174. What Do King Solomon and David Lee Roth Have in Common?

It isn’t easy to separate the guilty from the innocent, but a clever bit of game theory can help.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern New Hampshire University. There's no hiding how convenient Southern New Hampshire University makes college. They offer over 80 career-focused graduate programs online. Classes have no set meeting times, so you can balance life and learning, and online tuition rates are some of the lowest in the country, making it all a little more manageable. A school this willing to work with you is worth the investment. Visit SNHU.edu/freakonomics to learn more. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring. Great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing happens, boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it.

• 0:46Stephen J. Dubner?

  Which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life? Like banking, for example. Well, PNC Bank did, since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely not YOLO type. PNC Bank: Brilliantly Boring Since 1865. Brilliantly Boring Since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association Member FDIC. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right stay for work faster.

• 1:27Stephen J. Dubner?

  With business preferences, save your travel must-haves, like gym access or breakfast, just once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work travel. Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work is a new way to work in ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work can pull info from across your apps and connect to your tools to help you create finished work. You can even automate work in ChatGPT with the Scheduled Tasks feature, and the whole

• 2:11Stephen J. Dubner?

  time, you stay in control. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.

• 2:32Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hello. I'd like you to imagine for a moment that you're a sheep farmer. Not some fancy 21st century sheep farmer with heritage breeds and heated barns. Just your standard, hard-working sheep farmer, living hundreds of years ago in medieval Europe. Okay, are you there in your mind? Now, imagine that just down the road from you is a rival sheep farmer. The two of you have never gotten along, and now he's accusing you of stealing some of his sheep. You are arrested and sent to court.

• 3:08Speaker 01

  And the court or the officials don't have any real reason to think that the neighbor would make this up.

• 3:15Stephen J. Dubner?

  But nor is there enough evidence to convict. The judge doesn't want to send an innocent man to prison, but he also doesn't want to let a criminal go free. So he presents two options. You can either plead guilty, or your case can be turned over to a church court for a trial by ordeal.

• 3:39Speaker 01

  There were two basic types of ordeals in the period in question: hot ordeals and cold ordeals.

• 3:44Stephen J. Dubner?

  That's Peter Leeson.

• 3:45Speaker 01

  Hot ordeals consisted of trials by water, in which case what they would do is -- and by "they" I mean clerics. It's clerics, priests, who are administering all of these ordeals. Boil a pot of water, throw a stone or a ring into it, ask the defendant to plunge his arm into the water and pluck out the stone or ring. Then they would wrap up the defendant's arm and revisit it three days later. And if it was determined by the priest to be what they called "foul" within the wrapper, which is to say showing serious signs of having been burned, the idea was that the defendant was guilty of the crime. And if there was no signs of injury, then he was considered innocent of the crime.

• 4:21Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, so when we look back from our modern perspective, or modern as of today at least, and kind of mentally ridicule these things as barbaric, or at the very least counterproductive, were they counterproductive?

• 4:36Speaker 01

  My argument is that they were not. My argument is that the ostensible purpose of ordeals, which was to find fact in criminal cases, is in fact what ordeals did, and they did so quite successfully.

• 4:59Speaker 02

  From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.

• 5:19Stephen J. Dubner?

  Today's program is about, well, it's about teaching your garden to weed itself, which I realize is a phrase that doesn't make any sense to you, yet, but it will. We begin with Peter Leeson, who's a professor of economics and law at George Mason University. Leeson has long been interested in the kind of topics that many economists aren't so interested in. Anarchy, for instance.

• 5:42Speaker 01

  That work led me to some work on pirates, who are, of course, criminals and, in consequence, can't rely on government to promote social cooperation within their organization. But I've also looked at the early, modern institution in England of wife-selling, of human sacrifice, of the legal prosecution of insects and rodents, and a whole host of, I guess, things that most people would describe as peculiar, anyway.

• 6:07Stephen J. Dubner?

  Among these peculiar topics, trial by church ordeal in medieval Europe. Now, from a modern perspective, a trial by ordeal sounds anything but rational. It couldn't actually succeed at separating the guilty from the innocent, could it? Or could it? To find out, Leeson went looking for some data. One set of church records from 13th-century Hungary included 208 cases in which a defendant, like you, the accused sheep farmer, was summoned by a priest, led into the church, and was instructed to grab hold of a smoking-hot iron bar.

• 6:47Stephen J. Dubner?

  So if you were to just stop someone on the street, Peter, and say, hey, here's a historical quiz. 208 people were sentenced to a trial by ordeal some many, many centuries ago, and they had to grab a piece of hot iron that a priest was overseeing. How many of those 208 would you suspect were burned? Most people would say, I assume, 208, yes?

• 7:10Speaker 01

  That's what I would think, yes.

• 7:12Stephen J. Dubner?

  OK, so tell us, in reality, the number.

• 7:14Speaker 01

  Two-thirds of these cases of the 208 involve exoneration, which means that the defendant is found innocent because the supposedly red-hot burning iron didn't burn him.

• 7:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  OK, so two-thirds of the more than 200 people who are commanded in a church by a priest to grab onto a piece of red-hot iron are not burned?

• 7:36Speaker 01

  That's right.

• 7:40Stephen J. Dubner?

  OK, how can this possibly be? How were two-thirds of the defendants not burned by a hot iron bar? Did God exonerate the innocent and punish the guilty? That's not how Peter Leeson sees it. He explains this in two words: priestly rigging. That's right. The priests were arranging things so that most defendants who accepted the ordeal wouldn't get burned by the hot iron bar or a cauldron of boiling water. Now, why would that be? Were the priests simply exercising a bit of human mercy? Did they maybe take bribes from some defendants? Not, according to Peter Leeson. Here's what he thinks was happening.

• 8:23Stephen J. Dubner?

  Most people at the time likely believed in an almighty God who knew whether a defendant was guilty or innocent, and accordingly, would burn the guilty man but protect the innocent man.

• 8:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  For a defendant, knowing that God knows what you did or didn't do would affect your behavior. It changes the incentives.

• 8:46Speaker 01

  The key here is that because the priests know that the innocent person's incentive is to undergo the ordeal, they also know that on the other side of it, the guilty person's incentive is to decline the ordeal. The reason for that is exactly the flip form of thinking, right? So now imagine that you did steal the sheep.

• 9:03Stephen J. Dubner?

  Right.

• 9:04Speaker 01

  Now you're thinking, "Well, I know that if I undergo the ordeal, if I put my arm in the boiling water, I'm going to have my arm boiled to rags because I am in fact guilty, God's not going to perform the miracle, and in the process, on top of that, I'm going to be convicted of the crime. It's better for me to simply either settle with the accuser or to confess to the crime and enjoy a somewhat less harsh punishment."

• 9:26Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, so that explains why if I were guilty, I would decline the ordeal and accept my penalty. But if I'm innocent, I would undergo the ordeal, and then what?

• 9:36Speaker 01

  Well, that's the key thing. So the priest now knows that the incentive of the innocent person only is to undergo the ordeal. The guilty person is going to decline. Because the priest knows that, conditional on you being willing to undergo the ordeal, you reveal, if you will, this private information that you have about your guilt or innocence. You reveal the fact that you're innocent to the priest. Now, in order, of course, to be exonerated, the water needs to not boil you. And so the priest's job is conditional on knowing that you're innocent, to turn down the dial on the stove, so to speak, to ensure that the water doesn't in fact boil you and exonerates you as you expect.

• 10:22Stephen J. Dubner?

  If Peter Leeson is right, and there's no guarantee of that, then the medieval trial by ordeal was, rather than a barbaric expression of divine justice, a rather brilliant means of sorting the innocent from the guilty. In economist speak, this is known as breaking down a pooling equilibrium into a separating equilibrium by using game theory. In our book, Think Like a Freak, we give this practice a different name. We call it teaching your garden to weed itself. And that's what today's show is about.

• 10:58Stephen J. Dubner?

  Let's begin with two men separated by many centuries. King Solomon built the first temple in Jerusalem and was known throughout the land for his wisdom. David Lee Roth fronted the rock band Van Halen and was known throughout the land for his prima donna excess.

• 11:16Speaker 03

  I'm gonna tell you, baby. Rock and roll is my second favorite thing in the whole world.

• 11:35Stephen J. Dubner?

  Now, let me ask you this. What could David Lee Roth and King Solomon possibly have in common? Here are a few possibilities. Number one, they were both Jewish. Number two, they both got a lot of girls. Number three, they both wrote the lyrics to a number one pop song. And number four, they both dabbled in game theory. Okay? What's your answer? Ah, trick question. All four are true. Number one, King Solomon, of course, was Jewish. So is David Lee Roth. In fact, he says he learned to sing while preparing for his bar mitzvah.

• 12:15Stephen J. Dubner?

  Number two, girls, girls, girls. David Lee Roth says he, quote, "slept with every pretty girl with two legs in her pants." And, quote, "I even slept with an amputee." King Solomon, according to the Bible, had, quote, "700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines." Number three, the lyrics to a number one pop song? Yes. David Lee Roth wrote the lyrics for most Van Halen songs, including their only number one hit, "Jump." King Solomon, meanwhile, is thought to have written several biblical books, including Ecclesiastes, which the folk singer Pete Seeger used as lyrics to his song "Turn, Turn, Turn," which, when recorded by The Byrds in 1965, was a number one hit.

• 13:06Stephen J. Dubner?

  Which brings us to number four, the game theory. The most famous story about King Solomon in the Bible involves two women who come to him with a baby and a dilemma.

• 13:17Speaker 04

  These two women come to the king, and the first one speaks up and said, "We women, we live together, just the two of us. Nobody else in the house, no men, just the two of us women."

• 13:28Stephen J. Dubner?

  That's David Sperling. He's a professor of Bible at Hebrew Union College.

• 13:32Speaker 04

  And we both gave birth more or less around the same time.

• 13:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, so two women, two newborn babies in one house. One woman was sleeping next to her baby.

• 13:44Speaker 04

  And she crushed him to death. She rolled over on him and suffocated the kid.

• 13:49Speaker 05

  And in the morning, a woman wakes up with a dead baby on her chest.

• 13:53Stephen J. Dubner?

  That's Joseph Talushkin, author of many books, including Jewish Literacy.

• 13:58Speaker 05

  But she claims that that isn't her baby. She claims that the baby the other woman is holding is the baby. So one woman is saying that it's her baby, and the other woman is saying, "No, the live baby is mine. This woman accidentally killed her own baby and then took mine."

• 14:12Speaker 04

  It's a case of she said, she said.

• 14:13Speaker 05

  How is Solomon to decide the case?

• 14:17Stephen J. Dubner?

  How was Solomon supposed to decide this case? If only he could create a separating equilibrium.

• 14:25Speaker 05

  So finally, in a moment of desperation and to the shock of everyone in the court.

• 14:29Speaker 04

  He calls for, he says to a servant, "Bring me a sword," and he says, "Now."

• 14:32Speaker 05

  "We'll cut the baby in half. Each mother will get half."

• 14:35Stephen J. Dubner?

  You know what happens next, don't you?

• 14:37Speaker 05

  One mother cries out, "Don't do that, don't do that, you'll kill the baby."

• 14:41Speaker 04

  The second woman says, "No, go cut the baby up."

• 14:45Stephen J. Dubner?

  King Solomon doesn't actually slice the baby in half. He doesn't have to, because now he knows who the real mother is. How? He figured that the second woman, the one who was cruel enough to go along with his baby carving plan, was also cruel enough to steal another woman's child. And further, he knew that the child's real mother would rather give up the baby than see it die. King Solomon had set a trap that encouraged the guilty and the innocent to sort themselves out.

• 15:19Speaker 05

  I grew up in an era of Perry Mason shows where often if you're a smart prosecutor or a smart defense lawyer, you're going to ask your questions in a very provocative way to get the person to finally say something that they, in the normal order of events, wouldn't have been willing to say. And Solomon, by coming up with such a surprising question, was able to do it. It doesn't make sense that a king would say, "Bring a sword and cut a baby in half." So it introduces such a surprising and peculiar element that people get shocked. And in their shock, they reveal the expression their true colors. They reveal who they really are.

• 16:02Stephen J. Dubner?

  So King Solomon was pretty clever. Is it possible that David Lee Roth was even cleverer?

• 16:10Stephen J. Dubner?

  By the early 1980s, Van Halen had become one of the biggest rock bands in history. They had these extravagant live shows with a huge stage set, booming audio, spectacular lighting effects. Their contract carried a 53-page rider that laid out the technical requirements for all of this, as well as other demands.

• 16:31Speaker 05

  It lists all kinds of food that they want.

• 16:35Stephen J. Dubner?

  Mike Pedden worked for a concert promoter in Syracuse, New York.

• 16:38Speaker 05

  Let's see. Some of the strange ones, various doughnuts, a dozen hard-boiled eggs. They want Fruit Loops and Raisin Bran. They want real knives and forks. They don't want plastic ones.

• 16:51Stephen J. Dubner?

  Patrick Whitley was Van Halen's production manager at the time, which means he was responsible for that contract rider.

• 16:58Speaker 06

  And I think I actually typed that sheet.

• 17:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay. It looks like an IBM Selectric, maybe?

• 17:03Speaker 06

  Yeah.

• 17:04Stephen J. Dubner?

  Is that what you own?

• 17:04Speaker 06

  It probably was.

• 17:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay. And then I really love that you made sure you got your vegetables, or you made sure that somebody got their vegetables. Even days, there were Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower, mushroom, spinach. And then odd days, peas, green beans, corn, carrots, and tomatoes. And on it goes. You needed some whiskey and beer and wine, I gather, yes?

• 17:23Speaker 06

  Of course.

• 17:24Stephen J. Dubner?

  Some KY jelly. What's that for?

• 17:28Speaker 06

  For fun.

• 17:30Stephen J. Dubner?

  There was also a section for munchies. Here's Mike Pedden again.

• 17:34Speaker 07

  Potato chips with assorted dips, nuts, pretzels.

• 17:36Stephen J. Dubner?

  And, in the middle of the munchies section...

• 17:39Speaker 07

  M&M's, and then, in capital letters and underlined and in parentheses, it says, "Warning: Absolutely no brown ones." And then it just goes on and says, "12 Reese's Peanut Butter Cups and 12 assorted Danin Yogurt on Ice." So if you're reading through there, you could easily, if you're not paying attention, skip that.

• 18:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  Mike Pedden's sister Donna worked as a caterer on the 1982 Van Halen concert in Syracuse.

• 18:07Speaker 07

  So, my sister went out and bought, I think, three or four bags of M&M's. And she sat there and, with rubber gloves on, removed all of the brown ones. And not happy about it either. She actually hates M&M's and will not eat any to this day because of that.

• 18:33Stephen J. Dubner?

  So why did Mike Pedden think that Van Halen demanded all the brown M&M's be removed?

• 18:38Speaker 07

  Well, we thought that it was just extravagance. That it was just, you know, David Lee Roth and Van Halen being David Lee Roth and Van Halen.

• 18:47Stephen J. Dubner?

  Coming up on Freakonomics Radio, was it really just extravagance? David Lee Roth gives his version of the M&M story.

• 18:55Speaker 03

  This was touted wildly and widely as simple rock star misdemeanor excess and being abusive of others simply because we could. And who am I to get in the way of a good rumor?

• 19:07Stephen J. Dubner?

  And you'll hear Steve Levitt describe our attempt to teach the garden to weed itself of terrorists. Yeah, that was one of my favorite things of all time. Um, but we didn't tell the whole story, did we? No, we didn't. We lied. And that was what was so fun about it.

• 19:25Stephen J. Dubner?

  One more thing, if you are not already a subscriber to Freakonomics Radio, you should be. Just sign up for free at iTunes and you will get the next episode in your sleep.

• 19:51Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Quince. You know, those pieces in your closet that you find yourself wearing on repeat? The sweater that goes with everything? The perfect pair of pants or the tea you somehow always reach for first? Those are the pieces that make getting dressed easy, and that's what Quince does best. Quince focuses on high-quality wardrobe staples made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and merino wool. The styles are timeless, versatile, and designed to become the dependable pieces you reach for day after day. And it's not just clothing. Quince brings that same approach to everything they make, from hotel-quality bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and thoughtfully designed furniture. Find your next fall favorites at Quince.

• 20:35Stephen J. Dubner?

  Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com/freak. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com/freak.

• 20:56Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right stay for work faster. With business preferences, save your travel must-haves, like gym access or breakfast, just once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work travel. Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details.

• 21:28Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Amica. You know what they say, if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. So go with Amica and get coverage from a mutual insurer that's built for their customers, one that looks after what's important to you together. Auto, home, life, and more, coverage that fits your unique needs. Amica helps you protect what matters most. Visit amica.com and get a quote today.

• 22:01Speaker 02

  From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.

• 22:13Stephen J. Dubner?

  So, why did Van Halen require that the brown M&Ms, dark brown and light brown, be removed from the M&M Bowl in their backstage munchies? Was it nothing more than rock star excess? Or perhaps, a clever way of finding out some information that would otherwise be hard to find? Remember, at the time, Van Halen put on one of the most ambitious live rock shows of anyone.

• 22:38Speaker 08

  There were two names that you, as a house guy, didn't want to hear were really coming.

• 22:42Stephen J. Dubner?

  Steve Lemon was a rigor on the Van Halen production crew, suspending the lights and sound equipment above the stage.

• 22:49Speaker 08

  One was, of course, Kiss, and the other one was Van Halen, because these guys always brought the biggest shows. They were going to challenge you and your local team.

• 23:00Speaker 06

  We would have 1,000 lights, which was this magic, sort of amazing number that nobody had ever had. We'd have more trucks.

• 23:07Stephen J. Dubner?

  Patrick Whitley again, the production manager.

• 23:09Speaker 06

  Towards the '84 period, we'd be touring with a rolling stage and a grid to suspend the lights from, because the lighting system would move. So, we sort of considered ourselves the innovators and the inventors of a lot of the standard practices of how people tour nowadays.

• 23:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  The upside of this innovation was obvious, but there was a downside, too. It could be dangerous. You didn't want a light tower falling on you, or the stage collapsing under the weight of all that gear. To that end, the band had to trust that the local promoter in each city took seriously the contract rider that listed all the technical requirements for this massive stage show.

• 23:53Speaker 03

  Promoters frequently didn't agree with the contract rider, and we would have structural, fiscal issues, because, hey, there wasn't the proper electricity, load-bearing stress, et cetera.

• 24:06Stephen J. Dubner?

  So David Lee Roth, as he explains in a 2012 video, claims that he came up with a trick, kind of like King Solomon's trick, to figure out if a promoter had read the rider carefully.

• 24:18Speaker 03

  If I came backstage, having been one of the architects of this lighting and staging design, and I saw brown M&Ms on the catering table, then guaranteed the promoter had not read the contract rider, and we had to do a serious line check, because frequently we had danger issues.

• 24:46Stephen J. Dubner?

  So the brown M&M clause, according to David Lee Roth at least, wasn't just a prima donna move. It was a clever way to teach the garden to weed itself, to let a bad concert promoter reveal himself as bad, when, of course, he'd never come forward and admit to being bad. Inspired by stories like these, and the bright minds of David Lee Roth and King Solomon, even the medieval priests who may have rigged the ordeals, Steve Levitt and I thought maybe we could entice some bad guys to reveal themselves.

• 25:24Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hey, Levitt? Yes? You remember that story we wrote in Super Freakonomics about why terrorists should buy life insurance? Yeah, that was one of my favorite things of all time. But we didn't tell the whole story, did we? No, we didn't. We lied, and that was what was so fun about it. Lying, we should say, in the service of a greater good. Steve Levitt, my Freakonomics friend and co-author, had identified many bad guys in the past: cheating schoolteachers, collusive sumo wrestlers, by finding patterns in the data.

• 26:00Speaker 09

  The bad guys I've caught in the past were so easy. It was like shooting ducks in a barrel to catch sumo wrestlers. I mean, the data right there, you can understand the incentives. It's a really, really simple problem. And although you know that I don't actually think terrorism is a very big problem, and I feel that way too much time and effort and manpower and economic distortions happen because of terrorism, just from a purely intellectual perspective, for me, the idea of catching terrorists was really fun because it was such an incredibly hard problem.

• 26:31Stephen J. Dubner?

  Now, you had tried, you had met with people like the CIA, for instance, in this country before, and that didn't work out so well, did it?

• 26:39Speaker 09

  Yeah, no, I didn't really make much headway. I was invited, and it was nice, the CIA had me out for a day, and we had a fun time. But I couldn't convince folks there, or at any of the American banks, to work with me on my pet idea about catching terrorists using retail banking data until we stumbled onto a British bank that amazingly was willing to give it a run.

• 27:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  So in Superfreak, we described this algorithm that was loaded into the computers of a big bank and which was able to sift through billions of data points and identify a relatively teeny handful of potentially deadly terrorists.

• 27:20Speaker 09

  That's true.

• 27:21Stephen J. Dubner?

  And there was one variable that we wrote about in Superfreakonomics that we, I would say, highlighted above all other variables, and that was whether or not a given bank customer had bought life insurance from that bank. Can you explain that variable and why we presented it in the book as we did?

• 27:44Speaker 09

  Yeah, so we even, as you say, not just highlighted it, we put it in the subtitle to the book, was why suicide bombers should buy life insurance. And here was the logic. In general, you wouldn't think buying life insurance would be a great idea for a terrorist because, number one, they tend not to have strong attachments to other people, and number two, even if you did kill yourself detonating a bomb in the Tube in London, the chances that the Life insurance company would actually pay you off. And that setting is probably low. So it seems silly to have life insurance if you're a terrorist. Okay. Which is exactly the reason we argue that you should have life insurance. Because you have data snoops like us going through the data. And if we see a young man who might potentially be a terrorist, but he has life insurance.

• 28:28Speaker 09

  Well, it's not likely he's really a terrorist because it doesn't make sense for a terrorist to have life insurance. Okay, so it's a reverse logic of throwing us off the trail. And that is the sort of logic we threw out in the book. Now, I have to say, it was a little bit uncomfortable at times because as many astute readers said to us, they said, well, wait, that doesn't make all that much sense to me. Because most insurance, life insurance policies, actually, if you do commit suicide, as long as it's been a year or two since you bought your policy, it's still covered by the policy. And you will get paid. So I don't really understand what you guys are talking about. And so it was a little embarrassing that we had to write back and say, well, you're right, that is the way these policies work, but maybe it will make sense to you down the road.

• 29:11Stephen J. Dubner?

  Mm hmm. And that wasn't the only kind of challenging part of that. Because when we went on book tour in the UK in, I guess, 2009 or 2010, you had a lot of people saying to us in interviews, on TV, in the newspapers and so on, what fresh kind of idiots are you that you would go to the trouble to work for years on an algorithm that would find terrorists and then, in the book, tell these same people exactly how to evade it, which is to say, they should go down to the bank and buy some life insurance.

• 29:42Speaker 09

  I know. I mean, what kind of horrible base traders were we, Dubner, that we worked so hard and we put together this algorithm? And then to just give it away because we wanted to make money selling a book. It really incredibly damning criticism. I mean, how could a person possibly respond to that? We would just kind of hang our head and say, you know, well, you know, ham and ha. And what could you say? It was, it was true. We were horrible, horrible people.

• 30:11Stephen J. Dubner?

  But there was a bigger truth.

• 30:12Speaker 09

  There was. This was actually. I've hatched many plans in my life, but very few as ambitious and exciting as this one. And it must have been, I don't know, now, seven or eight years ago, that I first had the idea that if you wanted to catch terrorists, it would be very difficult to deal with data. You really needed the terrorists to raise their hand in the air and announce that they themselves were the terrorist. Okay. But not easy to do that. Why would a terrorist come forward and say they're terrorists? So what it required was a trick. Okay. And this whole thing, the Superfree Economics book about life insurance,

• 30:54Speaker 09

  was just a complete and total lie. It was made up from beginning to end. Nobody buys life insurance from their bank. I mean, there was some products that people could buy, but nobody purchased it. I mean, I'm guessing that a handful, at most, of all of our listeners on this podcast have ever bought life insurance from the bank. Okay. So what in the world? Why would we make this up? What were we talking about? Well, here's the idea. If nobody buys life insurance from the bank, but we managed to get the tabloids in the UK and the TV stations to say, look, these guys are looking for terrorists, and they say, if you're a terrorist and you buy life insurance, then you'll be off their radar screen. I mean, if I'm not a terrorist, I don't pay any attention to it. If I'm a terrorist, I think twice and say, hmm, maybe if I buy life insurance, that will get me off their

• 31:39Speaker 09

  radar screen. And if you are a really, really dumb terrorist, hopefully what you do is you go to the bank and you purchase life insurance. Okay. Because of course, it's a trick. And we're watching to see who, after Superfree Economics comes out, and the tabloids write about it, shows up at the bank and buys life insurance. And our guess is that the kind of person who buys life insurance when they think it gets you off the hook as a terrorist is much more likely to be a terrorist than a regular person. In other words, by pulling off this scam, we managed to get some set of terrorists, the really, really dumb ones, to go to the bank and essentially announce, I am a terrorist.

• 32:22Stephen J. Dubner?

  Levitt, let me ask you this. So this example of teaching your garden to weed itself with planting this action in the minds of guilty people that only guilty people would respond to.

• 32:39Stephen J. Dubner?

  Is easily the most outlandish and intricate of all the examples we've given compared to David Lee Roth and King Solomon, even compared to the medieval ordeals. This is easily the most intricate. And it seems way beyond anything that the average person would ever need to really think about. But I'm curious, could you distill the lessons that you learned from this trick to give listeners a way to think about, a way in which they might someday need or be able to teach some kind of garden to weed itself?

• 33:14Speaker 09

  Yeah, the teaching the garden to weed itself is the ultimate expression of using incentives. And the basics it comes down to is thinking about a way in which you get people who don't want to tell you something, to tell you something by accident. And there are examples, certainly what we're doing is not completely original. Police will often keep secret many details of the crime scene in the hope that they can get the potential suspects to start to mention details that they couldn't possibly know if they hadn't been there. That's a great example, again, of the same idea of how you get people to reveal themselves. I wouldn't say it's easy.

• 33:56Speaker 09

  I wouldn't say these situations come up often, but it's a tool. It's a tool in the toolkit, which says, if it's too hard to figure out who the bad guys are, just by snooping around, I need the bad guys to tell me who they are. And again, in every setting, it will be different how you do it, but it's simply the knowledge that that's your last gasp. When you can't get people to do it other ways, you actually have to get them to tell you, it at least is the first step on the path of figuring out a way to get the bad guys to come forward and tell you who they are.

• 34:43Stephen J. Dubner?

  So it's a good way to get the bad guys to come forward and tell you who they are. Fair enough. But let's not be naive here. Bad guys can teach their garden to weed itself too. You know the Nigerian email scam? Of course you do. It's famous. You get an email from some deposed Nigerian government minister who says he has millions of dollars locked up in some bank and just needs a little help getting it out. Help from you, for which you will, of course, be handsomely rewarded. So here's a question. If the Nigerian email scam is so famous, why would a Nigerian scammer say he's from Nigeria? That's what a Microsoft

• 35:24Stephen J. Dubner?

  researcher named Cormac Hurley wanted to know. So he investigated. His conclusion? These scammers are actually quite clever. When they send out all those bait emails, what are they actually searching for? They're looking for someone who is so gullible that that person will end up sending thousands of dollars to a faraway stranger based on some kooky email about a fictional fortune. But how are the scammers supposed to sift the truly gullible from everyone else? By sending out such a kooky email that only a gullible person would take it seriously. An email that anyone with an ounce of sense or experience would immediately trash. So think about that the next time you get one

• 36:09Stephen J. Dubner?

  of those Nigerian scam emails. Your first instinct may have been to think how stupid the scammer is, but now you'll know better. Now you'll know that this is exactly the kind of stupid we should all aspire to be.

• 36:39Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hey, podcast listeners. On the next Freakonomics Radio, let's say you want to get your kids to eat something that they are not interested in eating. Maybe you should just bribe them.

• 36:48Speaker 10

  We were in the Bahamas about six months ago, and I thought of an incentive scheme for my kids that included a large sum of money if they would eat fish for seven consecutive days.

• 37:02Stephen J. Dubner?

  But does bribing actually work to change eating habits? You'll find out on the next Freakonomics Radio.

• 37:12Speaker 02

  Freakonomics Radio is produced by WNYC and Dubner Productions. Our staff includes David Herman, Greg Rosalsky, Greta Cohn, Borey Lam, Shruti Pinnamaneni, Susie Lechtenberg, and Chris Bannon. If you want more Freakonomics Radio, you can subscribe to our podcast on iTunes or go to Freakonomics.com, where you'll find lots of radio, a blog, the books, and more.

• 37:42Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by EverPure. Is the value of AI not living up to the promise? The problem is probably your data, not your AI models. When it's scattered across different systems, getting your data AI-ready is a challenge. You keep your AI waiting, and everything slows down. EverPure unifies your data so you can see it, understand it, and control it all from one simple place, and get it AI-ready fast. Unlock the true value of your AI at everpuredata.com.

• 38:14Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Ozempic. Innovation happens through rethinking what's possible. And when it comes to GLP-1s, Ozempic Pill does just that. Learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 4 in 9mg, by calling 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide and ask your doctor what's possible with FDA-approved Ozempic Pill.

• 38:45Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern Company. The world and its energy needs are always changing. Southern Company's commitment to meeting this demand stays the same. That's because Southern Company believes energy is more than a utility. It's what powers possibilities. So they are looking ahead and investing $80 billion in infrastructure upgrades and are committed to fueling growth in ways that benefit all customers so that reliable and affordable energy is accessible for generations to come. Go to southerncompany.com to learn more. Southern Company, building the future of energy.

• 39:23Speaker 11

  This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Is there a right time to sell a stock? Are you taking the right risks with your portfolio? Financial decisions can be tricky, and often, your own cognitive and emotional biases can lead you astray. Financial Decoder, an original podcast from Charles Schwab, can help. Join host Mark Reapy as he offers practical solutions to help overcome the cognitive and emotional biases that may affect your investing decisions. Listen at schwab.com/financialdecoder.