373 | Colin Camerer on the Neuroscience of Economic Thinking

Economics often starts with an assumption that people are rational maximizers of their own self-interest; but it doesn't stop there. Economists do understand that sometimes people are irrational, altruistic, or just random. So how can we understand how people actually do behave in economic circumstances? Colin Camerer is a pioneer of "neuroeconomics" -- not only understanding how people make economic choices, but relating it to processes in the brain. Blog post with transcript: https://preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/11/02/373-colin-camerer-on-the-neuroscience-of-economic-thinking/ Listen or watch Rolex Planet Visionaries wherever you get your podcasts. #ad Get 30% off your first year of the Base44 Builder plan at https://Base44.com/mindscape https://base44.com/mindscape. #ad For For 50% off your first year of HomeServe, go to https://homeserve.com/mindscape. #ad Look your best and support men's health at https://amazon.com/movember. #ad Support Mindscape on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/seanmcarroll. Colin Camerer received a Ph. D. in behavioral decision theory from the University of Chicago. He is currently the Robert Kirby Professor of Behavioral Economics, T&C Chen Center for Social and Decision Neuroscience Leadership Chair, and Director, T&C Chen Center for Social and Decision Neuroscience at Caltech. He has been awarded a MacArthur fellowship among other awards. He is the author of Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691090399/behavioral-game-theory. Web site https://camerergroup.caltech.edu/ Caltech web page https://www.hss.caltech.edu/people/colin-f-camerer Google Scholar publications https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=8udO65kAAAAJ Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/cfcamerer.bsky.social Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Camerer

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

• 0:01Sean Carroll?

  This episode is sponsored by Amazon. This November is Movember, and for the fourth year running, Amazon is supporting the Movember Foundation, the world's leading men's health organization, to raise awareness for men's health. Here's how you can help. For every product sold in November, from the eligible selection on amazon.com, up to $2 is donated to Movember. So stock up on your grooming essentials from Amazon's Movember selection, including favorites like Dove Men Plus Care and Philips Norelco, plus Wal, Gillette, Old Spice, Braun, Rogaine, Panasonic, and Harry's. Look your best and support men's health while you're at it. So visit amazon.com/movember. For every eligible product sold in November, up to $2 is donated to the Movember Foundation to support men's health.

• 0:45Speaker 01

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:15Sean Carroll?

  Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Mindscape Podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. In physics, you know, we have this distinction between fundamental physics and all the rest of physics. Fundamental physics is the stuff, deep down, the quantum field theory, the general relativity, or perhaps even string theory, or whatever, whereas all the rest is the emergent levels of the world, whether it's condensed matter physics, or geophysics, or biophysics, or what have you. The analogous distinction in economics is between microeconomics and macroeconomics. When you think about the inflation rate, or unemployment, or the manufacturing sector, or finance, you're thinking about macroeconomics.

• 1:58Sean Carroll?

  Microeconomics is the foundational part of the field that asks, in very general terms, how people go through the day making economic decisions. It's really about how people decide more generally to do one thing rather than another, simply indexed by spending money, or something like that. So of course, this question of how people go about making decisions is a tough one. So there's a big debate about the foundations of economics, just as there's big debates about the foundations of physics, for that matter. For a long time, the simplest thing to do was to simply imagine that people were perfectly rational, more or less. No one ever thought that, right?

• 2:42Sean Carroll?

  No one ever actually thought, going back to Adam Smith, that people were perfectly rational all the time. But there's a simple assumption you can start making. Imagine that people have preferences, and there's some probabilities, and they have a utility function, and then you can derive consequences for that for economic behavior. But in recent decades, or at least let's say during my lifetime, so not so recent decades, people had begun to take more seriously the idea that maybe we should describe the decision-making process that real economic agents go through in somewhat more realistic terms. Today's guest, Colin Camerer, is an economics professor at Caltech, and he's been one of the leaders in this field for a long time.

• 3:25Sean Carroll?

  Sometimes the field is called behavioral economics, so economics that takes into account how people actually behave, amazingly enough. Colin has been a pioneer, the inventor, basically, of behavioral game theory. So thinking about game theory, which is another place where you could simplify things by imagining that people are perfectly rational, but instead checking out how people actually behave and what their limitations are imposed by the fact that some people make mistakes, our energy and sticktuitiveness is not infinite when it comes to playing these games, et cetera. In more recent decades, Colin has also pioneered neuroeconomics. After all, if you want to ask how people really behave in these economic situations,

• 4:10Sean Carroll?

  maybe you want to know what's going on in their brains when they're making these decisions. So he is literally doing neuroscientific experiments, seeing what circuits are being activated, what modules are relevant, when people are making these hard economic decisions. And it's, on the one hand, a field where they've discovered a lot of really cool stuff. On the other hand, it seems still a long way to go in terms of future discoveries to be made. So that makes it perfect kind of Mindscape material. Let's go.

• 4:58Sean Carroll?

  Colin Camerer, welcome to the Mindscape Podcast.

• 5:01Speaker 02

  Glad to be here.

• 5:02Sean Carroll?

  You know, I think I wanted to start by mentioning that, you know, a lot of people have this stereotype of economists, classical economists, anyway, as people who think that everyone is perfectly rational and they just maximize their utility. And we're going to move beyond that, but even before we move beyond that in your work, you know, how accurate is or was that stereotype?

• 5:26Speaker 02

  I think it's, I think of it as a limiting case, like you might think about in physical science or natural, in the sense that there may be people with extraordinary experience, like a wine expert, who has tasted a lot of wine and is immune to herd behavior, and who can, the core of utility maximization is being able to rank every single thing, what's called completeness of preferences. So I think there are people who can do that. But it isn't, and maybe even, there's probably a little bit, like everything, a little bit of genetic predisposition to be highly rational in this sense of having a utility number for all these goods, and bundles of goods, too. So you make trade-offs between safety and smoke alarm in your house that's annoying

• 6:10Speaker 02

  because it goes off too often, and so forth. So trade-offs, besides utility maximization, trade-off is really the trickiest part, because it assumes that people can, you know, judge two things that may not be very sensually in some ways commensurable. So I think it's a limiting case that occurs.

• 6:27Sean Carroll?

  But do you think that economists like to pretend that everyone is like that?

• 6:31Speaker 02

  I think there's an important distinction between the first few chapters of the book and what's taught, and what's in the journals, and what's actually believed. So I think of the model of utility maximization as a benchmark of rationality as sort of a starting point, like maybe Newtonian mechanics, where, you know, objects aren't moving too fast, and so approximations work okay. And it's, in a way, it's a model of learning, or it could be a model of the endpoint of learning, as I was suggesting with wine experts. But it's not an endpoint for everyone, and for all people, people at all different ages, and with all different experiences, and so forth. It leaves a lot out.

• 7:12Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, so probably a lot of people took in economics class and got through the first few chapters of the book, and they think that's all that economics is.

• 7:20Speaker 02

  Right, right. And it is true that in analyzing lots of reward problems, that's always sort of the default way of thinking.

• 7:28Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 7:29Speaker 02

  You know, so as, for example, I was reading a paper by Chad Jones about how do you price, how much should we be spending on existential AI risk to limit it? And so he does a very typical economist study, which is to think of a value of a life, and this probability, and there's two things we care about, we like to have good AI, but we don't want to get wiped off the face of the Earth planet, you know, and you make this, so, and that's a pretty good starting point, because like, how else would you begin?

• 7:58Sean Carroll?

  I guess so. I don't know. I mean, it's, you've dived right into an area where I kind of don't have strong opinions other than I'm not convinced by anyone's attempt to multiply really, really tiny numbers by really, really big numbers, right? This tiny probability by this huge utility. I think that that's, I'm kind of at sea as to what to do in those situations. Do you have a better view?

• 8:20Speaker 02

  No, I think, I think that, I mean, Jones is very, very cognizant about that, and I think that the best in analysis really are, look at sensitivity analysis. In fact, in his paper, he has a, you know, like ablation, they call it in AI, you know, if you change this assumption one at a time, or in bundles, you know, how much does it move around? And it may be that the right analysis right now moves around so much that it is almost worthless, I don't know. But anyway, that's one of the most exotic examples I could think of that was top of mind of where an economic mindset gets you started.

• 8:54Sean Carroll?

  It's a good one. So by economics mindset, do we, is that almost identical with kind of using game theory to model how people would go through these strategic interactions?

• 9:05Speaker 02

  Yes. So except for, there's a little bit of a historical Venn diagram. So game theory is really a branch of applied math originally. So John von Neumann worked on it, von Neumann, Morgenstern was an economist, and their famous book that introduced game theory or made a gigantic leap forward, and a lot of the early work, and it continues to be done by people in applied math. But it's also, you can think of it as a candidate for how people actually behave, and not just people, but genes, organisms, nation-states, et cetera. I think it's, in a way, it's the closest thing we have to a unifying theory of social science, which is used in lots of different places, because of the levels, you know, can be quite different. And so game theory kind of got...

• 9:47Speaker 02

  Co-opted or adopted, or it became a project in economics. So now, when most microeconomics is taught, you learn about supply and demand, equilibration in markets, collusion, monopoly, and all of those things assume there's lots and lots of firms, so no one firm has to think too much about what the others would do, or the same on consumer side, it's called price-taking. But in game theory, suppose you have three firms, then all of a sudden, it makes sense for each of them to think about what the other's thinking, what the other's thinking about each other, and so forth. So game theory, most of the important advances have been done in economics, or by combinations

• 10:29Speaker 02

  of mathematicians who get interested in fundamental questions which have obvious application to economics, like Bob Almond, for example, is a PhD in math, but he won the Nobel Prize in economics for proving some important theorems about foundational questions.

• 10:44Sean Carroll?

  I think, I didn't quite realize what you just said, but it makes perfect sense. If I can rephrase it, you know, there was important work done in economics by Smith and Ricardo and Marx and whatever, long before game theory came on the scene. And if I take what you just said, it sounds like what game theory adds to that is the ability to model the other agents acting with you.

• 11:08Speaker 02

  Correct, correct. And then, and it actually becomes quite rich, because for example, if you play a one-shot game, like the so-called prisoner's dilemma, we might expect a lot of defection.

• 11:17Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 11:17Speaker 02

  You know, people are not being cooperative, like, you know, kids in class are all using AI because they don't want to lose out. But if it's a repeated game, and people know the history, and know that there's more periods coming, you know, like two companies in a small town, right, then, then the results really change. In fact, it's so well-known, it's called a folk theorem, that you can get cooperation, which you wouldn't normally get mathematically in a one situation if you, if you play repeatedly. And then, so, in parallel, lots more interesting mathematical questions arise, like can anything be a kind of equilibrium, is there ways to pick out subsets of certain kinds?

• 12:00Speaker 02

  And so, it really was a, I don't know how much mathematicians sitting in math departments contributed along the way, but it's certainly the foundational questions were often people who are quite mathematically sophisticated, and some like Almond really did come from pure math, perhaps, or my colleague Omar Tumuz here at Caltech is in math and economics both.

• 12:19Sean Carroll?

  And I'm going to apologize ahead of time, because you've done so many interesting things, we're going to breeze through them in a high-level way, and we're happy to pause and dig in at any moment, but in some sense, your starting point years ago was, you know, can we do better than thinking that people are purely rational, utility-maximizing game theorists? Can we actually think about how people actually think? Is that fair?

• 12:45Speaker 02

  Correct, yes. More or less, the mission statement that I use, which is very close to one from Dick Thaler, who won a Nobel Prize for pioneering so much of this work, and is a co-author of mine, is, we're trying to incorporate natural limits on computation, willpower, and self-interest to improve economic predictions and make better policy recommendations. And Dick, Richard Thaler wouldn't use the word "natural," like I kind of inserted that in there, because I want people to think of an invitation to think about biological underpinnings and mechanisms and neuroscience, as well as essentially psychology and sociology and other adjacent disciplines.

• 13:28Sean Carroll?

  Is there a way, at the risk of oversimplifying, is there a way of giving a pithy answer to the question, "How rational are people?" I mean, how much does the model fail of thinking them as perfect reasoners?

• 13:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, I was at the University of Chicago, 100th anniversary of their PhD program, of which I'm a graduate, and somebody asked that, and I think I said 75% rational.

• 13:51Sean Carroll?

  I love that answer.

• 13:53Speaker 02

  Well, I was trying to be not too evasive, you know, and I didn't want to say it depends, which is the correct answer, actually.

• 14:00Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, of course.

• 14:02Speaker 02

  And again, I think they're interesting boundary cases, so there are, there are cases where you have kind of extreme rationality, like the wine experts are probably, if they rank two wines, they're going to make the same ranking every time, doesn't matter where they are, so they're impervious to what we call context or situations. And there are other cases where you can move people around quite a bit. I'll give a quick example, that might be a fun one. So my collaborator, Eric Johnson, who's at Columbia, did a study where he asked people, "How likely do you think you'll live until 75?" And so people give a number like, you know, 90%. "How likely do you think it is that you'll be dead by 75?" They don't say 10%, right?

• 14:46Speaker 02

  So the two numbers, you know, unless there's some weird thing happening right at your 75th birthday, right, the two numbers should add up to 100%.

• 14:55Sean Carroll?

  That's pretty basic.

• 14:56Speaker 02

  Yes, and it's an example of something which Eric and many people have studied, which is sort of, kind of like an acquiescence bias, like if I ask about living long, I think I'm probably going to live long. If I ask about dying, I think a little bit more about dying. And so you get attention, maybe attention, memory, you know, some inner process is sort of perturbing the numbers. It's not like we have a hard, unless you're an actuary, right, or an accountant, it's not like we have a hard number in mind, which we actually believe and then can retrieve.

• 15:24Sean Carroll?

  And we're going to get into neuroscience at some point, but it sounds like this is, you know, rich for psychology as well. I mean, do you find, like, traditional psychology very useful in your work?

• 15:35Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. In fact, what I just described as an example, it's called a framing effect.

• 15:39Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 15:40Speaker 02

  Which is a term that Tversky and Kahneman coined to denote when the same thing we know is consequentially the same, is just slightly, the language of it is just slightly changed, and it can have surprisingly large consequences, in some cases. And they produced a whole string of interesting framing effects. If you call a salad dressing 10% fat, you sell a lot fewer than if it's 90% fat-free. So there are many, you know, lots of examples of these framing effects, and obviously advertisers and political consultants and everybody are in this business too.

• 16:16Sean Carroll?

  This episode is sponsored by Amazon. Let's talk about something that matters this month. It's November, and that means it's Movember, when we come together to raise awareness for men's health. Here's something great. For the fourth year in a row, Amazon is supporting the Movember Foundation, the world's leading men's health organization, helping shine a light on the health issues that affect men everywhere. And the best part is how easy it is to be part of it. For every product sold in November from the eligible selection on amazon.com, up to $2 is donated to Movember to support men's health. So the everyday grooming essentials you're already reaching for can actually give back. And Amazon is the ultimate destination to shop them. From men's skincare and hair care, to everyday grooming essentials, there's a wide selection to choose from, all from the brands you know and love.

• 17:00Sean Carroll?

  I've been exploring Amazon's Movember selection, and there's something for every part of your routine. Dove Men+ Care for everyday skin and body care, and Philips Norelka when it's time for the perfect shave or trim. Plus favorites like Wahl, Gillette, Old Spice, Braun, Rogaine, Panasonic, and Harry's. Stock up this month, look your best, and support a cause that's helping men live healthier, longer lives.

• 17:25Sean Carroll?

  So, there's some software you need. Imagine you could just describe it in your own words, and it would get built. That's the prospect that Base44 offers. Base44 is an AI platform that turns your ideas into a site, an app, a customer portal, or an internal tool for your business. All the crucial hidden stuff, like database, login, backend, and hosting, are built in and already handled. We're not talking about a tentative mock-up, we're talking about the real working product. The point is that you already know what you want, and you don't want the task of building software to get in the way of your momentum. Base44 is the shortest distance between having an idea and getting up and running. And what that means is, control is in your hands.

• 18:09Sean Carroll?

  Once your software is built, you can use it right away, but you can also change it as you like. You can add what's missing and keep building. Base44 helps you be ready when people show up. Turn interest, demand, and your idea for a workflow into real software that lets you move on to the next step. So sign up through our link and get 30% off the builder plan for your first year. The link is just base44.com/mindscape. That's B-A-S-E four four dot com slash Mindscape.

• 18:39Sean Carroll?

  And another aspect, or maybe it's related, I mean, you're the expert, you tell me, but people are, how good are people at sort of thinking many levels through the game? Like, I'm gonna do this, they're gonna do that, therefore I should do this? Or do they kind of get tired of all that?

• 18:55Speaker 02

  Yeah, so most of the data we have is from lab experiments, where we can design a game to kind of carefully titrate that. But there's some field data too. Let me walk through the lab experiments, because the basic one is very simple. It's called a two-thirds-of-the-average game. Or we call it Keynesian beauty contest, because Keynes had an idea about the stock market that was similar. The idea is everyone picks a number from zero to 100 simultaneously, without talking. You write down your number. We're gonna compute the average. And whoever's closest to the average times two-thirds is gonna win a fixed prize. All right? So what people often start out thinking, well, if other people are just, I don't know what they're doing. So let's say the average of everyone else will be 50, I'll pick 33.

• 19:39Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 19:40Speaker 02

  That's, we call that one step of thinking. Right? But other people think, you know what? Other people are gonna pick 33, I'm gonna pick 22. That's two steps of thinking. Right? And what we typically see in a distribution, in fact, there's many, many replications of this experiment in the lab, and also in a number of newspapers have a contest where you kind of write in, and they give some big prize. And so, The New York Times, for example, we have data from 50,000 people doing this. And it looks a lot like students all over the world. The original data in Germany, we have data from Singapore, etc.

• 20:14Speaker 02

  And typically, what you see is more 33s than 22s, and not that many two-thirds of 22s, which is around 15. So it kind of peters out.

• 20:25Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, and no ones.

• 20:28Speaker 02

  No ones, unless you do it with an audience of game theorists. And even then, you don't get that many ones and zeros, you'll get fives and tens. So, but you know, highly educated, but there's two pieces to this too, Sean, which is, it's not just that they're highly educated about game theory. They're in a group of other people who they know are highly educated about game theory.

• 20:49Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 20:49Speaker 02

  Right? And so it's the, we call it common knowledge, or there's a shared knowledge of background. And interestingly, there's some experiments with chess players, for example. You might think that chess players can do more strategic thinking, but they look very much like regular folks.

• 21:05Sean Carroll?

  Oh, okay.

• 21:05Speaker 02

  It doesn't seem to be, depth of thinking seems to be somewhat domain-specific, which is true of a lot of psychological things. There's very limited, we call it transfer of learning. You know, that's not a very general skill, at least so far as we can tell.

• 21:18Sean Carroll?

  And I can imagine explaining that result by saying, people only think it through one or two levels.

• 21:23Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 21:24Sean Carroll?

  There's another explanation that people think that other people are irrational, so they're just gonna foresee that. And can you disentangle those?

• 21:31Speaker 02

  Yeah, yes. Yeah, yeah, you can. So there's a few other games that disentangle them. And you can also manipulate who they're playing. So, nobody's done this exact study, but I'm pretty confident what would happen if you did. If you had a group of very elite game theorists, and you said, okay, we're gonna run this on prolific, or do a contest on an app, and you're gonna play those people. A lot of the game theorists who would choose zeros or ones among themselves will choose 22, or 17, or some number. In The New York Times, I picked 19. And the winner was, at the time, was 20.

• 22:06Sean Carroll?

  Ah, pretty good, all right. You're well-trained at human irrationality. That's something to be an expert at. And this, this goes into what I think is called the cognitive hierarchy model? Is that a thing?

• 22:18Speaker 02

  Correct.

• 22:19Sean Carroll?

  Tell us about that.

• 22:20Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, so there's sort of two flavors. Sometimes it's called level K. The cognitive hierarchy model just says, there's some percentage of level zeros who are either choosing randomly, or they may be doing something salient, like something... But the main thing is, they're not thinking very strategically. So, in Rosemary Nagel's data, she was the first person to do this. In her thesis, which I have in my office, she actually asked people afterwards, why did you pick the numbers you picked? And so one person picked 18. And they were close to winning, much like The New York Times, it was 20. And the person said, I picked 18 because I'm 18 years old. Right? So, that's not three levels of strategic thinking.

• 22:59Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, it's not.

• 23:00Speaker 02

  And we only found out because Rosemary asked them. That's what we call level zero, like picking a lucky number. Sometimes it's, it's the middle. In some games, it might be, there's another interesting game called 11-20 game. Sorry, the game theorists are not great on marketing.

• 23:19Speaker 02

  And in 11-20, you pick an integer from 11 to 20.

• 23:23Speaker 02

  And what's neat about it is, you earn whatever number you picked. So there's a tendency to pick 20.

• 23:30Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 23:31Speaker 02

  Right? But if you undercut the other person by one number, you get a big bonus.

• 23:36Sean Carroll?

  I see.

• 23:36Speaker 02

  Of 20. So if I think you're gonna pick 20, I will pick 19. And if I think you're gonna pick 19, I'll pick 18. But it doesn't go all the way down to 11, because if we both pick 11, nobody gets a bonus. So if I think you're gonna pick 11, I'm gonna pick 20. Because if I can't get the bonus, I'll just get the highest. You get what's called a mixed equilibrium, kind of like a cycle. And there, the focal number, the salient number, we think that level zeros pick 20. So it's as if they have a model of the game, but they neglect the fact that they could get more, depending on what the other person does. They act like they're kind of playing by themselves. So it's as if they, they have a model, but they truncate out, oh, you're path dependent on other people.

• 24:20Speaker 02

  Well, I don't know what they're gonna do, I just forget about that.

• 24:25Speaker 02

  And, anyway, so that game is another way to try to pin down, you know, number of levels, and usually it's something like two or three.

• 24:34Speaker 02

  The only exception, which is a little bit interesting, is, and I'm in a little debate with this, with George Lowenstein, who's a behavioral economist at Carnegie, is language. So if you think about the iterated structure of language, depending what you call a level, right? You can get things like, I know that you know that your wife didn't feed the cat, and therefore, you need to text your daughter, blah, blah, blah. You know, if you write it down, you could write it as games with a lot of levels in it. But I think the reason people might seem to be doing a lot of reasoning is because of just learning and familiarity, or what's like, cognitive scientists call schemas. You know, like we have sort of scripts for the way things work.

• 25:18Speaker 02

  And if it doesn't work that way, like a tree, you know, you have a branch, Plan B and Plan C. So it's possible that, that you can get higher levels, but I think it's pretty rare, and maybe a specialized skill, or it may be in certain domains where this very high-level strategic thinking works.

• 25:36Sean Carroll?

  And you said that chess players don't have any special benefits elsewhere. Is there, is there some idea that, other than domains where we're special experts in, each person is a certain level thinker? Like, you know, is it universal among different kind of problems that they would face?

• 25:57Speaker 02

  Partly, but not quite. Yeah, yeah, so, and we do know, here's a few things related to that, which is, we know that when you play a couple of these simple games, if you do it the way a psychometrician does it, which is not just play one, but five or six different games, like you play the 11-20 game, and then you play the two-thirds-of-the-average game, and then there are several others that have a similar structure, and you kind of infer what level do they seem to be using. You, you, those are correlated with working memory, like how many digits can people remember, with education. So we have some data comparing Caltech students with Pasadena City College, which is a mile away, so controlling for geography. Caltech students, as you well know, are extremely good analytically, and they're also very homogeneous.

• 26:42Speaker 02

  Everyone is, there's no poets, right?

• 26:45Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 26:46Speaker 02

  Drama majors.

• 26:49Speaker 02

  So, they're really good, and they, typically the median math I C T is 800. We basically choose on verbal scores.

• 26:56Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 26:57Speaker 02

  Because there's so many, they're all good at standard STEM.

• 27:01Speaker 02

  And they were, they were about, and this is our old data, they were about one-half level extra thinking compared to the PCC. Which was a little less than we thought. So there is some, you know, so there's some differences in groups and things like that.

• 27:15Sean Carroll?

  Have you, I mean, this is gonna be a provocative question. Have you compared Caltech to Princeton and Stanford and Chicago students?

• 27:25Speaker 02

  No, but, but I'd have two answers to that question, the provocative question. And I'm not gonna conjecture what the truth would be, but you could guess what I would guess. Maybe your readers can. I was on sabbatical last year, thank you very much, Provost, at Harvard in the fall and MIT in the spring.

• 27:42Sean Carroll?

  Good.

• 27:43Speaker 02

  And I think the difference is, the Harvard students are not necessarily selected on IQ.

• 27:50Sean Carroll?

  They're not. I was a Harvard grad student, I, I, I found that out.

• 27:53Speaker 02

  You know, exactly, exactly. They are, they do have a lot of, a lot of, in 10 years, I may, I may be in the, in the top 30 under 30 in Wired magazine.

• 28:04Sean Carroll?

  They're gonna rule the world, that's their selection.

• 28:06Speaker 02

  Youngest congressperson in my state ever.

• 28:10Speaker 02

  And you would think, a little strategic thinking wouldn't hurt in those cases, but it's, it's not what they're necessarily gonna gravitate toward being good at.

• 28:21Sean Carroll?

  So you're gonna, you're gonna put the Caltech students up there?

• 28:24Speaker 02

  Yes, yes. There is, I'll tell you a related thing, since you mentioned that. And I do have data on this, or somebody else has data. So there's something called the cognitive reflection test, which is basically brain teasers. And one of them is the bat and the ball problem, which is more famous. But I'm gonna use a trickier, cool one. It's called the algae pond problem. The idea is, there's a little bit of algae in a pond. The amount doubles every day. It covers the pond in 48 days.

• 28:54Speaker 02

  On what day is the pond half covered?

• 28:58Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 29:00Speaker 02

  And the answer is not 24. If the algae was growing linearly, 24 would be the correct answer. So it's the right answer to a question that's almost the right question.

• 29:12Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 29:13Speaker 02

  Right. It's what we call level, what Danny Kahneman coined this term called system one thinking. It's like a snap judgment. And the right answer is 47 because if it doubles every day, it has to be half of a full one day before 48, which is 47. And so Shane Frederick, who concocted this, he's a professor at Yale,

• 29:36Speaker 02

  collected a bunch of data from lots of schools, including Harvard and not Princeton. I can't remember everything that's on the list. And also he went to the Boston Common and just collected answers there.

• 29:51Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 29:52Speaker 02

  And the Boston Common is a big park in the middle of, in the middle of Boston, which is historically very important. I went to a political rally there. It's really super cool.

• 30:03Speaker 02

  And the Harvard students were a little bit below Boston Common. So on the cognitive reflection task, there's three questions that are all a little different, but they have the same structure with brain tissue structure, right? Like there's an obvious wrong answer and then a subtler right answer. And so the scale goes from zero to three. The MIT students, I think, were 2.28 or something like that. We did some at Claremont, they were around maybe 1.6. And Harvard was a little bit below Boston Common. But as I asked Shane about this and he said, oh, no, no, no. But, but the Boston Common people, the day, the day we went was an orchestra or something. And they may have been above average Bostonians. It was, you know, the Boston Common goers are not a representative sample of Bostonians.

• 30:48Speaker 02

  Like, okay, okay.

• 30:49Sean Carroll?

  Did not want to accept the result. Okay.

• 30:51Speaker 02

  Anyway, anyway.

• 30:53Sean Carroll?

  So the, the program then is, okay, people are not fully rational, but you don't want to just say they're not fully rational. You sort of want to dig into what it is they are doing, right? I mean, there is a process going on in people's brains that maybe even is optimizing something, but it's other than being a perfect reasoner.

• 31:14Speaker 02

  Correct, correct. Exactly. And, and from the get go in behavioral economics, I started in the eighties. The people we always confronted with, what's your theory? What's a better theory? And that's exactly the right scientific question. So there is a kind of fringe of people early in the field of behavioral economics who are, I call them hecklers. It's like, well, my cousin, you know, brought the wrong insurance plan. Therefore we've disproved everyone being rational all the time. Well, like, great. What's the, what's the replacement theory? Right? And the replacement theory has been essentially a series of sort of boutique theories revolving around different kinds of computational challenges. So cognitive hierarchy is one theory in game theory, which has gotten quite a bit of traction,

• 31:57Speaker 02

  including in linguistics, which is a cool area. And a field called adversarial control, which is basically, you know, two fighter jets are trying to patrol and scare off another enemy fighter jet. Like, how does that, what, what are the trajectories they take? And so people have applied level K type of modeling to that. So that's been pretty fruitful. And, oh, let me brief them into the field data. So we also have a data with experiment with field data, not an experiment. It's a actual thing that happened. So one of the implications of this level K cognitive hierarchy type thinking is,

• 32:37Speaker 02

  is that people will not fully infer information from somebody else's actions. For example, in, for 2000 to 2009, we have a sample of 600 big screen wide release movies in the US and other countries. And in those days, it was rare, but occasionally, but if, if you see a movie poster or an ad for the movies, it used to be the old days. You'll remember some of your readers who are young won't. It used to be that Friday reviews, sometimes on TV and the newspaper were a big deal. It kind of guided what people, and so the studios would send movies, screeners to the critics, maybe on Monday or Tuesday.

• 33:21Speaker 02

  They said, send us your review, even if it's bad. We may take a blurb out and it will say, you know, stunning, a magnificent cinematic achievement or interesting, unusual. If it says, if it says one word, that's bad.

• 33:32Sean Carroll?

  Yes.

• 33:33Speaker 02

  Right? Like, like nothing you've ever seen before, right? Anyway, and so it turns out about 10% of movies were cold opened, which means they were not shown to critics. And so if, and it turns out the cold open movies are the worst ones because critics later review them when they do come out and they get much lower ratings on what's called Metacritic, which is a nice aggregation of, of critic reviews.

• 34:01Speaker 02

  And so we wrote, we took an aspect of this model that says some percentage of the movie goers think that if there's no review, that doesn't mean anything. That means it's an average movie. But they're wrong because, because the less average movie, so the fact that there's no review is bad news. In this case, no news is bad news. But psychologically, it's a little tricky. It's kind of like Sherlock Holmes, the dog that didn't bark, right? If I didn't see a review, eh, you know, maybe it got lost in the mail or they didn't have room in the paper, blah, blah. But like, if you step back and think about it a little bit. And so the prediction we made was that these cold open movies, given their later critic rating, would do unusually well because you're kind of pulling in people

• 34:44Speaker 02

  who didn't realize that no review is a bad sign. And you can see then in the data, there's about a 15% increase in box office gross from this kind of sucker.

• 34:57Sean Carroll?

  Because I, I did figure out, I did once at a project, we never published it with Mark Wise, my colleague at Caltech, where we ranked how much money Hollywood movies make versus their budget.

• 35:11Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah, yeah.

• 35:12Sean Carroll?

  And what we found was that Hollywood was actually extraordinarily rational as an, as an industry. So two things, one is the money you make per dollar is the same, whether you make a hundred million dollar movie or a hundred, hundred billion dollar movie, one million dollar movies, but the dispersion is also the same. Because if you're in the one million dollar movies, there's a lot more dispersion, but there's also a lot more movies. So the average is the same and, but they know how much money they're going to make from a hundred million dollar movie most of the time.

• 35:44Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, typically the, often a couple of days or a week before opening, you'll hear it open, you know, we expect it to open this much. And so it's some combination of analytics and then they do screenings and they have people fill out these cards and, and usually they're, they're fairly accurate that way.

• 36:01Sean Carroll?

  So they know that what, which movies are going to do badly and they just cold open those. They don't want, they don't want to let anyone.

• 36:06Speaker 02

  Exactly.

• 36:06Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 36:07Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah. And the paper is fun because there's some, a famous one is Pluto Mar, Pluto Nash.

• 36:14Sean Carroll?

  Yes.

• 36:14Speaker 02

  By Eddie Murphy. And Eddie Murphy was a big star at that time. And so this is where the studios often get in trouble. It, it was kind of like, well, you made us a lot of money, you know? Maybe you'll lose us some money that like, that all is forgiven. Anyway, another one was called Killers with Katherine Hagel and Ashton Kutcher, which.

• 36:34Sean Carroll?

  That one I don't know.

• 36:35Speaker 02

  Yeah, no, because, right?

• 36:37Sean Carroll?

  Probably for the best, yeah.

• 36:39Speaker 02

  Yes. 21 a minute, Crick.

• 36:42Sean Carroll?

  What if one of the world's greatest laboratories isn't indoors, but deep in the Amazon rainforest? Chemical biologist and explorer Rosa Vasquez Espinoza ventures into one of the most biodiverse places on earth, following rivers, studying tiny organisms and uncovering the surprising ways the natural world may inform scientific research and our understanding of living systems. Her work is a reminder that the Amazon is more than just a forest. It's a region studied for its biodiversity, ecosystems and scientific potential. Planet Visionaries, hosted by environmental advocate and professional climber Alex Honnold, features conversations with individuals working on research, conservation and other responses to identified environmental challenges.

• 37:27Sean Carroll?

  In partnership with the Rolex Perpetual Planet Initiative, this is Planet Visionaries. Listen or watch wherever you get your podcasts.

• 37:36Speaker 03

  Cash flow crunch? Ondec's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondec.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondec or Celtic Bank. Ondec does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 38:07Sean Carroll?

  So you mentioned Kahneman and Tversky and System 1 and System 2. How does your picture here fit into that? Is it like a compatible? Or is it a modification of that?

• 38:20Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think, and by the way, I'm a little bit of a System 1 and System 2 skeptic in the following sense. So when Kahneman wrote his Nobel lecture about this, and there's lots of other people who've studied it, he made a list of traits that System 1 has: associative, fast, effortless. And System 2 is parallel, serial, slow, deliberative, you know, extrinsic, like I can tell you what I'm thinking. The snap judgment case, maybe I can't tell you. And that's kind of pre-science. We don't want, we don't want a neural system to be defined by a list of words. Right? We want to see it in the brain.

• 39:03Speaker 02

  Like, the brain evidence is very good that there's something called the default mode network, which is what you're thinking when you're not doing anything active. The salience network, right? There's a number of things, like language areas, we know quite a lot about. And I remember asking Danny once, early, maybe five years after System 1 and System 2 was sort of in the air, "Have you presented this to neuroscientists? And has anyone found anything that looks like System 1 and System 2 dissociation?" And he said, he had a very distinctive accent. He said, "I did. I thought I was giving them a wonderful gift that they would all want to go study." And part of it was, neuroscientists don't believe in that much reductionism.

• 39:45Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 39:46Speaker 02

  You know, there's an ongoing debate. You may know some bits of it about modularity from Fodor. And, you know, Costanza and Tubi once said, "We think there's 78 different modules that are adapted, and modules to challenges in the environment of evolution adaptation, the EEA." And, you know, there's lots of schemes for deciding like how many distinct parts of the brain there are. And so I think the neuroscientists felt like 2 is too small of a number.

• 40:13Sean Carroll?

  I see, okay.

• 40:14Speaker 02

  And so it never got much traction. I mean, I wish people would work at it because if it is 2, that would be wild. And it may be, for example, that System 1 is available in infants and System 2 shows up in puberty, or when you're 25, you know.

• 40:31Sean Carroll?

  Some people never, yeah.

• 40:32Speaker 02

  Yeah, you took the words out of my mouth.

• 40:37Sean Carroll?

  So, but that's a perfect segue because you are an economist who does neuroscience. And, I mean, let's just, you know, ask the sort of career path question here. Was that an obvious thing to start doing as a professor of economics?

• 40:55Speaker 02

  Uh, no.

• 40:56Sean Carroll?

  I figured.

• 40:58Speaker 02

  Yeah, so the pattern it sort of fit was, I like novelty, and I'm a bit of a dilettante, although maybe I want to be more than a dilettante in the sense that one of my proudest facts about my career is that I've published in a lot of different journals. Sometimes on my own, but also with, typically with a tutor, a senior collaborator who is my sensei.

• 41:28Sean Carroll?

  That's the way to do it, yeah.

• 41:29Speaker 02

  What I need to know. And so the first thing I worked on after graduate school that was a little bit ahead of its time was experimental economics. So the idea of doing an experiment came very late to economics. In fact, up to 1985, and maybe still, Samuelson and Nordhaus's famous book that a lot of people taught from said, you know, sadly, like astronomy and, you know, geology, we can't do experiments. Like, we can't make artificial earthquakes and create new planets in economics. And even at that point, there were hundreds of experiments already published, so I don't know what they were thinking. It was like hallucination, the human form of hallucination or denial.

• 42:13Speaker 02

  Anyway, the idea came quite late. And so I got interested in that because Charlie Plot, my colleague at Caltech, who's a major figure, really one of the main founders in this area, taught a course at University of Chicago. And I learned about experimental economics. No one was doing it. I liked doing things that no one else was doing.

• 42:28Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 42:29Speaker 02

  I don't really like competition, frankly.

• 42:31Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, me too, I'm with you.

• 42:32Speaker 02

  Yeah, one way to do something no one else does, or to combine, synthesize things, right? That are unusually, unusual mixtures. And then I get interested in behavioral economics. And that was also controversial at the beginning. And it took a lot of, you know, there were constant like battling with referees. It was kind of healthy because if you have, scientific enemies can be very good for you. They read your papers very carefully. If you make a mistake, they will tell you about it. If they think there's, they probably are willing to have a conversation that says, "What evidence would convince you?" You know, like, "Well, people do these games for $10. If you did it for $200, I'd be convinced." So then you go do it for $200.

• 43:17Speaker 02

  Or you do what we did, and many people, you go to Vietnam, which is highly literate and poor at the time, 2010, and you do it there for the equivalent of, you know, $10 US dollars, which for them might be two days' wage. Right? So as Thaler likes to say, "The easiest win to win an argument is to run another experiment or run another regression." So we were always in, you know, grit mode, like, "We're going to prove it to you." Okay, here comes neuroscience. So in 1997, George Lohenstein and I were together at the Institute for Events, sorry, not the Institute, that's Princeton. At Stanford, there's something called the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences, CASBS, C-A-S-B-S, that began in the 50s. And it's an amazing institution.

• 44:02Speaker 02

  It's a great place to go. Ironically, they are always begging me, "Do you know anyone in economics or neuroscience who wants to come?" Because most of the neuroscientists have big, ongoing labs, and they feel like they can't take a year away, even though I think their trainees probably wouldn't mind, to be honest, neuroscientists out there. And there's flights from San Francisco very frequently. Anyway, I was at this CASBS, and George Lohenstein and I were there, and also Dr. Jean Prelleck, who's a brilliant psychologist, who contributed to behavioral economics, and his wife is a neuroscientist. And so George had gotten interested in neuroscience a little bit because he was good friends with John Cohen, a major cognitive neuroscientist, who also kind of joined us in neuroeconomics with some of his projects.

• 44:47Speaker 02

  And so between Danica Prelleck, John Cohen, and other people we knew, George and I organized a meeting in Pittsburgh that was basically, you know, "Our friends are going to meet your friends." And so there was a few economists, none of them were doing neuroscience. They were just like, "I'd like to hear what it is. And how do you study things? And what are the questions in economics, like utility maximization? What would, how would you try to study that thing?" And it was quite an amazing conference, except most of the economists were dead silent. So I think they were listening, number one.

• 45:22Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 45:23Speaker 02

  And they didn't know what to ask, right? Economics is a little bit of a proud tradition, with some famous exceptions of, like, it's considered low status to say, "I don't really understand this."

• 45:38Sean Carroll?

  Oh, that's too bad.

• 45:39Speaker 02

  Or, "How would this, I'm interested in common knowledge in games. How would this help me study that?" You know, occasionally people will ask, but anyway. So they were just quiet. And by the way, in that group was Peter Diamond, Al Roth, Paul Romer, and I may have left somebody out, all three of whom later won Nobel prizes. Now, do we have a causal effect? I'm just saying, it's a small sample. You know, we don't have much statistical power. And actually, no, none of them pretty much did anything. Actually, Paul Romer got quite interested in some aspect of it. He wrote a small paper on emotion. And so he's the one who kind of came closest,

• 46:19Speaker 02

  but then he got distracted by lots of other things that were more important for him to do, frankly. So they were kind of like cheer sympathizers.

• 46:28Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 46:28Speaker 02

  "Tell us." And then there was kind of a lag. And then there's another starter conference at Princeton, which I missed. And Angus Deaton was there, later Nobel laureate. And Angus, again, is head, very far from a neuroscientist. He's interested in demand systems. You know, how do you fit together how much products people like and whether they're substitute products? And he had done some beautiful work on that. But he basically said, you know, "I came to this conference because I don't think we really understand the source of demand. Like, I have all these data, but why do people like vanilla nut ice cream? Does it change over time? Does it depend on who is around them?

• 47:02Sean Carroll?

  That's a great question.

• 47:03Speaker 02

  "Can you guys help us understand that?" And, you know, if you taught a course on demand theory, there's not a lot of neuroeconomics papers I would put on there right now. But we would have a research agenda, for example. And we could say something about a few things that have been studied, like self-control. Like, when do people buy tempting goods rather than healthy goods? We have some data suggesting dorsal and prefrontal cortex interacting with another region. But it depends on how much your brain is sort of encoding or representing health value.

• 47:36Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 47:37Speaker 02

  So there's some bits of cognneuro that speak to things in economics, but it's just a very thin web of tissue. It's not a nice dense plan. Anyway, so the course of that, I moved to Caltech in 94. So this conference in 97 was a little bit in. And I started to ask around... To about neuroscience people I knew, one was John Allman, who turns out is one of the world's experts on cross-species comparison of primates and an incredibly wise person. So he was kind of my tutor. And then we got his brain scanner in 2003, and we got a kind of a volume discount. So there was one scanner to study monkeys, which was vertical,

• 48:22Speaker 02

  because the monkeys don't like to lie down and they're squirmy. So you have to lift them up into it like a kind of hairdresser.

• 48:26Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 48:27Speaker 02

  And there was another one for small animals, which have tiny brains, you need a big seven Tesla. And then they had, we thought, well, I was going to be a human scanner. But as you may well appreciate from knowing Caltech, in biology, now called BBE, Biology and Biomedical Engineering, very few people are interested in humans.

• 48:46Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 48:47Speaker 02

  Because we're too complicated a biological system.

• 48:50Sean Carroll?

  Too messy, yeah, of course.

• 48:51Speaker 02

  Yeah, too messy. If you want to study nicotine addiction, like Henry Lester studied rodents. If you want to study sleep and development, you want an organism that's transparent when they're born. So you study a zebrafish larva with David Proter, right? And so humans are like, man, there's too much going on. So we had this kind of field of dream scanner that no one was using. And the staff people were really terrific. And a couple of us, actually Peter Bostards was one, Steve Quartz was another, said, I have some ideas about how we could, what we could do with a scanner. And so people started to work on that. And some of it was a very Caltech formula, as you might recognize. So Peter started out as a finance professor, and he got interested in risk and reward. And he was like, well,

• 49:35Speaker 02

  what is risk and reward in the brain? Like fundamental thing in economics. And he was just, he was good at it. And he, like me, was a very adventurous. Like, I don't care if I can't publish these papers. I have ten, that's what tenure's for.

• 49:44Sean Carroll?

  Yep.

• 49:45Speaker 02

  Steve Quartz was a wet philosopher. What that means is, he had a PhD in philosophy. He did a postdoc at the Salk Institute of La Jolla, where Terry Sinyowski was and Francis Crick. And Steve was there at the same time as Reed Montague and Peter Deyan. And so Montague and Deyan and Wilfrid Schults wrote a very famous paper in 1997 about dopamine, and that dopamine neurons were firing in midbrain as a reward signal, reward learning signal. Anyway, so Steve was around this kind of computational neuroscientific. And so he came to Caltech, he's still teaching philosophy, like he would teach a course

• 50:26Speaker 02

  on like will, like free will, you know. But he was, he was interested, and he'd like to dabble. So he and, he and Peter wrote some papers, I wrote some papers with them, and we kind of got a start. And Caltech, by the way, was quite supportive. Partly, they had this free scanner, they just wanted to get something out of it, right? So for a few years, it was free to use the scanner. It's normally quite expensive. It's basically subsidizing, you know, subsidizing a startup. And they were pretty charmed by it. So I was able to do it, and I had good collaborators around.

• 51:02Sean Carroll?

  Yeah, I mean, that sounds great. The one thing I wanted to note, when you were talking about organizing the interdisciplinary conference, there's a piece recently by Paul Bloom, who's a former Mindscape guest, who, it was very, he was trashing interdisciplinary conferences, not because the idea is bad, but because you would invite like the best people from Area One and the best people from Area Two, but he said, those aren't who you should invite. You should invite the people from Area One who care about Area Two, and those might not be the ones you've already identified as the best.

• 51:35Speaker 02

  Yes, yeah, yeah. No, I totally agree with him in the sense that it's very easy to punt on a mediocre interdisciplinary conference that's a waste of time, that nobody would want to come back for part two. And it's exactly what he's put his finger on, which is, you need people who are good at what they do, like really good, willing to learn language and communicate across languages, like the word rational is used seven different ways. And so that takes some, you have to be in kind of student mode, like you have to toggle from expert to student. And then, these are people for whom this could really be a priority. Like, if this meeting is fun, I want to go every year. Or a collaboration goes out of it. Or we write a joint grant that, you know, for the, for the, those funders

• 52:17Speaker 02

  that really like these kinds of mixtures, like John Templeton, and sometimes DARPA, or whomever.

• 52:22Speaker 03

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau, and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 52:52Speaker 04

  By the time I hit my 50s, I'd learned a few things. Like how family is precious. Work can always wait. And 99% of people over 50 already have the virus that causes shingles. Not everyone at risk will develop it, but I did. The painful blistering rash disrupted my life for weeks. Don't learn about your shingles risk the hard way. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist today. Sponsored by GSK.

• 53:22Sean Carroll?

  I like the idea of student mode, because it's depressing how many professors don't want to get into student mode. Like, they figure they've, they've paid that price already. They don't want to do that anymore. But it's kind of a shame. But, okay, so this is a very broad question, but we can narrow in. What do we learn by looking at the brain? Is it something like, oh, when you're making a decision, this part lights up? Or can we actually start identifying some of those modules you mentioned earlier?

• 53:48Speaker 02

  Yeah, so like, so first of all, let me knock down a couple of kind of myths or things that people often say.

• 53:55Sean Carroll?

  Good.

• 53:56Speaker 02

  So one is that very few things are highly localized to one part of the brain. Right? So we do think about certain regions, like amygdala or DLPFC, I mentioned, but typically, we're looking for kind of a circuit, you know. And so that's number one. There's some exceptions, like language is largely left lateralized.

• 54:16Sean Carroll?

  So that's left side of the brain?

• 54:21Speaker 02

  Left side of the brain, yes, exactly, exactly. And, and so, so there's some cases like that. But even then, the brain has a fair amount of plasticity. So if you have damage in an area, or with animals, we can sometimes lesion the animals, people, the people and animals can often, like, the brain will reorganize itself to have some functionality in a different part of the brain.

• 54:45Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 54:46Speaker 02

  There's a very famous paper with this on ferrets, optic nerves, and auditory, I believe, where you kind of rewire. And, you know, there's even, you know, the people have hemispherectomies, where they remove an entire hemisphere, they can do a lot of things. So the brain has a certain resilience. It depends when it happens. If it happens early in life, it's better, and so on, so on. But so one distinction I think is important is, oh, so let me give you one concrete example that I think is, builds on what we were talking about. So when it comes to strategic thinking, the terms that I prefer is mentalizing. Another term people use is theory of mind, which is the idea that I have a, it's not

• 55:30Speaker 02

  my favorite term, but, you know, that's why I like mentalizing. Theory of mind is the idea that, that I have some kind of theory, or personal representation of what's in your mind.

• 55:40Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 55:41Speaker 02

  Okay, all right. And there's a lot of philosophical nitpicking about, which is interesting, actually, about how it works. But that doesn't help guide us too much on the neuroscientific discovery. It's been, it's been a lively debate, and lively debates are usually good. But there is pretty good evidence on the mentalizing circuit. So a part of it is in what's called right temporal parietal junction. So there's four main lobes of the brain, temporal, parietal is motor, and occipital cortex in the back, and then frontal. And so temporal parietal junction is sort of a region that where the temporal and the parietal lobes tend to meet. There's, part of the mentalizing circuit is dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, dorsal is on the top, medial in the middle. So that's, you know,

• 56:26Speaker 02

  an area like a big quarter, you know, on the top of your forehead, an inch above your eyebrows. There's some regions in temporal lobe, and posterior cingulate. And so if we do what's called a localizer, like if I show people a bunch of pictures, like my colleague Ralph Ados does, and I said, this person's move, what is this person doing with their arm? You would say, reaching. Right? And I could give a similar picture and say, why is this person moving their arm that way? So the how question is not about the contents of the person's mind. The why question is about why are they doing it?

• 57:08Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 57:09Speaker 02

  Or you could show a person who's crying and said, what is this person's face doing? It's crying. Then you ask, why are they crying? Okay. And so if you run this why how localizer, and you look, what are the areas of the brain that are more active and why than how? And just to help your listeners do it, the reason we do both is because whenever you put something on the screen, and you have people press a button, tons of stuff is going on.

• 57:32Sean Carroll?

  Everything goes crazy, yeah, right.

• 57:34Speaker 02

  And so we want to, we want to have two things that are very, very similar in terms of what buttons you press, what you see on the screen, the luminosity, the emotions. So you might, so they literally would use like the same pictures, that permit either a how why judgment. And then you subtract the how activity from the why, and what's left over, we think is mentalizing.

• 57:54Sean Carroll?

  Okay. And, yeah.

• 57:57Speaker 02

  And there's a, and there's a couple of studies, but not very many, including by us. There's one nice study on the two thirds of the average game. And people who do two steps of thinking in two thirds of the average, have more activity in mentalizing circuitry.

• 58:13Sean Carroll?

  Oh, okay.

• 58:15Speaker 02

  And I wish there was, for some reason, including my laziness, there, I wish there was a lot more studies on that. There's a few, and they all kind of point to the side that more strategic thinking, as evidenced by these kind of extra levels, you know, like 22s, or 18 or 19, and the 11 and 20 game, those extra steps of thinking are recruiting this mentalizing.

• 58:36Sean Carroll?

  And how well can we, I mean, so, sorry, let me back up a little bit. Given that you're able to do at least some connection between that way of thinking and something happening in the brain, what kind of story can we tell about why we think that way? Why we're not better at multi-level thinking? Is it, does it come down to energy usage, or just accidents of evolution, or satisficing? I'm not quite sure.

• 59:03Speaker 02

  Energy usage is always a good candidate, right? You know, because the brain runs on 40 watts, and, and what evolution is generally doing is thrifting, you know, it's trying to sort of offload, displace in approximations, offload things. There, there's a couple of papers on this. I don't know if the fossil record or anything, I should ask John Allman, right? Actually, he's often in, at Santa Fe. You should ask him.

• 59:29Sean Carroll?

  I'll ask him, yeah.

• 59:32Speaker 02

  Whether there was some, some kind of rate limit, you know, that kept human brain from developing more steps of thinking. Probably is something like, there's, there's a bit of a kind of mental arms race, where if I could do more thinking, I can figure out if you're fooling me, and I can fool you. But unless you're a very social species, in which that's highly advantageous, you know, you just wouldn't get enough evolutionary pressure.

• 59:58Sean Carroll?

  Sure, good.

• 59:59Speaker 02

  To generate more. It's a very good question. I would, if I had five PhD students writing a thesis, we would.

• 1:00:07Sean Carroll?

  One of them would be.

• 1:00:07Speaker 02

  All you in three years.

• 1:00:08Sean Carroll?

  Okay, good. Well, you know, there might be people out there listening who can then apply to grad school at Caltech and do that. One of the obvious ways, to me, that people fall a little short of being perfectly rational, is when we're trying to compare what we want right now in the moment to what might benefit us down the road, right? You know, planning for the future. Is that, is that something that you can see in a distinction in the brain? Or is it, okay?

• 1:00:36Speaker 02

  Yeah, that's a great topic. So, in psychology, it's often called delayed discounting. How much do you discount, in or underway, things that you get with a delay? We often call it time discounting, you know, and interestingly, animal learning, biology, psych, and economics have, have cohered on a fairly standard set of definitions and tools for measuring it. And a very typical one is called smaller sooner, longer later. So the idea is, you could have $10 now, or in a month, I'll send you $15.

• 1:01:13Sean Carroll?

  Yep.

• 1:01:13Speaker 02

  And people say, well, I want 10. So then, we'll usually calibrate that. You can do this in a Bayesian optimal way. So it's like, well, how about 10 or 18? I guess I still want 10, 10 or 20, right? So you can titrate this, and then figure out what's an implicit interest rate. So we call it a discount factor, but it's, it's exactly like an interest rate. And there's quite good evidence about how that works in the brain. And again, dorsal people to cortex is quite important. So there's something called perspective thinking, which is basically when people are thinking about the future. And the perspective thinking system is fairly well-understood. One of the early people who

• 1:01:56Speaker 02

  worked on it, by the way, was Demis Hassabis, who's now DeepMind.

• 1:02:00Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:02:00Speaker 02

  Nobel laureate. So a number of people in his, in his circle were interested in this. And, so we, we have a study related to this, which was the food study I alluded to briefly before, which is, people see pictures of food, and there are things like apples, yogurt, Snickers bars, you know, and they rate them on health and taste. And they, each individual rates them. We don't take some rate, because, you know, people may, some people love tofu, some don't. And then we asked them to choose between goods. And what happens is, when they're, when they're choosing the tempting one, there's more activity, sorry,

• 1:02:43Speaker 02

  when they're resisting the tempting one, right? So they see tofu and Snickers. And when they choose tofu, and these are people, by the way, who recruiters said they're trying to diet. So the people who are, you know, we know they're kind of have everyday self-control struggles. We didn't super carefully titrate, you know, what that means. And this is pre-GLP1, so that's going to screw up all these, actually, I don't know if it's going to screw up the studies. It becomes a really interesting thing to study.

• 1:03:07Sean Carroll?

  Interesting to study, yeah.

• 1:03:08Speaker 02

  Right, exactly. Anyway, and so you ask people about these, these healthy foods, and then more tempting foods, that they like better. And when they're able to resist temptation, there's activity in DLPFC. So we think of that, I think of it as, it's also involved in working memory, and other, lots of other major attacks, what's called executive function. So I think of that as a place that reminds you now about future consequences, like health.

• 1:03:34Sean Carroll?

  Right, right.

• 1:03:36Speaker 02

  Like health. And there's another really beautiful study on this topic. So, one thing people have studied is called EFT, episodic future tagging. And the original study is so beautiful. So, what they did is, they took a calendar, and they asked subjects, what are some things that are happening in the next couple of months? Like, oh, I have my PhD defense, I'm going to Santa Fe, I'm on Sean's podcast, and they had the rate, I'm going to the dentist, are they good things or bad things? So, how, how vivid is it when you think about it? And is it good or bad? And then what they did was, they did the SSLL experiment. You could have $10 now, or $15 in a month. But it's, that's the control

• 1:04:21Speaker 02

  treatment. In the episodic treatment, they said, you can have $10 now, or $15, when you're going to be in Sean Carroll's podcast in a month. So it's, the time is fixed, but again, there's a kind of framing difference, where you injected this vividness, the salience and, and then people are more patient. So the idea, yeah, the idea is that the episodic, the episodic imaginability, through perspective thinking, kind of pulls, it's as if it pulls the future forward mentally. And it changes the discount rate.

• 1:04:56Sean Carroll?

  Is it that, or is it, I mean, in part, when you say something like, I'll give you $10 today, or $20 in the future, part of me just doesn't believe you, right? Like, you know, maybe you're faking, or maybe you'll forget, or you'll get poor. Whereas if we tie it to an event, then your reliability goes up a little bit.

• 1:05:15Speaker 02

  It could be, it could be. And actually, this thing about credibility of future rewards, a lot of people have tackled. And my colleague here, Charlie Springer, who's a real terrific experimental economist, the way he did it was to give people post-dated checks when they left. So if you pick $10 today, you get a check 24th of September. And if you pick one month, it's October 24th. It's a little sus, because sometimes banks will cash post-dated checks, and they would have you. But anyway, they, they were, they were really cognizant about this. And another study by Paul Glimpser, who's a terrific neuroeconomist, what they did was, they had people scan three or four sessions. And so, by the time they did the second session, they had gotten their money from the first session.

• 1:06:01Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 1:06:02Speaker 02

  So that was a way to build up credibility.

• 1:06:03Sean Carroll?

  Believable, yeah, okay, good.

• 1:06:04Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it is, it's, this is kind of like, the best way to win an argument is to run another regression, or run another control experiment. So people have been very careful about this credibility thing. But, but it may be the episodicness somehow, you know, adds, adds some vividness, or some, you know, something. I mean, we need to ask the brain more.

• 1:06:26Sean Carroll?

  It does sound like this might tie into, I know you're doing recent work on burstiness in activity. Like, if we're doing something, we'll keep doing it for a while, and then it'll just go away. So what, what did you found out there?

• 1:06:41Speaker 02

  Okay, yeah, so, that's a great segue. Thanks, Sean. So, burstiness is, well, let me tell you a story. So, we have some gym data, and we have some data on about 1,500 days of gym attendance. These are people who join the gym, and then, like, we have four years of data, so sometimes less, sometimes more. And it's a lot of people, like, 20,000 people. And so, we were interested in whether you can predict when they go to the gym. Like, do they form a habit of going regularly? And so, my RA, Hong Ho, made a graph, I said, for, for giving a talk purposes, make a graph of one person's calendar year, of when they

• 1:07:22Speaker 02

  went to the gym every day. And so I looked at this graph, and I thought, Poisson non-homogeneity.

• 1:07:32Sean Carroll?

  Just what I would think, of course.

• 1:07:33Speaker 02

  As one would, as one would. And what, that's an extremely clumsy term for burstiness.

• 1:07:41Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:07:41Speaker 02

  Okay. And so, so on the graph, what happens is, the guy goes one day, next day, next day, next day. So, he's going one day apart, three times. Then there's a seven-day gap. Then he goes the next day, one day gap. Then he goes 13 days later. And so, there's a lot of short gaps, and a lot of long gaps. And it turns out, the, the kind of default model for thinking about these kind of stochastic processes is often a Poisson arrival process. And, but what Poisson non-homogeneity means is, if the Poisson parameter, Poisson parameter readers is, Poisson process is a gorgeous process invented by Mr. Poisson, which is

• 1:08:21Speaker 02

  French for fish. And it has a lovely, lovely structure, and it's characterized by one parameter. So there's a parameter tau, which is the mean of the distribution, and its variance. So it's very easy to work with. Like Gaussian, you have two parameters. And, you know, lots of other beautiful functions have two or three, but, but, you know, for some purposes, one is very handy. And we also use it in the cognitive hierarchy, by the way. So it looks like the, the distribution of levels in these games, like two-thirds of the average, happens to have a Poisson shape. It's two different, it's the same Poisson, just completely different. It's, it's just a good example of, I'm like a platonic, you know, sometimes the same ideas show up powerfully in science in many different places.

• 1:09:03Speaker 02

  I, I hope so. Like, God, some of this makes our life easier, you know, rather than harder. Anyway, so, so back to the calendar. So, so we found this beautiful book by a guy called Kar-Sai, that was about 200 pages on burstiness. And so burstiness is another name for these lots of smalls, and, and lots of longs.

• 1:09:24Speaker 02

  And burstiness has a property that if you if you regress the percentage of one day gaps against one day, the percentage of two against two days against two, right? You regress the percentage of days of length tau against tau, but take the logs, log percentage against log tau. And I did this on my computer after I got these data. I was so excited. It was 10 years ago. Claude couldn't help me. I basically counted by hand the size of the gaps and I made a plot, you know, I was really excited, like, I'm discovering, I'm discovering, here comes dopamine flowing. And I ran a regression, it was R squared of 0.97.

• 1:10:08Speaker 02

  And in social science, you only get that when you're regressing by mistake, one thing against the same thing, or something that's really persistent, like GDP. You know, quarterly GDP is last year's GDP times one plus some small perturbation, you know.

• 1:10:25Sean Carroll?

  So sorry, just to just to interrupt, but you know, for the for the listeners who are, you know, might have missed the forest there for the trees, you're saying that there's essentially a perfect kind of power law relation here in the in the frequency of the gaps between these events?

• 1:10:42Speaker 02

  Correct, correct. In the log frequency and the log length. Exactly. So if you if you, I mean, like I said, we just never, we never see this, you know? And so my view, especially after reading this Karstai book, which is just a gift, was, and again, this is not that common in economics, but was if it's that lawful empirically, there must be a simple explanation.

• 1:11:09Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:11:10Speaker 02

  And it turns out, there's not just one simple explanation, there's a few.

• 1:11:13Sean Carroll?

  That's the problem with the simple relationship, yes.

• 1:11:16Speaker 02

  Exactly, exactly, exactly. So it's like, so we have four, these four data sets, and there's a couple of beautiful models we found in the literature that actually go back to 1954. So let me give you a quick tutorial to your, our beloved readers, listeners on queuing theory. So queuing theory is a branch of applied math, developed, like, think of like a lot of boom and upristed research around World War II or thereabouts, which says, if people arrive for some kind of service, these are the words that people still use, and the arrival rate is stochastic, but it's governed by some law, like Poisson arrival, and then the service is stochastic, governed by some kind of law, what is, what are the statistical

• 1:12:01Speaker 02

  properties of how long people wait to get served? What's the mean? What's the median? If the arrival rate is faster than the service rate, it goes to infinity, there's a lot of interesting applied questions, like if you're at Vons, and there's more than three people in line, there's four, what they do is they'll open up another server, and so you can study if you have a certain, you know, a server open up rule, like, how does that work? Most of the queuing is simplified if you use first in, first out, where somebody arrives and nobody gets to cut in line. But it turns out, starting in the 50s, and then later, Barabasi was a famous person working on this, who people may have heard of, he's written a popular book and done a lot of interesting things.

• 1:12:45Speaker 02

  And it turns out, if you tweak queuing theory to what's called priority queuing, you can get a power law.

• 1:12:51Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 1:12:52Speaker 02

  And so priority queuing means it's not first in, first out. So let's say there's a line, and with some probability P, you don't serve that person who's next in line, you pick somebody else.

• 1:13:05Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 1:13:06Speaker 02

  And there's three or four very beautiful forms of this. And the different forms of priority generate power laws with different exact numerical slopes, like Barabasi's form, the Cobbim form 1954 is minus one half, minus one and a half, minus three halves. Barabasi is minus one. There's a couple of others that have slightly different, I mean, the, this, the, and this is all published in like statistical physics journals.

• 1:13:31Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:13:32Speaker 02

  It's just beautiful, like, I was just, I kind of wanted, like, maybe I should have stuck with physics after I majored in physics for one term and then gave up because it was too hard. It was too hard and there was no people in it. But anyway, it was extremely beautiful work. You have to make these nice approximations, and it's sort of knowing what to take out, like, in some ways, right? Anyway, so there was all this literature on what to do. Meanwhile, we have a priority type model, but we hadn't thought of it as priority queuing at all. It's called neural autopilot. And we developed this, as the name suggests, to create a simple mathematical econ-style model of habit that we might be able to see in the brain. In fact, it was inspired by things that people had been writing about the brain.

• 1:14:15Speaker 02

  And the idea is, is that the brain toggles between modes. When you're in optimization mode, you go to a store, you look at all the things in the store, you think about the prices, people don't really do this, again, I mean, this is where we started out with the children's explanation, but they do some approximation, or if they go to the store at the same time, like the wine expert, they may actually know, you know, what all the different pickles are on the Armenian store, which there's about 100 in LA. So that's, that's regular shopping, but it's very expensive. You have to look at all this stuff, you have to compare the prices, you have to make trade offs, right? Do I buy the big jar, even though I'm not going to eat that many pickles? In habit mode, you do something much simpler.

• 1:14:57Speaker 02

  What you do is you you retrieve a memory, what did I pick last time? And then you pick up one number, which the brain's, which is the reward reliability, which is basically, was it pretty much the same as last time? So it's not the reward prediction error, which is a workhorse idea from, well, from Schultes, Diane, in theory of neuroscience, it's the absolute reward prediction error. It's like the sign, is it been, been pretty good? If that's high, you don't buy the same thing again. Because if it's high, it's like, well, I don't know, I know if I'm getting something that's as good as last time. Right? If it's low, you just buy the same thing. So think how simple it is, what did I pick? What was its reward reliability? In fact, those might be closely coupled together and associated memories, so it's

• 1:15:42Speaker 02

  a very, it's, and so the idea is, in habit mode, in habit mode, you just think of these two numbers, you're in and out, you can multitask, right? So you're pushing your shopping cart, you're on the phone, you're grabbing Italian wedding soup is your favorite soup, you're in Italian wedding soup, you blah, blah, blah, blah, right? You can have a conversation. So multitasking is a hallmark of habit, right? Because you have this freed up executive function, that's the idea. Anyway, so we thought, well, let's take this neural autopilot model and see if it can fit some of these power laws. So for example, maybe when people are going to the gym, sometimes they're in habit mode, and if they go to the gym one day, they're just going to go again, and again, and again.

• 1:16:25Speaker 02

  And other times, they break that habit, and maybe they're in a habit for a different activity, like running, or binge watching, or binge podcast listening, or something, right? So, but you know, they're not in the gym habit. And so, so we were able to show statistically, it's not, it's horribly inelegant compared to statistical physics, I'm ashamed to admit, but that's the limits of my talent. And we're able to show that the neural autopilot model will also generate a lot of streaks of ones, and then some long streaks. And it generates a slope of the power laws, the slopes of the power laws we saw in our data were mostly like minus two.

• 1:17:07Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 1:17:08Speaker 02

  Which happens to be a little bit higher than most of the beautiful mathematic ones that generates flatter, steeper slopes. And so this, this was a, it was, again, I, I think this is what interdisciplinary is good for. It's like, if I hadn't seen that picture, and known what Poisson non-hemigene was, which I learned from Peter Bostard, because it's an idea used in finance to think about insider trading, right? It's like, you know, you know, the trades don't always arrive in this Poisson way, you may get a burst of trading, and then a lull, and then a burst of trading, and that's either because information comes in lumps, you know, or, or trading is self generating, like,

• 1:17:52Speaker 02

  if I see a bunch of trades, the price moves and that gets my attention. So, anyway, so, a bunch of people had been developing this in finance, Peter Bostard's infects me, plants the seed in my hippocampus, I see this picture, I think burstiness, I go look for a book, I find Karstai, thank you, Karstai. And then I go and talk, and at my MIT Harvard sabbatical, I talked to Xavier Gabex, who is an extremely brilliant macrofinance behavioral economist, and he wrote a paper on power laws, and derived why cities, cities' sizes satisfy a power law, which is a very old application from the 50s, from Herb Simon. And I said to Xavier, isn't this, this topic is still interesting, right?

• 1:18:37Speaker 02

  Because nobody in economics seems to be working on it. Like, he wrote two great papers and then just stopped. He said, yeah, I couldn't get, I said, when this is so lawful, there must be a beautiful, simple process. He goes, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we, so we're the two champions of power law study in economics. I mean, he's, his, his work was much more serious, and I just was kind of dabbling on the empirical side. Anyway, that's what that's about.

• 1:19:01Sean Carroll?

  I mean, the, I'm diving into this myself, because I'm writing a couple of books that involve these things.

• 1:19:07Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 1:19:08Sean Carroll?

  And the power laws are, on the one hand, they're everywhere, on the other hand, they're surprisingly controversial, because people argue, like, is it really a power law?

• 1:19:16Speaker 02

  It's not quite a power law.

• 1:19:17Sean Carroll?

  Or is it a log normal? And what is your mechanism? But I think for sure, it starts you down a path that makes you learn things. I'm all in favor of people noticing power laws here and there.

• 1:19:28Speaker 02

  Yes, and in fact, we, just to, sorry, to echo your point, we wrote a second paper. So Gabex has the only paper I know of, that actually tests, uses statistical inference to test whether it's really a power law or something else.

• 1:19:45Sean Carroll?

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:19:45Speaker 02

  I mean, there's a few ways you could do it. You can compare power law with alternative specifications like log normal. Um, but his, his test is, I mean, he's, these are really good econometricians, right? So what they're thinking of is not just, wow, that picture looks pretty good. Point nine eight R squared, but could we reject power law-ness in, in, without a specific alternative? So they have this really elegant test. It's very delicate and never published it. And so we're the first people to actually test that. And indeed, they're not quite power law.

• 1:20:16Sean Carroll?

  Not quite, yeah.

• 1:20:18Speaker 02

  Just whisper. You just have to back up and listen again.

• 1:20:22Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 1:20:23Speaker 02

  Click the minus 15 seconds button. Um, what it is, is the log normal fits a little better.

• 1:20:28Sean Carroll?

  Okay, but that is, you know, despite the fact that it comes across as a little bit, you know, persnickety statistician talk, it might have important implications for the generative mechanism, right?

• 1:20:39Speaker 02

  Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, the, the, and the, and this is really nerdy, but let me just finish on that. So, and if you, if you graph them like power law and log normal, what the log normal difference is that when the, when the, when the lengths are very short,

• 1:20:55Sean Carroll?

  Mm hmm.

• 1:20:56Speaker 02

  Like one or two day gaps in the gym, one or two, three day gaps in the gym, there's a little bit fewer of those short lengths than would be on the power law straight line.

• 1:21:04Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:21:05Speaker 02

  And then the tail of extremely high lengths, like 30 days, they haven't gone to the gym, just kind of falls apart. That's what's called exponential cutoff and it just starts to not look like a straight line because there's not much data down there.

• 1:21:17Sean Carroll?

  Not much data, right? Yeah, of course.

• 1:21:19Speaker 02

  It just fans out. Um, but the log, the log normality might, I mean, your, your point is, is I'm so glad we, I'd sent you this paper last night and you read it or thought about it. Um, or at least it sparked the thought. Uh, because in psychology, this is what I call refractory period, which is basically recharging, right? So, um, you know, after you eat and you're full, you don't eat again. Uh, sex, exercise, sleep, you know, all these things, you don't expect to see a lot of really small things close to each other. Right? So for example, I don't think this is true of the gym, but it might be, for example, after you go to the gym one day, your muscles are a little sore and you can't go for two more days.

• 1:22:02Sean Carroll?

  Mm hmm.

• 1:22:02Speaker 02

  So there's a, a deep biological reason why you can't have short lags.

• 1:22:08Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 1:22:08Speaker 02

  Right? And, or we do have data, for example, on people checking their phones, you know, and, you know, you just don't, you can't check it minute after minute after minute unless you're.

• 1:22:17Sean Carroll?

  I hope not, yeah.

• 1:22:18Speaker 02

  You know, yeah, I mean, it's bad enough as it is, right? So, but, but I think your point is really well taken, which is the hard work of comparing these things that are, that look very close together may tell us something about a deeper mechanism. Um, that's not in our habit pay, in our habit idea, and it's not in priority killing, but maybe there's a way to kind of splice that in or to find a domain in which you think the refractory period may, you know, erase the, um, may bend the curve in some interesting way.

• 1:22:46Sean Carroll?

  And so the burstiness of our habits, is that something you can also tie into the neuroscience? You can sort of say, oh, it's this circuit in the brain that is responsible?

• 1:22:55Speaker 02

  Uh, we have not done that yet. And, um, I am not great on theoretical neuroscience. Uh, one of my skills, I immodestly think is, there's a lot of, I know a lot about a little, a little bit about a lot of things, but there's something I know nothing about like consciousness, international taxation and spike trains, but I know who knows.

• 1:23:17Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 1:23:18Speaker 02

  Um, so, uh, uh, and, and also the, the neural autopilot model, as we kind of wrote it down, we've used it to explain some things like consumer choices, the gym, uh, posting on social media hasn't been like deeply tested in the way I would like from, um, in neuroscience.

• 1:23:40Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 1:23:41Speaker 02

  That there, there are a lot of people who've studied habit going back quite a few years. I mean, I think the idea that, that habit and more deliberative choice are fundamentally dissociated is well established. For example, in rodents, um, uh, goal directed, what we call goal directed or deliberative or optimizing activity is in dorsomediostratum, habit in dorsolateralstratum, and as well as this, again, that's part of a circuit. It's not that habits are only there, right? That that circuits connects to motor circuits and things. And there's some beautiful work by John Adorey, my colleague and Bernard Berlin in, um, Australia, where they actually, um, they lesion different parts of the brain and you can either get

• 1:24:24Speaker 02

  rid of habits that rats have by lesioning the habit area, or you can, um, get rid of goal directed actions and make them more habitual by in the other area. So the, you know, you can kind of turn on and off, at least in these, in mice, you know, at least in rodents, doing very simple, you know, pressing buttons or swimming, they have these things where they swim through water and they climb onto a, um, a ramp, a platform. And so they're, they're extremely simple tasks. They're, they're a little bit like things humans do, like your ritual for making coffee in the morning, or you get in the car and you either did you reach for the seatbelt first or do you turn the car on first? You know, there's sort of chained motor sequences that are, that are similar, but a lot of

• 1:25:06Speaker 02

  how we're thinking about habit is much more, um, much more higher scale.

• 1:25:10Sean Carroll?

  I remember, you know, I walk to the office every day. I have, my house is within walking distance and one day I decided to walk a different route and halfway through I realized I had no idea where I was, like.

• 1:25:20Speaker 02

  Yeah, exactly.

• 1:25:21Sean Carroll?

  But.

• 1:25:22Speaker 02

  Right, exactly. It's like muscle memory, right? Procedural memory, muscle memory.

• 1:25:26Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:25:26Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah. In fact, this is like, I'm so glad you brought that up. Um, so one, one bit of evidence for habits is what are called action slips, right? So for example, if you drive to work a certain day and then turns out the Olympics are in town, you know, most people forget, they'd start driving to work and all of a sudden they're stuck. Um, so that would, that's called an action slip. And, uh, uh, my favorite example of this I have in my slide deck, which is, I was flying to Philadelphia to give a talk about habits and the flight attendant said, um, um, what would you like? Can give you a, a drink? And she gave me a snack, like a little cookie. What would you like to drink? I said, I'd like a Sprite Zero with no ice. Sprite Zero, please no ice.

• 1:26:06Speaker 02

  So she pops down ice and then I put my napkin on top of the cookie and she said, um, by the way, did you get your cookie? So it was a double action slip.

• 1:26:17Sean Carroll?

  Wow, yeah.

• 1:26:17Speaker 02

  Right? All within four seconds.

• 1:26:19Sean Carroll?

  You know?

• 1:26:21Speaker 02

  I'm getting my ice.

• 1:26:22Sean Carroll?

  Yep.

• 1:26:23Speaker 02

  And she has to, she forgot about the cookie.

• 1:26:25Sean Carroll?

  Autopilot, yeah.

• 1:26:26Speaker 02

  Right? Cause she's on autopilot.

• 1:26:28Sean Carroll?

  I mean, I guess this is, maybe this is a good roundup, final question here, um, even though it's completely unfair for you. Are there, at least hypothetically, ways we could go into the brain and change some of these things? Are there therapies, drugs, whatever? Can we become better at K level thinking or less temporal discounting or whatever it would be? Is that a frontier?

• 1:26:57Speaker 02

  Yes. Oh, yeah. No, absolutely. I mean, it's, it's a, um, I mean, if you think that's an unfair question, you should see my colleagues from the past 40 years.

• 1:27:05Sean Carroll?

  I could think of more unfair ones, but I'm trying to be nice.

• 1:27:08Speaker 02

  That's not an unfair question. That's your unfair question? Come on. Um, yeah, so I'll, I'll give you a couple of examples. We, we worked on one study, but it wasn't really a knockout study, so I don't want to mention it. Um, and it wasn't like a hard conclusive result I would bet, bet the farm on. Um, so there's something called optogenetics and one of my brilliant colleagues here, Viviana Gradenaro, works on that. And she's a student, she was a student of Carl Dyseroth who kind of invented it and will, is going to win a Nobel Prize in Medicine any day now.

• 1:27:37Sean Carroll?

  Mm hmm.

• 1:27:37Speaker 02

  Um, and the idea is you can inject a virus into the brain, um, certain kinds of viruses that are light sensitive. And so in one experiment, there are cells in the brain that are encoding reward prediction errors. All right, this is essentially the cells that, uh, they're in rats that, um, Schultz, Diana Montague discovered in 1997 in La Jolla. And so what happens is, is you train the rat to press a lever and it either gets a, a, a drink reward or not. And so you train it to press and every time it gets a drink reward, you can see this sort of reward prediction error, like, oh, that was good. Oh, that was good. That was good. And so it learns that if you press the lever, you get something good.

• 1:28:22Speaker 02

  There's another lever that they press and sometimes it gets salty water, which it hates.

• 1:28:26Sean Carroll?

  Hmm.

• 1:28:27Speaker 02

  So it learns, I'm not going to press that. And what you do is you optogenetically upregulate the reward prediction error neurons. I call this neural gaslighting. See what you think?

• 1:28:37Sean Carroll?

  I like that.

• 1:28:39Speaker 02

  You, you, you up, you upregulate. So when it presses the lever and gets salty water, the brain neurons say, that was great.

• 1:28:48Speaker 02

  Because you've hijacked, you've convinced the brain that salty water is really good. Because you know where these reward percinine neurons are.

• 1:28:56Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:28:56Speaker 02

  It doesn't get overridden by the sensory system. So you can trick the rat's brain into thinking it likes something that it really doesn't. And you can tell it doesn't because when you look at its face and so on, it drinks the salty water. It was like, "Brain, what were you doing telling me to drink that salty water? You're gaslighting me," right? I think I invented the term neural gaslighting, which I'm very proud of. And here's another one that's a little less practical and interesting, but it just tells you something cool. So my academic granddaughter, Lucia Zhu, is a professor in Beijing. And she has a paper that exploits the fact that there are certain times when you're sleeping

• 1:29:39Speaker 02

  in which you can whisper, you can say things to people or play a sound, and people remember them and will affect behavior.

• 1:29:49Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 1:29:50Speaker 02

  I can't remember the acronym for this, sorry listeners. Anyway, and so what she does is, but it has to be, and you have to really know a lot about sleep, and you have to do it in a sleep lab or with some equipment that knows when there's the sweet spot. Because otherwise they'll wake up, or if they're in deep sleep, they won't encode it. And remember again, many of your readers will know, but when you're sleeping, the brain's not completely comatose.

• 1:30:14Sean Carroll?

  Right.

• 1:30:14Speaker 02

  Right? There's neural replay, dreaming, obviously. You know, dreaming is like medicine for your brain. There's kind of defragging and things like that. Right? So the, you know, the brain is doing something, it's just not, you're not conscious. Anyway, so what she does is she has people value different snack foods. Similar to the study we talked about, Snickers, potato chips, yogurt. And then, let's say they value food, they value a food for $3. And she whispers the name of the food when they're sleeping. "Snickers, Snickers, Snickers, Snickers." And then they wake up, and she says, you know, "Did you hear anything when you were sleeping?" "No, I was sleeping."

• 1:30:57Speaker 02

  But they value the foods that were treated, that were whispered about. And of course you control, so you whisper about all the different foods and compare when you weren't whispering, blah, blah, blah. They value them about 10% more.

• 1:31:10Sean Carroll?

  Hmm.

• 1:31:11Speaker 02

  So I don't think this is a marketing tech geek. Well, who knows? But it is an anecdotal answer to your question, right? Once we know something about circuitry, are there techniques to upregulate or train? And just to wind up, and also as you probably know, there's a lot of work on deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's. So, and there's a lot of interest in what's called transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, which is, you know, low voltage current outside of the brain, like, but close to treat depression and things like that. So lots of therapeutics are working along these lines.

• 1:31:55Speaker 02

  They just haven't been brought to economic decisions. I think there's a good chance if we worked on it, we could get, we could get people to be more patient. But, but it's one thing to do it in a short run of one experiment for one hour, and it's another thing to do it maybe at a sweet spot, like when children are three or four. And preferably in a, you don't have to come in a lab and be in a scanner or have, be whispering at night or any of those things. They're just proofs of concept, right?

• 1:32:24Sean Carroll?

  Make people more virtuous?

• 1:32:26Speaker 02

  Uh, yes, my colleagues did that.

• 1:32:29Sean Carroll?

  Okay.

• 1:32:29Speaker 02

  So Alex Smith at Virginia Tech and Cheryl Ball used transcranial direct current stimulation, TDCS, to TPJ, the area we talked about for mentalizing. And they basically had people do these tasks where you have some money, you can keep some or give some to a charity. And then they vary kind of the trade-offs.

• 1:32:50Sean Carroll?

  Yeah.

• 1:32:51Speaker 02

  Like the charity gets very little, you get a lot, you get a very little, charity gets a lot. And they test kind of the rationality of how consistent they are, and also whether they give more to the charity. And when you upregulate right temporal parot junction, they're a little bit more generous and a little bit more rational. They're more consistent.

• 1:33:12Sean Carroll?

  You know what? I'm going to call it there because that was an optimistic place. Yeah, like you scared me a little bit 10 minutes ago, but now you're making me think that there's a optimistic path forward. In addition to all the wonderful science and economics and everything. So Colin Camerer, thanks very much for being on the Mindscape Podcast.

• 1:33:29Speaker 02

  That was fantastic. My, my pleasure, Sean.

• 1:33:32Sean Carroll?

  Thanks.

• 1:33:57Speaker 01

  Cash Flow Crunch? OnDeck's Small Business Line of Credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:34:27Speaker 05

  The holidays are all about making memories. And Pillsbury makes it easier to make them extra special. From flaky cressins and pie crusts to cookies and cinnamon rolls, Pillsbury brings a little extra magic to your holiday table. And for a limited time, Grand Cinnamon Rolls have more icing than the prior recipe. So spend less time stressing over holiday prep and more time enjoying the moments that matter. Visit pillsbury.com for holiday recipe inspiration. Pillsbury, more holiday magic to love.