Latest / Disengaged / Uncertainty and Closure with Arie Kruglanski
Transcript
- Arie Kruglanski: Cognitive closure is this feeling of certainty about a given issue that is of concern. It's the feeling that you know what the answer is. You're certain. It's a sense of security about your knowledge rather than ambiguity, confusion. It is something that we need in order to act. we need a certain degree of closure in order to cross the street, in order to choose what we want to eat on a restaurant menu. we need a certain degree of closure about every decision we make. So it's an inseparable part and and parcel of the human predicament because our life is made up of an endless chain of decisions. In each decision, you need to know where you're going, what the anticipated consequences might be. You need closure. in the absence of closure, you're confused, you don't know what to do, you're paralyzed, as it were. and therefore, closure is such an important, necessary condition of everyday being as well as of the larger decisions that we make. James: Ало алкомто анатореотов Аз дискаст. Distingu distinguished university Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Maryland My guest today is Professor Ari Kroglansky. And one of the most cited social psychologists alive. More than five hundred publications across a career that began. with a PhD under Harold Kelly in nineteen sixty eight at UCLA. This is our drive to resolve ambiguity. Professor Koglanski's gift to the world of psychology was the term cognitive closure the concept around that. This is our drive to resolve ambiguity and settle on an answer, any answer, particularly in the face of uncertainty. And significant quest theory. And significance quest theory. Which holds that the need to matter sits beneath much of what we do falling in love to finding a career. From falling in love to finding a career to joining a terrorist group. He was born in Wuoge, Poland in He was born in Wuj, Poland in nineteen thirty nine and survived the Holocaust as a child. That second idea is no abstraction to doctor Kruglansky, and And he later co founded Start. The National Center for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. Among his many works we discussed two books in particular, both of which I recommended. Uncertain how to turn your biggest fear into your greatest power, and from last year the quest for significance. harnessing the need that makes the world go round. Written with the journalist Rave, who spent Dan Reviv, who spent forty years at CBS News. Professor Koglanski also released a new book just two weeks ago called The human learning for Feeling big, feeling small. The human yearning for significance and wonder? This most this most recent work, which I haven't read yet, by the way. posits that human flourishing requires a delicate balance between two fundamentally human states. Bigness, that is striving for significance control and expansion. and smallness, yielding to something larger than oneself. feeling humbled or experiencing wonder. Professor Koglanski and Dan Reviv host the podcast, The Quest for Significance, which I highly recommend tuning into as well. So without further ado, I give you distinguished Professor Ari Kroglansky of the University of Maryland. Professor Arik Ignanski, welcome to the show. Arie Kruglanski: Good to be here. Thanks for inviting me. James: And before anything else, so I'm gonna hold up a copy. So this is your latest book, by the way. You released this last year, The Quest of Significance. So I've got my copy right here, and we'll get we'll dig into some of that later. I really enjoyed this, and I really enjoyed Uncertain as well, by the way. I like the unacademic tone, shall I say. So many historical stories, allegories, myths, fairy tales to illustrate your points. So thanks for making that so approachable. Arie Kruglanski: Thank you. And if I may, here's our James: okay. Feeling big, feeling small. Did did you release that this year? Arie Kruglanski: It was just published two weeks ago. James: excellent. Okay. I'll order my copy of that then. I s I' sorry, I didn't even realize that came out. I think I ordered this one before you published that one. Okay. All right. I'll need to need to work my way through that one as well. Maybe we can speak again once I've read the next book. and you also have a podcast as well with your co author Dan Rave. Did you work with Dan on this next one too? Arie Kruglanski: Yes. I'd like to. No. On then on this next one I worked with my colleague Sofia Moscalenko. James: Yes, yeah. That's the big one. Sophia, yeah, you're early research collaborator if I remember correctly. Yeah. Yeah. Arie Kruglanski: Yes, yes. We had James: Okay. Yeah. Arie Kruglanski: a book before, Psychology of the Well, it's not so big. Yeah, but but it's it presents my model of extremism. And again, you know, it's written in an accessible format. The idea being that extremism isn't just violent extremism or political extremism, but it's a psychological state. James: Mm, yeah. Which you write a lot about. Arie Kruglanski: That can express itself in being vulnerable to extreme diets, extreme sports, extreme love crushes. So it's you know the tendency of people to become extreme, suppress everything else, and be one track minded. that's yeah. Taking a broader view on extremism, not just violence but other forms of extremism. James: Yeah. Which is particularly Yeah. Because you you touched on that in Uncertain and again in in quest of significance. Yeah. It's a it's a fascinating and it's very topical, obviously. When I when I when I saw some of the events on the Fourth of July in Washington, it made me think of your writing actually. When I see the way people behave. but I and I do want to get into that as well. and so I think so let's go into my first question. So I've got so many questions because you've written so much and your research spans several decades at this point. Arie Kruglanski: I did, yes. Yes. Yes. James: But I first came across your name when I was researching for a book, and I was trying to understand something very small, much smaller than the topics you write about, but why it is that companies gravitate towards codified systems. So things like org charts and performance ratings and job architecture, performance ratings in particular is very curious to me how we tend to boil down people's years' worth of contributions into a a single number. And you spot you speak about this as well. There's a wealth of evidence and engagement stores show how dissatisfied people are in the workplace and specifically how much they dislike, for example, the performance rating. But despite that, people still tend to use it. It's overwhelmingly popular in corporate America. So among the explanations I came across, I came across things like belief perseverance and familiarity bias and other psychological phenomena. And I also came across this wonderful alliterative turn cognitive closure. So Before we dive into the book and some of your research, for the uninitiated, what is cognitive closure? Arie Kruglanski: Cognitive closure is this feeling of certainty about a given issue that is of concern. It's the feeling that you know what the answer is. You're certain. It's a sense of security about your knowledge rather than ambiguity, confusion. It is something that we need in order to act. We we need a certain degree of closure in order to cros cross the street, in order to choose what we want to eat on a restaurant menu. we need a certain degree of closure about every decision we make. So it's an inseparable part and and parcel of the human predicament because our life is made up of you know an endless chain of decisions. In each decision, you need to know where you're going, what the the anticipated consequences might be. You need closure. in the absence of closure, you're confused, you don't know what to do, you're paralyzed, as it were. and therefore, closure is such an important, necessary condition of everyday being as well as of the larger decisions that we make. James: and you mention you also have in Uncertain the need for closure scale, which I did myself. I did the test. but maybe talk us through that. And you did this yourself as well. I and I'm curious as to your your score, you mentioned that in the book well. Arie Kruglanski: Yes. Yes, no, I I think that I'm definitely on the higher need for closure continuum. That's why I keep on coming up with theories that are basically little bubbles of closure on various topics. yes. James: Kind of ironic that you come up with theories of of closure on topics of uncertainty, isn't it? Arie Kruglanski: right. Yes. But you know, recognizing that tendency in myself, I try to overcome it. I try to you know stop myself from reaching premature closure, thinking of what might a critical evaluation of what I propose as closure be, you know, who might the critics be, what might they be thinking? so you know, the meta awareness of your own. Proclivity in that regard can to some extent protect you from the from the from the traps and and foibles of premature closure. And especially for a scientist, it's very important to anticipate what the reactions might be, what the reviewers might say, because otherwise you're exposing yourself to a lot of unpleasantness. James: A and in science the the the almost some of the safeguards are built into the process because you have it's is it called pre submission when you submit your hypothesis? pre registration, sorry. So you have pre registration and you obviously have peer review. And in some ways those are almost institutional guardrails against closure. Arie Kruglanski: Yes. Yes. That's right. That's right. Now you you have to stick your neck out and suggest, you know, clearly what it is that you are expecting. And if that doesn't pan out, then we know that that particular hypothesis did not work. whereas before, you could kind of twist the results any which way, pretending that you expected it, whereas in fact you did not. And you capitulate you c Capitulated on амін, from chance. James: and in s uncertain, you mentioned something. Going back, I this was referring back to your early research in nineteen eighty-nine. you mentioned that there was a s something that surprised you about your early research, which was that people exposed to distractions and noises, I think you put noisy computers around them to essentially stress them out. The more distraction, the more certain they would become. And this kind of formed a lot of your future writing, I think, in f in terms of how Arie Kruglanski: Yes. Yes. James: closure comes about. So would you would you mind telling me a bit more about that? Arie Kruglanski: Yes, well the tendency to achieve closure and the craving for closure is in part a function of how difficult information processing is. The more difficult it is, the more effort you need to invest in it. we do not like to invest a lot of effort, especially when in situations where we are low on energy, and therefore situations that make information processing difficult. Such as noise or time pressure or the competition of other tasks and interests, those conditions make closure particularly desirable, getting rid of the of the need to keep on processing information. And therefore, you you develop a motivation to reach closure as quickly as possible and become very confident in your knowledge. Despite the fact that you may have examined a rather small sample of information. So that's the paradox. You know, less in information processing is more. And sometimes you see people who are very confident despite their being ignorant about about the situation. You see in politics, people talk with great confidence about things that they understand very little about. so it's possible. The less you examine the situation, the the the greater your self sense of confidence because you only examine the information that i is co consistent with with the the conclusion you want to draw. James: And when I think about the modern workplace for so many people, th th those stressors are present. So, you know, you have people who are working in and particularly in America who works more hours than basically any other country on the on the planet. You have situations frequently like this where people are stressed, they're overworked, they don't have time to think. How do you think that impacts the decisions that people make in the workplace? Arie Kruglanski: Yes. It is, yes. Well, I think it's it doesn't affect it positively. premature closure is the mother of all the great mistakes that people have made. Politicians, you know, all the surprise attacks where information was available, including Pearl Harbor, all kinds of surprise attacks were because people frozen conception even though they had the opportunity to examine available information. In Israel, for example, the October War, not this October, the Yom Kippur War of 1973 was happened even though the Israelis had the best information possible from the son-in-law of Gamal Abdur Nasser, who was the the greatest ever achievement of the Mossad in terms of a spy who who was centrally based in in among the the the ranks of of the Egyptians. and even though the information was there, the Israelis still froze on the conception. So freezing on conceptions is a very dangerous Not Scanning, not not investigating the information that is available is a huge obstacle to good decision making. So to the extent that people are under co constant stress, they will be making lots of mistakes that are unnecessary. James: Yeah, and if we think about innovation just as a concept in all in all areas, not just the workplace, innovation requires open-mindedness. And some of the best innovations come about because people took their time with things, right? I mean, you know, it it takes time to think of new ways of doing things rather than just choosing the first solution that comes your way. So it feels like in you know, but in in doing this, in in stressing the people that you would expect to provide those innovations, You you need to you need to protect you need to protect that space and those conditions that can allow for those those innovations to happen. Arie Kruglanski: Exactly. Exactly. And we have, you know, plenty of evidence that the need for cognitive closure is negatively related to creativity. So if you want to be creative you have to Pl put a a break on on your tendency to achieve closure and tolerate ambiguity and explore it. James: And there's a term related to this that you mentioned, imaginative tolerance as well. I'm not sure if you coined that one or if you referred to that by someone else actually, but Okay. Yeah, do you do you remember that one? Yeah, yeah. That that kind of is almost the counterforce to cognitive closure in a way. Arie Kruglanski: It must have been someone else. But I think I resonate with it very much. Exactly, exactly. The ability to, you know, withhold judgment, explore p possibilities. you have to have you know, people differ in how much they can tolerate closure. And especially for people to whom closure connotes negative things, are prone to escape ambiguity, escape uncertainty, and zero in and closure. People who are Less concerned about the negative side of uncertainty, are more able to explore potentialities and see the silver lining of uncertain situations. Explore and discover what they can offer you. White House, you must not let any crisis unturned or are are unexploited. You know a every crisis, every ambiguity connotes possibilities of a new advance, a new discovery, a new creative solution. James: Mm-hmm. Right. Hmm. And that that tone like that that comes across in in uncertain. So I'm sorry, I don't have a physical copy of it with me. I was going to hold it up, but I don't have it. but in uncertainty, you know, it's a very optimistic book. You know, it's it's about how to almost make friends with the concept of uncertainty rather than fear it and look to avoid it. yeah. and when I so I, you I th I I think about this a lot. Arie Kruglanski: huh. Exactly. Embrace Yes. James: Not just the way they get made, I think cognitive closure explains why people seize on things so quickly and and predicts the conditions that will make people seize on things quickly. But then you also have other forces like belief perseverance. So once people make those decisions, they almost build this arsenal of protection and defense around those decisions to protect it. Is that is that something you've sort of noticed in in your in your research and your writings as well? Arie Kruglanski: Very much. As a matter of fact, we have two principles that follow from this desire for closure. One is urgency. You want to seize and freeze on possible knowledge quickly, and the second one is permanence. Once you have it, you want to stay with it. And therefore you become impervious to information that is inconsistent with the the knowledge you have formed. And that's you know, this freezing on conceptions is what I mentioned before that once you have formed an an opinion based on this need for closure, you're very reluctant to admit information that is likely to overturn that decision. And and you're going to defend against it, push it aside, suppress it, depress it, and and defend against it w w with the result that you you could have done differently Because the information was there only because of your need for closure. You were defending against it. You are impervious to information. That's the tragedy of it, that the information was there. Concerning the Pearl Harbor attack, concerning all kinds of other, you know, the the challenge of disaster of of and ASA. information was there, yet people frozen a conception. James: Mm. Arie Kruglanski: And did not allow that information to sink in. James: Yeah. Which obviously makes me think of Leon Festinger as well. I think you mentioned in your book, and he wrote that book, When Prophecy Fails, when he infiltrated the cult of believers, which is a very entertaining story, if a little bit morally questionable. but he obviously came up with this c term cognitive dissonance, which is th what happens when you've made that opinion and and obviously he showed that despite all the evidence to the contrary, rather than looking at the evidence you sink even deeper into that. Yeah. Arie Kruglanski: Yes. Yes. You stay with the opinion and you justify it, exactly. James: You justify, yeah. and there's a piece of research that I cite actually in chapter one of my upcoming book, which is the research you did with Antonio Piero and the Italian postal workers, seems like a strange place to go, but he's your a longtime collaborator, I believe. well, I mean, so this is this was about the the role of closure during restructuring and the different modes of thinking. But maybe you could tell me a little bit about that piece of research in in your own words. Arie Kruglanski: Frankly, I don't remember that piece of research very well. It's been a while. James: Yeah, it well it was I think it was let's see two thousand and seven, So what happened was your conclusions were, or you and An Antonio Piero's conclusions were the the high need for closure predicted and I assume that you used your need for closure scale for this. I didn't look into that as a detail, but it predicted the ability of those Italian postal workers to cope with organizational change. So people opposed to uncertainty. Arie Kruglanski: yes, right. James: they they they were opposed to the concept of change, not the change specifically. So and that that's that was really interesting to me for organizational change, which meant that if you've primed people with a need for closure by creating stressful conditions and not giving them enough time and you know doing everything that you mentioned earlier, then they won't be willing to accept any change, whether it's positive or negative. They all could perceive any change as a as a threat. to to their certainty. And that makes me think a lot of, you know, in in the business world we talk about change management a lot. and why there's a piece of research that a colleague did a while ago which was, you know, what happens to people's engagement? Well, no matter what the change, generally it goes down, no matter what you're suggesting, even if it's something positive. And that's because people react quite defensively. And it made me think of this piece of research with the Italian postal workers. Mm-hmm. Arie Kruglanski: Exactly. Exactly. You know, once you have a need for closure, you don't want things to change, you don't want things to be different. any change introduces uncertainty. it suggests that your previous conception was wrong. it's uncomfortable and they y you'd you you see the negative aspects of change more quickly than the positive aspects. It of course depends on the individual, but I think people in conditions where need for closure is very highly present are likely to resist change, find change. And you know, we know that people need for closure actually increases with age. And you know that people as they grow older they get get more set in their ways, more resistance to change. kind of old d dinosaurs that are not up with the re recent technological advancements. they cannot operate their their TV because of the complexity. so I think that that kind of increase in the need for closure is connected intrinsically, inherently with resistance to change. You want things to stay as they are, nothing to ever change. The old old ways are the good ways, and of course it has implications for politics. The conservatives are psychologically people who James: Mm. Arie Kruglanski: value, valorize the past, valorize the the way things are, idealize the good old times, right? and any kind of change, any kind of openness, any kind of you know w w whether it's social change, admission of a minority group to the to the larger society, allowing change in in the in the in the status of minorities of women of people of a different sexual orientation, it's very threatening to people who who value closure, value things to be as they were, idealise the past and so forth. So it's a very, very pervasive kind of thing. James: Mm. So many ways in politics, conservatives start with a h a a head start because they get to sell what people are familiar with. As conservativism is about preserving what people are familiar with. So already you've got familiarity bias on your side as a conservative thinker, whereas a liberal thinker has to persuade Arie Kruglanski: Yes. Exactly. You know, and and the greatest the greater the uncertainty that prevails. For example, in the world today there is a great deal of uncertainty that was produced events of the last events of the last several decades, the financial crisis of two thousand eight, the migration crisis in Europe and elsewhere in in the United States. the pandemic, the globalization, the galloping technology that leaves masses of people behind, great uncertainty, and you see greater tendency to politically embrace conservative, far right opinions that are basically embracing closure. hierarchical systems, autocratic systems, leaders that promise closure. James: Mm. Arie Kruglanski: promise certainty, promise, you know, to bring back the past, make America great again. and d this is a situation in which uncertainty breeds a certain political tendency. James: Even that slogan, I was thinking about that slogan, Make America Great Again, how good it is at offering, yeah, and offering closure. It's exactly what it's offering people in four words. very impressive in that sense. not no in many senses, but in that sense, it specifically is. but yeah, and so and you wrote about this in uncertain as well. You you often write about purpose hand in hand with uncertainty and the loss of purpose for many demographics that's come with what I would say is an accelerating rate of change in the world. It's not a it doesn't feel linear. Arie Kruglanski: Again, yes. Yes. Yes. James: It feels like the rate of change is a accelerates in in general. And that accelerating rate of change accelerates the loss of purpose. And I think you write this as well. it it creates a lot of one of the most dangerous things in the world, which is lonely men. With but men without men without purpose, with uncertainty around them in a changing world, which is what drives this this push towards extremism in many ways. Arie Kruglanski: Exactly, exactly. Once you feel you're di divested of purpose, divested of meaning, divested of significance, you are prone to embrace all systems, populism, conspiracy theories, radical, vi violent views of other groups that promise you certainty and promise you purpose. So y you know, it's a very dangerous state of the human mind. that we must be aware of and defend James: Now, in terms of in terms of our careers, our work, you write in Uncertain that instead of following our passion, many of us opt for a pragmatic route, a career path in which jobs happen to be available despite having little interest or excitement in them. And and that got me thinking, because companies seek the closure of job architecture and career paths, and then people seek the closure of those promotions that fit into that model. So you both have organizations and people both offering one another closure and kind of perpetuating this. However, it doesn't provide satisfaction in so many cases. People don't get joy out of their promotions, or if they do, it's very short-lived. Much like your research on sports fans, they anticipate they're going to be really excited about their team winning. And they anticipate they're going to enjoy that for a long time, but in actual fact it kind of flashes and and fades and it feels very similar to a promotion. and your own path, you turned away from architecture. You you kind of faced this and you an architecture like all professions is a very fixed career path. It tells you what to do, when to do it, what you'll get in exchange for that. and you gave up on that. So tell me a bit a bit about and you know why you shifted from architecture, your own experience and how people can find purpose in their careers. Arie Kruglanski: Well, in in my particular case, I did not as many young people, I wasn't sure w what I'm capable of, what my interests are. and I was good at math and I was good at drawing, I could draw. so somebody in in in our family suggested architecture and I then decided to follow that path without you know having any better alternative. And when I started studying architecture, I discovered that I have really very little talent for it. and although I did okay, I passed I passed the year, I was advanced to second year at the University of Toronto. I landed a job as a draftsman in an architectural firm, and I was drawing you know little toilets for For apartment buildings, a whole summer. And that convinced me that architecture is not something I want to do. I faced a time of uncertainty. And then I decided to go where my passions lie. Strangely enough, I was very excited about Freud and about the analysis of Dream, the whole mystique of the great. psychiatrists, understanding people, helping people decipher their dream. The Hitchcock films like Spellbound with Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman. I saw myself in that kind of role. And I therefore enrolled in psychology at the University of Toronto. And my disappointment could not have been greater, because at that time the psychology at the University of Toronto was animal psychology, animal learning, James: Yeah. Arie Kruglanski: It's all was all about rats and pigeons, training them to press bars and peck at at at keys. but strangely enough, again, I fell in love with the rigor and the thinking that goes into that and the implications for human behavior. And I I was extremely fortunate to find something that really fit my interest and my passion. And you know, the rest is History and I I never looked back. James: I think you made the right call. I don't know where we'd be without all the research that you've done since then as well. So I'm glad you made that call. yeah, it gives me it it gives me first of all, you're the second guest I've had that turned down a career in architecture. But maybe we should thank architecture because it's shown a few people, at least that I've spoken to, what their true calling is. maybe that's a good thing. and what was I thinking? I just had one thought on that. Let me see if I can get that thought back. Arie Kruglanski: Yes. Thank you. James: yeah, so you mentioned animal testing when that in that era of psychology when for some reason to s to understand people, everyone thought they had to experiment on animals, and perhaps one of the most infamous individuals is B. F. Skinner, who I'm fascinated by. And I had Alfie Cohn on the on as a guest recently, and he was talking about his interactions with BF Skinner. But I'm pleased that we've moved away from that and actually trying to understand people rather than animals. Arie Kruglanski: Yes. James: So if I if I sort of zero in then, so careers and again, you know, when we think about the nature of work, humans are very good at work. We're the best species at work. We're very good at identifying problems and figuring things out and as and careers now are are much more amorphous than they used to be in the in the factory era. But it feels like companies still reach for the same apparatus. And it's still very much boxes and paths. Now, I'd y I'd I'd like to know if you have any views on this. I know this is a little bit narrow based on you think so so much about you know how this impacts society and extremism and politics. But do you have any views on how companies can get around this and maybe r relinquish their need for closure and allow people to discover their careers in a more natural way, much in the same way you did, rather than reach for those familiar systems of control. Arie Kruglanski: Well, I think that you know, especially in times of change and the technological change that is now transforming everything that we do with the advance of AI systems, requires people to really be able to tolerate uncertainty, tolerate ambiguity, tolerate change more than ever. if you know people are going to adapt to these constantly changing circumstances. learning retooling. I think it's i very important to f for for companies, for enterprises to seek out people and to encourage openness and and and the ability to to tolerate change, tolerate ambiguity. it's more important now than ever. it's it's a crisis because on the one hand this uncertainty promotes the desire for for closure. On the other hand, closure is the the most pernicious, maladaptive response to a world that is constantly and increasingly changing at an accelerated rate. So I think this is now the time for companies to seek out people and encourage training programs that emphasize openness. exploration of uncertainty, reducing the need for closure and allowing people to be open to what is happening, which is never never the same from time to t from from one moment to the next. James: Yeah, and that's that's challenging. As I think if I think about the role of a CEO in in a typical PLC, that's particularly challenging because increasingly your job is to predict and deliver on those predictions. And you have both quarterly and annual targets, and your job is to meet those targets, which is closure in itself for shareholders, even though we don't need as shareholders for the most part short-term. decisiveness, you want long-term returns. So a CEO's job is to both manage that need for closure on the part of shareholders, but also embrace the uncertainty that's real and needs to be accepted and allow people to operate within that uncertainty to provide the innovation that ensures their survival. This is one thing to keep delivering for the next three quarters. If you cease to exist in the fourth, as many companies are starting to, then that doesn't solve anything. So a CEO's job is paradoxically to To deliver that closure, but also embrace uncertainty and recognise how unpredictable the world has become. Arie Kruglanski: Exactly, exactly. So the CEO has to be a person that on the one hand understands the need for closure o in others, in the shareholders, on the other hand, keeps an open mind on their own to see, you know, what opportunities may exist, what new tax, new developments might entail, and be sensitive to that. it's really a very delicate balancing act. James: okay. let me just think for a second. Yeah, okay. All right. So I'm gonna shift us slightly. so this is your last year's book, not your most recent book, this is last year's book, the first specific. I'm gonna hold this up and I recommend everyone takes this because this is a very very positive book and a very helpful book, it got me thinking a lot in many places with the you wrote with Dan Rave. and you start with Arie Kruglanski: That is particularly salient right now in these changing times. Right. Yes. James: The oldest complaint in human history is one of your opening illustrations and that g takes us back to seventeen fifty BCE. do you remember what that was, the oldest complaint? Arie Kruglanski: Yes, about nanny and the and the the complain being dis disrespected. James: Mm. Yeah, okay. So how did that you know, how does that inform this this quest for significance? Arie Kruglanski: Well, you know, I started Being aware of the importance of the quest for significance, when I was researching terrorism. I don't know if you know, but we at the University of Maryland have established a Center for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism. I was one of the founding copies, and I was greatly interested, I still am, in the motivation that drives people to terrorism. And the the literature on terrorism identified a variety of different motivations. you know, perks of the afterlife. Adulation of the leader, the the desire of of women to show that they also can do it, feminism, a variety of different motivations. and I looked at those motivations and it turned out it it struck me that underlying the all these motivations is the desire for significance, that the idea that you're worthy. That you are respected, that you have dignity. and it's that motivation that propelled people to travel thousands of miles, don suicide belt, and blow themselves up along with the enemy, in order to attain this status of hero and a martyr. and we we found that to be the case in the different Types of and varieties of terrorists we have interviewed. We have interviewed terrorists all over the world, in South Asia, in Southeast Asia, in the Middle East, in Ireland, in Europe. and it it turned out time and time again that that was the greatest motivation, the mother of all motivations, to be to be somebody. A quick road from zero to hero. You're nothing, and all of a sudden you're A great celebrity, s you know, honored and and and dignified and and appreciated by all. So that was the beginning of my interest in the need for in the need for significance. And then it struck me that it's not only the terrorists, the violent extremism, that needs significance, but every single one of us. this is the mother of all the social motivations, you know. Natural language is filled with a variety of synonyms. And you know, and unfortunately for psychology, people assume that each one of these synonyms has a different psychological meaning. They do not. they are synonyms that they call they they tap the same core constructs. So, for example, it terms like self-esteem, self-worth, dignity, honor, significance, mattering, these are different. Terms that sometimes gave an impetus to different research programs, but the core idea is the same. The very same idea that people want to have dignity, want to have social worth. To me, this is the most important social motivation. People talked about relatedness, title titl people talked about the need to belong. t people talked about the dangers of the negative aspects of ostracism. Again. Giving rise to separate research programs, but they are about the same thing. They need to be accepted. You don't want just to belong, you want to be accepted. you don't want, you know, just to be a member of a category. You want to be an accepted, honored, dignified member of the category. So it's something that defines our everydays, our, you know, the good news is somebody smiled at you. you got a promotion. Your grant was accepted, your article was accepted, somebody said a nice thing about you. The bad things is you refused, you're rejected, your letter was not even dignified with a response, you were ghosted, right? All of these things that define our everyday moods and and you know, the changes in in the way we feel about ourselves, all centered about this predominant. fundamental need to have social worth. you know, social movements in history. the revolutions were all by groups of people that felt that they are un disrespected, they are undignified, you know, slave rebellions, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, now the civil rights movement in our country, the feminist movement, The LGBTQ movement. They are all about a category of people who feel disrespected, undignified, discriminated against. And that is such a powerful motivation that it rules our individual lives as well as it determines the course of history. So I think that that became a very, very important focus of my research. And of course, the workplace. the the domain that you're particularly interested John, is where most people get their significance. You know, that's that's where they get the worst. they earn their their their keep. They're willing to, they're they're able to support their families, send their kids to college, you know, live the the the kind of lifestyle that the neighbors live, be, you know, be a a member of society. of respect. And of course, you know, in our society, being a star, being a superstar, we have this need for bigness, need for significance on steroids. Of all the nations in the world, we are the the the the the most business oriented nation ever. which of course comes with its great downsides burnout excessive competitiveness James: Mm-hmm. Arie Kruglanski: you know suffering a great deal because not everybody can be a superstar. But I think it's a very important aspect of of life and plays a particularly important part in the workplace. James: Hmm. Ver very well said. so many things that I'm thinking about as you're speaking as well. I it makes me wonder it makes me think about, you know, politics and point you're the rise of of the far right and and popularism. And it makes me think that it's a problem of our own making in a way. We forgot that people people's significance was being challenged in globalization. We underestimated how how important that is. And in many ways it's entirely predictable that we would see, you know, that these kinds of mindsets when you take away so much from people and don't offer something in exchange for them. do you do you think that politics needs to be more maybe aware of these these challenges it's as we're thinking long term about the role of of change in the world? Arie Kruglanski: I think so. I think that you know politics ought to be very aware, and diplomats I think are to some extent aware of the need to preserve the dignity of the other side. you know, all the different I mean take the the the war in Ukraine, for example. You know, it's Putin's desire for significance. so you know, understanding that. James: Mm-hmm. Arie Kruglanski: or or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's all about significance. It's not about a piece of land. It's about a sovereignty of the Palestinians, sovereignty of the Israelis that clashes. But without understanding the n that that need is so central and so fundamental, under s thinking that it's it it it's going to be moneyed over or papered over by other means is likely to to misfire. The idea, for example, that through economic means you can buy people's acceptance of conditions that humiliate them, you know, that's not going to work. The idea that by developing a country or pro providing economic benefits, that is not enough. People sense of dignity, sense of being equal, being respected. Having a place among the community of nations is so overwhelming that people are willing to suffer economically and physically, fight and die. So I think understanding people's quest for significance is really essential for intelligent navigation of the political universe. And without understanding that. what you do is humiliating the other side, and that there's no way of of bribing the other side to accept humility, you know, understanding that may improve inter international relations, may improve politics, may improve the state of the world that is now you know on the on the verge of exploding in various places. James: In in many ways, that economic solution is a form of closure in itself, right? It's very easy to think that if we allocate enough GDP per capita, then we we won't have a problem. But to your point, if you do that without the meaning, then it's not going to be enough. And that is that's an interesting point you made as well. Revolutions people sacrifice a lot for revolutions in their quest for significance. They don't gain in in many ways economic advantage. And I feel like when I look at Arie Kruglanski: Yes. James: If I take, example, Spain and the Catalan region, for example, like this push for independence by the Catalan people, which is a push for significance by the Catalan people, that won't help them economically speaking. Economically speaking, it makes far more sense to be part of Spain and part of Europe. But that's not important. What's important is their social identity. Much like Brexit as well, underestimating the role of significance for the British people. And and I feel like one on one hand you've got everyone trying to sell the economic benefit. Arie Kruglanski: Exactly. James: On the other hand, you've got people trying to sell make make Britain great again in a way. The significance of being Britain as a country, the economic argument got completely lost to the the significance argument. Arie Kruglanski: Exactly. Exactly. The idea that you can bribe, you can money your way through solutions has proven futile time and time again. in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you know, there was an attempt to develop the Palestinian territory, develop Gaza, bring in the World Bank and other influx of money that didn't do anything because the Palestinian sense of frustration with their you know with their insignificance. and and their you know mistreatment and and disrespect overwhelms everything else. And the you know no economic benefits could even come close to s satisfying that quest for significance that can be only had. And unfortunately, one way of gaining significance is through violence. It's a primordial means. So you know without understanding that that you know that significance is gained through violence and and aggression, we we are making many mistakes on the political sphere. James: so okay, let me think there Okay. yeah, so I wanted to ask you about as well. So the two names that came out of the books, Carol Dwarck and Martin Seligman, the both wrote wrote wrote in the back cover as well, I think, in in the book. And you all sit in what I would kind of loosely describe as the positive psychology circle, this positive psychology movement, which I find intriguing and I I read from many of the people in this movement as well. But maybe again for the uninitiated, what is positive psychology? Arie Kruglanski: Yes. Positive psychology is a reaction to the emphasis on negativity that psychology, I think, inherited from psychiatry. And that is, you know, the idea that people can be psychologically sick or not well. And the the task of psychology is to bring them back to normalcy, so to speak, which is emphasis on on the negative, the the kind of mental illness view that gave rise to clinical psychology to psychiatry viewing the issue of preventing the negative rather than emphasizing the positive. The great innovativeness of the positive psychology movement initiated by Marty Zeligman and Chikshit Mihali in in the year 2000 was to emphasize the psychology of human strength, the the possibility of you know making the world a better place, of allowing people to thrive. why don't we emphasize the possi the positive possibilities of succeeding? and that's why work like my friends Carol Dweck's work on on growth mindset and growth in general. the work of Martin Zeligman on learned optimism. the work of Angela Daqua on grit and other similar works emphasize you know people's ability to cope, how to enhance it, how to promote it, how to emphasize their strengths and the their resilience rather than emphasizing on the negative aspects, the vulner vulnerabilities, their you know, the the weaknesses that that need to be addressed, but rather strengthening the the human being in its attempt to live a a rewarding life. James: And when I think about some of that research, it it's it's a little frustrating how poorly companies tap into that. So companies love to treat people as units of production and to still think of people as assets, resources, and and they don't like the uncertainty. The they don't like the human aspect of a person. And it makes you think a little bit of Antonio Damasio as well and his research to show that. You know, we can't make decisions without emotion. And if we have positive emotions, we'll make better decisions. And that relates, I think, a lot to s cognitive closure as well. We need emotions. We our emotions are an incredible strength to us and help deal with that closure and that uncertainty. and I feel that companies or leaders they would love to pretend that peace doesn't exist, that people can conform to expectations. And to to your point, if we were better at embracing that positive psychology. we would get so much more from people. And I just feel this is an area where particularly in organizations, in in education as well, we've maybe not done enough to embrace op the o the opportunity, the unknown opportunity that comes with that of way of thinking. But that's my take on it. I just wonder if you think in the same way or a different way. Arie Kruglanski: Yes, no, I I I could not agree more. I think the whole idea of The juxtaposition of reason versus emotion is is a mistake. You know, there is no such thing as reason as apart from emotion. I would rather call it motivation. You know, people's reasoning, people everything we do is motivated. Emotion is the flip side of motivation. Emotion is what you feel when you you succeed or when you fail. When you fail, you feel negative emotions. When you succeed, you feel positive emotions. But I think you know all that we do, including our thinking, is motivated. We do not think in in separation from motivation. We are motivated. Need for closure is just one motivation, need for specific closure, as in dissonance theory, to you know, to wishfully think. To arrive at conclusions that are pleasant to you is a big force. There is no thinking without motivation. So the whole idea of reason, reason is employed in the service of motivation. It's motivation that is the dog that wags the tail of reason. The idea that reason and the and the motivation and emotions are seated in te separate parts of the body, the kind of Aristotelian separation of souls, you know, the the vegetative soul, the the rational soul and so forth, is something that modern psychology completely denies. all that we do is motivated. And the understanding people's motivation, understanding their quest for significance, understanding their need for closure, is really extremely important in designing work systems, in de designing educational systems, in designing any any circumstance in which humans are functioning, because that is the major moving force behind human behaviour, motivation. It's not reason. James: Yeah, and so and obviously I I write a lot about pay and the role of pay in the workplace. And to me, pay, whether it's a salary or a bonus or an equity grant, whatever it may be, offers the simplest closure to so many problems in many ways. and we talk about this and this need for significance, and we talk about a parallel here with the economic solution to social issues. There's also parallel here with the pay solution to individuals' need for significance, think. And you mentioned this as well in your book, the CEO pay ratio and the fact that pay in the US in particular is now so dispersed from the top to bottom. And I look at that and I think, well, well, now people need to think about pay. Now you've given them a reason that they have to seek pay because then there's no way that they're going to be able to save for retirement or raise a family without promotions, without increased pay. But you've also sold pay as a source of significance. But as we know, the dissatisfaction in the workplace is high and people's perception of pay is pretty poor. That they don't feel they're paid fairly. so so how do companies get away from that? Again, like it's so tempting that you the reaction to so many things is to reward them, we'll pay them, we'll give them a bonus, or we'll give them the promotion. That that is always rather than more significance through the work. I haven't framed framed my question very well on this one. But you know, how can companies maybe move away from something as obvious as pay as the thing to solve that quest for significance and think more about offering people more of the work that gives them the significance that they probably need in the first place? Arie Kruglanksi: Well, I think the problem is that pay is emblematic of significance, right? If you're paid more, that means you're worth more. How much are you worth? In our society, our culture is so devoted to this idea of significance and greatness and bigness. And pay is... And the disparities in pay between top and bottom are the greatest indication of that. So we are an extremely bigness-oriented system. And therefore, no matter what you get, you want some more. You're never happy with the pay you get because there is somebody who is getting more. So it creates a kind of insatiability, a constant state of dissatisfaction. And that is because the culture that we have is increasingly and emphatically devoted to competition and bigness significance. And that's what we are talking about with Sofia Moskalenko in the feeling big, feeling small. Because in addition to human needs to feel big, feeling significant, there is also yearning for being embraced. being part of a larger whole, being part of a community, returning back to your childhood when you were loved, when you were embraced. And I think that need is really not attended enough in our society, other societies, European societies, that at least pay great attention to vacations and leisure time are much better than us. For us, it's work, work, work, 24-7, get more pay, more pay, more significance. We do not allow ourselves that smallness that is a balancing act that allows people to have a harmonious life. So I think the idea is to change the culture, change the corporate culture, the culture in general, to de-emphasize this incredible push for bigness and counterbalance it with the desire for smallness, which is, you know, there's a desire for community to be supported by others, to accept help, to offer help, not to worry so much about your ego. And I think, you know, that's a big sickness of our society, including the workplace. James: and you t you've kind of touched on this, but I wanted to ask you a bit about competitive individualism. And I mentioned Alfie Cohen early, he joined me recently, and he was famously anti-competition. He wrote a book called No Contest, which was about all the negative aspects of particularly competition in America. And yes, it produces great sports people, but it also creates huge amounts of anxiety in students, in the workplace, etc. and Western workplaces run on competitive individualism and competitive individualism. It all comes down to the person and it starts on the f day one. Your job application is about who you are and what you can bring and incentivizes people to talk about themselves and about their capabilities and less about their role in society or the community that they're about to work with. Meanwhile, work itself becomes increasingly commonal. It's it's becoming increasingly collaborative. The companies that succeed are the ones that can get a group of people to work. Together. and you tell the story of Arachne, which I really love as a as an allegory and the moral of that is is hubris, of course. does significance require winners and losers? Arie Kruglanksi: Well, when it's pushed to extreme, yes. When it's pushed to extreme, when this is the only thing that matters, then yes, you know, the more you succeed by comparison to others. There is this race to the top, race to become the best. You see it in sports, but I think life is not, know, not sports is one domain, but I think life in general should be more balanced than that. And especially, as you say, in a world where collaboration, connection, networking is very important, it's extremely important to understand the others, understand their need for significance and compromise and not trying to beat the other people and outdo the other people. But rather than doing that, understand their need for significance. and share in that significance across the network, across the array of individuals you are interacting with, you're collaborating with. So I think it's extremely important to create, to curb your quest for significance by understanding that other people also need significance and that you have to give up some to get some. And rather than trying to beat up everybody and be the best at everything, be a member of a team, understand the other people, understand yourself, understand the psychology of it all in order to navigate your quest for significance as well as the quest of others. And again, be willing to accept and cultivate your smallness, your ability to give others significance, appreciate their contribution, because if you appreciate them, they will repay by appreciating you. And that's how good interactive systems. By the way, we have recently two papers in the behavior and brain sciences on the psychology of love, romantic love. And that's from the standpoint of of significance. Our mathematical model of love is the product of merit and appreciation. So you fall in love with somebody who has merit in some sense, either, you know, they're attractive or they are wise or they are powerful or they are talented. There is something that attracts you to them. And also, but that's not sufficient. They have to appreciate you in return because So it's a product moment. If you have one without the other, there is no love. You need both. You need both appreciation and merit, and it's reciprocal. So within a good romantic couple, you accept significance by virtue that a significant person is appreciating you, and you give significance by appreciating that other person and giving them significance. And I think that that model of romantic love is really more generalizable to the work situation. have to have significance, you have to contribute, but also appreciate the contributions of others and that reciprocal harmonious relations is the key to a well-functioning human system. James: in many ways love is the the greatest significance there is. It probably explains why I think seventy-five percent of all pop music is about love and many, many movies are about love as well. It's because we love the idea. Right. And we want more of that significance. That is the best possible significance to be significant to one other person. And you talked about the smallness of significance. I don't think there's any better illustration of that. Arie Kruglanksi: Exactly. Yes, love moves the world, makes the world go round. Exactly. Exactly. Yes, for that person, you're the most significant person in the world. But you also need that person to be significant to you because being appreciated by somebody who you do not respect isn't going to do it, right? So it's the combination of their merit and their appreciation. you know, I think understanding that in the love situation, James: Mm-hmm. Arie Kruglanksi: in the parent-children situation, in the work situation, is that harmony between these two aspects, I think is key. James: Hmm. And it in a smaller sense it relates almost to the relationship between two people at work is the same is you know, it's a version of that as well. It's finding someone that appreciates you and what you do and some someone whose work that you appreciate as well. And we you know, think of friends at work, that those conditions exist. and not least with a manager as well, a manager that appreciates what you do and who you respect and appreciate their work as well. We know how important a good manager or a friend our work is to people, and it's almost like a just a slightly softened version of that need Arie Kruglanksi: Exactly, exactly. It's a universal thing. And I think, you know, it's really extremely central to all human interaction, from love to friendship to work relations, having that feeling of being appreciated by somebody whose appreciation matters because they themselves have value in your eyes. James: and you mentioned earlier about the need to maybe think less about oneself and more about the community around you as well. And I'm gonna risk a r a slight rabbit hole here because this fascinates me. But you mentioned Max Weber. and I must admit I haven't read his book, but I find the history of this American worker ethic, but also this somewhat nuclear attitude to society. The way that that traces back through Protestantism and all the way back to Calvin and Luther and the Protestant uprising against this Catholic community and promoting the individual connection to God, I find that fascinating, the idea that that's kind of what laid the foundation for modern American psychology. Arie Kruglanksi: No, think I agree with you that it has very deep roots in Calvinism protestant, the idea that your success means that God appreciates you and that therefore you strive for success in order to prove that you're worthy in the eyes of God. That's an extremely powerful force that fueled the American ethic, the American work ethic, the American emphasis on excellence. And I think that we have taken it to extremes without understanding that it has to be tempered by understanding the need of others, the sense of community, because otherwise unmitigated quest for significance leads not only to burnout and exhaustion, but also to conflict, ultimately to aggression, the competition of great powers. leads to war, to destruction, to mayhem. So I think it's an extremely powerful force that needs to be curbed, needs to be harnessed, needs to be mitigated. And I think understanding psychology, understanding what your actions do to others is critical in that regard. James: Hmm. And i in some ways it feels like almost American industry has almost taken advantage of that work ethic. And again, the apparatus of an a typical American company is about proving your significance as a person, your your rating, your role, your title, your promotion, your skills. It almost feels like it's been worsened by that by the growth of American industry. And you talk about burnout, that's you know, in many ways, that's companies. Taken advantage of the fact that they know people will respond to that. They'll they know that people want that significance and they know that as a company, people will keep chasing that until the point of burnout, or the point of failure and collapse in many cases, which is why you see so much depression and anxiety in the world. And there was a statistic, one last point on that one, just to illustrate this. You mentioned this. across the G seven, this is includes obviously UK, France, Germany, etcetera, report burnout, and the US itself has the world's highest prevalence of depression. So clearly we're not doing something right there. Arie Kruglanksi: Absolutely. I think we are over emphasizing this push for excellence and significance without understanding the toll that it takes on the human psyche and ultimately on society at large. James: we talked a bit about the psychology of the workplace and the psychology of politics and how this impacts society. One problem is the psychology within the organization, which we've spoken about, and the need for significance and the way that that gets used. But also th the psychology of change, it it really interests me. You know, it it's difficult for companies to shift their way of thinking about how they should or could treat people. And there are a few companies that have changed the way that they treat people. And just a little bit of context here. when I look at organizations, I see in many ways the same organization as I saw a hundred years ago. You know, one CEO, top-down decision making, reporting lines and and checks and balances and assessments and productivity metrics. But in the whole of society, everything has changed beyond recognition. One of the very few areas where it looks almost identical is in the organization. But when we look at companies that have changed, the psychology is is interesting to me why it's so difficult for companies to shift away from those ways of thinking, almost relinquish some of those systems of control in exchange for more trusting ways of thinking. I just wonder if you have any any thoughts on that and how American industry can embrace change and what it might take to improve some of those statistics, you know, reduce the burnout and get more out of people and embrace their natural work ethic that 'cause comes with any given human if you set the right conditions. Arie Kruglanksi: Well, you know, there is a paradox in that the world is changing at an accelerating speed. And yet, so there is a need to be able to adjust to change, to embrace change, to explore its positive silver lining that it might contain. And the tendency of this uncertainty that change promotes to induce a need for cognitive closure. So on the one hand, there is a need for openness. And yet the same forces that promote the need for openness, promote the need for closure and the tendency for companies and organizations to remain the same. I think the realization of how important it is to embrace change has to be codified, has to be translated into training programs. to tolerate uncertainty, training to understand people's psychology of significance and how reciprocal sharing of significance is essential for an organization to thrive. Understanding all of that would hopefully promote the kind of organizational climate that would be sensitive to the psychological forces that we all are experiencing and adjust the behavior of companies, the behavior and the training programs to what needs to be done. You the psychology of it is very clear. People have to be able to embrace change, not to feel that change is going to devastate them. And I think part of that is, you know, the feeling of security in a company, the feeling that they are appreciated no matter what, that even if they have to retool, they have to take the time to learn new skills, they'll be still embraced by the company. Understanding all of that should inform a new corporate culture that would be psychologically literate and be able to adjust to the world circumstances that we are seeing happen. James: Mm. And it makes me think of Amy Edmondson's research as well with psychological safety and how important that is and the ability to admit, you don't know, or we made a mistake, or we need to try something different, without fear that that's going to hinder their career and their and their significance as well. Arie Kruglanksi: Exactly. Exactly. You know, and that feeling that you are respected, have, you you're respected for what you have done and the kind of person you are. And you can be assured that this is going to be there, even if you make a mistake, if you choose the wrong option. know, mistakes are things to learn from rather than to be devastated by. And I think understanding the psychology of it having psychological safety in companies, having the feeling of being appreciated and the understanding that you also need to repay by appreciation, that kind of climate is really necessary, especially this day and age where galloping change is inducing the kind of... fossilization or rigidity as a defense against change. Change ought to be embraced and exploited rather than defended against. James: which makes me think of loss aversion. and this was Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tiversky, right? Which shows that people will perceive losses twice as powerfully as they perceive gains. So if you're in in an ever-changing world, this threat of change is twice as powerful than the prospect of success. you talk about this you know, this this this paradox. Arie Kruglanksi: Yes. James: The more that change accelerates, the more people retreat into familiar systems, but the more they then secure their own failure by suppressing the the the mindset that they need from their people to come up with the ideas that are going to save them. So it's it's a really it's a really big challenge. and when I think about how companies can start embracing different ways of thinking, it has to start small. Because I think you can use the psychology and almost flip it back as well. So if you start small. Arie Kruglanksi: Exactly. James: with experiments in your organization to show that actually if we try taking away the performance review and start treating people as a team rather than individuals, let us try it. Let us test it out. Let us do something that doesn't result in this significant cost. And let's see what people say. We know what that will say, not every time, but for the most part, we know that's most likely to drive the conditions for success. And as long as we're looking for the right things, open-mindedness, creativity, innovation, then it will provide those results I suspect. Arie Kruglanksi: It is a very difficult thing to change, but I think that understanding that it needs to be changed because otherwise we're headed for a very dysfunctional society and dysfunctional organizations. So it's really an urgent task to understand the psychology of it all better and translate it into experimentation within corporations, within company guided by the psychological principles that we all understand. James: now I have a personal dilemma here. I'm I'm actually looking for your advice on this one because when I think about this, you know, I I quite like uncertainty for the most part, except when I'm traveling. For some reason, when I'm traveling, I did your test. You know, when plans go away, I don't like it. I like to sort of have things organized. But for many other parts of my life I quite enjoy the uncertainty. But my my question is when you're dealing with people, you need confidence in order to sell, you know, in order to persuade people to think you need confidence. But confidence itself is a kind of closure. You need to have answers to have that confidence. But when you're trying to what you're when what you're trying to sell is embracing uncertainty, holding confidence and uncertainty hand in hand is quite a tricky thing. And you said yourself that you have a high need for closure. So how do you balance the need to Be confident and need to provide confidence and inspire confidence while also dealing with the whole world of uncertainty at the same time. Arie Kruglanksi: Well, think self-awareness is very important. Understanding yourself, understanding that you want to already finish and get some closure, finish the article, finish the experiment, get closure, run to press with it, needs to be counterbalanced by considerations that maybe there are other ways of thinking, understanding that this may... lead to unpleasant consequences if you do not give it the extra thought, seeking feedback from others. I think it's very important to have the self understanding that understanding that, you know, my understanding that I have high need for closure allows me to do things that are counter to my need for closure, embrace politics and embrace ideas that are inimical to to closure because I understand that going with my natural inclination can lead to dysfunctional consequences. I think that understanding psychology, think psychological literacy is extremely important, both on the level of the individual and on the systemic level of organizational structures, educational settings. the political system, immigration system, what have you, understanding the psychology of it. think, you know, psychology to me is the indispensable science, you know, because human behavior is everywhere, whether it's in politics, the economy, the interpersonal realm, the workplace, it's all about psychology, understanding it better, translating its... its insights better into practices and programs is the way of making the world a better place. James: then humans to me are this enigma because we have the potential to be the greatest species on the planet and do more positive things for the planet than any other species has ever done, but we also have the capacity to do the worst things that any other species has ever done as well. And and psychology is at the heart of that. If we give people if we take away all their significance, if we create a world of uncertainty and a lack of purpose, then we're gonna start seeing the worst of what humanity can be. And you we see that in politics, but we also see it in people's behavior towards the environment around them and other species and the lack of empathy with the world and that lack of respect for the connectedness. So I totally agree. I think it's a wonderful way to put it. It's it's such an important science to ensure that we move in the right direction as a species. Arie Kruglanksi: Exactly. James: so Professor Klinansky, we've covered closure, we've covered significance, we've covered a little bit of pay, but I want to be respectful of your time. I would have loved to talk to you more about religion and and the religion's role in closure and psychology. We I don't think we have time for that. Arie Kruglanksi: Just one way about religion. think religion, you know, most of world religions are very sensitive to this overwhelming need for significance and they are trying to curb it. For example, Jesus in Sermon on the Mount talks about meekness, the fact that it's the poor who will inherit the earth, the injunction to be small, to be... to liberate oneself from the materialism and the quest for possessions. This is in Christianity, it gave rise to all kinds of monastic movement like San Francisco of Assisi, the Franciscan movement, the Carmelites of the Middle Ages, and Mother Teresa and other manifestations. Of course, in Islam as well. There is a great emphasis on meekness and surrender to larger forces. In psychology, we are beginning to discover that, most religions, including the Greco-Roman religion, the story of Arachne, but also almost all the stories, Oedipus Rex, all kinds of myths are about human hubris, significance and quest for significance and how it can lead to... disaster, the Icarus that falls from the sky because he tried to get too close. think religion attempts to be an antidote to this excessive quest for significant, this questing egotism, the quest of hubris. So I think religion in that sense is an important force that tries to regulate human behavior in a very psychologically astute way. James: it's so true, isn't it? All religions share this in common, that same morality and that same lesson, and and many fables as well. It's about not being humoristic. But Arie Kruglanksi: It's indeed. Indeed. James: w given that religion is a diminishing role in society, in Western societies in particular, still quite prevalent in the US compared with other Western societies, we need something to replace that, that lesson, that morality in that case, because as you say, it's been curbing perhaps our worst instincts for many centuries now. So how can we adapt if, you know, it how can a secular society or even an atheist society or agnostic society adapt to continue to pass on those lessons without that religious aspect of life. Arie Kruglanksi: Well, it's a very interesting and important question. At the beginning of modernism, science took the place of religion. There was a faith, a kind of religion of scientism. The idea that science can solve all the problems and we do not need religion because through the application of the scientific method, we're going to solve all the problems that the world is... presenting to us. But now there is a great distrust in science as such. There is a great sense that there is no truth, that it's all conjectures, all hypotheses, there is no certainty. And I think that creates a situation that we are in now, fake news, you don't know who to believe, and that's a very dangerous situation. because we need to believe in something. We need to trust somebody. The fact that we do not have neither religion nor science to fall back on creates a vacuum that opens up the possibility of all kinds of demagogues to provide solutions that are really detrimental, that identify some imaginary enemy, be it people of color, refugees, immigrants, people of a different religion, people of a different ethnicity. presenting them as enemy and that's very palatable because of this need, this vacuum of belief. So I think we need, know, religion has fulfilled for millennia a very important function. And I think that probably we'll see a return to that with the disenchantment with science as the panacea. James: Mm-hmm. That's fascinating. Okay, I'm gonna I I could I could follow up with questions, but I won't. I'm just gonna say thank that's a really fascinating topic. thank you so much for sharing your ideas. This is this has been a really fascinating conversation. I'm tremendously grateful for your body of research that goes back for so long, all of your contributions to the space and your writings and your books. I highly recommend Uncertain, it's brackets uncertain, and The Quest for Significance, the the the one I read most recently, and your most recent book Once More Is Arie Kruglanksi: Feeling big, feeling small. James: Feeling big, feeling small, okay. Available at all good retailers, I assume. Yeah. I have the cover art, by the way. As a dog owner, I appreciate that. owner of a small dog as well. and it Yeah, yeah, thanks so much, Professor Koglanski. if people want to find out more about you apart from the books, do you is there anywhere else that they should look for you? Arie Kruglanksi: Yes, it is. Thank you very much. really enjoyed it. Well, the books probably tell it all. My articles, you know, are primarily scientific, so maybe they are not as accessible. But I think the books are probably the best way to get to know where my research has been going, what I've been interested in. By the way, my next book is about the psychology of human freedom. maybe we would want to talk about that at some point. James: I would I would love to chat again. Once I've read it, I I'd love to have you back and talk specifically about the psychology of freedom. I often think and write about the tension between freedom and control and the you know, and how that interacts. So I I'm looking forward to that one. Arie Kruglanksi: Wonderful. James: Thanks so much for your time and hopefully we speak again. Arie Kruglanksi: Yes, I hope so too. Thank you very much. I enjoyed it. Bye bye. James: Yeah. Okay. Take care. Bye.