Freakonomics Radio - Think Like a Child (Rebroadcast)

Episode Date: April 30, 2015

When it comes to generating ideas and asking questions it can be really fruitful to have the mentality of an eight year old.

Hello, podcast listeners. This is Stephen Dubner. On May 5th, Steve Levitt and I are publishing a new book. It's called When to Rob a Bank and 131 other warped suggestions and well-intended rants. It is, how should I say this, the best book in the history of the printed word. Can't promise there wasn't something better before Gutenberg, but well, my point is you should probably read it. So find the pause button on this podcast and go order When to Rob a Bank. Go ahead. I'll wait. Waiting, waiting, waiting. By the way, if you want to learn more about the book or keep up with our immediate appearances for the book, just go to freeeconomics.com or keep up with us on Twitter, Facebook. Waiting. Okay, welcome back. Now, as for today's podcast, it is called Think Like a Child. We originally put this one out last year, but given how busy your life is, I'm guessing even if you heard it back then, you will have forgotten everything about it. And next week, we'll be back with a brand new episode. And if you decide, based on the advice in our new book, When to Rob a Bank,

to actually rob a bank, let us know how that worked out. We do accept collect calls from prison. On today's program, we begin with a magic show. Because if there's ever a medium that's made for magic, it's radio, right? Hey guys, how you doing? The magician's name is Alex Stone. Okay, so I'm going to start out with something really simple. Maybe some of you have seen it, maybe you haven't.

And then we'll go from there and maybe get a little more sophisticated and more complicated. And the audience is kids, a bunch of middle schoolers from IS318 in Brooklyn. I don't know if you've seen this or not, but I'm just going to take a handkerchief here. Do you want to check it out? Make sure it's normal. Nothing weird. I only blew my nose in it like just once. It's okay. With the thumb of his right hand, Stone stuffs a handkerchief into his left hand, and then...

Watch. Yeah, you've seen this before. It's gone. It disappears. But then he reaches behind one kid's ear and pulls out the handkerchief. If I reach out, there it is. I think I can get it. I can catch it.

See? Did you feel that come out of your ear? Um, no. Where did it come from? Did you feel that come out of your ear? Um, no. Where did it come from? I don't know. Now, they try to figure out the trick. Does anybody have any guesses? His sleeve.

His sleeve? His sleeves are rolled up, okay. What do you got? He probably has, like, on his hand, he has a pocket that he pulls it out. Guy's getting warmer now. They get warmer? That's good thinking. And then they get hot. It involves your thumb.

What's your name? Jennifer. Give everyone, Jennifer, a round of applause. Stone reaches into his right front pants pocket. So check this out pocket and pulls out a fake thumb. Yeah, it's a fake thumb. It's called the thumb tip. It's one of the most valuable tools in magic.

There's thousands of tricks you can do with it. And it's pretty darn obvious once you know it's there. It's very obvious. Now it looks like a sore thumb. But magicians have even, just to prove how no one notices, sometimes they'll do it with a red one or a metal one. No one notices. You're not looking for a fake thumb, right?

And that's how it works. And then it's gone. And then bring it back just like that. Now, we had also invited some adults to see this magic show. How well did they figure out the trick? I was with the sleeve theory, but clearly that's wrong. I was wondering if it could be related to the ring at all. Oh, the ring.

Totally. Can we see the ring for a second? That's just, that's really the dumbest theory ever. That's so stupid. Go home. So we asked the kids why they seem to do better than the adults. I think kids could think out of the box. Maybe adults are more serious than kids. When you went to the adults, you didn't have any clue. Because they're focusing on the handkerchief instead of the thumb. None of this was surprising to Alex Stone. He's seen it all before. And he says other magicians have too. If you are a magician and your life depends on fooling an audience of adults versus an audience of kids, you would choose the adults every time.

There's a sense that when a kid watches a trick, they're asking a question every second. They're really approaching it with this sort of constant sense of curiosity and constant sense of sort of trying to understand what's going on. And I feel like their brains are just always awake when they're watching it. All right, then. If kids tend to be more curious and more alert when it comes to magic, what about the rest of life? What about coming up with good ideas, even solving problems? Is it possible that we'd all be better off if we could think like a child? From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything.

Here's your host, Stephen Dupner. Steve Levitt is my Freakonomics friend and co-author. We've just published our third book together, Think Like a Freak. Hey, Levitt, what's your favorite chapter in Think Like a Freak? So I'm going to give you a childish answer to that question, which is that my second favorite chapter in the book is to think like a child. Because most adults wouldn't answer any question by telling you what their second favorite thing is. But that's the kind of thing that a child might do all the time. And I think that the beauty of thinking like a child and the beauty of that chapter in our book is that sometimes doing things differently and simply

and with a kind of joy and triviality leads you to a really special place that as an adult, you don't get to go to very often. Hey, Liv, let's talk about some of what we label the characteristics of thinking like a child, like the good characteristics of thinking like a child that adults might want to smuggle into adulthood because they're productive. So thinking small. So when adults think about problem solving, most of us kind of shy away from the little ones because we figure they won't look important or whatnot. And the big ones really need our help. So talk about the power of thinking small. I think there's a temptation to try to be something special and to take on a big problem. But it's actually getting into the realm of thinking about a tiny little question that maybe you could come to the answer to. And maybe once you learn the answer,

it would actually tell you about a lot of other things you might be interested in, might be able to generalize. Actually, I'll tell you the best example I can think of, of my own research of thinking small, was the research we did on The Bagel Man was a guy named Paul Feldman. He's a retired economist who started a business delivering bagels to different companies around Washington, D.C. He used an honor system payment setup, a wooden box with a slot where you'd put the money. In our first book, Freakonomics, we analyzed the bagel man's payment data and wrote up the findings, what the payment rates told us about honesty as it relates to the size of a company, time of year, company morale, things like that. And I'll never forget a seminar I gave at the University of Chicago where one of my colleagues,

a really smart colleague, his name is Luigi Zingales. He came to the seminar and I said, I'm going to talk to you today about this guy who sold bagels. And he blurted out, oh, this is ridiculous. What could I possibly learn from one guy and what he does selling bagels? And I said, maybe you'll be surprised. Bear with me. And I have to say, at the end of the seminar, Luigi raised his hand and he said, I didn't think it was possible, but I actually think I learned something general from what you just taught me about the bagel man. And that was actually, I would say of all, I would say that ranked as one of the top 10 moments I've ever had in academics, because I really believed it was true that by thinking small, I had learned something from the bagel man and that others could too. Something else that kids do is they will state facts or describe something that's pretty obvious.

Whereas adults, we tend to think that, well, if it's obvious, it indicates that we aren't thinking very hard. Talk about the power of acknowledging the obvious. The best examples I've seen about stating the obvious have all come in a business context. So I'll come in as an outside consultant, and people in the company will think I'm the academic. I'm going to have these really complicated ideas and do complex econometrics. And really the biggest values that I've ever added to firms comes usually in the first day I'm talking to them, when I know absolutely nothing. And I ask a question or make a statement, which is so dumb and so obvious that no reasonable person could ever propose it. And a lot of times it's because it is so obvious and people who have been doing it for so long can't, they think about it a different way. And it would be embarrassing. It would be embarrassing

to ask the questions I ask. And a lot of times it is embarrassing because it is such an obvious or dumb question. But every once in a while, it turns out that that obvious question is the absolute breakthrough. It's the thing that once you step back and look at it through the lens of, in this case, a childlike ignorance, it opens you up to seeing what the truth is. Okay, so Levitt, kids spend a lot of their time playing and otherwise having fun. Adults out of duty and out of necessity spend considerably less, at least most adults. What's the advantage of keeping your eye on fun or injecting fun in your work, even for something as serious-ish as public policy? Why is fun something that's underutilized or could be utilized better? Video games are fun. My son, Nick,

who's 11 years old, can play video games for eight hours straight. Could Nick work at a job, say at McDonald's, for eight hours? No. So it seems to me what you take away from that is if you could make a job as fun as a video game, then you'd have all the 11-year-old boys in the world and probably the 15-year-old and 20-year-old, maybe even the 30-year-old boys lining up at your door trying to take that job. I think fun is so much more important than people realize. And I've seen it in academics. When I interview young professors and try and decide if we should hire them, I've evolved over time to one basic rule. If I think they love economics and it's fun for them, then I'm in favor of hiring them.

And no matter how talented they seem otherwise, if it seems like a job or effort or work, then I don't want to hire them. Well, persuade me that they won't just be nice to have around because they love fun, but that having fun at what you do actually makes you better or different in some way that's positive. Yeah. Enjoying what you do, loving what you do is such a completely unfair advantage for anyone you're competing with who does it as a job. Because people who love it, they go to bed at night thinking about the solutions. They wake up in the middle of the night and they jot down the ideas. They work weekends. It turns out that effort is a huge component of success in almost everything. We know that from

practice and whatnot. And people who love things work and work and work at it because it's not work. It's fun. And so my strongest advice to young people trying to figure out what they want to do is I always tell them, try to figure out what you love, okay? And especially something that you love that other people don't love. Sure, everyone wants to be a rock star. Everyone wants to be in the movies, but that's terrible. You don't want to compete head on. Find something. If you love ants, go study ants because no one else loves ants. And you'll have a big advantage over the people who are just studying ants because they can't think no one else loves ants. And you'll have a big advantage over the people who are just studying ants because they can't think of what else to do.

The E.O. Wilson crush continues. Yeah, E.O. Wilson's perfect. E.O. Wilson was one of my mentors in college. And indeed, that's what he did. He loved ants more than anything. And he became the world's greatest expert on ants. And he had a great career and not just success, but joy. He got true joy. I mean, that was the thing that inspired me about E.O. Wilson, even as he was in his 70s and his 80s, he loved what he did. He loved amps. Coming up on Freakonomics Radio, if you're a scientist studying the way kids think, what do you learn? It's exactly the opposite of what we used to think is an easy way to describe it. And what else can we learn from that magic show?

With kids, you get this sense that at every step of the way, they're trying to understand it. And from the second they see it, they're always coming up with theories. You're listening to Freakonomics Radio. Freakonomics Radio. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner. You will remember at the start of this show that we brought in a magician to do some tricks for kids and adults. Well, my name is Alex Stone. That's him. And I'm a journalist, author of a book on magic and science called Fooling Houdini, and a lifelong magic enthusiast and performer. So on the scale of 1 to 10 of magic expertise, with me being a 0, let's say 0 to 10, you're where? How good are you?

Well, that's a sensitive question. A lot of magicians would get angry if I... But I know that you're not that kind of magician. I'm probably somewhere in the 7.5 range, I think. Very good, but not an all-time great, not a Hall of Famer. I mean, I know a lot about magic. One thing that a magician does a lot that you did a little bit today is misdirection, right? So talk about that and how vulnerable kids are versus adults. Yeah, you know, what I find is that kids are better

at paying attention to more than one thing. Their attention is more diffuse. Adults are really good at focusing on one thing and ignoring peripheral distractions, whereas kids are really good

at sort of shotgunning their attention all over the place, which is a good way to learn. It's good when you're first learning how things work, when you're first exploring the world. But in magic, you really want the person to focus on

one thing. You want to direct their attention to one particular thing so that they won't see what's going on in the shadows. You want to seduce them so that you can trick them. Exactly. I think it's also that they're approaching it with this curiosity and it's just like this sponge-like desire and that they're always making theories. That's the other thing. I feel like – I don't feel like adults are like that. I sort of feel like they watch it and they're waiting for the punchline and then they sort of see it and then they maybe go back and think about it.

With kids, you get this sense that at every step of the way, they're trying to understand it. And from the second they see it, they're always coming up with theories. Oh, it was in his sleeve. Oh, he had a fake thing in his hand. And they come up with theories that, you know, adults just aren't doing that. You're much more likely to be able to manipulate adult attention than you are to be able to manipulate children. That's Alison Gopnik. I'm a professor of psychology and philosophy at the University of California at Berkeley. Gopnik does not study magic. What does she study?

Young children's minds, particularly how it is that young children can manage to learn as much as they do about the world as quickly as they do. She's also written books about her research. The Philosophical Baby was one. The Scientist in in the crib was another. Gopnik's work reinforces what the magician Alex Stone told us, that children tend to see things fundamentally differently than adults. They're not very good, as we all know, at just focusing on one thing. They get distracted incredibly easily. They notice anything that's interesting or that changes or that they might learn from in their environment.

And that makes them more subjects of magic. When I wrote my book, I had a beautiful letter from someone who was actually a store detective. And he said one of the things that he'd do was he'd perch up on top of a balcony, up on the top of the store floor, and then he'd look at what people were doing below him. And he said what would happen is you'd see people walking along this floor and someone would be holding the hand of a three-year-old. And then the three-year-old would look up and we'd see him on the balcony and would wave and say hello.

And the adults never did that. It never even occurred to the adults to look up on the balcony and see what was there. Can you summarize what we've learned and a little bit about how we've learned it about how children think and especially establish things like causal understandings? Yeah. Well, it's sort of easy. It's exactly the opposite of what we used to think is an easy way to describe it. So people used to think that children were illogical.

And what we've discovered is that even little babies are capable of making logical deductions. A really dramatic one is that people have thought that even adults are terribly bad at understanding probability. Well, it turns out that babies and very young children, if you give them the problems in the right way, are actually amazingly good at doing probabilistic inference. Let me give you one more example. The conventional wisdom has been that children are egocentric and they can't take the perspective of other people. And one of the really dramatic things we've discovered is that, again,

even infants are capable of figuring out what's going on in someone else's mind and figuring out how they think and feel about the world. Okay. So you've given us a number of traits that children exhibit in much larger measure than we might have thought before. What about the ways in which the old wisdom was right? What are the ways in which children really are kind of a dormant or latent version at best of what they will become? Yeah, it's interesting. So the kind of conventional wisdom was really that children were sort of what they will become. Yeah, it's interesting. So the kind of conventional wisdom was really that children were sort of defective grownups. So they were grownups but missing pieces with, you know, bits that hadn't developed yet. But if you think about that from a biological or an evolutionary point of view,

it doesn't really make a lot of sense. An alternative way that you might think about them is think of the kids as being like the research and development division of the human species. And we're adults, we're production and marketing. So from the production and marketing perspective, it might look like the R&D guys are really not doing anything that looks very sensible or useful. They, you know, sit around all day in their beanbag chairs playing pong and having blue sky ideas. And we poor production and marketing people who are actually making the profits have to subsidize these guys. But, of course, one of the things that we know is that that kind of blue sky, just pure research actually pays off in the long run. So I can imagine that an adult listening to you say these things would say, sure, that makes sense. That resonates with me. I believe that children have these traits in maybe a different shape or dimension than the traits I have. But I think it's probably hard for most adults to think about the idea that there are traits that are valued in adults that children may actually be better at than adults.

So tell me a little bit about that. Are there some that would fit that category? Part of the reason why we adults are really good at learning things quickly is because we already know a lot about the world. So when you look at how adults learn, the way that we typically learn is we take all those things that we've already learned and we already know, and they weigh really, really heavily in our decision-making and in the kinds of solutions that we're going to consider. And then maybe we have a little new evidence, but most of the time we sort of ignore it or we might just tweak a little bit what we already think. But, you know, mostly the way our brains are is they're not broke, so we don't want to fix them. They are working just fine. We'll just leave them the way they are. And implicit in that is that we have this strong set of priors, right? Prior beliefs that we

act on. And we also, I guess, implicit in what you're saying is that we have a lot of heuristics. We have a lot of shortcuts that we've learned work well enough, and so we do them always, right? Exactly. Let me give you an example in the universities, for example. It's a good example. My world. We give lectures. And the origins of that are the days when there weren't printed books so that you had one manuscript and the professor was reading from the manuscript because the students didn't have books. It is literally a medieval instructional technique.

But we've been doing it for hundreds and hundreds of years. This is kind of what you do when you're a faculty member. And the fact that we have no evidence at all, and in fact we have some evidence to the contrary for this being a good way to get anybody to learn anything, doesn't keep us from doing it. Mostly we're doing it because we've always done it. Right. The students aren't dying of boredom. Exactly.

They may be bored, but they're not dying. And when you ask yourself the question of why do we do it, what does even a very smart person say? How does a very smart person answer that question for themselves? Yeah, I think what they say is, well, we've kind of always done it and it seems to work okay and we're good at doing it. And I think here's the most relevant thing. It would take so much work to try and think through all the alternatives and try them out and see

which ones work and which ones don't. That would just be such an effort that even if maybe in the long run it would be a bit of an advantage in terms of my short run utilities and in particular just for me, it's not going to make a difference. I think the general picture, you know, when you talk about risks as adults, when we're trying to decide on a course of action, we're always balancing the risks and utilities, whether that's a risk to my reputation or my ego or my future interactions with other people or just a risk to, you know, my profit margin. And kids aren't in that world of, or at least if they're being taken care of properly, they're not in that world of risk and utility calculations. That liberates them,

that frees them to, as we say, play. And we just sort of take for granted, yeah, of course kids play. But what play means, what do you mean when you say someone's playing? You mean they're doing something without really having a specific goal, without having to worry about whether it's going to be productive or not. So where do all these wonderful and productive, potentially at least, childlike traits go? Do they magically evaporate? Is there a switch in our genes that kind of clicks over at age 21 and we stop thinking this way?

What happens? What we're trying to figure out now is exactly the answer to that question. So one thing that could happen is just that we all have the same brains, but as we accumulate more and more information, and we know that this happens, that some of the pathways get strengthened and become more efficient, and then other pathways just are what's called pruned. They just disappear. So it could be that it's just a matter of as we get to know more and become more efficient, we lose the capacity for flexibility. But it could also be that there's something about being a child, about having that particular

childlike mind and brain that is the thing that's letting you explore more and in some sense be more creative and that there are things that we could do even as adults that put us back into that kind of state. A state that's kind of magical maybe? We went back to Alex Stone. What was your favorite moment of your magic show today? I loved how quickly they figured out the card trick, the double lift. I mean, that was just bam.

And adults never figure that out. I'm going to give the deck a shuffle. I don't know if you guys can hear. I'm shuffling here. I'm going to give the deck a cut. This trick is called the ambitious card. Alex Stone asks one kid to pick a card and place it back in the deck. Then Stone shuffles the deck,

but somehow the kid's card makes it back to the top of the deck. Turn over the top card. Yeah, okay. This trick kind of tells a story, and the story is that no matter how many times you try to bury this card, it's kind of like a Houdini escape told in miniature. No matter how many times you try to bury this card, it's kind of like a Houdini escape told in miniature.

No matter how many times you try to take this card and put it in the middle of the deck, it's ambitious. That's why it's called the ambitious card. It always wants to pop back up to the top, always. And you keep doing it, and every time you do it, it gets more and more amazing. Again, it didn't take long for the kids to figure out the trick. Where'd it come from? How'd it happen? He has a different card on top. The ambitious card,

like a lot of tricks, relies on a double lift. That's when the magician presents two cards as if they're one. The kids figured it out. She just busted your whole act. Get the heck out of here! Alright, good job. How did I?

You still don't know. I don't understand. They still can't figure it out. Even after they have an explanation. Yeah. The grownups need more help. So I'm curious if your observation that kids are more perceptive when it comes to magic has led you to consciously try to kind of engage or magnify any kid-like traits in your life as an adult?

Absolutely. Like what? Name some? Like I love listening to the Bach lute suites. You know, especially the John Williams on guitar. And when I'll listen to that or I like any kind of classical music that's sort of multi-voiced, try listening to the lute suites and always focus on the bass. Because the bass is always less, you're less conscious of the bass, right? Because the higher frequency notes are always the ones, they're the lead notes. It's like, you know, when you're listening to a song and there's a singer singing high, you're drawn to that. That's the flash of light and the magic. So that's the hand that's waving the handkerchief. So when you force

yourself to sort of focus on the bass, what I find at least is that it kind of levels out everything else. It kind of turns down the sort of middle voice and the high voice. And you end up sort of, I find, hearing everything sort of simultaneously. And it allows you to kind of divide your attention so that you're experiencing the piece as a whole. You're hearing all the voices more clearly. And it's hard to do it at first, actually, because your attention keeps snapping back to the high voice. But if you kind of train yourself to do it,

I think it brings out a richness in the music that's amazing because then you really start to hear everything at once. snapping back to the high voice. But if you kind of train yourself to do it, I think it brings out a richness in the music that's amazing because then you really start to hear everything at once. And that's kind of the same idea as focusing on the hand that's not doing so much in the magic trick. Hey, podcast listeners. Next week, we are back with a brand new magic trick. It is an episode about one man's unusual $350 million attempt to remake a city. A lot of city revitalization projects are really top-down, master-planned, and we're really anti that. It's really more about backing the entrepreneurs and their passions.

The biggest gamble in Las Vegas. That's next time on Freakonomics Radio. Freakonomics Radio is produced by WNYC and Dubner Productions. Our staff includes Greg Rosalski, Caroline English, Susie Lechtenberg, Merritt Jacob, and Christopher Wirth, with help from Anna Hyatt, Rick Kwan, Daniel DeZula, and Paul Schneider. Thank you. Find lots of radio, a blog, the books, and more.