Jared Diamond Caps Leader Impact at 30% as Circumstance Rules

贾雷德·戴蒙德认为环境主导成败，领导者影响上限仅为30% 涵盖商业、体育和政治的数据显示，领导者仅能解释15%至30%的表现差异，其余均由随机外部因素和结构性资产决定。 贾雷德·戴蒙德博士结合其跨学科生涯及著作《先知、利润、教练与国王》，解构了政治、宗教、商业和体育领域的领导力，指出个人魅力远非必不可少。他将宏观历史环境因素与个体能动性进行对比，强调关键的历史转折点往往取决于意想不到的人物、制度层面的宽恕以及组织间的协作。戴蒙德还回顾了自身从膜生理学、新几内亚野外鸟类学到历史地理学的科研演进，着重强调了分类好奇心、语言掌握能力以及严格的时间优先级管理。最终，他借鉴托马斯·洛夫乔伊的框架，将成功的领导力与个人成就感定义为：将个人天赋、由衷的热爱与广泛的社会贡献相结合。 个人魅力对于有效的领导力远非必不可少；贾雷德·戴蒙德博士指出了约37种不同的领导风格，并提到约瑟夫·斯大林和奥古斯托·皮诺切特等缺乏魅力的人物也曾掌握绝对的独裁控制权。 (0:00) 涵盖商业企业与职业体育的领导力统计方差表明，领导者对组织整体表现的直接影响仅占15%至30%，而约70%则取决于内部资产和更广泛的宏观因素。 (93:14) 在二战后受调查的22位现代政治领导人中，仅有纳尔逊·曼德拉和李光耀属于自愿卸任，这凸显出掌权领导人极少愿意主动放弃控制权。 (41:06) 长期的宗教运动通常需要由三部分构成的领导架构：一位具有号召力的远见创立者、一位行政管理者，以及保护运动免受暴力阻击的军事指挥官。 (30:42)

In a wide-ranging discussion with Andrew Huberman, polymath scholar Dr. Jared Diamond argues that effective leadership cannot be reduced to personal charisma or a single archetype, but instead depends on institutional context, historical contingency, and an authentic overarching philosophy of life. Debunking Charisma and Quantifying Leadership Impact (0:00) Diamond dismisses the popular assumption that magnetic charm is a mandatory prerequisite for successful leaders. He estimates there are roughly 37 distinct ways to be an effective leader, pointing out that influential figures such as Joseph Stalin and Augusto Pinochet possessed virtually no charisma. While modern historians frequently debate whether broad socioeconomic currents outweigh individuals, Diamond notes that biographers studying figures like Adolf Hitler emphasize personal traits that were difficult to replicate, such as pervasive deception and industrialized extermination. To resolve contradictory historical interpretations, Diamond favors quantitative analysis. Variance in Athletics, Business, and Governance (93:14) To evaluate how much an individual leader actually matters, Diamond draws on statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) borrowed from sports and corporate research. Across both head coaches and corporate CEOs, individual leaders account for approximately 15 to 30 percent of performance variance, while the remaining bulk depends on player rosters or company culture and broader industry structures. Applying this framework to politics, an individual leader's influence scales with power and crisis: autocratic dictators and leaders of wartime democracies wield far greater personal impact over outcomes than leaders restrained by peacetime democratic checks and balances. Authentic Worldviews and the Rarity of Relinquishing Power Diamond emphasizes that the most transformative leaders embody an authentic operating philosophy rather than manufactured managerial techniques. He cites UCLA basketball coach John Wooden—who secured ten national championships through rigorous conditioning, tactical scrimmage units, and meticulous details like smoothing socks to prevent blisters—and Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, both of whom treated their work as an ethical model for everyday living. Concurrently, Diamond's historical survey of 22 prominent post–World War II political leaders revealed an entrenched psychological reluctance to let go: only two figures, Nelson Mandela and Lee Kuan Yew, ever stepped down from power voluntarily. Intellectual Longevity, Natural Experiments, and Curating Focus (106:15) Reflecting on his multi-decade transitions from biophysics and New Guinea ornithology to geography, Diamond credits his output to systematic list-making, lifelong physical exercise, and strict personal boundaries. Rather than diffusing energy across societal expectations, he endorses a three-part standard passed down from conservation biologist Thomas Lovejoy: pursue what you are good at, what you enjoy, and what makes a difference in the world, while disregarding external pressures. Approaching late-career projects in his late eighties, Diamond underscores the necessity of selective focus, prioritizing the synthesis of island colonization data and personal cultural pursuits before time runs out. Diamond contends that assessing societal resilience requires acknowledging global existential threats—nuclear confrontation, growing inequality, and compounding per capita resource depletion—while calling for future research to apply comparative natural experiments to unexplored arenas such as science, art, and music.

演化生物学家兼历史学家 Jared Diamond 指出，卓越领导力无法归结为魅力等单一性格原型，其历史影响力受制于制度权力与危机情境；同时，过上有意义的人生取决于能力、热爱与社会影响三者的结合，并敢于拒绝外界无谓的期待。 打破领导力的人格迷信与四维分类 (0:00) Diamond 批驳了成功领袖必须具备与生俱来的魅力这一普遍假设，认为约有37种方式可以成为有效领导者，而魅力仅是其一；例如 Joseph Stalin 与智利独裁者 Augusto Pinochet 均极度缺乏个人魅力。试图将伟大领导力归结为单一性格标签在逻辑上是行不通的。在他关于领导力的框架中，领导者被划分为政治（君王）、商业（利润）、体育（教练）与宗教（先知）四个领域，其中“先知”仅作为宗教领袖的统称。各领域的领导有效性因机构需求、外部危机和时代背景而异，不存在放之四海而皆准的原型。 个体历史影响力的制度约束与历史偶然性 (6:50) 评估领袖的个人影响力不能脱离制度权力与历史偶然性。Diamond 引用方差分析（ANOVA）指出，在商业与体育领域，CEO 或主教练对团队表现方差的贡献通常仅占约15%至30%，其余大部分取决于球员/花名册、企业文化、历史底蕴及行业监管结构。在政治领域，领袖个人的作用在独裁政体或战时民主体制中达到顶峰，而在和平时期的分权民主政体中则大幅受限。与此同时，历史走向往往充满偶发事件：例如 Adolf Hitler 曾经历1930年卡车相撞与1944年“狼穴”公文包炸弹两次濒死事件，若这些偶然危机致命，20世纪的轨迹将被彻底重塑。但 Hitler 独特的狂热演讲、工业化灭绝手段以及蒙骗 Neville Chamberlain 和国内盟友的欺骗能力，也使其在具体历史时刻难以被其他平庸政客完全替代。 宗教与科学运动中的组织结构与权力依恋 (25:36) 宗教运动的扩展并非仅凭创始人的个人魅力，而通常需要“三位一体”的要素结构：具备号召力的创始人、严密维持运转的行政组织者，以及抵御外界暴力镇压的军事领袖；部分领袖如伊斯兰教先知 Muhammad 或苏丹的 Mahdi 则在一人身上融合了这三种角色。即使是历史上的 Jesus，其世界性扩散也深受地缘政治偶然性影响——它诞生于西罗马帝国版图并在千余年后借助欧洲对外扩张走向全球。在科学界，原始突破与将其制度化推进的能力同样分流，例如 Gerald Edelman 凭借强大的实验室组织与筹款能力迅速集结团队解析抗体机制并赢得诺贝尔奖，而原始发现者却未能获此成果。在政治权力结构中，领袖对权力的依恋极为普遍：Diamond 调查的二战后22位杰出政治人物中，仅 Nelson Mandela 和李光耀（Lee Kuan Yew）两人主动自愿卸任，其余20位均死于暗杀、自杀、政变或被迫下台。 分类思维、跨学科跃迁与科研宽容 (49:59) Diamond 展现出强烈的“分类者”（splitter）认知偏好，这一习惯始于他三岁时对河流、动植物乃至波士顿有轨电车编号的狂热列单。这种经验主义分类法不仅支撑了他对兔胆囊非电解质跨膜生物学的系统研究，也支持了他与进化生物学家 Ernst Mayr 历时三十年对美拉尼西亚北部约600种鸟类分类群的专著编撰。在剑桥完成胆囊生理学博士后，因不愿被局限在狭隘课题中，他主动转型投身秘鲁和新几内亚的鸟类生态考察，并最终拓展至历史与地理学研究。在面对学术试错时，Diamond 主张包容失败：鉴于自己在青年时期曾因操作失误造成放射性同位素泄漏但被上级宽容保护，他在加州大学洛杉矶分校医学院任教的36年中，同样保护了考试失利的弟子免于开除，并坚持导师与学生的研究课题必须建立在双方共同兴趣的协商之上。 终身学习、生存危机与非凡生活准则 在个人生活与世界观上，Diamond 在61岁时精通了其第13门语言意大利语，并长期保持长跑与力量训练以维持认知机能。现年89岁的他面对更清晰的时间紧迫感，正全力推进新几内亚孤立山脉鸟类拓殖数据的整合，并坚持每周聆听一首 J. S. Bach 的教会康塔塔以完成全部210首的系统鉴赏。谈及全球生存危机，Diamond 赞同 Paul Ehrlich 夫妇在《人口炸弹》中对生态承载力脆弱性的宏观预警，指出核战争、地缘不平等以及人口与人均消费乘积所导致的渔业、森林和表土等资源枯竭构成了人类文明的三大生存威胁。对于如何度过非凡人生，他引述保护生物学家 Thomas Lovejoy 的三原则：做你擅长的事、做对世界有意义的事，以及做你享受的事；Diamond 特别强调，必须敢于对强加外部期望的人“让他们见鬼去”（tell them to go to hell），剔除如烫衣服等无谓的精力损耗，全神贯注于自身热爱并能产生实际影响的领域。 Diamond 的分析表明，无论是领导力的历史评判还是个人的职业选择，核心均在于认清结构性限制与自身的真实意图；但诸如科学与艺术领域能否完全复刻量化自然实验模型，以及全球资源枯竭在技术演进下是否必然导致系统性崩溃，仍留待学界进一步检验。

[104:31] Dr. Jared Diamond: Democratic leaders in wartime make more of a difference than do democratic leaders in peace time because in wartime democratic leaders are given more power. [0:00] Jared Diamond: There are about 37 ways to be an effective leader of which charisma is one. [9:17] Jared Diamond: Without Hitler, there probably would not have been a Holocaust. [106:15] Dr. Jared Diamond: Perhaps the main advice because it's what most people do not do is make sure that you do something that you enjoy. And if people tell you no, you got to do this, this, this, tell them to go to hell.

[0:00] People regularly look for personal [0:02] generalizations, personality [0:04] generalizations about leaders. Perhaps [0:07] the commonest generalization is that [0:10] leaders have to be charismatic. [0:12] Nonsense. Some leaders are charismatic. [0:15] Stalin, Agusto Pinese, the dictator of [0:18] Chile, totally uncarismatic. There are [0:21] about 37 ways to be an effective leader [0:23] of which charisma is is one. And any [0:28] question that you or anybody else would [0:30] ask about how can we [snorts] generalize [0:32] about leaders personal there are some [0:34] generalizations about leaders but not [0:36] personality generalizations because [0:38] there are different ways to be a [0:41] effective leader. [0:42] >> Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast [0:44] where we discuss science [music] and [0:46] science-based tools for everyday life. [0:50] >> [music] [0:51] >> I'm Andrew Huberman and I'm a professor [0:53] of neurobiology and opthalmology at [0:56] Stanford School of Medicine. My guest [0:58] today is Dr. Jared Diamond. Dr. Jared [1:01] Diamond is a professor ameritus at [1:03] University of California, Los Angeles. [1:05] He's done research in biology, [1:07] anthropology, and frankly in so many [1:09] areas that there really isn't an [1:11] appropriate title for him. He's also a [1:13] renowned author of books such as Guns, [1:15] Germs, and Steel for which he was [1:17] awarded a Pulitzer Prize. He has also [1:19] been awarded the National Medal of [1:21] Science and a MacArthur Genius Award. [1:23] Today we discuss topics related to [1:25] Jared's most recent book which is about [1:27] leaders and leadership. It is entitled [1:29] Prophets, Prophets, Coaches, and Kings. [1:32] We discuss political leaders, religious [1:34] leaders, leaders in business and in [1:36] sports. Today you're going to hear a lot [1:39] of myths dispelled, including the common [1:41] myth that charisma is requisite for [1:43] successful leadership. And we discuss a [1:45] lot of incredible biology. For instance, [1:47] why observing birds, yes, birds, because [1:50] of their reliance on sight and sound, [1:51] makes them one of the best windows into [1:53] understanding human behavior and human [1:55] nature. We also discuss Jared himself [1:57] because, as you'll soon see, he is an [1:59] incredible and very unusual human being. [2:02] We discuss his obsessive curiosity [2:04] that's been there since childhood and [2:05] how it's migrated from topic to topic, [2:08] book to book, paper to paper, and what [2:10] his process is for taking hard questions [2:12] into the laboratory and going out into [2:14] the wild literally to observe things in [2:17] their natural state and then bring back [2:18] all of that knowledge in a form that is [2:20] unlike any other scientist or writer. [2:22] So, what follows is a discussion with an [2:24] absolute luminary of science and public [2:27] education. and it's one that I'm certain [2:29] will inform, enchant, and inspire you. [2:32] Before we begin, I'd like to emphasize [2:33] that this podcast is separate from my [2:35] teaching and research roles at Stanford. [2:37] It is, however, part of my desire and [2:39] effort to bring zero cost to consumer [2:40] information about science and science [2:42] related tools to the general public. In [2:44] keeping with that theme, today's episode [2:46] does include sponsors. And now for my [2:49] discussion with Dr. Jared Diamond. Dr. [2:52] Jared Diamond, welcome. [2:53] >> It's a pleasure to be with you. [2:55] >> Delighted to have you here. I'm such a [2:57] fan of your books. Guns, Germs, and [2:59] Steel was the first one I read. And I'm [3:00] going to resist the temptation to ask [3:03] about the topics in each of all of your [3:05] books and mainly focus on your book, [3:08] which is prophets, phonetically the [3:10] same, but prophets as in making prophets [3:13] and prophets as in who become prophets [3:15] and what they are. Coaches and kings. [3:18] When do leaders matter? I think now more [3:21] than ever people are thinking about [3:23] modern leadership and themes of past in [3:25] leadership. First I would like to know [3:28] what is a prophet? P R O P H E T. [3:32] >> Prophet means for [snorts] my purposes [3:35] religious leaders because my book about [3:38] leadership looks at leadership in four [3:40] spheres. The political sphere, the [3:43] business sphere, [3:46] sports [3:47] and finally religion. I use the word [3:51] prophets to refer to religious leaders [3:54] because it makes for catch prophets, [3:56] prophets, coach, co coaches, and kings. [3:58] U I don't care about whether whether [4:00] they prophesy the future. It was simply [4:02] my my word for religious leaders. [4:05] >> Let's talk about leadership in each of [4:07] those categories and people that stand [4:09] out to you as the lightest and darkest [4:12] in each of those categories. And we can [4:14] go into the middle of the continuum if [4:17] you want as well. But your book starts [4:19] off talking about Hitler, which for the [4:22] vast majority of people alive is [4:24] considered one of the darkest leaders uh [4:27] ever. Tell us about Hitler and what you [4:30] learned about him that perhaps can [4:32] inform how we think about leadership [4:34] more generally. [4:35] >> I was born in 1937, which meant that I [4:37] grew up in World War II. Growing up in [4:40] the United, I was not bombed. I was not [4:42] often but every day of my life that I [4:45] can remember was formed by the war. My [4:48] first memory, the first data thing that [4:51] I can remember was the first photo that [4:54] the US Army released of dead American [4:57] soldiers. It was a famous cover of life [4:59] magazine. Two American soldiers dead [5:02] face down on Bunangona Beach in New [5:05] Guinea. So I grew up in the shadow of [5:08] Hitler. My family is from Eastern [5:10] Europe, Jewish from Eastern Europe. The [5:12] last my family of course disappeared in [5:14] the Holocaust. I married into a Polish [5:16] family. My wife's parents came to the US [5:18] in 1948. My wife's mother had survived [5:21] Achvitz. Various members of my wife wife [5:23] family did did not did not survive. And [5:26] so my life and Marie's life have been [5:29] formed under the under the the shadow of [5:32] Hitler. On top of that, then there are [5:35] leaders, non-political leaders who've [5:38] [snorts] shaped my life mostly for the [5:40] good. There was a chairman of the [5:43] Cambridge physiology department. I left [5:45] a rubber hose pump, water pump running [5:49] all night to dry out radioactive [5:51] isotopes. The pump broke. It flooded my [5:55] lab. It flooded the lab below my lab. [5:58] That was not a good choice of a lab to [6:00] flood. It was the lab Lord Adrien who [6:03] was the father-in-law of my thesis [6:06] advisor and who was the master of my [6:08] college. The next morning the chair of [6:12] the physiology department Brian Matthews [6:15] called me and I thought I was going to [6:16] be expelled. Instead he said you know [6:19] that was sloppy. Don't don't do that [6:22] again. And and that was that. So there [6:24] was there was a leader who could have [6:25] ended my career but didn't. There are [6:28] other leaders who've done decisively [6:31] good things um for my for my career. [6:34] There are few people who failed to do [6:37] anything but they have not been leaders [6:38] who did me. Those are the reasons for my [6:40] personal interest in leaders starting [6:43] with the the question of Hitler. If [6:45] there had not been Hitler, would my [6:47] family in Eastern Europe and would [6:48] Marie's family still be alive? [6:50] >> How close were we to there not being an [6:54] adult Hitler? There were two two famous [6:58] near endings of Hitler's life. My book [7:01] begins the first paragraph of my book is [7:04] about a car accident in 1930 [7:07] years before Hitler became chancellor [7:11] when his limousine driven by a chauffeur [7:15] was driving into an intersection in [7:17] Germany. Uh Hitler was in the drive in [7:20] the passenger seat, the right right hand [7:22] seat, and a big truck came into the [7:25] intersection at right angles with [7:27] Hitler's sedan. Um, both Hitler [7:30] chauffeur and the truck driver either [7:32] break or accelerated ultimately and the [7:36] truck hit Hitler's car face on [7:41] pushed up against the curve and was [7:43] about to ride up over the car crushing [7:45] Hitler and it came to a stop just before [7:48] that. Hitler was was injured but he was [7:50] not killed. If he had died in 1930, [7:53] would there have been World War II and [7:55] would there have been a a Holocaust? And [7:57] then then the the other famous almost [8:00] was that [8:02] in 1944, [8:04] next to last year of the war, Count [8:07] Klaus Funstenberg, a German army officer [8:10] who became disillusioned um attempted to [8:13] kill Hitler. He um he brought a [snorts] [8:18] um a small suitcase [8:22] with with a bomb into the [8:26] conference room at Wolf's lair. He sat [8:30] down next to Hitler, put the suitcase [8:32] which he had he had primed the bomb. He [8:36] put the suitcase just under Hitler's [8:38] foot and [8:41] the bomb went off. But just before the [8:43] bomb went off, Hitler leaned forward. [8:46] The result was that four other people in [8:49] the room got killed. Um Hitler's eardrum [8:52] was blown out. Hitler was seriously [8:54] wounded, but he was not killed. But if [8:57] Hitler had not leaned for that was 1944, [9:00] um would various members of my wife's [9:02] family have survived. So, so those are [9:06] reasons how how close it came to Hitler [9:09] not becoming chancellor and how close it [9:12] came to World War II ending in 1944, [9:15] World War II in Europe ending in 1944. [9:17] >> Was there anyone else that could have [9:20] accomplished what Hitler accomplished? [9:22] >> Historians argue about that. This [9:25] illustrates the the difficulties in [9:28] figuring out whether leaders make a [9:30] difference. The traditional method of [9:32] historians and biog [snorts] is to write [9:35] a biography. There are many people [9:37] who've written biographies of Hitler. [9:39] Most biographers of Hitler conclude that [9:42] Hitler was unique in several respects. [9:46] He was the most charismatic ortor [9:50] unfortunately of the 20th century. He [9:53] was anti-Semitic. There were plenty of [9:55] anti-semmites in Europe, not just in [9:57] Germany, but in Poland. But Hitler, all [10:00] those other anti anti-semites [10:03] killed Jews one by one. Hitler was the [10:06] only one who got the idea of doing it on [10:08] an industrial scale. Without Hitler, [10:12] there probably would would not have been [10:14] a holocaust. He was also [10:18] brilliant at deceiving people, deceiving [10:22] famously Neville Chamberlain at Munich, [10:24] but he also deceived German politicians. [10:28] He deceived German business leaders. He [10:31] deceived German generals. He deceived [10:35] his fellow Nazis. He was just brilliant [10:37] at deceiving people. So those are the [10:40] arguments for thinking that he may he [10:43] made a difference that without world [10:44] without Hitler there might not have been [10:46] a World War II and there would not have [10:48] been a been a Holocaust. Most historians [10:52] tend to believe that [10:55] leaders don't make a difference. But in [10:58] the case of Hitler, most historians [11:01] would argue that Hitler did make a [11:02] difference. The famous British historian [11:06] AJP Taylor wrote a biography at Hitler [11:10] using the same facts. And with the same [11:13] facts, AGP Taylor came to the conclusion [11:15] that Hitler was a normal German [11:17] politician pursuing the goals of other [11:19] German politicians, which is true, but [11:22] that there wouldn't have been any [11:24] difference if Hitler had not been a [11:27] leader. So those are the arguments about [11:29] but that illustrates the weakness of the [11:31] traditional biographic method. One's [11:34] limited by the facts, but [11:37] different people come to different [11:40] conclusions with the same facts. That's [11:41] why my book uses a different method, the [11:44] method of natural experiments. [11:45] >> Who in your mind is the most unlikely [11:48] leader that became a spectacularly [11:50] successful leader either toward positive [11:53] or destructive ends? [11:55] >> There are many many candidates for that. [11:57] one candidate, the the first having been [12:00] born in 1937, um I grew up under [12:03] Roosevelt, but the first American [12:06] president in in whom I became interested [12:11] because I was by then ath Harry Truman, [12:14] the most unlikely [12:16] significant American president. He was [12:18] selected as Roosevelt's third or fourth [12:20] vi vice president for trivial political [12:22] reasons. He he was a senator from [12:25] Missouri, undistinguished. He had be he [12:27] had become senator through dishonest [12:31] shenanigans. Um he was so insignificant [12:33] that Roosevelt never met with him once [12:36] Truman became [12:38] vice president. And when Roosevelt died, [12:41] Truman was totally un Truman didn't know [12:43] about the atomic bomb. And yet the first [12:46] decision that he had to make was whether [12:48] to drop the atomic bombs. At the time [12:50] Truman was widely despised. I remember [12:54] my own view of Truman. He, I, and others [12:57] looked down on Trum, but in retrospect, [12:59] we realize that Truman was courageous. [13:03] Um, he didn't care whether people hated [13:06] him. Um, he made courageous decisions, [13:10] the Berlin Airlift, [13:12] the development of the the hydrogen [13:15] bomb, the Korean War, which people hated [13:18] him for, firing General MacArthur, which [13:22] people hated him for. And so when Truman [13:24] stepped down, he was widely loathed, but [13:27] in retrospect, um, gradually he's become [13:29] appreciated as not equal to Roosevelt [13:33] and Lincoln, but the second tier, a [13:36] courageous American president who took [13:39] decisions and didn't care that he was [13:42] going to be loathed because of the [13:43] decision, his decisions. [13:45] >> It's an unfortunate reality, but tap [13:47] water often contains contaminants that [13:49] negatively impact our health. In fact, a [13:52] 2020 study by the Environmental Working [13:54] Group estimated that more than 200 [13:56] million Americans are exposed to PAS [13:58] chemicals, also known as forever [14:00] chemicals, through drinking of tap [14:02] water. These forever chemicals are [14:04] linked to serious health issues such as [14:06] hormone disruption, gut microbiome [14:08] disruption, fertility issues, and many [14:10] other health problems. It's for all [14:12] these reasons that I'm thrilled to have [14:13] Rora as a sponsor of this podcast. Rura [14:16] makes what I believe are the best water [14:18] filters on the market. As I've discussed [14:20] before, drinking adequate amounts of [14:21] water is crucial for overall health. You [14:24] want your water to be clean and to have [14:25] the natural minerals that support [14:27] hydration and overall cellular function. [14:29] Roro's filtration technology removes [14:31] harmful substances, including endocrine [14:33] disruptors and disinfection byproducts [14:35] while preserving beneficial minerals [14:37] like magnesium and calcium. It requires [14:39] no installation or plumbing. It's built [14:41] from medical grade stainless steel, and [14:43] its sleek design fits beautifully on [14:44] your countertop. In fact, I consider it [14:46] a welcome addition to my kitchen. It [14:48] looks great and the water is delicious. [14:50] If you'd like to try Rora, you can go to [14:52] roora.com/huberman [14:54] and get an exclusive discount. Again, [14:56] that's r o r a.com/huberman. [15:00] Today's episode is also brought to us by [15:02] eight. Eightlee makes smart mattress [15:05] covers with cooling, heating, and sleep [15:06] tracking capacity. Eightlee just [15:08] launched the Pod 6, which is their most [15:10] advanced sleep system. The Pod 6 is half [15:13] the size of their previous models. It's [15:15] 20% faster with its cooling and heating, [15:17] and it has nine times as many sensors [15:19] for tracking your sleep. The reason why [15:21] eight is so effective at improving your [15:23] sleep quality and duration is because it [15:26] helps control your core body [15:27] temperature. And the reason for that is [15:29] that in order to fall and stay deeply [15:31] asleep, your core body temperature has [15:33] to drop by about 1 to 3°. And to wake up [15:36] feeling completely refreshed and [15:38] energized, you actually want your body [15:40] temperature to be increasing in the [15:42] final hours of your sleep. Eight [15:44] automatically regulates the temperature [15:45] of your bed throughout the night and is [15:47] monitoring your sleep and dynamically [15:50] adjusting the temperature of your sleep [15:51] environment so you get the maximum [15:53] amount of deep sleep and rapid eye [15:55] movement sleep. I've been sleeping on an [15:57] eightle mattress cover for nearly 5 [15:58] years now and with each new iteration of [16:00] eight, it gets better and better at [16:03] figuring out what my body needs in order [16:05] to get the best possible night's sleep. [16:07] And of course, it provides me excellent [16:08] data about just how much deep and rapid [16:10] eye movement sleep I got. If you would [16:12] like to try eight, go to [16:14] eightsleep.com/huberman [16:16] to get up to $200 off their new pod 6.8 [16:19] ships to many countries worldwide, [16:21] including Mexico and the UAE. Again, [16:24] that's eight.com/huberman [16:26] to save up to $200. These days, at least [16:29] in the tech sector and entrepreneurial [16:32] space, there's been a lot of discussion [16:33] about the disservice that introspection [16:37] [clears throat] can do for people who [16:39] are trying to build big things, be [16:41] leaders, be entrepreneurs. We have to be [16:44] careful about painting with too broad a [16:45] brush. But I in researching different [16:49] leaders, both dark and light, is there a [16:52] theme of powerful leaders being able to [16:56] just step into the next decision without [16:58] too much thought about the past or how [17:00] they're going to be perceived? That's [17:01] one form of introspection. I realize [17:03] there are others, but is there a [17:05] correlation there? [17:06] >> I would say no. And and this illustrates [17:08] a broad broad point. People um regularly [17:11] look for personal generalizations, [17:14] personality generalizations about [17:16] leaders. Perhaps the communist [17:18] generation generalization is that [17:21] leaders have to be charismatic. [17:24] Nonsense. Some leaders are charismatic. [17:27] Stalin [17:28] Agusto pinch the dictator of Chile [17:31] totally uncarismatic. There are about 37 [17:34] ways to be an effective leader of which [17:36] charisma is is one. And any question [17:40] that you or anybody else would ask about [17:43] how can we generalize about leaders [17:45] person there's some generalizations [17:47] about leaders but not personality [17:49] generalizations because there are [17:51] different ways to be a effective leader. [17:55] I'm getting the sense that in your [17:57] understanding of leaders and leadership [18:00] based on what you just said that it's [18:04] this weird confluence of circumstances [18:08] who's not available to lead better [18:11] perhaps charisma or lack of charisma a [18:14] weird constellation of things that give [18:16] rise to history and what we're [18:19] experiencing now. And so for me, and [18:23] perhaps I'm wrong about this, that [18:24] contrasts a bit with my understanding of [18:27] you based on your prior books, which is [18:29] that you're trying to find thematic [18:32] regularities. You're trying to put [18:33] structure on things that at the face of [18:37] them are very complex, like how did we [18:39] get here, how did cultures evolve, etc., [18:41] and on and on. So [18:44] in this exploration of leadership, how [18:47] do you go from think being able to [18:49] explain each circumstance [18:51] to some taxonomy that allows you to be [18:57] satisfied? And I'm going to set up a [18:59] parallel with something that we're going [19:01] to look at later, which is bird [19:02] watching. I mean, every bird is [19:05] different, but every bird belongs to a [19:07] particular category and has particular [19:09] features. And in many ways I'm thinking [19:10] about leaders and leadership the same [19:12] way. What is satisfying to you? What [19:15] level of understanding and consistency [19:17] of ideas is satisfying? [19:19] >> There are generalizations [19:22] um that I came to in writing writing [19:25] about leaders. But I would say just just [19:27] as background um people often ask me um [19:32] Jared your book about leaders now seems [19:35] to be the opposite of guns, germs, and [19:37] steel. Huh? Jared, your book comes [19:39] journey steel was about big patterns. [19:42] There was nothing about individuals. [19:44] Instead, it was about domestication and [19:46] the shapes of continents. Does that mean [19:49] that you've changed your mind and you [19:51] now recognize a role of individuals? And [19:53] my answer to that is is no. Guns, [19:55] German, and steel um is about patterns [19:59] of history on the continents [20:03] over the last 10,000 years. And over the [20:06] last 10,000 years on whole continents, I [20:08] can't think of any individual who's [20:09] who's made a difference. There was no [20:11] individual who was responsible for the [20:15] fertile crescent jumpstarting quote [20:17] civilization. The fertile crescent jump [20:20] started civilization. Why? Because the [20:22] fertile crescent was where the most [20:24] productive wild plants, peas, wheat, [20:26] barley, the most productive wild animal, [20:28] cow, sheep, goat, pig, horse lived. And [20:31] so in guns shroom seal there's nothing [20:33] nothing at all about individuals whereas [20:36] my book about leadership is about what [20:39] people have done during my lifetime [20:41] usually on local scales and so it is [20:45] about individuals whereas guns steel was [20:47] not at all about I haven't changed my [20:49] mind it's that I'm looking at completely [20:51] different sorts of questions now in [20:54] prophets prophets coaches and kings [20:56] compared to guns of steel [20:58] >> is it a leap to say that um Prophets, [21:01] Prophets, Coaches, and Kings is a in [21:04] some ways is a uh autobiography of where [21:07] your your of the things that impacted [21:11] your life along the way. [21:13] >> In motivation, yes. In content, no. in [21:17] motivation. [21:19] Yes, the role of Hitler in in my [21:21] family's life and my wife's life, but [21:25] the content of the book is [21:28] all divorced for me. In the [21:31] introduction, I think I do mention [21:34] that Sir Brian Matthews saved as a [21:38] leader of the Cambridge physiology [21:40] department saved my career in [21:42] physiology. But then once I launch into [21:45] politics and once I launch into into the [21:48] business world and once I launch into [21:51] the sports world and and religion um no [21:55] it's all it's all stuff I haven't [21:59] contributed to to any of those four [22:02] areas. Now in the epilogue of the book I [22:04] I do ask what are the areas um other [22:08] areas that are waiting for exploration [22:12] by the method of natural experiments and [22:14] I mean science which I am a scientist [22:17] art and music I am a musician military [22:20] history I'm very interested in military [22:22] history [snorts] social unrest I'm [22:25] hoping that in the future people will [22:27] apply these questions of leadership to [22:30] things that involve me personally [22:32] particularly music and and science, but [22:34] that's for the future. [22:35] >> You mentioned this story about flooding [22:37] the laboratory with I should point out I [22:40] heard you say radioactive isotope uh [22:43] water. What is your takeaway from uh [22:47] that particular professor's response? [22:49] And has it made you more forgiving of [22:51] other people's mistakes? [22:53] >> I've not been one to jump on other [22:56] people for their mistakes. Well, I've [22:59] made plenty of mistakes. I've had very [23:01] close calls myself. I've done things [23:04] that could have ended my career on the [23:06] spot, such as that that there were other [23:09] things that could have ended my career [23:11] on the spot. So, I'm not inclined to [23:15] blame other people for their mistakes. I [23:17] recall a biography of J. Robert [23:20] Oenheimer mentioned that that Oenheimer [23:23] he committed theft and he could easily [23:27] have been [23:29] fired and his career might have been [23:31] ended but the theft was overlooked and [23:34] so he went on to develop develop his [23:37] career. It's interesting how when we are [23:40] very low on a hierarchical [23:43] uh ladder [23:45] uh like in academia in its traditional [23:47] days anyway that um people hold [23:50] tremendous power obviously to to impact [23:54] us and whether we move forward or not [23:56] but it's it's always reassuring when um [23:58] something like the forgiveness of this [24:00] uh professor if people can hear that [24:02] because I think a lot of people [24:03] associate powerful leadership with uh [24:06] here I'm generalizing ing again with a u [24:09] sort of a a lack of tolerance for um [24:12] imperfection, lack of tolerance for [24:14] things that could threaten the the whole [24:16] department in this case. So it's a it's [24:18] a very sweet story on the one hand, but [24:21] I imagine it didn't happen a second [24:23] time. There's also that, right? For 36 [24:26] years I was professor of physiology at [24:29] UCLA medical school doing laboratory [24:31] experiments and so I had graduate [24:34] students and postocs and quite a few of [24:37] the graduate student postocs screwed up. [24:40] They made they made big mistakes. I [24:42] remember my my second graduate student [24:46] my he my department wanted to expel him [24:51] because he didn't do well on an exam. I [24:54] convinced my department to let him stay [24:58] and he turned out to be a outstanding [25:00] researcher. couple of others of my [25:02] students had close calls but again I'm [25:05] reminded [25:07] how close I came myself um to [25:12] being having my career ended [25:14] and people forgave me and my career [25:18] developed very well [25:20] >> yeah I would say so [25:21] >> since I was forgiven it behooves me to [25:24] to forgive my students [25:27] >> I love it and I'm sure many people [25:29] appreciate that uh it's a very different [25:30] picture of uh academia than I think most [25:33] people get. So thank thank you for that. [25:36] Religious leaders [snorts] who in your [25:38] mind stood out as important enough to [25:42] feature prominently in the book. [25:44] >> In the book I have two chapters on [25:47] religious leaders. Um the first chapter [25:50] looks at three religious leaders in the [25:53] 19th century United States because we [25:56] got lots of detailed information about [25:59] them. Joseph Smith, the founder of the [26:01] Mormon Mormon religion. [26:04] Anne Lee, the founder of Shakers. [26:08] Jim Jones, the founder of of Jonestown. [26:13] So, we have a lot of information about [26:15] them. The second chapter on religion [26:19] looks at Jesus. We have [26:24] minimal information about Jesus. We have [26:27] no contemporary information whatsoever [26:30] about him. The first information that we [26:32] have about him is the letters of St. [26:35] Paul and the gospel according to St. [26:37] Mark both of which follow his death by [26:40] about 20 years. So there's no [26:43] contemporary information about him with [26:46] Jesus. Did Jesus make a difference? [26:49] Well, if you read the the New Testament [26:51] talks about names six other messiahs. [26:56] Jesus was not the only Messiah. There [26:58] were there were lots of people then who [27:01] said, "I'm the Messiah." And six of them [27:03] are named in the in the New Testament. A [27:06] couple of them were killed by the [27:07] Romans. John the Baptist had his head [27:10] cut off. Um Jesus was was killed. But [27:13] this was the Western Roman Empire, [27:16] the most powerful political entity of [27:20] Western Eurasia. just the right place to [27:23] to found a major religion. Jesus, of [27:27] course, could not foresee that. 1,467 [27:32] years after his death, Columbus would [27:35] sail the ocean blue and launched the [27:37] European conquest of the world, [27:39] spreading the European religion. But the [27:41] European religion was Christianity. Why? [27:44] Because Christianity was the religion of [27:46] the Western Roman Empire, the most [27:48] powerful entity at the time. So if Jesus [27:51] [snorts] had been with the same same [27:53] properties in the Sudan, we wouldn't [27:56] know about Jesus. If Jesus had been a [28:00] religious leader in Western Europe [28:03] 100 BC, we wouldn't know about him. He [28:06] was the right place and and right time. [28:08] >> He definitely has the highest H index of [28:10] any uh religious leader. [28:13] >> The right place in the right time. And I [28:17] believe that Christianity is today the [28:18] world religion with the largest number [28:20] of adherence. [28:21] >> I know you um try not to generalize but [28:24] is there anything specific about Jesus [28:26] the person that we do know with almost [28:28] certainty or with certainty that spoke [28:30] to his effectiveness or was it you said [28:33] right place wrong uh right time but that [28:36] seems uh necessary but not sufficient. [28:39] >> Right. There there were other people at [28:41] the right place in the right time. There [28:43] were those six other prophets mentioned [28:45] in the New Testament and [28:48] they were the Essenes of the Dead Sea [28:51] Scrolls. Why was a world religion [28:55] founded by [28:57] Jesus and not by the leader of the [29:00] Essenes? Well, there are a couple of [29:02] things. One, Jesus's message and [29:05] personal qualities. He had a universal [29:08] message for all people. It was not just [29:11] a message for the Essenes and was not [29:15] just a message for for Jews. Yes, Jesus [29:18] was Jewish, but his message was not [29:22] addressed to just the Jews. It was a [29:24] universal message of those religious [29:28] leaders of the Roman Empire at that [29:30] time. That was a big thing in his favor. [29:32] And another thing in his in his favor [29:36] was that a religion needs not only a [29:39] charismatic founder but it also needs an [29:41] organizer. [snorts] In some cases the [29:44] organizer and the charismatic founder of [29:46] the same person. Muhammad was a great [29:49] organizer and also charismatic. The Madi [29:53] of the Sudan was a brilliant organizer [29:56] and brilliant general. Also a brilliant [29:59] religious leader. Jesus died too early. [30:02] uh he was not the or the organizer was [30:04] St. Paul but St. Paul was a great [30:06] organizer just as with the Mormon [30:08] religion. Joseph Smith was the [30:10] charismatic founder of the Roman [30:11] religion even in his lifetime he had his [30:15] weaknesses as an organizer and he was he [30:17] was he was then then lynched the [30:19] organizer was Brigham Young who was a [30:21] great organizer. So you your question [30:24] why Jesus um universal message and he [30:27] had the good fortune that he was then [30:29] followed by a great organizer St. Paul [30:32] and he was in the right place the [30:33] western Roman Empire at the perfect time [30:36] >> and Columbus obviously was able to [30:39] propagate his ideas far uh as you [30:42] pointed out with the desire to still [30:44] avoid generalizations. What the picture [30:47] I'm getting is that you need uh a [30:50] leader. You need an organizer. Sometimes [30:53] the leader is the organizer, but oftent [30:55] times it sounds like it there's someone [30:56] else or other people who can help [30:59] organize the message. We see this in [31:02] science [31:03] >> quite often, especially in the [31:04] biological sciences, pairs of um well uh [31:08] your advisor Hodkin Huxley won the Nobel [31:12] Prize. They're famous for describing the [31:14] biohysics of the action potential. Hubal [31:16] Weasel won the Nobel Prize. It's very [31:19] common that there's this pairing and it [31:21] and having known David Hub and Torson [31:23] Weasel a bit, Torson is still alive. [31:26] There's often a personality uh [31:29] complimentarity there too. One tends to [31:32] be a little bit more outspoken, one a [31:34] little bit more uh you know, Watson and [31:36] Crick. I'm sure there just as many [31:38] examples that don't fit. Uh but in [31:41] thinking about leaders, not just [31:42] religious leaders, can we um make any [31:45] kind of generalization about um pairings [31:49] uh two very um complimentary people that [31:53] are especially effective in getting [31:55] escape velocity on their on their [31:58] leadership, their message? [31:59] >> I don't think so. In the in the case of [32:01] religion um it's not just pairings but [32:04] it's of it's often triplets namely to [32:08] launch a religion [32:11] you need charismatic founder you need an [32:15] organizer but generally always when you [32:18] found a new religion there is push back [32:20] from existing religions and often that [32:23] push back is is violent so that that [32:27] often new religions have had to [32:31] defend themsel have have had to have [32:34] have um generals. Um for example, the [32:37] Mai Muhammad [32:40] was an outstanding general as well as [32:43] organizer and charismatic. The Madi of [32:46] the Sudan um who established an empire [32:49] in East Africa towards the end of the [32:51] 19th century. Great general. He led [32:55] hundreds or thousands of Sudin tribes [32:57] with just [33:00] sticks to wipe out a British Egyptian [33:06] army of 7,000 with machine guns, a great [33:09] general, great organizer, charismatic. [33:13] But in in other spheres in science, [33:15] there are scientists who are large-scale [33:18] organizers. My thesis was Alan Hodkin. [33:22] Alan Hodkin didn't great scientist um he [33:25] did not organize 50 people into a lab [33:27] lab group. Alan Hodkin his strategy was [33:31] to have one PhD student at a time. Well [33:34] I was his PhD student for three years. [33:37] He did not have another PhD student. He [33:40] did become master of Trinity College and [33:42] he was an effective master of Trinity [33:44] College. But there are scientists who [33:47] also outstanding organizers. Gerald [33:49] Adelman who won a Nobel Prize for his [33:52] work on figuring out how antibodies [33:54] operated. Gerald Adelman had I believe [33:57] something like 50 postocs and a friend [34:01] of mine made a discovery that so-called [34:05] Ben Jones proteins in in the kidney. A [34:08] discovery that was crucial to figuring [34:10] out how antibodies operate. Uh but my [34:13] friend operated alone. He did not have [34:18] 50 posttocks. And so when my friend made [34:22] the tactical mistake of giving a lecture [34:24] about his discovery of Ben Jones [34:27] proteins before he had published, Gerald [34:30] Adelman was in the audience and and I'm [34:33] told then immediately told his lab, [34:36] "Switch everything." And his 50 postocs [34:39] went in there and they figured out how [34:41] antibodies operated. Gerald Adelman got [34:44] the Nobel Prize. My friend did not get [34:46] the Nobel Prize, but Gerald Adelman was [34:48] a very effective organizer and [34:50] fundraiser [34:51] >> and big personality. [34:53] >> Yes. Yes. I I met him on two occasions. [34:57] Yes. He was a big personality. [34:59] >> Yeah. He ventured into neuroscience [35:01] after immunology. Uh and uh yeah, big [35:05] ideas. Um big lab, big ideas. [35:08] So, there are just as many u exceptions [35:11] uh to the to the statements I'm making, [35:13] I'm I'm realizing, as there are um [35:15] things that that meet it. I was [35:17] surprised that you mentioned Jim Jones. [35:19] Um and most people perhaps have heard of [35:22] the Jonestown massacre. The top contour [35:25] of that in my mind is bunch of people uh [35:28] left the country to follow this cult [35:31] leader and drank poison and it was mass [35:34] suicide. When [snorts] I hear about [35:36] cults and I hear about cult leaders, for [35:39] some reason I default to thinking more [35:41] about how impressionable [35:43] the cult followers were rather than how [35:46] persuasive the cult leader was. David [35:49] Caresh and the branch devidians was, you [35:51] know, in my mind the burned down the the [35:55] the structure killed everybody inside. [35:57] And when I hear Caresh's lectures, they [35:59] they have no impact in persuading me of [36:02] anything except that he was nuts. When [36:04] you think about an effective cult [36:05] leader, [36:07] I think most people perhaps default to [36:11] that they're preying on the vulnerable. [36:12] But is there a a world where those [36:16] effective cult leaders could have done [36:18] something else in the context of regular [36:21] society and been effective leaders? Or [36:23] is it there's something about the [36:24] pairing the dysfunctional pairing of the [36:27] >> person prone to be a cult follower and [36:29] the cult leader? [36:30] >> Interesting question. A leader [36:34] needs personal characteristics that will [36:36] enable her or him to lead. They may be [36:39] charisma. They may be being able to [36:41] terrify people. They may be able to [36:44] persuade people. On the one hand, [36:46] there's the leader and the other hand [36:48] there are the the followers. Not [36:50] everybody is a is a follower. There [36:52] there are some some people who are prone [36:55] prone to follow charismatic people and [36:58] there are other people lots of people [37:00] who are not going to follow even most [37:02] charismatic people Hitler. [37:06] They were the Germans who followed [37:08] Hitler [37:09] were persuaded by Hitler but the Nazis [37:12] never got a majority in an election. The [37:15] majority of Germans um were not [37:17] persuaded by by Hitler. Jim Jones of of [37:21] Jonestown, notorious for founding a [37:25] colony in Guana. And the colony ended in [37:29] the largest mass suicide in American [37:32] history. 900 931 people drank, punch, [37:38] poison with with cyanide. But Jim Jones, [37:40] he can't be written off as a as a crazy. [37:44] uh he he led [37:47] the desegregation of Indianapolis. [37:51] He he attracted [37:54] people by [37:56] the noble ideals of [38:01] the church that he founded in [38:02] Indianapolis. [38:04] The people who followed him were not a [38:05] random assortment of people. [38:08] They were predominantly poor people, [38:12] predominantly old people. A lot of them [38:15] were were African-Americans. [38:17] They tended not to be highly educated [38:20] people. The people's temple, as it was [38:22] called, required the charismatic leader. [38:25] Um, this is really an interesting point [38:27] that you raised, but it also required [38:30] people who were disposed to be to be [38:33] followers. [38:34] >> I didn't realize he led the [38:35] desegregation of Minneapolis. if he had [38:38] died before he moved from Indianapolis [38:42] to San Francisco. If he had died in his [38:44] first couple of years in San Francisco, [38:47] um he was appointed one of the housing [38:50] commissioners for San Francisco. He [38:52] attracted many idealistic people in San [38:56] Francisco, but he was gradually getting [38:59] more and more crazy. But this illust [39:03] illustrates the the point that you make [39:05] which is an interesting point that one [39:07] has to inquire not just about leaders [39:09] but also about followers. Who is [39:12] disposed to to follow? Uh in the case of [39:14] the Nazis, yes, it was clear that there [39:18] were Germans who were disposed to follow [39:20] to follow Hitler. In the case of Winston [39:23] Churchill or Franklin Delano or [39:25] Roosevelt, um my parents voted three [39:29] times for Roosevelt and once they voted [39:31] against Rose, my parents and other [39:33] Roosevelt were not crazy sick sick [39:36] people. And Winston Churchill, the [39:37] people who who voted for Winston [39:39] Churchill were not were not crazy crazy [39:42] sick sick people. In that case, one [39:46] cannot look to the pathology or the [39:48] strange qualities of their their [39:50] followers as one can in the case of Jim [39:52] Jones. I'd like to take a quick break [39:54] and acknowledge our sponsor, AG1. I'm [39:57] excited to share that AG1 has just [39:59] launched their newest formulation, AG1 [40:02] Pro. AG1 Pro takes the clinically backed [40:04] AG1 formula, which is a blend of [40:06] vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and [40:08] adaptogens, and adds three important new [40:10] ingredients. Creatine monohydrate, [40:12] calcium HMBB, and zinc carnosine. Each [40:15] serving has 5 grams of creatine [40:17] monohydrate to support muscle strength [40:18] and performance, as well as brain [40:20] health. Calcium HMBB to support muscle [40:22] recovery and reduce muscle breakdown, [40:24] and zinc carnosine to support and [40:26] improve the lining of your gut. All [40:28] three of these ingredients have [40:29] compelling science to support them, and [40:31] therefore, I love seeing them added to [40:32] the existing AG1 formula. As most of you [40:35] know, I've been taking AG1 every day for [40:37] nearly 14 years now. I started taking it [40:40] long before I even knew what a podcast [40:41] was. It's a great product, and it's now [40:43] made even better with the new AG1 Pro [40:45] formula. If you would like to try AG1 [40:48] Pro, you can go to drinkag1.com/huberman [40:51] to get a special offer. AG1 is giving [40:54] away a free bottle of Omega-3 co-enzyme [40:56] Q10 with your first subscription. Again, [40:58] go to drinkag1.com/huberman [41:01] to get a free bottle of omega-3 [41:03] co-enzyme Q10 with your first AG1 [41:05] subscription. I realize it's possible to [41:08] divide leaders or people or animals or [41:10] anything into different categories [41:12] depending on where one decides to um [41:15] slice the line, but [snorts] can [41:17] anything informative be said about [41:21] powerful leaders who [41:24] declare that they are not at the top of [41:26] the hierarchy that they obey God of a or [41:29] a particular God versus that they are at [41:31] the at the top of the pyramid? We'll [41:34] leave Jesus out of this because that's [41:36] an obvious one. But in the case of like [41:39] a Jim Jones, you said he had a church. [41:42] Um did he still talk about the existence [41:43] of God? Did he try to leverage God um to [41:47] make people convinced that he was humble [41:51] to God or is or was he saying that he [41:54] was really the apex of of power and [41:57] understanding? [41:58] And I suppose we could apply this to [42:00] just pretty much anyone we've discussed [42:01] or anyone else. Is this is this a an [42:04] informative dividing line? [42:05] >> Jim Jones certainly did not did not deny [42:07] God and did not did not claim to be be [42:10] superior to God. Here's another [42:14] trait shared by leaders and I mentioned [42:18] that that there are different ways to be [42:21] an effective leader. charisma. [42:25] Um, in I think it was the third chapter [42:28] of my book, I have a table in which I [42:32] pulled together [42:35] 22 outstanding political leaders um of [42:39] the period from World War II onwards. [42:42] And I asked myself, what generalizations [42:46] can we reach about these 22 leaders? [42:51] the 22 the obvious obvious candidate you [42:54] can argue about them but I include [42:56] Stalin and Sadat [42:59] Mussolini Hitler etc etc I asked myself [43:03] are there any quality shared by all of [43:06] these leaders and the surprise for me [43:08] was that of these 22 leaders there were [43:12] only two who stepped down voluntarily [43:16] Nelson Mandela the founding [43:18] post-aparttheide leader of of South [43:20] Africa He was I think in his 80s and he [43:24] retired voluntarily as prime minister. [43:27] Um then Lieuan Yu the founder of [43:31] independent Singapore um served as prime [43:34] minister might be as long as 30 might be [43:37] as long as 40 years but he stepped down [43:39] voluntarily. But of the other 20 those [43:42] were the only two out of 22 who stepped [43:45] down voluntarily. All other major [43:47] leaders [43:49] were either assassinated and Wasadat or [43:52] committed suicide Hitler or they were [43:56] voted out of office Winston Churchill or [44:00] they were thrown out by a coup [44:04] which means that in in politics once [44:09] once you've become a powerful leader and [44:13] you've come to the conclusion that you [44:16] are [44:17] an effective powerful leader. You are [44:21] very unlikely to step down voluntarily. [44:24] Only two out of 22 did it. So that's a [44:27] generalization that I had not [44:28] anticipated. [44:29] >> Yeah, I suppose it's a lifestyle hit [44:31] too. Uh nobody wants to go backwards in [44:34] terms of uh their comforts. Uh but I am [44:38] surprised that some people have the [44:39] vigor to continue to um occupy these [44:42] very high demand spots despite aging and [44:47] >> fatiguing. I mean you clearly don't slow [44:50] but the uh uh you know but uh we'll talk [44:53] about the fact that you're teaching [44:55] yourself Italian now. Is that right? Are [44:57] you teaching yourself a new language? [44:59] Did I hear that correctly? [45:00] >> I learned Italian. Italian was my the [45:02] last of my 13 languages. I learned [45:04] Italian [45:04] >> just 13. Yeah. when I when I was 61 [45:06] years old. I read Italian every day. All [45:09] my leisure reading is in Italian. I [45:11] don't do leisure reading in English. I [45:13] read Italian every day. And once a week [45:15] I have a 2-hour Italian conversation [45:18] with my Italian professor who's a [45:20] professor at USC. What inspired you to [45:23] learn 13 languages? Is it fun for you or [45:25] do you andor do you enjoy the challenge [45:28] as part of the uh enticement of learning [45:31] another language? [45:32] >> My mother was a talented linguist. I [45:34] just love learning languages. In my [45:37] school required us to to study Latin for [45:41] five five year. I loved it. Um we had [45:45] the alternative of studying electives [45:47] either Greek or biology. I figured I'm [45:50] going to be doing biology for the rest [45:51] of my life. I will now take so I I spent [45:54] three years learning Greek. I can still [45:57] recite the beginning of the main [46:02] then um in college um I learned German [46:07] just before my mother helped me with [46:08] that just before entering college in [46:11] college this was the time of Sputnik so [46:13] I learned Russian I learned Spanish and [46:17] then my first summer after college I [46:21] spent the summer in Finland the Finnish [46:23] language is a non-indouropean it's a [46:25] really difficult language. When I went [46:27] to Finland, I did not have a Finnish [46:29] grammar, but I was hitchhiking around in [46:31] Finland. Um, and at that time in [46:34] Finland, summer of 1959, [46:37] very few Fins spoke English. In order to [46:40] hitchhike, I had to start learning [46:43] Finnish. And I ended up in a national [46:46] park in northern Finland where I I hiked [46:49] into a hut that was being looked after [46:51] by four Finnish soldiers. The four [46:54] Finnish soldiers didn't speak any [46:56] language except Finnish. [46:58] And I'm with them for several days. They [47:01] teach me Finnish by demonstrating [47:03] things. Um um cup. They picked up a cup. [47:07] The word Finnish word for cup was ki. [47:10] And then finish instead of having [47:12] prepositions, it has postpositions [47:15] cases. So when you want to say the cup [47:18] is on the table. [47:21] when you want to say I'm putting the cup [47:23] onto the table pa [47:25] when you take the cup off the pa. So [47:28] these four Finnish soldiers they [47:30] demonstrated for me by putting cups onto [47:32] and off of I just loved it and I [47:34] seriously considered dropping out of [47:37] science. Um I met my after I'd been to [47:40] Finland I met my my parents in Paris. [47:44] They came to Europe sort of for the [47:46] first time in a year and I was [47:51] seriously considering dropping out of [47:52] science and becoming a simultaneous [47:55] translate. I was going to go to [47:56] Switzerland to become a translator. [47:58] Fortunately, my my father, he was he [48:00] gently said, "Maybe it's a maybe it's a [48:03] bit early to drop. I know your science [48:06] is frustrating for you now, but you've [48:08] been doing it for only a year. Why don't [48:11] you give yourself another six months? [48:12] And after 6 months, if the experiments [48:14] aren't going well, you can be a [48:16] translator. But I I loved learning [48:18] Finnish. And then when I went to New [48:20] Guinea, New Guinea has a thousand [48:22] languages. The first New Guinea people [48:24] that I work with were a foray tribe [48:27] famous for kuru laughing sickness um [48:30] first prian disease. And um at that time [48:36] there was a New Guinea trade languin [48:38] trade called talk vision. So I commun [48:40] was able to communicate with talk vision [48:42] but I just loved learning foray from [48:46] from from a couple of forays and um and [48:50] I I remember um asking my for informant [48:54] I was trying to figure out the word for [48:56] for we um I'd already learned the word [48:59] for I nag and so I asked my my foray [49:04] informant in talk vision um [49:08] I nag So we all the same one meella and [49:13] he said then he gave me a word for for [49:15] we and then I respond oh we no nag [49:23] kasik. It turns out that that foray has [49:27] a duel. English is singular and plural I [49:31] and we. But [49:34] among European like Slovenian and [49:36] ancient Greek have a duel, namely [49:39] separate pronouns for two of us and [49:41] three of us. So for example, um if if [49:45] I'm I'm talking the two of us, we do [49:48] this. But if there were a third person [49:50] here, it would be a different pronoun [49:52] and for beyond [49:55] ways, I just loved learning languages. [49:57] I've always loved languages. [49:59] >> It seems you love the puzzle of it. you [50:00] love the application of it given that [50:02] once you learned Italian, you still um [50:04] have these conversations in Italian for [50:06] a couple hours a week. Once again, I'm [50:09] I'm struck by how that despite the [50:12] tremendous variation in the different [50:14] languages, for instance, um that there's [50:18] something about I'm not trying to play [50:19] psychologist here, but there's something [50:20] about your mind where you it seems [50:23] you're very comfortable with immense [50:26] amount of informationational diversity [50:28] within a category like language or [50:30] leaders. [50:31] Most people come in and they try and [50:33] simplify to clarify but you have this uh [50:36] it seems your mind goes to let's find [50:39] the widest range of variation possible [50:42] and from that we're going to extract [50:44] some deeper understanding. It's I this [50:47] may occur to you but it's a highly [50:48] unusual way of doing things. I mean in [50:49] biology we have lumpers and splitters as [50:51] we say. I teach neuro anatomy so you can [50:54] lump or you can split. You can say brain [50:55] or we can start dividing it and you can [50:56] divide everything right down to the [50:58] subdivisions of the mitochondria if you [51:00] want. Right? So you have to pick your [51:02] your level of analysis. [51:05] But we tend to put frameworks [51:07] nomenclatures and try and name genes in [51:10] ways that we can think about other genes [51:11] that are similar. Your mind works in a [51:14] very different way. And what I'd like to [51:16] know is has it always been that way? [51:18] Have you looked at the taxonomy of of [51:21] stuff in the world and said that's [51:23] crazy. Why do they organize it that way? [51:25] Maybe we should look at it uh through [51:27] the the most detailed lens and from that [51:30] extract clarity. [51:32] >> I've been that way only since age three. [51:34] My mother who was a teacher and loved [51:36] teaching, mom taught me to read when I [51:37] was three years old. And so so I began [51:41] keeping a notebook. I've still got my [51:43] three-year-old in my notebook. I made [51:46] lists. I made lists of the names of [51:48] rivers, the names of animals, the names [51:51] of animals of the Rocky Mountains, the [51:55] names of birds of Europe. I was a [51:57] listister. This is embarrassing, but I [51:59] listed the numbers of street cars on the [52:03] Boston street car system. I long listed [52:07] the numbers of street. I love making [52:08] lists and I've got a lot of mileage in [52:12] in biology out of making lists. After my [52:16] PhD, [52:18] I I was membrane biologist and among my [52:21] contributions to membrane biology, I did [52:24] the largest study ever carried out of [52:26] the permeability of biological membrane [52:28] to uncharged molecules, non-elerolytes, [52:31] I and my my first post-doal student, we [52:35] measured the permeability of rabbit [52:38] gallbladder to 210 non 210 [52:41] non-elerolytes. [52:43] They're all organic chemicals and [52:45] there's lots of detail there. There are [52:47] branch non electrolyte, there are [52:49] non-branch non-elerolytes and there are [52:51] ones with oxygen groups and there are [52:54] ones with [52:56] with sulfur groups. So there's lots of [52:58] detail. Um I love the project with those [53:01] 200 non-electral. Then when I went to [53:03] New Guinea to start to study birds, um [53:07] I've been studying New Guinea birds [53:08] since since 1964. [53:11] >> [snorts] [53:11] >> New Guinea has about 600 bird species. [53:16] I've encountered and gotten to know most [53:20] of them. Um, when I'm falling asleep at [53:22] night, often I'll recite to myself list [53:26] New Guinea birds. Sometimes I'll recite [53:28] them by their foray names, the Mabisena, [53:30] the Pasaki, the Ken Mame Toto, the [53:33] Swanadaba. Sometimes I'll recite them by [53:35] their by their Latin names. Sarahornis [53:38] Papois, Sarakornis Perspicoladus, [53:41] Sarakornis Noi, I just love making [53:44] lists. But one one of my teachers, one [53:46] of my influ influential teach Erns [53:48] Meyer, the great evolutionary biologist. [53:51] Erns Meyer loved making lists and he and [53:53] I spent 30 years preparing a book [53:56] together on the birds of Northern [53:59] Melanesia, the islands east of New [54:01] Guinea. Erns and I were very compatible. [54:03] Both of us loved making lists. Whenever [54:05] a question would come up, Erns Erns [54:07] would say, "Let's make a list." And he [54:09] would make a list and I would make a [54:10] list. And then we would go over that [54:12] list, the list of all the mountain birds [54:14] of of um northern Melanesia. What [54:18] generalizations are there about the [54:20] mountain? Are there's a lot of [54:22] scientific mileage that I've gotten from [54:25] making lists, which I've done ever since [54:26] I was 3 years old. It's the exact [54:29] opposite [54:31] way that Richard Fineman talked about [54:34] how to look out at the world. He [54:36] actually used the very example of if you [54:38] see a bird in the woods and somebody [54:40] says that's like a whatever whatever [54:42] thrush. He said knowing the name doesn't [54:44] help you understand it. But I'll say [54:48] based on spending a lot of time thinking [54:51] about the names of and the connectivity [54:53] of different brain structures often [54:55] there's a a way of naming things in a [54:57] field that actually tells you a lot [54:58] about the functionality. Like in [55:01] neuroscience for instance we the first [55:03] name in retino geniculate. It tells you [55:05] what the origin structure and the [55:06] recipient structure are. So like the [55:08] names actually matter. [55:10] >> They tell you a lot more than just this [55:12] is different than that. So, as you made [55:14] these lists and as you recite these [55:17] lists um when you're falling asleep, are [55:19] you also able to call to mind the [55:22] functional distinctions between these? [55:24] Is that simply the way that you batch [55:26] information or is it that the lists and [55:28] the names are are have their own unique [55:31] value that's independent from that? [55:33] >> The names are the the anchor for a lot [55:37] of information. When I recite at night, [55:40] Sarakonus noi Craakonus noi the large [55:45] large large scrub ren. What about it? [55:48] Well, it's the larger of two birds in an [55:51] altitudinal sequence. Um, it's the [55:54] larger of two coexisting species which [55:56] are very similar. So similar that this [55:59] the pasakiabi and the mabis I couldn't [56:01] tell them apart until New Guineians [56:04] explained to me the differences in in [56:06] their behavior. So there's a lot of [56:08] information that's associated with the [56:10] name. In addition, the name itself has a [56:12] Sarahornus. Sarah means that that bird [56:15] belongs to the genus Sarakornus. And in [56:18] the genus Craicornus is also um Sarah um [56:22] Sarakornus Vatus, [56:24] which is the low elevation equivalent of [56:26] Sarakornus noi. But there's also [56:30] serornus perspicoladus which is the [56:32] smallbodied [56:35] um scrub that shares the same altitudal [56:38] ranges. So there's information that goes [56:40] along with [56:41] >> I mean in the world of science you and I [56:43] both know there are people who pick one [56:45] thing and they just drill there [56:47] sometimes for an entire career or for [56:49] five or 10 years at a time and then [56:51] there are people that try and throw [56:52] their arms around enormous batches of [56:54] information. Clearly you're in the [56:55] latter category. And so once again I'll [56:58] ask is was this uh always your tendency? [57:00] You wanted to know all the information? [57:03] >> Basically yes. Meaning I've always been [57:05] interested in in lots of things. I was [57:08] fortunate to go to a secondary school [57:10] that gave me options to to study lots of [57:13] things. My secondary school although I [57:15] expected to go into science. My [57:17] secondary school had great history [57:19] teacher better than all the history [57:21] teachers I had had at Harvard College. [57:24] wonderful Latin Latin Greek teacher. [57:27] Then once I got my PhD in physiology in [57:31] Cambridge, England, and returned to the [57:33] United States, having gotten my PhD in [57:36] salt and water transport by the [57:38] gallbladder. In retrospect, I didn't [57:40] know what I was doing at the time, but [57:42] in retrospect, I realized that I was now [57:45] understanding with horror that I was [57:47] expected to devote myself to the [57:48] gallbladder for the rest of my life. But [57:50] that just went against everything that I [57:52] had done from age three onwards. And so [57:55] I shopped around for another career. Um [57:58] I seriously considered making another [58:01] career in pre-Colombian ceramics. I [58:04] seriously considered becoming a [58:07] conductor of an orchestra. I didn't have [58:10] the insights into pre-Colombian [58:13] ceramics. Um to be a conductor you have [58:16] to be able to ignore time lags. And I [58:18] could ignore time lags. But um I I had [58:22] been a become a bird watcher at age [58:24] seven. And [58:27] when I came back to Boston after my [58:30] getting my PhD in my [58:34] first summer, I and a college classmate, [58:36] the college classmate who was a great [58:37] bird watcher, we spent the summer in [58:39] Peru. What do you do in Peru? We climb [58:42] mountains. We watch birds. The next next [58:45] summer we went together to New Guinea. [58:48] Why? New Guinea is the wildest place in [58:50] the world. Um but New Guinea also has [58:53] the most wonderful birds. And so I [58:55] developed a second career in birds [58:59] and [clears throat] then I developed a [59:01] third career in history and geography. [59:03] So I've had three careers. My my career [59:07] in laboratory physiology I eventually [59:10] closed down in the year 2002. Why? When [59:13] my twi when our twin sons, my wife and I [59:15] have twin sons, they were born in 1987. [59:18] When our twin sons were born, I realized [59:20] the future of Max and Joshua is not [59:22] going to depend upon gallbladders. It's [59:24] going to depend upon history and geog [59:26] geography. And so, so gradually I began [59:29] spending more of my time in history, [59:30] geography. I was less interested in [59:33] gallbladders and finally with great [59:35] difficulty um I got UCLA to transfer me [59:39] from being professor of gallbladder [59:41] physiology in the medical school to [59:42] being professor of geography in the [59:45] college I've still kept up the the two [59:47] careers in history and geography at the [59:50] same time as as I was writing writing my [59:53] book on on leaders at the same time I've [59:55] also been writing papers on my work on [59:58] New Guinea birds I think a week ago [60:00] Friday I completed a p long paper on the [60:04] birds of the one diamond mountains of [60:06] Indonesian New Guinea. [60:08] Next year I want I want to do a paper on [60:11] the birds of the Bani Mountains of [60:13] Indonesian New Guinea. And because I'm [60:14] 89 years old and I have to figure what [60:16] do I my remaining time is finite. What [60:19] am I going to do with my remaining time? [60:22] One of the things that I want to do with [60:23] my remaining time is to synthesize my [60:26] work on New Guinea birds by looking at [60:28] bird distribution on the 10 isolated [60:30] mountain ranges of New Guinea. What [60:33] generalizations can I recognize about [60:35] the birds that are good colonists? So [60:38] that's what [snorts] I want to do for [60:40] next the remaining 10 years of my life. [60:42] I have to say that despite having [60:44] colleagues who have a lot of interests, [60:46] uh it's very rare to encounter somebody [60:48] who's been successful in several [60:50] different domains of serious, you know, [60:52] scientific exploration, much less [60:55] writing books about them as well. And [60:56] did you at some point give yourself [60:58] permission to move fields? It's not [61:00] common, as we know, in science for [61:02] people to do that. And if people do it, [61:04] they tend to do it um somewhat [61:05] cryptically and then or and gradually. [61:08] And maybe this is also not to pry into [61:10] your personal life, but uh it's one [61:12] thing to decide, well, you know, I'm my [61:16] twins are arriving and you know, maybe [61:17] I'll switch fields, but there's a spouse [61:19] there who's probably thinking, uh uh do [61:22] you have tenure? Uh how are we going to [61:23] pay the bills? Um so I imagine um there [61:26] was likely support or maybe you're just [61:28] very defiant and you just follow your [61:30] curiosity. [61:31] >> They were the the the [61:34] career issues and they were the issues [61:36] of interest. The issues of interest were [61:38] that ever since I was three years old, [61:40] I've been interested in lots of stuff. [61:42] And I realized in retrospect that that [61:46] among among among my life crisis, [61:50] one of my life crises was after I got my [61:53] PhD realizing with horror that I was [61:56] expected to do one thing for the rest of [61:58] my life, but that was not me. And it [62:01] took some effort to carve out a second [62:03] career in birds. I had a post-doal [62:05] fellowship. Most postdoal fellowships [62:08] bind you to do one thing. I was in the [62:11] biohysics lab of the Harvard medical [62:13] school. But I I was fortunate that my [62:16] postdoal fellowship was with the Harvard [62:19] society called the society of fellows. I [62:21] was a junior fellow at Harvard. And as a [62:24] junior fellow, I had freedom. I could I [62:26] could tell the boss of my biohysics [62:28] laboratory, [62:30] I'm going to New Guinea for three months [62:34] this summer to study New Guinea birds. I [62:36] didn't ask his permission. I just said, [62:38] I'm doing it. Now, he could have fired [62:40] me and he could have said, well, if you [62:41] want to do that, get out of biohysics [62:43] lab, but I was doing good work in [62:45] biohysics. And so, he was he was willing [62:47] to tolerate my um going off to New [62:51] Guinea for three for three months. Then [62:54] when I moved to UCLA, the crucial piece [62:56] of my negotiation with moving to UCLA [63:01] where I was off off offered a um [63:03] professorship, [63:04] associate professorship in the the [63:08] physiology department. Um [snorts] the [63:10] dean of UCLA was the longest serving [63:12] medical school dean in the Sherm [63:14] Melanchov. Wonderful person. He was [63:16] offering me a job in the phys. I told [63:19] Sherm, "Yes, but I'm interested in New [63:22] Guinea birds, and you got to understand [63:24] that I intend to the last several years, [63:28] I've spent three three months every [63:29] summer working on New Guinea birds, and [63:31] I want to continue my work on New Guinea [63:34] birds, and if I accept your position, [63:39] will you tolerate my continuing to work [63:41] on New Guinea birds?" Most medical [63:43] school deans would have said, "Get the [63:44] hell out of here." Sher Melanchov said, [63:47] "Jared, [63:49] UCLA Medical School is interested in New [63:51] Guinea birds. I'm going to give you [63:53] $5,000 every year to spend studying New [63:56] Guinea birds." And so, so he tolerated [63:59] it and he made it possible for me. I'm [64:01] then fortunate that I had a dean who [64:04] permitted it. Um, as for as for my my [64:07] wife Marie, Marie had no problems [64:10] whatsoever with it because when I met [64:12] Marie, I was already working in New [64:14] Guinea. In fact, the development of our [64:16] relationship, a crucial a crucial issue [64:20] in our relationship was that Jared was [64:22] going off to New Guinea for every three [64:24] months. And Marie knew what happened in [64:26] New I got nearly killed in New Guinea [64:28] repeatedly. And and so Marie had to be [64:30] willing to to tolerate that. Um by the [64:33] time that our our kids were born, I had [64:35] a very secure position in medical [64:36] school. I was going to New Guinea. When [64:38] our kids were born, it was not that [64:40] Marie told me Jared don't go there for 3 [64:42] months. It was that that that I realized [64:44] Jared, you're not going to go there for [64:46] 3 months anymore. And so when the kids [64:48] were born, I reduced my time in New [64:49] Guinea to one month at a time. And my [64:52] last New Guinea trip was 2019. [64:55] >> Yeah. It raises a very interesting um [64:59] feature of adventurous living, [65:02] >> much less researching and and living, [65:05] you know, uh immersed in a in a [65:07] different culture, a different [65:09] ecosystem, which is that can be hard on [65:13] the body to go places that you're not [65:15] familiar with, eating food you're not [65:17] familiar with. Most people would think, [65:18] oh, what are you talking about? You [65:19] know, you can get a cheeseburger from [65:21] McDonald's anywhere in the world now. [65:22] And perhaps that's true, but um have you [65:26] always um been willing to put your [65:29] physical comfort uh on the line in order [65:32] to learn? It's I mean learning languages [65:34] is hard. Um putting yourself into a a [65:37] jungle environment to where there's um [65:39] all sorts of diseases where there's [65:41] political and social unrest like there's [65:43] a lot of variables when you get out [65:45] there. Um and so then you become an [65:47] intellectual explorer but truly in the [65:49] wild. Um, was that something that was [65:52] fun, a necessary evil? Where where has [65:54] that landed with you [65:55] >> to work in New Guinea? It's a it's a [65:57] it's a ne necessary evil. Um, it's not [66:00] until I went to New Guinea. Um, I uh [66:03] when I was in Peru the the pre the year [66:06] before I went to New Guinea, my friend [66:08] and I went to Peru, spent a summer in [66:11] Peru, we did mountain climbing. Um, we [66:14] did a first descent of a 17,000 foot [66:17] peak. Being at high altitudes, [66:20] going straight up from sea level to [66:21] 10,000 feet and then three days later [66:24] going to six 16th is miserable. So, yes, [66:28] I I experienced physical misery in Peru. [66:32] In New Guinea, to do anything in New [66:35] Guinea, [66:37] there's lots of physical physical memory [66:39] misery. The food is sweet potatoes and [66:43] rice, three meals a day. Being in the [66:46] jungle, I'm getting bitten by scrub [66:49] mites. My first year in New Guinea, I [66:52] ended up with dysentery, which the [66:56] doctors at Harvard couldn't cure. It [66:57] remained with me for a year. My third [67:00] year in New Guinea and ended up with [67:02] malaria. Climbing mountains in in New [67:05] Guinea. Being in New Guinea is is [67:07] physically miserable most of most of the [67:09] time. occasionally [67:11] like like maybe once or three months I [67:15] can sit down [67:17] at campsite and look out and and and at [67:21] another and say my god that's beautiful [67:23] but the rest of the time I'm physically [67:27] miserable and I'm having to deal with [67:29] new guineians [snorts] who have their [67:31] own ideas about what to do in life being [67:33] in New Guinea is it's it's uncomfortable [67:36] but it's fascinating the fascination of [67:38] the birds of figuring out what's the [67:41] difference between the mobane and the [67:42] posiab. [67:44] >> Let's talk about birds. Um the only [67:47] other two birders uh I know from science [67:50] are Jim Watson [67:52] >> um was started off as a [67:54] >> burer ornithologist of some sort anyway [67:58] decided to solve the co-solve the [68:00] structure of uh DNA. So he went a [68:03] different way. Um and then the late also [68:06] late Murray Gilman who discovered the [68:08] quark as a I think a two Nobel winner [68:12] maybe one anyway smart guy um who was [68:15] obsessed with birds and bird taxonomy [68:17] and bird watching. It's interesting that [68:21] all three of you [68:23] have, it seems, a kind of obsession with [68:26] going after these big [68:28] >> questions like entire societies, [68:31] leadership, um the structure of DNA, [68:34] Galman, you know, you know, uh [68:36] elementary particles and and and all the [68:38] rest, but birds of which I know some, [68:43] certainly not as much as you, there's [68:44] this tremendous diversity [68:47] >> and Um, unless one is really into [68:50] birding, it's easy from the outside to [68:52] say like, "Yeah, okay. So, you've got [68:54] the black cap chickity and you got this [68:56] one and you got that one." And what [68:59] information, what enrichment is to be [69:00] gleaned from observing them? I'm I'm not [69:02] being disparaging of it. I myself love [69:04] birds. Uh, in fact, I had the weird and [69:07] unique opportunity to talk birds with [69:10] Murray many years ago at a physics [69:12] meeting. But my knowledge of birds is [69:14] like very very superficial compared to [69:16] yours obviously. So what is it about [69:18] knowing all these nomenclatures and [69:21] details about how they move and seeing [69:23] them in the wild that what does it [69:25] inform you about and what does it [69:27] celebrate in you? [69:29] >> What does it inform us about inform me [69:32] about? Birds inform informologists [69:39] about everything. Earth. Birds are the [69:42] they're the easiest of all animals to [69:45] observe and to understand. Birds operate [69:48] by the same senses that that you and I [69:51] do. Birds operate by sight and by sound. [69:54] We humans operate by sight and sound. [69:57] Whereas mammals operate especially by [69:59] smell. One can't rat watch. Yes, you can [70:03] watch antelopes, but you don't go around [70:06] watching rats. If you want to understand [70:08] rats, you have to have a good sense of [70:10] smell. You c catch them in [laughter] [70:11] trap. But birds you can watch. And so [70:14] most of what we know about ecology and [70:17] evolutionary biology and biogeography [70:21] and behavior [70:24] has been learned first on birds and has [70:26] been learned in most detail about birds [70:29] and then that knowledge we can learn [70:31] apply to to other animals. So the things [70:35] that that I've written about birds, um, [70:40] lots about ecology, lots about [70:44] how birds divide ecological niches, lots [70:47] about evolution, how bird species evolve [70:50] in New Guinea, how do you get new [70:52] species in an un uninterrupted mountain [70:55] range, biogeography, [70:57] the distribution of plants and animals [71:00] around the world began especially with [71:02] the distribution of birds. birds and [71:04] then mammals, mammals and other things. [71:07] The animals easiest to observe are are [71:09] birds. So, so when you say what could we [71:12] learn about birds, an uh honest answer, [71:16] we can learn everything about birds and [71:18] everything in the biological world is [71:20] easier to learn from birds than about [71:23] other animals. [71:24] >> Perfectly acceptable answer. Um the bird [71:28] many birds um sing, some speak. I don't [71:31] know if you're interested in the the [71:33] language evolution from birds, but um [71:35] does the name Peter Marlor um anything? [71:38] Yeah. Yeah. He was at Davis when when I [71:39] was a graduate student and [71:42] one of the most interesting observations [71:44] in my opinion that he made was that the [71:46] same species of bird would have a [71:48] different song if they were raised at [71:50] the Marin Headlands versus by the [71:53] naturally raised by their bird parents [71:55] at the marine headlands versus [71:57] elsewhere. and that there was some [71:59] innate relationship to uh the species [72:02] like you could swap the young and they [72:04] could learn the other location song but [72:07] that they would always learn their [72:08] location song best and I feel like if [72:11] ever there was a set of scientific [72:12] findings that kind of converges a number [72:14] of your interests in language and [72:16] location and migration it's those Peter [72:18] Marlor studies if you met what did you [72:21] guys talk about and um what do you think [72:23] is uh perhaps interesting about bird [72:25] song and bird language that can tell us [72:27] about us [72:28] >> everything everything bird song um it's [72:32] a communication what are birds trying to [72:34] communicate so so birds are singing why [72:37] are they singing what information are [72:40] they conveying in the bird bird song um [72:43] it's been assumed that bird songs are of [72:48] males are territorial to stake out [72:50] territories but in recent years we've [72:54] learned that there's really detailed [72:57] information in erd calls. For example, [73:00] herds that gather in flocks like [73:02] chickades and tit mice, if they see a [73:05] hawk, there's a call note, a small [73:11] a simple call note. When the when the [73:14] birds see the hawk, they'll give that [73:17] call note and birds then 200 feet away [73:21] will hear that call note and they'll [73:23] know that the hawk is there before the [73:25] hawk can fly those 200 feet. So there's [73:27] a lot of information in bird songs that [73:30] then has inspired um similar studies in [73:34] in especially in monkeys. There was a [73:37] husband and wife couples um Safe Off and [73:39] and Cheney um who were at UCLA and moved [73:42] to Pennsylvania. Um they did wonderful [73:44] studies on vervet monkeys. Vervet [73:46] monkeys make grunts. And Scyif and [73:50] Cheney thought [73:52] some of these grunts sound a little [73:53] different. And so they started recording [73:55] the grunts and playing the grunts. And [73:58] they noticed some grunts the monkeys [74:01] looked up and some grunts the monkeys [74:03] looked down and some grunts the monkeys [74:06] prop themselves up. And they they [74:08] realized that that the different grunts [74:11] um function as words. There's a grunt [74:15] that means eagle and when a monkey [74:19] perfect monkey comes up with a grunt for [74:21] eagle the monkeys look up. And there's [74:24] another grunt grunt that means python. [74:27] When verts hear by, they look down in [74:31] the grass. There's another grunt that [74:33] means leopard. When they hear leopard, [74:36] they scramble up a tree. So this is [74:41] example of the information conveyed by [74:45] sounds first in birds and then in in [74:49] monkeys. [74:50] >> I'd like to take a quick break and [74:51] acknowledge our sponsor, function. [74:54] Function provides over 160 advanced lab [74:57] tests to give you a clear snapshot of [74:58] your bodily health. This snapshot gives [75:01] you insights into your heart health, [75:02] your hormone health, autoimmune [75:04] function, nutrient levels, and much [75:06] more. They've also recently added access [75:08] to advanced MRI and CT scans. Function [75:11] not only provides testing of over 160 [75:14] biomarkers key to your physical and [75:15] mental health, it also analyzes these [75:17] results and provides recommendations for [75:20] improving your health from top doctors. [75:22] For example, in a recent test with [75:23] function, I learned that some of my [75:25] blood lipids were slightly out of range. [75:27] As a result, I decided to start [75:29] supplementing with nattokinise, which [75:31] can naturally help reduce LDL [75:33] cholesterol. And it did. In a follow-up [75:35] test, I could confirm that this strategy [75:37] worked. My blood lipids are now back [75:39] exactly where I want them. Comprehensive [75:41] lab testing of the sort that function [75:42] offers is just so important for health. [75:45] I mean, how else are you going to know [75:46] what's going on under the hood? And [75:48] while I've been doing blood work for [75:49] years, it used to be timeconuming, [75:51] complicated, and expensive. In fact, I [75:53] used to spend thousands of dollars per [75:55] year trying to get this kind of data. [75:57] And the data, frankly, were not all that [75:59] good. But now with Function, it's [76:01] extremely easy and affordable. A [76:03] Function membership is only a dollar a [76:05] day, $365 a year. And if you think about [76:07] the information it provides and the [76:09] health challenges it helps you avoid and [76:11] the proactive things that it can do for [76:13] you to enhance your health, I truly look [76:15] at it as a savings. To learn more, visit [76:18] functionhealth.com/huberman [76:20] and use the code hubberman for a $50 [76:22] credit towards your membership. Again, [76:24] that's functionhealth.com/huberman. [76:28] >> The layers of sophistication and [76:30] different animals, I think, is is really [76:31] underappreciated. I mean, even for [76:34] somebody like me as a biologist, you [76:36] know, it's always pleasantly surprising [76:38] how sophisticated these other species [76:41] are. Even if this stuff is hardwired, [76:43] it's it's wild. In fairness to your [76:47] earlier uh example where somebody uh [76:50] forgave you for a mistake in the [76:52] laboratory and you uh passed on or you [76:55] said you were already rather forgiving [76:56] propagated that forward. When one of [76:58] your graduate students or postocs would [77:00] walk in and say listen I realize we work [77:03] on X but I want to go work on this other [77:05] thing. Were you tolerant amused? because [77:09] the survival of a laboratory in a [77:11] research program also depends on people [77:13] um hopping on board the main thrust of [77:15] questions. I'm just curious. I'm not [77:17] holding your feet to the fire. I'm just [77:19] wondering how much um adventurousness [77:22] you tolerated in your scientific [77:24] offspring. [77:25] >> My postocs and graduate students when [77:28] they were working with me, I negotiated [77:31] with them to make sure that they would [77:33] do a project that interested me and [77:35] interested them. [77:38] It had to be a project that interested [77:39] had to be a [snorts] project that [77:41] interested me because I worked hard to [77:43] find the funds and [77:47] I I could take only two or three [77:48] students at a time. A student would be [77:51] with me for three or four years. Big [77:53] investment on my part. I would make that [77:56] invest only only if it made sense for [77:58] me. Only one occasion did a student tell [78:02] me that he wanted to have his own [78:05] project. Uh there was a a wonderful [78:08] Argentinian student um who one day came [78:12] to me and said he had asked around in [78:14] the physiology department and he had he [78:17] had learned he had been told that for [78:20] posttos [78:22] um it was the the norm in the department [78:25] he alleged was that the posttock would [78:27] spend half his time working on a project [78:29] of his advisor and half a time half the [78:32] time working on his own project. Now [78:34] that was untrue. Uh but he he had found [78:38] another posttock of whom that was true [78:40] and he he was a he was an interesting [78:43] night and I was taken back. Okay, you [78:46] can do your your own and he he did a a a [78:49] project of his own as well as the [78:52] project with me. Uh but that's that's [78:54] the only the only time that I've had a [78:56] student do a project that did not [78:59] interest me. Otherwise, the projects [79:01] have always been projects that [79:03] interested both both me and the student. [79:05] And that's good for the student because [79:06] for the student for the student to get [79:09] my full attention and to learn from me. [79:12] Um the student can learn from me if it's [79:15] something that I know about. The student [79:17] cannot learn from me if it's something [79:18] that I don't know anything about. [79:20] >> It's clear because you've told us and [79:22] your career demonstrates this that you [79:24] have have had and maintain a lot of [79:26] interests, deep interests and deep [79:28] curiosity. uh almost a compulsion to [79:31] follow them and solve certain things [79:33] about those for yourself. Before we [79:35] started recording today, we were having [79:36] a quick conversation about uh one's [79:39] preference or lack of preference for [79:41] certain pets, for certain uh things in [79:43] the world. And we don't have to go into [79:44] it. Um it wasn't contentious. Um but [79:47] what I was so struck by, positively [79:50] struck by is how clear you were. I think [79:53] we had met about 20 seconds prior about [79:56] the fact that some pets, some things, [79:59] some topics um to you are in your life [80:03] are a diversion like you're just not [80:05] interested in them. And I think um that [80:09] fits beautifully with being interested [80:11] in many other things. So, this is a [80:13] somewhat strange question I'm about to [80:16] ask, but [80:18] do you think about time? Like, how much [80:21] time do I have in life to do this? And [80:24] did you always think that way? As [80:26] somebody who just turned 51, I think [80:27] about this more and more. But the [80:30] beautiful thing about an academic career [80:31] is you sort of know, okay, I've got four [80:33] to six years for this thesis. Boom. And [80:35] then there is an opportunity to pivot [80:37] slightly or or or a lot. But life is [80:41] somewhat different, right? But it's [80:42] clear to me that you were saying that's [80:47] all fine and good for other people, but [80:49] I don't want to be bothered investy in [80:53] those things. [80:55] Clear. Period. End of story. And it's [80:58] very refreshing in fact because I um and [81:00] it runs counterurren to this idea that [81:02] you're interested in everything. You're [81:03] not interested in everything, if I may. [81:05] You're very interested in a lot of [81:07] things. And that provides a really nice [81:10] razor to separate out all the things [81:11] that you're just not going to be [81:12] bothered by. [81:13] >> Has this always been a feature of you? [81:15] >> Absolutely not. And and to give you a [81:18] preview of coming events of what's [81:20] what's ahead of you, when I turned 80, [81:22] 80 was not a shock to me. 81 was more of [81:25] a shock because 81 meant that I was [81:27] firmly embedded in the 80s. But even [81:30] though I knew perfectly well the the [81:32] numbers for life expectancy [81:35] um life expectancy of an American man at [81:39] birth is something like 78. Life [81:42] expectancy of an American man who's [81:44] reached the age of 70 this is not so [81:46] widely known. When you reach the age of [81:48] 70 your life expectancy is not 78. Your [81:50] life expectancy is 93 because a lot of [81:53] the risk is behind you. And I knew that [81:56] perfectly well. when I when I was 81 [81:58] years old, I wasn't counting what I [82:01] could do. Um, but in the last couple of [82:03] years, since I'm since I'm now 89, I'm [82:07] very conscious of time left and what I [82:10] want to do in the time left. Couple of [82:13] specific things that I want to do in the [82:15] time left are to [82:18] synthesize [82:20] my understanding. [82:23] New Giddi has 10 outline mountain [82:25] ranges. I did the first descents and the [82:27] first ornithological explorations of [82:30] several of them, the most detailed [82:32] explorations of the rest. If I don't [82:34] write that up, that knowledge will die [82:36] with me because the those mountain [82:38] ranges are difficult to get into. And I [82:40] want to do a a synthesis [82:43] looking at those 10 mountain ranges to [82:45] understand what is it that makes a [82:47] species a good colonist? Why are some [82:49] bird bird species on all 10 mountain [82:51] ranges and other birds on only one [82:54] mountain range? I've got that unique [82:56] data set and I want to I want to write [82:58] that up while I'm still alive. Another [82:59] thing that that I've been thinking for [83:02] quite a while. Um I musical I [83:05] particularly love the music of Bach. Um [83:07] I I sang I sang in Boston's Henel and [83:10] Heiden Society. I sang in in Cambridge's [83:14] Cambridge England's um musical society. [83:17] I s Ben Benjamin Britain came and did [83:20] the premiere of Canada academica when I [83:23] was singing in the Cambridge chorus. So [83:26] I've been interested and I've sung in [83:29] the composer Yoan Sebastian Bach whom I [83:30] particularly love. He wrote 210 church. [83:34] I sang in about 20 of them and I've been [83:37] telling myself sooner I I want to get to [83:40] know all of those a year ago August that [83:43] the time has come. The time ahead of me [83:46] is finite. better start on the Katadas [83:48] now. And so I start on the Katadas the [83:50] rate about about one a week. Last night [83:53] I relistened to Canada 61 and 62. Next [83:56] will come Canada 63. Um at the rate I'm [84:00] going it will take me maybe three or [84:02] four years to to get to know all of the [84:05] Bachard. But that's something that I [84:07] would like to do. But I'm very conscious [84:09] now of the the amount of time left. [84:13] and and I've had that consciousness only [84:16] in the past few years. [84:17] >> Are there any things that you used to do [84:19] out of obligate feelings of obligation [84:21] that you no longer do that allow you [84:25] more time for the things and the the [84:27] people that are important to you and [84:29] that you wish you had perhaps [84:30] >> permitted yourself to do earlier? [84:32] >> My first thought is is no. By by and [84:35] large, I've done done the things that [84:38] I've enjoyed doing. Yeah, of course [84:40] there there are things [84:42] there are things that are not pleasure [84:44] that have to be done in life. Sure. I [84:46] spend lots of time probably I spend [84:51] at least a month maybe two months of the [84:52] year on our income tax returns which are [84:56] complicated. I have a pathological [84:59] tolerance for manipulating numbers. So I [85:01] I don't object to doing income tax as [85:04] much as most other people would do it. [85:07] income tax has to be done and takes a [85:09] lot of my a lot of my time. What else do [85:12] I do? My father washed the dishes. I [85:15] wash the dishes together with my wife. [85:17] Marie [85:19] does the gardening. I have no interest [85:21] in gardening. Marie does the gardening. [85:23] Um Marie does does the shopping. [85:27] Um, I excuse myself by and Marie Marie [85:31] knows that I spend [85:33] the equivalent a couple months of the [85:35] year on income tax and I take care of [85:37] the insurance and I do much of the [85:40] organization of travel. I don't mind [85:44] dealing with insurance. I don't mind [85:46] doing doing income tax and I'd rather [85:50] spend the time doing birds, but it's not [85:52] something that I greatly object to. I [85:54] would never ask someone uh to come here [85:57] and uh speak for somebody else, but uh I [86:00] was um gratified to learn that you're [86:03] you were uh close friends with my [86:06] colleague Paul Erlick. Um and his wife [86:09] Sandra Khan is still on the faculty at [86:11] Stanford. Uh Paul wrote of course the [86:13] population bomb. Um the book Paul and [86:17] Sandre wrote the book Jaws [86:19] >> with I think had a forward by you and [86:21] maybe an introduction from Bob Sapolski [86:24] about um [86:26] >> mouth breathing being detrimental to um [86:29] facial structure development and as well [86:31] as health perhaps and uh they called it [86:34] an epidemic. Uh there's some interest in [86:36] in nasal breathing and apnea and so [86:39] forth. Paul was delightful person as you [86:41] know. You knew him much better than I [86:43] did. But he got some things right and [86:47] some people would argue he got certain [86:48] things wrong. Like the population bomb. [86:50] My understanding was that it it argued [86:52] that we're we're going to be badly [86:54] overpopulated by time we reach now and [86:58] that that was dangerous. Some people [87:00] would argue that birth rates are going [87:01] down. The replacement problem is more of [87:03] an issue. But was he correct about some [87:06] of the uh issues with population growth [87:08] and environmental impact? This isn't an [87:10] area that I have any expertise, but uh [87:13] what do you think are some of the places [87:14] where he was oh so correct because he [87:17] was an incredibly smart and in in many [87:19] ways preient um on some of these topics? [87:23] He was certainly correct that that the [87:27] biggest threats that humans face today, [87:31] of course, they include the nuclear risk [87:33] of exterminating ourselves. Um, I'd say [87:37] the three biggest risks we face are the [87:39] nuclear risk, the consequences of [87:41] inequality in our globalized world. Now, [87:45] anybody anywhere is affected by anybody [87:47] anywhere else, and that's an invitation [87:50] to the world trade. Since in the [87:53] globalized world it's dangerous to have [87:54] inequality. And then the third the third [87:58] risk is of course the the risk of [88:00] running out of resources dro destroying [88:03] our resources which we are doing at a at [88:06] a rapid rate. Why are we in the process [88:09] of overexloiting our resources? Because [88:12] the world population has increased. [88:14] There are now what 9 billion people. [88:17] 10,000 years ago there were probably 1 [88:19] million people. 1 million people on [88:21] Earth. And now we got nine billion. But [88:24] what counts is not just the number of [88:27] people but the consumption rate per [88:28] person. Consumption rate per person in [88:31] the first world has has gone up. And the [88:34] result is that we are depleting [88:37] fisheries. But like 4 billion of the [88:40] world's people depend upon fish, seafood [88:43] for their protein. We're depleting the [88:45] world's forests. We're depleting the [88:48] world's top soil. [88:51] Paul and his wife Anne, the book the [88:54] population bomb calls attention to the [88:56] to the danger of population growth [89:00] [snorts] [89:01] and one can now add to population growth [89:04] multiplied by consumption per person. [89:07] Paul predicted big dangers within the [89:10] next few decades. He predicted [89:13] widespread starvation. If you look at [89:16] his Wikipedia entry, [snorts] um, so [89:19] here's here's one of the world's great [89:22] modern scientists and his the goddamn [89:26] Wikipedia. His Wikipedia entry instead [89:30] harps on his book, The Population Bomb, [89:34] and says it didn't prove correct. Well, [89:37] out of the nine billion people in the [89:38] world today, um, how many of them are [89:42] underfed and starving, are they starving [89:46] to death? No, they're not starving to [89:49] death quickly, but they've got short [89:51] lifespans and they're having mis [89:53] miserable lifespans because [89:56] um, a small fraction of the world's [89:58] people have first world lifestyle. Even [90:02] in the United States, [90:05] the polarization in the United States [90:07] between the people who have enough and [90:09] the people who don't have enough is [90:11] growing. So to to blame Paul Erlick for [90:16] getting it wrong, no, he he got it got [90:19] it right, but he got it right in a [90:21] broader sense than the idiots who attack [90:24] him are willing to admit. [90:26] >> Happy to hear you say this. uh long been [90:29] a fan of his work and him and I agree [90:32] and Jaws is a wonderful book as and I [90:34] think the population bomb still has [90:35] great there's real value in reading it [90:38] even if the specific statements as you [90:41] pointed out held up differently it it's [90:44] still a a really important work we [90:46] talked about political leaders we talked [90:50] about religious leaders and a bit about [90:52] cults sports [90:55] >> are you into sports [90:56] >> am I into or um I well I I work out. [91:01] >> Yeah, you look very healthy. Is that an [91:02] important part of your intellectual [91:04] rigor as well? [91:05] >> I've always been physically active. I [91:07] began weightlifting in college. Um I ran [91:12] for years. The day that my wife was was [91:17] in labor, was about to deliver our [91:18] twins, I was I was going running and I [91:22] was so excited that she was about to [91:23] deliver twins that that instead of [91:26] putting my lunch and lunch in the [91:28] refrigerator and my shoes on the floor, [91:31] I put my running shoes in the [91:33] refrigerator, my lunch on the floor. So, [91:35] I I still work out several days a week. [91:38] Being physically active is a big part of [91:41] my my life. I get satisfaction out of [91:44] it. [91:44] >> And I think for somebody to do physical [91:47] exercise nowadays with the intention of [91:50] of um building and preserving both their [91:52] mind and body is is pretty common. But [91:55] when you were in college, if I [91:57] extrapolate, uh that wasn't really [92:01] talked about. In fact, the separation of [92:02] intellectual and and athletic endeavors [92:06] was kind of a theme. It was like people [92:09] played sports, right? But working out [92:10] was was sort of the stuff of of like [92:13] military jocks and bodybuilders and [92:15] running less so, right? But I find that [92:19] all the [92:21] >> scientists that I know that have have [92:23] had very long successful careers and are [92:26] still going strong, all are very [92:28] physically active and have been for a [92:30] long time. [92:31] >> All of them. And the ones who aren't are [92:33] mostly dead if I'm honest. the great [92:36] Harvard organic chemist um Woodward Aby [92:39] Woodward who won two Nobel prizes. [92:42] Woodward did not do any physical [92:44] exercise whatsoever. He didn't want to [92:47] spend any time doing anything except [92:49] organic chemist and of course he died in [92:51] an early age [92:52] >> in the lab presumably I think in bed. [92:54] >> Okay. Well, better than in one's office [92:57] or or lab. So along those lines, [93:01] [laughter] [93:02] um, athletics and sports, um, which [93:07] sport are you into spectator sports? Um, [93:10] and what led you to explore leaders in [93:13] sport? [93:14] >> I explored leaders in sports for the [93:17] same reason that that business school [93:19] professors do a lot of their re much of [93:22] their research on [93:26] sports outcomes. In fact, I would say [93:28] that that much or maybe even most of the [93:32] research on sports outcomes is done by [93:35] business school professors. The the [93:38] reason being that that business school [93:40] professors are of course interested in [93:42] business outcomes, but business [93:44] outcomes, they're they're hard to [93:46] measure. Um CEOs [93:49] tend to be secretive. Businesses [93:53] may not publish their results or they do [93:56] publish them every five years. So the [93:58] the data for the business world is [94:00] limited. But in sports [94:04] games are played every week or a couple [94:06] of times a week. The results of the [94:10] games are announced. The coach is there [94:12] on the sidelines usually jumping up and [94:14] down screaming. The players are well [94:16] known. Sports is on television. The [94:19] result is that the methods that business [94:23] school professors have developed for [94:25] analyzing CEOs and for analyzing the [94:28] business world um are often developed in [94:32] sports and they they're debugged in [94:34] sports. Um for example, in the business [94:37] world, one of the main questions is is [94:39] of course uh how much bis how much of [94:44] business success is due to the CEO? [94:47] And this is a loudly dis CEO say I'm [94:51] responsible for the success and [94:52] therefore you ought to pay me billions [94:54] of dollars because my my company our [94:57] company makes hundred billion but [94:59] because I'm responsible for that hundred [95:02] billion dollar profit you can pay me $10 [95:05] billion. Is that true? It's complicated [95:08] to figure out. There are a couple of [95:10] methods. One involves doing what's [95:12] called ANOVA analysis of variance. [95:14] Analysis of variance applied to sports [95:17] uh shows that roughly 15 to 30% of the [95:24] variance in sport success is due to the [95:27] coach about another 30% is due to [95:32] players and about another 30% is due to [95:35] the institutions that's in sports. In [95:38] the business world, it turns out that [95:41] that similarly um CEOs account for about [95:46] 30% of ANOVA [95:48] and the individual company accounts for [95:51] another Proctor and Gamble very well-run [95:53] company. It's been well wellrun for 150 [95:55] years. Another 30% is due to the [95:58] industry. Perfume companies and computer [96:02] companies and teenage t-shirt companies [96:05] tend to be very profitable. [96:08] Whereas [96:10] departments of water and power tend to [96:12] be unprofitable. Why? Because they're [96:14] tightly regulated by by governments. So [96:17] NOVA [96:19] um gets applied to [96:22] the sports world and also to the [96:24] business world. But in addition, coaches [96:27] frequently get fired if they have a [96:28] losing season and CEOs get fired if the [96:34] company has a poor year low return. [96:37] So if you fire a CEO because of a losing [96:40] season, [96:42] the next year, [96:44] usually the new CEO has a better season. [96:47] Why? Because 70% of the variance in [96:52] sports outcomes is due to factors that [96:54] are random with respect to the CEO. If [96:56] you're throwing a throwing dice um and [97:00] you throw a dice and you get a one [97:04] and so you say to the person through the [97:06] dice, you're a lousy dice thrower. You [97:08] got one. I'm firing you. [97:12] For statistical reasons, the chances of [97:14] five out of six that the next dice [97:16] thrower will do better than one could be [97:19] there. 2 3 4 5 six. In the sports world, [97:21] when you fire a coach, usually the new [97:24] coach has a better record. Why? Because [97:27] of all the random factors. Um, my [97:30] university, UCLA, our athletic [97:32] department is now $150 million in debt. [97:35] Why? Because we we fired all of our [97:38] basketball coaches since John Wooden. [97:41] Um, [97:42] and when we fire them, we have to buy [97:45] out their contract. So, buy out their [97:48] contract. 5 million, 10 million, 15 mill [97:51] million dollars. Simply when you fire a [97:53] CEO, the next CEO is likely to do better [97:56] for van random reasons as as with with [98:00] dice throwing. That illustrates why [98:02] business school professors have gotten [98:05] lots of their insights by analyzing [98:06] sports. [98:08] >> How important is a uh a coach's [98:11] philosophy [98:13] and by extension a CEO's philosophy on [98:16] like why we are doing this? We we hear [98:18] so much about this like that the why [98:19] behind things is so important but it is [98:22] that actually the case? [98:23] >> Yes, but rarely. So so John Wooden is is [98:28] um usually regarded as the greatest [98:29] coach in the history of American sports [98:32] and in any sport. Um under John Wooden [98:35] UCLA basketball team won what? Nine [98:38] national championships and including [98:40] seven in a row. No other college has won [98:43] more than two national championship in a [98:45] row. Why was John Wooden so successful? [98:47] There were many reasons that he was [98:48] successful. He got his players in peak [98:51] physical condition. Although his players [98:54] might be five inches shorter than than [98:55] Duke players, he got his players to jump [98:58] higher than than the Duke players. Um he [99:00] was a master of detail. Uh he cared [99:03] about what socks that they wore because [99:06] the socks that they wore affected, you [99:08] [laughter] know, how how they jumped and [99:10] how how they played. uh he paid a lot of [99:12] attention to getting his players to [99:17] train not just in groups of five which [99:19] they'll be on the court but in groups of [99:20] seven so that he could substitute but [99:22] perhaps the most important thing about [99:24] John Wooden was was that for him [99:26] basketball was not a sport basketball [99:29] was a philosophy of life and John [99:32] Wooden's great players Bill Walton and [99:35] Alendor they said coach Wooden I learn [99:38] more from coach Wooden than from any [99:40] human other than my parents. But what I [99:42] learned from him was about life, not [99:45] about playing basketball. That [99:47] basketball, basketball is a model for [99:50] life. That's unusual among coaches. Bill [99:53] Bellichic. I've never heard anyone say [99:56] that say that Bill Bichic is a model for [99:59] life. And what Bobby Knight, nobody says [100:03] that Bobby Knight was a model model for [100:07] philosophy of life. So why is it that [100:10] John Wooden was so successful? Partly he [100:12] was a master of detail, but also because [100:15] he regarded basketball as a form of [100:20] living life. And that's something that [100:22] you can't fake. Yeah, you you can fake [100:25] and you can learn how to how to [snorts] [100:27] train your players to jump higher, but [100:30] you can't fake a philosophy of life as [100:32] John Wooden did. Is there um an analog [100:35] inside of the well nowadays it seems [100:38] it's tech CEOs and entrepreneurs. I [100:40] mean, we have these looming larger [100:42] than-l life figures that having grown up [100:44] in the San Francisco Bay area, you know, [100:46] it was Hulet and Packard when I was a [100:49] kid and and then Steve Jobs obviously [100:52] and Bill Gates [100:54] >> up in Seattle and then now we have Mark [100:56] Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Sam Alman, Daario [101:00] at Anthropic is sort of quickly emerging [101:02] as another one of these big figures, but [101:05] I probably missed a few out there, but [101:06] those are sort of the the big whether [101:08] they like it or not, celebrity techn [101:09] technologists that people look at and to [101:12] for like where where where is humanity [101:15] going. Politics aside, the Steve Jobs [101:18] would clearly had a philosophy of [101:20] creating beautiful things and design and [101:23] technology being fused in a way that was [101:26] you know highly accessible that objects [101:29] had a friendliness to them or something [101:31] even if it was an apple. So it seemed [101:33] there was a something philosophical even [101:34] slightly mystical there. How do you look [101:37] at these technology leaders and um what [101:41] do you see? What do you think? [101:43] >> Bill Gates I've met and I have had [101:44] several lengthy conversations and I like [101:47] him. Good experience my conversation [101:50] with him. Um there are people who've met [101:52] him under other circumstances who have [101:54] different views of him. Elon Musk I met [101:57] once. Jeff Bezos. [101:59] >> Oh yeah. So forgive me. I should have [102:01] mentioned Bezos. [102:02] >> Yeah. Jeff Bezos. Bezos I I met met [102:05] once. Um, of the leaders in the in the [102:08] business world, I don't know that many [102:11] of them. The one that I admire as a [102:13] person is Shinard of of Patagonia. For [102:18] him, as with John Wooden, Patagonia is a [102:22] model for life. He emphasized having his [102:26] staff have have time off. He emphasized [102:30] Patagonia being sustainable. he had the [102:33] opportunity to acquire more cotton, [102:35] produce more more product. No, he chose [102:38] not to acquire more cot because he [102:40] didn't want he didn't want to [102:42] overdevelop cotton agriculture. He is or [102:44] was a a full person, not not just not [102:49] just a leading business person. He did [102:52] the first ascent of the the [102:56] most difficult face in Yoseite. He was a [103:01] top rank mountaineer. I know him. Um, I [103:05] wrote the preface for his autobiography. [103:08] Um, he has a philosophy of life. Do any [103:11] other of the big names? Does Jeff Bezes [103:15] have a philosophy of life? Does Mark [103:17] Zuckerberg have a philosophy of life? [103:20] I'm not aware of these big names having [103:22] a philosophy of life that goes beyond [103:25] their business. Now, Steve Jobs [103:27] certainly had a philosophy of life as [103:29] regards business. When he came back to [103:32] Apple after he'd been fired the first [103:34] time and Apple was in difficulty, he was [103:36] brought back the second time. His [103:38] philosophy was that [103:41] Apple he reduced instead of Apple [103:43] producing a 100 products he said we [103:45] should produce four products and [103:47] [snorts] [103:48] the products should look nice and they [103:52] should be attractive and they should [103:54] should be [103:56] easy easy to handle. They should not be [103:59] like the remote for my wife's and my TV [104:04] to to watch the World Soccer Cup. Our [104:07] remote has what 47 buttons and we had to [104:09] call up our sons each time to to tell us [104:12] how to operate the remote. So Steve [104:15] Jobs's devices don't have 47, but he he [104:20] had a philosophy certainly of products. [104:23] I don't know whether he had a law larger [104:26] philosophy of of of life as John Wooden [104:30] certainly did. [104:31] >> So we talked about political leaders, [104:34] religious leaders, sports. You said [104:37] there's a fourth category that you cover [104:38] in your book. [104:40] >> So we got political leaders, business [104:42] leaders, [104:44] >> sports leaders, and religious. Those are [104:46] the four category. The four categories [104:48] >> and business and sport seem to kind of [104:50] uh interjigitate a bit, right? It sounds [104:53] like [104:53] >> the connection between business studies [104:56] and sports studies has been especially [104:59] tight. But it's also the case that the [105:02] the business school professors who've [105:05] studied sports um [105:08] have also studied [105:11] um success in politics. So perhaps the [105:15] the best single paper that I know on [105:19] developing new methods for for studying [105:22] the success of of leadersh [105:31] and leaders in but it also looks at [105:32] leaders in politics and the conclusions [105:35] that it comes to are that prime [105:38] ministers [105:39] make more of a difference than do [105:41] governors [105:42] of states. and governors make more of a [105:45] difference than do mayors. Why? Because [105:48] prime ministers have more power. Also, [105:51] dictators make more of a difference than [105:54] do democratic leaders. Democratic [105:57] leaders in wartime make more of a [106:00] difference than do democratic leaders in [106:02] peace time because in wartime democratic [106:04] leaders are are give given more power. [106:06] Um so the business school professors [106:10] have also applied their methods to to um [106:14] politics as well. [106:15] >> Many people are interested in many [106:17] things and they have a genuine [106:19] excitement [106:21] and they reverberate on the idea of [106:23] pursuing music or singing or an [106:26] instrument or a topic of study or a [106:29] sport. um [106:31] what would you tell those people because [106:35] we've all heard the just do it mantra [106:37] and that's great but um again I'm not a [106:41] psychologist but it seems that within [106:43] you there is or perhaps has always been [106:45] this almost compulsion to go in a [106:48] certain direction but you're you're [106:50] structured in how you go about that you [106:52] you didn't just try to do everything at [106:54] once and you you clearly succeeded in [106:57] each of these domains I'm sure there [106:59] were challenges along the way. But what [107:00] what would you if anything would you [107:02] like to pass along to people of any age? [107:04] >> I would begin by saying do what you [107:06] enjoy, but it's got to be broader than [107:08] that. A friend of mine, the great [107:10] biologist Tom Lovejoy, now unfortunately [107:12] dead. Um Tom told me when when he was a [107:15] teenager, Tom asked his father, "Daddy, [107:17] what should I do for a career?" And his [107:20] father said, "Do something that you're [107:22] good at. Do something that you enjoy. do [107:26] something that makes a difference in the [107:30] world. What advice would I give people? [107:33] Perhaps the main advice because it's [107:35] what most people do not do is [107:40] make sure that you do something that you [107:42] enjoy. And if people tell you no, you [107:45] got to do this, this, this, tell them to [107:47] go to hell. [107:49] Literally, so many people say you got to [107:52] you got to live your life this way. You [107:55] got to iron your shirts. When I was a [107:57] gradu, I didn't iron my shirts. Um, [107:59] [snorts] [108:00] you know, someone who irons my shirts, [108:02] but but as far as I'm concerned, I if [108:05] anyone tells me, Jared, spend your time [108:07] ironing your shirts, go to hell. There [108:10] there are other things that I want to do [108:11] with my time. And whether my this shirt [108:14] is iron, but whether my shirts are iron [108:16] or not doesn't make much difference to [108:17] life. What does make a difference is am [108:19] I doing something that I enjoy? Am I [108:22] doing something that I'm good at? Yep. [108:25] Am I doing something that's that's good [108:27] for the world? Yeah. I've spent a lot of [108:29] time designing national the national [108:31] park system for Indonesian New Guinea, [108:33] designing the principles for national [108:35] parks in general. I've written I've [108:37] written books a lot about the big risks [108:40] facing the world. So, I've devoted a lot [108:42] of my life to trying to convince people [108:44] to to live better lives and not to not [108:47] to mess up the world. I've done things [108:49] that I I enjoy. I've done things that [108:52] that I'm good at. There were some things [108:54] that I wanted to do, but I discovered [108:55] that I was not not I I would have loved [108:57] to be a conductor of orchestras, but to [108:59] conduct an orchestra, you see the [109:01] players out there and you got to give [109:03] the down beat, not when the players are [109:05] playing, but because of the speed of [109:07] sound, you got to give the down beat [109:09] ahead. I could not block out the sound [109:13] of the the plane. I could not do the [109:16] downbeat before the players play. And I [109:20] tried conducting an or UCLA invited me [109:22] to conduct the or and I conducted the [109:24] orchestra once and because I cannot [109:27] anticipate the downbeat I gave up my [109:29] desire to be a to conduct an orchestra [109:32] although I would have loved doing it. So [109:34] but I've ended up doing doing the things [109:36] that I'm good at doing things that I [109:38] love doing things that are important for [109:41] the world good for the world. [109:43] >> I agree on all all fronts. Not that you [109:45] need my agreement. Uh I said there were [109:47] two questions. you answered the [109:48] [clears throat] second question in the [109:49] process of answering the first question. [109:51] So, uh I just want to conclude by saying [109:54] thank you for taking time out of your [109:57] >> busy schedule to come share with us and [110:00] educate us. Um I'm super excited about [110:03] prophets, prophets, coaches, and kings. [110:05] When do leaders matter? Today's [110:07] conversation only makes me more excited [110:09] about it. I will say that your your [110:12] father despite his encouragement to uh [110:15] you to continue and become a biologist [110:18] and not a translator with all due [110:20] respect he partially failed because for [110:22] me and for millions of other people [110:23] you've become a translator of ideas that [110:26] we would have never encountered or [110:28] considered and it's inspired a ton of [110:30] curiosity and learning in me through [110:32] your books and um today's just another [110:35] extension of that and I'm sure this next [110:37] book will just continue that. So, thank [110:40] you for not obeying his request and at [110:42] the same time obeying his request. I [110:44] really appreciate your time and coming [110:46] here today and hopefully we'll do it [110:48] again. [110:48] >> Thank you. I've enjoyed a lot um talking [110:50] with you, you know, for you you know [110:53] yourself for for writing book um when [110:57] one does interviews and podcasts and [111:01] interviewers differ. They're not all the [111:03] same. Some interviewers are um better [111:07] prepared than other interviewers. Some [111:09] interviewers know more about the subject [111:11] than other interviews. It's a real [111:13] pleasure to do a conversation with you. [111:16] You're a It's a pleasure for me to be [111:18] interviewed by you. [111:19] >> Thank you. The pleasure was mine and [111:21] we'll do it again. Thank you for joining [111:23] me for today's discussion with Dr. Jared [111:25] Diamond. To learn more about his work [111:27] and his recent book, Prophets, Prophets, [111:29] Coaches, and Kings, please see the links [111:31] in the show notes caption. If you're [111:32] learning from and or enjoying this [111:34] podcast, please subscribe to our YouTube [111:36] channel. That's a terrific zerocost way [111:38] to support us. In addition, please [111:40] follow the podcast by clicking the [111:41] follow button on both Spotify and Apple. [111:44] And on both Spotify and Apple, you can [111:45] leave us up to a fivestar review. And [111:47] you can now leave us comments at both [111:49] Spotify and Apple. Please also check out [111:51] the sponsors mentioned at the beginning [111:53] and throughout today's episode. That's [111:55] the best way to support this podcast. If [111:57] you have questions for me or comments [111:59] about the podcast or guests or topics [112:01] that you'd like me to consider for the [112:02] Hubberman Lab podcast, please put those [112:04] in the comment section on YouTube. I do [112:06] read all the comments. And if you're not [112:08] already following me on social media, I [112:10] am Huberman Lab on all social media [112:12] platforms. So that's Instagram, X, [112:14] Threads, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And on [112:17] all those platforms, I discuss science [112:18] and science related tools. Some of which [112:20] overlaps with the content of the [112:21] Hubberman Lab podcast, but much of which [112:23] is distinct from the information on the [112:25] Hubberman Lab podcast. Again, it's [112:27] Huberman Lab on all social media [112:29] platforms. And if you haven't already [112:30] subscribed to our neural network [112:32] newsletter, the neural network [112:33] newsletter is a zerocost monthly [112:35] newsletter that includes podcast [112:37] summaries as well as what we call [112:38] protocols in the form of 1 to three page [112:40] PDFs that cover everything from how to [112:43] optimize your sleep, how to optimize [112:44] dopamine, deliberate cold exposure. We [112:46] have a foundational fitness protocol [112:48] that covers cardiovascular training and [112:50] resistance training. All of that is [112:52] available completely zero cost. You [112:54] simply go to hubermanlab.com, go to the [112:56] menu tab in the top right corner, scroll [112:58] down to newsletter, and enter your [112:59] email. And I should emphasize that we do [113:01] not share your email with anybody. Thank [113:03] you once again for joining me for [113:05] today's discussion with Dr. Jared [113:06] Diamond. And last, but certainly not [113:08] least, thank you for your interest in [113:11] science.