Kind: captions
Language: en
We all have the capacity to kill people
and murder people and do other terrible
things. The question is why we don't do
those things rather than why we do do
those things. Quite often most men have
fantasized about killing someone. About
70% in two studies and most women as
well. More than 50% of women have
fantasized about killing somebody. So
murder fantasies are incredibly common.
The following is a conversation with
Julia Shaw, a criminal psychologist who
has written extensively on a wide
variety of topics that explore human
nature, including psychopathy, violent
crime, psychology of evil, police
interrogation, false memory
manipulation, deception detection, and
human sexuality. Her books include evil
about the psychology of murder and
sadism, the memory illusion about false
memories, by about bisexuality, and her
new book, you should definitely go order
now called Green Crime, which is a study
of the dark underworld of poachers,
illegal gold miners, corporate frauds,
hipmen, and all kinds of other
environmental criminals. Julia is a
brilliant and kind-hearted person with
whom I got the chance to have many great
conversations with on and off the mic.
This was an honor and a pleasure. This
is the Lex Freedman podcast. To support
it, please check out our sponsors in the
description where you can also find uh
links to contact me, ask questions, give
feedback, and so on. And now, dear
friends, here's Julia Shaw.
You wrote the book evil, the science
behind humanity's dark side. So, lots of
interesting topics to cover here. Let's
start with the continuum. You describe
that evil is a continuum. In other
words, the dark tetrd, psychopathy,
sadism, narcissism, mechavalianism are a
continuum of traits, not a binary zero
one label of monster or non-mon. So, can
you uh explain this continuum?
>> Yeah. So each trait on the dark tetride
as it's called which is the four traits
that are associated with dark
personality traits. So things that we
often associate with the word evil like
sadism which is a pleasure and hurting
other people. Mchavelianism which is
doing whatever it takes to get ahead.
Narcissism which is taking too much
pleasure in yourself and seeing yourself
as superior to others. And then there's
psychopathy. Psychopathic personality
specifically often lacks in empathy. And
it's usually characterized by a number
of different traits including a
parasitic lifestyle. So mooching off of
others, deceptiveness, lying to people,
and again that empathy dimension where
you are more comfortable hurting other
people because you don't feel sad when
other people feel sad. Now all of those
traits, psychopathy, sadism,
machavelianism, and narcissism, all of
them have a scale. And so you can be low
on each of those traits or you can be
high on each of those traits. And what
the dark tetrat is, it's actually a way
of classifying people into those who
might be more likely to engage in risky
behaviors or harmful behaviors and those
who are not. And if you score high on
all of them, you're most likely to harm
other people. But each of us score
somewhere. So I might score score low on
sadism but higher on narcissism. And in
all of them, I'm probably subclinical.
And so this is the other thing we often
talk about in psychology is that there's
clinical traits and clinical diagnoses
like someone is diagnosed as having
narcissism
or there's subclinical which is you
don't quite meet the threshold but you
have traits that are related and that
are so important for us to understand in
the same context.
>> So early in the book you raised the
question u that I think you highlight as
a very important question. If you could
go back in time would you kill baby
Hitler? This is somehow a defining
question. Can you explain?
>> Well, it's about whether you think that
people are born evil. And so the
question of would you kill baby Hitler
is sort of uh meant to be something that
gets people chatting about whether or
not they think that people are born with
the traits that make them capable of
extreme harm towards others or whether
they think it's socialized, whether it's
something that maybe in how people are
raised is sort of manifests over time.
And with Hitler, we know from certainly
psychologists who have poured over his
traits over time and looked at who he
was over the course of his life, there's
always this question of sort of was he
mad or bad? And with the answer to was
he mad? Well, he certainly had some
characteristics that people would
associate with, for example, maybe
sadism with uh this idea that he was
less high on empathy is probably also
showcased in his work. But in terms of
whether he was born that way, I think
the answer usually would be no. And
actually in his early life, he didn't
showcase quite a lot of the traits that
later he sort of defined the horrors
that he was capable of. So would I go
back in time and kill baby Hitler? The
answer is no. Um because I don't think
it's a straight line from baby to adult.
And I don't think people are born evil.
So you think a large part of it is
nurture versus nature, the environment
shaping the person to become to manifest
the evil that they bring onto the world.
>> Well, and I I would be careful with
using the word evil because I think we
shouldn't use it to describe human
beings because it most commonly others
people. It in fact, I think makes us
capable of perpetrating horrendous
crimes against those we label evil. So
for me that word is it's the end of a
conversation. It's when we call somebody
evil, we say this person is so different
from me that I don't even need to bother
trying to understand why they are
capable of doing terrible things because
I would never do such things. I am good.
And so that artificial differentiation
between good and evil is something that
certainly with the book I'm trying to
dismantle. And that's why introducing
continuums for different kinds of
negative traits is really important. and
introducing this idea that the there's
nothing fundamental to people that makes
them capable of great harm. We all have
the capacity to kill people and murder
people and do other terrible things. The
question is why we don't do those things
rather than why we do do those things
quite often. So I think humanizing and
understanding that we all have these
traits is the most important thing in in
my book certainly.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I think a prerequisite of of
doing evil, I see this in war a lot, is
to dehumanize the other. In order to be
able to murder them at scale, you have
to reformulate the war as a fight
between good and evil. And the
interesting thing you see with war is
both sides think that it's the battle of
good versus evil. It almost always is
like that, especially at large scale
wars.
>> That's right. And on on top of
dehumanization, there is also this other
thing called de-individuation, which is
where you see yourself as part of the
group and you no longer see yourself as
an individual. And so it's this fight of
us versus them. And so you need both of
those things. You need that sort of
collapse of empathy for other people,
the people who are on the other side.
And you need this idea that you can be
swallowed by the group. And that gives
you a sense of also the cloak of
justice, the cloak of morality even when
you know maybe you're on the wrong side.
And and that's where I mean getting into
sort of who's on the right side of each
war is always a more complicated issue.
But certainly calling other people evil
and calling the other side evil and
dehumanizing them is is crucial to most
of these kinds of fights.
>> Yeah. You promote empathy as an
important thing to do when we're trying
to understand each other. And then a lot
of people are uncomfortable with empathy
when it comes to uh folks that we
traditionally label as evil. Hitler as
an example. To have empathy means that
you're somehow dirtying yourself by the
evil. What's your case for empathy? Even
when uh we're talking about some of the
darker humans in human history.
>> My case for empathy or evil empathy as I
sometimes call it. So empathy for people
who we often call evil. Also the title
of my book is evil or in the UK market
it's making evil which is a reference to
a nature quote which is thinking evil is
making evil. The idea being that evil is
a label we place onto others. There's
nothing inherent to anything that makes
it evil. And so I also think that we
need to well dismantle that and
empathize with people we call evil
because if we're saying that this is the
worst kind of act or worst kind of
manifestation of what somebody can be.
So if someone can destroy others,
torture others, hurt others. I work as a
criminal psychologist. So I work a lot
on sexual abuse cases, on rape cases, on
murder trials. And so in those contexts
that word evil is used all the time to
go this person is evil. And if we're
doing that then we need to go okay but
what we actually want is we don't really
just want to label people. We want to
stop that behavior from happening. And
the only way we're going to do that is
if we understand what led that person to
come to that situation and to engage in
that behavior. And so that's why evil
empathy I think is crucial because
ultimately what we want is to make
society safer. And the only way we can
do that is to understand the
psychological and social levers that led
them to engage in this behavior in the
first place.
>> So on a small tangent, I get to
interview a bunch of folks that a large
number of people consider evil. So how
would you give advice about how to
conduct such interviews when you're
sitting in front of a world leader that
some millions of people consider evil or
if you're sitting in front of people
that are actual like uh convicted
criminals? what's the way to conduct
that interview? Because to me, I want to
understand that human being. They also
have their own narrative about why
they're good and why they're
misunderstood and they have a story in
which they're not evil and they're going
to try to tell that story and some of
them are exceptionally good at telling
that story. So, if it's for public
consumption,
how would you do that interview? I think
it's important to speak with people whom
we or whom a lot of people dehumanize
including myself. I mean I also speak
with people who I think are or have I
know have committed terrible crimes and
I have spoken to these people because as
a criminal psychologist that's often
part of my job. So, what's interesting,
I think, when you're speaking to people
who have committed really terrible
crimes or certainly who've been
convicted of terrible crimes is that not
only is it potentially insightful
because they might give you a real
answer and not just a controlled
narrative about why they committed these
crimes, if they are either maintaining
their innocence or they're more
reluctant to do that, I think even the
narrative that they are controlling that
they're being very careful with still
tells us a lot about them. So I think
certainly in my research on
environmental crime as well, what we see
is that people use a lot of
rationalization and they say things
like, "Well, everybody's doing it and if
I hadn't done this first, somebody else
would have done this waste crime or this
other kind of crime." And so there's
this rationalization, there's this
normalization, there's this diminishing
of your own role and agency. And that
still tells us a lot about the
psychology of people who commit crimes.
Because most of us are very bad at
saying sorry and saying I messed this up
and I shouldn't have done that. And
instead what our brains do is they try
to make us feel better and they go no
you're still a good person despite this
one thing. And so we try to rationalize
it and we try to excuse it. We try to
explain it and there is some truth to it
as well because we know the reasons why
we engage in that behavior and other
people don't have the whole context. So
we also do have more of the whole story.
But on the other hand, we need to also
face the fact that sometimes we do
terrible things and we need to stop
doing those terrible things and prevent
other people from doing the same.
>> I find this uh these pictures of World
War II leaders as children kind of
fascinating cuz it it grounds you, makes
you realize that um there is a whole
story there of environment,
of uh development through their
childhood, through their teenage years.
You just remember they're all kids
>> except Stalin. He was looking evil
already when young.
>> Well, people used to not smile in photos
as well. So, I think looking at
historical photos of children or
sometimes even kids in other cultures,
it's like, oh, why are they all so
serious? Um, but our creepiness radars
are also way off. So, this is something
that I've been interested in for a long
time as well. Is that we have this
intuitive perception of whether or not
somebody is trustworthy. And that
intuitive perception, according to ample
studies at this point, is not to be
trusted. And one thing in particular is
whether or not we think someone is
creepy. uh including children, but
usually the research is done of course
on adult faces and with adults. And
there's only recently did we even really
define what that vague feeling of
creepiness is. And it has a lot to do
with just not following social norms.
And this is something we see that
transfers to other contexts like why
people are afraid of people with severe
mental illness and psychosis. If you're
on the the bus or the tube in London and
someone's talking to themselves and
they're acting in an erratic way, we
know that people are more like to keep a
distance. There was one study where they
literally had a waiting room where they
also had people with chairs and the
question was how many chairs would you
sit away from someone you know has a
severe mental illness and the answer is
you sit more chairs away and there's a
physical and psychological distancing
that's happening there and it's not
because people with severe mental
illness are inherently more violent or
more dangerous. That is not actually
what the research finds. It's that we
perceive them as such because we
perceive them as weird. Basically, we
go, "This isn't how you're supposed to
be behaving and so I'm worried about
this and so I'm going to keep my
distance." And so creepiness is much the
same. And that's where you can totally
misfire whom you perceive as creepy just
because they're not acting in the way
that you expect people to act in
society.
>> Well, what are the sort of concrete
features that contribute to our
creepiness metric? Is that meme accurate
that when the person is attractive,
you're less likely to label them as
creepy?
>> It depends. If they're too attractive,
it can be. So, there's there's effects
that interact there.
>> That's hilarious.
>> Um, and we also don't trust people
potentially who are too attractive. Um,
but again, deviation from the norm. And
so if you're deviating in any way, that
can lead to uh well your your assessment
being more wrong, but also you assessing
people as more negative. And so with
Yeah. But with creepiness, the the main
thing that bothers me as a criminal
psychologist is that tangential to
creepiness is this general idea of
trustworthiness and that you can tell
whether somebody is lying. And I've done
research on this as have lots of other
people like Alder Fry is one of the
leading researchers on deception
detection. Uh and he has found in so
many studies that is really hard to
detect whether someone is lying reliably
and that people especially police
officers, people who do investigative
interviewing, they have this high
confidence level that they because of
their vast experience can in fact tell
whether the person across from them is
lying to them. this witness, this
suspect, and the answer to that even
that if you take them into experimental
settings, they are no better than chance
at detecting lies. And yet they think
they are. And so again, you get into
this path where you're going to miss
people who are actually lying to you
potentially, and you're going to
potentially point at innocent people and
say, "I think you're guilty of this
crime." And you go hard on that person
in a way that might even lead to a
wrongful conviction.
So it's the fact that it's very
difficult to detect lies and
overconfidence in policing
creates a huge problem.
>> Not just policing in relationships and
in lots of other contexts as well. I
mean a lot of je jealousy is born out of
uncertainty. Jealousy isn't I know for
sure that you have done something that
is threatening our relationship. A lot
of jealousy is what's in my head because
I am assuming that you might be thinking
or doing X. And that is also basically
an exercise in lie detection and there
as well we are very bad at it.
>> Is there a combination of uh the dark
tetrad and how good you are at lying?
Like are people with uh the certain
traits maybe psychopathy are better at
lying than others.
>> There's definitely some research to
support the idea that people with
psychopathy are better at lying. There's
also some research specifically on sort
of faking good in for example parole
decisions. So when it comes up to
someone who is there's a legal decision
to be made as to whether this person is
going to be released from prison or
released from just detention in general
and then the person will act in a
particular way sort of mimic a good
prisoner mimic someone who's safe to be
released into society and then the
committee goes oh well you know this
this person's doing great and so they're
ready to to be released and then they
make the wrong decision because that
person's been faking it. So I think with
psychopathy it's a bit complicated. It's
there has been some sort of historically
as well some concern that certain
treatment for psychopathy especially
empathy focused treatment makes people
with psychopathy more likely to fake
empathy and to weaponize it. But then
there's other research which finds that
if you use other kinds of interventions,
it's like Jennifer Schkeeme in
California who does research on people
with psychopathy who have committed
severe crimes and she specifically
creates these treatment programs that
aren't just around empathy, but they're
more around almost learning the rules of
society and convincing people that
actually being pro-social is a better
way to get what you want in life. And so
there there's a real need for tailored
treatments to deal with especially
certain kinds of personality traits,
dark personality traits to try and
convince people basically actually being
pro-social is the better path rather
than just going hard on you know empathy
and things that they don't maybe also
see as faults with themselves.
>> Is there a psychological cost to
empathizing with so-called monsters? You
reference n in the book, you know, gaze
into the abyss, the abyss gazes into
you. If you study quoteunquote evil or
study monsters, it may a bit become
that. Is there a danger of that?
>> I don't think so. I think that's what
people fear. So, a lot of the nature
quotes I use as well are some of them I
like because they speak to the chapters
I write about, but and the issues I
write about, but some of them I also
like because they are how people think
about evil and people who are labeled
evil. And I do think with gazing into
the abyss and the abyss gazing back,
it's more of a you're trying to find it.
And and that's why in some ways that
doesn't work actually because it isn't a
total blank. It isn't the abyss. There
are in fact things that you can see even
even if it's just superficially and
patterns you can recognize to help you
and key decision makers especially in
legal settings make better decisions
around people like this. So when they
see these patterns they act a better
way. So yeah I I get asked a lot as a
criminal psychologist do you carry the
cases that you deal around with you? So
some of the cases involve, you know,
huge amounts of witnesses, huge amounts
of um potential w uh victims. And so in
these cases, there are very visceral
descriptions sometimes of heinous
crimes. And I think that as someone who
does this work, you can't be someone who
sees it as anything other than a puzzle.
So you have to look at it and go, here's
the different pieces of information.
What I am doing is pattern recognition.
I'm not here to emotionally invest in
each of these victims or potential
victims. That's not my role. There's
therapists for that. There's other
people who do that work. I am here
working with the police. I'm here
working with lawyers. I'm here looking
at it more sort of objectively to see
how this all fits together. And so, I
think that's how I engage with it. I see
it as this this puzzle that I'm trying
to figure out. I worry for my own brain
that when I confront people and see them
as a puzzle, which I do, I see the
beauty in the puzzle. All the puzzles
look beautiful to me. I'm sometimes uh
like a Prince Mishkin character from The
Idiot by Dusty, where you just see it's
not the good in people, but the beauty
in the puzzle. And I think you can lose
your footing on the moral landscape if
you see the beauty in everything a bit
too much because like everyone is
interesting. Everyone is complicated.
>> It's the classic scientist response as
well to what other people in society go
oo they go you know this is horrible or
this atrocious thing has happened or
this shocking existential crisisinducing
thing I've just found is you know giving
me existential crisis. Um, and
scientists instead go, "Wow." And you
can sort of see the delight in discovery
as well. And I think sometimes
scientists read as callous because we
enjoy this discovery of knowledge and
the discovery of insight. And it just
feels like this little light bulb has
gone off and you go, I understand a tiny
bit more about the human experience or
about the world around us. And I think
must be similar. I don't I don't know
that I feel or worry that I sort of
become more quote unquote evil. I think
it's more that you add this nuance which
I guess sometimes can be estranging to
other people. So there's that. So when
you speak with others sometimes like
even when I say we shouldn't use the
word evil, people go no but you have to.
Does that mean you're trivializing
things? And the answer is no. I'm not
trivializing. I'm just trying to
understand. Also like sympathizing or
being empathetic towards people whom
others have written off um is always
going to get that response from some
people. And I mean there are real
questions around whom we're platforming
and what that has and what role we have
as content creators both of us of the
people we talk about how we cover them.
Um I often come across this in true
crime work that I do cuz I get asked to
do TV shows. I host TV shows and I host
um BBC podcasts and there's always the
question of sometimes people commit
murder to become famous and should it be
a blanket ban that we don't cover those
cases or should we cover those cases but
in a different way or should we
anonymize the So there's it doesn't mean
that you shouldn't never cover that
case. It just means that you need to
think about it.
>> Speaking of which, you've done a lot of
really great stuff podcast shows. Uh one
of them is Bad People podcast. you
co-host it. It has over a hundred
episodes each covering a crime. What's
maybe the most disturbing crime you've
covered?
>> One of the most disturbing crimes that
we covered on Bad People and just to be
clear, Bad People, much like the title
evil, is sort of tongue-in-cheek where
the idea is it's people whom we refer to
as bad people and then it's always a
question of like who are these quote
unquote bad people and are we all
capable of doing these terrible things?
But one of the most certainly
problematic dark cases that we covered
was the Robert Pikton case. And the
episodes are called Piggy's Palace
because that was the nickname for the
farm where Robert Pikton brought victims
whom he had kidnapped and then he killed
them and he did terrible things to their
bodies and uh rumors have it certainly
that he fed some of these victims to
pigs. Now, one of the reasons I covered
that case is actually because it was
influential in my own career. So, Robert
Pictton is one of the most famous
Canadian serial killers of all time. And
as I was doing my undergrad at Simon
Fraser University in Canada, I was being
taught by someone called Steven Hart.
And Steven Hart was an expert witness on
the Robert Pikton trial. And so, he was
keeping us a breast of some of the
developments of what he was covering.
And it I found it so interesting. And I
loved Steven Hart as a person. and he
seemed to have this sense of humor, this
gallows humor around it all despite
being faced with one of the arguably
worst people in Canadian history. And I
thought that that was so interesting
that someone could be so nice and so
kind and so wonderful and be an expert
witness for these kinds of people. And
so that's one of the reasons I went into
the field is because of this case as
well. And so we had him on the show. So
he came on to Bad People and we
interviewed him for it. Uh, and he has
done um I imagine a lot of really
difficult cases.
>> Yes, he's done a lot of difficult cases
as have other researchers like Elizabeth
Loftess who's one of the main founders
of the area of false memory research
which is what I also do. I do research
on memory and false memory and witness
statements. And Elizabeth Loftess has
also been uh recently actually for the
Gileain Maxwell uh case. she was in the
press and so she has worked with lawyers
to educate the court on memory in lots
of really really controversial cases.
But the way she would explain it is that
it's still her role to just train people
and teach people on how memory works.
She's not there to decide whether people
are guilty or innocent. But she is there
to help people distinguish between fact
and fiction when it comes to how our
memories work or don't.
>> So what kind of person feeds their
victims to pigs? What's interesting
about that psychology? The psychology
about Robert Pictton. H I mean he was a
tricky person because I think he was
profoundly lonely and this is something
we see with a lot of serial killers is
that um they have this loneliness which
I think also not only contributes to
them committing the crimes in the first
place but also allows them to get away
with things because they don't have as
much of a social network or any social
network that is helping them to do
what's called reality monitoring to
understand what's true and what's not.
And so when you see people get
radicalized in their own thoughts,
whether that's in in the sense of things
like schizophrenia where you've got
psychosis, you've got delusions, maybe
command hallucinations, that's when you
think you're hearing voices and someone
is telling you that you have to do
something, usually something harmful to
other people. And if you don't follow
those, you will hear those voices
forever. They're profoundly distressing
and they are one of the aspects of
schizophrenia that if you have it, does
make you more prone to violence. And so
for these kinds of cases, if you don't
have someone intervening, whether that's
a family member or a therapist saying h
how can you tell whether this thought is
real, maybe that thought, maybe you're
not hearing that voice, right? Maybe
that aspect of what you're thinking
isn't true and bring you back and closer
to reality, you can just wander off to
whatever alternate universe that you
might live in in your head. And it's the
same with radicalization in other
contexts is that you see that people who
drift more and more into a certain group
that has certain beliefs that are maybe
divorced from the evidence, divorced
from reality, you can see that people
will get more extreme over time. And
unless you have a tether that brings you
back that allows you to do reality
monitoring, it's going to be very
difficult to to find your way out of
that. So with serial killers, we find
this reality monitoring problem. And I
think part of that's related to the lack
of social networks that people have.
>> That's fascinating. So that's one
important component of serial killers.
What else can we say about the
psychology? What motivates them? So if
you look at some of the famous serial
killers, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gasey,
Jeffrey Dalmer, is there other things we
can say about their psychology that
motivates them? So interesting. The
tether to reality. I mean loneliness is
a part of the human condition. It is in
fact one of its side effects is you can
get untethered
and then with some of these brains I
guess the untethered goes to some dark
place.
>> The untethered goes to a dark place and
it then is often combined with some of
these other dark tetrd traits. So you've
got someone who maybe is high on
psychopathy, low on empathy, someone
who's high on sadism, someone who thinks
that it's okay to pursue your own goals.
And your own goal can be
like with Jeffrey Dmer, um you can be
wanting to create the perfect partner,
which in some ways seems to be what he
was trying to do by killing people and
piecing them together and sewing up a
sort of new version. There's something
in that where I can't help but go,
that's so sad. I don't go, "Oh my god,
how terri, how awful." And of course
it's atrocious. Of course it's heinous.
But I have this real sympathy for that.
And I think that's important for us to
have though and not to say I can't
relate to this person at all, but to say
that is an extreme manifestation of
something I have felt. And the
difference between me engaging in that
and this person engaging that are these
other factors, but the core is is in all
of us.
Do you think all of us are capable of
evil
of some of the things we label as evil?
>> I think all of us are capable of doing
basically the worst things we can
imagine. And one of the reasons I think
that is because you can see neighbors
turning on each other, especially if you
look historically at the start of wars
or um big political moments where you
have people who would have called each
other friends, turning each other into
the police, uh killing each other, doing
terrible things. So I think all it takes
is to become convinced that the people
you think are your friends are actually
your enemies. Whether that's just in
your own world or in a larger political
national landscape. That I think I don't
think it takes all that much for us to
be capable of doing terrible things. So
that's also why it's really important
when things are good and when you're not
at war and when you have the capacity to
think deeply about important issues to
train your mind on these thoughts of
knowing that things like loneliness can
manifest in these extreme ways that
things like uh jealousy and aggression
that they can turn into murder that they
can turn into these horrible versions
and to then also spot the red flags if
you start going down that path. I think
if we don't rehearse evil, if you will,
we are much more like to engage in it,
especially in those moments where we
don't have much time or energy to really
think about what we're doing.
>> Yeah. I'm really appreciate the way you
think and the way you talk about this.
Listening to history, when I'm reading
history books, I imagine myself like
doing the thing I'm reading about. And I
almost always can imagine that like when
I'm being honest with myself.
>> And it's important to admit that to
ourselves. And research on murder
fantasies finds that most men have
fantasized about killing someone. About
70% in two studies. And most women as
well. More than 50% of women have
fantasized about killing somebody. So
murder fantasies are incredibly common.
And certainly according to some
researchers, that's a good thing. Being
able to rehearse and think through doing
the most terrible things is it's a great
dress rehearsal for also how we don't
want to live our lives and only if you
are able to fully think through what
would I actually be like if I was
engaging in this what would I be
thinking who would I be with what would
be my the group that I'm charging
against this other person you know who
who am I there with as you said like
really putting yourself in the shoes of
these people who've done terrible
things. That is how you also realize
that you do not want those consequences.
And so, yeah, you maybe want to murder
this person, but you don't really want
to murder this person. That's that
intuitive sort of anim animalistic brain
coming in. But then, luckily, we have
higher reasoning that goes, actually, if
you think this through, that's a pretty
terrible consequence for yourself. So,
the better thing to do is not to murder
this person. So, I think it's adaptive
to be able to fantasize and think about
these things. Obviously, if you start
getting to a point where you're
ruminating and you're going in these
circles where you're constantly
fantasizing about doing dark things,
especially to a specific person, I'd
always advise seeing somebody to talk to
a psychologist, for example, because
that then does become a risk factor for
acting on those dark fantasies. But up
to that point, if it's just a fleeting
thought or something that sort of in in
one day you had these thoughts, that is
totally healthy, I would say. And also,
I think it's useful to simulate or think
through what it would take to say no in
that situation. Meaning, once you're
able to imagine yourself doing evil
things, you have to imagine the
difficult act of resisting. A lot of
people think they would resist in Nazi
Germany.
>> Well, most people didn't, and there's a
reason for that. Um, it's not easy. Same
reason, I've seen this. If something bad
is happening on a public street, most
people it's the bystander effect. Most
people just stand there and watch. I've
seen it once in my life. Yeah. This is
humans. So it's actually you want to
simulate
stepping up.
>> Yeah. So it's also been called the
heroic imagination. So someone who has
studied evil quote unquote at length is
called Philip Zimardo. He did the
Stanford prison experiment and that was
an experiment which is I mean it's now
been torn apart in various ways. I it
was absolutely influential for
psychology. It's where uh participants
were randomly assigned whether they
would be prisoners or guards in a mock
prison experiment and then for a number
of days they were told to do various
things and it got out of control and the
guards went way over what they were
supposed to be doing and they
effectively started pseudo torturing
some of these um inmates or these
pretend inmates and the whole thing had
to be stopped prematurely. But it was
really fundamental in showing how just
by randomly being assigned into guard
the person in charge or inmate you can
within a matter of days have a
completely different way of thinking
about one another. And so Philip
Dumbardo has also spoken at length about
evil and that all of us are capable of
it in the right circumstances. But he
also is a big proponent of what he calls
the heroic imagination. And the heroic
imagination is really what the purpose
of everything I do is. The purpose of
what I do isn't just to go oo this is
curious and to stop there. The point is
to then prevent it and to prevent it in
ourselves because that's I think
ultimately what has to happen. You can't
do a top- down sort of government level
approach to trying to be so tough on
crime that no one will ever commit
crime. That's impossible. But you can
change sort of to say it in a tacky way,
the hearts and minds of individuals to
recognize the pathways towards evil and
to go, wait, I'm I'm off track. I don't
want to go this way and I'm going to
stop myself here and here so I can find
my way back. And so the heroic
imagination is exercising that I see
someone on the street. How do I make
sure that they're okay? How do I not
become a bystander? And actually the
bystander stuff is interesting because
there was a really famous case, the
murder of Kitty Genevvesa. And there
were all of these both ear and
eyewitnesses. So an earwitness is
someone who just hears things and an
eyewitness is someone who sees the crime
happening. And they didn't intervene in
the murder of this woman. And so this
case was often taken as this almost
example of look how terrible human
beings are. We just walk by. We don't
care about what's happening to strangers
on the streets. And actually what's
happened since is that there's been lots
of other bystander experiments and they
have not substantiated this. So we need
to be very careful with looking at these
extreme cases and going how horrible
that this happened to this one person.
And it is but that doesn't mean that
that's always how it happens. And so
actually what we find in bystander
research is that most of the time
bystanders do intervene. It's just when
there has already been a crowd that has
accumulated you read the room and you
assume well nobody else has intervened
yet. And so it must not be a real
problem. That desire to not stand out in
a negative way is often what hinders
heroicism. I mean that's why we look at
heroes, people who especially risk their
own lives to save others, especially
strangers. We see them with a sort of
respect that nobody else gets. And
that's because we recognize that we
might not be capable of that. If I saw a
stranger drowning in a river, would I
really risk my life get jumping in the
river to maybe save them? It's I think
that's a big question mark. And so when
people do that, especially when people
almost have this inherent reaction that
they just jump in, they just go for it.
That is something that is a really
admirable quality and that we as humans
do celebrate and we should and I think
often we should celebrate those
incidents more and not the you know the
bystander moments where we didn't inter
intervene. We should be normalizing,
intervening.
>> And again, again, this idea of heroic
imagination,
actually simulating, imagining yourself
standing up and saving the person when a
crowd is watching, they're drowning to
be the one that dives in, tries to help.
Uh, you mentioned
70% of men and some large percentage of
women fantasize about murder. And I also
uh read that you wrote that res
recidivism for homicide is only 1 to 3%.
So that raises the question, why do
people commit murder?
>> Murder is a really interesting crime
because most of the time it's
perpetrated for reasons that we don't
like as a society. So, as a person who
talks a lot to uh the news and also to
producers who are trying to make true
crime shows who don't necessarily have a
deep understanding of psychology, let's
just say, and who come at you with myths
where you go, "Oh, no. We're not we're
not going to talk about that. We're not
going to talk about whether or not the
mom is to blame for this person killing
somebody." Um, I hate that exc. That's
one of my my least favorite sort of the
trauma narrative of all people who do
terrible things must have had a terrible
childhood. I think is really
problematic. What really happens in
murder most of the time, which is not
what you see on TV because it's really
boring, is it's a fight that gets out of
control. And if you look at the real
reasons stated, it's things like, "This
person owed me $4 and so I killed him.
This person stole my bike. This person
owed me." It's these really stupid
reasons. And it is just this bad
decision in the moment, an overreaction
to a fight, to an argument. And it
wasn't planned. It's not some psychopath
sharpening their knives, waiting for
months to try and kill this person. And
we don't like that because there's
something called the victimization gap,
which is that the impact of this extreme
situation on the perpetrator, there's a
huge gap between that and the impact on
the victim and their family. So the
victim loses a life whereas the
perpetrator sure they get imprisoned but
that at best right if you will in terms
of justice but they don't have the same
kinds of consequences and we don't like
that we like things that have extreme
consequences to have extreme reasons and
so that's why I think there's this real
desire to show serial killers and to
show people who are in fact planning
murders for a really long time and then
engage in them rather than this fight
that goes out of control or someone
drink driving or someone who is uh I
mean unfortunately intimate partner
homicide is also one of those situations
that is common um one of the top four
reasons for murder as well um but that's
not the almost glamorized version that
we see of murder online or that we see
in the news so I think it's always
important to talk about murder as
something that is rarely inherent to an
individual very few people want to
murder they might fantasize about it,
but they don't want to go through with
it. And very few people who do engage in
murder wanted to do it in that instance,
never mind again.
I think in general, we have the way that
we look at lots of crimes upside down.
So, we put murderers in prison for a
really long time because we think that
that's justice, which is sure, that's
one version where it's an eye for an eye
kind of, you know, life for life.
There's obviously the more extreme
version of that which is the death
penalty which I don't adhere to but I
could see the rationalization of well
you you stole somebody else's life so
you don't deserve to have one but
there's also the other side which is if
we're looking at prevention murder is
really like they're not going to people
aren't going to go out and murder again.
So that is that's a really low risk in
terms of recidivism actually. And high
risk are things like fraud and elder
abuse and sexual violence. And so in
some ways sometimes our sanctions are
upside down in terms of how we can
actually make society safer and they're
in line more just with how we perceive
justice to work. So there there's big
fundamental questions about how we
organize our justice systems and what we
want them to be for.
>> Can you just linger on that a bit? So,
how should we think about everything
you've just described for how our
criminal justice system forgives if they
are very unlikely to murder again? How
would you reform the criminal justice
system?
>> I think forgiveness is up to the
victim's families. And quite often when
you speak with victim's families there
is this divide where you have some who
are much more keen on something called
restorative justice which is where they
what they want is for the person to
apologize the perpetrator to apologize
to explain how it happened. Also quite
often I mean you look at the some of the
other consequences and the other context
it's sort of like teenage boys who are
part of gangs for example is the other
context and it's a teenage boy killing
another teenage boy. Like these are kids
and the parents of a teenage boy
understand that this isn't, you know,
they don't think of this other
perpetrator as this grown man who has I
don't know. It's I think we think of it
as this fight between the parents of
both teenage boys in that case. But
really often what parents want is to
just understand how this could happen
and in some ways to allow the other
teenage boy to still have a life and to
not steal theirs as well or his as well.
So there's that restorative justice
model where forgiveness I think belongs
to the families. Some families of course
want the most extreme punishment. That's
also I can understand how that would be
a response that's triggered if you've
suffered a severe loss. But if we're
looking to make society safer, putting
people who have killed in prison is
actually not the answer. Right? Because
if we want society to be safer, it
should be based purely on what is most
likely to deter crime and who is most
likely to engage in it. And that's where
I think we've got it upside down.
>> If I could just stick to the Bad People
podcast, there's an episode on incelss
called Black Pill. Are incelss
dangerous? So, are they dangerous?
What's the psychology of incelss? So
that episode was all about what it means
to espouse certain kinds of views,
especially about women, and what it
means to be in an environment that is
fueling the fire of well, hatred of
gender. And so and and the idea of
entitlement. So I think one thing that
we see often in crimes of all sorts
actually is the sense of entitlement
that drives the perception that I'm
allowed to engage in X because of
something else and I deserve to have a
life that looks like this but I don't
and so I'm going to go take it or I'm
going to go do something to show my
dissatisfaction in life. And so if you
think that all men deserve to have a
happy life, sort of a Disney version um
with with a woman at home who's taking
care of the kids and it's a sort of
white picket fence ideal that we've been
sold, we have been told that that is
what we should have. Like I I understand
where it comes from. And the question
though is are we entitled to that or is
that the idea that that's something we
should strive towards? And I think the
answer is no. Nobody's entitled to a
good life. I would like to see freedoms
and rights manifest in such a way that
everyone is able to achieve the kind of
life that they themselves want, but
you're not entitled to it. And so that's
where I think it can get a bit crossed
and we can be sold these lies that are
basically impossible for everybody in
society to achieve. And and
understandably, people get angry. And if
you're angry and if you feel entitled
and if you're in this group where
everyone else is thinking the same way
as you, yeah, that can make you
dangerous.
>> And the internet gives you a mechanism
to be your worst self.
>> And it can reinforce that worst self.
You see other people saying, "Yeah, I
feel the same way. Do you want do you
want me to help you?"
>> Oh, the internet. Uh, so one more
episode you interviewed the lady Cecilia
who got Tinder swindled. Can you can you
tell what happened with the Tinder
Swindle situation?
>> So Tinder Swindler, that was a person
who pretended on Tinder to be a rich guy
who had this lavish lifestyle and he
would match with women on Tinder and
very quickly lovebomb them. So he would
send them all kinds of messages and
immediately start being very emotional,
very sharing, pretend that he's
messaging from his private jet or
actually message from his private jet.
but pretend that he's in love with this
person very quickly and then he would
invite women in this case Cecilia to
very expensive luxurious dates. So he
would whisk them away to Paris or he
would show them his private jet or he
would take them to a really expensive
restaurant almost to prove that he in
fact is this really wealthy guy. And he
would simultaneously be building up this
story of a future together. And you see
this in people who are really
problematic in relationships in a lot of
way. I mean this is not just in scams or
in criminal settings but problematic
relationship styles often involve
someone who is creating this idea of a
future together that you can just see it
now. You know our kids in the garden
running around. Um you're the only one
for me. That kind of language like
almost planning your wedding on the
third date. That kind of thing is what
he would weaponize. And she, Cecilia,
was looking for love. She wanted all of
those things. And so it worked really
well. And what he ended up doing is
defrauding her of lots of money. And she
ended up taking out loans. And her
family were giving her money to help
what he was saying was this critical
situation, very classic fraud, this
critical situation where he was being
followed. He was under attack. And he
needed her to pay for some things. He
needed her to pay for some flights until
she ran out of money. And then then then
she realized that this all was a big
fraud. This was a a love scam. So the
reason that we spoke with her is partly
to show how it can happen. And I think
it's really important to remind people
that this is something everybody is
capable of believing. Fraud works
because people know what we want to hear
and they tell us the things we want to
hear. And so I think all of us there's a
tailored version of fraud that could
appeal to basically everybody if they
have enough information about you.
>> Yeah. And by the way, now in modern day
AI could probably better and better do
that kind of thing. Do the tailored
version of the story that you want to
believe and
love is a topic on which that would be
especially effective.
>> Yeah. Cuz you're playing with people's
emotions and you know that they're
vulnerable in that way. And most people
want to be loved and want to love. And
so it's a it's a really manipulative way
in and it's I think it's really
horrible, but it's also something that
we all almost underestimate. So we think
I would identify fraud. I would know if
someone's trying to scam me of money
until it happens to us and then we go,
"Oh, wait. That that that did just
happen." And then we get really
embarrassed. And so I think talking
about it is really important and seeing
it as not this thing that happens to
dumb people because that is sometimes
how it's framed. It's like such an
idiot. She was so gullible. Was she? Or
was she just a nice person who wanted to
believe that this person was capable of
loving her which I would hope we all
are.
>> Yeah. And I hope she and others that
fall victim to that kind of thing don't
become cynical and keep trying.
>> Yeah. That's right. That's right. Those
kinds of things can really destroy your
ability to be vulnerable to the world.
But I mean, it sounds like this the same
kind of thing is just common place in
all kinds of relationships. That's the
puzzle that it could be if you find
yourself inside of a toxic relationship
with the quote love bombing. It could be
a lot of manipulative fraud type of
things, right? Inside a relationship,
it's a spectrum. Well, and course of
control is becoming more of an issue
where that's when somebody for example
in a relationship takes control of the
finances and that's often uh a man in a
relationship that's sort of
traditionally because it falls often
along these gender gender lines. But the
problem is if that person then starts to
weaponize the fact that they're
controlling the finances and starts
using words like I'm going to give you
your allowance instead of going you've
paid as much into this as I have and so
this is our shared money. um and starts
using that and controlling things and
controlling how the other person lives
in that relationship. That's when you
get into things that are called course
of control. Um and things like jealousy
can also be used in that way.
>> Is there any new way out of that? Maybe
the the jealousy study or is this is
this a vicious downward spiral? Whenever
there's any kinds of signs like this
that means you're uh screwed, get out.
or is this just the puzzle of the human
condition and humans getting together
and having to solve that puzzle?
>> I have nontraditional views on jealousy.
Um I'm not a jealousy researcher but I
have done some research on sexuality.
Um, and I
personally think that jealousy is
basically always a red flag because what
it means is that the person who is
jealous isn't secure in the
relationship. And the reason that
they're not secure in the relationship
is either because the relationship is
wrong for them or because they are
insecure in themselves. And I don't
think it is a sign of love. I don't
think it is a sign of, you know, you
want to protect your mate. I think it is
mostly control. And it's the desire to
control and to possess. And jealousy we
know is a precursor to intimate partner
violence almost always as in not all
jealousy leads to violence of course but
all violence is the jealousy is a
precursor. Um and quite a lot of that is
imagined things that the the partner is
doing not even based on reality that we
go back to our deception detection
research where we're bad at telling
whether someone's lying or not. And so
if you're basing how you're interacting
with that person on a faulty lie
detector, you're going to make bad
decisions. So, the research also bears
out that most people are really bad at
monogamy. So, most people either have
cheated on a significant other, maybe
not their current significant other, but
a significant other, um, or have cheated
multiple times. And that's that's just
consistently found in the research.
>> So, maybe there's justification to be
jealous.
>> I think it's the other way around. I
think monogamy is setting us up to fail.
>> So, I think monogamy is a social
construct. That's a nice idea for some
people. And I think that at least based
on the research on how people actually
behave, they're not actually behaving in
a monogous way. If you're cheating on
your partner, that is not monogamy. That
is polyamory potentially. So, the love
of multiple people. Um, and it's lying.
And it and it's it doesn't have to be
that way. So, I'm polyamorous and I I
believe that you can love multiple
people. I don't know that everyone is
always going to meet lots of people at
the same time that they're going to
love. Um, but I think that there's been
a move towards more and people embracing
open relationships and nontraditional
relationship structures. And I think
that is healthy to at least have as an
option. So, I think the idea that
there's this oneizefits-all for
relationships is really harmful to a lot
of people and it just doesn't really
work for everybody. Well, if we could
just focus in on one component, it seems
to me one of the problems is honesty as
a hard requirement and good
communication
as another hard requirement cuz that
feels like uh the prerequisites for
avoiding all these problems.
>> And I guess with jealousy what I'm
thinking of is actually not an instance
of jealousy. So where you have a feeling
of I feel left out or I feel
>> um it's more that sort of persistent
feeling of I am a jealous person.
>> Um and that's where I would say that is
usually a red flag. Um and you're right,
it might it's a red flag partly because
it means the person's probably bad at
communicating or or you are as a couple.
Like it's not necessarily just the
jealous person's fault.
>> Um it's just that there's something
happening in this dynamic that is that
is bad psychologically and that should
be addressed or maybe it's not the right
relationship. So, the fact that a lot of
people cheat, does that mean every
single person that cheated, does that
mean they're probably not going to be
good at monogamy? I I guess if you can
just analyze all of human civilization
as it stands and give advice that's
definitively true for everyone.
>> That's exactly what psychologists do all
the time. We make sweeping statements.
>> This is great. No, I just I I think it's
really interesting because I see all
those things as romantic. choosing not
to cheat, you choosing to dedicate
yourself fully to another person. It's
all this romantic and then some people
do cheat and your heart is broken. You
write a song about it and then you move
on and you try to repair yourself and be
vulnerable to another human being and
all that.
>> But why deny yourself the beautiful
spectrum of human exper? I mean it's
like eating one meal for the rest of
your life. Like why? You don't you don't
have to do that. You could just you can
have lots of beautiful people around and
uh
>> well so for me actually focusing on a
single thing you get to explore you
mentioned puzzle over time you get to
see the nuance like the beauty of the
puzzle you realize it's an infinitely
long project to really understand
another human being and so like if you
focus you don't get distracted
so that applies I'm I'm a person when I
find when I find a meal I really like
I'll stick to it for for a long I'm
definitely a monogamy person, I think.
But that also could be a component of
like where I grew up. You know, there's
a certain cultural upbringing and maybe
my brain is not allowing
myself certain possibilities. You know,
>> I think it's more that I want people to
feel like they have a choice and that's
the important thing. And I think all we
see is monogamy everywhere all the time
and it's this one version of how we can
live our lives. And I think it's not the
only and I think that having
conversations with your partner as well,
especially early, it's harder to bring
this up later on. Um, but to have it
early and say, you know, how do you
actually want to structure your life?
And I think how do you want to structure
your relationship as part of that? And
especially if you're going to commit
yourself to one person, one primary
person or one exclusive person. Um,
that's that's part of it. And I think
then you also, you know, don't have to
lie to each other if you do cheat or you
can talk about it in a different way if
you feel like there's, you know, certain
capacity to be honest about whom you're
attracted to and how that might impact
your life more generally.
>> So, how difficult is polyamory? I think
a lot of people would be curious about
that kind of stuff. Does jealousy come
up? Is it difficult to navigate?
>> Can be. I mean, all relationships can be
difficult to navigate.
>> I think it's the same. It's and the same
risk factors. If you're going in because
you're trying to fix something about
yourself, you're going to have a hard
time. Much like if you're dating a
single person, if you're trying to fix
something and this is going to be the
the solution to the thing that's you
feel is broken about yourself, it's
going to be hard. But if you're going in
coming from a good place and you're
going, you know, I want to be open and I
want to connect with people and I want
to love people or person, um, then
you're going to have a better time.
>> What's like the perfect polyamorous
relationship look like? Is it can you
really love multiple people deeply? I
think so you can love people in
different ways and also you can love
lots of people deeply I think and I
think again it's so research on
bisexuality so I'm by um has also found
that people who are by are more likely
to be in um non-traditional
relationships and one of the reasons for
that is probably also because we
constantly get asked to justify our
sexuality as well and so if constantly
you're being asked if one person's
enough for you if one gender is enough
for you um if you're in a relationship
with one person for example you know if
I'm in a relationship ship with a man,
do you do you miss women? And it's like,
I don't ask you that if you're in a
relationship with a woman, do you miss
women? Like, you probably do, but that's
just other women than your partner. It
has nothing to do with being by. And so,
I think there's this constant barrage of
questions of what does it mean? Is it
real? How do you choose? What does a
relationship look like? Do you
constantly want threesomes? There's this
constant hypersexualization also
especially of women that we find in the
research that can also lead to really
negative outcomes for mental health and
for things like risk of sexual violence.
But on the other hand, you've got
bisexual people themselves saying,
"Yeah, but I feel like I also have the
superpower that I can love more widely
and gender doesn't really matter in
terms of whom I'm capable of loving."
And so relationship structures almost
come with that conversation. It's not
that we need to be nom monogous or that
we need to be in these kinds of
relationships. It's more that I think if
you've engaged so deeply with your
sexuality partly because society's
forced you to, then you're also going to
be thinking about relationship
structures more generally and going
actually I'm going to choose this one.
>> Yeah, that's interesting. I mean, you're
like sexual preferences and uh
relationship structure preferences,
some of the choice has to do with how
societyy's going to respond to it. So,
if you have to explain it every time you
go to a party, you might maybe not want
to do that or talk about or at least be
open about it. Yeah, I'm sure there's a
lot of annoying conversations you have
to do if you're polyamorous like some of
the which you've you've mentioned. And
yes, there's effects of like over
sexualizing the people involved.
Yeah.
>> Or thinking they're lying. So with men.
So I I wrote a book called by the hidden
culture history and science of
bisexuality. And I did that after I
created a bisexual research group. So I
wasn't a sexuality researcher, but as a
by person and a scientist, I was
interested in the science of
bisexuality. And I couldn't really find
it. It was really hard to figure out
what people were actually learning about
bisexual people in comparison to other
kinds of queer people. And one of the
things I found is that the terms that
are used are not necessarily by. And so
it could be things like plurisexual. So
if you type into Google Scholar the word
bisexual, you're going to get a lot of
confusing things also because bisexual
is used for like two sexes or you have
multiple sex or you can change. And so
they're bisexual,
>> right?
>> Yeah. Which is different entirely. Um
and so I think partly out of that
researchers started using words like
plurisexual and omnisexual is another
one. And so if you're looking for
research on this, purisexual is probably
the word. Um,
>> what does omnisexual mean?
>> It's the same. It's just another another
word where it's all sometimes pansexual
is also used. And again, the idea being
that it's it's all genders.
>> So how should we think about
bisexuality?
Is it fluid like day to day, month to
month, year to year, fluid um who you're
attracted to or is it at the same time
have the capacity to be attracted to
anyone or attracted to everyone? What's
the right way to think about it?
>> I think the right way to think about it
is that I'm not attracted to most
people, but I can be attracted to people
regardless of gender. Much like you're
probably not attracted to most people,
but you are attracted to people of a
certain gender, maybe. And so that's
it's the same as being heterosexual in
terms of potentially my pool of people
who might might be interested in. It's
just that their gender is irrelevant.
>> What's the biggest thing that people
misunderstand about bisexuality?
>> The biggest thing that researchers find
people misunderstand about bisexuality
is that it's a phase and that it's this
idea that it's transient, that it's
always changing, and that it's a
stepping stone. So, I think a lot of
people still see bisexuality as on the
way to gay town. Sort of like you're
you're on your way, but you haven't
quite committed and you're still stuck
in expectations of society. You haven't
quite let go yet, but really you're gay.
And that's especially true for men. And
so, when you look at research on
bisexual men, which is actually how the
research started. So, I think now when
we think of bisexuality, we think of
women. And it's true that today twice as
many women identify as bisexual as men.
But if you look at the history of this
and the research on bisexuality over
time, it was the other way around. So
someone called Alfred Kinsey was one of
the first sexuality researchers um in
recent history certainly. And he after
World War II did this really big study
of sexual behavior in the human male it
was called. He was a biologist himself.
And so he thought in taxonomies and he
was doing research on gall wasps, so
insects. And this idea of human
sexuality was sort of thrown at him
after the war because there's also this
whole move to get people to well
reproduce and to rebuild America. And so
sexuality was partly and sex
specifically uh was becoming more of an
area of interest both in terms of
research and in terms of policy and
funding. And so Alfred Kinsey was asked,
"Do you want to do a class on human
sexual behavior?" And he was like, "I
know nothing about this." And so he
spent about a year just listening to
students questions about like what they
want to know about sex. And he realized
that he was looking for research to try
and build up this course that he was
probably going to teach. And he realized
that he couldn't answer most of their
questions because the research hadn't
been done. And so a lot of the questions
were around what is normal?
>> You know, if I feel this during sex, is
that normal? How often do people have
sex? Should I want these? What about
these fantasies? What does it mean? What
if I have homosexual fantasies? What if
I engage in this kind of And so he was
looking at all of these questions and
collating them. And then he went out and
did these huge studies and he
interviewed thousands of people himself,
but also had all these research
assistants who were out there
interviewing people in America about
their sexual behavior, which I mean,
just picture the time. It's like the
1940s.
This is quite a conservative time. I
mean, certainly more than we might
expect now. And here's this researcher
asking incredibly personal questions
about thousands and thousands and
thousands of people. And he ended up
finding and this is one of the big
findings in this book that he published
called sexual behavior in the human male
which was a bestseller for an entire
year. He sold out auditoriums. They had
to sometimes add the room next to the
room he was in because there was so much
desire huh um to go to his lectures
about sex that they had to like connect
radios to other halls to give people
enough space to sit down. He was
basically a rock star. And again, I
think this challenges a misconception we
have about sexuality that we think of it
as this sort of woke thing now
>> that the rainbow flag and all this stuff
is sort of this this modern invention
almost. But if you that's this is the '
40s. This was happening. People were
going to these talks. People were having
these conversations. And he created
something called the Kinsey scale. And
so the Kinsey scale is from 0 to 6. And
he found that it was not useful to apply
a binary to people's sexual desires and
sexual orientation. It was more useful
to put them on a continuum because most
people were not exclusively homosexual
or exclusively heterosexual. Most people
were somewhere in between. And so zero
was exclusively heterosexual tendencies
and six was exclusively homosexual. And
he would place people based on all the
things they told him somewhere on the
scale. And about half of men were
somewhere in the middle, not exclusively
either, and about a quarter of women.
Now, think about the time.
>> That was a very conservative time.
>> Well, and it's postwar, though. So, I
think that mattered as well. So, there's
something called a homosocial
environment, which has nothing to do
with being gay. That has to do with
being in a situation where you are with
people of the same gender as you. So, a
homosocial environment are things like
prisons, where you only have men or only
have women. um war, which at that point
they just had. And so you have a lot of
men who are exclusively in the company
of men, and maybe looking around going,
well, now that my options are different,
maybe I'm going to choose from this
pool. Anyway, so he found that it was
that way around that a lot of people
have these fantasies or um or actions
that they've engaged in. And then there
were other researchers, other male
researchers who found similar things.
And then at some point in the 70s it
swapped and it felt like maybe more
people more men were identifying as gay
and there were maybe less people who
would have called themselves by and
suddenly this became a thing more for
women. So I think that there's some
social things going on there's some
research things going on but actually by
men are have been studied for a long
time as well.
>> Okay. So you said a lot of interesting
things. So there is a difference between
the truth and the socially acknowledged
thing. So there's social elements. I uh
I don't know, this might be anecdotal,
but I know a few women,
friends of mine who are identify as
bisexual. I don't know a single guy
friend who's identifies as bisexual.
They're either gay or straight. So,
there's still a social thing going on.
>> Definitely.
>> Definitely. And I think that research
consistently shows that
bisexual men are more likely to identify
as well as gay or straight.
>> Um, and gay well depends. So if they
have what you might refer to as a
homosexual lifestyle, so they engage in
sort of going to queer parties, maybe go
on Grinder or other gay apps. that would
be much more a lifestyle thing where
you've embraced and you you see this as
part of your identity that you are part
of this queer community. It's much
easier to say you're gay than you are by
most often. Also, because there's queer
phobia within the queer community and so
you might get gay men saying to a by
man, "Ah, come on, you're act I I was by
once." That's a classic. I was by once
or come on, you're actually gay. It's
the same that you get the other way
around with by woman is that because
it's seen as performative. The idea
being that bisexual women are doing it
for attention, but the attention of men
specifically, that well, they're all
going to go back to men anyway, and
they're just doing it. It's a phase.
It's this thing that they're doing
actually to be sexy to men, not because
they're actually interested in women.
And so, there's this lesbian by thing
going on, which is often quite hostile,
not always, but often. And there's this
gay male by thing that going on, which
is different in nature, but is also
potentially hostile. So in both saying
you're by can be can be problematic but
for men more so.
>> Do you like the Kinsey scale as a sort
of very simple reduction to that there's
a spectrum. Uh I also saw the client
sexual orientation grid that adds a few
parameters like who you're attracted to
how you're actually behaving the
fantasies you have social preference
lifestyle preferences all that kind of
stuff. Selfidentification what you
actually say publicly all those
different dimensions. or is the Kinsey
scale like pretty damn good
approximation?
>> The Kinsey scale is a good start and the
Klein grid I think is much more fun in
some ways. So the Klein grid came out of
research by Alfred Kinsey um and others
like Havlock Ellis but we won't get into
him. Um and Fritz Klein was a male
researcher doing research also on
bisexuality. He was specifically a
therapist and he was looking at people
who were struggling with their
sexuality. And so people would show up
in the 70s and 80s in his practice and
they would say, "I'm struggling with my
sexuality." And he would say, "How can I
help you?" And they would say things
like, "I wish I wasn't interested in men
and I'm a man." And he would then work
through sort of what that means. Does
that mean you don't want to have these
feelings? Does that mean that you don't
want to have these attractions? Does
that mean that it's the the implications
of like how your friends and family will
see you that's the problem? And so he
created this much more complex scale
which I think is really interesting for
everybody to do no matter what their
sexuality is because what it is is it
gets you to think about things like yeah
your sexual identity easy um but it not
just that but in past present and ideal.
And so if you say, "Well, I used to
identify as straight. Now I identify as
bisexual." And then I have in my head,
this doesn't mean that other people
think this. In my head, I have an ideal,
which could be straight because that's
what maybe society's told us we should
be, but it could also be something else.
And so I've also had friends who've
gone, you know, past, present, straight,
straight, but ideal by. So you get into
these interesting dynamics where
sometimes people just wish they were a
different sexuality than they were for
other reasons. And then there's other
things in the in the scale that ask
about your lifestyle. So for example, if
you are in going to parties, queer
parties, if you have queer friends, then
you might have a homosexual lifestyle
even if you're straight. But then again,
it's h how would how much lifestyle
would you like? And so for me, that was
a real moment where I was looking at
that going, "Wow, my lifestyle is really
straight."
>> Um, and maybe I need to change this. And
so he was using these attractions and
fantasies and identities and the past
present ideal to help people to think
through all these complicated feelings
we have around our sexuality and to
identify problem like sticking points.
>> Yeah, that's fascinating. So maybe the
the presumption there is if everything
is aligned, the fantasies, the ideal
partner, the all those things, that's
probably the healthiest place to be,
>> right? And so he would look at
especially the ideal and the the present
and if those were different. So if you
said I wish I was by but I'm straight or
I am by but I wish I was straight. Um or
I'm homosexual and I wish I was
straight. He would say let's talk about
that. And he'd try to work through it.
And the term he used for bisexual people
who were uncomfortable in their own
sexuality was being a troubled bisexual.
And so I think you can I think any
sexuality can be troubled. I think you
could be a troubled straight person, a
troubled homosexual person, a troubled
asexual person. Um, and just thinking
about why and which aspects are maybe
missing, I think is really healthy for
people to do.
>> Meaning there's some puzzles that you
haven't quite figured out. Maybe you
haven't been honest with yourself about
your preferences, all that kind of
stuff.
>> I don't really like talking about
honesty with yourself. I think that's a
that's a high bar. And I think it's also
often weaponized against people,
especially by men, whereas this idea of
you're not really being honest, you're
actually gay. And so I think this idea
of we're not being honest with our own
sexuality, that's a that's a big word. I
think it's more that maybe you haven't
had the right framework or the right
words to think about aspects of your
sexuality that are troubling to you.
>> How obvious when a person is bisexual,
how obvious is it to identify like the
sexual orientation grid? Like how big is
the sign whatever you are?
>> I think the sign is smaller than we
think it is. I think that there are
there's this tendency to assume that
sexuality is something that we find and
keep and consolidate from our teenage
years, maybe early 20s. You maybe get
university thrown in sort of if you get
your experimental years in undergrad,
but then it you kind of have to choose.
And that is a difficult requirement I
think for a lot of people because you
can't possibly know all of the things
and all the people you might be
interested in at that point and we
change in every other way. Why wouldn't
we change in this way? So I think giving
ourselves also the ability to reappraise
where we're at with our own sexuality,
our own desires, our own relationship
status, all these things is important to
keep us happy and healthy and to not run
into issues that we know are faced by a
lot of homosexual but also bisexual
people. Like research has found that
bisexual people are more likely to self
harm. they're more likely to be the
victims of sexual violence, more likely
to be isolated, more likely to um be
stalked. There's lots of different
aspects of being by that are negative.
And the reason for that is mostly
because by people are least likely to be
plugged into the community. So, when
you're going through stuff like this and
you feel different and you're constantly
being asked about your sexuality, if
you're open about it or you're hiding
it, that's also troubling. um you're
going to have these negative
consequences, especially if you don't
feel like the queer community is really
a place for you. So, that's where also
finding your people really matters.
Since we're on the topic of sexuality,
one of the things you touched on in your
book on evil was uh kinks, sexual
fantasies. I think the point of
describing that was that we often label
that as evil or bad. What can you say
about what you've learned from kinks and
sexual fantasies from uh writing that
book?
>> So, the reason I included kinks in evil
and sexual conversations in general is
because it is so often thrown into the
same conversation. So, if someone comes
to me and says, "Julia, I want you to um
help me explain why this person killed
this other person." And they'll often
say,
"Did you know that he or she was also
into insert kink here or insert
nontraditional relationship structure
here or insert whatever?" And I respond
to that by going, "Okay." So, and I
think people use these words like, "Oh,
he was really into BDSM." And think that
that's going to have this really
important impact on me. or ooh they were
swinging and so and again I go yeah that
that's you know almost like and in other
news they were swingers it's like that
is not related to this crime at all
unless you know one of the partners was
killed um but people see this as a
defect of character and kink is very
much seen as a defect of character in
many circles especially in sort of
broader society and that is wild to me
because if you look at research on
sexual fantasies and kinks. A lot of
people have at least one. So, a lot of
people BDSM being the the most common um
are engaging in or interested in BDSM.
So, things like uh choking or things
like restraints or being degraded or
doing the degrading of other people in
bed consensually, of course, that is
something that a lot of people fantasize
about and a lot of people engage in. And
so these kinks and these fetishes, they
are much more commonplace than we
sometimes think about them as. Now on
the other hand, we obviously need to be
careful not to assume that because in
pornography BDSM is almost ubiquitous.
It feels that that means everybody wants
this. That is absolutely not the case.
But we also don't want to marginalize it
and say it's almost nobody. It's it's
somewhere in between. And the main thing
is always just to ask and to have open
conversations about what it is that
people actually want in bed and to make
sure you have things like safe words.
So, you know, putting in the restraints
to make sure that these interactions are
safe and consensual and then being able
to explore. And I mean there's
everything from, you know, pup play
where you dress up as a puppy and you
engage in either just general frolicking
or sexual behavior to other things like
blood play, which is when you pierce the
skin to release some sort of blood, that
can be scratching, that can be cutting,
that can be of yourself or your partner.
That can be this idea of, you know, I
don't know, it's this taboo thing you're
doing together and it's sexy in its own
way. And so everybody has their own
versions of what they find attractive
and rubbing up against people, you know,
sort of unsuspecting, pretending that
someone's sleeping. There's there's this
wide range of things. And I think people
also feel often deeply ashamed about the
things that they are interested in. And
I think that is also really sad because
it makes it more likely that people are
going to not be able to live that part
of themselves and also that they think
there's something wrong with them. And
that can spiral into things like, am I
evil? Am I bad? Am I a bad person?
Because I have these fantasies. And that
ties in, unfortunately, with
homosexuality and bisexuality in the way
that certainly historically and in most
parts of the world, still today, these
queer lives and queer identities are
still villainized. They're still seen as
lesser, as bad, as a sign of a defect of
character. And if people see that within
themselves, they're going to think
differently about themselves. And we,
well, society is going to treat them
differently. So, it's all about
destigmatizing.
>> I really liked what you wrote about I
guess it was in the context of BDSM or
maybe sat masochism or maybe just the
submissive dominant dynamic like why
that might be appealing. The
disinhibition hypothesis. I guess this
applies generally to sexual fantasies is
if you live them out that you could just
let go of all the that we that
we put up in normal society that you
could just be all in fully present to
the pleasure of it.
>> Right? And that's what research has
found on fetishes, especially on BDSM,
is that the reason that people say they
like it, I mean, it's hard to explain
why you have a fantasy. But if you go
into the finer questions and really dig
deep, you can find that people will
explain a version of, well, I can really
let go and I don't have to if someone is
telling me what to do, then I don't have
to make any decisions. And I've spent
all day making millions of decisions and
I don't have to in this context. And I
really like that because it's freeing.
And so that's that disinhibition
hypothesis is that the reason that we
often go to things in the bedroom that
in other contexts we don't like or even
find repulsive. Like I don't in normal
life potentially want to be told what to
do, but maybe when you move into the
bedroom you go, "Yeah, but this is a
different context and I kind of want the
reverse of what I want in my day-to-day
life." And so I can also understand like
furries and that sort of completely
living as another species of it even is
it's a really interesting psychological
phenomenon of release and of letting go
of social pressure.
>> But I think that also applies to cuz you
mentioned submissive that's more
straightforward to understand. I think
that also applies to dominant cuz like
yeah you don't have to walk on
eggshells. It's the clarity of it. That
was really interesting like having read
that from you that really made me think
that there is a deep truth to that to
like being true to whatever the sexual
fantasy is
like it's not just the fantasy itself
that's appealing it's the being free in
some sense
>> it's the being free and the juxosition
there is that you are free because of
the fiction
like you're play acting
but it's touching something deep inside
you psychologically and so that's where
it sort of feels weird but it also makes
sense. I mean this is also why we like
fiction because it allows you to maybe
be somebody else have someone else's
thoughts in your mind for a while and
you really get to live it as that for a
bit. So I think yeah the truth and
fiction sort of circle is always an
interesting one.
So you've you know for researching the
the by book the the bisexuality book
what have you learned about sexuality in
general human nature kind of sexuality
and how it's practiced in terms of
different communities and I'm sure
there's like subcultures and stuff.
Yeah. What have you learned? So the
research on human sexuality I think is
interesting because we keep finding that
people have these desires that they feel
weird about that they unless they have a
community or an app that you can go to
to
live those fantasies. They can feel
quite troubling to the individual and
they can make you unwell. And that's
true whether it's about your sexuality.
So being gay and being unable to live as
a gay person or if that's wanting to
engage in BDSM and not having an outlet
for that. So that can just make you
unhappy. So I think that the the stigma
there is that that unhappiness is going
to lead to some sort of horrible
manifestations of crime. I think that is
mostly nonsense, but it's more that I'm
concerned about the mental health
consequences for the individual who's
unable to explore those sides of
themselves. And in research on kinks and
sexuality, it's just about also making
sure that we have visible representation
of certain kinds of communities. And so
that's one of the reasons I ended up
writing by. I came out in making evil.
Making evil is the UK title. Evil in the
US. Um I came out because I was writing
about all the things we associate with
the word evil and homosexuality
certainly is one of those things.
>> You came out as bisexual, by the way.
Yeah.
>> Yeah. I came out as bisexual. Um, and I
came out as bisexual in the book. And I
did it specifically and I wrote it this
way as well because I was talking about
the importance of visibility and how
it's through visibility that you realize
that the people around you, people you
already know and love are part of this
community that otherwise feels other. It
feels foreign. It feels abstract. And
maybe it feels scary. But if you realize
that actually you've got gay friends or
you've got friends who are into certain
kinds of fetishes or you've got friends
who are whatever sexuality sort of
aspect you're talking about, you
suddenly go, "Oh, it's going to be much
harder to dehumanize these people." And
and this is where all of this kind of
comes for me from a really sad place.
There's the you could talk about by as
this project of love and how I was
finding the community. I was trying to
write something that would sort of bring
us all together, but it's also because
I'm constantly terrified that my rights
are going to be stripped back. And we
know that the
laws around homosexual behavior and the
rights around bisexual people as well,
um, they're in flux. There's no straight
line of acceptance. And just because
right now I happen to live in a time and
place where I'm allowed to be openly
bisexual and I can engage in homosexual
activity, that doesn't mean that that's
going to stay, not even necessarily in
my lifetime. And so I think much like
writing evil at a time when you're not
at war and you're able to think really,
you know, deeply about these important
issues, I think we also need to be
thinking about things like sexuality and
other issues that are important to us.
And if we want to preserve our rights,
we need to normalize these issues and
make sure that they're visible so that
people find it harder to dehumanize
those communities. And so I'm always
terrified that bisexual people are going
to be hypersexualized, dehumanized
again, and that there's going to be laws
against basically just who I am.
>> Did you hear from a bunch of people
after making Evil After Evil the book
and mentioning and coming out in that
book and then writing uh the buy book
that that are bisexual and maybe what
are some stories? I'm sure because I
haven't seen much material on it as you
spoke to. So I'm sure they felt lonely
without a community, right?
>> Yeah. A lot of people felt seen by the
book. So it was really beautiful the the
fan mail I got and the sort of responses
to the book and I got them from all over
the world. And so in the book I also
spoke with some researchers who were in
like stationed or doing research in
countries where bisexual behavior
specifically is illegal or homosexual
behavior was illegal. Um, for a long
time, bisexuality was, especially in
women, um, well, actually, homosexuality
in women in general was sort of seen as
it was, it was a blind spot because what
counted as sex is sex with a penis
>> and so women can't have sex with one
another. And so, a lot of laws around
homosexuality are specifically applying
to men
>> and certainly historically that's the
case. So, we're talking about like
sodomy and that involves men and not
women. And so if you
look at the evolution of laws for a
while, women were kind of like it was
socially not necessarily acceptable, but
they were kind of getting away with it
legally. But then more recently,
especially as bisexuality gets more
visible as well, certain countries have
started writing it specifically into
their constitutions and specifically
into their laws um that bisexual
identities and behaviors are also seen
as problematic and illegal. So again,
these laws change all the time. But in
terms of fan mail, um especially from
people in countries where homosexuality
and bisexuality are illegal or are seen
as problematic, are socially condemned.
That was particularly important. So
those people were particularly writing
saying some also saying, "Can I
translate this into this other language
on the DL like on the download and just
like distribute this to my friends?" I I
had people sending me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me messages saying I'm
at ex airport or an ex country where
this is this would be considered
contraband like this book my book is a
banned book fun fact
>> nice
>> it's it was banned I I sold the rights
to a foreign publisher and right after
it was sold the laws changed and they
sent me this really sad email saying
unfortunately we can't publish your book
because it now it's now considered part
of the like gay agenda sort of promoting
gay gay and homosexual lifestyles um and
so we can't publish it anymore But
there's I take like a little bit of
pride in the fact that it's a band book,
but I find it really sad obviously as to
what it means, but it also makes me feel
like it's more important, and that's
what people were writing to me about.
>> What advice would you give to young
people or just people in general that
are trying to figure out their sexuality
or how to speak about their sexuality?
>> I'd say try and read widely on issues
around sexuality. um books like mine,
but also other books might help you to
navigate whether or not um your you know
what labels there are and also whether
or not those labels are good for you. I
think things like the client grid are
really helpful especially for people who
are more analytically minded like you
and I. Um, I think it gives you a
construct to work with and numbers to
work with and that can be really helpful
to try and go almost seeing your
sexuality as a mathematical equation and
I think that can be quite useful and if
that's how you think then look at the
clang grid and see if that helps you to
navigate things.
>> A bit of a tricky question but what are
the pros and cons of coming out publicly
as a non-standard sexuality?
>> Was that from a recommendation
perspective?
What are some benefits and what are some
challenges?
>> So the benefits are that you can well
live authentically. You can just be
yourself. So I I do feel more free in
who I am and who I'm able to sort of be
online for example now that I'm out and
cuz I came out after in my 30s I think
also it was almost a foot in the door
technique as well which is a
psychological technique of first coming
in and then coming with your big ask.
And so I'd already published two books.
>> Yeah. I was already an established
scientist. I think if I tried by first I
a wouldn't have been able to publish the
book. It was the first mainstream book
on bisexuality ever. Um and b I I don't
think I would have been taken seriously
as a scientist. And so having the other
stuff first and then buy a sort of a
side project that was acceptable. But I
think the other way around wouldn't have
>> I think it was still brave. I think uh I
think you mentioned somewhere maybe in
interview that there was some concern of
being sexualized when you covered the
topic of sexuality.
>> There still is. But I actually find that
it's it's done the opposite most of the
time. So I think as a woman, especially
a young woman who's in the public eye,
you're sexualized anyway, unfortunately.
And so that is and was already a huge
part of my online experience. And
actually, I think coming out as by a you
get sort of allies who suddenly are
like, "We're on your side. We're going
to help you fight sort of the
hypersexualization." And people get more
almost more weird about it in a good
way. They get a bit quiet about it cuz
they're like, "Oh, well, now it's an
identity thing. So maybe I shouldn't
comment on what she's wearing." And it
sort of it almost disarmed some of the
more sexualized comments. So for me, I
have to say it was mostly a positive
experience.
>> The insults didn't know what to do with
it. Exactly. Like ah
>> uh just to go back to the beginning
maybe uh what got you interested in
criminal psychology?
>> Well you if you look at my trajectory
into academia and then through it
basically what happened is I was ready
to go study art. That's what happened. I
had my portfolio ready to go. I was
going to go study art at undergrad and
then my grandfather intervened and was
like being an artist is a really hard
life. Maybe you should reconsider.
>> What kind of art? Sorry to take that
tangent.
>> Uh, painting.
>> But that is fast. I would not have
expected that cuz you're so super
analytical.
>> Yeah, I am. But I also I really like
surrealism and I really like messing
with sense of reality, which again is
obviously something that then wo its way
into my academic work. Um, but he was
also right. I mean, I I've always been
very intellectual. Let's just say I
skipped a couple of grades in school. I
was part of the test lab. It was very
much I was the the clever kid. Um and so
but there's also part of me that's just
like but art is beautiful. I love making
art and it can speak to so many people.
Anyway, my grandfather convinced me not
to do it and then I applied instead for
psychology. Um although at that point
you just had to say social sciences. You
didn't have to yet specify but I knew it
was probably going to be psychology. And
the reason for that was because my dad
has paranoid schizophrenia. And so I
think one of the reasons I'm so obsessed
with this idea of what is real and and
that is in every way that that I mean
that in terms of what is real in terms
of perceptions of right and wrong. What
is real in terms of our own memories of
the world? Uh what is real in terms of
what happened in a crime? What is real
in terms of perceptual abilities in
neuroscience? What is real? I mean I
mean that on in every way. And I think
that's because I grew up with someone
who had a unique view of what is real in
real time. And so seeing that I think
just affected me profoundly because not
only was it very destabilizing in terms
of my upbringing, but also it's just in
your face that people quite literally
are seeing and hearing different things
than you. And to not jump from that to
what else are people perceiving
differently than me, I think would be
almost like a missed opportunity. And so
I went to study psychology partly to
understand that and what was going on
there. And then that took me down the
sort of reality hole. And honestly, the
reason I went to criminal psychology cuz
I could have gone into any other. The
criminal psychologists were the most
they were the most fun. I feel like lots
of psychologists, they took themselves
so seriously and I just I I couldn't. I
was like, I don't this isn't the vibe.
And so the criminal psychologists were
they had this gallows humor. They were
doing these like arguably the most
serious of the the crimes and the in the
cases and yet were somehow having fun
and having nice lives. And I saw myself
and I went, well, I want to do this
version. And so I did. Yeah, that's
great to hear that criminal psychologist
because probably they have to really
more than any any other sub field
confront the reality of the mind
>> and it's often quite procedural. So I'm
also much more interested in applied
sciences because I like the idea of
you know what do we do with this
information and the thing that interests
me most from a research perspective I
mean I did my PhD in false memories so
implanting false memories of committing
crime which was the study that ended up
going viral because I was the first to
to do it and I built on a history of
people implanting false memories of
various kinds of other emotional events
but it was the first time that someone
had combined false confessions research
and false memory research. And so that
was the research of Elizabeth Loftess
and Saul Cassen. So false confessions
was Saul Casten and false memories was
Elizabeth Loftess. And I was just doing
them both at the same time. And the
question was, could you get people to
believe that they committed a crime that
never happened and confess to it and not
just that, but believe that it actually
happened. So remember it. And the answer
to that in short is yes, you can.
especially using specific leading and
suggestive interview techniques. And so
the procedural learning from that, which
is what I'm most interested in, I don't
like that's sort of a party trick to be
able to actually do it. And that's just
so that you can then take that and go,
okay, well, how do we prevent this? And
so I've since trained police, lawyers,
I've trained people at the ICC, the
International Criminal Court, who deal
with collective memory. So they deal
with hundreds of witnesses at a time and
war crimes. And the question is how do
we try to preserve as original as
possible memory without contaminating it
because well or at least without
contaminating any more than it already
is. And that's where social psychology I
think excels is that we have done lots
of research on how social settings
change what people say and to some
extent what people believe. And I think
that's also where actually the leap to
things like AI I think is not far
because ultimately the way that we're
engaging with large language models is
that and generative AI in general is
that it it's structured as a social
interaction. It's structured as a
conversation most of the time now. And
that is what we do. I that is literally
what I train the police on doing is how
to make sure that you don't distort
people's memories in the process and how
to ask good questions. And so you get
confabulations from both sides. know
confabulations from AI and from the
people and the problem is that there's a
third thing which is the in between that
I'm not sure is getting enough attention
right now and I wish that there was more
integration of social scientists like me
and people who do investigative
interviewing and have done it for
decades to understand what is happening
in the in between and so that we can
both teach the people and the AI to
respond better in that situation.
>> I mean that's really interesting. Are
you saying that there's a drift of some
kind in terms of on both AI and human
side when they're interacting together
that we need to be very clear about?
>> Yes, there is. What we've created with
Gen AI is basically the ultimate false
memory machine. We have created a
tailored experience of something that is
most of the time telling you what it
thinks you want to hear
and then it's uncritically giving that
to you or I mean sometimes of course
there's you know other things where it's
sort of appraising whether or not this
is truthful or not but it is giving that
to you and there's no safeguard from you
just going this is truth and this is my
past or this is how I remembered it and
the problem is is that not Not only are
is AI potentially distorting people and
their memories and never mind the
factual basis on which they're relying,
but it's also the other way around is
that potentially by asking leading or
problematic questions, the people are
changing how the AI is creating the
content, which is in turn on some
fundamental level potentially having an
impact on how it's discerning truth from
fiction. And so that's where the false
memory in human minds and confabulations
in AI, I think, are much more similar
than we think. And when I first saw AI
confabulate, hallucinate, I was like,
this is what people do all the time.
It's just that we can't fact check them
all the time. We're not in a
conversation constantly being like,
well, is that quite right? I'm going to
use that for my homework, right? So,
it's h it's both juicy and really
troubling.
>> Well, right now the interactions are
pretty ephemeral. They're shortlasting
and there's not really a deep memory to
the interactions. But this could get a
lot worse if the AI is personalized to a
degree where it remembers things about
you so that it can then start to over
many interactions feed the narrative
about your past that you construct
together with the AI over time.
>> But you don't even need that. So this is
what we find in investigative
interviewing which is police
interviewing of witnesses and suspects
is that all you need is a leading
question or a suggestive piece of
information in a short interaction. Most
people most police officers don't spend
a long time and they don't have no
memory of this person's past. They know
basically nothing about them except for
things related to the crime. And yet we
know that within that very short maybe
half hour, 1 hour interaction, people's
stories can change fundamentally. And
the problem is that if you create if you
have a memory of something that when you
pull it up in that social interaction,
it's it's sort of live. It's like
active.
>> And when you then finish that
interaction, it sets back down. And the
thing is that if you put it back in a
different way, what's going to happen is
the next time you're going to remember
the latest version and you might not
realize that it's shifted. And so over
time it can shift and you don't realize
it and that's your truth. And that's
where
even just short interactions can have a
profound impact on the human mind.
>> Wow. They can modify memories that
quickly.
>> Yeah, we do all the time in experiments.
>> Okay. Can you speak a little bit more to
false memory? So like that's just
fascinating. So things happen to us. We
humans do things in the world and then
we remember them and most of our lives I
guess is lived in memory and remembering
the things that happened to us. And
you're saying that uh we can modify the
story we tell about the things that
happened to us. That's fascinating. So
what do we know about this ability to
have false memories?
>> We know that false memories are common,
that they're a feature of a normal,
healthy brain. They're not this glitch.
They are a feature. And we know that
false memories are
incredibly common in terms of if you
think about basically any memory. Now
I'm interested in autobiographical
memories. This isn't memories of facts.
This is memories of experiences, things
that you've lived in some way. And of
those autobiographical memories,
basically every single autobiographical
memory you have is false. The question
isn't whether it's false. The question
is how false. You're desparing over
there. Well, I mean, yeah, that's I
mean, it's both beautiful and terrifying
that none nothing is real.
>> No, that's not that's not what I'm
saying. Okay.
>> I'm just saying that everything has a
degree of falsehood to it. And this is
where sometimes I'll get accused of
being like, "Oh, but that does that mean
we can never use witness statements?"
That I'm not saying we can't use any
witness statements. I'm just saying that
we need to be careful because even if
people say things with confidence, it
doesn't necessarily mean they're true.
or if they have multi-ensory details,
they're describing in very specific
detail what they smelled, what they
heard, what they t whatever, it doesn't
mean it's necessarily true. Most of the
time, our autobiographical memories are
good enough.
>> Mhm.
>> And that's where memory scientists talk
about this as just memory. Our just
memory for events, much like for text,
you get the gist of it, right? You
you're good enough. You generally
remember accurately approximately what
happened. But it's when you get to the
so-called verbatim details, the specific
details of memories that you find people
are often really bad. Now, most of the
time that doesn't really matter because
you remember you hung out with a friend.
You remember you were at this
university. You remember approximately
what what your favorite cafe was. You
remember this important negative or
positive event. Fine. you don't actually
need to know exactly what you were
wearing and drinking and saying, but in
a criminal justice setting, you do need
to remember exactly what you were
drinking and saying and and and doing,
right? And so that's where we have this
need to break down this human capacity
for memory to this level of detail that
it's just not made for. So that's where
the verbatim stuff can get you into
trouble because with criminal cases, I
suppose the tiniest details really
matter because then the lawyers can like
really zoom in on that particular detail
and then you can just make that up and
then the interrogation with a leading
question as you were saying can just
alter your memory of a particular detail
and then everything will hang on that
detail.
>> Right. And if that particular detail is
someone's face then that's a really big
problem,
>> right? And so
and and it can also be an entire false
memory. And so this is where in my
research and in research like mine,
we've implanted
well memories, what we call memories or
false memories of experiences that never
happened at all. So while most things
are modifications of real memories,
false memories, complete false memories
are when you think you experienced
something that you didn't. And we all
have them. We all have some memories
that can't be true. And we usually
realize them. For example, when we talk
to our parents about our childhood or
when we talk to friends and we say,
"Remember that time we did this." And
your friend will go, "That happened to
me. That didn't happen to you."
>> And you become what is known in research
as a memory thief where you've stolen
somebody else's memory. And you've
accepted it or your brain has accepted
it as your own. And that's possibly
because the other person told it in such
vivid detail that you could imagine it.
And basically your brain was like,
"Well, this feels real now." And so the
next time you thought about that, maybe
maybe not the next time, but maybe after
a couple of times of thinking about it,
you started going, "This happened to me,
right?" And then you integrated into
your autobiography.
>> How hard is it to insert false memories?
>> Not hard.
>> It's very easy to distort memories or
small false memories. It's harder to
convince people of entire events,
especially specific events. And this is
widely debated exactly how easy it is to
implant a specific false memory. Um,
it's also one of the big debates around
my own research, is that when I was
writing the memory illusion, which was
my first book, and the research that was
in line with that, there was this huge
debate between me and a couple of other
academics about what it means for
something to be a false memory and how
we should talk about the ease with which
they're implanted. And that is still one
of the biggest scientific debates in our
field. And to me, I think that's so the
the the coding stuff is about the
difference between what some people call
a false belief and a false memory. So I
think this thing happened or I remember
this thing happened. And that is a
really difficult differentiation often
because all we have as social
psychologists is what you're telling me.
And I can ask you, do you think it
really happened or not? Do you believe
it really happened? But it's really hard
to differentiate. And so I've always
thought that you need to ask people
about the specifics like how confident
are you in this memory? Are do you feel
things in this memory? Does it feel like
other kinds of me right sort of the n
like describe the nature of this
experience rather than being like do you
think this is a real memory because
that's that's a hard thing to ask people
to do.
>> So you you want to get indirectly as
many signals as possible to show that
they actually believe the thing happened
>> or that it approximates a memory in
their minds. That's right. rather than
just a thing they think kind of sort of
happened.
>> Yeah.
>> But other people think that it's an
easier to differentiate lines. So for me
that diff it's almost impossible to
differentiate the two. Other people
think it's more clear. Um and then in
terms of the frequency, so in my
research 70% of people became convinced
that they uh committed a crime that
never happened or experienced another
important emotional event. And that
number as well is is challenged in that
people go, "Well, does that mean that
70% of people can have false memories
like this?" And the answer is no.
Obviously not. That's that's just in my
sample. That's just these specific six
false memories. And it could be that I
think a 100% of people are prone to some
version of this, just maybe not in this
specific study, right? If I had to come
up with different false memories to
implant or if I was a different person
myself and people trusted me
differently. There's the again those
social factors that make it more or less
likely that I'm going to be able to
convince you that something happened in
your life that you can't remember. And
in one study obviously I can't capture
that. But it also doesn't mean that 70%
of the time people are you know it might
be 1% of the time or 0.1% of the time
that people have these complex false
memories.
>> I guess you're just speaking to the fact
that you know you don't know how
representative the sample is. But even
with one study that's a crazy that's
that's incredible.
>> Well it's not just representiveness.
It's also that we shouldn't take
individual studies in that way.
>> Sure.
>> Like I'm not saying that 70% of people
always have false memories either. Like
it's it just means in this one study
more people than not develop these
complex memories.
>> What was the methodology for implanting
the false memories? This is so cool. By
the way,
>> I just human memory is so fascinating.
And the fact that we can engineer
memory,
>> it's good.
>> So interesting. It's also really
interesting that we live so much of our
lives and memories
>> and that that you can mess with that you
can shape it. It's interesting.
>> It's mostly I think a good thing that we
can shape it.
>> I think so.
>> I think the the fact that memory can be
false in the way that I do it in my
study is it's a result of the fact that
our minds are made to creatively
recombine information to solve problems
in the present. And so even the fact
that we have this gist memory, it's
because we're optimizing data
processing, we're basically saying these
are the most important things from these
events and the other details are
irrelevant. Don't remember that. Gone.
Um, and now I'm going to work with that
to try and solve what life comes up
with. And the ability to be creative and
intelligent relies on our ability to
take memories from the past and pieces
of them and to creatively recombine
them. And so that's what false memories
are, except that that then can look bad
if you're trying to remember something
specific. And so in my research, I used
leading and suggestive questions like,
"Close your eyes. Uh, picture the event
that I'm trying to implant." So I was
implanting, for example, uh, you're 14
years old, you were in contact with the
police, the police called your parents,
and you assaulted someone with a weapon.
Um, and then the question is, what do
you remember? and you say to me as a
participant because you've been selected
out to specifically never having had
this experience and just to be clear a
weapon I don't mean a semi-automatic
weapon I mean anything um and usually it
was a rock and so people would say I
found because a weapon is just anything
you use to hurt another person and I did
the study in Canada we don't have guns
in the same way as in some other parts
of the world and so it was unlikely that
my participants would have been like
yeah I totally have all these guns um
and so they would take something an
object and hurt somebody else or they
stole something or they um hit somebody.
So those are three of the conditions and
I randomly assigned people to them and
they knew that I'd contacted um their
loved ones ahead of time. So they they
they were participating in a childhood
memory study, an emotional childhood
memory study, and they knew that. And
then I had contacted their parents ahead
of time to get information about what
they were like as teenagers, where they
lived, friends, basic things, and to
make sure they hadn't ever experienced
any of the target events. Mhm.
>> And then with that information, I said
to the participants, okay, so there's
these two things your parents reported
happening and one of them is a true one.
And so I'd always include a true one to
build rapport, which is I'm doing the
what not to do of interviewing. Right.
>> Right.
>> I'm I'm laying it on thick
>> to see what's possible
>> to see what's possible because you have
to to push it to also show that it's
create that I can do this in this
context so that we can warn police to
not do this. So I said, "We had these
two incidents that your parents reported
and one of them was you had a skiing
accident and blah blah blah. Let's start
with that one." The second one was an
incident where you were in contact with
the police, but we'll get to that. So
we'd first have 20 minutes talking about
the true memory, which people, you know,
they're they're getting going. It feels
good. I've got a structured interview as
well, which I'll then mirror in the
false memory. Um, so it all feels very
illegit. And then we get to the second
memory and I say this, you know, there's
this other important memory that your
parents recalled. And then they'd say, I
don't remember that. And I'd say, oh,
okay, but I have this really detailed
account. All you have to do is remember
it. And then I would do the illusion of
transparency, which is a really powerful
psychological tool, which is to make
people feel like they know what's going
on when they don't really. And the thing
I would do is just say, well, you know,
if you want to, we can do this memory
retrieval technique called this
imagination exercise. And I don't like
to call it repression, but sometimes we
hide away memories that we don't like
about ourselves. And I'm using words
that people know and mechanisms that
people have heard of that are frankly
quite disputed in actual science. But
people go, "Oh, well, maybe I did
repress this." And then everybody says
yes.
>> Like technically they could say no. They
could say, "No, I don't want to do
that." But they go, "Yeah, of course I
want to know." And so I do this
imagination exercise where people close
their eyes, very simple, and just
imagine how what could have happened.
Basically, and every time they say a
detail, my very first detail ever, I
remember this because I was so excited
cuz they've got their eyes closed,
right? And I'm right next to the head of
department because they were worried
because I was a PhD student that, you
know, the ethics of it, the contest,
like it took like years to get the
protocol through ethics and to make sure
it was safe. Anyway, I'm I'm grinning as
the person with their eyes closed says
the most trivial detail. I remember a
blue sky.
>> Mhm.
>> And I remember going, "It's working."
>> Did you know what's going to happen at
all?
>> Oh, no. I had no idea.
>> That's so fascinating.
>> And so from the trivial details and I'd
always say, "Yeah, good job. Good job."
>> You know, social reinforcement, little
little treat, little treat. and they
would remember more and more details and
then they get more specific and then
they tell me who it was they allegedly
attacked or stole from where they were
and those details had to come from them
because I don't know enough about their
lives. Right? So this is the other thing
with false memories is it's basing it on
lots of real pieces of memories, real
places, real people, real feelings.
They're just woven together in a way
that never happened. And so just three
interviews and you've got 70% of people
confessing to a crime that never
happened. First of all, great study.
Great great job all around. To what
degree has this been sort of elaborated
on and proven further since this a super
powerful idea? Well, there's 70% or any
kind of percent.
>> What I wanted with the study is just to
show it's possible.
>> That's is that's really the powerful
thing that it's possible,
>> right? And so it could have been two
people and I would have been happy. Um
the fact that it was so possible was
frankly quite surprising to everybody.
Um, and we did in fact cut the study
short because we told ethics that we're
only going to have like a 13% hit rate
and we're like, "Oh, this is working
really well. We're gonna stop." Yeah.
>> Um, so and and that was just because of,
you know, how power calculations
whatever science because science. Um,
and since then there have been other uh
studies on implanting false memories.
There have been ones also using AI
tools. So like whether or not we
remember
uh or think we remember incidents
differently or better if they were
created with AI images of ourselves or
videos. So there was a study that came
out I think it was this year um in by a
team including Elizabeth Loftess which
showed that if you turn photos of
yourself into videos using AI that you
are more like to believe that those
things happened in the way that AI is
telling you that they did even though AI
has absolutely no idea. and that then
you are more likely to remember it with
high confidence that it happened in the
way that this AI has created it. And so
we can see that there's lots of versions
of this whether it's in you know
interpersonal social interactions or or
interactions with tech. Um and there's a
big replication that's happening right
now at the University of Mre of my study
or is about to happen hopefully actually
is where we're at. There's a lot of
questions I want to ask here. Like one
of them, doesn't this mean that at scale
you can have something like a government
use propaganda to mass gaslight a
population.
So implant
false memories. You using AI using using
whatever tools they have.
>> Yes, that is definitely already
happening.
>> That's terrifying. Is there any anything
you've learned about defending against
that?
>> Yeah,
>> I guess knowing that first step is just
knowing that it's possible. That's
already a very powerful piece of
knowledge.
>> That's right. So, the first thing that's
important is for people to understand
that they are capable of creating these
false memories and that they're not this
really unusual, hard to generate thing,
that they're actually a normal memory
process. And that insight is why I wrote
the memory illusion is because I think
people need to just understand that
their minds work like this and that
they're really glitchy when it comes to
the accuracy of their autobiographical
memories. But again, that that's
probably ultimately a good thing as well
in terms of our overall human
experience.
But then what happens if you do have an
important piece of information that's
important to not being distorted, right?
You are a witness of a crime, for
example, and you now know that this is
going to be important. What do you do?
And the really simple answer is don't
trust your brain. Just make sure you
write it down. Assume you're going to
forget everything. Assume you're going
to forget. No matter how important, how
emotional, how intense, how much you say
to yourself. This is the a failure of
prospective memory. It's called um I
will remember. You won't. Just assume
that you're not going to remember. And
the closer you get to the time at which
an event happened, and we call this
contemporaneous evidence, the closer you
get in time, the more high quality that
memory is going to be. And I think
there's this myth sometimes that like if
you're drunk or if you're high or if
you're really emotional, that that's
somehow you should wait. You should sort
of like like go home, sleep it off, and
then recall your memory. That is not
what the current advice in memory
research actually says. It's in the
moment as soon as possible. Write it
down. Record it outside your brain. You
can do it again when you wake up, but
then at least you have an original
version.
>> Yeah. You uh you use the analogy of a
Wikipedia page for memory. I think it's
pretty useful way to think about it.
It's kind of crowdsourced by all the
different influences you have, all the
different experiences, all the other
people, you telling other people about
the memory that interact, all of that
edits the page, the Wikipedia page of
your memory.
>> It does. And collective and individual
memory are these really interesting they
they interact in a really interesting
way. So I would always say, so when I
train, for example,
people who go to deal with warlords in
uh the German military, I was working
with um agents who were going abroad and
who were in these really difficult
situations where they had to remember a
lot of information that was important
for national security. They couldn't
just sit there with a tape recorder
being like, "Hey," or like their phone
being like, "Hey, Mr. Warlord, can you
just talk into this a bit closer?" You
can't do that. And so you have to
remember it. And so what they were doing
is they were coming back from their
deployments and they would meet up
immediately and have like a team meeting
to be like what did you remember? What
happened? And the problem is that they
would do that before writing their
notes. And that is that is the wrong way
around. And so they don't do that
anymore because I've told them not to do
that anymore. But it feels good. It
feels like collectively we are going to
remember more details because you do.
But it doesn't mean that those details
are right. And so that's where I'd
always say have your own version before
you talk to anybody then. And my uh
colleague Dr. Anelise Freigh is one of
the experts on the effect of things like
eye closure on memory and collective
memory. And she has found repeatedly
that if you remember things together,
especially if you've already got an
original version of your own, you do
usually remember more details. And
especially if you're helping each other
to remember like in a relationship,
you'll have someone who's better at
remembering certain kinds of details,
maybe names or what happened or what you
were doing and the other person's better
at when it happened. And so you can have
these complimentary memories that come
in in social situations and you can then
have more details that are remembered
after,
>> right? But there's conflicting forces
here. So that's true, but also as you
said, it's true that together you can
weave a narrative that never happened.
So together you can solidify the thing
that actually happened. Maybe if you
take notes beforehand, but at the same
time, if you don't take notes, you can
just make up very effectively
together cuz you're like yes anding the
whole time like building together a
castle that's false
>> or distorted.
>> Distorted.
>> Yeah. But you can also sometimes go back
to your original account and go actually
no that that was a bit wrong. And so my
as again an analytical person and
someone who works as an expert witness
on memory cases, I just want to see all
the versions. I want your version
history. I want the complete version
history of your memory and then I can
tell you whether I think things have
gone wrong here and if so why.
>> Have you seen like different versions of
memory and they're really conflicting?
>> Mhm.
>> Like what have you learned about memory
from that that they can be very
conflicting? people explain the same
experience and it's very different.
>> Well, there's different people having
very different memories of the same
experience and there's the same person
having different memories of the same
experience and so I work in both in some
ways as an expert witness but mostly in
the individual changing their story in a
dramatic way. Ah yeah.
>> So witness or an alleged victim saying
that they, you know, having x story the
first time they go to the police and
then 3 years later having a very
different sometimes categorically
different account. And the question is
are they just were they just too shy
initially to say what really happened?
Were they were they under pressure from
other people? Were they not really
remembering? You know why has it
changed? Or could it be that they have
been undergone some really problematic
like hypnotherapy or just shady therapy
in general that has like convinced them
that things were maybe much worse than
they initially remembered. And it's not
that therapy doesn't necess like therapy
can bring out more details for sure. But
the problem is that certain kinds of
therapy mirror what we do in false
memory research in terms of implanting
false memories and it just makes it
really messy and you just it makes the
quality of the evidence really low
because we can no longer tell what is
because of the therapy and what's
actually remembered.
>> This is so fascinating. What are the
ways you can possibly figure out which
is true? The thing you remembered
initially or the thing you're now
remembering four years later?
>> Receipts. It's all you got. You have to
look at your original versions. If you
only have your version now, the only
thing you can look for is evidence that
confirms or shows that it didn't happen.
If you can't access that, then it
ultimately is a matter of especially if
you've got like two people saying
completely different things, it ends up
being a a battle of confidence
ultimately.
>> This is a tricky question, but you
mentioned therapy.
It does seem like what therapists do
is they want to find a problem and they
can then just project the problem and
then convince you the problem existed.
So how do you know it's like therapy
even an effective it it takes a very
special therapist not to implant right a
trauma that never happened or or um
details that never happened to a trauma
that did.
>> It depends on the kind of therapy. So
there's a lot of therapy that is
evidence-based and that is very much
focused on tackling sort of feelings and
reactions that you have right now. Then
there is a an area or a bunch of areas
of therapy including psychoanalysis
which are very focused on trying to find
retroactively sources of mental illness
in your personal past. And I am very
critical of the kinds of well both from
an explanatory perspective but also from
a false memory perspective. I don't
think that we are the way we are because
of individual incidents that happened to
us. I think that is a wild thing to
think about the brain like to be like
you are the way you are because of this
one interaction you had that one time is
like I mean maybe this explains a tiny
bit of you but what about all the other
life experiences you have every single
day? Um, and so I think that there's
sometimes an oversimplified searching
for answers or sources of problems that
we have that I I don't like. I don't
think it's true. Um, and I think that
there can be an uncautious approach to
memory as you were saying where you have
someone who is saying things and your
role as a therapist is to help them
manage their emotions now and to feel
better. And that's the other thing is
that they have a very different role
than I do. A therapist is trying to
manage the person's well-being now.
>> Mhm. Whereas I'm looking at the
evidential equality that is a complete
I'm almost like the not quite the other
side but I'm in a very different role.
>> Well, you just want the truth.
>> Well, I'm criticizing slashan analyzing
their memories whereas the others the
therapists are more like to be trying to
help them manage the memories in their
day-to-day life. And so it doesn't
matter if they're true or not to
therapists. What matters is that they're
troubling to the people themselves. But
once you get into a courtroom setting,
as you say, the facts and what actually
happened matter. And it's not just what
you remember. It's what actually
happened.
>> Maybe you can speak to the other the
non-courtroom setting cuz this is all
the positive side of it is you can
basically shape your memories to be
happier.
I mean I find this in myself maybe you
could speak to that. If I, you know,
look at past relationships, if I just
think about or maybe speak to others
about the positive things, really think
just think like I focus my mind on the
memory on the positive memories and then
everything just becomes more positive.
And I think it makes me feel like I'm
way happier about my past. So there
there must be something to that cuz I I
almost start to forget that the negative
stuff happened. And then the same thing
on the flip side is if you focus on the
negative then the the the negative stuff
just overpowers everything else and you
have a very heavy negative feeling about
your past. So that seems
uh like the way to live a healthy life,
a happy life is just to focus on the
positive. Not to sound cliche but like
like basically modifying your me
memories continuously that everything
was just great. Is there something to
that?
>> Well, the essence of that is right.
There is something called state
dependent memory, which is that you're
more like to remember things that were
consolidated or created as memories
if if they match the state that you're
in now. So if you are sad now and you
your brain sort of just going, you're
more likely to remember other sad times
because your memory and the emotional
state of your brain is basically already
activating those networks of sadness.
And it's like here's some other sad
things and shitty things that happened
to you. And it's the same with if you're
embarrassed. It's that's the sort of
classic one that we usually use as
memory researchers is that moment where
you do something embarrassing and for
the next like six hours all you're
thinking of is all the other
embarrassing things you've ever done and
it's like your brain is like would you
like some other embarrassing stories and
obviously you're going no thank you um
please stop but you have this this
spreading activation as it's called of
just these synapses just like lighting
up new networks and you're going ah and
there's this other memory that's
attached to the same feeling and so it's
the Same with happiness is that people
who are happier tend to remember more
happy memories. And so most of the time,
unless you're depressed, most people
look back at their lives with a sort of
rosy reminiscence bias. And they're more
like to remember the positives than the
negatives. But it's not quite the way
you were describing it actually. So it's
not quite that you only remember the
good, the objectively good things that
happened. It's more that your
interpretation of the things that you've
experienced is either neutral or
positive. So for me for example growing
up with my father with parents
schizophrenia that is something that I
see as a net positive. So obviously at
the time it was experienced in a
complicated way but in hindsight it
defined my life and it completely gave
me a perspective of the human mind that
I just wouldn't have had otherwise. And
so I see that as a positive part of my
autobiography and that is what good
therapy should be doing is it should be
taking negative experiences and not
overwriting them or changing them. I
mean our brains do that naturally anyway
but trying to work with what you've got
the experiences the true experiences but
then just shifting the emotional content
so that how you're dealing with them now
is is good. How much of uh
what this uh Danny Conan type of idea
that we live a lot of our life in memory
like it's not you know the there's the
ex the direct in the- moment experience
of a thing and then there's remembering
that thing over and over and over and
over. So there's like I don't know
getting married or whatever like some
pleasant thing the if you over a
lifetime the pleasure you derive from
that thing is disproportionately most of
it is from remembering the thing versus
experiencing it. Is there is there
something to that?
>> I think so. And his experiments where he
asked participants if they were offered
this holiday that they could go on
>> but they wouldn't remember it. So they'd
have the present day experience of
enjoyment in this on this holiday. I
think it was a tropical vacation or
something that he offered people.
>> And he he then said, "Well, but you're
not going to be able to remember this.
Would you still go?" And a lot of people
say, "No, I I wouldn't go on that
holiday if I can't remember it." Um, I
think that's interesting. And I think
that
sort of picks or it didn't happen. So,
the social media generation obviously is
perhaps even more in line with that also
in terms of how you deal with that in a
social context. sort of sharing those
memories with others and those
experiences and which experiences end up
being the important ones in our lives.
>> Yeah, there there's a real case to be,
you know, there's this kind of
ridiculous thing that happens now.
Whenever something cool is happening,
people take out their phones and film
it. But the case for that is that yeah,
this gives you actual something to look
back at that it's worthwhile to take a
picture actually.
>> Although it's even more worthwhile to
pay attention. So attention is the glue
between reality and memory. And so if
you're using your phone to not have to
pay attention and not have to put any
work into remembering it, then you're
going to look at that picture later and
go, "What was this?" Because you've
tried to outsource it in a way that our
brains don't work.
>> How hard is it to modify memories from a
neuroscience perspective? So if you look
at brain computer interfaces like
Neurolink, for example, do you think
there's a future where we're implanting
or modifying memories directly? Yeah, I
mean that's basically what we do as
human beings already and I don't see why
tech couldn't do exactly the same thing
>> to speed that up. So right now we could
do that with language, right? We just
talk to each other and modify them and
we just speed that up.
>> Language but also think about it
yourself. So you can it's called auto
suggestion when you suggest things to
yourself that didn't happen. Um and that
often comes from reading something or
seeing something or thinking about
something or hearing somebody else's
story and going does something like that
happen to me? And then you start
picturing it and thinking about in what
context it could have and then you start
to basically implant a false memory in
yourself. And so that can happen as
well. And I think with things like
neural link it would be the same where
you'd have the ability to do that in but
again I I still think that this
interaction between humans and AI or AI
like systems is it is the same as a
social interaction which is why I was
saying it's so important I think that we
have social psychologists in the in the
room because ultimately whether it's an
AI or another person it's the same brain
that you're modifying. So what you're
worried about there is that you become
untethered from reality like you
fabricate too many details about the
memory like if you're if human is
interacting with AI and as telling the
human what they want to hear you're are
you worried about over time you start to
just have a very
uh overly modified version of your of
your past narrative. I'm not necessarily
worried about the fact that
AI and generative AI can create false
memories. That is again something we've
also been doing for a long time. Like
modified photos is something preAI that
we had that was already messing with
people's minds. Even just what you have
in the frame of a shot. So if you take a
holiday snap and you you're emitting
like a really important part of what
actually happened on that holiday
because you're taking a picture of the
nicest part and not the you know the
garbage behind you. Yeah.
>> And so we've that versions of that have
always existed. And historically, if you
go even further back, I mean, in some
ways, we've never been closer to facts
than we are now. There's this whole idea
of like, oh, we're living in this
post-truth or blah blah blah. Um, but
that is not true. I mean, we didn't even
know how to write for a long time. We
had no way of reliably cataloging
information, never mind the scientific
method, never mind uh reliably sharing
it with one another or fact-checking
quickly with things like Google. So, I
mean, we're so close to facts, but that
in some ways, I think, is the the worry
is that we've gotten comfortable feeling
like we can just access things that
aren't modified or that are less likely
to be modified and now they're more
likely to be and that can interface with
our memories. So just a a practical is
there like a protocol for self-modifying
memories so you can live a happier life?
>> There is. Yeah. It's called cognitive
restructuring. When you actively
deliberately change an aspect of a
memory usually for some therapeutic
outcome. So to be happier, to be better
in some way.
>> That's really interesting, right? Like
not just for if you have some kind of
issue, but just how to have a life
well-lived,
>> right? Yeah. Does that work?
>> Yeah, it totally works. I mean, I do it
all the time. It's again, it's about
thinking about experiences you've had,
positive or negative. Usually the
negative are the ones we need to work on
more. Uh, and thinking instead of, wow,
how terrible was that? Thinking what did
I learn from that? What has this given
me that other people haven't
experienced? What is it that it taught
me about who are my friends? What, you
know, what are these insights that I've
won from this experience? And so I think
that is an important part of resilience
that we ideally need to celebrate and
teach more than the opposite which is
hanging in the negatives.
>> That's probably really good for
relationships too, right? Together you
the you form the collective memory and
you work on that. You can just fabricate
or modify towards the positive. Well,
with relationships, one of my favorite
research on memories is that if you ask
people in relationships who does most of
the housework or who does most of
certain things,
>> the numbers that they give you, so like
someone will say I do 60%, the other
person will say I do 50%, and you add
them up, that's more than 100%. And
that's basically always the case. And on
lots of different fronts, people will
claim that they do more. And if you ask
them how much their partner does, they
will diminish it. And so one of the tips
I always say for relationships in terms
of memories is actually just sharing
what you're actually doing.
>> And so if you've
initially it feels a bit cumbersome
because it's quite unnatural to be like
I've just taken out you know the the
rubbish. I've just taken out the bins.
Um or I've just booked us a hotel. Um,
but saying it out loud means the other
person is able to perceive it and then
can add it to sort of their internal
like star chart of how much you've done
in the relationship and they're more
like to actually perceive what you're
contributing. Whereas we just assume
that people have the same memories we do
and that they they of course she
remembers that I took out the bins, but
not necessarily. She might not even have
really perceived it. But if you're
reminding each other of all the things
that you're doing, it can feel more
balanced over time.
>> This memory is just so fascinating.
Uh, is it possible, this is a little bit
outside of the topic of false memories,
but is it possible to train memory? Like
what what have you understood about
memory? Like can it be improved?
>> Yep, it can be improved. And there are
now some really good brain training apps
as well that can help to get people to
work better with attention, to have
endback tests, so remember information,
a couple of information, pieces of
information back. So what did I tell you
three sentences ago? Um there's all of
these kinds of
well games effectively that you can play
that will in fact train how your brain
is using its networks. There was one
that was developed by researchers
including researchers at the University
of Bon in Germany and it's called
Neuronation and that's one that I like
because it's all these really short
games and the idea is that doing one
thing like soduku or whatever the sort
of classics to train your brain that is
only going to be useful up to a point
because it's then the same thing over
and over again. And what you want to be
doing is lots of different kinds of
tasks that your brain has to remain
flexible and so short and many is the
answer rather than one thing hard. It's
almost the opposite of expertise.
>> So, in doing this regularly, like
keeping your mind sharp.
>> That's interesting. Uh,
I'm terrible at remembering names.
>> Me, too.
>> Is there a trick to doing that?
>> I don't know cuz I I am also terrible at
remembering names. Allegedly, there are
tricks and it's mostly to make the
information more sticky by making it a
bigger network in the brain. And so,
usually when you hear a name
>> Mhm. Especially like you and I, it's
like gone immediately.
>> Yeah.
>> And that's partly because I'd like to
think the positive of that is because
we're focusing on other things about the
person,
>> right?
>> Like what do they like? What do they,
you know, what's this next interaction
going to be? Maybe you're a bit nervous
about what they're going to say or what
you're going to say. You're already
thinking a step ahead in terms of
interpreting the situation. And it's
quite an overwhelming situation when you
first meet somebody because there's a
lot to take in. And so if however a name
is important then you need to a remember
to focus when they actually say their
name and tune out the other stuff which
can be really difficult and then to give
yourself a pneummonic of how do I
remember this name. Um so you could have
a visualize something you could have a
weird name like word game or some sort
of like rhyme that you create for the
person. You can say, you know, uh, Julia
with big ears, like whatever works for
you as long as it sticks. Now, there's a
caveat that I recently discovered about
myself and to in terms of why I might
not have I have particularly bad memory
for names. Um, all of these pneummonic
devices that have been studied over the
last hundreds of years mostly rely on
creating elaborate pictures in your
mind. So like memory champions, people
who do competitive remembering will tell
you that they create these really
elaborate images in their heads.
I recently discovered that I have
aphantasia.
>> Aphantasia is the inability to create
mental imagery. And so when I was trying
these techniques, I was going none of
these are working for me. And it turns
out it's because I don't see anything.
Whereas other people actually see
pictures in their mind. And so I think
there's some individual differences
stuff going on there that we haven't
quite understood.
>> So you're not able to visual like can
you imagine like a castle in your head
and look at it?
>> No. So the memory palace idea is absurd
to me.
>> Wow.
>> But the so the test for a fantasia is
really easy which is close your eyes and
picture a red apple.
>> You can't picture a red apple
>> and I just see black.
>> Wow.
>> Yeah. And there's a scale. So some
people are hyper fantasia fantasic where
they can have a really elaborate version
of the apple
>> and other people have like a gray sort
of outline and I have nothing.
>> Wait, how does your memory work? Like if
you're think about a past event, are you
wait visualizing the past event or am I
just
>> Oh, that's the question. Or is it just a
concept?
>> I might be I might be operating in the
space of concepts.
>> Cuz I do. And I think that's why I'm so
interested in concepts and ideas.
>> Yeah. Then we know that people with
aphantasia are less likely to care about
their childhood memories because they
can't visualize them.
>> I'm trying to think if I can visualize
people's faces from the past. I I have a
feeling like I can.
>> But are you seeing anything?
>> Am I actually seeing it? I don't know. I
think I actually reduce those people
down to a few concepts about the
characteristics of their face and I
might be
visualizing the concepts.
>> Boy,
>> interesting, right? Yeah,
>> most people with aphantasia don't
realize they have it until they have
this kind of conversation. I didn't
know.
>> I don't know if I can visualize the red
apple, though. Oh boy. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz I
the memory palace thing has never really
worked for me either. I tried.
Interesting. Okay.
>> I have a hypothesis that people who are
analytical are more likely to I think it
intersects with other things. uh because
a lot of my friends turns out have a
fantasia and I think it's there's a
version of intelligence I think that it
might be related to or an interest in
certain kinds of concepts that it's
related to um but I don't know cuz it's
early days of research on this
>> all right this conversation totally is
leading me to do some soularching on
many fronts
you have done incredible work across a
number of discipline I mean from from
sexuality to evil to memory and now in
your upcoming book green crime inside
the minds of the people destroying the
planet and how to stop them. Can you
speak to the psychology of the people
the organizations that are killing earth
as you describe including illegal gold
miners, animal traffickers, conmen who
falsify data and bribe regulators to
keep polluting
and uh many other types of criminals. Is
there psychology similar to the
psychology of some of the folks we've
been talking about? So the book Green
Crime is really an experiment for me in
whether we can apply criminological and
criminal psycho psychology ideas to the
area of environmental protection and and
crimes because there are people who are
convicted of crimes who are convicted of
crimes specifically in relation to
destroying the earth and our natural
resources, our shared resources. I
sometimes think about the earth as like
a house and if someone was coming into
your house and just setting things on
fire and then walking out unpunished,
you'd be really upset and correctly so
or poisoning your water or just like
leaving a bunch of garbage all over your
house. And that's what people are doing
on a planetary scale. And the question
is, are we responding effectively? And
if so, who who is responding
effectively? And then what is the
adequate punishment? How should we deal
with the people who we who we catch? And
so in this book the question was are the
people who are for example I used the
the dieselgate Volkswagen case which was
all about lying about the emissions that
were being produced by diesel cars
especially in the United States. And so
Volkswagen for 10 years produced these
cars that had what was called a defeat
device, which is a specific device that
makes it look like the cars don't emit
very much nitrous oxides, but they
actually were way over the legal limit
for pollution. Now, why we should care
about nitrous oxides is because there is
no limit of no like bottom limit of
nitrous oxides that is uh healthy for
the the human lung. So basically any
amount is bad for you and it's related
to things like asthma. It's related to
things like uh premature death. It's
related to all kinds of negative
immediate health effects. And this is
what was being pumped out of these cars
at wildly high rates, 40 times the u
legal rates in some cases. And they just
lied about it. They just covered it up.
They knew they didn't well some some of
the people there's a big debate within
the Volkswagen people who have been
convicted. A lot of people say, "I
didn't really know. I'm being
scapegoed." Fine, people knew. The
question, how much and who? That's up
for debate. But certainly people knew
cuz they had to create the thing. Like
they had to literally create this piece
of software to put into the cars. And
then when they got caught, they lied
about it. And eventually the truth came
out. But it was like 10 years later. And
so the question is, what leads people
clever people. These aren't idiots.
These are like clever engineers who are
literally working on emissions. like
they know exactly what these emissions
do to people. They know exactly how
harmful they are. What leads people like
that to lie about it, to create these
things, and to and to continue lying
when they are caught. And so that is one
of the cases I I cover in it. And I'm
looking at it more as a case study for
this kind of crime, which is this sort
of corporate collective crime and the
lying and just what leads people in
these settings to lie and to cover up
each other's crimes and to conform to
these new norms, these harmful
environmental norms. And so I look at it
in that way. And then in other chapters
I look at like people go undercover and
uncover poaching gangs. And there it's
some somewhat procedural where it's more
I didn't know that there were undercover
agents infiltrating poaching gangs. I
didn't know that Interpol was involved
in all of these kinds of environmental
crime and how and it gets quite exciting
in some of these cases where you really
see the people who are trying to hold
people accountable.
>> What are the different ways to fight
environmental crime that you described?
So what I found most interesting in
researching for green crime. So I was
speaking to people from the United
Nations who were doing these huge
research reports on things like the
international trafficking and wildlife
crime. I was talking to people who were
infiltrating uh at the EIA, the
Environmental Investigation Agency. It's
like the sort of undercover police of
the Earth. and they're infiltrating
these organized crime groups, these
gangs that are involved in poaching and
other activities. I was talking to this
Interpol agent and it's I think all of
these people were talking about very
different ways of measuring
environmental crime and of responding to
it. And so depending on who you talk to,
the answer will be very different. How
do we fight crime? And the answer is
also very different potentially than in
other kinds of crime that are more
commonly discussed like violent crime.
So initially when I started trying to
apply criminal psychology to these
really big crimes of that are often also
multi level where you've got bosses,
you've got the whether it's a corporate
boss or an illegal gang boss. You've got
the middlemen, you've got the people on
the ground who actually have the guns
who are killing people or animals or are
logging or polluting. And then you've
got sort of all these levels of people
and that makes it very different from
the kinds of crimes that we often talk
about in other kinds of true crime for
example where it's sort of one person
maybe a couple of people against one
other person or a couple of other
people. And so the scale is so tiny
normally and it's mostly violent crime
which is mostly it's arguments it's bad
decisions it's people who are frankly
often quite vulnerable themselves like
substance using people with mental
health problems people who are sleeping
rough like these are not healthy normal
people most of the time who are
perpetrating bad crimes and yet in this
context in environmental crime this is
where I couldn't apply the research
directly you've got some of the smartest
people in the world who are still engag
engaging in fraud, who are engaging in
the cover up of financial information,
who are creating shell companies in
order to hide certain things for
poaching the proceeds of poaching.
You've got people who are out there
illegally fishing and someone's insuring
the vessel that has been literally
registered by Interpol as a criminal
vessel for 10 years and someone's going,
"I'll ensure that." And so, you've got
these really complicated other factors
going on. But I thought that's what was
so interesting is ultimately stripping
back each layer of each of these crimes
and going who is that person? Who is the
person who's ensuring this? Who is the
person who is out there engaging in
illegal fishing on the boat? Who is the
person who's financing the boat? Who is
the person who's investigating the right
and so looking at all the different
levels and I think that's where you get
some clarity. And actually at the end of
the book for me I felt so optimistic.
I went into green crime because I like
most people in the world at least
according to a recent UN climate survey
something like 85 to 90% of people in
the world think about the climate crisis
on a regular basis. Um most people think
about it every single day. It's this
idea that there's this like minority of
people who care about climate change.
That's an illusion. That's not true. And
if you ask people what the emotional
consequences are of those feelings, it's
people say things like eco anxiety,
anger, sadness, grief, that we're, you
know, we're worried about the future.
But what you want is for people to feel
motivated, energized, purposeful about
tackling one of the biggest issues of
our time. And certainly by meeting all
of these UN uh researchers, by I went to
so many conferences. You you have no
idea how many conferences I went to. I
went to anti-corruption conferences. I
went to wildlife crime conferences. I
went to the specific meeting of
multilateral agreements to see how like
people were negotiating in the room and
the tensions between it was wild. It's
so interesting. It's such a huge space
and it gave me so much hope for the
future.
>> And actually the way you frame it very
clearly is a crime against Earth.
Somehow that's more
uh actionable
and it's less controversial and divisive
because climate change as a topic has
become like a political issue
>> where it's like is it really happening?
Is it uh like what's the right policies?
It's nice to look at actual obvious
criminals.
>> Yeah. Where no one's debating did
someone just burn down this rainforest?
It's like we can see it. I was at a
European Space Agency conference
recently and they're telling us all
about the different satellites that are
imaging sort of pointing at the Earth
rather than out into space and that are
imaging through all these different
wavelengths exactly what's changing and
they're basically just chronicling how
the Earth has changed over time. And a
lot of these environmental crimes can be
seen from space and can be measured. And
so it's like as long as you trust those
data, the question then is okay, so
these crimes are happening. How do we
stop them? And as you say, like I was
very much trying I mean you can't write
a book on environmental issues and be
apolitical. I think that's impossible.
But I certainly was trying to look at it
quite logically and go here's a crime.
We all agree this is bad and they these
are people who have been convicted. This
isn't just like someone who didn't do
the recycling. Um because also I think
that individual level is often
detrimental. But these are huge huge
crimes that cost us a huge amount of
money to clean up and that cost a huge
amount of human health and you know have
these other knock-on effects um and are
changing certainly the structure of our
planet in a way that we can feel
already. And so that is the purpose of
the book is to try and show that we
actually have lots of laws already.
We've got lots of enforcers. We've got
lots of researchers on it from space and
not space looking at these issues,
tracking them and trying to hunt down
the criminals.
>> So, what can you say about how people
end up doing bad stuff at a company when
there's a lot of them? Are they bad
people? Like, how how do you get to that
place where you in a large collective
are doing something really bad? So the
psychology of environmental crime I find
often boils down to the same kinds of
things that we have already been talking
about in the context of quote unquote
evil where it's things like conformity.
So doing what you think everyone else is
doing or know what everyone else is
doing. So there's an industry where you
know that lots of people are cheating or
are fudging the facts in some way. then
you both feel the need and also maybe
rationalize the ability to also deceive
because it's market forces, right? Like
ultimately in a free market or even a
controlled one, you've got these people
who are just lying to everybody else and
they're saying we're getting to these x
outcome by following the rules that
everyone else is and they're not.
They're just lying to consumers. They're
lying to the regulators. They're ly
they're just lying. And then other
people who are trying to be honest and
you know play the game clean, they see
the success of this other company and go
well we we want to have what they have
and then they realize they can't with
the tech that exists get there. And so
what do they then realize is well they
must be cheating. And so then they start
cheating. And so it has this trickle
effect of making everyone else fall in
line with these well unethical practices
that are unethical on so many levels.
And then later you get these huge
lawsuits because if it you know if you
get get caught then everyone's upset the
investors are upset the consumers are
upset the environmentalists the lawyer
everybody's upset with you because you
have committed this huge crime. Yeah, I
mean you you explain so many um forces
there, but even the simple force of
social pressure, like very slight social
pressure. I was just watching this um um
documentary. It's based on a book,
Ordinary Men. Talking about the the
Germans uh in Nazi Germany that were
taking part in the execution squads
in Eastern Europe
and uh that they were given the option
not to do it and ultimately they most
people decided to keep being part of the
execution squad even though they had no
hatred in their heart seemingly
whatsoever.
>> It's just slight social pressure. You
don't want to be the guy that kind of
chickens out.
Just a little bit of social pressure and
you are able to very quickly dehumanize
a large number of people and to murder
them without any hate in your heart,
without anything that could trivially
directly be identified as quote unquote
evil. Just normal people doing very bad
things. And you can be an emissions
engineer with a kid with asthma and an
old grandma who's struggling with her
health and still feel like, "Yeah, I
know that I'm creating these dirty cars
and yet I'm going to do it anyway."
Because, as you say, there's a the
conformity, the social pressure, the
rationalization, and those are all very
human experiences. And that's why also
in the book I always focus on
whistleblower is a big word but like
people who at some point actually helped
to uncover what was going on and that
we're back to the topic of heroes. We're
back to bystander effects. We're back to
all of the social psychology and
criminal psychology we've been talking
about this whole time. Which is why I
thought it was so important to apply
that research to this context and to
say, okay, so now we've got
these people who are willing to engage
in these crimes. They know it, but
there's also this moment of how do you
get out of it and who is going to stop
them? And back to the idea of heroes.
And you do usually in these cases at
some point have a hero, either an
external one or an internal one who
goes, "This needs to stop."
>> Do you have empathy for those criminals?
I
>> have empathy for everybody. Has that
ever been in your life challenged
like where you had trouble empathizing?
>> There is one context. So there is one
context that I I don't know if it's that
I have trouble empathize. I think it is
I have trouble empathizing and I just
think it is
I don't want to and I don't know why
this is the one thing but I remember
writing evil and
I got to the section on sexual slavery
and there was something about that very
specific issue of having women in
particular in a confined area where you
have often trafficked them and then
you're forcing them to engage engage in
repeated sexual acts
that
the person who is running that
it's tough for you.
>> I can't that's like the I know that I'm
not saying that that's the worst kind of
crime. I don't think it necessarily is.
I just think for my mind there was just
a you can't go there. That's I don't
know how to empathize with that person.
>> Yeah, I have I probably have a bunch of
categories of people. stuff with kids is
just like it's tough.
>> It's tough.
>> Yeah,
>> it's tough.
What gives you hope about this beautiful
world of ours, about the future of human
civilization
given all the darkness that you have
studied?
>> I think the fact that there are people
who study the darkness gives me hope and
that there are people who want to
understand why we do bad things, myself
included. But I mostly get to benefit
from other people's research that I
summarize into my books. And I think
that
I think that the tech that we are now
experiencing
mostly also gives me hope in that there
is this whole new frontier of capacity
to implement scientific findings if we
want to do so and choose to do so. Like
also even in memory interviewing we were
talking about the potential role of AI
in distorting our memories I when I do
talks when I do corporate talks I tell
people the prompt that I use to use the
cognitive interview which is the best
practices in memory interviewing because
you can also tell you know AI tools to
do the appropriate kind of interviewing
if you're talking about memory things.
Um, and I created a company called Spot
uh of in 2017 which uses uh well it's
we're now building it out to be AI but
it's basically a tool to record
important emotional memories and to
share them as information with others.
So that I've always been interested in
how tech can help us to record
important emotional events like with
spot talk the spot and
how technology can actually make us feel
more human. So there's these capacities
like memory that we're bad at and tech
can help us to overcome some of those
shortcomings as long as we use it in a
sciencebacked way rather than just sort
of freestyling. I think the worry I have
sometimes is that as I've said before
we're sort of ignoring the social
scientists entirely sometimes when
building these systems and it ends up
becoming this engineering math problem
when that's not actually in terms of the
consequences for humanity what it's
going to be. And so I'm always keen on
connecting social sciences and big
issues.
>> Can you speak more to spot? This sounds
fascinating. So what what's
what's entailed in recording important
memories?
>> So spot came out of my going around the
world and giving everyone an existential
crisis. So I'd go around and like with
you, I'd say, "Look, our memor is really
faulty and here's all the ways it can
light us up." And people would go, "Oh
no." And then I'd go, "Bye." And
>> that's funny.
>> Some point I was like, "Maybe I should
do something about this." And so,
and so I did. And so I um I went to a
well I did a TED talk and I was invited
to this tech conference called Founders
Forum, which is this sort of meeting of
tech founders and others in London, but
in also a couple other places. And I was
invited to this. And while there, I met
the uh founder of Evernote
>> um Phil Libbon.
>> Cool.
>> And so I met Phil Libbon at this event
and I was talking to him about my
research on memory and how I've been
wanting to implement or translate what
I've been doing into something that
could prevent false memories. And
specifically, I was interested in
creating a an AI or at least machine
administered version of the cognitive
interview. So that's the neutral
approach. It's already a scripted
approach which was helpful. So it's been
scripted for decades or a couple of
decades. Um it's been scripted for
decades as a cognitive interview. And
when we train police on how to do it in
places like the UK, it's literally just
asking people to basically read a script
that we have fine-tuned over the years.
And what can do that really well? Well,
chatbots can do that really well. And so
together with Phil Libbon and my two
co-founders, Dylan and Daniel, I ended
up co-founding Spot, which is talk
tospot.com if you want to check it out.
And it ended up sort of pivoting into
this general reporting tool for
workplaces where this was before me too,
but it was the idea being that in lots
of workplace environments, you have
important emotional events that are
really important to understand but are
really hard to preserve and often you
have this really bad evidence that
you're relying on. So someone at some
point sort of goes to HR and says
something and somebody else says
something else and you're sort of unsure
as a company maybe who to whom to trust,
what's real. And so we were trying to
streamline that. And so now spot is a
reporting tool for any kind of
compliance issues. And so you can talk
to spot it's called and it is this
chatbot interface that administers the
cognitive interview and then creates a
report that then gets sent if you want
to your employer. So we work with like
insurance companies, medical companies,
we work with the bar. So all the lawyers
in the UK use it themselves which I
always think is a real stamp of approval
when the bar council is using your tool.
Um, but again, not not bars and drinks,
bars and lawyers.
>> Yes.
>> But
>> thank you for clarifying.
>> Just picturing all these like people
like with flare throwing vodka bottles
in the air. Not not them.
>> Oh, they're great, too. But yeah,
>> they could also use it potentially.
>> Um, but we've got people reporting like,
you know, someone left bleach in a
machine. So, it's like a more small
memory. So, it's streamlining reporting
processes. I mean, can you envision
something like SPA being used for
recording generally important emotional
events, positive and negative,
throughout your life? That seems like
something the LLM of today would really
benefit from.
>> Yeah. Again, that's why
>> So, you're not just strictly looking at
like compliance or in the context of
companies.
>> So, in the context of spot, yes, it's
just compliance and it's it's that. But
I think in sort of private life and in
terms of where I think this could go, I
I'm I'm interested in all memories. And
I think that important life events can
be recorded. And I think the idea of
having like grief bots and having things
that have a representation of you or
your loved ones. I think that's
something that I like seeing in the
future. I would
>> Have you gotten a chance to work with uh
maybe the Gemini team or OpenAI folks or
any of them anthropic? because it seems
like they don't have enough people to
think about this.
>> Well, I'm I'm just waiting for an email.
>> Okay. Well,
>> maybe I'll get one after this.
>> I'm I'm hang
>> me up, guys.
>> Yeah, I'm hanging out with Deep Mind
folks. That would be really That'd be
really fascinating to to see, first of
all, the the proper cognitive interview.
That's really interesting. That's really
interesting. How to not lead, how to not
to plant false memories.
I don't think any of them are thinking
about that.
>> I don't think so either. And then how to
make sure that you're using that to um
help people to store contemporaneous
evidence outside of their I just think
there's so much potential that's being
wasted right now.
>> Yeah. So the hope is that technology
and that there's people being willing to
empathize with all different flavors of
the human condition. That's your source
of hope for the future
>> and to celebrate all the people who are
doing amazing research and really
cracking down on things like
environmental crime and like spending
their lives to fight specific kinds of
crime.
>> Yeah, I like this Earth. I hope I hope
we fight for it. It's the only one we
got and I'm pretty hesitant to say that
maybe in this galaxy we might be the
only ones. So,
let's let's protect it. Well, uh what's
your name again? Just kidding.
Julia, this is a huge honor. Um, I've
been a fan of yours for a long time. I'm
really glad we got a chance to talk.
This was really fascinating. Your work
is fascinating and you're just a
fascinating human being. So, thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks for listening to this
conversation with Julia Shaw. To support
this podcast, please check out our
sponsors in the description where you
can also find links to contact me, ask
questions, give feedback, and so on. And
now let me leave you with some words
from TS Elliott.
Most of the evil in the world is done by
people with good intentions.
Thank you for listening and hope to see
you next time.