Von Hippel Says Autonomy Preference Drives Global Happiness Deficits

冯·希佩尔称对自主性的偏好导致全球幸福感缺失 现代人将个人自主置于演化形成的社交纽带之上，从而引发长期不快乐与生育率下降。 比尔·冯·希佩尔博士探讨了为祖先生存而设计的演化机制如何常常与现代都市生活发生错位，进而引发普遍的孤独感并改变约会模式。讨论涵盖了吸引力的演化根源、幽默与善良为何是更优质的择偶品质，以及色情内容和数字约会应用如何破坏现实中的亲密关系。冯·希佩尔还详细阐述了个人自主性与社交联系之间的权衡，并审视了地位、金钱、神经多样性以及睡眠和运动等生活方式选择对人类幸福感的影响。 演化心理学揭示，现代人类的行为、情绪反应和社交本能仍受制于最初为祖先生存与繁衍而设计的机制。 (0:00) 践行感恩之所以有效，是因为它模拟了祖先的生存机制，并符合人类的演化设计。 (4:40) 现代人由于过度将个人自主性置于社交联系和社区责任之上，承受着普遍的不快乐。 (5:35) 由于存在持续的社会相互依存关系，像哈扎人这样的原始狩猎采集社会报告的幸福感水平明显高于现代西方人。 (9:01) 城市生活虽然增加了财富，却侵蚀了社交联系和邻里信任，导致其报告的幸福感低于乡村环境。 (12:45)

Evolutionary psychologist Dr. Bill von Hippel argues that modern unhappiness and social fragmentation stem from an evolutionary mismatch: humans increasingly favor personal autonomy, material status, and convenience over the interdependent social bonds that ancestral survival required. The Autonomy Trap in Cities and Wealth (14:39) Ancestral humans survived through obligatory cooperation, but modern urbanization and affluence allow individuals to purchase independence, eroding mutual reliance. Dr. von Hippel points out that while only 1 in 100 Americans lived alone in 1850, roughly 1 in 7 do today, and regular neighborly gatherings have reversed since the 1970s. Although people migrate to urban centers for economic advancement—earning on average 25% more than rural counterparts in the United States—rural residents consistently report higher life satisfaction. Services like delivery apps permit high autonomy while eliminating everyday community interdependence, which von Hippel identifies as an evolutionary "miswanting" that fuels isolation. Status Competition and the Easterlin Paradox (17:25) While individual income continues to increase subjective well-being past theoretical caps—exceeding $600,000 annually—societal happiness remains flat as overall wealth rises, a pattern known as the Easterlin Paradox. Real wages in the United States have tripled since the 1940s without shifting national happiness, because status operates as a zero-sum hierarchy. In ancestral bands of roughly 100 individuals, people could secure status through diverse niches like storytelling or toolmaking. In modern globalized societies, money serves as the primary visible proxy for status, triggering unwinnable comparisons. Von Hippel notes that allocating capital toward shared experiences rather than material items mitigates this, as experiences integrate into personal identity rather than comparative status games. Evolutionary Mating and Modern Dating Friction (25:26) Human mating preferences reflect distinct ancestral reproductive investments. Men visually prioritize cues of youth and health, particularly waist-to-hip ratio and fat distribution on the hips and thighs that historically supplied lipids for fetal brain development. Conversely, women display greater sexual plasticity, valuing resource potential, ambition, and honest cognitive signals like humor and kindness. Von Hippel cites research by Dr. Brendan Zietsch showing that same-sex attraction is polygenic; straight men carrying higher polygenic scores for same-sex attraction average more female sexual partners, likely because associated genetic factors enhance emotional and aesthetic attentiveness. However, modern institutions introduce structural friction. In higher education, women earn approximately 60% of university degrees compared to 40% for men. Because women hypergamously seek partners with equal or higher education, millions face a deficit of viable matches, while unpartnered men face higher risks of antisocial behavior. This divide is amplified on dating apps like Tinder, where the top 20% of men capture 80% of female interest through superficial status markers, obscuring non-visual virtues like kindness and reliability that support lasting partnerships. The Parenting Paradox and Rebuilding Connection (48:02) Plummeting birth rates in industrialized nations stem from an evolutionary disconnect: humans evolved a sex drive and an instinct to nurture existing offspring, but never an abstract desire for children. Contraception decoupled intercourse from reproduction, exposing the immediate frictions of child-rearing. Referencing Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman's work, von Hippel observes that daily childcare ranks near routine chores in moment-to-moment pleasure, yet parents rate their children as their highest source of reflective life satisfaction and meaning. Reversing demographic decline thus depends on minimizing parenting drudgery rather than appealing to non-existent biological urges. To restore social health, von Hippel recommends deliberate, low-friction habits over open-ended intentions. While hunter-gatherers engaged in frequent, unstructured idle socializing—a habit now displaced by digital entertainment—modern individuals must engineer connection into daily routines. Practical strategies include pairing solitary hobbies with social interaction (such as completing crossword puzzles together remotely), pursuing fitness goals with partners for shared accountability, and establishing firm pre-set boundaries on work and wealth targets so career ambitions do not permanently crowd out human relationships. Von Hippel concludes that while individuals cannot readily alter macroeconomic trends, understanding the evolutionary trade-off between personal autonomy and community connection is essential to curbing modern loneliness. A critical unresolved question is whether technological interventions, such as robotic caregiving or machine augmentations, will meaningfully relieve modern parenting and career burdens without further eroding the interpersonal dependencies that human biology evolved to require.

进化心理学家Bill von Hippel指出，现代人类沿袭了远古祖先的生存与繁衍本能，却在当代环境中过度偏向个人自主性而忽视深层社会联结，从而引发了幸福感停滞、孤独蔓延及生育率暴跌等普遍困境。 自主性悖论：城市化与财富对社会联结的侵蚀 (12:45) 人类在进化历程中高度依赖群体协作，但现代基础设施和城市化使个体能够脱离紧密社群独立生存。数据表明，1850年美国仅有1%的人口独居，如今已升至七分之一；1970年代约三分之一的人经常与邻居聚会，如今不与邻居交往的人反占多数。尽管超过50%的全球人口已迁入城市以追求经济与职业自主，美国大城市居民收入平均比农村居民高出25%，其生活满意度却显著偏低。 财富与现代便利虽然提升了生活品质，却促成了人际疏离。高收入人群通过外包育儿、家政和即时配送购买“独立”，瓦解了低收入社区因资源匮乏而形成的相互依赖网络。此外，根据伊斯特林悖论（Easterlin Paradox），尽管个人年收入超过60万美元时即时幸福感仍在增加，但由于全社会经济总量的增长属于零和地位博弈，美国人均收入虽比1940年代增长两倍，国民幸福感总量却毫无变化。过度追求自主性让人牺牲了共享体验，导致独居和抑郁比例大幅攀升。 择偶信号与现代错配：吸引力偏好与约会失衡 (20:56) 人类两性的吸引力机制受制于繁殖代价的进化不对称。男性终身具备生育潜力，择偶上本能地看重年轻、健康以及反映生殖力与胎儿脑发育储备的脂肪分布（如腰臀比）；女性因面临怀孕与哺乳的沉重生理成本，在体貌偏好上更具性可塑性，核心关注男性的资源保护力、雄心与善良。Von Hippel指出，幽默感是心智敏捷的“诚实信号”，而超出基本技能门槛的善良更具进化优势。遗传学家Brendan Zietsch的研究还表明，携带较高同性吸引多基因评分的异性恋男性平均拥有更多女性伴侣，推测其基因赋予了审美、卫生与情感敏感度等更具亲和力的特质。 然而，现代技术与人口结构对这些择偶偏好构成了严重冲击。在高等教育领域，大学校园男女比例已达到40比60的失衡状态，女性倾向于寻找学历相当或更高的伴侣，导致数百万高学历女性难以匹配。在约会软件上，Tinder数据显示前20%的男性获得了80%的女性右滑关注，绝大多数男性处于隐形状态；这种数字筛选机制放大了豪车与体格等显性炫耀，遮蔽了可靠度与善良等长远相伴的核心品格，加剧了未婚无配偶年轻男性的边缘化风险。 繁衍与婚姻困境：即时苦役、反思意义与伙伴轨迹 (43:41) 针对全球生育率跌破更替水平的现象，Von Hippel明确反驳了“人类天生渴望要孩子”的假说。他认为人类演化出的是强烈的性驱动力，以及孩子出生后不可抗拒的抚育保护本能；现代避孕手段彻底将性与生育解绑，导致性行为频率不再与家庭规模挂钩。援引诺贝尔奖得主Daniel Kahneman的研究，照顾儿童在即时体验追踪中的愉悦度极低，与洗碗和折衣服相当，但当人们回溯整个人生满意度时，子女却被评为最深层的意义来源与幸福巅峰。 在婚姻层面，长期追踪数据显示结婚并未从根本上改变个体的基准幸福感。走向离婚的夫妻通常在婚前一年最快乐并随后迅速恶化；普通夫妻在婚礼当年达到满意度顶峰后逐渐回归基线；仅有极少数夫妻能在婚后十年持续增进幸福。不过，婚姻在生理层面对晚年寿命具有保护作用，65岁以上已婚男性的平均寿命延长2.0年，女性延长1.5年。从人类学角度看，坦桑尼亚哈扎人仅约20%能维持终身婚姻，人类在生物学上更偏向于伴随偶尔不忠的“连环单配偶制”（serial monogamy）。 认知代偿与实践策略：从生理节律到重建日常社交 (111:13) 人类独有的心理机制常常伴随进化代偿。能够跨越时空模拟未来赋予了人类强大的规划与协作能力，但也带来了持续预见不确定性的焦虑本能；而ADHD等神经多样性特质在远古狩猎环境中兼具能量充沛与兴趣聚焦的适应优势，只是与现代静坐体系产生冲突。在生理恢复方面，Whoop监测与可穿戴设备数据表明，男性每晚平均睡眠时间比女性少约20分钟，且单位睡眠的生理恢复效率可能更高；通过重力毯、防蓝光镜与降低晚间照度等行为干预，可将深睡和快速眼动睡眠增加15至20分钟。 面对高压现代生活，Von Hippel建议采取苏格拉底式的习惯重构策略，以降低维系联结的意志力门槛。具体方法包括：将独立的个人爱好与社交捆绑（如通过电话与远方亲友同步完成填字游戏）、与同伴结对建立运动及学习的社交问责制、饲养猫狗等宠物以获取稳定心理支持，以及主动克制在工作闲暇时刷手机的冲动，恢复看似无目的却至关重要的面对面闲聊与即兴互动。 Von Hippel总结认为，解决现代文明的精神危机与人际疏离，既无法靠盲目回归原始部落，也不能寄托于过度膨胀的个人自主性。尽管他设想在理想状态下“完美的即时正义机制”能消除人际侵害，但在现实中，现代人唯有清醒认知自身进化硬件的局限，主动在日常日程中建立无法被技术替代的依赖关系与家庭仪式，方能在自主追求与社群归属之间达成可持续的心理平衡。

## Background 本期节目于2025年2月17日发布在YouTube频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人为Steven Bartlett），特邀演化与社会心理学权威比尔·冯·希佩尔博士（Dr. Bill von Hippel）展开深度对话。节目简介指出，双方围绕演化心理学对爱情、成功与幸福的深刻影响展开探讨，剖析了高成就女性择偶困境、不可伪造的性吸引力特质、财富与社交能力的关联，以及全球生育率骤降所带来的未来冲击。 ## TL;DR 冯·希佩尔博士从演化心理学视角揭示了现代文明的核心症结：现代人拥有了空前的个人自主权与物质财富，却陷入了与远古社交天性断裂的孤独陷阱。对话深入拆解了两性吸引力的诚实信号（如男性的幽默与冒险、女性的腰臀比与储脂机制）、交友软件导致的择偶失衡，以及现代避孕技术将性与繁衍剥离后不可逆的人口衰退危机。最后，结合哈扎狩猎采集部落的快乐奥秘与WHOOP生理追踪大数据，对谈给出了以购买体验替代物质竞争、建立生活仪式感并适度让渡自主性以重拾深度人际联结的幸福指南。 ## Atmosphere & style 全片充盈着理性冷峻与机智幽默交织的探索张力，Steven Bartlett敏锐且直击痛点的追问，与冯·希佩尔博士信手拈来的动物演化隐喻形成了极具启发性的思维碰撞。谈话在颠覆直觉的演化现实（如男性睾丸尺寸与精子竞争、好人绝不垫底）与面对宇宙虚无感的深沉哲思之间起伏穿梭，既有揭穿现代人“地位军备竞赛”的清醒辛辣，又流淌着一种理解人类脆弱天性后劝慰彼此抱团取暖的温和底色。 ## Bulletin - [05:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=352s) 演化心理学权威威廉·冯·希佩尔博士指出，人类现代社会幸福感停滞的核心症结在于“过度追求个人自主性而牺牲了社会连接”，导致独居率激增与邻里信任崩塌。 - [43:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2619s) 全球生育率断崖式下跌并非源于色情内容泛滥，而是避孕技术在人类演化史上首次切断了“性欲望”与“繁衍结果”的自然绑定；同时环境内分泌干扰物正严重损伤生理性欲。 - [54:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3268s) 长期学术追踪打破了“结婚必然带来长久幸福”的表象：婚后十年人们的平均幸福感其实与婚前持平，但婚姻对已婚男性的平均寿命延长（约2年）显著高于女性（约1.5年）。 - [01:40:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6034s) WHOOP 可穿戴设备大数据最新挖掘显示，运动会作为生理放大器双向加剧其他行为后果：运动日饮酒对心率与 HRV 的破坏显著高于久坐日，而良好睡前微习惯的正向恢复收益同样会被放大。 ## Key takeaways - [02:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=137s) 幸福感是演化用于引导个体走向生存与繁衍的精巧导航工具，而非生命与生俱来的预设状态；现代垃圾食品和电子游戏属于欺骗大脑奖赏通路的“表型放纵”。 - [08:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=530s) 坦桑尼亚哈扎部落等现存狩猎采集者尽管生活残酷且婴儿夭折率近半，幸福感却高达90%以上，远超现代西方都市人群（约50%），印证了深度社会依存网络对心理健康的决定性作用。 - [17:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1037s) 伊斯特林悖论依然成立：全社会财富翻倍并未提升国民平均幸福感，但“比邻居或同伴更富有”却能显著带来快感，因为财富在本质上已沦为零和博弈的社会地位记分牌与性选择信号。 - [21:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1293s) 男性的冒险行为是演化中极难伪造的“诚实质量信号”，但建立家庭后睾酮水平会大幅回落；在长期合作声誉博弈中，“善良”相比单纯的能力门槛更具压倒性优势。 - [25:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1551s) 女性的脂肪储备（特别是绝经前大腿与臀部脂肪）直接关乎胎儿脑发育，因此恒定的健康腰臀比构成了跨越审美周期的核心生育力吸引指标；男性在择偶时往往展现出更强的跨阶层包容性。 - [29:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1749s) 前沿基因研究表明，携带适量“同性恋相关基因”的异性恋男性反而在异性择偶市场上更具吸引力，拥有更多性伴侣，反映了自然选择对多基因评分的平衡机制。 - [32:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1937s) 大学男女比例失衡（女多男少）与女性普遍寻求同等或向上兼容的择偶心理产生剧烈剪刀差，结合 Tinder 等交友软件前20%男性垄断80%关注的残酷二八法则，加剧了未婚男性的社会边缘化危机。 - [45:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2739s) 人类演化中只内置了“想要性爱”的欲望，从未进化出“想要孩子”的抽象本能；面对现代育儿的日常苦役，具备无限耐心、杜绝虐待的完美机器人保姆或许是借育分担机制在未来的科技延伸。 - [58:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3514s) ADHD 和神经多样性并非病理缺陷，而是远古分工的遗留特质：神经典型者善于用社交妥协应对危机，而神经多样性个体脱离现成社交解法，往往是工具创新与技术突破的源头。 - [01:02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3751s) 慢性焦虑与抑郁是人类演化出“模拟未来”超级心智能力的沉重代价；其他动物仅对眼前危机产生即时恐惧，人类却因预见变数与死亡宿命而深陷焦虑，当下正念是切断其机制的演化解药。 - [01:08:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4092s) 面对缺乏客观意义的虚无宇宙，顺应演化本质去建立深度联结并善待彼此，是人类自我赋予意义的唯一出路；而对外排他的部落主义，同样是人类消灭其他掠食天敌后内卷防御的演化回响。 - [01:19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4787s) 从解剖学证据（如睾丸大小介于黑猩猩与大猩猩之间）来看，人类天然是“带有偷腥倾向的连续单配制”；真正的顶级阶层往往通过朴素着装进行“反向信号”展示，避免落入显摆名牌的平庸地位竞争。 - [01:24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5060s) 动物受限于当下的生理状态，无法预判“未感受到的需求”；只有人类能够超越时空进行心智模拟，提前规划资源储备以抵御长远风险。 - [01:33:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5580s) 提升幸福概率的五大演化支柱为：坚持家庭聚餐与讲故事仪式、适度让渡自主性迁就朋友、饲养宠物给予无条件陪伴、留出无所事事的闲聊时光，以及结伴追求自我改善目标。 - [01:29:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5396s) 将可支配收入用于购买“体验”（旅行、探险）带来的幸福感远胜于“物品”（豪车、名牌），因为器物消费极易在社媒对比中贬值，而共同经历会永久融入不可剥夺的自我叙事。 - [01:51:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6684s) 重拾社会连接必须遵循“自知之明”并剥夺临时决策成本，通过将个人既有爱好转化为双人载体（如共同解字谜、结伴跑步），让社交像饭后刷牙一样自然融入日常动线。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=0s) 精彩看点与前瞻：现代社会的进化困境与社交断联 访谈在对现代人生活方式的尖锐质问中拉开序幕。史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）与演化心理学权威威廉·冯·希佩尔博士（Dr. Bill von Hippel）抛出了一系列违背直觉的现实问题：面对急剧下滑的全球生育率，到2100年许多国家的人口将缩减一半，未来我们是否会由机器人保姆来抚养孩子？冯·希佩尔指出，演化从未将人类设计成“渴望繁衍后代”，养育孩子的现实负担如此沉重，以至于一个能够完美托底的机器人保姆可能会成为现代人的刚需。 同时，人类的生活条件达到了历史顶峰，但幸福感却并未提升。当代年轻人相比二十年前性生活更少，结婚率连年走低，独居比例从1850年的百分之一暴增至如今的七分之一；住在城市的50%人类虽然比乡村人口富裕25%，却远没有乡村人快乐。城市赋予了人们极度的“自主性”，让每个人都能随时按自己的意志生活，但代价却是毁灭性的社会联结断裂。此外，冯·希佩尔还透露了演化中两性吸引力的秘密——男性吸引女性最清晰且不可伪造的“品质真实信号（honest signals of quality）”，并非仅仅依靠表面展示。 --- ### [01:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=91s) 节目插曲：一千万订阅的团队赌局 在进入正式对话前，史蒂芬向观众分享了一则幕后趣事。随着频道即将突破 1000 万 YouTube 订阅这一历史性里程碑，幕后团队向史蒂芬发起了一个赌约：未来 30 天内，每增加一名新订阅者，史蒂芬就要自掏腰包向团队的庆祝基金注入 1 美元，用于为常年默默付出的幕后工作人员举办一场盛大的狂欢派对。史蒂芬笑着调侃道，这大概是他第一次在镜头前“劝大家不要点击订阅”，因为这可能会让他大出血，但他依然欣然接受了这个感谢团队的打赌。 --- ### [02:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=137s) 探寻人类行为的底层代码：进化心理学与“幸福”的本质 当被问及过去四十年究竟在研究什么时，冯·希佩尔博士概括为：在实验室里探寻“人类为何会做出如今这些行为”的底层演化原因。大众往往将很多日常感受视作理所当然，例如“和朋友共进美餐会感到快乐”，但这背后有着严密的演化逻辑：为什么与陌生人或讨厌的人吃饭感受截然不同？为什么食物本身的种类会触发完全不同的心理回报？ 冯·希佩尔阐释道，要解开这些谜题，必须回溯人类的演化史，看究竟是哪些因素帮助我们的祖先在生存竞争中胜出。幸福感并非凭空存在，它是演化所使用的一种精巧导航工具，用来引导个体走向有利于生存和繁衍的方向。“演化本身没有远见（Evolution has no foresight）”，但它通过奖惩机制塑造了我们——那些在做出有益生存繁衍的行为时能获得快乐的祖先，留下了更多后代；而那些沉溺于自毁行为的祖先，则在漫长的基因筛选中被自然淘汰。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 演化与幸福感的内在机制 accDescr: 展现环境适应性、后代生存差异与快乐奖赏机制之间的演化关系 subgraph Evolution_Mechanism ["自然演化的基本逻辑"] A["个体基因变异与特质"] --> B{"环境适应与生存繁衍"} B -->|"成功繁衍并存活"| C["有利特质在基因库中放大"] B -->|"无法繁衍或夭折"| D["特质从基因池中被抹除"] end subgraph Happiness_Tool ["作为导航工具的幸福"] C --> E["演化植入神经奖励机制"] E --> F["亲社会与合作行为"] F --> G["多巴胺与内啡肽回馈（感到幸福）"] end ``` --- ### [03:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=209s) 何为进化：差异化繁殖、基因继承与表型特质 冯·希佩尔对“进化（演化）”给出了清晰的科学定义：演化是一个盲目且机械的过程，其核心逻辑建立在“差异”之上。如果所有人繁殖的后代数量完全一致，且所有后代的存活概率也一模一样，演化就不会发生。演化存在的先决条件在于“可变性（variability）”： 某种特质让某个人拥有了更多存活下来的后代，而另一个人即便再优秀，若未能留下后代，其基因就会彻底随他消逝。只要这种导致繁衍成功的特质具备可遗传性，它就会在下一代甚至更长远的基因库中占据主导地位。这一机制不仅造就了人类物种共有的典型特征（例如每个人都长着两只眼睛），也塑造了人类内部丰富多样的个体差异（如体格、身高与性格倾向）。 --- ### [04:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=280s) 进化指南针：“表型放纵”与现代奖励机制的错位 为什么演化学能够成为指导人类追求幸福与成功的罗盘？现代人常常听闻“表达感恩能让人幸福”这类鸡汤式建议，却从未追问背后的演化渊源。冯·希佩尔强调，任何能够带来持久幸福的行为，必然在远古时期切实帮助过我们的祖先；否则，它就属于演化生物学家罗伯特·特里弗斯（Robert Trivers）所提出的**“表型放纵（phenotypic indulgence）”**。 “表型放纵”指的是某种现代刺激精准模仿了对祖先有利的事物，从而欺骗性地触发我们的大脑奖赏回路： - **垃圾食品**：充斥着高脂肪、高盐和高糖。在资源极度匮乏的远古时代，这些是维持生命的关键热量来源，祖先必须竭力搜寻；现代人虽然营养过剩，但在进食这类食物时依然会本能地感到快乐。 - **电子游戏**：属于崭新的现代产物，但它们通过模拟狩猎、战斗、探索与升级等远古生存必需技能，给予玩家强烈的内啡肽与多巴胺激增，尽管它对现代现实生存已无实际益处。 --- ### [05:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=352s) 人类当下的致命误区：自主性与社会联结的失衡 从演化心理学的视角审视现代社会，人类目前犯下的最大错误，在于**“个人自主性（autonomy）”与“社会联结（connection）”之间的严重失衡**。自主性代表着高度的自我治理与随心所欲——“我现在想做什么就做什么”；而现代人正全面倒向个人主义，为了追求眼前的即时自主，不断舍弃与他人的深度联结。 冯·希佩尔指出，这种倾向在“WEIRD”（西方、受过良好教育、工业化、富裕、民主）群体、城市居民以及高净值人群中尤为突出。现代人不再需要依赖部落即可独立生存，这种自主看似带来了自由，实则对心理健康造成了巨大损害。日常生活中这种妥协随处可见，哪怕是极小的事：两个朋友打算去看电影，一个想看浪漫喜剧，另一个想看动作片，在过去人们会妥协陪伴，而在如今极度追求自我偏好的氛围下，大家往往干脆各看各的、散场再见。我们在微小的细节中不断推开彼此，最终走向了全局性的孤立。 --- ### [07:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=428s) 孤独大流行：从独居潮到婚姻联结的全面瓦解 为了印证这种社交退化的普遍性，冯·希佩尔列举了一组触目惊心的数据与社会趋势： - **独居率的飞跃式激增**：1850年的美国，仅有 **1%（即百分之一）** 的人独自居住；而如今，这一比例已经攀升至 **1/7（约14.3%）**。在不到两百年的时间里，原本极度罕见的独居状态已演变成工业化国家的普遍常态。 - **邻里关系的全面倒退**：20世纪70年代，约有 **30%（近三分之一）** 的人每周会与邻居聚会走动数次，仅有 **五分之一** 的人完全不与邻居往来；而如今情况彻底颠倒，仅有 **五分之一** 的人还会定期见邻居，高达 **三分之一** 的人与邻居老死不相往来。 - **伴侣相处时间的碎片化**：即便在婚姻内部，夫妻共同度过的高质量时间也在急剧减少。例如以往夫妻会一起跑步再做做器械，而在细分选择极度丰富的今天，丈夫可能去专门的铁馆力量举，妻子则去精品跑步工作室，彼此的生活轨道正在被个人选择不断割裂。 - **婚姻与同居总量的双重暴跌**：欧美等富裕地区不仅结婚率持续下行，哪怕将非婚同居（cohabitation）合并统计，近五十年来亲密伴侣的整体结合率依然呈现持续走低的衰退趋势。人们正在以前所未有的速度从彼此的生命中撤退。 ### [08:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=530s) 哈扎部落的启示：物质匮乏却更快乐的原住居民 比尔·冯·希佩尔（Dr Bill von Hippel）指出，现代人一直在用脚投票，做出自认为能带来幸福的选择，但这往往是一个重大的认知偏差——人们反复做出让自己越来越不快乐的决策。当史蒂文询问是否有确切的数据证明现代人在追求幸福上走错了方向、是否存在幸福感更高的群体时，比尔提到了人类学家对坦桑尼亚和肯尼亚边界哈扎人（Hadza）的研究。哈扎人是现存最接近人类远古祖先生活形态的狩猎采集部落，生活在人类进化的发源地。 研究团队曾向哈扎人询问：“在过去的一周里，你感到快乐、悲喜交加还是悲伤？”结果令人震撼：超过 90% 的哈扎人回答感到快乐；而面对同样的问题，西方现代人中仅有大约 50% 给出肯定的回答。然而哈扎人的生活环境极其残酷：他们几乎要亲手埋葬近半数夭折的孩子，没有任何银行存款或积蓄，不知道明天的狩猎能否成功，并且必须遵守极其繁复的文化规则，像依赖保险单一样与族人保持全天候紧密互助。即便如此，他们表现出的幸福感依然远超现代人。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 现代西方社会与哈扎部落的幸福感与生存特征对比 accDescr: 对比现代人在物质充裕下的低幸福感与哈扎人在极端生存条件下的高幸福感 subgraph WESTERN["现代西方社会"] W1["物质财富充沛 / 医疗先进"] --> W2["极度追求个人自主"] W2 --> W3["仅约 50% 感到过去一周快乐"] end subgraph HADZA["哈扎狩猎采集部落"] H1["无积蓄 / 婴儿夭折率近 50%"] --> H2["强烈的部落互助与社会联结"] H2 --> H3["超过 90% 感到过去一周快乐"] end ``` - **哈扎部落与西方受访者幸福感差距**：面对过去一周是否快乐的提问，哈扎人给出肯定回答的比例超过 90%，而西方人仅有约 50%。 - **狩猎采集者的生存残酷性**：哈扎人几乎要埋葬近一半的子女，零积蓄，食物完全依赖不可预测的日常狩猎与采集。 ### [10:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=655s) 朋友史蒂文的豪宅与现代人的不知足 比尔分享了促使他写下第二本书《社会悖论》（*The Social Paradox*）的个人契机。十多年前，他去拜访一位同样名叫史蒂文（Stephen）暴富的朋友。走进那套极其奢华、拥有无敌景观、配备多位私厨与佣人的豪宅时，比尔感叹对方的生活堪称极致。出人意料的是，这位朋友却叹着气说：“看起来是这样，但我一点也不比以前快乐”，并开始滔滔不绝地罗列生活中面临的新烦恼。比尔当时内心甚至产生了一种道德优越感，认为如果换作自己如此富有，必定每天感恩戴德、享受其中。 然而几年后，比尔在阅读弗兰克·马洛（Frank Marlowe）关于哈扎人的著作时突然顿悟：相比哈扎人，比尔自己就是那个不懂得感恩的“史蒂文”。在哈扎人眼里，现代普通人拥有随时可以看病的医生、冰箱里吃不完的食物、冬暖夏凉的温控系统，财富堪比亿万富翁，却依然感到不满足。回顾历史，哪怕仅在 100 到 150 年前，全球仍有四分之一的儿童活不过五岁，流感和斑疹伤寒等疾病随时致命，女性因难产死亡的几率极高。现代人类的生存条件实现了跨越式的提升，但整体幸福感不仅没有随之暴增，甚至可能倒退了。 - **历史儿童夭折率对比**：大约 100 至 150 年前，约 25% 的儿童在五岁前死于流行病等各种疾病。 - **现代生活的物质奇迹**：现代人享有即时医疗、冷暖空调与充裕食品，但在主观幸福感上却陷入了严重的适应与忽视。 ### [13:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=785s) 涌入城市的代价：自主性换来的孤独陷阱 探讨为何现代人不如祖先快乐时，比尔解释这是由多重因素共同导致的漫长演化演变，其核心症结在于“自主性（Autonomy）与人际联结（Connection）之间的失衡”。城市化是这种失衡的最典型体现。人类建构城市已有约 5,000 年的历史；1960 年全球每三人中仅有一人居于城市，而到了 2007 年，全球城市人口正式突破 50%。人们虽然持续涌向城市，却为此付出了惨痛的幸福代价。 统计数据显示，生活在人口少于 2,500 人的乡村居民，其幸福指数显著高于生活在 25 万人口以上的大城市居民，且在乡村报告感到不幸福的人数明显更少。值得注意的是，美国大城市居民的人均财富比乡村高出约 25%，即使扣除高昂的生活成本，城市人依然更富裕。比尔指出，城市向人类许诺了极大的自主性——更多的工作机会、自由选择的教育和更高的薪资，但其隐藏的沉重代价是严重的“人际隔离”。 | 指标 | 现代大城市（人口 > 25 万） | 乡村社群（人口 < 2,500） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **平均收入** | 相对高（比乡村高出约 25%） | 相对低 | | **幸福感自评** | 感到极度幸福的比例显著偏低 | 幸福感比例显著偏高，不幸福比例更低 | | **信任度（交付房屋钥匙）** | 极低（即使邻居仅隔着一堵墙） | 高（尽管物理距离遥远，但彼此信任） | | **人际联结特征** | 物理距离极近但心理原子化、孤立 | 依赖紧密的互助网络，友谊满意度更高 | - **全球城市人口拐点**：1960 年全球城市人口比例约为三分之一（33%），2007 年全球城市人口占比首次跨越 50% 大关。 - **城乡收入差距**：以美国为例，大城市居民的平均财富比乡村居民高出约 25%，但乡村居民表现出更强的幸福感和友谊满意度。 ### [15:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=927s) 邻里信任的瓦解与金钱带来的“外包孤岛” 比尔指出，现代城市虽然让人与人紧密挨在一起，住在上下左右全是住户的公寓楼里，但人们根本不认识身边的人。调查表明，向人们询问“你是否拥有足够信任、可以托付家门钥匙的人”时，乡村居民给出肯定回答的比例远高于城市居民。不仅如此，乡村居民对自身友谊关系的满意度也显著优于城市人群。 针对书中的图表，史蒂文补充道，数据显示美国人与邻居共度夜晚的频率与收入呈反比——收入越高，花在邻里社交上的时间反而越少。比尔解释说，富裕赋予了人们摆脱他人的特权：如果缺了咖啡豆或需要修补工具，富人可以直接通过手机软件（如 Instacart）快速配送或购买新工具，完全不需要开口向邻居求助。相反，经济并不宽裕的人因为无法将生活琐事外包，不得不形成复杂的相互依存网络：彼此借用工具、互相照看孩子和宠物。这种持续的“相互需要”恰恰是人类进化所适应的生活模式。尽管富人整体上因物质安全感而比穷人更快乐，但在友谊满意度以及社区紧密联结上，依赖互助的群体却反而拥有更深厚的社会资本。这种财富增加削弱人际互动的现象，在受教育程度更高的群体中同样呈现出一致的规律。 ### [17:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1037s) 金钱、伊斯特林悖论与幸福感的天花板 在探讨现代社会与人际连接的断裂时，比尔·冯·希佩尔（Dr. Bill von Hippel）指出，受教育程度越高的人，与邻居聚会的频率往往越低；然而在当今社会，财富与教育水平几乎总是形影相随。金钱确实能在“实时”层面显著提升个体的幸福感——当你赚得更多时，你的即时快乐感会随之增加，且你越看重金钱，这种提升效应就越明显。过去学界普遍认为金钱对幸福感的边际效益存在上限（通常认为年收入超过 10 万美元后便不再增长），但最新研究证实，即便年收入突破 60 万美元大关，金钱依然在源源不断地带来更高的幸福感。 然而，一旦将视角从个体拉升至整个社会，就会撞上著名的“伊斯特林悖论”（Easterlin Paradox）。该悖论指出：随着整个社会变得越来越富裕，公众的整体幸福感却完全没有提升。以美国为例，从 20 世纪 40 年代至今，按实际购买力计算，人们现在的财富大约是当年的三倍；自 1940 年代起，针对美国代表性样本的幸福感追踪测量从未中断，但全国整体的幸福感曲线却始终平如直线、未曾移动分毫。按实际价值算，金钱大幅暴涨，而公众幸福感却纹丝不动。 - **个体收入上限的打破**：以往认为年收入 10 万美元即达到幸福感天花板，新数据显示收入超过 60 万美元时幸福感仍在持续提升。 - **伊斯特林悖论的现实数据**：美国人均实际收入自 1940 年代以来翻了三倍（3x richer），但过去八十余年的全国性代表样本调查显示，社会整体幸福感完全停滞。 --- ### [18:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1102s) 吸血蝙蝠与信息共享：人类如何突破零和博弈 面对“既然财富无法普惠式地带来幸福，什么才是完美的幸福组合”这一提问，冯·希佩尔分析了人类与动物在博弈机制上的本质差异。自然界的大部分生存状态本质上都是“零和博弈”（Zero-Sum Game）——资源总量固定，我的所得即是你的损失。部分动物之所以能够发展出合作，是因为它们找到了创造“正和关系”（Positive-Sum）的契机。 最典型的例子莫过于吸血蝙蝠（Vampire Bats）。吸血蝙蝠夜间会降落在大体型动物背上吸食少量血液，若连续几个晚上未能捕食，它们就会面临活活饿死的致命威胁。如果一只蝙蝠空腹归巢，而它的同伴吸血归来，饥饿的蝙蝠便会向朋友乞食，关系良好的同伴会将一部分胃里的血液反刍出来救它一命。但这种合作依然受到物质限制：如果同伴当晚同样空手而归，哪怕彼此是最好的朋友也无能为力。 人类则演化成了彻底不同的“认知动物”（Cognitive Animal）。在人类社会中，价值非凡的核心资源变成了“信息”。信息的特殊性在于它可以被无偿赠予——将信息传递给他人并不会导致自己失去它。这种特性让人类建立起了几乎不需要计较即时回报的深度互惠网络，让人类在生存竞争中拥有了超越其他动物的非零和协作优势。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 人类非零和认知共享与零和地位竞争对比 accDescr: 展示人类如何通过信息共享实现非零和互惠，但在性选择与地位争夺上依然受制于零和博弈 subgraph PositiveSum["正向博弈：认知与资源共享"] A["信息作为非损耗资源"] --> B["无损给予与深度互惠"] B --> C["超越动物界的群体协作优势"] end subgraph ZeroSum["零和博弈：地位与性选择"] D["局部群体排位竞争"] --> E["可见的财富与地位展示"] E --> F["性选择优势与潜在配偶倾斜"] end ``` --- ### [20:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1207s) 地位竞争与性选择：为什么“比邻居富有”才能带来快乐 尽管人类在信息与协作上实现了非零和，但动物演化的底色依然牢固地禁锢着我们：在“社会地位”层面，博弈依然是彻头彻尾的零和游戏。谁能在择偶竞争中被选中？谁能入选最顶尖的团队？这一切最终都取决于谁站在群体的顶端，谁跌落在群体的底层。在远古狩猎采集社会，族群规模大约只有百人，个体只需要在某一项技能上超越身边的同伴便能确立价值；但在当今全球化世界中，要在所有领域拔得头筹极为困难，而“金钱”成了最直观、所有人一眼可见的地位记分牌。 这就是为什么全社会财富增加三倍不会让整体更快乐，但“我比你更有钱”却能让我切切实实比你更快乐。金钱的相对优势转化为更高的社会地位，使人在性选择中占据制高点——“我可能会抢走你的女友，或者你圈子里的朋友会认为比尔比史蒂文更酷而选择追随我”。性选择驱动着两性不断争夺最优质的异性伴侣：男性之间激烈竞逐以求获得女性青睐，女性之间相互竞争以求获得男性选择，这构成了不可避免的零和地位博弈。 --- ### [21:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1293s) 男性的“诚实质量信号”：冒险行为背后的演化赌注 在演化博弈的择偶市场中，个体最核心的诉求是展现“诚实质量信号”（Honest Signals of Quality）。自然界充斥着虚张声势的伪装，如动物鼓起胸膛、竖起颈毛让自己显得庞大可怖，而演化机制也相应赋予了观察者看穿伪装的能力。因此，真正能够打动潜在配偶的，必须是极难伪造的诚实信号。 对于男性而言，最明确却又看似最不可思议的诚实信号之一便是“冒险精神”（Risk-Taking）。为什么冒生命危险反而能吸引女性？冯·希佩尔解释称，冒险的结果只有两种： 1. **成功**：充分展现出该个体在特定领域拥有何等超凡脱俗的技能与掌控力； 2. **失败**：若失败导致粉身碎骨，该个体的劣质基因自然被剔除出基因库；若失败后能迅速反弹、满血复活，则直接证明了其拥有无比强悍的机体鲁棒性与生命力。 追踪数据表明，高睾酮水平的男性更倾向于冒险，也更容易成功找到伴侣。即便女性在主观意识层面不一定时刻赞同鲁莽之举，潜意识层面依然会被这种特质吸引；此外，巨大的冒险魄力也能震慑其他同性竞争者，迫使其知难而退。然而，一旦男性成功建立伴侣关系并组建家庭，其体内的睾酮水平便会大幅回落。在择偶阶段，冒险是高收益的博弈筹码；但当有了需要抚养的妻儿骨肉，继续冒险便成了愚蠢的自杀行为。 - **其他男性诚实信号**：包括体型骨架（Physical Size）、通过自身努力挣得的财富（反映获取资源的能力）、持续高强度工作的野心与抱负（Ambition，向伴侣预示未来源源不断的抚养保障）。 --- ### [23:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1415s) 幽默与善良：敏捷大脑的基因广告与“好人绝不垫底” 史蒂文提出疑问：在性格层面，为什么幽默感对男性而言是一项极具吸引力的品质？冯·希佩尔强调，幽默同样是衡量智力与基因素质的诚实信号。幽默绝不是在聚会上背诵死记硬背的现成笑话，真正的幽默来自于把现实世界“旋转 90 度”的敏锐视角、出人意料的概念串联与瞬间机锋，这需要极度敏捷的大脑。由于人类大脑的基因表达远比身体其他任何器官都要密集，因此展现幽默就是向外界展示自己优良基因的直接窗口。 但在所有人类品质中，“善良”（Kindness）的权重甚至超越了一切。只要个体跨越了最低限度的能力门槛，善良便会成为压倒性的决定因素。一个心地善良的伴侣意味着在漫长生活中他会全心全意为你着想。 面对“好人是否注定垫底”（Do nice guys finish last?）的经典疑问，冯·希佩尔给出了演化学上的否定答案：**好人往往最先胜出**。在对狩猎采集部落的研究中，当猎人们清晨挑选结伴外出狩猎的搭档时，他们往往会优先选择性格善良的“老好人”，而非捕猎技能更顶尖但性格自私的高手。好人固然要付出代价——从经济学家的角度看，他们常常是容易被占便宜的“冤大头”（Suckers），即使对方从不回馈，好人也会安慰自己“没关系，史蒂文是个好人，我愿意分他半只兔子”。然而，正因为这种不计回报的利他倾向，在整个社会的长期声誉竞争中，所有人都争先恐后地希望与善良的人结盟。 --- ### [25:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1526s) 进化学视角下的女性吸引力与生育代价差异 对话随后转向女性吸引力的演化逻辑。冯·希佩尔指出，衡量女性吸引力的核心演化指标与男性存在根本分歧，其根源在于两性在生育成本与生理周期上的巨大不对称性。 男性的生育能力在整个人生阶段几乎是终身且极其廉价的——男性每天能轻而易举地产出多达上亿个精子，哪怕垂垂老矣、行将就木，在生物学层面上依然保有使人受孕的可能性。相比之下，女性的生育能力在生物学上极其严苛、代价极其高昂，且伴随着极其严峻的年龄与生理时间窗口限制。两性生理底层的剧烈反差，从根本上塑造了截然不同的择偶偏好与演化吸引力机制。 ### [25:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1551s) 生育力即演化货币：为何女性的脂肪与腰臀比是致命吸引力 从演化生物学视角来看，人类远祖女性只要步入 40 岁，几乎就不再具备生育能力。这种现象背后有着非常深刻且有趣的演化机制。在繁衍适龄期内，女性必须营养充沛且身体健康，因为维系长达九个月的妊娠期极其艰难——如果在孕期缺乏足够的食物摄入，母体根本无法为胎儿供给必需的养分。在残酷的远古环境中，食物极度匮乏，女性身上拥有脂肪就意味着她营养充足。因此，健康的体魄、年轻的岁数以及体脂储备，构成了男性择偶时最看重的关键特质。 对演化而言，“长命百岁固然美好，但如果你不繁衍后代，演化根本不在乎；繁衍才是演化的硬通货（Reproduction is the currency of evolution）”。正因如此，男性寻找伴侣的底层逻辑，就是寻找具备生育能力的繁衍对象。 当被问及“吸引力究竟是演化产物还是社会构建”时，比尔·冯·希佩尔（Bill von Hippel）指出两者兼而有之。人类具有极高的可塑性，社会审美随时代发生翻天覆地的剧变——仅对比 50 年前的审美与当今便能窥见一斑。然而，在这层多变的文化外衣之下，依然存在不可动摇的生物学根基： - **腰臀比（Waist-to-Hip Ratio）的永恒定律**：尽管当今潮流中关于“臀部大还是不大”的审美各异，但无论审美周期如何更替，能够激发男性性吸引力的腰臀比几乎保持恒定，因为该比例与女性生育力直接挂钩。 - **脑发育与母体储脂部位**：女性在绝经前往往倾向于将脂肪储存在大腿与臀部。这一生理机制极为关键，因为胎儿在子宫内发育时，脑部生长需要海量脂肪，而储存在母亲大腿和臀部的特种脂肪正是滋养婴儿大脑的最佳养料。 - **《花花公子》（Playboy）兔女郎的跨周期分析**：学者曾对 1950 年代至近代的所有《花花公子》玩伴女郎进行量化分析。尽管模特的绝对体重随着时代剧烈波动——从玛丽莲·梦露（Marilyn Monroe）时期的丰腴饱满，到后来的极度纤瘦，再到近年的重回丰满——但她们的**腰臀比数值几乎没有发生任何改变**。 --- ### [27:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1642s) 性的可塑性：男人在乎女人的财富与地位吗？ 在探讨男性是否在乎女性财富时，冯·希佩尔明确表示：在演化原则上，男性基本不在意对方是否有钱。虽然每个人都希望自身过上好日子，但在择偶吸引力的底层机制上，男女展现出了截然不同的演化策略——即所谓的“性可塑性（Sexual Plasticity）”。 女性在演化中发展出了极高的性可塑性，几乎能够爱上各形各色的男性。因为衡量男性是否优秀的特质大多深藏于内在。所有男性即便到了高龄依然具备生育能力，无论他是高矮胖瘦还是强壮瘦弱，生育力本身并不是女性需要担忧的问题。然而，抚养人类幼崽极其艰辛，女性亟需可靠的帮手——她需要一个擅长狩猎、能够全力保护自己与孩子的伴侣。这意味着女性必须具备爱上那些貌不惊人、并非施瓦辛格式的壮汉，但具备极强保障能力的人（例如比尔·盖茨式的男性）。因此，女性的性吸引阈值在外观上极具弹性。 相反，男性的性偏好则高度固化，他们在平均意义上严格搜寻特定的身形比例与外貌特征，因为这些直接映射着年轻与生育能力。在面对社会阶层与财富时，男女差异尤为悬殊： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 男女择偶偏好与跨阶层结合示意图 accDescr: 对比男性与女性在面对伴侣阶层、财富与生育特征时的不同演化选择机制。 subgraph Male["男性择偶机制 (以男性摇滚明星/富豪为例)"] M1["核心考量：外貌与生育力指标 (腰臀比/年龄/健康)"] --> M2["财富与社会地位：无所谓 (阶层穿透力极强)"] M2 --> M3["婚恋选择：从名流名媛到普通女侍应生均可"] end subgraph Female["女性择偶机制 (以女性精英/女星为例)"] F1["核心考量：社会地位、资源与主导力 (Dominance)"] --> F2["阶层向下兼容性极低"] F2 --> F3["婚恋选择：极少选择底层男侍应生，寻求同等或更高阶层"] end ``` - **阶层穿透力的不对称性**：男性摇滚巨星或富商在择偶时横跨整个社会阶层光谱。像米克·贾格尔（Mick Jagger）这样的顶级巨星，既可能娶名门望媛，也完全可能爱上普通女侍应生；但反过来，一位腰缠万贯的女性巨星或女富豪，极难向下包容并选择一个男侍应生作为终身伴侣。这印证了女性本能地追寻代表社会地位（Status）与主导力（Dominance）的特征，而男性对女性的这些外在地位指标则缺乏演化层面的内在需求。 --- ### [29:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1749s) 同性恋的演化之谜：为何“带一点同性恋基因”的直男更吃香？ 同性恋行为在整个动物界普遍存在，这表明它并非人类独有。然而，在动物界中很少见到“排他性同性恋（Exclusive Homosexuality）”，这种绝对的同性取向似乎在人类群体中更为普遍。长期以来，无法直接繁衍后代的同性取向在演化生物学中一直被视为一个悖论。 冯·希佩尔援引其前同事布伦丹·齐奇（Brendan Zietsch）发表在顶级期刊《科学》（Science）等平台上的突破性前沿研究，给出了解释： - **多基因评分（Polygenic Score）与复杂行为**：绝大多数人类复杂行为并非由单一基因决定，而是由成百上千个微效基因共同驱动的“多基因遗传”。同性恋倾向同样具有多基因评分，个体携带的这类基因变异越多，被同性吸引的倾向就越高。 - **演化上的基因平衡假说（Balancing Act）**：齐奇的团队证实，**当异性恋男性携带适度数量的“同性恋相关基因”时，他们并不会变成纯粹的同性恋，反而会在异性恋市场上对女性表现出极其强烈的吸引力**。数据表明，这类携带较多同性恋基因的直男，所拥有的性伴侣数量明显多于同性恋基因评分较低的普通直男。 - **“稍微带点 Gay”的直男吸引力**：演化机制在此上演了一场精妙的平衡术——自然选择赋予男性一定剂量的相关基因，使其对女性极具吸引力，但又不至于多到彻底对女性丧失繁衍兴趣。 对于这种基因如何在表型上发挥魅力，史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出疑问：这是否与传统上“睾酮、冒险、强壮肌肉”等雄性特征相冲突？冯·希佩尔解释道，同性恋男性本身就包含从极度阳刚（Hyper-masculine）到阴柔温婉的多样光谱。虽然科学界目前对这些基因的具体机理（包括部分与嗅觉系统相关的基因）尚未完全解析，但从直观表象上推测，典型的极致直男往往不修边幅，甚至让女性感到粗糙排斥；而携带部分同性恋倾向特质的男性，往往在个人卫生、身体护理、审美感知以及“都市美男（Metrosexual）”的精致度上表现得远为出色，因而在异性眼中变得极具魅力。 --- ### [32:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1937s) 大学校园男女比失衡：女性择偶困境与社会错配 谈话转向了现代教育和择偶市场的深层社会困境。最新统计数据显示，大学毕业生中女性占比已攀升至约 58%，部分校园甚至演变为男女比例约为 60:40 的局面——即**每两个大学男生对应三个大学女生**。这种教育与经济地位的转变，与人类深层的演化心理产生了巨大的结构性错配。 冯·希佩尔结合自身经历进行了纵向剖析： - **历史转折点**：冯·希佩尔出生于 1963 年，而这一年恰好是美国历史上男女大学入学率首次持平的分水岭。自那以后，两条曲线交叉并不断分化，女性的高等教育比例一路走高，再未回头。 - **校园内的残酷内卷**：在当今大学校园中，三女对两男的性别失衡直接导致女生在校园内部的脱单竞争极其残酷，适龄优质男性的供给严重不足。 - **择偶心理与现实的剪刀差**：从演化倾向来看，**女性普遍倾向于寻找受教育程度与自身相当或高于自己的伴侣（Upward Mobility）；而男性则普遍接受受教育程度与自身持平或低于自己的女性**。当受过高等教育的女性数量大幅超越男性时，市场上符合女性择偶标准的受教育男性出现了严重的绝对短缺。 - **独身浪潮的双刃剑**：这种失衡直接催生了大规模的单身群体。从积极一面来看，女性接受良好教育并获得丰厚收入，赋予了她们在历史上前所未有的经济独立性——在 1960 年代之前，多数国家的女性几乎无法独立立足于职场，嫁人是唯一的经济自救途径，而如今女性已能独自体面生活；但消极一面在于，生物本能并未随经济独立而凭空消失，受过高等教育的女性在寻找合拍伴侣时，正面临前所未有的制度与心理双重困境。与此同时，现代男性究竟为何在大学教育中成规模溃退，至今仍是一个未解的社会谜题。 ### [34:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2084s) 教育失衡、择偶错配与未婚男性的社会危机 比尔·冯·希佩尔（Dr. Bill von Hippel）指出，学校体系整体上其实并不适合男孩的天性。相比女孩，男孩很难长时间保持静坐，也较少有讨好老师的意愿，这使得男孩在学校教育中面临巨大阻力。社会如果放任教育系统不断将男性排斥在外，后果将极其严峻：在任何社会中，受教育程度低、缺乏发展前景且无法组建家庭的未婚男性，都是最大的不稳定根源。这些体内雄性激素（高睾酮）旺盛、没有稳定工作又孤身一人的群体，往往容易走上违法犯罪的道路。因此，从社会利益出发，必须全力促成男女结为伴侣，因为稳定的亲密关系能够起到“驯化”男性的作用；同时必须反思并纠正现行学校教育中不利于男孩发展的偏差。 史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）补充道，相关研究表明大约 70% 的女性希望伴侣拥有与自己相当甚至更多的财富与资源。随着男女两性在经济地位上逐渐趋于平等，如果女性依然普遍期望男性能够提供更多资源，就会产生无法调和的“数字错配”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 择偶错配与社会风险循环图 accDescr: 展示教育体制对男孩的不利影响如何导致男性边缘化、App择偶错配及潜在的社会治安危机。 subgraph EDU["教育体系与职业前景"] A["学校规则不利于男孩天性<br/>(难以静坐/讨好倾向低)"] --> B["男性教育完成率与就业竞争力下降"] end subgraph MISMATCH["择偶资源错配"] B --> C["经济前景暗淡的未婚男性群体"] D["约 70% 女性期望伴侣<br/>拥有同等或更高资源"] --> E["现代App择偶残酷分化<br/>(头部集中/多数被拒)"] C --> E end subgraph CRISIS["社会风险"] E --> F["边缘化高睾酮未婚男性增多"] F --> G["社会治安风险与犯罪率上升"] end ``` ### [35:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2155s) 约会软件的残酷二八法则与男性的自主权路径 要直观观察这种择偶错配，以 Tinder 为代表的交友软件是最典型的例子。比尔解释说，Tinder 上排名前 20% 的男性吸走了 80% 的右滑喜欢（Swipes），这意味着其余 80% 的男性在平台上基本完全被忽视；而对于女性来说，大约 80% 的女性都能持续收到喜欢，但问题在于喜欢她们的往往不是她们心仪的对象。面对这种激烈的两性竞争，普通男性该何去何从？ 比尔表示，专注事业确实是一条最直接提升吸引力的捷径，但并非每个人都热衷于拼事业。人类之所以进化出“自主权”（Autonomy），正是因为生存繁衍“条条大路通罗马”（Lots of ways to skin a cat）。每个人都应根据自身禀赋去寻找赢面最大的方向： - 如果不是事业型人才，也可以成为一个极其善良、可靠、全心全意关怀伴侣且能把孩子照顾得妥妥帖帖的伴侣； - 这类特质在刷脸和看硬件指标的交友软件上几乎无法被算法识别，但在线下真实接触中极具杀伤力； - 年轻女孩或许最初会被那些众人追捧的光鲜男性吸引，但随着经历丰富、碰过壁后，她们终会意识到这种踏实可靠的男性才是真正的宝藏伴侣。 ### [37:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2264s) 软件上的男女体验差异与“双倍母亲”的进化之谜 史蒂芬提到身边女性朋友的抱怨：她们讨厌约会软件，觉得自己毫无运气，匹配到的全是糟糕的人。史蒂芬回忆起自己 23、24 岁时在 Tinder 上玩了一个月，几乎没有任何匹配；而当他看到女性朋友抱怨的账号时，发现里面竟然有成百上千个男性排队等待，只是朋友对他们一个都看不上。 比尔指出，这就是男女在软件上的本质差异：男性面临的是“完全没有选择”，女性面临的是“挑剔之后都不喜欢”。从进化史来看，大量男性在漫长岁月里一直是被完全排除在交配游戏之外的。基因证据充分证实了这一点： - 通过仅由父亲遗传给儿子的 Y 染色体，以及仅由母亲遗传的线粒体 DNA（mtDNA）的多样性进行测算，人类在进化史上的“母亲数量大约是父亲数量的两倍”。 - 既然繁衍必须男女双方参与，这就意味着少数优势男性拥有极多伴侣和后代，而大量普通男性终其一生都未能留下后代。 交友软件只是残酷地放大了这一古老现实。女性在软件上面对照片，往往因为对方没有开法拉利、外表不够酷而将其滑走，但对方在现实中很可能是个质朴优秀的完美伴侣；只看表象的线上交互，割裂了人类几万年依靠面对面交流识别品质的直觉。 ### [40:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2448s) 色情内容泛滥、“SMILING”现象与性萧条 史蒂芬将话题转向色情内容（Pornography）对现实亲密关系的影响。比尔分析称，色情作品是一种巧妙劫持大脑奖励机制的产物，它让人们在没有真正付出社交行动的情况下，替代性地体验到性行为的刺激。人类进化的环境中存在自慰，但绝不存在现代意义上的色情视听工业。 社交媒体和网络色情降低了社交探索的成本，随之而来的是人类行为的全面惰化。比尔幽默地提出了一个自创词 **“SMILING”**（*Social Media Induced Laziness In our social habits*，即“社交媒体引发的社交习惯惰化”）：人们原本可以顶风冒雪、穿过大半个城市去参加派对碰运气结识伴侣，现在只要躺在床上滑动屏幕、看看 OnlyFans 或色情片就能获得类似的多巴胺回馈。 史蒂芬展示了比尔新书中引用的调研数据：2006 年至 2012 年及随后的趋势显示，年轻人实际发生性关系的频率断崖式下跌，而色情内容的消耗量几乎翻了三倍。 - 在 18 至 25 岁本该处于性活跃顶峰的年轻单身群体中，过去一年内有过性行为的比例从以往的约 80% 跌落到了近 65% 至 70%； - 20 年前交友软件刚兴起时，很多人误以为这会带来前所未有的“约炮狂欢”，但现实恰恰相反，便利的网络技术反而让新一代年轻人变得更加怠惰，甚至正在主动从线下的真实肉体接触中撤退。 ### [43:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2619s) 虚拟替代品、避孕革命与生育率暴跌 在现代社会中，许多人会因为一点点阻力就放弃真实的社交。比尔·冯·希佩尔（Bill von Hippel）举例描述了一种极具共鸣的日常场景：朋友在城市的另一端办派对，想到要坐地铁赶过去既麻烦又花钱，而且去了还不确定好不好玩，于是你心里一句“去它的，我不去了”，决定呆在家里。但你不知道的是，那场派对上原本坐着一个你会与之交往的短期或长期伴侣；你没有出门，呆在家里百无聊赖，大概率就开始看色情片。人们正在放任这些虚拟低成本的替代品侵蚀真实的社交，其危害极大。 针对主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）关于“色情片的泛滥是否导致了西方生育率雪崩与人口崩溃”的疑问，比尔提出了进化心理学的深刻洞察：**生育率下降其实与色情片无关，而是因为人类在历史上首次将“性行为”与“繁衍后代”彻底分离开来**。现代人可以自由选择避孕药、避孕套等避孕手段，而远古祖先和其他动物根本做不到这一点。因此，现代人发生性行为的频率与他们最终决定生几个孩子几乎没有任何关联。 人类在进化长河中**从未进化出“想要孩子”的本能，进化赋予我们的只是“想要性爱”的欲望**。如果一个物种在进化中必须理解“想要后代”才能繁衍，倒退回远古时代，人类根本不知道需要做些什么来造出孩子；相反，只要个体渴望性爱、享受性爱，并在婴儿降生后自带抚育幼崽的本能，繁衍就自然达成了。在没有避孕药的世界里，性爱必然自然转化为婴儿；而人类婴儿出生时极度脆弱无助，父母便进化出了强大的母性与父性磁力。比尔坦言，自己的大孩子们早已成年，他原本觉得自己这辈子不需要更多孩子了，但当小女儿出生后，他瞬间不可自拔地深爱上她。然而，人类发明的现代避孕手段强行切断了这一大自然机制，直接将人类引向了自我缩减的未来。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 进化本能与现代避孕断裂机制 accDescr: 展示远古时代性欲望直接带来后代，与现代避孕技术介入后导致生育率断崖式下跌的对比 subgraph Ancestral ["远古时代自然演化逻辑"] A["进化本能：渴望性爱"] --> B["自发的性行为"] B --> C["无法避孕，必然受孕"] C --> D["抚育幼崽本能触发：深爱后代"] D --> E["种族延续与繁衍"] end subgraph Modern ["现代技术干预的断裂"] F["进化本能：渴望性爱"] --> G["避孕药物 / 避孕套"] G --> H["性与生育彻底解绑"] H --> I["理性权衡抚养成本：不想要孩子"] I --> J["总和生育率暴跌与人口萎缩"] end ``` --- ### [45:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2733s) 人口坍塌危机与环境激素的影响 人类对自然法则的人为干预，在宏观层面上正引发前所未有的人口危机。全球人口预计将在 2070 年至 2090 年之间达到约 80 多亿的峰值，随后便会开启不可逆的永久性下滑通道。如今生育孩子的现实门槛太高：公寓狭窄局促、照顾孩子身心俱疲、日常接送极其折腾。当繁育后代成为沉重的负担，大量年轻人直接选择放弃。 在当今世界上几乎所有富裕的工业化国家中，女性的总和生育率均已跌破维持人口世代交替所需的 2.1 临界值，多在 1.5 到 1.7 之间徘徊。除去移民因素，全球绝大多数发达社会都在剧烈萎缩： - **东亚与西欧**：许多国家的人口预计到 2100 年将直接减半。 - **日本的荒废现象**：由于生育率极低、缺乏接盘买家，日本目前正在大规模拆除无人居住的空置房屋。 - **未来移民政治的大反转**：比尔预言，现在各国为了限制移民争吵不休，但在 50 年后，辩论议题将发生 180 度大转弯——各国将不择手段地竞相乞求别国人口迁入，以避免自身国家的消亡。 斯蒂芬疑惑追问：“难道我们正在因为不再做爱而导致人类灭绝吗？”比尔澄清说，人类依旧在做爱，只是不再生孩子；但针对现代人**性爱频率确实在普遍下降**的趋势，比尔指出其主要元凶并非心理学问题，而是**生态毒理学（Ecotoxicology）**。现代环境充斥着塑料制品与各类污染源，其中大量的环境类激素（环境内分泌干扰物）严重扰乱了人类的内分泌系统，导致男性精子计数急剧下滑，进而直接削弱了整体的性欲与生理驱动力。 --- ### [47:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2871s) 丹尼尔·卡尼曼的快乐悖论与育儿困境 当被问及“如果你是世界总统或总理，基于进化心理学你会如何促使人类重新生孩子”，比尔强调，指望呼吁“难道你们不想要孩子吗”是徒劳的，因为人类本能里根本没有想要孩子的内置程序。唯一行之有效的方法是：**将育儿的正面体验最大化，同时将其负面阻碍降到最低**。 比尔引用了诺贝尔经济学奖得主丹尼尔·卡尼曼（Daniel Kahneman）的一项经典日记采样研究。卡尼曼通过寻呼机在受试者日常生活的即时时刻发问：“你现在正在做什么？你觉得有多快乐？”： 1. **即时快感最高**：排在第一位的是性爱（受试者往往在做完之后才回复寻呼机），第二名则是看电视。 2. **即时快感垫底**：洗碗、洗衣服等繁重家务排在底端。而**陪伴照顾孩子时的平均快乐评分，竟然与洗碗、洗衣服处于同一水平**。 3. **回忆中的人生意义反差**：但如果退一步询问人们“什么是你人生最大的满足感与幸福来源”，从没有任何人会说“我这辈子看了海量电视感到无上幸福”，也不会有人因衣服叠得平整而自豪；绝大多数人都会异口同声地表示：“我的孩子给予了我无与伦比的生命意义与喜悦。” 这种看似矛盾的现象之所以成立，是因为做家务无论做得多好都永远单调乏味，而育儿虽然日常琐碎磨人，却包含着极高密度的“峰值时刻（Peak Moments）”。看着孩子以全新的目光探索世界，父母的身心与身份认同在深刻的进化绑定中与孩子融为一体。因此，政策制定者真正需要做的是消灭育儿过程中的“苦役（Drudge）”——解决托育极端昂贵短缺、女性难以重返职场等现实痛点，彻底铲除育儿路上的结构性阻碍。 --- ### [49:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2997s) 人形机器人育儿：救赎还是伦理灾难？ 比尔大胆设想，随着人形机器人技术的到来，深夜起床喂奶、换尿布的苦差事都可以完全交给机器，父母只有在自己渴望亲近时才主动参与。斯蒂芬随即提出了强烈的质疑与担忧：“在这样的环境下成长，难道不会培养出一大批心理畸形、扭曲的孩子吗？” 斯蒂芬分享了自己前一天晚上的亲身趣事：他看到特斯拉（Tesla）的人形机器人 Optimus 即将投入量产并正在招募团队的新闻，便开玩笑对女友说：“我们买两台 Optimus 吧，一台帮我们养娃，另一台负责接送孩子上学。”女友听后惊恐万分，反问：“你能想象孩子转头管机器人叫爸爸妈妈的世界吗？孩子根本分不清区别！”斯蒂芬进一步引用做客节目的儿童心理治疗师的观点：生命的前三年对于主要照料者的陪伴极其敏感且不可替代，男女父母的不同照料方式会触发婴儿体内释放截然不同的荷尔蒙，机器根本无法复制。 比尔对此提出了极具张力的反驳与辩护： - **人类外包照料的固有缺陷**：富裕家庭现在大量将孩子全天托付给保姆（Nanny）或请夜间护士（Night Nurse），但雇主永远无法确保聘请的外人是否百分之百善待孩子，也无法确保他们知晓所有潜在的儿科疾病。 - **理想机器人的巨大优势**：如果能研发出表面柔软、极其耐抱且具备无限耐心的机器人，它内置海量儿科医学知识、能精确解析婴儿每一声啼哭的音频音高，甚至能喷涂上爸爸或妈妈的专属气味，它无疑是近乎完美的育儿助手。 - **借育（Alloparenting）的进化历史**：人类在远古狩猎采集时期本身就是集体抚育（Alloparenting）的物种，当成年男性外出打猎数日不归时，孩子本就是由整个部落的多方成员协同照料长大的。机器人的辅助不过是这一进化分担机制在现代科技下的延伸。 ### [52:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3124s) 育儿外包与完美的“机器人保姆” 从演化史来看，养育后代从来都不是父母两人的“闭门单打独斗”。在远古狩猎采集部落中，女性白天必须结成紧密的同盟，因为看护一大群乱跑且容易被捕食者盯上的幼童是一项极其繁重的劳作；母亲们既要时刻盯防四周危险，又得埋头挖掘块茎类植物作为口粮。人类天生依赖“整个村落的力量共同抚育后代”（It takes a village）。基于这一演化背景，比尔·冯·希佩尔（Dr. Bill von Hippel）提出了一个极具颠覆性的思考：既然现代家庭普遍存在育儿外包，为什么不雇佣一个各方面都堪称完美的机器人保姆？ 斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此表达了疑虑，指出父母在抚触孩子时会促使体内释放催产素（Oxytocin），而机器人目前根本做不到这一点，育儿更是人生中最温情、最核心的情感体验之一。冯·希佩尔则回应称，技术未来完全可以模拟出促进催产素释放的互动反馈；更重要的是，人类父母并非全天候无休运转，“孩子固然无比美妙，但有时也极其无聊和可怕”，几乎没有哪个父母能承受 7×24 小时毫无喘息的看护。他认为，与现实中价格昂贵且素质参差不齐的托儿所保姆相比，一个永远温和耐心（哪怕面对孩子第一千万次追问“为什么”也绝不发火）、绝对不会虐待儿童的完美机器人保姆，能彻底消除育儿过程中的安全隐患。针对“虐待儿童的父母甚至会被剥夺抚养权，却换个城镇继续生育”的残酷现实，冯·希佩尔直言，虽然最好的解决方式是让不称职的人不生，但在现实中无法强行阻止的情况下，机器人守护者远胜于让孩子在毒性家庭中饱受摧残。 - **育儿的演化机制**：远古人类必须依靠群体协助看管幼儿，分散捕食者带来的致命风险，使母体能够腾出双手采集生存食物。 - **机器人育儿的伦理与现实辩论**： - 反对观点：机器缺乏人类天然的情感连结与生化反应（如催产素分泌），且过度外包可能走向“父母彻底脱卸责任”的滑坡谬误。 - 支持观点：现实中聘请保姆本身就是一种赌博与妥协，而机器人能杜绝一切虐待与失职，为孩子提供绝对稳定且耐心的照料。 --- ### [54:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3268s) 婚姻能带来幸福吗？自主性与连结的博弈 探讨婚姻与幸福感的关系时，斯蒂芬援引冯·希佩尔书中的图表指出：数据显示已婚群体中“非常幸福”的比例明显偏高，而分居群体则普遍最不幸福，这是否意味着走入婚姻就是通往幸福的捷径？然而，冯·希佩尔通过长期追踪的纵向学术数据（例如德国的大型家庭追踪数据库）打破了这一表面假象。数据表明，在排除基线水平并进行长期追踪后，**结婚在平均意义上并没有让人变得更幸福**——新婚 10 年后人们的平均幸福度与结婚前几乎持平（变化幅度为零）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 婚姻走向与幸福感变化趋势 accDescr: 展示从婚前到婚后不同婚姻轨迹群体的幸福感动态变化 subgraph G_DIV["离婚群体"] D1["相识并恋爱（幸福度上升）"] --> D2["领证前一年（幸福感达峰值）"] D2 --> D3["婚后急剧恶化走向破裂"] end subgraph G_STAY["持续维系婚姻群体（幸福感峰值均在结婚当年）"] M1["不幸维持型：因经济/宗教羁绊，幸福度远低于婚前"] M2["常态适应型：前几年幸福度微升，随后回落至基线"] M3["极度幸福型：婚后近10年幸福感年年递增"] end ``` 这种“平均值不变”的背后，实际上隐藏着截然不同的群体演变轨迹： 1. **离婚群体**：其幸福感峰值出现在“结婚的前一年”而非结婚当年；他们在领证前关系其实就已经开始走下坡路。 2. **白头偕老的夫妻**：其幸福感峰值无一例外出现在“步入婚姻的当年”。若走向红毯时的幸福感高于前一年，这桩婚姻往往更有持久性。但这部分长期维持的婚姻在婚后又分化为三种路径： - **低幸福维持型**：因为经济或宗教原因勉强捆绑，彼此厌恶，幸福度远低于相遇之前（所幸在样本中占比极小）。 - **常态均值型**：婚后头几年略微感到更幸福，随后逐渐经历心理适应，缓慢回落至原有的幸福基线。 - **极其幸运型**：结婚当年比相识前更幸福，并在随后的近 10 年内幸福感稳步攀升。 之所以结婚与未婚群体的截然差异在总体上呈现出“结婚者看起来更幸福”，冯·希佩尔解释这其实是一种“选择偏差”与性格归因：不结婚的人往往在生活的各个面向都在**过度偏重自主性（Autonomy），而轻视了社会连结（Connection）**。他们在交友、独居还是合租等各种人生决策中一味追求独立，导致其获得极高幸福感的概率只有普通已婚者的一半左右；而本就开朗、擅长维持关系的人无论婚否往往都能自我调节，在婚姻中也更容易找到让彼此感到满意的相处方式。 --- ### [57:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3459s) 商业赞助插播：Flight Studio 与 Shopify 斯蒂芬·巴特利特在节目中穿插介绍了个人企业 Flight Studio（隶属于 Flight Group）的运作经验，强调其团队始终在探索与全球受众建立深度连结的载体，包括播客节目、实体产品（如《对话卡牌》Conversation Cards）以及即将推出的全新企划。斯蒂芬分享了他持续选用播客赞助商 Shopify 搭建全球独立站的商业体验，指出其便捷的电商基础设施消除了品牌出海与跨国发货的技术痛点，帮助企业顺畅触达全球用户。 --- ### [58:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3514s) 神经多样性与多动症的演化意义 针对注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）以及自闭症谱系等“神经多样性”（Neurodivergence）的演化根源，冯·希佩尔提出了极具启发性的演化社会心理学解读。流行病学数据显示，当代神经多样性的诊断率显著攀升，这与高毒素、高污染的现代工业环境密切相关。他分析认为，人类大脑本质上是一个高度发达的“社交器官”（Social Organ），追求连结是人类最核心的本能；大脑需要错综复杂的多个脑区协同运作才能支撑起正常的社交互动。因此，环境毒素一旦对脆弱的中枢神经系统造成任何微小的生化损伤，最先受到冲击、发生功能障碍的必然是复杂的社交功能。 然而，从整个人类演化历史来看，神经多样性特质一直稳定存在，并且扮演着不可或缺的关键角色： - **普通人的创新困境**：人类虽然作为物种极具创新性，但若询问身边的普通个体一生中真正独立发明过什么，答案往往是“从未发明过任何东西”。这是因为普通人（神经典型群体，Neurotypical）遇到生存困局时习惯采用“社交解决方案”——通过找朋友商讨、协同互助来应对，这使得他们缺乏在非社交领域独立死磕重大突破的倾向。 - **神经多样性个体的突破**：神经多样性群体由于天然与外部社交网络存在一定的疏离感，不依赖现成的社交策略，反而更容易聚焦于事物本身的运行规律，人类历史上绝大多数划时代的突破与工具发明很可能都出自他们之手。 - **演化分工的精妙闭环**：当不擅社交的神经多样性个体创造出划时代的工具后，具备高度社交能力的非神经多样性人群会迅速捕捉其价值，并利用强大的社会人际网络将这些发明成果以惊人的速度扩散至全人类。正是这种“独立创造”与“社交分发”的演化共生，驱动了文明的持续进化。 ### [01:00:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3626s) 注意力缺陷（ADHD）的演化根源与未来教育 比尔·冯·希佩尔（Dr. Bill von Hippel）指出，注意力缺陷与多动障碍（ADHD）具有极高的遗传性，科学界已经锁定了许多相关基因。从演化心理学的视角来看，在狩猎采集时代，ADHD 甚至不会被当作一种问题或特征被察觉出来。当时根本没有任何祖先会强迫他人去关注枯燥乏味的事物。ADHD 患者的核心特征并不是完全丧失注意力，而是在面对无趣事务时极难集中注意力，但一旦碰上自己感兴趣的领域，他们却能毫不费力地全神贯注。从脑神经机制来看，他们缺乏那种能强迫自己长时间专注枯燥目标的背外侧前额叶皮层（dorsolateral prefrontal cortex）控制力。然而，对远古祖先而言，这种精力充沛、行动敏捷的特质反而能让他们成为极为出色的猎手。 当下社会要求人端坐不动、被动听讲数小时的模式，纯粹是现代文明制造出来的困境。随着人工智能与机器人的飞速普及，冯·希佩尔推测这种困境很可能会彻底消解。在人手一部智能手机、AI 能即时解答任何算式的时代，死记硬背乘法口诀表已经失去了演化与现实的必要性。当机器能够包揽各种繁琐工作时，现代学校体制中强迫灌输的大量内容将变得完全多余，人们将重新获得根据兴趣自主选择学习内容的自由。 ### [01:01:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3688s) 人机融合、基因局限与脑机接口 当史蒂芬询问人类未来是否会与技术更深度地融合时，冯·希佩尔给出了肯定的答复。很多人幻想通过基因编辑来消除自身不喜欢的弱点，但在现实中这极其困难：由于多效性（pleiotropy）与多基因遗传，绝大多数基因都会产生多种联锁反应，而几乎所有复杂特质都由多个基因共同调控。若试图修改某一个基因以求达到理想状态，往往会触发不可预测且不想要的副作用。 相比之下，外接或植入脑部的科技模块更具可行性。目前医疗领域已经在采用类似方案：针对极度顽固、无药可治的严重抑郁症，医生会向患者大脑特定区域植入电极进行电刺激。经历过该手术的患者感慨，原本灰暗黑白的世界在一瞬间重新恢复了色彩。冯·希佩尔展望，同样的原理完全可扩展至知识获取。人们不必耗费数年苦读希腊语，只需植入一枚微型芯片模块，落地希腊时便能自然流畅地与当地人交流，甚至无需掏出手机翻译。 ### [01:02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3751s) 焦虑与抑郁的演化机制：预见未来的代价 关于抑郁与焦虑为何没有在演化中被自然选择淘汰，冯·希佩尔解释道，任何特质在基因突变与有性繁殖中都会产生正反两面的分布。演化对人类最慷慨的馈赠，是赋予了大脑“模拟未来”的能力。但演化从不赠送免费的礼物，每一种优势都附带着沉重的代价。其他动物缺乏预见未来的时间投射能力，它们在面对掠食者时仅体验当下的恐惧：狮子扑来时拼命狂奔，脱险后便立即判定“危机过去”，若无其事地低头吃草。而人类在逃离狮口后，却会陷入持续的惊恐与反思：“刚才太可怕了，下一只狮子什么时候会再来？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 模拟未来能力与焦虑机制 accDescr: 对比动物的即时恐惧反应与人类因模拟未来而产生的慢性焦虑演化路径 subgraph ANIMAL["普通动物：即时恐惧反馈"] A["遭遇掠食威胁（如狮子）"] --> B["触发瞬间逃跑反应"] B --> C["危险解除，即刻恢复平静吃草"] end subgraph HUMAN["人类大脑：演化赋予的前瞻模拟"] D["遭遇或设想潜在危险"] --> E["演化赋能：向前模拟未来"] E --> F["意识到两重宿命：\n1. 未来不一定会好\n2. 生命终将走向死亡"] F --> G["滋生慢性焦虑与抑郁"] end ``` 预见未来必然伴随着两个残酷的认知：一是未来充满变数、未必如愿；二是所有个体的结局都注定走向死亡。动物不会为死亡提前忧虑，而人类却被困在自己投射出的未来之中。史蒂芬顺势总结道，演化逻辑是否意味着治疗焦虑的根本解药就是停止担忧未来？冯·希佩尔完全赞同：焦虑本质上是纯粹面向未来的情绪产物，若个体能够通过正念（mindfulness）锚定在当下这一瞬间、彻底搁置未来，焦虑感自然会随之烟消云散。 ### [01:04:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3848s) 宗教与幸福感：意义感与社交契机 在讨论其著作《社交悖论》（*The Social Paradox*）第九章时，史蒂芬提到宗教参与者通常比非信徒更快乐的现象。冯·希佩尔利用美国综合社会调查（General Social Survey, GSS）这一宏大公开数据集，将宗教的影响拆解为两个截然不同的维度： 1. **信仰与意义感**：剔除集体社交因素，仅考察“从不去教堂”的群体，会发现有祈祷习惯的人依然明显比不祈祷的人更幸福。宗教为生命赋予了终极坐标，让个体感到自己属于绵延不绝的宏大序列；而缺乏信仰的人往往深陷虚无与意义缺失的煎熬。 2. **制度化社交契机**：相较于纯粹的精神寄托，去教堂做礼拜带来的线下社交效应更为惊人。数据显示，定期前往教堂的人获得极高幸福感的概率，几乎是完全不去教堂者的两倍。 进一步交叉对比贫富阶层后，数据呈现出极富洞察力的反差： | 对比维度 | 贫困阶层 | 富裕阶层 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **日常社交生态** | 生活在紧密互助网络中，日常借物、互援以维持生计，与邻居交往极频繁 | 拥有足够的金钱购买独立与私密空间，往往与周围社群割裂开来 | | **去教堂的幸福增益** | 增益较小（日常生活中已基本满足了社交需求） | **增益极大**（幸福感提升翻倍） | | **背后的驱动逻辑** | 仅作为既有紧密社交关系的补充与精神寄托 | 出于宗教戒律或对神的敬畏，富人被“强制”参与面对面社交，打破了财富带来的孤独隔离 | 冯·希佩尔半开玩笑地指出，富人其实比穷人更需要“去教堂”——或者说需要任何能够强迫他们定期走出家门、与真实人类面对面互动的线下社区。 ### [01:07:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4035s) 灵魂中的“神性空洞”与对信仰的渴求 史蒂芬指出，当下社会（尤其是年轻男性群体中）正显现出一股强烈的信仰回潮趋势，无论表现为传统宗教、新灵修还是星盘命理，人们内心深处似乎有一种渴望相信更高力量的原始冲动。 冯·希佩尔借用心理学概念对此回应：许多人的精神结构中存在一个“神性空洞”（god-shaped hole），这是一种唯有被某种崇高神性或超越性力量才能填满的精神凹槽。并非所有人天生都拥有这一空洞，但对那些拥有它的人而言，若身处无神论或虚无主义环境中、无法建立崇信，他们就会陷入长期的心理痛苦。这恰恰呼应了 GSS 的调查数据——祈祷之所以能让非信众中的个体感到更加安宁与幸福，正因为这一仪式在某种程度上弥合了那个悬空的心理空洞。 ### [01:08:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4092s) 人生意念与进化的“温柔解法” 当被问及人生的意义究竟是什么时，比尔·冯·希佩尔（Dr. Bill von Hippel）给出了一个极为坦诚甚至令人不安的回答：“我认为人生毫无意义（devoid of meaning）。”他坦言很多人不喜欢这个观点，就连他自己也不喜欢。面对这种虚无，人类唯一的出路就是在无意义中尽力做到最好——去顺应我们的进化本质：建立联结（connect）。因为联结是人类生存最重要的基石，善待彼此则是促进联结的最佳方式。史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）探讨道，很多研究发现去“寻找意义”的人往往会更幸福，这是否意味着他们确实找到了意义，还是寻找的过程本身带来了快乐？冯·希佩尔认为两者兼有，但不可否认的是，许多人最终会意识到自己不过是宏大机器中一枚微不足道、毫无目的的小齿轮。 即便如此，借用理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）在《解析彩虹》（*Unweaving the Rainbow*）中的观点：“我们是幸运的，因为我们有机会死去。”这句话的深层含义在于：在死去之前，我们先有幸活过。冯·希佩尔举例说，男性每天产生上亿个精子，绝大多数连露脸的机会都没有；而他自己参与创造了三个孩子，那一颗精子在激烈的竞争中脱颖而出与卵子结合，从而获得了降临世界的入场券。因此，能够活在这个世界上本身就是一种极致的幸运。 - **道金斯的生命概率论**：绝大多数潜在的人类甚至从未有机会诞生，能够活着直面无意义的宇宙，本身就是极小概率的胜利。 - **联结与善良的进化逻辑**：既然客观上不存在预设的终极意义，主动建立深层社交联结并对他人友善，就成了对抗虚无最契合人性的解法。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 面对人生虚无的进化解法 accDescr: 面对人生缺乏客观意义的虚无困境，人类通过理解进化机制，以建立联结和彼此友善来构建主观意义。 subgraph 存在主义困境 A["人生本身毫无预设意义"] --> B["认识到个体是宏大世界的微小齿轮"] end subgraph 进化应对策略 B --> C["珍惜极低概率的存活机会"] C --> D["顺应进化天性：寻求社会联结"] D --> E["实践善良与合作，强化群体支持"] end ``` --- ### [01:10:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4207s) 笑翠鸟的残忍与人类应对逆境的合作天性 冯·希佩尔分享了一个关于澳大利亚特有鸟类笑翠鸟（Kookaburra）的生动案例，以此对照人类解决生存困境的独特方式。笑翠鸟通常先生下两枚蛋，间隔一段时间后再下第三枚。由于澳大利亚极易发生干旱，食物收成起伏极大：在风调雨顺的丰收年，由于父母带回巢穴的食物充沛，第三只孵化的小鸟有很大概率活到成年；但一旦遇到旱灾荒年，第三只幼鸟就注定无法存活——另外两只较大的兄姐会用喙部进化出的特殊倒钩，硬生生将自己的亲弟妹啄死。这种残忍并非源于天性恶毒，而是它们在严酷环境下解决生存危机的唯一进化机制。 相比之下，人类在身处逆境时进化出了完全不同的应对策略：不仅没有互相残杀，反而是“抱团更紧密（band even closer together）”、分工协作与共同面对。尽管人类历史上也曾有过杀婴等残酷行为，但人类之所以能从走出非洲树林时任由猛兽捕食的弱者，一跃成为地球上的顶级掠食者，关键就在于高度的心智能力、劳动分工与社会合作。人类进化出了一种更为温和、宽容的生存解法。 - **笑翠鸟的生存策略**：幼鸟喙部带有杀婴适应性倒钩，在资源短缺时由兄姐清除弱小后代，确保优势个体存活。 - **人类的进化优势**：通过跨个体的认知协作、分工和心智推演，在严苛环境中催生出远超单一肉体的生存合力。 --- ### [01:11:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4291s) 顶级掠食者的代价：部落主义与对外仇恨 然而，史蒂芬立刻指出了进化的阴暗面：人类在逆境中抱团，往往也是为了团结起来去攻击“外人”。冯·希佩尔完全赞同这一点，强调进化从不在意温情与善良，只在意生存。早在直立人（Homo erectus）时期，人类凭借在脑海中模拟战术并在现实中分工实施的能力（例如一部分人围追猛犸象，另一部分人设置陷阱），就已经成为了地球上最致命的捕食者。然而，当人类铲除了所有能够威胁自身的猛兽后，这个星球上唯一能置人类于死地的捕食者，便只剩下了“其他人”或其他人类族群。 这就是人类部落主义（tribalism）和群体间敌意的进化根源。就像黑猩猩群体内部暴力发生率极高、但群体之间同样极具攻击性一样，人类在漫长的进化史中学会了对外来群体保持高度戒备。因为另一个部落可能是友善的，但也可能极其残忍；为了确保族群不被灭绝，人类天然对“非我族类”预设防御和敌意。现代社会中的激进民族主义（例如美国与中国、美国与墨西哥之间的舆论敌意），本质上都是这种古老部落本能的现代回响。 - **远古协同狩猎**：大脑预先设想情景并协同执行的能力，让直立人在一两百万年前就能围捕猛犸象等巨型野兽。 - **唯一的生存天敌**：消灭其他大型食肉动物后，异族人类成为唯一的生存威胁，从而固化了排外的部落主义本能。 --- ### [01:13:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4399s) 权力的本质、脆弱性与肢体语言 谈到罗伯特·格林（Robert Greene）的《权力的48条法则》（*The 48 Laws of Power*），冯·希佩尔从进化心理学角度剖析了权力的内核。自然进化本身不讲道德，纯粹奉行“强权即真理”。在动物世界中，如果一只更强壮的野兽盯上了你的猎物，它就会直接抢走；但人类社会不同，因为没有任何单个人能够强大到仅凭肉体独占权力。冯·希佩尔指出了人类权力的一个致命漏洞：“每个强权者都是要睡觉的，而当你闭上眼睛睡觉时，群体中最弱小的人也能轻易杀了你。”因此，人类的权力从来不仅靠凶狠和震慑，更必须仰仗慷慨、友善和拉拢盟友，建立起一个愿意誓死保护你的支持网络。 在肢体语言与权力展现上，动物通常通过缩紧身体示弱求饶，或膨胀身体展现威慑；人类虽然也保留了这种张开或收缩肢体的本能，但权力主要体现在“能力”而非“块头”上。不仅如此，权力的表达方式高度受制于文化： - **个人主义/张扬型文化（如美国）**：倾向于正面展示财富和成就，直截了当地宣称“我们是第一”，用张扬确立权威； - **集体主义文化**：极其反感高调炫耀，即便身处高位也会刻意保持低调与内敛； - **反向自抑型文化**：只有真正掌握最高实权的人才敢公开自嘲或贬低自己，因为他们的地位牢不可破，一句“我什么都不是”反而是在向所有人宣示“这里到底由谁说了算”； - **通用的权力信号**：无论身处哪种文化，一个人在特定场合中表现得越放松、越舒适自在，通常意味着他在该环境下的权力层级越高。 --- ### [01:15:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4558s) 为什么真正的超级富豪不穿名牌？ 史蒂芬提出了许多人的共同疑惑：为什么拥有绝对权力和巨额财富的顶级亿万富翁，往往不穿戴带有显眼 Logo 的奢侈品（如 Louis Vuitton 等），反而常年穿着极其朴素、甚至一成不变的简单衣物？ 冯·希佩尔解释称，奢侈品牌是普通人用来在社会中“竞争地位”的信号工具。那些还在向上攀爬、试图向同伴证明自身实力的人，才需要昂贵的名牌来彰显地位。然而，那些身处金字塔顶端的亿万富豪，早已经彻底赢下了这场地位竞争的游戏。对于他们而言，圈内所有人都深知他们的实力与分量，继续穿着显眼的奢侈品牌不仅毫无增益，反而显得多余和累赘。 ### [01:16:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4584s) 反向信号与哈扎部落的启示：自主与连接的平衡 在探讨顶级富豪的消费心理时，比尔·冯·希佩尔（Bill von Hippel）指出，当财富积累到极高层次时，传统奢侈品牌（如路易威登）反而会变成一种“反向信号”（counter-signal）。如果一个身家千亿的超级富豪手提满身老花印花的包袋，在外界眼中反倒像是把自己降格为了普通的“百万富翁”——因为真正的顶层地位早已不需要靠显眼的商标来背书。 话题随后转向现代人向原始部落能学到什么。冯·希佩尔以坦桑尼亚的狩猎采集部落哈扎人（Hadza）为例，剖析了人类在“自主性”（autonomy）与“连接感”（connection）之间的深刻冲突。在远古狩猎采集社会中，自主性是极其罕见的稀缺品。个体固然需要自主性来寻找自己的专属生态位（例如成为队伍中最出色的制箭手或讲故事的人），但生存必须完全依赖群体。如果部落集体决定向南迁徙，即使你个人想向北走，你也无法独自行动，否则立刻就会沦为狮子的口中餐。然而在现代城市生活中，人类无需社会连接也能独立活得很好，现代人拥有了过量的自主性选择。冯·希佩尔警告称，这种演化遗留的本能让我们在面对“自主”与“连接”的抉择时，陷入了一种“错爱”（miswanting）——我们盲目地抛弃连接、疯狂追求个人自由，结果反而让自己陷入孤立与抑郁。哈扎人生活幸福的核心智慧，正是在个人意愿与群体考量之间始终维持着一种健康的妥协与平衡。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 远古与现代社会中自主与连接的博弈 accDescr: 对比原始狩猎采集环境与现代城市生活在自主性和连接感上的差异 subgraph Ancestral ["原始狩猎采集社会（哈扎部落）"] A1["生存绝对依赖群体连接"] --> A2["自主选择极度稀缺与昂贵"] A2 --> A3["被迫妥协：保持连接与自主的动态平衡"] end subgraph Modern ["现代城市生活"] B1["物理生存不再依赖日常群体"] --> B2["自主性选择泛滥且廉价"] B2 --> B3["错爱机制：过度选择自主、牺牲连接"] B3 --> B4["现代孤独与心理幸福感下降"] end ``` ### [01:18:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4718s) 男女之间的相互依赖与婚姻对寿命的加成 针对“男性和女性谁更需要彼此”的疑问，冯·希佩尔给出了辩证的解答。从社交连接的角度来看，女性在生物演化中需要承担繁重的养育工作，必须建立更为紧密的互助网络，因此女性对深度社交连接的需求通常比男性更为迫切。然而在亲密关系内部，女性往往是男性最核心、甚至唯一的深度情感连接提供者。 婚姻对寿命的统计数据印证了这一点：已婚状态对男性的健康促进效果显著高于女性。步入60岁中段后，已婚男性的平均寿命比未婚男性延长约整整两年，而女性因婚姻带来的寿命增益大约只有一年半。这种差异背后有多重现实原因： - **情感支撑**：女性在家庭中通常给予男性更多高质量的情感陪伴与倾听。 - **生活习惯监管**：男性在单身状态下更容易生活邋遢、忽视卫生与健康，而伴侣往往在生活起居和医疗照护上扮演了管教与提醒的角色。 - **生存意义感**：维系婚姻与子嗣（包括抚育子女和孙辈）赋予了男性晚年明确的奋斗目标与生活支柱，消解了“孤独老去”这一令人恐惧的晚年阴影。 ### [01:19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4787s) 连续单配制与睾丸演化之谜：人类天生会出轨吗？ 当史蒂文询问哈扎部落的夫妻是否能终身厮守时，冯·希佩尔引用了著名人类学家弗兰克·马洛（Frank Marlowe）对哈扎人的长期田野调查数据。令人惊讶的是，哈扎人中能够维持白头偕老婚姻的比例仅有约20%（即五分之一），离婚率极高。冯·希佩尔解释道，狩猎采集者并不像农耕文明那样将婚姻绑架为庞大的财产继承与经济契约；对原始部落而言，当两个人相处不再融洽时，往往和平分开各自寻找新伴侣，本质上是典型的“连续单配制”（serial monogamy）。 人类的演化底层究竟是完全单配、多配还是出轨？冯·希佩尔从灵长类动物的解剖学证据展开了生动的科普：人类演化出来的生理机制实质上是“带有一定偷腥倾向的连续单配制”。雄性睾丸的大小是反映“精子竞争”（sperm competition）最诚实的演化标尺： | 物种 | 交配体系 | 精子竞争强度 | 睾丸相对大小与特征 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **大猩猩（Gorilla）** | 绝对一夫多妻（雄性独占后宫雌性） | 极低（外来雄性被暴力驱逐） | 睾丸非常微小，隐于体内保护不受损 | | **黑猩猩（Chimpanzee）** | 混乱乱交（多雄多雌轮流交配） | 极高（需要靠海量精液冲洗前任残留） | 睾丸极其硕大，排精量巨大以争取受精权 | | **人类（Homo sapiens）** | 连续单配制伴随隐秘偷腥 | 中等（存在偷情与绿帽风险） | 远大于大猩猩，但小于黑猩猩 | 人类男性的睾丸比例适中，这一解剖特征清晰表明：在远古洞穴时代，人类并不完全像大猩猩那样绝对掌控配偶，只要有机会避开众人耳目，两性都有出轨的演化动力。男性偷情能低成本扩散基因，而“纯洁无瑕的绝对一夫一妻”在生理学证据面前并不成立。冯·希佩尔特意强调，演化上的“天然”（natural）并不等同于道德上的“正确”（good），承认演化本能是为了更清醒地理解人性。 ### [01:22:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4945s) 跨越时空的语言能力与宠物的条件反射 谈及灵长类与人类认知差距时，话题自然延伸到了欺骗与语言演化的交汇点。史蒂文好奇黑猩猩之间是否会通过语言告发偷情，冯·希佩尔指出，黑猩猩虽然拥有基础的手语或手势能力，但其交流仅限于“即时场景”——例如“小心你背后有危险”或“把吃的给我，否则揍你”。它们根本无法表达任何与“当前时空相分离”的事物，不可能用手语比划出“昨天我趁你不在和你的配偶交配了”。人类所属的人属（*Homo*）早期成员，是地球上首个演化出能够在大脑中把时间、空间分离的概念串联起来的物种，这也是人类复杂语言与八卦交流的进化开端。 史蒂文随即联想到自己训练狗狗的困惑：当狗在家里随地乱拉，主人一小时后回家训斥它时，狗表现得万分委屈甚至躲起来，它到底知不知道自己错在哪？冯·希佩尔解释道，非人动物同样缺乏跨越漫长时间轴去反思前因后果的心理能力： - **惩罚的时效性原则**：在心理学行为训练中，对动物的惩罚必须在犯错的当下立即发生（即刚拉完的那一秒立刻制止），它才能建立“拉便便＝被惩罚”的直接因果联结；事隔一小时后再训斥，动物完全不知道被骂与那堆排泄物有何逻辑关联。 - **躲藏背后的条件反射**：狗狗在主人回家后缩到角落，并非出于“我知道一小时前做错了事”的道德内疚，而是因为长期的条件反射学习。它非常擅长归纳场景模式——它学会了“家里地上有便便/咬烂的家具”叠加“主人进门”，就等于“自己马上要挨骂受罚”，因此出于趋利避害的本能提前躲避。 ### [01:24:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5060s) 动物与人类的本质差异：预见未来与未感受到的需求 比尔·冯·希佩尔博士（Dr. Bill von Hippel）在剖析宠物与人类心理时指出，狗之所以会在主人不在家时咬烂沙发，原因有两层：首先作为动物，它的自控力本就薄弱；其次，狗无法在当下预见到未来的后果——它不会在下口时提前想到“天呐，待会儿史蒂文（Steven Bartlett）回家看到这一幕肯定会气疯”。但当史蒂文真正推门而入、盯着被撕碎的沙发时，狗却会立刻露出心虚胆怯的神情，因为它通过过往经验建立起了关联：它知道沙发一旦被毁且主人出现在眼前，接下来迎接它的必然是一顿严厉的训斥。狗能够理解眼前的即时惩罚和特定场景联结，却根本无法主动在脑海中对未来展开长远模拟。 即便观察认知水平远高于家犬的灵长类动物，如黑猩猩或猴子，这种无法跨越时间维度的局限性依然明显。冯·希佩尔博士指出，如果每天只给黑猩猩提供一顿饭，即使食物数量无限供应、管饱管够，黑猩猩也会感到非常不爽，因为它们和人类一样习惯少食多餐。然而，即便日复一日面对完全相同的喂食规律，黑猩猩也永远学不会未雨绸缪地把午后两点吃不完的食物藏匿起来，留给下午五点即将到来的饥饿。一旦肚子填饱，它们甚至会毫不在意地把珍贵食物当成玩具互相投掷。背后的根本演化分水岭在于：除人类以外的动物无法构想一个存在“未感受到之需求”（unfelt needs）的未来世界，它们的意识被彻底禁锢在当下的生理状态中。人类的心智则能够突破时空锚点，提前预判自己未来会饥饿、会受冻、会有各类尚不存在的生理与精神渴望。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 动物本能反应与人类心智前瞻对比 accDescr: 对比动物基于当下与硬编码本能的反应模式，以及人类预见未来未感受到需求的心智时间旅行能力。 subgraph AnimalWorld["动物模式（禁锢于当下或硬编码本能）"] A["当下生理状态 / 外部触发刺激"] --> B{"是否有抽象未来概念？"} B -- 否 --> C["吃饱即丢弃食物 / 无法预存"] B -- 演化程序 --> D["无意识触发本能行为<br/>（松鼠无脑埋果、狐獴听音丢蝎）"] end subgraph HumanWorld["人类模式（心智时间旅行）"] E["当下需求已得到满足"] --> F["投影意识至遥远未来"] F --> G["预见'未感受到的需求'<br/>（冷、饿、匮乏、老去）"] G --> H["理性规划、储存资源与防御风险"] end ``` 针对史蒂文提出的疑问——“松鼠不也会储存坚果吗”，冯·希佩尔博士解释道，这完全是一种演化出来的自动化本能程序，绝非理性前瞻的结果。哪怕是一只从未经历过寒冬的初生松鼠，只要环境温度发生微变，体内触发信号便会强制驱动它埋藏坚果，它脑海里并没有“去年冬天挨过冻、所以今年要储粮”的逻辑推演。史蒂文随即分享了自家爱犬巴勃罗（Pablo）的趣事：巴勃罗从小独自生活，从来没有见过其他狗藏食，但每次给它买一根大骨头，它稍稍啃玩几口后，就会神情严肃地把骨头悄悄塞进沙发深处的缝隙里，最终沙发垫底下堆满了一堆骨头。冯·希佩尔博士笑着证实，这正是一套刻进基因里的演化程序，动物自身甚至完全不理解这么做的深远意义，只是受体内机制驱使盲目执行。 这种机制在狐獴（猫鼬，Meerkat）捕猎天敌蝎子的教学实验中展现得尤为残酷而精妙： - 面对初断奶的小狐獴幼崽，成年狐獴会先把致命的蝎子彻底咬死，再丢给幼崽食用； - 当幼崽稍大一些时，成年狐獴会咬掉蝎尾的毒刺，将依然活着的无毒蝎子扔给它们练习捕杀； - 到了亚成年阶段，成年狐獴则会直接扔进带毒刺的完整活蝎，逼迫年轻狐獴掌握生存绝技。 - 但科学家通过回放录音实验发现：如果向捕食者播放小幼崽的叫声，哪怕巢穴里站着的是完全具备杀戮能力的亚成年狐獴，成年狐獴也会无条件将蝎子杀死才投喂；相反，若在真正幼崽面前播放亚成年狐獴的声音，成年狐獴就会直接把致命的带刺活蝎丢入巢穴，导致亲生幼崽被当场蜇死。这证明动物只是机械地将“特定声音信号”与“特定处理动作”死死绑定，并不具备真正的同理心或对未来的主观审视。 ### [01:27:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5275s) 赞助商插播：无屏幕专注设备与优质能量源 史蒂文在中场休息时介绍了节目的两个核心赞助品牌： - **WHOOP 健康手环**：史蒂文作为其投资者与忠实用户，指出大家最常问他为何放弃其他智能穿戴设备而选择 WHOOP。其核心优势在于“非侵入性”与无屏幕设计。WHOOP 首席执行官威尔·艾哈迈德（Will Ahmed）在接受访谈时曾强调，屏幕等于干扰源。在会议或健身等专注场景下，无屏幕的手环完全不会争夺注意力，而是在后台默默持续监测生理指标与健康洞察。 - **PerfectTed 抹茶**：史蒂文透露自己向这家公司投资了超 100 万英镑。他将日常核心能量补充来源全面切换为抹茶，以此支撑长达数小时的高强度节目录制。PerfectTed 团队从日本直采仪式级抹茶原料，口感顺滑、自然微甜，彻底摆脱了低劣抹茶常见的苦涩杂草味。史蒂文为此向听众提供了独家优惠码与各零售渠道购买指引。 ### [01:29:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5396s) 金钱与地位游戏：为何“购买体验”远比“购买物品”更幸福 广告过后，史蒂文将对话引回演化心理学对现代人生的深层启示，探寻在冯·希佩尔博士庞大的研究历程中，还有哪些颠覆性的核心认知值得现代人铭记。冯·希佩尔博士重点剖析了金钱、社会地位与幸福感之间的微妙关联。金钱确实能在一定程度上提升幸福，并且在远古社会中，财富或资源的占有本身就是个人地位的关键代名词。然而现代社会彻底打破了远古的演化天花板：在过去的原始小群落中，每个人都有机会成为某个细分维度的第一名——部落里最富裕的人、手艺最顶尖的造箭师、最受敬仰的讲故事大师；但在全球互联的今天，任何人都几乎不可能在任何领域成为绝对的唯一，甚至连世界首富的桂冠也难以撼动埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）那般天文数字般的财富积累。 这种结构性巨变导致金钱很容易沦为一场注定落败的“地位军备竞赛”（Status Game）。当我们把金钱倾注在购买豪车、豪宅或昂贵沙发等外在器物上时，这些实物非但无法带来长久的充实感，反而会在社交媒体的对比中迅速贬值。冯·希佩尔博士感叹道，年轻窘迫时的自己总有一种错误的直觉，觉得兜里好不容易存了点钱，拿去滑雪是荒唐享乐、极度挥霍的，而买一张扎实耐用的新沙发才是务实且明智的消费，毕竟沙发能够陪伴自己很多年，滑雪一天就烟消云散了。但实证心理学与演化规律的结论恰恰相反： - **将可支配收入花在“体验”（Doing things）上带来的幸福感，远远超过花在“实物”（Things to have）上**。 - 物质消费是一场永远赢不了的地位竞争：无论买下多么高档的汽车，第二天刷开 Instagram，立刻就会刷到别人的跑车更拉风，手头刚买的物品瞬间显得寒酸破旧。 - 相反，一场全情投入的滑雪假期或深度旅行，不会因为别人的经历而贬值；它会彻底融入个人的记忆与自我认同之中，成为生命叙事里不可剥夺的永久组成部分。 ### [01:32:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5541s) 金钱的真正用法：购买体验，而非堆积器物 Dr. Bill von Hippel 建议，尤其是对于那些已经在事业上取得成功、却感到拼尽全力后空虚乏力的人来说，最关键的解法是用金钱来丰富生活中的“体验”，而不是换取更多冰冷的“物品”。回顾那些与朋友共同创造的经历，人们往往能长久地从中品味出幸福感。 听到这里，Steven Bartlett 打断并提出了一个直击本质的挑战：“如果我非要逼你——虽然我平时不喜欢逼人——总结出在你看来与人类幸福感相关性最强、最能提升人生幸福概率的‘五大要素’，你会给出哪五样？” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Dr. Bill von Hippel 的五大幸福要素 accDescr: 总结进化心理学视角下提升人生幸福感的五大核心支柱 subgraph Core["核心关系与联结"] F["1. 家庭连接与聚餐仪式"] C["2. 适度牺牲自主性以换取社交"] P["3. 饲养宠物缓解孤独"] end subgraph Daily["日常与目标实践"] I["4. 闲暇漫聊与当下临在"] G["5. 结伴践行生活目标"] end Core --> H["持久的幸福感与心理韧性"] Daily --> H ``` --- ### [01:33:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5580s) 要素一：家庭联结、围火共食与讲故事的本能 Bill 毫不犹豫地将“家庭”（Family）排在首位。人类是在扩展家庭（Extended families）的亲密圈子里完成进化的。Bill 补充说，这并不意味着你必须去忍受某个讨厌的混蛋叔叔或极不称职的父母；如果原生家庭实在糟糕，你可以寻找“替代家庭”（Proxy family）或自己建立一个全新的家庭，但关键在于“必须有人与人之间持续、紧密的生活接触”。即使因地理距离或经济条件无法经常相见，也应当通过每日电话保持联络。 更重要的是重聚的“仪式感”，特别是“一起吃饭”。在远古祖先的生活中，狩猎成功后围坐在篝火旁一同烤肉进餐，是部族维系情感的至高时刻。Bill 特别指出现代家庭的一个普遍恶习——大家聚在一起仅仅是各顾各地看电视。他强调，看电视本身没有错，但人类在漫长演化中被塑造成了“讲故事的动物”，彼此倾听与分享经历至关重要。“相信我，你那些想一个人待着、做自己事情的短暂冲动，在‘持续聚在一起、共同进餐与交谈’所带来的长期回报面前，根本不值一提。” --- ### [01:34:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5662s) 要素二：自主与联结的博弈，以及年轻创业者的“孤独代价” 第二条依然关乎人际联结，但核心在于“学会让渡一部分自主性”。在规划日程时，每个人往往都有自己最想做的事，而朋友们想做的可能是另一套。Bill 建议，偶尔应当主动放弃自己原本最想做的事，迁就朋友的选择，通过牺牲一点自主性来换取彼此的紧密关系——因为之后他们也会为你做出同样的妥协。现实中，无论是已婚夫妻还是普通朋友，共同度过的时间都在急剧缩水。 Steven 随即对此提出了极具共鸣的质疑。他坦言，很多听众是野心勃勃的创业者，或在职场上拼命打拼： - 他们之所以拼尽全力，是为了彻底摆脱曾经困窘匮乏的生活，走向心中向往的未来； - 当他们听到“必须花更多时间陪伴伴侣或朋友”时，第一反应往往是：“如果我这样做了，我的公司就会倒闭。” Bill 对此深表赞同，并阐释了生命周期的内在矛盾：“年轻的时候，我们本质上就是一台台‘自主性机器’（Autonomy machines）。”如果一个人怀揣宏大梦想，拼命想摆脱底层的物质困境，就像勒布朗·詹姆斯（LeBron James）当年独自一人不知疲倦地投篮一样，这种高度专注成就了他们。但这种成功的代价是当下必须承受的“孤独感”。Bill 认为，年轻时如果你真心热爱所做的事，确实可以承担这份孤独的代价，去追求自主与成功；但绝不能彻底切断社交——至少在周五晚上和同行朋友聚聚，免得在登顶之前心态崩溃。 针对 Steven 承认的“其实每天再陪伴侣一小时、每周多匀出两三小时生活，公司根本不会倒，这往往是自己内心的非理性执念”，Bill 给出了极为清醒的警告：人类就像在公交车站等车，等的时间往往比直接走过去还要长，原因就在于我们总是在心里说“再多等一分钟吧”或者“我再为这门生意拼一年”。如果不提前设立清晰的界限，这种推迟会无限延续： - **预先设定胜利的终点线**：赚到多少钱、达到什么指标，就算打赢了这场仗，必须收手转入生活； - **预先设定失败的止损线**：在不赚钱的情况下最多给自己投入多少时间，到了期限就坚决退场。 “一旦你身陷其中，我向你保证，你一定会不断向前推移那个标准。” --- ### [01:38:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5881s) 要素三与要素四：养一只宠物，以及找回“无所事事”的闲聊时光 针对那些全身心扑在事业上、不得不暂时搁置深度社交的拼命三郎，Bill 给出的第三个建议是：“我非常严肃地建议你养一只狗或猫。”心理学数据显示，宠物能显著提升主人的幸福感。Bill 分享了自己的亲身经历：当年他在美国大学刚拿到助理教授教职时，面临极其严苛的考核机制——七年内要么通过评审拿到终身教职，要么直接被开除。他知道自己必须在这七年里沦为一台不知疲倦的“工作机器”，一切都要给学术让路。于是他特意养了一只狗，因为“狗根本不在乎你忙不忙，只要你回家，它就会无条件爱你”。Steven 听后感慨，未来如果人们沦落到买机器人来充当无条件的伙伴，那将是一幅凄凉至极的图景。 第四个要素则是“看似毫无意义的闲适陪伴”（Idle conversation）。Bill 指出，远古祖先的很多快乐来源于聚在一起看似无所事事地打发时间。现代社会的悖论在于，我们随时随地都有事情可做——电视里有数不尽的精彩节目，手机里有海量资讯，导致人们彻底丧失了琐碎漫谈的空间。 Bill 对比了自己生活中的一个观察： - **二十年前路过建筑工地**：工人们午休时会坐在一圈吃饭，彼此插科打诨（Shooting the shit），气氛热烈融洽； - **如今路过建筑工地**：工人们依然排排坐着，却各自盯着自己的手机屏幕，甚至不跟旁边的人说一句话。 工人们彼此的联结变得脆弱，对工作的满意度也在下滑。Bill 告诫大家，在日常生活的闲暇碎片里，务必要“保持身心临在”（Be present），别小看这些看似无关痛痒的闲聊，它们对心理健康至关重要。 --- ### [01:39:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5986s) 要素五：结伴追求生活目标 第五大要素是关于个人成长与健康目标的达成。每个人或多或少都有改善生活的追求，比如健身塑形、学习一门外语或是学习画画。大量心理学与行为学数据表明：**如果你选择和另一个人共同立项、相互监督，你达成目标的概率会成倍提高**。 每年都有无数人冲动办了健身卡，去过五次之后就再也不踏进健身房一步。但如果有一个结伴同行的伙伴，彼此的推动与责任感会形成强大的牵引力。将“人际联结”融入自我提升的进程中，不仅能让生活习惯的改变真正落地生根，从长远来看，更会让你成为一个更加快乐、心理更充实的人。 在这番探讨健康与生活目标的对话尾声，Steven 顺势切入了一个个人细节：他得知 Bill 如今不仅是一位学术专家，还在健康科技公司 WHOOP 担任资深科学家（Senior Scientist），而 Steven 本人恰好也是 WHOOP 的早期投资人，该品牌同时也是本期播客的赞助商。 ### [01:40:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6034s) 在 WHOOP 的数据挖掘：运动对行为后果的双向放大效应 Bill von Hippel 谈起他在可穿戴设备公司 WHOOP 的角色。他虽然是以顾问（contractor）而非全职员工的身份参与，但他直言自己拥有“世界上最棒的工作”。他在运动表现科学团队（performance science team）中工作，核心任务就是一头扎进 WHOOP 收集的海量用户数据里，提出各种根本性的探索课题：睡眠、运动与饮食之间到底存在怎样未被人类真正理解的关联？用户做哪些事能真正带来帮助，又有哪些习以为常的行为其实适得其反？ 在分享具体发现前，Bill 郑重给出了免责声明：这些成果来自最新的原始数据分析，尚未经过同行评审（peer review）在学术期刊上正式发表，未来完全有可能被学术界指出遗漏了某些生理效应。然而，团队目前在庞大数据集里观察到一个极其反直觉且惊人的规律——**运动会放大其他行为的生理后果**。 如果某人在某一天做了有益健康的事，即便是与运动完全无关的行为，只要当天运动了，该行为带来的正向收益就会被显著放大；然而，若当天做了一件有害健康的事，运动同样会加剧其负面后果。Steven Bartlett 追问具体例子，Bill 便以饮酒为例： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 运动对好坏行为的放大效应示意图 accDescr: 展示运动作为放大器，分别使有益习惯恢复更佳，使有害行为生物指标恶化更甚。 subgraph Amplifier["运动作为生理放大器"] EX["当天进行运动训练"] end subgraph Positive["有益行为"] P1["晚间佩戴防蓝光眼镜 / 调暗灯光"] EX -->|正向协同放大| R1["生理恢复指标（Recovery）显著提升"] end subgraph Negative["不良行为"] N1["饮酒等不健康行为"] EX -->|负向压力叠加| R2["静息心率飙升 / HRV 大幅暴跌"] end ``` - **酒精对身体指标的直接破坏**：数据表明，每喝一杯酒，静息心率（RHR）大约上升 1 到 1.5 次/分，心率变异性（HRV）则会下跌约 3 点。在多达 10 杯酒的范围内，这种负面破坏呈清晰的线性恶化趋势。 - **运动日的饮酒代价**：在成千上万名用户的组内对比中，如果用户在久坐不动的“躺平”日饮酒，酒精对生物标志物的冲击反而较小；但如果早晨进行了锻炼、晚上再去喝酒，身体指标的受损程度会严重得多。 - **好习惯的同向放大**：相反，如果一个人晚上注意佩戴防蓝光眼镜（blue light blocking glasses）或提前调暗居室灯光，积极做好就寝准备，在运动日这种助眠行为带来的恢复得分（recovery score）提升，明显高于不运动的日子。 - **给日常生活的趣味建议**：Bill 调侃道，如果哪天你打定主意要“放纵犯规（misbehave）”、打破健康自律原则，那么当天最好别运动，做个相对安分的久坐者；而若要运动，就贯彻全套健康习惯以吃满收益。 ### [01:44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6240s) 饮食与日常活动的例外，以及男女睡眠差异的新发现 讨论到这里，Steven 提出疑问：那如果是在饮食上放纵，比如大吃高热量、高脂肪的垃圾食品，难道也最好不运动吗？Bill 连忙澄清，**饮食可能是唯一的例外**。暴饮暴食之后，身体正充斥着大量待代谢的热量与养分，此时最该做的就是动起来，把摄入的燃料消耗掉，而不是转化为脂肪储存。WHOOP 的数据显示，饭后哪怕只是进行 Zone 1 极低强度散步或 Zone 2 轻松运动，都能有效缓解身体负荷，让人感觉更舒服。 谈及睡眠研究时，Bill 透露了另一项刚刚出炉、极为新颖的统计规律：男女之间的真实睡眠需求很可能并不完全相同。 - **男女睡眠时长的差异**：传统观点认为人群的平均睡眠需求基本一致，但体动记录仪（actograph）对现存狩猎采集部落的测算发现，男性往往比女性少睡约 20 分钟；而在 WHOOP 庞大的数万人样本库中，同样精准复现了这一现象——男性平均比女性少睡 20 分钟左右，且统计显著性极高。 - **“睡眠性价比”假说**：男性为何睡得更少？Bill 初步分析两组独立样本发现，男性的睡眠效率或恢复转化率可能高于女性（"more bang for the buck"）。在同等睡眠时长下，男性获得的生理恢复收益似乎略高。这背后的生理机制尚待深挖，可能是慢波睡眠（slow-wave sleep）阶段的脑电波波幅差异，也可能有更复杂的内分泌因素。 - **运动与酒精相互作用的生理机制**：Steven 现场查阅资料补充指出，在运动日饮酒之所以重创指标，是因为机体在修复运动带来的微损伤同时，又必须代谢酒精毒素，两者叠加引发了剧烈的氧化应激（oxidative stress）、肝脏负担激增、脱水和系统性炎症。Bill 对此表示赞同，脱水确实可能是主因之一，但他也坚信这背后很可能存在更广泛、统一的生理交互底层法则（正如生物进化中 Robert Trivers 总结的亲代投资与配偶竞争理论一样，复杂现象的底层往往共享着简洁的普适规律）。 ### [01:48:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6522s) 科学解释的顿悟与 WHOOP 睡眠大数据洞察 比尔·冯·希佩尔（Dr. Bill von Hippel）回顾关于演化与择偶竞争的讨论时感叹，生物界中极少数雄性投入更多抚育成本的物种，便会出现雌性相互竞争雄性的现象。他坦承面对复杂的演化谜题，自己并不掌握所有答案，但科学最美妙的地方在于，当一个精准切中本质的科学假说出现时，会让人由衷赞叹并豁然开朗。 随后，史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）将话题转向冯·希佩尔作为健康追踪设备 WHOOP 资深科学家（Senior Scientist）的研究工作，询问海量人体生理数据中是否有令人意想不到的新发现。冯·希佩尔强调，数据显示微小生活习惯的累积能带来巨大的健康收益，但关键在于“因人而异”，个体差异极度显著： - **床上阅读**：平均而言不仅能提升入睡规律性，还能延长总睡眠时间，很可能是通过转移注意力排除了白天事务的焦虑；然而对部分容易沉浸于情节的小说读者而言，反而会导致大脑兴奋而失眠。 - **CBD（大麻二酚）**：在大样本数据中展现出剧烈的分化，部分人群使用后睡眠质量改善显著，但对另一部分人却甚至产生负面扰动。 - **环境干预微习惯的叠加效应**：使用加重毯（Weighted blanket）、晚间佩戴防蓝光眼镜（Blue light blockers）、调暗室内照明等措施，在夜间睡眠中能带来显著增益，平均可延长 15 至 20 分钟的总睡眠，并明显增加快速眼动期（REM）与慢波深度睡眠（Slow-wave sleep）时长。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 睡眠焦虑与微习惯干预机制 accDescr: 展示失眠焦虑引发的恶性循环以及微习惯介入打断焦虑的机制 subgraph Loop["恶性反馈循环"] A["偶发性睡眠不佳"] --> B["形成睡前焦虑与担忧"] B --> C["自主神经兴奋 / 难以入睡"] C --> A end subgraph Intervention["行为微习惯干预"] D["床上非刺激性阅读"] E["环境调暗与防蓝光"] F["加重毯安抚神经"] end Intervention -.->|"转移注意力 / 促进副交感主导"| B ``` 冯·希佩尔特别指出，WHOOP 的问卷追踪研究揭示了一个恶性闭环：很多人因过去的失眠经历而产生“今晚肯定睡不好”的心理预期，这种睡眠担忧（Sleep worries）本身演变成了独立致病因，直接阻碍神经系统平复。若能通过阅读等手段切断对睡眠结果的强迫性关注，入睡困难往往不药而愈。 --- ### [01:50:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6656s) 咖啡因耐受、进食窗口与副交感神经 对于大众关心的咖啡摄入影响，冯·希佩尔指出咖啡本身并非健康毒药，个体代谢差异极大。部分人晚饭喝咖啡依然能沾枕即眠，但对多数敏感人群而言，下午两点（2:00 PM）之后摄入咖啡因会产生明显的睡眠结构破坏。 此外，数据强烈支持将进食限制在日间光照时间（Daylight hours）： - 人体在进入深度睡眠时需要副交感神经占据主导地位（Parasympathetic dominance）。 - 若睡前进食，消化道系统必须全力高负荷运转，迫使交感神经保持活跃，造成夜间心率偏高、心率变异性（HRV）下降以及睡眠碎片化。 --- ### [01:51:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6684s) 破解《社交悖论》：在过度自主的现代生活中习惯化重拾连接 围绕其新作《社交悖论：当得到所想意味着失去所需》（*The Social Paradox: Autonomy, Connection, and Why We Need Both to Find Happiness*），史蒂文询问对于渴望提升幸福感的普通人而言，最核心但尚未被充分探讨的建议是什么。冯·希佩尔直言，现代人过度推崇“个人自主性”（Autonomy），但人类本性极度渴求“社会连接”（Connection）。然而，要求在快节奏现代生活中凭空增加大量社交是一项违背现实的沉重负担。 他引用《纽约时报》上一篇专栏文章的生动案例：作者下定决心联系所有疏远的老友，经历了一轮热情聚会后，最终却筋疲力尽地承认自己根本无法每周维持这种状态。现代人不像狩猎采集时期的祖先那样拥有天然的部落共同体，因此重建社交必须讲究“苏格拉底式的自知之明”（Socratic self-knowledge），认清自身精力局限，采取可持续的巧妙策略： 1. **将个人爱好转化为社交载体**：切勿将社交当成额外待办事项，而是检视自己本身就喜欢独自做的事情（如跑步、填字游戏），探索能否与他人结伴完成。冯·希佩尔分享了自己的做法：他酷爱做《纽约时报》填字游戏，而远在伦敦的姐姐同样有此爱好，两人便约定远程共同解题，在不挤占任何额外时间的前提下实现了深度的家庭连接。 2. **剥夺每次行动的决策成本**：如同“吃完早餐就顺手刷牙”一样，切勿依赖意志力临时决定“今天要不要社交”。一旦需要每次权衡，疲惫的大脑必然选择退缩。将社交行为固化为触发式规则（例如：早餐后立刻连线家人做字谜），让连接自然嵌入环境与生活动线之中。 --- ### [01:53:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6826s) 终局之问：拯救人类与带来幸福的“绝对公正” 播客迎来了传统压轴环节——上一位未具名嘉宾留给下一位嘉宾的问题：“若赋予你拯救全人类并让每个人都幸福的终极力量，你会做哪一件事？” 冯·希佩尔思索后给出了一个深刻的设想：他希望赋予世界**实时发生的绝对公正（Perfect Justice）**。 > “如果存在绝对公正，任何做出伤害他人恶行的人都会清楚意识到因果报应必定降临……我所说的不是死后的审判，而是现实当下的即时正义。” 他剖析道，人类苦难最顽固的根源在于人对彼此的残酷对待与侵害。如果作恶在当下必然招致确凿后果，伤害行为便会从源头被制止。然而，面对史蒂文关于“此举代价为何”的追问，冯·希佩尔坦率承认这一机制的双刃剑效应与认知局限： - **无处遁形的自由代价**：人类甚至无法再钻任何小漏洞（如日常生活中的轻微超速）。冯·希佩尔强调，他的公正模型应优先聚焦于“对他人造成实际伤害”（Harm to others），而非历史上偏颇的财产规训。 - **正义定义的时代主观性**：正义概念具有强烈的历史与文化主观性。人类群体在今天达成的所谓“正义共识”，在一千年后审视可能显得惊悚骇人，正如当代人回望两百年前的严苛司法体制时同样会惊愕不已。 --- ### [01:55:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6940s) 时代阵痛：迷航的人类与精神健康危机 对谈接近尾声，史蒂文深情致谢冯·希佩尔，盛赞其继畅销作《社会飞跃》（*The Social Leap*）之后推出的这本《社交悖论》出版得无比及时。 史蒂文感慨道，当今世界正以肉眼可见的速度从人类古老的“部落之岛”渐行渐远，现代人正承受着背离生物本能的残酷代价：全球范围内的心理健康危机、抑郁与自杀意念激增、虚无感与意义感匮乏、阿片类药物成瘾泛滥。种种客观现实表明，人类距离理解“何以为人”不仅没有更近，反而在技术与孤独的浪潮中愈发迷失，而这部作品恰恰为找回人类本质提供了一剂清醒的演化解药。 ### [01:56:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6994s) 《社交悖论》：在自主与连接之间寻找人生的平衡 Steven Bartlett 在总结对话时高度赞誉了 Dr. Bill von Hippel 的最新著作。他指出，这本书就像一盏明灯，不仅能照亮我们认知中的盲区，还能帮我们在迷茫中校准人生的方向。正如书中所探讨的核心命题，人类在进化过程中始终面对着“自主性”（autonomy）与“社交连接”（connection）之间的深刻张力：我们两者都需要，但唯有把握好两者之间的微妙平衡，才能获得真正的幸福。Steven 坦言，包括他自己在内的许多现代人，内心深处其实都很清楚自己并未做好这种平衡。而这本书之所以格外精彩，正是因为它以一种“尽可能温和却又至关重要的方式直接直击痛点”（"confronting in the nicest possible way and in an important way"），让人不得不深刻反思自己的生活方式。 Steven 强烈推荐每一位读者去阅读这本名为《社交悖论》（*The Social Paradox*）的新书。Bill von Hippel 对此表达了由衷的感谢，坦言与 Steven 的对谈非常愉快，并迫不及待想看到读者读完后的反馈与互动。在播客尾声，Steven 照例向听众发起了真诚的订阅呼吁：数据显示，经常收听节目的听众中竟有 53% 尚未点击订阅；如果大家喜欢节目的内容并希望给予支持，只需随手点击订阅按钮即可。作为回报，他和团队承诺将全力以赴持续优化节目质量，虚心倾听听众的反馈，邀请大家渴望见到的重磅嘉宾，带来更优质的深度对话。 - **核心著作**：Dr. Bill von Hippel 的新书《社交悖论》（*The Social Paradox*），重点剖析现代人在追求个人独立与维系深层社会联结之间的进化冲突。 - **听众互动数据**：定期收听节目的常客中，仍有 53% 尚未点击订阅频道。 ## Notable quotes > [02:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=137s) Evolution has no foresight. — Dr Bill von Hippel > [25:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1551s) Reproduction is the currency of evolution. — Dr Bill von Hippel > [23:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=1415s) Do nice guys finish last? — Steven Bartlett > [40:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=2448s) Social Media Induced Laziness In our social habits — Dr Bill von Hippel > [52:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=3124s) It takes a village. — Dr Bill von Hippel > [01:08:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4092s) 我认为人生毫无意义（devoid of meaning）。 — Dr Bill von Hippel > [01:08:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4092s) 我们是幸运的，因为我们有机会死去。 — Richard Dawkins > [01:13:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=4399s) 每个强权者都是要睡觉的，而当你闭上眼睛睡觉时，群体中最弱小的人也能轻易杀了你。 — Dr Bill von Hippel > [01:34:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=5662s) 年轻的时候，我们本质上就是一台台‘自主性机器’（Autonomy machines）。 — Dr Bill von Hippel > [01:53:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY&t=6826s) 如果存在绝对公正，任何做出伤害他人恶行的人都会清楚意识到因果报应必定降临……我所说的不是死后的审判，而是现实当下的即时正义。 — Dr Bill von Hippel ## Mentioned Steven Bartlett, Dr Bill von Hippel, Robert Trivers, Frank Marlowe, Hadza Tribe, Brendan Zietsch, Mick Jagger, Daniel Kahneman, Robert Greene, Richard Dawkins, Elon Musk, LeBron James, Will Ahmed, The Social Paradox, The Social Leap, The 48 Laws of Power, Unweaving the Rainbow, The 33 Laws Of Business & Life, Tinder, OnlyFans, Tesla Optimus, WHOOP, Shopify, PerfectTed, Flight Studio, Instacart, General Social Survey (GSS), New York Times ## Video description Are we fighting against our own biology? Dr Bill von Hippel reveals how evolutionary psychology impacts love, success, and happiness. Dr Bill von Hippel is a renowned social psychologist, evolutionary specialist. In this conversation, Dr Bill and Steven discuss topics such as, why high-achieving women struggle to find love, the top trait that makes you more attractive, the link between your wealth and social skills, and the future impact of falling birth rates. 00:00 Intro 02:21 What Does Dr. Von Hippel Do? 05:35 What Are We Getting Wrong as a Species? 09:01 Were Our Ancestors Happier Than Us? 12:45 Are We Forgetting to Be Grateful? 15:10 What Is the Price We Pay for Living in Cities? 17:07 Does Money Make You Happy? 18:03 What Is the Perfect Combination to Achieve Happiness? 20:56 How to Be Attractive 23:08 Why Is Humor an Attractive Trait? 24:11 Do Nice Guys Finish Last? 24:55 What Makes a Woman Attractive? 26:10 Is Attraction an Evolutionary or Social Construct? 27:22 Do Men Care If Women Are Rich? 29:09 Evolution and Homosexuality 31:40 The Economic Mismatch in Finding a Partner 34:52 What Tinder Tells Us About Matchmaking 37:06 What Are Dating Apps Like for Women? 39:59 What Is Pornography Doing to Us? 43:19 Are Populations Declining? 46:24 Are We at Risk of Extinction Due to Lack of Sex? 46:56 How Bill Would Encourage People to Have Children Again 49:11 Robots Raising Our Kids 53:27 Marriage and Happiness 56:33 Ads 57:28 Is There an Evolutionary Basis for ADHD and Neurodivergence? 59:57 Will There Be Less Neurodivergence With AI Development? 1:00:17 Will We Merge With Technology? 1:01:19 What Is the Evolutionary Basis for Depression and Anxiety? 1:02:53 Religion and Its Effect on Happiness 1:05:56 Why Do We Want to Believe in Something? 1:06:58 What Is the Meaning of Life? 1:10:07 How We Band Together in Tough Times Against Others 1:11:54 What Bill Knows About Power in Evolutionary Terms 1:12:53 What Is Powerful Body Language? 1:14:29 What Designer Brands Say About You 1:15:18 What Bill Learned About the Hadza Tribe and Living a Happy Life 1:17:06 Who Needs Each Other More, Men or Women? 1:19:06 Are We Meant to Be Monogamous? 1:20:22 Is Cheating Natural? 1:26:12 Ads 1:28:12 What's the Problem With Money? 1:30:53 The Benefits of Doing These 5 Things 1:34:04 What Is the Cost? 1:38:38 New Findings on Exercise and Unhealthy Habits 1:43:45 Do We All Need the Same Amount of Sleep? 1:48:44 Coffee's Impact on Our Bodies 1:49:12 How Can We Be More Social? 1:51:43 How Would You Save Humanity? Follow Dr Bill: Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/aLJcqJMR0Qb Twitter - https://x.com/BillvonHippel You can pre-order Dr Bill’s book, ‘The Social Paradox: Autonomy, Connection, and Why We Need Both to Find Happiness’, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/pRZgxqRR0Qb Research document: https://stevenbartlett.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/DOAC-Bill-Von-Hippel-Independent-research-further-reading.pdf My new book! 'The 33 Laws Of Business & Life' is out now - https://g2ul0.app.link/DOACBook You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Shopify - https://shopify.com/bartlett WHOOP - https://JOIN.WHOOP.COM/CEO PerfectTed - https://www.perfectted.com with code STEVEN40 for 40% off" [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gk3mNJs2FY)

[2:17] Dr Bill von Hippel: Evolution has no foresight. [25:51] Dr Bill von Hippel: Reproduction is the currency of evolution. [23:35] Steven Bartlett: Do nice guys finish last? [40:48] Dr Bill von Hippel: Social Media Induced Laziness In our social habits [52:04] Dr Bill von Hippel: It takes a village. [68:12] Dr Bill von Hippel: 我认为人生毫无意义（devoid of meaning）。 [68:12] Richard Dawkins: 我们是幸运的，因为我们有机会死去。 [73:19] Dr Bill von Hippel: 每个强权者都是要睡觉的，而当你闭上眼睛睡觉时，群体中最弱小的人也能轻易杀了你。 [94:22] Dr Bill von Hippel: 年轻的时候，我们本质上就是一台台‘自主性机器’（Autonomy machines）。 [113:46] Dr Bill von Hippel: 如果存在绝对公正，任何做出伤害他人恶行的人都会清楚意识到因果报应必定降临……我所说的不是死后的审判，而是现实当下的即时正义。

[4:40] Dr. William von Hippel: Happiness is one of the tools that evolution uses to guide us in the direction that it wants us to go. [9:01] Dr. William von Hippel: Compared to them, I'm a zillionaire, and yet they're probably happier than we are. [17:25] Dr. William von Hippel: If I'm richer than you, I am happier than you, because that's one way that I can be higher in status... Status matters. It's a process of sexual selection whereby both sexes are always trying to get the best partner they can. [23:08] Dr. William von Hippel: Kindness ends up trumping everything... Once you cross minimal competence, kindness means you're going to look out for me, and that matters a lot. [48:02] Dr. William von Hippel: If you're with your kids, you're on average about doing the dishes or doing the laundry—that's how much fun your kids are. But if you ask people what gives you great satisfaction in life... they say, 'Oh, my kids give me enormous joy.' [62:31] Dr. Bill von Hippel: If you could get yourself to be mindful in the moment and set aside the future, your anxiety will disappear because it's all future-based. [75:18] Dr. Bill von Hippel: Every time that we get a choice between connection and autonomy, I fear that we're choosing autonomy. It's a form of miswanting... I think that we're constantly choosing to do our own thing rather than to connect, and that's steadily making us unhappy. [79:06] Dr. Bill von Hippel: If we were ancestrally purely monogamous, we'd have little gorilla testicles and we don't... ours are way bigger than theirs, which suggests that we did a little bit of washing out of our own, which suggests we were monogamous, but we're also sneaking around at the same time. [89:56] Dr. Bill von Hippel: The problem with money is that it's partially a status game... and that status game is impossible to win right because there's just too many humans on the planet... whereas that ski holiday actually becomes part of yourself. It becomes this memory that you think back on and that you're happy when you think about it. [98:44] Dr. Bill von Hippel: There's a lot of seemingly pointless sitting around and doing nothing together. And the problem with our world today... is that we can always be doing something... and I suspect that what we're giving up when doing that is random chitchat with friends. [105:49] Dr. Bill von Hippel: Our data suggests men sleep more impactfully, more effectively than women. That for every hour of sleep that a man gets, he gets a little more bang for the buck on his recovery than women get.

[0:00] do you believe the robots are going to [0:01] raise our kids because it feels like a [0:02] slippery slope well it's not too far [0:04] away from us and we never evolve to want [0:06] children look the fertility rates are [0:07] going way down a lot of countries are [0:09] going to be literally half their size by [0:11] the year 2100 because they're shrinking [0:12] so fast and the list is really long [0:14] about how hard it is to raise the child [0:16] into today's world so you want to make [0:18] having kids to be as much of the plus as [0:20] it possibly can be and with the perfect [0:22] robot Nanny you would never worry at all [0:25] interesting Dr William Von hipple is the [0:27] world-renowned evolutionary psychologist [0:29] who has spent decades studying and [0:31] finding the answers to how instincts [0:33] that once helped our ancestors survive [0:34] still drive us today often in ways we [0:36] don't even realize as a species what are [0:38] we getting wrong well young people [0:40] having less sex than they were 20 years [0:41] ago marriage are steadily going down and [0:44] our lives are so much better but we're [0:45] not any happier and part of the problem [0:47] is that we're constantly choosing to do [0:49] our own thing rather than connect so [0:51] here's the data in 18501 in 100 of [0:53] Americans lived alone now it's 1 in [0:55] seven in the 1970s one in three people [0:57] spent time with their neighbors now [0:58] that's completely reversed now let's [1:00] dive a little deeper 50% of humanity now [1:03] lives in the city then they're about 25% [1:05] wealthier than people who live in the [1:06] country and yet the data shows people in [1:08] the country are happier because cities [1:09] are all about I want to do what I want [1:11] and the problem is that we can't [1:12] introduce social connection into our [1:14] life willy-nilly or we won't keep it up [1:15] so what do we do about that two things [1:17] one and then what does evolution tell us [1:20] about how to attract the opposite sex [1:21] you want honest signals of quality and [1:23] bizar Le one of the clearest honest [1:25] signals for men to demonstrate for women [1:27] as [1:31] I have been forced into a bet with my [1:33] team we're about to hit 10 million [1:35] subscribers on YouTube which is our [1:36] biggest Milestone ever thanks to all of [1:38] you and we want to have a massive party [1:40] for the people that have worked on this [1:41] show for years behind the scenes so they [1:43] said to me Steve for every new [1:45] subscriber we get in the next 30 days [1:47] can $1 be given to our celebration fund [1:51] for the entire team and I've agreed to [1:53] the bet so if you want to say thank you [1:54] to the team behind the scenes at di of [1:56] here all you've got to do is hit the [1:58] Subscribe button so actually this this [2:00] is the first time I'm going to tell you [2:01] not to subscribe because it might end up [2:04] costing me an [2:07] [Applause] [2:11] [Music] [2:17] awful Dr William Von [2:20] hipple what have you spent the last four [2:22] Decades of your life doing oh mostly in [2:25] the lab trying to figure out why humans [2:27] do what they do what do you mean by what [2:30] we why we do what we do well I'm super [2:32] interested in not just what we do but [2:34] what the underlying cause might be you [2:36] know why does um having a nice dinner [2:39] with your friends make you happy it just [2:40] seems inherently obvious well of course [2:42] it does but there's got to be a reason [2:43] for that and there's got to be a reason [2:45] that it's very different if it's not [2:47] with your friends or if it's different [2:49] kinds of foods or you know the list goes [2:50] on it could be anything and so what I [2:53] try to do is I I look into our [2:55] evolutionary history I say how did we [2:56] get here what were the factors that made [2:58] us success and the things that made us [3:01] successful are likely to as a species [3:03] are likely to be the things that make us [3:05] happy because happiness is one of the [3:07] tools that Evolution uses to guide us in [3:10] the direction that it wants us to go you [3:12] know Evolution has no foresight but [3:14] evolution um shapes us the way we are [3:17] and the things that make us successful [3:19] those ancestors who enjoy doing those [3:21] things are going to be the ancestors who [3:22] have more kids then the ancestors who [3:24] enjoyed doing things that were bad for [3:25] them what is evolution so evolution is [3:29] as mind this process and all it is is if [3:32] if it's the case that not everybody has [3:34] the exact same number of kids and if [3:36] it's the case that not everybody's kids [3:37] survive at the exact same rates now we [3:39] have the room for evolution because [3:41] there's variability something about me [3:43] caused me to have lots of children that [3:45] survived in the Next Generation and [3:47] something about this other guy caused [3:48] him not to have any maybe and so [3:50] whatever there is about me that's [3:52] heritable will will be well represented [3:55] in the Next Generation and about him [3:57] poor guy even if he's wonderful those [3:59] are gone and so Evolution just works [4:01] with whatever's there and the things [4:03] that make you a success either because [4:05] they're just useful in that environment [4:06] or they are a new mutation that turns [4:08] out to have great value they becoming [4:10] they become over represented in the gene [4:12] pool and so Evolution can create things [4:15] that are species typical all of our [4:17] species have that we all have two eyes [4:19] you know that's just part and parcel of [4:20] Being Human and then it can make [4:22] variability within humans and there's [4:24] tons of variability in our size our [4:26] stature all sorts of things about us and [4:28] why should we we look at Evolution for [4:30] answers on human happiness and success [4:34] and as a sort of of a guiding compass [4:37] for what we should be doing with our [4:38] Lives why is evolution the place to look [4:40] there's lots of tiny answers to that [4:42] question but they don't necessarily link [4:44] together very well so people say You' [4:46] probably heard oh Express gratitude [4:48] that'll make you happy if you Express [4:49] gratitude why why should that make you [4:52] happy if if there's a good reason for it [4:54] then it makes sense that we should do it [4:56] and it should have some kind of a [4:57] lasting effect and so every single thing [4:59] that people tell you this will make you [5:00] happy there has to been a reason it must [5:03] have done something for our ancestors or [5:05] it's what um my colleague Robert triers [5:07] calls a phenotypic Indulgence which [5:08] means it mimics something that was good [5:10] for our ancestors so for example you [5:13] know video games are pretty novel right [5:16] they may mimic things that were super [5:18] important for our ancestors and and give [5:19] us the same endorphin rush or whatever [5:21] even though they're not actually [5:22] necessarily good for us anymore junk [5:24] food is the same it's loaded fat salt [5:27] sugar those are the kinds of things that [5:29] are ancestors s it all the time uh we [5:32] don't need them anymore but but they [5:34] were super important back then and so it [5:36] makes us happy when we eat those things [5:39] as a evolutionary psychologist and [5:41] someone who understands where we've come [5:43] from and therefore are sort of innate [5:45] behaviors and needs and desires and so [5:47] on what are the things that we're [5:49] getting wrong as a species at the moment [5:51] from your view so the big thing that I [5:53] think we're getting wrong is the balance [5:55] that we maintain between autonomy and [5:57] connection and the we can can talk about [6:00] why this is but the big thing that we've [6:02] got wrong right now is doing what I want [6:04] to do right now rather than connecting [6:07] autonomy is all about self-governance [6:09] what do I feel like doing right now and [6:11] everybody's going off in their own [6:12] Direction and this is not good for us [6:14] it's not good for our happiness it's not [6:16] going to for us in a host of different [6:17] ways that mistake is particularly [6:19] problematic if you live in the west if [6:21] you're well educated and if you live in [6:23] cities and if you're wealthy so if [6:25] you're Western wealthy urbanite well [6:27] educated you've got that problem in [6:29] Spades and by autonomy you mean the sort [6:32] of individualism where I don't need [6:34] anybody anymore it's about me it's about [6:36] my gratification what I want now versus [6:39] others and a community a tribe that's [6:41] right and it doesn't even need to feel [6:42] like a big thing it's just let's say you [6:44] and I are buddies and we're going to go [6:46] to a movie and you say I really want to [6:47] hit a romc com and I'm like I really [6:49] want to see an action movie we go okay [6:50] I'll see if the movie's over we just go [6:52] our own ways and so it could be trivial [6:54] little things but it's across our lives [6:56] we're continually setting aside our [6:58] connections to do what we want and what [7:00] are the some of the sort of stats that [7:03] illuminate this problem from that make [7:05] it clear that this is actually happening [7:07] in your view so there's a number of them [7:10] um you can look at the propensity of [7:11] Americans to live alone we've got good [7:13] data in the States but the picture is [7:15] the same in every industrialized country [7:17] in 1850 1% of Americans lived alone now [7:21] it's so one in 100 now it's one in seven [7:24] so you know here we are 170 years L 175 [7:27] years later and it used to be crazy rare [7:30] and now it's one in seven is pretty darn [7:32] common if you look in in the 1970s when [7:34] I was a kid um about 30% of people saw [7:38] their neighbors got together with their [7:39] neighbors not visually seeing them but [7:41] got together with their neighbors um at [7:43] least a few times a week and only one in [7:45] five pretty much never saw their [7:46] neighbors at all now that's completely [7:48] reversed now only one and five are [7:50] seeing their neighbors regularly used to [7:53] be one and three and now one and three [7:55] never get together with their neighbors [7:57] at all so we're we're moving away from [8:00] each other in a host of different ways [8:02] even married couples are spending less [8:04] time together they're it's weird we [8:06] don't understand what they're doing but [8:08] what I suspect is happening is that [8:10] let's say that you both want to exercise [8:11] and she kind of likes to jog and you [8:13] kind of like to lift weights we used to [8:15] sort of do those together off for a jog [8:17] and then a little weightlifting but now [8:18] with 10 zillion options you go to your [8:21] gym and she goes to hers and you just [8:22] don't see each other as much as you used [8:24] to so across our lives we're spending [8:27] far more time alone and if look at [8:29] marriage and [8:31] cohabitation in some parts of the world [8:33] they haven't changed at all but in the [8:34] wealthy Parts United States western [8:36] Europe they're steadily going down so [8:38] it's not just well people aren't getting [8:40] married because they're living together [8:41] outside of marriage if you lump all [8:43] those together they're steadily going [8:45] down over the last 50 years and why does [8:47] that matter well the question is first [8:50] on the one hand it's not a problem at [8:51] all you vote with your feet do what you [8:53] want of course right but on the other [8:55] hand what if it's making you unhappy [8:57] what if you think you're doing this this [8:59] because it's going to make you happy but [9:01] in fact you're wrong and you keep making [9:03] decisions over and over again that make [9:04] you increasingly less happy and that's [9:06] what I think is happening here I think [9:08] every one of those decisions is an error [9:10] and are are there any stats or data that [9:12] proves [9:13] that we're getting this wrong in terms [9:16] of Happiness are there other tribes or [9:18] communities or people in history that [9:19] were doing it differently and had higher [9:22] rates of Happiness so the best example [9:24] in my mind is if you look at unto [9:26] gathers and so uh there's a team that [9:29] went to the hodza people who live [9:31] outside would live Kenya and Tanzania [9:34] they're as close as we know to what our [9:36] ancestors would look like and in my mind [9:37] they're perfect because they're also [9:38] where it all happened the hza still [9:40] lived where Humanity evolved so of [9:42] course it could have been different a [9:43] quar to million years ago but it could [9:45] have been exactly like they live today [9:47] and so when you look at the hza this [9:49] particular team ask them over the last [9:51] week have you been happy sometimes happy [9:54] and sometimes sad sad over 90% of the [9:57] hza said happy that was their answer [9:59] answer when you ask westerners that same [10:01] question you get about 50% will say [10:03] happy over the last week and so the data [10:07] suggests the hodza are literally happier [10:08] than we are now they they bury almost [10:12] half their children they they live a [10:14] life where they've got no savings [10:16] whatsoever they've got nothing in the [10:17] bank they don't know what tomorrow's [10:19] going to bring they don't know if [10:20] tomorrow's Hunt's going to be successful [10:21] they have so many cultural rules that [10:23] they have to abide by that requires them [10:25] to be constantly connected with each [10:27] other because they rely on each other [10:28] like an insurance policy and yet they [10:31] they look a lot happier than we are now [10:33] we can see those same stats in in [10:35] different modern contexts but in my mind [10:37] that's the stat that blows me away and [10:39] why do you think they are happier than [10:41] us you think it's because they're living [10:42] in tribes and groups or is it something [10:44] else well I think it's the balance that [10:46] they've struck and I think it's that [10:47] balance between connection and autonomy [10:50] and so that's really the focus of this [10:52] of my second book is so I'll tell you [10:55] how I got there how's that so I'm [10:56] visiting a friend of mine also named [10:58] Stephen and uh he struck it rich and he [11:02] invites me over I'm like this is going [11:03] to be cool I'm gonna see how the Super [11:05] Rich Live and it was over the top you [11:07] know this monumentally huge apartment [11:09] beautiful view Cooks over there Maids [11:11] over there Etc and so I turned him I'm [11:13] like Steve man your life is over the top [11:15] and he's like yeah it seems that way but [11:17] it's just not and I'm like seriously and [11:19] he goes yeah I'm no happier than I used [11:21] to be and he starts listing off all the [11:23] problems that he's facing and I'm like [11:25] how could this person not appreciate [11:28] these amazing benefit that he has how [11:30] how is it even possible that a person [11:31] could have so much and not just feel [11:33] happy about it every day and I have to [11:34] admit I felt the sense of superiority I [11:36] thought to myself if I were crazy rich [11:39] like you were I'd be happy every day I [11:41] would appreciate this lifestyle that ID [11:43] earned rather than just taking it for [11:45] granted so then fast forward a few years [11:48] this is a decade or so ago fast forward [11:50] a few years and I'm reading Frank [11:51] Marlo's wonderful book on the hza and [11:53] I'm reading about their lives and and [11:55] and how content they are and I'm like [11:56] holy cow I'm just like my friend Steve [11:59] compared to them I'm a multi-millionaire [12:02] I don't my when my kids get sick I'm off [12:04] to the doctor immediately I don't have [12:06] this horrible life for a bury Mo own [12:07] children I have savings I don't have to [12:09] worry about tomorrow I get up and get [12:11] something out of the fridge I'm [12:12] comfortable when it's hot I'm [12:13] comfortable when it's cold the list goes [12:14] on compared to them I'm a zillionaire [12:17] and yet they're probably happier than we [12:19] are and so I realized it's not just [12:21] Steve it's all of us you know we're [12:23] failing to appreciate this amazing [12:25] modern world we live in and you know [12:27] even if we look back hundred years I'm [12:29] years ago a quarter of the children died [12:31] by the 150 years ago a quarter of the [12:32] children died by the time they turned [12:34] five you know that you you got a the flu [12:37] or you got you know typhus there was [12:39] zillion diseases that just killed us [12:41] when we were young um women died in [12:43] child birth at rates way skyro compared [12:45] to today so it's not just looking back [12:48] at un togethers but even looking back [12:49] recently our lives are so much better [12:51] but we're not any happier if anything I [12:55] think we're maybe a little less happy [12:57] and is that just because we don't take a [12:59] moment to be grateful or is there [13:01] something fundamental about the way [13:03] we're pursuing happiness look I think [13:05] it's multicausal whenever you get a big [13:07] effect like that like if you take those [13:09] data seriously that I told you about the [13:10] hodza they're basically twice as happy [13:12] as we are now that's such a big effect [13:14] it has to be multia has to be a lot [13:16] going on there and of course these [13:18] changes happen over Generations they [13:19] don't happen overnight if they happen [13:21] overnight I think it'd be super obvious [13:22] to us what have gone wrong but I think [13:24] what what it returns us to is this [13:26] problem that we were talking about [13:27] before about autonomy in connection and [13:30] so let's take City living as a for [13:32] example remember earlier I said that [13:35] cities are about 5,000 years old so [13:38] human beings have been moving to cities [13:39] for 5,000 years by 1960 you had one [13:43] people out of every three living in [13:45] cities in in the world and by 2007 was [13:47] the year we crossed over 50% of humanity [13:50] now lives in the city so people have [13:53] been voting with their feet for a long [13:55] time but by long time I mean hundred so [13:57] years and mass moving to cities now [14:00] there's lots of reasons for it we can [14:02] talk about it but one of the costs is [14:04] happiness if you look at happiness and [14:06] you divide people up by whether they [14:08] live into in cities um communities over [14:11] a quarter million or in the country [14:13] communities less than 2 200 people [14:15] they're happier in the country than they [14:16] are in the city which is a remarkable [14:19] fact remarkable fact in part because [14:21] they're also poorer in the country [14:23] people who live in cities in the United [14:24] States for example are about 25% [14:26] wealthier than people who live in the [14:28] country now some of that it's burned on [14:29] comp on expensive city living but far [14:31] from all of it and so they you're [14:33] literally poorer in the country but [14:35] happier and that's this graph here that [14:37] from your book um percentage of [14:39] Americans who are very happy are not too [14:41] happy in urban and rural communities [14:44] that's right and it shows that people [14:46] are pretty significantly happier in R [14:48] rural areas and report to having less [14:51] unhappiness in rural areas which is [14:54] remarkable because there's so many [14:56] opportunities in cities people have been [14:58] voting with their feet for over 100 [15:00] years and arguably for 5,000 years [15:02] moving to cities and yet it's making [15:04] them less happy and so in my mind this [15:06] is another symptom of the same exact [15:08] problem we've been talking about which [15:09] is cities are all about autonomy cities [15:12] are about opportunity if I go to City I [15:13] can get any kind of education I want I [15:15] can have any kind of job that I want and [15:17] so people are drawn to cities and of in [15:19] fact I'll make more money the data are [15:21] very clear but I'm going to pay a price [15:23] and people don't even realize the price [15:25] they're paying what is the price that we [15:27] pay we become more isolated yeah [15:29] bizarrely we become more isolated [15:30] because in the city you got a thousand [15:31] people right next to you right you're [15:33] you're cheek by gal with your neighbor [15:34] you're in an apartment building and [15:36] there's somebody on your left somebody [15:37] on your right somebody above you [15:38] somebody below you but what are your [15:40] chances you even know that person so if [15:43] you ask people there's a couple ways you [15:44] can ask the question if you say do you [15:46] know someone well enough that you trust [15:48] them with your house keys you're more [15:50] likely to give that answer a yes in the [15:51] country than you are in the city even [15:53] though in the country probably your [15:54] nearest neighbor is a long way down the [15:56] road whereas in the city your nearest [15:58] neighbor is 5T away that person 5T away [16:00] in principle you ought to be good [16:02] buddies with or if they you don't like [16:03] that person there's somebody else in [16:04] your building you ought to be good [16:06] buddies with but we're just not whereas [16:08] in the country we connect with each [16:09] other similarly if you say how satisfied [16:12] are you with your friendships people are [16:14] more satisfied with their friendships in [16:15] the country than they are in the city [16:17] there was a graph that I saw I think it [16:18] was in your book the percentage of [16:20] Americans who spend evenings with [16:21] Neighbors at different frequencies by [16:23] income and it basically shows that the [16:25] more money you have the less time you [16:27] spend with your neighbors yeah which is [16:29] amazing right and so the thing is that [16:31] the problem is that if you're rich you [16:33] don't need your neighbors you know if [16:35] I'm I'm out of coffee beans I want to [16:36] borrow some I can just drone them in or [16:38] whatever I I can I can call instacart or [16:40] whatever whoever your your favorite [16:42] deliveries um program is but if you're [16:44] poor you can't afford to do that and so [16:46] poor people literally need each other [16:48] they live in these neighborhoods in [16:49] these complex webs of interdependence [16:51] where they borrow each other's tools [16:53] they look out for each other's kids they [16:54] look out for each other's pets because [16:56] they can't afford to Outsource any of [16:57] that and that's it's actually how humans [16:59] evolved we evolved to need each other [17:01] all the time and so ironically although [17:04] rich people are happier than poor people [17:06] so it's not giving away all your [17:08] material Goods will not make you happy [17:10] nonetheless poor people are happier with [17:12] their friendships they're more likely to [17:13] get together their neighbors and we see [17:15] the exact same effect with education as [17:17] well the more educated you are the less [17:18] you get together with your neighbors but [17:20] of course wealth and education tend to [17:23] go hand inand in our society so money [17:25] does make you happy it's funny thing so [17:28] money makes you a lot happier in real [17:30] time so if you start to make more money [17:32] you get happier and the more important [17:34] money is to you the bigger that effect [17:36] is and it keeps going well past where we [17:38] thought it did we used to think it [17:39] sealing at around $100,000 a year it [17:42] doesn't past 600,000 a year money still [17:44] makes you happier it's it's remarkable [17:47] it makes a difference but there's this [17:49] thing known as the easterland Paradox [17:51] and that is that as Society gets richer [17:54] people get no happier so if you look at [17:57] the United States going back to around [17:59] 1940 people earned about a third what [18:02] they earn today in real terms so we're [18:05] three times richer than we used to be [18:07] and we've been measuring um happiness in [18:09] the United States since 1940s on [18:11] representative samples so we know that [18:13] that holds true for the whole country we [18:15] know what the country looks like it [18:16] hasn't moved an inch so real terms money [18:18] gone way up happiness exactly flat so [18:22] what is the per perfect combination to [18:24] achieve happiness in that regard then [18:26] wealth does matter but something else [18:28] matters as well well which we tend to [18:29] abandon when we get wealth well the [18:31] problem is this there's a couple of [18:32] things first we can come back to the big [18:34] issue which I think is this balance [18:36] that's the underlying issue why why I [18:38] think H gathers are happier than we are [18:40] is this balance that they maintain [18:42] between autonomy and connection which we [18:43] can return to but in direct answer to [18:46] your question part of the problem with [18:48] humans is that we're this wonderful [18:50] species in many ways that we can avoid [18:52] this Zero Sum gain that is life and by [18:55] Zero Sum gain I mean that my gain is [18:57] your loss like there's only so many [18:59] Goods out there and for me to have more [19:01] means you have to have less and in the [19:03] animal world lots of the world works [19:05] that way and they're able to cooperate [19:07] with each other when they can create [19:08] positive some relationships so for [19:10] example vampire bats they go out and [19:13] they try to get blood from large animals [19:15] like land on their back bite them a [19:16] little bit and leave drink a little bit [19:18] of their blood if they don't get any [19:20] food at all at night they're at risk of [19:22] starvation within just a few nights and [19:24] so if I come home if I've come back and [19:26] I got nothing and you were successful [19:28] I'll beg to you and if we're friends [19:30] you'll regurgitate a little bit of the [19:31] blood for me now if if you weren't [19:34] successful even if we're best mates [19:35] there's nothing you can do for me now if [19:37] you think about the way humans give [19:39] things to each other it's sometimes [19:41] Goods but we're this different animal [19:43] we're this cognitive animal we're an [19:45] animal where information has enormous [19:47] value and information I can give it to [19:49] you without losing any of it myself and [19:51] so we create these these relationships [19:54] with each other where we don't even need [19:55] to worry about reciprocation we can do [19:57] things for each other all the time [19:58] they're crazy easy to do because they [20:01] don't require me to give you anything I [20:02] still have the information I told you so [20:04] we already have this advantage over the [20:05] animal [20:07] kingdom but we're still animals and one [20:11] of the ways that we're still animals is [20:13] that we're still zerm in the sense of [20:16] what about our status who's going to get [20:18] picked for the mating relationships [20:19] who's going to get picked to be on the [20:20] teams and there it always comes down to [20:23] well who's at the top of the local Heap [20:24] and who's at the bottom of the local [20:26] Heap and so in our ancestral communities [20:28] that would be a very small group of 100 [20:29] gathers all I had to do was be valuable [20:31] or better than you guys in something in [20:34] our world today it's awfully hard to be [20:36] better than everybody and money is one [20:38] of the easiest most straightforward ways [20:39] to do it because everyone can see it and [20:42] so even though money doesn't make us [20:43] happy as the whole country is three [20:45] times richer we're no happier if I'm [20:47] richer than you I am happier than you [20:49] because that's one way that I can be [20:51] higher than in status and so then maybe [20:53] I can steal your girlfriend or maybe the [20:55] guys who are in your group who I really [20:56] want to be in my group are gonna say hey [20:58] Bill's cooler than Stephen I'm going [21:00] with him and so status matters it's a [21:03] process of sexual selection whereby both [21:06] sexes are always trying to CH get the [21:07] best partner they can of the opposite [21:09] sex and so they're competing with each [21:11] other men compete with men to try to [21:13] have women choose them women compete [21:15] with women to try to men choose them and [21:16] that's a zero sum status game and what [21:19] does evolution tell us about that that [21:21] competitive sort of Dating Game what [21:23] does it tell us if I'm trying to be [21:25] attractive as a man what I need to be [21:29] demonstrating in order to attract the [21:30] opposite sex as a human yeah so what [21:33] what you want are what we call Honest [21:34] signals of quality and the thing is that [21:38] we've all evolved to look through fake [21:39] signals and so lots of animals will [21:41] pretend to be things that they aren't um [21:43] they puff up their chest or raise up [21:45] their shackles or do something to look [21:47] big and intimidating we all we have [21:48] human ways of doing that too but in [21:51] humans [21:52] bizarrely well in in all animals [21:54] actually one of the clearest on signals [21:57] for men to demonstrate for women is what [21:59] is risk-taking now that seems bizarre [22:02] why would taking a risk attract females [22:04] well it it attracts females because [22:06] there's two outcomes when you take a [22:07] risk you either succeed showing just how [22:10] skilled you are at whatever the domain [22:12] is or you fail and either turn into a r [22:15] rash and therefore You' removed yourself [22:16] from the gene pool or you bounce right [22:18] back up because you're such a robust [22:20] organism in either case you're [22:22] demonstrating that's an honest signal of [22:23] quality when we follow the data over [22:25] time we see that high testosterone men [22:27] are more likely to pair up they take [22:29] these risks women find them attractive [22:32] at some level even if they don't [22:33] personally feel like it's attractive at [22:35] the moment but something about that is [22:36] attracted to them and it may only be [22:38] getting other men to back off when I [22:40] take these big risks you may say well [22:41] all right I'm not going to try to crowd [22:43] in on Bill scene he's too tough we don't [22:45] know with certainty but they take these [22:47] risks and then once they partner up then [22:50] their testosterone levels go back down [22:51] and they because once you have a family [22:54] taking risks are is foolish you want to [22:56] take risk to get in the Mating Game but [22:57] you don't want to keep taking taking [22:58] risk once you got people depending on [23:00] you so I've got honest signals of did [23:02] you say quality yeah honest signals of [23:04] quality as being attractive as as a man [23:07] I've got risk-taking what else things [23:10] like physical size is an honest signal [23:12] of quality things like wealth if you [23:15] earned all that money you know there's [23:16] inherited wealth we live in this kind of [23:18] funny world but it still gives you all [23:19] the advantages of wealth if you earned [23:21] it yourself there's uh ambition things [23:24] like that people look for ambition [23:25] because it's if you are out there [23:27] working hard the time it's an honest [23:29] signal that you're going to probably [23:31] continue to do that provide for somebody [23:33] Etc I often think about like personality [23:35] and why is humor a attractive quality in [23:39] men that's a great example humor is an [23:41] honest signal of quality now it's funny [23:43] because you could think well you could [23:44] just be funny by memorizing jokes but if [23:46] you think of your friends who are funny [23:48] they don't you don't sit down they go [23:49] hey did I tell you the one about Pat and [23:50] Mike that's not how people are funny you [23:52] know unless they're paid to do that up [23:53] on stage people are funny by making [23:56] connections that you hadn't thought of [23:57] by twisting the world 90° and linking [24:00] things together and that takes an agile [24:02] mind and you know there's more genetic [24:04] expression in our brain than anywhere [24:05] else in our body so it's a sign of good [24:07] genes and also we're a cognitive species [24:09] being smart is super important for men [24:11] and women that's how you succeed but as [24:14] humans we also care an enormous amount [24:16] about kindness and if that person who [24:18] has nothing else going for them is kind [24:20] that person's going to do well in life [24:21] because kindness ends up trumping [24:23] everything just because there's a host [24:25] of reasons for that one of which is that [24:27] if you're a kind person you're a great [24:28] partner to me even if you've got almost [24:30] no other good qualities you need some [24:31] minimal levels of competence but once [24:33] you cross minimal competence kindness [24:35] means you're going to look out for me [24:37] and that matters a lot do nice guys [24:38] finish last in the evolutionary World [24:41] they don't actually so the the good [24:43] thing about being in a nice guys they [24:45] they tend to finish first and so when we [24:47] look at Hunter gather communities and we [24:49] look at people choosing their Partners [24:51] to go out on hunts in the morning they [24:52] actually choose the nice guys over the [24:54] better Hunters now again you need a [24:56] minimal level of competence now [24:58] they pay a big price to finish burst [25:00] because lots of people take advantage of [25:02] them and so I share with you and you [25:04] never share back with me but if I'm a [25:06] nice guy I'm like that's okay you know [25:07] Steven will come around someday he'll [25:09] learn to share with me too or if he [25:10] doesn't that's okay he's a good guy and [25:11] I like to give him half my rabbit that I [25:13] caught so they they they're in Economist [25:17] terms they're suckers a lot they give a [25:18] lot more than they get but as far as [25:20] winning in the world everybody wants to [25:22] be with them what about for women in [25:26] terms of [25:27] Attraction if you you were to design a [25:29] perfectly attractive woman from an [25:30] evolutionary basis what would that woman [25:34] be like the different the the factors [25:36] that matter for women are different for [25:38] men because men are fertile throughout [25:40] their whole lives and it's so easy to be [25:42] fertile you're you you're making 100 [25:43] million sperm a day whatever that number [25:45] is they're tiny little cells you can [25:47] just do it even if you're old and [25:48] desiccated fertility is crazy hard for a [25:51] woman you need to be um under the age of [25:54] 40 basically once our ancestral females [25:56] hit 40 they almost never reprodu anymore [25:58] and we could talk about why that is it's [26:00] an interesting evolutionary solution to [26:02] a problem but then during that time you [26:04] have to be wellfed and you have to be [26:05] healthy because it's super hard to [26:08] maintain a pregnancy that's you know [26:10] nine months where if you're not getting [26:12] enough food it's hard to feed that fetus [26:14] so for women they need fat on their [26:16] bodies which was hard in our ancestral [26:18] world that meant they're wellfed they [26:19] need to be healthy and they need to be [26:21] young and so when you have those [26:23] qualities that's more important than [26:25] anything else for men because when it [26:27] comes down to it [26:28] living forever is nice but evolution [26:30] doesn't care about it if you don't [26:31] reproduce reproduction is the currency [26:34] of evolution and so what men are looking [26:36] for in a partner is somebody who's [26:38] reproductive who's fertile so is [26:40] attraction an evolutionary thing in your [26:41] view versus like a social thing it's [26:44] well it's always both right you know [26:45] humans are are wildly malleable and you [26:48] can move things around in crazy ways you [26:50] know what look at what what people found [26:52] attractive just 50 years ago compared to [26:53] today but there's a lot of Basics that [26:55] underly it and so for example [26:58] if you look at the actual shape of women [27:00] and their hip to- waist ratio whether [27:02] the bum is big or not big in the current [27:04] climate the hip to waist ratio doesn't [27:06] change and that's because that hip to [27:08] waist ratio is correlated with fertility [27:10] but the size of your bum not so much and [27:13] in fact when women deposit fats Prem [27:15] menopause they deposit them on their [27:17] thighs and their bum which is where [27:19] those fats are really good for the baby [27:21] they help neural development you know [27:22] your brain is loaded with fat when [27:24] you're in utero you need your mother to [27:26] have lots of fat ideally on her bum and [27:27] thigh because that's going to help feed [27:29] your growing brain so there's like a [27:31] perfect hip to weight ratio yeah yeah [27:34] and it rarely changes so there's [27:35] analyses of like every Playboy bunny [27:38] from 1950 to whenever I don't know if [27:40] Playboy even exists anymore but and and [27:42] they always had the exact same ratio [27:44] even though the actual weight of the [27:45] model would have changed dramatically [27:47] they went from pretty heavy in Marilyn [27:48] Mon Rose day to really really skinny for [27:50] a while and then back to heavier again [27:52] do men typically care for woman's Rich [27:55] from an evolutionary perspective does it [27:56] matter in principle it doesn't matter [27:58] much I mean remember but there's there's [28:00] your phenotype you're you're you want to [28:03] be well taken care of but but as far as [28:06] what you're actually attracted to um [28:08] women so so we call it sexual plasticity [28:12] that women have evolved to basically be [28:14] able to find almost any guy attractive [28:16] because the qualities that are going to [28:17] make men successful are often on the [28:19] inside because remember I told you all [28:22] men are fertile even when they get [28:23] really old so a skinny guy a fat guy a [28:26] strong guy a weak guy they're all [28:27] fertile you don't have to worry about [28:29] that but what you do have to worry about [28:31] is raising kids is really hard you want [28:33] help so you want somebody who's going to [28:35] be successful and hunting you want [28:37] somebody who's going to look out for you [28:38] and your kids these are the variables [28:40] that really matter and and so women look [28:42] for that and that means they need to be [28:43] able to fall in love with you know the [28:45] Bill Gates of the world who aren't these [28:46] big Macho guys but can really take care [28:48] of you and so women have a lot more of [28:50] what we call sexual plasticity than men [28:53] men have a particular shape they're [28:54] looking for and a particular appearance [28:57] on average because that correlates with [28:59] fertility now if you then have a choice [29:02] oh here's one who's poor and here's the [29:03] one who's rich you're going to go with [29:05] the one who's rich right but if you look [29:07] at male rock stars and and and male [29:10] businessmen people who are really rich [29:12] and famous the the women that they um [29:15] date and marry go are entirely across [29:19] the social class Spectrum some are super [29:20] rich some are super poor a waitress has [29:23] a great chance with MC Jagger um and so [29:26] does some high society Elite person [29:28] but if you turn around the other way a [29:29] waiter doesn't have much chance with [29:31] this Rich female or rock star sometimes [29:33] but way less likely and that's because [29:36] women are looking for features of status [29:38] and dominance in men and men don't care [29:40] about that as much in women what is the [29:42] basis for homosexual relationships and [29:44] evolution so homosexuality is a really [29:46] interesting question we see it across [29:48] the Animal Kingdom so we know that we're [29:50] not the only species who does it but we [29:51] we don't often see exclusive [29:53] homosexuality in the animal kingdom that [29:55] seems to be much more common in humans [29:57] nobody's 100% sure sure why it is but [29:58] the best evidence I've ever seen the [30:00] best evolutionary evidence comes out of [30:01] this lab of a colleague of mine an ex- [30:04] colleague of mine brandan Z and what he [30:06] shows is that most human behaviors are [30:08] driven by a number of genes not just one [30:10] we call them polygenic a whole bunch of [30:12] genes contribute to a particular [30:14] behavior and especially a complex [30:16] Behavior like so homosexuality and so [30:18] there's going to be a polygenic score [30:20] for homosexuality and the more of those [30:22] the higher your polygenic score is the [30:24] more likely you are to be attracted to [30:25] same sex um and it works a ton bit [30:28] different than men and women but [30:29] basically the same and what Brendan [30:31] argued and has now demonstrated is that [30:34] as you gain more gay genes genes that [30:37] make you more attracted to the opposite [30:38] sex but you're not completely homosexual [30:41] yet you're more attractive to the [30:43] opposite sex you're more attractive yeah [30:45] so men who have more gay genes but are [30:48] still straight have more sexual partners [30:50] than men who have fewer gay genes and [30:52] are also straight so being a little bit [30:55] gay is super attractive to women being [30:58] too gay maybe they're attracted to you [30:59] but you don't care anymore because now [31:00] you're only attracted to men and so from [31:02] an evolutionary perspective it's this [31:04] Balancing Act you want to give men [31:06] enough gay genes so that women are [31:07] attracted to them but not so many that [31:09] they don't care about [31:10] women [31:13] okay which kind of feels like a bit of a [31:15] contradiction to the idea that [31:16] testosterone and risk taking and being [31:19] brwn and being well mascul some gay men [31:21] are feminine but some gay men are very [31:22] masculine they're hyper masculine so [31:24] there's both [31:25] types you can be gay and be wildly [31:28] masculine or you can be gay and be quite [31:29] feminine so what is it what is it about [31:32] the being a little bit gay like what are [31:33] the features what are the what are the [31:35] features of being a little bit gay we [31:36] know the genes um this C this paper was [31:39] published in um science if I remember [31:41] right a few years ago and laid out the [31:43] genes and they don't make sense some of [31:45] them relate to your sense of smell there [31:48] we don't understand these polygenic [31:49] scores very well yet but if I had to [31:52] guess um you know if you think of [31:55] extreme straight males versus gay Mal [31:58] gay males are much cleaner they look [32:00] after their themselves their bodies much [32:02] better their their hygiene's much better [32:03] they take you know they're their sense [32:06] of Aesthetics is much better and so [32:07] maybe being a little bit gay means [32:09] you're metrosexual and now you've got [32:10] these qualities where where you're not [32:12] so downright disgusting to [32:15] women one of the one of the things that [32:17] kind of Dove tells into this is some of [32:19] the stats that I was reading about [32:21] education these days um this one stat [32:24] here says that 58% of college graduates [32:26] in the most recent cohorts were women [32:30] with women on campus with one women on [32:32] campus for every two [32:34] men and with this scenario where there's [32:37] more women becoming college educated [32:39] than men at increasing numbers you're [32:42] going to get a bit of a mismatch in [32:43] terms of women looking for those men who [32:46] are up and to the right economically but [32:50] there's fewer men there yeah it's a real [32:52] problem and so you know we we talk about [32:55] for example that women are [32:58] underrepresented in some Fields like [33:00] they're underrepresented in the sciences [33:02] and people worry about that a lot but [33:03] there's a much much bigger problem than [33:05] we're facing and in fact I'm not even [33:07] convinced the other one is a problem and [33:08] we can come back to that if you'd like [33:10] because I I do think there's reasons for [33:12] that that might have to do with [33:13] preferences and not being held out but [33:15] setting that issue aside if we look at [33:18] uh the rates of going to University my [33:20] Birth Cohort I was born in 1963 is the [33:23] first year where women attended College [33:25] University at equal rates to men in the [33:27] United States and and that those lines [33:30] crossed and they never gone back and so [33:32] now the the stat you were talking about [33:34] is there's basically uh the it's 6040 [33:39] basically um female to male that means [33:41] there's three women on campus for every [33:42] two men and so in principle that first [33:46] of all makes it harder to date on campus [33:48] if you're female because there's not as [33:49] many men on campus as there are women [33:51] and so the competition is fierce but [33:52] setting just dating on campus aside on [33:55] average women are looking for who are as [33:58] as educated as themselves or more and [34:00] men are looking for women who are as [34:02] educated themselves or less and so we're [34:03] creating a problem because women are [34:05] getting really well educated and then [34:08] there's not as many educated Men [34:09] available for them to partner up with [34:11] and so what you end up with is lots more [34:13] people living singal single now remember [34:15] we talked about that before couples are [34:17] less likely to get together on the one [34:18] hand this is not necessarily a bad thing [34:20] because women going to college making a [34:22] lot of money means they can afford to [34:23] live as a single person which they [34:25] literally could not do up until 1960 if [34:28] you're a female in most countries you [34:30] you couldn't have a job really and so [34:32] you the way to be an economic success is [34:34] to marry those days are gone but it does [34:38] mean that it's harder for women to find [34:39] Partners when they're on average more [34:41] likely to be educated than men and we [34:43] don't know why men are attending college [34:44] at lower rates than women but I suspect [34:47] that school itself is just doesn't suit [34:49] boys as well as it suits girls and so [34:51] it's harder for boys to hold still it's [34:53] boys are less likely to want to please [34:54] their teachers now the list is long it's [34:56] hard to raise Boys in those kinds of [34:58] ways and and uneducated unpartnered men [35:02] are the biggest problem in every society [35:04] you know if you've got men with poor [35:05] prospects who can't find good jobs and [35:07] who don't have a partner they're the [35:09] guys running around with high tea who [35:11] are committing all the crimes so as a [35:13] society you want to be very invested in [35:16] men partnering up with women because [35:18] that tames them and you want to be very [35:20] invested in men being viable partners [35:23] for women which means whatever we're [35:24] doing wrong in schools that's pushing [35:26] men out we need to un do if women are [35:29] looking for men that have more resources [35:31] than them on average which is what I [35:32] read in some of the studies that I think [35:34] it was roughly 70% of women say they [35:36] want a man that has equal or more money [35:37] than they do [35:40] um there's a mismatch there isn't there [35:43] because as both become sort of more [35:45] equalized if there's still a desire for [35:47] the for the man to have more and provide [35:49] more there's again it doesn't the [35:51] numbers don't the numbers don't match [35:53] it's a really unfortunate problem and so [35:55] the easiest way to look at that problem [35:56] is to basically look at Tinder or one of [35:58] these um dating apps and there you can [36:01] see that basically 20% of the guys on [36:04] Tinder get 80% of the swipes what that [36:06] means is that 80% of the men basically [36:08] largely get ignored on the app and 20% [36:11] are fawned upon in contrast women about [36:14] 80% of them are getting swiped by people [36:16] on a regular basis they're just not [36:18] getting swiped by the guys that they're [36:19] interested in it's set up so that both [36:22] sexes want the same thing you men look [36:25] for the same thing in women and women [36:26] look for the same thing in men [36:28] um and there's just a lot more [36:29] competition among the men to get women [36:32] and so it's a smaller subset of men who [36:34] are women are interested in interesting [36:37] on an individual level I guess if you're [36:40] a man you really do need to focus on [36:43] your career if you want to have a chance [36:45] of well focusing on your career is [36:47] definitely an easy way to do it but look [36:48] not everybody's a career person and so [36:51] you have to decide where your best [36:52] prospects are and that comes back to [36:54] like why do we have autonomy well we've [36:56] evolved that because there's lots of [36:57] ways to skin a cat and so basically [36:59] autonomy means I'm going to pick my path [37:01] in life where I think I have the best [37:02] prospects usually that means career but [37:06] there's also ways of being you know just [37:08] a really kind person the person who's [37:10] always going to look out for you the [37:11] person who's going to be great helping [37:13] with the kids lots of men don't meet [37:14] those criteria and so that's a perfectly [37:17] successful way you just got to find [37:19] you're not going to get swiped right on [37:20] Tinder that's not going to be your way [37:22] of find if that's you if you're the kind [37:24] reliable but you don't have a great [37:26] career you don't have those other things [37:28] then the apps aren't the right place for [37:29] you but but people who meet you are [37:31] going to really like you and women are [37:32] going to want to be with you because [37:33] they're going to realize oh they may not [37:35] want to be with you when they're younger [37:36] but as they get a little older and [37:37] they've been through a few of the guys [37:38] who everybody else is chasing they're [37:40] going to say boy I could really use [37:42] somebody like you speaking of the apps [37:44] and swiping we talked about how men on [37:45] those apps if they're not in that sort [37:48] of top Echelon of demonstrating [37:51] authentic quality on the surface so like [37:53] Rich muscly whatever then only their [37:57] chance of getting swiped on are very [37:59] very low what about for women cuz a lot [38:01] of my female friends say that they hate [38:03] the dating apps they have no luck then [38:06] they're only getting bad swipes yeah [38:07] that's that's the difference they're [38:09] getting bad swipes meaning they don't [38:11] like the guys who swipe them the guys [38:12] who have no Locker getting no swipes [38:14] this is true because actually when I [38:16] think about the particular friend I was [38:17] thinking of I asked to see her Tinder or [38:20] whatever app it was many years ago and I [38:23] was like oh my God I jesus I wish I had [38:26] this many swipes yeah cuz as a guy I [38:29] mean what I had must have had Tinder for [38:32] about a month back in 2000 when I was 20 [38:36] I'm going to say 23 24 I couldn't get [38:38] swipes yeah and if I got some listen it [38:41] wasn't anything to write home about it [38:43] was like and it was very very rare but [38:45] when I looked at her Tinder that she was [38:46] complaining about she had hundreds of [38:49] men yeah but she just didn't like any of [38:50] them exactly that's the difference and [38:53] so the thing is that throughout our [38:54] evolutionary history men have often been [38:56] left out of the out of The Mating Game [38:58] entirely and we know this if we look at [39:00] the variability on our y l chromosomes [39:03] you only inherit yl genes from your [39:05] father because women don't have a y [39:07] chromosome for for women you can look at [39:09] mitochondrial DNA which you only inherit [39:12] from your mother and if you look at the [39:13] mitochondrial DNA and the variability [39:15] there you can see that we have about [39:17] twice as many moms as dads yeah that's [39:20] weird because it takes two to tango but [39:22] what it means is that some of the dads [39:24] were getting lots of women and some lots [39:27] of lots of potential that as we're [39:28] getting no women at all and so in our [39:30] ancestral past there's lots of men who [39:32] nobody swiped right they couldn't find a [39:34] partner and there's lots of men who [39:36] women were very interested in they [39:38] probably had multiple partners and so we [39:41] still live in that exact same world so [39:43] what do they have to do lower their [39:44] standards well they you could say lower [39:47] their standards but you could also say [39:48] you know you're not liking him for all [39:49] the wrong reasons you know yeah so what [39:51] he doesn't drive a Ferrari and so what [39:53] he doesn't look super cool or whatever [39:55] but he could be a great guy the problem [39:57] is apps aren't well suited for that and [39:59] so you know when when we were all just [40:01] people who met in person you would [40:03] realize oh this guy's ass salt to the [40:05] Earth he'd be a perfect partner for me [40:06] for my life I know he's kind of ugly or [40:08] he's kind of whatever but who cares [40:09] right he's going to be a perfect life [40:11] partner very hard to see that on an [40:13] app okay so I was thinking about the the [40:16] attraction um features of a woman that [40:18] we talked about earlier I know that if [40:20] I'm a guy and I'm trying to have more [40:21] success on the apps on social media what [40:23] I need to do is I need to pull up in my [40:24] Lamborghini I need to hit the gym I need [40:27] need to Signal my quality and authentic [40:31] way that can't be disproven and if I'm a [40:33] woman therefore I need to be showing my [40:36] hip ratio well I I want to look [40:38] attractive and I want to look healthy [40:39] and I want to look young okay but [40:41] keeping in [40:42] mind I could be none of the above and [40:44] I'm still going to get swiped right how [40:46] does pornography confound all of this [40:48] stuff yeah pornography is a funny [40:50] business it it allows us to vicariously [40:53] engage in sex without actually doing it [40:56] right and so we evolved in a world where [40:58] there was no pornography we certainly [40:59] evolved in a world where there's [41:00] masturbation um but we evolved in a [41:02] world that didn't have pornography and [41:03] so it's kind of hijacking our system a [41:06] little bit it feels like you're having [41:08] sex when you know you're on only fans or [41:10] whatever those sites are that interest [41:12] you it it mimics a lot of the features [41:14] and so you know I become interested in [41:16] the social media world we live in and [41:19] this possibility that social media Mak [41:21] so many things so easy that you stop [41:24] going out you stop you know because you [41:26] can connect with your friends on social [41:27] media why go through the snow and go [41:29] across town and maybe not know anybody [41:31] at the party Etc and and I think what's [41:33] happened is that as we get lazy and we [41:36] we we start putting our life online you [41:38] know our social life we even start to [41:41] put more you know our sexual life online [41:43] and so there's even evid I the evidence [41:45] is very tentative as to what it might [41:47] mean but recently in the United States [41:50] at least if you look at young single [41:51] people their actual sexual behavior is [41:54] going down they're having less sex than [41:55] they were 20 years ago and if you if [41:57] you'd asked me 20 years ago when Tinder [41:58] whenever those things got invented I [42:00] would say oh sex is going to go way up [42:02] this is going to be you know this is [42:03] going to be the best thing for hooking [42:04] up ever in actual fact although it went [42:07] up for a little bit it went back down [42:09] and instead of what's going up is [42:10] pornography watching and so it maybe the [42:13] pornography is getting better tailored [42:14] to what people want maybe people are [42:15] just getting lazy and they instead of [42:17] going to the party and maybe meeting [42:19] somebody who they would have sex with [42:20] they just pick it up and watch it on TV [42:22] I don't know because I'm thinking about [42:24] this graph that was in your book which [42:26] shows how much sex we're having and how [42:28] much porn we're watching yeah and very [42:30] simply it shows that we're having less [42:33] sex and we're watching more porn and [42:36] it's quite a considerable drop between [42:38] 2006 and 2012 it said a percentage of 18 [42:41] to 25 year olds who had had sex or [42:43] watched porn within the last year yeah [42:46] and about [42:47] 80% of 18 to 25y olds had had sex in the [42:52] last year and now it's getting down [42:55] nearer to 60 five 70% which is [42:59] remarkable these are young single people [43:01] you know this is when we are most likely [43:02] to have sex with you know partners of [43:05] random hookups or whatever so they're at [43:07] the peak of their sexuality and [43:09] nonetheless 20 years later they're less [43:11] likely to have sex and more likely to be [43:13] watching porn and it looks like [43:14] pornography consumption is almost like [43:16] tripled yeah in that time period it's [43:19] it's always it's been accessible over [43:21] that en time entire time period but [43:23] basically what what I think those dat I [43:25] I I refer to this I know it's a absurd [43:27] acronym I refer to this as [43:30] smiling social media induced laziness in [43:33] our social habits I know it's it'll [43:35] never catch on but I think that what [43:37] they're doing is sming they they they've [43:39] got friends we at a party it's across [43:41] town it's kind of a pain to get there [43:43] it'll cost you Subway and everything [43:44] else and you're not sure if you're going [43:46] to have fun when you get there and so [43:47] you go screw it I'm not going to go now [43:49] what you didn't know is that would have [43:51] that's the party where you would have [43:52] met that person who you would have end [43:53] up hooking up with either as short-term [43:55] or long-term partner but you didn't go [43:57] and instead what you did is you stay at [43:58] home and so there's a decent chance you [44:00] watchh porn and so we're we're letting [44:01] these fake substitutes take over in [44:04] place of our actual real socializing [44:06] which I think is hugely problematic and [44:08] does this explain in part when we're [44:09] thinking about the pornography rise why [44:13] there is declining fertility rates we're [44:16] having less and less kids than ever in [44:17] the western world and some people are [44:18] concerned about population collapse well [44:20] I I actually think it's separate from [44:22] pornography because right now we've [44:24] already separated our sexual activity [44:25] from our reproduction right can just use [44:28] be on the pill use a condom use whatever [44:30] you want which our ancestors couldn't do [44:31] and other animals can't do and so the [44:33] amount of sex that we have is completely [44:36] uncorrelated with how many kids we [44:37] decide to have and so if you set [44:41] pornography aside fertility rates are [44:42] going way down and I think that's simply [44:44] because we never evolved to want [44:46] children we evolve to want sex and so if [44:49] you want sex if you enjoy sex and then [44:51] you've also evolved to be nurturant to [44:53] whatever child comes along from that [44:55] Bingo you're a mom or a dad but if you [44:58] evolv to want kids you go back a little [45:00] ways you would have no idea how to [45:01] achieve that you wouldn't have known [45:02] what to do we evolv to want to have sex [45:05] and in a world without the pill that [45:07] automatically resulted in children and [45:10] then all you have to do is evolve to be [45:11] nurturing to them because they're so [45:12] dependent in humans when they're born [45:14] which is what happens when you had your [45:16] baby recently you have this huge sort of [45:18] magnetic pull to the child and I I [45:20] wasn't Keen to have more kids my I have [45:22] some children who grown to adulthood I [45:24] felt like I don't need any more kids but [45:26] then I have another kid and I I'm I'm [45:28] just in love with her right you can't [45:30] help yourself so we've intervened in [45:33] Nature's natural we've intervened and [45:35] that intervention is what's potentially [45:36] going to lead to there to be no more [45:37] humans so if you look at the current [45:40] population of the globe it's meant to [45:42] Peak somewhere between say 2070 and 2090 [45:45] um probably around 8 billion and some [45:48] change and then it start to go down and [45:50] then it may continue to go down forever [45:53] now it may be that if what what causes [45:55] you to want to have kids is very [45:57] societal it's very well my apartment's [45:59] small and I don't want to SHP them [46:00] around it's hard work you could imagine [46:02] a world where now robots are everywhere [46:05] and where you've got all the space in [46:06] the world because there's not that many [46:08] humans or we've moved to the country and [46:09] EC commute or whatever maybe suddenly [46:11] we'll want to have six or eight of them [46:12] again because our robot's the one who [46:14] gets up in the middle of the night with [46:15] him and we don't have to but right now [46:17] if you think about having kids it's hard [46:19] yards and so lots and lots of people say [46:22] well I just don't want to do that and [46:24] the consequence is that in every single [46:26] country that's indu industrialized and [46:27] Rich the reproduction the reproductive [46:30] rate of females is less than 2.1 per [46:32] female which is what you need in order [46:34] to maintain population at the current [46:36] level and so every single country on [46:39] earth is shrinking but for [46:41] immigration and so right now you know we [46:43] have all these fights about immigration [46:44] it's going to be I promise you in 50 [46:46] years that argument is going to be the [46:47] exact opposite how can we convince [46:49] people of country X to come into our [46:50] country because we're going to shrink [46:51] and disappear there's a a lot of [46:54] countries that are going to be literally [46:55] half their size by the year 00 because [46:57] they're shrinking so fast really half of [47:00] East Asia um half of Western Europe [47:02] they're just shrinking Crazy Fast [47:04] they're demolishing houses Japan is [47:06] demolishing houses there's nobody to buy [47:08] them because the women are having less [47:11] than that 2.1 yeah the average child [47:13] rate in in a lot of these countries is [47:14] around 1.5 to 1.7 very very low you [47:18] don't think it's possible that we're [47:19] going to make ourselves extinct because [47:21] we're not having [ __ ] sex are we well [47:23] we'd still be having sex we just [47:24] wouldn't be having kids right but we are [47:26] having less as well aren't we well that [47:28] varies yeah lots and lots of us having [47:29] less sex there there's reasons for that [47:32] that probably have more to do with [47:34] ecotoxicology than with psychology [47:36] there's so many hormone mimics in our [47:38] environment in Plastics and and various [47:41] pollutants that um that change our [47:43] endocrine system that that reduce sperm [47:45] counts I we think that's what's going on [47:47] and redu sperm count often is associated [47:49] with reduced sex drive Etc so if you [47:51] were prime minister or president of the [47:54] world and it was your job to get us [47:57] having children again based on what you [47:59] know about evolutionary psychology and [48:01] human incentives what would what would [48:02] you do well the the main thing is that [48:05] because humans didn't evolve to want [48:07] children you can't just play on their [48:09] don't you really want children because [48:10] the answer is often no um what you want [48:12] to do is you want to make having kids to [48:15] be as much of the plus as it possibly [48:17] can be and as little of the minus so if [48:19] you look at kids that they're really [48:21] interesting this is some wonderful work [48:22] by Danny Conan who won the Nobel Prize [48:25] and he he asks you in the moment what [48:27] are you doing and how much fun it is is [48:29] it and what he finds is no surprise if [48:31] you're having sex when you got the [48:33] request and now you probably waited till [48:35] you were done before you answered your [48:36] Bieber but you you said oh I'm having a [48:38] great time and as it goes with TV was [48:40] actually in second place watching TV is [48:42] good fun in the moment and then a little [48:44] way down the list is like doing the [48:46] dishes doing the laundry if you if [48:48] you're with your kids you're on average [48:50] about doing the dishes or doing the [48:52] laundry that's how much fun your kids [48:53] are but if you ask people what gives you [48:57] great satisfaction in life what makes [48:58] you happy nobody says I'm crazy happy [49:00] because I've watched a ton of TV that's [49:02] just not an answer anyone's everever [49:03] given or because I folded my laundry [49:05] really well what they do say though is [49:07] oh my kids give me enormous Joy so how [49:09] could it be both how could it be that on [49:11] average your kids are as much fun as the [49:12] laundry but when you look back on your [49:15] life they're they're the key thing and [49:17] what we think the answer is is that they [49:19] provide these Peak moments that laundry [49:20] simply doesn't right no matter how well [49:22] you fold your clothes it's not exciting [49:24] but your kids have these amazing moments [49:26] in their lives that that you get to be [49:27] part of as you see the world through new [49:29] eyes again and so and for a good [49:32] evolutionary reasons where you get your [49:34] whole mind and body and identity caught [49:37] up in them and so kids end up being a h [49:40] huge source of satisfaction so what that [49:42] means is if you want to get people to [49:44] start having kids again try to get rid [49:45] of The Drudge side of it you know look [49:47] at daycare is crazy hard it's crazy [49:49] expensive women want to be able to go [49:51] back to work the list is really long [49:53] about how hard it is in so many [49:54] different ways you just remove those [49:56] barriers [49:57] you especially once we're in this Robot [49:58] World which I don't think is far away [50:00] from us where I don't have to get up in [50:02] the middle of the night and do that [50:03] unless I want to I can if I want my [50:05] robot's not going to stop me from [50:06] getting up and feeding them and changing [50:07] their nappy but aren't we going to raise [50:09] loads of messed up kids in such a while [50:11] I don't I I you know robot has infinite [50:14] patience if you design it nice and soft [50:16] and fluffy it's going to be more cuddly [50:18] than we are um the kids might like the [50:20] robots more than they like us last night [50:23] I was with a with my girlfriend and I [50:24] was joking cuz I read this article that [50:27] Tesla's Optimus robots are now going [50:29] into production and they're hiring the [50:30] team which are these sort of humanoid [50:32] robots that will be in your house and [50:33] help with the chores and dishes and [50:34] stuff and as a joke I turned to my [50:36] partner I was like we'll get two of [50:37] those and um like one of them will like [50:41] like raise the kids and then the other [50:42] one would like take the kid to school [50:43] and stuff cuz I knew her it was a joke I [50:45] knew her reaction would be pretty [50:47] negative negative and she was horrified [50:50] she goes can you imagine a world where a [50:51] robot would the kid would turn to the [50:53] robot and call it Daddy and Mommy cuz [50:55] the kid wouldn't really know the [50:56] difference and I sat here with a child [50:59] psychotherapist psychologist who said [51:01] that in those first three years it's so [51:03] critical for the primary caregiver to be [51:05] around and that the man and the woman [51:07] caus the baby to release different types [51:09] of hormones based on their gender yeah [51:12] so you almost can't the robot all that's [51:16] true but here's the thing currently we [51:18] Outsource them to nannies for a big [51:19] chunk of the day if you're wealthy [51:21] enough people often hire a Night Nurse [51:23] somebody who comes in and helps out in [51:25] the at night time too if you've got the [51:27] cash and so when I hire those people I [51:30] can't be positive they're going to be [51:32] kind to my children I can't be positive [51:34] they know every possible disease my kid [51:36] could get and and all the rest I would [51:37] rather hire this incredible robot who's [51:40] super cuddly who has an encyclopedia of [51:42] medical knowledge who memorizes every [51:44] detail about my kid and knows exactly [51:46] what the the the pitch of that cry is [51:48] you could put whatever scent on them you [51:50] want you could make it Mom or Dad you [51:52] can make it even smell like you if you [51:53] want to why not have that person help [51:56] you out you know the our ancestors engag [51:58] in what in what's called aloe parenting [52:00] all the time and what that meant was the [52:02] men are out hunting probably gone for [52:04] most of the day the females need to form [52:06] these tight bonds with each other [52:07] because it's hard work with a bunch of [52:09] little kids and predators who want to [52:11] eat them you need eyes on them all the [52:12] time but you also need to be digging up [52:14] tubers of whatever variety you're trying [52:16] to eat and so they ried on each other [52:18] parenting is not a solo operation which [52:19] is Mom and Dad it's this I know it's [52:22] cliche but it takes a village kind of [52:23] thing so why not hire out this robot who [52:27] is like perfect in every way you know [52:29] they're not going to abuse your kid you [52:30] know they're never going to do anything [52:31] wrong they're always going to be kind [52:32] when your kid ask for the 10 millionth [52:34] time but why they're going to keep [52:35] giving them answers they don't mind [52:37] right why not have the perfect parent [52:39] when you're not there because um the [52:41] parent releases certain hormones in the [52:43] child by by their touch the oxytocin [52:46] robots don't release oxytocin not [52:50] yet why not have a robot that mimics all [52:53] that and would cause the kid to do that [52:54] too because you don't want to replace [52:56] parenting is one of the it's one of the [52:58] nicest things that we humans ever do [53:00] it's some of my Fondest Memories and I [53:02] don't want to give those away but I [53:03] wasn't with my kid 247 and it would have [53:06] driven me nuts if I were it's kids are [53:08] are wonderful and boring and horrible [53:11] and so why not when you Outsource and we [53:12] all do we have since time began we've [53:14] we've relied on others to help take care [53:16] of our kids why not make it the perfect [53:18] Nanny rather than the that'll have to do [53:20] Nanny because it's all I can afford I [53:22] just uh it's it's a strange feature to [53:24] think about because it feels also like a [53:25] slippery slope where we might start [53:27] having kids and then giving them [53:29] completely robot parents could do if you [53:31] wanted to I'd still rather that then you [53:33] abuse your kids and be a terrible parent [53:34] yourself which we know is happening all [53:36] the time don't you think a better answer [53:37] is just not to have the kids that is the [53:39] best answer but you can't stop people [53:40] from deciding to have kids and we know [53:42] when we look at abusive parents for [53:44] example and the kids if they're so bad [53:46] that their kids literally get taken away [53:47] what do they do they move to a new town [53:49] and they have more and so you know that [53:51] you're subjecting these children to [53:52] these horrible environments but there's [53:54] nothing you can do about it I would way [53:56] rather that those parents who think they [53:59] want kids for whatever reason then have [54:01] the robot there to look out for them and [54:02] make sure that kid's well taken care of [54:04] do you believe that do you believe [54:06] that's going to be that's going to [54:06] happen so if you've just had a baby [54:08] right yeah I've got a one and a half [54:10] year old one and a half year old would [54:11] you allow a robot to I I love the [54:15] nannies I have but every single one of [54:17] them when you start is a risk you don't [54:18] know right these are just they've been [54:21] hired by the daycare they're probably [54:22] really good but if you had the perfect [54:25] robot Nanny well then you would never [54:26] worry at [54:28] all and in marriage uh this graph that I [54:32] saw in your book shows that the [54:33] percentage of Americans who are very [54:35] happy or not too happy as a function of [54:37] marital status quite clearly shows that [54:39] if you want to be happy you should be [54:41] married and if you want to be not too [54:44] happy you should be separated so here's [54:48] the data if when people get married on [54:51] average they get no [54:53] happier so if you get married and then I [54:56] look at 10 years later on average you're [54:57] going to be exactly as you are now now [54:59] how does that average work out well in [55:00] lots of different directions because I'm [55:02] I'm putting everybody together now we've [55:04] got these amazing data sets for from [55:05] Germany for example where we track [55:07] people for so many years that we we know [55:09] what they were like before they even met [55:11] their partner much less married them and [55:12] so we see how happy they are and we see [55:14] how it changes over time and so for [55:16] example couples who get divorced they [55:18] actually their happiest year was the [55:20] year before their marriage so they met [55:22] their partner they got happier happier [55:23] and then they already started going [55:25] downhill before they even got married [55:27] okay couples who were going to stay [55:29] together their happiest year is the [55:30] marriage year itself not the year before [55:32] it so that's a good sign if you're [55:34] happier when you're walking down the [55:36] aisle than you were last year this [55:38] marriage has a much better chance of [55:40] lasting now if you look at those [55:42] marriages the ones who last they go in [55:43] three directions you've got the really [55:46] bad ones where they stay together for [55:48] economic or religious or whatever [55:49] reasons they're miserable they don't [55:51] like each other and they're way less [55:53] happy than before they met thankfully [55:55] they're relatively [55:56] if we look at the ones who are average [55:58] they're a little bit happier these are [56:00] among couples who stay together they're [56:01] a little bit happier for the first few [56:03] years of their marriage than they were [56:05] before they met and then they slowly [56:06] settle down to about where they were so [56:09] it's it's not plus or minus it's [56:10] basically where they were if you look at [56:12] the really lucky folks they get happier [56:14] every single year for almost 10 years so [56:17] their the year of their marriage was [56:18] happier than before they met and the [56:20] next year's happier still and it just [56:21] keeps working its way up and [56:24] so when you aage all that together [56:26] getting married doesn't make you happy [56:28] it's a it's a zero so how could it be [56:31] that marriage is a zero and I think the [56:32] answer to that question is that people [56:34] who don't marry it's not the fact that [56:36] they didn't marry that's the problem [56:38] it's that they're overweighting autonomy [56:40] and overweighting it is probably what [56:42] they're doing everywh else in their life [56:43] as well so when they're making decisions [56:45] about what to do with their friends [56:46] about whether they live with somebody [56:47] else or live alone all those decisions [56:50] they keep going with autonomy rather [56:52] than going with connection now that [56:54] doesn't necessarily mean they're going [56:56] to be unhappy but it makes on average it [56:58] means that they're about half as likely [57:00] to be very happy as somebody who would [57:02] go and get married so the it's the [57:04] individualism yes that's causing their [57:06] unhappiness that's causing them not to [57:07] marry yep that's what I believe and [57:09] people that are less individualistic are [57:11] getting married and that's why and and [57:13] so it's just a different kind of person [57:14] who's doing that in the same sense [57:16] interestingly if you look at divorce we [57:19] can also see that the people who are [57:20] going to get divorced were also less [57:22] happy before they even met their partner [57:24] so on average people tend to stay [57:27] together in marriages we don't know why [57:29] that is but my guess is that happier [57:31] people just tend to be happier about [57:32] everything and so they're less like they [57:34] they find ways to make their marriage [57:35] work even if it's no better than the [57:37] marriage of the less happy [57:39] Folks at my company flight Studio which [57:41] is part of my bigger company flight [57:43] group we're constantly looking for ways [57:44] to build deeper connections with our [57:46] audiences whether that's a new show a [57:48] product or a project it's why I launched [57:51] the conversation cards I've relied on [57:53] Shopify before who's a sponsor of [57:54] today's podcast and I'll be using them [57:56] again for the next big launch which [57:58] we'll hear about soon and I use them [58:00] because of how easy it is to set up an [58:01] online store that reaches all of you no [58:03] matter where you are in the world with [58:05] Shopify the usual pain points of [58:07] launching products online Disappear [58:09] Completely no matter the size of your [58:11] business Shopify has everything you need [58:13] to make your business go to the next [58:15] level and better connect with your [58:17] customers all over the world to say [58:18] thank you to all of you for listening to [58:20] my show we're giving you a trial which [58:22] is just $1 a month you can sign up by [58:25] going to to shopify.com [58:28] Bartlet that's shopify.com Bartlet or [58:32] find the link in the description [58:34] below and what about things like ADHD [58:36] and neurod Divergence is there an [58:38] evolutionary basis for why why that [58:40] occurs yes so the um neurod Divergence [58:44] is a complicated one the [58:47] um it seems to be much more common now [58:50] when we look at the epidemiological data [58:52] it seems to be associated with high [58:54] toxin environments so if you live in in [58:56] areas where there's lots of pollutants [58:59] people are more likely to be neurod [59:01] Divergent but I think neurod Divergence [59:03] has always been with this I think it's [59:04] just become more common now why would it [59:06] become more common with these various [59:07] toxins I don't know my guess is that the [59:11] brain is a social organism the human [59:13] brain is we've evolved connection is our [59:15] most important need and it requires all [59:17] sorts of different parts to work right [59:18] which means that that if you break the [59:19] brain in any way you're going to break [59:21] your sociality because it's so [59:23] implicated in so many different areas [59:25] and if these um toxins that we're [59:27] exposed to cause any damage to the brain [59:29] I think you're particularly likely to [59:30] end up with social problems because the [59:32] brain is a social organ and so that's [59:35] why I think autism rates are R Rising [59:37] but of course I don't know I'm only [59:38] guessing based on the data I've seen now [59:40] in the case of neurod Divergence I think [59:42] they've always played a really important [59:44] role in humanity and the reason for that [59:46] is that you know humans are super [59:49] Innovative species but if you ask [59:51] yourself or your friends how often have [59:53] you ever invented anything the answer is [59:55] almost always never [59:56] and and that's because we solve our [59:58] problems socially when something goes [59:59] wrong we go to our friends we talk to [60:01] them we try to work together to figure [60:03] out our problems and we've always been [60:04] that way hunted gatherers do that and [60:06] neurod Divergent people are less likely [60:08] to do that because they're less socially [60:09] connected and so probably most of the [60:12] great inventions of humanity were [60:14] created by neurodivergent people now [60:16] those of us who are not neurodivergent [60:18] immediately go wow I'd like one of those [60:20] and so we're really good at spreading [60:21] that by virtue of our social networks [60:23] but I think we've always relied on [60:24] neurodivergent people to create the [60:26] amazing innovations that the technical [60:28] things that that make our lives so easy [60:31] now ADHD is a a different ball wax we [60:33] know it's highly heritable we know a lot [60:35] of the genes are we also suspect that it [60:38] didn't it wasn't even a noticeable thing [60:40] in a hunter gather right you know what [60:42] ancestor ever tried to get you to pay [60:44] attention to something that you were [60:45] bored with but if you're ADHD it's crazy [60:48] hard to pay attention when you're bored [60:49] but it's perfectly easy to pay attention [60:51] when you're interested you just don't [60:52] have the kind of dorsal lateral [60:54] prefrontal cortex that ows you to force [60:56] yourself to attend to things and for our [60:58] ancestors you're loaded with energy [61:00] you're probably a great Hunter and so [61:02] it's it's a modern problem that you have [61:03] to sit still and listen problem which [61:05] our ancestors were never asked to do I [61:08] wonder if it will still be the case when [61:10] we have all the robots in the AI doing [61:11] everything for I'm betting not I'm [61:13] betting that you could decide to learn [61:14] or not learn now why would you even [61:16] learn your multiplication tables if you [61:18] don't need to you can just ask your [61:19] phone what the answer is and so why tons [61:22] of the schooling that we go through is [61:24] Superfluous in this world where a AI can [61:26] do everything that we can do do you [61:28] think we're going emerge with um [61:29] technology more deeply it's very [61:32] possible you could easily imagine like [61:34] if there's a feature about yourself that [61:36] you don't like I suspect it'll be hard [61:38] to genetically engineer it and the [61:40] reason I think it would be hard to [61:41] genetically engineer it is that most of [61:43] our genes have more than one effect and [61:45] most of our traits are caused by more [61:47] than one gene so you can't just tweak [61:48] one Gene and become the person you [61:50] wanted to be it's going to have other [61:51] effects that you may not want so the the [61:55] upshot is that [61:56] why not you know have a little mind [61:58] module that you either attaches to your [62:00] head or goes inside it even or you know [62:03] we already are treating people with this [62:04] there's some kinds of depression that [62:06] just are untreatable and for some of [62:08] those people they literally insert an [62:09] electrode into their brain and stimulate [62:11] this particular region and and the [62:13] people who experience it say it's like [62:14] my world was in black and white and [62:15] suddenly it became in color well why not [62:18] have that for knowledge that you can [62:20] access you know I could spend my huge [62:23] amounts of time studying Greek or I [62:25] could shove one of the goes in and now I [62:27] can go to Greece and speak with the [62:28] locals right without my phone telling me [62:30] what they're saying you mentioned [62:31] depression that what's the evolutionary [62:33] basis for humans getting depressed and [62:35] anxious because presumably that's that's [62:37] not productive for our survival not so [62:40] remember that that with every generation [62:42] with sexual reproduction you're going to [62:44] have people who have things that maybe [62:46] Evolution wouldn't like remember earlier [62:48] we talked about homosexuality that if [62:49] you have more gay genes women like you [62:51] more but then if you have too many you [62:52] don't like them in return right so [62:54] that's a case where a little little bit [62:56] is a good thing evolutionarily and a lot [62:58] is a bad thing evolutionarily because [62:59] you're not going to have Offspring not a [63:01] moral judgment just a judgment based on [63:03] what evolution cares about well with [63:05] anxiety that makes perfect sense right [63:08] so animals that can't Envision the [63:10] future have no anxiety all they feel is [63:13] fear in the moment oops there's a lion [63:14] I'd better run as fast as I possibly can [63:17] and then as soon as they've run away oh [63:18] no lion life is co everything's [63:20] copesthetic I'll go back to eating grass [63:21] and being happy whereas if I'm a human [63:23] running away from a line be oh my God [63:25] that was really scary I wonder when [63:26] there's another line coming now the [63:29] biggest gift that Evolution gave us is [63:31] the capacity to simulate the future [63:32] Evolution doesn't give any gifts without [63:34] costs you pay a price for every one of [63:35] them and the capacity to simulate the [63:37] future also comes with the realization [63:39] it is first of all it's not always going [63:41] to be good and second of all it's always [63:43] going to end badly once you understand [63:45] life you understand I'm going to die [63:47] someday and the other animals don't have [63:49] that realization they can't project [63:51] themselves forward in time the way we [63:52] can so does that mean that Evolution [63:54] tells us that the cure for anxiety is to [63:56] stop thinking about the future [63:57] effectively if you didn't think about [63:59] the future you would not be anxious if [64:00] you could get yourself to be mindful in [64:02] the moment and set aside the future your [64:04] anxiety will disappear because it's all [64:05] future based I was something that really [64:08] um I found quite interesting as well in [64:10] your book I think it was in chapter nine [64:11] where you talk about [64:13] religion and the fact that people that [64:16] are associated with religious [64:19] participation are typically more happy [64:21] than those who are not the effect is [64:23] remarkable and so you can look at it in [64:25] two different ways is one of just the [64:26] effect of believing right so lots of [64:29] people worry about a life without [64:31] meaning you know people of religion have [64:33] solve that problem because religion [64:35] gives your life meaning there is a point [64:36] if you believe any of the religions that [64:38] exist you're part of this NeverEnding [64:40] chain Etc and it doesn't they can be [64:42] wildely different religions but they all [64:43] hold this notion that there's there's [64:46] something before and something after now [64:49] you can look at the effect of that by [64:50] saying all right let's select only [64:52] people who never go to church so we [64:55] won't we'll take the sociality part out [64:56] of it and then we'll look at people who [64:58] pray versus people who don't pray and we [65:00] can do this with these National samples [65:02] um where we say let's look at the [65:03] General Social Survey and in fact [65:05] anybody wants to can get online and look [65:06] at the General Social Survey and answer [65:08] any question that's available in that [65:09] it's a remarkably remarkable publicly [65:12] available data set which I used [65:13] repeatedly in this book and praying [65:15] actually makes you happier if you among [65:17] people who don't go to church they're [65:18] not praying and in my mind that's that's [65:22] life has meaning versus it doesn't [65:23] people who have religion have meaning [65:25] people don't often don't sometimes they [65:27] do but they often don't but there's a [65:30] social component to religion as well and [65:31] I think it's way more important and so [65:33] now you can you can't do it quite as [65:35] cleanly now you want people who go to [65:37] church and you want to look at the [65:38] effect of going to church and there the [65:40] data are remarkable the effect of going [65:42] to church is huge it's like you're like [65:45] twice as likely to be happy if you go to [65:47] church regularly than if you never go to [65:48] church at all now I don't think going to [65:51] church would have made our ancestors any [65:53] happier at all why does it make us [65:55] happier well the way to answer that [65:56] question is to then dive a little deeper [65:58] into the data and so what I did is I [66:00] separated people by whether they're poor [66:01] or whether they're rich now remember [66:04] earlier we talked about how the fact [66:05] that poor people live in these tight [66:07] interdependent networks because they [66:09] count on each other all the time they [66:10] borrow things from each other they rely [66:12] on each other to keep the boat afloat [66:14] and so they have they get together poor [66:16] people get together with their neighbors [66:18] much more often than rich people right [66:20] rich people don't do that so what that [66:22] means is that if now if you think that [66:24] God wants you to go to church if because [66:26] remember we're talking about religion [66:27] now then you're going to go to church [66:29] even if you don't necessarily want to [66:31] see the people there even if you don't [66:32] necessarily feel a need for them but [66:34] you're going to be forced into [66:35] socializing so it's sort of like this [66:37] experiment that's being played on you [66:39] whether you believe in or not whe if you [66:42] believe you should go to church that's [66:43] kind of coming from on high it's not [66:45] because you necessarily want to [66:46] socialize and we see that the effects of [66:48] going to church are they have bigger [66:51] happiness effects on Rich than on poor [66:53] because poor people are getting a lot of [66:54] the benefit already of that social of [66:56] socializing whereas rich people have [66:58] separated themselves from others and so [67:00] those rich people who go to church [67:01] several times a week are like twice as [67:03] likely to be very happy as rich people [67:04] who never go to church at all so rich [67:06] people need to go to church yeah or you [67:09] know whatever they call Church they need [67:10] to go somewhere where they're [67:11] socializing regularly in person why do [67:15] we want religion because it's quite [67:16] clear that there's something within us [67:19] that wants to believe you see this I I [67:22] think we're seeing a little bit at the [67:23] moment where we're seeing a return to [67:26] religious belief in some degree I know [67:29] that it's you know it might not just be [67:30] the religious belief that we think of it [67:32] might be spirituality or horoscopes or [67:34] whatever it you know it might be but [67:35] there's a seems like there's a real [67:37] surge of it especially amongst young men [67:41] yeah that's a great question people talk [67:43] about in Psychology what what they refer [67:45] to well not just in Psychology but in [67:47] psychological terms as a god-shaped [67:49] whole there's a hole in your psyche that [67:51] can only be filled by God whatever God [67:54] is for you [67:56] and I think lots of people have that [67:58] hole but not everybody and why do I [68:00] think lots of people have it well [68:02] remember those prayer data we talked [68:03] about people who pray are happier on [68:06] average than people who don't and so if [68:07] you have a god-shaped hole but you don't [68:09] believe that's going to make you unhappy [68:12] whereas if you have that need for that [68:14] and you do believe that's going to make [68:16] you happy it's like anything else what [68:18] do you think the meaning of life is I [68:20] think it's devoid of meaning and so if [68:22] life is truly devoid of meaning then [68:24] what do you do and the only answer to me [68:26] is you make the best of this meaningless [68:28] thing that you can and how do you do [68:30] that well you you be aware of what we've [68:33] evolved to do and we've evolved to [68:34] connect and so if connection is the most [68:37] important thing I can do as a human and [68:38] I believe it is then you be kind to each [68:41] other because that's facilitating [68:44] connection you believe life is devoid of [68:46] meaning yeah people won't like that I [68:49] know I don't like it I don't like the [68:51] fact that I don't think life has meaning [68:54] when people search for meaning they they [68:55] get happier which suggests that they [68:57] find it I've never actually taken the [68:59] time to reflect and search for meaning [69:02] okay so but maybe it's the the pursuit [69:04] of something then that's creating the [69:05] happiness versus them finding H meaning [69:08] maybe we don't know you so you just said [69:10] that when people search for meaning they [69:12] get happier yeah so that could imply one [69:15] of two things that they end up finding [69:17] it or that it's the search itself or a [69:18] little both it's usually a little of [69:21] both but we don't know with certainty [69:23] there's not enough good data on this [69:24] problem because lots of people search [69:26] for meaning and in the end you can also [69:30] decide that well there isn't meaning and [69:32] I'm a small Cog in a big machine and I'm [69:34] a pointless small Cog in a big machine [69:37] but it's all I've got and so you know [69:39] Richard Dawkins and unweaving the [69:40] rainbow says we're the lucky ones [69:42] because we're going to get to die now [69:44] what he really means by that is we first [69:46] we get to live and almost nobody gets to [69:49] live right you think of the 100 million [69:51] sperm that I'm making every day they [69:52] don't go anywhere they never get a [69:53] chance and but I made three humans I did [69:56] my part I only did the small part but I [69:58] was played a role in making three humans [70:00] who then got lucky and got to live out [70:02] of all the other sperm that came out [70:04] that day they're the one that made it [70:05] into the egg and they get a chance at it [70:08] and we just happen to be really lucky I [70:10] believe as humans that the solution that [70:13] Evolution landed us on was a kind one we [70:17] have the kindest solution in my mind to [70:19] solving life's problems so you look at [70:22] this one of my favorite birds in [70:23] Australia is the cucura cucur lay two [70:26] eggs and then they weigh a little bit [70:27] and then they lay a third and Australia [70:30] is very drought prone so some seasons [70:31] are good and some are bad if the [70:33] season's good that third egg has a [70:35] decent chance of making it to adulthood [70:36] because there's so much food being [70:38] brought back to the nest if it's not [70:39] good that third egg never makes it and [70:41] why doesn't it make it well the two [70:43] older siblings peck it to death and [70:45] they've got a adaptation on their beak a [70:47] little hook that allows them to kill [70:49] their little sibling more easily so [70:51] they've literally evolved to kill their [70:53] little sibling when times are tough [70:55] what have we evolved to do when times [70:57] are tough to band even closer together [70:58] and to work together and to cooperate [71:00] that's what got us to where we are and [71:02] it was all sorts of interesting things [71:03] that got us there was cognitive things [71:05] like division of labor you know cers [71:07] don't do that because they're inherently [71:09] mean it's the only way they can solve [71:10] the problem humans solve that problem [71:12] very differently now admittedly we did [71:14] our share of infanticide too but mostly [71:16] what we do is cooperate work together [71:19] have division of labor and we go from [71:21] being this like you know when we first [71:23] left the trees must have been really [71:24] rough every was eating us for dinner and [71:26] now it's the shoes on the other foot [71:28] we're the apex predator on this planet [71:30] but doesn't our evolutionary history [71:31] tell us that we ban together in tough [71:34] times yes but we band together to attack [71:37] the others yeah we do it's not look [71:40] there's there's never something that's [71:42] done just for the niceness of it [71:44] Evolution doesn't care about nice at all [71:46] what's really nice though is that our [71:48] solution our our way of becoming deadly [71:51] and every animal that survives becomes [71:52] deadly or avoids being eaten in another [71:54] way now it turns out that once you band [71:57] together and as even by hom rectus once [71:59] so our ancestors one and two million [72:01] years ago when they band together they [72:04] are already the deadliest force in this [72:06] planet we've got good evidence that [72:07] they're eating huge animals like [72:09] mammoths so it's your ability had to [72:12] have division of labor to plan to say [72:14] all right you chase that Mammoth and [72:15] we'll put this trap here you know do [72:18] things at other animals simply can't [72:19] they can't do that they can't make a [72:21] scenario in their mind and then enact it [72:24] and so it was that mental ability that [72:25] turned us into these apex predators but [72:28] it doesn't take long as an apex predator [72:30] who can work together with division of [72:31] labor to realize all right there's only [72:33] one Predator left on this planet who has [72:35] a chance of killing me and that's other [72:37] humans or if you know if it's prehuman [72:39] other homoerectus and you're saying that [72:41] with like America versus China and [72:43] America versus Mexico and whatever it [72:45] might be the nationalism yeah so [72:48] remember I referred to us earlier as [72:49] being tribal and I talked about how [72:51] chimpanzees are 600 times more [72:53] aggressive within the group but equally [72:55] aggressive between so we've evolved in a [72:57] world to be totally tribal to just look [72:59] out for ourselves because that other [73:00] group might kill us they may be nice we [73:02] may get along but they might be vicious [73:04] and so we need to be prepared to be [73:06] vicious in return thankfully though we [73:08] didn't evolve where we know where [73:09] they're vicious we evolved where we just [73:11] don't know it may be good and it may be [73:13] bad so we give our groups the benefit of [73:15] the doubt but we very quickly become [73:17] tribal and negative toward them I was [73:19] sat here um yesterday [73:22] with the wonderful gentleman who I'm a [73:24] big fan of called Robert Green who wrote [73:26] the book about power mhm 48 Laws of [73:28] Power what have you learned about power [73:31] as it relates to our evolutionary past [73:33] and who ends up getting power in the [73:36] world so Evolution doesn't care about [73:39] morality right it's aoral it's not [73:41] immoral it just doesn't care and what [73:43] that means is might is Right humans are [73:45] the only ones who understand possession [73:46] and I say this is mine and you're like [73:48] no no it's mine and we can argue about [73:50] the actual ownership of it but for an [73:52] animal there there's never an argument [73:54] if you made the kill and I'm bigger than [73:55] you I take it from you now in human [73:57] groups power is achieved by no human is [74:01] strong enough on their own to have power [74:02] bys every human goes to sleep and when [74:05] when you go to sleep the weakest of [74:07] humans in your group can kill you easily [74:09] and so to be powerful you you part of it [74:11] is to be tough and scary but part of it [74:13] also to be kind and to look out for [74:15] people who are on your side so that you [74:17] have a network of people who care about [74:18] you and what about body language in this [74:20] as it relates to power is there anything [74:22] that we can learn from humans and other [74:24] animals about [74:25] what powerful body language is or UNP [74:28] powerful or powerless body language [74:29] looks like it's super easy to look in [74:31] other animals because because they can't [74:34] talk they appease they got ways of [74:35] shrinking themselves and says no no [74:37] don't beat me up this whatever you want [74:39] is yours and humans mimic some of that [74:42] we shrink ourselves when when we want to [74:44] not be intimidating we Elevate ourselves [74:46] we open ourselves when we want to be [74:47] powerful and intimidating but in humans [74:49] almost all humans almost all the time [74:51] power doesn't emanate from our physical [74:53] presence but from what we're capable of [74:55] of in some societies you know America [74:57] comes to mind you demonstrate your power [74:59] by showing your wealth by showing what [75:01] you can do by being very in your face I [75:03] can I'm great at this you know I'm we're [75:06] number one kind of thing many cultures [75:08] don't like that many the more [75:10] collectivist your culture is the the [75:11] more frowned upon that is and the less [75:13] likely you are to do it even if you are [75:15] the powerful and then you get to [75:16] cultures where the only person who ever [75:20] puts himself down as the really powerful [75:22] because they can afford to say no no I'm [75:23] I'm nobody you don't want to B with me [75:25] and the second they say that in those [75:27] cultures like oo this person runs the [75:29] show around here and so in a lot of [75:31] cultures the richest person is the one [75:33] who dresses the most modestly the most [75:35] powerful person is because that's what [75:37] the culture understands but it's always [75:39] you have to follow the cultural rules [75:40] and a we're number one Society that's [75:42] not going to work for you everybody's [75:43] just going to think you're nobody and so [75:45] the rules of power vary dramatically by [75:47] where you are but you can always see [75:49] that somebody who is relaxed and looks [75:52] comfortable is probably [75:55] relatively high powered person in that [75:56] circumstance I've always wondered why [75:58] billionaires who have more sort of [76:00] objective [76:01] power end up not wearing designer [76:04] clothes and being more understated and [76:06] wearing just the same out for every day [76:08] and they don't wear the designer Brands [76:10] and have Louis Von yeah the the thing is [76:13] that we use those Brands to compete for [76:14] status but they're already at the very [76:17] top of deep they won their competition [76:18] and anybody who knows them knows that [76:20] and their act they're also especially as [76:22] you start to get rich all the fancy [76:24] Brands and then as you get even richer [76:25] and you've been that way longer you it [76:27] becomes less important to you because [76:28] you've got status in other ways and [76:30] maybe it's a counter signal at that [76:32] point so maybe if he was if he had a [76:34] Louis Vuitton bag he would actually be [76:36] lowering himself to the status CLA he's [76:38] just a regular millionaire he's not the [76:40] multibillionaire that he is you've [76:42] studied um the hadza tribe you you [76:44] mentioned them repeatedly only [76:45] indirectly I've never been there yeah [76:47] what is the most interesting thing [76:48] you've learned about them as it relates [76:50] to happiness and purpose and living a [76:52] good life that you might pass to all of [76:53] us that are listening well autonomy is [76:56] was really rare for our ancestors they [76:58] evolve to want both they they need [77:01] connection to survive and to be part of [77:03] the collective that will you know go on [77:05] the hunt and do all the things that is [77:07] necessary for living every single day [77:09] but they also need autonomy to choose [77:11] where they're going to their real Niche [77:12] is going to be what their best prospects [77:14] are how to stand out in the group [77:16] everybody has to be H to gather but you [77:17] could still be the best arrow maker or [77:20] Storyteller or whatever make make [77:21] yourself valuable to the group so you [77:23] need autonomy so can decide where you [77:25] have best prospects and decide what you [77:27] want to do and put your efforts into the [77:29] domains that matter to you that where [77:31] you think you'll succeed but for [77:33] ancestors true autonomy was rare because [77:36] if you guys even though we all decide by [77:37] consensus and you guys say you want to [77:39] go south and I want to go north I can't [77:41] just go north when you go south or I'm [77:42] going to be Lon food I've got to [77:44] compromise or persuade you with my you [77:47] know what what I want to do which means [77:49] that opportunities for True autonomy [77:50] were really rare for our ancestors the [77:53] problem is now we don't need connection [77:55] anymore we can survive just fine without [77:56] it so we have opportunities for autonomy [77:58] all the time cities are an example [78:00] they're full of opportunities for [78:01] autonomy and humans are moving there in [78:04] droves every time that we get a choice [78:06] between connection and autonomy I fear [78:08] that we're choosing autonomy it's a form [78:10] of miswan him because for our ancestors [78:12] they rarely could get that choice where [78:14] they could really pick either and when [78:15] they had it they wanted to jump on [78:17] autonomy so now I think that we're [78:19] constantly choosing to do our own thing [78:21] rather than to connect and that's [78:23] steadily making us unhappy and our our [78:25] hunt to gather friends who still exist [78:27] on this Earth don't do that that's the [78:28] one thing that you can learn from the [78:29] hza they're constantly thinking about [78:32] each other and then thinking about well [78:33] what do I want and kind finding a [78:35] compromise that's much closer to balance [78:38] in that regard uh men need women more [78:41] than women need men as it relates to [78:44] connection yes and no so we all need to [78:48] connect but I believe women need it more [78:49] than men largely for the reasons we were [78:51] talking about earlier where women need [78:52] to get more help parenting so they need [78:54] to form these tight bonds so people will [78:56] help them but of course men need [78:57] connection too and women provide men [78:59] with a lot of the closest connection [79:01] that they have CU I read that marriage [79:04] is more beneficial for men's longevity [79:06] than it is for women's it is it's not a [79:08] huge difference so if you look at people [79:10] in their mid-60s where now longevities [79:12] in the offing right men will live an [79:14] extra two years if they're married and [79:16] women will only live an extra year and a [79:18] half if they're married so women do more [79:20] for men than men do for women but both [79:22] are getting something out of it and [79:23] that's not a huge difference and it's [79:25] that they're giving us more emotional [79:26] support typically than we're well also I [79:28] mean think about how slovenly and [79:29] disgusting we are they're probably [79:31] helping us with our hygiene they're [79:32] probably helping in a variety of ways [79:33] but yes I think emotional support really [79:35] matters and I think that you need to [79:37] have something to live for and kids [79:39] provide us with that grandkids provide [79:41] us with that connection provides us with [79:43] that nobody wants to die alone that's a [79:45] miserable thought these these hads of [79:47] tribes that we keep talking about do [79:49] they do they stay together in [79:51] marriages it turns out so they're [79:54] they're their best well what the person [79:56] I regard as a premier ethnographer is [79:57] Frank Marlo he would live with the hodza [79:59] and write about them and he estimated [80:01] from his life experience with them that [80:03] about 20% of them stay married for life [80:06] so one and five which is not high very [80:09] low now if you think about it why is [80:12] that such a high divorce rate well [80:14] Hunter gathers don't institutionalize [80:16] marriage the way that agriculturalists [80:18] do when agriculturals get married that's [80:20] a financial Arrangement it didn't matter [80:22] in the same way to our hunted gather ANC [80:24] SS when that's no longer nice they moved [80:27] out and chose somebody [80:29] else and so it's low it's it's they're [80:34] serial monogamists they don't you know [80:36] hza tend not to have more than one wife [80:39] at a time it happens but it's rare does [80:41] our evolutionary par suggests that [80:43] humans are serial monogamist I believe [80:45] humans evolved to be serial monogamists [80:47] who cheat a little bit now why do I [80:50] think we also cheat a little bit because [80:51] if we're purely monogamous men would not [80:53] need testicles as large as they are a [80:56] gorilla is is not monogamous it has a [80:58] Herm of several females but it doesn't [81:01] no other male gorilla can approach those [81:03] females because he will physically [81:04] attack them and so he knows that he's [81:07] the only one having sex with them and he [81:08] has very small testicles and in fact [81:10] they're inside his body they're not at [81:12] risk of damage a chimpanzee who um the [81:17] their mating system is lots of male [81:19] chimps have sex with lots of females so [81:21] who knows who his father has these [81:22] enormous testicles because part of his [81:24] job is to wash out I know it doesn't [81:26] sound nice wash out the guy who was [81:27] there before him so maybe his sperm will [81:29] be the one that inseminates her wash out [81:31] what do you mean by wash out like [81:32] literally pumped so much sperm into her [81:34] that the previous guy who just had sex [81:36] with her his sperm is literally washed [81:38] out as if you're in there with a hose I [81:40] know it doesn't it's not it's not anyway [81:43] so if we were ancestrally purely [81:46] monogamous we'd have little gorilla [81:47] testicles and we don't we ours are way [81:50] bigger than theirs which suggests that [81:51] we did a little bit of washing out of [81:53] our own which suggests we were [81:54] monogamous but we're also sneaking [81:56] around at the same [81:57] time so cheating might might be a [82:00] natural part of well natural doesn't [82:02] mean good I'm not saying it's a good [82:03] thing right but I'm saying it's what our [82:05] ancestors did so my guess is when they [82:07] could get away with it you know there [82:08] they are in the cave there's this couple [82:10] who aren't a couple but nobody else is [82:11] around both of them have reasons to do [82:13] it males want to cheat because it gives [82:16] them a greater chance of having [82:17] Offspring they otherwise wouldn't have [82:19] females can't have an infinite number of [82:21] kids like males can because they could [82:22] have sex with 20 guys they're still only [82:24] going to have one kid the orangutang has [82:26] like pretty similar DNA to us is it the [82:28] orangutang which which monkey is it that [82:30] well chimps are the closest to us the [82:31] chimp and then gorillas and then [82:32] orangutans but they're all great apes so [82:34] they're all pretty close to us can [82:35] chimps talk no so if they if I'm a chimp [82:39] and I I I leave the tree for a while and [82:41] then my Boy comes over and he has sex [82:44] with my [82:45] wife I can't then find out that he did [82:49] that no there's no one telling you now [82:52] they do sign language lots of things [82:54] that they're interest in doing immediate [82:55] communication but it's if you think [82:57] about sign language it's really good for [82:59] saying you know there's something behind [83:00] you it's really good for saying I'm [83:02] going to punch you in the face if you [83:03] don't give me your food whatever but [83:05] it's not good for saying you know [83:07] yesterday I had sex with your wife how [83:09] do they communicate that they're they're [83:10] terrible at communicating that kind of [83:12] things that are separated by space or by [83:14] time they just simply can't communicate [83:17] and so but they can't think about it [83:18] either and so our homus is the first [83:23] animal on this planet who think about [83:25] separate SE things separate by space and [83:27] time and so my guess is our complex [83:28] communication began with them it made me [83:30] think of my dog my dog does something he [83:33] does a poo in the in the house I come [83:36] home an hour later I tell him all he [83:38] doesn't know why you're upset yeah that [83:40] Poo's that happened an hour ago he [83:42] doesn't know what the problem is but he [83:43] can't think about the past and the [83:44] future in terms and Link it to it's the [83:47] we know from psychology that if you want [83:48] to punish an animal for pooing which is [83:50] effective if you do you don't you [83:51] shouldn't rub the nose in things that [83:52] aren't nice but punishment is very [83:54] effective if you punish them for pooing [83:56] you're a bad girl you do it right away [83:58] they'll stop pooing in your house you [84:00] punish them an hour later they go I [84:01] don't know what you're talking about [84:02] when I come home and say my dog's pooed [84:03] in the house or something or he's done [84:04] something naughty he's hiding yeah [84:07] because he now knows that when you find [84:09] a poo in the house he gets in trouble [84:11] when you find a torn up Furniture he [84:13] gets in trouble he knows that that's an [84:14] association dogs are really really good [84:16] about learning associations and so all [84:19] that he doesn't you know when he tears [84:20] it up first of all he poor self-control [84:23] because it's a dog but second he can't [84:24] think about uh-oh in the future Steven's [84:27] going to come home and he's going to be [84:28] pissed but now when you do come home and [84:31] he's like looking over the torn couch [84:32] he's like uhoh I'm in trouble and so he [84:35] knows for while what's [84:37] coming okay so he doesn't actually know [84:39] that it was that I didn't want him to [84:41] tear up the couch or whatever but he [84:44] does know that when the couch is torn up [84:46] and I come home that I'm going to be [84:48] like [ __ ] all the yeah and you're [84:50] going to yell at him and he also knows [84:51] that if he does in front of you you'll [84:52] yell at him and if he poops in front of [84:54] you you'll yell at him so he knows all [84:56] those things um but he can't think about [84:58] the future so take a take an animal way [85:00] smarter than a dog a monkey or even a [85:02] chimp let's get way smarter chimps can't [85:06] plan for tomorrow the way a human can so [85:09] I if if you feed a chimp or a monkey or [85:11] any of these animals as much food as [85:12] they want but only one meal a day they [85:14] don't like that because they like to eat [85:16] several meals a day just like we do but [85:19] they'll never go I'm going to stash some [85:20] of my food because I'm going to get [85:22] hungry at 5:00 p.m. today because I'm [85:23] only fed at 2 [85:24] it never occurs to them day after day [85:26] after day to stash it when they're full [85:28] they'll literally throw it at each other [85:30] because they don't they can't think they [85:32] they can't think about a world that has [85:34] unfelt needs all they can think about is [85:36] the world where their needs are the same [85:38] as they are right now and because we can [85:40] project our mind into the future we know [85:41] there's going to be a world with all [85:42] sorts of unfelt needs I'll be hungry [85:44] again I'll be cold I'll be whatever but [85:46] but some animals store food don't they [85:48] they do but they do it they do it um [85:49] automatically they don't go oh it's [85:51] going to be like for example squirrels [85:53] who bury nuts well do that if they'd [85:54] never been through a winter so they [85:56] don't go uh oh I was cold last winter I [85:58] better store some nuts cuz there weren't [85:59] many around they just have evolved to [86:01] store nuts when the weather starts to [86:04] get cold or whatever their signal is cu [86:06] cuz my my dog Pablo he's never been [86:08] around I mean he has been around other [86:10] dogs of course but I don't I only have [86:12] one dog so he's only ever lived uh with [86:13] me and I wondered the first time I got a [86:16] bone like from the the shop and I gave [86:18] it to him he like played with it a [86:20] little bit but then he picked it up and [86:21] buried it in the couch yeah and I'm like [86:23] what the hell are you doing like and [86:25] then I give him another bone and he [86:26] picks it up and buries it in the couch [86:28] and then I end up like lifting up the [86:29] couch and there's all these bones buried [86:30] in there I'm like how that's an evolved [86:32] behavior that he doesn't understand the [86:34] purpose of but he knows he wants to do [86:36] and so let me give you an example from [86:38] from another animal system where we've [86:39] studied it really closely so Mir cats do [86:42] you know Mir cats those cute little [86:44] things like oh yeah I think from the [86:47] movies um Mir cats eat uh scorpions and [86:51] so they need to teach their ba they're [86:52] they're very good Hunters they need to [86:54] teach their babies to kill something [86:55] that could kill them and so if when they [86:57] have tiny babies they kill the Scorpion [86:59] and give it to it dead and then the baby [87:01] eats the Scorpion once it's weaned from [87:02] milk because of course they're mammals [87:04] when the babies get a little bit bigger [87:05] they break the Stinger off and throw the [87:07] Scorpion to it alive so the baby can [87:09] practice killing the Scorpion and then [87:11] when the baby's bigger still it's almost [87:13] ready to go out on its own they throw it [87:14] Al live scorpion like you kill it and [87:16] eat it because it's got to learn how to [87:18] do that like it seems rough but it's got [87:19] to learn that if you play the sounds of [87:22] a little baby to us to the mother or the [87:25] whoever's bringing the food cuz it's not [87:27] always mothers it'll kill the Scorpion [87:29] and throw it in there even if the who [87:31] it's throwing into are juveniles who [87:32] could kill it themselves and worse yet [87:34] if you have babies and you play Juvenile [87:36] sounds it'll throw the live scorpion to [87:38] the baby who's going to kill the baby [87:40] because all it knows is when I hear that [87:42] sound I do x to the Scorpion your dog is [87:44] doing the same thing when given bone [87:46] chew on it for a little while then bury [87:48] it for later because I don't know if [87:49] I'll have them later now it doesn't know [87:50] do that I don't know if I'll have it [87:51] later but it's evolved to solve that [87:53] problem [87:55] as you guys know whoop is one of my show [87:56] sponsors it's also a company that I have [87:59] invested in and it's one that you guys [88:00] ask me about a lot the biggest question [88:02] I get asked is why I use whoop over [88:04] other wearable technology options and [88:06] there is a bunch of reasons but I think [88:08] it really comes down to the most [88:09] Overlook yet crucial feature it's [88:12] noninvasive nature when everything in [88:15] life seems to be competing for my [88:16] attention I turn to whoop because it [88:18] doesn't have a screen and will armed the [88:20] CEO who came on this podcast told me the [88:23] reason that there's no screen [88:25] because screens equal distraction so [88:27] when I'm in meetings or I'm at the gym [88:29] my whoop doesn't demand my attention [88:31] it's there in the background constantly [88:33] pulling data and insights from my body [88:35] that are ready for when I need them if [88:37] you've been thinking about joining whoop [88:39] you can head to join. whoop.com [88:41] CEO and try whoop for 30 days risk-free [88:45] and zero commitment that's join. [88:48] woop.com [88:49] CEO let me know how you get on I've [88:52] invested more than a million pound into [88:54] this company Perfect Ted and they're [88:56] also a sponsor of this podcast I [88:57] switched over to using matcher as my [88:59] dominant energy source and that's where [89:01] perfect Ted comes in they have the [89:02] matcha powders they have the matcha [89:04] drinks they have the pods and all of [89:06] this keeps me focused throughout a very [89:08] very long recording day no matter what's [89:10] going on and their team is obsessed with [89:12] quality which is why they Source their [89:14] ceremonial grade matcha from Japan so [89:17] when people say to me that they don't [89:18] like the taste of matcha I'm guessing [89:20] that they haven't tried perfect head [89:21] unlike lowquality matcha that has a [89:23] bitter grassy taste perfect headed is [89:26] smooth and naturally sweet and without [89:28] knowing it you're probably a perfect Ted [89:29] customer already if you're getting your [89:31] match at places like blank Street or Joe [89:33] in the juice but now you can make it [89:35] yourself at home so give it a try and [89:37] we'll see if you still don't like matcha [89:40] so here's what I'm going to do I'm going [89:41] to give you 40% off our matcher if you [89:43] try it today head to perfect ted.com and [89:46] use code [89:47] steven4 or if you're in a supermarket [89:49] you can get it at tesos or Holland and [89:51] Barett or in the Netherlands at Albert [89:53] Heine and those you in the US you can [89:55] get it on [89:56] Amazon it's a really interesting um such [89:59] an interesting subject matter because [90:02] you know I I spend so much time talking [90:03] to people about our Evolution and what [90:05] it tells us about our future and who we [90:06] are and you're I mean you're the guy [90:09] you're the guy that knows more about our [90:12] evolutionary past than I think anybody [90:13] I've ever met so I'm so curious to know [90:15] if there's just anything else that [90:17] someone like me should be aware of [90:20] from all the work you've done in [90:22] studying evolution any study any story [90:27] that was particularly pivotal for you [90:29] and your thinking that shaped you that [90:31] we haven't yet talked about we we've [90:33] talked a fair bit about how money [90:35] doesn't make you as happy as you think [90:37] it would but it does help it it it does [90:39] help make you happy and we've talked [90:41] about how important you know money is a [90:44] a proxy for State it's how important [90:45] that was in our ancestral Society but [90:47] you have to remember that our ancestral [90:49] societies were very small and so it was [90:51] feasible that I could be the best at [90:53] something in my group I could be the [90:54] richest I could be the best arrow maker [90:56] the best Storyteller you name it there's [90:57] something I've got a shot at nobody can [91:00] be the best at anything anymore you [91:01] can't even be the richest I mean [91:03] tomorrow Elon Musk made some amount this [91:06] year that's like so astronomical it's [91:07] hard to even imagine and so [91:11] the there's always going to be people [91:13] who have more than you do and so the [91:14] problem with money is that it's [91:16] partially a status game it's partially [91:18] about buying a nicer car and a nicer [91:20] house and those things actually tend not [91:22] to make us happy but but [91:24] interestingly spending our money on [91:26] doing things tends to make us much [91:29] happier which is surprising because it [91:31] feels like spending money on activities [91:33] is kind of wasteful I always felt like [91:35] when I was young and broke that if I had [91:37] money it was hedonistic and wasteful to [91:40] spend it skiing whereas it was sensible [91:42] to spend it on a new couch because I [91:43] need a couch and then I'll have that [91:45] couch for a very long time whereas the [91:47] ski day is over in a day but it turns [91:49] out that if you have disposable income [91:52] it makes you a lot happy when you spend [91:54] it on things to do rather than things to [91:56] have and we don't know exactly why that [91:58] is yet but I suspect that the reason is [92:01] is the things to have are a status game [92:03] and that status game is impossible to [92:04] win right because there's just too many [92:06] humans on the planet and I'm going to [92:07] open up my Instagram tomorrow and find [92:09] that somebody else has a better car or [92:11] whatever it is that I just bought and [92:13] now I mine looks kind of dumpy whereas [92:16] that ski holiday actually becomes part [92:17] of yourself it becomes this memory [92:20] that's self that that that you think [92:21] back on and that you you're happy when [92:23] you think about it and especially if you [92:24] do it with friends and so the advice I [92:27] would give is you know if you're trying [92:29] to especially if you're successful and [92:31] you're trying to find a way to to not [92:33] feel like all that success was a lot of [92:35] effort and not really worth it is to use [92:37] your money in ways to enhance your [92:39] experiences in life rather than to [92:40] enhance your things so what are the if I [92:43] had to force you I don't like doing this [92:44] but if I had to force you to give [92:46] me a summary of the top five things that [92:50] are most correlated to my happiness in [92:52] your opinion [92:54] are most likely to increase my [92:56] probability of living a happy filled [92:57] life you have to give me five okay what [93:00] are those five things Families First [93:04] okay the F we evolved in families um not [93:07] just small families but extended [93:09] families and it you may not get along [93:12] with your family and then you want to [93:14] find a proxy family or you want to [93:15] create one of your own so I'm not [93:16] telling you you need to get along with [93:17] that jerk of an uncle of yours or your [93:19] hopeless parents or whatever but I'm [93:21] saying spend time with your family and [93:22] if it's not the family you want want [93:24] trade him in for a new one but we [93:26] evolved to have the close confines [93:29] regular contact constant contact with [93:31] family and so if you can't do it in [93:33] person because they're far away or you [93:36] know the financial means whatever you [93:37] just do it every day on the phone anyway [93:39] find a reason to chat regularly with [93:41] family ideally eat with family eating [93:45] was a key moment for ancestors they got [93:47] together around the fire they if it was [93:49] a successful hunt they're cooking up [93:50] their meal together and they're eating [93:52] it together there's bad habit of a lot [93:54] of families to just watch TV together [93:57] and there's nothing wrong with TV but [93:59] you should also talk together because we [94:01] evolve to be storytellers we evolve to [94:03] share stories with each other they're [94:04] super important for us so trust me when [94:07] I say those momentary desires to do your [94:09] own thing will pale in in in comparison [94:13] to the long-term benefits of continually [94:14] getting together these rituals of of [94:17] eating together and having conversation [94:19] together is hugely important okay number [94:22] two number two is it's also going to be [94:25] connection and and it [94:27] sounds silly but it's like when when [94:31] you're trying to plan your day and you [94:33] you've got this list of things you want [94:34] to do and you got a list of things your [94:36] friends are doing you can't always do [94:39] what your friends are doing but if if [94:40] you can get yourself to sacrifice what [94:42] you really preferred and do what they're [94:44] doing and and they're going to [94:45] eventually do the same for you of course [94:46] too give up some of that autonomy in [94:49] order to reestablish some of that [94:51] connection and and the reason I say this [94:53] is when we look at married couples even [94:55] they're spending less time together when [94:56] we look at friends they're spending less [94:58] time together I think we need to go back [95:00] to this [95:01] world when I think when I think about [95:03] doing that I'm just going to be [95:05] completely honest no you should be [95:06] because if it doesn't work it doesn't [95:07] work no no when I think yeah so I'm just [95:09] trying to put myself in the in the head [95:10] of the person that's hearing that and a [95:12] lot of entrepreneurs and audience that [95:13] are like very buil busy building their [95:15] startup they've got jobs that are [95:17] demanding of them that they're striving [95:20] and they're striving away from a life [95:22] that they didn't like towards a life [95:23] that they hope they will so that that's [95:25] requiring them to give so much time and [95:27] energy to like separate themselves from [95:29] the crowd so when they hear that they [95:31] need to spend more time with their [95:32] partner many of them will be [95:34] thinking but then my business will fail [95:37] and I agree with them I when I'm giving [95:39] this generic advice I'm not tailoring it [95:41] to that person and I completely agree [95:43] with that person's life choice When [95:45] We're Young we're autonomy machines and [95:47] that takes precedence especially if you [95:49] have a big dream that you think you [95:51] could get to you're this entrepreneur [95:53] and especially trying to get away from [95:54] something that wasn't much like [95:56] materially you just didn't have enough [95:58] to really get by whatever the case might [95:59] be LeBron James thring basket after [96:02] basket after basket trying to become the [96:03] person he wants to be look how well it [96:05] works for what's the cost the cost is is [96:07] paid at the time you're going to be [96:09] lonely when you do that but if you're if [96:11] you're loving what you're doing and if [96:12] you think it as a real chance will I say [96:15] pay that loneliness price when you're [96:17] young don't pay it every single day [96:19] please go out with your friends on [96:20] Friday night and talk with your fellow [96:22] entrepreneurs and do things that still [96:24] allow you to be connected so you're not [96:25] suicidal by the time you get there but I [96:28] totally get that autonomy push it's what [96:30] makes us a success I I I do think I'm [96:33] bullshitting myself a little bit because [96:34] I go could I spend another hour with my [96:36] partner a day or another two three hours [96:39] a week in my business would be fine of [96:40] course I could but there's like you said [96:42] there's an inherent striving which can [96:45] be out of whack and and the problem is [96:47] that if if what you really want to do [96:48] right now is work yeah I I say when [96:52] you're young do it [96:54] because you can you can let your [96:55] connections Fray try not to let them [96:57] disappear and then you can rebuild them [97:00] when you now have got there but the key [97:01] is you got to get there you have to set [97:03] yourself in an answer in advance and [97:05] here's the reason I say that I have [97:08] found myself waiting for a bus longer [97:09] than it would have taken me to walk and [97:12] so once I do that a few times I realize [97:14] oh the bus schedule's erratic I can do [97:16] the walking I'm going to wait X minutes [97:17] and then I'm going to walk our problem [97:19] is that we keep setting new bar for [97:21] oursel if we don't make that that plan [97:23] in advance oh I'll just give it another [97:25] minute oh I'll just give it another [97:27] minute or I'll just push this business [97:28] for another year I'll just push it for [97:30] another year and you can find yourself [97:31] doing it forever you may not succeed you [97:34] may have a miserable life where all you [97:35] did was work and you kept pushing it for [97:37] another year and it never got there and [97:39] so my recipe is when you start something [97:41] you give yourself an end date you say [97:43] what would it mean for me to be a [97:44] success and so you can have an end date [97:46] that's both good and bad how much money [97:49] do I have to make and now I won how much [97:52] time do I get do I give without making [97:54] any money and therefore I lost and you [97:55] should set those two things in advance [97:57] because once you're in it I promise you [97:59] you're going to move the [98:01] bar number three yes if you're this hard [98:05] driving entrepreneur who's putting that [98:07] aside I'm dead serious when I say get a [98:09] dog a cat whatever your preferred animal [98:12] is and the data show that having a pet [98:14] actually makes people quite happy and I [98:16] very mindfully did it when I was a brand [98:17] new assistant professor you know in this [98:19] American System I'm going to either get [98:21] tenured and promoted after seven years [98:23] or I'm going to get fired so I knew that [98:24] I was a work machine for seven years [98:26] everything else was going to take second [98:28] place but my dog wouldn't care dogs are [98:31] amazing um and maybe one day as you were [98:33] talking I was thinking maybe people are [98:34] going to get robots someday and that's a [98:36] sad fure think about but just like a [98:38] robot generally to be their friend which [98:40] is quite Grim number four [98:44] so when you ask yourself well what made [98:47] our our ancestors happy there's a lot [98:50] of seemingly pointless sitting around [98:53] and doing doing nothing together and the [98:55] problem with our world today I believe [98:57] but don't know I don't have good data on [98:58] this is Bill's intuition is that we can [99:01] always be doing something there's a t [99:03] zillion actually very good shows on TV [99:06] and I suspect that what we giving up [99:08] when when doing that is is random [99:10] chitchat with friends now when I used to [99:14] walk by construction sites 20 years ago [99:16] you'd see all these guys eating their [99:18] lunch together and and just shooting the [99:20] [ __ ] right just having a good time when [99:22] I walk by construction sites today [99:24] during lunch I see most of the guys on [99:25] their phone not even talking to the guy [99:27] right next to them they're still sitting [99:28] in a line at the construction site but [99:30] they're not engaged with each other and [99:32] those guys are not as tight and their [99:33] job is not going to be as good and so I [99:36] would say be present be be present in [99:39] idle conversation times it it doesn't [99:42] seem as interesting as it is it's super [99:44] important and number five last but not [99:46] least I would say and this is going to [99:49] sound a little bit redundant but but we [99:51] all have lifestyle goals that we Su and [99:55] they could be getting more fit they [99:57] could be learning a foreign language [99:58] they could be learning to paint they [100:00] could be anything like that the data [100:01] show very clearly you're way more likely [100:03] to achieve those lifestyle goals if you [100:05] commit to doing them with somebody else [100:07] because they'll push you and you'll push [100:08] them people join gyms every year that [100:10] they attend five times and never go back [100:12] and so you want to whenever you want to [100:14] make a change in your life try to use [100:16] connection to make that change more [100:17] effective because not only will it make [100:19] the change more effective but it'll [100:20] overall in the long term make you a [100:22] happier person and on that point about [100:24] Health Fitness and lifestyle goals um I [100:27] found out that you are a senior [100:29] scientist at a company that I'm an [100:31] investor in called whoop they also are [100:33] sponsor of the podcast I should probably [100:34] say but you're a senior scientist there [100:36] that's well I'm a contractor I don't [100:37] work directly for them but they've [100:38] contracted me to to work with them [100:40] that's right and what is it you're doing [100:42] at whoop I have the coolest job in the [100:45] world so I work as part of the [100:47] performance science team and what we're [100:50] tasked to do is just look at all the [100:53] data that whoop collects and ask the [100:55] question how could we do it better what [100:57] are things that are people are doing [100:58] that really help them let them know how [101:00] much it's helping them what are people [101:02] do things that people are doing that [101:03] maybe aren't helping them let them know [101:04] that it's not helping and more so let's [101:07] you know sleep is not well understood [101:10] exercise is not well understood this [101:11] relationship to eating is not well [101:13] understood you'll have learned that from [101:14] lots of guests prior previously on the [101:16] show and so I get this really cool job [101:18] where we just dive into our data all the [101:21] time to try to answer these fundamental [101:22] questions and what are some of the cool [101:24] questions you've asked that have [101:25] garnered interesting answers thus far so [101:28] these aren't published data yet and so [101:30] what that means the caveat on them is [101:32] that we could be wrong right I could be [101:33] telling you stuff that I'm going to send [101:34] it to a journal and they're going to [101:36] laugh in my face and saying you're [101:37] forgetting the fosic effect that total [101:39] that's total nonsense right that could [101:40] happen so going with you have to [101:43] understand the caveat here that these [101:44] are raw data that we've just discovered [101:46] that we haven't vetted yet in the [101:47] scientific Community but let me give you [101:49] an example one of the quite remarkable [101:52] things that we're finding is at woop is [101:54] that exercise amplifies other behaviors [101:59] and so if I do something that's good for [102:01] me even if it's got nothing to do with [102:02] exercise and I exercise that day it's [102:04] better for me if I do something that's [102:07] bad for me and even if it's got nothing [102:09] to do with exercise it's worse for me on [102:10] a day that I exercise give me an example [102:13] yeah so if I drink we know that alcohol [102:15] every every drink every alcoholic drink [102:17] that I have raises my resting heart rate [102:20] by I think it's about a beat beat and a [102:22] half if I remember right and lowers my [102:23] HRV by uh like three points if I [102:26] remember right I could be getting those [102:27] numbers a little bit off but it's that [102:29] kind of magnitude and every drink just [102:32] it's this linear effect up to at least [102:34] 10 drinks that we see that in our data [102:36] with thousands and thousands of people [102:39] if you have those drinks on days that [102:41] you're basically sedentary you did [102:42] almost nothing their effect is smaller [102:44] than if you have those drinks on days [102:46] where you exercised so I could exercise [102:48] in the morning then I drink Y and the [102:51] impact of the drink is worse yeah [102:53] because I EXC you exercised and the same [102:56] holds for good things I know it's [102:57] ridiculous I don't understand the [102:59] physiology at all but this is what we're [103:00] seeing so drink and don't exercise [103:02] exactly on days that you're going to [103:04] misbehave and probably not just alcohol [103:06] that's just one of the ones I've [103:06] analyzed on days that you're going to [103:08] misbehave be relatively sedentary now [103:11] the thing is it also works the other way [103:13] so if you like if you sometimes wear [103:15] blue light blocking glasses late in the [103:18] evening or you dim the lights late in [103:19] the evening you're conscientious about [103:20] getting ready for bed that has a bigger [103:22] posit positive effect on your recovery [103:24] on days that you exercise even though [103:26] blue light and exercise have nothing to [103:28] do with each other so it doesn't seem to [103:30] matter what the behavior is if it's [103:32] positive it has a bigger positive effect [103:34] on days you exercise more if it's [103:35] negative it has a bigger negative effect [103:37] on days you exercise more interesting [103:39] which is super cool I have no idea why [103:41] we we're obviously going to write it up [103:42] and tell the world about it and when we [103:44] do maybe I made a mistake and we'll [103:46] discover what I did wrong and what I [103:48] just told you isn't true but for now I [103:49] believe that's true so if I'm having [103:53] a bit of like a naughty day you know if [103:55] I'm like breaking all my rules don't [103:58] exercise [104:00] interesting and then if I'm having a [104:02] great day like I'm I'm eating really [104:03] really healthy and everything's going [104:05] I'm sleeping well here's the thing [104:07] eating might be the exception the data [104:09] also show that if you like imagine you [104:11] stuff your face full of fatty foods and [104:13] all that kind of stuff exercise is [104:15] exactly what you should be doing now [104:16] after you ate use the fuel you you [104:20] process don't just store it and so [104:24] food is something we need too much food [104:26] is obviously a bad thing but I don't [104:28] count food in the naughty Behavior list [104:30] and so I I haven't actually Everybody [104:32] Eats every day and I don't have good [104:34] data on how much they've eaten but what [104:36] I what our data do suggest is that going [104:38] for a walk even just a walk like zone [104:40] two is fabulous even Zone one is good [104:42] going for a walk doing stuff after you [104:44] eat helps you just feel better and and [104:46] I'm guessing here that what you saw in [104:47] the data is you you could look at [104:49] someone who is drinking alcohol every [104:52] day for example [104:53] and then you could see on the days that [104:55] they exercised as well the impact of the [104:58] alcohol on their biomarkers was more [105:01] significant yes and what we what we have [105:03] is fortunately we got thousands and [105:04] thousands of people so big data sets who [105:07] log alcohol relatively often they don't [105:09] drink every day and I can even show you [105:11] what the pattern looks like people don't [105:12] drink much Monday Tuesday Wednesday [105:14] Thursday they have a drink or two you [105:15] know Friday more Saturday and Sunday [105:17] more and then go back but they also [105:19] exercise at different points across the [105:21] weekend so some people those two things [105:22] happen hit at the same time and [105:25] sometimes they they don't and what I try [105:26] to do in these analyses what we all try [105:28] to do in these analyses is look within [105:30] person because if you're the kind of [105:31] person who exercises when you drink and [105:33] I'm not well who knows what else differs [105:35] between us so what I really want to know [105:37] is what does Steven look like when he [105:39] drinks two drinks on days that he also [105:40] exercis the same as usual less than [105:42] usual more than usual we want to make it [105:44] all against what you usually do and [105:47] there we see these effects very clearly [105:49] are there any other cool answers you've [105:51] discovered in your time at weep you know [105:53] if you look at how much sleep people [105:55] need the argument is everybody needs the [105:58] same basically on average right but some [106:01] people need a little less and some [106:02] people need a little more I think men [106:04] need less sleep than [106:06] women I don't know that yet but there's [106:08] lots of reasons to think that first of [106:09] all hunted gathers when you look at the [106:11] data they've gathered with actograph [106:13] where they where they put a motion [106:15] capture on hunted gathers the men sleep [106:16] about 20 minutes less than the women do [106:19] now that's not significant in their [106:21] samples because they have small samples [106:23] of un gathers when we put these thing on [106:25] zillions of people we see men sleep [106:27] about 20 minutes less than women do when [106:29] you put the whoop on yeah and so we see [106:31] the exact same thing they see but it's [106:33] wildly statistically significant our [106:34] data set because it's so huge 20 minutes [106:36] is a lot now here's the thing if men [106:38] don't need as much sleep as women why is [106:40] that the case so recently now this hot [106:42] off the press I can't promise you I'm [106:43] doing it right but I believe I am our [106:46] data suggests men sleep more impactfully [106:48] more effectively than women that for [106:50] every hour of sleep that a man gets he [106:52] gets a little more bang for the buck on [106:53] his recovery than women get I have no [106:56] idea why that might be it could be they [106:59] have bigger slow ways when they're in [107:00] slow way sleep it could be a thousand [107:02] different things I don't know but what [107:05] what my data suggests is that men get [107:07] more bang for the buck out of every hour [107:08] sleep and as a consequence they sleep [107:10] about 20 minutes less that's right off [107:13] the press I I can't even promise you [107:15] that holds up if I it holds up I've [107:17] looked at it in two samples but I could [107:19] be making a mistake I I want to play [107:21] with it more I am I was just I just did [107:23] some research as you explaining that [107:25] also really interesting finding or [107:28] hypothesis um on the previous one which [107:30] is about why if I if I drank alcohol on [107:33] a day when I exercised it would cause my [107:35] biomarkers to have a reflect a worse [107:39] sort of state and it says on days when [107:41] you both drink alcohol and exercise the [107:43] com the combined psychological stresses [107:45] can lead to alterations in your [107:47] biomarkers reflecting increased [107:49] oxidative stress liver strain [107:51] dehydration and inflammation [107:54] in contrast on days when you consume [107:55] alcohol without exercising these effects [107:57] might be less pronounced resulting in [107:58] different biomarker profiles this is [108:01] super possible yeah it's it's very [108:04] possible that could be the mechanism uh [108:06] the it could be all about hydration and [108:08] so all you got to do is be doubly [108:11] conscientious about hydrating and then [108:12] problem solved but here's the thing [108:14] every negative thing I've looked at has [108:16] gotten worse when it's um when you [108:19] exercise and every positive thing I've [108:20] looked at it's gotten better so it may [108:23] be as simple as as something very [108:25] specific with alcohol and exercise but [108:27] it may be there's a broader principle at [108:28] play and so somebody out there who's [108:30] super smart like triers came along and [108:32] lined up how every animal mating system [108:34] worked he says look here's how it works [108:36] females make the larger sex cell they [108:38] typically then put more effort into it [108:40] so males compete for females and then lo [108:42] and behold you see that across the [108:43] animal kingdom and the rare exceptions [108:45] where males put more effort now the [108:47] females compete for the males so you [108:49] know somebody's going to come along [108:50] super smart and they'll hear what I just [108:51] said and they go I know the answers to [108:53] that but I don't know and the beauty is [108:55] that when a when I hear a scientific [108:57] explanation that Nails it I immediately [108:59] go Oh that's it and I wish I thought of [109:01] it but at least I can see that they' [109:03] they've got the answer when I you know [109:05] didn't is there anything else one last [109:08] thing from your work as a senior [109:10] scientist at whoop that is intriguing to [109:13] you or any hypothesis you have that [109:15] you're discovering from the data well so [109:17] we're seeing lots of nice evidence of a [109:19] couple different things first of all [109:20] there's a lot of little things that help [109:22] a lot and I'm a big believer in lots of [109:24] little things helping a lot but they [109:25] have to suit you because we also find [109:27] huge individual variability on how well [109:29] they work so reading in bed on average [109:32] actually not only helps you sleep fall [109:33] asleep more regularly but even helps you [109:35] sleep longer I suspect but don't know [109:37] that you're clearing your mind of the [109:39] day's [109:40] worries that probably works for some [109:42] people but some people probably works [109:43] the opposite like now they get caught up [109:44] in the novel they're reading and they [109:45] can't sleep so you have to be super [109:47] thoughtful about what works for you CBD [109:49] works really well but it actually works [109:51] for some people really well and for [109:52] others it even has a negative effect you [109:54] know our samples are big enough that we [109:56] can see across the board we find things [109:59] like uh a weighted blanket um blue light [110:02] blockers in the evening dimming your [110:04] lights in the evening those are big they [110:05] have big effects across the course of [110:07] the night by big I mean like 15 20 [110:09] minutes and more sleep more time and REM [110:11] and slow wave you add all those things [110:12] together it ends up being a lot wow the [110:15] final thing that we find is a lot of [110:17] people have sleep worries you know they [110:19] worry they won't sleep well and the [110:21] downside of that is that if you have [110:23] sleep worries what ends up happening is [110:25] they they get produced by your poor [110:27] sleep like I think GE I'm gonna have [110:28] trouble falling asleep because lo and [110:29] behold I did but then when we analyze [110:31] the data we've run these surveys where [110:32] we ask what was your worry going into [110:34] the night and and when you woke up in [110:36] the morning how did it go and what role [110:38] did your worries play Etc and when we [110:40] disentangle it we see that the worries [110:42] start to cause their own problems they [110:44] the worries themselves make it harder to [110:46] sleep and so if you could find ways to [110:48] Short Circuit those worries again things [110:50] like reading in bed whatever it is to [110:52] get your mind elsewhere it's going to be [110:54] beneficial is there much data on coffee [110:56] and the impact that that has coffee [110:58] actually overall is not bad you don't [110:59] want to do it too late in the day and [111:01] some people can I have friends who can [111:03] drink a coffee at dinner and go right to [111:04] sleep so it's not everybody but some [111:06] people after 2 p.m. it can be pretty [111:08] disrupted for some people and what we'd [111:10] also advise is when you're eating try to [111:12] restrict that to daylight hours that [111:13] seems to make a big difference it's you [111:15] know your body you're trying to get [111:17] parasympathetic dominance when you go to [111:18] sleep and if you've got food in there [111:20] your body's working hard to digest it [111:21] and that makes it difficult [111:24] what's the most important thing in your [111:25] book The Social Paradox when finding [111:27] what you want means losing what you need [111:31] that we haven't talked about that is [111:33] important for someone who's listening [111:35] that wants to improve their life and [111:36] increase their probability of Happiness [111:38] so the last thing I would say is that we [111:40] haven't covered is that all right so I'm [111:44] arguing you need to increase your [111:45] sociality and I'm arguing that your [111:47] socialness you need to be more social [111:49] more connected and I'm arguing that [111:50] we're too autonomous but that's a big [111:53] ask and I remember reading this article [111:54] in the New York Times about this guy he [111:56] wrote an opad piece about her he decided [111:58] to reconnect with all of his old friends [112:00] and so he's calling them up and finding [112:01] them and they're getting together and [112:03] then he ends up by saying am I going to [112:04] keep this up every week no I just don't [112:06] have time and and that's really really [112:09] an important lesson that we lead these [112:12] busy lives that are not the same as [112:14] Hunter gathers we have so many things [112:15] that we can do and are meant to be doing [112:18] that we can't just introduce social and [112:21] social connection and into our life [112:23] willy-nilly or we won't keep it up we [112:25] have to be Socratic and know yourself [112:27] and know your weaknesses and know what [112:28] you're going to sustain and what you're [112:30] not and from from from my perspective [112:32] that means two things one trying to say [112:35] well whenever I do something alone that [112:36] I'm doing something I enjoy like maybe [112:38] the crossword puzzle or running or [112:40] whatever your thing is is there a way to [112:42] do that with others don't you know match [112:45] my connection need with my autonomy need [112:47] I want to do that that's my autonomy [112:49] speaking but are there others who want [112:50] to do what who I can do with so in my [112:52] case I love to do the New York Times [112:53] puzzle my sister lives in London so we [112:56] reconnect in a way that we just weren't [112:57] doing before because we're both busy but [112:59] we're both doing the puzzle anyway so [113:01] why not do that if you have to decide to [113:03] do something every single time you do it [113:05] you just won't do it you want to [113:07] surrender control of that [113:08] decision-making process to either your [113:10] past or to the environment Itself by [113:13] which I mean in the same way that we say [113:14] I'll brush my teeth after breakfast we [113:16] don't say I wonder if I should brush my [113:17] teeth today we just know I eat breakfast [113:19] then I brush you want to do the same [113:21] thing oh after after breakfast I'll call [113:23] my sister and we'll do the puzzle [113:24] together you want a set rule so you [113:26] don't have to decide to do it and then [113:28] these things become habit and so what I [113:31] want what I want to argue is that people [113:32] should reintroduce Connection by trying [113:34] not to do things alone but they should [113:36] do it in the easiest way possible in the [113:37] way that's most likely become habitual [113:39] and that doesn't actually add more time [113:41] to their busy day and it's surprisingly [113:43] doable William thank you we have a [113:46] closing tradition on this podcast where [113:48] the last guest leaves a question for the [113:49] next guest uh oh not knowing who they're [113:51] leaving it for [113:53] and so this question is going to come [113:54] out of left field probably yeah you're [113:57] given the chance plus the power to do [114:00] one thing to save Humanity plus make [114:04] everyone happy what would that be if I [114:08] had one chance to do one thing to save [114:11] Humanity to save Humanity I would and [114:14] I'm magic right I can make it whatever I [114:16] want if you want um I would make sure [114:18] that there's perfect [114:20] Justice because if there's perfect [114:22] Justice then everybody who misbehaves [114:24] does Wrong by somebody else it knows [114:26] that they're going to get that there'll [114:28] be consequences for that behavior [114:29] because I think that the one thing that [114:31] humanity is not going to get its way out [114:33] of is people being horrible to other [114:35] people but if there's perfect Justice [114:38] everybody who's horrible to somebody [114:39] else is going to get their and it [114:40] doesn't I don't mean Justice when you [114:42] die I mean Justice in real time they're [114:44] going to stop doing that and people will [114:45] just be better to each other what what [114:48] would be the cost of that because that's [114:49] always a cost right the the cost of that [114:52] is that well look you can't get away [114:54] with anything anymore I I get away with [114:56] a lot of little things like I speed all [114:57] the time and I do it because I know I [114:59] can get away with it um and I like doing [115:02] that and but but I think that perfect [115:04] Justice would have the advantage that [115:05] it's harm to others see in the past we [115:08] we cared about property crimes a lot and [115:09] not so much harm to others I would want [115:12] in this world that it's that perfect [115:13] Justice comes with harm to others okay [115:15] but with Justice there's a subjective [115:18] element right to what is just because if [115:20] you look back through history what we [115:21] thought true absolutely right and so the [115:23] cost might be getting hit missing the [115:25] Mark we might we might as a human [115:27] population today come up with a [115:29] consensual decision about what Justice [115:30] is that a thousand years from now they [115:32] look back and they're utterly appalled [115:33] that that was what we were doing which [115:34] is what we look we look back at 200 [115:36] years and go Justice what the [ __ ] yeah [115:38] what the hell was that thank you so much [115:40] William thank you for writing an [115:41] incredible book um your first book here [115:43] called the social leap was a Smash Hit [115:46] and it's an extraordinary book but this [115:48] book is exceptional and it's [115:50] exceptionally timed [115:52] I think that has to be said because [115:54] where the world is at the moment it [115:55] feels like we're all we're drifting to [115:58] some degree it feels like we're drifting [115:59] from the the the island where our tribe [116:04] are and we're getting further and [116:05] further away from knowing exactly what [116:06] it is to be human um I think we're [116:09] feeling the consequences of that if you [116:10] look at a lot of the data we're feeling [116:11] we had the Mental Health crisis around [116:13] the world the increase in suicidal [116:16] ideation and suicide the increase in [116:18] purposelessness the increase in opioid [116:21] addictions and things like that and I I [116:23] don't think anybody would could could [116:25] make the case in a way that's founded on [116:27] what we're seeing that we're any closer [116:30] to being human or whatever that means [116:33] than we've ever been and this book I [116:34] think helps us to of course correct it [116:36] helps us to understand it turns the [116:37] lights on and as it says on the front it [116:40] helps us to understand that there's this [116:43] important balance between autonomy and [116:44] connection and we need both of them but [116:47] we need to get the balance correct and [116:49] many of us including myself no deep [116:52] inside that maybe we're not getting that [116:54] balance correct and this is why this [116:55] book is so wonderful because it's [116:57] confronting in the nicest possible way [116:59] and in an important way so I highly [117:00] recommend everybody give it a read it's [117:02] called the social Paradox when finding [117:03] what you want means losing what you need [117:07] by William Von [117:09] hippo thanks Stephen I really enjoy [117:12] chatting with you about it I can't wait [117:13] I can't wait for people to read it and [117:14] to send me lots of messages thank you so [117:16] much appreciate you thank you totally my [117:18] pleasure this has always blown my mind a [117:20] little bit 53 % of you that listen to [117:23] the show regularly haven't yet [117:24] subscribed to the show so could I ask [117:27] you for a favor if you like the show and [117:28] you like what we do here and you want to [117:29] support us the free simple way that you [117:31] can do just that is by hitting the [117:32] Subscribe button and my commitment to [117:34] you is if you do that then I'll do [117:36] everything in my power me and my team to [117:38] make sure that this show is better for [117:39] you every single week we'll listen to [117:41] your feedback we'll find the guests that [117:43] you want me to speak to and we'll [117:45] continue to do what we do thank you so [117:46] much [117:50] [Music] [117:52] oh [117:54] [Music]