Latest / Lucid Interval Podcast / Why Do We Believe in God(s)? - Andy Thompson

Transcript

Why Do We Believe in God(s)? - Andy Thompson · Lucid Interval Podcast

• speaker-0: We're all risen apes, not fallen angels. And that's the environment that ⁓ shaped us that and and one of the ideas is that religious explanations provided useful fictions. One of our cognitive mechanisms that was crucial to our survival is something called hyperactive agency detection. For us to survive, we had to think that a bush that is rustling is a predator, an animal or human. And not the wind. Ten thousand years ago the in the Near East we start to settle into agricultural communities. and part of the reason we settled in agricultural communities may have been to brew better beer. No joke. ⁓ but the point is you've got even our genus Homo, you've literally got millions of years. In which we are living and slowly evolving in small kin based hunter-gatherer groups. That's the environment of evolutionary adaptive. All the things you just said, I mean it was an attachment figure, it's reciprocal altruism, it's kin altruism, it's guilt, it's ⁓ you know, I'm only gonna call them when I really need ⁓ It's all those all those are part of our humanity that evolved for Survival in hunter gatherer environments in harsh, dangerous environments. speaker-1: Doctor Andy Thompson at long last. Thank you for joining me. speaker-0: Thank you for having me. speaker-1: ⁓ when you meet someone at an academic conference or at a research conference and they ask you, What do you do? What's your background? How do you answer that question? speaker-0: ⁓ just basically I'm a psychiatrist. I'm a general psychiatrist, a working psychiatrist. I'm not an academic or a researcher. speaker-1: But you've written a book though that ⁓ I've told we talked about that's made a big impact on me called Why Do We Believe in Gods? ⁓ can you tell us about how that book came about and what got you interested in the subject? speaker-0: ⁓ certainly. On nine eleven my son was in ⁓ one of the buildings next to the World Trade Center. And obviously he was among the lucky who ⁓ survived and it got me interested in the psychology of terrorism and I started researching it and one of the things that stood out was that even as of two thousand and one There was a ton of information on the psychology of religion. There were important books, there was ⁓ a lot of stuff already going on at that time, and that really ⁓ stunned me. And I was already interested at that point ⁓ in evolutionary psychology and was, you know, reading that and utilizing that in my work, but I started to pursue the psychology of religion, the cognitive neuroscience of religion, and it led to ⁓ presentations on ⁓ suicide terrorism, and ⁓ it was basically a three pronged formulation that suicide terrorism came from male bonded coalitionary violence, ⁓ capacities for suicide and for ⁓ religion to utilize or I would say hijack innate capacities for male bonded violence and for ⁓ suicide. And I gave talks that people liked ⁓ and were also controversial because I was basically saying not only was religion man made, but it arose from ⁓ psychological adaptions and some of those ⁓ could be ⁓ utilized to drive suicide terrorism. you I didn't hear it at the time, but later, I think it's best summarized by ⁓ the physicist whose name I'm not able to remember at the moment, who said, you know, there'll always be good people, there'll always be bad people, but if you want good people to do bad things, you need religion. So ⁓ the original work was on anti terrorism and presentations and ⁓ I think a book chapter on that. And ⁓ then the more I ⁓ did these things, the more I ⁓ shifted to a broader lecture on ⁓ religion and ⁓ why human beings are vulnerable to religion and why we believe the things we believe. And again, that religion is primarily a byproduct of adaptations that originally evolved for other purposes. And ⁓ I was invited to give a talk at the American Atheists ⁓ Convention in two thousand and nine, and that talk was ⁓ filmed and it got ⁓ it was very well filmed and it got wide play on the internet, still does, ⁓ and people encouraged me to ⁓ write write it up, to write a book. And so I ⁓ Had the good fortune to have a ⁓ medical writer who I'd worked with before, Claire Alkifer. And ⁓ so we ⁓ did the book, and the idea was to do a book that was short. it was you you needed no neuroscience or psychology background to understand it. And we published in 2011 Why We Believe in Gods. concise guide to the science of faith. And it it's continued to sell and ⁓ I continue to get invited to ⁓ give the talk and that's the short speaker-1: Yes. ⁓ you know, and it it is it's a concise guide to the science of faith. It it is concise. I mean, I think what is it, eighty pages, maybe a hundred pages? It's very brief. speaker-0: It's we we kept it we tried to keep it short. speaker-1: It's the I think it's the best book of psychology I've ever read. for sure. 'Cause it's it's easy to understand, but it covers a lot of material about how the the mind works. speaker-0: Well, and that's to me, that's the the tragedy of it is that ⁓ in and the book was written in two thousand eleven. I think there's been some significant work done since, ⁓ which we can talk about if you'd like. But I it ev even in two thousand eleven the the basic knowledge was out there. And I think one of the the questions we face is why has that knowledge not permeated further into the educational system? Why has it not permeated further into the culture? I mean, why are there not ⁓ Sunday morning talk shows where the people who've ⁓ basically discovered this and why why are they not interviewed? what's in the book is not original to me. I'm not a researcher. I mean I basically collected what was available in 2011. And as I said, there's more since. And Why is it not more broadly known? I th I think that's ⁓ something that still troubles me and keeps me, you know, trying to get the information out there. ⁓ but it it's not you don't need a science degree, you don't need a psychology degree, you don't need to know anything about neuroscience. I mean the basis of religion are everyday ⁓ cognitive mechanisms that we are using all the time. And ⁓ Religion is a cultural I think largely a cultural byproduct, just like reading and writing. we don't have reading and writing ⁓ genes or reading and writing adaptations. It's a it's a fantastic cultural byproduct that comes out of our ability for vision, fine motor skill, and our basic language adaptation. And that comes together and you get reading and writing, which is ⁓ a hugely powerful ⁓ cultural invention. And religion is was obviously a hugely powerful and remains a hugely powerful ⁓ cultural invention, but ⁓ I think it's long outlived its usefulness. speaker-1: So ⁓ I think we should probably start by kind of laying a foundation on evolutionary theory. I guess you you're using the term byproduct and adaptation a lot. And you've so I think you've sort of alluded to the the difference there with that with the explanation with reading and writing. But I mean, when when we use the word adaptation in an evolutionary sense, what does that mean? speaker-0: Okay, so a a biological adaptation is something ⁓ well let me let me back up. So every organism, ⁓ you and me, an amoeba, ⁓ a chicken, ⁓ a plant, every organism is a compact collection and array of, in a sense, engineering devices that are solving a constant stream of problems. And that those adaptations are built over evolutionary time, ⁓ and they are built by the genes that code to build them, ultimately for the purpose of the continued success of those genes. So at every level of biological inquiry, you see this. My heart solves the problem of pumping blood, and my lungs solve the problem of extracting oxygen from the air. My aortic valve you know solves the problem of getting oxygenated blood out of my heart. ⁓ at every level of biological inquiry ⁓ it's biological adaptations. And and and adaptation again. is something that is ⁓ organized. ⁓ another way of thinking about it is that it it it's it's something that shows non-random organization, functionality, ⁓ efficiency, and heritability. ⁓ A way of thinking about the mind is the mind is what the brain does. And and the brain is this integrated collection of engineering devices, problem solving devices that ⁓ evolved over evolutionary time to solve very specific problems. And ⁓ many of those things are not even conscious to us. you know, you you're looking at me, I'm looking at you, but our eyes are and vision is made up of a huge array of ⁓ processes, ⁓ many of which are not conscious to us. We're not conscious of our edge detectors, our color detectors, unless we're you know, get some color blindness. ⁓ and and so the mind is full of these adaptations which solve the the problems of everyday life. and some of these adaptations ⁓ were and become used by religion, but that's not their original purpose. ⁓ a way to you know illustrate this is that you know all of us are born with an attachment system. When we're born, you know, we're we're designed to reach for the people that are going to keep us alive. And they're designed to reach for us as as ⁓ infants. in the attachment system. And I'm I'm biased towards the attachment system because I'm at University of Virginia where Mary Ainsworth was, and Mary Ainsworth and John Bowlby mapped out the attachment system in humans. Well, that attachment system is crucial for our survival. It's, you know, in a mammalian system that was designed because it kept mammals alive. ⁓ And the attachment system is used in religion. And what what are gods? But supernormal attachment figures that ⁓ come out of our attachment system, but then come back at us in supernormal ⁓ stimuli. One of my favorites is ⁓ from Lee Kirkpatrick, who is one of the people that mapped out the original mapped out he he's got some of the original work that mapped out the attachment system in religion, and he points out Think about your ⁓ your fundamentalists, the the and and particularly, you know, the people who ⁓ speak in tongues, and if you if you watch them, th they've got their hands, they're reaching up. All right. What is a what does a one-year-old or two year old do? They waddle over to you and they're they're you know, reaching up. I mean it's the attachment system in space. And it is just all over religion. And and again You know, all of us are aware of the attachment system. When it's described, all of us intuitively go, ⁓ yeah, you know, we know it. ⁓ and that's just another illustration of you know, these are you know, common everyday mechanisms that you know go into religion. And and a byproduct is something that is not originally an adaptation. one of the examples that people use is Bones are adaptations. They're skeletons are are crucial ⁓ to you know to organize our bodies, to help us bear weight, right? ⁓ but the white of a bone is not an adaptation. The white is a byproduct of it being you know largely calcium. so that's the difference between an adaptation and a byproduct. ⁓ speaker-1: So yeah, that's a that's a that's a really cool example. Yeah, the whiteness itself of the bone doesn't help us survive. 'Cause you're never gonna see it, right? Like yeah. speaker-0: But the the bound is the bound is crucial. speaker-1: Sure, sure. And it's just that the whiteness is a is a kind of a side effect of the most efficient way of constructing the bone. speaker-0: Yes. And and again it's the same sort of thing. You and I don't need reading and writing to survive. It's certainly helpful, but it's not crucial to our survival. But vision, fine motor skills, and language absolutely crucial. speaker-1: Yeah. speaker-0: Yeah, they but they combine for this powerful cultural byproduct of literacy. When you speaker-1: Look at to like it, I guess, any type of human behavior in the purely in the psychological realm, ⁓ and you're trying to determine or you're looking at is this particular kind of behavior or phenomenon a an adaptation or a byproduct? Do you have a particular framework through which do you view things? So you mentioned engineering, like do you kind of do like an analysis like that of like or a utility? What problem does this solve? I mean, how how do you think about these kind of questions? speaker-0: Yeah, one of the and I I want to be clear here, I'm not an evolutionary biologist. So sure people who people who people who are interested in this, I would encourage them to, you know, you know, look up ⁓ some of these things because I think they're gonna be better explained than than I can. But ⁓ yeah, when you you again, when you look at human behavior, ⁓ an evolutionary lens is crucial. speaker-1: Show me. ⁓ speaker-0: Right? I mean that ⁓ the again the mind is what the brain does, and and the brain, like every other piece of living tissue, evolved over evolutionary time very slowly to ⁓ solve the the the the adaptive challenges of living and survival and reproduction. And so any any behavior you you you want to think in those terms. Now Proving that something or or you know, showing that something is an adaptation ⁓ it is a very strict process. A lot of people will say, ⁓ such and such is just an adaptation. Well, it may be, but to show something that's an adaptation, it has to meet ⁓ very strict criteria. The famous biologist George Williams said showing something that is an adaptation isn't onerous topic or an onerous process. And and you have to ⁓ what's called reverse engineer to to show that whatever behavior you're talking about is is present in all species or if it's sex related in one sex of a species, that the trait is present in everybody, that it is complex, that it it is non-random, ⁓ that it has a function ⁓ that is efficient and ⁓ economical and and solves a problem and is heritable, ⁓ that ⁓ it it reliably passes from generation to generation because any behavior, any aspect of the mind is ultimately going to have a genetic basis. And ⁓ To confuse things a little bit further, ⁓ evolution acts in in humans not at the level of the individual, but at the level of the gene. And ⁓ and if you step back and think about it, what's the fundamental unit of life? It's the gene, it's DNA. So that's where evolution is going to act. the And and and so all of our thoughts and feelings and behaviors are designed by our genes for our genes' benefit, not necessarily at times for our own self-interest. There are circumstances where our genetic interest trumps our self-interest. Umicide is a ⁓ a great example of it. And I think again, if you want to understand the modern Darwinian synthesis. Suicide is a good illustration. Suicide illustrates the modern Darwinian synthesis. speaker-1: What do you mean by that term, modern Darwinian synthesis? I'm not sure what you mean by the speaker-0: The Darwin came up with natural selection in ⁓ the eighteen fifties, but he no, actually he figured it out in ⁓ eighteen thirty-nine and he sat on the idea for twenty years. ⁓ so he figured out that you know traits ⁓ were ⁓ heritable and and traits ⁓ evolved ⁓ over evolutionary time. And but you know he He didn't know about genes. And then it was not until the I guess mid or late twentieth century that ⁓ people mapped out the modern Darwinian synthesis, which is that ⁓ you know, all organisms are ⁓ basically biodegradable packages designed by their genes to get their genes into the next generation. ⁓ the best expression of this, if people are interested, is probably Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene. That was, I think, the first modern and accessible ⁓ exposition of it, which I think is just now marking its fiftieth anniversary. I think it came out in nineteen seventy-six. But there are people like ⁓ W. D. Hamilton and ⁓ other biologists that mapped out to modern Darwinian synthesis. The the function of life is to produce more life and that's gonna be produced at the level of the genes. speaker-1: So this idea that like, I yeah, I just my ri most recent guest on this podcast is ⁓ a clinical neuropsychologist St. Patrick Magnamira, who studies the cognitive neuroscience of religion and dreams. And we had this conversation about evolution favoring a gene. And it's not always the organism, i.e. the person that carries that gene that is being optimized for. Sometimes it's a flock or a school or a or in our case would be a tribe. And ⁓ that it that was kind of his evolutionary explanation for religious behavior is that. It promotes group cohesion. And you mentioned some of these factors with I think male bonded Yeah. Yeah. So maybe this is a that's a good launching point there to talk about, you know, kind of how these evolutionary factors relate to like religious behavior specifically. speaker-0: Yeah. Yes, well again, that's one of the the great debates is whether ⁓ evolution can act at the level of a group. And and and there's a fierce debate between the people who think there is selection at the group level or selection is only at the individual level. And again, I would encourage people to to look it up because ⁓ there are people like Jonathan Haidt, who think that group selection is is a factor. the the ⁓ Wilson, I'm black on his ⁓ first name, not E.O. Wilson, but is a group selectionist, then there are people like Steve Pinker and Dawkins and people that say no. it it group select the ⁓ group selection is not strong enough. It it's ⁓ and You know, I'm not I I'm just not a biologist. I don't know. I I tend to lean towards the you know, the individual selection as opposed to group selection, but it's it continues to be an open and fear fiercely debated controversy. ⁓ I don't think you need group selection to explain things, but you know, and and I think that's the beauty of science. You you keep researching, you keep debating. Keep looking for the evidence. speaker-1: So what are some of the I I guess I want to ask about some of the specific factors that you mentioned in the book and that that relate to why we believe in gods. ⁓ I guess maybe we should start there by just kind of describing the environment in which we lived or or the circumstances of of human evolution that would give rise to this because it once you understand what life was like for our ancestors, it it all of a sudden makes all kinds of sense what we would need, what kind of adaptations we would need to survive. speaker-0: Sure. Well, I think most of us, in fact, all of us, we don't cognitively understand the the time sequences involved. You and I can emotionally understand a couple generations. We have some emotional sense of maybe our grandparents or great grandparents generation till now. Being able to really conceive of the time scales involved in evolution, even the time scales involved in human evolution, I think is is generally beyond our cognitive capacities. My favorite ⁓ analogy ⁓ of this is that if you take today, ⁓ the 24 hours of today, and you divide each hour up into a hundred thousand years, so that you know, today represents two point four million years. What that means is that two point four at midnight last night, our genus Homo comes on the scene. And that's relatively late, right? Our our common ancestor with chimpanzees is five million years ago at least. So you've got our common ancestor with chimpanzees and then it goes through ⁓ Artipithecus, Astralopithecenes, Luci, th there's there's a whole slew of hominid ancestors. But let's just go up to two point four million years ago, Homo hobilus homo erectus, who if we bumped into ⁓ we'd recognize. You know, the and and you know, who who showed up in Africa at midnight, right? At Around six o'clock this morning, some of ⁓ left Africa and started to spread out around the world. and I'm sorry, at six o'clock this morning, breakfast time. Breakfast time some of them, you know, start to leave Africa. Around lunchtime, some of ⁓ made it into what is today Europe. They're homo erectus skeletons in what is the Republic of Georgia. ⁓ Then about that's I think lunchtime, then around dinner time tonight, round six o'clock, our common ancestor with Neanderthals shows up in Africa, maybe homohyderbrigensis. ⁓ about nine o'clock ⁓ tonight ⁓ Neanderthals show up in Europe. ⁓ And somewhere maybe between nine and ten o'clock, ⁓ you know, we show up in Africa, Homo sapiens. Also in Europe now, there's Denisovans maybe, there's Homo ancestors, there's the there looks like they're you know there may be another species in China. It you know, every day there's new wonderful information about ⁓ hominid evolution, but just sticking with us. So, you know, we show up in Africa maybe about ten o'clock tonight. ⁓ and you know, somewhere I think you know maybe around somewhere between eleven around eleven o'clock at night we leave Africa It looks like we go through the what is the you know modern day Israel and the Levant and you know we mate with Neanderthals. and it looks like a couple of waves of Homo sapiens leaving Africa up through ⁓ the Middle East and then across the Red Sea and going east. And it's it's not until it yeah, and and somewhere around eleven twenty tonight, there's climate catastrophe and and ⁓ Homo sapiens may have gotten down to ⁓ some I think they estimate, you know, six hundred to two thousand breeding individuals, something like that. And we survived this bottleneck climate bottleneck. ⁓ But it it's not until six minutes before midnight that ⁓ I mean we're still hunter gatherers. It's not until six minutes before midnight, about ten thousand years ago, that in the Near East we start to settle into agricultural communities. ⁓ and part of the reason we settled in agricultural communities may have been to brew better beer. That's no joke. ⁓ but the point is you've got you know this You know, even as even our genus Homo, you've literally got millions of years in which we are living and slowly evolving in small pin based hunter gatherer groups. That's the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. That's the environment that you and I are designed for. You know, our modern skull has a hunter gatherer African brain. Another way of putting it is we're all risen apes, not fallen angels. and and that's the environment that ⁓ shaped us that and so we had to live in environments where we had to come up with explanations for floods, storms, famine, ⁓ earthquakes. and ⁓ And and and one of the ideas is that religious explanations provided useful fictions. and one of our one of our cognitive mechanisms that was crucial to our survival is something called hyperactive agency detection devices. For us to survive, we had to think that a bush that is rustling is a predator, an animal or human, and not the wind. Because if you thought it was the wind and it was a predator, you likely were in trouble. speaker-1: Right. You're not you're not gonna pass the lawn in your jeans. Yeah, you've won the darn award. Yeah. speaker-0: Right. So one of one of our one of our mechanisms that's crucial to religion is these hyperactive agency detection mechanisms. ⁓ that in a in a situation of potential danger and uncertainty assume it's a it's assume it's a agent until proven otherwise. Because a false positive is momentarily embarrassing, you know. thinking it's an animal when it's just the wind, or a human predator when it's just the wind. and ⁓ that's a false positive and it's inconvenient. But a false negative, not seeing a predator and thinking it's the wind is deadly. There's this huge asymmetry of risk. So all of us have this hyperactive agency detection mechanism. It's just, you know, one small step to when it's thundering, There's a God that is causing it. And again, it we also overread purpose. So we're we're biased towards teleology, overreading purpose. The reproductive success of the ⁓ genes that built these adaptations. And so they come together for religion, but you again you can parse it, you can parse religious belief into these ⁓ adaptations that are just everyday mechanisms that all of us use that were absolutely crucial in the savannas of Africa. speaker-1: So I'd like to ask about ⁓ both of those things, a hyperactive agency detection for sure, and then maybe also teleology. The agency detection is a big one for me when I just kind of recognize this. And the the example that you gave involved like a threat, like a potential predator. But also I wonder, I mean, we had to understand each other. Like we're agents, you know. I mean, ⁓ our our brains ⁓ the our capacity for language has to be such a dominant force in our evolution to because we have to be able to understand each other's intentions. And ⁓ I wonder also there's also theory of mind that plays into this as well too, right? I mean an an agent, in other words, is the idea that not only w if there that is there a God, but that it it has agency, it has intention, it wants to do things, it makes plans just like a person would be. And that you're saying it's just is is we're evolved to find that agency everywhere. speaker-0: Crucial. But again, you you know, again, you bring up a whole nother set of a whole nother set of adaptations. Language, ⁓ theory of mind. It was absolutely crucial to try to be able to read other people's intentions, desires, wishes, beliefs, and we can do it with language, but we also evolved a very sophisticated facial recognition of mechanisms and and even a separate eye gaze ⁓ mechanism to try to ⁓ infer other people's intentions, wishes, and desires. We're we're constantly doing that. And and we're we're not only doing that with the people in front of us, but we're constantly doing it with ⁓ unseen others. ⁓ Let me see if I can illustrate this. and and please stop me if I just run on, okay? ⁓ no, my family's always going like this. speaker-1: I'm inclined to let you run on because it's interesting. speaker-0: Get to the point, Andy. ⁓ because it because I well but the other part of why I run on is because I just I think this is unbelievably interesting stuff, unbelievably crucial. Because you know, when you explain it to people they go, ⁓ yeah. And and you can see it. It's just it's intuitively obvious once you map it out. ⁓ so Okay. ⁓ think about it for a moment ⁓ you and I Don't need to know or ever have met Donald Trump. But right now we can think about what he might be thinking. We might be thinking about and we're worried about what his intentions, desires, wishes are, what his beliefs are. And we've never met the guy. But it's it's utterly crucial to life, okay? You and I can think about we're gonna have a job interview next week. We've never met the people. We know something about them, and we can start thinking about, you know, what they might ask us, what they're thinking, what they'll think about, having read my resume, what kind of questions they're gonna ask, and I might look ⁓ up and find out things about ⁓ or I might talk to people that have been interviewed, but I I've never met ⁓ right? But I can I can Go into the future and think about what's going on in their minds, even though I've never met them, and also that they don't have to be in front of me. I I don't have I can interact with an I can have a complex social interaction with an unseen other, right? Absolutely crucial for survival. ⁓ because why do we survive? Because we're ultrasocial, ultra ⁓ Cooperative species. Our brain is a social brain. Well, ⁓ you know, it it's it it's just one slight step to ⁓ talking to a dead ancestor. I mean, I think anybody who's ⁓ lost people, lost people close to them, they catch themselves talking to the person, right? And It it's just it's natural. We there's part of us that knows they're dead, but you know, right now you and I can call up somebody near and dear to us and and talk to ⁓ in our head. And it seems you know, w we don't question it, okay? But we're having a complicated social interaction with an unseen other who's important in our life, may have been an attachment figure or an authority figure. ⁓ and I hope you can start to see it's just one small step to talking to a dead ancestor, talking to a god. and so ⁓ again that's crucial to social life, to survival, to reproduction. And it's you know, religions are full of that. I mean, and what do we do? We pray, we talk to somebody, and and hope they will give us something if we give them something in return. That's reciprocal altruism, another adaptation. speaker-1: What what do you mean by reciprocal altruism? Can we double click on that a little bit? speaker-0: Really reciprocal altruism is where we all have the capacity for ⁓ I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine. speaker-1: That's it. That's literally it. Yeah. Yeah. speaker-0: But and and with the with the promise that that if if if if I do something for you ⁓ and you're a normal human being and not a sociopath, you will feel indebted to me and you will in the in the future, if you have an opportunity, re repay the debt. ⁓ our minds keep account of what we've done for others and what ⁓ others have done for us, that's reciprocal altruism. and and it doesn't necessarily have to be kin. There's also kin altruism. We take care of kin or or fictive kin, ⁓ you know. speaker-1: Adopted nieces, nephews, things like that. speaker-0: Exactly. Yeah. And and what what are religio what what do religions do? I mean just look at the Catholic faith, okay? They they create fictive kinship, okay? Priests are fathers, the popes the holy father, nuns are sisters, ⁓ monks are brothers, thank you. They and and they're evoking a kin relationship because our kin altruism is stronger than our reciprocal altruism to strangers. Again speaker-1: Monks are brothers. speaker-0: you know, just everyday ordinary social adaptations which, you know, are very useful for religious belief. speaker-1: So I've got an example from my own life where a few of these come together. I was raised in the Catholic faith and when I was younger I used to pray a lot, ⁓ at certain periods of my life. And, you know, I'm talking to God, which I was told is a father figure. You know, we ha that's another thing. We started by talking about attachment figures. The ultimate attachment figure is a parent. And, you know, that so of course a lot of these deities are a father and some cultures are it's a mother. And ⁓ I always I I never I only said thank you for things. It was a way of counting my gratitudes basically, which is a really beneficial if you just count your gratitudes. But I never wanted to ask for anything 'cause it's like only calling your parent when you need money and that's not nice. Cause it so it made me feel guilty. So as in true Catholic form, I felt guilty about prayer. but it there's all kind of things there, which you're describing with reciprocal altruism. It's like, well, I don't want to unbalance the deck with God. You know, I need to just say thank you mostly. So when I really need something, he knows that I'm not only asking 'cause, you know. That I that I'm not only calling because I need something. And it's just funny as a in as a little kid. I think I may have been seven, eight years old. And this is just it, this is kind of this the the hardware and software that we're working with predisposes us to do these things. speaker-0: Right. And and and and that software would be there even if you weren't raised in the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith the Catholic faith hijacks those and and and uses them. And and all the things you just said, I mean it was an attachment figure, it's reciprocal altruism, it's kin altruism, it's guilt, it's ⁓ you know, I'm only gonna call him when I really need him. All those all those are part of our humanity that evolved for survival in hunter-gatherer environments in harsh, dangerous environments. We were utterly we were utterly dependent on others for our survival. speaker-1: So ⁓ well, n never more so than when we're children. And I wanted to ask the other thing we mentioned is ⁓ there's a term in your book that I I love this term. It's one of just my favorite combinations of words to say, and it's promiscuous teleology. ⁓ they're just that's just a fun combination of words to say, especially when you know what they both mean. ⁓ can you explain what that is and how that relates to to like childhood development? speaker-0: Sure. ⁓ it we overread purpose and and there's a psychologist in Massachusetts, I'm sorry I c I can't pull up her name right now, who's written great stuff about this. And and you see it you see it dramatically in children. If you ask a child what are lakes for for fish to swim in, what are stones for, for you know, animals to scratch themselves on? ⁓ and we can sort of we can sort of laugh about it, you know, the You know, we obviously know that that's not the purpose of lakes or stones, but you can see in a child the overreading of ⁓ purpose. And speaker-1: Is this also why they constantly ask why? Yeah. That's it. They just why do that? Why do they do that? Why do they do that? 'Cause that there must be a there must be an a reason for everything. Yeah. speaker-0: Yeah. Right. And a kid is tr look, a kid has got to survive and they've got to pull in as much information as possible. And and that's why we're particularly vulnerable to authority, because you know, we counted on authority to help us survive and you know, why this, why this? You're you're trying to learn about the world to navigate it. You know, what's what's safe, what's not safe, who's a friend, who's not I mean, and so kids are asking that all the time. But The the other thing I was gonna bring up this ⁓ there was a great interview between Randy Nessie, who's a ⁓ well known evolutionary psychiatrist, and Richard Dawkins. And I I I wish I'd written it down and saved it, but they're talking about natural selection, you know, does this or does that, and they both catch themselves because they're they're they're talking about it as if speaker-1: As an agent. speaker-0: As if it's an ancient score at purpose. speaker-1: It's funny when two brilliant evolutionary psychologists are doing that. Like, wait a minute. Yeah. speaker-0: But it but it shows it shows the innate promiscuous teleology that we all have. And and and we all do it all the time. I mean, it's it's it rained today because I didn't bring my umbrella. It you know, create it it it gives an explanation, it it creates an illusion that some control over the weather. but l let me add let me add two other things because I think it's important and you may want to. Talk to the individuals, but the attachment mechanism, I I think one of the one of the main ⁓ things that's been done since I wrote my book is the work of a neuroscientist in California, John Wathay. And he's got two books: The Illusion of God's Presence and The Phantom Brain. And I think the importance of John Wathay's work is that he took Lee Kirkpatrick's work and took it. ⁓ on attachment and and took it to a deeper level. And he lays out the evidence that it's not just the attachment system, but it's the early infantile, early childhood, neonatal attachment system that stays with us, and that's the attachment system that is really utilized and hijacked by religion. ⁓ I think his work is brilliant, important, and I think again it it it helps you know, map out ⁓ better than ⁓ the the early formulations around the attachment system. ⁓ I and I think again if you want people to interview, I think John would be speaker-1: How how do you spell his last name? speaker-0: W-A-T-H-E-Y. Yeah, he's just, he's a, and he's also, I've gotten to know him a bit. He's a lovely individual, and I think, and and he's a good scientist. I mean, he he lays out the hypothesis, he lays out the evidence, he lays out the psychological evidence in his first book. His second book is really laying out the neuroscience. ⁓ and then the other one is we were talking about hyperactive agency detection. ⁓ speaker-1: Yeah. speaker-0: ⁓ Pascal Boyer, who wrote Religion Explained, he and another researcher have ⁓ really good stuff, I think, on the the the ⁓ precautionary vigilance system or the hazard vigilance system that all of us have. ⁓ that when things are even the slightest bit uncertain, we get anxious and we act. And and the reason it's important is that it's what's crucial to understanding religious ritual and how religious ritual evolved and and strengthens religious belief. And that's material that's not in my book, that ⁓ again I think is really crucial. ⁓ and it also helps us understand OCD, obsessive compulsive behavior. speaker-1: Can we can we go into just a little bit? speaker-0: when there's when there's uncertainty, we we we're we're very easily anxious. ⁓ and again it's this they've named it the ⁓ the precautionary vigilance system or the hazard vigilance system. I think the I I think the main person is Pascal Boyer and a co author whose name I can't remember. And also Marty Hazleton, I think, who's an evolutionary psychologist. And so just to give you to give you an example, so I have, you know, ⁓ and we all do if we look at have kind of you know before I leave the house, sort of morning ritual, right? What do I do? I may check to see that the the stove is off, ⁓ may check to make sure the electricity is off. ⁓ make sure I've got my wallet, make sure I've got my phone. and and if if I if I if I haven't run through those things and I realize I've I've forgotten something, I get anxious. ⁓ now what am I doing? Right? The likelihood of the house burning down is remote. Okay? But it's not absolute. There's some uncertainty there and I double check. Right. I double check against potential even low frequency hazard. Right. I it's it's unlikely there's gonna be an electric short in a light, but you know, make sure all the lights are turned down. ⁓ it's it's highly unlikely I'm gonna get pulled over by a cop, but I make sure I've got my wallet with my driver's license in it. Right? ⁓ make sure I've got my phone because you know, what if I get a business call or a ⁓ a call from a patient and I don't have my phone. It's you know unlikely to happen, but you know and we all do that. And the and the hyperactive agency detection mechanism is one piece of that. And it has to do with agents, okay, as opposed to generic dangers. Okay. So they think And they make a very good case that this is the origin of or is connected with ⁓ OCD, with obsessive behavior. That's an extreme version, but it's also the basis of religious ritual. That that that's the original function of religious ritual is to bind anxiety in circumstances of uncertainty and potential danger. And and you see this not just in religion, but for instance, you know, people who go through a ritual before planting crops, right? ⁓ because who's got control over the weather? But you you do something to try to ease your anxiety. ⁓ and and my favorite example i is Rafa Nadal, the tennis player, who was known for just unfortunately these rigid rituals before he would start a a tennis match or even during a tennis match. ⁓ and again, what's a tennis match? It's highly uncertain. There's a lot of anxiety. There's a lot on the line. He's got no control over his opponents, but he's easing his anxiety, going through stereotypical behavior which eases anxiety in the face of uncertainty. I think it's absolutely brilliant and again it's it's it's one more ⁓ discovery that helps deepen our understanding of religion and in this case really I think lays out the the the the f the f the the fundamental function of religious ritual. There are other you you know utility to religious ritual obviously binding people. Religion comes from relegari to bind people. ⁓ religious rituals are often useful to prepare men for war. a square dance is a mate assessment device. speaker-1: I'm in middle Tennessee. We have a lot of those here. speaker-0: Yeah. Yeah. And ⁓ but so there there are all sorts of use there are all sorts of uses ⁓ for ritual and all sorts of uses for religious ritual, but like what's the fundamental behavior of it? And and again I think Boyers and others who've mapped out this ⁓ precautionary vigilance system, I think they're on the money in terms of, you know, crucial building block. of religion and religious ritual. speaker-1: So ⁓ this is interesting. I want to see if I can just kind of synthesize what you've said because there's a few things here that are interesting. I mean, one is that I've wondered this for a while. I was talking with someone yesterday, actually, and she's a very ⁓ high performing individual. She's very busy. She's got four teenage daughters and she's always going. And I asked her, Do you ever just trying to sit still? And she's like, I can't. I'll either fall asleep or I get really, really anxious if I don't move. And I was like, you know, that sounds kind of like acathesia. I mean, there's this kind of like this it's like a psychiatric issue of like, You know, in an extreme, with someone if they stop moving, they'll get really profound anxiety and like the moving is an effort to to resolve it. And the OCD thing as well, I live with O C D it's a a recent realization that it's like, ⁓ trying to constantly resolve the worry just makes it worse. ⁓ 'cause it kind of trains your brain to think that itches are gonna get scratched. But ⁓ when you add agency to that, it also makes sense. Cause if it's also if it's if it's a parent figure, it's like, well, what if what if we're in trouble? Or, you know, what if we're being punished? That that's a I think to me one of the more the sadder parts that I see about the religious experience for humans is that it, you know, when things don't go well, it's the assumption is that we've done something wrong and we're being punished. And so then there's a need to correct that. Right. You there's like a corrective action that we need to take. And this it relates to a f ⁓ in a couple of different ⁓ psychiatric disorders, which I'd like to talk to just in a little bit ⁓ about the evolutionary basis of those. But I think you sent me a paper about depression where Depression may just be kind of an effort to resolve or to to correct something that has gone wrong. Right. ⁓ you know, it's a way of ruminating, which is kind of common to both of these, OCD and depression is we just we gotta think about it. And it it is a relief, I can say, to just sometimes to just do something, you know, like to just to just take action, especially when there's other people that are in on it with you. speaker-0: Yes. No, and and and I think it it they overlap. and again the the taking action to ease taking muscular action, taking motor action to ease anxiety and gain some sense of control, is is part of human nature. But again, we now I I think they make a good argument That the part of human nature that is the basis of it is this ⁓ precautionary vigilant system. I think that's that's what that's about. Now, depression, I think I think you can make a good case that most depression, not all, but most depression is an adaptation. It's an adaptation to stop business as usual, to focus on ⁓ ⁓ difficult, complicated personal problems. and that rumination, the basis of rumination is not pathological. The basis of rumination is putting us into what's called type two thinking and trying to figure out what happened, how it happened, what can I do now, you know, what are the options? How do I solve this complicated ⁓ personal problem. ⁓ and I ⁓ obviously I'm biased, but I think there's tons of evidence for this. ⁓ the main person in this, and again, somebody you might think about interviewing since you're interested in this, is Paul Andrews. This is ⁓ this really he's the principal ⁓ architect of the analytic rumination hypothesis. ⁓ and I've had the good fortune of knowing him and sort of ⁓ being first assistant in the operation, but you know, he's the he's the head heart surgeon in this. ⁓ and he's the one that has mapped it out. And and and I I think he's on the money and I I use it all the time in my clinical work and I you know I teach it. speaker-1: So the analytic rumination hypothesis is basically that we you mentioned type two thinking, ⁓ which is slower, right? Slower, more deliberate, less instinctive, perhaps. ⁓ that is that Danny Kahneman's? Yes. speaker-0: I think I think I think I think and and ⁓ it it's ⁓ Kahneman is is important in this. And and ⁓ for your listeners, ⁓ what I strongly recommend is reading Kahneman's book, Thinking Fast and Slow. I think it's ⁓ a very important book. ⁓ or he's got and or he's got a a number when the book came out he gave a number of talks on this. ⁓ I think one of the best is a talk he gave to Google in twenty eleven. and to my students I recommend that they watch the talk so they get a sense of his ⁓ just a sense of him. He's he's I thought he was a real ⁓ mensch and ⁓ and then read the book. ⁓ and what he argues is that I mean the book is a mostly about the work he did with Amos Tversky on cognitive biases. But the underlying part is his view that we basically have two systems of thinking, what he calls system one and system two. And and they're not anatomically located any one place in our brain. But system one is the automatic, ⁓ unconscious, quick and dirty ⁓ thinking that we all do. ⁓ He illustrates it by if I say what's 2 plus 2, you say 4. It's just there, right? Whereas if I ask you to make a left-hand turn in traffic and calculate 22 times 17, you're not going to be able to do it, right? Because calculating 22 times 17, you got to think and you got to you know work it out. And that's type two thinking and it's ⁓ analytic reasoning. And it's effortful, it's hard, it's calorically expensive, and our brains are designed to use type one thinking whenever we can. ⁓ we resist type two thinking. speaker-1: Two thinking is expensive i in terms of energy, which is the only resource that really has ever mattered. speaker-0: Yeah. And and and you know, we we evolved where starvation was always right around the corner. ⁓ you know ⁓ plentiful calories were non existent, so you had to be ⁓ you know energy you you had to be an energy conserver and you had to be careful. and ⁓ so we're evolved to try to run on, you know, the most efficient, effective We can, which most of the time is type one. speaker-1: Yeah, so like an example of this, I learned about I studied political science in undergrad. That's that's my educational background. And ⁓ the I I wish I'd honestly now studied psychology now that I know what it is. ⁓ the only bit of psychology we really got ⁓ was low information rationality, which is ⁓ a D or an R behind someone's name. Doesn't really tell you everything, but it's as relative to what it would take to study every position they have. It's actually used to be anyway, a pretty good indicator of whether you wanted to vote for them. ⁓ and when we do like with this episode, I'm gonna call you Dr. Andy Thompson and then put ⁓ D behind your name. Andy Okay, Andy's fine. How about Andy Thompson ⁓ D? Andy is fine. Andy Andy's fine. Okay. Well but but those letters those letters do signal to a lot of people who are like, okay, like that you you do have some education, you were required to do this. and so yeah, that like it it does it saves a lot of time from me having to have read everything you've ever published. Yeah. You know. ⁓ speaker-0: Just the just the speaker-1: So speaker-0: Which is which is a which is a great example of type one thinking. It's it's it's it's it's quick and dirty. Most of the time it's right. speaker-1: With like rumination, that's type two. Type two. And we're getting stuck there is the idea that in an analytic rumination hypothesis that we're just kind of analytically ruminating. speaker-0: No, the the the the view in my profession has been that rumination is pathological. speaker-1: Meaning it meaning it's a disease process or it's a speaker-0: That it's irrational, that rumination is irrational, that it's you know, it's it's pathological, and that it's a it's a characteristic of depression. And what I think Paul argues and I think supports very well is no, rumination is by design. Rumination is type two thinking. Rumination is, you know, breaking things down into its component parts and trying to think through it and and to try to solve the problem. And his argument is that in depression, anytime you see somebody who's depressed, there's at least one or more crucial questions with which they're trying to ⁓ answer. And you know, sort of what's what's next. Another way of describing it is that it's avoidant learning. You're trying to learn what happens so you can avoid it not happening. you can avoid it from happening again. ⁓ so ⁓ and and and if you step back from it it it makes an intuitive sense. If I got fired from my job and I just said, ⁓ no big deal and and didn't bother to think about it, you would say, Andy, wait a second, you just got fired. What are you gonna do? You know, you're gonna try to get another Job. I mean, what you know, you just got canned. What are you gonna do? And I was like, ⁓ I don't know. You know, I'll find something. You would if if you were family or friends, you would start to worry that's like Andy, you're not taking this seriously. You know? You you got people to support, you got a mortgage, what are you doing? What you know, okay. But if if if I got fired and I got depressed, you would you know, feel badly for me, but you would think, well, good. I mean, you know, I mean in the sense of, you know, he's he's down, he's he's stopping business as usual. He's trying to focus on why did I get fired? Where did this come from? What do I need to do about it? What's its reputational damage to me? you know, how am I gonna deal with future interviews? What am I gonna put on my C V? You know, what am I gonna tell my family? What am I gonna you know, what speaker-1: Worry. Worry. Yeah. speaker-0: Right, but it's but it's be it's not just and it's anxiety. This is why depression and anxiety often go hand in hand. But it's it's like you know, what what what am I gonna do? ⁓ and I'm trying to figure out what to do in the present, what to do in the future, also, you know, what from my past led to this. ⁓ and and I think ⁓ again, I think it's you know, when when I And and again, it it may be it's gonna be presumably very painful. If I get fired, it's gonna be very painful. Well, I'm a human being and I'm in a lot of pain. What's one of my vulnerabilities? Okay. To drown my sorrows in alcohol or to start smoking a lot of dope. Okay. And and and again, we have adaptations to crave alcohol and to use plant neurotoxins. and and and so it's it's a ⁓ muddy, messy picture. ⁓ and and so I I'm gonna be vulnerable to do things to try to ease the pain that might get in the way of solving the problem. speaker-1: Right. So in that in that sense the pain itself is what's adaptive. I mean is is it's motivating. We need that. Right. speaker-0: And is motivating. Yes, exactly. And the the the the analogy I use is that, you know, if I have a splinter in my hand, it's gonna hurt, right? but you know, I can you know I can sort of minimize it or deny it for this interview and I can probably get through the interview, you know, and you might pick up on it, you know. Andy, you you okay? ⁓ but I could you know, I could sort of get through it. if I have a fish hook in my hand, no way I could get through this interview. Right? I mean or it would be worrisome if speaker-1: Too much pain. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That would signals a bigger problem. speaker-0: Exactly. But what's the function of what's the function of that pain? That pain tells me I got a problem. It tells me where the problem is located in my hand. The severity of the pain tells me how serious it is. I got a metal fish hook in my hand. That's a serious problem, right? And it even if I want to hide it, I can't. So you're going to pick up on it. So even if I don't want to signal you, the pain is a signal for health. and I can't finish this interview because I'm gonna be focused on how do I solve the problem. How do I get the fish hook out of my hand? And and ⁓ and and you wanna think of depression that way. What's depression? Okay. I've got some minor problems. I'm sort of thinking about ⁓ but they're like a splinter. They're things that are not urgent, but I do have to figure it out. I've got to get the splinter out. I've got to solve eventually this problem at work. And you might pick up on it. If you knew me well, you'd say, you know, Andy, you seem a little down today. What's going on? And you know, and I might say, well, there's this problem of work that I've been grinding away at. But that that's sort of a splinter. But the the the pain, the minor pain, is motivating me to try to figure it out. Now, if I've got if I've been fired, if I'm trying to do this interview, and I was fired yesterday, much as I might try to hide it. No way. You'd you even not knowing me well, you pick up on it. You say, I mean, you seem really distracted. What you know, what's going on? ⁓ and and because, you know, I would be in significant pain and even if I didn't want to, I would be signaling and my mind would be focused on trying to solve a problem. How did this happen? What am I gonna do? I I would be completely shifted to type two thinking, you know. And and and part of depression's function is to try to block out distractions. ⁓ and and to and so speaker-1: It does it do that by just kind of like an overall down regulation of sensory speaker-0: Regul it's very good. It's a down regulation of some s systems. Okay, so I'm not gonna be interested in eating. I'm not gonna be interested probably in going out tonight. I'm not gonna be interested in sex. I'm not gonna, you know, it it's gonna downregulate other other systems. And and to me the beauty of Paul's work is anybody who gives you a theory of depression, it has to have evidence at every level. In other words, you've got to have evidence starting at the molecular level to the neurosystems level, neurochemical levels, ⁓ you know, anatomy of the brain, function of the mind, and obviously I'm biased, but I think the the the analytic reasoning hypothesis is supported by evidence at every single level. ⁓ that you know serotonin is is seen as a chemical imbalance or a low serotonin phenomena. Actually, in the area of your brain that's grinding away at the problem, it's a high serotonin phenomena. You're you're speaker-1: Very attuned to social. Yeah. I wan I want to ask you another question, if I may. If we can keep flirting this line between religion and psychiatric disorders. so one of the things that we I recently talked with ⁓ with Patrick Magnamare about also is is ostracism, which is a religious practice. I mean I I know a lot of people here in Middle Tennessee that have have been speaker-0: Right. speaker-1: you know, essentially shunned is what they would be called or or kicked out of their church because of their sexuality typically or their political views is now becoming more common. ⁓ but I've always thought of depression as a function of the fear of ostracism because I mean if you are a either about to or have just been kicked out of the tribe, I mean it's probably certain death. But you'd want to conserve resources. Quit moving. Like just sit down, be qu be still, figure the problem out and don't waste energy. You're definitely not going to want to have sex. You're not going to want to eat. I mean just like slow down, quit burning calories. D does that seem to conform with what I mean, it's a it's a problem to solve. speaker-0: Yeah, I think that's you know, excellent point. It's a because it this is it's it's gonna be multidimensional, sure. And and again, we are we are ⁓ our brains are f are designed for ⁓ a hunter gatherer environment where if you were ostracized it was death. You know? And and so ⁓ we are exquisitely socially anxious because you know, social rejection was deadly, right? That's that's one of the good things about living in the modern world is that if you're you know if you're rejected from if you're rejected from the the faith of the tribe you're not usually you're not gonna die. And and my experience is maybe similar to yours. I live I live an hour and hour and fifteen minutes away from Jerry Falwell's empire. and I see I see students who come from the Lynchburg area, who come from Liberty University, Liberty Baptists, and and their families have excommunicated and and cut them off. And and it's heartbreaking. But you know, they're literally not going to die, though it feels that way. I mean that ostracism is so devastating because that's that's the hardware software we're carrying. ⁓ and and and so you know one of my approaches to patients is to say, Look, you know, yes, this is emotionally devastating. This is terrible. That's why you feel so terrible. But you feel terrible because your brain thinks you might die from this. Okay. The reality is you're not gonna die. It feels like it, okay? And and and we have to try to work to rebuild your life. It's tragic what your family's done to you. No I mean, here you are, smart, lovely person, and they can't delight in your success. ⁓ and it's tragic. No no question, it's sad because you care about your family and this is simply awful. So I'm using evolutionary psych. I'm I'm using it and I'm I'm I'm you and and you're gonna you're gonna be pulled into what did I do wrong? How did this happen? You know, and if you've had a lot of religious guilt, you know, injected into you, ⁓ but mercifully, you know, you're not gonna you're not gonna be cast into the wilderness and die of starvation and a predator. Though it feels like that, because historically that's what would have happened. speaker-1: Or it could be also something happening on social media with your peers. I I think that one of the things I've been curious to ask about, you've been a psychiatrist now and a college campus for several several decades now, I think. ⁓ how has they you've you seen this phenomenon change with like the impact of social media and students' mental health? I know that is obviously it you know, it's a moving target now, but do you see people that are as as devastated by something happening with their friends on Instagram or Facebook as they would be from from ostracism? speaker-0: Yeah, it's a it's a huge issue. And it's it's interesting you brought this up because ⁓ I I worked at a student health service, and one of the things we are doing now, which we hadn't before, is we're trying to build into our standard intakes. how many hours are you on social media? Which social media platforms do you use? ⁓ d D do you use chat boxes? Do you have chat box friends? Do you have chat box therapists? do you do you find it hard not to be on social media? Are you ⁓ we don't use the word addicted, even though that's what it is, ⁓ at times, at times. And it it I I think it's a brave new world. ⁓ and it it's ⁓ I don't think we I don't I I don't think we know the full impact. And it's gonna impact ⁓ there's a I think there's a study I think out of MIT, I may not have that right, but you know, showing that ⁓ stress ⁓ stress lonely students tend to use more of it and it makes it worse or something. speaker-1: Yeah. Yeah, it's a soothing. It's it's self soothing. Yeah. speaker-0: Yeah, but we we now we're we're literally w which we didn't have before. We're we're literally putting together a a template to try to use on our try to use on all of our evaluations. and and it's it's so embedded in students that they don't think to tell you. I'll I'll give you an example. I saw this guy ⁓ a couple weeks ago and he's depressed, he just had a breakup. And ⁓ I went through, you know, an entire evaluation of him. No mention. And because I'm trying to in a sense retool for the you know, I said, Well, how many hours a day are you on social media? And he said, Well, four or five hours. and I said, Well, which platforms? And you know, he told me ⁓ you know, I'm on Instagram and ⁓ what was he on? He was on he was on Instagram and TikTok, didn't do Facebook months, didn't do Reddit. ⁓ and and and with men we always ask, you know, not do you use porn, but how much porn do you watch? It's not do you, it's just how much? and he was quite open about the fact that, you know, he just never got into porn. ⁓ But what was interesting about it was he said ⁓ he said, but you know, ⁓ I'm I I you know I don't have strong urges for it, I'm not addicted. And there's an there's a there's a old rule in my business which is unsolicited denials are assertions. So speaker-1: Right. I think thou dost protest too much. speaker-0: Yeah, it's a but it's a it's a great thing to keep in mind and because it and we I use it all the time. If somebody says, Well, you know, without I mean if I say do you drink and somebody says, Well, yes, but I d I don't think I'm addicted, that's different. If somebody out of the blue says, you know, I'm I'm not addicted to marijuana and I didn't ask, he's telling me that he's addicted to marijuana. Generally, it's a tell. But but here look, I mean here here's what's in it. Here's a mental health professional, presumably with some experience and knowledge. And and we weren't I wasn't asking routinely in depth questions about social media. And as soon as I did, all this stuff came out that I think was relative to his emotional health. And so, you know, that's a that's a change that you know, where I work we're making. To d to deal with this phenomenon. speaker-1: You've described, ⁓ you have a you have a series now on ⁓ on Instagram that I've seen and I think also on TikTok, why do we believe in gods? Why we believe in gods? We'll we'll put a link to that in this description and ⁓ one of your shorts there that you've done, which is a wonderful series. I love it. It's a great way to to reach people. ⁓ one my favorite one, of course, is the bur is the McDonald's episode. ⁓ and you just refer to like, you know, religion is like fast food. It's this super normal stimulus. And ⁓ and we we could get into that, but I was as you were talking, I was thinking, has there ever been a more supernormal stimulus than pornography? than streaming pornography. I mean, for a male brain, we're we're so visual. I think the average male in our in our ancestry never saw more than a couple different women naked ever, let alone endless supplies of of, you know, enhanced whatever. speaker-0: Yeah. Numile young women wanting to have sex instantly. Yes. That's another part of pornography. speaker-1: That's another thing. I thought about that. Right, that they're just ready. speaker-0: And ready and eager. Right, right. Which is, you know, is not typical ⁓ female behavior. ⁓ and and ⁓ no, it's ⁓ it's a no. Number one, ⁓ thank you for for watching those. ⁓ I I'm very grateful to Elliot Houchens who ⁓ did ⁓ all. I mean, that that was that's her creativity and you know, she deserves the she deserves the credit on that. ⁓ but ⁓ the yes, ⁓ religion is like junk food and it's like pornography. ⁓ and we decided, I decided, I I wasn't gonna use the pornography analogy is gonna alienate people and it's inflammatory. But you're absolutely right because it they they illustrate that that we lived in harsh, dangerous environments. We had cravings for the things that were rare and crucial. And ⁓ lean game meat, which we would only occasionally have, was a compact source of calories and protein, which we absolutely needed. So all of us have cravings for fat, which is lean game meat. And it was rare and crucial, right? ⁓ We became who we are. Because we became meat eaters. And that's probably responsible for our big brains, is that we went from probably being meat scavengers to meat hunters. And one of the reasons we abuse I'm sorry, my mistake. One of the reasons we use alcohol and plant neurotoxins is because They helped us deal with the organisms and parasites in the meat that we were eating. That's why we, you know, use caffeine, cannabis, tobacco, you know, plant neurotoxins, because they helped us deal with the parasite and infectious agents, and alcohol was our original antimicrobial. So ⁓ that's a little side point. speaker-1: That's fascinating. I didn't know that about about the the origin of those use of those speaker-0: Yeah, if you want an another person I would suggest interviewing is the anthropologist Edward Hagan. And look up his ⁓ article ⁓ Homo Medicus because he's the one that's mapped this out. Ed also has ⁓ excellent work on depression, excellent work on suicide. ⁓ we see depression a little bit differently than Ed does, but I think he's he's he's ⁓ I think a underappreciated contributor ⁓ b because he's an evolutionary anthropologist and he's done a lot of work that has relevance for ⁓ psychiatric illness, substance use, depression. I mean it again I think you know no, he and he and he and he and Paul are ⁓ among my favorite people and I I really feel privileged to have gotten to know them and ⁓ And I think they've just got great work. But anyway, getting back to so you can see I can get well speaker-1: I love it. Well, but you're giv you've given me probably six or seven more y guests, which is great. You can go as long as you want if you want to keep doing that. speaker-0: You know, it's like get to a point, Andy. ⁓ so ⁓ so we have we we ⁓ evolved in these harsh, dangerous environments where food is, you know, rare. We have cravings for ⁓ fat, which is meat, lame lean game meat. We also have cravings for sweets, ⁓ which were ripe fruit, because ripe fruit was a crucial source of calories and sugar, you know, and vitamin C. ⁓ we don't make our own vitamin C. So it was crucial. And and it was also ripe fruit, ⁓ we would know what was ripe because we sniffed the alcohol and also ripe fruit had alcohol in it. And we're here today because one of our ancestors about 10 million years ago got a mutation that allowed for ⁓ our ancestors to digest alcohol. Another interesting fact speaker-1: So and therefore be able to eat fruit eat this kind of fruit. speaker-0: Eat eat well eat fruit, eat fruit because unripe fruit is monkeys can digest unripe fruit, but we can't. and and ⁓ but that's where that's where our desire for alcohol comes from, is it was crucial. And alcohol as I said is our you know, original antimicrobial. so so we we've got cravings for fat, which was lean game meat. We've got cravings for sweets, which is ripe fruit. The modern world takes those adaptations and comes back at us with you know fat rich hamburgers and sucrose, sugar, ⁓ you know, manufactured sugar. And I I think this is true about everybody. If we have the choice between a peach and a brownie, we're gonna go for the brownie, right? Because it's a super normal stimuli. I mean my dopamine neurons will light up a little bit with a peach. My dopamine neurons are going to explode with a brownie. ⁓ and ⁓ that's what I'm gonna orient to. And the other thing too is that our appetites were designed in an environment where you know food was not plentiful. Starvation was always right around the corner. So our appetites are designed to take in as many calories as we can. Not just the fuel for today, but the fuel for this coming week and next week. In the modern world, you know, I'm I don't know about you, but I've never met a buffet I didn't like. And so, you know, when I meet a buffet, I still eat white starvationist you know, right around the corner. And and and it's one of the, you know, the the these are some of the things that contribute to the obesity epidemic. Is that you know we've got these processed foods which trigger our appetites, trigger an ancient appetite, trigger these cravings, but trigger them in in supernormal strength. ⁓ and that's the way religion is. Religion you know comes from these adaptations for ancestral life, but then comes back at us in supernormal stimuli, ⁓ supernormal parents, supernormal attachment figures. And as you pointed out, the psychology of pornography is the same thing. Men have a desire for markers of youth, nobility. ⁓ you know, our ancestors who were attracted to eighty five year old women didn't leave descendants, okay? And were also attracted to markers of what's called null parity. meaning no children, okay? and which means, you know, young women. ⁓ you know, and and so that's what we're designed to desire. And ⁓ what what does pornography give us? It gives us ⁓ young women, markers of nobility, markers of fertility, and They have the unusual thing, which is eagerness for uncommitted sex, you know. And it you know, I mean they just they land ⁓ on those adaptations. ⁓ and they also land on the ⁓ something that all men carry, which a lot of animals have, which is called the Coolidge effect, which is we are rearroused by novelty. A bull will copulate with a cow, but it won't copulate with the same cow until it's copulated with some other cows in between. It's called a Coolidge effect. And and and and that's ⁓ that's what men have. If you think about it, if you if you took a pornography clip and watched it, you would be aroused, but then if the same clip kept being shown to you, you know, your arousal would fade. speaker-1: It's like hearing the same joke over and over again. Yes. It's not funny because there's no surprise, there's no novelty. Yeah. speaker-0: Right. But then, you know, six months from now and you heard the joke again, they laugh. speaker-1: you've heard a bunch of jokes in between that have kind of cleared out that the neural infrastructure. And so ⁓ I'd like to ask you ⁓ about a couple other there's so other psychiatric disorders that are associated with religiosity or with pseudo-religious behavior. And I'm thinking of and and wondering if maybe there's an evolutionary basis where these things tie together. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, maybe things like temporal epilepsy or are are other things where you know their people might have visions or they might, you know. believe that they're engaging with things that they can definitely hear but don't see. Do you think that the fact that these disorders still persist may have something to do with our our predisposition towards religious behavior? speaker-0: That's the that's a complicated and important question, and and there's a lot of debate about that. ⁓ I come down on the side of ⁓ schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are illnesses. These are not adaptations. Okay. ⁓ now some of the genes that are risk factors for those illnesses in Individuals who don't have the illness may have contributed towards things like creativity or leadership. Creativity is particularly in bipolar disorder. But to me, the evidence is that these illnesses are largely genetic. They're polygenetic. There are hundreds of genes involved with small effects. And Basically, what it is, if if if I'm an individual with schizophrenia, there is probably a family history of people with some of the genes. They may not have been schizophrenic, some of them may have had bipolar disorder, but some of them may have been schizotypical. So there's there's a family history of the genes, and I got a bad shuffle of the deck. And then I had the genetic predisposition and then there may have been some environmental things that that triggered it. One of which is I became a cannabis addict. It looks like cannabis can unleash a schizophrenic illness or a bipolar illness or the other factors. ⁓ but I think schizophrenia and bipolar disorder ⁓ are not adaptations. They they don't they don't solve problems. They're not usually useful. ⁓ You know, some bipolar people are very creative. Kay Jameson did, I think, what's her book, ⁓ The Fire Inside. Yeah. Yeah. That that it at least the bip some of the bipolar genes seem to be ⁓ associated with ⁓ creativity. But ⁓ there was an editorial in Nature, some it's probably in the late nineteen eighties, in that said schizophrenia is the worst illness known to man. ⁓ The individual sufferer loses their mind. And ⁓ I I I think you know schizophrenia is one of the great tragedies and and and it it's and and it's an illness and I think people in the past who romanticized about it I think, you know, I I I strongly disagree with that. Now, they may this is what has confused the issue because they they come up with delusions about God or ⁓ you know they're talking to God. And I think what's going on is again some of those theory of mind networks are getting ⁓ turned on and turned on in abnormal ways. ⁓ but again, ⁓ I come down on the side of, you know, these are terrible illnesses, ⁓ they're not adaptations, ⁓ they're largely genetic. and I think we're gonna learn, you know, it's not a hundred percent genetic, but we're gonna learn that there are other factors, developmental factors, ⁓ epigenetic factors. I I think we have to remain open because I'm old enough, I remember what the thinking was in the nineteen seventies and eighties. And and the the advances in neuroscience just in my lifetime are just simply extraordinary. Just extraordinary. And I think we can look forward to more developments which will shed shed, you know, even more light on the genetics and the the contributory factors and you know hopefully you know, some new medications. ⁓ it's only in recent years that we're starting to we we've known the anatomy of the brain, but now, as you may know, we're mapping out connectivity networks. And so I'm optimistic that we'll learn more. ⁓ but I I don't think those illnesses should be seen or romanticized in any way. speaker-1: Well yeah, definitely I agree. If you've no ever known anybody with schizophrenia, ⁓ it's it's not romantic at all. ⁓ my my question was more like, ⁓ do you think the fact that they still persist had something to do with earlier our ancestors conserving them because these people were seen to be shamans or in in in conversation with with deities? Might that explain why you know the the the genetic factors pre you know persist? speaker-0: Yeah, I I think that's a reasonable hypothesis. But but again, here's where it gets the the at least in modern environments, ⁓ individuals with schizophrenia have low reproduction. So it it may have been it may have been it may have been and they have low reproduction, there's a lot of associated medical illnesses, they have early death. I mean it's it's it's not a it's it's a tragic illness. Now we're some pe you're you're You're right in that some people think that some of the genes for schizophrenia in non ill individuals may have been associated with ⁓ shamanism, creativity, leadership. ⁓ because in ancestral tribes the guy that talks to the gods might have had a higher status. But would he would he have reproduced more? I don't know. But it it's a it it's an endlessly interesting question. speaker-1: I was I've been thinking, I've been noodling on a question for a while now since we were talking about analytic rumination hypothesis. It's just the analytic thinking, the type two cognition. just the the what I've been wondering about is the role of intelligence ⁓ and relative relative high intelligence, high IQ with things like depression or or other psychiatric disorders. And I imagine you have an interesting perspective on this because, you know, as a psychiatrist at a university, you I'm sure you deal with really brilliant people at on a routine basis. ⁓ does Does high IQ, do you think that is that a liability for happiness at a certain point? ⁓ or does it does it ⁓ compound the difficulty of any particular psychiatric disorders? speaker-0: ⁓ I'm I'm I'm not an expert on that I don't I think those but no but they're they're important questions and it reminds me and and somebody else to interview is ⁓ is Steve Stewart Williams. ⁓ and he actually, if you look up, ⁓ he's got ⁓ he's an evolutionary psychologist. ⁓ his new book is on sex differences, but he runs a great blog, the Nature Nietzsche Something. And one of his ⁓ he has two blogs, Twelve Things Everybody Should Know About Intelligence. And ⁓ this week he's got a follow-up, More Things People Should Know About Intelligence. ⁓ and he addresses some of that. there are things like an IQ of 120 seems to be the sweet spot for attractiveness. ⁓ speaker-1: Effectiveness. Okay, well wait, to a to a to a potential mate that okay, one twenty is okay, that's interesting. speaker-0: One twenty is just as good as ⁓ I think a hundred and thirty five or a hundred and thirty seven. speaker-1: I think that's probably I think I if if I had to guess that has to do with a differential, that there's a twenty point differential and we're we're norming back to a hundred. So like compared to the norm, which is a hundred, a one twenty would be smart. But if you have a one twenty, I bet you'd probably want to you know, a one forty might be, you know, you know what I'm saying? Like ⁓ speaker-0: Is it is associated with there there are studies of ⁓ IQ and happiness and I don't remember them. I think it's you if you have a higher IQ you have greater chance. But there's there's definitely ⁓ an a a correlation between IQ and achievement. ⁓ and the the percentage of people who will have ⁓ a patent or ⁓ percentage of people who will have ⁓ publication and STEM or ⁓ there there is there is a correlation between IQ and achievement, but again ⁓ I I would defer to his work. speaker-1: Is achievement and happiness, you know, that's that's where things get kind of dicey, right? 'Cause they're it's I think a lot most people would assume th the people that go chasing achievement are gonna assume it's gonna bring them happiness and and yet sometimes it doesn't. speaker-0: Right. And and I think there is stuff about i it it once you get over a net worth of ten million dollars, there's no difference. speaker-1: Gotta be. Gotta be. If if it's even that high, yeah. speaker-0: Yeah, it's it's but there is stuff about ⁓ i if you have a certain income level th y you are happier but once you get to once you get to mega wealth, I think there's no difference which so I don't think you know, I don't think Jeff Bezos is or or ⁓ Elon Musk or speaker-1: Musk is not ⁓ is not a thousand times happier than he would be if he was a billionaire. If anything, it's if it's probably less. Since we're talking about well-being, I'm curious about, you know, we've we've ⁓ we've kind of just skipped past and assumed a lot of the harms of religion. We didn't really dive into a lot of what those would be, although so you mentioned territoryism when we started and there's war and there's a lot of kind of parade of horribles, but there's also seemingly some salutary benefits to religion and ⁓ and I'd like to just ask your thoughts on that and also just in general, whether you think that ⁓ there's a distinction to be d to be made between religion and spirituality. speaker-0: Again, I'm not an expert on that. I don't I think there there there there is literature on ⁓ religion and happiness. I think it's it's it it's not clear if ⁓ religions make you happier or if you tend to be happier you're more likely to be involved in a group that may be religious. Again, I just I I I don't know. I think I think there is stuff out there about participation in religion on a average you're you're happier. ⁓ but again speaker-1: One thing I can think of that's obvious is there's a there's an obvious group you can be a part of. Yes. And if there if there isn't one, that's a huge problem now, it's just social disconnection and de churching is is a big part of the you know the phenomenon of the twenty first century. It's just that people are leaving the church in droves and there isn't an obvious we don't have elks clubs really anymore. We don't go to the rotary club, we don't do bowling leagues. ⁓ and so I can see how what there's just kind of loneliness and disconnection. It gives you a tribe to be a part of for with all of the good and bad that comes with tribalism. speaker-0: Yes. No, it's and I you you nailed you you d I think you the the secular community has got to face this, okay? Because there is a r there's a rising ⁓ frequency of loneliness. ⁓ there's this there's this painful stuff about ⁓ i i in the nineteen eighties or nineteen nineties the average person ha The only ten percent of people said and I d I don't I know I don't have the statistics quite right, but it was something like only ten percent of people said they had no best friend. Now it's something like a third of people say they have no best friend. I mean the the the rising loneliness is is considerable. And and and there's a famous paper in science, I think that dates to the nineteen eighties. that shows that loneliness is correlated with all sorts of ⁓ medical illnesses. It it it's huge. And that ⁓ and and the the the amount of loneliness in modern life is is a substantial problem. And and in fact there's a ⁓ there's a psychologist in Chicago, Cassiapio I believe and and ⁓ he's He's he has he's one of the major people that has studied loneliness and and anybody that's interested in this subject, his work ⁓ he's got a book on it, he's got a lot of papers on it, ⁓ you know, he's got a TED talk on it. ⁓ he's another person you might see about interviewing. I think his work is outstanding on loneliness. And the the root word of religion is relegari, which means to bind. And and you know, religion's could bind large groups of people who were ⁓ not kin, not the same ethnicity. ⁓ you know, r religions are one thing that allowed for, you know, large groups. And and the the fall away of religion, I think obviously I think it's good because people see, you know, life more clearly for what it is. But in the modern world it's left us ⁓ what? Yeah. speaker-1: ⁓ I r I wonder if you are you aware that the word yoga is essentially the same as the word for religion in Sanskrit. Yeah. ⁓ yoga yoga's where we get the word for yoke, Y O K E. It's like to yoke two oxen together. ⁓ it's binding binding things together. ⁓ it it's essentially what yoga means and it and I think that's also kind of how it's understood in ⁓ in Hindu religion, yoga is is kind of synonymous with religion. speaker-0: No, I didn't. speaker-1: ⁓ as that term. And I I'm just curious, I've noticed over your right shoulder there's ⁓ a looks like a mandala or what may be a ⁓ it almost kind of looks like a Hindu yantra. I'm just curious, is that what that is? Or is it just a is a coincidence that that's what that looks like? speaker-0: No, no, we we ⁓ we traveled in India and Nepal and ⁓ my wife got that in one of the places where we ⁓ we we've been to Nepal, Tibet, India and and I think that was you know, that was I y I'd have to ask her speaker-1: Beautiful artifact you picked up. Yeah. So yeah. Do are you do you find it interesting when you to to travel and to see other different cultural and religious practices? Just I mean, after given the conversation we've had today, I mean it it ⁓ it doesn't sound like you are just out hating every religious, you know, practice or person or whatever you you know, I'm just curious what's your relationship to that as you as you travel? speaker-0: I mean I I you know, I think it's I think it's interest yeah, I mean I find it interesting, but ⁓ it's to me, you know, that I think if if our goal if our goal is a global civil democratic societies, ⁓ you know ⁓ democratic, educated, scientifically informed ⁓ civil societies, I I think I I think we have to question the utility of religion or religion's influence on that. I I think you always want to have freedom for people to practice. ⁓ if people you know are religious and and want to be religious ⁓ that's I think we have to protect that freedom. ⁓ But I'm I'm from Charlottesville, Virginia, okay, the home of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Monroe, and we forget James Madison, you know, religion shall have no cognizance in civil government. And I think that's the the problem we have is the influence of religion on, you know, government, civil you know. speaker-1: ⁓ public policy, civil society, medicine, science. speaker-0: civil society, medicine, science. And and so you know, I'm I'm basically no fan of religion and obviously I'm biased. I mean, you know, religion almost killed my son. So ⁓ speaker-1: Do you think there's any distinction to be made for ⁓ like monotheism versus the rest of them? 'Cause to me there there seems to be an additional concentration, a particularly additional concentration of harm with the with the monotheistic religions. Yep. 'Cause they're exclusivistic. That's kind of built into the nature. It's not really about believing one God, it's about not letting anybody else you know, believe in anything else. speaker-0: Yeah, exactly. And it's and no religion survived by tolerating its competitors. speaker-1: And this place speaker-0: this these inner faith dialogues I think are just you know is is just nonsense. I mean it's it it's it but again, you know, I've I've got mine I've got my biases. I I I think it was ⁓ Dawkins that said as long as you've got these I don't know if it was monotheism but the three great monotheism, as long as you've got them, you're you know, throwing guns onto the street and you shouldn't be surprised that people use them. Something to that effect. and ⁓ you know I think the you know whatever the historical utility was of religions, I think it's outlived its usefulness. And of course in this country, in of course in this country, the rise of Christian nationalism, I think we o should all be concerned about. speaker-1: Yeah, I completely agree. I've got some potential guests on the list. I've actually ⁓ invited a few already to talk about Dominionism, Christian nationalism, you know, the idea that we're a Christian nation. And there is this balance we have with secularism. A lot of people like the First Amendment, but they there's two halves of the religious part of the First Amendment. I mean, we had Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, so there's no official religion. And then the counter to that is that we protect the free exercise, which was kind of like you said, you've got to let people practice their beliefs, that's kind of the the bargain that is essential to letting everybody have that freedom is that, you know, you can't really officially endorse or unendorse anything. And a lot of people really like the free exercise clause, you know, or they or they or they like the, you know, the the establishment clause. But ⁓ it's there's really a harmony that that is we need both for that. And there's a lot of people that I think I just have a completely ahistorical understanding of what separation of church and state is and that that That this is really a Christian nation and that that, you know, I don't really understand how they square those two beliefs. It's it's kind of fascinating. You know, another thing we were talking about, supernormal stimuli. I I ⁓ another example I use besides the one we use fast food and pornography, I also use partisan media. Fox News is a good example. It just the it it brings out our worst instincts to be tribal and it always gives you an enemy to be pissed off at all the time. And it's kind of fascinating the psychology of people that can just say, like, They can kind of rewrite history in a way that suits their their narrative. And there is it again, it's kind of dark, but it fascinates me also that it's a trick of how our mind works that we say, ⁓ yeah, well, y the First Amendment doesn't actually mean what it says. It's we're really a Christian nation. speaker-0: Yeah. Well your background is law if I'm correct, right? That's right. That's right. Yeah. No, it's I think it's I I think it's a fall. I mean it's just it's like it's like, you know, people forget their history. I mean they forget, you know, statutes of religious freedom. I mean they f ⁓ they you know and they forget Madison and it's just I I just I don't and it it and I live in the Bible Welt. I mean and You know, most of you know, many many of my friends are religious and many are, you know, you know not ⁓ well, some, you know, born again the whole nine yards and it's like no, really? Just and these are smart educat these are smart educated people and it's like, you know, obviously obviously I have failed to get through speaker-1: Yeah. do you do you think there's a such thing as an evangelical atheist? Is that a is that a contradiction in terms? If I guess if there was one, it would be Dawkins. speaker-0: Yeah, well d I but e evangelical though implies faith and you know, faith is belief in the absence of evidence. And I think no, I think I I I would I wouldn't call him an evangelical either. I would I would say he's he you know, I think he I think he and Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, I I I would call them courageous atheists because they ⁓ I I that's because they they put themselves out there and I think few of us ⁓ realize that, you know, d ⁓ th they get death threats and obviously. Yeah, Hitchens is now deceased, obviously. But I I I would I would refer I would I think of them more as as ⁓ brilliant, you know, courageous atheists. I I think Sam Harris, you know, when he wrote The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation speaker-1: Or Salman Rusty. speaker-0: ⁓ and the debates he would hold with ⁓ you know there was a period of time where they went out and and debated the religious right and you know just waded into it and you know they get ⁓ to me that's you know they're they're they're putting their lives on the line for science and ⁓ and ⁓ truth and ⁓ trying to see the world as accurately as possible. I mean they remain you know, they remain, you know, my f some of my favorite people. speaker-1: I've listened to every episode of Sam's ⁓ Making Sense podcast. I have his I have his waking up app too. Do you meditate? I'm curious. speaker-0: No, I I know. I I just I could I can't I can't do it. speaker-1: Get it, I get it. That's that is the I think that is the inherent part of the task is is doing it. speaker-0: No, 'cause it's like if I'm awake I wanna be doing stuff, you know, and to sit to sit silently, you know, with no and and part of it is, you know, my friends tease me, they they say, you know, look Andy, come on. You're just an educated redneck. And so I think some of it some of it is just trying to s some of it is just trying to be busy and try to educate myself and and to sort of keep as far a distance as I can from who I actually am. speaker-1: Right. From from idle hands kind of thing. speaker-0: Yeah, no, it's just it's like you you I mean you ⁓ I'll give you one story. so have you ever heard of Richard Nesbitt? Okay, Richard Nesbitt's a very famous social psychologist, and he was from Texas. And he studied violence, and he studied the culture of honor in the Old South, and and he grew up in Texas, and he was always struck by the fact that. People in the south were very polite to each other, but then, you know, every Monday when you came to school you heard about some shooting. speaker-1: Blood feud that's taking place. speaker-0: Right, in somebody's family. And then he went to he went to he was overstating it, but he went to Harvard as I think an undergrad or a grad, and he was struck by how everybody was rude, but nobody got killed. ⁓ and ⁓ so he studied the violence and he did this social psychology experiment where you're asked to volunteer for the experiment, you Come to the experiment, a person at the desk gives you the papers to go register, and then you walk down a hall to turn in the papers. And ⁓ as you're walking down the hall, and you don't know that this is part of the experiment, as you're walking down the hall, a big guy walks past you and bumps you in the shoulder. And your reaction is watch. And then you go turn in your papers, you turn around, you come back down the hall, and the same guy bumps you in the shoulders again, right? And they watch what your reaction is. So I'm hearing Richard Nisbet talk about this. He's giving this lecture, and I'm watching him talk about this. And I'm with two of my buddies, one from New York and one from Massachusetts, right? And and the The the experiment showed that men who were born and raised in the north and the Midwest, when the guys would bump their shoulders, they would just go, Jeez, what an idiot, you know, and they just keep walking, right? The guys who were born and raised in the South, Scotch Irish, when they got bumped in the shoulder, either the first time but certainly the second time, even if they were smaller. Than the guy who bumped them. They would turn around, they would get in the guy's face, you know, basically, what the hell are you doing? You know, they would just, you know, instantly get furious. And I'm sitting there listening to this, and my two buddies are just laughing their heads off at the guys who would lose their temper, right? The Scotch Irish guys from the South. And and and and and John and George are just laughing. And I turned around and looked at him and I said, What are you laughing at? And they looked at me like, you know, basically, Andy, you just showed your redneck roots. Because of course you would wheel around and get in the guy's face. And the guy's bumped you, he's bumped you twice. And it was like, Okay, they're my southern redneck roots. speaker-1: No. There they are. I I'm and as you're telling it to me, I'm like, Yeah, I would definitely interpret that behavior from a man as as an indication that he was trying to fight me. I'm from Louisiana. But you know, I mean that's just that's that's how I would read that behavior for sure. speaker-0: Yeah, and and and what ⁓ Nisbet concluded Nisbet what he concluded was the South was was settled primarily by Scotch Irish solo herders where there was a premium on violence. You had to protect yourself, you you know, y y there was it it there was a premium on a quick and violent reaction, whereas the people in the north came from Germany and Scandinavia and were cooperative farmers. And so hotheads were not, you know, you know, violent there was a there was a premium on cooperativeness and not being violent. And that ever since records were kept in the United States, there has always been higher rates of violence in the Old South than in the ⁓ north and northeast speaker-1: Religion too, or at least in modern times. speaker-0: Good point. speaker-1: Yeah, right. That's an interesting it's an interesting parallel. speaker-0: But isn't that isn't that interesting? But no, I just but to get back to your question, so you know, I I think I can't meditate. I just, you know, I gotta be I gotta be trying to educate myself and do stuff and and try to k try to keep a distance from my redneck roots. speaker-1: I have a similar challenge myself with meditation. I know it's good for me. I've done enough of it. I've had enough prep I've practice time with it to know that there are real benefits to me just in terms of my ability to be calm, to be present, to attend, to be aware of my emotions. But I'm it's just so much more stimulating and interesting to learn more. Like I can I can watch a twenty minute YouTube video and learn something incredibly profound. And it's honestly it's not always profound. But I mean, you know, like that usually is. I love to learn. You have speaker-0: You have no idea that's such that's such music to my ears, 'cause I you know speaker-1: That's a lot of what this podcast is. I mean, I I've had on here one of my earlier guests was my own psychiatrist. It's been a very important relationship with me. He's kind of healed my relationship to the the profession which n what was needed. And he also is a therapist, which I think is an i is a it troubles me that that that additional qualification still needs to be made, that those that the professions have kind of been disentangled. But ⁓ spent a lot of time just talking with him and and ⁓ I think after a l in the last couple of years, he sort of put himself out of a job, which is I think the goal of any good therapist and psychiatrist. ⁓ but he was just after a while, he's like, You gotta start a podcast. And he's been trying to talk me out of getting a PhD for years. ⁓ and I think he's basically done it. I'm almost 40 now and it it just, you know, I I the problem is how would I ever pick? Like, I mean, how would how do I pick what kind of psychology or neuroscience or cognitive science I want to study? And no, I can learn so much by just I get to interview people like you and just ask you all these questions that I want to ask. ⁓ it it actually is he's like there's there are better ways to learn and I think he's probably right 'cause I'm in this now and you know, it's been a dream to be able to talk with you and and be able to talk about the kind of ideas that we've talked about. It's it's all I think about. speaker-0: Yeah, no, it's it's that's wonderful. I mean I I that's just as I said, that's music to my ears 'cause that's my attitude, is there's just so much to learn. There's so much out there. And and and why would I sit and mull over my own you know my own stuff when there's just you know, there's just a ⁓ and and it's an ever expanding it's an ever expanding knowledge base. There's just so much out there. ⁓ yeah, no, it's it speaker-1: So ⁓ we've got just a little bit to wrap up here. I'm wondering is there is there anything else ⁓ that we haven't ⁓ touched on that would be fodder for another a later ⁓ round two or ⁓ just any other parting thoughts you'd like to leave us with? speaker-0: No, I just ⁓ you know, I I just I really appreciate the opportunity. ⁓ as I said Thank you. ⁓ I think I I'm I'm deeply grateful. ⁓ I think any opportunity to get these ideas out there, ⁓ particularly ⁓ at the at in the in the current time, but I as I said, I I think there's this there's this extraordinary world of the the the cognitive science of religion, our understanding what makes humans ⁓ vulnerable to these beliefs and ⁓ anything I can do to try to interest people in it and to, you know, get it out there I'm I'm deeply grateful for and that's that's why I, you know, ⁓ did the social media stuff, the the the reels. ⁓ because I just think, you know, not well, I mean, you know, I mean your own I suspect your own life is an example of this. I mean knowledge is power. Knowledge is greater power over oneself. ⁓ you know, it's just it's endlessly interesting. speaker-1: Yeah. Well, thank you so much for for saying that. ⁓ it's it's been you know, the P the viewers will know we've spent two hours talking, but we spent an hour troubleshooting your camera first. ⁓ so I mean, and we've stuck through it. speaker-0: You know, persistence you know, persistence pays off, man. speaker-1: persistence pays off. It's definitely paid off for me. And ⁓ I'm just I'm also immensely grateful to have had this conversation. the lecture that you did with American Atheists, I've listened to that many, many times. ⁓ thank you. And ⁓ and I would l I would listen to that to sleep often. ⁓ not that it would put me to sleep, but I mean it's the kind of things that I like it for some reason it's easier for me to drift off to sleep when I'm wondering, you know, like thinking about our deep time and history and the story of us. speaker-0: Yeah, no, I well, first of all, thank you. I mean it is deeply humbling to know one has had, you know, that kind of impact. But what's important there in that talk is none of that was me. Okay. That that's all these researchers who have been laboring for all these years and and that knowledge is there and and and ⁓ yeah, I just want them and that work to be in our educational system, in psychology one ⁓ one classes, to be I I want those people interviewed on the Sunday morning talk shows. I mean this knowledge has got to get out speaker-1: Well, I'm gonna interview some of you I've made a list of several people. I've got a full page of notes here. ⁓ and what I'm gonna do after we're done here, I'm gonna email you the list of people and just make sure I've got them right and maybe you can help connect me with some of them because I would love to interview all of them. speaker-0: Yeah, no. ⁓ there are other people I've suggest and that I mean there there are just a lot of people out there who are I think ⁓ too modest and that's that they're modest but have nothing to be modest about who made just, you know, ⁓ crucial discoveries on even just this, you know, ⁓ question of the of the the science of religious belief. speaker-1: Beautiful. Well, Andy, thank you so much and ⁓ yeah, I'll follow up with you soon. speaker-0: Thank you so very much. I really appreciate it and I appreciate the listeners who, you know, ⁓ go through this with us. I I'm very grateful. ⁓ thank you. All right. Appreciate it. Bye. Take care. speaker-1: Thank you. Thank you so much.