What Now? with Trevor Noah - Adam Grant Gives Trevor An Intellectual Wedgie [VIDEO]

Episode Date: August 15, 2024

What do you do when your values are tested? Trevor and organizational psychologist Adam Grant discuss this very timely question, as well the importance of discourse in reducing prejudice, the science of keeping an open mind, and whether Trevor might have missed his true calling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

That's the only way I get back into sort of shape, is I have to put weights next to my bed. That's literally what I'll do. Do you go to sleep in your gym clothes too? No, no, no, no. This is actually a myth. You don't need gym clothes to work out. This is a complete fallacy.

You can do it naked. It works just as well. In fact, it makes me feel like I'm in ancient Greece or something. Yeah, there's a moment where you lift a weight above your head and you're completely naked And you're just like yes, I am Spartacus

This is what now with Trevor Noah What's up guys? It's your girl Kiki and my podcast is back with a new season and let me tell you is What's up guys, it's your girl Kiki and my podcast is back with a new season and let me tell you it's too good And I'm diving into the brains of entertainments best and brightest. Okay every episode I bring on a friend I mean the likes of Amy Poehler, Kel Mitchell, Vivica Fox, the list goes on so follow watch and listen to baby This is Kiki Palmer on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcast It's fun having you. Welcome. Welcome to the podcast. I'm excited to be here.

Yeah, man. I'm really happy to have you here because I love how you think, but then I also love the science behind how you think. Some people know your books or your TED Talks, but what I've noticed is some people know you as, like they think of you as a researcher. They go, that's what that guy does. And then some people think of you as really a social scientist and a psychologist and somebody who looks at human interactions. How would you define what you actually do?

I mean, I guess I'd say I'm an organizational psychologist. And I'm interested in how we can improve the quality of our lives at work and beyond. Is it just like business organizations or any... Like how big does an organization get before it's no longer an organization? I think if it's fewer than two people, it's definitely not an organization. So it's the Lord's rules, basically. Maybe. Yeah, because he said that as well. He said, what, when three or more gathered in my name,

then I'm in their presence. I'm going to take your word for it. Yeah, well, I haven't had any conversations with the Lord. It's in the Bible. That's one of my favorite lines in their presence. I'm gonna take your word for it. I haven't had any conversations with the Lord. It's in the Bible. That's one of my favorite lines in the Bible. I like that the Lord is like, look man, if there's like two of you, you should probably go to church. If there's three of you, I'll come to you.

Fascinating. I didn't know there was a biblical theory of team size or gatherings. Actually, maybe. Let me start with asking you that. Is there a science behind the number of people who come together, then increasing their ability to connect with something more powerful or spiritual? Well thinking out loud, there are a couple of things that come to mind. The first one is, I'm thinking of Durkheim, the founding father of sociology who wrote about collective effervescence, which is a lot of syllables for the feeling of energy and purpose that you have when you come together in a group for something larger than yourself.

Say that again, the feeling of? Energy and purpose. That you have when coming together collectively in a group. Yeah. For the same reason though. Yes, with a common goal. Oh, I like this. Wait, is this the same as like Roman soldiers being able to march further when they were marching together?

Possibly. Okay. And do we know why that is? Wait, is this the same as like Roman soldiers being able to march further when they were marching together? Possibly. Okay. And do we know why that is? I think we know a little bit. There's actually a hilarious experiment where people had to sing O Canada either in unison or not. And then they ended up cooperating more afterward if they had been in tune together. Oh man, now then it seems like national anthems have a purpose in a weird way. They might. Like beyond just, I thought it was just like a love song to the country.

Well, I mean, I think you made the case that Sweet Caroline is better than our national anthem at bringing people together. I think it is. That was hysterical, by the way. Thank you very much. I think it's one of the greatest. I actually think that's what we should do. I think every country should change its national anthem every few years, just to like keep it fresh and keep up with the times and the greatest. I actually think that's what we should do. I think every country should change its national anthem every few years, just to like keep it fresh

and keep it like, keep up with the times and the vibes. You know what I mean? And then, you know, like, yeah, like Sweet Caroline could have been a national anthem, I think for a while. You know? How would you choose? You just see what people like. It's like, how do they choose the charts?

That's, this would be so much fun. Yeah, I mean, we just listen to the music and then we go like, all right, hey, new national anthem you know, it's like Taylor Swift has a great one and then Beyonce has another great one and then we just like go down a list and we choose like amazing songs. Sometimes you unearth them from way back in the day, you know. What I love about this is then you would get people a little bit more comfortable with changing old traditions and then it wouldn't be a far cry to say we should have a new constitutional convention.

Damn, you just took it there. I mean, I don't talk about it. a little bit more comfortable with changing old traditions. And then it wouldn't be a far cry to say, we should have a new constitutional convention. Damn, you just took it there. I mean, I don't touch the constitution. Let me tell you something now, Adam Grant. I want you to know you don't bring that to my podcast. The constitution is the way the constitution was and always will be, all right? Anyone else who's watching this, you know that.

I believe in the constitution and it stays the way it should. Especially all those amendments. You don't change those amendments. How dare you? You're a big fan of change. I mean, I think that the world changes, and we have a choice about whether we want to evolve with it or whether we want to become obsolete. Okay, so...

let's try climb this mountain together. Somebody who is pro change is how I assume you are, from reading you, listening to you, et cetera. Depends on the change. Okay, okay, okay. So then let's start with that. When do you or when do you think someone should change their mind?

Because I always go, you should always be willing to change. And for me personally, as Trevor, I go, I always assume that I could be wrong. It doesn't matter Trevor, I go, I always assume that I could be wrong. It doesn't matter what it is. I just always assume that I could be wrong. And then I go from there. Including about that? Yeah.

Okay. I think that change is not always good, right? We have to be clear about that. Sometimes it backfires. Sometimes it has unintended consequences. We're living with a lot of them right now. And your show is about that in some ways. Right.

Yeah. I think, I think the reasons for change are really important. So a lot of people change to gain social approval. Uh huh. And. Oh, wow. Well, I saw that coming and I couldn't jump quick enough. Sorry, but well, it's.

And it's right out of shot. But it's out of shot. Sorry. That's hilarious. You, you're going to just have to leave it for now, I guess. How do you deal with this change? You guys are running with this metaphor here. It's...

Not all change is good. That's what you were saying, right? I don't know, maybe that plan needed to go. I didn't know you bring props to your interviews. You brought the prop. That's really well played. Thank you. So, going back, no, no.

So going back... Why do you change, um. Why do you change? Yeah. Why, why do you change or when do you know that you should change? I think for me, the starting point is to say most people base what they want to, what they want to change and what they want to keep constant on their identity. And their identity is a set of beliefs about what's true. I think that's a mistake. I think who you are is not a question of what you believe, it's a question of what you value. So not

what are your truths, but rather what are your principles? What are your truths? Wait, forgive me. It sounds like the same thing. Help me break it down. So let's actually talk about you, Trevor. Let's talk about one of your core beliefs. Give me a policy that you think is necessary or effective. That is necessary or effective. Or that we should have that we don't.

The way taxes are doled out for people's education in America for children's education, I don't think should be by zip code. I think somebody should try and find an algorithm or like a system that basically just breaks it up equally and every school gets the same money because otherwise people have created little enclaves where the money ends up.

And so even though it's a public school and everyone's proud of that, oh, my child goes to a public school, you've made it a private school by locking it into the zip code where the school accepts people from. Yep. Do you know what I mean? So for me, that policy I would change.

I would go, no, we find a system where the money all comes together and then it just gets like sprayed out equally. And then every school is getting the same amount of resources as opposed to schools getting money based on who's the richest people who live near it. Okay, good. So you have a belief that equal distribution

of resources to schools is a good idea. Yes, I think it's a better idea than what it is now. Now, what's the value behind that? Why do you want to do that? I don't even think about people being smarter. I just think if everybody has access to a thing, then they're more likely to be in sync with each other because in a way, we've given them all access to O Canada as an education system. And so they're more likely to feel like they are together when they go out into the world. Okay, so the value you're describing is community, solidarity, belonging. That's your value.

Okay, now, your belief is you have a particular way of getting us there. Yes. That might or might not be true. That is true. And so if you stay open to questioning the belief, you're interested in whatever is the best policy to serve your value. Oh damn. And that allows you to learn and change.

Okay. But don't change the value. No, no, this makes a lot of sense because I should be open to the idea that equally distributing the thing is wrong. Yeah, exactly. But I still wish to create a society where people are generous and connected

and living in a community. Nailed it. Look at that. I like this. Look at that. I like this. You should teach. I mean, maybe I will. You should go to a university

and be a professor or something. I might need a recommendation from you. I'll be like, can I get a Trevor reference for that job? So I've always wondered this about you. When you have this much data in your head and this much science, does it make it harder to move through the world with people who are operating completely from like a,

I don't wanna say flawed, but what's the biggest thing that, what's like your pet peeve when you talk to people? Astrology. Astrology, you don't believe in astrology? I mean, technically I shouldn't believe or disbelieve, right? I have a set of values. You don't? Wow.

Around scientific inquiry, and I think the science casts a lot of doubt on it. Okay, look, okay, I'm skeptical of astrology, right? But I'm a Pisces, so that's my nature. Do you know what I mean? But I'm saying like, okay, so let's get into this. Are you really a Pisces, Trevor? Yeah, I really am. Do you think that has any meaning?

Okay, so this is the thing. Do I believe in astrology? No. I have this romantic idea that there is a possibility that something did affect people, but I don't necessarily know what it is. Maybe it's January people. Maybe we're like giving it star signs, but I keep thinking like, maybe if you're born at the end of the year,

you have a different vibe because like you're born around like end of the year, like people have a different vibe at the end of the year. And maybe you live a different life because I think like Malcolm Gladwell did like some of that work is like, you also get into the schooling system at a different time. So maybe you act different, you feel different,

you are different. So maybe our star signs are just like a woo-woo way of tapping into something that might be scientific. Now, do I believe it tells you what's going to happen in the next month? No, I don't. But I go like, oh, there's something here. So interesting to hear you talk about it. So I think you're talking about it like a scientist would.

And what drives me crazy about people's stances on astrology is they come in as preachers, not scientists. Okay, so what separates a preacher from a scientist? So a preacher is basically proselytizing their existing views. And a scientist is trying to find the truth, not spread it. Okay, so wait, I've heard you talk a little bit about this before. Let's break down some. So there's preachers, there are politicians, and then there is? Prosecutors.

Prosecutors. Okay, okay, okay. So preachers, you're going out there, you're basically saying, this is what I believe in, and everyone should believe in it with me. Yes. Okay, politicians? In politician mode, basically, you're saying, I'm not even going to bother to listen to you unless you already agree with what I think. Oh damn Okay, and then prosecutor prosecutor is my biggest problem So this is what happens whenever someone tries to give me a horoscope is I start to just smack it down with data Oh you you like you're a prop you have a problem being a prosecutor huge problem. I've been called a logic bully Trevor

You think that's funny my wife had to explain that's not a compliment. Oh yeah, no, I know it's not a compliment. That's why I think it's hilarious. What do you mean people don't want to be hammered with facts and studies? Oh man, I love this. Have you gotten better at this? Are you able to like hold yourself when somebody... Sometimes. Sometimes. Sometimes. I mean, I talked to somebody the other day who was interested in exploring ideas and finding out what's true, not preaching. And I got a, well, what's your sign?

I need to know your sign to understand you. And I just launched into a huge rant. I couldn't resist. That's hilarious. Wait, okay, wait. So now let me ask you this. As an organizational psychologist, as somebody who studies people, that is an instance that a lot of people might be able to laugh at and go, man, this is funny.

That's hilarious. I can't believe that happened, et cetera. But I feel like in the world we're living in today, as people are getting more access to a more, what I would call like a niche existence, it's your for you feed, it's your algorithm, it's your way of seeing the world. Is there any science or is there a proven way to bridge the gap between yourself and somebody else? Especially let's start with people you care about.

Someone you care about who holds a view that you, as you said, would make you launch a rant against it. Like you go like, I cannot believe you hold this view knowing you as a human being the way I thought I did. So ideally, what you start with is you say, okay, I'm feeling the strong temptation to preach and prosecute. And I want to think more like a scientist here. Don't let your ideas become your identity. So a good scientist would have the humility to know what they don't know and the curiosity to keep seeking new knowledge. And the way you start doing that is you say, huh, what an interesting specimen. I mean, don't say that out loud. But I think that-

Okay. I was like, okay, this is not going to help build your friendships. No, but the more somebody holds a different opinion, I mean, don't say that out loud. Okay. But I think that. I was like, okay, this is not going to help build your friendships. Okay. Okay. Okay. No, but the, the more, the more somebody holds a different opinion, the less you understand about how they think. Okay.

Even if you're offended by what they think. And that means you have to want to know more. So you've got a couple options. I think the first one is to just establish that two reasonable, reasonable, intelligent people can actually disagree. Yeah. And that's okay.

A second is what I love to do is I love to ask, and this is when I remember to do it, it leads to a much better conversation. Like, okay, Trevor, so like you called yourself a Pisces. That's so interesting to me that you would put any stock in something that I think has no evidence behind it. What evidence would change your mind? Hmm. And then what, And then what happens? What follows?

Well, usually people start to map out, well, this is the kind of study I would need to see. And then they're on my turf. Oh, damn. So you're out here laying logic traps. A little bit. The logic bully has turned into the logic hunter. He's like, like, Adam's out in the forest,

like, laying out logic traps. The traps are better than the bullying though. Let's play this game out now. Let's try this again in a benign topic. Let's go with astrology. And I'm saying this to you, and I mean this completely, honestly, I do not believe in it. However, what would you need from me to accept that astrology might have some merit?

The first thing I would want you to do is to read the science that has convinced me that it doesn't have any merit. So I would say, let's just throw out a few simple data points, and I'm going to try really hard not to logic bully here. No, no, go, go, go. You can't bully me, because I'm asking for it. If I say pull my underwear, then I'm now a willing participant. There's no bullying here.

This is just two consenting adults, one pulling the other ones underwear up out of their pants. Fair. So, please, logic wedgie me. Intellectual wedgie, here we come. Okay, so there's a psychology piece and then there's an astrophysics piece. Where do you wanna go first?

Okay, let's go psychology first. Okay, so psychology first. So there's a huge study led by Jackson Liu at MIT. It's over 160,000 people where you get their astrological sign, and then you also have them fill out a long personality questionnaire. And it turns out there is literally a zero correlation between any of the signs and any personality trait that you can think of. Wow. Zero?

Zero. Like on a one to seven scale, like Capricorns and Pisces would come out 5.62 versus 5.63 on how agreeable and friendly they are. And every trait and every sign goes like that. Zero. Zero. This is devastating. Here's the thing, when you share this evidence with astrology fans, what they do is they say, well, I need your whole natal chart because it's not enough to just know your zodiac sign.

Which is true because I mean the moon also affects, and where was Venus? Where was Venus? This is a very key question. Not in the picture, clearly. But that's where you then start to go to astrophysics, and I'm not an astrophysicist, right? So I'm, I should be careful here. It's pretty clear that their, the gravitational force that the sun, the moon, and the stars exert on us is so infinitesimally small that it would almost be impossible to measure it. The force of any celestial objects on your body is smaller than the force your own pillow

exerts when you go to sleep at night. Damn. And, you said you were a Pisces, Trevor? Yeah. Turns out because of the Earth's wobble, you're not even the sign that you think you are, which hasn't been accounted for in the last couple thousand years. I'm sorry, say that again. The Earth wobbles.

Because the Earth has wobbled, people aren't the star sign that they are. That they think they are. How much has it moved by? I think, I don't actually know, this is not my expertise. I think you might be one sign off. I knew it, I'm an Aquarius. I could feel, you know what, I felt a change a few years ago. And I was like, but I'm Pisces.

This makes a lot of sense. Clearly. You've just helped me use the science to get back into astrology. No! No! We're going to continue this conversation right after this short break.

right after this short break. Do you think it's more important to be right? Or do you think it's more important to get along with other people? Ideally for me a healthy relationship is one in which people recognize great minds do not think alike. They challenge each other to think again. Uh-huh, uh-huh. And if we can't question each other and we can't disagree, then we actually don't have a lot of respect for each other. Oh, that's interesting.

Like I don't respect your ability to learn and your willingness to consider different views if I'm not open to putting something out there that you might object to. You know, it's funny in one of the episodes we had Gerard Carmichael on and we were talking about his TV show and how he came out as gay and had been struggling to get his family to accept him as an openly gay man. And one of the things we disagreed on, we're still friends, but one of the things we disagreed on is how he went about it. So he went slamming it in their face, showing my mom, this is my boyfriend, showing my dad like, pics of my boyfriend in his underwear and you know what I mean? Now personally, personally as Trevor, I don't agree with that.

And I get where Jirard's coming from. And he said like, this is the only way I could get my family to change. He knows his family better than I do. So I go like, all right, I'll defer to you. But the thing I said to him was, I find, I'm not a scientist nor am I a psychologist, but I find one of the biggest things that hurts us in society today is that we,

it's sort of like we, how can I put it? If we spend all our time butting up against the thing that we disagree on, I almost feel like we form a callous with each other as human beings. And then that becomes the thing that we meet on every single time. Well, well, if it isn't Mr. Pisces, ah, if it isn't Mr. Science. And now I no longer see you as Adam. And so I sometimes wonder, and maybe you've got you know something to back this up or

maybe I'm wrong. I sometimes wonder if the key to bridging those divides is not by hitting them head on but it's by fortifying the other parts of our connection that make us more likely to trust each other in the parts where we don't get along. Does this make sense? It makes a ton of sense. This is fascinating. Okay, so I have a couple reactions. First one is, a callus protects your hands. Okay. So it's a buildup of, I don't even, what is it?

I guess it's just skin that dies and I don't know, I'm not a anything, but yeah. But it prevents you from bleeding, right? There's a protective layer on there. And so I actually wonder if the opposite is true. If we invested in other parts of our relationships, we would increase, there's a term for it actually, it's called tensility, which I had never heard. My mentor, Jane Dutton, gave me the term. It's basically the carrying capacity of a relationship. Oh, I like that. Like tensile strength. Yeah, to bend without breaking. Okay. And I think you could say, yeah, the more we invest in the

relationship, the more we build it. Right. But for some reason, whatever we've been doing to invest in our relationships in the last decade was not enough. People didn't used to fight about politics, I think pre 2015, the way they do now. And we've still watched a lot of relationships fall apart. Think about how many in the US Thanksgiving dinners

were just shattered. Yeah. So I actually wonder if we're making in some ways the opposite mistake. We say, you know, that's, that's not important enough to have the argument. I want to keep the peace. I don't want to damage the relationship. And so we never build the calluses for the big ones.

You're almost going to an earlier stage. You're saying because we don't spend enough time challenging each other on the small things, we're not prepared when the big things come around for a constructive and let's say respectful dialogue. Exactly. But if you think about it for a second, it's, I mean, in any other domain of life, we would assume you have to practice when the stakes are low in order to be prepared. Yeah. But I think so often people are told, you know, just compromise, pick your battles in relationships that they end up treating them as as fragile as opposed to saying no we've actually got to learn how to disagree and in fact there's there's

some classic research looking at at families looking at what does it take to raise a creative child and it turns out that creative children come from families more often than not, that had regular arguments and disagreements. Really? Yeah. So if you want to raise a creative kid, you can at least increase the probability.

I'm not sure if it's causal, but by arguing with your spouse a little bit more. What do you think that is? I have an idea, but I'd love to know what you think that is. Well, I want to hear your hunch before I tell you what I think, because I've been thinking about this for a long time. Okay, so here's what I think it is. I think the reason children who grow up in houses that are a little more argumentative might be a little more creative

is because they're existing in an environment where there isn't one way to think. And so what happens is they're both stumbling on what I like to call third thoughts, right? I had this idea when I was working on The Daily Show with my team and I'd say, I think everyone has a thought, right? And then like you can have a second thought even by yourself but I think there's this elusive third thought that can only come from two different thoughts

clashing together and forming a third thought that isn't from one specific place. And so I think if you are watching people who don't agree as a child, people who you generally love or you care for, et cetera, you are listening to a person and you are agreeing with them maybe or just seeing their point of view. You're looking at another person agreeing with them and seeing their point of view. And then maybe you are holding both, including a third, which might be yours, which is another opinion of it.

And that might force your brain to think of more things than just the things that exist, which I think is what creativity fundamentally is. I love this. Okay, so your theory is cognitive complexity comes from seeing people argue that you don't default to. Okay, I need to remember all the, you make like some of my ideas sound way smarter and fancier than they are, which I like. Cognitive complexity, write that down. All right. I just give you terms for things you already know. Okay, okay, okay, cool. I also think you learn to be a nonconformist through that same process. Oh, interesting. That instead of just defaulting or deferring to whatever an authority figure tells you, you realize, well, there are two different authorities in the room and they don't agree. And you, I think that can both lead to cognitive complexity,

but it can also lead to more courage when it comes to challenging the status quo. Because there's not a right answer coming from above. There is not one coming from above. Yep. You know, it's funny you say this. My mom is very religious, extremely, extremely religious, but I also think she is one of the most progressive thinkers I've ever come across in my lifetime.

And one thing I always noticed as a child was how sometimes she would disagree with the sermon that the pastor gave when we'd leave church. And I'd be like, huh, and I'm just a kid. I'm just sitting in the passenger seat listening. And she goes, I didn't agree with that. I didn't, I didn't, I hear where the pastor was coming from, but I think he was, that story of Joseph is not about, and then she'd go into her thing and then I'd be like, but he's the pastor.

And she's like, yeah, he's a guy who reads the Bible. He's not God. Yeah, but he's not God. He's like, we also have the Bible. And it was an interesting way for me to view, even religion is going like, huh, don't assume that the person who stands on the pulpit has like a monopoly on knowledge, you too have the book that you can read. And so now that makes me wonder now I'm like, huh, was that part of me, you know? Okay. I like this. I like it too. I mean, you can see both of those effects playing out. I'm like, huh, was that part of me, you know, okay, I like this.

I like it too. I mean, you can see both of those effects playing out. Yeah, definitely. You're not just going to assume that the pastor's answer is gospel. Right. And then you're also not going to be afraid to question what somebody in power says. So how do you, if you're a parent, you're a parent, I've met your daughter, actually. One of my favorite things I've encountered is you arguing with your daughter.

I don't even remember this. You don't remember this? It was really fun. So I don't remember what it was about, I wish I did. But the two of you were having a discussion and she said, I think it's this. And you said, why do you think it's that? And you're like, I don't know if I agree with you.

And then I was like, actually I agree with her and I really did. I wasn't trying to stir shit or anything. She had a respect for you, but not like a fear. So have you encouraged that in your daughter? Have you gone like, hey, argue me like on everything? Or does she just see it from you? I've tried to encourage it, but it's going to happen whether I do or not.

Right. Because I'm assuming she just observes this. Yeah. I mean, she sees me getting things wrong all the time. And so how can you not speak up about that? Oh, I like that. But I will say, you know, so you haven't met my wife, Alison, but during COVID, we did something that we'd never tried before, which is we said, okay, we want to, we want to create a household where our kids are willing to constructively disagree and debate things. We also want to raise a family in which they can admit their mistakes and not be ego-defensive about what they did wrong. So we sat down at family dinner one night and we said, we're going to go around and each say something we want to do better.

And then we're going to ask everybody else to give us notes, basically, on how we can improve. And we did it first. And we, we anticipated some of what our kids sold us, not everything, but it, it was, it was such a powerful conversation because I think for the, I'd never thought to do this before, although we do this at work all the time, but like bosses are supposed to ask their, their teams, how can I improve? Right.

Um, I'd never seen parents do that actively with their kids before. And one of the notes that Joanna gave me was that I needed to be less stubborn. And I was like, I literally just published a book about changing your mind. And then Elena jumped in and was like, you need to think again, dad. Oh, that's funny. And I was like, Oh, who am I writing this book for, that's funny. And I was like, oh, who am I writing this book for? It's for me because I need to internalize my own message. But I do think

that, look, some people, they think this is, you know, gentle parenting gone overboard. Like I don't want to ask my kids how I can be a better parent. Yeah. I'm like, I don't know a better way to model to them that we're all works in progress and we all get things wrong and we all have to work on ourselves than that. Was there something where you like disagreed and you were like, nope, I don't agree with your assessment? Yes.

When we got to the, well, we should all have smartphones. Nice. Nice. Had to set a boundary there. Now, okay. So now let's talk about that boundary because I think a lot of parents will relate to this. Your kids go, hey, I think you're wrong

about us not having smartphones. You go, nope, we do not think that we're wrong. Like, how are you making that decision and what are you basing it on? Well, I think, look, I think the evidence is really messy and there are lots of conflicting findings. Even some of the most knowledgeable experts on this topic

don't agree on what policies should be. I think that two things jumped out at me. The first one is there was a study showing that the earlier kids got smartphones, the younger they were when they got their first one, the lower their self-esteem, the more emotional challenges they faced, even going into young adulthood. Now, is that causal? We don't know. It could be that parents who were lax, were lax in lots of different ways. But that's concerning to me. Damn.

Then there was just a great experiment in Scandinavia, showing that when smartphones were banned from schools, kids not only got better grades, but they also had better relationships and their social skills improved more. And so I think there's enough evidence to suggest that there are aspects of smartphones that may not be a net positive for kids. A flip phone or a watch is probably good until high school.

Yeah. So I'm on a journey of trying to defonify my life right now. How's that working for you? It's actually going well. So what I've realized is the gift of the modern smartphone is also its curse. And it's that everything is in one place. And so I'm not saying it is bad, but I just go,

the collection of everything is actually a curse at times. So it's like, imagine if everything that you kept in your house food-wise was in the exact same place. I mean, like cake, cupcakes, milk, eggs, bread, beans, you name it, but it was all in the same place. Think about how much more likely you would be to eat a bag of Doritos if like it was in the fridge. Do you know what I mean?

And so like, I think there's like a weird thing. We've even done this as humans where we've gone like, all right, that's the snacks cupboard. So you know that if you open that, there'll be snacks. But if you put the snacks everywhere else, there's a high likelihood or higher, I think, that you're gonna get sucked in. And I think the same thing goes for the smartphone, right?

It's like we have this thing. This is really good. And you go into one part of it, and then all of a sudden you're in another part of it, and you're like, wait, how did I get here? What was I doing? How did I? So what I'm trying to do right now

is I'm trying to de-phonify my life. So I go, I have the phone, I understand that. But what are the elements of the phone that I can try to take out of the phone so that I don't have to take the phone out? Do you know what I mean? Yeah, and then your friends don't lose you to your text or your email or Instagram. Yeah, the look down, you know? I mean? Yeah. And then your friends don't lose you to your text or your email or Instagram.

Exactly. Yeah, the look down. Yeah. The look down. And I, so I'm like trying to do that because, you know, to your point of like, what's the bad thing about, I don't think it's like, it's a, it's a, it's an unwelcome second system effect. It's a thing that we didn't necessarily consider would happen when we made our phones, our

flashlights, our phones, our email, our computers, our recording devices, our everything. I think your strategy is much better than what most people do, which is they just try to use willpower. And the problem is nobody has enough self-control to resist every temptation that a phone brings. Man, I wish you were around when I was a kid, just so you could say that to my mom. No one has enough self-control, mom! Professional psychologists just said it.

Don't go anywhere because we got more What Now? after this. Self control, mom. Professional psychologists just said it. Don't go anywhere, because we got more What Now after this. Is it true that willpower is a finite resource? There's a huge debate about that. I think my read of the evidence, and just clear, um, I didn't buy a lot of the evidence when it was coming out. So I, this could be confirmation bias, but I think that what looked like ability is actually motivation.

So let me give you a classic example of this. All right. So this is, this is an old, old experiment. Okay. Go not, not today's standards of rigor, but people are brought into the lab and they have to just write endlessly for hours and hours and hours. And you're told that you're supposed to write until you can't anymore, essentially.

So your hand is too cramped. Okay. And you finish writing. Yeah. And then you have to sign a form to get paid and no one complains that their hand hurts while they sign the form. So little context switch.

And this task that was impossible to you that you had exhausted your self-control to keep doing. Because you said you cannot write anymore. You can't. You're done. Oh, sign this thing. Oh, no problem. Didn't even cross my mind. And so I think what a lot of us have called willpower

is actually just motivation. It's not self-control. It's a question of, do you want this outcome? Does it matter to you? do you want this outcome? Does it matter to you? Are you excited about it? And if the answer is yes, you're going to find the willpower. So then are you saying that the motivation exerted upon us by snacks or junk food or

social media is more powerful than the motivation that the gym exerts on us? In the moment. Yeah, yeah would say that the snacks are a want and the gym is a should. Wants exert a greater pull than shoulds do. But we can outsmart the wants by making the shoulds built into our habits or by making the wants less tempting. I think that other people play a huge role in this too. So, you know the famous marshmallow test? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the original version is we put a marshmallow in front of you, you're a toddler, and you're told you can have it now,

but if you're willing to wait a little while, then you get two marshmallows. Okay. Exactly. And then the amount of time that you delay the gratification predicts your SAT score and your grades in school. And it's supposed to be a measure of your willpower. But to my point about motivation, there's a recent replication of the marshmallow experiment where some of the kids are told that

another child will get a second marshmallow if they can wait. And what happens? And their quote unquote willpower goes up. They don't want to let the other kid down. Is the other kid there staring at them? No. They just told about the idea of another kid. Yeah.

Just knowing that another kid could lose a marshmallow because of you is enough to amplify your motivation and you wait a little bit longer. Are you doing that because you care about the other kid enjoying the gooey treat? Yes. Could be part of it. Are you also doing that because you don't wanna feel guilty about letting that kid down? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter whether it's one or the other or a combination of the two. At the end of the day, I think Maya Angelou said, I'm counting on you counting on me. And that's what's happening here. Let's take that out of that world and think, did they ever try playing around with who they told the kids was going to get the marshmallow? I don't know. Because I'll be fascinated if they said, hey, there's an adult in the other room who'll get a

marshmallow. Hey, there's a grandmother who'll, there's a grandfather, there's a dog, there's a sheep. Hey, the devil is in the next room, and like Satan, and if you wait, Satan will get an extra marshmallow. I wonder what the result would be. And the reason I ask it is because I think about like extrapolating this to larger society. And I go, it makes sense to me that a kid would think of another kid when holding out on taking a marshmallow. Because they go, if I get, I'll get another one and they'll get another one. Us kids get more.

What happens when that kid no longer thinks that the other thing is like them? Do you know what I mean? I do. And then the question I have for you is how do we then overcome that in society? Because we see it in everything, right? In America, we're getting to a point where Republicans and Democrats no longer see each other as human beings. You take it everywhere.

You take it everywhere. Israel, Palestine is a great example. And one thing that always strikes me is when I talk to friends, especially from the region, is they'll be like, man, we're a lot more similar than you guys think we are from the outside. And this is a lot more like heinous for us as human beings than people sort of play around with it. And so I wonder, is there like a way to improve that?

Or is there a way to understand why we do or don't see somebody as being a kid in the other room who might get a marshmallow? Oh, there are so many things we could think about there. First one is Lee Ross did this experiment years ago before it was nearly as polarized as it is now, but it was Israel and Palestine at the time. It was a test of allegiance. So people who are strongly either pro-Palestine or pro-Israel are presented with peace plans from the other side. And the question is, how do they feel about them?

And they're also presented with plans from their own side. And it turns out the content of the plan is irrelevant. What matters is what group you think created it. So if you're pro-Palestine, you're more excited about the plan that Israelis came up with if it was labeled a Palestinian plan, then you are your own country's plan if it was labeled an Israeli plan. And I think that really just speaks to your point about both in-group loyalty and out-group distrust or maybe even dehumanization.

So we feel if we think the idea is coming from somebody that we don't trust or somebody that we don't feel holds the same values as we do as a human, we're less likely to take on that idea. Throw it out. I think most psychologists would tell you that the majority of prejudice is driven not originally by out-group hate, but by in-group love. Oh, wait, wait, say more about that. Well, I think the classic finding is that people will, they'll attach to a group.

Yeah. When they have the most minimal and trivial cues of groupness. Like, you know, you can just put people in a room together and say, come up with a name for your group, and all of a sudden that group is good. And any group that's not us, like, you know, you can, you can just put people in a room together and say, come up with a name for your group. And all of a sudden that group is good. And any group that's not us, well, we have to treat them a little bit differently. It's that simple. It, it often is. We see it happen all around us.

So one of the things Tim Cundrow and I did a few years ago was we said, okay, part of what people don't think about is they think about the group that they belong to as, um, as part of their essence. It's who I am. But if you run the counterfactual, it's very possible you could have belonged to a different group. Right. So we started out with a really simple example. We did, um, Red Sox and Yankees fans, given that that's one of the most intense rivalries in American sports. It is indeed. What we did was we said, uh, we want you to just, uh, write about what it would be like if you're a Yankees fan to have grown up in Boston. And then they're less nasty to the other side after doing that. Why? It seems to be the case that they start to see more similarities between them and the people that they thought were their enemy.

And they realized like, wow, this deep allegiance that I thought this was who I am, it's actually just an accident of birth or where my parents happened to live at a given time. And then we said, okay, well, what if, what if this process of counterfactual thinking could go bigger than baseball rivalries? So we had people on opposite sides of guns and abortion do the same exercise.

And we said, okay, if, okay, if you're somebody who's very strongly gun safety, imagine you grew up hunting in the South with your family, how might you feel differently? And we found that not only were people more open to having a genuine disagreement with the other side, not only were they more willing to listen to their challenging opinions, they were more interested in dating somebody who disagreed with them. Oh, that switched quick. Yeah. Yeah, wow.

And this is literally a one-minute intervention. Now, the problem is a lot of people won't do the exercise in the first place. Right. So I sit down with somebody and I say, hey, Trevor, imagine you'd grown up. Well, I wouldn't have been raised in those circumstances. Yeah. So I think that's the next step is to I sit down with somebody and I say, hey, Trevor, imagine you'd grown up. Well, I wouldn't have been raised in those circumstances. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

So I think that's the next step is to figure out how to get people to engage with that. I often wonder if this is a... I sometimes think of it as a failure of leadership. So for instance, America's a good example. You know, the ascent of Donald Trump I found particularly interesting because he was the first politician I had seen in America who really made it zero sum in a way that I never really seen any politicians do before. You know, it doesn't matter if it's like George Bush, it doesn't matter if it's Bill Clinton,

there was always an element of like reach across the aisle and now Trump has gone like no, actually forget that, no reaching, no shaking hands, no nothing, you're scum of the earth, you know what I mean? And I mean, I'm intrigued by why that attitude, which we're seeing around the world by the way, I'm not saying this is a Donald Trump thing. Why is that more seductive than the people who say, let's see it from the other side, let's shake hands, let's think about this, let's find,

like why is it more seductive if the other one makes us better human beings to each other? I think it's not a coincidence, as you said, that this is happening around the world. And I think that it's happening around the world in a context of perceived scarcity and fear of loss. Oh yeah. So the American version is, this is the first generation on record that is not going to be better off than their parents. And if you're sitting around worrying about that all the time, it is really appealing to have somebody who tells you, I alone can fix this.

So from a psychology standpoint, how do we fix it? The Heineken commercial is a good start. I'm sorry? You've seen the Heineken commercial, right? Which one? There was just a massive experiment where I think psychologists submitted at least two dozen different interventions to try to bridge divides. Okay. And the Heineken commercial beat all of them.

The commercial? The commercial. Yeah, can we pull it? This one? I would describe my political views as the new right. I'd say that I'm left. So it's a four-minute Heineken ad where essentially they bring people together, they play us their, I guess, main belief.

Somebody said to me that climate change is destroying the world, then I'd say that is total piffle. You know, I'm anti-trans, I'm a feminist, I hate feminists, etc., etc. So transgender, it is very odd. I am a daughter, a wife. I am transgender. They put the people who have the opposing beliefs with each other, then they give them a series of tasks

to complete, and then they expose to them the main belief that other people have that I guess differs, and then they agree and they sit down and they have a beer. Even if you wanted to convince people about your point, the productive thing to do would be to sit down and have a beer. To engage, to engage. I've been brought up in a way where everything's black and white.

But life isn't black and white. Yeah, I'm not interested in being. Now, let's go back to what you said, the ad itself. Yes, this is the amazing thing is you don't have to go and have the beer or build the box with the person. You just have to watch the ad. It's enough to reduce your prejudice against the other side. Huh.

Why do we think that is? Well, I think what's happening, and you can actually hear some of it in the video, is we're confronting binary bias, which is the basic tendency that people have to oversimplify a complex world into two categories. Okay. You know, Republicans bad, Democrats good. Right. And showing a 3D view of that and sort of busting that bubble.

So, you know what's interesting about this? You talk about coming around full circle. In a weird way, it almost feels like we as adults should be living in a world where we watch multiple parents arguing because then it'll help us be more creative in how we see our connection with other people. Because if you think about it, if you show Americans, Republican and Democrat, they believe that there are only two ways to see an issue, there are only two outcomes to every issue, and there are only two ways to be, that then fundamentally means at the end of the day, just, I mean, averaging and odds

and you're probably going to end up at a 50-50 impasse because that's what it is. But if you found a way to show them sort of an anonymized breakdown of views, people may be more likely to come to more complex conclusions about a varying set of topics. Yes. And I don't need you to think I'm right. I just need you to recognize that you might be wrong, just as I know I might be. And actually, Trevor, there's a really specific example of this that if you were still hosting The Daily Show,

I would say, do it this fall. Sarah Conrath has tested the effects of changing the maps we show in election seasons and says there's no such thing as a blue state or a red state, just different proportions. And it turns out if you show people a purple map with different shades, they're actually more, they're more open to the other side and they show less prejudice, less stereotyping,

less discrimination. That's amazing, why haven't we just done that? I don't know, I think we all should be, well, I think we know the answer to that. Yeah, it's not as dramatic, it's not as, and I think you see like, this is what I mean, is like, not that things are, you know, again, not the binary good or bad, but if you look at like, if you look at incentives, in many ways, I would say like the news in and around the world has tendencies that the

snack and junk food industry has, and that it is trying to maximize. So if they show you a red and blue map, it makes you feel like you are engaged in a battle where one side is encroaching and you are either winning or you are losing, but you really see this thing visually. Showing me a shades of purplish map is just like, you've now just shown me the United States of America, which is not scary, is not as exciting. And so it's like, in a weird way, it's almost like that's what we have to ask ourselves

is where do the incentives lie? If the news has an incentive to keep you watching, unfortunately, that incentive will probably be best served by them making you feel like everything is always ending and then people are coming to get you, right? Maybe. I think so. I don't know.

I mean, people are gonna to listen to this podcast. They might even watch it. We haven't discussed any urgent news or any headlines. Yes. There's a huge appetite for long form, thoughtful, complexified conversations. Yes. I don't think we figured out how to put that on TV. Yeah.

In a weird way, it goes back to the incentives and who's running them or controlling them. It does, but I think on the margins, there's still things we can do. So like we were talking earlier about people not trusting science, and I think a huge reason why that happened is science was oversimplified. And so what we ought to say is, you know, here's an initial study and the best available evidence

points in the following direction, but here are the caveats, right? You see that in any scientific paper you read. Well, journalists are afraid to do that because they think it undermines interest. Yes. It doesn't. There are a whole bunch of studies, which I should caveat. We don't know if they're going to continue to replicate, but people are just as

interested and they read with healthy skepticism and they appreciate the complexity. So then let me ask you this. Using everything you've taught me in this conversation, how do you think you will bridge or reevaluate your relationship with a friend of yours who believes in astrology and you had like a little like ranty bust up with? What do you think you can do now to connect with them? What do you think I should do? I would start with the like apologies

and be like, hey man, really sorry. You know me, science, I put science above everything and studies have actually shown that people like me are less likely to be open to a different opinion. And so yeah, man, anyway, it's actually funny. I wouldn't have usually done that but Mercury's in retrograde and that probably contributed to my inability to connect with you as a person and then if they laugh then you know you're in the space and then if they

don't you can be like I'm joking or whatever then maybe you know you find like a little bridge and you know their sense of humor and you know what connected you in the first place and then you go from there and then you're like anyway how's and I think their sense of humor and you know what connected you in the first place and then you go from there. And then you're like, anyway, how's, and I think that is enough. I don't think you're supposed to solve it there personally. And it's sort of build the scaffolding around this fracture in the column of our friendship.

And then when that scaffolding is intact, at some point you can come back, joke, laugh, connect and whatever, because I don't think you need to agree with your friends on everything. But if you get back to remembering that they're a human being, I do find you can have like a really wonderful relationship where you can even now mock each other about that and just be like, yeah, of course, what are you going to say about that? What are you going to say?

I think that's what I would think. I love this. Do you talk about astrology again? Or do you just leave it aside? Yeah, but I think it's no different to a limb that is injured, right? Why do we put people on crutches? We put people on crutches

so that they can stay off the limb that's hurt, right? Now in the longterm, you intend to get back on that limb and you're gonna do some physical therapy, but for the short term, it's like, stay off of it. And then next thing you know, you're back at single leg squats and you're in the game. And I think, I believe that that point of a friendship actually becomes greater because now you have a rift

that you've repaired. And I sometimes think, I sometimes think the most important connections you'll make are actually in the rifts. I think those moments is where like the real like, like core of a friendship actually exists in like the strength of it. Why? Because I think you've now built a new type of trust.

You've shown to each other that you have the ability to come back from anything. And I think that resilience might be more important than just like a, like a theoretical willingness. And so you can then laugh and go like, man, remember that fight we had? Remember that shit that went wrong? Remember that? I can't believe we, man, that's what I think. So you've proven your commitment to each other

also as part of that as well. Yeah, yeah. So that's what I'm trying to work on in my life with people is I go like, all right, I disagree with that. Have we shored up every other part of our lives? All right, let's tap on that a little bit. How are you feeling about that today? Let's chat a little bit more. Have you seenored up every other part of our lives? All right, let's tap on that a little bit. How are you feeling about that today? Let's chat a little bit more.

Have you seen this? What is your perspective on this? I find that helps me a lot with people as I go. I read this article. I would like to know how you see this and how you perceive it before I say anything. And I find, and that's maybe why I keep them and call them friends, I find the people who I have in my life are willing to say, yeah, actually that's not, or this is, and I find over the years and over the months,

our conversations have become a lot softer at the edges than they once would have been. Uh, this, I think you missed a calling as a therapist slash life coach. No, no, no, no. Well, you do it masterfully and I can't help but react to one thing that you just highlighted, which is I don't think character is how you treat people when things are going your way. It's how you show up on a hard day. And I think true character is what do you do when your values are tested? Yeah. What do you do when your values are tested?

Damn. What do you do when your values are tested? Well, what do you do when your values are tested? Well, we'll leave everyone thinking of that one. Adam Grant, it's always a pleasure chatting to you. Honor is mine, Trevor. Thank you. It's a blast, as always. What Now with Trevor Noah is produced by Spotify Studios in partnership with DayZero Productions. The show is executive produced by Trevor Noah is produced by Spotify Studios in partnership with Day Zero Productions. The show is executive produced by Trevor Noah, Sanaz Yamin and Jodie Avigan.

Our senior producer is Jess Hackl. Claire Slaughter is our producer. Music, mixing and mastering by Hannes Brown. Thank you so much for listening. Join me next Thursday for another episode of What Now?