Something You Should Know - SYSK Choice: The REAL Motives Behind Our Actions & How Modern Manners Work

Episode Date: August 8, 2020

So, what’s the deal with high fructose corn syrup? People talk about it a lot. Some say it is horrible for your health while others claim it is fine. But do you know what it actually is? Without stepping into the controversy, this episode begins with an explanation of what it is exactly and how it is different than regular corn syrup or sugar for that matter. http://www.finecooking.com/item/24865/corn-syrup-vs-high-fructose-corn-syrup Why do you do the things you do? Everything you do has a reason. You go to school to learn and you go to the doctor get healthy – right? Well, what if the reason you THINK you do things is not the real reason? I want you to listen to Robin Hanson an associate professor of economics at George Mason University and author of the book, The Elephant in the Brain (http://amzn.to/2F4Vvk8). He explains that often the reason we THINK we do things is not the reason at all – and why it is important to understand all of this. I bet you’ve wondered how good a memory your dog or cat has. How long do they remember an event or a command or the last time you played with them? Listen and I think the answer will surprise you. https://www.su.se/english/research/research-news/new-findings-on-animal-memory-1.222566 You might think etiquette is kind of an old-fashioned concept with little relevance in the 21st century. But you’d be wrong to think that. Etiquette is as valid today as ever – maybe more so. Thomas Farley, editor of Modern Manners: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Social Graces (http://amzn.to/2F1x), answers some common etiquette questions people have about social media, weddings, cellphones and more. His website is www.whatmannersmost.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bumble knows it's hard to start conversations. Hey. No, too basic. Hi there. Still no. What about hello, handsome? Who knew you could give yourself the ick? That's why Bumble is changing how you start conversations.

You can now make the first move or not. With opening moves, you simply choose a question to be automatically sent to your matches. Then sit back and let your matches start the chat. Download Bumble and try it for yourself. Today on Something You Should Know, you often hear people talk about the health dangers of high fructose corn syrup. But do you know what it actually is? Then for everything you do, you have a reason for doing it.

But is it the right reason? You're all the time looking at what you're doing and attributing motives. You're explaining why I did this and why I did that. You're ready anytime anyone would challenge you and say, why did you do that with a story about your motives? And the claim here is we're just wrong. Also, ever wonder how good your dog or cat's memory is? This will surprise you. And etiquette in the 21st century. We probably need it now more than ever, particularly on social media. For social media, it's really important to remember that no one's mind was ever,

I don't think in the history of social media, no one's opinion has ever changed. If you are firmly in one camp, reading a fiery post on social media is not going to change your mind. All this today on Something You Should Know. 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, 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. 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, a while ago, I heard someone talking about the evils of high fructose corn syrup. And I asked that person, I said, well, what exactly is it? I know what corn syrup is, but what is it that makes corn syrup high fructose corn syrup? And she didn't really know.

So I've asked several other people, you know, what exactly is the difference between corn syrup high fructose corn syrup, and she didn't really know. So I've asked several other people, you know, what exactly is the difference between corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup? And I haven't yet gotten a really good answer, so I did a little research myself, because there's been a lot of controversy about high fructose corn syrup. Some people believe it's the root of all evil, and other people believe it's the root of all evil, and other people believe it's fine in moderation,

and there are plenty of other people somewhere in the middle there. I'm going to sidestep the entire controversy. I'm not going to talk about whether it's good or bad. I simply want to explain what it is, because a lot of people seemingly don't know what it is. All corn syrup, as the name implies, is made from corn. And what makes it an attractive sweetener is that it is a lot cheaper to produce than sugar because the U.S. government spends a lot of money subsidizing the growing of corn, so it's pretty inexpensive.

Now, regular corn syrup, the kind you buy at the store for making candy or pies, that is primarily glucose suspended in water. And you use it in cooking instead of sugar because you want to keep crystals from forming in your candy or because you want something chewy. When manufacturers use corn syrup, they most often use it to save money. So they treat the corn syrup with enzymes in order to have more fructose than glucose. And since fructose is sweeter than glucose,

they don't need as much of it to sweeten their food, so they save money. Hence the name, high fructose corn syrup. And that is something you should know. So I think this conversation is really going to make you think, and maybe think twice, about why you do the things you do.

Here's the premise. We believe we know why we do things. Everything we do has a reason. For example, you go to school. Why? To learn. You go to the doctor. Why? To get healthy. But actually, it turns out that in both of those cases, it's not true. We make assumptions about why we do things, but so often the why, the motive, is wrong. And then that has all kinds of implications.

Robin Hanson is a social scientist. He's an associate professor of economics at George Mason University, and he's done some really interesting research on motives, why we do the things we do, which is often not why we think we do the things we do. His book is The Elephant in the Brain. Hi, Robin. Welcome. It's great to be here. So what do you mean by the elephant in the brain. Hi, Robin. Welcome. It's great to be here. So what do you mean by the elephant in the brain?

We all know about the elephant in the room, but what's the elephant in the brain? So the elephant in the room is the thing we all know is there that we don't want to talk about. It's obvious, but we just pretend it's not there. The elephant in your brain is the thing in your brain that you know is there, and you'd rather pretend it's not there. and that's your selfish motives your lower motives so you're all the time

looking at what you're doing and attributing motives you're explaining why i did this and why i did that and that process happens all the time and you're ready anytime anyone would challenge you saying why did you do that with a story about your motives? And we social scientists tend to take that sort of story at the word. When people say they go to school to learn the material or they go to the doctor to get healthy or they vote in order to make better policy, we tend to just assume that's right and we pile on great elaborate analysis on the basis of that and we come up with policy recommendations on that basis. We find out better ways people could learn the material and new institutions by which people

could get healthier and voting rules that would help people better choose policy. And the claim here is we're just wrong. That is, you are not the king or president of your mind. You are the press secretary. The conscious person I'm talking to now is the press secretary of your mind. The press secretary doesn't actually know what the president does. The press secretary's job is to make up good excuses. If somebody asks, why did they do that? It has a good story. And that's what you do all the time. You make up these good stories. And so we are constantly making up good stories. And so the usual things we say about why we do things, like you go to school to learn, that's a good story. It sounds good and you believe it, but it's not what's actually going on. But it's sort of what's going on, at least in the sense

that I believe that to be the reason that I'm going to school. It's probably the reason I think I'm going to school. So to that extent, it's true. So why am I going to school if not to learn? So what we mean by your reason is if we look at the details of your behavior, all the things you actually do and how you do them, the thing that explains those details. So somewhere in the back of your mind or in the back of your society, something is causing you to do things and the story you're telling just isn't fitting with those details. So in education, for example, your usual story is that you're there to learn the material. But there's a bunch of things that don't make sense there. You don't actually

learn very much at school. First of all, you forget almost everything. And a few things you remember aren't actually very useful. And even if you remember things that could be useful, you know, if you get a job as a bartender with a college degree, you'll be paid more than if you have a high school degree. And you get paid more for more years of school, except you get paid more for the last year of high school and the last year of college than you do for the other three years of each one of them put together. When I was living in the area near Stanford, I went and sat in on Stanford classes without registering or paying, and nobody cares if you go learn at the best colleges for free, as long as you don't ask for a credential. That suggests that it's not just about learning,

it's about something else. So I say I go to school to learn, but I really go to school because then I'll have a degree, and then I can say, look, I have a college degree. Is that basically what you're saying? Well, the college degree says something about you that's important. It says you're smart and conscientious and conformist and have learned modern workplace practices. It just doesn't say that you've learned something useful. So, plausibly, you are going to school to show that you are different. It's like a certification. And to which I would say, so what? I mean, even if we're deluding ourselves, what's the harm? Everybody's in on certification and to which i would say so what i mean i mean even if we're deluding ourselves what's the what's the harm everybody's in on it and we're all playing the

same game so so so what yeah the point isn't to criticize you and to shame you and say you know how dare you the point here is to understand human behavior so as i said we have all these people who do policy analysis of education and medicine and politics, et cetera. And they recommend ways we change our institutions, adding subsidies, taxes, credentials, et cetera, based on their concept of what these things are for. And the observation is that when they make policy reform suggestions, we are just not interested. So education scholars have for many decades come up with ways that we could learn the material faster. They've actually studied

this carefully and done experiments and field trials and shown there are ways we could reorganize schools so that we would learn more material. And people have just not been interested in that. They just don't want to adopt them. Why? Similarly, we know ways that we could restructure medicine in order to make people healthier. And people have just not been interested in them. Why? Similarly, we know ways that we could restructure medicine in order to make people healthier, and people have just not been interested in them. Why? And the point is, at some level, we know that we're not really after the thing we say we are. We don't really want to go to school to learn more material. We wanted to show off and show that we're different. So if there's a reform that helps us learn more material, and we weren't trying to learn the material, then what's the point of this reform? I get that, but I do go to the doctor because I want to be healthier. And if I'm sick,

the doctor helps me get unsick. So I'm healthier again. So how is that not my motive? Sit down, take a deep breath. There's actually almost no correlation with people who get more medicine and people who are healthier. We've seen that in geographic variation. In some regions, they spend more medicine and they go more often to doctor visits. And in those regions, they're not on average healthier. Similarly, we have randomized experiments where we actually randomly pick people out and giving them lower prices for medicine so that they then consume more medicine because it's cheaper for them. And they do consume a lot more medicine, but they are not healthier. So we've seen this consistent pattern for a while

that there's very little correlation between health and medicine. Yet people are still really interested and eager for medicine. But there are a bunch of other things we know about that have strong correlations with health, exercise, social status, clean air, nutrition, sleep. Well, wait a minute.

You said that people say they go to the doctor to be healthy and that people who go to the doctor and get medication are no healthier because of it. And that, in fact, clean water, clean air, better diet and exercise, those things will help you be healthier. But I don't buy your premise that people go to the doctor to be healthier. I went to the doctor last week because I had an ear infection. And clean air and a better diet and exercise will not address my ear infection.

Going to the doctor addresses my ear infection because I got medication, I got an antibiotic to address that specific problem. Right. Remember the whole structure here is we have a usual story, and then there's puzzles, and there's a better story. Now, the usual story has some truth. If you use the excuse, the dog ate my homework, that only works because sometimes dogs really do eat homework. If there were no such thing as dogs, it wouldn't work.

Dragon ate my homework doesn't work as an excuse. In all of these areas, the excuse does apply sometimes. It just applies a lot less than we like to think or say. So we do learn some things in school. It's just a lot less than we think or say. And we do get some health in medicine. It's just a lot less than we'd like to admit. I'm talking with Robin Hanson. He's an associate professor of economics at George Mason University, and his book is The Elephant in the Brain. Hi, this is Rob Benedict. And I am Richard Spate. We were both on a little show you might know called Supernatural. It had a pretty good run, 15 seasons, 327 episodes. And though we have seen, of course, every episode many times,

we figured, hey, now that we're wrapped, let's watch it all again. And we can't do that alone. So we're inviting the cast and crew that made the show along for the ride. We've got writers, producers, composers, directors, and we'll, of course, have some actors on as well, including some certain guys that played some certain pretty iconic brothers. It was kind of a little bit of a left-field choice in the best way possible. The note from Kripke was, he's great, we love him, but we're looking for like a

really intelligent Duchovny type. With 15 seasons to explore, it's going to be the road trip of several lifetimes. So please join us and subscribe to Supernatural then and now. 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. So Robin, you say that people don't go to the doctor to get healthy and that people who do go to the doctor aren't any healthier than people who don't go to the doctor.

Why then is the life expectancy so much better longer now than it was before modern medicine? That's a great question. And honestly, at some deep level, we don't know. If you look over the last century in advanced countries like ours, you'll see that the age-specific mortality rate has fallen at a pretty steady rate. Each year, the mortality falls again by another percentage. But the major things you would point to as causes of that reduction in mortality did not happen steadily over the last century. And that includes medicine, it includes nutrition and sanitation. Each of these causes of falling mortality had a big pattern whereby it was a slow effect and then it sped up and had a bigger effect and then maybe it slowed down again. But the effect, the results of our falling mortality has been clockwork like steady for

an entire century. So it's actually puzzling. What is it that's causing our falling mortality? I think we don't actually understand that very well. So pick another area of life that we do this, where we have motives that we believe are our motives, when in fact they're not. Well, we are having a conversation here, so it might be fun to ask, why do we have conversations like the one we're having? So obviously, we ordinary people have conversations in our lives with our friends, and then we have some other institutions in society like media and academia that are also analogous conversation institutions. Now, if you ask people what the point of these institutions is, why do you talk? Uh, these favorite explanation is information. I know things you don't,

you know, things I don't, We can share this information with each other. Sounds useful, right? That's the reason for this show to exist. Supposedly. Uh-oh. Now, there are a number of puzzles that don't make sense from this point of view. For example, we are much more eager to talk than to listen. We don't actually keep track of conversation debts. If this was about sharing information, I might say a few things that were informative, and then I might stop and say,

your turn. You haven't given me as much information as I've given you. Pay up. But we don't do that. We might focus on the most important topics to us, and we might be quite happy with jumping from topic to topic as long as we're talking about the most important topics that were the most valuable to us. But in fact, we often talk about pretty small trivialities. And we have this conversational norm that however the conversation goes, it has to go in a smooth, incremental way. You're not supposed to suddenly change the conversation topic, but you can drift it away by saying, doesn't that reminds me of all of these facts I've described don't make that much sense from the exchanging information

point of view. If you were trying to exchange information, you'd be eager to get information, reluctant to give it up. You'd be keeping track of it. You'd be focusing on the most valuable information. So what's going on? More plausibly, we are showing off our backpack of tools and resources. We're basically having the conversation be a challenge. And we're saying, wherever the conversation goes, whatever crazy, trivial, odd topic comes up, I have something interesting to say about it, something useful to say about it. Something useful to say about it. That means if you and I maintain a relationship, whatever happens, I will have resources that are valuable. You want to be my ally and friend because I've got this huge backpack of tools. And if I'm with you, then you have access to it. And that's plausibly what we're doing. And that explains sort of the norm of staying with the usual topic that everybody else has been talking about instead of switching it and talking about trivialities is that's what everybody is talking about and being more eager to talk than to listen and this applies not just to ordinary conversations in our among family and

friends it also plausibly applies to news media and academia and yet the people that we think of as really good communicators often do listen listen, often are much more thoughtful, are less inclined to show off what they know and more inclined to figure out what you're trying to say and what you know. Right. Well, so humans have this longstanding norm against bragging, and it's not good to brag too obviously. So the people who are the best braggers are the ones who do it relatively indirectly in ways that don't stand out as obviously bragging. But are you sure, and how are you sure, that you're just not interpreting motives differently, and your interpretation may be no more valid than mine? I mean, if I have a motive for doing something, and I believe that's my motive, how is it not my motive? You say that, you know, people don't go to the doctor to get healthy.

Well, okay, so here's why I go to the doctor. I go to the doctor, and I don't like to go to the doctor a lot, but if something's bothering me, one of the things that sends me to the doctor is that if I don't take care of this now, it could get worse, and it could kill me. And that's my motive. I believe that's my motive. It's what gets me to the doctor. So how is what you say my motive is more valid than what I say my motive is? Well, it's definitely what's in your head. And the claim here is that the thoughts in your head about your reasons for doing things don't actually correspond very

well to your actual reasons for doing things, the actual causes of your behavior. And of course, you should be surprised by that claim. That should be a surprising and even controversial or shocking, you know, hard to believe claim. That's the whole point of the book. We're making a surprising claim. Yeah. And then we have to back it up with evidence. We can't just make a surprising claim and, you know, go on our own authority because we don't have that much authority. The whole point is to point out these various puzzles and details and say, look, you say you go to the doctor to get healthier. I show you this data that people who go to the doctor more aren't healthier. Are you going to change your behavior? I love this. But couldn't it be, it's not that I go to the doctor to get healthier, it's I go to the doctor so I don't die. And that's not getting healthier, that's just staying alive. Yeah, that's healthier.

Dead is unhealthy, alive is healthy. Sure, not dying is... Well, healthier than what? Healthier than what? But the data says that the people who go to the doctor more don't die any less. That's what the data says. At least within the usual range of variation. Now, of course, if you go outside of the usual range of variation, then the data doesn't speak to that as much. So

if some people go to the doctor twice as much as others, you should perhaps just go to the half as much level. That doesn't mean you should cut all the way down to zero, but you might go a lot less than the typical person does and still be okay because within that range of data that we've seen, that doesn't mean you should cut all the way down to zero but you might you know go a lot less than the typical person does and still be okay because within that range of data that we've seen going to the doctor less doesn't hurt your health doesn't make you die more often so let's say you're right let's say that yes we all do things for reasons that are different than the reasons that we think we do things so why why? Why do we do this? You know, when you dig deep enough,

usually there's some sort of evolutionary purpose behind why we do what we do. So what is the reason for deluding ourselves as to why we do things? Well, evolution made you ignorant of your motives for a reason. On average, in your ancestor's world, it was better to be ignorant. Even though it can be useful to know things, to plan, it's more useful not to know in order to seem innocent and be able to be offended if anybody should accuse you of having these other motives. If the world you are now in is like the world your evolution anticipated, then you probably shouldn't know these things.

And I'm doing a disservice by telling you, and you should just forget about it after the show. But you might not be in the situation evolution anticipated for you. You might be unusual, say, in being a manager or a salesperson and especially need to understand what's actually going on in the world. You might, like me, be a nerd, the sort of person who doesn't just smoothly move around the social world intuitively. You actually have to think about the social world in order to function in it. And for you, it might pay more to actually have a mental model that works better about how the world actually works. And most importantly, people who do policy analysis, who study our education, our medical system, our political system, charity system, if you are standing up around us saying

that you understand how these systems work and you have suggestions for how we should change them, it's really on you to understand what's really going on, even if that comes at some modest degree of personal embarrassment or awkwardness. You should directly face the real systems and reasons that you're trying to reform. Well, there's some real consequences to what you're saying. I mean, if you say, for example, that people say they go to school to learn, so there's a lot of people working on how do we make schools better so we learn better when that's not really what people want then we're then we're just barking up the wrong tree that we're we're trying to fix things that don't exist most policy reform is trying to give people more of the things they

say they want but they don't actually want those things very much uh we might do better to give people the things they actually want but they also want the ability to pretend to want those things very much. We might do better to give people the things they actually want, but they also want the ability to pretend to want the things that they pretend to want. Real reform that could be effective and get people to really support it will have to not only give them more of the things they actually want, but let them continue to pretend to be trying to get the things they pretend to want. That's a harder design problem. It takes more work to come up with reforms that satisfy that.

But if we can, then we should be able to get a lot more actual reforms, not only designed, but actually adopted. Well, clearly there's a lot more to this. That's why there's a 400-page book about it. But what I like about this is it really makes you think differently. It makes you realize that there are things in your world and in your life that are not necessarily what you think they are, and things are happening for reasons that aren't necessarily what you think they are. It really makes you think. Robin Hanson has been my guest. He is an associate professor of economics at George Mason University, and he is author

of the book, The Elephant in the Brain. There's a link to the book in the show notes for this episode. Thank you, Robin. Been great to be here. Thanks a lot. Hey, everyone. Join me, Megan Rinks. And me, Melissa Demonts, for Don't Blame Me, But Am I Wrong?

Each week, we deliver four fun-filled shows. In Don't Blame Me, we tackle I Wrong? Each week, we deliver four fun-filled shows. In Don't Blame Me, we tackle our listeners' dilemmas with hilariously honest advice. Then we have But Am I Wrong?, which is for the listeners that didn't take our advice. Plus, we share our hot takes on current events. Then tune in to see you next Tuesday for our listener poll results from But Am I Wrong? And finally, wrap up your week with Fisting Friday, where we catch up and talk all things pop culture. 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. 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. When I hear the word etiquette, I tend to think of, you know, what fork do you use to eat what or who opens the door for whom? But that's not really what etiquette is about anymore, if it ever was. Today, it seems nobody cares what fork you use,

and nobody holds the door for anybody anyway. But today, with cell phones and social media and political correctness, it is sometimes difficult to know what the rules are. And that's what Thomas Farley is here for. He is quite the expert when it comes to modern-day, 21st-century etiquette. He's the author of two books, The Expert's Guide to Doing Things Faster and Modern Manners, The Thinking Person's Guide to Social Graces. He has a column in the New York Post, and his website is whatmannersmost.com. Hey, Thomas. Welcome. Thank you, Mike. Thank you so much for having me.

So I may be wrong, but I do think that a lot of people's perception of etiquette, that when they hear the word etiquette, they think of something from years gone by, something Grandma used to be concerned about, that etiquette today isn't really that relevant. Well, just taking a step back, I think there's definitely a misperception when people think of etiquette and they situations that are uncomfortable for us or unfamiliar to us, we know how to behave and we know how to act and we know what's expected of us. So something like a dress code, you don't want to be the odd man out wearing something that is not appropriate for the occasion. That's dress code etiquette. So I think etiquette is one it's one of those terms that's misunderstood. And I think

often misapplied by people who try and use etiquette as a weapon to show that they're superior to others. And that is not etiquette in its truest sense. It's really, etiquette is neutral. And frankly, it's ever evolving. And certainly in our age today with technology, it needs to continue evolving to adapt to situations that were never envisioned even five or 10 years ago. it's ever-evolving, and certainly in our age today with technology, it needs to continue evolving to adapt to situations that were never envisioned even five or ten years ago. And so what are some of those things that maybe we wouldn't have thought about five or ten years ago that we have to deal with today, and what are the rules? I think really the primary area where we see this is in social media. And you've got people veiled behind the cloak of

either anonymity or the fact that they're not having a real conversation face-to-face with someone that, whether it's on politics, whether it's on the Me Too movement, whether it's on the NFL, you've got people who are on very opposing sides really just going at one another. Often this happens with perfect strangers. Maybe it's a friend of a friend. You post something on your Facebook wall, and two of your friends who don't even know one another start going at it. And that is, we've never seen the likes of anything like that. So the technology has enabled us to have more people in our lives than ever before,

at least tangentially. And sadly, it's also brought out just this awfulness that I think we tend not to see in genuine face-to-face interactions. What are you supposed to do when that kind of stuff happens? Well, I think I'd like to suggest, you know, certainly we can't cure the problem 100%, but for those who are passionate about this and those who are disturbed by what's happening with the erosion of common decency, I think for social media, it's really important to remember that no one's mind was ever,

I don't think in the history of social media, I'd take a wager on that one, that in the history of social media, no one's opinion has ever changed. If you are firmly in one camp, reading a post, a fiery post on social media, or having somebody trash talk you on social media is not going to change your mind. So I'd rather see polite, educated discourse happen between opposing sides in person, face-to-face, where you feel you can truly have a proper conversation, you're not going to win those arguments online. So save social media, particularly Facebook, which is not used for business. It's used for all sorts of fun family occasions and pictures of holidays, save it for that sort of content.

And the political discourse, I think that really should be happening in person and not online at all. Don't get sucked in. You're so right. I mean, never have I read someone's post that disagrees with my point of view. Have I gone, oh, God, what an idiot I am? That's right. Why didn't I think of that?

But nobody's mind gets changed. It just ramps up and amps up the rhetoric and makes things nastier. What's the point in that? That's right. And there was a recent study which I thought was fascinating, is that the mind actually processes information quite differently when we read as opposed to something that we hear. And so a group of study participants were given the same information, the same inflammatory discourse.

One portion of the group had to read it. The other portion of the group had to hear it and watch somebody saying it on a TV screen. And the people who read the discourse, the inflammatory comments, got very, very charged up and very upset by what they read. And the ones who were able to put a face with the commentary, as offensive as some of the comments still may have been, their reaction was far less adrenaline-inducing than it was for the people who were reading the commentary that they disagreed with.

What about some of the other social media things, like, you know, somebody puts you in their picture and then posts a picture of you on their Facebook page? Well, they didn't ask, but should they have to? Yeah, I like to recommend that, you know, just because you are in a group shot and you think you look fantastic doesn't necessarily mean everybody else feels the same way. Or frankly, that photo should be going up on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter at all because there may be people that you're all friends with who were not, for whatever reason, invited to that particular occasion. And now they're going to be seeing you all having a great time minus them. So I say photos are great, and how lucky we all are, most of us, to have a camera in our pocket with us at all times to catalog every moment of our lives. But before you put

that out on social media, you certainly want to check and make sure that everybody in the photo is in agreement that that's an appropriate place for it to be. When you, since you're so out there and people, you're on television a lot and you speak and all, what are the things, not technology-based, but what are the kind of etiquette questions people ask you a lot about? And also, what do you say? I get asked quite a lot, is etiquette worse than ever? And this is an interesting one because this is a question that

you can find being asked a hundred years ago, 200 years ago. You can read passages from books by Puritans talking about how, you know, the children of today don't know how to respect their elders. So the concept that, you know, we're all going to hell in a handbasket, that has been with us, I think, since the dawn of time. And so I don't ever tell people that all hope is lost or that there's a longing for some of the niceties and some of the simpler aspects of life that are old school touches like thank you notes and small dinner parties and getting dressed up for occasions. And it may seem fussy or it may seem outmoded, but I think in a world where things just move so fast that you look at the appeal of a show like Downton Abbey and there's part of us, I think,

for many of us who feel, gosh, wouldn't it be nice to at least have a day without a cell phone or a day without an email that I have to answer? So I think the pendulum is swinging back a little bit in the other direction. It is interesting that you point those things out. And the opportunity, I think, is because nobody's writing thank-you notes, because people don't care what they wear and they look like hell a lot of the time, when you do write the thank-you note, when you do dress appropriately, it makes an even bigger impact because people notice. I think so.

I absolutely, I mean, I have heard from the occasional employer, for example, I could always advise for job applicants to send a thank you note for a job interview. And I say, you know, all things being equal, they're looking at four candidates, you're one, and you're the only one who took the time to send a thank you note, you get it out promptly, I think that really, it's the gold standard. You've moved yourself to the front of the pack. I've heard from occasionally from people, particularly some younger hiring managers, you know, I don't like having paper and, you know, an email is fine. And in fact, I would be annoyed if I got a thank you note. But that's the rare, rare exception.

I'd say typically, you know, you want to say thank you. And if you say the baseline is sending a thank you text, you know, next up on the ladder is the thank you email. I think long may it last that a handwritten thank you note remains the gold standard for giving thanks. Are any of the old etiquette rules gone? In other words, you know, is it still proper and expected that a man opens and holds a door for a woman, or is that sexist?

Why are you doing that? Just because she's a woman? Well, I think we need to look at what the arena is. So if we're talking about a workplace setting, men and women are equal in the workplace. And so we don't, although we're still striving for that pay equality and boardroom equality, in theory what we're striving for is complete equality, which means that a man is not necessarily

holding the door only for a woman. So I'd like to say to, I do workshops across the country, and what I'd like to say to the men in my workshops who are struggling with this very issue, a gentleman holds the door for everyone. So you're not going to be accused of being sexist because you're holding the door for the women, yes, but you're also holding the door for the men. On the other hand, if you're on a dating situation, it's really going to be on a case-by-case basis. Some women really appreciate and long for that kind of treatment. Others find it just fussy and old-fashioned. So I would say know the woman in your life and treat her with the respect, of course, regardless, but treat her with the mannerisms that you know she appreciates the most.

What else? What else did people ask you about that comes up a lot that people seem confused about or don't know what the rule is or whatever? Mike, I'd say that one of the areas where etiquette still holds sway and where etiquette books still fly off shelves are the occasion of a wedding. And that is perhaps for many of us the one occasion in our lives where there is a whole code of behavior that, you know, if we're lucky enough, we do it once and never have to do it again. But that people really have a lot of questions on.

So come wedding season, so typically May, June, and then in the fall, I get lots and lots of wedding questions. Things like? Things such as, is it okay to ask about bringing a plus one if my invitation didn't say a plus one? Is it okay to exclude children from the wedding if I'm trying to keep my guest list down? What say do my parents have in the choice of a DJ if my fiancé and I are the ones paying 100% for the wedding? Well, let's answer some of these, since that's why we're here. For example, you know, it seems, quote, etiquette, that the bride is the one who writes the thank-you notes to all the people who gave gifts. Is that proper etiquette? The bride and groom, and I say this is a traditional wedding, I say this duty very

often falls on the bride, and I think that's rather unfair. I think that both parties to the wedding are going to be able to enjoy the largesse of their guests, and they should split that thank-you note writing detail together. So write those 50-50. You shouldn't have to be writing a thank-you note to your husband's Aunt Myrtle, who you've only met for the very first time at the wedding, when he's known her since he was a little boy. So split that duty up so it's less onerous, and get them out within three months of the wedding.

So your guests are not wondering, did they receive my gift? Because most of us now are having our wedding gifts shipped directly to the couple. And you often wonder, gosh, I hope it made it there because I haven't heard anything. So don't leave your guests hanging. As the attendee at the wedding, you do not, I don't know where this fallacy entered the equation, but you do not have a year to give the gift. It's absolutely absurd. Imagine waiting a year to give somebody a birthday present or waiting a year to give your spouse an anniversary present. It is absolutely ridiculous.

So you do not have a year. You should be giving the gift on the occasion of the wedding. That gift should be arriving within a few weeks after the wedding, a month, a two-month latest. I want to get answers to the other questions you posed. What about the plus one? If you are dating someone very seriously and it's simply that the people invite you haven't seen them perhaps in a while, they don't know about this individual, it's appropriate to ask someone who's close to the couple without putting them on the spot.

So, you know, I don't know if John and Maria are aware, but I've been dating somebody quite seriously, and it looks like this is the one. I'd love to be able to have her join me at the celebration. Do you think there might be room for her? And that's how I would handle that one. Okay to exclude kids? It is okay to exclude kids. You just need to do it universally.

So you can't start making exceptions. I'd say the one rare exception that you could make is for the flower girl or the ring bearer. But if you say, well, we can have this person's kids, but not that person's, you're going to stir up hurt feelings. So do what you can, especially if it's a destination wedding, do what you can to provide some kind of a babysitting service for those who are close family members or close, close friends. But I think, frankly, adults need some time away from their kids every now and again, and I think a wedding is a perfect opportunity to do it. Well, I think you've done a good job in making the case that etiquette certainly has a place today. It's always had a place. It's kind of the rule book so that we can all get along and act civilized and get through life.

Thomas Farley has been my guest. He is the author of Modern Manners, The Thinking Person's Guide to Social Graces. He has a column in the New York Post. His website is whatmannersmost.com. There's a link to his book in the show notes for this episode, and I appreciate you being here. Thanks, Thomas. Oh, my pleasure.

Have you ever wondered when you tell your dog or cat something, have you ever wondered how long do they remember it? And perhaps you've been frustrated by the fact that they don't seem to remember it for very long. Well, that is one of the things that separates humans from animals, our ability to remember. We can recall events from decades ago, trivial things. Animals are terrible at it. Researchers at Stockholm University tested the memory of 25 species of animals, from pigeons to dolphins,

and they found the average short-term memory span in the animal kingdom is just 27 seconds. Specifically, dogs will forget an event within two minutes. Chimpanzees forget in 20 seconds. What's interesting is that all animals seem to have what's called specialized memories. Specialized memories hold information for a long time. For example, animals, even with the tiniest brains, can remember where the food is. They can remember other individuals in their species. Or they can remember which foods are toxic,

and they remember this for a very long time. However, less important events that have little impact on survival are stored as short-term memories and disappear very, very quickly. And this seems to apply to all animals on this planet except humans. And that is something you should know. If you like this podcast, and presumably you must because you've lasted all the way to the end of this episode, do me a favor and tell someone else about it.

Send them the link. Get them hooked. I would appreciate it. I'm Mike Carruthers. Thanks for listening today to Something You Should Know. Welcome to the small town of Chinook, where faith runs deep and secrets run deeper. In this new thriller, religion and crime collide when a gruesome murder rocks the isolated Montana community. Everyone is quick to point their fingers at a drug-addicted teenager, but local

deputy Ruth Vogel isn't convinced. She suspects connections to a powerful religious group. Enter federal agent V.B. Loro, who has been investigating a local church for possible criminal activity. The pair form an unlikely partnership to catch the killer, unearthing secrets that leave Ruth torn between her duty to the law, her religious convictions,

and her very own family. But something more sinister than murder is afoot, and someone is watching Ruth. Chinook, starring Kelly Marie Tran and Sanaa Lathan. Listen to Chinook wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Jennifer, a co-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 Lightning,

a fantasy adventure series about a spirited young girl named Isla who time travels to the mythical land of Camelot. During her journey, Isla meets new friends, including King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, and learns valuable life lessons with every quest, sword fight, and dragon ride. Positive and uplifting stories remind us all about the importance of kindness, friendship, honesty, and positivity. Join me and an all-star cast of actors, including Liam Neeson, Emily Blunt, Kristen Bell, Chris Hemsworth, among many others, in welcoming the Search for the Silver Lining podcast to the Go Kid Go Network by listening today. Look for the Search for the Silver Lining on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.