Home 🏠 🔎 Search


Bad Transcripts
for the
Beat Your Genes Podcast & More

Episode 61: Marxism, Affairs, Video Games, Tattoo signaling
an auto-generated transcript


To get a shareable link to a certain place in the audio,
hover your mouse over the relevent text,
right click, and "copy link address"
(mobile: long press & copy link address)
 


good evening dr. Lyle how are you doing today good good to hear your voice excellent well so today on the show we are going to be talking about well the first article was from the evolutionary psychology journal and the name of the article is the communicative function of sad facial expressions from Lawrence Reed and Peter disco whose CEO Lee they were trying to figure out what is it that sad facial expressions communicate to other people because they know we know that people feel sadness because of loss but it's unclear what that function is and what may not be signals credible so what they did was they were using what what they called an economic gain to test a hypothesis and what they did was they gave a fictitional back story and then they had the people who are viewing the the character displays so basically the static seconds they were saying okay decide how much money you were to give to this to the person displaying the sad expressions and in a couple of different experiments what they found was actually interesting it was that the people who displayed sad expressions compared to neutral expressions they got more money in these fictitious stands that's just beautiful yeah yeah which reminds me of these like infomercials you know where they've got the sad puppies or this or that and yeah sure yeah so they found their hypothesis which was found to be supported that sat expressions they function to increase the credibility of claims of loss right that makes a lot of sense and I think we're going to find that what I what I've said in other places is that effectively there's two major manipulative tactics for humans and timing there's certainly more than that but the the main to under conflict of interest are going to be oh can you hear me nope you cut out okay so if you can prove er oh yeah okay I will try to make sure this there's two main nonnative tactics that's where we came in it bit of tactics our anger and tears and so if you look at a child just think of it as a little jukebox with two different records that it can play when it when we are under what we're going to call quote conflict and so and actually adults are going to be similar but anger is going to be a signal of threatening communication whereas tears are going to be what we're going to call pathetic communication and so the and obviously what we're seeing is that a Miss in this case we're finding that the sad sad we're going to see that tears is going to go along with that and so then of course what what these folks haven't cracked open maybe I didn't read the article but just to to just to for our listeners just to follow the the evolutionary logic errors quite fascinating if if someone let's imagine we're in a village with ten people and let's suppose there's money and everybody's got about the same amount of money and somebody in some process loses five percent of their money or three percent of their money the and they're like a little bummed about it well you can see that they have not lost a great deal of evolutionary advantage and therefore the loss your ability to make up for that loss in other words you could take 3% of the coins out of your pocket and give it to them or you could take one and a half percent and give it to them and then you would both be about even because you would lost one and a half percent they would have gained one and a half percent so you could do that but the problem is is that there has not been a biological profit in that process because the money where the resources are worth about the same amount to you as they are to the other party however if we have a situation where you have a lot and they have almost none so let's suppose they have to you know Dismas and you've got 52 you know some unit of value and so now they lose one of their gizzards and they've got a pretty sad expression on their face because this puts them actually in some pretty pretty tough circumstances in the village now if you come along and you say oh you know you poor thing peed here you know I heard you lost when your gizzards let me give you a giz mitt now what happens is you've just doubled the amount of Giz mats that he has and you pushed him away from dire poverty in trouble and it's cost you almost nothing so the values are never objective they're always subjective it always depends upon you know the water is valuable to the extent that how thirsty you are and so in this case by the person is evolved to have used facial expressions in order to signal that they have lost something significant as this place just as these people just showed of course it is so it's a manipulative function but underneath this is a very fascinating evolutionary logic that it's the giver that has the fascinating ability to read this and is reading in effect the magnitude of the loss because if the magnitude of the loss is high then this is signaling that there's going to be a high biological profit in us being altruistic okay so therefore one objective unit of my bread is worth 10 objective biological units to you because you're starving in which case then you the amount of distress that you are n is going to predict for me how much gratitude that you will feel as a result of me helping you okay and the amount of gratitude that you feel in helping me are me helping you is going to be dictated objectively by how much aid I just did your survival reproductive prospects not by how much it costs me subjectively the cost to me may have been very small but the gain to you could be huge in that case you owe me a lot so literally the the debt that you owe me is worth more than the objective value of one more digit okay you just created something that wasn't there yeah so the point is is that sad facial expressions are actually a method for a group animal to actually signal the subjective degree of need and therefore to have all the players figure out where can I best invest my extra Jasmine's in order to do the most possible biological good because where I am doing the most possible biological good is likely where there its I'm going to be repaid in reciprocity chips to the greatest greatest degree okay so if you lend a millionaire 50 bucks because he's short of money for lunch and he lost his charge card he's not going to say oh my God thank you so much I can't believe how helpful you are not a chance okay but somebody that is starving to death or some little single mom that can't pay your electric bill and it's cold out and you say listen I'm not going to pay your whole bill but here's $50 and she says oh my god that's so good I'm really going to be able to get goodbye a lot better now I'm somebody this is a big deal that $50 is way better invested with her than it is with the millionaire and this you can tell by their facial expressions essentially so this is this is the rest of the story behind this communicative function so I don't know if the in that article they went down through that logic they probably did not but that's that's the rest of the story here so very cool it's just good to see all of the little pieces the beautiful thing about evolutionary psychology is all the dots line up on the line there's almost never a dot that is off the line and when the dot is off the line we're fascinated and we learn something because we have a was a little trickier than we thought but this is one of those cases where the dot is right on the one mm-hmm all right do you know if if there's one gender that's better at certain facial expressions and others well no I actually one of the famous studies done I think back in the 1970s was by a woman out of Harvard by the name of bella de pollo and bella was a rather social psychologist of some renown who who did a lot of experiments on deception and one of the things that she found was that there wasn't any gender difference on average and how people well people could read deception but that pretty women were better than everybody else and her her inference was that they've been lied to more often so I actually don't know if that has held up over the years but yeah I can't could not tell you I can't believe that there might not be some differences but there might not be because it might be Universal Universal need to be reading cues as best you possibly can but it but it wouldn't surprise me it won't surprise me if it turns out that there's going to be some differences there no not that I know of though because I read one time in a book called the female brain that that I believed they were making the argument that women have more mirror neurons than men do but yeah wouldn't surprise me I don't know that I haven't read that research but now that would women are are going to be more more invested in the subtle social communications that are going on inside of a village men are more rough-and-tumble and the dominance hierarchy the men are playing a vertical game to get to the top of dominance hierarchies far more than women women are making sure that they are going to be included so they're more they're more determined to make sure that they're at the center of the Ring nice and protected with all kinds of friends and allies whereas the males are playing a much riskier game and therefore not necessarily as concerned with subtlety so that wouldn't surprise me at all that but I'm not I'm not privy to that research I don't know about it okay so that makes a lot of sense what you're saying is that men might be able to detect it as well as women but they just don't care as much yes or in other words they they might have the equipment to look to see it yeah but it's not it's not hammering the emotional circuits as hard mm-hmm okay yeah there are probably probably pretty good that reading the degrees of possible violence coming out of other males mm-hmm that I'll bet they're as good as as women are at anything yeah that's really interesting you say that because like I was I was hanging out somebody's last weekend and and there was other males kind of around and there was kind of an argument between two males from do different groups and it was like it was like a finger snaps like there was a light switch that went on when everyone realized that this is going to start escalating to a physical altercation and it was really cool just to observe this room at the outside just as I everyone's nice and chill and then boom light switch comes on and everyone's like trying to make peace so yeah between the two other group right there you go that's critical sure okay so this is an article in The New Yorker that came out in February and the title of it is why facts don't change our minds and it was talking about the the limitations of Reason in the human mind now there are three long articles I'll spare you all the little nitty-gritty details but essentially what it's talking about is confirmation bias which is that the tendency that people have to embrace information that only supports their beliefs and then reject information that contradicts them and so this is this is called confirmation bias and it's just that there's text books worth of experiments on this but yeah just this main experiment was done in Stanford in about 1975 where they essentially they took a group of students who had opposing opinions on death penalty and then half the students who were in favor of it and thought it deterred crime the other half were against him thought it had no effect on crime so then they were asked to respond to two studies and each of the studies essentially proved their argument but turns out the studies were completely made-up and fabricated so what they found what the students after this were were completely more invested in their own opinion even when they were told that the studies were false right right yeah the confirmation bias this is a yeah this is this is well known this has been going on you know a lot of research like I said for I desk go on 40 years years now the let's let's talk about where I believe this this goes and to understand it and it for for a long time actually in social psychology starting with the confirmation bias and then going on through the work of Kahneman and Tversky in heuristics heuristics and biases etc they're they can come up with a lot of interesting demonstrations about showing quote how unreasonable people are and and this is this is sort of one of those things and the it's going to turn out that people so what's confusing about this is that people have superb capacity for logic and in fact their logical inferences about problems in a natural landscape are spectacular and so so the if you have information that you didn't think there was a rattlesnake over there and now you find out that there is a rattlesnake you don't think you know your friend says no actually there's a rattlesnake over there you don't say no I don't think so okay so the so what we're seeing is is that there's certain kinds of information that are subject to this kind of non reasoning or essentially what we call non normative or somehow inappropriate reasoning mechanisms now I haven't read this article but so I assume with this from an evolutionary perspective yeah there it mixed it up a little bit because they did talk about evolution but they were right you know there was there was a couple of them they mixed a little bit here and there yeah it's going to turn out that the reason for this sort of thing is going to be that human beings mostly the mine evolved to be right okay to be accurate as accurate as possible so that's why we're so surprised by magic tricks is because they violate the expectations in a way that are extremely confusing as they fool the perceptive you know limits of people by distracting and tricking them in ways that you don't see in the natural world and so things look like they're violating the laws of physics and somehow in there you know that they're not but it's but it tickles the nervous system and is kind of a bizarre event to observe now when it comes to confirmation bias like oh I don't know probably one of the one of the great confirmation bias problems of our time is going to be global warming so the you've got people on one side saying they're really excited about yet I can't believe everybody's got their head in the sand how obvious it cannot be you know how much more evidence do you need that there's global warming then you got people on the other side saying what are you kidding me look at all the evidence indicating that there's no significant global warming and the the the vitriol that goes back and forth between those two camps is astonishing for if you were a Martian biologist coming down with a pocket calculator in a in a barometer you'd say we'll show me the data and I'll tell you what the truth is and and so this would get get to be kind of interesting to look at this problem now the question is why are people so dug in and and why it's so difficult for them to respond to the objective evidence well there'd be many economic reasons that we could argue for people to have various positions but I will argue that it's that this is uncovering confirmation bias process inside the human mind and then we're going to look further to try to figure out why the confirmation bias is in there and the reason it's in there is because you want to you want to hold opinions that are the most sexually attractive opinions that there are and so that's going to be that's going to be true whether you want to believe in three gods or one God or sixteen gods it's going to be whether or not you're going to believe in global warming or not this isn't to say that there aren't people on on these issues that are accurate there are and it isn't to say that there isn't a real live reality out there that has that can't be discerned because there is sometimes the the limits of our ability to discern you know maybe may leave us in into a black fog of opinion on some certain issues but the truth of the matter is is that there's a real objective world out there and human beings are capable of understanding what that world is so Galileo understood quite clearly what that world looked like and and the head of the Catholic Church was going to have none of it and so what we're going to see is that that there's an evolutionary algorithm that the human brain was not designed to be accurate it was designed to be adaptive it was designed to think feel experience and behave in ways that optimize survival and reproductive success it is not designed to be a mr. Spock and give you nothing other than probabilities and objective opinions and so it's going to turn out that human beings are going to sniff the wind as to where they are most likely to be best positioned socially with respect to their the dominance hierarchy from within they are where they are receiving protection and where they are likely to get mates and they are very likely to have the opinions of that dominance hierarchy and to reject the opinions of the outside hierarchy so that's where the confirmation bias is going to come from it's going to come from a mind that is designed to sniff its genetic best interests rather than try to figure out the facts so this this is I'm glad that the guy is even talking about evolution in this because evolution wasn't even considered through the last 40 years of the investigations of the confirmation bias but evolution is going to the evolutionary psychology is going to provide the only possible explanation for why this could happen and the explanation is pretty obvious when you actually look at it because you can see it is not a dispassionate ignorant of the inability of the brain to integrate new information and change its mind what you see is people digging in and getting angry and vitriol on in-group out-group delineations of opinion and that's so this indicates that this has to do with the social psychological in-group out-group dynamic and protecting your status within a group so that's two limits of the human mind this is why people will believe all kinds of things that I would never believe for example because I'm not part of that hierarchy and so you know whatever that hierarchy is and so therefore my mind can remain unbiased to the evidence and then I can make the entrances with the equipment that I've been given by evolution to reason you know which is the integration of data according to the law of non-contradiction and so you know my brain can do that so can your so can a lot of people's but the the more you have essentially genetic investment in with a dominance hierarchy you are and that dominance hierarchy to the extent that that dominance hierarchy is inaccurate is there will be a lot of pressure on your brain in in terms of its ability to actually reason effectively hmm this is why I should call and ask you questions because respect I should think so absolutely don't just ask me we got we got a lot of remarkable people out there that could see the world quite clearly and in a lot of respects and so a lot of smart people to learn from mm-hmm yeah this article actually one of the quotes is the the following living in small bands of hunter-gatherers our ancestors were primarily concerned with their social standing and with making sure they weren't the ones risking their on the hunt while others loafed around in the cave so there's a little advantage of reasoning clearly while much was to be gained from winning arguments yeah yeah they're sort of slopping it around I would essentially yeah the argument is you want to be holding the opinion that if 51% of that dominance hierarchies total's political capital believes in proposition x and 49 percent of it believes in proposition y then the astute individual will believe in proposition X and that explains partially the extraordinary liberal bias that you see in academia because there's the that that that entire dominance hierarchy is dominated by the left and so therefore it makes it makes a lot of sense for four reasons I've talked about at other times that it would be hard for academia to actually be an an open and even-handed discussion of those kinds of issues once you essentially have a critical ass we're 90 to 95% of the political capital is invested in one position and you're going to expect that it will remain entrenched mm-hmm yeah for more of that check out episode 41 for our listeners where we talk about why is that academia something there you go okay good for your email all right what Elmo got we've got some emails from our listeners so we'll direct him one by one to dr. Lyle a few months ago I attended a Marxist convention out of interest in human behavior I kept quiet and what I noticed was many of the constituents at this convention were either in a poor metabolic state or incredibly prone to agitation no one there really had any concept of self-interest yet they were very interested in attacking figures of authority I wonder could the cornerstones of marxist philosophy be the individual human desire to spread genes the altruistic gene to do something for your community while also being combined with the miss calibration of a poor Western diet not available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors this is of some very interesting circuits going off in this person's brain and I'm going to try to read through the lines here and and maybe find something that that is there's little components of this that are that are hitting some circuits in my head so the person says that they go to a Marxist convention which is fascinating so whoever whoever this is they're quite open to experience and then they're noticing they're noticing that they look like they're in a poor metabolic now this is interesting it's quite possible and I don't know that there's any evidence for this but it wouldn't be shocking to me dr. morrow a little mark yes can you hear me yes we lost you at it looks like they are in a poor metabolic state no okay the it seems conceivable that at this particular convention that it's possible a couple of things you might have been observing number one you might have been observing that that these people were not very attractive and so that that would not surprise me if a bunch of far-left Marxist were not that attractive I could be I could be completely all wet about this but I wouldn't be surprised and I wouldn't be surprised because there's a there's actually evidence that less attractive people make less money and and so they could part of the feeding into the the communistic ideal is the the notion that it's also very unfair and that the world should be sharing so this is the basic share not share dimension of politics and with Marx Marxism is anchoring down the far left dimension of a dimension that goes from completely sharing everything to completely not sharing anything now strangely enough you know a lot of the young and and the academic left sort of believes that the far right is fascist which is completely confused they have they have no understanding of what they're talking about the far right is not fascist the far right is lays a fair capitalism where there is no sharing that is completely different than a Nazi Germany or Franco's Spain where it's a military dictatorship that that military dictatorship fascism is much much closer to Marx than it is to the far right so that's that's just a confusion and a misunderstanding of how economies and political systems are organized so the far left is a share situation which makes sense under certain tribal conditions and the far right is plays a faire capitalism which makes sense under under more complex and more efficient and more advanced systems of production and distribution so the there is never there there have been many societies that have been heavily share and stone-age systems were heavily shared but they were never completely share they were never Marxist they were always that individual incentive in the system behind improvements in mating mating situations relative to how successful the males were at hunting and so there's always been individual incentive so you can't these are individual animals these are not bees and wasps this is not a social insect so as a result human beings compute their own survival and reproductive benefit from their own personal perspective not from the group's perspective and so the fact that they can share is a fascinating characteristic of us as a social creature but it is not the fundamental basis by which human beings do their reasoning and so so therefore a full-share Marxist philosophy is impossible except under the most extraordinary conditions as I talked about earned Shackleton's escape from Antarctica would have been a short term evidence of that set of conditions in other words from each according to his ability to each according to his need if you've got ten guys on a boat everybody would be everybody's survival is critically important to everybody else so therefore you share and distribute the resources as effectively as possible to keep everybody alive but that is an extraordinary situation that essentially almost never exists in human nature but things like it get close and therefore tribal situations can come closer to a need for a Marxist like state then does a modern capitalistic state where there are safeguards and there's so much production that almost nobody is at the edge of survival now the there has never been anything really close to a completely not share state the closest is going to be the high free enterprise limited constitutional governments like the United States they are obviously spectacularly successful however within that success what we see is that everybody's not so secure and that the distribution of wealth wins being wealth and success in many ways winds up being highly unpredictable heterogenous etc and so as a result this will make it very uncomfortable for individuals that are not doing so well individuals that that don't have the characteristics or don't have the luck and don't cetera have circumstances that lead to their financial success and so as a result not just finances but I believe that we're going to find that less attractive people are also likely to be leaning to the left because they're going to be upset about that the world's resources seem to be going to the pretty and the beautiful so as a result would surprise me at this convention that people didn't look so good and I also would predict that they probably weren't in really snappy clothes because the last thing you want to be doing at a at a Marxist convention is wearing a polo shirt and some fancy shoes so these people probably weren't looking that good in a lot of ways so are what do you call it I don't know what we call this our spy looked at this something's wrong okay alright so now we're going to move on to they're thinking about whether or not the Marxist philosophy has something to do with individual desire to spread genes etc the Marxist philosophy is the share end of the share not share dimension and so this is it is superficially highly conscientious start tomorrow professionally yes yeah we lost again so if you can start yeah if you can start right read about that thought again yeah the let's say the Marxist philosophy is a is a is this is superficially highly conscientious in other words it's the idea that we've all got to be extremely fair and it's all got to be even the the problem with this course completely impractical in in many ways and it's completely unsuccessful in its fiasco however if this is a way that you are displaying your conscientiousness then then a lot of people might be sort of vaguely Marxist and socialist in their thinking but they don't go to Marxist conventions and at the Marxist convention this guy is talking about how they're quote you know angry agitated etc well this makes perfect sense anybody that would go to a Marx convention not only is upset that things are not fair but they're also they feel incredibly morally righteous about screaming and yelling and raising hell and threatening because they're these are going to be disagreeable humans these are going to be people that are basically willing to put out a lot of energy behind the concept that we must actually make this quote more fair and so yeah I think that this doesn't have anything to do with their diet I expect that their diets are no better and no worse than we're going to see at the Republican convention but I think that the anger is probably greater than you're going to see it any other convention because these are going to be people who are incredibly frustrated that the world doesn't really care what they're saying that they feel like they are morally on the high ground they're they believe that they're only asking for fairness in other words they in principle aren't asking for one percent more than anybody else and they believe that behind this philosophy and the greatness of Karl Marx that this is the right way for humans to live talk about confirmation bias the I can't believe that what had to happen in the 20th century as the the spectacular success of Western democracies right down the throat of communistic societies was not enough to convince the academic left that that was a really bad idea you talk about confirmation bias how much data do you need between North and South Korea okay so this it it lives on yeah I think that I think that someday if I was open to experience and and somebody had slipped a Mickey into my drink I might go to a Marxist convention and just see what was to be had there okay let's go on all right our next question I do dr. Lao you mentioned on a previous episode that unsurprisingly the majority of women who are in committed relationships tend not to want to step outside and have an affair even if the relationship is dead I'm curious though when a woman who is for example in a relationship say over five years when she encounters a highly attractive male through work or through friends what feelings if any would she tend to have obviously her ability to detect the overall attractiveness of the opposite sex doesn't shut down when she's in a relationship but does her response to the assessment made by her nervous system change now that she's not signal a single in other words would a female who is in a happy pair bond feel any attraction whatsoever to a male at a nervous system was determined to be highly attractive but she just has no desire to act on it or will she have no desire at all yeah well these are good questions here but we're seeing some shifting definitions along the way so a female who is happily pair-bonded by definition is not sexual I mean is going to be sexually interested and attracted to her husband so if you can be quote you can be in a relationship that I wouldn't call a pair bond but you're sort of stuck in there and you've got financial and social pressures on you and you may not be moving and you might be have a reasonably happy life but I wouldn't call that a happy pair bond situation so the question on the table and what their what the listener is referring to is well certain of these questions are obvious the the woman will will have you know depending upon her personal psychology and her circumstances everything else believe me she going to have reactions to any attractive male in the environment attractive is in this case subjective in other words if this guy's hitting her circuits he's hitting her circuits and she's going to be thinking about sex with him and she's going to be she won't be obsessing over it probably the way a male would have an attractive female co-worker we know that the typical female is not even hardly thinking about sex for about two-thirds of the month interestingly enough so if you do a if you do have him do a chart on how often sex crosses their mind you will find that the typical human female is only having that cross or mind about one third of her her fertile life much much different than than males so she is sexually motivated she's noticing all of this however she is she is not as motivated as a male would be on the other side of this and a very important reason is that females have a different reproduction problem than males and that is that once they have children the children become the reproduction problem not sex so for males sex is the reproduction problem for females sex is a reproduction problem until they have children at which point the children become the reproductive problem and so the so you can just see that females psychology is going to cool down generally quite a lot when children are in the picture and that's going to be true of her even at work okay so she's going to think about the guy she will notice the guy but she is not real motivated to step outside of her relationship she might but it would have to be females generally have affairs when there is a serious business they are considering leaving a relationship that and the person that they are having an affair with is is very attracted to them on a variety of dimensions and one of those dimensions is likely to be that if there's a possibility of a long-term para bond in it and so this is how the female brain works the male brain is not working in the same way the male brain is very interested in causal mating strategy and he's running the cost benefit on how to to get to causal mating strategy without all the strings attached and etc so very different in their psychologies the female is much more inhibited in her in her natural reactivity but she's having similar reactions except that you could consider that they're muted so if anybody has ever heard a trumpet and then they've heard a trumpet with a mute in the in the in the horn that's kind of what's going on with the human female it's a muted trumpet hmm okay interesting okay so our next question hmm dear dr. Lisle thank you for the show about the ego trap in the competitive processes I have a follow-up question there are thousands of video games out there that put the player in a virtual dominance hierarchy and let them assume a role far above an average citizen such a player is a hero a king or even a demigod the player then rises in the game world and frequently acquires unbelievable power and status many males are playing such games to the point of addiction can you come up whether such games put these males in a virtual ego trap where what they can achieve in the real world is nowhere near what they can achieve in a game environment very thoughtful very thoughtful indeed my reaction is no that's not what's going on the they are they're not an ego they don't that the brain isn't so confused that it can't tell the difference between all the big status that's getting in the video world and then and then that with leaked expectations on them over to to the real world now the ego trap is going to the system that the ego trap is a is a natural cost-benefit analytic certainty it's a it's inexorable to that you will be ego trapped when either your internal audience or the external audience of which you're you are attending to has expectations for you higher than you believe that you can meet so your nervous system runs a cost-benefit analysis if everybody thinks I'm so great so this is where you get writer's block so somebody that you know wrote a great novel and and they are not sure that they can do it again and so everybody is clamoring for the great thing that they're going to do and so they won't do it so this is this is the ego trap where the expectations are too high now question would be if you rise in the world and become king in virtual world yeah and you're like well you know I got to be I got to be king or the King's first vassal you know so now the real world you know I'm supposed to go down and get to try to move up to assistant manager at the Pizza Hut and so therefore I think the expectations are too high now I don't think so I think that the addictive quality of the video games that we see is that that essentially you can are you are living those oh yes yeah have you lost me so I took quality thereof yep okay there your back am i back okay strained updater back we lost you out we lost you addictive qualities yeah there is addictive qualities to to video games obviously so they've got these things organized in such a way to tickle the dominance hierarchies sensitivities of people and also to work at two different things the the incremental feedback and improvement situation which is critical for for self efficacy in other words a person believes that they can be more successful as they put an effort and and also the nature of the problems the content area of these things is very consistent with male natural history other words gathering up our troops tricking the enemy this weaponry food poison landscape all these things are actually the very types of problems that the the male human mind was sculpted by evolution to be processing and so you add the the beautifully orchestrated incremental process of increasing success as we we gain skill and rise in hierarchies and we we add to that we add to that the content area which is inherently fascinating if we had a similar game that was how to shine up antiques and make them successful in the in the interesting world of trading antiques and making pseudo money we would not be successful okay so that game nobody cares about ok the game people care about is swordplay and dominance and stabbing and in victory ok so the content and the incremental nature of it is what's what is addictive and it drives people to sit and live in that virtual reality for hours and hours and hours and hours because it feels inherently productive to the brain but the reason they are there and not out there doing something isn't because their ego trapped it's because it's just damn entertaining and the real world is is you know essentially not nearly as as attractive by comparison mmm that's how that works there we go yeah alright I think we're going to leave it here and we'll get to the other questions about politics there's a question about black lives matter plan correctness and tattoos we signal with tattoos but we'll go over all that next week I'll leave you dr. awhile with with the two little jokes here yeah so what do you what do you think is a suicide bombers worst fear oh no idea dying alone of course okay all right here's here's a better one a Buddhist walks up to a hotdog stand and says to the vendor make me one with everything ah very good all right sir all right we'll talk to you next week
Back to the top
🏃     👖




Artist