The Reasoning Test Psychologists Still Can't Explain

Why do almost all of us struggle with a simple reasoning test, yet get it right the moment it’s about a pint in a pub? This week, Professor Hannah Fry and Michael Stevens take on the Wason Selection Task, one of the most intensely studied problems in the history of psychology. They unpack why a rule involving letters and numbers can feel strangely difficult, while the exact same logic becomes immediate and instinctive when it’s about people, rules, and catching someone out. From counterexamples and conditional statements to confirmation bias and the limits of human reasoning, they reveal why we rarely look for what proves us wrong. Along the way, they tackle a bigger question: did reasoning evolve to uncover truth, or simply to help us get along? ------------------- For more information about Cancer Research UK, their research, breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit ⁠⁠https://cancerresearchuk.org/restisscience⁠⁠ Cancer Research UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (1089464), Scotland (SC041666), the Isle of Man (1103) and Jersey (247). A company limited by guarantee. Registered company in England and Wales (4325234) and the Isle of Man (5713F). Registered address: 2 Redman Place, London, E20 1JQ. ------------------- Find The Rest Is Science all over the internet by ⁠⁠clicking here.⁠⁠ ------------------- Video Producer: Adam Thornton + Oli Oakley + Jack MeekAnimator: Sam BensonVideo & Social: Bex TyrrellAssistant Producer: Lucy LipscombeProducer: Simona RataSenior Producer: Lauren Armstrong-CarterHead Of Digital: Samuel OakleyExec Producer: Neil Fearn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

• 0:01Michael Stevens?

  Hey, hello and welcome to The Rest Is Science. I am Michael Stevens. And I am Hannah Fry. And today, I really, really want to talk about a task, a test, that basically everyone fails. I have a hunch that you won't fail this test, Hannah. Not so sure. But we'll see, we'll see. Let me give you some context first, which I shouldn't normally do, because in actual experiments where this task is given, people are just there to get their 10 bucks and go. And I think that if you hype it up and you tell people, "Oh, you gotta really think about it. Oh, it's so difficult. Oh, it's such a tricky one," then people will probably spend more time and get it right. Okay?

• 0:45Michael Stevens?

  We could talk about all of that later, but let's just dive right into it. This is a reasoning test, a very simple, single question that involves four cards that was devised in 1966 by Peter Cathcart-Wason. And it is basically the test when it comes to studying the psychology of reason. All right? If you look into the history of our scientific study of human reasoning, you basically only find this test. The test is called the Wason Selection Task, and it was developed in 1966 by Peter Cathcart-Wason. Now, today, it has been called

• 1:26Michael Stevens?

  "the most intensely researched single problem in the history of reasoning." And my two favorite philosophers, researchers of reason, Mercier and Spurber, they call it, well, actually, they don't know what to call it. This is what they say. "Is this selection task to psychology of reasoning what the microscope has been to biology? Or is it, rather, as the Rubik's Cube has been to biology? Just kind of baffling and fun." Not adding anything really of any merit. So, in Wasson's original test, only 10% of people got it right.

• 2:08Michael Stevens?

  If you look across all the studies that have replicated that sense, you get a number closer to 4%. And that's, that's not super surprising. There are difficult questions out there. But with some slight changes, we can make everyone get it right. And that is what is so strange. So let's begin with the original.

• 2:35Hannah Fry?

  This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research UK.

• 2:38Michael Stevens?

  Here's something strange. Your DNA contains more ancient viral fragments than genes. The genes that build our cells make up only 2% of our DNA. And for years, that is what scientists focused on. They treated the rest, the ancient viruses and stuff, as junk.

• 2:59Hannah Fry?

  But now we know that that hidden majority, sometimes called the dark genome, influences how our biology works and how diseases like cancer behave.

• 3:09Michael Stevens?

  It's a reminder that progress rarely comes as a single breakthrough. It builds gradually. Cancer Research UK plays a central role in that progress, supporting decades of research into over 200 types of cancer, work that's helped double survival in the UK over the past 50 years.

• 3:28Hannah Fry?

  For more information about Cancer Research UK, their research breakthroughs, and how you can support them, visit cancerresearchuk.org/the rest is science.

• 3:41Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 4:15Michael Stevens?

  This isn't the most, I'd say, the most famous version of it, but this is exactly what Wasson gave people back in 1966. Those of you who are watching, we can put up on the screen the actual, original puzzle as it was shown to people. For those of you listening, no big deal. This is an easy one to do with audio. You just kind of have to keep four things in your mind. I'm going to show you four cards. Just imagine they're like playing cards. Now, on each, there is a letter on one side and a number on the other side. Two of the cards have their letter side up and two have their number side up. Now, these are the cards that you see. You see a card with the letter A as in alpha, G as in giraffe.

• 5:02Hannah Fry?

  That famous phonetic dictionary, yeah.

• 5:04Michael Stevens?

  Oh, it's going to get worse, Hannah. The third card has a seven as in 724. And the last card has an eight as in 81. A, G, seven, eight. Okay, now, what I need you to do is indicate for me which of these cards you would need to turn over to judge whether the following rule is true. If there is an A on one side, there is a seven on the other. To recap, for those who are listening, you have four cards in front of you, letters on one side, numbers on the other. Okay, that's true. But you can only see one side of a card at a time.

• 5:45Michael Stevens?

  And what you're seeing is A, G, seven, eight. Which ones will you need to turn over to judge whether this rule is true? If there's an A on one side, there is a seven on the other side.

• 6:00Hannah Fry?

  Okay. That is what this episode is about. I mean, I think let's just get into it.

• 6:06Michael Stevens?

  Let's get into it. So, so, take, take some time. Also, actually, I want to know how familiar you are with this, Hannah. Have you seen this before?

• 6:16Hannah Fry?

  Okay, I have seen a version of this test before. And what I should tell you is that initially, I think I got it wrong.

• 6:26Michael Stevens?

  Yeah, me too.

• 6:27Hannah Fry?

  I also...

• 6:29Hannah Fry?

  Vaguely remember the trap that I fell into, but not completely. And I haven't seen this version. And so I'm gonna have to think it through incredibly carefully.

• 6:37Michael Stevens?

  Okay, think it through.

• 6:39Hannah Fry?

  Okay, so, right, you know that these four cards, a letter on one side, a number on the other.

• 6:45Michael Stevens?

  Sure.

• 6:46Hannah Fry?

  Okay, which means that there is a number hiding behind the A, there's a number hiding behind the G.

• 6:50Michael Stevens?

  That's right.

• 6:51Hannah Fry?

  There's also a letter behind the seven and there's a letter behind the eight. The, the rule says, if there is, and this is what I'm trying to test, if there is an A on one side, there is a seven on the other. Right, so turning over the eight doesn't tell me anything. I, I mean, I don't really care what's on the other side of the eight. Because even if it, it's an A, uh, oh, no way, that's not true.

• 7:14Michael Stevens?

  Mm hmm.

• 7:16Hannah Fry?

  Oh, hold on, I've got it wrong already.

• 7:18Michael Stevens?

  Yeah.

• 7:19Hannah Fry?

  What I was immediately thinking was, I want to turn over the A to see if there's a seven on the other side, right?

• 7:27Michael Stevens?

  Okay.

• 7:28Hannah Fry?

  Immediately, the first thing you wanna do is check whether there's a seven on the, on the reverse of the A.

• 7:33Michael Stevens?

  Okay, all right, so you're gonna turn over the A card, any others?

• 7:37Hannah Fry?

  To see if there's a seven. Turning over the G, I don't think tells me anything, because I don't really care what's on the reverse of the G. The rule doesn't involve Gs.

• 7:50Michael Stevens?

  Okay.

• 7:50Hannah Fry?

  It says if there is an A on one side, which there isn't, so I don't care. So I can ignore the G card. The seven card, I'd be really tempted to turn over to see if there was an A on the other side, because then that would be another instance of the rule.

• 8:06Michael Stevens?

  Right.

• 8:06Hannah Fry?

  But the way the rule is phrased is that it says, if there is an A on one side, there is a seven on the other. It doesn't say you can only have sevens where As exist.

• 8:18Michael Stevens?

  Correct.

• 8:18Hannah Fry?

  So actually, you could have a J on the other side of the seven and it wouldn't violate the rule.

• 8:23Michael Stevens?

  That'd be fine.

• 8:24Hannah Fry?

  That would be fine. So even though my temptation is to say turn over A and seven, actually, I think you need to turn over A and eight. Because if you turn over eight and it's got an A on the other side, that would violate the rule, right?

• 8:39Michael Stevens?

  Correct, you aced it, Hannah.

• 8:41Hannah Fry?

  I mean, I did, but I almost mucked up at the beginning there, let's be honest.

• 8:45Michael Stevens?

  Well, it, it's amazingly tough like that. Now imagine that you weren't a professor of mathematics at Cambridge on a podcast.

• 8:55Michael Stevens?

  Called The Puzzle Almost Everyone Gets Wrong.

• 8:58Hannah Fry?

  Yeah, yeah. And having seen it before.

• 9:01Michael Stevens?

  And having seen it before.

• 9:04Hannah Fry?

  Yeah, wow, you're right.

• 9:05Michael Stevens?

  So, so I want to immediately jump to a different version. Okay, this is the exact same problem, except this time, instead of letters and numbers, the cards are about people in a bar.

• 9:19Hannah Fry?

  Okay.

• 9:19Michael Stevens?

  Or a pub, for those of you across the Atlantic.

• 9:22Hannah Fry?

  Thank you.

• 9:23Michael Stevens?

  You're welcome. I'm sure you all were going, oh, what's he talking about? A bar? A bar? All right, look, the deal is that in this case, the cards are about people in a bar. And on one side of the card, you have the person's age. And on the other side, you have what it is they are currently drinking.

• 9:44Hannah Fry?

  Okay.

• 9:44Michael Stevens?

  Once again, you have four cards. And you are a police officer, and it's your job to make sure that no one is drinking underage. On some of these cards, you can only see their age. You're gonna have to turn them over to see what they're drinking. On others, you only see what they're drinking, you'll have to turn them over to get their age. This is what you see in front of you, these four cards. The age 12, the age 35, the drink soda, and the drink beer.

• 10:13Hannah Fry?

  Okay.

• 10:14Michael Stevens?

  Which ones do you need to turn over to determine whether or not the rule is being obeyed, that you cannot drink underage?

• 10:21Hannah Fry?

  Okay, well, well, now, it's immediately obvious to me that the, the person who is 30, they can drink wherever they like. I don't need, I don't care what they're drinking.

• 10:29Michael Stevens?

  Yeah.

• 10:30Hannah Fry?

  And likewise, the person who's drinking soda, I mean, someone should speak to their parents about them being in a bar, but I don't, I don't care what they're, I don't care what their age is. It's not, it's not relevant.

• 10:41Michael Stevens?

  Yeah.

• 10:42Hannah Fry?

  So immediately, it's like, well, what's the 12-year-old drinking? And who's drinking the beer?

• 10:46Michael Stevens?

  That's, that's. That's it, right? I mean, that's it. It's, it's the exact same answer as the one before, the first and the last card. Except it's just so much faster to get to the answer.

• 10:56Hannah Fry?

  Yeah, what, like, the, the original formulation of that is genuinely confusing, extremely difficult to logically work your way through. And even when you get there, you're, I don't know, I'm really like double checking myself. But that, that other one is instinctive. It's, it's automatic.

• 11:15Michael Stevens?

  Yeah, no one needs an explanation for why you need to check the 12-year-old and the beer drinker. It's almost just evident prima facie. Like, I get it. Whereas when we replace the ages and the beverage with numbers and letters, it becomes very abstract. And of course, we see this reflect in people's performance. When it comes to letters and numbers, like I said, four, maybe 10% of people get it right. But when it comes to the beer and the ages, everyone gets it right. I mean, the people who get it wrong are the people who are like just trying to be goof offs. I mean, seriously, it's like, it's like, it's not, it's not even really a question.

• 11:57Michael Stevens?

  So why is it so much more difficult for us to solve the problem when it's abstract like this? Is that the key to explaining why this is so difficult? Well, as you can imagine, for the last, you know, gosh, 50, 60 years, 60 years now, actually, this year. Happy birthday, Wason Selection Task.

• 12:19Hannah Fry?

  You are old enough to drink. Congratulations.

• 12:21Michael Stevens?

  You're old enough to drink, for sure. You're not quite old enough to collect social security in America, though. But when that day comes, we will, we will be here for you. Researchers have spent decades creating slightly different versions, including the drinking in a bar version. The question is, is this revealing something about an individual's abilities? Or is it revealing something even deeper, just about humans in general? Because it doesn't necessarily seem to separate the smartypants people from the dum-dums. Even really smart people tend to perform about as badly. You can take, you know, a big Harvard graduating class, and they'll struggle with it, too.

• 13:03Michael Stevens?

  The, the things that we know help people solve it is making the puzzle be about a social rule or phrasing the question in a way that makes it extremely clear that they need to be looking for today's magic word, counterexamples.

• 13:23Hannah Fry?

  Right, so can I, can I ask some questions?

• 13:25Michael Stevens?

  You can.

• 13:26Hannah Fry?

  The 4% of people who do get it right, who, who are they then? In the original formulation of the test, or some, some variant of?

• 13:34Michael Stevens?

  I haven't actually found a lot of good breakdowns on who those people are. Like, literally, in the literature, they're often called exceptional people.

• 13:46Michael Stevens?

  I'm serious.

• 13:47Hannah Fry?

  To be an exceptional person.

• 13:48Michael Stevens?

  I'll show you the papers. They're like, if you get it right, you're either an exceptional person or a lucky guesser. There was one paper that said, like, the best, the most, the most strong correlation is whether you have taken logic classes.

• 14:03Hannah Fry?

  Okay, so it's sort of mathematically minded people?

• 14:06Michael Stevens?

  Exactly. It's people who go, aha, yes, I am familiar with modus tollens and denying the antecedent, and here we go.

• 14:16Hannah Fry?

  Do you want to give us a quick, quick rundown on modus tollens?

• 14:19Michael Stevens?

  Oh, yeah, for sure. Okay, so, I mean, look, the Watson selection task presents us with what's called a conditional statement. If then. We use these all the time. Hey, if you don't call me back, then I'm gonna punch you in the nose, right? If then. All right? Now, logicians, people who study the rules of reasoning, people who study logic, they have all kinds of fancy terminology and symbols for the parts of a conditional statement. The if part is called the antecedent. It comes before the end, which is called the consequent. An example would be, if it rains tomorrow, I will stay indoors.

• 15:02Michael Stevens?

  If it rains tomorrow is the antecedent. I will stay inside is the consequent. So if this thing happens, the consequence will be this. If it rains tomorrow, I will stay indoors.

• 15:12Hannah Fry?

  Okay, so if you can, you can take that single state, that, that, that single sentence, if it rains tomorrow, I'll stay indoors, and sort of chop it in two, and then it's almost like there's two logical chunks there, right? Raining tomorrow, which it can or, it can be or not. It's either raining or it's not. And then you've also got you staying inside, which you could be or you could not be.

• 15:32Michael Stevens?

  That's right.

• 15:32Hannah Fry?

  So you could sort of imagine like a little grid, right? So it's like, whether it's raining or not is on one side, and whether you're staying in or not is on the other side, and you can kind of go through and go true, false, true, false, true, false, true, false, right? For the different combinations.

• 15:46Michael Stevens?

  Not six times, though, just four.

• 15:47Hannah Fry?

  Sorry.

• 15:49Michael Stevens?

  Which is extremely important, though. I'm glad.

• 15:51Hannah Fry?

  I went back around to the beginning.

• 15:53Michael Stevens?

  You were so excited. Yeah, you're living on that Pac-Man universe again. You went around. But yeah, there's only four combinations here. And how many cards are there in the Wason selection task? There's four. Now, we don't need to make this like a full-on, let's get into the weeds with logic thing, but let's do it anyway, because our viewers are special. And I'll give you another little.

• 16:15Hannah Fry?

  They're that 4%. They're the exceptional people.

• 16:18Michael Stevens?

  They're the 4%. So the antecedent, I think maybe we could also just call it P. If you read a lot of logic papers, which I think we should, I'll send these to the producers. We should put the best papers about this down in the description. P, the letter P, is often used to represent the antecedent.

• 16:33Hannah Fry?

  The first bit, the if bit.

• 16:35Michael Stevens?

  The if bit. If P. And you use a variable because now it can mean anything. If it rains tomorrow, or P could also mean, I eat a ham sandwich. If P, if I eat a ham sandwich, then what? I will smile. Okay? The consequent is often symbolized with the letter Q. So now we can start talking about the conditional statements like they're math equations. If P, then Q. If P, then not Q, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And we can talk about all the different ways we can work with this statement. So there are two valid ways you can use that statement to, to, to what? Draw a conclusion?

• 17:14Hannah Fry?

  Could you, though, these cards, could you think of these cards then, to give you an example of, if it rains tomorrow, Michael will stay indoors. Instead of this being A, G, 7, 8, could it be, Michael's indoors, Michael's outdoors, it's raining, it's not raining?

• 17:28Michael Stevens?

  Exactly. That is exactly what each of the cards in this selection task do. They've got P, not P, Q, not Q. And so in order to answer this correctly, you need to show that you understand or have an innate ability to use a conditional statement in the two valid ways that an argument can be formed. And that's where we get to modus tollens and modus ponens. I'm probably not pronouncing those right, but look, this is about logic, not pronunciation. So modus ponens is the really easy one where we say, here's a rule. If it rains tomorrow, Michael will stay indoors. It is now tomorrow and it is raining. Where is Michael? And they go, well, he's indoors. That's I can conclude that. Yes, that's valid.

• 18:13Hannah Fry?

  The other example would be you're over age and you're drinking an alcoholic drink. Right? That that would be the other. It's true. It's true.

• 18:22Michael Stevens?

  It depends what the rule is about drinking.

• 18:24Hannah Fry?

  OK, the rule is everyone over 21. No, everyone drinking must be over 21.

• 18:30Michael Stevens?

  I think so, yeah.

• 18:31Hannah Fry?

  If you're drinking, you must be over 21.

• 18:34Michael Stevens?

  Right. Or or 18 or whatever. I didn't. I didn't give a year. I just said.

• 18:38Hannah Fry?

  You did. You smartly did that, but I.

• 18:40Michael Stevens?

  I smartly chose 12 and 35 so that.

• 18:44Hannah Fry?

  Look at that. I've anchored us to the wrong side of the Atlantic.

• 18:47Michael Stevens?

  I know. Look at that. And I did all the work to use the word pub.

• 18:54Hannah Fry?

  I know. I really should have repaged you better. I apologize. OK, so so the the modus ponens then is if you're drinking, you're over 21. So it's the person with the beer, say, who turns out to be the correct age.

• 19:09Michael Stevens?

  Yeah. Yeah. You know what? I think the the sentence would be if a person is drinking alcohol, they must be over like 21 or over.

• 19:17Hannah Fry?

  Yeah.

• 19:17Michael Stevens?

  Therefore, modus ponens would be, hey, they're drinking alcohol. Therefore, they must be over 21.

• 19:22Hannah Fry?

  I understand. Yeah.

• 19:24Michael Stevens?

  So so modus ponens is about affirming the antecedent. We know that the first, the if part is true. Therefore, we conclude the consequent, the the Q part. Now, it is invalid. It is invalid to have the antecedent denied and then conclude something about the consequent.

• 19:42Hannah Fry?

  So. OK, you're gonna have to do that one again for me. What?

• 19:46Michael Stevens?

  Modus ponens is when you affirm the antecedent. You say, hey, the if part is true. Therefore, the then part must be true. If however, you are able to deny the antecedent. For example, in our raining example, you say, well, hey, it's not raining. You cannot conclude.

• 20:04Michael Stevens?

  That I'm not indoors because the rule doesn't say anything about other reasons I might stay indoors tomorrow. Now let's talk about the consequent. A valid way to operate with what you know about the state of the consequent is that if it's denied, in our original case, Michael is not indoors, then you can conclude that it's not raining.

• 20:27Hannah Fry?

  All right, let's do this with the drinking example because this is the one that I, like, strangely, I find most, I can understand most instinctively.

• 20:35Michael Stevens?

  Okay, so to make it, to make it really easy, let's say that in this bar, it is true, the law is being followed, everyone who's drinking beer is over 21. If you're drinking alcohol, you are over 21, and that's true.

• 20:47Hannah Fry?

  If you're drinking alcohol, you are over the drinking age. So if you get someone who is not over the drinking age, then you can conclude that they can't be drinking alcohol.

• 20:59Michael Stevens?

  Correct. That is modus tollens.

• 21:01Hannah Fry?

  Right.

• 21:02Michael Stevens?

  However.

• 21:03Hannah Fry?

  Uh huh.

• 21:04Michael Stevens?

  If you affirm the consequent, you cannot conclude anything validly, meaning if you run into a person there at the bar and they are over the drinking age.

• 21:14Hannah Fry?

  Then you have no idea what they're drinking. It doesn't mean anything.

• 21:17Michael Stevens?

  You cannot conclude that they are drinking alcohol because they might not be.

• 21:20Hannah Fry?

  Got you. And that, so then, so then what's that? That's not modus tollens or modus.

• 21:26Michael Stevens?

  No, that's called affirming the consequent, and it is invalid.

• 21:30Hannah Fry?

  Okay.

• 21:31Michael Stevens?

  Now, if, if all of this sounds really confusing or boring, just rewind, listen again, over and over again, we can get some really cool boosts for the algorithm.

• 21:42Hannah Fry?

  Just, just remember that you are here to learn, not to be entertained, okay?

• 21:47Michael Stevens?

  That's right. That's right. I'm not going to just do a dance for you. I'm going to sit here and mispronounce Latin words for an hour.

• 21:54Hannah Fry?

  This is a very special episode of the podcast where at the end, we give you a test, and if you are in the 96% who failed, you're not allowed to listen again.

• 22:03Michael Stevens?

  You're, oh my goodness, I didn't know that rule. Speaking of conditional statements, if you don't understand, then you will not listen again. The point of all of this is to say that the difficulty of the Wason selection task is that the human brain must just not have an innate.

• 22:20Michael Stevens?

  Modus tollens ability. Like, we have since our evolution into modern humans developed and discovered all this stuff about logic, but we just aren't born with a logical table in our brain.

• 22:37Hannah Fry?

  But that can't be true because the, because the bar example is so instinctive. It's so instinctive.

• 22:44Michael Stevens?

  Yeah.

• 22:44Hannah Fry?

  The words that we're using here, the language that we're using to describe this. I mean, it does sound super duper complicated. It sounds extremely mind boggling, even if the original sentence is quite simple. But then as soon as you put it in the bar example, it's like, whoa, I don't even have to think about it.

• 23:00Michael Stevens?

  I know.

• 23:00Hannah Fry?

  That is so strange. That is weird.

• 23:03Michael Stevens?

  It's, and it's gotta be significant, right? So in the late eighties, two researchers, Lita Kosmides and John Tooby famously said, guys, this whole task and the fact that the social ones are so much easier is clearly evidence that our reasoning ability evolved for social reasons, not for truth finding reasons. So when it comes to creating different versions of, of the Watson selection task, the versions that involve really abstract stuff and facts are called descriptive. Okay? It's just the way it is. If there's an A on one side, there's a seven on the other.

• 23:43Michael Stevens?

  Now, if it instead involves a rule, an obligation, a duty, something that humans made up, it's called deontic. Okay? This is, I love these words because they're, they're both like called rules or laws. And yet one you, you is about can and the other's about may. I don't travel at the speed of light, not because I'm not allowed to, but because I can't. Okay? And so that, that kind of a restriction is called a descriptive restriction. But when it comes to are people breaking the rule? We need to make sure people are complying with the rules. That's called a deontic rule.

• 24:23Hannah Fry?

  Where did that word come from?

• 24:25Michael Stevens?

  I don't know. I mean, deon, deontic etymology, because where, what other words use it? Uh, it means being needed or necessary from ancient Greek pertaining to necessity, duty, or obligation. So Cosmedes and Tubby famously are like, guys, this is just human nature. We evolved to focus on duties and obligations that we invented ourselves and not on universal timeless laws of impossibility. We care more about may I do this than can I do this?

• 25:01Hannah Fry?

  I also sort of wonder a little bit about that, that, that point about truth finding. Because the, the example of people in a bar, it's partly about social rules and social norms. But isn't it also a little bit about truth finding? Isn't it also a little bit about who should you be suspicious of?

• 25:21Michael Stevens?

  Yes. Yes, it is. But it's just, it's a truth that is human focused.

• 25:29Hannah Fry?

  Hmm, definitely.

• 25:30Michael Stevens?

  It's a truth in the domain of Deontic principles, obligations, duties, and rules, and obedience, as opposed to one of an abstract wall. If it has an A, it must have a seven.

• 25:43Hannah Fry?

  Yeah, of course.

• 25:45Michael Stevens?

  Here's the typical responses people give to the selection task. Forty-six percent of people pick A and seven.

• 25:54Hannah Fry?

  Okay.

• 25:55Michael Stevens?

  Okay. So almost half of people do that. A third, thirty-three percent, choose just A.

• 26:04Hannah Fry?

  Right.

• 26:06Michael Stevens?

  Seven percent of people choose A, seven, and eight.

• 26:13Hannah Fry?

  So almost everybody is picking A?

• 26:15Michael Stevens?

  Yes.

• 26:16Hannah Fry?

  Mm-hmm.

• 26:17Michael Stevens?

  And then only four percent of people choose the correct cards, A and eight. The other ten percent of people choose other combinations. Some people choose all of them. Some, I mean, at that point, um, I think it's kind of believed that they just either didn't understand or didn't care.

• 26:35Hannah Fry?

  Or just want to, want to finish. They're, they're either the anarchist or, or they're like, get me out of here.

• 26:41Michael Stevens?

  Or maybe they understand something we don't. I mean, I'm not gonna dismiss them.

• 26:45Hannah Fry?

  Maybe they're the ones with modular tolen's in their own heads.

• 26:49Michael Stevens?

  Yeah.

• 26:49Hannah Fry?

  The thing that makes me feel a tiny bit uncomfortable about this, this idea that humans are not innately good at truth finding, even though I'm sure that these researchers have thought about this much more extensively than I ever have, is that science really is based on the hunt for truth. And okay, admittedly, we have come up with really strict methods like hypothesis testing in order to do that. But does that sort of mean that, I don't know, science isn't innate? I'm not sure.

• 27:21Michael Stevens?

  Yeah, that's a really good question. And, and I'm starting to feel like it's not that innate, that we, from tests like this, we found that we are focused more on our own social lives and ourselves, and not on what is the best way to test a hypothesis. Now, the Watson selection task makes it pretty clear that we're bad at finding counter examples, or even being motivated to find them. Like, pretty much everyone chooses the first card A. They're like, I need to see if this is an example of a thing that follows the rule. But very few people go, but I should also look for a case where the, the rule is, is not true.

• 28:05Hannah Fry?

  Is broken.

• 28:06Michael Stevens?

  Even though you find a counter example, you're done. If the rule is that there's, if there's an A, there's a seven on the back, and you can find an A that doesn't have a seven on the back, you're done. You can walk away and say, the rule's not true. I've proved it wrong. Now, there's a great study. I, I was actually cracking up last night reading about this. I don't think it's going to seem that funny today when I tell it. But there was a study that was done by Johnson, Laird and Watson in 1970, where they had two boxes of shapes. In one box, all the shapes were painted black, and in the other box, they were all painted white. And they told people, the people couldn't look in the boxes, okay? The researcher sat there with these two, these two

• 28:47Michael Stevens?

  masked boxes and was like, okay, here's this rule, and I want you to test whether it's true, whether this hypothesis is true. All the triangles are white.

• 28:57Michael Stevens?

  Now, tell me what to do and I'll do it for you. And people would say, oh, the first thing almost everyone says is, okay, I'd like to see a white shape. So he reaches in there and he pulls out a shape and it's a white triangle, low and bold, because literally the only thing in the white bin are white triangles. He pulls it out. And people tend to just keep asking for white shapes over and over again. All right. And they keep getting a white triangle and they're like, I don't know, I was feeling like it's pretty proven. And then, after a while, they start to go, maybe I should see a black one. Because they start to realize, oh, shoot, all it takes is one black triangle to blow the whole thing to smithereens. But basically, no one starts with the black shapes.

• 29:35Hannah Fry?

  That is so fascinating. That is so fascinating. I think you've, you know, you've seen this in science as well, right? I just wrote this, um, I wrote actually this chapter of the book that I'm doing at the moment. I wrote this whole thing about Popper, about Karl Popper, um, and about how he said that the, the, the key point about science is essentially trying to find things that break your own theorem. You should be hunting for the counterexamples, not for the evidence that supports it. There's a, the thing is, is that it's like, it was really, really hard for people to do this. It's not instinctive at all. For almost all of scientific history, people were just like, let's gather more evidence, let's gather more evidence.

• 30:19Hannah Fry?

  And actually Einstein, you know, one of the reasons why Einstein is considered so phenomenal is that when he came up with his theory of general relativity, uh, as part of his theory, he said, here is the way you can prove me wrong. This is my idea. This is what I think it is. There's going to be a solar eclipse in a couple of years. And if I am right, the light will bend around the sun in this way, you'll be able to see the stars that are normally blinded by the sun's glare. Off you go. Here is how to find the counterexample. And that was a really bold, brave, unusual, crazy thing for him to do. It's the same as your black shapes, right?

• 31:01Hannah Fry?

  People do not go hunting for the black shapes, but Einstein was, was someone who knew that you had to.

• 31:07Michael Stevens?

  He did. And I think, back to your, your original question, I think that that meant he was a little bit less human than most of us. He was willing to look for counterexamples and was not just looking for confirmation of the one kind of thing he believed in and wanted to find more of. And finding more of them would make him feel more and more confident. He was willing to say, guys, we got to find a counterexample. We've got to find something that shows that I'm wrong. Here's one way we could do it. Here's another way. The creator of the Wason selection task became obsessed with our terrible, terrible laziness when it came to finding counterexamples. Okay, well, look, we need to take a break, but when we come back, Hannah, I want to

• 31:52Michael Stevens?

  show you an even earlier game that Wason came up with that brings us to, I think, the same surprising conclusion about humanity.

• 32:00Hannah Fry?

  Imagine if he was your dad. He'd constantly be tricking you, wouldn't he?

• 32:03Michael Stevens?

  I know, but dads are always tricky, but this dad is tricking you.

• 32:07Hannah Fry?

  This is the trickiest tricks.

• 32:08Michael Stevens?

  For science. I got your nose. Why do you think I got your nose? Have you not developed body permanence yet?

• 32:16Hannah Fry?

  Dad, leave me alone.

• 32:18Michael Stevens?

  Yeah, yeah. Hey, what's that on your shirt? Oh, gotcha. What's wrong with your perceptual apparatus? Let's try that again. And you're like, Dad, just prank me to embarrass me not to learn. All right, but we're going to do some of that after the break.

• 32:31Hannah Fry?

  Great.

• 32:40Speaker 02

  This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.

• 33:16Michael Stevens?

  Welcome back. All right. So Hannah, here we go. I'm gonna give you some numbers. Again, because of who you are, Hannah, you might do really well at this.

• 33:23Hannah Fry?

  That puts more pressure on me. That puts more pressure on me. Go on.

• 33:27Michael Stevens?

  Good, good. I want this to be uncomfortable. Look, what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna name triples of numbers. I'm gonna name three numbers.

• 33:35Hannah Fry?

  Yeah.

• 33:36Michael Stevens?

  That fit my rule. It's a secret rule I have up here. And then I'm gonna just give you one example, and then I want you to start naming triples, and I will tell you yes or no, whether it fits the rule.

• 33:45Hannah Fry?

  Okay.

• 33:45Michael Stevens?

  Eventually, I want you to be able to tell me what you think the rule is.

• 33:49Hannah Fry?

  Okay, go on.

• 33:50Michael Stevens?

  Okay, so here is a triple that fits my rule. 2, 4, 6.

• 33:57Hannah Fry?

  Okay.

• 33:57Michael Stevens?

  All right. Now, I want you to start producing triples, and I will tell you if they fit the rule or not until you can guess the rule.

• 34:03Hannah Fry?

  All right. 6, 8, 10.

• 34:06Michael Stevens?

  Correct. That fits.

• 34:07Hannah Fry?

  Okay. 7, 8, 10.

• 34:11Michael Stevens?

  That fits.

• 34:13Hannah Fry?

  6, 6, 6.

• 34:15Michael Stevens?

  Nope.

• 34:16Hannah Fry?

  6, 7, 8?

• 34:17Michael Stevens?

  Yes.

• 34:19Hannah Fry?

  I think I've got it.

• 34:21Michael Stevens?

  What do you think it is?

• 34:21Hannah Fry?

  I think, hang on, let me try, let me try one.

• 34:24Michael Stevens?

  Okay.

• 34:25Hannah Fry?

  7, 6, 5.

• 34:27Michael Stevens?

  No. It doesn't fit.

• 34:29Hannah Fry?

  7, 7, 8, 6.

• 34:32Michael Stevens?

  No.

• 34:33Hannah Fry?

  Is it just going up?

• 34:34Michael Stevens?

  It's just going up.

• 34:37Michael Stevens?

  Hannah, you're brilliant. That's, the first time this game was played on me, I never, I mean, I'm still playing that game, by the way. I just walked away. And it wasn't until last night when I read about the history of Wausen, that I was like, ah, that's it. The answer is that they just have to go up.

• 34:51Hannah Fry?

  No. All right. To be fair, though, you primed me because I, because you said find counterexamples.

• 34:56Michael Stevens?

  I did.

• 34:57Hannah Fry?

  You primed me.

• 34:59Michael Stevens?

  Well, how about this? Editors, edit this around so it looks like that's the very first thing we did. The point is, all right, yeah, I'm still, I'm still a bit impressed. You did a good job of, of at least making it look like you didn't know exactly what to do. The counterexamples you asked for is what unlocks the whole thing.

• 35:14Hannah Fry?

  Of course. They give you, there's so much more information contained within a counterexample than there is in something that confirms it.

• 35:20Michael Stevens?

  That's right. Whereas, if you play this, if you're listening, please, go try this with your friends and family today. They will thank you. It's so fun. But you'll find that what they tend to do is that people tend to think of what the rule might be, and then they think of other things that might fit that rule, and they ask them. Again and again and again. And they rarely go, I think the rule is this. So let me think of something that wouldn't fit that rule and test it. Now, why don't we do this so much? Obviously, we don't know, right? This is, it's all very speculative. But I think that comedies is really on to something with this idea that reasoning didn't evolve to help us solve mathematical puzzles.

• 36:04Michael Stevens?

  It originally evolved to help us work together and explain ourselves to each other. Because humans are just too weak. We, we need each other. We need to cooperate. And that's the only way we're going to be able to build and collect and hunt. So we have to be able to communicate what's going on in our heads. We don't have to do it well. We just have to make sure that people trust us and feel like we're playing the game. Okay? So, so on that topic, I would highly recommend Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, The Enigma of Reason. This goes really deep into their social theory of reasoning, which is that, look, we, we don't use reasons to come to conclusions.

• 36:48Michael Stevens?

  We use conclusions to come to reasons. We just intuitively feel and want to do things. And then when we're asked to defend it, we confabulate in our own heads all the reasons we had for it, and we believe them.

• 37:00Hannah Fry?

  I, I think, I think what I'm, I'm like, is, is calling to mind about this is that actually, when there are situations where people do see counterexamples where, which puncture their theories, it's not like we innately, very happily get on board and just like go along with it, you know? We, we look for reasons why the counterexample doesn't exist. I mean, I'm thinking here about, I don't know, um. Uh, biology in the sort of seventeen, eighteen hundreds where they, they spent absolutely years like merrily shooting things and pinning butterflies to boards and putting birds in sacks

• 37:40Hannah Fry?

  and stuff and deciding that, um, that, you know, uh, birds are one branch of the, of the tree of life and mammals are another. And they had it all perfectly neatly categorized these rules. And then someone comes along with a platypus, um, platypus body and they have no idea what to do. And rather than saying, oh, okay, hang on. Actually, this is a really clear counter example of, of, of the ways in which our rule is wrong. They, they cut it up looking for stitches. They thought it was a fake. You know, they spent, they spent nearly a hundred years being like, well, this is just, it can't, can't be possible rather than, rather than.

• 38:13Michael Stevens?

  Are you saying the platypuses are real? I thought they were Frankenstein together by some pranksters like Jackalope.

• 38:19Hannah Fry?

  I mean, that's what they thought too. I've never seen one in the wild, have you?

• 38:23Michael Stevens?

  I've never seen one in the wild.

• 38:25Hannah Fry?

  Basically, I'm taking someone's word for it. So, you know.

• 38:27Michael Stevens?

  Uh, no, that's, that's exactly it. Um, and, and when a whole group of people refuse to accept counter examples, that's when things can get pretty dangerous because the, the conclusion that I think all of this is pointing at, and this is my opinion, is that, um, uh, we, we truly reason, that is, we give reasons for things and, and, and we extract knowledge from knowledge we already have, which is what reasoning is, to get along and be social. And I think that, that if you really meditate on the consequences of that, suddenly a lot of stuff makes sense, like confirmation bias, which is what we've been talking about this whole time.

• 39:05Hannah Fry?

  Absolutely.

• 39:05Michael Stevens?

  The, the pursuit of finding things that, that prove your hypothesis correct and, and ignoring or avoiding a search for things that might prove it wrong. Confirmation bias, I think, works really well when you consider the fact that we're supposed to all be working together. As a group activity, it actually saves time if each of us goes off and finds evidence for our own pet theory and then we come and combine them. If instead we didn't do that, if we didn't have a confirmation bias and we all went off and we did all the research and found everything and read all these different count, it'd be too much work for all of us to do. Let's each. Split the task up, many hands make light work. All go and find evidence for what I believe. You find evidence for what you believe and then we'll come together. And you've already done a bunch of work on topic A.

• 39:50Michael Stevens?

  I did topic B and we combined them. That seems to explain confirmation bias and so many of our other biases so well. It all, I also love that it kind of pushes us to this conclusion that humans need to work together. We need to listen to people even if we really do not agree with them.

• 40:06Hannah Fry?

  I'm also thinking here about, I don't know, I have like a few, a few years ago, I was, I was doing quite a lot of work on vaccine skepticism.

• 40:17Michael Stevens?

  Oh, yeah.

• 40:17Hannah Fry?

  And working with people who were hesitant about the COVID vaccine. Now, I have to be a tiny bit careful about what I say about this because what I will say is they are a vocal community.

• 40:31Hannah Fry?

  They are not afraid to tell me what, what they think.

• 40:34Michael Stevens?

  Yeah.

• 40:35Hannah Fry?

  I'm just going to tread delicately and carefully. I, I also was, made lots of mistakes in the way that, that the whole thing was approached. But, but the thing that I noticed is, well, twofold actually. One is that people, the only way that people make decisions is in an emotional way. It may be that you and I, who are scientifically minded, believe that we make decisions based on statistics. But ultimately for us, that is still an emotional story. We have an emotional relationship to, to data and mathematics and science in a, a whole story of our lives that kind of builds up to, to that moment. And it's still an emotional decision. It's just a slightly different one.

• 41:18Hannah Fry?

  I think, I think people are not persuaded by data and numbers. I think it is, is always fundamentally about the social aspect, exactly as you describe, right? Because if it was about data, then you could show somebody the right piece of data. You could show somebody the right combination of words and it would change their mind. And people do not work like that.

• 41:38Michael Stevens?

  That's not how it works at all.

• 41:39Hannah Fry?

  Works. And the second thing that's called to mind here in, in what you're describing is there's something which is called the deficit model of public communication.

• 41:48Michael Stevens?

  Ah, I haven't heard about this.

• 41:51Hannah Fry?

  Okay, so when you work in an academic institution, there's a lot of talk about how do you get your, how do you get the scientific ideas out to the public, right? How do you talk to people about this? Especially when you look at situations where people are making choices that are maybe counter to their health or maybe counter to public health more generally. How do we, how do we get the information out there so that that people make better choices, make, make choices that align more carefully with what's right for them and what's, what's right, you know, overall. And for a long time, people thought that what you, all you needed to do was just give them information, you know, that if you educated people to the correct level, that if you put information out there, then that would be enough. But

• 42:36Hannah Fry?

  the problem with that idea is that it's called the deficit model because it's essentially saying that the only problem is that the public have a deficit of knowledge, right? They just need the facts. They just need the facts. And it is the most arrogant, insulting way to, I think, belittle people and basically imagine that the only reason why somebody is not making the same decisions as you are is nothing to do with their worldviews, nothing to do with their own, their own version of reasoning, the things that are important to them. It's just because they don't know as much as you do, right? Right. And not only is it incredibly insulting, it also demonstratively does not work.

• 43:21Hannah Fry?

  You cannot argue or maths your way into changing people's minds or persuading them. It just doesn't work. And I think that the, the way that you've described all of this stuff, the way that people's logical brains are not, not geared for statistics and data and, and abstract descriptions, and the way that our brains are geared towards the social aspect of aligning with other people and collaborating. I mean, just looking at the sort of anti-vax movement against that perspective, it just really, really, really resonates with me.

• 43:58Michael Stevens?

  Yeah, it's kind of frustrating, but it's almost a relief to realize, oh, my gosh, you're right. It's not that with the right facts and reasons, we'll all agree on something because that's not what happens. My favorite demonstration of this was something we did on Mind Field where we had a magician come in and act like he was doing a study on appearance. And he showed people two photographs at a time and said, which of these two people would you rather work with in an office? And he would put the people that were chosen in one stack and the people that were not chosen in another stack. And he did this over and over again. And then he said, OK, now I want to go through everyone that you chose to work with, and I want you to tell me why you picked them.

• 44:42Michael Stevens?

  But he was a magician, so he used sleight of hand to actually slip in a bunch of the people that they had dismissed as, I don't want to work with a person who looks like that. And he would then show them the cards and they gave reasons. And whenever, every time, without exception, he would show a face that the person had rejected, they'd go, oh, yeah, so I picked this person because I really liked the way their eyes kind of looked like. They might have like good inside jokes. The point is that we use reasons to explain ourselves and express who we are at a deep level. We don't use them because of anything logical and timelessly true. It was so awkward to watch people defend and explain why they chose a person that they did not choose.

• 45:22Michael Stevens?

  It was embarrassing for them, but yet it was enlightening for our species.

• 45:28Hannah Fry?

  Yeah. And we're just a mess, Michael. We're all just a big sloshy mess with our squirty water computers.

• 45:36Michael Stevens?

  That is true, and the only way to rise above that is for us to stay a big sloshy mess because the average of all of us winds up being better than one individual's opinion on their own.

• 45:52Hannah Fry?

  Yeah. I mean, this is the wisdom of the crowd stuff, right?

• 45:56Michael Stevens?

  That's right. And this is something that's really important to me. I really believe in it. I did an episode about lotocracy and how I would really love a government run by random people. Like, rather than electing people, let's literally just be like, look, there's a lottery every four years, and you'll just get asked to come and be a member of Congress or Parliament or whatever, the House of Lords randomly. You'll do your term, you'll get paid, there's housing for you, and I think that...

• 46:28Michael Stevens?

  It would be amazing what would happen if you like took such a variety of views and had them all kind of average each other out as opposed to what we have now, which is like, hey, we're all kind of in this political class. Let's be leaders. We all kind of already feel the same way. Great, great, great, great.

• 46:45Hannah Fry?

  Yeah, there's a superiority that comes with that. I think I remember reading something about this in Rory Stewart's book. Rory Stewart, of course, of Restless Politics fame, the lesser known, go hang a podcast. But he is extremely keen on the idea of town halls, but also of civilian panels, civilian assemblies. Because, I mean-

• 47:08Michael Stevens?

  Deliberation days?

• 47:09Hannah Fry?

  Yeah, deliberation, exactly. Why not? I mean, this is what we do in the judicial system. I mean, it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I also think that it's the best that we've got. And it does exactly what you're describing. It stops pretending that reason is some mathematically pure thing that we can march towards and instead accepts the messiness of human nature and that we are social creatures and social beings and we are totally perfectly tuned through an astonishing evolution to really prioritize that.

• 47:48Michael Stevens?

  Right. Yeah, we evolved to be a group and work together. And so collectively, like, all voting together, I just, it's hard for me to find a solution that's better than that. That's, it's better than asking any particular person or type of people to make all the decisions. We've got to all come in. And there are people who are, have terrible ideas. And, and sometimes people have terrible ideas that are opposite to each other and they cancel each other out. And that's like our only hope, is the hope that things cancel out. And what we're left with is the wisest way to go.

• 48:22Hannah Fry?

  What does your, what does your T-shirt say today, Michael? I sort of feel like somehow rather we've been-

• 48:27Michael Stevens?

  Oh, it's very reflective of kind of the mood that we've created here. Everything is terrible.

• 48:34Hannah Fry?

  With an atomic bomb going off in the background.

• 48:37Michael Stevens?

  It's not actually the sin. I'm not saying that I feel everything is terrible. This is a troupe of performers who collect found media footage. And they do shows where they show it off and they call themselves everything is terrible. They're kind of like, they really love this like terrible forgotten media. They're a great group. I don't actually haven't checked in on them in a while, but basically what we solved human nature today. Is that right?

• 49:04Hannah Fry?

  I think we probably did.

• 49:05Michael Stevens?

  We cracked it. We finally cracked it. When it comes to things that we do that are social, there's, there's another really funny example that I've been wanting to do a longer video about. And it's the classic situation where you are at a restaurant and the waiter brings your food out and says, all right, enjoy your meal. And you go, oh, you too. I mean, thank you. Or, you know, you're at, you're, you're, you're dropping off your bag at the airport and the gate attendant says, all right, have a nice flight. And you go, you too. Oh, shoot. No, I mean, thanks. Why do we do that? Well, there's a name for those kinds of exchanges, those kinds of words we say to each other. Back in the 30s, a researcher named Bronislav Malinowski

• 49:51Michael Stevens?

  called these kinds of exchanges fatic communion.

• 49:56Hannah Fry?

  Okay. Like you're, you're breaking the bread together.

• 50:00Michael Stevens?

  That's right. It's communion. It's breaking bread together. It's showing that I'm here. I acknowledge you. We're both humans. But it's communion done through fatic means, which means pertaining to language. So when we say things to each other, like, oh, hey, how's it going? I'm not literally asking, tell me how things are going. In fact, a common response to, hey, what's up? Or, hey, how's it going? Is, oh, hey, man.

• 50:25Hannah Fry?

  You're literally not answering at all.

• 50:27Michael Stevens?

  You're literally ignoring their question. An alien would find that really weird, but we understand that I wasn't actually asking you, what is up or how's it going? I'm just saying, I acknowledge that you're here. We're two social beings who can communicate and we just need to say hi to each other. We just need to give each other a bit of a nod. That's it.

• 50:45Hannah Fry?

  A little bit of communion.

• 50:46Michael Stevens?

  A little bit of communion. And that's what the waiter does when they say, hey, have a great meal. You are, you are automatically ready to, to, to exchange these things without conscious thought. And that's why we absentmindedly respond with you too.

• 51:01Hannah Fry?

  I am, I have heard from an American who moved to London. He found it extremely confusing when, when he first got here and people were like, you all right? You all right? He was like, what do you mean? Am I all right?

• 51:13Michael Stevens?

  Hey, wasn't me that told you that? Because this was my, one of my biggest struggles when I first moved to the UK. Every time I entered a room, people would be like, you all right? And I'd be like, what's wrong? Why do you think something's wrong with me? Am I acting weird?

• 51:29Hannah Fry?

  Maybe it was you. You're all right.

• 51:32Michael Stevens?

  But for them.

• 51:33Hannah Fry?

  Just fatic communion.

• 51:34Michael Stevens?

  It was fatic. It was just, it was just a like beep beep, I am human too, acknowledged, right? That's all they meant by it.

• 51:40Hannah Fry?

  Absolutely.

• 51:40Michael Stevens?

  And you see this between generations because what, what is and is not fatic changes over time. And so for, for like younger people, um, saying things like, oh, no problem is very fatic, right? If someone says, hey, thanks. And I, I'll just say, no problem. But to, to people in an older generation, they don't realize that it's fatic. They take it literally. They listen to those words and they go, no problem. Well, I didn't say it was a problem. Why would it be a problem? And do you think I'm acting like this was a problem? And so I, I thoroughly believe that by the time I'm an old man, I'll be at the grocery store. They'll bag up my groceries. I'll say, hey, thanks a lot. And they'll go, well, don't freak out about it. And I'll be like, I wasn't, I'm, I'm, why, why can't you just say no problem?

• 52:23Michael Stevens?

  And they'll be like, well, no, dude, I didn't, I didn't say you were freaking out. I just said, don't freak out and you didn't. So, right?

• 52:30Hannah Fry?

  There is one, there is one, okay, that young Londoners say to each other.

• 52:34Michael Stevens?

  What do they do?

• 52:34Hannah Fry?

  They go, say less.

• 52:36Michael Stevens?

  Say less. Yes, yes.

• 52:38Hannah Fry?

  It's like, by.

• 52:40Michael Stevens?

  I can't take my words back.

• 52:42Hannah Fry?

  The time I heard it, I was like, I don't think I was saying a lot, actually.

• 52:46Michael Stevens?

  I know. That's a great example of how phatic things are changing.

• 52:50Hannah Fry?

  Hmm. I wonder what they were in really old times, though. I wonder what the phatic communication of, of sort of 1865 was.

• 52:58Michael Stevens?

  Just a bunch of belching.

• 53:01Michael Stevens?

  I don't know. I don't know. How, why did I just say something derogatory of 1860s people? They didn't deserve it.

• 53:07Hannah Fry?

  We know that they were belching all over the place.

• 53:10Michael Stevens?

  They were just like, yo, hey, bruh. Did you find anything?

• 53:14Hannah Fry?

  I did, I did. I've got a couple.

• 53:16Michael Stevens?

  Okay, tell me.

• 53:17Hannah Fry?

  I hope I see you well.

• 53:19Michael Stevens?

  I hope I see you well.

• 53:20Hannah Fry?

  Yeah. What say you on such day as this?

• 53:23Michael Stevens?

  Hmm.

• 53:24Hannah Fry?

  On a day such as this, sorry. How does all at home?

• 53:29Michael Stevens?

  That one, that one, I, I wouldn't be too tripped up by. I'd be like, oh, it's fine.

• 53:32Hannah Fry?

  I hope.

• 53:33Michael Stevens?

  But how would you respond? Did they say fine?

• 53:35Hannah Fry?

  Actually, how do you do? How do you do that? I feel like I've, you know, sort of feel like the memory of that one has lingered.

• 53:42Michael Stevens?

  Yes, yes. I would not be confused if someone said, how do you do? I wouldn't go, how do I do what?

• 53:47Hannah Fry?

  The 1600s is the exact century when the, the passing blessing, God be with ye, was said so rapidly and often as a phatic communion that it permanently mashed together into God be with ye and eventually goodbye.

• 54:04Michael Stevens?

  Goodbye. I like that. You said the 1600s.

• 54:09Hannah Fry?

  Apparently.

• 54:10Michael Stevens?

  Wow. Hello. Goodbye. Speaking of reasons, um, I think it's pretty interesting as I was fleshing out what I wanted to talk about today. I was like, wow, there's kind of three types of things we've talked about. We've talked about difficult questions. I think the Wason selection task is, is surprisingly difficult. But there are also questions that we don't answer, phatic questions. Hey, what's up? I don't actually look up and tell you. I don't really.

• 54:35Hannah Fry?

  Well, you can't because you've got top shelf vertigo.

• 54:37Michael Stevens?

  I can't. Exactly. Just like everyone, when I'm asked what's up, I go, oh, not much, or I'm doing well. But there are also answers we don't question. And I think we've kind of like been talking about this already. It's that a lot of the conclusions and things we believe, we just kind of don't want to question them. We don't feel motivated to find counter examples and falsify them.

• 55:00Hannah Fry?

  Are you, are you talking about like social norms, like social rules here?

• 55:04Michael Stevens?

  That's right. I'm talking about social rules and taboos. And I know that you are familiar with these because we've both read this book. Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

• 55:14Hannah Fry?

  It's so good.

• 55:15Michael Stevens?

  Which way did there? It's so good.

• 55:18Hannah Fry?

  It's spicy. It's spicy.

• 55:19Michael Stevens?

  It's spicy. It's spicy. And we're not going to discuss it today, but we are going to put a little worm in your brain.

• 55:27Hannah Fry?

  You've got to be careful now, though, Michael, because if this section that you're, if you're going to the very first example, if you, if this gets clipped up and does the rounds on the internet, you could, your reputation could be really in trouble.

• 55:42Michael Stevens?

  I know. Look, I'm picking, I'm picking the safest one. I'm picking the, the least spicy one. And again, I think that Hannah, we should just bring this up. And then in a later episode, we'll talk about moral reasoning.

• 55:55Hannah Fry?

  Good idea.

• 55:56Michael Stevens?

  Which is not much different than reasoning about obligations or abstract mathematical things. It all kind of points in the same direction. But this is one where you really, you really wind up realizing that you had a conclusion before you had any reasons.

• 56:12Hannah Fry?

  We should, we should say, actually, just in general, this book, um, this book really interrogates in an extremely careful and logical way a lot of the, the, the moral rules that we fully accept as a society. Things that we find abhorrent, things that we find disgusting. It really tries to understand what is it about that, that we have decided is unacceptable?

• 56:37Michael Stevens?

  That's exactly right. And it really looks into why we don't agree on what is acceptable and disgusting and good or bad. How complex our reasons are.

• 56:49Hannah Fry?

  It's called The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt.

• 56:52Michael Stevens?

  That's right. And I think it's, it's a, it's a very insightful book. It's perfect for the way the world is today. But here's an example. Of a question, and I want you to, I'm just gonna read from chapter one.

• 57:07Hannah Fry?

  Okay, great, good idea, good idea. Okay, good idea.

• 57:11Michael Stevens?

  I'm going to tell you a brief story. Pause after you read it and decide whether the people in the story did anything morally wrong. A family's dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious. So they cut up the dog's body and cooked it and ate it for dinner. Nobody saw them do this.

• 57:38Michael Stevens?

  Okay, so no one saw them do it. The father, let's say, was a professional butcher and none of them got sick.

• 57:46Hannah Fry?

  Yep.

• 57:46Michael Stevens?

  The dog passed away due to an accident.

• 57:49Hannah Fry?

  Was already dead.

• 57:50Michael Stevens?

  Already dead, and you know what? Afterwards, the family was really glad they did it. They felt that it was respectful and it made them feel closer to the dog. So, did anyone do anything morally wrong? That's our question to you. Let us know in the comments below. And I don't know when we'll talk about this. There's a lot that I want to learn and that we both should talk about before we do it. We'll look into moral reasoning next Sunday.

• 58:14Hannah Fry?

  I think that's a really good idea. We can read you more examples from that book, as long as you promise, audience, not to clip it up and share it around as though it's things we actually think, because, I mean, yeah, it tests the bounds. But that is a really great example, a really great example of it definitely feels wrong, but it's quite hard to say why.

• 58:35Michael Stevens?

  Exactly. These are Jonathan Haidt's, what did he call them? He called them harmless taboo violations, where he knows that there's a taboo and he believes that it's like this almost intuitive thing where we believe it and we provide reasons after the fact. So he constructed these questions where All the typical harms and reasons people give for the taboo have been cancelled. They've been clipped. That's not, not in this case, not in this case. They didn't kill their dog. They just ate it after it accidentally died. Nope, no one got sick. No one saw them do it. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And you're left going, but I still think it's wrong. But he's taken all the reasons away because you never needed the reasons in the first place to believe what you believe.

• 59:18Hannah Fry?

  You were using the reasons in order to justify your instinctive reaction.

• 59:23Michael Stevens?

  That's right. But we're saying too much. We're gonna leave it there. If you guys have any questions for us, any despicable, disgusting, perverted moral quandaries, email them right over to us at [email protected].

• 59:37Hannah Fry?

  Absolutely. And in the meantime, you can check out our newsletter, which I really should have learned by now, but I think it's therestis.com/science. And we will see you on our episode of Field Notes that's coming up later in the week. And yeah, send us in anything you like. Put in the comments also whether you actually got the puzzle right at the very beginning. And all of those of you say that you didn't, I was joking, you can carry on listening.

• 1:00:04Michael Stevens?

  All right. Take care, everybody.

• 1:00:05Hannah Fry?

  Bye.

• 1:00:59Michael Stevens?

  We would need to understand the policy context.

• 1:01:01Speaker 03

  All the relevant context will be structured as a framework today, disseminated into an operation order, or FRAGO.

• 1:01:10Speaker 04

  A FRAGO that says to kill the President of Russia?

• 1:01:14Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:01:16Speaker 05

  New from Goldhanger. Who is going to be able to pull this off?

• 1:01:21Speaker 06

  You're my soldier, are you Sergeant Tom MacDuff, Duffy?

• 1:01:25Speaker 05

  An audio drama journey like no other.

• 1:01:27Speaker 06

  Men like Duffy, they are our most valuable weapons.

• 1:01:31Speaker 05

  Devized as a technically rigorous geopolitical action thriller. We have two tight, friendly KIA. Where Britain plays its strongest hand. He's the best. Against its strongest foe. Don't do it, Duffy! Bear Hunt. Available now wherever you get your podcasts.