important in

27:38

politics, in government, in healthcare

27:41

and society, you know, critical

27:43

thinking is not about being a clever person

27:45

who's always right. That's a very

27:48

bad thing to aspire to be, because

27:51

ultimately, you're aspiring to be

27:53

divisive and self-righteous and

27:55

privileging your own cleverness Over

27:57

engagement with other people. You know, I Think for me,

28:00

The great art is bringing as

28:02

many people together as you can

28:04

and is cultivating mutual respect and

28:06

trying to build forms of understanding

28:09

together. The. Or and because you never

28:11

know if a writer not. And actually it's

28:13

interesting because the we got around. Three.

28:15

Or four dishes in our conversation. So far

28:17

as who talk about. Limitations of

28:19

our minds we talked about complexity and how

28:21

the world is both much more complex than

28:24

the world we evolved in and is getting

28:26

much more complex nowadays with technology and just

28:28

no way that you mentioned trust and how

28:30

it makes it much more difficult for us

28:33

to find common ground and I feel I

28:35

don't know if you felt that when you're

28:37

writing your book and then putting together these

28:39

programs. I think that's

28:42

or. I found myself concluding that the

28:44

classics critical thinking is not specially helpful.

28:46

For instance, detective arguments are completely useless

28:48

in the real world. So the the

28:50

classic argument that all men are mortal

28:52

Soviet it is a man. Therefore, he's

28:54

more to visit like the classic is

28:57

active arguments because you live in the

28:59

real world because he doesn't tell you

29:01

anything which is not and aspects which

29:03

is nothing that the raw material so

29:05

to say right? So Smith is then

29:07

tell you anything which is not in

29:09

the reasons to begin with. And the

29:11

real world is about our biases is

29:13

is about having common ground with the

29:16

others and is about dealing with complexity.

29:18

It's that makes it impossible to conclude

29:20

anything on that Detective Macys see, that's

29:22

that's right. But I would put it.

29:24

A different way which is that I

29:27

think these tools a very valuable but.

29:29

They come in. Ah Steve done a

29:32

lot of work so a deduct his

29:34

argument. Tells you what is already

29:36

present in your premises. It spells it

29:38

out. Or that can be

29:40

very useful Suffer example if he said,

29:42

you know I don't trust vaccines because

29:45

they're on natural. Now. You.

29:47

Can spell out deductively certain things

29:49

from that you can say. Okay

29:52

so what you're saying He is.

29:55

Anything that some that's what is untrustworthy.

29:58

Their saw. wearing clothes

30:00

is unnatural. So that's

30:02

bad. Or living in a house is bad.

30:05

Are you saying that? Is that what

30:07

you mean? Or alternatively, if it's natural

30:09

for humans to wear glasses and clothes

30:11

and use antibiotics and go on airplanes,

30:14

then it's probably natural for us to

30:16

make vaccines too. Is that

30:18

what you mean? So you can

30:21

use the tools of deduction to see

30:24

where your premises lead you and then

30:26

investigate whether your premises are or aren't

30:28

good. But you're right that actually...

30:30

And also Tom, sorry to interrupt. And also

30:32

the example you were pointing out is a

30:34

good example of a bad inference. So the

30:37

premise might even be okay, but the inference

30:39

to the leap from the premise to the

30:42

conclusion is wrong. That's right. And of course,

30:44

inference in a way is a form of

30:46

hidden premise. All

30:48

inferences are in a sense

30:51

a premise about what follows and what

30:53

the logic of the situation is. And

30:55

what we're asking people to do, and I

30:58

think this is the crucial point, is

31:00

not, as you say,

31:02

seek perfect confidence through deduction.

31:04

It's to go back and

31:07

reconsider their premises and assumptions.

31:10

And so with critical thinking, today,

31:12

I put a lot

31:14

of emphasis on the groundwork. What

31:16

are your fundamental beliefs? Why

31:19

do you believe them? What are

31:21

other people's fundamental beliefs? Are you

31:23

really sure about those? What are

31:25

your feelings? How are your

31:27

feelings getting in the way here? What else

31:29

is going on? And so you're right, there's

31:31

other stuff, the classical work

31:33

around deduction and induction

31:36

and even abduction. I think

31:38

it's very valuable, but

31:40

I think we need to pay a great deal of

31:42

attention to the stuff that comes before

31:45

that, which is actually often

31:47

just a matter of observation, like thinking

31:49

harder. Okay, so yeah, we're saying unnatural

31:52

things are bad, but what do we mean by

31:54

that? Well, often what people actually mean is, I

31:57

don't trust the motives.

32:00

of some people creating new stuff and selling it,

32:02

like pharmaceutical companies or tech companies. And you can

32:04

then say, well, okay, well, that might

32:06

be a reasonable thing to say, but

32:09

it's not about natural or unnatural. To

32:11

some degree, it's about the grounds

32:13

that you have for trusting individuals.

32:16

And then the question is, well, what evidence

32:18

would persuade you? Because again, you

32:20

drive a car, for example, you live in

32:22

a building, you probably want to

32:24

have a qualified surgeon perform

32:26

an operation on your child, rather

32:29

than someone from 300 years ago, with

32:32

a rusty saw. So

32:34

we get to much more interesting stuff.

32:36

But yeah, it's about pausing and thinking

32:38

and, and not just going off

32:40

on this kind of deductive goose chase,

32:42

where it was you say you pretend

32:44

that you possess certainty. And

32:46

in my experience, and I bet in yours too,

32:49

asking questions works much better than going head

32:52

on against the argument. But it requires some

32:55

training because it goes, I think it goes

32:57

against our natural instincts, which is much more

32:59

to go head on and disagree. But if

33:01

you start asking questions, as in the example

33:03

you just gave, suddenly find

33:05

out that people didn't exactly mean that

33:07

or they were not that confident in

33:09

the reasons themselves, right? Exactly, exactly. And

33:11

of course, in order to ask questions

33:14

in good faith, you need

33:16

there to be, if you like, trust in

33:18

the room. So when I work

33:20

with companies with organizations, a

33:22

lot of the time, the question is one of kind

33:24

of culture and atmosphere. Everyone says, Oh, you can ask

33:26

any questions you like, but often in a meeting or

33:29

a boardroom. In fact, there's a lot of

33:31

fear and a lot of ego. So how

33:33

do you really establish that kind of

33:35

trust? And there are if you

33:38

like tricks, you can do with this. One

33:40

famous one is the example of a pre-mortem,

33:42

which I'm sure you and

33:44

your listeners may have heard of. It's a

33:46

very simple trick. It just says, let's pretend

33:50

that it's two years in the future

33:52

and our big project has gone

33:54

wrong. It's a disaster. And

33:57

now we're all going to have a competition,

33:59

a game. Where we talk about

34:01

why it went wrong. It's a game,

34:03

but it gives you permission to talk about Uncertainty

34:06

and failure you say okay Yeah, no our

34:08

new product went wrong because it turned out

34:10

that nobody liked it it turned out it

34:13

was too expensive It went wrong because our

34:15

competitors released a better one it went wrong

34:17

because we got sued and

34:19

so suddenly you Create

34:22

permission for people to challenge the

34:24

narrative to talk about assumptions. There's

34:26

lots of ways of doing this Yeah, I love

34:28

that too the primortum and there's another one I

34:30

don't know if you've seen that in practice, which

34:33

is it's similar actually it's

34:35

that obligation to dissent So whenever

34:37

there's a meeting you cannot leave

34:39

without someone expressing an opposing opinion

34:41

exactly, right? Yeah, the devil's advocate

34:43

and that's of course one of

34:45

the oldest Philosophical exercises

34:47

unaware of is that

34:50

of arguing both sides? Goes

34:52

all in about to ancient Greece and and

34:54

indeed other disciplines, you know and India

34:56

and elsewhere and Vedic thought even Where

34:59

the idea is that until you know

35:01

the other side of

35:03

the argument? You don't even know

35:06

your side of the argument. So you swap

35:08

you played that was advocate in the modern

35:10

world You might say you stress test an

35:12

idea by subjecting it to critical

35:14

scrutiny. It's a very powerful idea We

35:17

see it in science all the time in

35:19

science, you know, you start off with a

35:21

null hypothesis where

35:23

you're Starting assumption is

35:26

that the thing you're investigating is false

35:28

or not true and then you have

35:30

to try and prove that it's not

35:32

just Chance that there is a real

35:34

effect you discipline yourself to do that

35:36

and it's such an important mentality Because

35:38

everybody wants to say oh, you know,

35:41

you can say anything you like But

35:43

actually unless you put a framework

35:45

in place that really Demands

35:47

that people stress test ideas and speak

35:49

up. It won't happen by magic. Oh,

35:52

yeah Yeah, yeah in most cases by

35:54

the way Have you you probably tried

35:56

one of those debate models in which

35:58

you're forced to define? defend the opposite side.

36:00

And it's a great experience in that I have

36:03

a friend, she

36:05

participated in one of those ones, and

36:08

she had to defend China's dictatorship in some

36:10

other issue. I don't remember which one, but

36:12

then she was so persuasive that she won

36:14

the debate. She had

36:17

a very bad conscience by the end of it. It's

36:19

a great exercise. I do this with children and I've

36:21

written books for children as well. Interestingly,

36:26

when I'm doing this with companies

36:28

or schools or universities, I

36:30

often start with something very low stakes

36:32

to get people into that playful mindset.

36:35

And so I'll encourage people to come

36:37

up with an idea they disagree with,

36:39

but about something unimportant, like a movie,

36:42

like a film, or a food

36:44

they hate, or something like that. Because if

36:47

it's unimportant, if it's

36:49

not ideologically charged, then

36:51

people are very comfortable playing with it. And then

36:53

you take it to something more important. And

36:56

the more I work around this with

36:58

people running workshops and designing courses, and

37:01

I chair organizations as well, and

37:03

so on, the more

37:05

I feel there's the psychological work. I

37:07

do work around meditation and mindfulness and

37:09

breathing and listening. Because actually,

37:12

controlling your emotions and

37:14

finding comfort with discomfort

37:16

is so important. And

37:19

in so many politically and

37:21

economically charged atmospheres, none

37:23

of this happens. And people don't

37:25

want to admit that they're scared

37:27

or angry or uncomfortable or afraid.

37:30

But even very senior people often are.

37:33

And again, working with people on that

37:35

can be a very powerful way of

37:37

giving permission to think, if we don't

37:40

have that permission, that time, that

37:42

space, none of the good stuff

37:44

can happen. Those are two very important points,

37:46

I think. First, if you don't have that space, none

37:48

of the good stuff happens. And that's the one that

37:50

you made previously, that if you don't create

37:53

that space on purpose, it won't happen

37:55

by itself, or very seldom will it

37:57

happen by itself. Absolutely. And you know,

38:00

It can be really hard to

38:02

do and organizations and as government's

38:04

indeed, you know to do both

38:06

of those things to get permission

38:08

and to build the right kind

38:10

of. Spaces. And

38:12

again, this is where we can get back to

38:14

the evidence about cognition. There are

38:16

things people are bad at like

38:18

probability. Would. Just. Not very

38:20

good at that intuitively, but there are

38:23

things people do that like ranked ordering

38:25

for example. So if I give people

38:27

a whole bunch of numbers and say

38:29

you know which the preferred outcomes which

38:31

looks better for the organization a lot

38:34

of the time people will be very

38:36

last verse without be overly persuaded by

38:38

large numbers will They'll find it very

38:40

hard to compare different kinds of statistical

38:42

so on. But. It you say

38:44

to people. Rankin order these different

38:47

outcomes in terms of preference. People

38:49

will often be very good at

38:51

coming up with the first, second,

38:53

third, fourth, and fifth choice. So.

38:55

You can then. Tap. Into.

38:58

Valid intuitions. But. The

39:01

key question we keep coming back

39:03

to his a lot of the

39:05

time on social media or in

39:07

technological contexts. The design of

39:09

the system is all about. Emotion

39:12

and impact. Rather

39:14

than evidence and cognition.

39:17

And. So something as simple and city

39:19

as email. The. Way an organization

39:22

uses email is often set

39:24

up to force people. To.

39:26

Send like a hundred messages a day.

39:28

Really fast. Really?

39:31

Stressed to prove they're working. At.

39:33

Some really, really bad way

39:35

of using human minds and

39:38

human time. But. Lots

39:40

of organizations just do it by default. is

39:42

sending emails it to in the morning, or

39:44

is sending a hundred emails to prove that

39:46

you're doing your job. That's. Gonna

39:49

get. Really bad results. You can get

39:51

really bad. Think it lots of. Fear

39:53

and anxiety every time you send an

39:56

email. You. Create an email for someone

39:58

else to answer. Much. better

40:00

sometimes to have. So Amazon do this quite well

40:02

actually, whenever you think of them as a company.

40:05

They have very good meetings and

40:07

presentations. Arguments expressed not

40:09

in PowerPoint, like one side of

40:11

a sheet of paper, discussions where

40:14

a team has to make an argument and

40:16

a counter argument, which is not about individuals

40:18

showing off, and emphasis on

40:20

ideas and evidence, a ban on lots

40:23

of emails, lots of attachments, and insistence

40:25

and so on. So these

40:27

protocols, how you communicate, how you share

40:29

information, how you run your meetings, have

40:32

a huge effect in terms of the

40:34

quality of the thinking you get and

40:36

potentially the errors you avoid. It's

40:40

amazing that which is natural,

40:42

we use a lot of the same examples

40:44

and use cases because I also love that

40:46

example of Amazon in which rather than having

40:48

presentations, you have a document and that

40:52

policy they have and they're not the only ones that you get

40:55

into the room and you spend the first 15

40:57

or 30 minutes reading the document

40:59

rather than talking straight on without

41:01

reading what's actually the matter under discussion,

41:04

which is something that happens in

41:06

most organizations, of course, precisely because

41:08

you had to spend all that time writing emails

41:10

and answering to emails. Often you didn't

41:12

have time to fully read the email about which

41:15

that meeting is, so you end

41:17

up going to the meeting without having prepared and that

41:19

system forces you to prepare already

41:21

inside the room, which I think is a great overview.

41:23

That's right, that's right. And actually, I

41:25

see an analogy with some schools that

41:28

I visited, some religious schools where

41:30

you start the day with a couple

41:32

of moments of silence. You

41:34

start a lesson with a moment of silence

41:36

that before a question is answered, people just

41:39

sit with it for a

41:41

minute and small pauses

41:43

and silences can be

41:45

incredibly powerful just for

41:47

30 seconds. 30 seconds before

41:50

anyone speaks, we're just going to sit

41:52

with this question for 30 seconds. Even

41:55

that as an intervention can be

41:57

transformative sometimes. And again, it's mandatory,

41:59

right? Yeah, not optional. Yeah, not

42:01

optional. Again, you have to make it mandatory. Interesting.

42:04

So that's one I hadn't seen before Some

42:09

work and read read books by

42:11

a friend called Robert pointing who wrote a

42:13

book called pause and

42:16

he's I've taught of business schools with him

42:18

and so on and he very

42:20

much uses ideas like this about the

42:22

power of pauses and The

42:25

point of a pause is that

42:27

it's only by pausing that you can think

42:29

twice When we're

42:31

thinking critically, we're thinking not once but twice

42:35

We're having a thought and then we're saying hang on

42:37

a second. Is my thought Accurate

42:40

and useful and honest or

42:43

is there more I need to know without

42:45

a pause None of

42:47

the other stuff happens Even

42:49

in in conversations even the one we're having

42:52

right now, so it's often useful to pause

42:54

for a few seconds to think But

42:57

it's very unnatural to us. I think so

42:59

that's why for instance I forget the exact

43:01

name of these songs we do, you know

43:03

when we are talking and we are thinking

43:05

about what you want to say And I

43:07

say so Tom, you know and I do

43:09

this These feelers these are

43:11

meant to so I use them and everyone uses

43:13

them kind of unconsciously to sort of feel the

43:16

space Feel the air so that you don't step

43:18

in and the same thing goes for answering questions

43:20

right away So if you ask me a question

43:22

and I spend three or four seconds thinking about

43:24

it. I Fear

43:26

that either you will go on speaking or

43:28

someone else Well in this case not but

43:30

in real life someone else will step in

43:32

and talk so we are sort of trained

43:35

not to do that But that training

43:37

goes against good thinking as you

43:39

were saying. That's right. And sometimes

43:41

we have to unlearn Some

43:44

of the habits I think a lot of it does

43:46

come back to trust and to

43:48

shared values and you can write

43:50

these things down You can have a protocol you can

43:53

just say look We're not going

43:55

to interrupt. We're gonna have a

43:57

two-second pause after someone has spoken or

43:59

again a couple

44:01

of boards and one very simple

44:03

thing I do when the question

44:05

is important is A, ask everyone to read

44:08

it in advance and prepare some thoughts, but

44:11

B, is to go around the table and

44:14

ask everybody in turn to

44:16

just make a contribution and

44:18

everybody else to listen just

44:21

to make sure that the room isn't

44:23

dominated by the most confident. As

44:27

you say, silences can be

44:29

very unnatural and uncomfortable, but

44:31

I think something almost magical can happen if

44:34

you welcome silences and normalize them,

44:37

which is that they can become fertile,

44:40

they can become a place

44:43

where people show each

44:45

other respect, people think twice,

44:47

people generate ideas, people embrace

44:49

a different rhythm of

44:52

talk that isn't just performative

44:54

that isn't just performing confidence

44:57

and decisiveness. Again,

45:00

it's something I try

45:02

and model, I suppose, in a lot of the

45:04

work I do. I don't

45:07

use a PowerPoint, I don't even

45:09

use prepared notes sometimes,

45:12

just so that people look, I want to get you

45:14

thinking and talking and listening, I want

45:16

to get one person to talk to another, and

45:18

then that person to speak back what

45:20

they think they've heard, and just

45:23

to spend some time talking about what they think

45:25

they've heard, what they think they've

45:27

understood, they've misunderstood, clarifying this

45:30

active listening technique. And

45:32

it can be revelatory

45:35

because people realize that

45:37

they don't have much of this kind of

45:39

listening and time and attention in their lives,

45:42

and that if you deploy it

45:44

selectively, it's very powerful. It's

45:47

quite brave not to use PowerPoints,

45:49

I find brave in the sense that you

45:52

have nothing to hold to if you

45:54

suddenly forget what you were saying. But

45:56

also, so this part is obvious, but

45:58

I think sometimes these it creates a sense

46:00

of uneasiness on the part of the audience. If you

46:03

go there without PowerPoints, people

46:05

generally think, okay, he's exactly sure what he's talking

46:08

about. What will this be

46:10

about? Is it

46:12

only him talking? Some people find, in my experience,

46:14

find it strange. Yes, that's right.

46:16

And I think often what

46:19

I need to do for people is tell them quite

46:21

a lot in advance about what I'm going to do

46:23

so that they're confident, they're

46:26

structured there and exercises there and content

46:28

there. It's not in PowerPoints form, it's

46:30

in my head. But

46:32

I do say to people, and I've been giving

46:35

talks and running workshops

46:37

and working around this for more

46:39

than 10 years now, and

46:41

I've got more confident at being, I guess,

46:45

authentic or trying to be and saying, look,

46:47

I'm talking about thinking. So

46:49

what I want to do is get people thinking. I

46:52

want to have everybody in my audience doing

46:54

some thinking, pausing for 30 seconds,

46:56

having some dialogue in pairs, sharing

46:59

ideas. And in some ways,

47:01

I have less and less content and

47:04

more and more because it's the doing. My

47:06

goodness, there's a lot of content out there. The

47:08

world doesn't need more content. The

47:10

world needs more thought. But

47:13

you're right that some audiences want

47:15

a PowerPoint. Some people want

47:17

the comfort of that. And

47:20

then it's finding ways of doing that that still

47:24

have a little bit of thoughtfulness in

47:26

them. You've

47:30

been teaching critical thinking to, I imagine, very different audiences. So

47:32

you wrote

47:52

a book and the book is by definition

47:54

to a general audience. I mean, you

47:56

don't know the specific audience or the

47:58

specific people are reading the book. book but

48:00

it's anyone. Then you're also, as

48:03

I understood doing it at schools

48:06

and you're doing it in companies and

48:08

you put together that course with the

48:10

economists that we talked before. What

48:12

is your experience taught you about the

48:14

type of skills and the type of

48:17

challenges that people face in these different realities? So I

48:19

bet that the general public for

48:21

instance and the

48:23

corporate public have different challenges

48:26

in the sense that the

48:28

first is probably more concerned with societal

48:31

issues, politics, social media and

48:33

the second with more concrete

48:36

problems about improving decision making,

48:38

problem solving, making meetings

48:40

more efficient and whatnot. So I guess

48:43

the challenges themselves will be different, right?

48:45

They're very different but interestingly

48:48

the more I do, the more

48:51

I find that the same fundamental

48:53

kind of exercises and experiences

48:56

that work in schools with

48:59

12 year olds also work

49:01

in boardrooms for chief executives. That's

49:03

quite interesting. And so some

49:05

of the stuff we've talked about. So you do

49:07

the same things, that's interesting. I do the same,

49:09

in some ways I do the same things with

49:11

different content. I get people to

49:14

do active listening, to speak, to

49:16

listen, to pause. I

49:19

get people to argue different sides in

49:21

a debate. I get people

49:23

to try reframing questions in multiple

49:25

ways. I get people to try and

49:28

reflect upon their own assumptions. And

49:31

when it connects psychologically, ironically

49:34

enough I think for senior

49:36

executives or people in very senior

49:39

positions, being given permission to

49:41

play these kind of games and talk about

49:43

their feelings and ideas and think about

49:46

thinking. It can

49:48

be most powerful when it isn't just

49:50

full of business jargon

49:53

and when it isn't just about saying

49:55

what's the strategy for your organization, what

49:57

are your challenges, you know, what are

49:59

your threats and you know

50:01

opportunities and and so on

50:04

but in some ways you know if

50:06

someone brings me in it's because they

50:08

probably want something different to

50:11

a kind of standard business school

50:13

or course so for me

50:15

the you know the holy grail is almost

50:18

you know the fundamental insight that works for everyone

50:20

but of course you use very different language you

50:23

use very different examples you have to

50:25

speak to someone's reality and so when

50:28

I'm dealing with teenagers I often talk

50:30

about social media and AI and work

50:32

when I deal with organizations I'll talk

50:34

about organizational strategies and

50:36

how different organizations run meetings and

50:39

so on but I

50:41

think the fundamental sort of human experience

50:43

of and there's that eureka

50:45

moment when someone does something

50:47

for themselves and it opens up a slightly

50:50

new way of thinking give them a slightly

50:52

new thinking tool and that's always the price

50:54

no matter who

50:56

the audience is. Yeah interesting so

50:58

the topic changes but the method

51:00

stays the same and

51:03

I guess in companies it might even be a

51:06

more added value in a sense because I

51:08

feel that when you work in a corporate

51:10

environment you are working in a with a

51:12

level of abstraction which helps to some extent

51:14

because we need that straight we need concepts

51:17

to think about complex things but at

51:19

some point it starts helping because you're using

51:21

those concepts which are not challenged anymore so

51:24

they are kind of crystallized maybe

51:26

no one really knows what that means what the

51:28

strategy means or the strength means or the or

51:30

the second of the market or the customer whatever so

51:32

suddenly you don't know what it means and then you go

51:35

in I guess and get them to to

51:37

paraphrase what the other said to start

51:39

questioning assumptions and suddenly you get those

51:41

eureka moments. That's exactly right you know

51:43

big organizations will tend to have a

51:46

lot of unexamined assumptions and

51:48

they have to because you know you have

51:50

to assume a lot an organization

51:52

is a huge kind of machine a huge

51:55

structure and it can be a very good and

51:57

a very successful machine and that's partly of

51:59

course the power of having an external speaker

52:01

and an external perspective. It

52:04

gives people, again, permission to challenge and

52:06

change, or just be honest or just

52:08

listen. I think most

52:10

consultants, most people who work with different

52:12

organisations will say the same thing, which

52:15

is sometimes when you just talk to people at length

52:17

and let them express

52:19

the uncertainties and

52:21

try and explain to someone else what's

52:24

going on. That's when

52:26

these little insights coalesce. Again, there's a

52:29

very simple trick here, which I've written

52:31

about and used. Explain

52:33

like I'm five, explain like I'm

52:35

six. Imagine that I'm a smart

52:39

seven-year-old and I know nothing

52:41

about your organisation at all, but I'm really

52:43

interested. You've got to explain to me

52:45

what you do in your job, but

52:47

you've got to make it work for a

52:49

seven-year-old. You can't just say, well,

52:52

I'm a VP of communications and

52:54

I manage a cross-platform strategy, taking about

52:57

conventional and new and emerging media. You

52:59

can't say that. You have to say,

53:01

well, my job is

53:03

to try and tell the world about what

53:05

we do. You have

53:08

to use ordinary language. Actually,

53:11

I come back to, I have a great memory

53:13

of being at a conference with Danny Kahneman,

53:15

among other great people a few years ago.

53:18

My memory

53:20

of him is he sat on the

53:22

back row and every now and then he just raised

53:24

his hand and he said, I'm

53:26

very sorry. I just don't

53:28

really know what you're talking about. What

53:31

do you mean? And there's someone

53:33

very distinguished at the front talking about, for

53:36

example, their research or their

53:38

AI strategy. He'd say, yeah, but why

53:41

are you doing that? What do you mean? You've

53:43

just said your strategy is

53:45

to reinvent workflows by integrating

53:47

AI. What does that mean?

53:50

Why do you want to

53:52

do that? And

53:54

of course, he had such a reputation

53:57

that these questions were taken seriously, but these

53:59

very simple questions. are very powerful. Yeah, it

54:01

reminds me, I don't know if you read about that,

54:03

but it reminds me a lot of what Richard

54:05

Feynman used to do. Oh absolutely,

54:08

yeah. Right, so you get

54:10

people who went to his office and

54:12

they suddenly started making, posing these very,

54:15

very basic questions that almost startled

54:17

the other person, but suddenly

54:19

as they went, the other

54:21

person found out that there was, what would eventually

54:24

usually find out that there was some

54:26

gap in the reasoning, and you wouldn't get

54:28

to that without those questions. Absolutely right. Feynman's

54:30

a wonderful example. I think he was someone

54:33

who physicalized things as well. He

54:35

would play with the ball, throw

54:38

stuff around, make things. Anything that

54:40

helped you see more clearly was

54:42

good. He obviously made great discoveries

54:45

in quantum electrodynamics and the fundamental

54:47

physics, but also made some huge

54:49

contributions to the biological sciences

54:53

and around other ideas that he took an interest

54:55

in. I think having someone

54:57

ask these questions and the only agenda

54:59

is trying to understand better. That's the

55:01

crucial thing, right? That's critical thinking in

55:04

a nutshell. Your agenda is

55:06

just trying to really understand a bit better

55:08

what's going on. You're not trying to look

55:11

clever. You're not trying to score points.

55:13

Maybe at that point in time, you're not even trying to make a

55:16

profit, down the line you are, but

55:18

at that point in time, it's just like, what's really going on? What

55:20

do we really do here? What is

55:22

your job? What are you really doing?

55:25

What are you really worried about? These

55:27

questions are very powerful. You can't spend your whole

55:29

life answering them or asking them, but to

55:32

be able to have those questions in the room

55:35

can be transformative for individuals

55:37

and organizations. Yeah, because you'll

55:39

find out that there were

55:41

some assumptions that were not

55:43

questioned and that were actually

55:45

essential. Always. I was getting

55:48

excited. I just did a lovely example for

55:50

SpaceX, say, who put a huge amount of

55:52

money and effort into

55:54

trying to catch elements

55:57

called fairings that were

56:00

shed by their rockets. They're

56:02

like covers, but very expensive covers

56:04

that would drop down when

56:06

the rocket went up and they'd fall into the ocean

56:09

and be wasted. And they're costing like a million dollars

56:11

a pop. So you're wasting millions of dollars every time

56:13

you fly a rocket, even though you're reusing the main

56:16

units of it. And they had these

56:18

genius ideas about massive robot boats with

56:20

nets and things like that to try

56:22

and catch these fairings and

56:24

reuse them. But the rate was really low. It

56:26

was really difficult and in bad weather and so

56:28

on. And then they took a few steps back

56:30

and said, well, hang on a second, what are

56:32

we doing here? We want to

56:35

reuse these things and not waste them. It will

56:37

save us millions. So we're trying

56:39

to catch them in massive robot nets. But

56:41

that's crazy. That's not working. What if we

56:43

just spent a bit more money and made

56:45

them waterproof? What if we just made

56:48

it so that these things drop into the ocean and rather

56:50

than be lost and get spoiled, they

56:52

just float, the key components

56:54

are protected, and we scoop them up. And

56:57

they did that. And suddenly, they've got

56:59

basically 100% reuse rate, because they just

57:03

took a step back and said, what are we trying

57:05

to do here? We're not trying to build a robot

57:08

space component catcher. We're

57:11

just trying not to waste stuff. So let's just build

57:14

it differently. So it floats. Yeah, that's an

57:16

interesting story. And it resonates with me because

57:18

I think we have difficulty

57:22

with adjusting our behavior

57:24

in a manner that's not incremental. So

57:27

usually what we do is we

57:29

adjust incrementally. So something changes from a situation to

57:31

the other region. Sometimes what's

57:33

required is a complete change. And

57:35

that's very unnatural to

57:37

us, I find. Absolutely. Yeah, in a way,

57:39

it's part of a sort of a sunk

57:41

cost fallacy, which is, you know,

57:44

you put a certain amount of time and effort into

57:46

a solution or a product or an idea. And

57:48

then, you know, your mission becomes

57:50

to put more effort into that you

57:53

can't let it go. Whereas

57:55

actually, the most important lesson might

57:57

be, you've discovered that that doesn't work.

58:00

And what you've learned is you need to try

58:02

a different approach that you're going to get there.

58:05

And of course, science is often like that. You

58:07

put huge amounts of effort into

58:10

trying to make Einstein's

58:12

equations work at the

58:14

level of fundamental particles. You

58:17

really desperately, God doesn't play dice.

58:19

You do not want there to

58:21

be a random or unpredictable component

58:23

in fundamental physics. So you try

58:26

and you try and you try

58:28

to save Einstein's equations. And

58:30

then eventually you have to admit experimentally

58:32

that you take a few steps back

58:34

and, yep, uncertainty is there in

58:36

the fabric of the universe. You

58:39

have to embrace the uncertainty. You can't get rid of it. It

58:42

seems to be fundamental. You have

58:44

to change your whole notion of what is fundamental. And

58:46

there's lots of wonderful writing about

58:49

paradigm shifts in ideas. And

58:51

I guess the essence of that, Thomas

58:53

Kuhn and others wrote about the fact

58:55

that you have incremental discoveries, as

58:57

you say, that update a model.

59:00

But eventually, at some point, a

59:03

new way of thinking comes along when

59:05

the old way of thinking can

59:07

no longer explain and hold all the

59:09

new knowledge. Suddenly

59:12

a whole new paradigm, a whole new way

59:14

of thinking emerges because

59:16

you need that paradigm shift to

59:18

deal with all the

59:21

new things you've learned about the world. And

59:23

it gets unsustainable to keep using the old

59:25

model. That's right. But the

59:27

old model is still good for some point.

59:29

We still use Newton's equations on a large

59:32

scale. We still use Einstein's equations. But we

59:34

also need Feynman and Bohr

59:36

and Schrodinger and others' occasions to

59:39

do different things. You don't just throw away

59:41

the old, but we find new things and

59:43

new ways alongside it. I'm curious

59:45

about the dynamics you do, both

59:47

with the general public and in

59:49

schools and in companies. How

59:52

large a number can you have in

59:54

those meetings in the room? Or

59:57

to ask in another way, what's the ideal number of people for

59:59

the world? that work well. Because

1:00:02

I'm asking this because I find that if

1:00:05

the audience is too large, and

1:00:07

by too large, I mean over 10 people,

1:00:09

it starts getting difficult to

1:00:11

have a single conversation which is organized at the

1:00:13

same time. For me, I guess again,

1:00:16

I almost reframe it, I see

1:00:18

it the other way around. How can I have

1:00:20

something that's valuable for any number of

1:00:22

people? So I

1:00:24

love working with groups of 10

1:00:27

or 20 people. But I also do

1:00:30

classes and master classes in person for people like

1:00:32

200, 300 people, where

1:00:34

I'll get people organized in groups and

1:00:36

get them doing exercises and kind of

1:00:38

trust them with it. And then online

1:00:41

or events wise, I've done talks for

1:00:43

thousands of people, or even broadcasts for

1:00:46

the audiences of millions of people eventually.

1:00:48

And the key for me

1:00:50

is asking, well, how can you give a

1:00:52

meaningful experience to this number

1:00:54

of people? What's the thing you need to

1:00:56

do? And I guess I probably fail quite

1:00:59

often. It's harder with more people. But very

1:01:01

broadly, I try to find a way to

1:01:03

kind of trust people with

1:01:05

ideas, to give them something and then trust

1:01:07

them to make something of it. So

1:01:10

with a very large number of people, you just have

1:01:12

a pause, you have a silence, you just say, look,

1:01:14

I want you to take 10 seconds right now to

1:01:17

think about this, to

1:01:19

reflect upon this point. I want you to

1:01:21

go away and do this. I'm going to tell you this story.

1:01:23

The smaller numbers of people, but still hundreds, you can say I'm

1:01:25

going to split you into groups. And I want you to talk

1:01:27

to each other about this. Yeah, they

1:01:29

do it themselves. Do it themselves.

1:01:31

But you're right that ultimately, you know, with

1:01:33

a couple of dozen people, you can do

1:01:35

something a little more magical. And

1:01:38

you can kind of have a room and have

1:01:40

people really in the moment talking to each other

1:01:43

and working together and all

1:01:45

hearing each other. And that isn't

1:01:47

possible with larger numbers of people. Or

1:01:49

that interestingly, when I do things online,

1:01:52

I find group chat can be very powerful, because

1:01:55

actually, people can't hear many voices at

1:01:57

the same time, you know, it just becomes a shouting

1:01:59

match. But with a group chat, you

1:02:02

can say to people, you know, okay, we're going

1:02:04

to reframe this question, we're going to come up

1:02:07

with as many different ways as we can of

1:02:09

defining a word like fairness, or efficiency, these words

1:02:11

that seem so simple, but they'll actually turn out

1:02:13

to have 30 or 40 or 50 different meanings.

1:02:15

And not the same to everyone. Not the same

1:02:18

to everyone. You say to an organization, okay, so

1:02:20

here's your core values, you're an organization, and you're

1:02:22

all about delivering value for customers. So

1:02:25

each of you is now going to time right down in the

1:02:27

group chat what you think that means in a sentence. And

1:02:29

you're going to get 60 different sentences and some

1:02:31

of those sentences are going to be contradictory. And

1:02:34

this thing that people thought we're all

1:02:36

about making, you know, helping our clients

1:02:39

be more efficient. So we're all

1:02:41

going to write down what we think the word efficient means. And

1:02:43

lo and behold, it means 50 different things.

1:02:47

Yeah. But what I find strange and a bit

1:02:49

annoying there is that I think vagueness

1:02:52

in the corporate world has some appeal.

1:02:54

So if you deliver a

1:02:56

talk talking about excellence or greatness or

1:02:58

whatever other vague words we can

1:03:01

think of, if you do it with

1:03:03

the right rhetoric, so if you do it with

1:03:06

right enthusiasm and with good delivery,

1:03:09

it often persuades people more than something

1:03:11

which explains better and in concrete terms

1:03:13

a concept. In other words, it

1:03:16

seems that vagueness works towards

1:03:19

persuasion in the rhetorical sense. I think

1:03:21

that's right. Vagueness is very safe

1:03:24

because you can't, if I said my

1:03:27

vision for this company is to be

1:03:29

bold and to be brave and

1:03:31

to be beautiful. What does that mean? Like

1:03:34

you can't call me on it. And I said, and I

1:03:36

can't disagree with that. No one, right? If

1:03:38

I said my vision for this company is to deliver

1:03:40

a minimum of a 15% increase in turnover and

1:03:45

profits and to be employing 25% more

1:03:47

people and to be shipping 10% more

1:03:50

product, very obviously you

1:03:52

can call me on that. Also if you're vague,

1:03:55

people are free to project their own ideas

1:03:57

onto it. I think I'll render.

1:04:00

And Feynman is very useful here, particularly

1:04:02

his work in education. He worked on an education

1:04:04

board and took a horror of

1:04:06

everybody in the education board. He read all

1:04:08

the textbooks. Yeah, I read. And

1:04:11

he made a lovely distinction between clarity

1:04:13

and false precision. Clarity

1:04:15

has been clear about what you mean. Clarity

1:04:17

is saying in a school textbook, when

1:04:20

the car drives along the road,

1:04:23

the surface of the road scrapes off little bits

1:04:25

of rubber from the wheel. And

1:04:27

very gradually, the rubber of the wheel

1:04:29

gets scraped away by the road and

1:04:31

the energy of driving. So you have

1:04:33

to replace it with a new wheel.

1:04:37

And that's clear. You're explaining

1:04:39

to some kids about the ideas underlying

1:04:42

friction. Whereas false

1:04:44

precision is saying, over

1:04:46

time, friction causes the erosion of wheel

1:04:48

rubber. That sounds really

1:04:50

scientific, but it doesn't explain anything. It

1:04:53

just sounds good. And Feynman made the point

1:04:55

that clarity is really important. And

1:04:57

that doesn't mean trying to be hyper precise. Again,

1:05:00

to be clear is to say, I

1:05:02

want to see our organization growing

1:05:05

year on year by more than our

1:05:07

competitors. It's nice and clear. Whereas

1:05:10

perhaps false precision is saying, I

1:05:12

want to see a minimum uplift of

1:05:14

2.2% above base

1:05:16

rate on a quarterly basis or something

1:05:19

like that. When talking about the

1:05:21

future in terms like that is meaningless, because

1:05:24

the error margins in measurement and

1:05:26

so on. Sorry

1:05:29

to interrupt, but I think Feynman's point had a lot

1:05:31

to do with clarity

1:05:33

being associated with being

1:05:36

concrete. So talking about concrete stuff,

1:05:38

whereas that false precision

1:05:40

usually employs concepts which might

1:05:42

not be vague, but are

1:05:44

not necessarily known by

1:05:46

your interlocutors. Exactly right. There's

1:05:49

these sort of two dangers really that you're hyper

1:05:52

precise in a meaningless way, or

1:05:55

that you're vague and obscure. And as you

1:05:57

see, true clarity is somewhere in the middle.

1:06:00

clarity is explaining

1:06:02

in kind of simple concrete language what

1:06:04

you're actually talking about. The

1:06:07

values of organizations is

1:06:09

a classic area for kind of vagueness and

1:06:11

hand waving because they're sort of designed to

1:06:13

make people feel good and be vaguely nice

1:06:15

and that's very safe. People

1:06:18

can project on it, makes people

1:06:20

feel warm inside, but actually I

1:06:22

think it can be very, very

1:06:24

undemanding in the worst sense because

1:06:27

we come back to the idea of

1:06:29

science that a theory or an idea

1:06:31

which can't be tested or disproved isn't

1:06:34

worth very much. You know,

1:06:36

if it explains everything, it explains nothing.

1:06:38

If I have a statement with which

1:06:41

no one would disagree, it's probably not

1:06:43

worth saying. I want our organization to

1:06:45

be inclusive and bold. Well, who doesn't?

1:06:47

Does anyone want their organization to be

1:06:49

timid and un-inclusive? Probably

1:06:52

not. I want my organization

1:06:54

to be a leader in its

1:06:57

field. Well, again, do I want my

1:06:59

organization to be a follower in its

1:07:01

field? And that simple trick of

1:07:03

saying, well, is the opposite of this statement

1:07:05

even vaguely credible? Is

1:07:08

this actually anything at all? But of

1:07:10

course it can be quite dangerous to say this. A lot of people

1:07:13

just want a bit of vague,

1:07:18

feel-good noise. Yeah, you

1:07:20

want a round, I don't know if this expression

1:07:22

exists in English, like you want round talk, like

1:07:24

in the sense of not

1:07:27

having angles or edges.

1:07:30

And it's not very different from politics.

1:07:33

It's not exactly the same, but you get whenever

1:07:36

you're talking to a broad

1:07:39

audience, which is diverse, you

1:07:42

end up, I think, having to

1:07:44

use that vague speech. Yeah, it's

1:07:46

a real danger. And it's

1:07:48

a strategy. I

1:07:50

do think that the kind of the

1:07:52

greatest examples of rhetoric, which obviously are

1:07:54

rare, combine inspiration

1:07:57

and persuasion. with

1:08:00

real kind of rational content.

1:08:04

We think back to Martin Luther King's

1:08:06

speeches and things like that. Visionary

1:08:09

rhetoric, but also

1:08:11

specific, painfully specific,

1:08:14

concrete, rooted

1:08:17

imagery and ideas and

1:08:19

asks. That's a very good point. And also,

1:08:21

in a sense, his speech,

1:08:23

to take that example, does

1:08:25

what we've been talking about,

1:08:27

which is question some assumptions which are

1:08:31

vague or imperfect or unrealistic. So it has

1:08:33

clearly that rational part and then on top

1:08:35

of it, obviously, has that

1:08:37

amazing rhetoric. So you have the two

1:08:39

components working with each other. That's right.

1:08:42

And I think we're not always

1:08:44

going to get that. We're talking about

1:08:46

one of the greatest orators in modern

1:08:48

history. But it's okay, I think,

1:08:50

to look at these examples and

1:08:52

realize that it's possible to aspire

1:08:55

to say something concrete and

1:08:58

meaningful and challenging to throw down an

1:09:00

actual challenge to people that we, you

1:09:02

know, rather than just to

1:09:04

play it safe. Yeah. Tom, you have

1:09:06

a new book out called

1:09:09

Wise Animals. Let's talk about it. I

1:09:11

meant to talk about it earlier in our

1:09:13

conversation, but it's your fault. You were too

1:09:16

interesting talking about this topic. So I

1:09:19

only arrived at it now. Well, it's better that

1:09:21

I ask you to pitch the book. You'll do

1:09:23

it better than me. Well, it's a book I

1:09:25

loved writing because in a way, it's just about

1:09:27

a lot of things that fascinate me. It

1:09:30

tells the story of

1:09:32

how human technology

1:09:35

evolved alongside humanity

1:09:37

and how the human story

1:09:40

is entwined with tools and

1:09:42

technological artifacts from before the beginning

1:09:45

of our species, of how

1:09:47

fire and flint tools and then much

1:09:49

later language and then much later literacy

1:09:51

and so on. These are not

1:09:53

just sort of optional extras.

1:09:56

These are absolutely entwined with

1:09:58

our humanity. The

1:10:00

key lesson for me could be really

1:10:02

summed up by the idea that there's

1:10:05

no such thing as a neutral

1:10:07

tool, that the technologies we collectively

1:10:10

make and use and develop have

1:10:13

all kinds of biases and

1:10:15

potentials and properties that push

1:10:17

us towards certain kinds of

1:10:19

action and understanding that shape

1:10:22

who we are and how we understand the world. So

1:10:25

when it comes to things like artificial

1:10:27

intelligence and autonomous systems

1:10:30

and indeed social media, we

1:10:32

need to ask ethical

1:10:35

and imaginative questions about

1:10:37

what we want from these systems.

1:10:40

We need to ask what it means to build

1:10:42

systems that serve the best in us, that

1:10:45

elevate our decision making, speak

1:10:47

to the themes I've been we've been talking about

1:10:50

so far. And the

1:10:52

message for me is that technology doesn't

1:10:54

determine our fate, that collectively

1:10:57

over time, we have control, we

1:10:59

get to shape and

1:11:01

choose between different possible futures. We

1:11:04

get to build technologies that serve different

1:11:06

ideas and purposes. So what does it

1:11:09

mean for technology to serve rather than

1:11:11

subvert democracy? What does it

1:11:13

mean to build systems that help us make better

1:11:16

and more informed decisions rather

1:11:18

than trapping us in

1:11:20

intense emotions and delusions? What

1:11:23

does it mean to build infrastructure and

1:11:26

cities that are beautiful, that

1:11:28

are livable, that are compatible

1:11:30

with the health of our planet

1:11:33

rather than destructive of it? So in a

1:11:35

funny way, it's a bit of a crazy

1:11:37

book. It's a very personal book. But it's

1:11:40

a book about technological humanism

1:11:42

and what it means

1:11:44

to talk about technology richly

1:11:46

in terms of emotion and

1:11:48

cognition and philosophy and aesthetics,

1:11:50

as well as just engineering.

1:11:53

Yeah. And I'm very curious to to

1:11:56

hear your opinion on these topics because

1:11:58

you unlike me, not only thought

1:12:01

about these topics but also done the research

1:12:03

on the history of our relationship to technology

1:12:05

and you have this interesting

1:12:07

expression that we co-evolved with technology which

1:12:09

I think is quite beautiful, especially in

1:12:11

that broad sense in

1:12:13

which you interpret the meaning of technology.

1:12:15

There we go again about concepts, right?

1:12:17

So that's the concept in which the

1:12:21

meaning you give to it includes

1:12:23

also the early tools we've used

1:12:25

and even language. That would be

1:12:27

enough for a whole conversation or even more than one so

1:12:29

we don't have time for it. But

1:12:31

I'm curious to know your view on two big

1:12:33

topics and two big challenges I think we have

1:12:35

nowadays. One is the

1:12:38

challenge digital media and

1:12:40

social media brings

1:12:42

to democracy with tribalism that

1:12:44

you mentioned earlier, populism,

1:12:47

polarization. And the other one has to do with

1:12:50

social media and children and specifically

1:12:52

advice for parents like us who

1:12:55

we have to deal with children

1:12:57

growing up in this age. But let's

1:12:59

start with the first

1:13:01

which is a topic I'm very curious about.

1:13:03

I even wrote a book which is partially

1:13:06

about this, about the impact of fake

1:13:09

news populism, tribalism and

1:13:11

how to deal with it. And to be honest,

1:13:14

I don't know the answer. So I know that

1:13:16

it's clearly a challenge that democracy is facing. So

1:13:18

the old model of democracy was not prepared for

1:13:21

the world of social media so that's clear. I

1:13:24

don't know yet what the future will look

1:13:26

like and especially how the transition to that

1:13:28

future will look like. So if you can

1:13:30

enlighten us, Tom, on

1:13:32

the path and the destination,

1:13:34

that would be very helpful. Well,

1:13:37

the one thing I feel

1:13:39

fairly confident about is that

1:13:41

it's a mistake to focus on technology

1:13:44

in the abstract. That actually

1:13:47

talking about social media doing things

1:13:49

to society as though it's a

1:13:51

sort of force out there that just makes stuff happen

1:13:53

is the wrong way of thinking about it. We

1:13:56

need to see how any technology is

1:13:58

embedded in a particular society. So

1:14:01

technology like social media is obviously

1:14:03

where people can be polarised, can

1:14:06

find voices, can be deceived, can

1:14:08

be manipulated, it can be used by populists, it

1:14:10

can be used as part of

1:14:12

vast stretches of surveillance, it can also be

1:14:14

used for great good and education and so

1:14:16

on. But all of

1:14:18

these things are embedded in particular

1:14:21

societies, in particular ways. And

1:14:23

when we talk to people about this, we

1:14:25

find again and again, that not that many

1:14:27

people just have their minds changed by social

1:14:29

media. It's more

1:14:31

that the things that they already want

1:14:34

to believe or fear or encouraged to

1:14:36

believe, they then seek out in social

1:14:38

media and it maybe amplifies these. So

1:14:40

I think you need to talk about

1:14:43

it in the context of people's

1:14:46

jobs, people's security

1:14:48

of earning, the levels

1:14:50

of equality and exclusion within a

1:14:52

society, its education and so on.

1:14:55

To some degree, you also need to talk

1:14:57

about the regulation of technology companies and the

1:15:00

ways in which monopolies are around allowed

1:15:02

to exist and the ways

1:15:05

in which certain public goods

1:15:07

and assets are or aren't

1:15:09

exploited or undermined. So

1:15:11

ultimately, and this is a bit of

1:15:14

a non-answer, it becomes a question of

1:15:16

sort of governance and what

1:15:18

a society believes itself to be and

1:15:20

what it prioritises and the ways in

1:15:22

which it regulates and the

1:15:24

ways in which social media, ultimately,

1:15:26

I think, social media can be

1:15:28

most useful when it highlights deep

1:15:31

sources of discontent and division

1:15:33

and exclusion. We look

1:15:35

across Europe, we see the rise of

1:15:37

the far right, of xenophobia

1:15:40

and isolationism, we

1:15:43

see a lot of fear about the future, we see a

1:15:45

lot of despondency, we see a lot of disinformation

1:15:47

and misinformation, but of course, for

1:15:50

me, I actually think it's a mistake

1:15:53

to empower governments to legislate

1:15:55

for what is or isn't true. That

1:15:57

seems to me to be very dangerous, it seems to me a

1:15:59

tool. that would probably backfire, that

1:16:02

is in itself tending towards

1:16:04

the totalitarian. What

1:16:06

does it instead mean to

1:16:08

reinforce structures of scrutiny, to

1:16:11

reinforce tolerance on a societal

1:16:14

level, to have an

1:16:16

education system, to have social

1:16:18

safety nets, to have systems

1:16:21

of justice that address

1:16:24

the concerns underlying

1:16:27

these fears? If people worry about

1:16:29

their jobs and their incomes and

1:16:31

their future and their planet and

1:16:33

their society, they're telling a government

1:16:35

something very important. But you

1:16:38

can't fight that battle in the realm of social media.

1:16:40

It's very easy to scapegoat it.

1:16:43

And I think, actually, I almost

1:16:45

end up thinking that the excessive focus

1:16:48

on technology is a red herring, is

1:16:50

a distraction from the deeper issues. So

1:16:53

this is often my answer when it comes to technology,

1:16:55

that we have to be a little suspicious of

1:16:58

the idea that the technology in itself

1:17:00

can either fix things or

1:17:02

make them worse and make them terrible. Interesting.

1:17:05

I have a different view there, I'd

1:17:08

say, because of course we don't

1:17:10

have the counterfactual here. So we

1:17:12

don't have the parallel universe in which social media

1:17:14

was not invented. But I

1:17:17

find the changes that we have had

1:17:19

in society and democracy so

1:17:22

big that I don't find any other cause

1:17:24

than the impact of social media.

1:17:26

And when I say social media, I'm

1:17:28

including also other platforms of internet, and

1:17:30

I'm including WhatsApp and so on. Of

1:17:33

course, again, I don't have the counterfactual, so I cannot

1:17:35

prove this. But I find, for instance,

1:17:37

I don't know what to think of this, but I

1:17:39

find parallel with the invention of the printing press quite

1:17:42

persuasive. As you

1:17:44

know, when Gutenberg invented the printing press, suddenly

1:17:47

what it meant in practice – it was

1:17:49

not actually that sudden, because back then things

1:17:51

took a bit longer to have their effects –

1:17:53

but with a few decades, suddenly books started

1:17:55

being printed out and so the readers of books started becoming

1:17:58

more and more and more and more and more and more

1:18:00

becoming much more in number than they used

1:18:02

to be. So the previous elites that were

1:18:04

basically a few hundred or a few thousand

1:18:06

people that had access to knowledge no

1:18:08

longer had the monopoly of that knowledge and

1:18:10

suddenly you have a lot of people reading

1:18:13

which was not of course the masses but

1:18:15

much more people than before and

1:18:17

that changed, that had a huge impact in

1:18:19

society and it led for instance to the

1:18:21

religious wars. And then after the

1:18:24

religious wars we actually got enlightenment which was much

1:18:26

better than what we had before but we had

1:18:28

to go through the religious wars and I feel

1:18:30

that we are kind of living through. So

1:18:33

here I would agree with you

1:18:35

here but I think the societal

1:18:37

change is the rise of mass interactive

1:18:39

media in general, not social media

1:18:41

in particular. Social media is

1:18:43

very significant but I think… So again the

1:18:45

concept was misleading again.

1:18:47

Yes but I think the analogy with Gutenberg is

1:18:50

very close in some ways. Media

1:18:52

and mass interactive media, the mobile

1:18:54

phone as a technology, absolutely.

1:18:57

Gutenberg printing transformed

1:19:01

the relationship of the majority of

1:19:03

humanity with written history and records.

1:19:06

It had been a province of the elite through

1:19:08

most of history, through most of

1:19:10

geography and it became over

1:19:13

a few centuries the province

1:19:15

of the majority and now the

1:19:18

creation of mediated records is becoming…

1:19:20

everybody does all the time and

1:19:22

not only that but also now

1:19:24

the creation of

1:19:28

records of media is arguably becoming

1:19:30

the province of machines,

1:19:33

of machine agents, of AIs and so on.

1:19:35

So this is huge, yes this is huge.

1:19:38

I just don't want to focus too much on

1:19:40

social media in particular but it's an immense revolution

1:19:42

and I don't think we can

1:19:44

fully understand it. I do think

1:19:47

that social media can point us

1:19:49

towards some of the dangers of course which

1:19:51

is about the spread of

1:19:53

emotionally impactful information at the expense

1:19:55

of truth, of

1:19:58

tribalism, the undermining of… common

1:20:00

bodies of knowledge and understanding, the

1:20:03

empowerment of dictators

1:20:05

and manipulators and surveillance of all stripes.

1:20:07

So yes, these are huge social trends,

1:20:10

but I guess I would want to

1:20:12

focus upon the bigger picture and

1:20:15

the mutual relationship. So as

1:20:17

you say, Gutenberg is interesting partly because

1:20:19

existing religious institutions tried to use

1:20:21

the Gutenberg press and presses

1:20:24

to spread the truth as they saw it, and

1:20:26

then Luther and others tried to

1:20:28

spread their truth greatly to the shock of

1:20:30

the Catholic authorities. You know, it was the

1:20:32

channeling of old conflicts in through new channels.

1:20:35

And I think it's this combination of the

1:20:37

old and the new. So I wouldn't dispute

1:20:39

the which is arguably what we are witnessing.

1:20:41

Yes, it is. Absolutely.

1:20:43

And I guess this is the thing you

1:20:45

see, I don't have, I guess,

1:20:48

a kind of a single answer to

1:20:50

it. You are a proper philosopher, you have

1:20:52

questions not answers. I have questions. This is

1:20:54

what philosophy does. We try to get people

1:20:56

to ask better quality questions. Although ironically enough,

1:20:59

I do greatly enjoy trying to provide concrete

1:21:01

policy advice and, you know, concrete ideas. I

1:21:03

think it's very important to come up with

1:21:05

specific recommendations. Last

1:21:08

question. What do you think

1:21:10

on the impact of social media on mental

1:21:12

health? As you know, there's a big discussion

1:21:14

around these about some people call it the

1:21:17

mental illness epidemic. Jonathan Haidt, we might know

1:21:19

is a social psychologist, he has a new

1:21:21

book out called The Anxious Generation.

1:21:23

I was listening to a podcast with him the other

1:21:25

day. And he has this, I

1:21:28

mean, these troubling numbers that show that mental

1:21:31

health has deteriorated a lot, especially

1:21:33

since 2012, which is basically the

1:21:35

turn when social media really

1:21:38

got big and its impact, especially

1:21:41

girls. And I have two girl daughters, although they

1:21:43

are still too young for that. But I talk

1:21:45

with friends who have children, especially those

1:21:47

who have girls, when they get even

1:21:50

sometimes pre-teens and they want to have their mobile phones,

1:21:52

it's a big challenge. They don't they actually don't know

1:21:54

how to manage it, whether they should give it to

1:21:56

them, they should monitor, then sometimes they want

1:21:58

to do things in a certain way. they want to

1:22:00

be more restrictive. But her

1:22:03

friends, their friends are not, or their parents'

1:22:05

friends are not being equally restrictive, so they

1:22:07

have no option then to adopt the same

1:22:09

behavior. It's a big challenge, I feel. As

1:22:12

a parent, I struggle with this. I

1:22:14

think it can be very, very

1:22:16

disconcerting to battle with

1:22:18

your children from a young age over

1:22:21

something that you feel may be making

1:22:23

them less safe, making them less well,

1:22:25

that may be powerful in ways that

1:22:27

they are ill-equipped to deal with. One

1:22:30

of the great challenges, I think, of

1:22:32

parenting and education is to try and

1:22:34

help young people grow into

1:22:38

happy digital citizens who can use

1:22:40

technology well, who can find balance.

1:22:42

I think the evidence is perhaps

1:22:44

more equivocal than Heitz argument suggests,

1:22:46

and there's real evidence there. I'm

1:22:48

fairly familiar with it. He makes

1:22:50

a very strong case, people like

1:22:52

Talakow and others have pointed out that some

1:22:54

evidence are on. Oh, you heard the

1:22:56

same podcast then. Yeah, around global

1:22:59

suicide rates and country

1:23:01

to country and so on, means that

1:23:03

the big picture is

1:23:05

unclear. I think very

1:23:07

broadly, there's a very strong

1:23:09

case for caution. There's

1:23:11

a very strong case for schools and governments

1:23:14

helping parents to put more

1:23:17

limits and barriers around use

1:23:19

of technology and to understand it better, to be less

1:23:21

afraid. I think what every parent

1:23:24

wants is to have good conversations

1:23:26

with their children about what they're doing. To keep

1:23:28

children safe, of course, you need

1:23:30

to know what they're doing, and they need to

1:23:32

trust you with that. I think

1:23:35

one of the simplest and greatest dangers is just

1:23:37

children having lots of private time on

1:23:40

devices, unscripted by their parents with

1:23:43

unfettered access to the internet. Not

1:23:45

because phones are inherently evil or

1:23:47

bad, but because the

1:23:49

amount of danger,

1:23:52

violence, manipulation and so on that can come

1:23:55

at a young person through the screen of

1:23:57

a phone is enormous. For me, perhaps the

1:23:59

most powerful. point that height and others have

1:24:01

made is that very broadly it's

1:24:04

easy today to give children far

1:24:07

too little risk and

1:24:09

independence in the real physical world and

1:24:11

far too much risk and independence in the digital

1:24:14

world. This balance is wildly

1:24:16

out of kilter that children should

1:24:18

be spending more time exploring

1:24:22

on their own physically taking some risks

1:24:24

doing stuff in the world, in

1:24:26

their towns, in their

1:24:28

neighborhoods and should be spending much less time

1:24:31

going into risky unsupervised areas of

1:24:33

the internet and being left alone

1:24:35

for hours with

1:24:37

unfitted access. But how do you do

1:24:39

that in practice? Because I haven't

1:24:43

reached that phase yet, but is there a

1:24:45

way in which you can give like partial

1:24:47

autonomy or partial privacy to kids? Because if

1:24:49

we look at the time in which we

1:24:52

both grew up, obviously there

1:24:54

was much less that we could do with the

1:24:56

internet, but we had full privacy. At least I

1:24:58

have full privacy in practice. I include whatever I

1:25:00

want in some part because

1:25:02

my parents didn't exactly understand at that

1:25:04

point how computers and internet work. But

1:25:07

now this as I see it, you can either give

1:25:09

kids a mobile phone or give them

1:25:11

a mobile phone and see what they are doing or give

1:25:14

them a mobile phone and not see what they are doing.

1:25:16

So you cannot give them

1:25:18

like partial privacy. So you can either monitor

1:25:21

them or not monitor them. Maybe

1:25:23

I mean naive but I don't think you are. I

1:25:25

think it's incredibly difficult and I would just be lying

1:25:27

if I said I had a perfect answer. My

1:25:29

imperfect answer is that a mobile phone is

1:25:31

a physical object. And

1:25:34

very broadly speaking, you know,

1:25:37

children can have it for some time, for some

1:25:39

apps, but not

1:25:41

all of the time and not for all apps

1:25:44

and not for all services. It gets harder as

1:25:46

children get older. Yeah. What's your concrete advice? So

1:25:48

in terms of age, let's say I

1:25:50

was a parent, my

1:25:53

oldest daughter was turning 12 and

1:25:55

she wanted a mobile phone with access to social media.

1:25:57

Would you advise that? Would you say I wait? until

1:26:00

she was 14 or 15. I would try

1:26:02

to suggest a mobile phone with no access

1:26:04

to social media. I would try to suggest

1:26:06

doing a lot of stuff on shared screens

1:26:08

and shared spaces, even on tablets. I play

1:26:11

video games with my kids and so on, who are 8

1:26:13

and 10. But already, you know,

1:26:15

it can be a losing beat. Things

1:26:17

like that. And I think trying

1:26:20

to have very clear time boundaries and

1:26:22

space boundaries around it. I don't like

1:26:24

the idea of private screens in bedrooms.

1:26:26

I don't like the idea of there

1:26:29

being just, you know, a lack of

1:26:31

variety in time. I think

1:26:33

it can be really hard to resist peer pressure. I

1:26:36

just try to keep talking to my kids about

1:26:38

what's going on and taking interest in it and

1:26:41

having conversations. But most importantly, I

1:26:43

think the ideal for me is

1:26:46

working with them to find kind of rules

1:26:48

and boundaries to understand that it's a contract,

1:26:50

that you're not enemies, that you're just trying

1:26:52

to find a way to balance

1:26:54

the positives and the negatives and make sure

1:26:57

that if there's bad or

1:26:59

worrying or upsetting stuff, they come to you. But

1:27:01

also that the home and the family can

1:27:04

be a place of safety. Because one of the great dangers

1:27:06

of a phone for all of us can be that there's

1:27:08

no time and no space in which we

1:27:10

are off and safe.

1:27:13

Perhaps the best concrete advice, which is hard to take,

1:27:16

is to model the behaviors yourself that you want to

1:27:18

see. Is to yourself,

1:27:20

you know, put your phone away, turn it

1:27:22

off, put it in a box, don't sleep

1:27:24

with it in your bedroom, you know, use

1:27:26

different technologies. And I try and I often fail to

1:27:28

say, you know, drive out the bad with the good,

1:27:31

so to speak. I try to buy great video games

1:27:33

for my kids. You know, I

1:27:35

buy the Zelda games, the Mario games,

1:27:38

Minecraft is a wonderful game, try to

1:27:40

celebrate that rather than games

1:27:42

that are very exploitative based on, you know,

1:27:44

kind of freemium models. They try to

1:27:46

get them kind of really on Kindle and using interactive

1:27:49

books and doing coding rather

1:27:51

than just being on YouTube

1:27:54

the whole time. But I also get it

1:27:56

wrong. And I just desperately hope that

1:27:59

I can provide enough balance

1:28:02

and love and support and options and

1:28:04

opportunities that my

1:28:06

children will come to me when

1:28:09

they are worried or sad and

1:28:11

that their home and their life will

1:28:13

have enough space and time

1:28:15

and safety in it that they

1:28:17

can do the learning they need to do. Yeah.

1:28:20

Tom, I'm mindful of your time so I'll let you

1:28:22

go. It was a great conversation. Thanks. I mean, I

1:28:25

wish you all success for all

1:28:27

your endeavors, especially your book Wise Animals

1:28:29

so everyone who's listening, I encourage you

1:28:31

to read. I mean, as you understood

1:28:33

already, Tom has a very sharp mind

1:28:35

so that's my recommendation. Thanks, Tom. Thank

1:28:37

you so much. It's been my very

1:28:39

great pleasure. Thank

1:29:05

you.

Unlock more with Podchaser Pro

  • Audience Insights
  • Contact Information
  • Demographics
  • Charts
  • Sponsor History
  • and More!
Pro Features