By playing, you agree to uListen's Terms and Privacy Policy and YouTube's Terms of Service.
Peter Attia MD#154 - Steve Levitt, Ph.D.: Climate change, mental health, the ethics of experiments, and more
Summaries, chapters, transcripts, and FAQs on this page are made by uListen, not YouTube.
CHAPTERS
- 0:02 – 6:24
Falling into economics through the back door
Peter Attia asks how Steve Levitt got into economics. Levitt describes gaming his way through Harvard, realizing in an intro lecture that he thinks like an economist, and ending up in a PhD to escape management consulting. He adds that easy college classes and little math carried him through.
- •Levitt picked classes by choosing the ones everyone took because they were easy
- •A lecture on comparative advantage showed him he naturally thinks like an economist
- •He turned to a PhD in economics out of hatred of management consulting
- •He took only one math class at Harvard and calls college the best four years of his life
- 6:24 – 14:39
Micro vs. macro and the limits of economic models
Levitt explains the split between macroeconomics and microeconomics and why he stays with individual decision making. He describes how data and econometrics have changed the field and why he distrusts increasingly elaborate models. Attia compares this to early COVID models.
- •Macroeconomics is too complex to understand well, while microeconomics studies individual decisions
- •Prizes have shifted toward people working at the intersection of theory and data
- •Levitt thinks the push toward fanciful counterfactual models is a dead end
- •Attia says early COVID models mainly showed which parameters mattered
- 14:39 – 17:17
Separating facts from implications
Levitt argues for a sharp line between establishing facts from data and debating what those facts imply. He says this would improve both economics and journalism and would clarify public debates.
- •Data analysis should establish a handful of facts any reasonable person would accept
- •Models and implications should come only after the facts are agreed
- •Levitt imagines newspaper articles listing the facts they are based on
- •Debates should first show whether people disagree on facts or on implications
- 17:17 – 26:52
What SuperFreakonomics actually said about climate change
Attia asks what Levitt actually wrote about climate in SuperFreakonomics. Levitt says they reframed the question as how to cool the planet and covered geoengineering ideas like sulfur dioxide and cloud seeding. He describes the backlash from environmentalists and argues that externalities are never solved by behavior change, and the two discuss smoking as a test case.
- •The authors argued the right question was how to cool the planet, not only how to cut carbon
- •Geoengineering ideas included stratospheric sulfur dioxide and ocean cloud seeding
- •Levitt says environmentalists attacked them, then geoengineering later became widely accepted
- •Externality problems have not been solved by telling people to do the right thing
- •Attia says smoking declined mainly through changes to the environment and defaults, not knowledge alone
- 26:52 – 31:38
Science, advocacy, and the blurred line in climate science
Attia raises how science used as propaganda erodes public trust. Levitt says climate science shares macroeconomics' reliance on models and criticizes the blurring of measurement and policy advocacy. He adds that climate scientists underweight economics, human behavior and the costs of decarbonizing.
- •Climate science resembles macroeconomics in leaning on models that cannot capture the full system
- •Measurement of temperatures and sea levels has been done well
- •Scientists have not helped laypeople tell advocacy roles from scientific roles
- •Levitt says the high costs of net-zero solutions have been ignored or framed as moral penance
- 31:38 – 41:27
A Manhattan Project for climate change
Levitt proposes assembling the 1,000 smartest scientists for five years to look for a cheap solution to climate change. Attia worries about policy gridlock, and Levitt answers with the insurance value of R&D, a COVID vaccine analogy, and an economic result on paying to avoid risk of death. They agree the risk is asymmetric.
- •Levitt would gather top scientists at a Los Alamos-style site for five years
- •The outcome would be either a cost-effective solution or knowledge that none exists
- •Attia says objectives, strategies and tactics are often confused, and fears implementation gridlock
- •Levitt says R&D is cheap compared with disaster costs, noting a stockpiled-vaccine idea
- •An economic analysis showed people will pay far more than the probability of dying to avoid it, which changed his view on climate
- 41:27 – 47:45
Grad school: failing quickly and finding himself
Attia turns to Levitt's PhD years at MIT. Levitt recounts learning strategic thinking in consulting and being judged least likely to succeed. After failing at macro and theory, he returned to data analysis, felt freed by being the dumbest person in the room, and began studying things he liked.
- •A consulting colleague taught him to look at the world strategically
- •He tried macro and theory, failed quickly, and settled on data analysis
- •As a child he computed baseball correlations on a calculator
- •Being the dumbest person in the room freed him to study topics like crime that he enjoyed
- •Being himself became a lasting lesson
- 47:45 – 55:24
Choosing Chicago and the value of diverse schools of thought
Levitt explains why he chose the University of Chicago, saying he went to get to know the enemy and was drawn in by Gary Becker. He and Attia discuss whether the field is better off now that top departments have become homogeneous, drawing a parallel to regional styles in medicine.
- •Levitt went to Chicago to understand the opposing view and was won over
- •An advisor said he would stop speaking to Levitt if he went to Chicago
- •Milton Friedman lamented the decline of Chicago price theory
- •Diversity of approaches matters most when radical events occur
- •Levitt thinks Chicago-style macro winning has reduced diversity of thinking
- 55:24 – 1:00:02
Meeting Dubner and writing Freakonomics
Levitt tells how Steve Dubner came to profile him for The New York Times, leading to a book deal and the book Freakonomics. He credits his sister with the title and says luck played a large role in its success.
- •Dubner interviewed Levitt for about 25 hours over three days
- •They wrote the book for money, assuming no one would read it, which freed them to break rules
- •His sister suggested the title Freakonomics, which the publishers resisted
- •Levitt says luck, such as a good review and a Daily Show appearance, drove the book's success
- 1:00:02 – 1:14:39
Controversy across the books and the golf book idea
Levitt discusses which Freakonomics material drew blowback, including the abortion and crime chapter. He explains how later books alienated readers, which is why they stopped writing. The conversation turns to his abandoned golf book and the failed attempt to coach Larry Summers.
- •The abortion and crime argument was misreported in the media but landed well in the book
- •The first book drew little anger, the second more, and the third alienated both left and right
- •Levitt wrote large parts of a book on the Freakonomics of golf
- •He tried to coach Larry Summers from a 20 to a 5 handicap, but Summers would not practice
- 1:14:39 – 1:28:45
Mental health, loss, and parenting
Levitt describes how divorce and meeting his wife changed his view of mental health, which his father's household had dismissed. He discusses his daughter's eating disorder, the death of his infant son Andrew, and how that loss shaped his acceptance of uncertainty and his children's autonomy. He and Attia discuss radical acceptance.
- •Levitt was raised to see therapy as an embarrassment and changed about seven years ago
- •He stayed calm about what he could not control during his daughter's eating disorder
- •His son Andrew died of meningitis, and Levitt went toward accepting uncertainty rather than fear
- •He says his acceptance happened without conscious effort and he has rarely discussed it
- •Attia links this to radical acceptance from dialectical behavioral therapy
- 1:28:45 – 1:35:29
Teaching mental health in schools and family communication
Asked how to build self-care into K-12 education, Levitt makes the case that coping skills matter more than much of the curriculum. He admits he doesn't know how to implement it and suggests experimentation. He also talks about his father's silence on emotions and his own choice to say 'I love you' to his kids.
- •Levitt would prioritize skills for happiness and resolving conflict over calculus
- •Obstacles include scarce school time and few people who know how to teach it
- •He favors letting many models run, with subsidies for school districts to experiment
- •The Biden transition team went silent when he raised mental health
- •His family never said love, and he deliberately says it with his own children
- 1:35:29 – 1:44:42
Best and worst decisions and why people decide badly
Attia asks about Levitt's best and worst decisions. Levitt says his worst were failures to act and his best were choices that lifted burdens, such as not caring what others think and ignoring small expenses. He argues humans are poor decision makers, including experts, and that evolution gave us tools suited to a different world.
- •Levitt says nearly all his worst decisions were inaction, while Attia's were bad actions
- •His best decisions relieved burdens, like not caring what others think and not sweating small purchases
- •Behavioral economics shows how poorly people decide, and he says even Kahneman is bad at it
- •Levitt says he takes about two years too long to quit things
- •Evolution did not prepare us for complex modern decisions or chronic stress
- 1:44:42 – 1:55:31
Secretariat and training racehorses like athletes
Attia and Levitt talk about Secretariat and why no horse has matched his times. Levitt speculates that breeding is unscientific and horse training has not advanced, imagining training a horse with aerobic methods. Attia adds details on Secretariat's heart.
- •Levitt met Secretariat while researching his thesis on Thoroughbred breeding
- •He suspects breeding is not very scientific and training hasn't advanced much
- •He imagines training an average horse like an ultramarathoner, with swimming and aerobic work
- •Attia notes Secretariat's unusually large heart and its link to the X chromosome
- 1:55:31 – 2:01:29
Thinking without words
Asked what question he has no clue about, Levitt describes his interest in how much life is mediated by language, inspired by a passage in Sam Harris's book. He has practiced observing the world without words and finds it hard to feel anger or victimhood in that state. Attia notes that dropping the label might reduce an emotion's impact.
- •Levitt is intrigued by the idea that the speaking left brain dominates the nonspeaking right
- •He tries to observe with all senses but free of language, a few minutes a day
- •He finds it hard to be unhappy or angry without words
- •Attia suggests that reducing the nomenclature around an emotion can reduce its impact
- 2:01:29 – 2:13:35
Rethinking ethics of experiments: COVID, pay, and organ markets
Attia asks what experiment Levitt would run with unlimited resources. Levitt says economics is limited by having one economy, but argues medical ethics blocked sensible COVID experiments such as challenge trials. He says paying large sums would fix the coercion concern, and extends the idea to a kidney market. The episode ends with their list of problems to pursue.
- •Levitt says the macroeconomy can't be experimented on because we have only one
- •He thinks challenge trials and exposure experiments for COVID were sensible given the stakes
- •He argues high payments would draw enough volunteers that medical ethics concerns fade
- •Attia notes review boards cap payments, which can disadvantage the vulnerable
- •Levitt wants a market for live kidney donors with a very high price
- •Their closing list covers golf, horse training, organ markets and climate
