Modern Wisdom - #542 - Dr Randy Nesse - Evolutionary Psychiatry Can Explain Human Emotions

Episode Date: October 22, 2022

Randy Nesse is a physician, author and founder of the field of evolutionary medicine and evolutionary psychiatry. Evolution created an odd creature in humans. We're able to fly to the moon and cure diseases. But we also get anxious in the supermarket or depressed if we have a bad week. Why would mother nature make us so fragile? If natural selection is powerful why are mental disorders so common? Expect to learn why the capacity for low mood exists at all, how low mood and depression could be evolutionarily advantageous, what happens if someone has too little fear or anxiety, why bad feelings are useless but normal, how eating disorders could be an adaptive response to the local environment and much more... Sponsors: Get 10% discount on your first month from BetterHelp at https://betterhelp.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Get a Free Sample Pack of all LMNT Flavours at https://www.drinklmnt.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Our Sponsor LetsGetChecked - get 25% discount on your at-home testosterone test at https://trylgc.com/wisdom (use code: WISDOM25) Extra Stuff: Check out Randy's Websites - nesse.us and goodreasons.info and evolutionarymedicine.org Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello friends, welcome back to the show. My guest today is Randy Nessie, he's a physician, author and founder of the field of evolutionary medicine and evolutionary psychiatry. Evolution created an odd creature in humans. We're able to fly to the moon and cure diseases, but we also get anxious in the supermarket or depressed if we have a bad week. Why would Mother Nature make us so fragile? If natural selection is powerful, why are mental disorders so common?

Expect to learn why the capacity for low mood exists at all, how low mood and depression could be evolutionarily advantageous, what happens if someone has too little fear or anxiety, why bad feelings are useless but normal, how eating disorders could be an adaptive response to the local environment, and much more. But now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Randy Nessie, welcome to the show. Thanks so much Chris, better be here. I saw a quote from Robert Wright's Why Buddhism Is True, which says humans are designed to be effective not happy. How accurate do you think that is? That's so sad. One of the first articles that I wrote is why happiness is so elusive from an evolutionary viewpoint.

And everybody wants to be happy. Everybody tries to be happy. There are all kinds of businesses and professionals and therapists who help us be happy and it's not working very well. And there's a very specific answer is that the whole damn system is not designed for happiness. It's designed as Robert Wright knows all so well for maximizing gene transmission. What a bitch. So it's actually, I joke about it a little bit, but I think it's a terrible traumatic awful thing Natural selection doesn't give a fig about our fitness or our about our happiness And so a lot of people are just wondering about all the time miserable because the system is shaped to you know Go with them to do stuff that is not in their interests and their genes interests and It makes me a little pessimistic sometimes about,

you know, the idea we're all going to be happy if we only do the right thing and think the right way, you know. On the other hand, that way of deeper thinking, I'm so glad you've mentioned Bob Wright because I'm very impressed by him in his work. He's right, desire is the problem, right? We all have all these desires and none of us can satisfy all of them. And it's all built into the design. Desire is a contract you make with yourself to be unhappy until you get what you want. That's from Naval Ravakant. You know, I don't buy that. Desire is something that pushes us to do stuff that's good for our genes, and it doesn't

matter what we accomplish. As soon as we do, it wants us to do something more. And so there's no winning that particular one. The hedonic treadmill on all that. I was talking to a couple of friends who were recently on a very big podcast over here in Austin, and one of them mentioned that he was faithful of gold medalists syndrome, which I wasn't familiar with, but I went and learned about afterwards, which is after you've completed the crowning achievement of your life's work, well, what what do you do next? Well, what do you do next? What happens after that?

So actually, I've been, I wrote only a little bit about this, but I'd like to do more about it. It seems to me that there's something built in that after a great success, we always feel down. And it's not just winning a gold medal. It's just, you know, getting a paper done, you know, or doing a re-podcast. Afterwards, we always feel low. Why? And there's a bunch of psychology about this. So, opponent processes the technical name. But it seems to me that that's probably necessary to keep us from flying off into Mania. To stabilize mood, you got to keep it from getting into a positive feedback mood where success makes you feel better, which makes you feel more mood. I mean, that's what happens with Mania, right?

You succeed at something, you start flying off and you get succeed at more and everything seems great until you're knowing the hospital or something. I think it's much better for the system to be programmed to just bring it down quite promptly after some ground success. Is it the job of humans then then if we are permanently stuck in this vacillating to an upper bound of happiness that we is inevitably going to be brought back down by our hedonic adaptation? How do people avoid just being nihilistic with that? How do they think? Well, this is all futile. What's the point

in even trying to do anything? Even if I make myself happy it's going to be pointless because I'm going to be brought back to baseline within the next three days. You know, we feel happier when we accomplish things that we want to do. And there's one little quote from my book that's retweeted every week by somebody for the last year. And the gist of it is that what makes us, you know, gives us pleasure is not actually accomplishing our goals. And what gives us happiness is making progress towards goals. Getting there is not such a good thing, but making progress towards a goal. This means

you got to have a goal of some sort, not something grand necessarily, but fixing dinner, you know, or having a fun podcast or getting your Yeti microphone to work. Our life is just consumed by all of these little goals that we are all in competition with each other. But that's the problem, isn't it? There are so many things that we do, and most of them are in competition with each other. And if you want to be a superstar, most superstars are really focused on one thing to the exclusion of other things, and this is not a balanced life, but it is a route to start them. And this is a problem, especially on this age when everybody is trying to be super duper on the web. It's just not possible to be the best and to have a balanced life. I don't think, maybe some people

seem to pull it off, but. I think it's very, those people that are able to be elite at what they do and have a balanced life are significantly more rare than the people that are elite at what they do, who by design are incredibly rare. And a perfect example of this is Tiger Woods did a charity golf game where he was with, I don't know, Jared Leto or

Brad Pitt or someone, it wasn't, but somebody like that, right? And they're walking around the golf course. And because it's for a charity game, they were lapel miced up for the entire time and Rory McElroy as well, who's a British player. He was there too. And the mic was capturing what they said. And you usually don't get to hear what the player is speaking to his caddy about right throughout the most of the game obviously and

You got to hear the difference in the way that tiger approaches his game with the way that Rory approaches his so as they were walking around tiger and his partner It needs some guy right maybe he plays a bit of goal for whatever but he's not the pro and tigers And Tiger's talking about, okay, so you're going to notice that the fairway is going to fall away a little bit to the right here. You're going to have to open the face a little bit. I really don't want you to go for too much of a high loft club because we've got this humidity in the air and a blah, blah, blah. And then it cut to Rory McElroy. And Rory was asking this guy, he was like, look, I just can't agree with you that Domino's is superior to Peter Hut. I simply am unable to,

he was talking about his favorite sort of Peter or something like that. And you see, that really made me think about Rory as an incredibly singular individual. Somebody that's able to turn it on and able to turn it off, even during the game. And I'm sure if it was the PGA finals and whatever, whatever, he's's gonna feel a lot more pressure. But in that moment, even the most relaxed game, knowing he was miked up, Tiger couldn't switch it off. Yeah, and there are different ways of doing things. There's Zen and the Art of Art for you know, where if you're really, really good,

your lower brain takes over, you don't have to think about things quite so much. But then there are other people who are always analyzing and there's different ways to get there. Why does the capacity for low mood exist at all? Oh, you pushed one of my buttons. I know you deskt that. I mean, first of all, let's just pause for a second. It doesn't have to be there, right? Natural selection could have shaped us to feel pretty good all the time. And now to have all these moods going up and down and sideways, why didn't it do that? So we have to ask first of all, why have mood at all? And the answer is that there are good times to do things and there's bad times to do things.

And sometimes a little bit of investment will give you a bit payoff. And sometimes a big investment will get you nothing. I think about my ancestors for the last thousand years on a tiny island in the North Sea off the coast of Norway and I every once in a while imagine one of them that was very optimistic a few hundred years ago trekking off in February, going off and saying I can find some berries or food out there and you know of course there weren't any ancestors like that. There might have been somebody like that, but they died in the snow, and they didn't pass on any genes to one who was more pessimistic sensibly, and just didn't think that things were going to be all great all the time. Did better. Now, in

modern life, of course, we're not forging for berries nearly so much most of us. We're in social exchanges of all kinds, and we're trying to look good for other people. But it's very tricky, isn't it? Because in the one hand, we want friends and the other hand, we want status and we can only have so much time and so many friends and it's all very complicated. We're basically foraging for social resources. And sometimes it goes well and sometimes the more you call somebody up, the less they want to talk with you.

So there are people who don't have any low mood in that circumstance. They're really annoying, you know, because they just keep going and keep going and keep going. I mean, for all of these emotions, Chris, I think there's less attention paid than we should to people who don't have enough low mood, people who don't have enough anxiety mood. People who don't have enough anxiety.

People with hypophobia and people, because it's not wise to just keep going and going. You'd like an anecdote from a talk I gave at Cambridge years ago for a positive psychology group. And I told him about how I thought low mood could be useful in circumstances where you're pursuing on a reachable goal. And it really needs to disengage you from wasted effort and taking risks. They're not going to get you anything. And there was definitely silence in the room with all these famous professors.

And their whole thing is positive psychology. And I was like, hey, negative stuff is useful. And then they looked at each other and they looked at me. And I was kind of thinking, what do I say now? But I'm a psychiatrist, so I know how to keep quiet sometimes. And finally, one woman says, you know, if I had had more little mood, I would have ditched that guy's 15 years earlier. And everybody laughed.

And it wasn't just funny because these moods guide us in momentary things and in longer term things. But the problem is a lot of times with people who have depression, mood is trying to stop them from doing something that they could actually accomplish. The system seems to get broken really easily and that's one of the things

those of us in evolutionary biology try to figure out. It seems so ruthless that the evolutionary set point that our minds have been given for the last 150,000 years is so mismatched with the world that we see around us now. But you could argue perhaps the environment that we have created has mismatched itself to our brains. Perhaps we should be in a place where it would be more adaptive to constantly be, but we would just release a single tiger on the streets of Manhattan.

And then that's going to pretty much match everybody's anxiety level with the degree of danger that they're in. Right, right. So we should pause here for a second. Chris and just savor the fact that life is good for a lot of people for a whole days and even weeks at a time. And that's astounding, isn't it? We should just appreciate it.

I mean, if we were chimpanzees, we'd be eating each other on the head and we're living away from people trying to rape us. And, you know, it's a not a last life for chimpanzees, but nobos kind of have more fun. But, you know, sitting around quietly and talking and enjoying each other's company is not something they do.

I mean, a lot of people have quite stable, satisfying lives, and they're moderately happy a lot of the time. It's just a miracle. And I think just saying it's culture doesn't nearly do it justice. I think we have to ask, how natural selection shaped us so that we're capable of loving relationships and guilt and and concern and and all those kind of things. It's not an easy thing to explain. When it comes to some of the diseases, quote, and quote, is that people pathologizing normal human

responses then? You know, it's not so easy. One of my themes, as you may know, is that you really have to talk with each person one at a time to decide these things. Some commentators on the radio say, oh, Dr. Nessie, you think low mode is useful, therefore you shouldn't treat it, right? I say, no. I'm sorry, you even agreed to do an interview with you. I mean, it's such a simplistic response. But here's a big principle that I've been just starting to write and talk about

Chris. It seems to me that the regulation mechanisms that mattress selection shaped result in most bad feelings coming from normal mechanisms, but being useless. So how can that be? I mean, the smoke details to principle is one thing that we could talk about. Another one is that we live in an environment that's very different from the one we evolved in. Another thing is just bad luck. Another thing is that the system is prone to real dysfunction from getting into positive feed bad foods.

This is really bad for depression. And it used to be, you'd have a bad time, somebody would be mad at you, something would have, and you'd go to your hut, and then you'd get hungry, and then you you'd come out and there are a bunch of relatives around some of who would want to help you. Nowadays, you move to a different city by yourself. There's nobody else there, and you get in a bad way, and you go to your room and you shut the door, and you turn off the telephone, and then you tell yourself, nobody loves me because nobody's calling me because your phone has turned off. And you know, don't send any emails. It's a positive feedback cycle of a sort that I don't think existed in nearly that same way, way back when.

But now I'm starting to make stuff up. Do we have data on that? No, no, we just kind of go on with our epidemiology comparing people in modern countries. We do not know nearly what we would like to know about what move problems were like for people in other cultures and other states. We do not know nearly what we would like to know about what mood problems were like for people in other cultures and other states. It seems like the fundamental belief held by most people, especially people in the more traditional side of the psychiatry realm, is that if we feel bad, something is wrong.

The only reason that you can't... That's right. Something is wrong, but not with the person necessarily. It might well be the situation. I spent a year and a half just studying the emotions, which is I realized I have been treating people with emotional disorders for 10 years and I didn't know why emotions existed. So after just studying emotions, by the way, the leading psychiatry textbook, a thousand pages, it had one half of one page about normal emotions. I mean, this is hopeless. In the rest of medicine, you see somebody with jeb, you see somebody with cough, you see someone with vomiting,

you know that those are useful responses, and you know what kinds of situations in which they're useful, so you go looking for what's wrong. So after that, you're in a half, I came to a very simple conclusion which still hasn't, it's catching on but not as much as I would like. Instead of just asking about what's the function of this emotion, which a lot of evolutionary types still do, I think the right question is, in what situation was this emotion useful across our evolutionary history. Because as those situations that shape the emotion and the regulation mechanism, and of course the situations are different now than they were before, that's one big thing.

But also, a lot of those situations can again put positive feedback loops into play. And because if in fact you're anxious and you start getting anxious about being anxious, off you are to the races and a serious anxiety disorder. And because if in fact you're anxious and you start getting anxious about being anxious, off you are to the races and a serious anxiety disorder. What's the difference between the function and the useful in a situation that gives an example? You can find articles that say the purpose of the function of anger is to signal you're about to attack somebody or the function of anger is to signal you're about to attack somebody, or the function of

anger is to signal that you're going to end the relationship with the person that shape up, or it's a signal of anger to say that you're dominant in a dominant competition, or so you can make up six or eight or ten of these kind of things, and they're all true kind of, but there are ways in which anger could give a useful advantage in one of those situations. A different way of asking it is in what situation is the one with useful is what situation is anxiety useful in what situation is anger useful. In a generalization I find it really helpful in therapy is to think as somebody is really angry the first thing I think of, hey anger is really useful when you think you've been

betrayed by somebody. It's a signal that the person that better apologize and shape up with a relationship is over. And that helps me ask different questions. It also helps me help my patients to figure out that anger actually sometimes is a useful signal. It's not something always to be avoided. That if that is, it's possible to put technically a threat into the relationship. Usually when people yell at each other, it's because they're really dissatisfied, but they can't end it, walk

away, and it gets into a big mess. It seems like taking an evolutionary perspective with this allows people that are suffering with emotions, which sadly we all do, to see them with less shame, I suppose. Exactly. Oh, thank you. I'm so you've got to that. It changed my work with my patients and my patients view of themselves. Chris, I mean, I kept up for 10 years, I told patients, you have an anxiety or mood disorder. It's a problem, either with your background or your brain, and we're going to give you just standard treatment to fix it.

And the responsive people to that is, oh my God, there's something wrong with me. It's genetic. That can't be fixed, can it? The whole thing was, I am a defective person. And that changes how you live and how you think about yourself. But once I started saying, you know what, the responses you're having, these anxiety attacks, they would be useful in life-threatening situations, and you're having really unfortunate useless false alarms in that system.

And then people would say, oh, well, geez. So there's something useful about what I have as well, and not just a defective human being. It's so changes of the whole, there are putive relationship and the person's relationship with their symptoms. And it helps them to look thoughtfully about whether the symptoms in their life now might be meaningful and useful, which sometimes they are, or they might be from normal mechanisms, but useless, which is the majority of them, or whether they're coming from a mechanism that just is broken and isn't working right. And I think you can have a real conversation with people about those

alternatives, instead of just assuming you've got a broken brain. You know, we've got to fix it with meds or you had bad relationships with your parents and that's what's called. There's so many assumptions that some therapists make about where things come from and this starts, this steps takes a step back instead of asking about the causes for this person's problem. It asks, why do we all have systems that are vulnerable to failure? That's the big thing. Why do minds go awry in general? I think that the way we experience our own lives, our own inner world is very much one

of agency, sovereignty, the ability to do things, especially this is now being laid on top with a meritocracy. You are your successes, they're yours to bear, you are your losses, they're yours to bear as well. And when you combine this in a world which has begun to wrangle nature in a way, we can predict the weather, we can fly over oceans, we have science that can defeat diseases and stuff like that.

I think all of that combined together gives humans a sense that we should have more agency over everything. Look, the reason that you're in low mood is because you are somehow deficient in yourself. You have caused some inefficiency to occur and this is your cross to bear. Now, it is your responsibility to fix because it is only you that can do anything in order to be able to move yourself forward. However, you have been born into a system that is, it's got all of these bugs in them. And some of these bugs used to be features. Exactly. I mean, I think there's a lot to be said for the novelty of our modern circumstances, making us all try to do things we can't do.

So we're all failures. But how much of that, I mean, is it really true that there's a lot more depression now than there was 20 years ago? That is pretty weak actually. You might have seen the New York Times articles for the last week. Every day they have a new feature about model disorders and bad feelings and how we're going to fix them all. And then the thing behind all, part of it is very thoughtful about, hey, it's not all pathology.

I really appreciate that part. A lot of us talking about, hey, how can we fix it for more people? Well, how can we have simple therapies? Maybe the most recent one today was about an app that you talk to, about your feelings and people talking about how you can have an app, an artificial intelligence app to psychotherapy for you. Maybe it's helpful, but what I'd really like people to, what all those articles are missing,

no Chris, is any understanding about why these emotions exist at all and why they're prone to be desregulated. You almost want to stream a little bit and say, wait a second, if you guys were treating pain and nausea and vomiting, you would insist on some kind of investigation for each individual about why those things are happening. And you're not going to stop people's cough just willy nilly without thinking about it because stopping the cough of somebody with pneumonia might end up killing them. You've got to be thoughtful about it because stopping the cough of somebody with pneumonia might end up killing them. You've got to be thoughtful about it. So I just like to see people understand that these

emotions can be useful at least for your genes and that we should try one by one to understand where they come from in the individual in this particular instance. It seems like there's a hierarchy of multiple multiple layers going on here, which is, at the base layer, humans have a capacity to sense different types of mental states. That is something that has been built into us, and it was at one point presumably adaptive, or maybe the side effect of things that used to be adaptive. At the next level is this particular individual human here,

what is it that their life is going through, or what is it with regards to the way that they are relating to the world, which is causing this particular emotion to come through. So you have the primer, then you have the situation, which has caused it to happen. And then on the other side of that, you have, okay, what are we looking to do with regards to treatment for this? So that sort of hierarchy there. I wish you could just say that to all the psychiatry residents in the country, Chris, and that there's so people want things to be so simple when it's very understandable, right?

They want everything to be a brand disorder or everything to be faulty thinking or something. But what you're saying is to use what we understand about why these emotions exist and how they're regulated to try to figure out on a case by case basis what's going on and what options are best for helping that individual person. It's profound and it's not something you can do in 15 minutes and make on money off of it. It takes time and experience and so I'm not hopeful that we can somehow make this the standard of care. But I sure would like to see at least all people who are providing here have this in their

toolkit, trying to understand why it is a motion success and how they're normally regulated. Go through some of the different reasons about why we have this type of response, smoke detector principle and the feedback loop and stuff like that. Let's run through that and then we can have a look at some individual emotions. You got, I mean, I spoke to Dr. Principal, I think maybe in my most practical contribution to psychiatry, I spent, you know, I was spending all my time helping to run the anxiety

disorder, aesthetic and university Michigan. George Krut has started it and I helped to develop it. We were one of the very first anxiety clinics in any place and after 10 years, I realized, wait a second, why does everybody have too much anxiety? So not just my patients it's me it's everyone and then I tried to figure out why telling people that things weren't really dangerous didn't have any effect whatsoever and my patients would go into a grocery store 10 times and

have panic attacks 10 times and I'd say you know it's safe. I got frustrated sometimes. But then I started thinking, well, what's the cost of having a panic attack? What's the situation in which a panic attack is useful? And that all I'm sure all of our listeners have had something like this at one time or another, you start suddenly feeling like your heart is pounding, you start getting shorter breath, your muscles tighten up, you feel like you're maybe going crazy and you've got to get out of there, wherever you are. And that is a perfect suite of things to get you out of life threatening danger. Cannon back in 1930 recognized as a flight response, a pre-programmed emergency response.

So why would it go off when it's not needed? Let's think about the cost, maybe 100 calories. But now you hear a sound behind a rock at the watering hole in Africa, and you have a stick instead of an iron spear. Should you run? Well, natural is lacking in a shape to mechanism, not just an us, but an every animal.

Could do that calculation without any calculus, you know? And it depends on how likely is it that there's a lion there? And it depends on how likely is it there's a lie in there? And what's the cost if you do run, and he's there, and let's pretend you get away, it's got free. What's the cost if you don't run, and he's there, let's pretend he just eats you. And that's maybe a hundred thousand calories.

Oh wait, the ratio, 100 to a hundred thousand, that's a thousand to one. And if you do the math with what's called signal detection theory, you realize that that means that you should see whenever there's a probability of a lion being there, greater than one thousand. And that means that 99 times out of a thousand, your panic attack will be useless but normal. So that, when I first did that, I couldn't believe my own calculation, you know?

But all of a sudden, I realized, oh, wait a second, I've been misunderstanding this regulation mechanism and my patients all over the place. Now, my patient came out of the grocery store the 10th time still having panic attacks and I was able to say, yep, that's the way the system is. Panic attacks are cheap and not

having a panic attack with real danger is expensive but for you I suspect that what you're really afraid of is your own anxiety symptoms and they're wretcheding themselves up in a positive feedback cycle ambitious cycle and that too was really helpful for my patients as they realize that they were afraid of their own symptoms and their symptoms were causing anxiety and anxiety was causing more symptoms than off they were to the races. There were some patients who said, oh, thank you, that's all I needed. Now I understand I'm out of here. I don't need to see you anymore.

More of them needed more behavior therapy or medications. I mean, we use whatever it works. But it was such a revelation to me to actually understand what the heck I was doing when I was treating people with panic disorder. What about the consistent re-grooving of particular sensations, particular thought patterns and emotional responses? Well, I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly, but there are also systems that reset the threshold for responding, depending on your environment.

So if every night you go to your watering hole and there's a lie in there, it's really smart for the threshold to go down and for you to be much more sensitive and not to go any place near that unless you have a spear and three friends and you can run home quickly and you have panic attacks. So this is fascinating though because then having a bunch of panic attacks makes panic attacks more likely If it makes the environment seem dangerous and that's what so when I say that natural selection It has left some of these systems intrinsically vulnerable to failure. This is a great example And it's really good to have a system that readjusts the structural for anxiety

Based on how dangerous your environment is but that makes the whole system prone to go into a positive feedback spiral, and that leads to a genuine serious disorder. But you don't get that consistent feedback spiral. It seems towards positive affect. Now, maybe a little bit more confidence or a lack of fear, but as you mentioned earlier on, confidence begets competence, begets confidence, begets competence. And then you would have some person whose feet couldn't touch the ground for the next 30 years.

Right, right. Yeah. I mean, doing things repeatedly and moderately succeeding at them is good. We have treated so many hundreds of people with social fears. And it wasn't until I treated the first hundred that I realized that what they're afraid of is failing. They're not afraid of being in front of an audience, they're afraid of failing in front of an audience and doing something silly. So what's the right behavior,

therapy, exercise for that? I'm sorry, you got to do something in front of an audience, it's a failure failure and making some mistakes. And being a podcaster like you are, I'm sure you're used to. Hey, I made a mistake today and that's part of the game. It just happens. And on we go, instead of feeling too bad about it and worrying too much about it, there's a famous newscaster who's about to come out with his book about his struggles with anxiety. Is it Dan Harden? No, someone else.

I won't tell you his name. Yeah, okay. Sorry, all of this. Didn't Dan Harden do a book? Wasn't he the guy that had the panic attack live on it? Or he was one particular newscaster that had a panic attack and he did, it was a book about meditation. And this is is five ten years ago. So this is another one.

You bring up this fact that we're in different circumstances now. This is a great example. And it used to be the biggest group you'd ever see in human society is 30 people. It'd be around the campfire, you'd say something stupid and somebody would say, what did you say? And then you say, oh, I never said that. I didn't mean that. And then it's over.

And everybody's probably drunk anyway. Nowadays, you say one wrong thing. And it's recorded on a podcast and you've released your job or you send it wrong tweet. And it's the end of your career. That's unprecedented. I mean, the amount of care and we're constantly monitoring ourselves. Oh, be really careful. You don't say that, which of course brings it to mind, right?

And it makes it makes it likely. So I think, you know, we're all on camera or on microphone in ways that we're unprecedented and that does create new pressures for self-control and and that causes mind-xiety and all the rest. Everybody is I think did I touch a there? No, not at all. I in your job. It's it's something that I've had to work through a lot because I'm very subcritical and I throughout the show, you know, 530 iterations, 540 iterations of doing this thing. And if I mess up, if I use the wrong reference, if I bumble one of my words,

if my pronunciation and my diction isn't sufficiently precise, it will play on my mind once I finish up, and I think I must work on that, I must work on that, that was not where I want to be, I should be better than that. And the anxiety that you get around not reaching that level is, it does sit with you. However, I've found that drilling it over and over

and over again, allowing that to sit with me and going, look, overall, I was happy with my performance. I think what were the contributing factors? Maybe I hadn't eaten particularly while that day. Maybe I wasn't sufficiently hydrated. I hadn't slept right. I hadn't trained on the morning. Perhaps I hadn't prepared well enough for the guest.

Whatever. I've been able to move myself away from it being a label about me and who I am, and more into an assessment around my performance. In the same way that an athlete might say, look, I didn't quite get there on the times today. We need to look at my nutrition. We need to look at my sleep. We need to look at my recovery. I really think that there's a lot to learn from treating our pursuits in life the same way that athletes do. They seem to be able to have more distance. They understand that there are all of these contributing factors that create the performance, the outcome that comes on that. Now it was

interesting what you said about the fact that everybody's basically 140 characters away from losing their entire life and career at every moment. And I had a conversation with a friend who's also a club promoter, which is my, how would you say, my upbringing as a businessman. And we used to run a bar crawl event called Carnage in the UK. And people would buy a t-shirt.

The t-shirt would be their ticket to the event. And you would go through five bars and then a super club at the end. And there would be tasks on the back of the t-shirt. You can tell this was before the Me Too and social media era. It would be got off with three randoms, pulled a pig, stole somebody's drink, like just mischief stuff that people would get up to. But you would have 3,000 students a night doing this moving from different venue to different venue and we would have this really wild orchestrated way of, because these venues would only hold 500 people until the last club,

so you'd have to move people in little groups and there would be road crossings and we'd have stewards to stop the cars. It was wild. That Larry Laute style of very loose British behavior, which was quite common and still is in some circles, has been completely eroded over the last decade and a half. It is so different. And I was having a conversation with a friend and he said, dude, you know what it is? I think that this panopticon that we've got where the sword of Damakles is hanging over everybody at every point, anything that you do if you kiss the wrong guy or girl on a night out. Previously, 15 years ago, that would have been passed around as rumour maybe

between the people that could have said it to each other. Maybe they would have been able to text it around or something like that, but there wouldn't have been any photo evidence. You could have denied it. And after a while, it's not instantiated in the multimedia 1080p way that now people are so much more concerned about the way that their behavior is going to be instantiated online for the rest of time. It is not surprising to me that that's the way that people feel. You know, it's a whole different world and we are ill prepared for it evolutionarily. I'm fascinated by the paradox that one thing that came with Freud and psychotherapy is the possibility of confidentiality.

Prior to that kind of thing, maybe your doctor would keep things confidential, but there wasn't a study you could tell somebody all of your worst characteristics and have some confidence that they would keep them secret Sometimes it doesn't work, but therapists are really good and I'm still not going to tell you about that TV anchor who has anxiety because he didn't give me permission But I'll tell you afterwards because he's going to come out with a book that I think is is pretty good So in the one hand, there's the ability to get into touch with your own deep anti-social and sexy and all kinds of feelings and wishes that you never would have told anybody if there wasn't the promise and an amenity. And then conversely, especially with modern media, it's

the exact opposite. Any tiny thing can be reserved forever. And everybody can look at me these political candidates. You can do a gotcha on anybody if you have enough tape. Yeah, yeah, I mean, you see this. It's one of those byproducts, I suppose, that you go through time as somebody that puts things out on the internet. I mean, I'm sure that there's papers or presentations that you've given that if the wrong section was clipped at the wrong time and then using Oh, no, don't go looking. Please don't go looking precisely. I know, I know. But this is something that I have in the back of my mind. Up until now, there's maybe what? A thousand hours, perhaps maybe twelve hundred hours of content of me out on the internet. And there's some things where I've put my foot in my mouth. As of yet, this is not a challenge to the internet, but as of yet the smoking gun that unerths

my secret, bigoted patriarchal, cis-hatronormative, superstructure, whatever it is that I do, that and none of that come about because as far as I can see, I don't believe any of the things that would be distasteful in that way. But my point being, if you do anything for long enough, there is a non-zero chance that you do say something that's more than putting your foot in your mouth. Maybe it's your entire leg. And we... there's no extra allowance for people that speak more, that gives them degrees of freedom to get away with saying different things. So let's say that somebody says, does one video on the internet every in their entire

life, and somebody does 20,000 hours of content throughout their entire life. The person that does 20,000 hours of content is much more likely to say something, however, because you get to take things out of context, clip them and throw them on Twitter, that is taken completely in isolation. And look, I try my best. I just happen to have said the wrong thing at the wrong time. That's not something that people use as a place. So you were just saying Chris about the fact that you're actually a very careful person who reviews your performances and tries to figure out what went wrong and why it went wrong just like another athlete might do. And I think that is the key to a lot of

people really being successful, getting better and better at what they do. On the other head, when we treated people with social folios, I was mentioning that what they're really afraid of is somebody else seeing them make a mistake. And so we have people so bad that they can't go into the grocery store because they're afraid of what the cashier is going to say or if they're going to make a mess up when they try to sign their check, these are really serious disorders. And so one of our first exercises is to help them make mistakes on purpose and see how people respond. Our favorite one is to have them go into McDonald's and order a big a wapper. And then we have them go into Burger King and order a big Mac. And you

know what happens if you do that? What happens is the guy says, you don't mean a wapper man, you mean a big Mac, you want a big Mac? And he goes, oh yeah, yeah. And so people realize when they make those mistakes that nobody cares, nobody remembers. And that's the kind of learning that you get. And there's no substitute for actually making mistakes. Now, if you're a professional musician and somebody orchestra and you're trying out for something, you can't really afford to make very many mistakes like that. But Horowitz, Horowitz was terrified by Spage Fry.

His career was wrecked for quite a while, because he couldn't go out on stage. He thought he was going to make mistakes. And finally, he started to make mistakes and doing it. This perfectionism was still there, but you just have to accept we're all going to make mistakes. Getting into some of the emotions, what is the reason for us being able to feel low-mood and depression? reason for us being able to feel low-mood in depression. You know, the capacity for low-mood exists because it's useful in certain situations, and the situations in which it's useful most generically are situations where you're spending a lot of effort trying to do something that isn't working. And if that's to happen, I mean, Eric

Klinger is a psychologist in Minnesota who wrote about this in 1975 I wish everybody could read his work. It's profound. And he pointed out that if something doesn't work and the first thing you do is stop Inflit wasting energy the next thing you do is try to find a different way to your goal Next thing you do is try again with a different strategy and if you keep trying again with different strategies and nothing nothing nothing works Then the system actually turns off your motivation to keep pursuing that goal. And you do something else. A woman named Jutta Heckhausen, a German researcher, moved to California. And she studied women who wanted to have babies and they were approaching menopause.

That's a bad circumstance, right? Now, people really, really want something and they're not sure if they're going to be able to get it. And I'm grossly grossly simplifying her research. But one of the outcomes was that menopause happened for a lot of these women and they weren't pregnant. Were they devastated the rest of their lives? No, once the possibility was gone for many of them, all of a sudden said, oh wait, I can't have that anymore. That's unrealistic. I'm not gonna worry about that. In fact, why did I want to have kids any other, very expensive, they're a nuisance?

You know, all of a sudden, once you take that goal away, I think I've cured more people by helping them to give up useless goals than I have, helping them pursue goals. When I was young, I kept them telling people, don't let the depression get in the way, keep trying, keep trying.

You've applied to graduate school four times, try a fifth time. I realized I was young and naive and utterly insensitive to the real life situations of a lot of people. It's much better to try to realize, well, there must be good reasons why you have to keep trying to do something that isn't working very well.

Could we talk about that? And other things you might want to do in life, other than this thing that is not going so well. And that kind of approach I found so much more helpful and more respectful of people instead of just encouraging them to keep trying or give up. It's just if people are stuck in a bad situation, I call them social traps, when you're pursuing something you can't give up, and your mother tells you you have to go to become a doctor, I won't love you anymore, at least she indicates that. Now wonder, you're trying and trying and trying to do that, but there might be alternatives for your life to be more satisfying. How would this have shown up uncessarily?

You know, good question, Chris. You know, I don't think people were doing as many long-term big deal things way back when there's no applying to medical school or PhD programs or trying to become a world-famous podcaster. I mean, there's these no, there weren't things like that that was trying to get nuts and trying to get nuts and trying to figure out whether it's wise to go out looking for them or not, and trying to be helpful to other people in your group and become a leader of your group.

But warfare, once there was agriculture and storage of things and hierarchies, and that's a whole different circumstance. But I think back in hunter-gatherer days, there weren't atty such huge big deal things as the ones that we routinely encounter these days. And kids, you know, in college or not in college trying to figure out what to do with their lives, it's a tough road. I mean, I find the competition, especially to get into schools and stuff. And it's really kind of us. It's so hard for kids to try to be the kind of person and portray it on paper that everybody wants to have in their college because they're smart

and attractive and socially motivated in all the right things. What a lot of pressure putting on everybody. I think you can see why some people just bag out and say, forget it. I'm not playing that game. It's perfectly understandable. But, you know, forget it. I'm not playing that game. It's perfectly understandable. What about, you've mentioned anxiety, which seems to be smoke detector principle, people earring on the side of negativity

as opposed to positivity with things. What about social anxiety? Is that that mapped across on to status and esteem in a group? So an interesting thing about social anxiety is that we all have it and we all seem to have too much. We need to criteria make it so that you know 5% of the population has it.

But those are arbitrary. The majority of people are nervous about standing up in front of the group and saying something. And for the good reason that you might say the wrong thing or people might think badly about you, you know, the payoster thing, something smart or not as great as the penalties for saying something dumb. And so it's an anxiety provoking situation. But here's a question I started asking myself, why do we all care so much? What other people think about us? And that goes back to a much deeper, more profound question about how the heck did we ever get these capacities for morality and guilt and committed relationships?

In the arguments and evolution and evolutionary psychology about the origins of altruism and cooperation are long and remarkably nasty for people. Getting people arguing about cooperation and goodness, and you see some of the nastiest tendencies in human life. It's very ironic. But I finally found what I found to be a satisfying answer to that, Chris, and the work of Mary Jane West ever heard, an insect biologist, who is trying to understand altruism way back in the 1970s. And her argument starts with sexual selection. You know, there are extreme traits, And her argument starts with sexual selection. There are extreme traits, peacocks tails and that kind of thing, because, hey, the female

peacocks are choosing to male with the best tails. So those poor males have to drag around those long, dangerous, expensive tails to get the best mates. It's just how natural selection works. But the point things she pointed out is, individuals are competing not just to be the best mates, but to be the best partner for other kind of things too. And I think that's what is shaped our human capacity is for sociality. That individuals who are preferred as partners, social partners by other people, and invited

to join the group, were invited to be buddies, or invited to do things, or cooperate on things, people who are preferred as partners, yet huge advantages, even aside from sex. And we compete to be the kind of person that other people want to be with, and want to cooperate with. And this creates really strong selection for being helpful and honest and empathic, and a whole lot of other things

that make people desirable. It creates its own selection of force for being good. Immediately, when I talk about this, some people say, yeah, but people cheat all the time. Yeah, they do. And no people who are trying to do the right thing often get taken advantage of, but that's just a pricey pay for trying to do the right thing, often get taken advantage of, but that's just a pricey pay for trying to do the right thing. And it's remarkable and wonderful that the vast majority of people basically try to be good

most of the time. They're very sensitive to what other people think about them. Instead of going to bed thinking about how can I trick somebody into sleeping with me, they think, oh my God, the chimes understand my intentions. And did she think badly about me because of the way I approached her. People are so sensitive and trying to make other people appreciate them and just to wrap up this one more time. I find this hugely helpful because the crude ideas about, you know, we're all a bunch of selfish genes trying to replicate themselves as fast as possible. I think that's a socially corrosive idea. And it's very

hard for people to get beyond that simplistic kind of version to recognize how natural selection can shape us, to have capacities for morality and commitment. Once you get that, I think it changes our view of evolution and human behavior pretty profoundly. Would there not be an argument to be made that that is still selfishness acting in a selfish way? The altruism is you doing it in the hopes that you will be able to get something reciprocally down the line.

But think for a minute about when somebody invites you over to dinner and you have a nice dinner there, and then after you're leaving, you said to them and you have a nice dinner there. And then after you're leaving, you said to them, that was a very nice dinner. I think it probably cost about $50 a person. I'm going to invite you over to my house for a similar dinner. That's not what we do. We don't want partners who are trading favors in some plastic ways. We want partners who love us, who care about us.

Now, it's always a touchy business because you don't want to get 200 balance with people. But you know, John Tubi and leader Cosmades are leaders in evolutionary psychology. And they talk about the bankers' parabytes. You know, bankers are very eager to loan you money. So long as you have a lot of money already, and you have collateral. But when you don't have any collateral, they're not interested in knowing your thing. What you want is somebody who will help you when there's no guarantee of a payback. When you're sick, when you don't have a job, when things are not going well.

And the amazing thing is that that's possible for humans. A lot of us have real friends who care about us even when we can't do anything for them. Some people don't believe that's possible, there's a certain cynicism, and I think a cynicism that sometimes is generated by evolution or psychology, that everybody's out for themselves, some level always. Not really. I think social selection shapes capacities for genuine alchorism and genuine morality. Of course, it's not present in everybody. There's a lot of cultural differences. You have to be careful. The people who really overdue it are Bernie Madoff types.

Generous to everybody until you find out that the whole damn thing has been a fraud for decades. Where I see, where it amazes me the most, that humans are able to coordinate in the way that they do without anybody actually forcing anything on top of them, is on the London Underground. So, if you've ever been there, you'll see that there are these trains going past at unbelievable speeds, even the ones that are pulling in to slow down. And all of these people are stood within a couple of yards of certain death. Nobody pushes anybody over. No one. No one decides to do it. But it, but it's nothing compared to

Shimbuku in Japan. If you go to Tokyo and you see people in their subways, they line up in a perfect line, the right number of people for each car and file in in an orderly way, it's astounding and it makes the Brits cues look disorganized. And then you go to another place. We are proud of our cues, Randy. I will not have you besmirch the good nation of Great Britain's ability to stand in a line behind each other. I was going to talk about New York City.

It's different there. Good. Yeah. Good. talk about New York City. It's different there. Good. Yeah. Good. Talk about the bad ones. And this brings us to culture, Chris. I mean, this culture is very dramatically. And what works in one culture does not necessarily work well in other cultures. And we adapt ourselves quite nicely. When I get into a taxi cab around where I live in rural Michigan, I'm always nice to the guy and give him a nice tip, and I know he's going to take me to most direct route, because if he doesn't, I'll tell somebody.

I get in a taxi cab in the York City, and I put in my GPS to see if he's taking me around a boatway, and it's just a whole different culture. What about ADHD? What is the ancestral reason that we would have developed the capacity for this to be a phenomenon? So, I just wrote a chapter for a book that's coming out next week about evolutionary psychiatry. I think 27 chapters, it'll be definitive for some time. You might find some really good people to talk to with in that book. It's the first big edited volume and it's done by people from the Royal College of

Psychiatry. I mean, I've spent my whole career trying to develop this field and it's thrilling to see it finally come to fruition this way. But my my chapter starts off by saying that the biggest mistake in making this field is trying to assume that a disorder is an adaptation and has some function and exists for some reason. I think that's a terrible mistake. ADIU is not shaped by natural selection. There is variation among people in their degree to which their attention stays focused or wanders. And natural selection certainly has left us with some, you know, red to that. It's not like we all have the exact same, you know, tendency to attend to things for 10 minutes or no longer.

Some people can focus for hours, other people, you know, 15 seconds. The main explanation for that, in my view, is that in ancestral environments, it didn't matter that much. Whether you could focus for a long time or not. Another answer going back to ancestral times is that there are different strategies for getting your food, one is to focus in one spot and just sit there waiting, hunting, and another is to water all over the place, trying to find food. This happens even for fruit fly larvae. Have you ever heard that story? They're two kinds of fruit fly larvae. There are rovers and citters. Some of them sit just about in the same place and they gobble up all the food right next to them. Others rove all around trying to find food in different places. And these are hunting strategies in general.

In some hunters stay still in the woods and other hunters roam around in the woods. And these are both viable ways of trying to find things. I'm going to guess that when you are in a tribe and the tribe is pooling its resources, you're not just going to eat for yourself. You're going to eat for yourself, you're going to eat for yourself and your family and maybe some of your friends' families as well. That means that if you,

Randy, happened to be the ADHD predisposition version of you and you're going all over the place and I'm doing a different strategy, we get to spread the risk of this. Well, maybe the actual, this particular season, there are only a very small number of bushes, but these bushes have tons of berries on. I win. Another season, they might be spread a little bit more. You win.

Overall, by smearing this across a population level, you end up being able to hedge people's risk in a much more effective way. Very right. If, in fact, these people are relatives who share a lot of your genes, that works perfectly well. Even if they're not your relatives, if you can guarantee that everybody is going to equally

share their resources, that also works very well. But if whoever gets the most keeps the most, and one strategy works better than the other consistently, then that strategy is going to go away. The idea that natural-selecting can shape traits that benefit the group at a cost to the individual just doesn't work. It seems like it works. It seems like it should work. But George Williams, my co-author for developing the field of evolutionary medicine, pointed

out to everyone's surprise back in 1966 that traits that make individuals sacrificed for the good of the group can't persist because if some individuals do more for the good of the group at their own expense and have fewer offspring, those genes are going to be selected out pretty quickly. Now the follow-up from that is I'm sure you're aware is that Bill Hamilton just about the same time, the wonderful British biologist recognized that you can do things that decrease your own reproduction even and that can still be selected for so long as there are benefits to relatives who have the exact same genes as you do including those genes for cooperation.

What's an example of that? Actually, the anecdote that one has to tell when talking about this is from the famous socialist biologist, JBS Haldane, back in the 40s. And someone asked him at a pub, would you sacrifice your life for your brother? And he says, no, I don't think I would, but I would for two brothers or for eight cousins. And that really says it better than any fancy math I could do.

But this idea that you can ensure that everybody in a group pulls for the good of the group even at their personal cost doesn't work in general. Now human societies we should note are different than that because we organize groups on purpose to do stuff. More than that, there are leaders of groups who often are trying to exploit not necessarily on purpose, but they're trying to get the group to do what's good for the group. And by the way, the CEO of the Corporation gets rich off it by encouraging cooperation

and enforcing cooperation. Some of my favorite work on this is by see Arvard Ogrin has done some of it and Kevin Foster at Oxford and they do work on cooperation in bacteria. Bacteria cooperating, even different species of bacteria, they can do it, but the key to them doing it is that they do things that enforce the cooperation them doing it is that they do things that enforce the cooperation without a cost. And I think that is going to be the principle that really turns this behaviorally college-yoke operation into a more sophisticated science. If there can be costless enforcement, that leads to remarkably that leads to remarkably prosocial traits. What's an example of that? Well, if you see somebody throwing junk out of their car and you call them out at and you say,

hey, why are you throwing junk out of your car, they might pull a gun on you. So that is not costless enforcement. If you can anonymously text somebody and say, this Yahoo is throwing junk out of their car, please stop them from doing it. That's, that's costless enforcement. But really, in every day and every way, we do costless enforcement. And the easiest way to do costless enforcement is when somebody starts talking nonsense, you just say, thanks, I guess that's interesting. And then you'll

walk away. What we mostly do with people who are saying stupid stuff is just ignore them. So we vote with our attention. No, we're not. Yeah, and what people hate most of course is, you're not being paid attention to. And that's for good reason. I've just thought there we were talking about how multiple different types of attention level, smeared across an entire tribe, could be useful because it provides people with about how multiple different types of attention level smeared across an entire tribe could be useful

because it provides people with varieties of strategies to the same problem. Right. It seems, am I right in thinking that ADHD now in the modern world, especially for young boys and men that are going through the education system, is a particular problem because there is one very specific type of challenge that they are facing, therefore a multiplicity of approaches in terms of their ability to attention is one

of the key resources that they need, and somebody that has a higher degree of intention is always, attention is always going to be in a better situation, which means that this smearing, this range that we have is actually a disadvantage for anybody that's below the, well, anybody that's not at the hundredth percentile, but anybody that's below the 50th percentile is a disadvantage. This whole idea you're supposed to sit in the chair for hours and learn stuff means it's hopeless. I can't, it's torture for me and for a lot of kids. It's just say it's the professional academic of many decades. You know, my attention to Spanish is pretty short, Chris. And, you know,

I keep shifting from, you know, I've written papers on evolution and anxiety and cancer and all kinds of other things. You're not supposed to do that, you know, you're supposed to just do one thing and keep a focus. And I've been incapable of doing that. Unfortunately, I've mostly gotten away with it. But there's something else interesting about ADHD that I've recently thought about, but not written about. And that is the drugs that you that work on it. I mean, they're basically amphetamines and fedamines increase focus.

So what else we know about amphetamines? Well, they're stimulating the dopaminergic system, the reward system in the brain. And in fact, if you're out foraging and you're looking for something and you're looking for berries, every time you find a big patch of berries, that dopamine goes off. And that dopamine gets you to keep doing whatever you're doing

because it's paying off very well. And when the payoff fades, you move to the next bush and you start looking for in all organisms of shape to stay at the right length of time at a foraging patch, and single barrier off the bush, not the best strategy. Getting the first handful off the bush and looking for another bush, not the best strategy, but there's a long way in between of trying to figure that out. And these dopaminergic systems adjust how long you stay at that bush. Lady made it to the project. Maybe some listener from this podcast will take up.

I wish somebody had done this long ago. I'd like to turn loose kids with a genetic predisposition to ADHD and a lot of other kids in a field, picking raspberries and watch what they do. Do the ones who pick raspberries who have ADHD go more quickly from one bush to the next bush? Is it a foraging strategy? I bet it is. And this would also lead to tests for ADHD where you could have kids do foraging on a computer

screen and see if they jump too quickly from one patch to the next patch. And also whether they can adjust as the patch density changes. These are very sophisticated mechanisms, not just in us, but in bumblebees do it very, very well. They fly to different flowers and try to assess whether this flower is worth it. As the day gets cooler and it costs more energy to forage and the flowers are not having as much nectar, they turn off their foraging and go home at just the right time. And those that stay too long, or those that don't stay out long enough, they don't do as well. And this is very much like,

you know, there would be ADHD and bumblebees or too much focus in bumblebees. Nobody focuses on the people who focus too much. In every single one of these disorders, you can have too much or too little. And this is another implication of an evolutionary view that we should be recognizing there can be too much and too little anxiety. There can be too little low mood as well as too much low mood and forging. What would too much, sorry, what would too little low mood and too little anxiety be like, what would that sort of person be like, what would the dangers be? Well, too little anxiety is pretty obvious. And Marceau called and I have called his hypophobia

These are people who have a life-threatening disorder. I mean on the edge of the Grand Canyon and And you know there's one group of us who's likely to have this more than the other I mean twice as many men as women fall into the Grand Canyon every year And it's no accident. It's because men do wild and crazy and risky things. And this is another insight that came from evolutionary thinking. It was very helpful to me in the clinic and then talking in general. And now maybe I'm going to say one of those things that gets me in trouble Chris, so you

can see, maybe you can edit it out if I get myself in too much trouble. But I get asked often, why do women have more anxiety than men a lot of people ask well It might just be our culture or might be the patriarchy or something actually Mayo rats and chimpanzees and all kinds of organisms take more risks and they die young And the answer is that they're competing and doing competitive kind of stuff But why do women have more anxieties? Is there something wrong with them? And here's the insight.

No. Women have just about the red among anxiety. Thank you. Men do not have enough anxiety because natural selection has shaped them to take more risks because that has in the past given a reproductive payoff on average. I had Roy Bamyster on the show and he did a study about men crossing a busy road at a crossing before the light went green for them to go over and the difference in the distance from the most the closest car to them in the presence of women

or without the presence of women. And the difference, the difference when there's women around for risk taking behavior just goes through the roof, obviously. And it's just, it's so blatant and obvious. Did I hear you once say, so, so, part, I mean, women could fix this, right? If they, if they, if they, stay away, stay away, guys, you're, oh, right, okay. where men could fix this right if they if they stay away I see all right, okay, I just don't don't go across the road

Well, no don't have sex with wild and crazy risk taking guys that would solve the problem for the whole species Well, that problem there is that's that's what women retracted to right. That's what they want Yeah Well, that that's too greater generalization, but we'll go back to the simple thing um Well, that's two greater generalization, but we'll go back to the simple thing. Women do not have no excess anxiety. I think on the average, women have the right amount of anxiety, and men have on the average hypophobia, which is where we were a minute ago.

They don't have enough anxiety for their own good. Yeah, I find the differences between the sexes in terms of their mental makeup Fascinating. Did I hear you say? That by the age of 20 for every hundred women that had died 300 men had died So this came from a project that Dan Krueger helped me with at University of Michigan I mean, I there I was making up one of my lectures on evolutionary medicine one time, and I was pretty sure that men had higher mortality rates than women, because I had just been visiting my

grandparents and the retirement community, and the tables are all women. They're no men. And so I had to figure out so exactly how many years less life do men have than women. I thought seven years, eight years. I couldn't find that number. But what it did find is the World Health Organization database on mortality rates by age, by sex, by culture, and by decade going back 100 years. It was gold. So exolonized spent the summer in the basement, analyzing that.

And I realized the right way to analyze that was not just to analyze the, you know, mortality rates. It was to analyze the ratio of mortality rates between men and women. And the question I asked myself starting in shock is for every 100 men aged 20 who die this year in the United States, how many women are, for every 100 women who die, how many men are going to die? And I thought, well, men do some wild and crazy things. Maybe it's 120 men. Then I looked at the data, Chris.

It was 300 men. And it wasn't just a USA. It was present in all of 20 countries that we studied. And even before puberty, male mortality rates are 50% higher for men than women. And the rate is still higher up until age 80. And it's also present for 19 out of 20 leading causes of death. Alzheimer's disease is the only one that claims more women than men.

So what do we have here? First of all, a quick caveat, it's not as simple as natural selection, shaping sexual competition between men. So what do we have here? First of all a quick caveat. It's not as simple as natural selection shaping sexual competition between men. There are some very interesting chromosomal things involved that may be relevant And they're profound cultural variations as well. We did another study looking at peristrica And what happened in Russia when things opened up, and what happened is male mortality rates went up to five times higher. There's probably a simple answer to that, and that's cheap vodka,

which is not as dramatic as something else, but the big principle here is that, like you say, men and women are different in ways that affect their health, profoundly. The chromosomal thing that you're talking about there is that men are nature's play things, is that theory that men are less costly to have genetic traits being played around with

and many of them failed and some of them are good. No, it refers more generally to the fact that women have two excromasomes and so if a gene is missing on what, they're still okay. Well, men have only one excromasome, which is why color blindness is much more common in men than women. It's just because you don't have a backup copy of a gene if you're a man. Again, what I'm just saying is grossly simplified because there are certain backups and it's very complicated genetically,

but that's the general idea. And sestrally, why would we be given the ability to have an eating disorder, something like anorexia or bulimia or or? So it almost sounds like you're making the big mistake, right there, Chris, of trying to say that there's an evolutionary reason for eating disorders as an adaptation. And some people have said that. Some people have said eating disorders are actually a strategy for getting mates or for regulating

your reproduction or something. I'd heard the second one. I'd heard the reproductive cycle, like basically, how would you say, primitive birth control? Michelle Cerby wrote about that back almost 30 years ago. And at the time, it was, this is where we all started and trying to understand mental problems from an evolutionary point of view. And I'm trying very hard not to get people to not try to figure out what's the adaptive value

of eating disorders. I'm trying to help them to back up to say, what are the universal traits we all share that make us all vulnerable to eating disorders? And now, I think I can make quite a good case with those. Characteristic number one is, we really want to be attractive to the job as it sex, especially at puberty. And two, we care about our partners and what they look like. There are peculiarities in modern cultures where everybody's trying to emulate some ideal

from media and the lack, which makes it all more extreme. The next thing is that we believe we can control our behavior just by deciding to. And I think free will, and the belief in free will, it's a big contributor to eating disorders, because people think that they can just stop eating for a few days and lose weight. It never works. There's another thing that natural selection is built in, which is a famine protection

mechanism. So if you just stop eating for a few days, as far as your body knows, you're starving, and it gets you to do what you're supposed to do during starvation, which is fine food as much food as you can and eat it all at once. That's called binging and when some poor person who's trying to lose weight and doesn't eat for a couple of days suddenly finds himself staring at a whole loaf of bread that they ate or an empty gallon of ice cream, they get terrified because they have in fact lost control, they get frightened, they're gonna lose control again. Not only that, if you keep doing that,

the body resets its weight set point up a little bit because if you're in an environment where the food is erratically available, it's good to put on a few extra pounds. So paradoxically, this attempt to lose weight ends up with gorging and gaining weight, which again sets into process one of these positive feedback cycles. The more you try to stop eating, the more you binge, the more you get frightened, the more you gain weight, the more you try to diet. And on and on it goes, again, I'm going to pause and say it's not as simple as this.

And not everybody who diet, some people diet successfully and do not get into binging episodes. Other people, I mean, it's not nearly that simple. And there are a whole separate kind of question is why some people get eating disorders and others do not. One of the leading psychiatrists and evolutionary psychiatry is Riyadh Abed. He's one of the editors of this book coming out. He emphasizes that eating disorders are more common in modern cultures and ones with big media presences because people get unrealistic ideas about idealized bodies and they go out trying to emulate and You have to combine it with these other things I've mentioned to get into the positive feedback cycle that leads to eating disorders But notice how completely different this is than the usual approach the usual approach says

What's wrong with this eating disorder in person's genes? What's wrong with their early life? What's wrong with their pattern of thinking? What's wrong with their brain? a lot of work on genetics of eating disorders in recent years, and they've actually found eight low-sci on the genome that influence your risk of eating disorders. And if you put those together with even those that aren't statistically significant, you can explain some of the variants about who gets eating disorders and who doesn't. All together, all the genes put them all together, you can explain 1.7% of the variation.

What? We're spending tens of millions of dollars to explain that and trying to blame eating disorders on bad genes. I'm sorry, that's nonsense. We need to be trying to understand these disorders in terms of the mechanism shaped by natural selection and why they're vulnerable to malfunctioning.

What about schizophrenia and bipolar? This is something that I'm seeing, especially on TikTok, talked about a lot more at the moment. It seems a little bit like a social contagion of self, how would you say, self diagnosis. But why did those come about? Why are they even something that exists? And the right way to ask that is why did the genes that cause those disorders persist? And it remains a mystery, Chris. I mean, this is something I've been very interested in the last chapter of my book, and I have a big article in psychology today suggesting some speculations of mine about this. There's been a lot of speculation and evolution in psychology about maybe schizophrenia is somehow beneficial or maybe the relatives of schizophrenia are shamans and they say home with the village and they get extra matings or something like that. And that's Balduvdash. You know, schizophrenia is a really severe brain disease.

And that's your response, I think, to be going on like that. But it is the fact that on the average, schizophrenia has have happened as many children as other people. Schizophrenic women, also about 20 or 30 percent lower. That level of fitness should select against any genes for that disorder really strongly, really fast. So you have to act as a, well, why the hell are they persisting in the genome? It's very tempting for people to say, they must be doing something good. I don't think so. I think the most likely explanation is mutation selection balance, mutations happen, they're only gradually selected out. The process of brain development is very touchy and any little kind of thing can make it go wrong. But here's the question I think is not

been asked to know Chris, why does it go wrong in that particular way? Consistently. Yeah, why does it end up with with you know Auditorial and visual auditory hallucinations of voices. Why does it go wrong in a way that you think everything's buddies looking at you Why does it go wrong in a way that that people you know Imagine they can read other people's minds and other people read in that in that says something about the design of the mind It's kind of like this is kind of sound really crude, but your auto engine has certain ways of going wrong. You can get a knock if you use the wrong octane gasoline. You can, you know, things go wrong because of the nature of the engine.

And I think that's the way we should be trying to understand these dire diseases, that there's something intrinsically vulnerable about the information processing system of the mind that makes it vulnerable to going wrong in that particular way. But now you're going to ask me to say what I mean by that exactly. And, you know, I don't think it's going to turn out to be anything simple. I have speculated that maybe natural selection has pushed the system to a performance peak because of the great advantage of the social abilities and language abilities and intelligence just in the last couple hundred thousand years. And my other new idea along these lines is that we should be talking about the similarity between these kind of problems and all the problems that resulted because we stand upright. You may

be aware that we got all kinds of problems because we walk upright. We have varicose veins. We have hemorrhoids. We have hernias. We have bad ankles. We have bad backs. We have, I mean, there's all these things that go wrong because standing upright, we're adapting to it gradually, evolutionarily, but natural selection has not been able to fix everything because it's slow and because not all these things go wrong for all of us. I'm giving this a new name actually.

I'm calling these things wrenching transitions. In the transition to walking upright is a wrenching major transition because it changes all kinds of things and when you try to fix one of them, it's labeless screw up another one in the process of making that transition. And my speculation is that the wrenching transition from a previous kind of social life to the cultural and social ecosystem that we live in for the last 100,000 years, that that transition is a wrenching transition for the information processing system of the brain. And it ends up with something's getting fixed, kind of like your hemorrhage get fixed or your varicose veins, you get fixed at the cost of something else, leaving us vulnerable. But I'm

going to emphasize once again, this is just trying to make some sense out of something that is so tragic. And it's very hard to understand. When it comes to depression, anxiety, bipolar, schizophrenia, social anxiety, all of the things that we've gone through, how much of this do you think can be laid at the feet of the modern world? And how much of this is over-diagnosing and moral panic? Human nature hasn't changed particularly much over the last 10,000 years. So, were we as anxious and depressed and full of ADHD when we began the agricultural revolution? Or a different way of asking it. Are the disorders equally present back then and would things like ADHD even cause much harm way back then.

In ADHD in particular is something that probably was just a variation that didn't hurt you much back then. I do think people have always been prone to some bad depression and bipolar and schizophrenia and autism. And I'm not at all sure that those things, I think it's actually quite unlikely that those things are vastly more common in modern life. I think those are more intrinsic vulnerabilities, but genetically and because of the kind of feedback, things that we've talked about. But it's really disappointing that we don't have good data about this. And there's good reasons for it. I keep encouraging people anthropologists to go on gather data.

But how many people do you need to study to figure out what the rate of schizophrenia is? A couple of thousands. And you need sophisticated diagnostic things. Hunter-Gadderer tribes are 30 or 50 or 100 people. You really can't do it very well. They're good field reports. So people who have things that look

very much like schizophrenia and hunter-gatherer bands Some about bipolar disease and OCD as well, but this is an area where We continue to do gigantic billion dollar studies in modern societies and investing even a pittance of that to study hunter-gatherer Metal health would pay off big time how can of that to study hunter-gatherer metal health, I would pay off big time. How can this approach to evolutionary psychiatry be a little bit more applied? How can people use this today? And they ask them some questions that they think would be useful to get themselves through this.

So, I've been a big stick in the bud, Chris. Some of my evolutionary psychiatry friends say, ready, you got to talk about how it's useful. And I say, wait, there's no special way of doing evolutionary psychotherapy. It's a framework for all kinds of psychotherapy. It's not a competitive, with any other view. It is a foundation for everything.

We all should be using it. That said, and in article I'm writing right now, I'm trying very hard to say, how psychiatrists who understand and psychologists to understand the evolutionary reasons for vulnerability can get better results for their patients and find their practices more satisfying. We started off an hour ago talking about how it changes the patient's view of their own disorder and encourages thoughtful consideration of whether their current life circumstances

contributing to the problem, or whether the problem is a normal but useless response, or whether it seems more to be a product of a brain that's not working right. And that's the foundation for everything. For these more behavioral disorders, as you mentioned, for eating disorders, explaining how an eating disorder might come about isn't a magic fix. But it certainly can help

people from getting into that cycle of dieting when they know it doesn't actually help you lose weight and knowing the positive feedback cycle helps some people to understand what's going on. Again, eating disorders are hard to treat and once going on. Again, it is sort of hard to treat. And once you get into them, you're not rational about any of these things. So just explaining things to people is not a big help, but it's some help, and it's very helpful for the therapist. So what they're dealing with and where the origin of these things comes from. I think with things like ADHD, at least a new research projects, like the foraging project I mentioned, and ways of diagnosing ADHD using computer games. Again,

I don't know if these things would work. I don't want to be, it's so tempting to be overly confident in a new field. And I'm quite convinced that evolutionary foundations can make sense out of all kinds of things and mental disorders that have been controversial. But claiming that we're going to make all therapy a lot more effective instantly, I'm really holding back from that because everybody else already does that. We should try something different and try to say that we have explanations that people need to thoughtfully apply to conditions to see if there's a way of using them in practical ways.

Randy Nessie, ladies and gentlemen, if people want to keep up to date with the stuff that you do online, where should they go? You know, my book is good reasons for bad feelings. It's written for a general audience. There's lots of case studies. And some of the examples that you've heard here are in there and a lot of other things are in there. I also wrote it for psychiatrists and psychologists,

because if you read a big fancy academic book, in this book has 800 references, but they're in tiny prints, so you never see them. But so this book is really for general folks as well as them. The URL is goodreasons.info, or if you just put my name to Google, it'll take you there. And there's also the International Society for Evolution of Medicine and Public Health and the Royal College of Psychiatry has something

called Epsych, Evolutionary Psychiatry, a special interest group where you can get more information. This is all happening very fast, Chris. In the next five years you're going to see a huge flowering of evolutionary approaches to psychopathology. And I think the challenge will be helping people to be critical appropriately about it and get away from this grandiose. Everything is good about it or everything is bad about it. And just consider every hypothesis one by one and be thoughtful about how we can bring this whole new science to bear.

It's so pathetic that animal behavior and everybody else has been using evolutionary biology for decades and only now is it finally being recognized as a basic science for psychiatry and psychology. Well, I really appreciate the fact that you're pushing it forward. It's working and maybe you'll talk with other people and help us develop it over the next few years. Great fun talking with you, Chris. Thanks, Randy. I appreciate you. Okay. you