Something You Should Know - Are Your Genes Secretly Controlling Your Behavior? & How to Truly Flourish

Starting point is 00:00:00 At Medcan, we know that life's greatest moments are built on a foundation of good health, from the big milestones to the quiet winds. That's why our annual health assessment offers a physician-led, full-body checkup that provides a clear picture of your health today, and may uncover early signs of conditions like heart disease and cancer. The healthier you means more moments to cherish. Take control of your well-being and book an assessment today. Medcan. Live well for life.

Starting point is 00:00:27 Visit medcan.com slash moments to get started. Today on Something You Should Know, the fascinating and somewhat unreliable way we decide who is and isn't trustworthy. Then, what causes good people to do bad things? I think we've all had a situation where we've done something. And then later we're like, what was I thinking there? Why did I do that? How could I have done this thing that I've come to regret? Also, what's the purpose of that little tiny pocket inside the front pocket of your blue jeans?

Starting point is 00:01:05 And how to build meaning, joy, and fulfillment into your life. It's not about intensity of experience, it's about the frequency of them. So those little interactions when you're giving the thumbs up to the fire engine going by end up being way more impactful on the quality of your life and your well-being than seeking out some really intense mountain top experience. this today on something you should know. You know, I'm a sucker for a good mystery. Like, in the 1950s, a flight from New York to Minneapolis just disappeared over Lake

Starting point is 00:01:39 Michigan, no wreckage, no answers. Or the Diet Love Pass incident, a group of experienced hikers found dead under circumstances so strange, people still debate what really happened. There's a podcast called Expedition Unknown from Discovery. hosted by Josh Gates, and this is what he does. He doesn't just tell these stories. He goes there. He's hunted for priceless artifacts stolen by the Nazis in World War II.

Starting point is 00:02:09 He's traced the final flight of a pilot who vanished mid-mission and searched the Great Lakes for a ship that disappeared without a trace. If you love the unanswered questions of history, you know, the stuff that makes you lean in. You're going to love this. Travel the globe with Josh Gates, as he investigated. humanity's greatest feats and most iconic legends. Listen to Expedition Unknown, wherever you get your podcasts. Something You Should Know. Fascinating Intel.

Starting point is 00:02:40 The world's top experts. And practical advice you can use in your life. Today, Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers. So how long do you think it takes for you to decide if someone looks trustworthy? you're never going to get this. Hi, welcome to this episode of Something You Should Know. I'm Mike Carruthers. And the answer to the question how long it takes for you to decide if someone looks trustworthy is about a tenth of a second.

Starting point is 00:03:13 Psychologists have found that when you see a new face, your brain instantly forms impressions about traits like trustworthiness and competence. And those snap judgments can have real consequences. In one study, analyzing murder trials, defendants whose faces were rated as less trustworthy looking were significantly more likely to receive the death penalty than those whose faces appeared more trustworthy. What's even more surprising is that scientists can now use computer models to predict which faces people will judge as trustworthy, based purely on subtle features like eyebrow shape, eye openness, mouth curvature, and those characteristics have pretty much nothing to do with whether someone is actually trustworthy. In other words, your brain may make a confident judgment about someone long before it has any evidence to do so.

Starting point is 00:04:14 And that is something you should know. Why do people do bad things? Why are some people more prone to addiction, violence, or antisocial behavior than other people? Is it something in their upbringing or their environment or their relationships? Or could part of the answer be written into their DNA? And if biology does play a role, that raises some difficult questions. How much control do people actually have over their behavior? How should society respond to wrongdoing?

Starting point is 00:04:51 Is punishment the right answer, or are there better ways to deal with people who may be predisposed to certain behaviors? My guest has spent years exploring these uncomfortable but fascinating questions. Catherine Page Hardin is one of the world's leading scientists studying how genetics influences difference in temperament, temptation, and behavior. She's author of a book called Original Sin on the Genetics of Vice, the Problem of Blame, and the Future of Forgiveness. Hi, Catherine. Welcome to something you should know. Thanks for having me. Sure.

Starting point is 00:05:29 So first, can you explain your interest in this topic and what it is you do? So I'm interested in this topic scientifically because I'm a clinical psychologist and I run a research lab where we're looking at. genetics of human behavior. And we're particularly interested in behaviors that are considered wrong, that are considered immoral. So aggression, fighting, bullying, lying, or behaviors that might be considered wrong, like becoming addicted to alcohol or drugs. And we're beginning to find specific genes that significantly increase a child's likelihood

Starting point is 00:06:13 of growing up to show one of the same. these behaviors. And we can talk about that from a scientific perspective. This gene increases your likelihood of becoming aggressive by the time you're 30. But again, these behaviors are also seen in a moral sense. And so what I'm interested in now is how do we put together the scientific work with people's intuitions about how do we respond when people have done something really wrong? And so what determined because you often hear people, you know, you'll see it on the news of, you know, they'll interview somebody who did something horrible and they'll say something to the

Starting point is 00:06:53 effect of, I couldn't help myself. You know, it's, well, well, yeah, you could. You could have not done that, but you did that. Or is it not a choice? I mean, and why do some people do such terrible things and other people say, well, I could never do that? So I got a letter from someone who's in prison in Texas. He's been there since he was 16 and he's in prison because he committed a really violent sexual crime that, you know, a very horrible thing.

Starting point is 00:07:31 And he did it when he was a teenager, 15, 16 years old. And he learned about my lab from an article in Texas. monthly magazine. And he wrote to me and he said, why would I do this? He described his crime and he said, what was going on there? Why do you think a person would do this? What makes a child go bad, nature or nurture? And I found that letter so compelling for several reasons. One is that it shows that we can be strangers to ourselves, even when we've done something really horrific. That's an extreme example, but I think we've all had a situation where we've done something. And then later we're like, what was I thinking there? Why did I do that? How could I have done this thing that I've come to regret?

Starting point is 00:08:25 And also, the letter was really compelling to me because on the one hand, I could give him a scientific answer. We know as scientists that if you have a certain set of genes, if you're raised in certain sorts of environments, you are much more likely to behave in ways that are aggressive and antisocial. But does that take away his responsibility for the harm that he's caused? That was the question that he was asking me. And I think that's a question for which we don't really have a settled answer, we're still trying to make sense of we walk around thinking that, well, I seem to me making choices, you must be making choices. But we know scientifically that the person making those choices has been constructed by a set of genes and a set of environments that are obviously

Starting point is 00:09:20 beyond their control. These are things from childhood. So I don't think that your agency begins where your genetics ends. But I do think that when we're assessing someone's how much they deserve to be punished, in this case, for a crime, it is important for us to remember that everyone who's making those choices was shaped by this luck that's beyond their control, including their genetic luck. Well, the person who wrote you that letter,

Starting point is 00:09:51 I mean, that was a pretty extreme example. But as you say, we've all had those times, when we've done something, we've lost our temper, we've, you know, road rage is a good example, where we've done something and said, well, what was I thinking? I mean, God, you know, in retrospect, that really wasn't worth the risk of doing that, but I did it. But is that the same thing? Is your example, the guy that wrote you that letter, is that any different? Well, his theory was very much a theory about maybe I inherited this. So he didn't go into details about his family history, but he did say, as we say in Texas,

Starting point is 00:10:34 the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. When he's referring to that, he's implying that there's some similarity with his parents, but he doesn't know whether he's similar to his parents because his parents provided him his environment or because maybe inherited some sort of genetic liability towards violence or towards aggression from his family. And that's exactly the problem that we're often trying to figure out scientifically. We can clearly see that violence runs in families, that addiction runs in families. And it seems to run in families not just because parents are raising their children, but also because there seems to be some genetic predisposition to aggression, to violence,

Starting point is 00:11:22 to antisocial behavior that's being passed down from parent to child. Well, what about, though, understanding that you have this genetic and this environmental influence, but we're also thinking people that make decisions and can rationally look at a situation and say, should I or shouldn't I? And that's a big part of the. equation too. I think often the science on how people might inherit these liabilities towards violence or aggression have been interpreted as if they make that responsibility go away. If you inherited something, then you're off the hook. Whereas I think what it does is it adds something along with that need for responsibility. We both are responsible for what we do because that's a

Starting point is 00:12:12 condition of being a grown-up in relationship with other people. But at the same time, do we have to hold people responsible in a way that makes them maximally suffer or is maximally punitive? And that's where I think the genetics is really interesting, because it can soften our sense that maybe this person could have always acted otherwise, and so therefore they really deserve to be punished. What I want to shift people's thinking away, is not who deserves to be punished because they could have done otherwise, but how do we hold people accountable, given where they are in their lives,

Starting point is 00:12:52 which has been shaped in part by this genes that they've inherited? Well, isn't part of the reason that people get punished, not only to punish that person, but to also hold them up to other people to see what can happen if you do something like this, it is a deterrent in some ways that, you know, this is the rule, and when you cross this line, there are consequences, and these are the consequences. Yes, and we see that not just in people, but in every cooperative system. If you look at colonies of

Starting point is 00:13:27 bacteria, if one bacterium takes too much of the minerals that they all need, the other bacteria will send out signals that will hurt the freeload, or the one that's taking too much, If we look at symbiotic species, so wasps reproduce using figs. If a fig tree notices, I'm anthropomorphizing the tree here, notices that the wasp is a lazy pollinator, it will start to wither the figs that that wasp has laid its eggs in. So at every system from very basic organisms all the way up to humans, we see that having rules and having some action that signals we are going to enforce those rules is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of that cooperative system. We do need some sort of consequences in order to have any sort of group that functions. At the same time, I want to be clear that we live in an incredibly harsh, punitive,

Starting point is 00:14:42 incarcerating society. And the separation that I want to kind of make here, the things I want to pull apart here, is what is the difference between holding people accountable, keeping the group safe, signaling that we take the breaking of the rules seriously, but without necessarily making the person who's violated those rules suffer as much as possible. And often those two things can become collapsed in our imagination, accountability versus this punitiveness, this retributive punishment. So if you don't have that punishment, you know, that idea that, you know,

Starting point is 00:15:25 the punishment fits the crime. If you don't make people suffer, okay, that's, okay, we don't do that, then what do we do? I want to ask you about that next. But first, I'm excited to tell you about the world's number one expanding garden hose and their brand new product, the pocket hose ballistic. Okay, look, this is actually hard to explain in a podcast ad, but this thing is so amazing. It really is.

Starting point is 00:15:52 It's the best hose I've ever used. You turn the water on, and the hose literally grows. You turn the water off, and it shrinks right back down. And I know this maybe sounds gimmicky, but it is not. It is solid. The connections are tight. Nothing leaks, nothing drips. It just works. If you're out in the garden much, you've got to get one of these. It is so much easier than those heavy hoses that get all kinked up and fight you the whole time. It's lightweight, it's easy to move around, and the pocket hose ballistic is reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer.

Starting point is 00:16:27 It's the same material used in bulletproof vests, so it's incredibly strong. strong. And now, for a limited time, when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic, you'll get a free 360-degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb-drive nozzle, and this is the best nozzle you'll ever use. Just text S-Y-S-K to 64,000. That's S-Y-S-K to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase. text S-Y-S-K for something you should know, S-Y-S-K to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. Of the Regency era, you might know it as the time when Bridgeton takes place,

Starting point is 00:17:13 or it's the time when Jane Austen wrote her books. The Regency era was also an explosive time of social change, sex scandals, and maybe the worst king in British history. Volker History's new season is all about the Regency era, balls, the gowns, and all the scandal. Listen to Vulgar History, Regency era, wherever you get podcasts. So, Catherine, if someone does something horrible and we change the thinking about that, that just because they have done something horrible, doesn't mean we must make them suffer, that we must punish them. So what do we do instead? I think that there's a couple examples that we can look at,

Starting point is 00:17:56 And they're not even utopian examples. If we look around the world, we can see situations in which people have had to deal with or societies have had to deal with the aftermath of what seems like unimaginable violence. Communities in Africa that have had to reintegrate child soldiers who've committed atrocities against that village, but they were also pulled into the army as children. a Norwegian man Anders Breivik who committed one of the worst mass murders in Norwegian history, but also who clearly struggled with serious mental health problems and a bad child in environment his whole life. And these are really extreme examples, but they're examples in which obviously something horrible has been done.

Starting point is 00:18:51 And also if we look at the developmental histories, at the lives of these people, people, this violence didn't come out of nowhere, right? They're responding to really extreme events in their, both their biology and in their upbringing. And what you see in these communities are actions in which they both are saying, we're not going to ignore that this happened. That's not obviously, no one's suggesting that that's on the table, that, you know, that there's no consequences at all. But they do, for instance, in the case of Norway, incarcerate them in situations where they have lots of access to mental health treatment. There's a strong emphasis on rehabilitation. And there isn't this, again, incredibly harsh, punitive element where it's

Starting point is 00:19:38 really about making that person suffer as much as possible. That's a really radical thing to imagine as an American. But it is, I think, a really compelling example of how people have maintained cooperative norms while also honoring that this, even the perpetrator is also a person, and this violence didn't come out of nowhere. They were shaped by so many factors beyond their control. Well, that's fair, but I think what people are often concerned about is if somebody has done something horrific, they need to be removed from society in a way that they don't get to do that again. that they need to be locked up somewhere, that there's that feeling that this person is proven they can't be trusted. So let's put them in a place where we can keep our eye on them, so to speak, at least for a while, so that that doesn't happen again.

Starting point is 00:20:36 And I think that that intuition is correct in the sense that, again, we live in a community and our obligation is to protect each other. We do have responsibilities for each other. This is where I differ from some other scientists that think that because behavior is determined by factors beyond our control, it's that science is sort of rendered moral responsibility obsolete. I don't agree with that. But I also think that if you look at the conditions of an average American jail or prison right now, you'd be hard pressed to say that the only thing that's happening there is that we're protecting America or American society from perpetrators. We're also deliberately making people hurt for a very, very long time. And that retribution is different from how do we keep each other safe.

Starting point is 00:21:33 What about when you're dealing with someone who does something horrible, commits a crime, a serious crime, and they have no remorse. They have their psychopaths. There's no feeling there. then what? We have studied children like that in my lab where they show not just aggression, but lack of remorse around it. They might even enjoy aggressing against other children. And I think that's an example of behavior that, one, doesn't respond very well to punishment.

Starting point is 00:22:07 So punishing those children doesn't usually make them less aggressive. And two, really speaks to what is. scientific mystery, antisocial behavior still is. Why do some children grow up without that pro-social empathy that is such a standard part or a normal part of human child development? And even more importantly, what can we do to treat it? What can we do to encourage those children to behave more pro-socialally? I think that's a scientific question that's understudied and so important to answer. Is there any sense that this antisocial behavior that you're talking about is on the rise, on the decline, it's a pretty constant thing, or what? It depends on how you measure it

Starting point is 00:22:59 by, if you're measuring it by the most serious manifestations, which would be murder, homicide, violent crime, that has been going down since the 1990s, there was a brief uptick after the pandemic and it's on the decline again. Most people don't know this. They don't realize that violent crime has been going down on average for about 30 years. And it's still a mystery as to why. It's been accompanied by a decline in risk taking across the board. So murder rates are down.

Starting point is 00:23:35 Teenage pregnancy is down. Smoking cigarettes is down. Generally speaking in the U.S. people are behaving and much more controlled, less disinhibited ways across the board. And we can see that even at the extremes. And is it that people are just doing less risky behavior or they're acting more responsibly? And maybe those two things are the same thing, but they're not really the same thing. They're not really the same thing. Are they acting more responsibly? I think responsible is a harder concept to just to define scientifically, they're certainly engaging in less risk-taking.

Starting point is 00:24:20 Now, it might be that they're engaging in less risk-taking, and this is one theory, it hasn't been, this isn't dispositive, but one hypothesis is that they're engaging in less risk-taking, because they're also just around people less and spending a lot more time at home with their phones, and that might be good from the perspective of risk-taking and antisocial behavior, but not great from the perspective of mental health more broadly if you've just substituted risk-taking for social isolation. So how we understand these broad historical trends is difficult. What's interesting to me about that from a perspective as a behavioral geneticist is that Americans' genes haven't changed in the last 30 years. That's not nearly enough time for

Starting point is 00:25:07 for us to have evolved differently in that period of time. So it's another piece of evidence that even though there is a genetic component to risk taking to antisocial behavior or to aggression to violence, that genetic component is not deterministic because we are seeing it change even in this short period of time. It seems to be also really responding to the social environment that a child is developing in. I think there's an assumption. Maybe it's just my assumption. but when you see someone who has done some horrible crime, you think they must have had a very difficult childhood. They must have been bullied. The home life must have been horrible.

Starting point is 00:25:51 Are there cases where you look back at someone who's done something horrible and you can't find any of that, that it was, they had a perfectly normal upbringing and something completely inexplicable went wrong? I think an example of this, that people from my generation will remember is the Columbine shooters. So this was one of the first mass shootings in America in 1999, Columbine High School in Colorado. And the writer Andrew Solomon wrote in his book, Far from the Tree, a profile of the parents of one of the school shooters.

Starting point is 00:26:32 And it's really clear from that portrait that these parents were not that different from your average upper middle class. affluent parents in America and they still ended up with a child who committed a really atrocious act of violence and have spent the rest of their lives wondering what happened there. I think that that sense that there is a risk when you create a child that they might inherit genes that predispose them to these really serious behaviors is kind of a scary aspect of becoming a parent. You're never fully assured of what you're going to get when you create a child. Well, this is one of those topics.

Starting point is 00:27:16 It's an uncomfortable topic to talk about. It would be so much easier if we could all just assume that everybody's responsible for their own actions. And if you do something wrong, then you pay the price for that, just as anybody else would. But it's just trickier than that. It's not that simple. I've been speaking with Catherine Huff. Harden. She's one of the leading scientists examining how DNA shapes differences in temperament and temptation and behavior. And her book is called Original Sin on the genetics of vice, the problem

Starting point is 00:27:50 of blame, and the future of forgiveness. And there's a link to that book in the show notes. Catherine, thanks so much for sharing this. I appreciate it. Thank you for the opportunity. If Bravo Drama, Pop Culture, Chaos, and Honest Takes are your love language, you'll want all about Terry H podcast in your feed. Hosted by Roxanne and Chantelle, this show breaks down Real Housewives reality TV and the moments everyone's group chat is arguing about. Roxanne's been spilling Bravo T's since 2010. And yes, we've interviewed Housewives royalty like Countess Lewann and Teresa Judey's.

Starting point is 00:28:23 Smart recaps, insider energy, and zero fluff. Listen to All About Tier H podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen, new episodes weekly. Hey, it's Hillary Frank from the longest shortest time. an award-winning podcast about parenthood and reproductive health. We talk about things like sex ed, birth control, pregnancy, bodily autonomy, and of course, kids of all ages. But you don't have to be a parent to listen.

Starting point is 00:28:49 If you like surprising, funny, poignant stories about human relationships and, you know, periods, the longest shortest time is for you. Find us in any podcast app or at longest shortest time.com. Here's a word I know you know, but don't use very often. Flourish. It's a great word. In fact, just saying it sounds so positive. Flourish.

Starting point is 00:29:18 And when you think about it, what could be better than that? If someone is flourishing, it must mean life is going well. Not just surviving or getting by, but actually flourishing. But what does it mean to flourish? And more importantly, how do you do it? Is flourishing something that just happens to lucky people? Or is it something you can intentionally build into your life? Well, that's what my guest is here to talk about.

Starting point is 00:29:45 Daniel Coyle is the author of several best-selling books and has advised high-performing organizations like the Navy Seals, Microsoft, and Google. His latest book is called Flourish, the Art of Building Meaning, Joy, and Fulfillment. Hey, Daniel, welcome to something you should know. Hey, Mike, thanks for having me. Good to be with you. So I have a pretty good idea what flourish means, you know, the dictionary definition. But what does it mean to you? You know, it's joyful, meaningful growth shared. It's sort of like, you know, thriving, but more generative, right? You're like creating something new. And it's the feeling of aliveness, I think, in a way. When we think of that joyful, meaningful growth when we think about our life, it's more. It's more. than success, you know, it's more than fulfillment, but it's sort of like the peak that life has to offer us, the peak experience that life has to offer us. And why do you feel the need to talk about it because you think we're not flourishing? Yeah, I think we're not. I think there's a real

Starting point is 00:30:51 hunger for this right now. And I'd been spent my life studying people who were really, really good at stuff. And they were the people who made it to the top of the performance mountain. When you get to that top of the mountain, what you find is that some of those people aren't very happy. There's a lot of sad success in America and around the world right now. People who have achieved all the metrics, but there's something missing. And I decided to, instead of investing in the mountaintop, I wanted to go into the valleys for a little bit. Find places that are generative, the gardens, you know, towns that produce an unusual number of thriving performers or businesses that thrive for unusual reasons. And the big first lesson that's shown out immediately to me is,

Starting point is 00:31:34 and the science is very consistent with this, is that you need other people. No one flourishes alone. Flourishing is, happens in and through community. So you tell the story of this Chilean mine that people may remember. So tell that and how it relates to this topic of flourishing. Yeah, 2010, the San Jose mine caves in.

Starting point is 00:31:58 There's 33 people in a small refugio room down a couple thousand feet below the, surface. There was no hope of rescue at the time. They figure there's no hope. There's a little bit of food in a cabinet. And for the first couple hours down there, it was Lord of the Flies. You know, people were eating the food and it was very chaotic. And then, as you might remember, they managed to keep it together for 16 days before they were contacted from above. And then for about 40 more days before they were each rescued. All of them ended up surviving. But when they first contacted them, they lowered an audio line and they expected to find madness, starvation, and instead what they

Starting point is 00:32:43 found was a group that was connected, was cohesive. They didn't have much food. They didn't have much water they were by many measures suffering and yet they sang a song together when they first were contacted they sang the Chilean anthem together and they cooperated at a very high level they had cohesion at a very high level when they finally were removed the the people in the mind kept letting others go first my friend should go first my friend should go first and so the what emerged from that at first when people saw that happen they thought well those that's great leadership they must have great leaders who told them what to do and who organized it. And in fact, it wasn't that at all.

Starting point is 00:33:30 In fact, they had developed these simple rituals, these simple habits of pausing together, valuing each other, sharing vulnerabilities with each other, serving each other in a way. And so those moments, those little rituals were what sustained them. And that's what I found in all of the flourishing places that I visited. They weren't just about doing things together. they were about serving one another, about serving their neighbors, taking care of each other.

Starting point is 00:33:59 And if you were to ask people, do you feel like you fit into a community? Do you feel you're part of a group like this? Do most people feel they are or feel they aren't? I think most people are craving for community and craving some attentional balance. I think all of us know what it feels like when you ask someone,

Starting point is 00:34:21 have you ever felt deeply connected in a community? Have you ever felt, where have you felt most alive? Where have you felt most connected? Everyone's got a story. Everyone's got a time in their life where they felt that. And everyone craves that and longs for that. You know, we sort of, I think are realizing that this modern way of going through the world

Starting point is 00:34:41 is not nourishing our spirits, is not nourishing our souls. And so these moments resonate with us, these moments where, you know, I just, you know, that's why people are so hungry for in-person music festivals, for example, because they're feeling something that is not, they're switching out of that narrow mode of being,

Starting point is 00:35:02 I'm going to be useful, I'm going to control my surroundings, into something that's much more receptive, responsive, resonant. And that's how we feel healthy. That's our model for attentional health. We know with nutrition, if you just eat sugars and carbs, you can do that, but you don't feel. good. And attentionally, we are kind of in that same space where there are a lot of big companies that love to feed us this narrow bore, narrow focus attention. And the healthy thing you can do

Starting point is 00:35:35 and the healthy thing that communities allow you to do is to slip out of that and slip into that wider mode that we're pre-wired, pre-wired to do. And so how do you do it, especially since everybody else seems to be kind of wrapped up in their own world too. How do you, it's one thing to to notice these groups that have done it, but how do you do it? Here's three moves that I really like. I mean, you can think of them. You know, the world is, in the end,

Starting point is 00:36:04 it looks like a game. The world really looks like a game, like you should learn how to win the game. But in fact, that's an illusion. In fact, the world in your life is more like a garden. It depends on relationships. Every, all the studies will show out that we've got, if you want to have a happy, fulfilled life,

Starting point is 00:36:21 it is about relationships. And so here are three kind of gardening moves that help cultivate that wider attention and that sense of community. The first is called the yellow door. You know, most of us go through life looking for green doors, which mean go and red doors, which indicate you should stop. We're always scanning for those. But life becomes a lot deeper and richer when you look for a yellow door, something that appears maybe out of the corner of your eye, where it's an opportunity to try something new. It's a new conversation.

Starting point is 00:36:54 It's a topic or a space or a group that you haven't connected with before. So looking for those. That would be the first thing that I would say. And to look for those means to do what, like I don't know how to... It's abstract, isn't it? Right. No.

Starting point is 00:37:11 I guess for me, what it comes down to is when you sense or sometimes receive an invitation that you have an instinct to say no to. It happened for me. I had a friend a couple of years ago invite me to go indoor climbing. I don't like climbing. I don't like, I think it's persnickety. I think the shoes hurt. I've done it a couple times. I don't like it. But my friend invited me. And I kind of thought, okay, yellow door. And I showed up and then showed up the next week and showed up the next week and that group of six other guys has turned into this extraordinary group of close friends that we go on trips with and our families are friends now and it's it's it's grown

Starting point is 00:37:54 into something that I I never could have imagined when I had that invitation so for me it's kind of looking for those signals that seem like weak signals at the time and are very easy to walk past but it's pausing and and approaching them with genuine curiosity and you know like anybody i like to be efficient and like to go fast and it was a very very a moment that would have absolutely changed my life if i had if i had gone past it um but i didn't and i explored it and on a deeper level this this kind of speaks to something that came as a surprise to me which is the difference between complicated and complex. Does that, do those words resonate? Is that distinction something that everybody already knows, Mike, do you think? I don't think so. I kind of would use them interchangeably

Starting point is 00:38:48 almost. Me too. That's how I always did. But they're not actually. When you look into it, when you look into the math and the science, they couldn't be more different. And here it is. Complicated things always come together the same way. A leads to B, leads to C, leads to D. Like, you know, a Ferrari car. It's really complicated, but I could give you all the materials and the instructions, and if you had the capacities, if you follow those instructions, you would get

Starting point is 00:39:14 a Ferrari at the end. Complex things are alive. They change as you interact with them. So the kind of litmus test is like, is this more like building a Ferrari, or is it more like raising a teenager? Like, there's no

Starting point is 00:39:30 list I could give you to raise a teenager. There's no set of instructions you could possibly follow because everything you do changes the system and so our world is divided into these types of problems like building a house is a complicated problem but dealing with the contractors that's complex getting to know your neighbors that's complex so and with complex problems it's best to explore into them and learn the scientists would call it probing with complicated problems are sort of basically Legos, you want to analyze. You want to get expert opinions.

Starting point is 00:40:08 You want to analyze it, get to an answer. But with complex, it's best to test and to walk into them and to step into them because you'll learn and then you learn and then you step a little further. And you learn and then you step a little further. And so this distinction of understanding, all right, which kind of space am I in right now? Am I in a complicated space where I need to get expert analysis and get the right information and do it? Or am I in a complex space where I need to open.

Starting point is 00:40:34 in my mind, I need to step into it and I need to see what happens and respond to that. And I think a lot of modern life is assuming and pushing us to assume that things are complicated when in fact they're complex, when in fact there's no really clear answer for some things. In fact, it's best to explore your way into those yellow door spaces and find out what happens and learn from that and kind of be in relationship with that. journey. We often hear about the loneliness epidemic and that people need more connection, but it's mostly interpersonal. They need to connect with people. You're talking about connecting with a community of people. What's the difference? I don't think there is any difference.

Starting point is 00:41:26 I think community can be formed. I think good, you know, good families are communities, good marriages are sorts of communities, I think. I think that word can be used very loosely. And when we break it down to the original Latin, community basically means serving others, right? It means you're in a relationship where you are serving others, and that can take any form.

Starting point is 00:41:48 And I think the sense of what we're hungry for is that being part of something bigger than ourselves. And that can be a marriage, that can be a neighborhood, can be a team at work, that can be, you know, a county, I don't, you know, any, any size. But that idea of being in connection with something alive that's bigger than you that means something and you're headed in some direction together. Well, it is so interesting that we hear so much about the need for connection, whether it's

Starting point is 00:42:22 personal or community or whatever. And then, and yet we see such a loneliness epidemic. and we also see people who are so disconnected because they're on their phones or they're on their laptops or whatever and they're not talking to the person next to them and you say we crave it and yet there it is and we ignore it we're terrible it's it's true right it's right there and it is fascinating because I think one of the things that this has revealed is that we're terrible at predicting what will make us happy like there's a set of brilliant experiments that were done on a Chicago subway train where they took two groups of people. One of them they said, keep to yourself today on the train. Just prepare for the

Starting point is 00:43:11 day. Don't talk to anybody. The other group was asked, hey, your job today is to get to know your neighbor and your community. Hopefully ask them some questions and let us know how it goes. and before the experiment the first group predicted they would be quite happy and content and the second group predicted it would be awkward and difficult but as it turned out after the experiment it flipped the second group was delighted it was the highlight of their day to chat with a community member and the first group was kind of bored

Starting point is 00:43:41 and de-energized by it so we're absolutely terrible because I think at the root of that is we don't really understand what attentional health is you know we've developed you know we didn't really understand what physical health was until the 1960s and 70s, where we figured out, oh, how the aerobic system works and the anaerobic system works. And we're just now, I think, beginning to understand

Starting point is 00:44:05 that it is not attentionally healthy to be narrowly focused on a simple task for long periods of time or to be narrowly absorbed by a screen. We're starting to understand how deeply unhealthy that is and how incredibly healthy it is to be in atmospheres where there's loose exchange, light conversation and a day filled with sort of little collisions, little bumpins. It reminds me of a story Kurt Vonnegut used to tell.

Starting point is 00:44:36 One time he went down to the drugstore in a small town where he lived, the writer, Kurt Vonnegut, of course, and he bought one envelope. And the woman said, I could sell you 50 envelopes. And Kurt Gronigate said, well, you could, but I just, I'm not coming down here for the envelopes. I'm coming down here so I can, you know, look at the baby in the stroller and make funny faces at him and wave to the kids driving past and give a thumbs up to the fire engine as it goes by. Like, I just want one envelope. And that idea that those sorts of frictions, those sorts of collisions are the stuff that makes our day full and rich.

Starting point is 00:45:16 And it's really the frequency. The science here is really interesting too when you'd measure raw fulfillment and happiness. It's not about intensity of experience. It's about the frequency of them. So those little interactions, when you're given the thumbs up to the fire engine going by, end up being way more impactful on the quality of your life and your well-being than seeking out some really intense mountaintop experience. How do you bring in the discussion of people who are introverts versus extroverts into this?

Starting point is 00:45:48 Because it does seem that some people are better at being alone, and don't seem to need that stimulation and other people do. No, it's true. It's true. No, the overall studies of happiness and frequency of happiness, it's just the style of that interaction that shifts, but the social cure, the power of those interactions to improve on the train, whether it was consistent between introverts and extroverts. The style of the interaction might shift,

Starting point is 00:46:18 but the substance of those relationships doesn't. And it's the same across the Harvard study of long-term development. Across both introverts and extroverts, it is the relationship that matters. Instroverts and extroverts might have different relationship styles. They might have different preferences when it comes to activities. But the fact, the kind of ecosystem of the relationship is what matters to them because that's where the energy and connection. And really what we're talking about here is meaning.

Starting point is 00:46:49 You know, we're talking about meaning, which is ultimately the, the stuff that, you know, gives us energy, meaning is energy. So it's across all sorts of styles. Isn't it interesting how you tell these stories of people who are not inclined to get together and when they do it seems magical? And yet we just, we have this sense that it's not going to go well. We feel like those people on the train. I mean, it's just, we think it's not going to go well.

Starting point is 00:47:20 and but it usually does. I know. Isn't that something? I mean, I have to keep relearning that lesson myself over and over again. And the good news, I think, when we look at, when we look at our own experiences, we tend to get a little better at it as we get older. I don't know about your experience, Mike,

Starting point is 00:47:41 but sort of, I think it comes from this sort of misapprehension, this misunderstanding. And I guess, you know, we're kind of also We also sort of entrained and taught in the West, this very kind of individualized way of thinking and being. We're all kind of entrained on this idea that improvement is about the self,

Starting point is 00:48:03 that we're kind of, I guess one way to put it, it sort of feels like we have a pronoun problem. We've always been thinking about self-improvement and I and me and we're all these rugged individuals when in fact, if we stop, take a second, look deeply at any story of individual success and you sort of scratch the surface and you find often a thriving community that helped get them there. So it's a bit of an illusion. The individuality thing is a little bit of an illusion,

Starting point is 00:48:32 but it still takes time to sort of get through it. Well, and the idea that people need other people in their life, I think most of us are aware of that. Certainly if you listen to this podcast, we've discussed this many, many times and it's really a matter of being willing to make the effort to do it. and then you can flourish. I've been speaking with Daniel Coyle. He's author of the book, Flourish, the Art of Building Meaning, Joy, and Fulfillment. And there's a link to that book in the show notes. Daniel, always good. Hey, it's Hillary Frank from the longest, shortest time, an award-winning podcast about parenthood and reproductive health. There is so much going on right now in the world of

Starting point is 00:49:13 reproductive health, and we're covering it all. Birth control, pregnancy, gender, bodily autonomy, manopause, consent, sperm, so many stories about sperm, and of course the joys and absurdities of raising kids of all ages. If you're new to the show, check out an episode called The Staircase. It's a personal story of mine about trying to get my kids school to teach sex ed. Spoiler, I get it to happen, but not at all in the way that I wanted. We also talk to plenty of non-parents, so you don't have to be a parent to listen. If you like surprising, fun, poignant stories about human relationships and, you know, periods, the longest shortest time is for you. Find us in any podcast app or at longest shortest time.com.

Starting point is 00:50:00 To have you on, thank you. Thank you Mike. Appreciate it. Thanks for sharing all you do. Ever notice that tiny little pocket inside the front pocket of your jeans? It's sometimes called a coin pocket, but that's not what it was designed for. You see, when Levi Strauss created the first blue jeans in the late 1800s, that little pocket had a very specific purpose. It was built to protect a pocket watch. At the time, men commonly carried watches on chains in their pocket, and the small reinforced pocket was there to keep them from getting scratched or broken while working.

Starting point is 00:50:46 In fact, early jeans only had four pockets total, two in the front, one in the back, and that tiny little watch pocket. The now familiar second back pocket didn't appear until 1901. Of course, today almost nobody carries a pocket watch, but the tiny pocket stuck around because it became part of the classic five-pocket gene design. So basically, it's a 150-year-old piece of fashion history.

Starting point is 00:51:14 And that is something you should know. As always, it is very helpful, very much appreciated, and very effective if you would share this podcast with someone you know to help us grow our audience. It is the best way to support us. Thank you so much. I'm Mike Her Brothers. Thanks for listening to Something You Should Know.

Something You Should Know - Are Your Genes Secretly Controlling Your Behavior? & How to Truly Flourish

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.