Something You Should Know - How to Give and Get Criticism Well & How to Use Computer Algorithms to Solve Your Problems

Episode Date: August 9, 2018

Somehow I simply cannot walk and text at the same time. And that turns out to be a good thing. I begin this episode with some fascinating research about texting and walking – and how the people around you hate you when you do it. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/people-who-text-while-walking-are-annoying-as-hell-study-confirms_us_55b8f3e7e4b0a13f9d1b0b13?ir=Healthy%2BLiving%C2%A7ion%3Dhealthy-living&utm_hp_ref=healthy-living Criticism can be tricky. It is often hard to give it effectively and it is even harder to hear it when it is aimed at you. That may be because we are not doing it correctly, according to Deb Bright, author of the book The Truth Doesn't Have to Hurt : How to Use Criticism to Strengthen Relationships, Improve Performance, and Promote Change. https://amzn.to/2ATMnyh . Listen as Deb reframes the topic and shows how criticism can be a very valuable tool in shaping behavior and getting things done. And it doesn’t necessarily have to sting. ** BTW, if you wish to be part of Deb's research on criticism, send an email to [e-mail] Anyone who has made the effort to eat healthy knows how hard it is to resist a sudden craving for junk food. You know nothing else will do and you know the craving isn’t going to pass any time soon. So what do you do? Well, it turns out there is a way to stop that craving dead in its tracks and I’ll reveal it in this episode. http://www.medicaldaily.com/eliminating-food-cravings-may-be-easy-looking-images-bugs-vomit-344656 What if you could use computer algorithms to solve everyday problems in your human life, such as where to eat dinner or how to choose a home? Well, you can! In fact you should, according to Brian Christian, author of the book Algorithms to Live By. https://amzn.to/2OQGO6m Brian explains how many of our personal problems can actually be better solved by using algorithms if you understand what they are and how to use them.  This Week’s Sponsors Hoka One One. Get free expedited shipping on your first pair of shoes by going to www.hokaoneone.com/SYSK and use the promo code SYSK FIXD. Buy 2 FIXD devices and get a third one free plus get 10% off your already discounted price at www.ListenToMyCar.com and use the promo code SOMETHING Simplisafe.com. Check out this incredible security system and if you order one through this special link, Simplisafe will donate a security system to a family in need. Go to www.Simplisafe.com/something Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on Something You Should Know, just because you can walk and text at the same time doesn't mean you should. In fact, you shouldn't. I'll explain. Then, the art of giving and getting criticism. What you're really seeking is really good quality information, and criticism done well gives individuals good quality information. Telling somebody you're stupid or an idiot, that certainly isn't what I would consider good quality criticism. Also, a powerful way to stop a

food craving, even if it is a bit disgusting. And how and why to use computer algorithms to solve human problems. The fundamental challenges that the world poses to us are computational in nature. Trying to find a place to live, what to have for dinner, how to organize their physical space. They correspond rather precisely to some of the fundamental problems in computer science. All this today on Something You Should Know. As a listener to Something You Should Know, I can only assume that you are someone who likes to learn about new and interesting things and bring more knowledge to work for you in your everyday life.

I mean, that's kind of what Something You Should Know was all about. And so I want to invite you to listen to another podcast called TED Talks Daily. Now, you know about TED Talks, right? Many of the guests on Something You Should Know have done TED Talks. Well, you see, TED Talks Daily is a podcast that brings you a new TED Talk every weekday in less than 15 minutes. Join host Elise Hu. She goes beyond the headlines so you can hear about the big ideas shaping our future. Learn about things like sustainable fashion, embracing your entrepreneurial

spirit, the future of robotics, and so much more. Like I said, if you like this podcast, Something You Should Know, I'm pretty sure you're going to like TED Talks Daily. And you get TED Talks Daily wherever you get your podcasts. Something You Should Know. Fascinating intel. The world's top experts and practical advice you can use in your life. Today, Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers. You know, one skill I've never mastered is the ability to text and walk at the same time.

I'm just not very good at it. So I have to stop walking to text. But I know a lot of people can text and walk at the same time. I see them all the time. And now I'm glad I'm not very good at it. Because if you text while you walk, there is an excellent chance that everyone around you hates you. A study published by university students in the United Kingdom confirms that yes, texting on your smartphone actually changes the way you walk through a busy street

and that really gets in the way of everybody else. Because you're focusing on such a complex mental task while propelling your body through space, you actually adopt a slower, more protective gait that involves taking smaller steps, taking more steps, and raising your feet unnecessarily high to walk up stairs or curbs because you can't see your feet so you overcompensate. And it annoys the heck out of everyone around you, especially the people walking behind you. The interesting thing is that it is virtually impossible to not do this.

Even the people who did the research realized that they too are annoying everyone around them when they try to text and walk, despite trying not to. So the best advice is to do what I have to do, which is pull over, get out of the way, do your texting, and then get on with your walk. And that is something you should know. Nothing will ruin your day like a heavy dose of criticism. From your boss or your mate or a co-worker, anyone. No one likes to be criticized because I think we take criticism as someone saying that we're deficient in some way,

that there's something wrong with us. But let's take a look at criticism a little differently, because the fact is, we are giving or receiving some type of criticism every day. And if you understand how to give and take criticism strategically, it can actually work to your benefit. Deb Bright has been studying the topic of criticism for some time. She works with people and businesses in helping them deal with criticism in the workplace. And she is the author of a book called The Truth Doesn't Have to Hurt, How to Use Criticism to Strengthen Relationships, Improve Performance, and Promote Change. Hi, Deb. Welcome. Well, thank you. Very, very glad to be here.

So generally, I think people view criticism as a negative, because if you criticize me, you're telling me that there's something wrong with me, and who wants to hear that? But I suspect everybody has experienced, at some point, hearing someone criticize them, but the criticism is delivered in such a way that there's no sting to it. It didn't feel bad, and consequently, you're more open to hearing it. You bring up one of the most interesting aspects about criticism, because done poorly, it can hurt people's feelings,

and it can actually destroy relationships, whether in the workplace or at home or among friends. Yet done effectively. Think about an athlete with a coach. Regardless of where an athlete is in their careers, they're always getting coaches because they want to get the criticism so they can improve their performance so done well. Criticism builds trust in relationships. You don't have to second guess each other. Criticism done well, when it's helpful and respectful, helps individuals to improve their performance, and it helps people to achieve their goals. So it's a real motivator. It's a change agent.

And so when people think of doing criticism well, they think of softening it, to cushion it in, you know, give a positive before you give the negative, or other ways to cushion it so that it doesn't sting so much. But what does it mean to do it well? Well, let me go back to your initial part of your question where you said a lot of people try to soften it by starting positive and then moving negative and then ending positive. Some call that the sandwich approach or the Oreo cookie approach, depending on your food favorite.

That, we found in the research that we've done, needs to be used in a very careful way because here's what we found. If you start positive, some receivers don't hear the criticism because they're glorifying in the positive. And then those that, you know, are hearing the positive first aren't really acknowledging the positive because they're waiting for the magical acts of the but to fall. So you've got to be real careful. And when you always do that on a habitual basis, starting positive,

moving negative, ending positive, people are sitting there saying, oh, here they go again. And the giver begins to lose some credibility because they're saying one size fits all. And what makes criticism effective, and when you do it well, you need to personalize it to each individual. So you really need to know your receiver, what turns them on and what turns them off. And I guarantee you, receivers know. Well, what do you mean by what turns them on and what turns them off in relationship to what? Maybe some examples would help. Well, some receivers really get turned off by a giver's tone of voice. That is one of the biggest turnoffs because it sends so many other messages

rather than just simply pointing out something that someone could be doing better. It sends messages like, you know, you really are stupid. Oh, here I go again. You know, I have to tell you this. Can't you ever catch on? So you really want to use a matter-of-fact tone of voice

because that is a big turn-off. Another turn-off for people is you point a finger at them, or you use the word you, you, you, or, of course, you say, you always do this or you should do that. That's a big turnoff to some receivers. And then for other receivers, how about this one? You, you know, and you're made or with friends, and you talk about your summer vacation.

And so as you're saying yes and we drove 43 miles to you know Salt Lake City Utah and your mate turns around says no it was 47 miles I mean you know those kind of criticisms in public and the kind of detail criticism you know people say wait a minute what's going on here so that's usually a turnoff so what are some of the the rules of criticism and you just mentioned, like, you know, maybe you don't do it in public and in front of other people, and maybe you don't, you try to keep your voice non-critical sounding, and you don't point your finger. What

are some of the other things to think about when you're going to deliver some criticism? Well, I think for givers, the most important thing to do is to think before you speak. Because once you open your mouth, the control shifts to the receiver, and many people don't think of that. Because, you know, I'm the boss or I'm the mother. You know, therefore, when I speak, you shall listen. Well, that's not true when it comes to giving and handling criticism. As soon as the giver opens their mouth, the control shifts to the receiver. Think about it, Mike.

The receiver can decide whether or not they agree with the criticism. And before that, they can even challenge the giver to say, give me a few examples. And then last and most frustrating of all is it's the receiver who decides whether to do anything about it or not. In dealing with some young couples, one of the things we found in a focus group that was so funny to me was a big issue was the toilet seat. Does the toilet seat stay down or does the toilet seat stay up? And so many mates were saying, I've constantly criticized my spouse for leaving the toilet seat up. And, you know, in this case, it's the male, and he's sitting there smiling, but the seat never goes down.

So it's the receiver who can decide whether or not to do something about the criticism. So givers need to think before they speak. And then what is most important is that they need to make sure that they know what they want the receiver to do differently. Because with criticism, what you're saying is, I want you to change. So you've got to think about what it is you want the receiver to do differently. Let me give you an example. You've got a bad attitude. Or you need to get me better informed. Or you take too long to express yourself.

Why do you keep repeating yourself? See, these are poorly delivered criticisms. Receiver thinks they know what to do, but they're pretty broad. And so givers need to really spend most of their time talking to receivers about what it is they're looking for that receiver to do differently so that it helps them achieve certain goals, they do something better, they solve some problems, they grow personally, professionally. That's when criticism is helpful. people who are in sports or in the arts or in dance. I mean, you know, they're always seeking insights from, you know, those who are experts because they are striving always to do something better. And I think that's just so important for us to realize. Criticism done well is such a great motivator in people's lives,

and we all strive for it. But what you're really seeking is really good quality information, and criticism done well gives individuals good quality information. So your purpose really needs to be clear about wanting to help someone. Telling somebody you're stupid or an idiot, or that was the dumbest thing I've ever heard, you know, that spouses may say to one another, that certainly isn't what I would consider good quality criticism. We're talking about criticism, how to give it, how to take it. And my guest is Deb Bright. She's author of a book called The Truth Doesn't Have to Hurt. You know, nothing's more important

than protecting your home and the people and the things in it. So let me tell you a story. Ten years ago, this guy Chad had some friends whose home was burglarized, and they couldn't find a good security system. All the companies they talked to wanted to force them into long-term contracts with hidden fees and all kinds of headaches, and the systems themselves were hard to use. So Chad, who's an electrical engineer, decided to build something better. He got rid of the contracts and the high prices,

and he made his system intuitive to use. It's called SimpliSafe. And today, SimpliSafe protects over 2 million Americans. CNET and PCMag both love it and gave it their editor's choice. And I love it too. And what I love is it's easy to use. I've had security systems in the past, and I just left them turned off, which kind of defeats the purpose of a security system. But not with SimpliSafe. If you order a SimpliSafe security system today at SimpliSafe.com slash something, SimpliSafe will donate one to a family in need. But you have to go to Simpl simplisafe.com slash something.

Go check it out. It's simplisafe.com slash something. And I've also put it in the show notes. Since I host a podcast, it's pretty common for me to be asked to recommend a podcast. And I tell people, if you like something you should know,

you're going to like The Jordan Harbinger Show. Every episode is a conversation with a fascinating guest. Of course, a lot of podcasts are conversations with guests, but Jordan does it better than most. Recently, he had a fascinating conversation with a British woman who was recruited and radicalized by ISIS and went to prison for three years. She now works to raise awareness on this issue. It's a great conversation. And he spoke with Dr. Sarah Hill about how taking birth control not only prevents pregnancy,

it can influence a woman's partner preferences, career choices, and overall behavior due to the hormonal changes it causes. Apple named The Jordan Harbinger Show one of the best podcasts a few years back, and in a nutshell, the show is aimed at making you a better, more informed critical thinker. Check out The Jordan Harbinger Show. There's so much for you in this podcast. The Jordan Harbinger Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Jennifer, a founder of the Go Kid Go Network. At Go Kid Go, putting kids first is at

the heart of every show that we produce. That's why we're so excited to introduce a brand new show to our network called The Search for the Silver Lining, a fantasy adventure series about a spirited young girl named Isla who time travels to the mythical land of Camelot. Look for The Search for the Silver Lining on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. So, Deb, when you're giving someone criticism, how important is it to deliver the what's wrong? Do you think it's really important to drive home the complaint?

Whether it's, you know, you take too long to get to the point, or you've got a bad attitude, or you need to keep me better informed, or do you sidestep the complaint and just focus on how you want things to change? Well, let me give you an interview I had with a woman years ago that I've always remembered. She had her 13-year-old daughter, and she would always ask her mother, Mom, should I wear the yellow dress or the pink dress? And the mother always told her, wear the pink dress.

And she said, you know what I did that I regret? And I said, what? She said, I never told her why the yellow dress was not a good choice. In other words, criticism, by your mistakes and by your failures, you learn great things. So again, it goes back to your purpose. So let's try an example, if we can. Let's say that I interrupt people in meetings, and I do it way too much, and you've decided now to take me aside and express that criticism to me. how are you going to do it? First off, I need to know what's important to the individual. It's always helpful to have that. So if I know that being respected is important, okay, to you, then rather than simply say,

now, all right, if you're a co-worker, rather than simply say, or I'm the boss, rather than simply say to you, you know, you need to stop interrupting people, that's okay for some, but look how much better it sounds if I say to you, you know, Mike, being respected by your colleagues is really important to you. And do you know what happens when you constantly interrupt them? What does that do in terms of respect? What message are you sending? See, it gets you thinking with me, and then it becomes part of a conversation as opposed to a little bit of I know best and you're an idiot. So when you engage the receiver in part of the discussion and you tap into what's important to them or what their goals are, then all

of a sudden the criticism has meaning and people can readily find, recognize your purpose. And it's to be helpful. What if you don't know this person well enough to know what's important to them, but you need to deliver this message? I had that with my agent when I met him first out of the phone. And I said to him, I said, you know, we haven't met each other, and we haven't had an opportunity to really establish a relationship, but I need to really tell you something that's important. And I said, how do you want me to deliver this message to you?

Do you want me to be upfront, to the point, and direct, or do you want me to ease into it and tell you some background information? Of course, my agent said, okay, go ahead, tell me directly. And so I said, great, well, here I go. And then I explained to them what had occurred that really was upsetting to me, and then they said, gee, I'm glad you brought it up, because I never would have known that that is not something, you know, that this was something that really upset you. It seems that sometimes people hide behind this idea of giving helpful, constructive criticism, when really it's just a method of being mean, of delivering some very mean information and saying,

well, but I'm just being honest. That's not really criticism. That's mostly just seemingly just being mean. What you're tapping into, again, is giving criticism is a skill. And I just got to share with you a recent statistic. We did a survey of managers nationwide, National Management Association and Bright Enterprises, my organization, and we found, I was so surprised at this, Mike, 60% of managers, both female and male,

have had no training on how to give or receive criticism. Now, let's zoom into the workplace and think of those of us who have bosses, which those of us who are working all have bosses, right? And so one of the things we expect from our boss is for them to be eloquent in their delivery. Well, they have had no more training on how to give and receive criticism than most likely you have. And that carries back to the home front, too. I mean, think about those of us in relationships. How many of us, you know, have had any training on how to communicate openly and honestly, of which criticism is an integral part of that whole

discussion about openness? So how you deliver the criticism is the biggest turnoff. It's not that people don't want criticism, it's just how it's presented and dished out. Well, one of the things people don't like about criticism is, depending how it's done, it often changes the relationship, that if you criticize me, you now think going forward that I'm somehow, or I think you think that I'm somehow inadequate because you had to set me straight, that I was such a jerk that I didn't realize that. And that resets the relationship in not a particularly good way. Hundreds of people that I've interviewed and worked with as part of the research feel that when they're criticized, they take it that my image with you has changed and I'm no longer viewed as

adequate or competent. You think I'm, you know, inferior in some way. And that's just so far from the truth. If you look at criticism as part of everyday exchanges, then you realize that that person factually took the time to say something. The easiest thing is to keep one's mouth shut and say nothing at all. And so the person was willing to take the time to try to be helpful, we hope, in their delivery. And one wants to, as receivers, operate with positive intent. And if your little brain begins to keep thinking to yourself, because now you're talking about self-criticism taking over, that you're inadequate and that you're inferior in some way,

at some point maybe it's valuable to go back to a giver and say, listen, I'm having a hard time with this criticism, you know, with what you've just said to me. I mean, do you see me any differently? I mean, how should I take this? Because we all go through this, including myself, because criticism can rattle someone's confidence. And if you do it over and over again, it can really get someone to really doubt themselves for every step they take.

It is very powerful. That's why I've done so much research on this topic and written this book, trying to give people tools to help them understand you can't escape this topic. You just can't. It's everywhere. It's a part of our lives.

Well, I can't disagree with you there. And thanks for sharing what you've discovered in your research on this topic. And I know you're conducting some new research on criticism in the workplace, and if you're listening to this and you would like to participate in Deb's next research project, you're invited to do that. So give us a little detail on this, Deb. Survey is taking place in the workplace, and we're trying to take a look at what are people's

perceptions and attitudes toward the workplace today, their bosses, quality of the communications within their organization, and just in general, how do they see things today compared to five years ago? And all they have to do is send us their email address to our email address, and we would be thrilled to include them in the study. And how do they do that? Well, our email, as you know, my last name is Bright, and that was a hard name to live up to. So it's dbright, like a bright day, b-r-i-g-h-t at b-r-i-g-h-t-e-n-t dot com. So it's dbright at Bright Ent dot com.

I'll also put that information in the show notes. And in order to participate, you would need to get her your email address no later than the end of August 2018. Deb Bright has been my guest, and the name of her book is The Truth Doesn't Have to Hurt. How to Use Criticism to Strengthen Relationships, Improve Performance, and Promote Change. There's a link to the book at Amazon, also in the show notes. Thanks, Deb. Well, it's been a delight to work with you. Thank you.

People who listen to Something You Should Know are curious about the world, looking to hear new ideas and perspectives. So I want to tell you about a podcast that is full of new ideas and perspectives. So I want to tell you about a podcast that is full of new ideas and perspectives, and one I've started listening to called Intelligence Squared. It's the podcast where great minds meet. Listen in for some great talks on science, tech, politics, creativity, wellness, and a lot more.

A couple of recent examples, Mustafa Suleiman, the CEO of Microsoft AI, discussing the future of technology. That's pretty cool. And writer, podcaster, and filmmaker John Ronson, discussing the rise of conspiracies and culture wars. Intelligence Squared is the kind of podcast that gets you thinking a little more openly about the important conversations going on today. Being curious, you're probably just the type of person Intelligence

Squared is meant for. Check out Intelligence Squared wherever you get your podcasts. Do you love Disney? Then you are going to love our hit podcast, Disney Countdown. I'm Megan, the Magical Millennial. And I'm the Dapper Danielle. On every episode of our fun and family-friendly show, we count down our top 10 lists of all things Disney. There is nothing we don't cover. We are famous for rabbit holes, Disney-themed games, and fun facts you didn't know you needed, but you definitely need in your life. So if you're looking for a healthy dose of Disney magic, check out Disney Countdown wherever you get your podcasts. Computers solve problems, but the way they solve problems is typically different than the way we humans use our human brains to solve problems.

But perhaps we can learn something from the math and science and procedures of computer problem solving to help us make better decisions. That's the contention of Brian Christian. He is a writer and author of a book called Algorithms to Live By. Welcome, Brian. So explain this idea of taking algorithms

from computers and applying them to human problem solving. So the idea is, it's pretty straightforward. There's a set of problems that all of us encounter in our everyday life, whether that's thinking about who to settle down with, or where to find a place to live, or where we want to go out to eat and who we want to invite, all the way to things like how to arrange our messy office or how to schedule our time. And we think of these in some sense as innately and uniquely human problems.

And the message here is they're really not. In fact, they correspond rather precisely to some of the fundamental problems in computer science. And what this means is that we can turn to computer science for a deeper understanding and a vocabulary for making sense of the kinds of decisions that we have to make on an everyday basis. So make that connection for me, the brain and how it relates to computer science. Because I think people have a sense that the brain and the computer, I mean, we can't plug into each other and swap files, so there's somewhat of a disconnect there.

Well, I think in some ways, the fundamental challenges that the world poses to us are computational in nature. If you think about trying to find a place to live, you go to your first open house and you see a place and it seems pretty good, but you have this inkling of, well, there might be a better place out there that I haven't seen yet. But it's kind of a dilemma because at least in many, many cities in the US, and certainly this is true where I live in San Francisco,

the housing market is extremely competitive. And so if you hesitate for even, you know, five, 10 minutes, someone else is going to put that deposit check in the landlord's hands. And so you're faced with this very fundamental problem of you want to try to gather enough information to make an informed decision. You don't want to just take the first thing that you see. But every time you persist in looking at a new property and getting a little bit more information, you are making an irrevocable decision to pass up a given opportunity. But in fact, it corresponds at this very fundamental level to a class of problems that mathematicians and computer scientists know as optimal stopping problems. And there are some just wonderfully

and elegantly simple rules of thumb that apply in the apartment hunting case. And so what would those be? Well, so if you want to give yourself the best probability, the best chance of getting the very best apartment during a given window of time, so let's say you've given yourself one month to find a new apartment, and you want to get the very best place that you could have gotten within that amount of time, but you're locked into this kind of unfortunate

game where every time you see a place, you have to either accept it on the spot, move on, and lose the opportunity. So the solution here is what's called the 37% rule. And what that means is you should use the first 37% of your search. So that would be 11 days, if you've given yourself a month in total, that first 37% is purely for calibration. So leave your checkbook at home. You are just getting a sense of the market. And after that first 37%, you should be willing to commit on the spot to the very first place you see that's better than what you saw in that first 37%. And this is not merely an intuitively satisfying compromise between looking and leaping. This is the provably optimal result. So give me another computer algorithm that we can apply to human life.

So there's a second class of algorithms that I think are very interesting and very relatable. And those are what are called explore-exploit algorithms. And so one way of thinking about this would be the classic nightly conundrum of, you know, what to have for dinner or where to go out for dinner. And typically that takes the form of something like, do we want to go to our favorite place or do we want to try something new? And when you decide where you want to go, then you have the same problem when you open the menu. It's do I get the same thing I always get? I know and love it. Or do I ask about the specials and see what's new this week?

And a lot of things when you start to think about it in human life, take this form of attention between doing the things that that are the sure thing, the things we know and love, and branching out trying new things that might be better might be worse, you know, exploring those new possibilities. Fortunately, there is now something like 60 years of progress by mathematicians and computer scientists on thinking about this very tension formally and making some real-world progress. Well, everyone has certainly had that dilemma on so many things, not just where to go eat, but where to go on vacation, or buy this pen or that pen. I mean, do you go with the familiar, or do you try something new?

So what's the algorithm? What's the science say? At the big-picture level, the critical idea in an explore-exploit problem turns out to be how much time you have and where you perceive yourself to be in the course of time that you're trying to maximize over. By analogy, if you have moved to a new city, on your first night you go out to dinner and the first restaurant that you go to is by definition the best restaurant you know about in that new city. And if on the second night you go out to a different restaurant, it's got a 50% chance of being the best restaurant you know about in that city. And intuitively, you can see that the odds of making a great new discovery that's better than your current favorite can only go down over time. Conversely, the value of making that new discovery can also only go down over time.

So if you discover some incredible new restaurant on your last night in town after you've been living there for a year, well, there's something almost tragic about that because you think to yourself, well, it would have been great to know about this, you know, nine months ago. So I have a chance of coming back. And so intuitively, both the likelihood that we make this great new discovery and the value of making that new discovery can only go down over time. On the other hand, the value of doing the best thing that we know about, going out to our favorite restaurant, can only go up over time as our experience allows us to set a higher bar. And so for all of these reasons, we should be on a trajectory from exploration to exploitation, you would front load your exploration. And as that time starts to go by, spend more and more of your energy simply doing the thing that you

know is a proven success. So it sounds like that if the goal is to have a good meal, that in practical terms, what that means is once you've gotten to know a few restaurants that you know are good and reliable, the more you know you can count on them, the less you need to go out and explore new restaurants to see if there are more restaurants you can add to your list of favorites. Because how many favorites do you need? So talk about some of the other algorithms that apply to life. There's this very essential idea from the computer science of what's called caching that I think is applicable to anyone thinking about how to organize their physical space. So caching for a computer scientist is how do you prioritize

which items do you keep in your fastest memory? So every computer has this smaller and faster memory that's called a cache. And the computer has to be very choosy about which items it puts in there. And so it's going to put the highest priority items in there. And I think this is analogous to anyone who has dealt with an overflowing closet or a messy office, that we have these kinds of tiers of storage. You know, you've got the top of your desk, which can only handle so many things. You've got your office filing cabinet. And then maybe if you're really overflowing, you also have this offsite storage unit somewhere. The main idea

from caching is that it turns out the best proxy for the thing that you will probably use next is the thing that you used most recently. And so the basic idea here is whatever you have gone the longest without needing so far, you will probably also go the longest without needing into the future. Now, this principle becomes very explicit when you think about the classic nightmare scenario of anyone with a messy office desk is you have this giant pile of papers. And, you know, for anyone in this situation, we often look at this giant tower of paper and we think to ourselves, you know, oh, I've got to get organized, or I should optimize this in some way, or maybe there's a way to kind of structure this a bit better. And the strategy that works best, as it turns out, is something that's called move to front, which just means every time you're

done with something, you put it back in the front of the list. So in a pile, this would mean every time you're done using a piece of paper, you put it back on the top of the pile. And it turns out that this is the optimal data structure for minimizing the amount of time that you're going to spend rifling through and looking for the thing that you need next. It's simply maintaining that pile and always putting the thing that you last handled on the top of the pile. So for me, this is this beautiful triumph of intuition here. And in fact, the thing that we do by default is the optimal way of structuring that material. And so we look at this pile and we say, oh, I ought to get organized. The message from computer science is you already are.

Talk about how computers and algorithms attempt to solve problems where there's no simple solution. There's no formula for solving this, like, you know, which restaurant to go to kind of thing. Because I think life for human beings is more that. It's more problems where there is no simple solution. So what can we learn from how computers handle that? Well there's a huge body of work in computer science around the idea of what's called intractability. And so in all of the scenarios that we've been talking about, there fortunately is this simple, straightforward, effective solution that is going to give you the best chance of getting what you want. And it's no trouble to apply it to that situation.

As it happens, most of the problems that computer scientists study don't have an easy, guaranteed solution that you can simply plug in and get the answer. And so these are known as what are called intractable problems. And computer scientists have this arsenal of techniques for making headway in an intractable problem where there is no easy, simple, straightforward approach. And one of the most effective of these is using randomness. And I think this really cuts against some of our notions of what it means to be a rational decision maker. You know, it seems like nothing could be further from making a rational decision than flipping a coin. And yet there is a whole body of work in computer science that shows that sometimes using randomness is, in fact, a critical component

of a strategy of trying to make a headway in a problem that's sufficiently complex. And I think another one of the ideas here that's really valuable is it may be better to accept a solution that's correct, you know, 90% of the time, then using brute force to get a guaranteed solution. So my favorite example in this area of computer science is something that's called the Miller-Rubin test. And the basic idea here is that computer encryption is all based on generating enormous prime numbers and then determining if those numbers are in fact prime. And it turns out that the strategy that is kind of the best practice in the industry is what's called the Miller-Rubin test. And the Miller-Rubin test is wrong 25% of

the time because it uses random numbers that have this particular property. And so I interviewed some of the developers at OpenSSL and I said, well, okay, you use this Miller-Rubin test, it's wrong 25% of the time. What do you do? You know, you're generating these numbers that need to be prime. You know, they're used for banking, they're used for, you know, government work and all of these really high stakes applications that need to be secure. What do you do when you're when you've got this test that fails a fourth of the time? And he said, well, we just run the test 40 times. And so you have a 25 percent to the 40th power chance that you're wrong. And it turns out this is something like one in a million,

million, billion, something roughly like that. It's about one out of all of the grains of sand on the earth chance that you are wrong. And that we as an industry have accepted that. We are just willing to take that risk. And I think this is particularly kind of ironic because one of the big theoretical breakthroughs in computer science in the early 2000s was what are called polynomial time algorithms for determining whether a number's prime that are guaranteed to work 100% of the time. And yet we still, in 2018, use the Miller-Rubin test, which is only 75% accurate, and we just do it 40 times. I think there's just a very beautiful moral there that, you know, we think of computers as the paragon of rationality. You know, they do

everything exhaustively with brute force, with, you know with perfect precision. They get to the exact right answer all the time. And I think when you're up against a sufficiently hard problem, those are just luxuries that you don't always have. And in some ways, no one knows as well as computer scientists that when you're up against a sufficiently hard problem, you need to think about approximation. You need to think about randomness. You need to think about trying something that's going to get you in the ballpark of the right answer 90-something percent of the time. And that these, in fact, are not the concessions that we make when we can't be rational. They are what being rational means. Well said.

And an interesting way of looking at how machines solve problems and what we can learn from that. Brian Christian's been my guest. The book is called Algorithms to Live By, and you will find a link to his book in the show notes. Thank you, Brian. Thanks for being here. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Who hasn't had a food craving?

And nothing will derail a diet faster than food cravings you can't overcome. You get that craving, you can't think about anything else, you don't want to eat it, you know you shouldn't eat it, but you must have it. So what do you do? Well, maybe, just maybe, a cockroach could help. Findings from the University of Colorado School of Medicine have found that you can kill a food craving by looking at something or a picture of something that's totally disgusting.

Like a cockroach, or vomit, or an open wound. When it comes to food behavior, disgust can be a very powerful motivator, said the study's co-author. The research team flashed a photo of a disgusting image for 20 milliseconds, followed by a four-second photo of a commonly advertised high-calorie treat like ice cream, pizza, or french fries. As a result, the people were disgusted and lost their appetite. Three to five days after the experiment, the participants still found those items less appetizing than they did before. Unfortunately, it doesn't work the other way around. Instead of disgusting photos, participants were shown photographs of kittens and a smiling baby and a butterfly on a flower, followed by photographs of salad and fruit.

It did not increase the participants' desire to eat the salad or the fruit. And that is something you should know. Hey look, I know every podcast asks you to leave a rating and review, and I know you can't leave rating and reviews for everybody, but if you like this podcast and want to support it, ratings and reviews really do help, and you can leave one very quickly wherever you listen to the podcast, on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn, wherever you listen. I'm Micah Ruthers. TuneIn, wherever you listen. I'm Micah Ruthers. Thanks for listening, wherever you listen, to something you should know.

Hey, hey, are you ready for some real talk and some fantastic laughs? Join me, Megan Rinks. And me, Melissa DeMonts, for Don't Blame Me, But Am I Wrong? We're serving up four hilarious shows every week designed to entertain and engage and, you know, possibly enrage you. And don't blame me. We dive deep into listeners' questions, offering advice that's funny, relatable, and real. Whether you're dealing with relationship drama or you just need a friend's perspective, we've got you. Then switch gears with But Am I Wrong?, which is for listeners who didn't take our advice and want to know if they are the villains in the situation. Plus, we share our hot takes on current events

and present situations that we might even be wrong in our lives. Spoiler alert, we are actually quite literally never wrong. But wait, there's more. Check out See You Next Tuesday

where we reveal the juicy results from our listener polls from But Am I Wrong? And don't miss Fisting Friday where we catch up, chat about pop culture, TV and movies. It's the perfect way to kick off your weekend.

So if you're looking for a podcast that feels like a chat with your besties, listen to Don't Blame Me, But Am I Wrong on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Contained herein are the heresies of red off punt wine erstwhile monk turned traveling medical investigator join me as i study the secrets of the divine plagues and uncover the blasphemous truth that ours is not a loving god and we are not its favored children the heresies of redolf wherever podcasts are available And we are not its favoured children. The Heresies of Redolf Bantwine. Wherever podcasts are available.