Something You Should Know - The Problem with Authenticity & The Psychology That Fuels War

Episode Date: October 16, 2025

What really happens when two people kiss? Far more than you think. From the brain chemistry it triggers, to the subtle information you’re exchanging, to the dozens of muscles involved — kissing is a complex act with fascinating effects on both body and mind. https://www.thehealthy.com/family/relationships/6-ways-kissing-makes-you-stronger/#ixzz3kK7pLATk “Be authentic.” You’ve heard that advice countless times — but what does it actually mean? Do you really have one “authentic self”? And if so, why are the less admirable parts of that self rarely included in the conversation? My guest Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic — Chief Innovation Officer at ManpowerGroup, professor of business psychology at University College London and Columbia University, and author of Don't Be Yourself: Why Authenticity Is Overrated (and What to Do Instead) (https://amzn.to/4mBCbM9) — argues that authenticity is often misunderstood and even harmful. He reveals a smarter way to think about who you are and how you present yourself. There has never been a moment in recorded history without war. Not one. So, is war inevitable — a hardwired part of human nature? Neuroscientist Nicholas Wright explores this question, drawing from his research on the brain, technology, and security at University College London, Georgetown University, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where he also advises the Pentagon Joint Staff. He’s the author of Warhead: How the Brain Shapes War and War Shapes the Brain (https://amzn.to/42YWADU), and he offers a provocative look at whether humans are doomed to fight — or if peace is truly possible. Finally, what’s in your purse or briefcase could be hurting you more than you realize. Carrying too much weight around day after day can wreak havoc on your body. In this closing segment, I’ll explain the hidden dangers of an overloaded bag — and what you can do about it. https://www.lutherandowntownhospital.com/health-library/272 PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS!!! INDEED: Get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Indeed.com/SOMETHING⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now! DELL: Your new Dell PC with Intel Core Ultra helps you handle a lot when your holiday to-dos get to be…a lot. Upgrade today by visiting⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://Dell.com/Deals⁠⁠⁠⁠ QUINCE: Layer up this fall with pieces that feel as good as they look! Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://Quince.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns! SHOPIFY: Shopify is the commerce platform for millions of businesses around the world! To start selling today, sign up for your $1 per month trial at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://Shopify.com/sysk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. today on something you should know the amazing things that happen when two people kiss then there's a lot of advice that says you should be more authentic but there's also another view authenticity as a

concept is practically meaningless and not very helpful whether you think that you are acting in good fate or bad fate is part of who you really are And even if you try really, really hard, you can only be you. Plus, just how heavy is your purse or briefcase? Because it could matter. And the fascinating psychology of war. And why humans seem to need to fight. Ultimately, I don't want my children to go off and fight a war.

I think that would be a waste. But if we are not prepared to do that when we must, then we will be easy pickings for those who are prepared to do that. All This Today on Something You Should Know I want to tell you about a podcast I listen to. There's a new episode every weekday, and I believe it can help you uncomplicate the news and better understand what's really going on in the world.

It's called On Point. On Point is a rare public space where you hear nuanced explorations of complex topics live and in real time. Host Magna Chakrabarty, leads provocative conversations that will help make sense of the world with urgency, timeliness, and depth. Each episode is a deeply researched, beautifully produced hour.

Listeners will learn, be challenged, and have some fun, too. You can hear episodes of On Point every weekday, wherever you get your podcast. 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've probably heard the phrase and the lyrics in the song, A Kiss is just a Kiss. Oh, no, that's just not true. Hi and welcome to Something You Should Know. We're starting this episode talking about kissing. Because when two people kiss, there's a lot going on.

Scientific reports say kissing increases the levels of oxytocin, that's the body's natural calming chemical, and also increases endorphins, the bodies feel good chemicals, and aids in feelings of romantic attachment. According to anthropologist Helen Fisher, kissing is kind of a mate assessment tool. Much of your brain's cortex is devoted to picking up sensations from around your lips, cheeks, tongue, and nose. Out of 12 cranial nerves, five of them are picking up

the data from around your mouth. It is built to pick up the most sensitive feelings, the most intricate tastes and smells and touch and temperature. And so when you're kissing somebody, you're getting a lot of data. Don't underestimate the workout your

mouth gets during a makeout session. Researchers say, you use 30 muscles while kissing, and all that kissing helps keep your cheeks tight. Kissing boosts immunity, too. Kissing has long been thought to be a way of passing bacteria, which then strengthens the body's defenses. And that is something you should know. Everywhere you turn, it seems people are talking about authenticity. Be authentic. Show up as your true self. But here's the problem. What if you don't have just one self? I know I don't.

I adapt, depending on where I am and who I'm with. At work, at home, at a party, or with kids, I'm not the same version of me. So if authenticity means showing up as only one real you, something seems wrong with the whole idea. My guest today, Tomas Chamorro, Premuzec, argues exactly that. He's chief innovation officer at Manpower Group and a professor of business psychology, at Columbia University and the University College of London. He's author of a book called Don't Be Yourself,

Why Authenticity is Overrated and What to Do Instead. Hey, Tomas, welcome to something you should know. Thank you for having me. So as I mentioned, I've never really understood the whole idea of being more authentic. Like, I am who I am. And if I do it, it's authentically me. And so I'm not on board.

I guess with the whole movement of be more authentic. You are part of a minority, I would say, of people, certainly in America, given that the authenticity cult, you know, translated into kind of mantras such as, don't worry about what people think of you, always be true to your values, no matter what, bring your whole self to work, if you think you're great, you are, and always be honest with yourself and others. These are the kind of things. that actually seem to be almost the kind of North Star guiding people's behavior, or at least attempting to. I mean, on the surface of it, when I hear, you know, you have to be your authentic self, implies that you have to be the same with everybody, that in every situation you have to be you, and that that's one person and that that's you.

But everybody's different in every different situation. You're not the same with your kids as you are with your boss, with your wife, with your, so the premise falls apart. I have kids age eight and five, and, you know, interestingly, even at the age of three or four, children know that they need to behave better when they're invited into other people's homes than in their own home.

And that's because they're aware of the etiquette. So, you know, it will be ludicrous to lose that ability as adults. Likewise, you know, work is not an invitation to impose your uncensored or uninhibited self on others or to bring your whole self. It's an invitation to bring the best and most professional version of you leaving the bad ones, you know, impulsive you, grumpy, you, opinionated you at home. And of course, I feel sorry for your family or the people at home

because you're leaving those parts with them. But, you know, better not to bring them to the office. So my guess is that if we had someone here who is a big, proponent of authenticity and being more authentic, they would say, no, no, no, no, no, this is what you're saying is not what we mean. My assumption would be that what they mean is to be your best self. To be authentic is to be as good as you can be. It's useful in those instances to actually look at the evidence, you know, from scientific

studies, there's a lot of academic research in this area. And there's maybe two or three things that I would highlight as important yet kind of not commonly known facts about authenticity. The first and most important one is that there is just no way of objectively determining whether somebody is authentic or not. And so right now we have two kinds of measures of authenticity. One is simply asking people whether they feel. authentic about their behavior or not. And of course, that's extremely unreliable. That's a bit like

asking people whether they have a great sense of humor. 95% of people think yes and say yes and how many people are actually funny or asking them whether they are creative, whether they are talented, or whether they are a good person. Our own self-views have zero reliability and accuracy predicting how other people see us. And then the other more important one is to ask others whether they find us authentic or not. Now that, well, it might lead to kind of an inter-rater agreement in the sense that different people tend to agree whether they find somebody authentic or not. Actually, as we know, that is very, very contaminated. That kind of measure of authenticity in the eye of the beholder is contaminated by whether you like the person or not, whether

you align with their values or with their political views. For example, you know, the degree to which you find Obama more authentic than Trump or vice versa is predicted entirely by your political affiliation. And also, what's interesting is that research shows that we find others authentic when they have high emotional intelligence because they're really good at skilled self-presentation. They're very good at strategically putting on a professional self or, you know, harnessing their work or professional reputation in a way that is. believable. At times, yes, it means paying attention to consistency between what you say and

what to do, but mostly it has to do with actually being more other oriented, focusing on being valuable to others rather than, you know, unleashing your unfiltered or unedited self on others. So those things are really, really important. And of course, you know, there is a wonderful paradox underlying the thought that somebody is telling you to ignore what other people, people tell you and to just be yourself. I mean, that's somebody telling you how to act and what to do. So, you know, by definition, if you try to ignore it, you can't. Well, I've always found it puzzling that when people talk about being your authentic self, it's always about the good qualities, your core values and your core beliefs. But part of every person's

authentic self is another side. You might call it a darker side of bad thoughts or you have a temper or that's still part of who you are. But when the people who talk about authenticity talk about it, they don't say, well, yeah, make sure you bring that part. Let me give you an extreme example, but I'm sure you'll understand the reasoning or the logic. By most parameters and definitions, Adolf Hitler was an authentic leader. First, he displayed great consistency between what he said and what he did. Secondly, he was true to his values. Unfortunately, they were extremely toxic, antisocial, repugnant and destructive. Third, he didn't care very much about what other people thought of him. And fourth, you could also argue, he was

non-compromising and, you know, completely disinterested in basically following external norms or external parameters of morality. That might sound extreme, but if you think of a much, much less harmful and less extreme example, the majority of people in the workplace today feel that their values are right. They have lost the ability to entertain that perhaps people with opposite values might have a point and might be right. And this notion that, you know, others should adjust to our character, our way of being. It's a very egocentric, narcissistic and entitled kind of approach to interpersonal relations, but actually it's what dominates most of the current or modern etiquette, not just in the workplace, but especially in online or digital

settings. So I think there is a notion that being more authentic is a good thing. That generally, how can you argue with that? It seems like that would be a good thing. But what I've never understood is why. What is the benefit, the reported benefit to being more authentic? If I become more authentic by the definition of authenticity that people talk about, what good will come from it? Well, I think people tell you that, but in a way, you know, a good way to understand the authenticity cult is that demands, requests or suggestions to others. you know, being authentic are really not very authentic at all. I mean, certainly, you know, if you think about the epicenter or the vortex of the authenticity cult, which is probably

Los Angeles and Hollywood and, you know, kind of a social media, I mean, nothing is less authentic than that. But of course, you know, you can see, you don't have to be very cynical or skeptical to understand why it might be in other people's interests to encourage you to be authentic because it's a little bit like, you know, if you're playing poker with someone and you tell them, you know, just tell me what your hand is or reveal your cards. It makes things easy for you, right, if they do so. I mean, that's a lot easier than trying to read between the lines, trying to exercise emotional intelligence or political skills to really interpret other people's behaviors. And of course, you know, I do think that generally speaking, we prefer others to be

not just nice to us, but to also truly mean it deep down. But at the same time, let's accept or agree on the fact that, you know, most people prefer fake politeness than authentic rudeness or, you know, a kind of genuine obnoxiousness. Yeah, I do. I certainly prefer that. I would rather somebody pretend to be nice to me than be a jerk. And I think, I think you're not an exception there. You and I are part of the norm, you know, we all do. We're talking about authenticity with Tomas Chimaro Pramuze. He is a professor of business psychology and author of the book, Don't Be Yourself, why authenticity is overrated and what to do instead. This episode is brought to you by Peloton. A new era of fitness is here. Introducing the new Peloton

Cross Training Tread Plus, powered by Peloton IQ, built for breakthroughs with personalized workout plans, real-time insights, and endless ways to move. Lift with confidence, while Peloton IQ counts reps, corrects form, and tracks your progress. Let yourself run, lift, flow, and go. Explore the new Peloton Cross-Training Treadplus at OnePeloton.ca. Maybe it's just a phase you're going through. You'll get over it. I can't help you with that. The next appointment is in six months. You're not alone. Finding mental health support shouldn't leave you feeling more lost. At CAMH, we know how frustrating it can be trying to access care. We're working, to build a future where the path to support is clear,

and every step forward feels like progress, not another wrong turn. Visit camh.ca to help us forge a better path for mental health care. So, Tomas, I'm not sure I'm able to really tell how big a deal this is for average people. You know, I talk to, doing this podcast, I talk to a lot of authors, psychologists. I mean, the idea of authenticity comes up a lot in other,

interviews. So I'm not sure I have a clear view of, are people really jumping on the bandwagon? Is authenticity a big deal? In the year 2024 or 2023, authenticity was, you know, kind of chosen as word of the year by Miriam Webster. And that was based not just on the importance that we attribute to authenticity and social media interactions, but also, you know, know, now with the rise of artificial intelligence, it's increasingly difficult to know whether you're dealing with a human or a bot or a synthetic kind of a version of a human, a deep fake or digital clone. But more importantly, you know, whether it is restaurants, I mean, you know, people love to think

that they're eating authentic Mexican, authentic Italian, authentic Chinese. By the way, just like with restaurants, if people tell you they're authentic, you can probably assume they're not. It's something that kind of crosses from restaurant to humans. But then, you know, in the world of kind of commerce or consumerism, people will pay 50 or 100 times more for a diamond if they think it's authentic than if they assume it's synthetic, even though no machinery or equipment is capable of differentiating between synthetic, lab grown, and real, genuine kind of natural diamonds. And at the same time, people, love the idea that leaders should be authentic. Let's go back to 2016 when Trump was deemed

a more competent politician or debater than Hillary Clinton on the basis that he was more authentic and she was not authentic. Again, an attribution, right, that people make. So generally speaking, whether we're talking about restaurants, food, diamonds, designer handback, or people, the assumption is that not just authenticity is better than the reverse, but that we're somehow capable of actually identifying or quantifying how authentic something or someone is, which of course isn't true. And by the way, you know, technically speaking, anything you do is part of who you really are.

Whether you think that you are acting in good fate or bad fate, you know, interestingly, research shows that when people behave properly or do something that leads to success, they interpret that as their authentic self because it's, of course, a way to rationalize that you are amazing when good things happen to you. And when bad things happen to you or you're acting in a way that offends or upsets others, you are basically rationalizing that as saying, oh, that wasn't me. That was out of character. I was influenced by the situation or whatever that is. But you know, anything you do is part of who you really are. And even if you try really, really hard,

you can only be you. It's not possible for you to be anybody else. And you often hear people who get caught doing something that is out of character saying things like, oh, I don't know, that wasn't me. Well, yeah, it was. It was you. You did it.

They say it's not them as if they're disowning it. But that is them. Exactly. I mean, you know, there is this thing called self-monitoring or paying attention to how your behavior impacts others. By the way, you know, other people are an incredible source of feedback. Feedback from others helps us understand our limitations, what we're good at, you know, whether you're a top athlete, a musician, an artist, or an average worker,

the best way to understand your talents and your limitations and your flaws or weaknesses is to internalize other people's views of you. That isn't a sign of weakness. It's how you, It's how you grow and develop. So again, you know, you will always be you no matter where you go and what to do, but paying attention to your behavior and making an effort to display the best version of yourself is what makes you more successful and effective. So the, but the best version of yourself isn't necessarily your authentic self. It is, it is the best version of yourself.

Yeah, the vast majority, if not all human beings, inhabit multiple selves. There is this wonderful but fairly neglected construct or concept in social psychology called self-complexity, which basically talks about all the dimensions of your identity. So imagine, you know, there's a you who is a podcaster, a broadcaster, a media person, a consultant, a father, a husband, a son. you know, the notion that anybody, any employer organization is interested in us bringing our whole self or displaying all of these dimensions is just ludicrous. Work and any high stake interaction with others or social situation is an invitation to display the relevant aspects

of ourselves. And when you're curating your reputation, you need to understand what aspects of yourself or personality people want to see, you know, maybe to use a very simple and relevant or pertinent example for most of us, a job interview. A job interview isn't an invitation for you to show the real you or the full spectrum of yourself complexity to others. It is an invitation to demonstrate that you have the necessary social skills to understand the social etiquette and, you know, display some pro-social tendencies. By the way, if you're engaging in such deliberate and exaggerated deception and impression management that is very blatant to others that you are faking it, you pay a high price.

So that's not the goal either, but the goal is to, if you like, be yourself, but on a good day. Well, and I've always thought too that you could kind of hide behind this authentic label where if you are someone who is unpleasant, unkind, not very. caring. You could just say, well, that's who I am. That's my authentic self. And so I'm being authentic. Exactly. Or for example, the manager says, you know, well, you know, I'm not very good empathizing with others or showing consideration or showing appreciation or, you know, controlling my emotions. That's just how I am. So, you know, my employees have to deal with

my moodiness, grumpiness, impulsivity. And that's just who I am as opposed to should I not try to become somebody better? Would I not benefit from trying to understand other people's point of view as opposed to broadcasting my unsolicited views and opinions on these controversial topics because that's how I think about things? One makes you more successful. The other might be more comforting because it requires no self-control, no self-regulation and no emotional intelligence. Well, I like conversations like this because you take something that's pretty well regarded and pretty well accepted authenticity and pull at the strings a little bit and unravel it. And it makes for an interesting discussion. After all of this, I think the most

important, I would say, conclusion is that authenticity as a concept is practically meaningless and not very helpful. And we don't need authenticity as a concept to assess either ourselves or others and determine what we like, who we like, and who we don't. A perfect way to end it. I've been talking with Tomas Chamorro Primusik. He is the chief innovation officer at Manpower Group and a professor of business psychology at Columbia University and University College of London.

His book is called Don't Be Yourself, why authenticity is overrated and what to do instead. And there is a link to that book at Amazon in the show notes. Tomas, thank you so much. Hit pause on whatever you're listening to and hit play on your next adventure. This fall get double points on every qualified stay. Life's the trip.

Make the most of it at Best Western. Visit bestwestern.com for complete terms and conditions. At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak startup funding and comprehensive game plans. We've mastered made-to-measure growth and expansion advice, and we can talk your ear-off about transferring your business when the time comes. Because at Desjardin Business, we speak the same language you do. Business.

So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us and contact Desjardin today. We'd love to talk, business. When you think about it, war is one of the strangest things humans do. Killing people, destroying things. It makes no logical sense. sense. And yet history shows that war has been a constant. Across centuries and civilizations, there's never really been a time without war. Which raises the haunting question, is war part of

human nature? Something we're wired to do? You would think that as society has advanced, war would fade away, but instead conflicts rage on all around the world. My guest today, Nicholas Wright, has a fascinating perspective on why that is. He's a neuroscientist at University College London, Georgetown, and a Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., where he also advises the Pentagon Joint Staff. He's author of a book called Warhead, How the Brain Shapes War and War Shapes the Brain.

Hi, Nicholas, welcome to something you should know. Hi, Mike. Thank you for having me. So given that war has been around since people, is it your view, because it seems like it, that war is just human nature. That's what people do. I'm afraid to say, I think, that you are entirely correct. It is part of what it is to be human. All of us, every brain in the world, yours, mine, every listeners, is built to win, or at least survive, a fight. That's not everything we do, but that's part of what it is to be human. And yet it seems, I mean, you wouldn't certainly know better, but it seems as if attitudes about war are different now today. I remember watching, when I was watching Downton Abbey back when it was first on,

and when they went off to World War I, they portrayed young men in England as like really looking forward. This is going to be great fun. we'll go save our country and then they came to realize the horrors of war but that in fact nobody looks at war that way anymore that nobody looks at this is oh this is going to be great it's as some people said it's old men sending young men off to die you are entirely correct but equally you could say yes in the run-up to world war one people were too gung-ho about war But then look at the run-up to World War II.

In the run-up to World War II, we really needed to stand up to a regime that was led by Adolf Hitler. That was the last general war between all the great powers in the world, and we really needed to stand up to Adolf Hitler, to Nazi Germany, in large part because actually the Germans in World War II were very good at fighting, you know, on land. certainly the Germans were better on land at fighting than the British or the French or the Americans. It's very easy for us to forget that. And if you are a country that does not believe that it can and should fight and fight effectively and fight to win, then you will be very easy prey for those who do not share your beliefs in peace. So here is a really naive sounding question, but I think it's one people think about. So in World War I and World War II,

we were at war with Germany and Japan and even in the Revolutionary War. We were at war with England. And now we're all friends. We're all allies. We all get along. And I think the question is, well, why couldn't we have sat down

and figured it out as we eventually did without the war part? Like, just sit down like grownups and figure it out. And obviously, you know, with someone like Hitler, that's probably not possible. But it does seem that as civilization, I don't know, matures, that war seems so archaic, like so unnecessary. And I think you're absolutely right. So, for example, take one of the most prominent sets of ideas that came around in the last 15, 20 years about war, which was the idea put out by

Stephen Pinker that we're becoming increasingly rational, war is irrational, wars are decreasing, the arc of history is tending towards peace, so it's all going to be okay. I think he's probably right that wars are decreasing. He's not wrong, but unfortunately he's dangerously incomplete. And then we saw that when Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine, right? That didn't fit into his narrative. The problem is, even if wars are decreasing in frequency, that doesn't mean that wars can't break out. And when they do break out, we need to be able to fight effectively. Otherwise, we will lose. And it's important to remember that the democracies today, if we don't use our brains, if we don't understand how humans fight well, and bear in mind that the human brain is always

going to be the central weapon of war between human groups. If we don't do that, we could lose. So the democracies in May 1940, Britain and France, were facing the Germans in the Battle of France, and the Germans had fewer trained men, fewer tanks, fewer planes, fewer guns. but they had been thinking about how to harness things about our brain like surprise, shock, skill, will and daring and unfortunately for us that they cut through the French and British armies and defeated them within seven weeks.

I've often wondered in Nazi Germany when German soldiers were sent to invade other countries, what were they thinking what had they been told to believe that gave them that will to fight when this isn't their country they're invading another country this isn't yours it's important to remember that when Hitler went to war invaded Poland in September 1939 a lot of Germans did not you know ordinary members of the population did not want to go to war but Hitler was in charge, it was an authoritarian state, and they went to war. People generally do fight. However we feel about that now in peacetime, we look forward and we think, oh, maybe we would choose

differently. That isn't really how things pan out. Millions of people in the democracies thought that they would be pacifists, but actually when war broke out, almost nobody in somewhere like Britain or America actually became a conscientious objector. And of course, you weren't allowed to be a conscientious objector in somewhere like Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Russia. So you advise the Pentagon. You would have some insight into this. One of the criticisms of war is that one of the reasons we have it is because of the military industrial complex. That war is good for business. So we have hawks in the government and outside the government pushing for conflicts because it's good for business. What about that?

that? It's a great question, and it brings me to two points. The first thing is that humans are very varied. So, yes, there are some people who are warmongers, and there are some people who, you know, would argue for peace. And there are lots of people who are in the middle. And I think in general, most people will defend their country, their homeland, their group, whatever it is, if they feel that they must. Now, in terms of a military-industrial complex, So this brings me on to a really important point, which is about wisdom. So who sort of was the main person who coined the phrase or popularized it was Dwight Eisenhower. Dwight Eisenhower is a U.S. president who maybe has fallen a bit out of fashion.

But in my eyes, he's one of the really most inspiring U.S. presidents. He was the military leader who oversaw the allies during the Allied invasion on D-Day. and then he became present in the early 1950s. And for Eisenhower, and it was he who warned of the military industrial complex, he knew that the way that a country like America was going to be able to win something like the Cold War against a formidable competitor like the Soviet Union, he knew that it was going to require wisdom, not just being clever, right, coming up with some clever, interesting, you know, out-of-the-box thinking,

but actually being wise because there was no simple answer to winning and the way the united states was going to win or at least not lose was preparing for the long haul which is another one of his phrases which i think is really important this is going to be generational for example we're facing with china now it's going to be the long haul you have to thrive domestically you have to push back where you can and you have to stay true to your to yourself And I think that this is a world in which, just as with Eisenhower, there are no simple answers because now we could lose domestically through things like the military industrial complex taking too much money or civil strife. We could lose in a conventional war over somewhere like Taiwan against somebody like a group like China. or we could lose in a third way, which is that we could fight a nuclear war because whatever

you do, however many people are dead on the other side, if you fight a nuclear war you've lost in any meaningful sense. And so only with wiser decision-making can we avoid all of these different ways of losing. And again, the most powerful thing we have for wiser decision-making is the human brain and self-knowledge about ourselves as individuals and a about ourselves as humanity. But wise decision-making requires wise decision-makers. And you look at leaders of various countries around the world, and you think, yeah, I don't think you can check that box for those people.

They don't seem, they seem kooky sometimes. The majority of leaders are, you're entirely correct, not very wise. But if you look at World War II, Britain and the United States actually have leaders who were wise. If you look at the early part of the Cold War, the United States did have leaders who were wise. Eisenhower, George C. Marshall, others like that. So if we just step back from him and think what wisdom is, as opposed to just being clever. So it's a bit like if you know the Big Bang Theory. You know, the Big Bang Theory, they're super clever guys, if you've ever seen that comedy program. But they always get into pickles because they come up with these

clever plans but they you know there's some obviously foreseeable problem where when they do their plan you know it runs up against some kind of obviously anticipated problem and it's very much like that with wisdom we can't just be clever we need to be wise so wisdom is seeing the bigger picture about ourselves in the world so that our chosen actions can help us live better we're never going to be perfect, but we can be better. And I think that's the most we can hope for as humans. But can war become outdated, obsolete? Could Stephen Pinker be right? That we can't just keep blowing each other up, especially with nuclear weapons, because then we blow ourselves out of existence. I mean, I hate to say it, but I mean, we can keep blowing each other up. And I think as

the world is showing us today in, you know, Sudan or Gaza or Ukraine or tensions rising in East Asia, it's perfectly possible that we will continue people be blowing each other up. That said, that's only ever going to be part of who we are. Can we avoid nuclear war? I hope that we can. we have thus far since nuclear weapons were first used 80 just over 80 years ago. So still only a handful of countries have nuclear weapons. So it is possible to limit even these most powerful and destructive weapons. Now, war will always change. So in military circles, they will often say the nature of war is the same.

War is always going to be the same fundamentally because war is, politically motivated violence between human groups, okay, at scale. So it's not just a bar fight, it's, you know, at scale. It's a large conflict. Now, that basic nature, to do with our brains and the societies that humans form, that is always going to be the same. But the character of war, how it pans out, that will always be different. And one of the things that gives me a lot of optimism is that actually we can train

our soldiers to be more restrained, to be wiser. We can think through a lot of scenarios or problems like nuclear war so that we hopefully can avoid them. Something I've never understood. We've had wars like Vietnam, Korea, where it didn't seem like the objective was to win the war. We were, and people would talk about how we were mired in Vietnam. That the United States, if they really wanted to, could have defeated North Vietnam, seemingly without a whole lot of trouble. But winning the war didn't seem to be the objective. And I guess I've never really understood why get in a war if you don't want to win it? That's a really great question. So of all of the counterinsurgencies, these are wars where you have

a big state like America or Russia against an insurgency, guerrilla fighters. So the Americans fought in Vietnam, right, they fought against an insurgency. The Russians fought in Afghanistan. They fought against an insurgency. The French fought in Vietnam before the Americans and then in Algeria. Now, in all four of those cases, the big power lost. The only really big counterinsurgency campaign that anybody won in the Cold War was the British who won in Malaya in the 1950s, the early 1950s. And one of the reasons for that is that the British understood the political nature of what they were doing. So it's a famous saying, Carl von Klausovitz is probably the most famous philosopher of war. One of his most famous quotes is essentially that war is the continuation of politics by other means.

And what the British understood in Malaya and implemented better than the Americans or the French or the Russians was that they tried to use war as a tool to achieve their political goals. And they did that very effectively. And that's one of the key things about war. It's very difficult to use it effectively as a political tool. But if you can, then it can be very effective, as British shown in Malaya in the early 1950s. Well, that's an interesting insight to it.

You see, I've always thought that one of the things about war is you want to get it over as soon as possible. You want to go in, fight your war, and win, and be done with it, not drag it on, and Vietnam seemed like it just kept dragging on and on and on and to what end? Sometimes you need to change your mind. Richard Nixon was a man of talent and a man with huge flaws. But ultimately, Richard Nixon, he was willing to change his mind and ultimately the United

States left. And changing your mind is important. This is another thing that I mentioned the frontal pole, this region right at the front of the brain, that is really crucial for wiser decisions. And this is an area that I've researched and I've researched changes of mind in the laboratory and I've done work in China and with China's top university, Peking University. And people differ in their ability to change their minds. They differ in their abilities to use new information and change. when the world changes. But really that is one of the things that makes you a truly wise decision maker. So Winston Churchill, for example, he was a man who famously perhaps

change his mind too much, but he was a man who changed his mind when he had to about things that were important. And that doesn't mean compromising on the things you really care about. You know, as Winston Churchill certainly did not compromise on the things he cared about and steered the democracies in many ways through the most dangerous period, that they went through during the 20th century. Well, I don't remember the exact quote that somebody said war is old men, sending young men off to die,

but there's something about that, that, you know, if this war is so important to these leaders, let them go fight it and not send young people to their death. No, and I think you're absolutely right. Ultimately, I don't want my children to go off and fight a war.

I think that would be a waste of their lives. But if we are not prepared to do that when we must, then we will be easy pickings for those who are prepared to do that. And for a long time we lived in a world at the end of the Cold War where the United States in particular, but the West more generally, had overwhelming military superiority. And we could basically do whatever we liked. We could have unrealistic ideas about the world and it didn't really matter.

We don't live in that world anymore. And if we aren't prepared to defend ourselves, then others will take advantage of us. Remember the song, you know, give peace a chance. You know, well, you can only give peace of chance if everybody's willing to give peace a chance. But if you're the one who's going to lay down and say, let's be peaceful and somebody else isn't, they're just going to run right over you and take what you got. This is a challenge that we face as societies. You know, are we in the run up to World War I where we don't know that nobody really wanted,

the intentions were not really to go to war in any of the great powers and we ended up in war, right? They were all too tough and it ended up in a catastrophe. On the other hand, are we in the run up to World War II? Where Hitler was going to go to war, whatever we did. And we should have been tougher with Hitler. And that would have saved a lot of pain and misery for literally tens of millions. So we can never really know about other's intentions. So you and I have very sophisticated machinery in our brains. Every listener does too. And that machinery, that neural machinery, that brain machinery is for working out others' intentions. Because intentions can often be life and death. And whilst we need that machinery to cooperate and collaborate, and that machinery

enables humans to collaborate better than any other type of animal, across a much wider range of circumstances than any other animal can, but it also is deeply involved in deception, deceit, lying, and that is also part of what it is to be human. Well, we started this conversation asking the question, is war part of human nature? And you'd hate to think so, but from listening to you talk, it kind of seems like it is. Nicholas Wright has been my guest he's a neuroscientist at University College London

Georgetown and the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington where he also advises the Pentagon Joint Staff he's author of a book called Warhead How the Brain Shapes War and how War Shapes the Brain and there's a link to that book in the show notes

Nicholas thank you thanks for talking about this brilliant well thank you very much and that was really fun great questions You've probably heard or even felt that carrying around a heavy purse or briefcase can leave you with back, neck, or shoulder pain.

How heavy is too heavy? Well, if you put that bag on a scale, if it weighs more than 10% of your body weight, consider rearranging things. See if there's anything in there you really don't need. Any more weight than 10% of your body weight should really be worn backpack style. And if you do opt for

a backpack, keep the straps short so it sits high on your back. A backpack worn low changes your gate and will feel a lot heavier. Also, avoid carrying it slung over one shoulder, which kind of defeats the whole purpose.

And that is something you should know. And that ends this episode, but you know, there are hundreds of binge-worthy episodes of this podcast. I bet you have heard yet that you would really enjoy. I invite you to dig back into the archives on whatever platform you're listening on and listen to some other episodes. I think you'll be glad you did. I'm Micah Rothers. Thanks for listening today to Something You Should Know.

When they were young, the five members of an elite commando group nicknamed the Stone Wolves raged against the oppressive rule of the Kradarocan Empire, which occupies and dominates most of the galaxies inhabited planets. The wolves fought for freedom, but they failed, leaving countless corpses in their wake. Defeated and disillusioned, they hung up their guns and went their separate ways, all hoping to find some small bit of peace amidst a universe thick with violence and oppression. Four decades after their heyday, they each try to stay alive and eke out a living, but a friend from the past won't let them move on, and neither will their bitterest.

enemy. The Stone Wolves is season 11 of the Galactic Football League science fiction series by author Scott Sigler. Enjoy it as a standalone story or listen to the entire GFL series beginning with season one, The Rookie. Search for Scott Sigler, SIGLER, wherever you get your podcasts. Hi there, Fred Greenhald here, director of audio dramas like DC high volume Batman and Star Trek Khan. However, my one true love remains all thing spooky and I'm excited to say there's a new season of my horror podcast Undertoe. This season is called Familiar Haunts, standalone horror tales that reveal how the past is never truly gone and humanity may be the most ruthless monster

of them all. Here's a sample from the first episode about a man who returns to the house he grew up in after receiving a creepy voicemail from his mother. Let's hear it, shall we? Mike, help me. I'm not alone in here. I'm not alone. She's walking. She's He's fucking toward me. Hear the rest by listening to Familiar Haunts, available on Undertow. Subscribe to Undertoe wherever get your podcasts, such as the app you're listening to me right now. In addition to the weekly releases of Familiar Haunts, we have 11 previous seasons with everything from Werewolf Tales to Underwater Monsters and creepy, reincarnated twins.

So get your spooky fix by subscribing to Undertoe.