Understanding The Wisdom Of Psychopaths - Dr Kevin Dutton

1. 0:00 – 3:13

   Intro

   1. KDDr Kevin Dutton0:00

      Imagine you've got the skillset to be a top surgeon, but you lack the ability to emotionally disengage from the people that you're operating on. You're not going to cut it, are you? Ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, self-confidence, coolness under pressure, emotional detachment, focus, charm. None of those traits is necessarily a problem in itself. In fact, all of them, dialed up at the right levels, can actually prove rather useful.

   2. CWChris Williamson0:24

      (wind blowing) Kevin Dunn, welcome to the show.

   3. KDDr Kevin Dutton0:26

      Cheers, Chris. Thanks for having me, mate. How are you?

   4. CWChris Williamson0:28

      I'm well, thank you. How do you describe what you do for work? What is your area of expertise, if there is one?

   5. KDDr Kevin Dutton0:36

      Well, I'm a psychologist. That's number one. Um, I'm talking to you, uh, from down under, mate, in, uh, in Adelaide, uh, where it's 8:30 in the morning at the moment, um, so bright and early. Uh, and I'm Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology at the University of Adelaide. So that is Australia's first professor of such a thing. So I'm Australia's first Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology, which basically means that I, uh, bring psychology to the general public. Uh, so psychology is a very broad church. It's got loads of sub-disciplines and, and different areas of study, everything from forensic, to social, to developmental, to educational, to sport. Uh, all those kinds of things. And so what my job is, uh, down here is to, uh, collate the best of that kind of, uh, information and, um, make it accessible to the general public. So that's what I do for a living. That's my day job. Uh, my area of expertise, um, as most people will probably recognize me for, is psychopaths. Uh, so, um, many years ago, about 10 years ago now, I wrote a, a book called The Wisdom of Psychopaths, uh, which became very controversial. Um, and it's still, I think, the only book that, um, suggests that psychopaths aren't all bad, that, um, actually, you know, we have this stereotype of psychopaths being rapists and serial killers and what have you. But actually, if you were to look inside the realms of special forces, for example, you would also find people who are high on what I call the psychopathic spectrum. Um, so when I wrote Wisdom of Psychopaths, as I say, it became a controversial book, um, uh, became quite well-known. And it was on the basis of that, really, that I suppose, you know, if you can say this kind of thing, I kind of made my name in psychology.

   6. CWChris Williamson2:35

      So you would be the current Australian equivalent in psychology of Brian Cox for physics in the UK?

   7. KDDr Kevin Dutton2:43

      Oh, uh, well, I don't... L- listen. Don't put me down like that, mate.

   8. CWChris Williamson2:47

      (laughs)

   9. KDDr Kevin Dutton2:47

      Don't you dare. Don't you dare put me down like that. What are they knowing? They... Actually, Brian's over here doing a big tour at the moment.

   10. CWChris Williamson2:54

       Yes.

   11. KDDr Kevin Dutton2:54

       Um, he's, uh, he's doing a great big tour. Um, yeah, I mean, oh, God, listen, I'd, I'd, uh, I'd go, I'd go with that. Um, yeah, at the moment, uh, obviously not doing the big stadium shows, uh, like Brian, but, uh, one can only hope.

   12. CWChris Williamson3:10

       Okay.

   13. KDDr Kevin Dutton3:10

       But, uh, yeah, no, abso- absolutely, mate.

2. 3:13 – 10:05

   Why Does Psychopathy Exist?

   1. KDDr Kevin Dutton3:13

   2. CWChris Williamson3:13

      Talk to me about the adaptive explanation for how psychopathy exists. Why would it be that evolution creates humans that have that particular mix of traits?

   3. KDDr Kevin Dutton3:27

      Well, it's true, isn't it? I think first of all it's probably a good idea to define what a, what a psychopath actually is, uh, Chris, 'cause there's a lot of misnomers about psychopaths, mate. Um, so it might help your listeners to just get a kind of a, a brief description of what they are. I mean, it's true, isn't it? When most people hear the word psychopath, they instantly think of, um, you know, on the silver screen, serial killers like Hannibal Lecter, um, and in real life, um, serial killers like Ted Bundy. But actually when psychologists like myself talk about psychopaths, mate, we're actually referring to a distinct subset of individuals with a specific constellation of personality traits, uh, such as, uh, ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, self-confidence, coolness under pressure, uh, emotional detachment, uh, focus, charm, charisma, and of course those, those trademark deficits in, in conscience and empathy that you hear so much about. Now, none of those traits is necessarily a problem in itself, Chris. In fact, all of them, dialed up at the right levels and deployed within the right context, can actually prove rather useful. Okay? The key here, as I've always said, lies in context and level. So imagine, for instance, a personality mixing desk, probably the best way of thinking about it, on which those traits that I've just outlined comprise the, um, the, the, the kind of hodgepodge of knobs and sliders, okay? Twiddle them up and down in various combinations and you arrive at two conclusions, all right? The first one is that there is no objectively correct setting at which those dials might be positioned, but rather it will invariably depend on, uh, c- on context, on the particular set of circumstances you might happen to find yourself in. The second, and this comes back to answering your question, the second is there exists certain jobs or professions, for example, that by their very definition, um, might demonstrate what we might call precision engineered psychopathy that might, by their very nature, have those dials turned up a little bit higher than you might find in everyday life. So give you a couple of examples. Imagine you've got, um, the skillset to be a top surgeon, all right, but that you lack the ability to emotionally disengage from the people that you're operating on. Well, you're not going to cut it, are you? Well, quite literally, in fact. You're not gonna cut it. Sorry, mate. I didn't mean that on purpose. (laughs) Um, imagine you've got the, um, financial and, um, uh, strategic smarts, uh, to be a top businessperson but that you lack the ability to fire someone if they're underperforming, uh, that ruthlessness to let someone go, or the coolness under pressure to ride out a storm, or the sheer...... uh, balls necessary to take a calculated risk when appropriate, okay? Again, you're not going to make it, are you? Imagine you've got the, (smacks lips) um, ability to be a top lawyer, but that you lack the almost pathological self-confidence, that almost narcissism to be the center of attention in the middle of a packed courtroom. Now, those, uh, characteristics, those traits that I've just outlined for you there, ruthlessness, fearlessness, self-confidence, emotional detachment, and coolness under pressure, comprise five core characteristics of the psychopathic personality. Now, would you say they were dysfunctional in those contexts? I certainly wouldn't, and I've written books on that and papers on that. So, to answer your question, now we've defined psychopathy and given you examples in everyday life, if we go back to, say, the days of our ancient evolutionary forefathers, you know, f- a couple of million years ago, when we were living in small groups on the East African savannas, you could imagine that there were certain characteristics such as the, well, uh, aggression, uh, the ability to take risks, the ability to be predatorial in terms of hunting. You can see how... And also the ability to tell lies, actually, to infiltrate other groups maybe, to get information out of them. You can see how these kinds of characteristics which are beneficial in the modern era actually might have evolved in eras, um, long gone. Um, so the, the, kind of, as I say, the James Bond profile, the ruthless, fearless, remorseless character, actually that we see today does have its uses, not just in special forces and, and, um, and the agencies, MI5, MI6, those kind of things, but in, in, in everyday jobs like surgery and business, for example. Uh, but also they would've been selected for many years ago for the reasons, um, that, that I just outlined.

   4. CWChris Williamson7:50

      So, even though, uh, raider or infiltrator of other tribe wasn't an occupation, it was a role, it was a role that needed filling, and because that needed filling it was adaptive across an entire group for certain members of that group, probably not too many because if you had a 150-person tribe and all of them were psychopaths-

   5. KDDr Kevin Dutton8:11

      You've got it.

   6. CWChris Williamson8:11

      ... there would be way too much chaos. But I'm going to guess that the amount of psychopaths that we have proportionally at the moment would be the amount on average that was effective to keep a group moving forward.

   7. KDDr Kevin Dutton8:21

      You've absolutely nailed it there, Chris. In fact, there's a, a branch of psychology, um, and information science, if you were to draw the Venn diagrams between psychology and information science and decision-making, uh, you've got, um, uh, a, an area that we call game theory. You might have heard of it. Um, and when game theorists model the incidents, uh, the prevalence of psychopathy, psychopathic personalities, um, within the general public, uh, which is roughly about 1% of people are psychopaths, what we would regard as diagnosed psychopaths, um, then game theory, when you look at the game theory models, they actually bear that out in the computer algorithms as well. Uh, so you're absolutely right. You can't have... Well, you can't have a society which is all psychopaths 'cause it wouldn't be a society. Uh, that's the first thing. Um, it's interesting, an interesting parallel is with the, uh, with the Vikings many years ago. They had, um, a group of, um, well, I suppose you could call them very early special forces, uh, soldiers, called the Berserkers, and it's where we get the word berserk from. Um, and the (laughs) , I mean, the Vikings were pretty fierce enough, but the Berserkers took it to an absolute extreme. So, they kind of were the, well, almost like the special forces were to the Vikings, and they fought with o- o- o- a- an absolute f- trance-like frenzy, uh, and obviously contributed to the Vikings' fearsome reputation down the years. The problem with the Berserkers was they were fantastic in wartime, but they were absolutely terrible in peacetime because they were constantly looking for fights, um, probably a bit like your days in the Newcastle nightclubs, mate, actually. (laughs)

   8. CWChris Williamson9:56

      I think there were some Berserkers that I got introduced to that... Yeah. Correct.

   9. KDDr Kevin Dutton9:58

      Um, well, I met a few Berserkers on the streets of Newcastle back in the day.

   10. CWChris Williamson10:01

       Definitely some Viking DNA floating around.

   11. KDDr Kevin Dutton10:04

       Well, yeah.

   12. CWChris Williamson10:04

       Talk, talk

3. 10:05 – 18:01

   Psychology of Penalty Shootouts

   1. CWChris Williamson10:05

      to me, wh- when it comes to psychopaths, one of the interesting things, their confidence under pressure, the ability to deal with that stuff. What was that study that looked at penalty takers trying to win versus penalty takers trying not to lose or trying to catch up on the score sheet?

   2. KDDr Kevin Dutton10:22

      Yeah, it's very interesting, that. So, uh, there was a study which looked at, um, what people... And obviously England, we've got the World Cup coming up, um, uh, next month. Uh, don't (laughs) , for God's sake don't ask me about that, mate. Um, but, um, yeah, there was, we, there was a study done which looked at who was most likely to, uh, score penalties in a penalty shootout. And, you know, most people watching a penalty shootout would think that the pressure is equally high on everybody. Uh, but actually, when you look and you, you kind of analyze it, there's different pressures depending on whether you are taking a penalty to keep your team in the competition or whether you are taking a penalty to put your team through. Uh, so if you're taking a penalty to put your team through, uh, the pressure is actually less than, uh, the pressure on you if you're taking a penalty to keep your team in, because our brains have evolved a bias towards loss rather than reward. Um, if you think back to our evolutionary history, if you, uh, faced with a rustle in the bushes, uh, and you make a wrong decision and you think, "Oh, well, that's nothing," um, then it can come out of the bush and eat you pretty quickly. It might not be the breeze, it might be a saber-toothed tiger. Um, so actually, our brains have evolved a bias towards loss aversion. We don't want to make a mistake. We don't want to have a, a, a, a situation where we are complacent and where we mistake something, uh, which is eventually going to eat us, so, which is going to lose us our lives. So, those kinds of evolutionary bias, biases that evolved many years ago are still with us today in, in football stadiums when it comes to penalty shootouts. So, if you're taking a penalty which if you miss...... is going to put your team out, that loss is really weighing on your mind, way more than if you know you're going to score and you're put- going to put your team through. The stakes, at least the way the brain computes it, Chris, are much higher if you're taking a penalty to stay in.

   3. CWChris Williamson12:30

      Do you know what the relative percentages are?

   4. KDDr Kevin Dutton12:32

      I think it's something like, off the top of my head, mate, I think it's something like 62% of people score, uh, when it's putting s- uh, when- when you're taking a penalty to, uh, keep your team in. And I think it's roughly about 90% score when it's, uh, taking a penalty to put your team through. Uh, so it's something like that. It's something like 60/90. So, still, the majority of people score, but when you're putting y- when you're ch- taking a penalty to put your team through, way more people score.

   5. CWChris Williamson13:07

      I suppose that-

   6. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:07

      Although if you're talking about England, mate, I'm not-

   7. CWChris Williamson13:09

      It's just never.

   8. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:10

      Maybe that study, maybe that study doesn't want- wasn't done in England.

   9. CWChris Williamson13:13

      Yes.

   10. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:13

       (laughs)

   11. CWChris Williamson13:14

       It's just never. Um-

   12. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:15

       Yeah.

   13. CWChris Williamson13:16

       What that means is when you're doing a normal penalty shootout, let's say that you're into the, um, knockout stages of a competition and you get to the end-

   14. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:27

       Yeah.

   15. CWChris Williamson13:27

       ... there is a huge advantage, there is a 30% advantage to the team that gets to take the penalties first. Let's say-

   16. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:34

       Yes.

   17. CWChris Williamson13:34

       ... that each team continues to score.

   18. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:36

       That's right.

   19. CWChris Williamson13:37

       It's 4-4 with the final two penalties to go.

   20. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:40

       You've got it.

   21. CWChris Williamson13:40

       If team one misses and team two scores-

   22. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:44

       Yeah, absolutely.

   23. CWChris Williamson13:45

       ... team one is out, but team one never faces the situation, game theoretically-

   24. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:50

       Correct.

   25. CWChris Williamson13:50

       ... of that 30% disparity between-

   26. KDDr Kevin Dutton13:53

       Yeah.

   27. CWChris Williamson13:54

       ... the s- the success or failure, uh, concern. So, there is a huge... I mean, tha- that's, that's the most important, way more important than who, which end do you get, who gets to kick off first.

   28. KDDr Kevin Dutton14:03

       Yeah.

   29. CWChris Williamson14:03

       The most important thing, perhaps in an entire competition, is who gets to take the penalties first.

   30. KDDr Kevin Dutton14:08

       It's, it's, um, literally, it's who wins the toss. You're absolutely right. That, that, um, that, uh, in what we call in psychology interacts, uh, you know, the who wins that toss interacts with, you know, your ability, uh, to actually score. Penalty shootouts are very interesting. There's a lot of y- A lot of s- how, h- You could almost have a degree in penalty shootouts, you know. You could almost, like, set up an entire degree course in it. Um, there's loads and loads of different ways a penalty shootout can go wrong, how things prey on the mind. Um, the best thing to do in a penalty shootout is... Well, first of all, to practice them, which England are now doing. That's the first thing, Chris. Uh, the second thing is to make your mind up and just go for it. So, literally, um, a lot of penalties are missed not in the run-up, which, uh, people think is, is often the case-
4. 18:01 – 28:13

   The Human Ability to Categorise

   1. KDDr Kevin Dutton18:01

   2. CWChris Williamson18:01

      You've got this quote from your new book which says, "What makes the number, the optimal number of categories for anything is usually a trade-off between practicality and precision."

   3. KDDr Kevin Dutton18:12

      Yeah.

   4. CWChris Williamson18:13

      What do you mean by that? Why did evolution give creatures the ability to categorize at all?

   5. KDDr Kevin Dutton18:19

      Well, if you think about it, Chris, um, everything out there (clears throat) is on a continuum, okay? So, you could have, um, gender, sexual orientation, race, skin color, uh, colors of the electromagnetic spectrum. Everything out there is gray, and in order to make sense of reality, in order to work out how its multitude of different elements relate to and interact with each other, we need to dissect its, um, amorphous unstructured content into smaller, sharper, uh, self-contained bite-sized units, okay? We... In order to, to, to make sense of reality, this continuum, um, we need to construct for ourselves the illusion of a checkerboard surface, okay, uh, along which we can move sense and, and reason like rational thinking chess pieces in an orderly, predictable, and, and rule-based fashion. Otherwise, everything and anything would mean anything and everything. We've got to have categories in the world. It was really funny, actually. Only yesterday, I was sitting in the Adelaide Oval having a, having a bit of lunch, and there was a, um, uh, not far from where I live, and a groundsman was out cutting the grass. And he was mowing it, you know, like, you know, groundsmen cut the grass, they cut patterns. And he was going up and down, up and down, up and down, and then he was going across and across and across. And it struck me as a real metaphor for life, mate, because actually, you know, reality out there is just one big sea of green, big, one big sea of green grass. But our brains kind of think the way lawnmowers cut, they think in fast, straight lines. Um, and as a result of the grass-cutting, he'd kind of, he'd basically turned the, the, the sea of green grass into a lattice of lime and emerald, as y- as you know. And that's very much the way our brains dissect and cut up, uh, reality. We must have categories in the world in order to make sense of it all, to survive. I mean, i- give you an example. If you didn't have pass and fail in exams, what would be the point of having exams, okay? Now, um, I know this is an unfair one, but what's the point of having speed limits? Well, beca- otherwise, everyone can be driving as fast or as slow as they want. Now, if you're done doing 34 in a... I think it's a 10%, isn't it, so rule? So, if you're done doing 34 in a, in a 30 mile an hour zone, right, technically you can get away with 33. Um, if you're done doing 34, it might seem really unfair, one mile an hour over the limit. But, okay, so what are you gonna do about that? Well, okay, what about make it 37? Well, okay, what, what, what if you're, what if you're doing 36? What if your mate's doing 36 and you're doing 37? Again, you're gonna think it is unfair. So, we have to be able to draw lines in this multitude of continua that are out there, Chris, in order to make sense of reality and in order to, to make sense of the relationships between different parts of it. Now, to go back to your question, our brains evolved what I call a categorization instinct for that reason, in order to make sense of reality, in order to make it more predictable, in order to enable us to behave rationally, and in order to simplify things, okay? Um, great quote, one of my favorite quotes of all time by Noel Gallagher and his brother Liam sums it all up. And h- he said that Liam is a man with a fork in a world of soup. And I think, (laughs) I think we're all men with, and women, we're born with forks in a world of soup, mate. We, we, we, we have, we live in this kind of liquid amorphous structure, and our brains have kind of got this kind of black and white way of trying to capture it, and it doesn't work. And that's where a lot of the problems arise in, in everyday life, because we, we, we're born with these binary black and white brains that we evolved many years ago, and yet technological advancement has, uh, produced a world which is far more complex than the world in which our ancestors grew up in. Um, so, um, where it gets interesting, I think, is when other needs apart from, uh, simplicity, uh, and functionality start taking over from the original needs for categorization. Now, I think a great example of this, now, I'm not digging anyone out here, by the way. I think a great example of this occurred a few years ago on a, on a budget airline, um, where, you know, when you're on a b- on any airline, you get the duty-free trolley coming down selling perfumes and, and what have you. Uh, well, the duty free folly, uh, trolley kind of started coming down the aisle, um, and one of the passengers on the plane took exception to the fact the perfumes were divided up into male and female, and they thought that was very last century. Um, and they wrote a, a letter of complaint to the airline saying, "Look, this is, yeah, surely you can do better than that." You know, "This is, um, you know, gen- this is, b- b- you know, pandering to the binary gender kind of stuff." Um, you know, "Actually, these should all be put in the same drawer and they shouldn't be differentials made between male and female." Uh, and actually, the airline, I believe, acquiesced to that. Um, now, that's very interesting. So, you're objecting to male-female categories on the basis of identity, and yet if you think about what that means, that it absolutely, um, decreases the functionality of selling perfumes on a plane. Because if you're not a perfume aficionado, I don't know whether Givenchy whatever is, you know, a male or a female perfume. Somebody after, they could be buying a present for their wife or their, or their husband, or whatever. So, if you've got them all in the same drawer, you're kind of doubling your search time in a sense-

   6. CWChris Williamson24:09

      Well, um-

   7. KDDr Kevin Dutton24:09

      ... 'cause you're rambling around trying to find wherever it is. Whereas if you've-

   8. CWChris Williamson24:12

      Imagine-

   9. KDDr Kevin Dutton24:12

      ... got one drawer or another-

   10. CWChris Williamson24:13

       Yeah.

   11. KDDr Kevin Dutton24:14

       ... it's easy to find it.

   12. CWChris Williamson24:15

       Imagine if we had all of our clothing stores, where instead of there being, uh...... men's floor and a woman's floor. They were all just mixed together and you couldn't work out, actually is this ma- is this a guy's pair of jeans or is this a girl's pair of jeans? And you'd have to-

   13. KDDr Kevin Dutton24:29

       Correct.

   14. CWChris Williamson24:29

       ... sort through twice as much, uh, o- of the items.

   15. KDDr Kevin Dutton24:32

       Great way of putting it.

   16. CWChris Williamson24:32

       In or- in order to get through that. Yeah, well, I-

   17. KDDr Kevin Dutton24:34

       Great way of putting it.

   18. CWChris Williamson24:35

       So, what you're talking about is that we have a environment now with far more complexity than we were used to. When we try and apply our pattern identification thinking and to try to categorize things, that sometimes gets hijacked.

   19. KDDr Kevin Dutton24:51

       (smacks lips) Absolutely right. That, that's exactly, that's, you've nailed it with the, uh, with the clothing analogy, an even better one than, well, you know, actually the perfume analogy. I'm sure there would be people that would be, uh, would be pushing for something like that. But that is where you get, we, we're, we evolved to categorize and the categorization instinct to simplify the world. And we've got to be careful that in the current day and age, um, that original c- categorization instinct for those original reasons isn't hijacked by other needs that may well be important but actually don't simplify the world at all and make it much more complex and then make it far more difficult to make decisions for the benefit of most people. So that's, that's ex- that, a great example of this is, um, is the color spectrum. That's what most people will understand. So when you look at a rainbow, Chris, and you stand away from it, you see seven primary colors. You see red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. (smacks lips) However, the closer you get to a spectrum, the less clear and apparent those seven primary colors become. And actually when you get right up close to, say, red and orange, it's very, very difficult, in fact impossible, to tell the colors apart when you look on the border. When does red f- fade into orange? When does orange fade into yellow? It's actually impossible because there's infinite gradations. So why do we perceive seven colors? Well, we perceive seven colors at a distance because our brains have made a decision for us over millions of years of evolutionary history that actually seven's about the optimal number of colors that we need to see in order to get by. All right? We don't need to see four million shades of red. It's a waste of time, mate. So we can get by with seven colors. Our brains are kind of, "Oh, okay, that's about right." (smacks lips) So there you go. Now incidentally, of course, that's just Western cultures. There are some cultures, such as the, uh, Berinmo in Papua New Guinea, that don't see a difference between blue and green. Actually, it's called null. Blue and green are the same color to them.

   20. CWChris Williamson26:53

       No way.

   21. KDDr Kevin Dutton26:54

       Yeah. Oh yeah, mate. Yeah. So, I mean, so that, we're talking here from a, from a Western ... You know, you're in America, I'm in Australia, we're both from the UK, um, we're talking about our own perspective. But actually there, you know, seven primary colors, there are some, um, uh, cultures in the world, in, around the world which only see four or five. Um, so for example, I mean, a v- very, uh, good friend of mine, a colleague, um, two colleagues, Jules Davidoff and Debbie Robeson, give 'em a bit of a plug, um, have done lots of studies with, um, tribes in Papua New Guinea and also the Himba tribe, um, down in, um, in Namibia, northern Namibia in Africa. Um, and they've looked at, uh, you know, if you present various color swatches, you know, like the old Dulux color swatches. If you present 20 shades of green to, say, a Berinmo, I think it's a Berinmo tribe person in Papua New Guinea, uh, they will ... And they're all s- very, very slightly different. They will be able to pinpoint those minute differences between those 20 shades of green. If you were to show us, me and you, those 20 shades of green, we'll probably look at 'em and go, "Can't tell the difference at all." However, if you were to then put a green swatch next to a blue swatch, me and you could tell the difference very easily, but the Berinmo probably wouldn't be able to do it.

   22. CWChris Williamson28:10

       Very interesting. Uh-

   23. KDDr Kevin Dutton28:11

       That's how the brain works, mate.

5. 28:13 – 38:55

   Lessons on Narrow Focus from Hoarders

   1. KDDr Kevin Dutton28:13

   2. CWChris Williamson28:13

      Okay. So what happens if people categorize too narrowly, if people get into this categorization across their entire life? This has something to do with hoarders, I think.

   3. KDDr Kevin Dutton28:26

      (smacks lips) That's right, yeah. So studies have been done, uh, looking at hoarders. And if you categorize too narrowly, so if you think ... So most of us would, you know, if you think of, say, like, um, a washing-up liquid bottle, um, we would be able to say, "Okay, uh, one l- washing-up liquid bottle, who cares? You know, there's other l- uh, washing-up liquid bottles which, um, you know, they're all the same pretty much, um, you know, we can do with one. Uh, they're all in the same category pretty much and we can, you know, do without them. You know, one wi- one will do us." Hoarders look at it the other way. Hoarders are unable to see the commonalities between, say, a particular object or entity, like a washing-up bottle. Every single one is different and has its own unique kind of features. And so if you start thinking like that, it's very difficult to throw one away or throw ni- if you've got 20 of them, it's difficult to throw 19 of them away and just keep the one because actually they're not the same thing as you and I might see it. They're all got their own individual idiosyncratic features about them. And so when we think about hoarders, there's a lot of other things going on with hoarders as well, but if you think about hoarders as being, uh, oh, you know, they're, they're just mad or crazy or filthy or whatever, actually as usual, uh, when you look at the psychology behind it, uh, the brain works in very mysterious ways. And I call, uh, in my book, I call ca- uh, uh, hoarding a, a categorization disorder, uh, because it's, we're just seeing catego- we, we, they, they're seeing categories of objects in a different way to us. Whereas we look at, say, I don't know, um, a newspaper as being, okay, you know, so there's, there's loads of different newspapers, loads of different editions, um, you know, we don't need 5,000, you know, newspapers or whatever all tied up in bundles. They see it very differently. Each one has got its own individual properties and though, a- and so each one must therefore be preserved. And that's why it's very, very difficult, um, for, um, uh, hoarders to throw stuff away. Incidentally-... the reverse of that is, um, you might know this, that there are some world leaders, um, who, uh, simplify their wardrobes, um, because they realize that every decision that we make, even a very simple one, like when we get up in the morning, what am I going to wear this morning, um, is, uh, a drain on the brain's battery. And sometimes those decisions can, especially in terms of what you wear, I mean, I know people that actually, you know, um, and I'm speaking on behalf of a friend here by the way, Chris, um, who, who, who actually really, k- you know, sometimes take a very long time to decide what they're going to wear in the morning. Um, so, uh, Barack Obama for instance, um, that's why he pretty much always wore a, a, a dark blue or navy suit, and a white or a blue shirt, and a very plain tie, because he didn't have to decide what he was going to wear in the morning. It was pretty much a uniform. Um, and that's actually the psychology of uniforms as well. You don't have to waste time deciding on abstract energies like, "What am I going to wear? What am I, how am I going to appear?" It's done for you. Uh, and so that ability to make decisions automatically rather than, you know, "Well, who am I trying to appeal to? What image or vibe am I trying to give off?" All these kind of category selections we make in our brains is taken away from us because making decisions based on categories can often be a real drain, as I say, on, on our cognitive batteries.

   4. CWChris Williamson32:03

      Talk to me about the relationship between cognitive complexity and cognitive closure, 'cause there's this Frankl Brunswick study thing-

   5. KDDr Kevin Dutton32:13

      Mm-hmm.

   6. CWChris Williamson32:13

      ... that I thought was absolutely fascinating. What's that?

   7. KDDr Kevin Dutton32:17

      Yeah. Well, cognitive closure. Uh, we all differ. We're all on a spectrum and we all differ on the amount of information that we need to make decisions. Now, that's not linked to intelligence, Chris, okay? Um, so I know very intelligent people that just differ in their ability, in, in, in the amount of information they need to feel comfortable to make a decision. So sometimes, we get people that n- and we all know 'em, w- that need to chew over every single aspect of a problem. They can never get enough information in order to make a decision, and they go on and on and on trying to work out what the various aspects are and how they relate to each other, sometimes on even very, very simple decisions. Those people have what we call a very high need for cognitive complexity. Uh, and then we get people who have a low need for cognitive complexity who are able to just see a couple of bits of information and say, "Okay, more of a gut instinct. That's all I need." Um, and t- to add a little bit of complexity to that situation, uh, we differ in terms of our need for cogniti- cognitive complexity in various aspects of our life. So for example, I kind of tend to need quite a bit of information to make decisions. I'm allowed, I'm licensed to do that. I'm a boffin. I'm an academic mate. However, when I go into a restaurant, I'm li- a new restaurant that I don't know, I'm lightning fast at looking at a menu and making up my mind what I want to eat. Now, don't ask me how that works, mate, I've no idea, but I'm very, very good at going to a restaurant and saying, "Okay, that'll do." So within a restaurant situation, a new restaurant situation, ordering a dinner, I have a low need for cognitive complexity. But there are other aspects where I need a high need for cognitive complexity. A- and that's linked to what we call cognitive closure. In other words, our ability to bring the shutters down on a decision. "Okay, look, that's it. I've made the decision on this. Um, I'm happy with that." So a high need for cognitive closure is, is, is, is related to cognitive complexity but not the same thing. High need for cognitive closure is how comfortable we are at keeping something going, um, rather than, you know, just wanting a need to get it over with and that decision's done. Now, of course, won't go into too much of all this, but you've got a two-by-two grid here, haven't you? You've got people that have a high need and a low need for cognitive complexity, and then you've got people with a high and a low need for cognitive closure. And when you start going nuts is when you've got a really high need for cognitive complexity, in other words, you need lots of information to make a decision, but you've also got a high need for cognitive closure. In other words, you might want all the information, but blimey, you really want to shut something down quickly. The two kind of relate. So high need for cognitive complexity, high need to get it over with, um, actually that's when you start going nuts. Now interestingly, there have been studies done, uh, looking at high needs for, uh, cognitive complexity and actually, um, again not to go into too much, uh, detail about it, but extremists and fundamentalists of most persuasions have a low need for cognitive complexity and a high need for cognitive closure. In other words, they don't really need too much information to make their minds up and they're very happy making their minds up sharpish. Uh, so when you get... And of course it's not quite as simple as that, and there's other, um, so- sociocultural factors going on with fundamentalism extremism, but generally speaking, if you're looking at a cognitive profile, if you've got a low need for cognitive complexity, in other words, you don't really need too much information to make your mind up, and a high need for cognitive closure, you like to get things over with, you're kind of veering into extremism category there, uh, uh, territory there rather.

   8. CWChris Williamson36:20

      Well, it makes a lot of sense that that person would be very easily hijacked, right? That, you know, they want an answer to why this particular incident occurred. Somebody meets their threshold, which happens to be incredibly low-

   9. KDDr Kevin Dutton36:32

      Correct.

   10. CWChris Williamson36:32

       ... they attach their sense of self-worth to it, and then you're off to the races with ideology and all of the protectionist strategies that we create around ourselves. We attach ourselves to groups and so on and so forth. So I, I, I have to presume...... that the in-built desire for categorization has some relationship with tribalism.

   11. KDDr Kevin Dutton36:55

       Oh, for sure. A- absolutely right. Um, and there's, uh, these days it's very interesting, Chris, when we look at what's happening on the web, mate, social media and the internet, um, there's actually a, a phrase, uh, which is, which is, uh, done the, doing the rounds, started a couple of years ago, um, almost in like the, uh, the post-truth kind of stuff, uh, which, which, uh, you know, reached his peak with Trump, um, uh, called tribal epistemology. Uh, it's a long old word. Uh, tribal epistemology is basically, well, um, h- h- he- nothing's true anymore, um, objectively speaking, but it's true for your group or tribe. And therefore, because it's true for your group or tribe, it's real. Uh, and that's very, very interesting because then we start getting into all kinds of smoke and mirrors and truth chambers and echo chambers on, on the web as well. But yes, you're absolutely right. Um, group norms, um, group mores, group, uh, uh, y- the, the idea of, of, of stories and anecdotes which swirl around a group to keep groups together and over the centuries and over the years become fused in truth. And as a result of that, um, these kinds of things, uh, uh, the brain has, has evolved a, a, a propensity, uh, to distrust, uh, information coming from other groups and to place perhaps too much trust and validity in the information which is a currency in your own group. Uh, because obviously, you know, you, you, you'll, you've got something in common with those people in your group. Uh, you've got a common goal. You've got a common background. And, of course, as any con man will tell you, uh, people are way more likely to believe you if you are one of them than if you're an outsider.

6. 38:55 – 47:30

   Kevin’s Studies of Conmen

   1. KDDr Kevin Dutton38:55

   2. CWChris Williamson38:55

      Didn't you spend a bunch of time with con men? Didn't you do a ton of research with them? What happened there?

   3. KDDr Kevin Dutton39:02

      I (laughs) I did. Um, that was my first book actually, Flipnosis. Um, and, uh, it start- you know what, Chris? It started with, with my old man, mate. I grew up in, uh, in, in London. My, my dad... Uh, you remember Only Fools and Horses, don't you? Well, my dad was like Del Boy. I mean, he even looked like Del Boy. Um, he could... I always make a joke, he could sell shaving cream to the Taliban, mate. He could sell, he could sh- he could sh- sell anything to anybody, me old man. And he was a psychopath. He wasn't a violent man. He was ruthless, he was fearless, he was shameless. I never once saw him embarrassed. And he could do things that most normal people would find psychologically impossible. And I... It was pretty much him that got me started even as a young lad into psychology. And he was, he was a con man. Uh, so that was my roots basically. And I, I mean, I'll give you an example. I mean, I always remember one time, I must have been about 10 or 11, uh, we got hold of a load of ge-... I used to help him on the stall. And, uh, he got hold of a load of diaries, uh, calendar diaries, you know. And, um, they were very different to the usual kinds of stuff that we got our hands on because they were actually good. They were actually nice, these diaries. They were, they were leather. They were embossed. They were slim line. And there was a (laughs) very good reason for that. Anyway, I always remember one Saturday afternoon on the stall, we knocked out about 300 of these. They went like hotcakes. Uh, and, uh, after about a couple of hours when we got back to the flat, and, uh, remember, I'm only about 10 or 11, I, I couldn't resist it. I said to my dad, I said, "Here." I said, "Those diaries went like hotcakes and they were nice, weren't they?" They were, uh, you know, they were leathery but they were f- thin. And he goes, "Oh yes, son, they were thin all right. There's a reason for that." I said, "Well, what was that?" And he said, "April was missing." And I'm not joking, Chris, he gets one out the drawer, mate. January, February, March, May. I said, "Here." Remember, I'm only 10. I said, "W- we've just sold about 300 of these, Dad." I said, "What are we going to do?" I'll never forget it, Chris, he said, "Nothing for now, son, but come March the 31st, make sure you pack your swimming trunks because we're off to Torremolinos for six weeks." That was the kind of geezer he was. So when I eventually (laughs) kind of, um... He's dead now, so listen, if there's any coppers watching, he's long gone. Long gone. Um, when I, uh, eventually, uh, started studying psychology, I was obviously very interested in how people were good at persuasion, like me old man. Um, and eventually, after I, you know, got my PhD and all that, um, I, uh, wrote a book on, uh, persuasion. Um, because I was interested to see whether there were limits to persuasion. Could... If you had enough skill, uh, would you be able to persuade anybody to do anything? Um, or were there limits on, on persuasion? Um, and, uh, I- I'll go- I mean, I'll give you another example of, of, of me old man. Uh, we, we give you an example. I was, uh, again, a young kid, helped him on the stall, uh, took me out to an Indian restaurant up in Brick Lane, near East End of London, uh, that night. And just as he's about to pay the bill, and this is crucial, Chris, I'll never forget it. Just as he's about to ch- pay the bill, he turns around and he says, "Kev, if there's, if there's one thing I want you to remember in life, son, it's this. Persuasion ain't about getting people to do what they don't want to do. It's about giving people a reason to do what they do want to do." Very, very... If you're a salesperson who's trying to get someone to do something, bear that in mind, okay? Push against an open door. And he says, "Watch and learn." So with that, give you an example of what he'd done, he took his spoon and he tinkled it against his glass, right? Entire restaurant falls silent. Told you he was a psychopath. And he gets to his feet and he says, "Right, I'd just like to thank everyone for coming."... now, I know that some of you have come from just around the corner, some of you have come from a little bit further afield, uh, but I wanted you to know that you're all very welcome. (laughs) It's very much appreciated. Oh, there's a party across the road in The King's Arms, uh, which will be hosting a little drinks reception later tonight there. Uh, you're all welcome to pop along." At which point, he starts to clap, right? Which point, the entire restaurant starts to clap, doesn't it? So picture this scene, Chris. All of a sudden, we've got a restaurant full of people, never seen us before, never seen each other before, all applauding politely because, right, none of them want to be seen as the gate crashers of the party, right? That was a genius idea. Well, anyway, as we're leaving, remember, we're only about nine or 10, I can't resist it. So I said, "Here, Dad," I said, "I mean, we're not really going to the pub, are we?" And he puts his arm around me, Chris, and I'll never forget it. He says, "Of course not, son, but let me tell you something. That lot in the restaurant are my mate Malcolm, he's just taken over as landlord, he'll make a few quid tonight." Now, can you imagine the kind of balls that you would need to even think about pulling a stunt like that? But that's the kind of thing he did. So having grown up with me old man, always in the back of my mind was, "Can anyone persuade anyone to do anything or are there limits?" So, uh, I had, uh, contacts at the time, um, various branches of the police. Um, so, uh, there used to be a show called Hustle on BBC years ago, you might remember it. Uh, not The Real Hustle, but the one with Adrian Lester, which was a group of long con artists who were psychological geniuses. So I had access to a couple of guys like that, few guys like that, and I spent about, um, about half a year hanging out and looking at, at what they did. Uh, and I wanted to know basically, mate, who knew more about persuasion. Me, who was the boffin, who'd learned it outta the books, or them, who were the evil geniuses of persuasion, who'd derived it all from first principles, living on their wits on the street. Um, and I would say it was pretty much a draw. Um, I knew all the technical terms, they knew how to do it. Um, and the bottom line, um, because I'm sure people aren't going to run off and buy Flipnosis, um, (laughs) well, you never know. Um, the bottom line is, if... Look, there's a lot of science on persuasion and influence, but it boils down to this. If you can get someone to like you, and if you can frame what you want so that it appeals to the other person's self-interest and not your own, you're pretty much there. Because no one's gonna do something for someone they don't like, and we're all gonna do something that benefits ourselves. So if you can frame something so it's in someone's self-interest and also get them to like you, then pretty much you're home and dried, okay? And I'll give you a great example of self-interest. One of my fun- favorite stories in persuasion, I think it was Baron Delfont many years ago, it was Lord Gr- Lew Gray's brother, TV mogul, and, um, he hears on the grapevine that there's a young man who's looking for a job. And this young guy pops into his office one day. True story, this. And he says, "I'm looking for a job," and, and, and Delfont says, "Right, I hear on the grapevine that you're a genius persuader, so I've got a little challenge for you. See that water jug?" And he puts his water jug on the desk in front of him. He says, "See this water jug here?" Just like this. He said, "I want you to sell it to me." Right? It's a nightmare situation, right? So the young bloke thinks about it for a minute, and then undaunted, he gets to his feet. And he wanders over to the corner of the room, and he picks up the wastepaper basket, carries it over to Delfont's desk, empties the contents of the wastepaper basket out on the desk in front of him, so there's, I don't know, all kinds of bits of paper on there, whatever, whatever. And he takes Delfont's cigar lighter, takes the, uh, water jug away, puts it out of his reach, and sets light to the pile of rubbish in front of it with the cigar lighter. And he says to Delfont, "Right, how much are you gonna give me for it?" As his, as his, uh, basically his office is about to burst into flames. That is how you persuade someone to buy a water jug, son. All right? You basically, what you do is you reframe the situation so that all of a sudden it's really in their self-interest to buy it off you. So you can't change the value of the water jug objectively, but by manipulating the context, you can change it subjectively. So the bottom line of Flipnosis, hanging out with all them con artists, if you want to persuade someone to do something, basically get them to like you, which is why humor's very important, if you can make someone laugh, very, it's, it's, it's very important. Uh, I think it was, I think it was Victor Borgia, the Argentinian playwright, who said that humor is the shortest distance between two people. Laughter is the shortest distance between two people. So make them laugh, get them to like you, frame it in their self-interest, and you got the ingredients for persuasion.

7. 47:30 – 55:49

   The Evolution of Super-Categories

   1. KDDr Kevin Dutton47:30

   2. CWChris Williamson47:30

      Draw the line for me between that persuasion and super categories and how super categories can be so persuasive. I think there was some, uh, very useful, innovative language that was used around the Brexit marketing campaign as well. What-

   3. KDDr Kevin Dutton47:47

      (laughs) Yeah.

   4. CWChris Williamson47:47

      ... what's going on there?

   5. KDDr Kevin Dutton47:49

      Yeah. Well, right and wrong, us and them, are basically, um, categories, super categories, which have, um, evolved, um, through many, many years of evolution. So going back to our prehistoric ancestors on the, um, savannas of East Africa, they were living in small groups. So, uh, us and them is basically that in-group bias that I was talking to you about, okay? So we have a bias to favor members of our own group against bias, uh, uh, against, um, uh, basically, uh, discriminating, um, and, um, and favoring members of an out group. Okay? Uh, right versus wrong, uh, basically the moral instinct evolved to keep groups together, and we kind of touched on that a little bit earlier. So if you don't have a sense of right and wrong, then you are more likely just to act out of a complete and utter self-interest rather than the good of the group. So if you don't... Once you've got the us and them...... uh, categorization established in your brain, you kind of need a moral, uh, categorization between right and wrong. Otherwise, that group wouldn't stick together. And the third super category, uh, to go with us and them, right and wrong, is fight or flight. So basically, that is, you know, the ability to either, um, move towards, uh, a stimulus in your environment or to move away from it. Uh, so can I eat it, or is it going to eat me? So fight or flight, right or wrong, us and them. Uh, evolved in, not quite in that order, evolved fight, flight, us, them, right, wrong, obviously, okay? Uh, and they're all survival, what I call super categories. There's three super categories, uh, that our brains have evolved through millions of years of evolution. Now, if you can use persuasion, if you can set your language up to tap into those three super categories that our brains have evolved long ago, uh, then whether you're right or whether you're wrong, Chris, you're going to get people to sit up and, and take interest, mate. So if you think about the Brexit argument, as you rightly pointed out, fight or flight, okay. You think about the language that was used in the early days by Nigel Farage, by Boris Johnson, by the exit lobby. Look, are we going to stand up to these European bureaucrats, or are we going to let them roll all over us? Fight or flight language, right? Us and them. What about these crazy edicts and decrees that are coming over from Brussels, you know, about bananas being too spendy or whatever. Um, are we... Is this... What, what are we going to do about this? Are we going to just, you know, acquiesce to this? Right or wrong? Is it right to allow Europe to dictate to us rules in our own country? You can see through the rhetoric, fight, flight, us, them, right, wrong. If you can frame your language so that it presses those ancient super category buttons in our brains, again, as I say, whether you're right or whether you're wrong, you're going to get people to sit up and take notice. That's what Trump did, by the way, in America. Probably going to come as no surprise. Make America great again, fight or flight. We're going to fight against immigrants. We're going to build a wall between the USA and Mexico. That's the us and them again, right and wrong, okay? You've got them all there in Trump's rhetoric. And (clears throat) it was very funny, when I was going back to Hypnosis, Chris, I, um, I interviewed a, a top, uh, QC in London, and, um, I once asked him, I said, "What makes a great barrister? What makes a great QC?" I wasn't interested in the difference between what makes a bad one and a good one. That's not interesting. The interest is, in most things, what's the difference between good and great? And he was a pupil master in his London chambers, and a pupil master basically means that, um, that's where, um, people with law degrees, um, the cream of the cream from London, Oxford, and Cambridge, go to study to learn their trade. You've got these various chambers around London. So a little bit like teaching hospitals for law, basically, yeah. Uh, and he said, "Well, look, Kev," he said, "you know, obviously I'll get the cream of the crop coming to me," he said, "from all the top universities." He said, "So, you know, the fact they've got brilliant minds, the fact that they have eidetic, uh, photographic memories for facts and figures, the fact that they are able to get their heads around the, uh, uh, details of a case really, really quickly is entry level." He said, "That's entry level. They're all like that." And he said, "But the one difference between the people that are... really become great, uh, and forge a, a stellar career for themselves in advocacy and people who are good, uh, is something you can't teach." And he said, "It's the ability to tell a story." He said, "That is a God-given talent that if you have that natural ability alongside the other characteristics I've told you," he said, "that kind of separates out, uh, the great from the good and the wheat from the chaff." And I'll never forget it, Chris, coming back to what I was saying, um, he said, "Information travels around the brain like electricity around a circuit. It takes the path of least resistance." So, Kev, he said, "If you and I are up against each other in a court of law, and you can assemble the facts of the case so that it goes around the minds of the jury quicker than I've assembled the facts of the case, you're gonna win. No matter whether that's right or wrong, you're gonna win, because basically it goes around the minds of the jury quicker than my set of facts or the way I've arranged them." So it's very similar to the super categories. Uh, what you got to remember, Chris, the bottom line here is that our brains conflate simplicity for truth. The simpler that I can make it for you to do something, the more likely you are going to do it. And there's a number of different ways we've already kind of talked about that you can, you can do that. But you're not going to do something for me, mate, if I make it difficult for you. Uh, it's just... It's... A lot of persuasion is common sense. So, you know, as I say, it's get someone to like you, make it simple, make it in their own self-interest, you're halfway there. Well, you're more than halfway there, you're 85% there.

   6. CWChris Williamson54:24

      We see this online as well. So a lot of content creators, some of the ones that are the most well followed, the most popular, are the ones that have got the most fluent speech, because fluency is used as a proxy for truthfulness, and I think a big part of that is the-

   7. KDDr Kevin Dutton54:37

      Absolutely.

   8. CWChris Williamson54:38

      ... simplicity that people are able to understand what they are saying 'cause the friction between their brain and their mouth is as unencumbered as it's possible to be. The language that's being used is as precise as possible. It's no more words, it's no fewer words, it's no more complex. It's exactly where it needs to be, and that is... I mean, all, all of this stuff that you've brought up...... um, the weaponizing of in-group/out-group bias. This is something else that we see.

   9. KDDr Kevin Dutton55:04

      Yep.

   10. CWChris Williamson55:04

       Like, the world that I exist in is online content creation, right? So-

   11. KDDr Kevin Dutton55:08

       Yeah.

   12. CWChris Williamson55:08

       ... um, I'm always very cautious whenever I see a community of people, whether it be online or, or elsewhere, that appears to be bound together, not over the mutual love of an in-group, but over the mutual hatred of an out-group. You see this-

   13. KDDr Kevin Dutton55:21

       Yeah.

   14. CWChris Williamson55:21

       ... with the social justice movement online which seems to be very fragilely held together by pointing at other heretics, people that aren't a part of them. Well, okay, what you're telling me there is that all you need to do is find someone that is currently a part of the in-group that can be pointed at as part of the out-group, and now they're shaved off the outside. This is the ever-increasing purity spiral, right? Evermore distilled and, and concentrated into the middle. And yeah, I mean, I had a look

8. 55:49 – 1:02:13

   Why a Different Accent Evokes Prejudice

   1. CWChris Williamson55:49

      at this, uh-

   2. KDDr Kevin Dutton55:50

      I love that, by the way. I love that purity spiral. That's a great phrase, purity spiral.

   3. CWChris Williamson55:54

      Yes. It's, it's, apparently, it's actually a thing. I haven't just made that, made that up. But-

   4. KDDr Kevin Dutton55:57

      Oh, have you? Okay.

   5. CWChris Williamson55:57

      No, no. (laughs) It, it, it exists online. And, uh, I learned about the difference in prejudice between race and accent. Have you heard about this?

   6. KDDr Kevin Dutton56:08

      Oh, yeah. Um, yeah, go, go into a bit more detail. Probably have, but, um-

   7. CWChris Williamson56:12

      So, one of my friends, William Costello, evolutionary psychologist out here in Austin at UT, um, he was explaining the fact that there is a greater prejudice against people of the same race with a different accent than people of a different race with the same accent. And the explanation for this is pretty simple, that evolutionarily, ancestrally, it would've been very unlikely for us to encounter-

   8. KDDr Kevin Dutton56:36

      Correct.

   9. CWChris Williamson56:36

      ... somebody of a different race, but very likely for us to encounter someone-

   10. KDDr Kevin Dutton56:39

       Correct.

   11. CWChris Williamson56:39

       ... that had a slightly different dialect or a slightly different accent. And what that means is that you have very interesting, um, crossing prejudices, uh, and, and counteracting prejudices. For instance, if you were to see an Arab man that walked into the room, but then started speaking like somebody that was from the south end of London or whatever it might be, if you have someone whose race and accent do not line up ... For instance, I mean, e- everybody can think about this. If you were to see somebody walk into the room that is of a different race to you but speaks with the same accent-

   12. KDDr Kevin Dutton57:14

       Yeah.

   13. CWChris Williamson57:15

       ... you would immediately think, "Well, th- there's, we have an awf- awful lot in common." You, you forget-

   14. KDDr Kevin Dutton57:19

       Absolutely.

   15. CWChris Williamson57:19

       ... you forget about the fact that they're of a different race. But then you flip that round. Okay, let's have somebody walk into the room who is of the same race as you-

   16. KDDr Kevin Dutton57:27

       Yeah.

   17. CWChris Williamson57:27

       ... but has an entirely different sort of accent.

   18. KDDr Kevin Dutton57:30

       That's right.

   19. CWChris Williamson57:30

       There is immediately a big distance. And I, I, I just thought that that totally blew my mind. Okay, you're telling me that there is more prejudice against people with different accents-

   20. KDDr Kevin Dutton57:40

       Yeah.

   21. CWChris Williamson57:40

       ... than people of different races. Like, just-

   22. KDDr Kevin Dutton57:42

       And-

   23. CWChris Williamson57:43

       ... totally took my head off.

   24. KDDr Kevin Dutton57:43

       ... and it makes perfect sense, uh, the way you've explained it. And William Costello, um, absolutely nailed it right on the head there. The thing I would add to that, um, is I was talking to, uh, probably shouldn't mention who it is, but I was talking to, um, uh, one of the UK's top impressionists, um, the other day. Uh, and interestingly, uh, we were talking about impressionism, um, as, um, as an art form and as a form of humor. Um, and he said that he had come across people actually who had pointed the finger at impressionists as cultural appropriators, which is a very interesting argument. Um, now, whereas, I don't buy it, uh, whereas, you know, I think we have an innate fascination for different voices coming out of, um, the same person. It's very incongruous. The incongruity principle is very powerful in, in, in all kinds of things. It's why we're so fascinated with serial killers, for example, because they appear on the outside to be very normal, but of course they've got these, you know, horrendous alter egos raging behind the scenes. Um, if you have different voices coming out of the same person, uh, then there is a real fascination with that. So we're fascinated by impersonators and impressionists. But actually recent- there's been recent lobbies saying, "Well, actually, you know, if you're doing different accents or taking people off, then why is that not cultural appropriation?" Let's not go down that road, mate, because that's another two hours we could sit there talking about that one. But it's a good one to throw out there. But interestingly, it's, it's, it's, it's very, uh ... when you look at when you talk to someone, and again, this is something that this guy, this impersonator, this impressionist, uh, who I was talking to, uh, delved into, and I'm sure you do it. Uh, I certainly do it. If you really like someone, sometimes w- without knowing it, you end up talking a little bit like them when you're in conversation with someone. You might adopt a little bit of their speech patterns. Might not be their accent. Sometimes it is in extreme cases. But you might unconsciously mirror, uh, the tone or the speed, uh, at which, or the tempo at which they're speaking. So, the voice of somebody is something that we find it very difficult not to empathize with. So, that's where William, uh, Costello is coming from there. That's one, uh, that's another reason, an empathy reason. When we look, when we hear voices, um, it's, it's one of those things that is a marker of how we gain an impression of someone. Um, and we're very, very susceptible to, to, to sound coming out of people's, uh, of lips and how they sound.

   25. CWChris Williamson1:00:29

       Let me throw some bro science at you. Is it the case that accents get locked in and are less likely to change as you grow up, but are more likely to change if you are younger? Let's say that you spend the first seven years of your life in Ireland and then you move to America or whatever-

   26. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:00:46

       Yeah.

   27. CWChris Williamson1:00:46

       ... you're going to end up with pretty much just an American accent. And if you-

   28. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:00:49

       Yeah.

   29. CWChris Williamson1:00:49

       ... maybe m- make the move at sort of 13 or 14, you're gonna end up with sort of an Irish-American accent after maybe 10 years.

   30. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:00:56

       Yeah.
9. 1:02:13 – 1:11:33

   How Brains Conflate Simplicity with Truth

   1. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:02:13

      back to your point about simplicity, um, which is related to this. Um, there was a study... And, uh, and how, you know, our brains conflate simplicity with truth. There was a wonderful study done a few years ago which looked at menus in restaurants. Um, and two groups... I'm going off the top of my head now. So, two groups of participants, uh, were given exactly the same menus, uh, except for one crucial, uh, difference. One of the menus was printed in a very difficult to read typeface, a fancy one, and the other half of the menus was printed in a very simple, easy to read typeface. One half of the participants got the easy to read menu, the other half, the participants got the difficult to read menu. Uh, the menus were exactly the same. Once they'd read the menus, they were then asked, "How easy, uh, do you think the r- recipe would be to cook?" Not read, but cook it. What do you think they found? Well, you've got there ahead of me already, haven't you? Those people that were given the menus in the tricky typefaces thought it would be way more difficult to cook, uh, than those people that were given it in the simple typefaces. And, uh, moreover, were way more likely, uh, way less likely to say that they'd actually give it a go. So, moral of the story for restaurateurs out there, uh, because I'm sure it would be the same in how food tastes. In fact, I think studies might have been done, I couldn't swear to it. I think studies have been done on that. The exactly the same dish printed in a simple typeface, uh, I think, if I'm right by saying, I think studies have been done on this, uh, actually taste better or rated as tasting better anyway than exactly the same dish that you've ordered in a tricky, um, uh, typeface in a restaurant.

   2. CWChris Williamson1:03:55

      Interesting.

   3. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:03:55

      So, there's a, there's a physiological example of how simplicity interferes with, uh, with our s- literal, with our, with our physical perception.

   4. CWChris Williamson1:04:04

      I could have seen that going either way. I could have seen it that people would have presumed that the more difficult typeface, the more difficult dish to cook would perhaps be of a, a-

   5. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:13

      More intricate, yeah.

   6. CWChris Williamson1:04:14

      ... yeah, worthy, worthy of a higher price point.

   7. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:16

      Yeah.

   8. CWChris Williamson1:04:16

      A few other tips I've learned from Rory Sutherland from Ogilvy about the anyways, I've forgotten.

   9. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:20

      Oh, I know, I know Rory, yeah.

   10. CWChris Williamson1:04:21

       He's a legend. He's coming on in a-

   11. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:22

       I know him well.

   12. CWChris Williamson1:04:23

       ... coming on in a couple of weeks again for his, like, fourth round.

   13. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:24

       Oh, he's a good lad. You'd better tell him to leave his vape at home 'cause I've never-

   14. CWChris Williamson1:04:28

       That guy, (laughs) he'll have two.

   15. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:30

       Yeah.

   16. CWChris Williamson1:04:30

       I don't know whether you've seen him on podcasts-

   17. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:31

       Yeah.

   18. CWChris Williamson1:04:31

       ... but he has two. He switches between them. But yeah-

   19. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:33

       Oh, no, yeah.

   20. CWChris Williamson1:04:34

       ... he's... that guy's like a chimney. So-

   21. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:35

       He's a good lad.

   22. CWChris Williamson1:04:36

       Um, couple of things restaurateurs should do if you're a budding restaurateur. Uh, first thing, take the, uh, currency denomination off your menu.

   23. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:45

       Yeah.

   24. CWChris Williamson1:04:45

       It seems that if you just have the numbers rather than the-

   25. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:48

       Yeah.

   26. CWChris Williamson1:04:48

       ... currency denomination, people forget-

   27. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:49

       Correct.

   28. CWChris Williamson1:04:49

       ... about the fact that they're spending money. Another thing, use anchoring bias.

   29. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:04:53

       That's right.

   30. CWChris Williamson1:04:53

       So, have some very nice-
10. 1:11:33 – 1:12:47

    Where to Find Dr Dutton

    1. CWChris Williamson1:11:33

       this one up. I've really appreciated you today. I think your work's fantastic. Uh, where should people go if they want to keep up to date with the things that you do online?

    2. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:11:40

       Um, if you wanna follow me on... Cheers, Chris, by the way. It was absolutely wonderful, mate. Really enjoyed chatting with you. Uh, thanks for having me on. Um, uh, my, uh, social media handles, Twitter and Instagram, I'm too old for TikTok, mate, um, is @therealdr, D-R, Kev, so D-R for doctor, @therealdrkev. Uh, you'll find me on there, um, and if you wanna check out some of the books, Wisdom of Psychopaths probably the, the one that started it all over, all going. Uh, a couple of books I wrote with Andy McNab. If you wanna become a... If you wanna become a little bit more assertive and successful, um, you might want to check out The Good Psychopath's Guide to Success, which I wrote with, uh, Andy McNab, the SAS soldier, who's a, uh... Who, who is a psychopath, by the way.

    3. CWChris Williamson1:12:24

       Kev, I appreciate you. Thank you.

    4. KDDr Kevin Dutton1:12:26

       Chris, cheers mate.

    5. CWChris Williamson1:12:27

       (upbeat music) What's happening, people? Thank you very much for tuning in. If you enjoyed that episode, then press here for a selection of the best clips from the podcast over the last few weeks, and don't forget to subscribe. Peace.

Episode duration: 1:12:47