0:01

to you buy Missouri. Missouri does

0:03

fine jewelry differently. They're all about

0:05

buying for yourself where you decide

0:07

the occasion. Everything is handcrafted with

0:10

quality, craftsmanship, and responsible sourcing in mine.

0:12

So these are pieces you can feel good

0:14

about in more ways than one. Plus, there

0:16

are so many designs you can mix and

0:18

match to create a stock for every look.

0:20

Shopins. in-app or online at majeury.com

0:23

today. Banking with Capital One

0:25

helps you keep more money in your

0:27

wallet with no fees or minimums on

0:29

checking accounts and no overdraft fees. Just

0:31

ask the Capital One bank guy. It's

0:34

pretty much all he talks about. In

0:36

a good way. He'd also tell you

0:38

that this podcast is his favorite podcast

0:40

too. FDIC.

0:53

Trust Trust isn't just

0:55

earned, it's demanded. Whether you're a

0:57

startup founder navigating your first audit

0:59

or a seasoned security professional scaling

1:02

your GRC program, proving your commitment

1:04

to security has never been more

1:06

critical or more complex. That's where

1:08

Vanta comes in. Businesses use Vanta

1:11

to establish trust by automating compliance

1:13

needs across over 35 frameworks like

1:15

SOC II and ISO 2701 centralized

1:17

security workflows, complete questionnaires up to

1:19

five times faster and proactively management.

1:21

vendor risk. Vanta not only saves

1:24

you time, it can also save

1:26

you money. A new IDC white

1:28

paper found that Vanta customers achieve

1:30

$535,000 per year in benefits and

1:32

the platform pays for itself in

1:35

just three months. Join over 9,000

1:37

global companies like Atlasian, Cora, and

1:39

Factory who use Vanta to manage

1:41

risk and improve security in

1:44

real time. For a limited

1:46

time, get $1,000 off Vanta

1:49

at vanta.com/TED audio. That's via

1:51

nt.a.com/TED audio for $1,000 off.

1:54

for $1,000 off. When I think

1:56

about the things I value in

1:58

the world, if you take them

2:00

away from me, I will be

2:02

utterly devastated forever. The devastated part

2:04

is right, the forever part is

2:06

wrong. Hey everyone, it's Adam Grant.

2:09

Welcome back to Rethinking, my podcast

2:11

on the science of what makes

2:13

us tick with the TED Audio

2:15

Collective. I'm an organizational psychologist, and

2:17

I'm taking you inside the minds

2:19

of fascinating people to explore new

2:21

thoughts and new ways of thinking.

2:23

My guest today is Dan Gilbert.

2:25

He's a Harvard psychologist and the

2:28

best-selling author of Stumbling on Happiness.

2:30

He's given three popular TED Talks

2:32

and hosted the award-winning PBS show,

2:34

This Emotional Life. His research suggests

2:36

that we're not very good at

2:38

predicting what will make us happy.

2:40

The best data suggests that, as

2:42

my father would have said, happiness

2:44

increases when the kids leave home

2:47

and the dog dies. So how

2:49

do we get better at finding

2:51

happiness? I wanted to ask Dan

2:53

what he's discovered. I

2:58

have to ask you because I've

3:00

never asked you about this before.

3:02

Are you the only Harvard professor

3:04

who dropped out of high school? You

3:06

know, it's funny when I first

3:08

came to Harvard 1996, the Harvard Gazette

3:11

always runs a little puff piece on

3:13

new professors. And my lack of

3:15

a high school diploma came up and

3:17

I said to the journalist, I

3:19

guess I'm probably the only professor at

3:22

Harvard without a high school diploma. I

3:24

promptly received emails from several other

3:26

professors at Harvard who did not have

3:29

high school diplomas, some of whom

3:31

became good friends, one of whom went

3:33

on to win the Nobel Prize in

3:35

economics. So no, my friend, there

3:37

are more people without high school diplomas

3:40

at Harvard than at the post

3:42

office where you really have to have

3:44

one. Wow. I had no idea. So

3:46

tell me the backstory. How did

3:48

you end up dropping out of high

3:51

school? It's not really complicated. Like

3:53

if you don't go, they look for

3:55

you and eventually if they can't find

3:57

you, they give... up. My father

3:59

was a professor, molecular biologist, my mother

4:02

was an artist, and this is

4:04

the early 70s, which, you know, is

4:06

really still the 1960s. And so I

4:08

started reading Eastern Philosophy and decided

4:10

that my teachers in high school didn't

4:13

know anything that I wanted to

4:15

know. And so I just decided I

4:17

would stop going. And I started hitchhiking

4:19

around the country and playing music

4:21

and meeting other people. I just, you

4:24

know, I began a life that

4:26

wasn't the life that my parents were

4:28

hoping for. Clearly. Yes. Going high school

4:30

is hard. Dropping out really is

4:32

very easy. How long did the dropout

4:35

last before you decided you wanted

4:37

to reenter formal education? It was a

4:39

couple of years and in that interim

4:41

I got married I had a

4:43

child I became a science fiction writer

4:46

and started writing and selling my

4:48

stories and publishing and one day I

4:50

went down to a local community college

4:52

because they had advertised that there

4:54

was a writers workshop that you could

4:57

join and I thought that would

4:59

be a great thing and when I

5:01

got there The woman at the desk

5:04

said no I'm sorry it's closed

5:06

it's full already but it had been

5:08

a long bus ride I said

5:10

well what else is open and she

5:12

looked on the list and luckily for

5:15

me introduction to psychology was not

5:17

popular it still had a spot so

5:19

I said oh that might be

5:21

fun sign me up for this course

5:23

and the dominoes all fell from there

5:26

I fell in love with what

5:28

I was learning and very shortly thereafter

5:30

found out I could go to

5:32

a real university if I just took

5:34

a test called the GED. And I

5:37

did, then made the transition from

5:39

writing fiction to writing nonfiction, which actually

5:41

isn't nearly as big a jump

5:43

as most people think. Not if you

5:45

write like Dan Gilbert. That's kind of

5:48

you to say, thanks. So tell

5:50

me now that you're a psychologist, are

5:52

you happier than you were writing

5:54

sci-fi? I think I loved writing science

5:56

when I was doing that. than this,

5:59

the answers clearly know, for many

6:01

reasons, one of which is I don't

6:03

think I had a particular talent

6:05

for writing fiction. I think most people

6:07

inside our field and probably outside it

6:10

too, know you best for your

6:12

work on effective forecasting and all the

6:14

mistakes we make when we try

6:16

to predict what's going to make us

6:18

happy or feel good in the future.

6:21

When did you get interested in

6:23

the fundamental questions of happiness? Like almost

6:25

everything in my life, it's just

6:27

a dumb accident. I just stumbled on

6:29

it. Were you drunk? I have never

6:32

needed drugs in order to stumble.

6:34

I have a natural propensity for turning

6:36

the wrong way and walking into

6:38

doors and falling through windows. In 1992,

6:41

I went out for lunch with a

6:43

friend of mine. I wasn't studying

6:45

anything vaguely related to affective forecasting or

6:47

happiness or decision making. I studied

6:49

how people made... judgments about each other,

6:52

like my mentor had in graduate school.

6:54

I hadn't seen this friend in

6:56

a year and he said, how are

6:58

things going? And I said, how

7:00

are things going with you? He said,

7:03

actually, things have been going terribly. My

7:05

uncle died. My girlfriend and I

7:07

broke up. I had my papers rejected.

7:09

I went, wow, how are you

7:11

doing? He said, actually, I'm doing pretty

7:14

well. How about you, Dan? Well, it

7:16

turned out I had the same

7:18

story and had been a terrible year

7:20

for me. All sorts of bad

7:22

things had happened. I was getting a

7:25

divorce. My son had dropped out of

7:27

high school. And I was actually

7:29

doing okay. And my friend looked at

7:31

me and he said, do you

7:33

think we could have ever predicted that

7:36

when all these things happened to us,

7:38

we would still be fine. And

7:40

I realized that for me, the answer

7:42

was no. So I ran back

7:44

to my office after that lunch. I

7:47

typed up notes on the conversation, which

7:49

is how I know. I'm not

7:51

inventing this story to tell you. I

7:53

still have the piece of paper

7:55

that... Wow. And I wrote the question,

7:58

do people know what will make them

8:00

happy? how happy it will make

8:02

them and how long that happiness will

8:05

last. I thought truly psychologists have

8:07

a good answer to this. It's a

8:09

fundamentally important question. I couldn't find

8:11

a good answer. So I called my

8:13

friend and collaborator Tim Wilson. I said,

8:15

hey, maybe we had to do a

8:17

study on this. Fast forward 30 years.

8:19

We published, I don't know, 75

8:21

papers with hundreds of studies on

8:23

this topic, all because of one

8:25

stupid lunch with bad Chinese food.

8:28

It's a great case for going

8:30

to lunch. There's so many demonstrations

8:33

of these affective forecasting failures. If

8:35

you were to choose your top

8:37

three, what are your favorites? Certainly,

8:40

one of the mistakes that's caught

8:42

my attention the most is her

8:44

inability to imagine adaptation.

8:46

My friend Danny Kahneman used to say,

8:49

when you ask somebody how they would

8:51

feel if they were blind, they imagine

8:53

going blind. But the day you lose

8:56

your eyesight. probably a very very bad

8:58

day. But it's not like all the

9:00

hundreds and thousands of days that will

9:03

follow because human beings are remarkably adaptive.

9:05

They adapt to almost any new situation.

9:07

And yet when we look forward, if

9:10

I say, how would you feel if

9:12

you lost your children, if you lost

9:14

your legs, if you lost your eyesight,

9:16

if you lost your wife, what you

9:19

imagine as a calamity. And you are

9:21

right to imagine it. That is what's

9:23

going to happen at first. But if

9:25

you are like most people, the data

9:27

say. you're going to get used to

9:29

it. And most people who go through

9:32

traumatic events, even the most traumatic events,

9:34

adapt, come back to their baseline

9:36

of happiness. Now to me, that

9:38

was mind-blowing. And so Tim and

9:40

I did quite a few studies

9:42

trying to understand why and when

9:44

this happens and with what effect.

9:46

So that would probably be my

9:48

number one nomination for an effective

9:50

forecasting error, believing that if you

9:52

get knocked down, you will not

9:54

get up again. You almost surely will.

9:57

How do you square that body of

9:59

evidence with? Come

12:10

for details. Some tech presents the

12:12

ins and outs of caring for

12:15

your home, out, procrastination, putting it

12:17

off, kicking the can down the

12:19

road, in, plans and guides that

12:22

make it easy to get home

12:24

projects done, out, carpet in the

12:26

bathroom, like why, in, knowing what

12:29

to do, when to do it,

12:31

and who to hire. Start caring

12:33

for your home with confidence. Download

12:35

thumbtack today. Hey Prime members, are

12:38

you tired of ads interfering with your...

24:14

Banking with Capital One

24:16

Bank Guy helps you keep more

24:18

money in your wallet with no

24:20

fees or minimums on checking accounts

24:23

and no overdraft fees. Just ask

24:25

the Capital One Bank Guy. It's

24:27

pretty much all he talks about.

24:30

In a good way. He'd also

24:32

tell you that this podcast is

24:34

his favorite podcast too. Ah, really?

24:37

Thanks Capital One Bank Guy. What's

24:39

in your wallet? Term supply. See

24:41

Capital one.com/ Bank. Hey,

24:45

it's me Paige DeSorbo, and I'm

24:47

so excited to share my new

24:49

shoe collection at DSW, filled with

24:51

my favorite styles and trends for

24:53

spring. Because if you know me,

24:55

you know I'm kind of obsessed

24:57

with shoes. And by kind of

25:00

obsessed, I mean head over heels.

25:02

You're going to love these shoes.

25:04

So snag super cute styles like

25:06

cute flats, fun heels, and cool

25:08

sneakers from the Paige DeSorbo collection

25:10

right now at your DS store

25:13

or dsw.com. You're

25:16

tired of ads interfering with

25:18

your favorite podcasts. Good news.

25:21

With Amazon Music, you have

25:23

access to the largest catalog

25:25

of ad-free top podcasts, included

25:28

with your prime membership. To

25:30

start listening, download the Amazon

25:32

Music app for free. Or

25:35

go to amazon.com/ad-free podcasts. To

25:37

catch up on the latest

25:39

episodes, without the ads. The

25:43

verdict is murder on these days.

25:46

Let's go to a lightning ground. One

25:48

sentence or one word reaction. Oh my

25:50

God, you're telling a professor to answer

25:53

in one sentence? I have faith in

25:55

you. Doesn't the Geneva Convention prohibit this?

25:57

Okay, go ahead. What's the worst career

26:00

advice you've ever gotten? Follow your heart.

26:02

Why is that bad advice? Because a

26:04

successful career is the intersection of your

26:07

passion and your talent. If I had

26:09

followed my heart, I'd be a

26:11

very bad guitar player right now. I

26:13

mean, no, be realistic. Satisfaction is going

26:16

to come from doing something really well

26:18

that you love. And it might be

26:20

the fifth thing on your love list

26:23

is what you're actually good at. How

26:25

about the best life advice? My father

26:27

was a professor, and when I became

26:30

a professor, he was a scientist, molecular

26:32

biologist. He said to me. You

26:34

will think for your entire career that

26:36

your research matters most. And then you

26:39

will get old and realize it was

26:41

the students. And I think there's deeper

26:43

advice in there, which is you may

26:46

think all the things you're up to

26:48

in your life are what matter most.

26:50

But in the end, it was the

26:53

people you touched and connected with. My

26:55

dad gave me very sage advice.

26:57

I had to get very old before

26:59

I really heard it. It makes me

27:02

think about Vonnegut. and play a piano

27:04

in the line that if it weren't

27:07

for the people, the damn people, the

27:09

world would be an engineer's paradise. I'd

27:11

forgotten that. That's beautiful. Those engineers clearly

27:14

miss this lesson. All right, what's something

27:16

you've rethought lately? I've been rethinking for

27:18

the last couple of years the

27:20

model of scientific publishing in the world.

27:23

I used... to participate in it, and

27:25

now I see it as an obscenity

27:27

that needs to be destroyed, brought down

27:30

an empire that needs to lay in

27:32

ruins. So having gone from, boy, I

27:34

hope I can find a publisher to

27:37

let's kill them all, I would say

27:39

that's a rethinking. Big time. Can you

27:41

give us a taste of your

27:43

vision for how it might work differently?

27:46

Well, sure. I mean, if we're out

27:48

of the lightning around and wanting to

27:50

just chat again, I can say that

27:53

my latest project, as you know, has

27:55

been to produce a major reference work

27:57

in our field, social psychology, that's free

28:00

and accessible to anyone with an internet

28:02

connection. You know, for four centuries, publishers

28:04

have been cellists. science needs publishers,

28:06

like modern music needs AM radio. It

28:09

doesn't whatsoever. They were doing something we

28:11

couldn't do ourselves. They were printing our

28:13

ideas and words on paper and distributing

28:16

them out throughout the land. We don't

28:18

need them anymore. Modern science needs publishers,

28:20

like modern music needs AM radio. It

28:23

doesn't whatsoever. The only reason that AM

28:25

radio went away and publishers haven't is

28:27

there a multi-billion dollar business that

28:29

does not want to go gently into

28:32

that good night. But everyone listening should

28:34

know. You are taxpayers, you are paying

28:36

for scientific research to be done, and

28:39

then you can't even read about it

28:41

without paying. Why? Why can't you read

28:43

about the research that you funded? Answer?

28:46

It's owned by Scientific Publishers. I just

28:48

think the world would be better if

28:50

everybody had access to the information

28:52

that science offers, but it's being held

28:55

hostage by people who are making money.

28:57

I'm in full agreement with you on

28:59

this Dan, and the solution that publishers

29:02

are trying right now is offensive. I

29:04

think the most recent article I had

29:06

accepted. There's a little box I could

29:09

check right before we finalized the publication

29:11

saying, if you want this to be

29:13

open access, please pay $3,500. Well,

29:15

you got away for 3,500, but I

29:18

published a two-page article in Nature and

29:20

it was $11,000. $11,000 to make it

29:22

free. But there's a very easy way

29:25

to get around it. We just publish

29:27

without them. And that's what we're doing

29:29

now with the Handbook of Social Psychology.

29:32

It's just a demonstration project that it

29:34

can be done. By the way, we're

29:36

talking about scientific publishing. Everything I'm

29:38

saying is not true of Barbara King

29:41

Solver and her publisher, or the publishers

29:43

who... publish your books, Adam, they are

29:45

doing it. an important service for you

29:48

and they deserve to be paid. They're

29:50

finding audiences, they're sending pay, but scientists

29:52

don't need any of that. You've had

29:55

a lot of time to reflect on

29:57

stumbling on happiness. Is there something you've

29:59

changed your mind about since you

30:01

published it? Thankfully, I don't know of

30:04

anything in it that requires revision, but

30:06

many things could certainly use addition. What

30:08

would be your biggest expansion? Well, I

30:11

think we knew very little about... How

30:13

to solve the problems that Stumbling Unhappiness

30:15

identifies. Stumbling Unhappiness basically is an indictment

30:18

of your imagination. It says, you're going

30:20

to try to close your eyes and

30:22

think about the future, and you're

30:24

going to be prone to a bunch

30:27

of errors. I'll spend my whole book

30:29

telling you what they are and why

30:31

they matter. And the very end, it

30:34

says, is there anything we can do

30:36

about it? And I think we now

30:38

know the answer, and it's a paradoxical

30:41

answer. The answer is yes. There's actually

30:43

a pretty good way to make predictions

30:45

about what will make you happy,

30:47

and the paradox is, people don't like

30:50

this method at all. It's a method

30:52

that we call surrogation, and it just

30:54

means using other people as surrogates. If

30:57

I want to know how happy I'm

30:59

going to be if I go to

31:01

law school, what I really ought to

31:04

do the best data I can get

31:06

is to find out how happy people

31:08

who went to law school are.

31:10

I mean, a lot of them would

31:13

be good, but even some of them

31:15

would probably be better than my own

31:17

imagination. But we've shown in experiments that

31:20

when you give people this opportunity, if

31:22

they just shake their heads and go,

31:24

what do you mean? Those people aren't

31:27

me. Knowing people are remarkably similar in

31:29

what makes them happy and unhappy. Nobody

31:31

says I'd rather be hit by

31:33

a two-by-four than have a weekend in

31:36

Paris. Nobody would rather eat cardboard than

31:38

chocolate. We're very similar in our hadonic

31:40

reactions to things. So other people's reactions

31:43

to events you're only imagining are a

31:45

very good guide to your own reaction.

31:47

I'm going to have to fight you

31:50

a little bit on this stand because

31:52

it wanders into the realm of organ.

31:54

psychological psychology and I'm thinking about

31:56

now over half a century of evidence

31:59

that vocational interests differ significantly between people

32:01

and that the kind of work that

32:03

would make me happy might make you

32:06

miserable. Particularly if I as an introverted,

32:08

agreeable, highly conscientious person happen to love

32:10

a little bit of teaching and a

32:13

lot of thinking and writing and you

32:15

have the opposite traits and that job

32:17

sounds like a death sentence for

32:19

you. So at minimum. Shouldn't you go

32:22

out and find people with similar interests

32:24

and taste to yours? Well, that would

32:26

be preferable. But my contention is, even

32:29

a randomly selected other person will be

32:31

better than your own imagination. Remember, I

32:33

never said that other people's experiences are

32:36

a perfect guide to your own. I

32:38

just said they're better than the alternative.

32:40

Right? Winston Churchill's wonderful line that

32:42

democracy is the worst form of government

32:45

except for the others. Well, surrogation is

32:47

a terrible way to predict your future,

32:49

except for the other way, which is

32:52

to use your own imagination. So we

32:54

showed in a series of experiments, for

32:56

example, that people could improve the accuracy

32:59

of their affective forecasts by listening to

33:01

one randomly selected stranger. On average. Imagine

33:03

how much you could improve if

33:05

they weren't randomly selected. They were selected

33:08

to be like you in many important

33:10

ways. And if it was more than

33:12

one stranger, it was 10 or 12

33:15

people. I think that also suggests that

33:17

the questions you ask really matter. So

33:19

I might not go to that stranger

33:22

and ask how happy you are you

33:24

in this work. I might be more

33:26

inclined to ask, tell me the

33:29

highlights and the low lights, and then

33:31

see how those map on to what

33:33

I'm looking for. Well, yes, you really

33:36

identified one of the rubs here, which

33:38

is, okay, I'm convinced by this Gilbert

33:40

and Wilson paper that says I should

33:43

use other people's past experience as a

33:45

guide to my future experience. How can

33:47

I find out about their past experience?

33:50

And unfortunately, you often... have to

33:52

ask them. And really, unfortunately, they often

33:54

can't tell you accurately. So how about

33:56

parenthood? You're thinking, I'm trying to decide

33:59

if I should have children. I don't

34:01

know if they would make me happy.

34:03

And so you go to some parents

34:06

and you go to children, make you

34:08

happy, and parents will say, oh, of

34:10

course they do. They're the best thing

34:13

about life. They make me happier

34:15

than anything else. We know, from tons

34:17

of data, that those parents are wrong.

34:19

that children in fact have a small

34:22

but negative impact on the happiness of

34:24

their parents. But their parents don't know

34:26

it. So simply asking them that question,

34:29

do your children make you happy is

34:31

the wrong way to find out if

34:33

their children make them happy. What's the

34:36

right way? The way that economists

34:38

and psychologists do it, which is just

34:40

to go up to people with children

34:42

and go, hi, how happy are you

34:45

right now? If you go up to

34:47

a thousand people with and without children,

34:49

I assure you, the average response you

34:52

get from the non-parents will be either

34:54

equal to or slightly higher than the

34:56

average response you get from the parents.

34:59

And those data tell you something

35:01

about parenthood and happiness. There may be

35:03

many reasons that have children, but making

35:05

yourself more happy in the moment is

35:08

not one of them. Yeah, which I

35:10

think also tracks with the evidence on

35:12

spikes in happiness when people become empty

35:15

nesters. Say more. Well, I'm just thinking

35:17

about if kids make you happy, then

35:19

kids leaving your house permanently should be

35:22

a source of misery. And I

35:24

feel sad when I think about our

35:26

kids leaving. In fact, I've already started

35:28

to tell our oldest teenager that I'm

35:31

disappointed in her preemptively for choosing to

35:33

leave. But I also know from the

35:35

research that when the last child leaves

35:38

the house, on average parents get happier,

35:40

don't they? Yeah, the only symptom of

35:42

emptiness syndrome is nonstop. smiling. I mean,

35:45

as far as we can tell, you

35:47

still will have those children. You will

35:49

still be their dad and they

35:51

will continue to give you joy and

35:54

maybe even a greater ratio of joy

35:56

to worry once they're living their lives

35:58

as successful adults. Then they do when

36:01

they're kids who are whining, you know,

36:03

are we there yet? How come she

36:05

got more? So it's not exactly a

36:08

fair comparison, but you're exactly right. What's

36:10

the question you have for me? Do

36:12

you ever worry that with all

36:14

of your outwardward facing? activities, all the

36:17

public exposure from podcast, television, etc. that

36:19

you could be in danger of losing

36:21

some part of yourself that I assume

36:24

for you is very valuable and very

36:26

important, and it's that part of you

36:28

that is a scientist. that sits and

36:31

carefully goes through data and does work

36:33

and discovers new facts. I asked this

36:35

only because I've had some experience

36:37

doing outward facing things. And as I

36:40

did those things, I often had to

36:42

remind myself how to remain me and

36:44

not become a chameleon that was responding

36:47

to applause. It's very hard. It's a

36:49

very addictive thing. It's an extremely important

36:51

question. And... I think I worried about

36:54

it a lot in the first few

36:56

years of this public-facing role. And now

36:58

I reflect on it a lot,

37:00

but it doesn't come with anxiety like

37:03

it used to. It felt like I

37:05

was going through a portal, and I

37:07

didn't know what was on the other

37:10

side. Am I still going to be

37:12

able to get back if I want,

37:14

was the thing that I worried about.

37:17

I guess I've been doing this for

37:19

a dozen years now. What I've discovered

37:21

is what gives me the most

37:23

joy is teaching and teaching and teaching

37:26

of that. So without the time in

37:28

the classroom, without the deep immersion and

37:30

data, I wouldn't have anything to say.

37:33

And so I'm constantly going back to

37:35

that well, both to serve the external

37:37

facing work that I do, but more

37:40

importantly, to feed what energizes me. And

37:42

I've repeated that pattern enough that it's

37:44

clearly my revealed preference. It makes

37:46

my day when someone tells me to

37:49

stop stringing citations in my random sentences

37:51

in a keynote or in an interview

37:53

or even in a podcast for that

37:56

matter because it's just so my impulse.

37:58

It's the way I think it's the

38:00

way I love to learn. And so

38:03

I think I've grown comfortable with the

38:05

fact that it's just it's too wired

38:07

into me to ever lose sight

38:09

of it. We both know as scientists

38:12

and researchers and university professors. that the

38:14

kind of outward-facing things we've done raise

38:16

eyebrows among many colleagues. It's just their

38:19

impression was, once you're on television and

38:21

you're on camera and you're doing these

38:23

sorts of things, you can't possibly be

38:26

a serious scientist anymore. You're saying that's

38:28

not true, and I know you're right.

38:30

Do you worry about the fact

38:32

that in the academy, the perception is

38:35

often you can't do both of these

38:37

things? A lot of our colleagues who

38:39

do brilliant research are now... entering the

38:42

public domain. And I've watched a lot

38:44

of people who 10 years ago might

38:46

have looked down their nose on us

38:49

as sellouts, writing books and giving their

38:51

work and sharing it. And so I

38:53

think the norms in our field

38:55

have changed a little bit. It's really

38:58

a generational shift. People my age still

39:00

arch in eyebrow. It's like, you did

39:02

a PBS show, I don't really know.

39:05

But people your age just say, oh,

39:07

well, they say, what's PBS. But you

39:09

did a TV show marvelous. Can I

39:12

do one too? That would be fun.

39:14

And I do, you know, I think

39:16

your answer is right. I see

39:18

all of these as an extension of

39:21

teaching. I always love teaching. And in

39:23

2004, this little conference called TED said,

39:25

would you like to come give a

39:28

talk? We're thinking maybe we'll videotape them

39:30

and put them on the internet. to

39:32

which I think I responded, how do

39:35

you put videos on the internet? And

39:37

I said, oh, we think it's coming.

39:39

So what I learned when that

39:41

went on the internet and lots and

39:44

lots of people watched it was that

39:46

the world is my classroom and I

39:48

could give psychology away to a much

39:51

much bigger audience. So that's how I

39:53

seal. all of these efforts. And probably

39:56

like you, I turn down lots of

39:58

opportunities to do things, might be kind

40:00

of fun and sexy, but don't feel

40:03

like they're true to the mission

40:05

of giving science away to the world.

40:07

Dan, before I let you go, I

40:09

have to ask, you've done research on

40:12

ending conversations. Yes. How do I wrap

40:14

this thing up? What do most of

40:16

us do wrong in light of your

40:19

data? Well, most conversations don't have a

40:21

natural termination point and the people in

40:23

them usually like each other and they

40:26

don't want to offend the other

40:28

person by saying, I'm now tired of

40:30

talking with you. And so in our

40:32

research, what we found is conversations actually

40:35

go on. Oftentimes, much longer than either

40:37

of the people in them wants them

40:39

to. And when I say that, everybody

40:42

shakes their head and they remember those

40:44

conversations. But what we also found is

40:46

because we can't be honest with each

40:49

other about when we want to

40:51

end, many conversations end long before either

40:53

person wants them to. They go on

40:55

too short. Saving grace doesn't seem to

40:58

matter that much to people's happiness. Conversations

41:00

go on too long. They end a

41:02

little too early. What we find is

41:05

everybody leaves them pretty much happier than

41:07

they were before. Well, then I'm going

41:09

to resist the temptation to ask you

41:12

how we can get in sync

41:14

on that. Not necessary. Better that we

41:16

should all go away with the illusion

41:18

that our conversation lasted exactly the right

41:21

amount of time, if not for us,

41:23

than for the other person we were

41:25

talking to. Well, I think on that

41:28

note, it's been too short for me,

41:30

but I'll assume that it was the

41:32

right length for you. Too short for

41:35

me as well, let's do it.

41:37

Let's do it again. My

41:40

main takeaway from Dan is that

41:43

the impact of negative events rarely

41:45

lasts as long as we expect.

41:47

The changes in our lives matter,

41:50

but how we adapt matters more.

41:52

Rethinking is hosted by me, Adam

41:54

Grant. The show is part of

41:57

the TED Audio Collective, and this

41:59

episode was produced in mixed... by

42:01

Cosmic Standard. Our producers are Hannah

42:04

Kingsley Ma and Asia Simpson. Our

42:06

editor is Alejandro Salazar. Our fact

42:08

checkers Paul Durbin, original music by

42:11

Hansdale Sue and Allison Layton Brown.

42:13

Our team includes Eliza Smith, Jacob

42:15

Winnick, Samiah Adams, Roxanne High Lash,

42:18

Banban Chang, Julia Dickerson, and Whitney

42:20

Pennington Rogers. Be

44:27

Fearless in the Sun with

44:29

Blue Lizard Australian sunscreen. Whether you're

44:31

diving into ocean waves, you're simply

44:33

chasing your kids around the backyard.

44:36

Blue Lizard has you covered so

44:38

you can enjoy every moment or

44:40

free. Design for your whole family

44:43

and free from fragrances, parabins, and

44:45

ballades. Blue Lizard is your go-to

44:47

mineral sunscreen trusted by dermatologists, pediatricians,

44:50

and parents. Shop now on amazon.com

44:52

and Be Fearless in the Sun

44:54

with Blue Lizard Australian sunscreen.

44:56

sunscreen.