unSILOed with Greg LaBlanc

Andrew McAfee, a principal research scientist at MIT Sloan School of Management, discusses cultural evolution and its impact on organizational culture. They explore why humans are unique collaborators, the role of technology in shaping workplaces, and the need for an education system overhaul. The podcast delves into embracing science over opinions in decision-making, the suffocating effects of bureaucracy in companies like Microsoft and Nokia, and the importance of integrating cultural evolution insights in business and engineering education.

For centuries, the health of the body was the province of doctors while the health of the soul was the domain of the clergy. What happened with the discovery of a concept of mind as thinking matter? In this episode, we trace the emergence of mind and mental health as a new aspect of what it means to be human.George Makari is a psychiatrist, historian, and the author of three books: Of Fear and Strangers: A History of Xenophobia, Revolution in Mind: The Creation of Psychoanalysis, and Soul Machine: The Invention of the Modern Mind.George and Greg discuss the transformation in the way we perceive the mentally ill, thanks in part to the contributions of Philippe Pinel and others who dared to challenge the status quo. They explore the early intersection of sensibility, vitalism, and literary movements that have shaped modern mental health practices. They also dive into xenophobia, where it came from, and how it persists.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Do people in the world of intellectual history need to spend time thinking about medicine and the history of medicine?02:38: When you went in search of the history of mind, what you found was maybe a history of the mind through the lens of philosophy. Charles Taylor wrote a good one like that. But the more and more I looked into it, it became so clear that the notion of the mind was highly implicated in science, medicine, politics, and broader social change. And that a lot of our 21st-century categories apply back to a time where they didn't really exist…[03:38] The argument in the book is that claims about these major human essences—the soul, the mind, the brain—have very important socio-political ramifications and, not just downstream, but can be affected by socio-political cultural beliefs. So, I tried to tell that bigger story—medicine being part of science, being part of politics—and trying to piece out how these different kinds of things interacted in the creation of the kind of state that we're in now, thinking about soul, mind, and body.Are we all a little mentally ill?26:32: Sensibilities getting disrupted, causing depression or something like that. We are all, potentially, the victims of that. So, there is this notion that the mind is a fragile thing. It's not simply that God gave us one, and it's fine. It's part of the body; it's part of the physiology; it's part of this sensible creature who the environment can deeply impact and who can deeply impact the environment.On the origins of xenophobia33:12: I did a little bit of etymology and whatnot and found that the Greeks actually, in antiquity, had never used the word xenophobia. And that was critical because phobos in antiquity is just fear. It doesn't mean anything medical. But by the time the term gets invented in the late 19th century, phobia was a medical term, and there were a multiplicity of phobias that had emerged in the late 19th century, up to 75 different ones. And xenophobia was one of them, so that it was now an irrational fear, and that makes all the difference, that adjective. It's an irrational fear; it's a mental illness; it's not just a fear. And so, when you talk about the irrational fear of the stranger, that becomes one of the origins of the concept of xenophobia. As it kind of makes its way.The "Other Anxiety" of encountering difference48:03: Bringing people from foreign worlds together works to some extent, and I call that other anxiety. I was like, we shouldn't call that xenophobia because we all have that. If I meet someone who looks different than me, who speaks a different language than I do, and who worships differently than I do, I am going to have some anxiety about what goes on with that person and how they're different and how they're thinking about me. So that's almost universal, and we should think about that as the easiest part of the problem: bringing people together.Show Links:Recommended Resources:René DescartesJohn LockePierre GassendiBaruch SpinozaFrancis WillisPhilippe PinelBethlem Royal HospitalCharenton-le-PontSensibilityVitalismFranz MesmerFranz Joseph GallG. Stanley HallGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Weill Cornell Medical CenterFaculty Profile at Yale UniverstyGeorgeMakari.comWikipedia ProfileHis Work:Of Fear and Strangers: A History of XenophobiaSoul Machine: The Invention of the Modern MindRevolution in Mind: The Creation of PsychoanalysisAcademic Publications Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Math is all around us. When you’re debating when to cross the street to avoid oncoming traffic, you’re doing math. When you sing in the shower and you notice how your voice bounces and sounds, that’s math. Kit Yates is a professor of mathematical biology at the University of Bath. His books, How to Expect the Unexpected: The Science of Making Predictions―and the Art of Knowing When Not To and The Math of Life and Death: 7 Mathematical Principles That Shape Our Lives look at real-world applications of scientific and mathematical concepts. He and Greg discuss why the idea of math needs to be reframed, what it takes to scientifically predict the future, and why it’s more important than ever to have basic math skills in this world. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Math is a creative discipline40:52: Maths is a creative discipline. Sometimes, it involves stewing and thinking about things, and in my case, it involves applying mathematics to the real world and building models of the real world. It's a really creative process because you've got to decide which bits you want to keep and which bits you can throw away, which are the most essential parts. And that's not a thing that you do in 10 seconds. This is something that you have to think really hard about and try and do trial and error and get things wrong, right? We don't encourage people to get things wrong enough. Getting things wrong is the way that you learn how to get things right. And in modeling, we go around in these cycles. When I'm doing a mathematical model of the biological process, we go through this process: model, predict, test, and alter. And then you go back. So you build your model, make a prediction, and then test it against biology, and it's not right. And that's good because you've learned something, and you go and change your model, make a new prediction, and go around the cycle. And this is how mathematical modeling works in general. But it's a really creative process.You don’t need to be good at math to understand it32:09: We don't need to be mathematical geniuses, but we do need to be aware of the places where mathematics can have an impact, and those are increasing in frequency over time. We're increasingly presented with more and more data.On thinking of math in form of stories and narratives03:09: We’re seeing the products of mathematics all around us all the time, and I think that I wanted to share that through the medium of stories because people connect with that. I wanted to tell the stories of real people's lives where they've been impacted by mathematics, perhaps without even being aware of it, so that other people who read the book can then be aware of what's going on and spot those situations when they start to come up.It's better to be uncertain about a prediction than to trust a hundred percent in a poor prediction05:56: We are so convinced that we're right; we fail to check the possibility that we could be wrong. We fail to ask the question, "What if I'm wrong?" And actually, we can get into trouble with that. It's much better to be uncertain and to admit and acknowledge that uncertainty about a particular prediction than it is to be 100 percent certain with the risk that the prediction is wrong.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Bayes’ theoremPonzi schemeGoodhart’s lawStreisand effectMonty Hall problemJohn Forbes Nash Jr.Independent SAGEGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at University of BathProfessional WebsiteHis Work:How to Expect the Unexpected: The Science of Making Predictions―and the Art of Knowing When Not ToThe Math of Life and Death: 7 Mathematical Principles That Shape Our Lives Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In some neighborhoods in the US, life expectancy is lower than in some developing countries. How do poverty, inequality, and the uneven distribution of healthcare resources contribute to this problem?  Dr. David A. Ansell is a professor of medicine at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago. His books, County: Life, Death, and Politics at Chicago's Public Hospital and The Death Gap: How Inequality Kills examine the aspects of inequality that lead to a decline in life expectancy among marginalized groups.  He and Greg discuss Dr. Ansell’s experiences working in hospitals in some of Chicago's poorest communities and why the current healthcare systems are leaving vulnerable populations behind. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: The impact of capital extraction on communities and social cohesion 30:09: So this idea of when you extract capital out of a neighborhood, meaning the Sears leaves, the Western Electric leaves, the Zenith leaves—the big companies leave because white people have left. The bosses now, the ones who run the factories, said, I'm not going to rebuild it here. Why do I want to drive into a black neighborhood? When you take that capital out, it's not disinvestment; it's extraction. And then people are left devoid of work that's meaningful. But look at the South and globalization. Then what happens is what sets in: Grandma gets depressed, but the uncles now are off doing something else, and they don't look in on her. So you begin to erode that social cohesion, and when it erodes to a degree, that is now something that you could measure as concentrated disadvantage. The destructive role of holding companies in healthcare 44:51: It's not just capitalism; it's the toxic form of capitalism that we have in this country that's allowed our healthcare delivery systems to be overly endowed with profit-making machines—holding companies, not healing companies. How our ahistorical thinking hinders progress 16:05: One of the challenges that we have in our world is that we're ahistorical. We have this myth of meritocracy. There are ways in which ideology, built into a society, blinds us to the structures and realities of the world that we're in. Rethinking healthcare in a broken system 33:39: So, I think we need universal healthcare because this idea of cherry-picking that goes on – that's racialized because white people, in general, have better, or people who have been assigned to whiteness have better, insurance – drives the behavior of healthcare delivery. It needs to be eliminated by some form of universal healthcare. Show Links: Recommended Resources: The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisis Coates (The Atlantic) Raj Chetty Paul Farmer Michael Marmot Second Bill of Rights Guest Profile: Faculty Profile at Rush University Medical Center His Work: County: Life, Death, and Politics at Chicago's Public Hospital The Death Gap: How Inequality Kills Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What’s the difference between a lie and deception? How does cheating show up in nature? And is it always a negative thing?  Dr. Lixing Sun is a professor of animal behavior, ecology, and evolution at Central Washington University. His books, The Liars of Nature and the Nature of Liars: Cheating and Deception in the Living World and The Fairness Instinct: The Robin Hood Mentality and Our Biological Nature explore the idea that not everything is as it seems in this world, and seek to answer the question of why?  He and Greg discuss the differences between lying and deceiving, examples of where you can find cheating in nature, and why humans have gotten so good at cheating and deception.  *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: The substantial reality of female cheating 39:34: Recently, studies show that female cheating actually is substantial, and there are lots of benefits associated with that. In my book, I talk a little bit about it, but now there is more to know why cheating is a good strategy among female animals, including humans. Data do not lie, especially about us. I have this data that's from studies; for men, 22 to 25% in their lifetime, they do cheat. And women, 11% to 15% cheat in their lifetimes as well. So, it's quite substantial. Self-deception in cheating 09:20: Self-deception is for better cheating because when your consciousness is shut down, you can cheat fluently without finding any conflict. Cheating without conscious thought 16:47: So as to how or why you don't need a brain to cheat, that's relatively simple because, as long as you have a niche—the ecological niche or, no matter what economical niche—the organisms can always take advantage of it. Basically, you have a niche and this adaptive evolution to fit the niche, to take advantage of it. So that's the evolutionary process. It did not require conscious thinking, sort of like in the psychology approach; in humans, you need conscious thinking. Lying vs. deception 33:39: Lying is referring to communication. A boy crying wolf is lying because he is sending the wrong information to take advantage of being killed by others. So, that is lying. He should say there's no wolf when he cries for a wolf. He is lying because there's no wolf. That's the reality; that's communication. Deception is different. Deception is not necessarily communication, but deception is a take advantage of our cognitive bias. Show Links: Recommended Resources: John Maynard Smith Cuckoo bird Kingsnake Coral snake Henry Walter Bates Viceroy butterfly Monarch butterfly Randy Thornhill Bernie Madoff Frank Abagnale Guest Profile: Faculty Profile at Central Washington University His Work: The Liars of Nature and the Nature of Liars: Cheating and Deception in the Living World The Fairness Instinct: The Robin Hood Mentality and Our Biological Nature Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today’s episode is a historical feast, unraveling the entwined roots of food, philosophy, and the essence of self. But it isn't just for the history buff; it's a banquet for anyone curious about the rich tapestry that flavors our modern approach to nutrition and identity.  Steven Shapin is Professor Emeritus of the History of Science at Harvard University and also the author of several books. His upcoming book is titled Eating and Being, A History of Ideas About What We Eat and Who We Are. Steven and Greg discuss dietetics far beyond mere sustenance, uncovering how health and moral virtue were historically seen as two sides of the same coin. They delve into the complex relationship between age-old folk wisdom and medical authority, and discover how our ancestors' understanding of well-being still simmers beneath the surface of today's nutritional discourse.  *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: On exploring the relationship between food, identity, and modernity 06:06: The book could be considered as a kind of gloss on the expression "you are what you eat" because at the end of the day, what I'm interested in is what's the relationship between what we think of the stuff that we put in our mouths and who we are. And that, so it's a story about some quite recent changes in answering that sort of question. So it's a story about how we became modern, and are we indeed modern? Balancing nutritional expertise and common sense in food choices 31:43: You could tell a story about the way in which nutritional expertise trumps common-sense sensory experience. But that, as it were, aura of expertise doesn't illuminate all of our lives. And there is pushback to that, and it's from people who said we've had enough of this scientific inspection of what's on our plate. You cannot got from the scientific to the moral 11:33: You cannot get from an is to an ought. In other words, you cannot get from the scientific to the moral. But it's precisely the occupation in dietetics, in what counts as the scientific medicine of past centuries, that's placed the is and the ought in the same field. So that what was good for you would guarantee health and a long life also constituted virtue. Moderation is a virtue. It's one of the seven cardinal virtues. I found it tremendously interesting, so I found myself telling a story about, in a way, how we think about food and ourselves, which is also a story about the modern moment. The multi-faceted considerations of healthy eating 33:39: When you're eating, you have a mind of what's good for your body, insofar as you know what's good for your body. You might know it through past experience. You might know it from the Nutrition Facts label. You might know it from medical expertise. But you also have in mind what is good for conviviality: a nice meal with friends, have a drink—you don't have to get drunk, but have a drink every now and then—what's good for the environment, what's good for the agricultural laborers that produce your food, and what's good for the people who produce your package and transport your food. All of these belong in this pushback to the nutritionally modulated desire to consume only what's good for your body and live forever. Show Links: Recommended Resources: G. E. Moore Max Weber Henry V of England Justus von Liebig Scientific Revolution Robert Boyle Galileo Galilei René Descartes Isaac Newton Robert Hooke Francis Bacon Thomas Kuhn James B. Conant Guest Profile: Faculty Profile at Harvard University Wikipedia Profile Harvard Bio/CV His Work: Amazon Author Page The Scientific Revolution Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as if It Was Produced by People with Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern New Yorker Articles Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What is the aftermath of a global pandemic and its impact on public consciousness? Will the surge in awareness about infectious diseases lead to sustained interest and funding, or is it merely a transient response to recent events? Dr. John S. Tregoning is a Professor in Vaccine Immunology at the Imperial College of London and the author of the recent book, Infectious: Pathogens and How We Fight Them. John and Greg discuss the evolution of the war against pathogens, the complexity and significance of vaccines and the impact of pandemics on public health awareness. John lays out the role of scientific advances in diseases prevention, the potential of RNA vaccines, and future strategies to ward off pandemics. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: On clinical trials 48:49: The clinical trials and the burden of proof for the vaccines was the same as it was outside the pandemic. There was nothing different. It wasn't done quicker; the gaps between the trials was shorter. So normally, you do the first part, you pause, you publish, you get more money, you do the second part, and it was the pause and publish that disappeared. So, all the trials were done as stringently as they would normally do. The big challenge was that suddenly, you had this drug that was being given to a billion people. And if you gave apples to a billion people, some people would get sick. If you give aspirin to a billion people, a lot of people would get sick. If you gave paracetamol, anything to that many people that quickly, some people are going to get sick. And I think that communication of like, yeah, it's hard, right? Say for most of you, this is fine, but for some of you, and we don't know who, some of you are going to get very sick, and that's quite a tricky sell. Science is an imperfect answer 08:28: That's all science ever is. It's an imperfect answer. There's always doubt, there's always questions, and we're just using the tools we have at the time to interpret the world around us. How do we know in the world of public health, where we should be investing our resources? 18:49: The basic measure is that more public health, the bigger; every pound spent on public health saves two pounds later down the line. So, if I had the big pot of money, I would be investing in people's basic underpinning health, so make sure trying to reduce obesity, try to reduce smoking, try to reduce drinking—all of the things that make it worse when the pathogen gets to you—all of that investment is going to pay double because it pays you in. Not getting infected pays you in overall general health as well. The earlier you can nip it in the bud, the better. And so that goes for prevention. It probably goes for thinking about surveillance, investing money in making sure that we're catching the pathogens early, and then having high containment units. What happens when a new virus emerges? 38:37: When a new virus emerged, it gave us insight into what would happen when a new virus emerged and the people most at risk. It doesn't have to be particularly pathogenic. There are people who have frail, damaged lungs, and if you put a virus into that, it's going to cause disease and death. Show Links: Recommended Resources: Antonie van Leeuwenhoek John Snow Louis Pasteur Robert Koch Walter Reed Ignaz Semmelweis Smallpox SARS-CoV-1 Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection (RSV) mRNA vaccine Guest Profile: Faculty Profile at Imperial College of London LinkedIn Social Profile on X His Work: Infectious: Pathogens and How We Fight Them Google Scholar Page Imperial College of London Articles ResearchGate Page Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Understanding the origins of species and the evolution of our planet has really become a multidisciplinary field. In order to understand how birds evolved to fly, or fish evolved to walk on land, you have to look at fossils. But you also need to think about the molecular biology part of that story.  Neil Shubin is a professor of biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago. He’s the author of numerous books, including Some Assembly Required: Decoding Four Billion Years of Life, from Ancient Fossils to DNA and Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body.  Neil and Greg discuss the importance of understanding both biology and geology when looking at evolution, the mysteries that still exist in our DNA, and what Neil was doing with thousands of dead salamanders in his lab once.  *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: Evolution is not designing things for a blueprint 11:10: Evolution is not designing things from a blueprint; there's not a blueprint, and everything's designed from scratch, fit for purpose. No, what you're having is you have ancestors that are being modified to make new things. So you're modifying ancient genes to make new structures. That means history is very important; history provides constraints because you're not starting from scratch, but it also creates opportunities because you’re in a particular environment with particular genes, you may be in the right place at the right time. Does evolution happen at variable speed? 10:41: Evolution happens, by all accounts, very gradually from generation to the next. But when we look at it over geological time—which is the window we have as paleontologists—it may look rapid, but it's probably very slow if you were on the ground watching it and measuring it year to year. Evolution is not about rewiring, but about rerouting 15:14: When you think about these molecular switches—what we're looking at—is that you can look at not only where a gene is active in the body, but you can also look at the sort of almost the genetic software that tells the gene when and where to be active. And it turns out a lot of the big changes in evolution are not as much about evolving new genes—they're about using old genes in new ways: that is, changing when and where they're active. That's where those switches—the genetic regulatory elements—come into being. In part, there's a lot to that story, but the crazy thesis is right there. How is it possible to be both broadened and specialized at the same time? 40:13: So collaboration is the answer to that. So, what we try to foster is a culture of collaboration among scientists. That is, when I train scientists in the lab, I don't ask them to be experts in both paleontology and development. I ask them to be experts in the empiricism of one field, particularly in parts of the fields that are relevant to them. But I insist that they be able to have critical thinking. And creative thinking across the fields, but their empiricisms, the way they do their work, whether it's lab work or field work or sometimes both, they have to specialize there. Show Links: Recommended Resources: Charles Darwin St. George Jackson Mivart Ernst Haeckel Guest Profile: Faculty Profile at University of Chicago Professional Profile on National Academy of Science Neil Shubin on X His Work: Some Assembly Required: Decoding Four Billion Years of Life, from Ancient Fossils to DNA  The Universe Within: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets, and People Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What is the correct balance between short-term profit and long-term resilience as far as healthcare is concerned? How does the 'panic, neglect' cycle underpin our societal and managerial flaws? Bethany McLean is a journalist, editor, and author of several books. Her latest book, co-authored with Joe Nocera, is titled The Big Fail: What the Pandemic Revealed About Who America Protects and Who It Leaves Behind.  Bethany and Greg discuss the paradox of America's healthcare system—immense spending that does not equate to superior care, a disparity made glaringly obvious during the global COVID crisis. They dissect the financial interventions of recent administrations and biases that tip the scales in favor of the affluent, leaving small enterprises and the vulnerable in the lurch. Bethany gives a critical examination of the swift mobilization that birthed vaccines under Operation Warp Speed, an emblem of successful government-industry collaboration amidst a turbulent political backdrop. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: “I don’t know” isn't a weakness, it's a skill 48:42: The ability to say, "I don't know," in a way that isn't weak is a skill I hope our leaders can start to learn: "I don't know, but here's what we think. Here's what we're trying to do." I think, for all of us, not resorting to ideological divides as quickly as we do, and to really try and understand that where different people are coming from. I mean, I remember this whole ugly thing at the start of the pandemic: that you were a really bad person if you cared about the economy; that meant you cared about money over people's lives. And I was like, "The economy is people's lives.” I mean, what functioning society doesn't have a functioning economy? It doesn't happen there intimately bound up together.  Is the healthcare system failing to deliver value for its costs? 17:52: I sometimes think our healthcare system just needs to be ripped out by the roots and replaced because everything we do jiggers around the edges, just ends up making matters worse and creating more loopholes that financial players come and take advantage of. And none of it seems to do anything for either lowering the cost of health care or actually keeping people healthy. Science isn’t the truth, it is a method of ascertaining truth 25:59: There was a fundamental misconception, stoked by people who said, "Follow the science," as to what science actually is, and as well as I do science, it's a method of asking questions. It's formulating a theory and then gathering evidence and seeing if the evidence supports or disproves the theory. And then, if it disproves the theory, you adjust the theory. But science isn't truth with a capital T. It's a method of ascertaining truth, of arriving at truth. And we wanted to believe that there was truth with a capital T. And I think that was one portion of the damage done. Is the government short-sighted when it comes to looking at crises? 09:38: The government is shortsighted, and part of it goes back to the issue that the government only knows how to look at the last crisis, not how to prevent the next one…[10:16] I think our government has become fairly incompetent and unwilling to lead. And that's partly because we are so divided as a society that it's difficult to lead, but partly because people would rather score ideological points than actually exercise leadership. Show Links: Recommended Resources: Bernie Madoff Ben Bernanke Anthony Fauci Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Gavin Newsom Ron DeSantis Bill de Blasio Andrew Cuomo Guest Profile: Bethany McLean on LinkedIn Bethany McLean on X Vanity Fair Articles Her Work: The Big Fail: What the Pandemic Revealed About Who America Protects and Who It Leaves Behind Saudi America: The Truth About Fracking and How It's Changing the World Shaky Ground: The Strange Saga of the U.S. Mortgage Giants The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

As we wrestle with the notion of humans as complex biological machines, we confront the unsettling idea that our behaviors might be preordained by genetics and our environment rather than a result of conscious choice. How do we walk the tightrope of acknowledging scientific revelations while grappling with our innate need to assign blame and praise? Robert Sapolsky is a professor in the neurology department at Stanford University and the author of several books. His latest is Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will. Robert and Greg discuss the neurological underpinnings of punishment and question whether our justice system is in line with our evolving understanding of human behavior. They examine the dynamics within societies that prioritize rehabilitation over retribution, as seen in the Norwegian criminal justice system, and ponder if mercy and forgiveness should be more central to our own. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: On exploring religious perspective on free will  40:32: If you've spent a hell of a long time thinking about where human goodness comes from, the human capacity to do evil, where its meaning from, what does pain mean and all of that, and it basically doesn't matter if you conclude there's a loving God or if you conclude it's an indifferent universe or if you conclude I am the captain of my fate or if you conclude we're just biological machines. If you've done that hard work, you are going to come out much, much more ethical than average. It's the people who say whatever in between where they are most easily malleable. Is our brain prepared for adversity? 29:43: What we often view as a brain distorted by adversity early in life is a brain that was doing exactly what it should be doing for preparing for a world in which there was going to be nothing but that adversity, and it's only when you put someone in a different setting that you see the dramatic mismatch there. The dopamine drive behind punishment and moral dilemmas 15:45: When I see some barbarian advocating some horrible, punitive, vicious, dripping with viscera sort of thing to do to some poor bastard or any such scenario like that, I got to remind myself of something that is a very, very reliable way of getting primate brains to release the neurotransmitter dopamine, and a sense of reward and good feeling is to get to punish someone, to get to punish someone when you feel in the right. That's an incredibly strong thing in us. That's a feature of how we're wired. Culture comes in; we can feel a sense of righteous justice being served by locking away somebody for life without parole, rather than in a town square, like using pincers to take out their eyes and then burn them in front of everyone, are shifting standards. Where do we get our free will from? 18:19: I spend six chapters in the book going through the world of people who say, "Ooh, we get our free will from quantum indeterminacy. We get our free will from emergent complexity. We get our free will from chaoticism." Those are three totally cool areas, and they're amazing and all. That's not where you can get free will from, and the models they put up always require, at some point, things to work very differently from how they actually do. Show Links: Recommended Resources: Benjamin Libet John Searle Carol Dweck Determinism Guest Profile: Faculty Profile at Stanford Robert Sapolsky  on LinkedIn His Work: Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst The Trouble With Testosterone: And Other Essays On The Biology Of The Human Predicament A Primate's Memoir: A Neuroscientist's Unconventional Life Among the Baboons Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers: The Acclaimed Guide to Stress, Stress-Related Diseases, and Coping Great Courses Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.