0:00

This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar

0:02

Vedantan. All parents have

0:04

moments when their kids test their patience.

0:08

Lian Yang is no exception.

0:11

I often yell at my kids

0:13

for things that they did by

0:15

accident like spilling a smoothie

0:18

or leaving a cap off of

0:20

a permanent marker and you

0:22

know making black permanent stains all

0:24

over the sofa. When

0:26

this happens and the couch is covered

0:28

in black splotches or they're smoothie

0:30

on the floor, the

0:33

perpetrators inevitably offer this

0:35

defense. It was an

0:37

accident. It's not my

0:39

fault. I didn't mean to

0:41

do it. I shouldn't say this,

0:43

but I tell them it doesn't matter that you didn't

0:45

mean to do it. What matters is that you won't

0:47

do it again. Lian's

0:50

reaction, while understandable, is

0:52

deeply ironic. She's a

0:55

psychologist who studies how we

0:57

read other people's intentions. We

0:59

need to think about other people's minds in

1:01

order to figure out who our friends are,

1:03

who to avoid, whom to

1:05

punish, whether to punish. And

1:07

we need to read people's intentions

1:09

in any ordinary interaction, like having

1:11

a conversation and figuring out what

1:13

to say and how to respond.

1:19

As we go through life, we

1:21

are constantly making sense of

1:23

people's actions by interpreting their intentions.

1:27

Our ability to read what is

1:29

happening in other people's minds is like

1:32

an invisible compass guiding us through

1:34

life. But sometimes it

1:36

leads us astray. We

1:39

misread other people's intentions,

1:41

especially when we're angry or

1:44

hurt. In

1:46

the last few weeks in our Relationships

1:48

2 .0 series, we've looked at the importance

1:50

of human connection and how we can

1:53

become better negotiators. If

1:55

you missed those episodes, do check them out.

1:59

This week on Hidden Brain, how

2:01

our powers of observation allow us

2:03

to navigate our social worlds

2:05

until they don't. We

2:17

are constantly trying to read other

2:19

people's minds. When we

2:21

interact with friends, relatives, and coworkers,

2:24

we ask ourselves, what is going

2:26

on in this other person's head? What

2:28

does she want? What are his intentions?

2:32

Our ability to read other minds involves

2:34

an extraordinary feat of

2:36

cognition. Yet, it mostly

2:38

unfolds in our heads without us being

2:40

aware of it. Minus the

2:42

skill, the simplest of interactions would

2:44

be mired in confusion, and

2:46

misunderstanding. Lian

2:49

Yang is a psychologist and neuroscientist

2:51

at Boston College. She

2:53

has spent years studying this mental ability

2:55

and the profound effects it has

2:57

on our lives. Lian Yang,

3:00

welcome to Hidden Brain. Thanks

3:02

so much. It's good to be here, Shankar. I

3:04

want to start with a very simple example that

3:06

shows how important it is for us to

3:08

read what's happening in the minds of other people.

3:11

In the 1993 movie Mrs.

3:13

Doubtfire starring Robin Williams, the

3:16

characters Daniel and Miranda have split

3:18

up, and Daniel comes up with

3:20

this unconventional way to win Miranda

3:22

back. He returns to the house

3:24

in disguise as Mrs. Doubtfire, an

3:26

elderly widow who seeks the role

3:28

of nanny and housekeeper. Now, he

3:30

quickly wins the trust of the

3:32

family. Miranda

3:34

is asking Mrs. Doubtfire for life advice,

3:36

including whether to go on a

3:38

date with a man she's just met.

3:41

Mrs. Doubtfire, may I ask

3:43

your question? Oh, sir. How

3:45

long after Mr. Doubtfire

3:48

passed away, Winston, did

3:50

you feel any desire? Never.

3:54

Never? Never again. Never again? Once

3:56

the father of your children is

3:58

out of the picture. The

4:00

only solution is total

4:02

and life belongs celibacy. Celibacy?

4:05

Yes. So

4:07

Leanne, if we lack the capacity to

4:09

read what was happening inside the minds

4:11

of Daniel and Miranda, how would

4:13

that change how we understood this scene? Well,

4:16

I think we wouldn't be

4:18

able to appreciate the humor

4:20

and the irony in that

4:22

scene where Daniel is essentially,

4:24

he knows what is going

4:26

on with his wife and

4:28

he is trying to get

4:30

his wife to not date

4:32

this other man and of

4:34

course we know that the

4:36

wife doesn't know Daniel's true

4:38

identity as Daniel. She thinks

4:40

that he is this housekeeper

4:42

and we know that she

4:44

doesn't know and so there's

4:46

this very sort of

4:49

layered understanding that we need to have

4:51

as the audience to find the

4:53

scene funny. We can't find it funny

4:55

without realizing that she doesn't know

4:57

what he knows and who he is.

4:59

Right. So we're able to read

5:01

in some ways that he has an

5:03

agenda here because he wants to

5:05

keep his wife from dating other men.

5:08

And we also understand that she doesn't know what's

5:10

going on. But what's interesting to me, Leanne,

5:12

is that we intuit all of this effortlessly. No

5:14

one sits down as they're watching the movie

5:16

and actually says to themselves, all right,

5:18

this is who what's going through his head. This

5:20

is what's going through her head. It's the fact we're

5:22

able to take it in so effortlessly that allows

5:24

us to understand the scene. Yeah, so

5:26

we're able to and I remember

5:28

watching this movie as a as a

5:30

child Who of course hadn't had

5:32

the benefit of studying how theory of

5:35

mind works in the brains of

5:37

children and adults and I still found

5:39

it very funny I knew exactly

5:41

what was happening who was misunderstanding what

5:43

who knew what other people didn't

5:45

know and so on in order to

5:47

be able to Enjoy the scene

5:49

and really the entire movie So

5:52

you used the term just now, theory

5:54

of mind. It's a term that you

5:56

and other researchers have to describe our

5:58

capacity to understand what is happening in

6:00

the minds of other people. Can you

6:02

explain what that term means to me?

6:05

Yes. So I should say that

6:07

many psychologists and neuroscientists use a

6:09

number of different terms. Theory

6:11

of mind is one of

6:13

those terms and that describes the

6:15

theory that we all have,

6:17

ordinary people have, about other people's

6:20

minds. And what I mean

6:22

by that is how we understand

6:24

that other people have thoughts,

6:26

beliefs, desires, and intentions, mental

6:28

states in general. And so

6:30

other terms that have been used

6:32

for this general cognitive capacity include

6:34

mental state reasoning, mentalizing,

6:38

reasoning about intentions, and so on. And

6:40

again, the fact that we do it

6:42

so effortlessly, many of us don't even

6:44

realize that we are doing it. Many

6:46

of us don't realize that if we're

6:48

having a conversation and we were not

6:50

able to intuit what was happening in

6:52

someone else's mind, really difficult to have

6:54

a conversation. Exactly. Even as

6:56

you and I are having this

6:58

conversation, Shankar, I'm trying to

7:00

figure out... it is that you want

7:03

to know and how to explain the

7:05

term theory of mind in a way

7:07

that will be accessible and so on.

7:09

And sometimes we take different cues from

7:11

people as we're having that conversation, whether

7:13

they're nodding their heads, whether they're pausing,

7:15

whether they look confused and so on.

7:17

And so we take in all of

7:20

that information to figure out what people

7:22

are thinking and how they're responding to

7:24

the information that we're giving them. Nearly

7:29

all the world's greatest stories

7:31

ask you to exercise theory of

7:33

mind, to inhabit the minds

7:35

of other people. Think

7:37

of books such as Kazuo Ishiguro's The

7:39

Remains of the Day, or

7:41

TV shows such as Breaking Bad, or

7:44

musicals like Hamilton. I

7:47

think it's really important that we're

7:49

able to take the perspective of different

7:51

characters when we're watching movies, watching

7:53

TV shows. reading books and

7:55

often as the reader as the as

7:57

the viewer we have a sort of

7:59

different in some cases omniscient perspective we

8:01

can see the scene unfolding in a

8:03

way that characters within the scene cannot

8:05

and so on one level we understand

8:07

what's going on in a way that

8:09

characters within the story do not and

8:12

we also are able to not just

8:14

get into the minds of characters but

8:16

get into the hearts of characters as

8:18

well so we know how they're feeling

8:20

and how they're reacting and responding in

8:22

ways that maybe other characters in the

8:24

don't. So

8:30

psychologists have found different ways to

8:32

measure this ability and to test

8:34

how it develops in small children.

8:37

What are they finally and is this is this a

8:39

skill we are born with at birth or is

8:41

it something that develops over time? This

8:44

is a little bit controversial

8:46

in the field but I

8:48

think what is generally recognized

8:50

in the field is that

8:52

at least children's capacity for

8:54

explicit theory of mind, being

8:56

able to reason and verbalize

8:58

answers to theory of mind

9:00

tasks, that ability emerges between

9:02

the ages of three and

9:04

five years. Psychologists are

9:07

able to administer batteries of

9:09

theory of mind tasks to young

9:11

children to figure out when

9:13

exactly it is that individual children

9:15

are able to think about

9:17

other agents in the world as

9:19

having minds that are maybe

9:21

separate from the reality of a

9:23

situation. Some of

9:25

these tests create artificial situations

9:27

where one character knows more

9:29

than another. Daniel,

9:31

in Mrs. Doubtfire, understands the

9:33

subdefuge he is perpetrating. Miranda

9:36

does not. The

9:38

tests evaluate whether children can keep track

9:40

of all the different perspectives in the

9:43

minds of different characters, that one person

9:45

has a belief that's true, for example,

9:47

and another has a belief that's

9:50

false. So one example of

9:52

a false belief task would

9:54

be the Sally and task in

9:56

which you have two puppets, Sally

9:58

and Anne. is playing

10:00

with a ball and then she takes

10:02

the ball and puts it away in

10:04

a basket. She leaves the room and

10:07

another puppet comes in and moves the

10:09

ball to a different location. And then

10:11

children are asked when Sally comes back

10:13

into the room, where does she think

10:15

her ball is? Did Sally see Anne

10:17

move the block? Because

10:19

she was outside

10:21

swinging. That's right. She

10:23

didn't see. So when Sally

10:26

comes back in, where

10:28

will she think the block is? and

10:32

there, but it's not, it's in there.

10:34

So she'll think it's in there. And

10:36

three -year -old children will tend to say

10:38

that she thinks the ball is where

10:40

it really is, even though she's not

10:42

supposed to know that Ann came in

10:44

and moved her ball, whereas older children,

10:46

by the time children are five, they

10:49

know that Sally has a false belief

10:51

about where that... is. Right. So once

10:53

Anne moves the ball, small children deduce

10:55

or believe that Sally must somehow intuitively

10:57

also know that the ball has been

10:59

moved to the new location. Whereas older

11:01

children realize no Sally, in fact, does

11:03

not have the same mind as Anne.

11:05

And what Anne knows is not what

11:07

Sally knows. Sally knows only what she

11:09

knows. And as far as she knows,

11:11

the ball is in the old location.

11:14

So when she returns to the room,

11:16

she's going to guess that that's where

11:18

it still is. Why do you think

11:20

she'll think that? She

11:23

put it there. Yes, that's exactly

11:25

right. So younger children, three -year -old children

11:27

don't have a concept that people

11:29

could have beliefs in their heads that

11:31

depart from the reality of the

11:34

world, the facts of the situation. Mm

11:36

-hmm. So we've looked at a couple of

11:38

humorous examples of how theory of mind operates,

11:40

but I want to stress again this capacity

11:42

we have to intuit what's happening in the

11:45

minds of other people. This is a skill

11:47

that we use all the time. Can

11:49

you talk a moment, Leanne, about what would

11:51

happen if we lack the skill? Are there people,

11:53

in fact, who do not have the skill

11:55

as they move through life? Yeah.

11:58

This is in a uniform

12:00

capacity that we see the same

12:02

in all people across all

12:04

situations. dependent on

12:06

the individual, it can

12:08

be dependent on the

12:10

context, even in healthy,

12:13

typical populations. We've

12:15

also looked at specific

12:17

patient populations as well, including

12:19

patients with specific brain

12:21

damage. We've looked at prison

12:23

inmates with a clinical

12:25

diagnosis of psychopathy, and we've

12:27

looked at high -functioning adults

12:29

with autism. And so

12:31

we've seen sort of a

12:33

range of behavioral

12:35

patterns across different populations of

12:37

people in terms of

12:40

how they use and how

12:42

they deploy theory of

12:44

mind capacities for moral judgments

12:46

in particular. Lian

12:48

and others have found that people who

12:50

have a difficult time intuiting what is going

12:52

on in the minds of other people

12:55

find themselves hamstrung as they go through life.

12:57

They can be awkward in interpersonal

12:59

settings. They can fail to

13:01

read the room in a meeting.

13:03

They may even demonstrate reduced empathy

13:05

for others. Moving through

13:08

the world without an understanding that

13:10

other minds are different than your own,

13:12

that they have different intentions, desires,

13:14

and hopes, this is like

13:16

playing music without a sense of rhythm. You

13:18

find yourself constantly out of sync

13:20

with your fellow musicians. I

13:23

mean, we've all been a situation

13:25

where a joke falls flat because

13:27

the person who's telling the joke

13:29

isn't able to... appropriately assess the

13:31

mood in this space or what

13:33

other people know or don't know

13:35

and so on. And

13:37

so certainly there are many cases of

13:39

that. And then there are sort

13:41

of the opposite cases where we really

13:43

admire individuals for having a keen

13:45

sense of what other people are thinking

13:47

and feeling and able to shape

13:49

a conversation or discussion in that way.

13:51

You know, I'm reminded of the

13:53

work of the psychologist E. Tory Higgins,

13:55

who's done some work looking at

13:57

politicians who are very skilled at reading

14:00

a room. He has described

14:02

this phenomenon called audience tuning, where in

14:04

some ways the politicians are changing what

14:06

they say in order to be best

14:08

received by the people in the room.

14:10

They're in some ways manipulating the people

14:12

in the room, but they're also being

14:14

manipulated by the people in the room

14:16

so that what they say aligns with

14:18

the audience in the room. It's interesting.

14:20

Theory of mind is not just, I

14:22

suppose, on an interpersonal level. It

14:24

can also happen at a group setting where

14:26

we intuit how a group of people

14:29

is feeling or feeling toward us. Yeah,

14:31

you're right. complicated

14:34

trying to figure out how theory of

14:36

mind plays out in any given situation.

14:39

You know, in my lab, when I'm

14:41

particularly on Zoom, it can be a

14:43

lot harder to read the room, if

14:46

you will, figure out, you know, as

14:48

a group, how people are doing and

14:50

how to shape that space. Lian

14:55

and other researchers have tried

14:57

to understand how the physical brain

14:59

produces the superpower. Surprisingly,

15:01

they found a specific region of

15:03

the brain plays a crucial role.

15:06

They've even found you can temporarily

15:08

disrupt this brain region and profoundly

15:10

change the ways people think and

15:13

act. That's when we come back.

15:15

You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar

15:18

Vedantan. This

15:31

is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta.

15:34

To navigate our social worlds,

15:36

we rely on something psychologists

15:38

call theory of mind. It's

15:40

our ability to guess the intentions, desires,

15:43

and motivations of other

15:45

people. When your co -worker

15:47

tells you she's thrilled it's Monday,

15:50

you know that sarcasm because you

15:52

unconsciously pick up the intention behind

15:54

her words. But as amazing

15:56

as our social antenna can be,

15:58

They can also sometimes make mistakes.

16:01

We can misread other people's intentions.

16:04

Maybe your coworker really does like

16:06

Mondays. Psychologists and

16:08

neuroscientists Leah and Yang studies

16:11

how our brains read intention,

16:13

both the intentions of others

16:15

and of ourselves, especially

16:17

when it comes to our

16:19

moral judgments. Lian, you

16:21

run experiments where you test how

16:23

volunteers react to a story about a

16:25

woman who accidentally poisoned her friend.

16:27

Can you tell me the setup of

16:29

the experiment and describe the scenario

16:31

in more detail? Yes,

16:33

absolutely. Usually

16:36

have our subjects read stories

16:38

that we write about other

16:40

people who are performing actions

16:42

that have effects on other

16:44

people in the scenario. So

16:46

in one story, we

16:48

have a person named Grace

16:50

who puts some powder into

16:52

a co -worker's coffee. And

16:55

in one scenario, she thinks

16:57

the powder is sugar, but the

16:59

powder turns out to be

17:01

poison, and she ends up poisoning

17:03

her friend. So that's

17:05

a version of the scenario in

17:07

which someone causes harm to someone

17:09

else by accident because of a

17:11

false belief. In

17:13

another version of the story,

17:15

Grace puts powder into

17:18

her co -worker's coffee. She

17:20

thinks the powder is poison,

17:22

but it turns out to be sugar.

17:24

So that's a situation in which she

17:26

has a harmful intention, but no

17:29

harm is done. So in

17:31

these two cases, there

17:33

is a conflict between the

17:35

intention of the agent

17:37

and the outcome of the

17:39

agent's action. And

17:41

so we can ask

17:43

our volunteer participants for their

17:46

moral judgments of both

17:48

the person, the agent performing

17:50

the action, and also

17:52

the action itself, whether this

17:54

action is morally permissible

17:57

or morally forbidden. And

17:59

using these kinds of scenarios

18:01

and these kinds of moral

18:03

judgment scales, we can get

18:05

a sense for the extent

18:07

to which different people rely

18:09

on information about intentions to

18:11

make. their moral judgments. So

18:14

you and I, for instance,

18:16

could have very different views about

18:18

how bad it is to

18:20

accidentally poison a coworker. And

18:22

sort of depending on the circumstances, there

18:24

could be a situation in which there's just

18:26

no way she could have known maybe

18:28

somebody swapped the sugar and the poison, and

18:31

she had the best of intentions. And

18:33

so those are cases where

18:35

there's a lot of flexibility

18:37

for individual variation in moral

18:39

judgments. We can apply

18:41

that same reasoning to the case of a

18:44

failed attempt to cause harm too. Some

18:46

people might focus more on the neutral

18:48

outcome, the fact that nothing bad happened

18:50

at all, whereas other folks might focus

18:52

a lot more on the fact that

18:54

this person just tried to poison their

18:57

coworker and that's very, very bad. Yeah,

18:59

as I was listening to those scenarios,

19:02

you know, I would have said that the

19:04

person who didn't mean to harm her

19:06

friend but accidentally caused harm is in

19:08

fact innocent. But the person who

19:10

didn't cause harm when she intended to cause

19:12

harm was in fact culpable that this

19:14

was an act of attempted murder. You

19:17

had the insight to study not

19:19

just how people reach different conclusions, but

19:21

how their brains were operating as

19:23

they reach these different moral judgments. Can

19:25

you tell me about those studies

19:27

and what you found, Lian? So

19:29

we've run a number of

19:31

studies now using brain imaging techniques

19:34

to look at how people's

19:36

brains are responding as they're making

19:38

moral judgments of these kinds

19:40

of cases. And so what

19:42

we found in one study

19:44

was that a brain region

19:47

called the right temporal pridal

19:49

junction, which is right above

19:51

and behind your right ear,

19:53

processes information about people's intentions.

19:56

And what we found was

19:58

that the more an individual's

20:00

right -temper -pridal junction responds as

20:02

they are making these moral

20:04

judgments, the more they are

20:06

using information about innocent intentions

20:08

to let the person who

20:10

caused harm by accident off

20:12

the hook. And so we

20:14

see this correlation between brain

20:16

activity in this region that

20:18

tracks intention information and the

20:20

moral judgments that people are

20:22

making of accidental harms. So

20:24

you could, of course, say that

20:26

merely because a brain region appears active,

20:29

you don't necessarily know that it's actually

20:31

connected to the outcome and behavior

20:34

that you're seeing, but you've gone a

20:36

step further to actually test whether

20:38

this brain region is, in fact, implicated

20:40

in understanding the intentions of others. Tell

20:43

me how you've done this, Leanne. In

20:45

addition to using brain imaging, which helps

20:47

us to track what brains are doing

20:49

as people are making moral judgments, we've

20:51

also used a technique called

20:54

Trainscranial magnetic stimulation or TMS

20:56

for short to temporarily disrupt

20:58

activity in this particular brain

21:00

region, the right temporal -pridal

21:02

junction to see what effect

21:04

that has on the moral

21:07

judgments that people make. And

21:09

so when we temporarily disrupt

21:11

activity in this brain region, we

21:13

see that people's moral judgments

21:15

rely less on information about intentions

21:17

in these kinds of cases

21:19

that we've been talking about. So

21:21

to give you an example, if

21:24

you are reading a story about

21:26

somebody who tries to poison their

21:28

friend but fails to do so

21:30

because they mistook the substance for

21:32

poison, but it was in fact

21:34

sugar, if I am

21:36

disrupting activity in your right temporal

21:38

pridal junction, you'll be more likely

21:40

to say that that is more okay

21:43

than if I didn't disrupt activity in

21:45

your right temporal pridal junction. That

21:47

is actually somewhat disturbing, isn't it? The

21:49

idea that you disrupt a small portion

21:51

of my brain and something that I

21:53

think of as core to myself. You

21:56

know, how I think of myself as

21:58

being a moral person can be altered

22:00

by small changes in neurochemistry. I

22:02

think a lot of us share

22:05

the intuition that is confirmed by

22:07

recent empirical work in psychology that

22:09

How we think about moral situations

22:11

or moral beliefs are really central

22:13

to what we consider to be

22:15

our identity. We take our moral

22:18

identity as central to our self

22:20

-concept. And so to think that,

22:22

you know, interventions, scientific

22:24

interventions can alter our moral judgments

22:26

is in some ways upsetting. That

22:29

said, as neuroscientists,

22:31

We've assumed all along that

22:33

our moral judgments have some

22:35

place in in the brain

22:37

and so it stands to

22:40

reason that when you Disrupt

22:42

activity in people's brains that

22:44

you will be disrupting the

22:46

kinds of judgments that we'll

22:48

be making to and including

22:50

moral judgments and There is

22:52

so much work on the

22:54

unconscious influences on behavior.

22:56

And so whether someone is

22:58

in a rush to get

23:00

somewhere can change or impact

23:02

the likelihood of their stopping

23:04

to give money to a

23:06

homeless person. And so I

23:08

think that there are environmental

23:10

influences. There are cultural differences

23:12

in the degree to which

23:14

people rely on intention information.

23:16

And so in many ways,

23:18

I'm not sure that I

23:20

would be more upset by

23:22

the fact that smelling fresh

23:24

cookies is going to impact

23:26

my behavior or somebody applying

23:28

transcranial magnetic stimulation to my

23:30

brain is going to impact

23:32

my behavior or my decision -making.

23:41

So much of our moral reasoning depends

23:43

on our ability to consider the

23:45

intentions of other people. When

23:47

someone makes a mistake but we see they

23:49

didn't mean to do it, We usually are

23:51

less harsh with them. This

23:53

is why kids say, it was an accident.

23:57

But as Leon points out, a number

23:59

of factors can change how and whether

24:01

we are willing to consider the intentions

24:03

of a wrongdoer. When someone steps

24:05

on your toe in the hallway, you

24:07

automatically assume they didn't mean to do it. Your

24:10

mind gravitates to an innocent

24:12

explanation. But other situations

24:14

work the opposite way. They make

24:16

it nearly impossible for us to

24:18

think about the intentions behind an

24:20

outcome. Consider this disturbing new

24:22

story out of Chicago. Now

24:40

when I hear this,

24:42

I find it really difficult

24:44

to think about whether

24:46

the police officer meant to

24:48

do any harm. A

24:50

nine -year -old child is dead. The

24:53

intentions of the driver seem irrelevant.

24:56

And when I hear, as actually happened

24:58

in this case, that the police officer

25:00

was given a traffic citation rather than

25:02

a criminal charge, I feel

25:04

outraged. But here's the thing. If

25:06

the cop had run a stop sign and that

25:08

was the end of it, do I think he

25:10

should be criminally charged? That would

25:12

be absurd. So the

25:14

same actions with the same intentions

25:16

caused my mind to reach

25:18

for very different conclusions. terrible

25:22

tension between the fact

25:24

that nobody meant any harm,

25:26

nobody meant to kill

25:28

anyone, and the fact

25:31

that this nine -year -old

25:33

boy died. And

25:35

to take it a step further, you

25:37

could think of a case in which he

25:39

hadn't run a stop sign. Maybe he

25:41

was just driving and the child came out

25:43

of nowhere. I think we would still

25:45

have the intuition that if you caused that

25:47

event to happen. If you cause that

25:49

bad outcome, then there is a way in

25:52

which you are causally responsible for something

25:54

very bad that you didn't know that you

25:56

would be doing and maybe could not

25:58

have prevented. And so it's

26:00

really tricky to figure out how to

26:02

handle that kind of case. As you

26:04

point out, I think different people have

26:06

different responses to what happened and what

26:08

should be done and how to prevent

26:10

that from happening again. There

26:12

are other situations where our ability

26:15

to think about intentions gets disabled. If

26:17

we hear that someone has knowingly committed

26:20

incest with a sibling, you

26:22

might not stop to think about whether both siblings

26:24

consented or that no one else was affected. The

26:27

violation of the taboo, the

26:29

outcome, is all that matters. And

26:32

often in these

26:34

cases, we downplay

26:37

Intent information it doesn't matter that

26:39

you didn't know the fact

26:41

that you did it is bad

26:43

enough and so that happens

26:45

for again as I mentioned violations

26:47

related to food and sex

26:49

and those are cases in which

26:51

once you are sort of

26:53

defiled there's very little that you

26:55

can do to get clean

26:58

again and you know there's very

27:00

little that you could say

27:02

to sort of justify or mitigate

27:04

the behavior, including that you

27:06

didn't know or that it wasn't

27:08

done on purpose. I

27:11

want to talk a moment, Leanne,

27:13

about how our understanding of events

27:15

changes as our understanding of the

27:17

intentions behind those events changes. On

27:20

September 11, 2001, when

27:22

the first plane hit the World Trade

27:24

Center tower, no one knew what

27:26

was happening. Many news reports, in fact,

27:28

speculated it might have been some kind

27:30

of accident. But when the second plane

27:32

hit, it changed the way people understood

27:34

what was happening. The second plane made

27:36

it clear the attacks were intentional. Yeah,

27:40

exactly. So whether we interpret

27:42

an event as just a

27:44

natural disaster or a, you

27:46

know, technical malfunction or as

27:48

a coordinated planned Attack can

27:50

really affect the way that

27:52

we respond to those events

27:54

and so when we hear

27:56

about something like that I

27:58

think you know first we

28:00

ask ourselves or you know

28:03

read the news to find

28:05

out what happened and then

28:07

we want to know why

28:09

and who If relevant and

28:11

so we ask those kinds

28:13

of questions in that order

28:15

and as you say our

28:17

answers to those questions really

28:19

help shape or understanding of

28:21

an event as either misfortune

28:23

or we are trying to

28:25

figure out who did it

28:27

and why and what we

28:29

can do to prevent it

28:31

from happening in the future.

28:34

So, do you think this is why in some

28:36

ways we have this capacity in our heads in

28:38

the first place? You know, I

28:40

remember on 9 -11 I was working in

28:42

the newsroom of the Washington Post and once

28:44

we knew that that two planes had

28:46

hit the World Trade Center and a third

28:49

plane had hit the Pentagon, it was

28:51

clear that we were under attack. At which

28:53

point, you know, it prompted us to

28:55

say, okay, what should we do? Could we

28:57

be under attack? Is there some danger

28:59

that's facing us? And of course, if our

29:01

reading of the events had been different,

29:03

if we had said, all right, this was

29:05

an isolated accident. It was just a

29:07

plane that basically lost control and happened to

29:09

fly into the World Trade Center building.

29:11

Our response to the incident would be entirely

29:13

different. We would say, okay, we need

29:16

to have better flight security measures, better pilot

29:18

training. So our responses to the events

29:20

are very different as we read the intentions

29:22

behind those events. And I'm wondering, do

29:24

you think this might be partly why our

29:26

brains come with this capacity to read

29:28

intentions? Because as we read intentions, it tells

29:30

us how to respond to the world. Absolutely.

29:33

I think our ability to read intentions

29:36

tells us how to evaluate the events around

29:38

us, how to understand them, how to

29:40

predict what's going to happen in the future,

29:42

and how to interact with people in

29:44

the present. And so

29:46

all of that depends on

29:48

our ability to figure

29:50

out intentions and distinguish intentional

29:52

events from accidental events. This

29:57

happens in a lot of news

29:59

events that we read. When we read

30:01

about a building collapsing, we think,

30:03

you know, what happened and how can

30:05

we prevent that from happening in

30:07

the future? And again, our answers to

30:09

those questions depend on whether that

30:12

happened on purpose, whether someone caused it

30:14

or whether it was an earthquake, for

30:16

instance. And so I

30:18

think your question about why it

30:20

is that we have this capacity

30:23

is a really important one. And

30:25

I think we don't have an

30:27

answer to that question yet as

30:29

psychologists, in part because there's so

30:31

many reasons why that capacity

30:33

for theory of mind could be important. We

30:37

need to think about other people's minds

30:40

in order to figure out whom to

30:42

learn from, who's the right expert in

30:44

a particular domain. We

30:46

need to know about people's intentions

30:48

to figure out who our friends

30:50

are, who to avoid, whom

30:52

to punish, whether to punish. And

30:55

we need to read people's

30:57

intentions. in any ordinary interaction,

30:59

like having a conversation and figuring

31:01

out what to say and how

31:03

to respond. When

31:10

we come back, the ability we have

31:12

to read other people's minds can be a

31:14

superpower, but this superpower

31:16

can fail us, sometimes with

31:18

terrible consequences. You're listening to

31:20

Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. This

31:36

is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar

31:38

Vedantan. Our

31:40

ability to read the minds of other

31:42

people is something of a mental superpower.

31:45

It allows us to effortlessly navigate a

31:47

complex social world and intuit what

31:49

other people want and how they feel.

31:53

This superpower helps us understand when

31:55

bad things happen by accident, when

31:57

they happen by design, and

31:59

it allows us to tell friend from

32:02

foe. Of

32:04

course, the fact that our

32:06

minds read so much into the

32:08

intentions of others also makes

32:10

the superpower ripe for exploitation by

32:12

con artists, marketing gurus, and

32:14

politicians. At Boston

32:16

College, neuroscientist Leanne Young studies the

32:18

psychology of theory of mind,

32:21

our ability to think about the

32:23

mental states of others, including

32:25

their intentions. In her lab,

32:27

she and her colleagues explore the role

32:29

of intention when it comes to making

32:31

moral judgments. Liane, I want

32:33

to talk about some ways in

32:35

which our ability to read other people's

32:38

intentions can sometimes go wrong. And

32:40

I want to start again with television

32:42

and the arts. There's a very

32:44

funny scene in the TV show Seinfeld.

32:46

The character George has just gone

32:48

on a date with a new love

32:50

interest. They drive back to her

32:52

apartment. They're sitting in the car outside

32:55

its midnight. The air

32:57

is crackling with sexual tension. And

32:59

here's what happens next. So,

33:01

uh, thanks for dinner. It was great. We

33:04

should do

33:06

this again. Would

33:10

you like to come upstairs for some coffee? Oh,

33:12

no, thanks. I can't drink coffee late at night. It

33:14

keeps me up. So,

33:19

um, okay. Okay.

33:25

Good night. Yeah, take it

33:27

easy. Leigh Ann,

33:29

I'm not sure if you're a fan of

33:31

Seinfeld, but what makes this clip funny is that

33:33

George is actually not picking up on her

33:35

intentions. I am

33:38

a fan and it's a

33:40

very funny clip because

33:42

it captures this phenomenon that

33:44

we study in psychology

33:46

called indirect speech, which allows

33:49

for a misinterpretation of

33:51

intentions, you know, because she's

33:53

inviting George up for

33:55

quote, coffee, as opposed

33:57

to asking him up more directly,

34:00

it gives her plausible deniability.

34:03

So if he declines

34:05

the invitation, she doesn't

34:07

have to feel bad or

34:09

offended or lose her pride. But

34:11

on the other hand, it also

34:13

leaves room for just misinterpretation and

34:16

miscommunication, which is what happens a

34:18

lot in real life. Such

34:24

miscommunications can be trivial, but they

34:26

can also sometimes have life -and -death

34:28

consequences. A police officer

34:30

might have to make a split -second decision about

34:32

whether a suspect is reaching into a pocket

34:34

to grab a cell phone or to grab

34:36

a gun. The officer has

34:38

to read the other person's intentions

34:40

in order to decide how to

34:42

respond, and how he

34:44

reads those intentions could be shaped by

34:46

all manner of factors, including bias. Again,

34:50

there is this question of what

34:52

cues we are using to

34:54

read people's intentions from their

34:57

actions. And what is really

34:59

tricky about this problem is

35:01

that we can't see into

35:03

people's heads. We can't observe

35:05

their thoughts or their feelings.

35:07

We can only observe what

35:10

people do and, you know,

35:12

in this case, people's body

35:14

movements reaching into a pocket,

35:16

reaching into a glove compartment.

35:18

And so that leaves room

35:21

for misinterpretation and really awful

35:23

consequences. So

35:27

the fact that our ability to

35:29

read intentions happens, you know, unconsciously, that

35:32

most of us are not even

35:34

aware that we are doing it. I'm

35:36

wondering how much of a role

35:38

that plays in our misreading of other

35:40

people's intentions, because presumably that also

35:42

is happening unconsciously. Absolutely.

35:44

And there are many cases

35:47

in which we don't realize

35:49

that we are misreading people's

35:51

intentions. In the Seinfeld clip,

35:53

George realized shortly after the fact

35:55

that he missed the boat on that

35:57

opportunity because he didn't catch what

35:59

the woman was doing, but there are

36:01

many cases in which we don't

36:03

catch our mistakes and we're not able

36:05

to fix them after the fact. I'm

36:08

wondering in your own life, Leanne,

36:10

have you noticed this happening of people failing

36:12

to pick up on things, reading each other wrong?

36:15

You've, I think, described during

36:17

the pandemic wearing a mask as

36:19

you go into some stores or

36:21

other social settings and wondering what

36:23

people must think of you and

36:26

what your intentions are. The

36:28

pandemic is a really

36:30

interesting case of intention reading

36:32

and misunderstanding. So

36:35

there have definitely been

36:37

instances in which I've gone

36:39

into a public indoor

36:41

space wearing a mask. And

36:43

I wonder what people think about

36:45

what I'm doing. Do people think

36:47

that I'm unvaccinated because I'm wearing

36:49

a mask? And then I have

36:51

to sort of stop and think

36:54

about, well, what do I think

36:56

when I see somebody wearing a

36:58

mask indoors? Do I think that

37:00

they're unvaccinated or do I think

37:02

that they're being extra careful? Do

37:04

I, you know, think that they're

37:06

immunocompromised or they have young children

37:08

who are unvaccinated and so on?

37:10

And so it becomes a really

37:12

interesting exercise to think about how

37:14

people are reading my intentions and

37:16

then how to read other people's

37:18

intentions and sort of backtrack from

37:20

that exercise to the other. Not

37:27

only do we assume we can read

37:29

the minds of other people, we often feel

37:31

we can even read their character and

37:33

intuit whether they are good people or bad

37:35

people. It

37:37

turns out we do this a lot

37:39

in politics. We regularly misread

37:42

the intentions behind the choices of

37:44

our political opponents. We

37:46

see them as malevolent. Here's

37:49

a political attack ad from

37:51

the US presidential race in

37:53

1988. As

37:55

Governor Michael Dukakis vetoed mandatory

37:57

sentences for drug dealers, he

38:00

vetoed the death penalty. His

38:02

revolving door prison policy gave

38:04

weekend furloughs to first -degree murderers

38:06

not eligible for parole. While

38:08

out, many committed other crimes like

38:10

kidnapping and rape, and many

38:13

are still at large. Now

38:15

Michael Dukakis says he wants to do

38:17

for America what he's done for Massachusetts.

38:20

America can't afford that risk. So

38:23

what I hear in the ad, Leon,

38:25

is that Michael Dukakis was intentionally allowing

38:27

criminals to go scot -free and commit

38:29

more crimes. And the ad doesn't explicitly

38:31

say that, but I think it leads

38:33

me to that conclusion. That's right.

38:35

There are many cases where...

38:37

Because intentions are not black and

38:39

white, because we can't see

38:41

them, there's no clear evidence for

38:43

intentions. This is a

38:45

case where politicians are able

38:48

to frame or reframe their

38:50

opponents' intentions, however they

38:52

see fit, to be able to

38:54

shape other people's thoughts and

38:56

feelings about others. There's this

38:58

sort of ambiguity in this space.

39:02

Politicians have the opportunity to be able

39:04

to create different narratives,

39:07

particularly about people's

39:09

intentions. I'm

39:14

wondering how much of the daily

39:16

partisan ranker that we hear, not just

39:18

in the United States, but in other

39:20

countries, is shaped by misreading

39:22

the intentions of our opponents, that we're

39:24

not just taking what they say and

39:26

do at face value, but we're reading

39:28

into it what we assume to be

39:31

their intentions. A

39:33

lot of times people do engage

39:35

in this willful misunderstanding or misinterpretation

39:37

of the minds of people on

39:39

the other side. But then in

39:41

a lot of cases, I think

39:43

this happens sort of automatically and

39:45

unconsciously. We give people that we

39:47

know and like the benefit of

39:50

the doubt, and often those are

39:52

the folks who are on our

39:54

team or in our party, and

39:56

we can interpret or understand those

39:58

events very, very... So if

40:00

you imagine that somebody in

40:02

your party is being accused of

40:04

some transgression, you might start

40:06

to seek alternative explanations for why

40:08

they did what they were

40:10

accused of doing. Whereas if you

40:13

heard the same story of

40:15

somebody committing a crime on the

40:17

other side, then you might

40:19

automatically take that story description at

40:21

face value that they're guilty. You've

40:24

conducted studies involving Democrats and

40:26

Republicans or Israelis and Palestinians

40:28

and obviously each of those

40:30

groups is prone to misreading

40:32

the intentions of their opponents.

40:35

What kind of a study was this and what did

40:37

you find Lea? We ran a

40:39

series of studies in which

40:41

we tested American Democrats and

40:43

Republicans and also Palestinians and

40:45

Israelis in the Middle East

40:47

and we gave them examples

40:49

of acts of aggression in

40:51

both of those cases and

40:53

asked our participants to attribute

40:55

motives. And what we

40:57

found, which is maybe not so

41:00

surprising but was very consistent across

41:02

those different groups of people, was

41:04

that people were more likely to

41:06

attribute acts of aggression performed by

41:08

their own group to in -group love.

41:10

People are just trying to defend

41:12

their own values and their own

41:14

people, whereas people would attribute those

41:17

same acts of aggression performed by

41:19

an out -group to out -group hatred.

41:21

They're doing this to retaliate. They're

41:23

doing this to attack us. And

41:25

so it's very interesting that we

41:28

see this asymmetry in how people are

41:30

attributing motives underlying the very same

41:32

actions depending on whether those acts are

41:34

being performed by people on our

41:36

side or people on the other side.

41:42

This tendency to be selective in

41:45

how we read intentions extends well

41:47

beyond the realms of war and

41:49

politics. Lian says we

41:51

often interpret intentions in a way that

41:53

confirms the stories we wish to

41:55

tell about ourselves and others. I

41:58

think we do that all the

42:00

time and we do that in the

42:02

ways that we interpret the intentions

42:04

and actions of our friends as opposed

42:06

to people we don't know or

42:08

people that we know but don't like.

42:10

We give our friends the benefit

42:12

of the doubt. We give ourselves the

42:15

benefit of the doubt. We don't

42:17

want to see ourselves as bad

42:19

people. We don't want to

42:21

see our friends as bad

42:23

people. And so, again, if you

42:25

encounter a friend doing something

42:27

morally ambiguous, you might make

42:30

up an excuse for why

42:32

they did that in order to

42:34

read their behaviors as fitting

42:36

with your narrative of being

42:38

friends. And so it's very

42:40

interesting that we see this asymmetry

42:42

in how people are attributing motives underlying

42:45

the very same actions in very

42:47

different ways depending on whether those acts

42:49

are being presented as performed by

42:51

people on our side or people on

42:53

the other side. You

42:58

know, I'm reminded of a conversation we

43:00

had some time ago with the linguist

43:03

Deborah Tannen. She says it can be

43:05

hard to recognize someone's intentions, and

43:07

so it's worth assuming that their

43:09

intentions are good because it makes for

43:11

smoother conversations. I think

43:13

it's really useful for both relationships

43:15

and also for ourselves to give

43:17

others around us the benefit of

43:20

the doubt. I think it makes

43:22

for smoother social interactions and also

43:24

for happier selves. told

43:27

my students is that if you,

43:29

you know, have a bad interaction

43:31

with someone, chances are they're not

43:33

trying to offend you or insult

43:35

you. Maybe they're having a bad

43:37

day. Maybe they didn't get enough

43:39

sleep. And I tell them to

43:41

sort of think about our one

43:44

-on -one interactions in the same context

43:46

that if we have a bad

43:48

conversation, it's probably because, you

43:50

know, I am feeling bad that

43:52

I yelled at a kid. that morning

43:54

and has nothing to do with

43:56

their paper or their project. And

43:59

so again, we come back

44:01

to this idea of giving people

44:03

the benefit of the doubt

44:05

and taking intentions into consideration. I

44:08

also think about times when I'm on

44:10

the road and I get upset when

44:13

other drivers cut me off. There's

44:16

really nothing that I can do about

44:18

it aside from give them the benefit of

44:20

the doubt because I know that when

44:22

I'm the one who's speeding or cutting other

44:24

people off, usually it's because my three -year

44:26

-old in the backseat says she needs to

44:28

go to the potty or because we're

44:30

rushing to an event and we're late. So

44:33

to be able to extend that to

44:35

other people, both strangers

44:37

and the people that we interact

44:39

with on a regular basis, I

44:41

think just makes for happier interactions

44:43

all around. Isn't it

44:45

really hard to do though, Leanne?

44:47

I feel like even as I

44:49

seek compassion and empathy from other

44:51

people, it's hard for me to give

44:53

them the compassion and empathy that they seek.

44:55

So there's a real paradox here. It's

44:57

really hard. It's really hard

45:00

to take that step back and

45:02

think about what are the

45:04

situational stresses and influences that could

45:06

be leading to other people's

45:08

actions, whereas it's sometimes easier to

45:10

see those external pressures on

45:12

our own selves and lives and

45:14

interactions. And so if we're

45:16

able to pause in the midst

45:18

of a tricky interaction and

45:20

think about what that other person

45:22

is trying to do or

45:24

not trying to do, again, that

45:26

will lead to much smoother, much

45:29

more positive interactions and

45:31

ultimately relationships. Lian

45:38

Yang is a psychologist and

45:40

neuroscientist at Boston College. Lian,

45:42

thank you so much for joining me today

45:44

on Hidden Brain. Thank you so much, Shankar. After

45:50

the break, your questions answered. Our

45:52

segment where we bring back recent guests

45:54

of the show to answer listeners'

45:56

follow -up questions about their work. In

45:58

this edition of Your Questions

46:00

Answered, Fred Luskin responds to listener

46:03

stories of grudges and forgiveness. How

46:05

can I tell whether what I'm

46:07

doing, which is just I no

46:09

longer interact with her, I don't

46:12

speak to her anymore? Whether

46:14

that's truly a grudge

46:16

or is it just

46:18

me keeping myself safe?

46:22

That's when we come back. You're listening

46:24

to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta.

46:41

This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar

46:43

Vedantan. Think about the

46:45

last time someone really hurt you. Maybe

46:47

it was a friend who betrayed your confidence. A

46:50

colleague who took credit for your work. A

46:53

business partner who cheated you. How

46:57

long did that hurt stay with you? How

46:59

often did you turn it over in

47:01

your mind feeling a fresh wave of pain

47:03

and anger as though it happened just

47:05

yesterday? The

47:08

hurt we experience when someone breaks our

47:10

trust is a natural emotional response. But these

47:12

emotions can start to eat at us

47:14

if we hold on to them for too

47:16

long. We

47:18

recently discussed this with psychologist Fred

47:20

Luskin, who studies forgiveness and

47:23

grudges as the director of the

47:25

Stanford University Forgiveness Project. If

47:28

you missed our initial conversation with Fred,

47:30

you can find it in this podcast

47:32

feed. It's the episode titled, No Heart

47:34

Feelings. Today, Fred

47:36

returns to answer your questions about grudges

47:38

and how we can come to terms

47:41

with the wrongs done to us. Fred

47:43

Luskin, welcome back to Hidden Brain. Thank

47:46

you. Nice to see you

47:48

again. One of the

47:50

things that makes grudges psychologically interesting is

47:52

that they involve a certain amount of

47:54

mental storytelling. We weave our own personal

47:56

narrative of a person and a wrong

47:58

that they've done to us. You've

48:00

said that grudges can be difficult to

48:02

shake because we often start to combine

48:04

different threads of various grievance stories, and

48:06

these stories start to weave together and

48:08

create a sort of meta -narrative. How

48:11

does this happen, Fred? We're

48:13

constantly trying to make meaning

48:15

out of the world, and

48:17

we have different levels of

48:19

meaning -making. We have,

48:22

like, small things, you know,

48:24

that this person said something

48:26

unkind to me. And then

48:28

we have these meta narratives

48:30

that say, you know, this

48:33

isn't safe. And remember when

48:35

your dad did what he

48:37

did to you 20 years

48:39

ago, which set you up

48:42

upon a life which will

48:44

not be safe. It makes

48:46

it hard to just be

48:48

with the experience and deal

48:50

with the actual insult or

48:53

not. as it's happening or

48:55

cognitively or emotionally with the

48:57

best strategies. You know

48:59

I was talking recently

49:01

with a memory researcher and

49:03

she said something really interesting

49:06

which is that our memories

49:08

tend to produce whatever our

49:10

current emotional states are. In

49:12

other words, if we are happy, it

49:14

tends to be easier to pull

49:16

happy memories from our brain. And

49:18

when we are sad, it's easier

49:21

to pull sad memories from our

49:23

brain. And I'm wondering if the

49:25

same thing in some ways happens

49:27

with our grievances. So in other

49:29

words, someone does something wrong to

49:31

me, and then all of a

49:33

sudden it becomes so much easier

49:35

for me to remember all the

49:37

other times this person has also

49:39

done something bad to me or

49:41

said something unkind to me. If

49:43

you're happy, then your brain and

49:45

nervous system make available to you

49:47

all the other lovely things in

49:49

your life so that you get

49:51

to think now wow the last

49:54

time I was happy I went

49:56

and hugged my partner so should

49:58

I do that again from the

50:00

painful side look at how brilliant

50:02

it is to give you access to

50:05

other times that you suffered

50:07

and maybe to look through

50:09

what were the strategies that

50:11

I used that helped us.

50:14

The problem is when

50:17

it crowds out

50:19

other memories, then

50:21

you actually lose access

50:23

to thinking rather

50:25

than gain access to

50:27

thinking. But the

50:30

original kind of

50:32

substratum is really

50:34

smart. I mean,

50:36

you can think about it almost from

50:38

an evolutionary standpoint, which is that if

50:40

someone does something bad to me, if

50:42

another animal does something bad to me,

50:44

it's very useful to remember that this

50:46

animal has harmed me. And it might

50:48

actually be useful to remember the other

50:50

times this other person or this other

50:52

animal has harmed me, because it tells

50:54

me now, steer clear of this person, give

50:57

them a wide berth. But what

50:59

was very useful, perhaps, in our

51:01

evolutionary history when it came to

51:04

dealing with other animals and with

51:06

predators might be less effective in

51:08

the modern workplace, for example, where

51:10

we're constantly interacting with colleagues. And

51:12

now we remember a small slight. Maybe

51:14

it was an accidental slight. But that now

51:16

compounds itself with all the other slights

51:19

that we start to remember. And now we

51:21

form this metanarrative about how a colleague

51:23

of ours doesn't like us or we don't

51:25

get along with them. I'm

51:27

gonna add two things. It's

51:29

not helpful. It's essential. That

51:32

if there is

51:34

pain, difficulty, hostility,

51:38

mistreatment, you

51:40

have to remember it. You have

51:42

to try to process it and

51:44

deal with it. That's

51:46

not just optional. It's

51:48

like essential. The

51:51

second piece, what I think

51:53

you left out of the workplace,

51:55

is the staggering amount

51:57

of distraction that people

52:00

have now. So

52:02

not only are they

52:04

in a workplace

52:06

with maybe more interactions

52:08

and more possible

52:10

difficulties, their minds

52:12

are frazzled even before

52:14

they deal with anybody

52:17

by emails, by texts,

52:19

by relentless checking, by

52:21

social media, by

52:23

all of the just

52:25

demands on their

52:27

attention. So they

52:30

come into work

52:32

already with a higher

52:34

level of arousal

52:36

because they're so used

52:38

to getting stimulated

52:40

by this relentless attention

52:42

and, you know, like,

52:44

I'm at you all day

52:46

long. So that has to

52:48

be factored in there as well.

52:52

So we received a number of listener

52:54

comments and questions from people who

52:56

decided to sever a relationship with someone

52:58

else. Here's a question we

53:00

received from a listener named Lydia. I

53:03

have been living with

53:05

what I imagine can

53:07

be called a grudge

53:09

towards my sister for

53:11

the past almost eight

53:13

years. How can I

53:16

tell whether what I'm doing, which

53:18

is just I no longer interact

53:20

with her, I don't speak to

53:22

her anymore. Whether that's

53:24

truly a grudge or

53:26

is it just me

53:28

keeping myself safe and

53:30

my peace of mind?

53:33

I can't imagine that

53:36

all transgressions need to

53:38

result in forgiveness and

53:40

the ability to continue

53:42

the relationship as though

53:44

nothing happened. Or

53:46

am I wrong about that? So

53:49

what do you think Fred?

53:52

I can see in some

53:54

ways both sides of this

53:56

equation I might distance myself

53:58

from someone because I'm holding

54:00

a grudge But I'm also

54:03

could distance myself from someone

54:05

because I've thought about this

54:07

relationship and I don't want

54:09

to continue it any longer

54:11

I'm gonna add a third

54:14

piece often we Move away

54:16

from somebody because we can't

54:18

handle the disturbance, suffering, stress

54:20

that come up in us

54:22

and we use distancing as

54:25

a self -regulation strategy. So

54:28

if my sister

54:30

causes me every time

54:32

I'm near her

54:34

to feel anxious, angry,

54:37

unsettled, Sometimes

54:39

if I don't have

54:41

sufficient skill at going

54:43

inward and rebalancing or

54:45

whatever, I'll just keep

54:47

them away to try

54:49

to manage my own

54:51

reactivity. That's incredibly

54:53

common. On

54:55

the polarities that the

54:57

listener sent you, it's

55:00

not so simple. One

55:02

of the mistakes that

55:04

she presented was You

55:07

can forgive someone and

55:09

choose not to have contact

55:12

with them. It's not

55:14

either or. She could look

55:16

at her sister and

55:18

say, whatever you

55:20

did, I'm not

55:22

holding anything towards you.

55:24

My work clean. But

55:27

enough is enough. You go

55:29

your way. I go mine.

55:31

But there's no bitterness in

55:33

me. There's just. You

55:35

know, we tried this for

55:38

40 years. It didn't work

55:40

for me and have a

55:42

lovely life for a while

55:44

and thank you. So they're

55:46

not mutually exclusive. What

55:50

I would suggest is

55:52

when you're dealing with

55:54

your sister and like

55:57

you want to see

55:59

if you can rehearse

56:01

even connecting with her,

56:03

like are you able

56:06

to create a bond

56:08

or an outreach even

56:10

just in practice? If

56:14

not that significant information

56:16

that this may go

56:18

really deep. Second,

56:20

on the other side

56:22

of it, if you get

56:25

into a really quiet Clean

56:27

gentle space like you know

56:29

you're lying on the beach

56:32

in Hawaii. It's 92 degrees

56:34

and you just got out

56:36

of the water. If

56:38

you're inside still tell

56:40

you that no this

56:43

person is not safe

56:45

for you. It's probably

56:47

deeply in you that

56:49

that's what you feel.

56:52

But if it's just

56:54

that every time you

56:56

think of joining or

56:58

connecting, you get anxious

57:00

or upset, that may

57:02

not be enough inner

57:04

guidance to follow long term.

57:08

You know, we like to think that

57:10

when we forgive someone, our relationship with

57:12

them is going to come out stronger

57:14

on the other end. Unfortunately, that's not

57:16

always the case. Here's a question we

57:18

received from listener Sue. I'm

57:21

just wondering how

57:23

you actually forgive someone

57:25

if it's a

57:28

person who has pretty

57:30

strong narcissistic tendencies

57:32

would never admit to

57:34

have done anything

57:37

wrong. This is

57:39

my mom. She's since

57:41

passed. And, you

57:43

know, I am doing therapy

57:45

and I've done the radical

57:47

acceptance and all that. But

57:49

I imagine, you know, if she

57:52

were alive and if I were to

57:54

say I forgive you, she would

57:56

probably burst out laughing and say, you

57:58

know, I haven't done anything wrong. And

58:01

so I'm wondering technically

58:03

how you actually forgive someone

58:05

who would never have

58:07

admitted they did anything wrong.

58:10

You know, if what I

58:12

heard from her, if

58:14

the word narcissist

58:16

tendencies, is real and

58:19

not just a becoming

58:21

a cultural way of describing

58:23

people that we don't

58:25

like what they did. But

58:28

if somebody has

58:30

real narcissistic tendencies, you

58:32

can't expect a full

58:34

reciprocal relationship from them.

58:37

You simply can't. So

58:40

within that context, any

58:42

forgiveness is just for

58:44

your own peace of

58:46

mind. So that

58:48

you will calm your

58:50

brain down, you will open

58:52

your heart back up, never

58:54

with the thought that that's

58:56

going to improve them or

58:59

have them see you as

59:01

you are, because a

59:03

real narcissist can't see you

59:05

as they are. They see

59:07

themselves. Again,

59:10

no, there's this confusion.

59:13

between reconciliation

59:15

and forgiveness. You

59:18

can forgive someone

59:20

who's unrepentant simply because

59:22

you don't want

59:24

to carry that in

59:26

you. You make

59:28

no assumption that that

59:30

will change them. Now,

59:34

somebody who has weaker

59:36

narcissistic tendencies and

59:38

you forgive them and

59:40

you show up sometimes

59:43

that does influence them

59:45

to reduce their side

59:47

of it, but there

59:49

is no guarantee. So

59:52

in Sue's case, Fred, her mother

59:54

is now dead. She

59:56

may or may not have been a narcissist, but

59:58

there's no way that she's going to be able to

1:00:00

accept that she did something wrong because she's not

1:00:02

with us anymore. But I think

1:00:04

even there, the point that you're making

1:00:07

still stands, which is from Sue's point of

1:00:09

view, her forgiving her mother might

1:00:11

be good for Sue, regardless of what

1:00:13

her mother may have said or done. We

1:00:16

can't know what will

1:00:18

be good for someone

1:00:20

else, and we

1:00:22

can't know their perception

1:00:24

of what happened. We

1:00:27

can only be as

1:00:29

clear as possible about what

1:00:31

our choices are and

1:00:33

how our responses were. We've

1:00:36

talked on many episodes of Hidden Brain

1:00:38

about political divisions and how to engage

1:00:40

with people in our lives who hold

1:00:42

political beliefs that are different from our

1:00:44

own. Here's a message we received from

1:00:46

a listener named Ezra. For

1:00:49

years now, I've

1:00:51

been holding a

1:00:53

grudge with my

1:00:55

family regarding their

1:00:57

political stance, especially

1:01:00

around queer and

1:01:02

transgender rights. My

1:01:05

parents have voted for

1:01:07

Trump and I cannot

1:01:09

tolerate the emotional cognitive

1:01:11

dissonance of having parents

1:01:13

who on one hand

1:01:16

love me very much

1:01:18

and on the other

1:01:20

hand are literally voting

1:01:22

to take my rights

1:01:24

away as a US

1:01:26

citizen. I

1:01:28

am stuck between wanting

1:01:30

to forgive wanting

1:01:33

to protect myself, feeling

1:01:36

fear and rage

1:01:38

and love altogether.

1:01:41

I would love some advice

1:01:43

and help for how to

1:01:45

move forward in a way

1:01:47

that feels grounded, loving,

1:01:51

protective, respectful.

1:01:55

What do you think, Fred? What advice would you give

1:01:57

to Ezra? What

1:01:59

a lovely description

1:02:01

of the poles of

1:02:03

a mind that

1:02:05

is trying to integrate

1:02:07

the heart but

1:02:09

knows this is tough

1:02:11

sledding. The

1:02:13

real question is not

1:02:15

should we forgive, but

1:02:19

what's our most skillful

1:02:21

action? And what's

1:02:23

the best mindset

1:02:25

for moving ahead?

1:02:28

Like, forgiveness is a

1:02:30

pathway to the

1:02:32

best mindset. It's not

1:02:34

the mindset in

1:02:36

and of itself. So

1:02:39

when you're in

1:02:41

a situation where

1:02:43

you're vulnerable, like,

1:02:45

you know, that, you know,

1:02:48

listener just called in

1:02:50

and legitimately afraid. That's

1:02:53

not trivial, and

1:02:56

that can't be, you know, swept

1:02:58

under the rug by saying,

1:03:00

well, I forgive them. It's not

1:03:02

that simple. But

1:03:04

at the same

1:03:06

time, we recognize that

1:03:08

simply hating or

1:03:11

demonizing whatever it is

1:03:13

we think caused

1:03:15

our vulnerability, after

1:03:17

a while, will diminish

1:03:19

our own ability to

1:03:21

take skillful action because

1:03:23

we're tired from our

1:03:26

anger and our resentment

1:03:28

and clouds our judgment. So

1:03:31

part of it

1:03:33

is grieving and admitting

1:03:36

our vulnerability and

1:03:38

loss. Secondly,

1:03:41

joining together with other

1:03:43

people who have similar experiences,

1:03:47

so there's some

1:03:49

strength in numbers. And

1:03:52

then really focusing

1:03:54

on within the

1:03:56

legitimate experience of

1:03:59

our life, what's

1:04:01

the most skillful

1:04:03

action? How do we

1:04:05

behave in a way that

1:04:07

will get us closer to

1:04:09

what our real goals are? and

1:04:12

not just have us

1:04:14

dominated by fear or resentment.

1:04:17

That's the piece that

1:04:19

forgiveness clears out. Say

1:04:23

more about this idea when you say

1:04:25

that the goal is to come up with

1:04:27

skillful action. How do we

1:04:29

know what skillful action is for Ezra in

1:04:31

this case? Well,

1:04:33

it can be a couple

1:04:35

of things. One, that

1:04:38

the goal or

1:04:40

motivation you align

1:04:42

with even when you're

1:04:44

not upset or even

1:04:46

when you're not meeting

1:04:49

with other people in

1:04:51

like shared outrage. But

1:04:53

yeah, that's really what

1:04:55

I believe in. Two,

1:04:59

is it experimentally

1:05:01

kind of

1:05:04

verifiable? Like, I try

1:05:06

this. Does it help? If

1:05:09

it doesn't help, Do I

1:05:11

admit that I was not doing

1:05:13

the best thing and go

1:05:15

back and try something else? Do

1:05:18

I maybe ask for

1:05:20

advice as to other

1:05:23

people's experience? Do I

1:05:25

read up about past

1:05:27

skillful action? Is my

1:05:29

mind open to problem

1:05:32

-solving or is it

1:05:34

motivated by resentment and

1:05:36

revenge? Those are

1:05:39

very different motivations, and

1:05:41

they give us different

1:05:43

minds to evaluate the outcome.

1:05:47

I'm wondering whether any research has

1:05:49

been done about the utility

1:05:51

of actually asking the person who

1:05:53

we feel has harmed us

1:05:55

their advice on what we should

1:05:57

do. So in Ezra's case,

1:05:59

for example, I'm wondering what

1:06:01

if he went to his parents and said, Here's

1:06:03

what I'm feeling. I know that you love

1:06:05

me very much. I also feel like you have

1:06:07

betrayed me. I'm struggling between my

1:06:09

feelings of my love for you and

1:06:11

my admiration for you and my resentment

1:06:14

for you. Help me figure out what

1:06:16

I should do with these feelings. You'd

1:06:19

have to be

1:06:21

incredibly emotionally competent to

1:06:23

say that. And

1:06:26

you would have

1:06:28

to have really emotionally

1:06:30

competent parents to

1:06:32

hear that but it

1:06:34

is a phenomenal

1:06:37

strategy and you could

1:06:39

extrapolate that strategy

1:06:41

to so many interpersonal

1:06:43

difficulties just so

1:06:45

many you could imagine

1:06:47

how many intimate

1:06:50

partners. Could bring

1:06:52

that to each other,

1:06:54

you know, you

1:06:56

said this it hurt

1:06:58

me part of

1:07:00

me wants to strike

1:07:02

back at you

1:07:04

part of me wants

1:07:06

to understand you

1:07:08

but underneath what you

1:07:10

said are some

1:07:12

incredibly skillful means of

1:07:15

I'm responsible for

1:07:17

my emotional state I

1:07:19

need to put what I'm

1:07:21

feeling into words, and

1:07:23

I trust people

1:07:26

enough to share my

1:07:28

vulnerability with them. None

1:07:31

of those are easy for

1:07:33

people to access. I'm

1:07:49

Shankar Vedanta. This

1:08:02

is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta.

1:08:05

This is Your Question's Answer, our segment

1:08:07

in which we bring back past guests

1:08:09

of the show to respond to listeners'

1:08:11

follow -up thoughts and questions about their work.

1:08:14

Today we're talking with Fred Luskin. He's

1:08:16

a psychologist and director of the

1:08:18

Stanford University Forgiveness Project. Fred

1:08:20

is also the author of the books,

1:08:22

Forgive for Good, a proven prescription for

1:08:24

health and happiness, and Forgive

1:08:27

for Love, the missing ingredient for a

1:08:29

healthy and lasting relationship. Let's

1:08:33

turn again to listener questions. Our next one

1:08:35

is from a listener named Laura, and

1:08:37

it's a version of a question that we have

1:08:39

received from a number of listeners. What

1:08:41

if the person that you

1:08:44

need to forgive is actually

1:08:46

yourself? Could you

1:08:48

apply the same concepts? What

1:08:52

do you think Fred? Is it possible

1:08:54

to essentially hold a grudge against yourself? The

1:08:57

answer to that is yes.

1:09:00

There's a couple of steps

1:09:02

that you know people need

1:09:04

to look at. One

1:09:06

of them is to

1:09:08

legitimately acknowledge what

1:09:11

you have done. That

1:09:13

there really is

1:09:16

no self -forgiveness

1:09:18

without some acknowledgement, some

1:09:21

remorse. You

1:09:23

know, if you look

1:09:25

at Truth and Reconciliation in

1:09:27

South Africa, it's just

1:09:30

a general model. You

1:09:32

know, there was a

1:09:34

pretty strong public forum for

1:09:37

a boy did

1:09:39

we do bad and

1:09:41

this can't be

1:09:43

hidden so the first

1:09:45

step is to

1:09:47

whatever degree possible admit

1:09:49

it to yourself

1:09:51

if safe admit it

1:09:53

to anybody you've

1:09:55

harmed and allow oneself

1:09:58

to feel remorse There

1:10:00

is literature, you know,

1:10:03

research on the value

1:10:05

of a sincere apology,

1:10:08

which is, I did

1:10:10

it. My bad hurts

1:10:12

you. I make that

1:10:14

link. I'm sorry. And

1:10:16

if I can, I won't do it

1:10:19

again. It is

1:10:21

hard for many of

1:10:23

us to have the humility

1:10:25

of a sincere apology. The

1:10:28

last step is taken

1:10:30

from the wisdom of

1:10:32

the 12 -step programs,

1:10:34

which is whenever you

1:10:36

can make it right, make

1:10:39

amends. Now, if

1:10:41

the person that you've

1:10:43

harmed is just you, like

1:10:46

you didn't harm anybody

1:10:48

else, but you got drunk

1:10:50

or you had a

1:10:52

ridiculous sexual escapade that harmed

1:10:54

your life, It's

1:10:57

helpful to share with

1:10:59

one or two trusted

1:11:01

people as an offering.

1:11:04

You do make a kind

1:11:06

of inner mea culpa, but

1:11:09

the amends is you

1:11:11

make sure it

1:11:13

doesn't happen again. You

1:11:16

go to therapy, you

1:11:18

go to 12 -step programs, you

1:11:21

take classes in anger

1:11:23

management, whatever it is. but

1:11:26

you need to do something

1:11:28

positive. When

1:11:30

those preconditions

1:11:32

are met, you

1:11:35

have absolutely no

1:11:37

need for negative self

1:11:39

-talk or bad feelings.

1:11:41

You have done

1:11:44

the basic requirements of

1:11:46

self -forgiveness. If you

1:11:48

have to, you go see a therapist for

1:11:50

a couple sessions. But you

1:11:52

do not need at all

1:11:54

that negative emotion once you've

1:11:56

done those steps. In

1:11:59

our initial conversation, Fred, we mostly focused on

1:12:01

how we can let go of grudges against

1:12:03

people who have wronged us. But

1:12:05

we've all probably been in situations where

1:12:07

we are the wrong doer, where

1:12:09

we have betrayed someone in our life.

1:12:11

Here's a question we received about

1:12:13

that from listener Booma. I

1:12:15

want to know how you

1:12:17

helped a loved one. get over

1:12:19

or let go of their

1:12:21

grudge or heart feelings or bitter

1:12:23

feelings against you. Let's

1:12:26

say you betrayed them.

1:12:29

A terrible incident happened in their lives

1:12:31

and you were not there for them. You

1:12:34

realized it. It's a mistake. You

1:12:37

regret it. You offered them

1:12:39

an apology and later you

1:12:41

have tried to be as best

1:12:43

as you can for them

1:12:45

and been supportive in their life.

1:12:48

But it looks like, you know,

1:12:51

we both are still reading from the

1:12:53

aftermath of the betrayal. I

1:12:55

want to help this loved one

1:12:57

and I want to help myself get

1:12:59

better. Do you have any advice? I

1:13:03

mean, that is a

1:13:05

very tough situation when

1:13:08

somebody feels genuine remorse,

1:13:10

wants to make it

1:13:12

right and is stymied.

1:13:14

I have heard that

1:13:16

multiple times. There's

1:13:20

two things that come to

1:13:22

my mind immediately. One

1:13:25

is some degree

1:13:27

of self -examination. What

1:13:30

was it that led me

1:13:32

to not be there when they

1:13:34

needed me? Is

1:13:36

there something characterologic

1:13:38

in me? Was

1:13:41

I frightened? Was

1:13:43

I preoccupied? What

1:13:45

was the flaw or

1:13:47

weakness in me? So

1:13:50

that I can

1:13:52

address it or I

1:13:54

can show this

1:13:56

person deep vulnerability and

1:13:59

reflection when I

1:14:01

talk to them. Not

1:14:03

just that I'm

1:14:05

sorry. but it

1:14:07

caused me to recognize

1:14:09

how hard something like

1:14:12

this is, or, wow,

1:14:14

I really struggle when

1:14:16

somebody's needs are way

1:14:18

bigger than mine, or

1:14:20

I may not always

1:14:23

hear at the moment

1:14:25

the depth of somebody's

1:14:27

pain. That would be

1:14:29

one, you know, first of all,

1:14:31

it helps her. but

1:14:34

secondly it creates

1:14:36

a shared pain. The

1:14:39

second thing is

1:14:41

sometimes we can't turn

1:14:43

back time and

1:14:45

there is a forgiveness

1:14:48

element there that

1:14:50

you know it's up

1:14:52

to you and

1:14:54

I respect as best

1:14:56

I can how

1:14:59

you deal with your

1:15:01

suffering. The

1:15:03

third piece

1:15:05

is now that

1:15:07

I have

1:15:09

learned this about

1:15:11

the dangers, or

1:15:14

even if I didn't

1:15:16

do anything deliberate, even

1:15:18

if it was just

1:15:20

a bad confluence of

1:15:22

events where absolutely nobody

1:15:24

is at fault, one

1:15:27

of the things that

1:15:29

she can do is move

1:15:31

ahead with a

1:15:33

renewed attention to

1:15:35

make sure that this

1:15:37

never happens again

1:15:40

so that her radar

1:15:42

are more finely

1:15:44

attuned to other people's

1:15:46

pain and she

1:15:49

can even use this

1:15:51

as a teaching

1:15:53

to tell other people

1:15:56

never, you know,

1:15:58

never underestimate when

1:16:00

people are suffering

1:16:02

how vulnerable or how

1:16:04

reactive they might

1:16:06

be. So she can

1:16:08

use her loss

1:16:10

to help others. That's

1:16:13

sometimes the best we can

1:16:15

do. We

1:16:17

received an interesting question from listener

1:16:19

Richard. He wanted to know

1:16:21

about the factors that might affect our ability

1:16:23

to forgive someone. Here he is.

1:16:26

Do you think someone having

1:16:28

more positive emotional states like

1:16:30

the joy of their first

1:16:32

child may increase their likelihood

1:16:34

of being more able and

1:16:36

willing to forgive. I

1:16:38

mean, if you ask

1:16:41

me about the factors that

1:16:43

influence the ability to

1:16:45

forgive, research has

1:16:47

picked up a few,

1:16:49

not that many. One

1:16:53

of them is

1:16:55

gratitude. and it may be

1:16:57

a surprise to you, but

1:16:59

people who see the good in

1:17:01

their lives are more capable of

1:17:03

letting go of the bad. And

1:17:06

that is a reasonably

1:17:09

robust finding that, you

1:17:11

know, if you wake up in

1:17:13

the morning and it's a beautiful day

1:17:15

out and you're delighted that you

1:17:17

had breakfast and you look at a

1:17:19

picture of your kid and you

1:17:21

go, I got a good life, then

1:17:24

when somebody calls you in

1:17:26

his rude, you're going to be

1:17:28

more likely to hold it

1:17:30

better. Now, let

1:17:32

me add one or two

1:17:34

other things to that. A

1:17:37

home where you

1:17:40

were raised, where

1:17:42

forgiveness is modeled,

1:17:45

is more likely to imprint it

1:17:47

on your brain than not. Did

1:17:50

you see your parents

1:17:53

forgive each other? Did

1:17:55

you see your parents

1:17:57

forgive you? That

1:17:59

is a huge modeling

1:18:01

that even can be

1:18:03

pre -verbal, you know,

1:18:05

like, oh my gosh,

1:18:07

I saw this. Second, our

1:18:11

nervous systems have something to

1:18:13

do with our ability to

1:18:15

forgive. There's a

1:18:17

quality of human

1:18:20

nervous system arousal where

1:18:22

people are called

1:18:24

hot reactors. They they

1:18:26

just you know, you've

1:18:28

met them they get aroused

1:18:30

very quickly. Those

1:18:32

people struggle like

1:18:34

crazy to forgive

1:18:36

because the adrenaline

1:18:38

just comes so

1:18:40

quickly and so

1:18:42

strongly and pulsates

1:18:44

into anger. that

1:18:47

that is a real

1:18:49

challenge. The last thing

1:18:51

that I will say is, it

1:18:54

also depends on the amount

1:18:56

of practice you put in.

1:18:58

You know, if you

1:19:00

practice just normally, when

1:19:03

you're cut off in

1:19:05

traffic, when somebody cuts

1:19:07

in front of you in

1:19:09

the supermarket line, when the

1:19:11

airplane is late and you're

1:19:13

gonna miss your connecting flight,

1:19:17

You're practicing what you might need

1:19:19

a year down the road when

1:19:21

somebody doesn't behave right Hmm. I

1:19:23

think one interesting theme that's come

1:19:25

up in many of these questions

1:19:27

and also came up in our

1:19:29

initial conversation Fred is that I

1:19:32

think when people think about grudges

1:19:34

They sometimes imagine themselves to be

1:19:36

in the position of judges. They're

1:19:38

asking themselves I'm a judge. Here

1:19:40

are the facts before me. Do

1:19:42

these facts justify forgiveness? Should I

1:19:45

hold on to the grudge? Should

1:19:47

I grant forgiveness? Should I not

1:19:49

grant forgiveness? And that is

1:19:51

one way of thinking about it. But

1:19:53

I think the point that you're making

1:19:55

is that a judge is making a

1:19:57

decision that really is in the public

1:19:59

good. They're deciding, should this person be

1:20:01

sentenced, should this person be let free?

1:20:03

And you're trying to make a judgment

1:20:05

that's in the public good. When it

1:20:08

comes to the forgiveness that you're talking

1:20:10

about, Fred, you're already talking about what's

1:20:12

in people's own good. And you're basically

1:20:14

saying, is it in my interest to

1:20:16

actually let this go, regardless of whether

1:20:18

it's in the other person's interest or

1:20:20

anyone else's interest? I'm gonna

1:20:22

add two things to that. One,

1:20:25

there's also the statute of limitations.

1:20:30

which most people forget

1:20:32

about, you know, even

1:20:34

if they're bringing an argument before

1:20:36

the judge, most

1:20:38

cases have five,

1:20:40

seven -year statute of

1:20:42

limitations. And

1:20:44

so that's the water

1:20:46

dampening on that

1:20:48

analogy, even though it's

1:20:50

true. Secondly,

1:20:53

forgiveness is not just

1:20:55

for the self. but

1:20:59

it's for the current

1:21:01

important relationships in one's

1:21:03

life that one wants

1:21:05

to maintain and grow.

1:21:09

And again, let's just use

1:21:11

the judge analogy. So

1:21:13

let's say that somebody

1:21:16

does something that's wrong. There's

1:21:18

nothing wrong with imposing a

1:21:21

one week sentence on them,

1:21:23

but then you also want

1:21:25

to be merciful. And

1:21:27

that's missing often

1:21:29

in the judge analogy.

1:21:33

Sometimes you let people out

1:21:35

for good behavior. Sometimes

1:21:37

you commute their sentence. So

1:21:40

we're looking at

1:21:42

a complex life and

1:21:44

we want to

1:21:47

be careful not to

1:21:49

lose the complex

1:21:51

life on our over

1:21:53

fixation with a

1:21:55

negative experience. Fred

1:22:02

Luskin is a psychologist and director

1:22:04

of the Stanford University Forgiveness Project. He

1:22:06

is the author of Forgive for

1:22:08

Good, A Proven Prescription for Health and

1:22:10

Happiness, and Forgive for Love,

1:22:12

the missing ingredient for a healthy

1:22:14

and lasting relationship. Fred Luskin,

1:22:16

thank you so much for joining me

1:22:18

today on Hidden Brain. I thank you

1:22:20

very much. Hidden

1:22:26

Brain is produced by Hidden

1:22:28

Brain Media. Our audio production

1:22:30

team includes Annie Murphy -Paul,

1:22:32

Kristen Wong, Laura Quirelle, Ryan

1:22:34

Katz, Autumn Barnes, Andrew Chadwick,

1:22:37

and Nick Woodbury. Tara

1:22:39

Boyle is our executive producer. I'm

1:22:41

Hidden Brain's executive editor. We

1:22:43

had voice acting in today's episode

1:22:45

from Clara and Rose Dubois and

1:22:47

Scarlett McNally. We

1:22:52

end today with a story from

1:22:54

our sister podcast, My Unsung Hero.

1:22:56

This My Unsung Hero segment is

1:22:58

brought to you by Discover. In

1:23:02

2022, David Jefferson's

1:23:04

wife Jill was diagnosed with

1:23:06

cancer. Jill didn't have

1:23:08

many close friends, but one of

1:23:11

her former coworkers, a woman named

1:23:13

Nicole Kyle, started coming by to

1:23:15

try and cheer her up. Soon,

1:23:17

Nicole became a consistent comfort to

1:23:19

the couple. So in

1:23:21

2024, it didn't surprise David

1:23:23

when Nicole offered to help him

1:23:25

get Jill home after a hospital

1:23:27

stay. What did surprise him was

1:23:29

the lengths she went to once they

1:23:31

got Jill home. David

1:23:33

recorded his story in a park where he

1:23:35

and Jill hoped to one day hike together,

1:23:37

so you'll hear some wind in the background. Nicole

1:23:41

and I got Jill home. It

1:23:43

was during a winter snowstorm. The

1:23:45

pipes had frozen in the house,

1:23:47

but we got them thawed out.

1:23:50

Nicole and I gave Jill a

1:23:52

shower and put her to

1:23:54

bed. Some

1:23:56

hours later, Nicole showed

1:23:58

up with a bag. Show

1:24:01

me which room you want me

1:24:03

to sleep in and I'll stay until

1:24:06

the end with Jill. Nicole,

1:24:09

in a very unselfish

1:24:11

way, took care

1:24:13

of the laundry, food, house

1:24:16

cleaning. She invited

1:24:18

her friends to bring over food

1:24:20

along with some of the food

1:24:22

my friends were bringing. Nicole

1:24:25

would get up in

1:24:27

the middle the night

1:24:29

with me and help

1:24:31

roll Jill over and

1:24:34

attend to her private

1:24:36

needs as only another

1:24:38

woman could. Nicole

1:24:40

was a steady presence.

1:24:43

She never panicked. She

1:24:46

always had a smile and

1:24:48

willing to do whatever what was

1:24:50

next. Nicole

1:24:52

helped me. See

1:24:54

Jill to the

1:24:56

end of her

1:24:58

life, which was

1:25:00

February 3rd 2024

1:25:03

Nicole was an

1:25:05

angel and the

1:25:07

time of need

1:25:09

Now forever be

1:25:11

in her debt

1:25:13

This situation called

1:25:15

for a hero

1:25:17

and Nicole Kyle

1:25:19

is my Hero

1:25:21

for life Listener

1:25:36

David Jefferson. Jill

1:25:38

and David were together for 36 years. This

1:25:44

segment of My Unsung Hero was

1:25:46

brought to you by Discover. Discover

1:25:48

believes everyone deserves to feel

1:25:50

special, and celebrates those who exhibit

1:25:52

the spirit in their communities. I'm

1:25:55

a long -standing card member myself. Learn

1:25:58

more at discover.com slash

1:26:00

credit card. I'm

1:26:08

Vedantam. see you

1:26:10

soon.