#483 – Julia Shaw: Criminal Psychology of Murder, Serial Killers, Memory & Sex

0:00:05 The following is a conversation with Julia Shaw, a criminal psychologist who has written
0:00:11 extensively on a wide variety of topics that explore human nature, including psychopathy,
0:00:16 violent crime, psychology of evil, police interrogation, false memory manipulation,
0:00:24 deception detection, and human sexuality. Her books include Evil, about the psychology of murder
0:00:31 and sadism, The Memory Illusion, about false memories, Bi, about bisexuality, and her new book,
0:00:38 that you should definitely go order now, called Green Crime, which is a study of the dark underworld
0:00:45 of poachers, illegal gold miners, corporate frauds, hitmen, and all kinds of other environmental
0:00:53 criminals. Julia is a brilliant and kind-hearted person with whom I got the chance to have many
0:00:58 great conversations with on and off the mic. This was an honor and a pleasure.
0:01:06 And now, a quick few-second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description or at
0:01:11 lexfreedman.com slash sponsors. It is, in fact, the best way to support this podcast. We got Shopify
0:01:19 for selling stuff online, BetterHelp for mental health, Element for electrolytes, and AG1 for my
0:01:25 daily multivitamin. Choose wisely, my friends. And now, on to the full ad reads. I try to make them
0:01:30 interesting, but if you skip, please still check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will,
0:01:35 too. To get in touch with me, for whatever reason, go to lexfreedman.com slash contact.
0:01:37 All right, let’s go.
0:01:45 This episode is brought to you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great
0:01:50 looking online store. Obviously, it’s an incredible platform for selling stuff, but again,
0:01:57 I will reiterate, as I do often, as we did in the DHH episode, what’s also incredible is the
0:02:05 implementation of the infrastructure, how the thing is built. The legendary, well-documented Black Friday,
0:02:15 I believe in 2021, Shopify handled 30 terabytes of data every minute. 32 plus million requests per minute
0:02:23 hit the servers. 11 million MySQL queries per second were processed. And all of that, mostly Ruby on Rails.
0:02:31 The very framework, the very programming language that’s not supposed to scale, and it did, and it did so
0:02:38 incredibly well, seamlessly, and still maintain the beauty underlying that implementation.
0:02:44 There’s this write-up I recently read about how they were actually able to make that happen.
0:02:50 There’s so many interesting details, including the fact that, as DHH talked about, that it was a modular
0:02:57 monolith, and it was scaled horizontally in these very interesting modular ways. Again, that’s probably
0:03:03 outside of the scope of what I’m supposed to be doing here. Just another chance to celebrate the
0:03:11 incredible engineering behind Shopify. And all of that to help you sell stuff. You can sign up for a $1 per
0:03:17 month trial period at shopify.com slash lex. That’s all lowercase. Go to shopify.com slash lex to take your
0:03:26 business to the next level today. This episode is also brought to you by BetterHelp, spelled H-E-L-P help.
0:03:34 They figure out what you need to match with a licensed therapist in under 48 hours. And boy, in this episode, do we
0:03:42 delve into the dark aspects of human nature and the human mind. It is so fascinating. And what’s also, I think,
0:03:53 inspiring to me about Julia’s work is that she approaches every situation, every human being with a deep
0:04:01 empathy, realizing that each of us have the capacity for good and evil. And so much of who we are is shaped by
0:04:09 our environment. That’s a real honest way to deal with cases where humans do horrible stuff to each
0:04:14 other, realizing that they’re not somehow different than us, that we too, all of us, are capable of doing
0:04:22 these kinds of things. And when you think of it that way, you can more honestly and rigorously analyze why
0:04:31 people do what they do. And yes, it is a reminder how complicated the human mind is. You can explore
0:04:39 that human mind with the help of a licensed therapist and BetterHelp. It’s easy, discreet, affordable,
0:04:46 available worldwide. Check them out at betterhelp.com slash lex and save on your first month. That’s
0:04:55 betterhelp.com slash lex. This episode is also brought to you by Element, my daily zero sugar and
0:05:01 delicious electrolyte mix. I’m currently drinking it, even though I’m traveling. It is always watermelon
0:05:13 salt. I love it. Also, it’s not just the OG drink mix. They got the sparkling water version that is
0:05:18 another form factor. It’s super delicious, much harder to travel with. But if you’re at home and
0:05:24 you can order a bunch, it’s a delicious, different way of consuming Element. Again, it’s a source of
0:05:30 happiness. It makes me feel at home, even when I’m traveling. I’m still, and for the past many, many
0:05:37 years, probably over a decade, maybe over 15 years, most days I’m doing one meal a day. I’m doing extremely
0:05:43 low carb, not for any reasons, except it makes me happy. But when you do that kind of stuff, you want
0:05:49 to make sure that the electrolytes are on point. And I used Element for that. You should consider doing
0:05:56 the same. Get a free eight count sample pack with any purchase. Try it at drinkelement.com slash lex.
0:06:05 This episode is also brought to you by AG1, an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak
0:06:12 performance. They got a next-gen version now, always iterating, always improving. AG1 does a simple
0:06:18 thing and it does it well. It makes sure that all your nutritional bases are covered. I make an AG1 drink.
0:06:28 I throw it in the freezer for like 10 minutes, 20 minutes. So it’s nice and super cold. And I drink it
0:06:34 after a long run, sit back, think about the universe and my place in it. And it’s become a little ritual
0:06:43 that brings joy to my life. Although today, it’s pouring outside. So I was about to go for a run and
0:06:52 then drink an AG1. But I think I’m gonna have to skip the run, unless I’m insane, which I am. But no matter
0:07:00 what, I’ll drink an AG1 in a little bit here. Some of my happiest long distance runs have been when
0:07:06 it starts pouring all of a sudden. And at first there’s a resistance, maybe I should find some cover
0:07:13 and then you just say, screw it. I just accept the fact that you’re going to be soaking wet.
0:07:22 And especially if the rain isn’t all warm, it’s just becomes this experience where you are truly
0:07:27 one with nature and kind of stop giving a damn about the conventional experience of comfort.
0:07:34 And you’re just there alive in the moment. It’s a great, great experience. So now I just talked
0:07:40 myself into screw it. I’m going to go for a run. Anyway, they’ll give you a one month supply of fish
0:07:48 oil when you sign up at drinkag1.com slash Lex. This is a Lex Friedman podcast. To support it,
0:07:54 please check out our sponsors in the description. We can also find links to contact me, ask questions,
0:08:00 get feedback, and so on. And now, dear friends, here’s Julia Shaw.
0:08:22 You wrote the book, Evil, the Science Behind Humanity’s Dark Side. So lots of interesting
0:08:29 topics to cover here. Let’s start with the continuum. You described that evil is a continuum. In other
0:08:36 words, the dark tetrad, psychopathy, sadism, narcissism, Machiavellianism are a continuum of
0:08:42 traits, not a binary zero-one label of monster or non-monster. So can you explain this continuum?
0:08:49 Yeah. So each trait on the dark tetrad, as it’s called, which is the four traits that are associated
0:08:53 with dark personality traits. So things that we often associate with the word evil, like sadism,
0:08:58 which is a pleasure in hurting other people, Machiavellianism, which is doing whatever it
0:09:05 takes to get ahead. Narcissism, which is taking too much pleasure in yourself and seeing yourself as
0:09:12 superior to others. And then there’s psychopathy. Psychopathic personality specifically often lacks
0:09:18 in empathy. And it’s usually characterized by a number of different traits, including a parasitic
0:09:24 lifestyle, so mooching off of others, deceptiveness, lying to people, and again, that empathy dimension,
0:09:29 where you are more comfortable hurting other people because you don’t feel sad when other people feel
0:09:36 sad. Now, all of those traits, psychopathy, sadism, Machiavellianism, and narcissism, all of them have
0:09:41 a scale. And so you can be low on each of those traits, or you can be high on each of those traits.
0:09:48 And what the dark tetrad is, it’s actually a way of classifying people into those who might be more
0:09:52 likely to engage in risky behaviors or harmful behaviors and those who are not. And if you score high
0:09:58 on all of them, you’re most likely to harm other people. But each of us score somewhere. So I might
0:10:04 score low on sadism, but higher on narcissism. And in all of them, I’m probably subclinical.
0:10:10 And so this is the other thing we often talk about in psychology is that there’s clinical traits and
0:10:17 clinical diagnoses, like someone is diagnosed as having narcissism. Or there’s subclinical, which is
0:10:22 you don’t quite meet the threshold, but you have traits that are related and that are so important for us to
0:10:23 understand in the same context.
0:10:28 So early in the book, you raised the question that I think you highlight as a very important
0:10:35 question. If you could go back in time, would you kill baby Hitler? This is somehow a defining
0:10:35 question. Can you explain?
0:10:40 Well, it’s about whether you think that people are born evil. And so the question of would you
0:10:46 kill baby Hitler is sort of meant to be something that gets people chatting about whether or not they
0:10:50 think that people are born with the traits that make them capable of extreme harm towards others,
0:10:55 or whether they think it’s socialized, whether it’s something that maybe in how people are raised
0:11:02 is sort of manifests over time. And with Hitler, we know from certainly psychologists who have poured
0:11:08 over his traits over time and looked at who he was over the course of his life. There’s always this
0:11:14 question of sort of, was he mad or bad? And with the answer to was he mad? Well, he certainly had some
0:11:23 characteristics that people would associate with, for example, maybe sadism with this idea that he was less
0:11:30 high on empathy is probably also showcased in his work. But in terms of whether he was born that way, I think the
0:11:34 answer usually would be no. And actually, in his early life, he didn’t showcase quite a lot of the traits that
0:11:40 later he sort of defined the horrors that he was capable of. So would I go back in time and kill baby Hitler? The answer is
0:11:46 no. Because I don’t think it’s a straight line from baby to adult, and I don’t think people are born evil.
0:11:53 So you think a large part of it is nurture versus nature, the environment shaping the person to become,
0:11:57 to manifest the evil that they bring out to the world?
0:12:02 Well, and I would be careful with using the word evil, because I think we shouldn’t use it to describe
0:12:08 human beings, because it most commonly others people. It, in fact, I think makes us capable of
0:12:14 perpetrating horrendous crimes against those we label evil. So for me, that word is, it’s the end of a
0:12:20 conversation. It’s when we call somebody evil, we say, this person is so different from me that I don’t even
0:12:25 need to bother trying to understand why they are capable of doing terrible things, because I would never do
0:12:31 such things. I am good. And so that artificial differentiation between good and evil is something
0:12:37 that, certainly with the book, I’m trying to dismantle. And that’s why introducing continuums for
0:12:41 different kinds of negative traits is really important, and introducing this idea that there’s
0:12:47 nothing fundamental to people that makes them capable of great harm. We all have the capacity
0:12:53 to kill people and murder people and do other terrible things. The question is why we don’t do those
0:12:59 things rather than why we do do those things quite often. So I think humanizing and understanding that
0:13:02 we all have these traits is the most important thing in my book, certainly.
0:13:10 Yeah, I think a prerequisite of doing evil, I see this in war a lot, is to dehumanize the other.
0:13:16 In order to be able to murder them on scale, you have to reformulate the war as a fight between good
0:13:22 and evil. And the interesting thing you see with war is both sides think that it’s the battle of good
0:13:27 versus evil. It almost always is like that, especially at large-scale wars.
0:13:33 That’s right. And on top of dehumanization, there is also this other thing called de-individuation,
0:13:38 which is where you see yourself as part of the group and you no longer see yourself as an individual.
0:13:43 And so it’s this fight of us versus them. And so you need both of those things. You need that
0:13:48 sort of collapse of empathy for other people, the people who are on the other side.
0:13:53 And you need this idea that you can be swallowed by the group. And that gives you a sense of
0:14:01 also the cloak of justice, the cloak of morality, even when maybe you’re on the wrong side. And
0:14:06 that’s where, I mean, getting into sort of who’s on the right side of each war is always a more
0:14:10 complicated issue. But certainly calling other people evil and calling the other side evil
0:14:14 and dehumanizing them is crucial to most of these kinds of fights.
0:14:20 Yeah, you promote empathy as an important thing to do when we’re trying to understand each other.
0:14:26 And then a lot of people are uncomfortable with empathy when it comes to folks that we
0:14:33 traditionally label as evil. Hitler is an example. To have empathy means that you’re somehow dirtying
0:14:40 yourself by the evil. What’s your case for empathy? Even when we’re talking about some of the darker
0:14:41 humans in human history.
0:14:46 My case for empathy or evil empathy, as I sometimes call it. So empathy for people who
0:14:51 we often call evil. Also, the title of my book is evil or in the UK market, it’s making evil,
0:14:56 which is a reference to a Nietzsche quote, which is thinking evil is making evil. The idea being that
0:15:02 evil is a label we place onto others. There’s nothing inherent to anything that makes it evil. And so I
0:15:10 also think that we need to, well, dismantle that and empathize with people we call evil because if we’re
0:15:18 saying that this is the worst kind of act or worst kind of manifestation of what somebody can be. So if
0:15:25 someone can destroy others, torture others, hurt others. I work as a criminal psychologist, so I work a lot on
0:15:33 sexual abuse cases, on rape cases, on murder trials. And so in those contexts, that word evil is used all
0:15:38 the time to go, this person is evil. And if we’re doing that, then we need to go, okay, but what we
0:15:43 actually want is we don’t really just want to label people. We want to stop that behavior from happening.
0:15:49 And the only way we’re going to do that is if we understand what led that person to come to that
0:15:54 situation and to engage in that behavior. And so that’s why evil empathy, I think, is crucial,
0:15:59 because ultimately what we want is to make society safer. And the only way we can do that is to
0:16:03 understand the psychological and social levers that led them to engage in this behavior in the first
0:16:11 place. So on a small tangent, I get to interview a bunch of folks that a large number of people consider
0:16:16 evil. So how would you give advice about how to conduct such interviews when you’re sitting in front of a
0:16:23 world leader that some millions of people consider evil? Or if you’re sitting in front of people that are
0:16:31 actual, like, convicted criminals, what’s the way to conduct that interview? Because to me, I want to
0:16:38 understand that human being. They also have their own narrative about why they’re good and why they’re
0:16:42 misunderstood. And they have a story in which they’re not evil. And they’re going to try to tell
0:16:47 that story. And some of them are exceptionally good at telling that story. So if it’s for public
0:16:54 consumption, how would you do that interview? I think it’s important to speak with people whom we,
0:16:59 or whom a lot of people dehumanize, including myself. I mean, I also speak with people who I think are,
0:17:04 or have, I know have committed terrible crimes. And I have spoken to these people because as a criminal
0:17:09 psychologist, that’s often part of my job. So what’s interesting, I think, when you’re speaking
0:17:14 to people who have committed really terrible crimes, or certainly who’ve been convicted of terrible
0:17:20 crimes, is that not only is it potentially insightful, because they might give you a real answer and not
0:17:26 just a controlled narrative about why they committed these crimes. If they are either maintaining their
0:17:33 innocence, or they’re more reluctant to do that, I think even the narrative that they are controlling,
0:17:39 that they’re being very careful with, still tells us a lot about them. So I think, certainly my research
0:17:44 on environmental crime as well, what we see is that people use a lot of rationalization. And they say
0:17:49 things like, well, everybody’s doing it. And if I hadn’t done this first, somebody else would have done
0:17:53 this waste crime or this other kind of crime. And so there’s this rationalization, there’s this
0:18:01 normalization, there’s this diminishing of your own role and agency. And that still tells us a lot about
0:18:09 the psychology of people who commit crimes. Because most of us are very bad at saying sorry, and saying,
0:18:14 I messed this up, and I shouldn’t have done that. And instead, what our brains do is they try to make
0:18:20 us feel better. And they go, no, you’re still a good person, despite this one thing. And so we try to
0:18:24 rationalize it, and we try to excuse it, we try to explain it. And there is some truth to it as well,
0:18:28 because we know the reasons why we engage in that behavior, and other people don’t have the whole
0:18:35 context. So we also do have more of the whole story. But on the other hand, we need to also face the fact
0:18:39 that sometimes we do terrible things, and we need to stop doing those terrible things, and prevent other
0:18:40 people from doing the same.
0:18:48 I find these pictures of World War II leaders as children kind of fascinating, because it grounds you,
0:18:55 makes you realize that there is a whole story there of environment, of development through their
0:19:02 childhood, through their teenage years. You just remember, they’re all kids, except Stalin. He was
0:19:03 looking evil already when he was young.
0:19:07 Well, people used to not smile in photos as well. So I think looking at historical photos of children,
0:19:10 or sometimes even kids in other cultures, it’s like, oh, why are they all so serious?
0:19:15 But our creepiness readers are also way off. So this is something that I’ve been interested in
0:19:20 for a long time as well, is that we have this intuitive perception of whether or not somebody
0:19:24 is trustworthy. And that intuitive perception, according to ample studies at this point,
0:19:29 is not to be trusted. And one thing in particular is whether or not we think someone is creepy,
0:19:34 including children. But usually the research is done, of course, on adult faces and with adults.
0:19:41 And there’s only recently did we even really define what that vague feeling of creepiness is.
0:19:47 And it has a lot to do with just not following social norms. And this is something we see that
0:19:52 transfers to other contexts, like why people are afraid of people with severe mental illness and
0:19:57 psychosis. If you’re on the bus or the tube in London, and someone’s talking to themselves,
0:20:02 and they’re acting in an erratic way, we know that people are more like to keep a distance. There was
0:20:07 one study where they literally had a waiting room, where they also had people with chairs. And the
0:20:11 question was, how many chairs would you sit away from someone you know has a severe mental illness?
0:20:16 And the answer is, you sit more chairs away. And there’s a physical and psychological distancing
0:20:22 that’s happening there. And it’s not because people with severe mental illness are inherently more
0:20:28 violent or more dangerous. That is not actually what the research finds. It’s that we perceive them as
0:20:35 such because we perceive them as weird, basically, we go, this isn’t how you’re supposed to be behaving. And so I’m
0:20:41 worried about this. And so I’m going to keep my distance. And so creepiness is much the same. And that’s where
0:20:47 you can totally misfire whom you perceive as creepy, just because they’re not acting in the way that you expect
0:20:48 people to act in society.
0:20:56 Well, what are the sort of concrete features that contribute to our creepiness metric? Is that meme
0:21:00 accurate that when the person is attractive, you’re less likely to label them as creepy?
0:21:07 It depends. If they’re too attractive, it can be. So there’s, there’s effects that interact there.
0:21:07 That’s hilarious.
0:21:14 Um, and we also don’t trust people potentially who are too attractive. Um, but again, deviation from
0:21:21 the norm. And so if you’re deviating in any way that can lead to, uh, well, your, your assessment being
0:21:28 more wrong, but also you assessing people as more negative. And so with, yeah, but with creepiness,
0:21:35 the, the main thing that bothers me as a criminal psychologist is that tangential to creepiness is
0:21:40 this general idea of trustworthiness and that you can tell whether somebody is lying. And I’ve done
0:21:45 research on this as have lots of other people like Aldert Fry is one of the leading researchers on
0:21:52 deception detection. Uh, and he has found in so many studies that it’s really hard to detect whether
0:21:58 someone is lying reliably and that people, especially police officers, people who do investigative
0:22:04 interviewing, they have this high confidence level that they, because of their vast experience,
0:22:09 can in fact tell whether the person across from them is lying to them, this witness, the suspect.
0:22:14 And the answer that even that, if you take them into experimental settings, they are no better
0:22:20 than chance at detecting lies. And yet they think they are. And so again, you get into this path where
0:22:25 you’re going to miss people who are actually lying to potentially, and you’re going to potentially
0:22:29 point at innocent people and say, I think you’re guilty of this crime. And you go hard on that
0:22:32 person in a way that might even lead to a wrongful conviction.
0:22:39 So it’s the fact that it’s very difficult to detect lies and overconfidence in policing
0:22:42 creates a huge problem.
0:22:47 Not just policing, in relationships and in lots of other contexts as well. I mean, a lot of
0:22:51 jealousy is born out of uncertainty. Jealousy isn’t, I know for sure that you have done something
0:22:56 that is threatening our relationship. A lot of jealousy is what’s in my head because I am assuming
0:23:01 that you might be thinking or doing X. And that is also basically an exercise in lie
0:23:04 detection. And there as well, we are very bad at it.
0:23:13 Is there a combination of the dark tetrad and how good you are at lying? Like are people with
0:23:17 the certain traits, maybe psychopathy, are better at lying than others?
0:23:21 There’s definitely some research to support the idea that people with psychopathy are better
0:23:28 at lying. There’s also some research specifically on faking good in, for example, parole decisions.
0:23:33 So when it comes up to someone who is, there’s a legal decision to be made as to whether this
0:23:38 person can be released from prison or released from just detention in general. And then the
0:23:44 person will act in a particular way, sort of mimic a good prisoner, mimic someone who’s safe
0:23:49 to be released into society. And then the committee goes, oh, well, you know, this person’s doing
0:23:53 great. And so they’re ready to be released. And then they make the wrong decision because
0:23:57 that person has been faking it. So I think with psychopathy, it’s a bit complicated. It’s,
0:24:03 there has been some sort of historically as well, some concern that certain treatment for
0:24:10 psychopathy, especially empathy focused treatment, makes people with psychopathy more likely to fake
0:24:15 empathy and to weaponize it. But then there’s other research, which finds that if you use other kinds
0:24:22 of interventions, it’s like Jennifer Scheme in California, who does research on people with
0:24:26 psychopathy who have committed severe crimes. And she specifically creates these treatment programs
0:24:30 that aren’t just around empathy, but they’re more around almost learning the rules of society
0:24:36 and convincing people that actually being pro-social is a better way to get what you want in life.
0:24:42 And so there’s, there’s a real need for tailored treatments to deal with, especially certain kinds
0:24:48 of personality traits, dark personality traits to try and convince people basically, actually being
0:24:53 pro-social is the better path rather than just going hard on, you know, empathy and things that they
0:24:55 don’t maybe also see as faults with themselves.
0:25:03 Is there a psychological cost to empathizing with so-called monsters? You reference Nietzsche in the book,
0:25:11 you know, gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. If you study quote-unquote evil or study
0:25:16 monsters, you may a bit become that. Is there a danger of that?
0:25:21 I don’t think so. I think that’s what people fear. So a lot of the Nietzsche quotes I use as well are,
0:25:26 some of them I like because they speak to the chapters I write about, but, and the issues I write
0:25:31 about, but some of them I also like because they are how people think about evil and people who are
0:25:38 labeled evil. And I do think with gazing into the abyss and the abyss gazing back, it’s more of a,
0:25:44 you’re trying to find it. And that’s why in some ways that doesn’t work actually, because it isn’t
0:25:50 a total blank. It isn’t the abyss. There are in fact things that you can see, even if it’s just
0:25:55 superficially and patterns you can recognize to help you and key decision makers, especially in legal
0:26:00 settings, make better decisions around people like this. So when they see these patterns,
0:26:08 they act a better way. So yeah, I get asked a lot as a criminal psychologist, do you carry the cases
0:26:14 that you deal around with you? So some of the cases involve, you know, huge amounts of witnesses,
0:26:21 huge amounts of potential victims. And so in these cases, there are very visceral descriptions sometimes
0:26:30 of heinous crimes. And I think that as someone who does this work, you can’t be someone who sees it as
0:26:35 anything other than a puzzle. So you have to look at it and go, here’s the different pieces of
0:26:42 information. What I am doing is pattern recognition. I’m not here to emotionally invest in each of these
0:26:46 victims or potential victims. That’s not my role. There’s therapists for that. There’s other people who do
0:26:51 that work. I’m here working with the police. I’m here working with lawyers. I’m here looking at it
0:26:56 more sort of objectively to see how this all fits together. And so I think that’s how I engage with
0:26:59 it. I see it as this puzzle that I’m trying to figure out.
0:27:05 I worry from my own brain that when I confront people and see them as a puzzle, which I do,
0:27:12 I see the beauty in the puzzle. All the puzzles look beautiful to me. I’m sometimes
0:27:19 like a Prince Mishkin character from The Idiot by Dostoevsky, where you just see, it’s not the good
0:27:26 in people, but the beauty in the puzzle. And I think you can lose your footing on the moral landscape if
0:27:35 you see the beauty in everything a bit too much. Because everyone is interesting. Everyone is complicated.
0:27:42 It’s the classic scientist response as well to what other people in society go, ooh, they go,
0:27:46 you know, this is horrible, or this atrocious thing has happened, or this shocking existential
0:27:53 crisis-inducing thing I’ve just found is, you know, giving me existential crisis. And scientists instead
0:27:59 go, oh, wow. And you can sort of see the delight in discovery as well. And I think sometimes scientists
0:28:06 read us callous because we enjoy this discovery of knowledge and the discovery of insight. And it just
0:28:10 feels like this little light bulb has gone off and you go, oh, I understand a tiny bit more about the
0:28:14 human experience or about the world around us. And I think it must be similar. I don’t know that I
0:28:22 feel or worry that I sort of become more, quote unquote, evil. I think it’s more that you add this
0:28:28 nuance, which I guess sometimes can be estranging to other people. So there’s that. So when you speak
0:28:33 with others, sometimes, like even when I say we shouldn’t use the word evil, people go, no, but you
0:28:37 have to. Does that mean you’re trivializing things? And the answer is no, I’m not trivializing. I’m just
0:28:42 trying to understand. Also, like sympathizing or being empathetic towards people whom others have
0:28:47 written off is always going to get that response from some people. And I mean, there are real questions
0:28:52 around whom we’re platforming and what that has and what role we have as content creators, both of us,
0:28:58 of the people we talk about, how we cover them. I often come across this in true crime work that I do
0:29:04 because I get asked to do TV shows. I host TV shows and I host BBC podcasts. And there’s always
0:29:11 the question of sometimes people commit murder to become famous. And should it be a blanket ban that
0:29:16 we don’t cover those cases? Or should we cover those cases, but in a different way? Or should we
0:29:21 anonymize? So there’s it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t never cover that case. It just means that you need to
0:29:28 think about it. Speaking of which, you’ve done a lot of really great stuff, podcast shows. One of them is
0:29:35 Bad People Podcast. You co-host it. It has over 100 episodes, each covering a crime. What’s maybe the
0:29:40 most disturbing crime you’ve covered? One of the most disturbing crimes that we covered on Bad People,
0:29:46 and just to be clear, Bad People, much like the title Evil, is sort of tongue in cheek, where the idea is
0:29:51 it’s people whom we refer to as bad people. And then it’s always a question of like, who are these
0:29:57 quote unquote bad people? And are we all capable of doing these terrible things? But one of the most
0:30:06 certainly problematic, dark cases that we covered was the Robert Pickton case. And the episodes are
0:30:14 called Piggy’s Palace, because that was the nickname for the farm where Robert Pickton brought victims whom
0:30:21 he had kidnapped. And then he killed them. And he did terrible things to their bodies. And rumors have
0:30:25 it certainly that he fed some of these victims to pigs. Now, one of the reasons I covered that case is
0:30:31 actually because it was influential in my own career. So Robert Pickton is one of the most famous Canadian
0:30:37 serial killers of all time. And as I was doing my undergrad at Simon Fraser University in Canada,
0:30:42 Canada, I was being taught by someone called Stephen Hart. And Stephen Hart was an expert witness
0:30:47 on the Robert Pickton trial. And so he was keeping us abreast of some of the developments of what he was
0:30:53 covering. And I found it so interesting. And I loved Stephen Hart as a person. And he seemed to have the
0:31:00 sense of humor, this gallows humor around it all, despite being faced with one of the arguably worst
0:31:07 people in Canadian history. And I thought that that was so interesting, that someone could be so nice and
0:31:12 so kind and so wonderful and be an expert witness for these kinds of people. And so that’s one of the
0:31:16 reasons I went into the field is because of this case as well. And so we had him on the show. So he came
0:31:18 on to the bad people and we interviewed him for it.
0:31:23 And he has done, I imagine, a lot of really difficult cases.
0:31:29 Yes, he’s done a lot of difficult cases, as have other researchers like Elizabeth Loftus, who’s one of
0:31:36 the main founders of the area of false memory research, which is what I also do. I do research
0:31:44 on memory and false memory and witness statements. And Elizabeth Loftus has also been recently extra for
0:31:51 the Ghislaine Maxwell case. She was in the press. And so she has worked with lawyers to educate the court
0:31:57 on memory in lots of really, really controversial cases. But the way she would explain it is that
0:32:02 it’s still her role to just train people and teach people on how memory works. She’s not there to
0:32:06 decide whether people are guilty or innocent, but she is there to help people distinguish between fact
0:32:10 and fiction when it comes to how our memories work or don’t.
0:32:15 So what kind of person feeds their victims to pigs? What’s interesting about that psychology?
0:32:21 The psychology about Robert Picton? I mean, he was a tricky person, because I think he was profoundly
0:32:27 lonely. And this is something we see with a lot of serial killers, is that they have this loneliness,
0:32:32 which I think also not only contributes to them committing the crimes in the first place, but also
0:32:36 allows them to get away with things, because they don’t have as much of a social network or any social
0:32:42 network that is helping them to do what’s called reality monitoring, to understand what’s true and
0:32:47 what’s not. And so when you see people get radicalized in their own thoughts, whether that’s
0:32:52 in the sense of things like schizophrenia, where you’ve got psychosis, you’ve got delusions,
0:32:58 maybe command hallucinations, that’s when you think you’re hearing voices, and someone is telling you
0:33:02 that you have to do something, usually something harmful to other people. And if you don’t follow
0:33:06 those, you will hear those voices forever. They’re profoundly distressing. And they are one of the
0:33:14 the aspects of schizophrenia that if you have it does make you more prone to violence. And so for these
0:33:18 kinds of cases, if you don’t have someone intervening, whether that’s a family member or a therapist,
0:33:24 saying, how can you tell whether this thought is real? Maybe that thought, maybe you’re not hearing
0:33:30 that voice, right? Maybe that aspect of what you’re thinking isn’t true, and bringing you back and closer
0:33:37 to reality, you can just wander off to whatever alternate universe that you might live in, in your
0:33:41 head. And it’s the same with radicalization in other contexts, is that you see that people who
0:33:47 drift more and more into a certain group that has certain beliefs that are maybe divorced from the
0:33:53 evidence, divorced from reality, you can see that people will get more extreme over time. And unless you
0:33:58 have a tether that brings you back, that allows you to do reality monitoring, it’s going to be very
0:34:03 difficult to find your way out of that. So with serial killers, we find this reality monitoring
0:34:07 problem. And I think part of that’s related to the lack of social networks that people have.
0:34:12 That’s fascinating. So that’s one important component of serial killers. What else can we say about the
0:34:17 psychology? What motivates them? So if you look at some of the famous serial killers, Ted Bundy,
0:34:23 John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, is there other things we can say about their psychology that motivates
0:34:28 them? So interesting. The tethered to reality. I mean, loneliness is a part of the human condition.
0:34:38 It is, in fact, one of its side effects is you can get untethered. And then with some of these brains,
0:34:41 I guess the untethered goes to some dark place.
0:34:48 The untethered goes to a dark place. And it then is often combined with some of these other dark
0:34:53 tetrad traits. So you’ve got someone who maybe is high on psychopathy, low on empathy, someone who’s
0:35:00 high on sadism, someone who thinks that it’s okay to pursue your own goals. And your own goal can be,
0:35:08 like with Jeffrey Dahmer, you can be wanting to create the perfect partner, which in some ways seems to be
0:35:13 what he was trying to do by killing people and piecing them together and sewing up a sort of new version.
0:35:17 There’s something in that where I can’t help but go,
0:35:20 that’s so sad. I don’t go,
0:35:24 oh my God, how terrible, how awful. And of course it’s atrocious. Of course it’s heinous.
0:35:27 But I have this real sympathy for that.
0:35:31 And I think that’s important for us to
0:35:33 have, though. And not to say,
0:35:37 I can’t relate to this person at all, but to say that is an extreme manifestation of something I have felt.
0:35:43 And the difference between me engaging in that and this person engaging in that are these other factors.
0:35:46 But the core is in all of us.
0:35:50 Do you think all of us are capable of evil?
0:35:54 Of some of the things we label as evil?
0:35:57 I think all of us are capable of doing basically the worst things we can imagine.
0:36:01 And one of the reasons I think that is because you can see neighbors turning on each other,
0:36:07 especially if you look historically at the start of wars or big political moments
0:36:10 where you have people who would have called each other friends,
0:36:12 turning each other into the police,
0:36:14 killing each other, doing terrible things.
0:36:19 So I think all it takes is to become convinced that the people you think are your friends are actually your enemies,
0:36:25 whether that’s just in your own world or in a larger political national landscape that I think,
0:36:29 I don’t think it takes all that much for us to be capable of doing terrible things.
0:36:34 But that’s also why it’s really important when things are good and when you’re not at war
0:36:37 and when you have the capacity to think deeply about important issues,
0:36:45 to train your mind on these thoughts of knowing that things like loneliness can manifest in these extreme ways,
0:36:50 that things like jealousy and aggression, that they can turn into murder,
0:36:53 that they can turn into these horrible versions,
0:36:57 and to then also spot the red flags if you start going down that path.
0:37:01 I think if we don’t rehearse evil, if you will,
0:37:03 we are much more likely to engage in it,
0:37:08 especially in those moments where we don’t have much time or energy to really think about what we’re doing.
0:37:12 Yeah, I really appreciate the way you think and the way you talk about this.
0:37:16 Listening to history, when I’m reading history books,
0:37:20 I imagine myself doing the thing I’m reading about.
0:37:24 And I almost always can imagine that,
0:37:26 like when I’m being honest with myself.
0:37:30 And it’s important to admit that to ourselves.
0:37:35 And research on murder fantasies finds that most men have fantasized about killing someone.
0:37:37 About 70% in two studies.
0:37:39 And most women as well.
0:37:42 More than 50% of women have fantasized about killing somebody.
0:37:44 So murder fantasies are incredibly common.
0:37:47 And certainly, according to some researchers,
0:37:49 that’s a good thing.
0:37:53 Being able to rehearse and think through doing the most terrible things,
0:37:58 is it’s a great dress rehearsal for also how we don’t want to live our lives.
0:38:01 And only if you are able to fully think through,
0:38:05 what would I actually be like if I was engaging in this?
0:38:06 What would I be thinking?
0:38:07 Who would I be with?
0:38:08 What would be my,
0:38:11 the group that I’m charging against this other person?
0:38:12 You know,
0:38:14 who am I there with?
0:38:15 As you said,
0:38:19 like really putting yourself in the shoes of these people who’ve done terrible things.
0:38:23 That is how you also realize that you do not want those consequences.
0:38:24 And so,
0:38:25 yeah,
0:38:27 you maybe want to murder this person,
0:38:28 but you don’t really want to murder this person.
0:38:32 That’s that intuitive sort of animalistic brain coming in.
0:38:33 But then,
0:38:34 luckily,
0:38:35 we have higher reasoning that goes,
0:38:36 actually,
0:38:37 if you think this through,
0:38:39 that’s a pretty terrible consequence for yourself.
0:38:42 So the better thing to do is not to murder this person.
0:38:42 So,
0:38:47 I think it’s adaptive to be able to fantasize and think about these things.
0:38:48 Obviously,
0:38:51 if you start getting to a point where you’re ruminating and you’re going in these circles,
0:38:55 where you’re constantly fantasizing about doing dark things,
0:38:56 especially to a specific person,
0:39:00 I’d always advise seeing somebody to talk to a psychologist,
0:39:00 for example,
0:39:04 because that then does become a risk factor for acting on those dark fantasies.
0:39:06 But up to that point,
0:39:10 if it’s just a fleeting thought or something that sort of in one day you have these thoughts,
0:39:12 that is totally healthy,
0:39:12 I would say.
0:39:13 And also,
0:39:20 I think it’s useful to simulate or think through what it would take to say no in that situation.
0:39:21 Meaning,
0:39:25 once you’re able to imagine yourself doing evil things,
0:39:29 you have to imagine the difficult act of resisting.
0:39:33 A lot of people think they would resist in Nazi Germany.
0:39:34 Well,
0:39:35 most people didn’t.
0:39:37 And there’s a reason for that.
0:39:38 It’s not easy.
0:39:40 Same reason.
0:39:41 I’ve seen this.
0:39:45 If something bad is happening on a public street,
0:39:46 most people,
0:39:47 it’s the bystander effect.
0:39:49 Most people just stand there and watch.
0:39:51 I’ve seen it once in my life.
0:39:52 Yeah,
0:39:53 this is humans.
0:39:54 So it’s actually,
0:39:57 you want to simulate stepping up.
0:39:58 Yeah,
0:40:00 so it’s also been called the heroic imagination.
0:40:02 So someone who has studied evil,
0:40:03 quote unquote,
0:40:04 at length is called Philip Zimbardo.
0:40:06 He did the Stanford prison experiment.
0:40:08 And that was an experiment,
0:40:09 which is,
0:40:09 I mean,
0:40:11 it’s now been torn apart in various ways.
0:40:14 It was absolutely influential for psychology.
0:40:17 It’s where participants were randomly assigned,
0:40:18 whether they would be prisoners or guards,
0:40:20 in a mock prison experiment.
0:40:22 And then for a number of days,
0:40:25 they were told to do various things.
0:40:27 And it got out of control.
0:40:29 And the guards went way over
0:40:30 what they were supposed to be doing.
0:40:32 And they effectively started
0:40:36 pseudo-torturing some of these inmates
0:40:37 or these pretend inmates.
0:40:39 And the whole thing had to be stopped prematurely.
0:40:42 But it was really fundamental in showing how
0:40:44 just by randomly being assigned
0:40:45 into guard,
0:40:46 the person in charge,
0:40:47 or inmate,
0:40:48 you can,
0:40:49 within a matter of days,
0:40:50 have a completely different way
0:40:51 of thinking about one another.
0:40:53 And so Philip Zimbardo
0:40:55 has also spoken at length about evil
0:40:58 and that all of us are capable of it
0:40:58 in the right circumstances.
0:41:01 But he also is a big proponent
0:41:02 of what he calls
0:41:03 the heroic imagination.
0:41:05 And the heroic imagination
0:41:06 is really what the purpose
0:41:07 of everything I do is.
0:41:09 The purpose of what I do
0:41:09 isn’t just to go,
0:41:10 oh, this is curious,
0:41:11 and to stop there.
0:41:13 The point is to then prevent it.
0:41:15 And to prevent it in ourselves,
0:41:16 because that’s, I think,
0:41:17 ultimately what has to happen.
0:41:18 You can’t do a top-down,
0:41:20 sort of government-level approach
0:41:23 to trying to be so tough on crime
0:41:24 that no one will ever commit crime.
0:41:24 That’s impossible.
0:41:26 But you can change,
0:41:29 sort of to say it in a tacky way,
0:41:30 the hearts and minds of individuals
0:41:33 to recognize the pathways towards evil
0:41:34 and to go,
0:41:36 wait, I’m off track.
0:41:37 I don’t want to go this way.
0:41:38 And I’m going to stop myself here
0:41:40 and here’s how I can find my way back.
0:41:42 And so the heroic imagination
0:41:43 is exercising that.
0:41:45 I see someone on the street.
0:41:47 How do I make sure that they’re okay?
0:41:49 How do I not become a bystander?
0:41:49 And actually,
0:41:51 the bystander stuff is interesting
0:41:53 because there was a really famous case,
0:41:55 the murder of Kitty Genovese.
0:41:57 And there were all of these,
0:41:59 both ear and eyewitnesses.
0:42:00 So an earwitness is someone
0:42:01 who just hears things
0:42:02 and an eyewitness is someone
0:42:03 who sees the crime happening.
0:42:05 And they didn’t intervene
0:42:06 in the murder of this woman.
0:42:09 And so this case was often taken
0:42:11 as this almost example of,
0:42:13 look how terrible human beings are.
0:42:14 We just walk by.
0:42:16 We don’t care about what’s happening
0:42:17 to strangers on the streets.
0:42:18 And actually what’s happened since
0:42:19 is that there’s been lots
0:42:21 of other bystander experiments
0:42:24 and they have not substantiated this.
0:42:26 So we need to be very careful
0:42:28 with looking at these extreme cases
0:42:29 and going how horrible
0:42:30 that this happened to this one person.
0:42:31 And it is.
0:42:32 But that doesn’t mean
0:42:33 that that’s always how it happens.
0:42:35 And so actually what we find
0:42:36 in bystander research
0:42:37 is that most of the time
0:42:38 bystanders do intervene.
0:42:40 It’s just when there has already
0:42:41 been a crowd
0:42:42 that has accumulated
0:42:44 you read the room
0:42:45 and you assume
0:42:46 well nobody else
0:42:46 has intervened yet
0:42:48 and so it must not be
0:42:49 a real problem.
0:42:51 That desire to
0:42:53 not stand out
0:42:53 in a negative way
0:42:55 is often what hinders
0:42:56 heroicism.
0:42:57 I mean that’s why
0:42:58 we look at heroes
0:42:59 people who especially
0:43:00 risk their own lives
0:43:01 to save others
0:43:01 especially strangers.
0:43:03 we see them
0:43:05 with a sort of respect
0:43:07 that nobody else gets
0:43:08 and that’s because
0:43:09 we recognize
0:43:10 that we might not
0:43:11 be capable of that.
0:43:13 If I saw a stranger
0:43:14 drowning in a river
0:43:16 would I really risk my life
0:43:17 jumping in the river
0:43:18 to maybe save them?
0:43:20 I think that’s
0:43:21 a big question mark.
0:43:22 And so
0:43:24 when people do that
0:43:25 especially when people
0:43:25 almost have this
0:43:27 inherent reaction
0:43:28 that they just jump in
0:43:29 they just go for it
0:43:30 that is something
0:43:31 that is a really
0:43:32 admirable quality
0:43:33 and that we as humans
0:43:33 do celebrate
0:43:34 and we should.
0:43:35 And I think
0:43:36 often we should
0:43:37 celebrate those
0:43:39 incidents more
0:43:40 and not the
0:43:41 you know the
0:43:42 bystander moments
0:43:42 where we didn’t
0:43:43 intervene.
0:43:44 We should be
0:43:45 normalizing intervening.
0:43:46 And again
0:43:47 this idea of
0:43:48 heroic imagination
0:43:50 actually simulating
0:43:51 imagining yourself
0:43:52 standing up
0:43:54 and saving the person
0:43:54 when a crowd
0:43:55 is watching
0:43:55 they’re drowning
0:43:56 to be the one
0:43:57 that dives in
0:43:58 tries to help.
0:44:00 You mentioned
0:44:03 70%
0:44:03 of men
0:44:04 and some
0:44:05 large percentage
0:44:05 of women
0:44:06 fantasize
0:44:06 about murder.
0:44:08 And I also
0:44:10 read that you
0:44:11 wrote that
0:44:12 recidivism
0:44:13 for homicide
0:44:14 is only
0:44:15 1 to 3%.
0:44:17 So
0:44:18 that raises
0:44:19 the question
0:44:20 why do people
0:44:20 commit murder?
0:44:21 Murder
0:44:22 is a really
0:44:23 interesting
0:44:24 crime
0:44:24 because
0:44:26 most of the
0:44:26 time it’s
0:44:27 perpetrated
0:44:28 for reasons
0:44:28 that we
0:44:28 don’t
0:44:29 like
0:44:29 as a
0:44:30 society.
0:44:30 So
0:44:31 as a
0:44:31 person
0:44:31 who
0:44:32 talks
0:44:32 a lot
0:44:33 to
0:44:34 the
0:44:34 news
0:44:34 and
0:44:34 also
0:44:35 to
0:44:36 producers
0:44:36 who
0:44:36 are
0:44:37 trying
0:44:37 to
0:44:37 make
0:44:37 true crime
0:44:38 shows
0:44:38 who
0:44:38 don’t
0:44:39 necessarily
0:44:39 have
0:44:40 a
0:44:40 deep
0:44:41 understanding
0:44:41 of
0:44:41 psychology
0:44:42 let’s
0:44:42 just say
0:44:43 and who
0:44:43 come at
0:44:43 you
0:44:43 with
0:44:44 myths
0:44:44 where
0:44:44 you
0:44:44 go
0:44:45 oh no
0:44:45 we’re
0:44:45 not
0:44:45 going
0:44:46 to
0:44:46 talk
0:44:46 about
0:44:46 that
0:44:46 we’re
0:44:47 not
0:44:47 going
0:44:47 to
0:44:47 talk
0:44:47 about
0:44:47 whether
0:44:48 or not
0:44:48 the
0:44:48 mom
0:44:48 is
0:44:48 to
0:44:49 blame
0:44:49 for
0:44:49 this
0:44:49 person
0:44:58 is
0:44:59 really
0:44:59 problematic
0:45:00 what
0:45:00 really
0:45:01 happens
0:45:01 in
0:45:01 murder
0:45:01 most
0:45:02 of
0:45:02 the
0:45:02 time
0:45:03 which
0:45:03 is
0:45:03 not
0:45:03 what
0:45:03 you
0:45:03 see
0:45:03 on
0:45:03 TV
0:45:04 because
0:45:04 it’s
0:45:04 really
0:45:04 boring
0:45:05 is
0:45:05 it’s
0:45:06 a
0:45:06 fight
0:45:06 that
0:45:06 gets
0:45:06 out
0:45:07 of
0:45:07 control
0:45:08 and
0:45:08 if
0:45:08 you
0:45:08 look
0:45:08 at
0:45:08 the
0:45:09 real
0:45:10 reasons
0:45:10 stated
0:45:10 it’s
0:45:11 things
0:45:11 like
0:45:11 this
0:45:12 person
0:45:12 owed
0:45:12 me
0:45:12 four
0:45:13 dollars
0:45:14 and
0:45:14 so
0:45:14 I
0:45:14 killed
0:45:14 him
0:45:15 this
0:45:15 person
0:45:16 stole
0:45:16 my
0:45:16 bike
0:45:17 this
0:45:17 person
0:45:18 it’s
0:45:18 these
0:45:18 really
0:45:20 stupid
0:45:20 reasons
0:45:21 and
0:45:21 it is
0:45:22 just
0:45:22 this
0:45:22 bad
0:45:23 decision
0:45:23 in
0:45:23 the
0:45:23 moment
0:45:24 an
0:45:25 overreaction
0:45:25 to a
0:45:25 fight
0:45:26 to an
0:45:26 argument
0:45:27 and
0:45:28 it
0:45:28 wasn’t
0:45:29 planned
0:45:29 it’s
0:45:29 not
0:45:29 some
0:45:30 psychopath
0:45:31 sharpening
0:45:31 their
0:45:31 knives
0:45:32 waiting
0:45:32 for
0:45:32 months
0:45:32 to
0:45:32 try
0:45:32 and
0:45:33 kill
0:45:33 this
0:45:33 person
0:45:34 and
0:45:34 we
0:45:34 don’t
0:45:34 like
0:45:35 that
0:45:35 because
0:45:36 there’s
0:45:36 something
0:45:36 called
0:45:36 the
0:45:37 victimization
0:45:37 gap
0:45:38 which
0:45:38 is
0:45:38 that
0:45:38 the
0:45:39 impact
0:45:40 of
0:45:40 this
0:45:40 extreme
0:45:41 situation
0:45:41 on
0:45:41 the
0:45:42 perpetrator
0:45:43 there’s
0:45:43 a huge
0:45:43 gap
0:45:44 between
0:45:44 that
0:45:44 and
0:45:44 the
0:45:45 impact
0:45:45 on
0:45:45 the
0:45:45 victim
0:45:45 and
0:45:45 their
0:45:56 consequences
0:45:57 and
0:45:57 we
0:45:57 don’t
0:45:57 like
0:45:57 that
0:45:58 we
0:45:58 like
0:45:58 things
0:45:58 that
0:45:59 have
0:45:59 extreme
0:46:00 consequences
0:46:00 to
0:46:00 have
0:46:01 extreme
0:46:01 reasons
0:46:02 and
0:46:02 so
0:46:02 that’s
0:46:02 why
0:46:03 I
0:46:03 think
0:46:03 there’s
0:46:03 this
0:46:04 real
0:46:05 desire
0:46:05 to
0:46:05 show
0:46:06 serial
0:46:06 killers
0:46:07 and
0:46:07 to
0:46:07 show
0:46:07 people
0:46:08 who
0:46:08 are
0:46:09 in
0:46:09 fact
0:46:09 planning
0:46:10 murders
0:46:10 for
0:46:10 a
0:46:10 really
0:46:11 long
0:46:11 time
0:46:11 and
0:46:11 then
0:46:11 engage
0:46:11 in
0:46:12 them
0:46:12 rather
0:46:13 than
0:46:14 this
0:46:14 fight
0:46:14 that
0:46:14 goes
0:46:14 out
0:46:14 of
0:46:15 control
0:46:15 or
0:46:16 someone
0:46:16 drink
0:46:17 driving
0:46:17 or
0:46:18 someone
0:46:18 who
0:46:19 is
0:46:19 I
0:46:20 mean
0:46:20 unfortunately
0:46:20 intimate
0:46:20 partner
0:46:21 homicide
0:46:21 is
0:46:22 also
0:46:22 one
0:46:22 of
0:46:22 those
0:46:23 situations
0:46:23 that
0:46:23 is
0:46:23 common
0:46:24 one
0:46:25 of
0:46:25 the
0:46:25 top
0:46:25 four
0:46:25 reasons
0:46:26 for
0:46:26 murder
0:46:26 as
0:46:26 well
0:46:27 but
0:46:29 that’s
0:46:29 not
0:46:30 the
0:46:31 almost
0:46:31 glamorized
0:46:32 version
0:46:32 that we
0:46:32 see
0:46:32 of
0:46:32 murder
0:46:33 online
0:46:34 or
0:46:34 that
0:46:34 we
0:46:34 see
0:46:34 in
0:46:34 the
0:46:35 news
0:46:35 so
0:46:36 I
0:46:36 think
0:46:36 it’s
0:46:36 always
0:46:36 important
0:46:37 to
0:46:37 talk
0:46:37 about
0:46:37 murder
0:46:38 as
0:46:38 something
0:46:39 that
0:46:39 is
0:46:39 rarely
0:46:40 inherent
0:46:41 to
0:46:41 an
0:46:41 individual
0:46:42 very
0:46:42 few
0:46:43 people
0:46:44 want
0:46:44 to
0:46:44 murder
0:46:45 they
0:46:45 might
0:46:45 fantasize
0:46:45 about it
0:46:46 but they
0:46:46 don’t
0:46:46 want
0:46:46 to
0:46:46 go
0:46:46 through
0:46:46 with
0:46:47 it
0:46:47 and
0:46:47 very
0:46:47 few
0:46:48 people
0:46:48 who
0:46:48 do
0:46:48 engage
0:46:48 in
0:46:49 murder
0:46:49 wanted
0:46:49 to
0:46:49 do
0:46:50 it
0:46:50 in
0:46:50 that
0:46:50 instance
0:46:51 never
0:46:51 mind
0:46:51 again
0:46:53 I
0:46:53 think
0:46:53 in
0:46:53 general
0:46:54 we
0:46:54 have
0:46:55 the way
0:46:55 that we
0:46:55 look at
0:46:55 lots
0:46:55 of
0:46:56 crimes
0:46:56 upside
0:46:57 down
0:46:58 so
0:46:58 we
0:46:58 put
0:46:59 murderers
0:46:59 in
0:46:59 prison
0:46:59 for
0:46:59 a
0:47:00 really
0:47:00 long
0:47:00 time
0:47:01 because
0:47:01 we
0:47:01 think
0:47:01 that
0:47:01 that’s
0:47:02 justice
0:47:03 which
0:47:03 is
0:47:03 sure
0:47:04 that’s
0:47:04 one
0:47:04 version
0:47:04 where
0:47:05 it’s
0:47:05 an eye
0:47:05 for an
0:47:05 eye
0:47:06 kind
0:47:06 of
0:47:07 life
0:47:07 for life
0:47:08 there’s
0:47:09 obviously
0:47:09 the more
0:47:09 extreme
0:47:09 version
0:47:10 of that
0:47:10 which
0:47:10 is
0:47:10 the
0:47:10 death
0:47:11 penalty
0:47:11 which
0:47:12 I
0:47:12 don’t
0:47:12 adhere
0:47:12 to
0:47:12 but
0:47:12 I
0:47:13 could
0:47:13 see
0:47:13 the
0:47:14 rationalization
0:47:14 of
0:47:15 you
0:47:15 stole
0:47:15 somebody
0:47:16 else’s
0:47:16 life
0:47:16 so
0:47:16 you
0:47:16 don’t
0:47:16 deserve
0:47:16 to
0:47:17 have
0:47:17 one
0:47:18 but
0:47:18 there’s
0:47:18 also
0:47:18 the
0:47:18 other
0:47:19 side
0:47:19 which
0:47:19 is
0:47:19 if
0:47:19 we’re
0:47:19 looking
0:47:20 at
0:47:20 prevention
0:47:21 murder
0:47:22 is
0:47:22 really
0:47:23 like
0:47:24 people
0:47:24 aren’t
0:47:24 going to
0:47:24 go out
0:47:24 and
0:47:24 murder
0:47:25 again
0:47:25 so
0:47:26 that’s
0:47:26 a
0:47:27 really
0:47:27 low
0:47:28 risk
0:47:28 in
0:47:28 terms
0:47:28 of
0:47:29 recidivism
0:47:29 actually
0:47:30 and
0:47:30 high
0:47:30 risk
0:47:31 are
0:47:31 things
0:47:31 like
0:47:31 fraud
0:47:32 and
0:47:32 elder
0:47:33 abuse
0:47:33 and
0:47:34 sexual
0:47:34 violence
0:47:35 and
0:47:35 so
0:47:35 in
0:47:35 some
0:47:36 ways
0:47:36 sometimes
0:47:36 our
0:47:37 sanctions
0:47:37 are
0:47:37 upside
0:47:38 down
0:47:38 in
0:47:38 terms
0:47:38 of
0:47:39 how
0:47:40 we
0:47:40 can
0:47:40 make
0:47:40 society
0:47:41 safer
0:47:42 and
0:47:42 they’re
0:47:42 in
0:47:43 line
0:47:43 more
0:47:43 just
0:47:43 with
0:47:44 how
0:47:44 we
0:47:44 perceive
0:47:44 justice
0:47:45 to
0:47:45 work
0:47:45 so
0:47:46 there’s
0:47:46 big
0:47:47 fundamental
0:47:47 questions
0:47:47 about
0:47:47 how
0:47:47 we
0:47:48 organize
0:47:48 our
0:47:48 justice
0:47:49 systems
0:47:49 and
0:47:49 what
0:47:49 we
0:47:49 want
0:47:49 them
0:47:49 to
0:47:50 be
0:47:50 for
0:47:51 can
0:47:51 you
0:47:51 just
0:47:52 linger
0:47:52 on
0:47:52 that
0:47:52 a bit
0:47:53 so
0:47:53 how
0:47:54 should
0:47:54 we
0:47:54 think
0:47:55 about
0:47:55 everything
0:47:55 you
0:47:56 just
0:47:56 described
0:47:57 for
0:47:58 how
0:47:58 our
0:47:59 criminal
0:47:59 justice
0:48:00 system
0:48:01 forgives
0:48:02 if they
0:48:02 are
0:48:02 very
0:48:02 unlikely
0:48:02 to
0:48:03 murder
0:48:03 again
0:48:04 how
0:48:04 would
0:48:04 you
0:48:04 reform
0:48:05 the
0:48:05 criminal
0:48:05 justice
0:48:06 system
0:48:06 I
0:48:06 think
0:48:12 with
0:48:13 victims
0:48:13 families
0:48:14 there
0:48:14 is
0:48:14 this
0:48:15 divide
0:48:15 where
0:48:15 you
0:48:16 have
0:48:17 some
0:48:17 who
0:48:18 are
0:48:18 much
0:48:18 more
0:48:19 keen
0:48:19 on
0:48:19 something
0:48:19 called
0:48:19 restorative
0:48:20 justice
0:48:20 which
0:48:21 is
0:48:21 where
0:48:21 they
0:48:21 what
0:48:22 they
0:48:22 want
0:48:22 is
0:48:22 for
0:48:23 the
0:48:23 person
0:48:23 to
0:48:24 apologize
0:48:24 the
0:48:25 perpetrator
0:48:25 to
0:48:25 apologize
0:48:26 to
0:48:27 explain
0:48:27 how
0:48:27 it
0:48:27 happened
0:48:28 also
0:48:29 quite
0:48:29 often
0:48:29 I
0:48:29 mean
0:48:30 you
0:48:30 look
0:48:30 at
0:48:31 some
0:48:31 of
0:48:31 the
0:48:31 other
0:48:31 consequences
0:48:32 in
0:48:32 the
0:48:32 other
0:48:32 context
0:48:33 it’s
0:48:33 sort
0:48:33 of
0:48:33 like
0:48:34 teenage
0:48:34 boys
0:48:34 who
0:48:35 are
0:48:35 part
0:48:35 of
0:48:35 gangs
0:48:35 for
0:48:36 example
0:48:36 is
0:48:36 the
0:48:36 other
0:48:37 context
0:48:37 and
0:48:37 it’s
0:48:38 a
0:48:38 teenage
0:48:38 boy
0:48:38 killing
0:48:39 another
0:48:39 teenage
0:48:39 boy
0:48:40 like
0:48:40 these
0:48:40 are
0:48:41 kids
0:48:41 and
0:48:42 the
0:48:42 parents
0:48:42 of
0:48:42 a
0:48:43 teenage
0:48:43 boy
0:48:43 understand
0:48:44 that
0:48:44 this
0:48:45 isn’t
0:48:45 you know
0:48:46 they don’t
0:48:46 think
0:48:46 of
0:48:46 this
0:48:46 other
0:48:47 perpetrator
0:48:48 as
0:48:48 this
0:48:49 grown
0:48:49 man
0:48:49 who
0:48:50 has
0:48:50 I
0:48:50 don’t
0:48:50 know
0:48:51 I
0:48:51 think
0:48:51 we
0:48:51 think
0:48:52 of
0:48:52 it
0:48:52 as
0:48:53 this
0:48:54 fight
0:48:54 between
0:48:54 the
0:48:55 parents
0:48:56 of
0:48:56 both
0:48:56 teenage
0:48:57 boys
0:48:57 in that
0:48:57 case
0:48:58 but
0:48:58 really
0:48:59 often
0:48:59 what
0:48:59 parents
0:49:00 want
0:49:00 is
0:49:00 to
0:49:00 just
0:49:01 understand
0:49:01 how
0:49:01 this
0:49:01 could
0:49:02 happen
0:49:03 and
0:49:03 in
0:49:03 some
0:49:03 ways
0:49:03 to
0:49:04 allow
0:49:04 the
0:49:04 other
0:49:04 teenage
0:49:04 boy
0:49:05 to
0:49:05 still
0:49:05 have
0:49:05 a
0:49:05 life
0:49:06 and
0:49:06 to
0:49:06 not
0:49:07 steal
0:49:07 theirs
0:49:07 as
0:49:07 well
0:49:08 or
0:49:08 his
0:49:08 as
0:49:08 well
0:49:09 so
0:49:09 there’s
0:49:09 that
0:49:10 restorative
0:49:10 justice
0:49:10 model
0:49:11 where
0:49:11 forgiveness
0:49:12 I
0:49:12 think
0:49:13 belongs
0:49:13 to
0:49:13 the
0:49:13 families
0:49:14 some
0:49:14 families
0:49:14 of
0:49:14 course
0:49:15 want
0:49:15 the
0:49:15 most
0:49:15 extreme
0:49:16 punishment
0:49:17 that’s
0:49:17 also
0:49:17 I
0:49:17 can
0:49:18 understand
0:49:18 how
0:49:19 that
0:49:19 would
0:49:19 be
0:49:19 a
0:49:20 response
0:49:20 that’s
0:49:20 triggered
0:49:21 if
0:49:21 you’ve
0:49:21 suffered
0:49:22 a
0:49:22 severe
0:49:22 loss
0:49:23 but
0:49:23 if
0:49:23 we’re
0:49:24 looking
0:49:24 to
0:49:24 make
0:49:24 society
0:49:25 safer
0:49:25 putting
0:49:26 people
0:49:26 who
0:49:26 have
0:49:27 killed
0:49:27 in
0:49:27 prison
0:49:28 is
0:49:29 actually
0:49:29 not
0:49:29 the
0:49:29 answer
0:49:30 right
0:49:31 because
0:49:31 if
0:49:32 we
0:49:32 want
0:49:32 society
0:49:32 to
0:49:32 be
0:49:33 safer
0:49:33 it
0:49:33 should
0:49:33 be
0:49:33 based
0:49:34 purely
0:49:34 on
0:49:35 what
0:49:35 is
0:49:35 most
0:49:35 likely
0:49:36 to
0:49:36 deter
0:49:37 crime
0:49:37 and
0:49:38 who
0:49:38 is
0:49:38 most
0:49:38 likely
0:49:38 to
0:49:39 engage
0:49:39 in
0:49:39 it
0:49:40 and
0:49:40 that’s
0:49:40 where
0:49:41 I
0:49:41 think
0:49:41 we’ve
0:49:41 got
0:49:41 it
0:49:41 upside
0:49:42 down
0:49:43 if
0:49:43 I
0:49:43 could
0:49:43 just
0:49:44 stick
0:49:44 to
0:49:44 the
0:49:44 bad
0:49:44 people
0:49:45 podcast
0:49:46 there’s
0:49:46 an
0:49:46 episode
0:49:47 on
0:49:47 incels
0:49:47 called
0:49:48 black
0:49:48 pill
0:49:48 are
0:49:49 incels
0:49:49 dangerous
0:49:50 so
0:49:50 are
0:49:50 they
0:49:51 dangerous
0:49:51 what’s
0:49:52 the
0:49:52 psychology
0:49:52 of
0:49:53 incels
0:49:53 so
0:49:54 that
0:49:54 episode
0:49:54 was
0:49:54 all
0:49:55 about
0:49:55 what
0:49:56 it
0:49:56 means
0:49:57 to
0:49:57 espouse
0:49:58 certain
0:49:58 kinds
0:49:59 of
0:49:59 views
0:49:59 especially
0:50:00 about
0:50:00 women
0:50:01 and
0:50:01 what
0:50:01 it
0:50:02 means
0:50:02 to
0:50:03 be
0:50:03 in
0:50:03 an
0:50:04 environment
0:50:04 that
0:50:05 is
0:50:05 fueling
0:50:05 the
0:50:06 fire
0:50:06 of
0:50:08 well
0:50:08 hatred
0:50:08 of
0:50:09 gender
0:50:09 and
0:50:10 so
0:50:10 and
0:50:11 the idea
0:50:11 of
0:50:12 entitlement
0:50:12 so
0:50:12 I
0:50:12 think
0:50:14 one
0:50:14 thing
0:50:14 that
0:50:14 we
0:50:14 see
0:50:15 often
0:50:15 in
0:50:16 crimes
0:50:16 of
0:50:16 all
0:50:17 sorts
0:50:17 actually
0:50:18 is
0:50:18 the
0:50:18 sense
0:50:18 of
0:50:19 entitlement
0:50:19 that
0:50:19 drives
0:50:20 the
0:50:20 perception
0:50:21 that
0:50:21 I’m
0:50:22 allowed
0:50:22 to
0:50:22 engage
0:50:22 in
0:50:23 X
0:50:23 because
0:50:24 of
0:50:25 something
0:50:25 else
0:50:26 and
0:50:26 I
0:50:27 deserve
0:50:27 to
0:50:28 have
0:50:28 a
0:50:28 life
0:50:29 that
0:50:29 looks
0:50:29 like
0:50:30 this
0:50:30 but
0:50:30 I
0:50:31 don’t
0:50:31 and
0:50:31 so
0:50:31 I’m
0:50:31 going
0:50:31 to
0:50:32 go
0:50:32 take
0:50:32 it
0:50:32 or
0:50:32 I’m
0:50:32 going
0:50:33 to
0:50:33 do
0:50:33 something
0:50:34 to
0:50:34 show
0:50:35 my
0:50:35 dissatisfaction
0:50:36 in
0:50:36 life
0:50:36 and
0:50:37 so
0:50:37 if
0:50:37 you
0:50:37 think
0:50:38 that
0:50:44 at
0:50:44 home
0:50:44 who’s
0:50:45 taking
0:50:45 care
0:50:45 of
0:50:45 the
0:50:45 kids
0:50:45 and
0:50:46 this
0:50:46 sort
0:50:46 of
0:50:46 white
0:50:47 picket
0:50:47 fence
0:50:47 ideal
0:50:47 that
0:50:48 we’ve
0:50:48 been
0:50:48 sold
0:50:49 we have been
0:50:49 told
0:50:50 that
0:50:50 that
0:50:50 is
0:50:50 what
0:50:50 we
0:50:50 should
0:50:51 have
0:50:52 like
0:50:52 I
0:50:52 understand
0:50:53 where
0:50:53 it
0:50:53 comes
0:50:53 from
0:50:54 and
0:50:56 the
0:50:56 question
0:50:56 though
0:50:57 is
0:50:58 are we
0:50:58 entitled
0:50:58 to
0:50:58 that
0:50:59 or
0:50:59 is
0:50:59 that
0:50:59 the
0:50:59 idea
0:51:00 that
0:51:00 that’s
0:51:00 something
0:51:00 we
0:51:00 should
0:51:01 strive
0:51:01 towards
0:51:02 and
0:51:02 I
0:51:02 think
0:51:02 the
0:51:02 answer
0:51:02 is
0:51:03 no
0:51:03 nobody
0:51:03 is
0:51:04 entitled
0:51:04 to
0:51:04 a
0:51:04 good
0:51:05 life
0:51:05 I
0:51:05 would
0:51:06 like
0:51:06 to
0:51:06 see
0:51:07 freedoms
0:51:07 and
0:51:07 rights
0:51:08 manifest
0:51:08 in
0:51:08 such
0:51:08 a
0:51:08 way
0:51:09 that
0:51:09 everyone
0:51:09 is
0:51:10 able
0:51:10 to
0:51:11 achieve
0:51:11 the
0:51:11 kind
0:51:11 of
0:51:12 life
0:51:12 that
0:51:12 they
0:51:13 themselves
0:51:13 want
0:51:14 but
0:51:15 you’re
0:51:15 not
0:51:15 entitled
0:51:15 to
0:51:15 it
0:51:16 and
0:51:16 so
0:51:17 that’s
0:51:17 where
0:51:17 I
0:51:17 think
0:51:17 it
0:51:17 can
0:51:17 get
0:51:17 a
0:51:18 bit
0:51:18 crossed
0:51:18 and
0:51:18 we
0:51:18 can
0:51:19 be
0:51:19 sold
0:51:19 these
0:51:19 lies
0:51:20 that
0:51:20 are
0:51:21 basically
0:51:21 impossible
0:51:22 for
0:51:23 everybody
0:51:23 in
0:51:23 society
0:51:24 to
0:51:24 achieve
0:51:25 and
0:51:26 understandably
0:51:27 people
0:51:27 get
0:51:27 angry
0:51:28 and
0:51:28 if
0:51:28 you’re
0:51:28 angry
0:51:29 and
0:51:29 if
0:51:29 you
0:51:29 feel
0:51:29 entitled
0:51:30 and
0:51:30 if
0:51:30 you’re
0:51:30 in
0:51:30 this
0:51:31 group
0:51:31 where
0:51:31 everyone
0:51:32 else
0:51:32 is
0:51:32 thinking
0:51:32 the
0:51:32 same
0:51:32 way
0:51:33 as
0:51:33 you
0:51:33 yeah
0:51:34 that
0:51:34 can
0:51:34 make
0:51:34 you
0:51:34 dangerous
0:51:35 and
0:51:35 the
0:51:36 internet
0:51:36 gives
0:51:36 you
0:51:36 a
0:51:37 mechanism
0:51:38 to
0:51:38 be
0:51:39 your
0:51:39 worst
0:51:40 self
0:51:41 and
0:51:41 it
0:51:41 can
0:51:41 reinforce
0:51:42 that
0:51:42 worst
0:51:42 self
0:51:43 you
0:51:43 see
0:51:43 other
0:51:43 people
0:51:44 saying
0:51:44 yeah
0:51:44 I
0:51:45 feel
0:51:45 the
0:51:45 same
0:51:45 way
0:51:46 do
0:51:46 you
0:51:46 want
0:51:46 do
0:51:46 you
0:51:46 want
0:51:46 me
0:51:46 to
0:51:47 help
0:51:47 you
0:51:49 oh
0:51:49 the
0:51:50 internet
0:51:51 so
0:51:52 one
0:51:52 more
0:51:52 episode
0:51:52 you
0:51:53 interviewed
0:51:53 the
0:51:53 lady
0:51:54 Cecilia
0:51:54 who
0:51:54 got
0:51:55 tinder
0:51:55 swindled
0:51:56 can
0:51:56 you
0:51:56 tell
0:51:56 what
0:51:57 happened
0:51:57 with
0:51:57 the
0:51:57 tinder
0:51:58 swindle
0:51:58 situation
0:51:59 so
0:52:00 tinder
0:52:00 swindler
0:52:01 that
0:52:01 was a
0:52:01 person
0:52:02 who
0:52:02 pretended
0:52:03 on
0:52:03 tinder
0:52:04 to be
0:52:04 a rich
0:52:05 guy
0:52:05 who
0:52:06 had
0:52:06 this
0:52:06 lavish
0:52:07 lifestyle
0:52:07 and
0:52:08 he
0:52:08 would
0:52:09 match
0:52:09 with
0:52:09 women
0:52:10 on
0:52:10 tinder
0:52:11 and
0:52:11 very
0:52:12 quickly
0:52:12 love
0:52:13 bomb
0:52:13 them
0:52:13 so
0:52:13 he
0:52:16 immediately
0:52:17 starts
0:52:18 being
0:52:18 very
0:52:19 emotional
0:52:19 very
0:52:20 sharing
0:52:20 pretend
0:52:21 that
0:52:21 he’s
0:52:22 messaging
0:52:23 from
0:52:23 his
0:52:23 private
0:52:23 jet
0:52:24 or
0:52:24 actually
0:52:24 message
0:52:24 from
0:52:25 his
0:52:25 private
0:52:25 jet
0:52:25 but
0:52:26 pretend
0:52:26 that
0:52:27 he’s
0:52:27 in
0:52:27 love
0:52:27 with
0:52:27 this
0:52:27 person
0:52:28 very
0:52:28 quickly
0:52:29 and
0:52:29 then
0:52:30 he
0:52:30 would
0:52:31 invite
0:52:31 women
0:52:32 in
0:52:32 this
0:52:32 case
0:52:33 Cecilia
0:52:33 to
0:52:35 very
0:52:35 expensive
0:52:36 luxurious
0:52:36 dates
0:52:37 so
0:52:37 he
0:52:37 would
0:52:38 whisk
0:52:38 them
0:52:38 away
0:52:39 to
0:52:39 Paris
0:52:40 or
0:52:40 he
0:52:40 would
0:52:41 show
0:52:41 them
0:52:41 his
0:52:41 private
0:52:42 jet
0:52:42 or
0:52:42 he
0:52:42 would
0:52:42 take
0:52:43 them
0:52:43 to
0:52:43 a
0:52:43 really
0:52:43 expensive
0:52:44 restaurant
0:52:44 almost
0:52:44 to
0:52:44 prove
0:52:45 that
0:52:45 he
0:52:45 in
0:52:46 fact
0:52:46 is
0:52:46 this
0:52:46 really
0:52:46 wealthy
0:52:47 guy
0:52:48 and
0:52:49 he
0:52:49 would
0:52:50 simultaneously
0:52:50 be
0:52:51 building
0:52:51 up
0:52:51 the
0:52:51 story
0:52:52 of
0:52:52 a
0:52:52 future
0:52:52 together
0:52:53 and
0:52:53 you
0:52:53 see
0:52:53 this
0:52:54 in
0:52:54 people
0:52:55 who
0:52:56 are
0:52:56 really
0:52:56 problematic
0:52:57 in
0:52:57 relationships
0:52:58 in a lot
0:52:58 of ways
0:52:58 I mean
0:52:58 this is
0:52:59 not
0:52:59 just
0:52:59 in
0:53:00 scams
0:53:00 or
0:53:00 in
0:53:01 criminal
0:53:01 settings
0:53:02 but
0:53:03 problematic
0:53:03 relationship
0:53:04 styles
0:53:05 often involve
0:53:06 someone
0:53:06 who
0:53:06 is
0:53:07 creating
0:53:07 this
0:53:08 idea
0:53:09 of
0:53:09 a
0:53:09 future
0:53:09 together
0:53:10 that
0:53:10 you
0:53:10 can
0:53:11 just
0:53:11 see
0:53:11 it
0:53:11 now
0:53:12 you
0:53:12 know
0:53:12 our
0:53:12 kids
0:53:12 in
0:53:12 the
0:53:13 garden
0:53:13 running
0:53:14 around
0:53:15 you’re
0:53:15 the
0:53:15 only
0:53:15 one
0:53:16 for
0:53:16 me
0:53:16 that
0:53:16 kind
0:53:16 of
0:53:17 language
0:53:17 like
0:53:18 almost
0:53:18 planning
0:53:18 your
0:53:18 wedding
0:53:19 on
0:53:19 the
0:53:19 third
0:53:19 date
0:53:20 that
0:53:20 kind
0:53:20 of
0:53:21 thing
0:53:21 is
0:53:21 what
0:53:21 he
0:53:21 would
0:53:22 weaponize
0:53:22 and
0:53:23 she
0:53:24 Cecilia
0:53:25 was looking
0:53:25 for
0:53:25 love
0:53:26 she
0:53:26 wanted
0:53:27 all
0:53:27 of
0:53:27 those
0:53:28 things
0:53:28 and
0:53:28 so
0:53:28 it
0:53:28 worked
0:53:29 really
0:53:29 well
0:53:30 and
0:53:30 what
0:53:30 he
0:53:30 ended
0:53:30 up
0:53:30 doing
0:53:31 is
0:53:31 defrauding
0:53:32 her
0:53:32 of
0:53:32 lots
0:53:32 of
0:53:33 money
0:53:34 and
0:53:34 she
0:53:34 ended
0:53:35 up
0:53:35 taking
0:53:35 out
0:53:35 loans
0:53:36 and
0:53:36 her
0:53:36 family
0:53:37 were
0:53:37 giving
0:53:37 her
0:53:37 money
0:53:38 to
0:53:38 help
0:53:39 what
0:53:39 he
0:53:39 was
0:53:39 saying
0:53:40 was
0:53:40 this
0:53:41 critical
0:53:41 situation
0:53:42 very
0:53:42 classic
0:53:42 fraud
0:53:44 where
0:53:44 he
0:53:44 was
0:53:44 being
0:53:44 followed
0:53:45 he
0:53:45 was
0:53:45 under
0:53:45 attack
0:53:46 and
0:53:46 he
0:53:47 needed
0:53:47 her
0:53:47 to pay
0:53:47 for
0:53:48 some
0:53:48 things
0:53:48 he
0:53:49 her
0:53:49 to
0:53:49 pay
0:53:49 for
0:53:49 some
0:53:50 flights
0:53:50 until
0:53:51 she
0:53:51 ran
0:53:51 out
0:53:51 of
0:53:51 money
0:53:51 and
0:53:52 then
0:53:53 she
0:53:54 realized
0:53:54 that
0:53:54 this
0:53:55 all
0:53:55 was
0:53:55 a
0:53:56 love
0:53:57 scam
0:53:58 so
0:53:58 the
0:53:58 reason
0:53:59 that
0:53:59 we
0:53:59 spoke
0:53:59 with
0:54:00 her
0:54:00 is
0:54:00 partly
0:54:00 to
0:54:01 show
0:54:02 how
0:54:03 it
0:54:03 can
0:54:03 happen
0:54:04 and
0:54:04 I
0:54:04 think
0:54:04 it’s
0:54:04 really
0:54:05 important
0:54:05 to
0:54:06 remind
0:54:06 people
0:54:06 that
0:54:06 this
0:54:07 is
0:54:07 something
0:54:07 everybody
0:54:08 is
0:54:08 capable
0:54:09 of
0:54:10 believing
0:54:11 fraud
0:54:12 works
0:54:12 because
0:54:13 people
0:54:13 know
0:54:14 what
0:54:14 we
0:54:14 want
0:54:14 to
0:54:15 hear
0:54:15 and
0:54:15 they
0:54:15 tell
0:54:16 us
0:54:16 the
0:54:16 things
0:54:19 tailored
0:54:19 version
0:54:19 of
0:54:20 fraud
0:54:20 that
0:54:20 could
0:54:20 appeal
0:54:21 to
0:54:21 basically
0:54:21 everybody
0:54:22 if
0:54:22 they
0:54:22 have
0:54:22 enough
0:54:23 information
0:54:23 about
0:54:23 you
0:54:24 yeah
0:54:24 and
0:54:25 by the
0:54:25 way
0:54:25 now
0:54:25 in
0:54:26 modern
0:54:26 day
0:54:26 AI
0:54:27 could
0:54:28 probably
0:54:28 better and
0:54:28 better do
0:54:29 that kind
0:54:29 of thing
0:54:30 do the
0:54:31 tailored
0:54:32 version
0:54:33 of the
0:54:33 story
0:54:34 that you
0:54:34 want to
0:54:34 believe
0:54:36 and
0:54:37 love
0:54:37 is a
0:54:38 topic
0:54:38 on which
0:54:39 that would
0:54:39 be
0:54:40 especially
0:54:40 effective
0:54:41 yeah
0:54:42 because
0:54:42 you’re
0:54:42 playing
0:54:43 with
0:54:43 people’s
0:54:43 emotions
0:54:44 and
0:54:44 you
0:54:44 know
0:54:44 that
0:54:44 they’re
0:54:45 vulnerable
0:54:45 in that
0:54:45 way
0:54:46 and
0:54:46 most
0:54:47 people
0:54:47 want
0:54:47 to
0:54:47 be
0:54:47 loved
0:54:47 and
0:54:48 want
0:54:48 to
0:54:48 love
0:54:49 and
0:54:49 so
0:54:50 it’s
0:54:50 a
0:54:51 it’s
0:54:51 a
0:54:51 really
0:54:52 manipulative
0:54:52 way
0:54:52 in
0:54:53 and
0:54:53 it’s
0:54:54 I
0:54:54 think
0:54:54 it’s
0:54:54 really
0:54:55 horrible
0:54:56 but
0:54:56 it’s
0:54:56 also
0:54:57 something
0:54:58 that we
0:54:58 all
0:54:59 almost
0:55:00 underestimate
0:55:01 so we
0:55:01 think
0:55:02 I would
0:55:02 identify
0:55:02 fraud
0:55:03 I would
0:55:03 know
0:55:03 if
0:55:04 someone
0:55:04 was
0:55:04 trying
0:55:04 to
0:55:04 scam
0:55:05 me
0:55:05 of
0:55:05 money
0:55:06 until
0:55:06 it
0:55:06 happens
0:55:06 to
0:55:06 us
0:55:06 and
0:55:06 then
0:55:07 we
0:55:07 go
0:55:07 oh
0:55:07 wait
0:55:08 that
0:55:09 did
0:55:09 just
0:55:09 happen
0:55:09 and
0:55:09 then
0:55:10 we
0:55:10 get
0:55:10 really
0:55:10 embarrassed
0:55:17 because
0:55:17 that
0:55:17 is
0:55:17 sometimes
0:55:17 how
0:55:18 it’s
0:55:18 framed
0:55:18 it’s
0:55:18 like
0:55:19 such
0:55:19 an
0:55:19 idiot
0:55:19 she
0:55:20 was
0:55:20 so
0:55:20 gullible
0:55:21 was
0:55:21 she
0:55:21 or
0:55:22 was
0:55:22 she
0:55:22 just
0:55:22 a
0:55:23 nice
0:55:23 person
0:55:23 who
0:55:24 wanted
0:55:24 to
0:55:24 believe
0:55:24 that
0:55:24 this
0:55:25 person
0:55:25 was
0:55:25 capable
0:55:25 of
0:55:25 loving
0:55:26 her
0:55:26 which
0:55:26 I
0:55:27 would
0:55:27 hope
0:55:27 we
0:55:27 all
0:55:27 are
0:55:28 yeah
0:55:29 and
0:55:29 I
0:55:29 hope
0:55:29 she
0:55:29 and
0:55:30 others
0:55:30 that
0:55:30 fall
0:55:31 victim
0:55:31 to
0:55:31 that
0:55:31 kind
0:55:31 of
0:55:32 thing
0:55:32 don’t
0:55:32 become
0:55:33 cynical
0:55:34 and
0:55:34 keep
0:55:34 trying
0:55:35 yeah
0:55:36 that’s
0:55:36 right
0:55:36 that’s
0:55:37 right
0:55:37 those
0:55:37 kinds
0:55:37 of
0:55:37 things
0:55:38 can
0:55:38 really
0:55:38 destroy
0:55:39 your
0:55:40 ability
0:55:40 to be
0:55:41 vulnerable
0:55:41 to
0:55:41 the
0:55:41 world
0:55:42 but
0:55:42 I
0:55:42 mean
0:55:42 it
0:55:43 sounds
0:55:43 like
0:55:43 this
0:55:43 the
0:55:43 same
0:55:44 kind
0:55:44 of
0:55:44 thing
0:55:44 is
0:55:44 just
0:55:45 commonplace
0:55:45 in
0:55:45 all
0:55:46 kinds
0:55:46 of
0:55:46 relationships
0:55:47 that’s
0:55:47 the
0:55:47 puzzle
0:55:47 that
0:55:48 it
0:55:48 could
0:55:48 be
0:55:49 if
0:55:49 you
0:55:49 find
0:55:50 yourself
0:55:50 inside
0:55:50 of
0:55:50 a
0:55:51 toxic
0:55:51 relationship
0:55:52 with
0:55:52 the
0:55:53 quote
0:55:53 love
0:55:53 bombing
0:55:54 there
0:55:54 could
0:55:54 be
0:55:55 a lot
0:55:55 of
0:55:55 manipulative
0:55:56 fraud
0:55:56 type
0:55:56 of
0:55:57 things
0:55:57 right
0:55:57 inside
0:55:58 a
0:55:58 relationship
0:55:59 and
0:55:59 spectrum
0:56:00 well
0:56:00 in course
0:56:00 of
0:56:00 control
0:56:01 is
0:56:01 becoming
0:56:01 more
0:56:01 of
0:56:01 an
0:56:02 issue
0:56:02 where
0:56:03 that’s
0:56:03 when
0:56:03 somebody
0:56:04 for example
0:56:04 in a
0:56:04 relationship
0:56:05 takes
0:56:05 control
0:56:05 of
0:56:05 the
0:56:06 finances
0:56:07 and
0:56:07 that’s
0:56:07 often
0:56:08 a
0:56:09 man
0:56:09 in
0:56:09 a
0:56:09 relationship
0:56:10 that’s
0:56:10 sort of
0:56:10 traditionally
0:56:11 because
0:56:11 it
0:56:11 falls
0:56:12 often
0:56:12 along
0:56:12 these
0:56:12 gender
0:56:13 lines
0:56:14 but
0:56:14 the
0:56:14 problem
0:56:14 is
0:56:14 if
0:56:15 that
0:56:15 person
0:56:15 starts
0:56:15 to
0:56:16 weaponize
0:56:16 the
0:56:16 fact
0:56:16 they’re
0:56:17 controlling
0:56:17 the
0:56:17 finances
0:56:18 and
0:56:18 starts
0:56:18 using
0:56:18 words
0:56:19 like
0:56:19 I’m
0:56:19 going
0:56:19 to
0:56:20 give
0:56:20 you
0:56:20 your
0:56:21 allowance
0:56:22 instead
0:56:22 of
0:56:22 going
0:56:23 you’ve
0:56:23 paid
0:56:23 as
0:56:23 much
0:56:23 into
0:56:24 this
0:56:24 as
0:56:24 I
0:56:24 have
0:56:24 and
0:56:24 so
0:56:24 this
0:56:24 is
0:56:25 our
0:56:25 shared
0:56:25 money
0:56:26 and
0:56:27 starts
0:56:28 using
0:56:28 that
0:56:29 and
0:56:30 controlling
0:56:30 things
0:56:30 and
0:56:30 controlling
0:56:30 how
0:56:31 the
0:56:31 other
0:56:31 person
0:56:32 lives
0:56:33 in
0:56:33 that
0:56:33 relationship
0:56:34 that’s
0:56:34 when
0:56:34 you
0:56:34 get
0:56:35 into
0:56:35 things
0:56:35 that
0:56:35 are
0:56:35 called
0:56:36 course
0:56:36 of
0:56:36 control
0:56:37 and
0:56:37 things
0:56:37 like
0:56:37 jealousy
0:56:38 can
0:56:38 also
0:56:38 be
0:56:38 used
0:56:38 in
0:56:38 that
0:56:38 way
0:56:39 is
0:56:39 there
0:56:39 any
0:56:40 way
0:56:40 out
0:56:40 of
0:56:40 that
0:56:41 maybe
0:56:42 the
0:56:42 jealousy
0:56:44 study
0:56:44 or
0:56:44 is
0:56:45 this
0:56:45 a
0:56:46 vicious
0:56:46 downward
0:56:46 spiral
0:56:47 whenever
0:56:47 there’s
0:56:47 any
0:56:48 kinds
0:56:48 of
0:56:48 signs
0:56:48 like
0:56:48 this
0:56:49 that
0:56:50 means
0:56:50 you’re
0:56:52 screwed
0:56:52 get
0:56:52 out
0:56:54 or is
0:56:54 this
0:56:54 just
0:56:54 the
0:56:54 puzzle
0:56:55 of
0:56:55 the
0:56:55 human
0:56:55 condition
0:56:56 and
0:56:56 humans
0:56:56 getting
0:56:57 together
0:56:58 and
0:56:58 having
0:56:58 to
0:56:58 solve
0:56:58 that
0:56:58 puzzle
0:57:00 I
0:57:00 have
0:57:01 non
0:57:01 traditional
0:57:01 views
0:57:02 on
0:57:02 jealousy
0:57:03 I’m
0:57:03 not
0:57:03 a
0:57:03 jealousy
0:57:04 researcher
0:57:04 but
0:57:04 I
0:57:04 have
0:57:04 done
0:57:05 some
0:57:05 research
0:57:05 on
0:57:06 sexuality
0:57:07 and
0:57:08 I
0:57:10 personally
0:57:11 think
0:57:11 that
0:57:12 jealousy
0:57:12 is
0:57:13 basically
0:57:13 always
0:57:13 a
0:57:13 red
0:57:14 flag
0:57:14 because
0:57:14 what
0:57:15 it
0:57:15 means
0:57:15 is
0:57:15 that
0:57:15 the
0:57:16 person
0:57:16 who
0:57:16 is
0:57:17 jealous
0:57:17 isn’t
0:57:17 secure
0:57:17 in
0:57:17 the
0:57:18 relationship
0:57:19 and
0:57:19 the
0:57:19 reason
0:57:19 that
0:57:19 they’re
0:57:19 not
0:57:20 secure
0:57:20 in
0:57:20 the
0:57:20 relationship
0:57:20 is
0:57:21 either
0:57:21 because
0:57:21 the
0:57:21 relationship
0:57:22 is
0:57:22 wrong
0:57:22 for
0:57:22 them
0:57:23 or
0:57:23 because
0:57:23 they
0:57:23 are
0:57:24 insecure
0:57:24 in
0:57:24 themselves
0:57:25 and
0:57:25 I
0:57:25 don’t
0:57:26 think
0:57:26 it
0:57:26 is
0:57:26 a
0:57:26 sign
0:57:26 of
0:57:27 love
0:57:27 I
0:57:27 don’t
0:57:27 think
0:57:27 it
0:57:28 is
0:57:28 a
0:57:28 sign
0:57:28 of
0:57:29 you
0:57:29 know
0:57:29 you
0:57:29 want
0:57:29 to
0:57:29 protect
0:57:30 your
0:57:30 mate
0:57:30 I
0:57:30 think
0:57:30 it
0:57:30 is
0:57:31 mostly
0:57:31 control
0:57:32 and
0:57:32 it’s
0:57:32 the
0:57:32 desire
0:57:33 to
0:57:33 control
0:57:33 and
0:57:33 to
0:57:34 possess
0:57:34 and
0:57:35 jealousy
0:57:35 we
0:57:35 know
0:57:35 is
0:57:36 a
0:57:36 precursor
0:57:36 to
0:57:36 intimate
0:57:37 partner
0:57:37 violence
0:57:38 almost
0:57:38 always
0:57:39 as in
0:57:39 not
0:57:39 all
0:57:40 jealousy
0:57:40 leads
0:57:40 to
0:57:41 violence
0:57:41 of
0:57:41 course
0:57:41 but
0:57:41 all
0:57:42 violence
0:57:42 is
0:57:43 the
0:57:43 jealousy
0:57:43 is
0:57:43 a
0:57:44 precursor
0:57:45 and
0:57:45 quite
0:57:45 a
0:57:45 lot
0:57:45 of
0:57:45 that
0:57:46 is
0:57:46 imagined
0:57:47 things
0:57:47 that
0:57:47 the
0:57:47 partner
0:57:47 is
0:57:48 doing
0:57:48 not
0:57:48 even
0:57:49 based
0:57:49 on
0:57:49 reality
0:57:50 we
0:57:50 go
0:57:50 back
0:57:50 to
0:57:50 our
0:57:51 deception
0:57:51 detection
0:57:52 research
0:57:53 where
0:57:53 we’re
0:57:53 bad
0:57:54 at
0:57:54 telling
0:57:54 whether
0:57:55 someone’s
0:57:55 lying
0:57:55 or
0:57:55 not
0:57:56 and
0:57:56 so
0:57:56 if
0:57:56 you’re
0:57:57 basing
0:57:57 how
0:57:57 you’re
0:57:57 interacting
0:57:58 with
0:57:58 that
0:57:58 person
0:57:58 on
0:57:58 a
0:57:59 faulty
0:57:59 lie
0:58:00 detector
0:58:00 you’re
0:58:00 going to
0:58:00 make
0:58:01 bad
0:58:01 decisions
0:58:02 so
0:58:02 the
0:58:02 research
0:58:02 also
0:58:03 bears
0:58:03 out
0:58:04 that
0:58:04 most
0:58:05 people
0:58:05 are
0:58:05 really
0:58:05 bad
0:58:05 at
0:58:05 monogamy
0:58:06 so
0:58:07 most
0:58:07 people
0:58:07 either
0:58:08 have
0:58:08 cheated
0:58:08 on
0:58:08 a
0:58:09 significant
0:58:09 other
0:58:09 maybe
0:58:09 not
0:58:10 their
0:58:10 current
0:58:10 significant
0:58:10 other
0:58:11 but
0:58:11 a
0:58:11 significant
0:58:11 other
0:58:13 or
0:58:13 have
0:58:13 cheated
0:58:13 multiple
0:58:14 times
0:58:14 and
0:58:16 that’s
0:58:16 just
0:58:17 consistently
0:58:17 found
0:58:17 in
0:58:18 the
0:58:18 research
0:58:18 so
0:58:18 maybe
0:58:19 there’s
0:58:19 justification
0:58:20 to be
0:58:20 jealous
0:58:21 I think
0:58:21 it’s
0:58:21 the
0:58:21 way
0:58:22 around
0:58:22 I
0:58:22 think
0:58:22 monogamy
0:58:22 is
0:58:23 setting
0:58:23 us
0:58:23 up
0:58:23 to
0:58:23 fail
0:58:24 so
0:58:24 I
0:58:24 think
0:58:25 monogamy
0:58:25 is
0:58:26 a
0:58:26 social
0:58:26 construct
0:58:27 that’s
0:58:27 a
0:58:27 nice
0:58:27 idea
0:58:27 for
0:58:28 some
0:58:28 people
0:58:29 and
0:58:29 I
0:58:29 think
0:58:29 that
0:58:30 at
0:58:30 least
0:58:30 based
0:58:30 on
0:58:30 the
0:58:31 research
0:58:31 on
0:58:31 how
0:58:31 people
0:58:31 actually
0:58:32 behave
0:58:32 they’re
0:58:33 not
0:58:33 actually
0:58:33 behaving
0:58:33 in
0:58:33 a
0:58:34 monogamous
0:58:34 way
0:58:35 if
0:58:35 you’re
0:58:35 cheating
0:58:35 on
0:58:35 your
0:58:35 partner
0:58:36 that
0:58:36 is
0:58:36 not
0:58:36 monogamy
0:58:37 that
0:58:37 is
0:58:38 polyamory
0:58:38 potentially
0:58:39 so
0:58:39 the
0:58:39 love
0:58:40 of
0:58:40 multiple
0:58:40 people
0:58:42 and
0:58:42 it’s
0:58:43 lying
0:58:43 and
0:58:43 it
0:58:45 doesn’t
0:58:45 have
0:58:45 to
0:58:46 be
0:58:46 that
0:58:46 way
0:58:46 so
0:58:47 I’m
0:58:48 polyamorous
0:58:49 and I
0:58:49 believe
0:58:49 that you
0:58:50 can love
0:58:50 multiple
0:58:50 people
0:58:50 I
0:58:51 don’t
0:58:51 know
0:58:51 that
0:58:52 everyone
0:58:52 is
0:58:52 always
0:58:52 going
0:58:52 to
0:58:52 meet
0:58:53 lots
0:58:53 of
0:58:53 people
0:58:53 at
0:58:53 the
0:58:53 same
0:58:53 time
0:58:53 that
0:58:54 they’re
0:58:54 going
0:58:54 to
0:58:54 love
0:58:55 but
0:58:55 I
0:58:55 think
0:58:56 that
0:58:56 there’s
0:58:56 been
0:58:57 a
0:58:57 move
0:58:57 towards
0:58:58 more
0:58:58 people
0:58:58 embracing
0:58:59 open
0:58:59 relationships
0:58:59 and
0:59:00 non-traditional
0:59:00 relationship
0:59:01 structures
0:59:02 and I
0:59:02 think
0:59:02 that
0:59:02 is
0:59:04 healthy
0:59:04 to
0:59:05 at
0:59:05 least
0:59:05 have
0:59:05 as
0:59:05 an
0:59:06 option
0:59:07 I
0:59:07 think
0:59:07 the
0:59:07 idea
0:59:07 that
0:59:07 there’s
0:59:07 this
0:59:08 one
0:59:08 size
0:59:08 fits
0:59:09 all
0:59:09 for
0:59:09 relationships
0:59:10 is
0:59:11 really
0:59:11 harmful
0:59:11 to
0:59:11 a lot
0:59:12 of
0:59:12 people
0:59:13 and
0:59:13 it
0:59:13 just
0:59:13 doesn’t
0:59:13 really
0:59:13 work
0:59:14 for
0:59:14 everybody
0:59:15 well
0:59:15 if
0:59:15 we
0:59:15 could
0:59:16 just
0:59:16 focus
0:59:16 in
0:59:16 on
0:59:16 one
0:59:17 component
0:59:18 it
0:59:18 seems
0:59:18 to
0:59:18 me
0:59:18 one
0:59:18 of
0:59:18 the
0:59:19 problems
0:59:19 is
0:59:21 honesty
0:59:22 as a
0:59:22 hard
0:59:22 requirement
0:59:23 and
0:59:24 good
0:59:25 communication
0:59:26 as another
0:59:26 hard
0:59:27 requirement
0:59:28 because
0:59:28 that
0:59:29 feels
0:59:29 like
0:59:30 the
0:59:31 prerequisites
0:59:32 for
0:59:33 avoiding
0:59:33 all
0:59:33 these
0:59:34 problems
0:59:34 and
0:59:34 I
0:59:35 guess
0:59:35 with
0:59:35 jealousy
0:59:35 what
0:59:36 I’m
0:59:36 thinking
0:59:36 of
0:59:36 is
0:59:37 actually
0:59:37 not
0:59:38 an
0:59:38 instance
0:59:38 of
0:59:39 jealousy
0:59:39 so
0:59:39 where
0:59:39 you
0:59:40 have
0:59:40 a
0:59:40 feeling
0:59:40 of
0:59:41 I
0:59:41 feel
0:59:42 left
0:59:42 out
0:59:42 or
0:59:42 I
0:59:42 feel
0:59:43 it’s
0:59:44 more
0:59:44 that
0:59:44 sort
0:59:44 of
0:59:44 persistent
0:59:45 feeling
0:59:45 of
0:59:45 I
0:59:46 am
0:59:46 a
0:59:46 jealous
0:59:46 person
0:59:47 and
0:59:48 that’s
0:59:48 where
0:59:48 I
0:59:48 would
0:59:48 say
0:59:48 that
0:59:48 is
0:59:49 usually
0:59:49 a
0:59:49 red
0:59:49 flag
0:59:51 and
0:59:51 you’re
0:59:51 right
0:59:51 it’s
0:59:51 a
0:59:52 red
0:59:52 flag
0:59:52 partly
0:59:52 because
0:59:52 it
0:59:53 means
0:59:53 the
0:59:53 person’s
0:59:53 probably
0:59:54 bad
0:59:54 at
0:59:54 communicating
0:59:54 or
0:59:55 you
0:59:55 are
0:59:55 as
0:59:56 a
0:59:56 couple
0:59:56 it’s
0:59:57 not
0:59:57 necessarily
0:59:57 just
0:59:57 the
0:59:58 jealous
0:59:58 person’s
0:59:58 fault
0:59:59 it’s
1:00:00 just
1:00:00 that
1:00:00 there’s
1:00:01 something
1:00:01 happening
1:00:01 in
1:00:01 this
1:00:02 dynamic
1:00:02 that
1:00:02 is
1:00:03 bad
1:00:04 psychologically
1:00:04 and
1:00:05 that
1:00:05 should
1:00:05 be
1:00:06 addressed
1:00:06 or
1:00:06 maybe
1:00:06 it’s
1:00:07 not
1:00:07 the
1:00:07 right
1:00:07 relationship
1:00:08 so
1:00:08 the fact
1:00:08 that
1:00:09 a lot
1:00:09 of
1:00:09 people
1:00:09 cheat
1:00:11 does
1:00:11 that
1:00:11 mean
1:00:12 every
1:00:12 single
1:00:12 person
1:00:12 that
1:00:13 cheated
1:00:13 does
1:00:13 that
1:00:14 mean
1:00:14 they’re
1:00:15 probably
1:00:16 not
1:00:16 going
1:00:16 to
1:00:16 be
1:00:16 good
1:00:16 at
1:00:17 monogamy
1:00:18 I
1:00:18 guess
1:00:18 if
1:00:18 you
1:00:18 can
1:00:19 just
1:00:19 analyze
1:00:20 all
1:00:20 of
1:00:20 human
1:00:21 civilization
1:00:21 as it
1:00:21 stands
1:00:22 and give
1:00:22 advice
1:00:23 that’s
1:00:24 definitively
1:00:24 true
1:00:24 for
1:00:25 everyone
1:00:26 that’s
1:00:26 exactly
1:00:26 what
1:00:27 psychologists
1:00:27 do
1:00:27 all
1:00:27 the
1:00:27 time
1:00:30 this
1:00:30 is
1:00:30 great
1:00:31 no
1:00:31 I
1:00:31 think
1:00:32 it’s
1:00:32 really
1:00:32 interesting
1:00:32 because
1:00:33 I
1:00:33 see
1:00:33 all
1:00:33 those
1:00:33 things
1:00:33 as
1:00:34 romantic
1:00:34 choosing
1:00:35 not
1:00:35 to
1:00:35 cheat
1:00:35 you
1:00:35 choosing
1:00:36 to
1:00:36 dedicate
1:00:37 yourself
1:00:37 fully
1:00:37 to
1:00:38 another
1:00:38 person
1:00:39 it’s
1:00:39 all
1:00:39 this
1:00:41 romantic
1:00:41 and then
1:00:41 some
1:00:41 people
1:00:42 do
1:00:42 cheat
1:00:42 and
1:00:42 your
1:00:42 heart
1:00:43 is
1:00:43 broken
1:00:43 you
1:00:43 write
1:00:43 a
1:00:44 song
1:00:44 about
1:00:44 it
1:00:45 and
1:00:45 then
1:00:46 you
1:00:46 move
1:00:46 on
1:00:46 and
1:00:46 you
1:00:47 try
1:00:47 to
1:00:47 repair
1:00:48 yourself
1:00:48 and
1:00:49 be
1:00:49 vulnerable
1:00:49 to
1:00:49 another
1:00:50 human
1:00:50 being
1:00:50 and
1:00:50 all
1:00:51 that
1:00:51 but
1:00:51 why
1:00:51 deny
1:00:52 yourself
1:00:52 the
1:00:53 beautiful
1:00:53 spectrum
1:00:53 of
1:00:54 human
1:00:54 experience
1:00:54 I mean
1:00:54 it’s like
1:00:54 eating
1:00:55 one meal
1:00:55 for the rest
1:00:55 of your
1:00:56 life
1:00:56 like
1:00:56 why
1:00:57 you don’t
1:00:57 have to
1:00:58 do
1:00:58 that
1:00:59 you could
1:00:59 just
1:01:00 you can
1:01:00 have
1:01:01 lots
1:01:01 of
1:01:02 beautiful
1:01:02 people
1:01:03 around
1:01:03 and
1:01:06 for me
1:01:06 actually
1:01:06 focusing
1:01:06 on a
1:01:07 single
1:01:07 thing
1:01:08 you
1:01:08 get
1:01:08 to
1:01:09 explore
1:01:09 you
1:01:09 mentioned
1:01:10 puzzle
1:01:11 over
1:01:11 time
1:01:12 you get
1:01:12 to
1:01:12 see
1:01:12 the
1:01:13 nuance
1:01:13 like
1:01:13 the
1:01:13 beauty
1:01:13 of
1:01:13 the
1:01:14 puzzle
1:01:14 you
1:01:15 realize
1:01:15 it’s
1:01:24 I’m
1:01:24 a
1:01:24 person
1:01:25 when I
1:01:25 find
1:01:26 a
1:01:26 meal
1:01:26 I
1:01:26 really
1:01:26 like
1:01:27 I’ll
1:01:27 stick
1:01:27 to
1:01:27 it
1:01:27 for
1:01:28 a
1:01:28 long
1:01:28 time
1:01:28 I’m
1:01:29 definitely
1:01:29 a
1:01:29 monogamy
1:01:30 person
1:01:30 I think
1:01:30 but
1:01:31 that
1:01:31 also
1:01:31 could
1:01:31 be
1:01:32 a
1:01:32 component
1:01:32 of
1:01:33 where
1:01:33 I
1:01:33 grew
1:01:33 up
1:01:34 there’s
1:01:35 a
1:01:35 certain
1:01:35 cultural
1:01:36 upbringing
1:01:36 and
1:01:36 maybe
1:01:37 my
1:01:37 brain
1:01:37 is
1:01:37 not
1:01:38 allowing
1:01:39 myself
1:01:40 certain
1:01:40 possibilities
1:01:41 you know
1:01:42 I think
1:01:42 it’s
1:01:43 more
1:01:43 that
1:01:44 I
1:01:44 want
1:01:44 people
1:01:45 to
1:01:45 feel
1:01:45 like
1:01:45 they
1:01:45 have
1:01:45 a
1:01:45 choice
1:01:46 and
1:01:47 that’s
1:01:47 the
1:01:47 important
1:01:47 thing
1:01:48 and
1:01:48 I
1:01:48 think
1:01:48 all
1:01:48 we
1:01:49 see
1:01:49 is
1:01:49 monogamy
1:01:49 everywhere
1:01:50 all the
1:01:50 time
1:01:51 and
1:01:51 it’s
1:01:51 this
1:01:51 one
1:01:51 version
1:01:52 of
1:01:52 how
1:01:52 we
1:01:52 can
1:01:52 live
1:01:52 our
1:01:52 lives
1:01:53 and
1:01:53 I
1:01:53 think
1:01:53 it’s
1:01:53 not
1:01:54 the
1:01:54 only
1:01:54 and
1:01:54 I
1:01:54 think
1:01:55 that
1:01:56 having
1:01:56 conversations
1:01:57 with
1:01:57 your
1:01:57 partner
1:01:57 as
1:01:57 well
1:01:58 especially
1:01:58 early
1:01:58 it’s
1:01:59 harder
1:01:59 to
1:01:59 bring
1:01:59 this
1:01:59 up
1:01:59 later
1:02:00 on
1:02:01 but
1:02:01 to
1:02:02 have
1:02:02 it
1:02:02 early
1:02:02 and
1:02:02 say
1:02:03 how
1:02:03 do
1:02:03 you
1:02:03 want
1:02:03 to
1:02:03 structure
1:02:04 your
1:02:04 life
1:02:04 and
1:02:05 how
1:02:05 do
1:02:06 structure
1:02:06 your
1:02:06 relationship
1:02:06 as
1:02:06 part
1:02:07 of
1:02:07 that
1:02:08 and
1:02:08 especially
1:02:08 if
1:02:08 you’re
1:02:08 going to
1:02:08 commit
1:02:09 yourself
1:02:09 to
1:02:09 one
1:02:09 person
1:02:10 one
1:02:10 primary
1:02:11 person
1:02:11 or
1:02:12 one
1:02:12 exclusive
1:02:13 person
1:02:14 that’s
1:02:14 part
1:02:14 of
1:02:14 it
1:02:15 and
1:02:15 I
1:02:15 think
1:02:16 then
1:02:16 you’re
1:02:16 also
1:02:17 you know
1:02:18 don’t have
1:02:18 to lie
1:02:19 to each
1:02:19 other
1:02:19 if you
1:02:19 do
1:02:19 cheat
1:02:20 or
1:02:20 you
1:02:20 can
1:02:20 talk
1:02:21 about
1:02:21 it
1:02:21 in a
1:02:21 different
1:02:21 way
1:02:22 if
1:02:22 you
1:02:22 feel
1:02:22 like
1:02:22 there’s
1:02:23 certain
1:02:25 capacity
1:02:25 to be
1:02:26 honest
1:02:26 about
1:02:26 whom
1:02:26 you’re
1:02:27 attracted
1:02:27 to
1:02:27 and
1:02:28 how
1:02:28 that
1:02:28 might
1:02:29 impact
1:02:29 your
1:02:29 life
1:02:29 more
1:02:29 generally
1:02:30 so
1:02:31 how
1:02:31 difficult
1:02:31 is
1:02:32 polyamory
1:02:32 I
1:02:32 think
1:02:33 a lot
1:02:33 of
1:02:33 people
1:02:33 would
1:02:33 be
1:02:34 curious
1:02:34 about
1:02:34 that
1:02:34 kind
1:02:34 of
1:02:34 stuff
1:02:35 is
1:02:35 jealousy
1:02:36 come up
1:02:37 is it
1:02:37 difficult
1:02:37 to
1:02:38 navigate
1:02:39 can be
1:02:39 I mean
1:02:39 all
1:02:39 relationships
1:02:40 can be
1:02:40 difficult
1:02:40 to
1:02:40 navigate
1:02:41 I
1:02:41 think
1:02:42 it’s
1:02:42 the
1:02:42 same
1:02:43 it’s
1:02:43 and
1:02:43 the
1:02:43 same
1:02:43 risk
1:02:44 factors
1:02:44 if
1:02:44 you’re
1:02:44 going
1:02:45 in
1:02:45 because
1:02:45 you’re
1:02:45 trying
1:02:45 to
1:02:45 fix
1:02:46 something
1:02:46 about
1:02:46 yourself
1:02:47 you’re
1:02:47 going
1:02:47 to have
1:02:47 a hard
1:02:47 time
1:02:48 much
1:02:48 like
1:02:48 if
1:02:48 you’re
1:02:49 dating
1:02:49 a
1:02:49 single
1:02:50 person
1:02:50 if
1:02:50 you’re
1:02:50 trying
1:02:50 to
1:02:51 fix
1:02:51 something
1:02:51 and
1:02:51 this
1:02:51 is
1:02:51 going
1:02:52 to be
1:02:52 the
1:02:53 solution
1:02:53 to
1:02:53 the
1:02:53 thing
1:02:53 that
1:02:54 you
1:03:18 research
1:03:19 on
1:03:20 bisexuality
1:03:20 has
1:03:22 also
1:03:22 found
1:03:22 that
1:03:22 people
1:03:22 who
1:03:22 are
1:03:24 more
1:03:24 likely
1:03:24 to
1:03:25 be
1:03:25 in
1:03:27 non-traditional
1:03:27 relationships
1:03:28 and one
1:03:29 of the
1:03:29 reasons
1:03:29 for that
1:03:30 is probably
1:03:30 also
1:03:30 because
1:03:30 we
1:03:31 constantly
1:03:31 get asked
1:03:32 to justify
1:03:32 our
1:03:32 sexuality
1:03:33 as well
1:03:34 and so
1:03:34 if
1:03:35 constantly
1:03:35 you’re
1:03:35 being
1:03:36 asked
1:03:36 if
1:03:36 one
1:03:36 person
1:03:36 is
1:03:36 enough
1:03:36 for
1:03:37 you
1:03:37 if
1:03:39 you’re
1:03:39 in
1:03:39 a
1:03:39 relationship
1:03:40 with
1:03:40 one
1:03:40 person
1:03:40 for
1:03:40 example
1:03:41 if
1:03:41 I’m
1:03:41 in
1:03:41 a
1:03:42 relationship
1:03:42 with
1:03:42 a
1:03:42 man
1:03:43 do
1:03:43 you
1:03:43 miss
1:03:44 women
1:03:44 and
1:03:45 I
1:03:45 don’t
1:03:45 ask
1:03:45 you
1:03:46 that
1:03:46 if
1:03:46 you’re
1:03:46 in
1:03:46 a
1:03:46 relationship
1:03:47 with
1:03:47 a
1:03:47 woman
1:03:47 do
1:03:47 you
1:03:47 miss
1:03:48 women
1:03:48 like
1:03:49 you
1:03:49 probably
1:03:50 do
1:03:50 but
1:03:51 that’s
1:03:51 just
1:03:51 other
1:03:52 woman
1:03:52 than
1:03:52 your
1:03:52 partner
1:03:52 it
1:03:53 has
1:03:53 nothing
1:03:53 to do
1:03:53 with
1:03:53 being
1:03:54 bi
1:03:55 and so
1:03:55 I
1:03:55 think
1:03:56 there’s
1:03:56 this
1:03:57 constant
1:03:58 barrage
1:03:58 of
1:03:59 questions
1:03:59 of
1:03:59 what
1:03:59 does
1:03:59 it
1:04:00 mean
1:04:00 is
1:04:00 it
1:04:00 real
1:04:00 how
1:04:01 do
1:04:01 you
1:04:01 choose
1:04:01 what
1:04:01 does
1:04:01 a
1:04:02 relationship
1:04:02 look
1:04:02 like
1:04:02 do
1:04:02 you
1:04:03 constantly
1:04:03 want
1:04:03 threesomes
1:04:04 there’s
1:04:04 this
1:04:05 constant
1:04:15 hand
1:04:15 you’ve
1:04:16 got
1:04:16 bisexual
1:04:17 people
1:04:17 themselves
1:04:17 saying
1:04:18 yeah
1:04:18 but I
1:04:19 feel like
1:04:19 I also
1:04:19 have
1:04:19 this
1:04:20 superpower
1:04:20 that
1:04:20 I
1:04:21 can
1:04:21 love
1:04:21 more
1:04:22 widely
1:04:22 and
1:04:22 gender
1:04:23 doesn’t
1:04:23 really
1:04:23 matter
1:04:24 in terms
1:04:24 of
1:04:24 whom
1:04:24 I’m
1:04:25 capable
1:04:25 of
1:04:25 loving
1:04:26 and so
1:04:27 relationship
1:04:27 structures
1:04:27 almost
1:04:28 come
1:04:28 with
1:04:29 that
1:04:29 conversation
1:04:30 it’s
1:04:30 not that
1:04:31 we
1:04:31 need
1:04:32 to be
1:04:32 non
1:04:33 monogamous
1:04:33 or that
1:04:34 we need
1:04:34 to be
1:04:34 in
1:04:34 these
1:04:34 kinds
1:04:34 of
1:04:35 relationships
1:04:35 it’s
1:04:35 more
1:04:35 that
1:04:36 I
1:04:36 think
1:04:36 if
1:04:36 you’ve
1:04:37 engaged
1:04:37 so
1:04:37 deeply
1:04:37 with
1:04:38 your
1:04:38 sexuality
1:04:38 partly
1:04:38 because
1:04:39 society
1:04:39 has
1:04:39 forced
1:04:39 you
1:04:39 to
1:04:40 then
1:04:40 you’re
1:04:40 also
1:04:40 going to
1:04:41 be
1:04:41 thinking
1:04:41 about
1:04:41 relationship
1:04:41 structures
1:04:42 more
1:04:42 generally
1:04:42 and going
1:04:43 actually
1:04:43 I’m going
1:04:43 to choose
1:04:44 this one
1:04:45 yeah
1:04:45 that’s
1:04:45 interesting
1:04:45 I mean
1:04:46 your
1:04:46 like
1:04:47 sexual
1:04:47 preferences
1:04:48 and
1:04:49 relationship
1:04:50 structure
1:04:50 preferences
1:04:52 some
1:04:52 of the
1:04:53 choice
1:04:53 has to
1:04:53 do
1:04:53 with
1:04:53 how
1:04:54 society
1:04:54 is
1:04:54 going
1:04:54 to
1:04:54 respond
1:04:54 to
1:04:55 it
1:04:55 so
1:04:55 if
1:04:55 you
1:04:56 have
1:04:56 to
1:04:57 explain
1:04:57 it
1:04:57 every
1:04:57 time
1:04:58 you
1:04:58 go
1:04:58 to
1:04:58 a
1:04:58 party
1:05:00 you
1:05:00 might
1:05:01 maybe
1:05:01 not
1:05:02 want
1:05:02 to
1:05:02 do
1:05:03 that
1:05:04 or
1:05:04 talk
1:05:04 about
1:05:04 or
1:05:04 at
1:05:05 least
1:05:05 be
1:05:05 open
1:05:05 about
1:05:06 it
1:05:07 yeah
1:05:07 I’m
1:05:07 sure
1:05:07 there’s
1:05:08 a lot
1:05:08 of
1:05:08 annoying
1:05:08 conversations
1:05:09 you have
1:05:09 to do
1:05:09 if you’re
1:05:10 polyamorous
1:05:11 like
1:05:11 some of
1:05:12 which
1:05:12 you’ve
1:05:13 you’ve
1:05:13 mentioned
1:05:14 and yes
1:05:14 there’s
1:05:14 effects
1:05:14 of
1:05:15 like
1:05:15 over
1:05:16 sexualizing
1:05:17 the
1:05:17 people
1:05:18 involved
1:05:19 yeah
1:05:20 or thinking
1:05:21 they’re
1:05:21 lying
1:05:21 so
1:05:21 with
1:05:21 men
1:05:22 so
1:05:22 I
1:05:22 wrote
1:05:22 a
1:05:22 book
1:05:23 called
1:05:23 by
1:05:23 the
1:05:23 hidden
1:05:24 culture
1:05:24 history
1:05:24 and
1:05:24 science
1:05:24 of
1:05:25 bisexuality
1:05:26 and
1:05:26 I
1:05:26 did
1:05:26 that
1:05:27 after
1:05:27 I
1:05:27 created
1:05:28 a
1:05:28 bisexual
1:05:28 research
1:05:29 group
1:05:29 so
1:05:29 I
1:05:30 wasn’t
1:05:30 a
1:05:30 sexuality
1:05:31 researcher
1:05:31 but
1:05:31 as
1:05:31 a
1:05:32 bi
1:05:32 person
1:05:32 and
1:05:32 a
1:05:33 scientist
1:05:33 I
1:05:33 was
1:05:33 interested
1:05:34 in
1:05:34 the
1:05:34 science
1:05:34 of
1:05:35 bisexuality
1:05:36 and
1:05:36 I
1:05:36 couldn’t
1:05:36 really
1:05:36 find
1:05:37 it
1:05:37 it
1:05:37 was
1:05:37 really
1:05:38 hard
1:05:38 to
1:05:39 figure
1:05:39 out
1:05:39 what
1:05:40 people
1:05:40 were
1:05:41 actually
1:05:41 learning
1:05:42 about
1:05:43 bisexual
1:05:43 people
1:05:44 in
1:05:45 comparison
1:05:45 to
1:05:45 other
1:05:45 kinds
1:05:45 of
1:05:45 queer
1:05:46 people
1:05:47 and
1:05:48 one
1:05:48 of
1:05:48 the
1:05:48 things
1:05:48 I
1:05:48 found
1:05:49 is
1:05:49 that
1:05:49 the
1:05:49 terms
1:05:49 that
1:05:49 are
1:05:50 used
1:05:50 are
1:05:50 not
1:05:51 necessarily
1:05:51 bi
1:05:52 and
1:05:52 so
1:05:52 it
1:05:52 could
1:05:52 be
1:05:52 things
1:05:52 like
1:05:53 plurisexual
1:05:54 so
1:05:54 if
1:05:54 you
1:05:55 type
1:05:55 into
1:05:55 google
1:05:56 scholar
1:05:56 the
1:05:56 word
1:05:56 bisexual
1:05:57 you’re
1:05:57 going
1:05:57 to get
1:05:58 a lot
1:05:58 of
1:05:58 confusing
1:05:58 things
1:05:58 also
1:05:59 because
1:05:59 bisexual
1:05:59 is
1:06:00 used
1:06:00 for
1:06:00 two
1:06:01 sexes
1:06:01 where
1:06:01 you
1:06:02 have
1:06:02 multiple
1:06:02 sex
1:06:03 or
1:06:03 you
1:06:03 can
1:06:03 change
1:06:03 and
1:06:03 so
1:06:04 they’re
1:06:05 bisexual
1:06:07 which is
1:06:07 different
1:06:08 entirely
1:06:09 and
1:06:09 so
1:06:09 I
1:06:09 think
1:06:10 partly
1:06:10 out
1:06:10 of
1:06:11 that
1:06:11 researchers
1:06:12 started
1:06:12 using
1:06:12 words
1:06:12 like
1:06:13 plurisexual
1:06:13 and
1:06:14 omnisexual
1:06:14 is
1:06:14 another
1:06:15 one
1:06:15 and
1:06:15 so
1:06:15 if
1:06:16 you’re
1:06:16 looking
1:06:16 for
1:06:16 research
1:06:16 on this
1:06:17 plurisexual
1:06:17 is probably
1:06:18 the word
1:06:19 what does
1:06:20 omnisexual
1:06:20 mean
1:06:20 it’s
1:06:21 the same
1:06:21 it’s just
1:06:22 another
1:06:22 word
1:06:23 where it’s
1:06:23 all
1:06:24 sometimes
1:06:25 pansexual
1:06:25 is also
1:06:25 used
1:06:26 and again
1:06:27 the idea
1:06:28 being that
1:06:28 it’s
1:06:28 all
1:06:29 genders
1:06:30 so
1:06:31 how
1:06:31 should
1:06:31 we
1:06:31 think
1:06:32 about
1:06:33 bisexuality
1:06:34 is
1:06:34 it
1:06:35 fluid
1:06:36 like
1:06:38 day to
1:06:38 day
1:06:39 month to
1:06:39 month
1:06:39 year to
1:06:39 year
1:06:40 fluid
1:06:41 who
1:06:41 you’re
1:06:41 attracted
1:06:42 to
1:06:42 or is
1:06:43 it
1:06:43 at the
1:06:43 same
1:06:44 time
1:06:44 have
1:06:44 the
1:06:44 capacity
1:06:45 to
1:06:45 be
1:06:45 attracted
1:06:45 to
1:06:46 anyone
1:06:46 or
1:06:47 attracted
1:06:47 to
1:06:47 everyone
1:06:48 what’s
1:06:48 the
1:06:49 right
1:06:49 way
1:06:49 to
1:06:49 think
1:06:49 about
1:06:49 it
1:06:50 I think
1:06:50 the right
1:06:50 way to
1:06:50 think
1:06:51 about it
1:06:51 is that
1:06:51 I’m
1:06:52 not
1:06:52 attracted
1:06:52 to
1:06:52 most
1:06:53 people
1:06:53 but
1:06:53 I
1:06:53 can
1:06:54 be
1:06:54 attracted
1:06:54 to
1:06:54 people
1:06:55 regardless
1:06:55 of
1:06:55 gender
1:06:56 much
1:06:56 like
1:06:56 you’re
1:06:57 probably
1:06:57 not
1:06:57 attracted
1:06:57 to
1:06:57 most
1:06:58 people
1:06:58 but
1:06:58 you
1:06:59 are
1:06:59 attracted
1:06:59 to
1:07:00 people
1:07:00 of
1:07:00 a
1:07:00 certain
1:07:00 gender
1:07:00 maybe
1:07:01 and
1:07:02 so
1:07:02 that’s
1:07:03 it’s
1:07:11 what’s
1:07:11 the
1:07:12 biggest
1:07:12 thing
1:07:12 that
1:07:12 people
1:07:13 misunderstand
1:07:13 about
1:07:14 bisexuality
1:07:20 is
1:07:20 that
1:07:20 it’s
1:07:20 a
1:07:21 phase
1:07:21 and
1:07:22 that
1:07:22 it’s
1:07:22 this
1:07:22 idea
1:07:22 that
1:07:23 it’s
1:07:23 transient
1:07:23 that
1:07:24 it’s
1:07:24 always
1:07:24 changing
1:07:25 and
1:07:26 that
1:07:26 it’s
1:07:26 a
1:07:26 stepping
1:07:26 stone
1:07:27 so
1:07:27 I
1:07:27 think
1:07:27 a lot
1:07:27 of
1:07:27 people
1:07:28 still
1:07:28 see
1:07:29 bisexuality
1:07:29 as
1:07:30 on
1:07:30 the
1:07:31 way
1:07:31 to
1:07:31 gay
1:07:31 town
1:07:32 sort
1:07:32 of
1:07:32 like
1:07:33 you’re
1:07:33 on
1:07:33 your
1:07:34 way
1:07:34 but
1:07:34 you
1:07:34 haven’t
1:07:34 quite
1:07:35 committed
1:07:36 and
1:07:36 you’re
1:07:36 still
1:07:37 stuck
1:07:37 in
1:07:38 expectations
1:07:38 of
1:07:39 society
1:07:39 you
1:07:39 haven’t
1:07:39 quite
1:07:39 let
1:07:39 go
1:07:40 yet
1:07:40 but
1:07:40 really
1:07:40 you’re
1:07:40 gay
1:07:41 and
1:07:41 that’s
1:07:42 especially
1:07:42 true
1:07:42 for
1:07:42 men
1:07:43 and
1:07:43 so
1:07:43 when
1:07:44 you
1:07:44 look
1:07:44 at
1:07:44 research
1:07:44 on
1:07:45 bisexual
1:07:45 men
1:07:45 which
1:07:46 is
1:07:46 actually
1:07:47 how
1:07:47 the
1:07:47 research
1:07:48 started
1:07:48 so
1:07:48 I
1:07:48 think
1:07:49 now
1:07:49 when
1:07:49 we
1:07:49 think
1:07:49 of
1:07:50 bisexuality
1:07:50 we
1:07:50 think
1:07:50 of
1:07:50 women
1:07:51 and
1:07:51 it’s
1:07:51 true
1:07:52 that
1:07:52 today
1:07:53 twice
1:07:53 as
1:07:54 many
1:07:54 women
1:07:54 identify
1:07:55 as
1:07:55 bisexual
1:07:55 as
1:07:55 men
1:07:56 but
1:07:57 if
1:07:57 you
1:07:57 look
1:07:57 at
1:07:57 the
1:07:58 history
1:07:58 of
1:07:58 this
1:07:58 and
1:07:59 the
1:07:59 research
1:07:59 on
1:08:00 bisexuality
1:08:00 over
1:08:00 time
1:08:01 it
1:08:01 was
1:08:01 the
1:08:01 other
1:08:01 way
1:08:02 around
1:08:21 this
1:08:22 idea
1:08:22 of
1:08:22 human
1:08:23 sexuality
1:08:23 was
1:08:23 thrown
1:08:24 at
1:08:24 him
1:08:25 after
1:08:25 the
1:08:25 war
1:08:25 because
1:08:26 there’s
1:08:26 also
1:08:27 this
1:08:27 whole
1:08:28 move
1:08:28 to
1:08:29 get
1:08:29 people
1:08:29 to
1:08:30 reproduce
1:08:31 and
1:08:31 to
1:08:32 rebuild
1:08:32 America
1:08:33 and
1:08:34 so
1:08:35 sexuality
1:08:35 was
1:08:35 partly
1:08:36 and
1:08:36 sex
1:08:37 specifically
1:08:38 was
1:08:39 becoming
1:08:39 more of
1:08:39 an
1:08:39 area
1:08:39 of
1:08:40 interest
1:08:40 both
1:08:40 in
1:08:40 terms
1:08:40 of
1:08:41 research
1:08:41 and
1:08:41 in
1:08:41 terms
1:08:42 of
1:08:42 policy
1:08:42 and
1:08:43 funding
1:08:43 and
1:08:44 so
1:08:44 Alfred
1:08:44 Kinsey
1:08:44 was
1:08:45 asked
1:08:45 do
1:08:45 you
1:08:46 want
1:08:46 to
1:08:46 do
1:08:47 a
1:08:47 class
1:08:47 on
1:08:48 human
1:08:49 sexual
1:08:49 behavior
1:08:50 and
1:08:50 he
1:08:50 was
1:08:51 like
1:08:51 I
1:08:51 know
1:08:51 nothing
1:08:52 about
1:08:52 this
1:08:52 and
1:08:52 so
1:08:52 he
1:08:52 spent
1:08:53 about
1:08:53 a
1:08:53 year
1:08:54 listening
1:08:54 to
1:08:55 students
1:08:55 questions
1:08:55 about
1:08:56 what
1:08:56 they
1:08:56 want
1:08:56 to
1:08:56 know
1:08:57 about
1:08:58 sex
1:08:59 and
1:08:59 he
1:09:00 realized
1:09:00 that
1:09:01 he
1:09:02 was
1:09:02 looking
1:09:02 for
1:09:03 research
1:09:03 to
1:09:03 try
1:09:03 and
1:09:04 build
1:09:04 up
1:09:04 this
1:09:04 course
1:09:10 done
1:09:11 and
1:09:11 so
1:09:11 a lot
1:09:11 of
1:09:11 the
1:09:12 questions
1:09:12 were
1:09:12 around
1:09:13 what
1:09:13 is
1:09:13 normal
1:09:14 you
1:09:14 know
1:09:15 if
1:09:15 I
1:09:15 feel
1:09:15 this
1:09:16 during
1:09:16 sex
1:09:16 is
1:09:16 that
1:09:16 normal
1:09:17 how
1:09:17 often
1:09:17 do
1:09:17 people
1:09:17 have
1:09:18 sex
1:09:18 should
1:09:18 I
1:09:19 want
1:09:19 these
1:09:19 what
1:09:19 about
1:09:19 these
1:09:20 fantasies
1:09:20 what
1:09:20 does
1:09:20 it
1:09:21 mean
1:09:21 what
1:09:21 if
1:09:21 if
1:09:22 I
1:09:22 have
1:09:22 homosexual
1:09:23 fantasies
1:09:23 what
1:09:23 if
1:09:23 I
1:09:23 engage
1:09:23 in
1:09:24 this
1:09:24 kind
1:09:24 and
1:09:24 so
1:09:25 he
1:09:25 was
1:09:25 looking
1:09:25 at
1:09:26 all
1:09:26 of
1:09:26 these
1:09:26 questions
1:09:27 and
1:09:27 collating
1:09:27 them
1:09:28 and
1:09:28 then
1:09:28 he
1:09:28 went
1:09:28 out
1:09:28 and
1:09:29 did
1:09:29 these
1:09:30 huge
1:09:30 studies
1:09:31 and
1:09:31 he
1:09:32 interviewed
1:09:32 thousands
1:09:32 of
1:09:33 people
1:09:33 himself
1:09:33 but
1:09:33 also
1:09:33 had
1:09:34 all
1:09:34 these
1:09:34 research
1:09:34 assistants
1:09:35 who
1:09:35 are
1:09:35 out
1:09:35 there
1:09:36 interviewing
1:09:36 people
1:09:36 in
1:09:37 America
1:09:38 about
1:09:38 their
1:09:39 sexual
1:09:39 behavior
1:09:40 which
1:09:41 I
1:09:41 mean
1:09:41 just
1:09:42 picture
1:09:42 the
1:09:42 time
1:09:43 the
1:09:44 1940s
1:09:45 this
1:09:45 is
1:09:46 quite
1:09:46 a
1:09:46 conservative
1:09:47 time
1:09:47 I
1:09:47 mean
1:09:48 certainly
1:09:48 more
1:09:48 than
1:09:48 we
1:09:48 might
1:09:49 expect
1:09:49 now
1:09:50 and
1:09:50 here’s
1:09:50 this
1:09:51 researcher
1:09:51 asking
1:09:52 incredibly
1:09:53 personal
1:09:54 questions
1:09:55 about
1:09:55 thousands
1:09:55 and
1:09:56 thousands
1:09:56 and
1:09:56 thousands
1:09:56 of
1:09:57 people
1:09:58 and
1:09:59 he
1:09:59 ended
1:09:59 up
1:10:00 finding
1:10:00 and
1:10:00 this
1:10:01 is
1:10:01 one
1:10:01 of
1:10:01 the
1:10:01 big
1:10:01 findings
1:10:02 in
1:10:02 this
1:10:03 book
1:10:03 that
1:10:03 he
1:10:04 published
1:10:04 called
1:10:04 sexual
1:10:04 behavior
1:10:04 in
1:10:05 the
1:10:05 human
1:10:05 male
1:10:05 which
1:10:06 was
1:10:06 a
1:10:06 best
1:10:07 seller
1:10:08 for
1:10:08 an
1:10:08 entire
1:10:09 year
1:10:09 he
1:10:10 sold
1:10:10 out
1:10:11 auditoriums
1:10:12 they
1:10:12 had to
1:10:12 sometimes
1:10:13 add
1:10:13 the
1:10:13 room
1:10:14 next
1:10:14 to
1:10:14 the
1:10:14 room
1:10:14 he
1:10:14 was
1:10:15 in
1:10:15 because
1:10:16 there
1:10:16 was
1:10:16 so
1:10:16 much
1:10:17 desire
1:10:18 to
1:10:19 go
1:10:19 to
1:10:19 his
1:10:20 lectures
1:10:20 about
1:10:21 sex
1:10:21 that
1:10:22 they
1:10:22 had
1:10:23 to
1:10:24 connect
1:10:24 radios
1:10:25 to
1:10:25 other
1:10:26 halls
1:10:27 to
1:10:28 give
1:10:28 people
1:10:28 enough
1:10:28 space
1:10:28 to sit
1:10:29 down
1:10:29 he
1:10:29 was
1:10:30 basically
1:10:30 a
1:10:30 rock
1:10:31 star
1:10:32 and
1:10:33 again
1:10:33 I
1:10:33 think
1:10:33 this
1:10:34 challenges
1:10:34 a
1:10:35 misconception
1:10:35 we
1:10:35 have
1:10:36 about
1:10:37 sexuality
1:10:37 that
1:10:37 we
1:10:37 think
1:10:38 of
1:10:38 it
1:10:38 as
1:10:38 this
1:10:38 woke
1:10:39 thing
1:10:39 now
1:10:40 that
1:10:40 the
1:10:40 rainbow
1:10:41 flag
1:10:41 and
1:10:41 all
1:10:41 this
1:10:41 stuff
1:10:42 is
1:10:42 sort
1:10:42 of
1:10:42 this
1:10:43 modern
1:10:44 invention
1:10:44 almost
1:10:45 but
1:10:45 this
1:10:46 is
1:10:46 the
1:10:47 40s
1:10:47 this
1:10:47 was
1:10:47 happening
1:10:47 people
1:10:48 were
1:10:48 going
1:10:48 to
1:10:48 these
1:10:48 talks
1:10:49 people
1:10:49 were
1:10:49 having
1:10:49 these
1:10:50 conversations
1:10:50 and
1:10:51 he
1:10:51 created
1:10:51 something
1:10:52 called
1:10:52 the
1:10:52 Kinsey
1:10:52 scale
1:10:53 and
1:10:53 so
1:10:53 the
1:10:53 Kinsey
1:10:54 scale
1:10:54 is
1:10:55 from
1:10:55 zero
1:10:55 to
1:10:56 six
1:10:56 and
1:10:57 he
1:10:57 found
1:10:57 that
1:10:58 it
1:10:58 was
1:10:58 not
1:10:58 useful
1:10:59 to
1:10:59 apply
1:11:00 a
1:11:00 binary
1:11:00 to
1:11:01 people’s
1:11:01 sexual
1:11:02 desires
1:11:02 and
1:11:02 sexual
1:11:03 orientation
1:11:03 it
1:11:03 was
1:11:04 more
1:11:04 useful
1:11:04 to
1:11:04 put
1:11:11 somewhere
1:11:11 in
1:11:12 between
1:11:12 and
1:11:13 so
1:11:13 zero
1:11:13 was
1:11:14 exclusively
1:11:15 heterosexual
1:11:16 tendencies
1:11:17 and
1:11:17 six
1:11:17 was
1:11:18 exclusively
1:11:18 homosexual
1:11:19 and
1:11:19 he
1:11:19 would
1:11:20 place
1:11:20 people
1:11:20 based on
1:11:21 all the
1:11:21 things
1:11:21 they told
1:11:21 him
1:11:22 somewhere
1:11:23 on the
1:11:23 scale
1:11:24 and
1:11:24 about
1:11:24 half
1:11:25 of
1:11:25 men
1:11:25 were
1:11:26 somewhere
1:11:26 in the
1:11:26 middle
1:11:27 not
1:11:27 exclusively
1:11:28 either
1:11:29 and
1:11:29 about
1:11:29 a
1:11:29 quarter
1:11:29 of
1:11:30 women
1:11:31 now
1:11:31 think
1:11:31 about
1:11:31 the
1:11:31 time
1:11:32 it
1:11:32 was
1:11:32 a
1:11:32 very
1:11:33 conservative
1:11:33 time
1:11:34 well
1:11:34 and
1:11:34 it’s
1:11:35 post
1:11:35 war
1:11:35 though
1:11:35 so
1:11:36 I
1:11:36 think
1:11:37 that
1:11:37 mattered
1:11:38 as well
1:11:38 so
1:11:38 there’s
1:11:38 something
1:11:38 called
1:11:38 a
1:11:39 homosocial
1:11:40 environment
1:11:41 which
1:11:41 has nothing
1:11:42 to do with
1:11:42 being gay
1:11:42 that has
1:11:43 to do
1:11:43 with being
1:11:44 in a
1:11:45 situation
1:11:45 where
1:11:45 you
1:11:45 are
1:11:45 with
1:11:46 people
1:11:46 of
1:11:46 the
1:11:46 same
1:11:46 gender
1:11:47 as
1:11:47 you
1:11:47 so
1:11:48 a
1:11:48 homosocial
1:11:49 environment
1:11:49 are
1:11:49 things
1:11:49 like
1:11:50 prisons
1:11:50 where
1:11:50 you
1:11:50 only
1:11:50 have
1:11:51 men
1:11:51 or
1:11:51 only
1:11:51 have
1:11:51 women
1:11:53 war
1:11:54 which
1:11:55 at
1:11:55 that
1:11:55 point
1:11:55 they
1:11:56 just
1:11:56 had
1:11:57 and
1:11:57 so
1:11:57 you
1:11:57 have
1:11:57 a
1:11:57 lot
1:11:58 of
1:11:58 men
1:11:58 who
1:11:58 are
1:11:58 exclusively
1:11:59 in
1:11:59 the
1:11:59 company
1:11:59 of
1:11:59 men
1:12:00 and
1:12:00 maybe
1:12:00 looking
1:12:01 around
1:12:01 going
1:12:02 well
1:12:02 now that
1:12:02 my
1:12:03 options
1:12:03 are
1:12:03 different
1:12:04 maybe
1:12:04 I’m
1:12:04 going to
1:12:04 choose
1:12:05 from
1:12:05 this
1:12:05 pool
1:12:07 anyway
1:12:07 so
1:12:08 he
1:12:08 found
1:12:09 that
1:12:09 it
1:12:09 was
1:12:09 that
1:12:09 way
1:12:09 around
1:12:10 that
1:12:10 a lot
1:12:10 of
1:12:10 people
1:12:10 have
1:12:10 these
1:12:11 fantasies
1:12:11 or
1:12:13 actions
1:12:13 that
1:12:13 they’ve
1:12:13 engaged
1:12:14 in
1:12:14 and
1:12:14 then
1:12:15 there
1:12:15 were
1:12:15 other
1:12:16 male
1:12:16 researchers
1:12:17 who
1:12:17 found
1:12:17 similar
1:12:17 things
1:12:17 and
1:12:18 then
1:12:18 at
1:12:18 some
1:12:18 point
1:12:18 in
1:12:19 the
1:12:19 70s
1:12:19 it
1:12:19 swapped
1:12:20 and
1:12:20 it
1:12:21 felt
1:12:21 like
1:12:21 maybe
1:12:21 more
1:12:22 men
1:12:22 were
1:12:23 identifying
1:12:23 as
1:12:23 gay
1:12:24 and
1:12:25 there
1:12:25 were
1:12:25 maybe
1:12:26 less
1:12:26 people
1:12:26 who
1:12:26 would
1:12:27 have
1:12:27 called
1:12:27 themselves
1:12:27 bi
1:12:28 and
1:12:28 suddenly
1:12:28 this
1:12:28 became
1:12:29 a thing
1:12:29 more
1:12:29 for
1:12:29 women
1:12:30 so
1:12:31 I
1:12:31 think
1:12:31 that
1:12:31 there’s
1:12:31 some
1:12:31 social
1:12:32 things
1:12:32 going
1:12:32 on
1:12:32 there’s
1:12:32 some
1:12:33 research
1:12:33 things
1:12:33 going
1:12:33 on
1:12:34 but
1:12:34 actually
1:12:34 bi
1:12:35 men
1:12:35 are
1:12:36 have
1:12:36 been
1:12:36 studied
1:12:36 for
1:12:37 a long
1:12:37 time
1:12:37 as
1:12:37 well
1:12:38 okay
1:12:38 so
1:12:38 you
1:12:39 said
1:12:39 a lot
1:12:39 of
1:12:39 interesting
1:12:40 things
1:12:40 so
1:12:41 there
1:12:41 is
1:12:41 a
1:12:41 difference
1:12:41 between
1:12:42 the
1:12:42 truth
1:12:43 and
1:12:43 the
1:12:44 socially
1:12:44 acknowledged
1:12:45 thing
1:12:45 so
1:12:45 there’s
1:12:46 social
1:12:46 elements
1:12:47 I
1:12:48 don’t
1:12:48 know
1:12:48 this
1:12:49 might
1:12:49 be
1:12:49 anecdotal
1:12:49 but
1:12:51 I
1:12:51 know
1:12:51 a few
1:12:52 women
1:12:53 friends
1:12:54 of mine
1:12:54 who
1:12:55 identify
1:12:55 as
1:12:55 bisexual
1:12:56 I
1:12:56 don’t
1:12:56 know
1:12:56 a
1:12:57 single
1:12:58 guy
1:12:59 friend
1:12:59 who
1:13:00 identifies
1:13:00 as
1:13:00 bisexual
1:13:01 they’re
1:13:01 either
1:13:01 gay
1:13:01 or
1:13:02 straight
1:13:03 so
1:13:03 there’s
1:13:03 still
1:13:04 a
1:13:04 social
1:13:04 thing
1:13:05 going
1:13:05 on
1:13:06 definitely
1:13:07 definitely
1:13:08 and I
1:13:08 think
1:13:08 that
1:13:09 research
1:13:10 consistently
1:13:10 shows
1:13:11 that
1:13:12 bisexual
1:13:13 men
1:13:14 are
1:13:14 more
1:13:14 likely
1:13:15 to
1:13:15 identify
1:13:15 as
1:13:16 well
1:13:16 as
1:13:16 gay
1:13:16 or
1:13:16 straight
1:13:18 and
1:13:18 gay
1:13:19 what
1:13:19 depends
1:13:20 so
1:13:20 if
1:13:20 they
1:13:21 have
1:13:22 what
1:13:22 you
1:13:22 might
1:13:22 refer
1:13:23 to
1:13:23 as
1:13:23 a
1:13:23 homosexual
1:13:24 lifestyle
1:13:25 so
1:13:25 they
1:13:26 engage
1:13:26 in
1:13:27 sort
1:13:27 of
1:13:27 going
1:13:27 to
1:13:28 queer
1:13:28 parties
1:13:29 maybe
1:13:29 go
1:13:29 on
1:13:30 Grindr
1:13:30 or
1:13:30 other
1:13:30 gay
1:13:31 apps
1:13:31 that
1:13:32 would
1:13:32 be
1:13:32 much
1:13:32 more
1:13:32 a
1:13:33 lifestyle
1:13:33 thing
1:13:33 where
1:13:34 you’ve
1:13:34 embraced
1:13:34 and
1:13:34 you
1:13:35 see
1:13:35 this
1:13:35 part
1:13:35 of
1:13:35 your
1:13:36 identity
1:13:36 that
1:13:36 you
1:13:36 are
1:13:37 part
1:13:37 of
1:13:37 this
1:13:37 queer
1:13:37 community
1:13:38 it’s
1:13:38 much
1:13:39 easier
1:13:39 to say
1:13:39 you’re
1:13:39 gay
1:13:39 than
1:13:39 you
1:13:40 are
1:13:40 bi
1:13:40 most
1:13:40 often
1:13:41 also
1:13:41 because
1:13:42 there’s
1:13:42 queer
1:13:42 phobia
1:13:43 within
1:13:43 the
1:13:43 queer
1:13:44 community
1:13:44 and
1:13:44 so
1:13:44 you
1:13:45 might
1:13:45 get
1:13:46 gay
1:13:46 men
1:13:46 saying
1:13:47 to
1:13:47 a
1:13:47 bi
1:13:47 man
1:13:48 come
1:13:48 on
1:13:48 you’re
1:13:49 I
1:13:49 was
1:13:49 bi
1:13:50 once
1:13:50 that’s
1:13:50 classic
1:13:51 I
1:13:51 was
1:13:51 bi
1:13:51 once
1:13:52 or
1:13:52 come
1:13:52 on
1:13:53 you’re
1:13:53 actually
1:13:53 gay
1:13:54 it’s
1:13:54 the
1:13:54 same
1:13:54 that
1:13:54 you
1:13:54 get
1:13:54 the
1:13:55 other
1:13:55 way
1:13:55 around
1:13:56 with
1:13:56 bi
1:13:56 women
1:13:56 is
1:13:57 that
1:13:57 because
1:13:58 it’s
1:13:58 seen
1:13:58 as
1:13:59 performative
1:14:00 the idea
1:14:00 being
1:14:01 that
1:14:01 bisexual
1:14:02 women
1:14:02 are doing
1:14:02 it
1:14:02 for
1:14:03 attention
1:14:04 but
1:14:04 the
1:14:04 attention
1:14:05 of
1:14:05 men
1:14:06 specifically
1:14:06 that
1:14:07 well
1:14:07 they’re
1:14:07 all
1:14:07 going
1:14:07 to
1:14:07 go
1:14:07 back
1:14:07 to
1:14:08 men
1:14:08 anyway
1:14:08 and
1:14:08 they’re
1:14:08 just
1:14:09 doing
1:14:09 it
1:14:09 it’s
1:14:09 a
1:14:10 phase
1:14:10 it’s
1:14:10 this
1:14:10 thing
1:14:11 that
1:14:11 they’re
1:14:11 doing
1:14:11 actually
1:14:12 to
1:14:12 be
1:14:12 sexy
1:14:12 to
1:14:12 men
1:14:13 not
1:14:13 because
1:14:14 they’re
1:14:14 actually
1:14:15 interested
1:14:15 in
1:14:15 women
1:14:16 and
1:14:16 so
1:14:16 there’s
1:14:16 this
1:14:17 lesbian
1:14:17 bi
1:14:18 thing
1:14:18 going
1:14:18 on
1:14:18 which
1:14:19 is
1:14:19 often
1:14:19 quite
1:14:20 hostile
1:14:20 not
1:14:20 always
1:14:21 but
1:14:21 often
1:14:21 and
1:14:22 there’s
1:14:22 this
1:14:22 gay
1:14:23 male
1:14:23 bi
1:14:24 thing
1:14:25 which is
1:14:25 different
1:14:25 in
1:14:25 nature
1:14:25 but
1:14:26 is
1:14:26 also
1:14:26 potentially
1:14:26 hostile
1:14:27 so
1:14:27 in
1:14:28 both
1:14:28 saying
1:14:28 your
1:14:28 bi
1:14:28 can
1:14:29 be
1:14:29 can
1:14:29 be
1:14:29 problematic
1:14:30 but
1:14:30 for
1:14:30 men
1:14:30 more
1:14:30 so
1:14:31 do
1:14:31 you
1:14:31 like
1:14:32 the
1:14:32 Kinsey
1:14:32 scale
1:14:33 as a
1:14:33 sort
1:14:33 of
1:14:34 very
1:14:34 simple
1:14:35 reduction
1:14:35 to
1:14:37 that
1:14:37 there’s
1:14:37 a
1:14:37 spectrum
1:14:38 I also
1:14:38 saw
1:14:39 the
1:14:39 client
1:14:39 sexual
1:14:40 orientation
1:14:40 grid
1:14:40 that
1:14:41 adds
1:14:41 a few
1:14:42 parameters
1:14:42 like
1:14:43 who
1:14:43 you’re
1:14:43 attracted
1:14:44 to
1:14:44 how
1:14:44 you’re
1:14:45 actually
1:14:45 behaving
1:14:45 the
1:14:46 fantasies
1:14:46 you have
1:14:48 social
1:14:48 preference
1:14:48 lifestyle
1:14:49 preferences
1:14:49 all that
1:14:49 kind
1:14:49 of
1:14:50 self
1:14:50 identification
1:14:51 where you
1:14:51 actually
1:14:51 say
1:14:52 publicly
1:14:52 all
1:14:53 those
1:14:53 different
1:14:53 dimensions
1:14:54 or
1:14:55 is
1:14:55 the
1:14:55 Kinsey
1:14:55 scale
1:14:55 like
1:14:56 pretty
1:14:56 damn
1:14:56 good
1:14:58 approximation
1:14:59 the
1:14:59 Kinsey
1:15:00 scale
1:15:00 is a
1:15:00 good
1:15:00 start
1:15:01 and
1:15:01 the
1:15:02 client
1:15:02 grid
1:15:02 I
1:15:02 think
1:15:03 is
1:15:03 much
1:15:04 more
1:15:05 fun
1:15:05 in
1:15:05 some
1:15:06 ways
1:15:06 so
1:15:06 the
1:15:07 client
1:15:07 grid
1:15:07 came
1:15:08 out
1:15:08 of
1:15:08 research
1:15:09 by
1:15:09 Alfred
1:15:09 Kinsey
1:15:11 and
1:15:11 others
1:15:11 like
1:15:12 have
1:15:12 luck
1:15:12 Ellis
1:15:12 but
1:15:12 we
1:15:12 won’t
1:15:13 get
1:15:13 into
1:15:13 him
1:15:14 and
1:15:15 Fritz
1:15:16 Kline
1:15:16 was
1:15:16 a
1:15:17 male
1:15:17 researcher
1:15:17 doing
1:15:18 research
1:15:18 also
1:15:18 on
1:15:19 bisexuality
1:15:19 he
1:15:19 was
1:15:20 specifically
1:15:20 a
1:15:20 therapist
1:15:21 and
1:15:21 he
1:15:21 was
1:15:21 looking
1:15:21 at
1:15:22 people
1:15:22 who
1:15:22 were
1:15:23 struggling
1:15:23 with
1:15:24 their
1:15:24 sexuality
1:15:25 and
1:15:25 so
1:15:25 people
1:15:26 would
1:15:26 show up
1:15:26 in
1:15:27 the
1:15:27 70s
1:15:27 and
1:15:27 80s
1:15:28 in
1:15:28 his
1:15:29 practice
1:15:29 and
1:15:29 they
1:15:30 would
1:15:30 say
1:15:30 I’m
1:15:30 struggling
1:15:30 with
1:15:31 my
1:15:31 sexuality
1:15:31 and
1:15:31 he
1:15:32 would
1:15:32 say
1:15:32 how
1:15:33 can
1:15:33 I
1:15:33 help
1:15:33 you
1:15:34 and
1:15:34 they
1:15:34 would
1:15:34 say
1:15:34 things
1:15:34 like
1:15:34 I
1:15:35 wish
1:15:35 I
1:15:35 wasn’t
1:15:36 interested
1:15:36 in
1:15:36 men
1:15:37 and
1:15:37 I’m
1:15:37 a
1:15:37 man
1:15:47 the
1:15:47 implications
1:15:48 of
1:15:48 how
1:15:48 your
1:15:49 friends
1:15:49 and
1:15:49 family
1:15:49 will
1:15:49 see
1:15:50 you
1:15:50 that’s
1:15:50 the
1:15:50 problem
1:15:51 and
1:15:51 so
1:15:51 he
1:15:51 created
1:15:52 this
1:15:52 much
1:15:52 more
1:15:53 complex
1:15:53 scale
1:15:54 which
1:15:54 I
1:15:54 think
1:15:55 is
1:15:55 really
1:15:56 interesting
1:15:56 for
1:15:56 everybody
1:15:57 to do
1:15:57 no matter
1:15:57 what
1:15:57 their
1:15:58 sexuality
1:15:58 is
1:15:59 because
1:15:59 what
1:15:59 it
1:15:59 is
1:16:00 it
1:16:00 gets
1:16:00 you
1:16:00 to
1:16:01 think
1:16:01 about
1:16:02 things
1:16:02 like
1:16:02 yeah
1:16:02 your
1:16:03 sexual
1:16:03 identity
1:16:04 easy
1:16:05 but
1:16:05 not
1:16:06 just
1:16:06 that
1:16:06 but
1:16:06 in
1:16:07 past
1:16:07 present
1:16:08 and
1:16:09 ideal
1:16:10 and
1:16:10 so
1:16:10 if
1:16:10 you
1:16:11 say
1:16:11 well
1:16:11 I
1:16:11 used
1:16:11 to
1:16:12 identify
1:16:12 as
1:16:12 straight
1:16:12 now
1:16:13 identify
1:16:13 as
1:16:13 bisexual
1:16:14 and
1:16:14 then
1:16:14 I
1:16:14 have
1:16:15 in
1:16:15 my
1:16:15 head
1:16:15 this
1:16:16 doesn’t
1:16:16 mean
1:16:16 that
1:16:16 other
1:16:16 people
1:16:16 think
1:16:17 this
1:16:17 in
1:16:17 my
1:16:17 head
1:16:17 I
1:16:17 have
1:16:18 an
1:16:18 ideal
1:16:19 which
1:16:19 could
1:16:19 be
1:16:20 straight
1:16:20 because
1:16:21 that’s
1:16:21 what
1:16:21 maybe
1:16:22 society
1:16:22 told
1:16:22 us
1:16:22 we
1:16:23 should
1:16:23 be
1:16:23 but
1:16:23 it
1:16:24 could
1:16:24 also
1:16:24 be
1:16:24 something
1:16:24 else
1:16:25 and
1:16:25 so
1:16:25 I’ve
1:16:26 also
1:16:26 had
1:16:26 friends
1:16:26 who’ve
1:16:27 gone
1:16:28 past
1:16:28 present
1:16:28 straight
1:16:29 straight
1:16:29 but
1:16:29 ideal
1:16:30 bi
1:16:30 so
1:16:30 you
1:16:31 get
1:16:31 into
1:16:31 these
1:16:31 interesting
1:16:41 about
1:16:42 your
1:16:42 lifestyle
1:16:43 so
1:16:43 for
1:16:44 example
1:16:44 if
1:16:44 you
1:16:45 are
1:16:45 going
1:16:45 to
1:16:46 parties
1:16:46 queer
1:16:46 parties
1:16:46 if
1:16:46 you
1:16:47 have
1:16:47 queer
1:16:47 friends
1:16:47 then
1:16:48 you
1:16:48 might
1:16:48 have
1:16:48 a
1:16:48 homosexual
1:16:49 lifestyle
1:16:49 even
1:16:49 if
1:16:49 you’re
1:16:49 straight
1:16:51 but
1:16:51 then
1:16:51 again
1:16:52 it’s
1:16:52 how
1:16:53 much
1:16:54 lifestyle
1:16:54 would
1:16:54 you
1:16:54 like
1:16:55 and
1:16:55 so
1:16:55 for
1:16:55 me
1:16:56 that
1:16:56 was
1:16:56 a
1:16:56 real
1:16:56 moment
1:16:57 where
1:16:57 I
1:16:57 was
1:16:57 looking
1:16:57 at
1:16:57 that
1:16:57 going
1:16:58 wow
1:16:58 my
1:16:58 lifestyle
1:16:58 is
1:16:58 really
1:16:59 straight
1:17:00 and
1:17:00 maybe
1:17:01 I
1:17:01 need
1:17:01 to
1:17:01 change
1:17:01 this
1:17:01 and
1:17:01 so
1:17:02 he
1:17:02 was
1:17:02 using
1:17:03 these
1:17:03 attractions
1:17:04 and
1:17:04 fantasies
1:17:05 and
1:17:05 identities
1:17:06 and
1:17:07 the
1:17:07 past
1:17:07 present
1:17:08 ideal
1:17:08 to
1:17:08 help
1:17:09 people
1:17:09 to
1:17:09 think
1:17:10 through
1:17:10 all
1:17:11 these
1:17:11 complicated
1:17:11 feelings
1:17:12 we have
1:17:12 around
1:17:12 our
1:17:12 sexuality
1:17:13 and
1:17:13 to
1:17:14 identify
1:17:14 problem
1:17:15 like
1:17:15 sticking
1:17:15 points
1:17:16 yeah
1:17:16 that’s
1:17:16 fascinating
1:17:17 so
1:17:17 maybe
1:17:17 the
1:17:18 presumption
1:17:18 there
1:17:18 is
1:17:19 if
1:17:19 everything
1:17:19 is
1:17:20 aligned
1:17:21 the
1:17:21 fantasies
1:17:22 the
1:17:22 ideal
1:17:22 partner
1:17:23 the
1:17:23 all
1:17:24 those
1:17:24 things
1:17:25 that’s
1:17:25 probably
1:17:25 the
1:17:26 healthiest
1:17:26 place
1:17:26 to
1:17:26 be
1:17:27 right
1:17:28 and
1:17:28 so
1:17:28 he
1:17:28 would
1:17:28 look
1:17:29 at
1:17:29 especially
1:17:32 and
1:17:32 if
1:17:32 those
1:17:33 were
1:17:33 different
1:17:34 so
1:17:34 if
1:17:34 you
1:17:34 said
1:17:35 I
1:17:35 wish
1:17:35 I
1:17:35 was
1:17:35 bi
1:17:35 but
1:17:36 I’m
1:17:36 straight
1:17:36 or
1:17:36 I’m
1:17:37 bi
1:17:37 but
1:17:37 I wish
1:17:37 I was
1:17:37 straight
1:17:38 or
1:17:38 I’m
1:17:39 homosexual
1:17:39 and I
1:17:39 wish
1:17:39 I was
1:17:40 straight
1:17:40 he would
1:17:40 say
1:17:41 let’s
1:17:41 talk
1:17:41 about
1:17:41 that
1:17:42 and
1:17:42 he’d
1:17:43 try
1:17:43 to
1:17:43 work
1:17:43 through
1:17:43 it
1:17:43 and
1:17:44 the
1:17:44 term
1:17:44 he
1:17:44 used
1:17:44 for
1:17:45 bisexual
1:17:45 people
1:17:46 who
1:17:46 were
1:17:47 uncomfortable
1:17:47 in
1:17:47 their
1:17:48 sexuality
1:17:49 was
1:17:49 being
1:17:49 a
1:17:50 troubled
1:17:50 bisexual
1:17:51 and
1:17:52 so
1:17:52 I
1:17:52 think
1:17:53 any
1:17:54 sexuality
1:17:54 can
1:17:54 be
1:17:55 troubled
1:17:55 I
1:17:55 think
1:17:55 you
1:17:55 could
1:17:55 be
1:17:55 a
1:17:56 troubled
1:17:56 straight
1:17:56 person
1:17:56 a
1:17:57 troubled
1:17:57 homosexual
1:17:58 person
1:17:58 a
1:17:58 troubled
1:17:59 asexual
1:17:59 person
1:18:00 and
1:18:00 just
1:18:01 thinking
1:18:01 about
1:18:01 why
1:18:02 and
1:18:02 which
1:18:03 aspects
1:18:03 are
1:18:03 maybe
1:18:03 missing
1:18:03 I
1:18:03 think
1:18:04 is
1:18:04 really
1:18:04 healthy
1:18:04 for
1:18:04 people
1:18:04 to
1:18:05 do
1:18:05 meaning
1:18:05 there’s
1:18:05 some
1:18:06 puzzles
1:18:06 that
1:18:06 you
1:18:06 haven’t
1:18:07 quite
1:18:07 figured
1:18:08 out
1:18:08 maybe
1:18:08 you
1:18:08 haven’t
1:18:08 been
1:18:09 honest
1:18:09 with
1:18:09 yourself
1:18:09 about
1:18:10 your
1:18:10 preferences
1:18:11 I
1:18:11 don’t
1:18:11 really
1:18:12 like
1:18:12 talking
1:18:12 about
1:18:12 honesty
1:18:13 with
1:18:13 yourself
1:18:13 I
1:18:13 think
1:18:14 that’s
1:18:14 a
1:18:14 high
1:18:15 bar
1:18:15 and
1:18:16 I
1:18:16 think
1:18:16 it’s
1:18:16 also
1:18:16 often
1:18:17 weaponized
1:18:17 against
1:18:18 people
1:18:18 especially
1:18:18 by
1:18:18 men
1:18:19 where
1:18:19 it’s
1:18:19 this
1:18:19 idea
1:18:19 of
1:18:19 you’re
1:18:20 not
1:18:20 being
1:18:20 honest
1:18:20 you’re
1:18:20 actually
1:18:21 gay
1:18:21 and
1:18:21 so
1:18:21 I
1:18:22 think
1:18:22 this
1:18:22 idea
1:18:22 of
1:18:22 we’re
1:18:22 not
1:18:23 being
1:18:23 honest
1:18:23 with
1:18:23 our
1:18:24 sexuality
1:18:24 that’s
1:18:24 a
1:18:25 big
1:18:25 word
1:18:26 I
1:18:26 think
1:18:26 it’s
1:18:26 more
1:18:27 that
1:18:27 maybe
1:18:27 you
1:18:28 haven’t
1:18:28 had
1:18:28 the
1:18:28 right
1:18:28 framework
1:18:29 or
1:18:29 the
1:18:29 right
1:18:29 words
1:18:30 to
1:18:30 think
1:18:31 about
1:18:31 aspects
1:18:31 of
1:18:31 your
1:18:32 sexuality
1:18:32 that
1:18:32 are
1:18:32 troubling
1:18:33 to
1:18:33 you
1:18:33 how
1:18:34 obvious
1:18:34 when a
1:18:34 person
1:18:34 is
1:18:35 bisexual
1:18:35 how
1:18:36 obvious
1:18:36 is it
1:18:37 to
1:18:37 identify
1:18:38 like
1:18:38 the
1:18:39 sexual
1:18:39 orientation
1:18:40 grid
1:18:40 like
1:18:42 how
1:18:42 big
1:18:42 is
1:18:42 the
1:18:43 sign
1:18:43 whatever
1:18:44 you
1:18:44 are
1:18:44 I
1:18:45 think
1:18:45 the
1:18:45 sign
1:18:45 is
1:18:45 smaller
1:18:46 than
1:18:46 we
1:18:46 think
1:18:46 it
1:18:46 is
1:18:47 I
1:18:47 think
1:18:47 that
1:18:48 there
1:18:48 are
1:18:51 there’s
1:18:51 this
1:18:51 tendency
1:18:51 to
1:18:52 assume
1:18:53 that
1:18:54 sexuality
1:18:54 is
1:18:54 something
1:18:54 that
1:18:55 we
1:18:55 find
1:18:57 and
1:18:57 keep
1:18:58 and
1:18:58 consolidate
1:18:59 from
1:18:59 our
1:18:59 teenage
1:19:00 years
1:19:00 maybe
1:19:01 early
1:19:01 20s
1:19:02 you
1:19:02 maybe
1:19:02 get
1:19:03 university
1:19:03 thrown
1:19:03 in
1:19:03 so
1:19:03 if
1:19:04 you
1:19:04 get
1:19:04 your
1:19:05 experimental
1:19:05 years
1:19:05 in
1:19:06 undergrad
1:19:06 but
1:19:07 then
1:19:07 you
1:19:07 kind
1:19:07 of
1:19:08 have
1:19:08 to
1:19:08 choose
1:19:09 and
1:19:10 that
1:19:11 is
1:19:11 a
1:19:12 difficult
1:19:13 requirement
1:19:13 I
1:19:14 think
1:19:14 for
1:19:14 a lot
1:19:14 of
1:19:14 people
1:19:15 because
1:19:16 you
1:19:16 can’t
1:19:17 possibly
1:19:17 know
1:19:17 all
1:19:17 of
1:19:17 the
1:19:18 things
1:19:18 and
1:19:18 all
1:19:18 the
1:19:19 people
1:19:19 you
1:19:19 might
1:19:19 be
1:19:19 interested
1:19:20 in
1:19:20 at
1:19:20 that
1:19:20 point
1:19:21 and
1:19:21 we
1:19:21 change
1:19:22 in
1:19:22 every
1:19:22 other
1:19:23 way
1:19:23 why
1:19:23 wouldn’t
1:19:23 we
1:19:23 change
1:19:24 in
1:19:24 this
1:19:24 way
1:19:24 so
1:19:24 I
1:19:25 think
1:19:25 giving
1:19:26 ourselves
1:19:26 also
1:19:27 the
1:19:27 ability
1:19:28 to
1:19:29 reappraise
1:19:29 where
1:19:29 we’re
1:19:29 at
1:19:30 with
1:19:30 our
1:19:30 own
1:19:31 sexuality
1:19:31 our own
1:19:32 desires
1:19:32 our own
1:19:33 relationship
1:19:33 status
1:19:34 all these
1:19:34 things
1:19:35 is
1:19:35 is
1:19:35 important
1:19:35 to
1:19:36 keep
1:19:36 us
1:19:37 happy
1:19:37 and
1:19:37 healthy
1:19:38 and
1:19:38 to
1:19:39 not
1:19:39 run
1:19:39 into
1:19:40 issues
1:19:40 that
1:19:40 we
1:19:41 know
1:19:41 are
1:19:41 faced
1:19:41 by
1:19:42 a lot
1:19:42 of
1:19:42 homosexual
1:19:43 but
1:19:43 also
1:19:43 bisexual
1:19:43 people
1:19:44 like
1:19:44 researchers
1:19:45 found
1:19:45 that
1:19:45 bisexual
1:19:46 people
1:19:46 are more
1:19:46 likely
1:19:46 to
1:19:47 self-harm
1:19:47 they’re
1:19:48 more
1:19:48 likely
1:19:48 to be
1:19:48 the victims
1:19:49 of
1:19:49 sexual
1:19:49 violence
1:19:50 more
1:19:50 likely
1:19:50 to
1:19:50 be
1:19:51 isolated
1:19:51 more
1:19:52 likely
1:19:52 to
1:19:53 be
1:19:54 stalked
1:19:55 there’s
1:19:55 lots
1:19:55 of
1:19:55 different
1:19:56 aspects
1:19:56 of
1:19:56 being
1:19:56 bi
1:19:57 that
1:19:58 are
1:19:58 negative
1:19:59 and the
1:19:59 reason
1:19:59 for
1:20:00 that
1:20:00 is
1:20:00 mostly
1:20:00 because
1:20:01 bi
1:20:01 people
1:20:01 are
1:20:01 at least
1:20:01 like
1:20:02 to be
1:20:02 plugged
1:20:02 into
1:20:02 the
1:20:03 community
1:20:04 so
1:20:04 when
1:20:05 you’re
1:20:05 going
1:20:05 through
1:20:06 stuff
1:20:06 like
1:20:06 this
1:20:06 and
1:20:06 you
1:20:07 feel
1:20:07 different
1:20:07 and
1:20:07 you’re
1:20:08 constantly
1:20:08 being
1:20:08 asked
1:20:08 about
1:20:08 your
1:20:09 sexuality
1:20:09 if
1:20:09 you’re
1:20:10 open
1:20:10 about
1:20:10 it
1:20:10 or
1:20:10 you’re
1:20:11 hiding
1:20:11 it
1:20:11 that’s
1:20:11 also
1:20:12 troubling
1:20:13 you’re
1:20:14 going to
1:20:14 have
1:20:14 these
1:20:14 negative
1:20:15 consequences
1:20:15 especially
1:20:15 if you
1:20:16 don’t
1:20:16 feel
1:20:16 like
1:20:17 the
1:20:17 queer
1:20:17 community
1:20:17 is
1:20:17 really
1:20:18 a
1:20:18 place
1:20:18 for
1:20:18 you
1:20:19 so
1:20:19 that’s
1:20:19 also
1:20:19 finding
1:20:19 your
1:20:20 people
1:20:20 really
1:20:21 matters
1:20:22 since
1:20:22 we’re
1:20:22 on the
1:20:22 topic
1:20:23 of
1:20:23 sexuality
1:20:23 one
1:20:24 of
1:20:24 the
1:20:24 things
1:20:24 you
1:20:25 touched
1:20:25 on
1:20:26 in
1:20:26 your
1:20:26 book
1:20:26 on
1:20:27 evil
1:20:28 was
1:20:29 kinks
1:20:30 sexual
1:20:31 fantasies
1:20:31 I think
1:20:32 the point
1:20:32 of
1:20:33 describing
1:20:33 that
1:20:33 was
1:20:34 that
1:20:34 we
1:20:34 often
1:20:35 label
1:20:35 that
1:20:36 as
1:20:36 evil
1:20:37 or
1:20:37 bad
1:20:38 what
1:20:39 can
1:20:39 you
1:20:39 say
1:20:39 about
1:20:39 what
1:20:40 you’ve
1:20:40 learned
1:20:40 from
1:20:41 kinks
1:20:41 and
1:20:41 sexual
1:20:42 fantasies
1:20:42 from
1:20:43 writing
1:20:43 that
1:20:43 book
1:20:44 so
1:20:44 the
1:20:45 reason
1:20:45 I
1:20:45 included
1:20:46 kinks
1:20:47 in
1:20:47 evil
1:20:47 and
1:20:48 sexual
1:20:49 general
1:20:50 is
1:20:50 because
1:20:51 it
1:20:51 is
1:20:51 so
1:20:52 often
1:20:52 thrown
1:20:52 into
1:20:53 the
1:20:53 same
1:20:53 conversation
1:20:54 so
1:20:54 if
1:20:55 someone
1:20:55 comes
1:20:55 to
1:20:55 me
1:20:55 and
1:20:55 says
1:20:56 Julia
1:20:56 I
1:20:56 want
1:20:56 you
1:20:57 to
1:20:58 help
1:20:58 me
1:20:59 explain
1:20:59 why
1:20:59 this
1:21:00 person
1:21:00 killed
1:21:00 this
1:21:01 other
1:21:01 person
1:21:02 and
1:21:02 they’ll
1:21:03 often
1:21:03 say
1:21:05 did
1:21:05 you
1:21:06 know
1:21:06 that
1:21:06 he
1:21:07 or
1:21:07 she
1:21:08 was
1:21:08 also
1:21:08 into
1:21:09 insert
1:21:09 kink
1:21:09 here
1:21:10 or
1:21:11 insert
1:21:12 non-traditional
1:21:12 relationship
1:21:12 structure
1:21:13 here
1:21:13 or
1:21:14 insert
1:21:14 whatever
1:21:15 and
1:21:17 I
1:21:18 respond
1:21:18 to that
1:21:19 by going
1:21:19 okay
1:21:20 so
1:21:21 and
1:21:21 I
1:21:21 think
1:21:22 people
1:21:22 use
1:21:22 these
1:21:23 words
1:21:23 like
1:21:23 oh
1:21:24 he
1:21:24 was
1:21:24 really
1:21:24 into
1:21:25 BDSM
1:21:26 and
1:21:26 think
1:21:26 that
1:21:27 that’s
1:21:27 going
1:21:27 to have
1:21:27 this
1:21:28 really
1:21:28 important
1:21:29 impact
1:21:29 on
1:21:29 me
1:21:29 or
1:21:30 they
1:21:30 were
1:21:31 swingers
1:21:31 and
1:21:31 so
1:21:32 and
1:21:32 again
1:21:33 I
1:21:33 go
1:21:34 yeah
1:21:35 that’s
1:21:36 you know
1:21:36 almost
1:21:36 like
1:21:36 and
1:21:37 in other
1:21:37 news
1:21:37 they
1:21:37 were
1:21:38 swingers
1:21:38 it’s
1:21:38 like
1:21:38 that
1:21:39 is
1:21:39 not
1:21:39 related
1:21:39 to
1:21:40 this
1:21:40 crime
1:21:40 at
1:21:41 all
1:21:41 unless
1:21:42 you
1:21:42 know
1:21:42 one
1:21:42 of
1:21:42 the
1:21:42 partners
1:21:43 was
1:21:43 killed
1:21:44 but
1:21:45 people
1:21:45 see
1:21:45 this
1:21:46 as
1:21:46 a
1:21:46 defective
1:21:46 character
1:21:47 and
1:21:48 kink
1:21:48 is
1:21:48 very
1:21:48 much
1:21:49 seen
1:21:49 as
1:21:49 a
1:21:49 defective
1:21:49 character
1:21:50 in
1:21:50 many
1:21:51 circles
1:21:51 especially
1:21:52 in
1:21:52 broader
1:21:53 society
1:21:54 and
1:21:55 that
1:21:55 is
1:21:55 wild
1:21:56 to
1:21:56 me
1:21:56 because
1:21:57 if
1:21:57 you
1:21:57 look
1:21:58 at
1:21:58 research
1:21:58 on
1:21:59 sexual
1:22:00 fantasies
1:22:00 and
1:22:01 kinks
1:22:01 a lot
1:22:01 of
1:22:02 people
1:22:03 have
1:22:03 at
1:22:04 least
1:22:04 one
1:22:04 so
1:22:05 a lot
1:22:05 of
1:22:05 people
1:22:06 BDSM
1:22:06 being
1:22:06 the
1:22:07 most
1:22:07 common
1:22:08 are
1:22:08 engaging
1:22:08 in
1:22:09 or
1:22:09 interested
1:22:09 in
1:22:10 BDSM
1:22:10 so
1:22:11 things
1:22:11 like
1:22:12 choking
1:22:12 or
1:22:13 things
1:22:13 like
1:22:13 restraints
1:22:14 or
1:22:15 being
1:22:15 degraded
1:22:16 or
1:22:16 doing
1:22:16 the
1:22:17 degrading
1:22:17 of
1:22:17 other
1:22:17 people
1:22:17 in
1:22:18 bed
1:22:18 consensually
1:22:18 of
1:22:19 course
1:22:20 that
1:22:20 is
1:22:20 something
1:22:20 that
1:22:20 a lot
1:22:21 people
1:22:21 fantasize
1:22:21 about
1:22:22 and
1:22:22 a lot
1:22:22 of
1:22:22 people
1:22:22 engage
1:22:23 in
1:22:23 and
1:22:23 so
1:22:24 these
1:22:25 kinks
1:22:25 and
1:22:25 these
1:22:25 fetishes
1:22:26 they
1:22:26 are
1:22:27 much
1:22:27 more
1:22:28 commonplace
1:22:28 than
1:22:28 we
1:22:28 sometimes
1:22:29 think
1:22:29 about
1:22:29 them
1:22:30 as
1:22:30 now
1:22:30 on
1:22:30 the
1:22:30 other
1:22:31 hand
1:22:31 we
1:22:31 obviously
1:22:31 need
1:22:31 to
1:22:31 be
1:22:32 careful
1:22:32 not
1:22:32 to
1:22:33 assume
1:22:33 that
1:22:33 because
1:22:33 in
1:22:34 pornography
1:22:34 BDSM
1:22:35 is
1:22:35 almost
1:22:36 ubiquitous
1:22:36 it
1:22:36 feels
1:22:37 that
1:22:37 that means
1:22:38 everybody
1:22:38 wants
1:22:38 this
1:22:39 that
1:22:39 is
1:22:39 absolutely
1:22:40 not
1:22:40 the
1:22:40 case
1:22:41 but
1:22:42 we
1:22:42 also
1:22:42 don’t
1:22:42 want
1:22:42 to
1:22:43 marginalize
1:22:43 it
1:22:43 and
1:22:43 say
1:22:43 it’s
1:22:44 almost
1:22:44 nobody
1:22:44 it’s
1:22:45 somewhere
1:22:45 in
1:22:45 between
1:22:46 and
1:22:46 the
1:22:46 main
1:22:46 thing
1:22:46 is
1:22:47 always
1:22:47 just
1:22:47 to
1:22:47 ask
1:22:48 and
1:22:48 to
1:22:48 have
1:22:49 open
1:22:49 conversations
1:22:49 about
1:22:49 what
1:22:50 it
1:22:50 is
1:22:50 that
1:22:50 people
1:22:50 actually
1:22:50 want
1:22:51 in
1:22:51 bed
1:22:51 and
1:22:51 to
1:22:51 make
1:22:51 sure
1:22:52 you
1:22:52 have
1:22:52 things
1:22:52 like
1:22:52 safe
1:22:53 words
1:22:53 so
1:22:55 putting
1:22:55 in
1:22:55 the
1:22:55 restraints
1:22:55 to make
1:22:56 sure
1:22:56 these
1:22:56 interactions
1:22:57 are
1:22:57 safe
1:22:58 and
1:22:58 consensual
1:22:59 and
1:22:59 then
1:23:00 being
1:23:00 able
1:23:00 to
1:23:00 explore
1:23:00 and
1:23:01 there’s
1:23:02 everything
1:23:03 from
1:23:03 pup
1:23:04 play
1:23:04 where
1:23:04 you
1:23:05 dress
1:23:05 up
1:23:05 as
1:23:05 a
1:23:06 puppy
1:23:06 and
1:23:06 you
1:23:07 engage
1:23:07 in
1:23:08 either
1:23:08 just
1:23:08 general
1:23:09 frolicking
1:23:09 or
1:23:09 sexual
1:23:10 behavior
1:23:11 to
1:23:12 other
1:23:12 things
1:23:12 like
1:23:12 blood
1:23:13 play
1:23:13 which
1:23:13 is
1:23:13 when
1:23:14 you
1:23:14 pierce
1:23:14 the
1:23:14 skin
1:23:15 to
1:23:15 release
1:23:15 some
1:23:15 sort
1:23:15 of
1:23:15 blood
1:23:16 that
1:23:16 can
1:23:16 be
1:23:16 scratching
1:23:16 that
1:23:17 can
1:23:17 be
1:23:18 of
1:23:18 yourself
1:23:18 or
1:23:18 your
1:23:19 partner
1:23:19 that
1:23:19 can
1:23:20 be
1:23:20 this
1:23:21 idea
1:23:22 of
1:23:22 you
1:23:22 know
1:23:23 I
1:23:23 don’t
1:23:23 know
1:23:23 it’s
1:23:23 this
1:23:23 taboo
1:23:24 thing
1:23:24 you’re
1:23:24 doing
1:23:25 together
1:23:25 and
1:23:25 it’s
1:23:25 sexy
1:23:25 in
1:23:26 its
1:23:26 own
1:23:26 way
1:23:27 and
1:23:27 so
1:23:27 everybody
1:23:28 has
1:23:28 their
1:23:28 own
1:23:28 versions
1:23:29 of
1:23:29 what
1:23:29 they
1:23:29 find
1:23:30 attractive
1:23:31 and
1:23:31 rubbing
1:23:31 up
1:23:32 against
1:23:32 people
1:23:32 you know
1:23:33 sort
1:23:33 of
1:23:34 unsuspecting
1:23:34 pretending
1:23:35 that
1:23:35 someone’s
1:23:35 sleeping
1:23:37 there’s
1:23:38 this
1:23:38 wide
1:23:38 range
1:23:39 of
1:23:39 things
1:23:40 and
1:23:40 I
1:23:40 think
1:23:41 people
1:23:41 also
1:23:41 feel
1:23:41 often
1:23:42 deeply
1:23:42 ashamed
1:23:43 about
1:23:43 the
1:23:43 things
1:23:43 that
1:23:44 they
1:23:44 are
1:23:44 interested
1:23:44 in
1:23:45 and
1:23:45 I
1:23:46 think
1:23:46 that
1:23:46 is
1:23:46 also
1:23:46 really
1:23:47 sad
1:23:47 because
1:23:47 it
1:23:47 makes
1:23:47 it
1:23:47 more
1:23:48 likely
1:23:48 that
1:23:48 people
1:23:48 are
1:23:48 going
1:23:49 to
1:23:49 not
1:23:49 be
1:23:49 able
1:23:49 to
1:23:50 live
1:23:50 that
1:23:50 part
1:23:50 of
1:23:50 themselves
1:23:51 and
1:23:52 also
1:23:52 that
1:23:52 they
1:23:52 think
1:23:52 there’s
1:23:52 something
1:23:52 wrong
1:23:53 with
1:23:53 them
1:23:53 and
1:23:54 that
1:23:54 can
1:23:54 spiral
1:23:54 into
1:23:55 things
1:23:55 like
1:23:55 am
1:23:56 I
1:23:56 evil
1:23:56 am
1:23:56 I
1:23:57 bad
1:23:57 am
1:23:57 I
1:23:57 a bad
1:23:57 person
1:23:58 because
1:23:58 they
1:23:58 have
1:23:58 these
1:23:58 fantasies
1:23:59 and
1:23:59 that
1:24:00 ties
1:24:00 in
1:24:00 unfortunately
1:24:01 with
1:24:02 homosexuality
1:24:02 and
1:24:03 bisexuality
1:24:03 and the
1:24:03 way
1:24:04 that
1:24:04 certainly
1:24:04 historically
1:24:05 and in
1:24:05 most parts
1:24:05 of the
1:24:05 world
1:24:06 still
1:24:06 today
1:24:07 these
1:24:07 queer
1:24:08 lives
1:24:08 and
1:24:08 queer
1:24:09 identities
1:24:09 are
1:24:10 still
1:24:11 villainized
1:24:20 society
1:24:20 is going
1:24:20 to
1:24:21 treat
1:24:21 them
1:24:21 differently
1:24:21 so
1:24:22 it’s
1:24:22 all
1:24:22 about
1:24:23 destigmatizing
1:24:23 I
1:24:23 really
1:24:24 liked
1:24:24 what
1:24:24 you
1:24:24 wrote
1:24:25 about
1:24:25 I
1:24:25 guess
1:24:25 it was
1:24:25 in
1:24:26 the
1:24:26 context
1:24:26 of
1:24:27 BDSM
1:24:27 or
1:24:27 maybe
1:24:28 sadomasochism
1:24:29 or maybe
1:24:29 just
1:24:29 the
1:24:30 submissive
1:24:30 dominant
1:24:31 dynamic
1:24:31 like
1:24:32 why
1:24:32 that
1:24:32 might
1:24:33 be
1:24:33 appealing
1:24:34 the
1:24:35 disinhibition
1:24:36 hypothesis
1:24:37 I guess
1:24:38 this applies
1:24:38 generally to
1:24:38 sexual
1:24:39 fantasies
1:24:40 is if
1:24:40 you
1:24:41 live
1:24:41 them
1:24:41 out
1:24:42 that
1:24:42 you
1:24:42 could
1:24:42 just
1:24:42 let
1:24:42 go
1:24:42 of
1:24:43 all
1:24:43 the
1:24:43 bullshit
1:24:43 that
1:24:44 we
1:24:44 put
1:24:44 up
1:24:45 in
1:24:45 normal
1:24:45 society
1:24:46 they
1:24:46 could
1:24:47 just
1:24:47 be
1:24:48 all
1:24:48 in
1:24:49 fully
1:24:49 present
1:24:50 to
1:24:50 the
1:24:51 pleasure
1:24:51 of
1:24:51 it
1:24:52 right
1:24:52 and
1:24:52 that’s
1:24:52 what
1:24:52 research
1:24:53 has
1:24:53 found
1:24:53 on
1:24:54 fetishes
1:24:54 especially
1:24:55 on
1:24:55 BDSM
1:24:56 is that
1:24:56 the reason
1:24:56 that people
1:24:57 say
1:24:58 they like
1:24:58 it
1:24:58 it’s
1:24:58 hard
1:24:58 to
1:24:59 explain
1:24:59 why
1:24:59 you
1:24:59 have
1:24:59 a
1:25:00 fantasy
1:25:00 but
1:25:01 if
1:25:01 you
1:25:01 go
1:25:01 into
1:25:01 the
1:25:02 finer
1:25:03 questions
1:25:03 and
1:25:03 really
1:25:04 dig
1:25:04 deep
1:25:04 you
1:25:05 can
1:25:05 find
1:25:05 that
1:25:05 people
1:25:06 will
1:25:07 explain
1:25:07 a
1:25:07 version
1:25:08 of
1:25:09 well
1:25:09 I
1:25:09 can
1:25:09 really
1:25:09 let
1:25:10 go
1:25:10 and
1:25:10 I
1:25:10 don’t
1:25:11 have
1:25:11 to
1:25:11 if
1:25:11 someone
1:25:11 is
1:25:12 telling
1:25:12 me
1:25:12 what
1:25:12 to
1:25:13 do
1:25:13 then
1:25:13 I
1:25:14 don’t
1:25:14 have
1:25:14 to
1:25:14 make
1:25:15 any
1:25:15 decisions
1:25:15 and
1:25:15 I’ve
1:25:16 spent
1:25:16 all
1:25:16 day
1:25:17 making
1:25:18 millions
1:25:18 of
1:25:19 decisions
1:25:19 and
1:25:20 I
1:25:39 this
1:25:39 this
1:25:39 is
1:25:39 a
1:25:40 different
1:25:40 context
1:25:41 and
1:25:41 I
1:25:41 kind
1:25:42 of
1:25:42 want
1:25:42 the
1:25:42 reverse
1:25:42 of
1:25:42 what
1:25:42 I
1:25:43 want
1:25:43 in
1:25:43 my
1:25:43 day
1:25:43 to
1:25:43 day
1:25:43 life
1:25:44 and
1:25:44 so
1:25:44 I
1:25:44 can
1:25:45 understand
1:25:45 like
1:25:46 furries
1:25:46 and
1:25:46 that
1:25:46 sort
1:25:47 of
1:25:47 completely
1:25:48 living
1:25:48 as
1:25:49 another
1:25:49 species
1:25:50 of
1:25:50 even
1:25:51 is
1:25:51 it’s
1:25:52 a
1:25:52 really
1:25:52 interesting
1:25:53 psychological
1:25:53 phenomenon
1:25:54 of
1:25:55 release
1:25:55 and
1:25:55 of
1:25:56 letting
1:25:56 go
1:25:57 of
1:25:57 social
1:25:57 pressure
1:25:58 but
1:25:58 I
1:25:58 think
1:25:58 that
1:25:58 also
1:25:59 applies
1:25:59 to
1:26:00 because
1:26:00 you
1:26:00 mentioned
1:26:00 submissive
1:26:01 that’s
1:26:01 more
1:26:02 straightforward
1:26:02 to
1:26:03 understand
1:26:03 I
1:26:03 think
1:26:03 that
1:26:03 also
1:26:04 applies
1:26:04 to
1:26:04 dominant
1:26:05 because
1:26:06 like
1:26:08 yeah
1:26:08 you
1:26:08 don’t
1:26:08 have
1:26:09 to
1:26:10 walk
1:26:10 on
1:26:11 eggshells
1:26:11 it’s
1:26:11 the
1:26:12 clarity
1:26:12 of it
1:26:13 that was
1:26:13 really
1:26:13 interesting
1:26:14 like
1:26:14 having
1:26:14 read
1:26:15 that
1:26:15 from
1:26:15 you
1:26:16 that
1:26:16 really
1:26:16 made
1:26:16 me
1:26:17 think
1:26:17 that
1:26:17 there
1:26:17 is
1:26:17 a
1:26:18 deep
1:26:18 truth
1:26:18 to
1:26:18 that
1:26:19 to
1:26:20 like
1:26:20 being
1:26:20 true
1:26:21 to
1:26:21 whatever
1:26:21 the
1:26:21 sexual
1:26:22 fantasy
1:26:22 is
1:26:24 like
1:26:24 it’s
1:26:24 not
1:26:24 just
1:26:25 the
1:26:25 fantasy
1:26:26 itself
1:26:27 that’s
1:26:27 appealing
1:26:28 it’s
1:26:29 the
1:26:29 being
1:26:29 free
1:26:30 in
1:26:30 some
1:26:31 sense
1:26:31 it’s
1:26:31 the
1:26:32 being
1:26:32 free
1:26:32 and
1:26:33 the
1:26:33 juxtaposition
1:26:34 there
1:26:34 is
1:26:34 that
1:26:34 you
1:26:34 are
1:26:35 free
1:26:35 because
1:26:35 of
1:26:35 the
1:26:35 fiction
1:26:37 like
1:26:37 you’re
1:26:37 play
1:26:38 acting
1:26:39 but
1:26:40 it’s
1:26:40 touching
1:26:41 something
1:26:41 deep
1:26:42 inside
1:26:42 you
1:26:43 psychologically
1:26:44 and so
1:26:44 that’s
1:26:44 where it
1:26:45 sort of
1:26:45 feels
1:26:45 weird
1:26:46 but
1:26:46 it
1:26:47 also
1:26:47 makes
1:26:47 sense
1:26:47 I
1:26:47 mean
1:26:47 this
1:26:48 is
1:26:48 also
1:26:48 why
1:26:48 we
1:26:48 like
1:26:48 fiction
1:26:49 because
1:26:49 it
1:26:49 allows
1:26:49 you
1:26:50 to
1:26:50 maybe
1:26:50 be
1:26:51 somebody
1:26:51 else
1:26:51 have
1:26:51 someone
1:26:52 else’s
1:26:53 thoughts
1:26:53 in your
1:26:53 mind
1:26:53 for
1:26:53 a
1:26:53 while
1:26:54 and
1:26:54 you
1:26:55 really
1:26:55 get
1:26:55 to
1:26:55 live
1:26:55 as
1:26:56 that
1:26:56 for
1:26:56 a bit
1:26:56 so
1:26:56 I
1:26:56 think
1:26:58 the truth
1:26:58 and fiction
1:26:59 sort
1:27:00 of
1:27:00 circle
1:27:01 is
1:27:01 always
1:27:01 an
1:27:02 interesting
1:27:02 one
1:27:03 so
1:27:03 you
1:27:04 know
1:27:04 for
1:27:05 researching
1:27:05 the
1:27:06 bi
1:27:06 book
1:27:06 the
1:27:07 bisexuality
1:27:07 book
1:27:08 what
1:27:08 have
1:27:08 you
1:27:08 learned
1:27:09 about
1:27:09 sexuality
1:27:10 in
1:27:10 general
1:27:11 human
1:27:11 nature
1:27:11 kind
1:27:11 of
1:27:12 sexuality
1:27:12 and
1:27:13 how
1:27:13 it’s
1:27:13 practiced
1:27:14 in
1:27:14 terms
1:27:14 of
1:27:14 different
1:27:15 communities
1:27:15 and
1:27:15 I’m
1:27:15 sure
1:27:15 there’s
1:27:16 like
1:27:16 subcultures
1:27:16 and stuff
1:27:17 yeah
1:27:17 what have
1:27:18 you
1:27:18 learned
1:27:18 so
1:27:19 the
1:27:19 research
1:27:19 on
1:27:19 human
1:27:20 sexuality
1:27:20 I
1:27:20 think
1:27:20 is
1:27:21 interesting
1:27:21 because
1:27:22 we
1:27:23 keep
1:27:24 finding
1:27:24 that
1:27:24 people
1:27:25 have
1:27:25 these
1:27:26 desires
1:27:26 that
1:27:26 they
1:27:27 feel
1:27:27 weird
1:27:27 about
1:27:28 that
1:27:28 they
1:27:29 unless
1:27:30 they
1:27:30 have
1:27:30 a
1:27:30 community
1:27:31 or
1:27:32 an
1:27:32 app
1:27:33 that
1:27:33 you
1:27:34 can
1:27:34 go
1:27:34 to
1:27:34 to
1:27:36 live
1:27:36 those
1:27:37 fantasies
1:27:38 they
1:27:38 can
1:27:38 feel
1:27:38 quite
1:27:39 troubling
1:27:39 to
1:27:39 the
1:27:39 individual
1:27:40 and
1:27:41 they
1:27:41 can
1:27:41 make
1:27:41 you
1:27:42 unwell
1:27:42 and
1:27:42 that’s
1:27:42 true
1:27:43 whether
1:27:43 it’s
1:27:43 about
1:27:43 your
1:27:44 sexuality
1:27:44 so
1:27:44 being
1:27:45 gay
1:27:45 and
1:27:45 being
1:27:45 unable
1:27:45 to
1:27:46 live
1:27:46 as
1:27:46 a
1:27:46 gay
1:27:47 person
1:27:48 or
1:27:48 if
1:27:48 that’s
1:27:49 wanting
1:27:49 to
1:27:49 engage
1:27:49 in
1:27:49 BDSM
1:27:50 and
1:27:50 not
1:27:50 having
1:27:50 an
1:27:50 outlet
1:27:50 for
1:27:51 that
1:27:51 so
1:27:51 that
1:27:51 can
1:27:52 just
1:27:52 make
1:27:59 manifestations
1:27:59 of
1:27:59 crime
1:28:00 I
1:28:00 think
1:28:00 that
1:28:00 is
1:28:01 mostly
1:28:01 nonsense
1:28:02 but
1:28:02 it’s
1:28:03 more
1:28:03 that
1:28:03 I’m
1:28:04 concerned
1:28:04 about
1:28:04 the
1:28:04 mental
1:28:05 health
1:28:05 consequences
1:28:05 for
1:28:06 the
1:28:06 individual
1:28:06 who’s
1:28:06 unable
1:28:07 to
1:28:08 explore
1:28:08 those
1:28:08 sides
1:28:08 of
1:28:09 themselves
1:28:09 and
1:28:10 in
1:28:10 research
1:28:11 on
1:28:12 kinks
1:28:12 and
1:28:13 sexuality
1:28:13 it’s
1:28:14 just
1:28:14 about
1:28:15 also
1:28:15 making
1:28:16 sure
1:28:16 that
1:28:16 we
1:28:16 have
1:28:16 visible
1:28:17 representation
1:28:17 of
1:28:18 certain
1:28:18 kinds
1:28:18 of
1:28:18 communities
1:28:19 and
1:28:19 so
1:28:19 that’s
1:28:19 one
1:28:19 of
1:28:19 the
1:28:19 reasons
1:28:20 I
1:28:20 ended
1:28:20 up
1:28:20 writing
1:28:21 bi
1:28:21 I
1:28:21 came
1:28:21 out
1:28:21 in
1:28:22 making
1:28:22 evil
1:28:23 making
1:28:23 evil
1:28:23 is
1:28:23 the
1:28:23 UK
1:28:23 title
1:28:24 evil
1:28:24 in
1:28:24 the
1:28:24 US
1:28:26 I
1:28:26 came
1:28:26 out
1:28:26 because
1:28:27 I
1:28:27 was
1:28:27 writing
1:28:28 about
1:28:28 all
1:28:29 the
1:28:29 things
1:28:29 we
1:28:29 associate
1:28:29 with
1:28:30 the
1:28:30 word
1:28:30 evil
1:28:30 and
1:28:31 homosexuality
1:28:32 certainly
1:28:32 is one
1:28:32 of
1:28:32 those
1:28:33 things
1:28:33 you
1:28:33 came
1:28:33 out
1:28:33 as
1:28:34 bisexual
1:28:34 by the
1:28:34 way
1:28:34 yeah
1:28:34 yeah
1:28:35 I
1:28:35 came
1:28:35 out
1:28:35 as
1:28:35 bisexual
1:28:36 and
1:28:36 I
1:28:37 came
1:28:37 out
1:28:37 as
1:28:37 bisexual
1:28:37 in
1:28:38 the
1:28:38 book
1:28:39 and
1:28:39 I
1:28:39 did
1:28:39 it
1:28:40 specifically
1:28:40 and
1:28:40 I
1:28:41 wrote
1:28:41 it
1:28:41 this
1:28:41 way
1:28:41 as
1:28:41 well
1:28:42 because
1:28:52 I
1:28:52 was
1:28:52 part
1:28:52 of
1:28:52 this
1:28:53 community
1:28:54 that
1:28:54 otherwise
1:28:55 feels
1:28:55 other
1:28:55 it
1:28:56 feels
1:28:56 foreign
1:28:56 it
1:28:56 feels
1:28:57 abstract
1:28:58 and
1:28:58 maybe
1:28:58 it
1:28:58 feels
1:28:58 scary
1:28:59 but
1:28:59 if
1:28:59 you
1:29:00 realize
1:29:00 that
1:29:00 actually
1:29:00 you’ve
1:29:01 got
1:29:01 gay
1:29:01 friends
1:29:01 or
1:29:02 you’ve
1:29:02 got
1:29:02 friends
1:29:02 who
1:29:02 are
1:29:02 into
1:29:02 certain
1:29:03 kinds
1:29:03 of
1:29:03 fetishes
1:29:03 or
1:29:03 you’ve
1:29:04 got
1:29:04 friends
1:29:04 who
1:29:04 are
1:29:05 whatever
1:29:06 sexuality
1:29:06 sort
1:29:06 of
1:29:07 aspect
1:29:07 you’re
1:29:07 talking
1:29:07 about
1:29:08 you
1:29:09 suddenly
1:29:09 go
1:29:09 oh
1:29:10 it’s
1:29:10 going
1:29:10 to be
1:29:11 much
1:29:11 harder
1:29:11 to
1:29:12 dehumanize
1:29:12 these
1:29:13 people
1:29:13 and
1:29:14 and
1:29:14 this
1:29:14 is
1:29:14 where
1:29:15 all
1:29:15 of
1:29:15 this
1:29:15 kind
1:29:15 of
1:29:16 comes
1:29:16 for
1:29:16 me
1:29:16 from
1:29:16 a
1:29:16 really
1:29:18 sad
1:29:18 place
1:29:19 there’s
1:29:19 the
1:29:20 you could
1:29:20 talk about
1:29:21 bi as this
1:29:21 project of
1:29:22 love and
1:29:22 how I was
1:29:22 finding the
1:29:23 community
1:29:23 I was
1:29:23 trying to
1:29:24 write
1:29:24 something that
1:29:25 would sort
1:29:25 of bring
1:29:25 us all
1:29:26 together
1:29:27 but it’s
1:29:27 also because
1:29:28 I’m
1:29:28 constantly
1:29:29 terrified
1:29:29 that my
1:29:29 rights
1:29:30 are going
1:29:30 to be
1:29:30 stripped
1:29:30 back
1:29:32 and
1:29:32 we
1:29:32 know
1:29:32 that
1:29:33 the
1:29:35 laws
1:29:35 around
1:29:35 homosexual
1:29:36 behavior
1:29:37 and
1:29:38 the
1:29:38 rights
1:29:39 around
1:29:40 bisexual
1:29:41 people
1:29:41 as well
1:29:43 they’re
1:29:43 in
1:29:43 flux
1:29:44 there’s
1:29:44 no
1:29:44 straight
1:29:45 line
1:29:45 of
1:29:46 acceptance
1:29:46 and
1:29:47 just
1:29:47 because
1:29:47 right
1:29:47 now
1:29:48 I
1:29:48 happen
1:29:48 to
1:29:48 live
1:29:48 in
1:29:48 a
1:29:49 time
1:29:49 and
1:29:49 place
1:29:49 where
1:29:50 I’m
1:29:50 allowed
1:29:50 to be
1:29:51 openly
1:29:51 bisexual
1:29:52 and
1:29:52 I
1:29:52 can
1:29:52 engage
1:29:52 in
1:29:53 homosexual
1:29:53 activity
1:29:54 that
1:29:54 doesn’t
1:29:54 mean
1:29:55 that
1:29:55 that’s
1:29:55 going
1:29:55 to
1:29:55 stay
1:29:56 not
1:29:56 even
1:29:57 necessarily
1:29:57 in
1:29:57 my
1:29:57 lifetime
1:29:58 and
1:29:58 so
1:29:59 I
1:29:59 think
1:30:00 much
1:30:00 like
1:30:00 writing
1:30:00 evil
1:30:01 at a
1:30:01 time
1:30:01 when
1:30:01 you’re
1:30:01 not
1:30:02 at war
1:30:02 and you’re
1:30:02 able to
1:30:02 think
1:30:04 deeply
1:30:04 about
1:30:04 these
1:30:04 important
1:30:05 issues
1:30:05 I
1:30:06 think
1:30:06 we
1:30:06 also
1:30:06 need
1:30:06 to
1:30:06 be
1:30:06 thinking
1:30:07 about
1:30:07 things
1:30:07 like
1:30:07 sexuality
1:30:08 and
1:30:08 other
1:30:08 issues
1:30:09 that
1:30:09 are
1:30:09 important
1:30:09 to
1:30:09 us
1:30:09 and
1:30:09 if
1:30:10 we
1:30:10 want
1:30:10 to
1:30:10 preserve
1:30:10 our
1:30:10 rights
1:30:11 we need
1:30:11 to
1:30:11 normalize
1:30:12 these
1:30:12 issues
1:30:12 and
1:30:13 make
1:30:13 sure
1:30:13 that
1:30:13 they’re
1:30:13 visible
1:30:14 so
1:30:14 that
1:30:15 people
1:30:15 find
1:30:15 it
1:30:35 are
1:30:35 bisexual
1:30:36 and
1:30:37 maybe
1:30:37 what
1:30:37 are
1:30:38 some
1:30:38 stories
1:30:38 I’m
1:30:39 sure
1:30:40 because
1:30:40 I
1:30:41 haven’t
1:30:41 seen
1:30:41 much
1:30:41 material
1:30:42 on it
1:30:42 as
1:30:42 you
1:30:43 spoke
1:30:43 to
1:30:43 so
1:30:44 I’m
1:30:44 sure
1:30:44 they
1:30:44 felt
1:30:45 lonely
1:30:45 without
1:30:45 a
1:30:45 community
1:30:46 right
1:30:46 yeah
1:30:47 a lot
1:30:47 of
1:30:47 people
1:30:48 felt
1:30:48 seen
1:30:48 by
1:30:49 the
1:30:49 book
1:30:49 so
1:30:49 it
1:30:49 was
1:30:50 really
1:30:50 beautiful
1:30:50 the
1:30:51 fan
1:30:51 mail
1:30:51 I
1:30:51 got
1:30:51 and
1:30:52 the
1:30:52 sort
1:30:52 of
1:30:53 responses
1:30:53 to
1:30:53 the
1:30:53 book
1:30:54 and
1:30:54 I
1:30:54 got
1:30:54 them
1:30:54 from
1:30:55 all
1:30:55 over
1:30:55 the
1:30:55 world
1:30:55 and
1:30:55 so
1:30:56 in
1:30:56 the
1:30:56 book
1:30:56 I
1:30:57 also
1:30:57 spoke
1:30:57 with
1:30:57 some
1:30:57 researchers
1:30:58 who
1:30:58 were
1:30:59 stationed
1:30:59 or
1:30:59 doing
1:31:00 research
1:31:00 in
1:31:01 countries
1:31:01 where
1:31:02 bisexual
1:31:03 behavior
1:31:03 specifically
1:31:03 is
1:31:04 illegal
1:31:05 or
1:31:05 homosexual
1:31:05 behavior
1:31:06 was
1:31:06 illegal
1:31:07 for a
1:31:07 long
1:31:07 time
1:31:08 bisexuality
1:31:08 was
1:31:08 especially
1:31:09 in
1:31:09 women
1:31:10 well
1:31:10 actually
1:31:11 homosexuality
1:31:11 in
1:31:11 women
1:31:11 in
1:31:12 general
1:31:12 was
1:31:12 sort
1:31:12 of
1:31:12 seen
1:31:13 as
1:31:14 it
1:31:14 was
1:31:14 it
1:31:14 was
1:31:15 a
1:31:15 blind
1:31:15 spot
1:31:16 because
1:31:16 what
1:31:17 counted
1:31:17 as
1:31:17 sex
1:31:17 is
1:31:18 sex
1:31:18 with
1:31:18 a
1:31:18 penis
1:31:19 and
1:31:20 so
1:31:20 women
1:31:20 can’t
1:31:20 have
1:31:20 sex
1:31:21 with
1:31:21 one
1:31:21 another
1:31:26 historically
1:31:27 that’s
1:31:27 the
1:31:27 case
1:31:27 so
1:31:27 we’re
1:31:27 talking
1:31:27 about
1:31:28 like
1:31:28 sodomy
1:31:29 and
1:31:30 that
1:31:30 involves
1:31:31 men
1:31:31 and
1:31:31 not
1:31:32 women
1:31:32 and
1:31:33 so
1:31:33 if
1:31:34 you
1:31:36 look
1:31:36 at
1:31:36 the
1:31:36 evolution
1:31:36 of
1:31:37 laws
1:31:37 for a
1:31:37 while
1:31:38 women
1:31:38 were
1:31:38 kind
1:31:38 of
1:31:39 like
1:31:39 it
1:31:40 was
1:31:40 socially
1:31:40 not
1:31:40 necessarily
1:31:41 acceptable
1:31:41 but
1:31:41 they
1:31:41 were
1:31:41 kind
1:31:41 of
1:31:42 getting
1:31:42 away
1:31:42 with
1:31:42 it
1:31:42 legally
1:31:43 but
1:31:43 then
1:31:44 more
1:31:45 recently
1:31:45 especially
1:31:46 as
1:31:47 bisexuality
1:31:47 gets
1:31:47 more
1:31:48 visible
1:31:48 as
1:31:48 well
1:31:49 certain
1:31:49 countries
1:31:50 have
1:31:50 started
1:31:50 writing
1:31:51 it
1:31:51 specifically
1:31:51 into
1:31:52 their
1:31:53 constitutions
1:31:53 and
1:31:53 specifically
1:31:54 into
1:31:54 their
1:31:54 laws
1:31:55 that
1:31:56 bisexual
1:31:56 identities
1:31:57 and
1:31:57 behaviors
1:31:57 are
1:31:57 also
1:31:58 seen
1:31:58 as
1:31:58 problematic
1:31:59 and
1:31:59 illegal
1:32:00 so
1:32:00 again
1:32:00 these
1:32:01 laws
1:32:01 change
1:32:01 all
1:32:01 the
1:32:01 time
1:32:02 but
1:32:02 in
1:32:02 terms
1:32:02 of
1:32:02 fan
1:32:03 mail
1:32:04 especially
1:32:05 from
1:32:05 people
1:32:05 in
1:32:05 countries
1:32:06 where
1:32:07 homosexuality
1:32:07 and
1:32:08 bisexuality
1:32:08 are
1:32:09 illegal
1:32:10 or
1:32:10 are
1:32:10 seen
1:32:10 as
1:32:11 problematic
1:32:12 are
1:32:12 socially
1:32:12 condemned
1:32:13 that
1:32:14 was
1:32:14 particularly
1:32:15 important
1:32:15 so
1:32:15 that
1:32:16 those
1:32:16 people
1:32:16 were
1:32:17 particularly
1:32:17 writing
1:32:18 saying
1:32:18 sometimes
1:32:18 also
1:32:18 saying
1:32:19 can I
1:32:19 translate
1:32:19 this
1:32:19 into
1:32:20 this
1:32:20 other
1:32:22 like
1:32:22 on
1:32:22 the
1:32:23 down
1:32:23 low
1:32:23 and
1:32:23 just
1:32:24 distribute
1:32:24 this
1:32:24 to
1:32:25 my
1:32:25 friends
1:32:25 I
1:32:26 had
1:32:26 people
1:32:27 sending
1:32:27 me
1:32:27 messages
1:32:28 saying
1:32:28 I’m
1:32:28 at
1:32:28 X
1:32:29 airport
1:32:29 or
1:32:29 in
1:32:30 X
1:32:30 country
1:32:31 where
1:32:31 this
1:32:31 would
1:32:32 be
1:32:32 considered
1:32:33 contraband
1:32:34 like
1:32:34 this
1:32:34 book
1:32:35 my book
1:32:35 is a
1:32:35 banned
1:32:36 book
1:32:36 fun fact
1:32:37 nice
1:32:38 it was
1:32:38 banned
1:32:39 I sold
1:32:39 the rights
1:32:40 to a
1:32:40 foreign
1:32:40 publisher
1:32:41 and
1:32:41 right
1:32:42 after
1:32:42 it
1:32:42 was
1:32:42 sold
1:32:42 the
1:32:42 laws
1:32:42 change
1:32:43 and
1:32:43 they
1:32:43 sent
1:32:43 me
1:32:43 this
1:32:44 sad
1:32:44 email
1:32:44 saying
1:32:45 unfortunately
1:32:45 we
1:32:45 can’t
1:32:46 publish
1:32:52 in
1:32:52 homosexual
1:32:53 lifestyles
1:32:53 and so
1:32:54 we
1:32:54 can’t
1:32:54 publish
1:32:54 it
1:32:55 anymore
1:32:55 but
1:32:55 I
1:32:56 take
1:32:56 a little
1:32:56 bit
1:32:56 of
1:32:56 pride
1:32:57 in
1:32:57 the fact
1:32:57 that
1:32:57 it’s
1:32:57 a
1:32:57 banned
1:32:58 book
1:32:58 but
1:32:58 I
1:32:59 find
1:32:59 it
1:32:59 really
1:32:59 sad
1:32:59 obviously
1:33:00 as to
1:33:00 what
1:33:00 it
1:33:00 means
1:33:01 but
1:33:01 it
1:33:01 also
1:33:01 makes
1:33:01 me
1:33:01 feel
1:33:01 like
1:33:01 it’s
1:33:01 more
1:33:02 important
1:33:03 and
1:33:03 that’s
1:33:03 what
1:33:03 people
1:33:03 were
1:33:03 writing
1:33:04 to me
1:33:04 about
1:33:05 what
1:33:05 advice
1:33:05 would
1:33:05 you
1:33:05 give
1:33:06 to
1:33:06 young
1:33:06 people
1:33:08 and
1:33:08 just
1:33:08 people
1:33:08 in
1:33:08 general
1:33:09 that
1:33:09 are
1:33:09 trying
1:33:10 to
1:33:10 figure
1:33:10 out
1:33:11 their
1:33:11 sexuality
1:33:13 or
1:33:13 how
1:33:13 to
1:33:13 speak
1:33:13 about
1:33:14 their
1:33:14 sexuality
1:33:15 I’d
1:33:16 say
1:33:17 try
1:33:17 and
1:33:18 read
1:33:19 widely
1:33:19 on
1:33:20 issues
1:33:21 around
1:33:21 sexuality
1:33:22 books
1:33:23 like
1:33:23 mine
1:33:23 but
1:33:23 also
1:33:24 other
1:33:24 books
1:33:24 might
1:33:24 help
1:33:24 you
1:33:25 to
1:33:25 navigate
1:33:25 whether
1:33:25 or
1:33:26 not
1:33:28 you’re
1:33:29 you know
1:33:30 what
1:33:30 labels
1:33:30 there
1:33:30 are
1:33:31 and
1:33:31 also
1:33:31 whether
1:33:31 or
1:33:31 not
1:33:32 those
1:33:32 labels
1:33:32 are
1:33:32 good
1:33:32 for
1:33:32 you
1:33:33 I
1:33:33 think
1:33:33 things
1:33:33 like
1:33:33 the
1:33:34 client
1:33:34 grid
1:33:34 are
1:33:34 really
1:33:35 helpful
1:33:35 especially
1:33:35 for
1:33:35 people
1:33:36 who
1:33:36 are
1:33:36 more
1:33:37 analytically
1:33:37 minded
1:33:37 like
1:33:37 you
1:33:38 and
1:33:38 I
1:33:39 think
1:33:39 it
1:33:39 gives
1:33:39 you
1:33:39 a
1:33:40 construct
1:33:40 to
1:33:40 work
1:33:40 with
1:33:40 and
1:33:41 numbers
1:33:41 to
1:33:41 work
1:33:41 with
1:33:41 and
1:33:42 that
1:33:42 can
1:33:42 be
1:33:42 helpful
1:33:43 to
1:33:43 try
1:33:43 and
1:33:43 go
1:33:44 almost
1:33:44 seeing
1:33:45 your
1:33:45 sexuality
1:33:45 as a
1:33:46 mathematical
1:33:46 equation
1:33:47 and I
1:33:47 think
1:33:47 that
1:33:47 can
1:33:48 be
1:33:48 quite
1:33:48 useful
1:33:49 and
1:33:49 if
1:33:50 that’s
1:33:50 how
1:33:50 you
1:33:50 think
1:33:50 then
1:33:51 look
1:33:51 at
1:33:51 the
1:33:51 client
1:33:52 grid
1:33:52 and see
1:33:52 if
1:33:52 that
1:33:52 helps
1:33:53 you
1:33:53 to
1:33:53 navigate
1:33:53 things
1:33:54 a
1:33:54 bit
1:33:54 of a
1:33:54 tricky
1:33:55 question
1:33:55 but
1:33:56 what
1:33:56 are
1:33:56 the
1:33:56 pros
1:33:56 and
1:33:57 cons
1:33:57 of
1:33:57 coming
1:33:57 out
1:33:58 publicly
1:33:59 as a
1:34:00 non-standard
1:34:00 sexuality
1:34:01 was that
1:34:02 from a
1:34:02 recommendation
1:34:03 perspective
1:34:05 what are
1:34:05 some
1:34:06 benefits
1:34:06 and
1:34:07 what are
1:34:07 some
1:34:08 challenges
1:34:09 so the
1:34:09 benefits
1:34:09 are
1:34:10 that
1:34:10 you
1:34:10 can
1:34:11 well
1:34:11 live
1:34:12 authentically
1:34:12 you can
1:34:13 just be
1:34:13 yourself
1:34:14 so I
1:34:14 do
1:34:14 feel
1:34:14 more
1:34:15 free
1:34:15 in
1:34:15 who
1:34:15 I
1:34:15 am
1:34:16 and
1:34:16 who
1:34:16 I
1:34:16 am
1:34:16 able
1:34:17 to
1:34:17 be
1:34:18 online
1:34:18 for
1:34:18 example
1:34:19 now
1:34:19 that
1:34:19 I’m
1:34:19 out
1:34:20 and
1:34:21 because
1:34:21 I
1:34:21 came
1:34:21 out
1:34:21 after
1:34:22 in
1:34:22 my
1:34:23 30s
1:34:23 I
1:34:23 think
1:34:23 also
1:34:24 it
1:34:24 was
1:34:25 almost
1:34:25 a
1:34:25 foot
1:34:25 in
1:34:25 the
1:34:25 door
1:34:26 technique
1:34:26 as
1:34:26 well
1:34:26 which
1:34:27 is
1:34:27 the
1:34:27 psychological
1:34:28 technique
1:34:28 of
1:34:28 first
1:34:28 coming
1:34:29 in
1:34:29 and
1:34:29 then
1:34:30 coming
1:34:30 with
1:34:30 your
1:34:30 big
1:34:31 ask
1:34:31 and
1:34:31 so
1:34:32 I
1:34:32 had
1:34:32 already
1:34:32 published
1:34:32 two
1:34:33 books
1:34:33 yeah
1:34:34 I
1:34:34 was
1:34:34 already
1:34:34 an
1:34:35 established
1:34:35 scientist
1:34:35 I
1:34:35 think
1:34:35 if
1:34:36 tried
1:34:36 by
1:34:37 first
1:34:37 I
1:34:37 wouldn’t
1:34:38 have
1:34:38 been
1:34:38 able
1:34:38 to
1:34:38 publish
1:34:38 the
1:34:39 book
1:34:39 it
1:34:39 was
1:34:39 the
1:34:39 first
1:34:39 mainstream
1:34:40 book
1:34:40 on
1:34:40 bisexuality
1:34:40 ever
1:34:42 and
1:34:42 B
1:34:43 I
1:34:44 don’t
1:34:44 think
1:34:44 I
1:35:06 that
1:35:07 it’s
1:35:08 done
1:35:08 the
1:35:09 opposite
1:35:09 most
1:35:09 of
1:35:09 the
1:35:09 time
1:35:10 so
1:35:10 I
1:35:10 think
1:35:11 as
1:35:11 a
1:35:11 woman
1:35:12 especially
1:35:12 a
1:35:13 young
1:35:13 woman
1:35:13 who’s
1:35:14 in
1:35:14 the
1:35:14 public
1:35:14 eye
1:35:15 you’re
1:35:15 sexualized
1:35:16 anyway
1:35:17 unfortunately
1:35:19 and so
1:35:20 that is
1:35:21 and was
1:35:21 already
1:35:22 a huge
1:35:22 part of
1:35:23 my
1:35:23 online
1:35:24 experience
1:35:24 and
1:35:25 actually
1:35:25 I
1:35:25 think
1:35:26 coming
1:35:26 out
1:35:26 as
1:35:26 bi
1:35:27 you
1:35:27 get
1:35:28 allies
1:35:28 who
1:35:29 suddenly
1:35:29 are
1:35:29 like
1:35:29 we’re
1:35:29 on
1:35:29 your
1:35:30 side
1:35:30 we’re
1:35:30 going
1:35:30 to
1:35:30 help
1:35:30 you
1:35:31 fight
1:35:31 the
1:35:32 hyper
1:35:32 sexualization
1:35:33 and
1:35:33 people
1:35:33 get
1:35:34 more
1:35:35 almost
1:35:36 more
1:35:36 weird
1:35:36 about
1:35:36 it
1:35:36 in
1:35:36 a
1:35:37 good
1:35:37 way
1:35:37 they
1:35:37 get
1:35:38 a bit
1:35:38 quiet
1:35:38 about
1:35:38 it
1:35:38 because
1:35:39 they’re
1:35:39 like
1:35:39 oh well
1:35:39 now
1:35:39 it’s
1:35:39 an
1:35:40 identity
1:35:40 thing
1:35:41 so
1:35:42 maybe
1:35:42 I
1:35:42 shouldn’t
1:35:42 comment
1:35:43 on
1:35:43 what
1:35:43 she’s
1:35:43 wearing
1:35:44 and
1:35:44 it
1:35:44 sort
1:35:44 of
1:35:45 it
1:35:45 almost
1:35:46 disarmed
1:35:47 some
1:35:47 of
1:35:47 the
1:35:47 more
1:35:48 sexualized
1:35:49 comments
1:35:49 so
1:35:49 for
1:35:49 me
1:35:50 I
1:35:50 have
1:35:50 to
1:35:50 say
1:35:50 it
1:35:50 was
1:35:50 mostly
1:35:50 a
1:35:51 positive
1:35:51 experience
1:35:52 the
1:35:52 incels
1:35:52 didn’t
1:35:52 know
1:35:52 what
1:35:53 to
1:35:53 do
1:35:53 with
1:35:53 it
1:35:54 exactly
1:35:54 like
1:36:05 academia
1:36:06 and
1:36:06 then
1:36:06 through
1:36:06 it
1:36:07 basically
1:36:08 what
1:36:08 happened
1:36:08 is
1:36:09 I
1:36:10 was
1:36:10 ready
1:36:10 to
1:36:10 go
1:36:10 study
1:36:11 art
1:36:12 that’s
1:36:12 what
1:36:12 happened
1:36:13 I had
1:36:13 my
1:36:13 portfolio
1:36:13 ready
1:36:14 to go
1:36:14 I was
1:36:14 going to
1:36:15 go
1:36:15 study
1:36:15 art
1:36:16 at
1:36:16 undergrad
1:36:17 and
1:36:17 then
1:36:17 my
1:36:18 grandfather
1:36:18 intervened
1:36:19 and was
1:36:19 like
1:36:20 being an
1:36:20 artist
1:36:21 is a
1:36:21 really
1:36:21 hard
1:36:21 life
1:36:22 maybe
1:36:22 you
1:36:22 should
1:36:23 reconsider
1:36:23 what
1:36:23 kind
1:36:23 of
1:36:24 art
1:36:26 painting
1:36:27 that
1:36:27 is
1:36:27 fast
1:36:27 I
1:36:27 would
1:36:27 not
1:36:28 have
1:36:28 expected
1:36:29 that
1:36:29 because
1:36:29 you’re
1:36:29 so
1:36:30 super
1:36:30 analytical
1:36:31 yeah
1:36:31 I
1:36:31 am
1:36:32 but
1:36:32 I
1:36:32 really
1:36:33 like
1:36:33 surrealism
1:36:34 and
1:36:34 I
1:36:34 really
1:36:34 like
1:36:35 messing
1:36:35 with
1:36:35 sense
1:36:35 of
1:36:36 reality
1:36:36 which
1:36:36 again
1:36:36 is
1:36:37 obviously
1:36:37 something
1:36:37 that
1:36:38 then
1:36:38 wove
1:36:39 its way
1:36:39 into
1:36:39 my
1:36:40 academic
1:36:40 work
1:36:41 but
1:36:41 he
1:36:41 was
1:36:41 also
1:36:42 right
1:36:42 I
1:36:42 mean
1:36:42 I
1:36:43 I’ve
1:36:43 always
1:36:43 been
1:36:44 very
1:36:45 intellectual
1:36:45 let’s
1:36:45 just
1:36:46 say
1:36:46 I
1:36:46 skipped
1:36:46 a couple
1:36:46 of
1:36:47 grades
1:36:47 in
1:36:47 school
1:36:47 I
1:36:47 was
1:36:48 part
1:36:48 of
1:36:48 the
1:36:48 chess
1:36:48 club
1:36:48 like
1:36:48 it
1:36:49 was
1:36:49 very
1:36:49 much
1:36:49 I
1:36:50 was
1:36:51 the
1:36:51 clever
1:36:51 kid
1:36:52 and
1:36:53 so
1:36:54 but
1:36:54 there’s
1:36:54 also
1:36:54 part
1:36:54 of
1:36:55 me
1:36:55 that’s
1:36:55 just
1:36:55 like
1:36:55 but
1:36:55 art
1:36:55 is
1:36:56 beautiful
1:36:56 I
1:36:56 love
1:36:56 making
1:36:57 art
1:36:57 and
1:36:57 it
1:36:57 can
1:36:57 speak
1:36:57 to
1:36:58 so
1:36:58 many
1:36:58 people
1:36:59 anyway
1:36:59 my
1:36:59 grandfather
1:37:00 convinced
1:37:00 me
1:37:00 not
1:37:00 to
1:37:00 do
1:37:00 it
1:37:01 and
1:37:01 then
1:37:01 I
1:37:01 applied
1:37:02 instead
1:37:02 for
1:37:03 psychology
1:37:04 although
1:37:05 at that
1:37:05 point
1:37:05 you
1:37:05 just
1:37:05 had
1:37:05 to
1:37:06 say
1:37:06 social
1:37:06 sciences
1:37:06 you
1:37:07 didn’t
1:37:07 have
1:37:07 to
1:37:07 yet
1:37:08 specify
1:37:08 but
1:37:08 I
1:37:09 knew
1:37:09 it
1:37:09 was
1:37:09 probably
1:37:09 going
1:37:09 to be
1:37:10 psychology
1:37:10 and
1:37:10 the
1:37:11 reason
1:37:11 for
1:37:11 that
1:37:12 was
1:37:12 because
1:37:12 my
1:37:13 dad
1:37:13 has
1:37:13 paranoid
1:37:13 schizophrenia
1:37:15 and
1:37:15 so
1:37:15 I
1:37:15 think
1:37:16 one
1:37:16 of
1:37:16 the
1:37:16 reasons
1:37:16 I’m
1:37:17 so
1:37:17 obsessed
1:37:17 with
1:37:17 this
1:37:18 idea
1:37:18 of
1:37:18 what
1:37:18 is
1:37:18 real
1:37:19 and
1:37:21 that
1:37:21 is
1:37:21 in
1:37:22 every
1:37:22 way
1:37:23 I
1:37:23 mean
1:37:24 that
1:37:24 in
1:37:24 terms
1:37:24 of
1:37:25 what
1:37:25 is
1:37:25 real
1:37:25 in
1:37:25 terms
1:37:26 of
1:37:26 perceptions
1:37:26 of
1:37:27 right
1:37:27 and
1:37:27 wrong
1:37:27 what
1:37:27 is
1:37:28 real
1:37:28 in
1:37:28 terms
1:37:28 of
1:37:29 our
1:37:29 own
1:37:30 memories
1:37:30 of
1:37:30 the
1:37:31 world
1:37:31 what
1:37:32 is
1:37:32 real
1:37:32 in
1:37:32 terms
1:37:32 of
1:37:32 what
1:37:33 happened
1:37:33 in
1:37:33 a
1:37:33 crime
1:37:34 what
1:37:41 that’s
1:37:41 because
1:37:42 I
1:37:42 grew
1:37:42 up
1:37:42 with
1:37:42 someone
1:37:43 who
1:37:44 had
1:37:45 a
1:37:45 unique
1:37:46 view
1:37:46 of
1:37:47 what
1:37:47 is
1:37:47 real
1:37:48 in
1:37:48 real
1:37:48 time
1:37:49 and
1:37:50 so
1:37:50 seeing
1:37:51 that
1:37:51 I
1:37:51 think
1:37:52 just
1:37:53 affected
1:37:53 me
1:37:54 profoundly
1:37:54 because
1:37:54 not
1:37:55 only
1:37:55 was
1:37:55 it
1:37:55 very
1:37:56 destabilizing
1:37:56 in
1:37:56 terms
1:37:56 of
1:37:56 my
1:37:57 upbringing
1:37:57 but
1:37:57 also
1:37:58 it’s
1:37:58 just
1:37:59 in
1:37:59 your
1:37:59 face
1:38:00 that
1:38:00 people
1:38:01 quite
1:38:02 literally
1:38:02 are
1:38:03 seeing
1:38:03 and
1:38:03 hearing
1:38:03 different
1:38:04 things
1:38:04 than
1:38:04 you
1:38:05 and
1:38:06 to
1:38:06 not
1:38:06 jump
1:38:06 from
1:38:07 that
1:38:07 to
1:38:07 what
1:38:07 else
1:38:08 are
1:38:08 people
1:38:09 perceiving
1:38:09 differently
1:38:09 than
1:38:09 me
1:38:09 I
1:38:10 think
1:38:10 would
1:38:10 be
1:38:11 almost
1:38:11 like
1:38:11 a
1:38:11 missed
1:38:11 opportunity
1:38:12 and
1:38:13 so
1:38:13 I
1:38:13 went
1:38:13 to
1:38:13 study
1:38:13 psychology
1:38:14 partly
1:38:14 to
1:38:14 understand
1:38:15 that
1:38:15 and
1:38:15 what
1:38:16 was
1:38:39 so
1:38:51 I
1:38:52 did
1:38:53 yeah
1:38:53 that’s
1:38:53 great
1:38:54 to hear
1:38:54 that
1:38:55 criminal
1:38:55 psychologists
1:38:55 because
1:38:56 probably
1:38:56 they
1:38:56 have
1:38:56 to
1:38:57 really
1:38:57 more than
1:38:58 any
1:38:58 other
1:38:59 subfield
1:39:00 confront
1:39:00 the
1:39:01 reality
1:39:01 of
1:39:01 the
1:39:01 mind
1:39:02 and
1:39:03 it’s
1:39:03 often
1:39:03 quite
1:39:04 procedural
1:39:04 so
1:39:05 I’m
1:39:05 also
1:39:06 much
1:39:06 more
1:39:06 interested
1:39:07 in
1:39:08 applied
1:39:08 sciences
1:39:09 because
1:39:09 I
1:39:09 like
1:39:09 the
1:39:10 idea
1:39:10 of
1:39:12 you
1:39:12 know
1:39:12 what
1:39:12 do
1:39:12 we
1:39:12 do
1:39:13 with
1:39:13 this
1:39:13 information
1:39:14 and
1:39:15 the
1:39:15 thing
1:39:15 that
1:39:15 interests
1:39:15 me
1:39:16 most
1:39:16 from a
1:39:16 research
1:39:17 perspective
1:39:17 I
1:39:17 mean
1:39:17 I
1:39:18 did
1:39:18 my
1:39:18 PhD
1:39:18 in
1:39:19 false
1:39:19 memories
1:39:19 so
1:39:20 implanting
1:39:20 false
1:39:21 memories
1:39:21 of committing
1:39:21 crime
1:39:22 which
1:39:22 was
1:39:23 the
1:39:23 study
1:39:23 that
1:39:23 ended
1:39:24 up
1:39:24 going
1:39:24 viral
1:39:25 because
1:39:26 I
1:39:26 was
1:39:26 the
1:39:26 first
1:39:27 to
1:39:27 do
1:39:27 it
1:39:27 and
1:39:28 I
1:39:28 built
1:39:28 on
1:39:28 a
1:39:28 history
1:39:29 of
1:39:29 people
1:39:30 implanting
1:39:30 false
1:39:30 memories
1:39:30 of
1:39:37 false
1:39:37 memory
1:39:38 research
1:39:38 and
1:39:38 so
1:39:38 that
1:39:38 was
1:39:38 the
1:39:39 research
1:39:39 of
1:39:39 Elizabeth
1:39:39 Loftus
1:39:40 and
1:39:40 Saul
1:39:41 Kassin
1:39:41 so
1:39:42 false
1:39:42 confessions
1:39:42 was
1:39:42 Saul
1:39:43 Kassin
1:39:43 and
1:39:43 false
1:39:43 memories
1:39:44 was
1:39:44 Elizabeth
1:39:45 Loftus
1:39:45 and I
1:39:46 was just
1:39:46 doing them
1:39:46 both at
1:39:47 the same
1:39:47 time
1:39:48 and the
1:39:48 question
1:39:48 was
1:39:49 could you
1:39:49 get people
1:39:49 to believe
1:39:50 that they
1:39:50 committed a crime
1:39:51 that never
1:39:51 happened
1:39:52 and confess
1:39:53 to it
1:39:54 and not
1:39:54 just that
1:39:55 but believe
1:39:55 that it
1:39:56 actually
1:39:56 happened
1:39:57 so remember
1:39:57 it
1:39:58 and the
1:39:58 answer to
1:39:59 that
1:39:59 in short
1:39:59 is yes
1:40:00 you can
1:40:00 especially
1:40:01 using specific
1:40:02 leading and
1:40:02 suggestive
1:40:03 interview
1:40:03 techniques
1:40:04 and so
1:40:05 the procedural
1:40:05 learning
1:40:06 from that
1:40:06 which is
1:40:07 what I’m
1:40:07 most interested
1:40:07 in
1:40:08 I don’t
1:40:08 like
1:40:08 that’s
1:40:08 sort of
1:40:08 a party
1:40:09 trick
1:40:09 to be able
1:40:09 to actually
1:40:10 do it
1:40:10 and that’s
1:40:11 just so
1:40:11 that you
1:40:11 can then
1:40:12 take that
1:40:12 and go
1:40:13 okay well
1:40:13 how do we
1:40:14 prevent this
1:40:15 and so
1:40:16 I’ve since
1:40:16 trained police
1:40:17 lawyers
1:40:18 I’ve trained
1:40:18 people at the
1:40:19 ICC
1:40:19 the International
1:40:20 Criminal Court
1:40:21 who deal
1:40:21 with collective
1:40:22 memory
1:40:22 so they deal
1:40:23 with hundreds
1:40:23 of witnesses
1:40:24 at a time
1:40:25 and war crimes
1:40:25 and the
1:40:26 question is
1:40:26 how do we
1:40:28 try to
1:40:28 preserve
1:40:29 as original
1:40:29 as possible
1:40:30 memory
1:40:30 without
1:40:31 contaminating
1:40:31 it
1:40:32 because
1:40:32 well
1:40:33 or at least
1:40:34 without contaminating
1:40:34 any more
1:40:34 than it already
1:40:35 is
1:40:36 and that’s
1:40:36 where social
1:40:37 psychology
1:40:37 I think
1:40:38 excels
1:40:38 is that
1:40:38 we have
1:40:39 done
1:40:40 lots of
1:40:40 research
1:40:41 on how
1:40:42 social settings
1:40:43 change what
1:40:43 people say
1:40:44 and to some
1:40:45 extent what
1:40:45 people believe
1:40:46 and I think
1:40:47 that’s also
1:40:47 where actually
1:40:48 the leap
1:40:49 to things
1:40:50 like AI
1:40:50 I think
1:40:51 is not
1:40:52 far
1:40:52 because
1:40:52 ultimately
1:40:53 the way
1:40:53 that we’re
1:40:53 engaging
1:40:54 with large
1:40:54 language
1:40:55 models
1:40:56 is that
1:40:57 and generative
1:40:57 AI in general
1:40:58 is that
1:40:58 it’s
1:40:59 structured
1:41:00 structure
1:41:00 as a
1:41:01 conversation
1:41:01 most of
1:41:02 the time
1:41:02 now
1:41:03 and that
1:41:03 is
1:41:04 what we
1:41:05 do
1:41:06 that is
1:41:06 literally
1:41:07 what I
1:41:07 train the
1:41:07 police
1:41:08 on doing
1:41:08 is how
1:41:09 to make
1:41:09 sure that
1:41:10 you don’t
1:41:10 distort
1:41:11 people’s
1:41:11 memories
1:41:11 in the
1:41:11 process
1:41:12 and how
1:41:12 to ask
1:41:12 good
1:41:13 questions
1:41:13 and so
1:41:13 you get
1:41:14 confabulations
1:41:14 from both
1:41:14 sides
1:41:15 now
1:41:16 confabulations
1:41:16 from AI
1:41:17 and from
1:41:17 the people
1:41:18 and the
1:41:19 problem
1:41:19 is that
1:41:19 there’s
1:41:19 a third
1:41:20 thing
1:41:20 which is
1:41:20 the in
1:41:20 between
1:41:21 that I’m
1:41:22 not sure
1:41:22 is getting
1:41:23 enough
1:41:23 attention
1:41:23 right now
1:41:25 and I
1:41:25 wish
1:41:26 that there
1:41:26 was more
1:41:27 integration
1:41:27 of
1:41:27 social
1:41:28 scientists
1:41:29 like me
1:41:29 and people
1:41:30 who do
1:41:30 investigative
1:41:31 interviewing
1:41:31 and have
1:41:31 done it
1:41:32 for decades
1:41:34 to understand
1:41:34 what is
1:41:34 happening
1:41:35 in the
1:41:35 in-between
1:41:36 and so
1:41:36 that we
1:41:37 can both
1:41:37 teach the
1:41:37 people
1:41:38 and the
1:41:39 AI
1:41:40 to respond
1:41:40 better
1:41:40 in that
1:41:41 situation
1:41:41 I mean
1:41:41 that’s
1:41:41 really
1:41:42 interesting
1:41:42 are you
1:41:42 saying
1:41:43 that
1:41:43 there’s
1:41:43 a drift
1:41:44 of some
1:41:44 kind
1:41:44 in terms
1:41:45 of
1:41:46 on both
1:41:46 the AI
1:41:47 and human
1:41:47 side
1:41:47 when they’re
1:41:48 interacting
1:41:48 together
1:41:49 that we
1:41:50 need to be
1:41:50 very clear
1:41:50 about
1:41:51 yes
1:41:53 there is
1:41:54 what we’ve
1:41:54 created
1:41:56 with
1:41:57 gen AI
1:41:58 is basically
1:41:59 the ultimate
1:41:59 false memory
1:42:00 machine
1:42:01 we have
1:42:01 created
1:42:02 a tailored
1:42:03 experience
1:42:04 of
1:42:05 something
1:42:05 that is
1:42:06 most of
1:42:06 the time
1:42:07 telling you
1:42:08 what it
1:42:08 thinks you
1:42:08 want to
1:42:09 hear
1:42:11 and then
1:42:11 it’s
1:42:12 uncritically
1:42:13 giving that
1:42:13 to you
1:42:14 or I mean
1:42:14 sometimes
1:42:15 of course
1:42:15 there’s
1:42:15 you know
1:42:16 other things
1:42:16 where it’s
1:42:17 sort of
1:42:17 appraising
1:42:17 whether or
1:42:18 not this
1:42:18 is truthful
1:42:18 or not
1:42:20 but it
1:42:20 is giving
1:42:20 that to
1:42:21 you
1:42:22 and there’s
1:42:22 no safeguard
1:42:23 from you
1:42:23 just going
1:42:23 this is
1:42:24 truth
1:42:25 and this
1:42:25 is my
1:42:26 past
1:42:26 or this
1:42:26 is how
1:42:26 I
1:42:27 remembered
1:42:27 it
1:42:28 and the
1:42:29 problem
1:42:29 is
1:42:29 is that
1:42:30 not only
1:42:31 is AI
1:42:31 potentially
1:42:32 distorting
1:42:33 people
1:42:33 and their
1:42:33 memories
1:42:34 and never
1:42:34 mind
1:42:35 the factual
1:42:35 basis
1:42:35 on which
1:42:35 they’re
1:42:36 relying
1:42:37 but it’s
1:42:37 also the
1:42:37 other way
1:42:38 around
1:42:38 is that
1:42:39 potentially
1:42:40 by asking
1:42:40 leading
1:42:41 or problematic
1:42:42 questions
1:42:42 the people
1:42:43 are changing
1:42:43 how the
1:42:44 AI is
1:42:44 creating
1:42:45 the content
1:42:46 which is
1:42:46 in turn
1:42:47 on some
1:42:47 fundamental
1:42:47 level
1:42:48 potentially
1:42:48 having an
1:42:48 impact
1:42:49 on how
1:42:49 it’s
1:42:50 discerning
1:42:50 truth
1:42:51 from fiction
1:42:52 and so
1:42:52 that’s
1:42:52 where
1:42:53 the false
1:42:54 memory
1:42:54 in human
1:42:55 minds
1:42:56 and confabulations
1:42:56 in AI
1:42:57 I think
1:42:59 are much
1:42:59 more similar
1:43:00 than we think
1:43:01 and when I
1:43:01 first saw
1:43:01 AI
1:43:03 confabulate
1:43:03 hallucinate
1:43:04 I was
1:43:04 like
1:43:04 this is
1:43:04 what
1:43:04 people
1:43:04 do
1:43:05 all the
1:43:05 time
1:43:06 it’s
1:43:06 just
1:43:06 that
1:43:06 we can’t
1:43:06 fact check
1:43:07 them
1:43:07 all the
1:43:07 time
1:43:07 we’re not
1:43:07 in a
1:43:08 conversation
1:43:08 constantly
1:43:09 being
1:43:09 like
1:43:09 well
1:43:10 is that
1:43:10 quite
1:43:10 right
1:43:11 I’m
1:43:11 going to
1:43:12 use that
1:43:12 for my
1:43:12 homework
1:43:13 right
1:43:13 so
1:43:14 it’s
1:43:16 both
1:43:16 juicy
1:43:17 and
1:43:17 really
1:43:17 troubling
1:43:18 well
1:43:18 right now
1:43:18 the
1:43:19 interactions
1:43:19 are pretty
1:43:20 ephemeral
1:43:20 they’re
1:43:20 short
1:43:20 lasting
1:43:22 and
1:43:22 there’s
1:43:22 not
1:43:22 really
1:43:23 a deep
1:43:23 memory
1:43:24 to the
1:43:24 interactions
1:43:25 but this
1:43:25 could get
1:43:26 a lot
1:43:26 worse
1:43:28 if the
1:43:28 AI
1:43:28 is
1:43:29 personalized
1:43:29 to a
1:43:29 degree
1:43:30 where
1:43:30 it
1:43:30 remembers
1:43:31 things
1:43:31 about
1:43:31 you
1:43:32 so
1:43:32 that
1:43:32 you
1:43:32 can
1:43:32 then
1:43:33 start
1:43:33 to
1:43:34 over
1:43:34 many
1:43:35 interactions
1:43:36 feed
1:43:36 the
1:43:36 narrative
1:43:38 about
1:43:38 your
1:43:39 past
1:43:39 that
1:43:39 you
1:43:40 construct
1:43:41 together
1:43:41 with
1:43:41 the
1:43:41 AI
1:43:42 over
1:43:43 time
1:43:43 but you
1:43:43 don’t
1:43:43 even
1:43:44 need
1:43:44 that
1:43:44 so
1:43:44 this
1:43:44 is
1:43:44 what
1:43:45 we
1:43:45 find
1:43:45 in
1:43:45 investigative
1:43:46 interviewing
1:43:46 which
1:43:46 is
1:43:47 police
1:43:47 interviewing
1:43:47 of
1:43:48 witnesses
1:43:48 and
1:43:48 suspects
1:43:49 is
1:43:50 that
1:43:50 all
1:43:50 you
1:43:51 need
1:43:51 is
1:43:51 a
1:43:51 leading
1:43:52 question
1:43:52 or
1:43:52 a
1:43:53 suggestive
1:43:53 piece
1:43:53 of
1:43:54 information
1:43:54 in
1:43:54 a
1:43:55 short
1:43:55 interaction
1:43:56 most
1:43:56 police
1:43:56 officers
1:43:57 don’t
1:43:57 spend
1:43:57 a
1:43:58 long
1:43:58 time
1:43:58 and
1:43:58 they
1:43:59 have
1:43:59 no
1:43:59 memory
1:44:00 of
1:44:00 this
1:44:00 person’s
1:44:00 past
1:44:01 they
1:44:01 know
1:44:01 basically
1:44:02 nothing
1:44:02 about
1:44:02 them
1:44:03 except
1:44:03 for
1:44:03 things
1:44:03 related
1:44:03 to
1:44:03 the
1:44:04 crime
1:44:04 and
1:44:05 yet
1:44:05 we
1:44:06 know
1:44:06 that
1:44:06 within
1:44:07 that
1:44:07 very
1:44:07 short
1:44:08 maybe
1:44:08 half
1:44:08 hour
1:44:08 one
1:44:08 hour
1:44:09 interaction
1:44:10 people’s
1:44:10 stories
1:44:10 can
1:44:10 change
1:44:11 fundamentally
1:44:12 and
1:44:18 social
1:44:18 interaction
1:44:19 it’s
1:44:19 sort
1:44:19 of
1:44:20 live
1:44:20 it’s
1:44:20 like
1:44:21 active
1:44:22 and
1:44:22 when
1:44:22 you
1:44:23 then
1:44:23 finish
1:44:23 that
1:44:24 interaction
1:44:24 it
1:44:24 sets
1:44:25 back
1:44:25 down
1:44:26 and
1:44:26 the
1:44:26 thing
1:44:26 is
1:44:26 that
1:44:27 if
1:44:27 you
1:44:27 put
1:44:27 it
1:44:27 back
1:44:28 in
1:44:28 a
1:44:28 different
1:44:28 way
1:44:29 what’s
1:44:29 going
1:44:29 to
1:44:29 happen
1:44:29 is
1:44:30 the
1:44:30 next
1:44:30 time
1:44:30 you’re
1:44:31 going
1:44:31 to
1:44:31 remember
1:44:31 the
1:44:32 latest
1:44:32 version
1:44:33 and
1:44:33 you
1:44:33 might
1:44:33 not
1:44:34 realize
1:44:34 that
1:44:34 it
1:44:34 shifted
1:44:35 and
1:44:35 so
1:44:36 over
1:44:36 time
1:44:36 it
1:44:36 can
1:44:36 shift
1:44:37 and
1:44:37 you
1:44:37 don’t
1:44:37 realize
1:44:37 it
1:44:37 and
1:44:38 that’s
1:44:38 your
1:44:38 truth
1:44:38 and
1:44:38 that’s
1:44:39 where
1:44:40 even
1:44:41 just
1:44:41 short
1:44:41 interactions
1:44:42 can
1:44:42 have
1:44:42 a
1:44:42 profound
1:44:43 impact
1:44:43 on
1:44:43 the
1:44:43 human
1:44:43 mind
1:44:44 wow
1:44:45 do you
1:44:45 modify
1:44:45 memories
1:44:46 that
1:44:46 quickly
1:44:47 yeah
1:44:47 we do
1:44:48 all the
1:44:48 time
1:44:48 in
1:44:48 experiments
1:44:49 okay
1:44:49 can
1:44:49 you
1:44:50 speak
1:44:50 a little
1:44:50 bit
1:44:50 more
1:44:50 to
1:44:51 false
1:44:51 memory
1:44:51 so
1:44:51 like
1:44:52 it’s
1:44:52 just
1:44:53 fascinating
1:44:54 so
1:44:54 things
1:44:55 happen
1:44:55 to us
1:44:56 we
1:44:56 humans
1:44:57 do
1:44:57 things
1:44:58 in
1:44:58 the
1:44:58 world
1:44:58 and
1:44:58 then
1:44:58 we
1:44:59 remember
1:44:59 them
1:45:00 and
1:45:00 most
1:45:00 of
1:45:00 our
1:45:01 lives
1:45:01 I
1:45:01 guess
1:45:01 is
1:45:01 lived
1:45:01 in
1:45:08 to
1:45:08 modify
1:45:09 the
1:45:09 story
1:45:09 we
1:45:10 tell
1:45:10 about
1:45:10 the
1:45:10 things
1:45:10 that
1:45:11 happened
1:45:11 to
1:45:11 us
1:45:13 that’s
1:45:13 fascinating
1:45:13 so
1:45:13 what do
1:45:14 we
1:45:14 know
1:45:14 about
1:45:14 this
1:45:16 ability
1:45:16 to
1:45:16 have
1:45:16 false
1:45:17 memories
1:45:18 we
1:45:18 know
1:45:18 that
1:45:19 false
1:45:19 memories
1:45:19 are
1:45:20 common
1:45:20 that
1:45:20 they’re
1:45:21 a
1:45:21 feature
1:45:22 of
1:45:22 a
1:45:22 normal
1:45:23 healthy
1:45:23 brain
1:45:23 they’re
1:45:24 not
1:45:24 this
1:45:24 glitch
1:45:25 they
1:45:25 are
1:45:25 a
1:45:25 feature
1:45:27 and
1:45:27 we
1:45:27 know
1:45:27 that
1:45:28 false
1:45:28 memories
1:45:29 are
1:45:30 incredibly
1:45:31 common
1:45:32 in terms
1:45:32 of
1:45:33 if you
1:45:33 think
1:45:33 about
1:45:34 basically
1:45:34 any
1:45:35 memory
1:45:35 now
1:45:35 I’m
1:45:36 interested
1:45:36 in
1:45:38 of
1:45:38 facts
1:45:38 this
1:45:38 is
1:45:39 memories
1:45:39 of
1:45:40 experiences
1:45:40 things
1:45:41 that
1:45:41 you’ve
1:45:41 lived
1:45:42 in
1:45:42 some
1:45:42 way
1:45:43 and
1:45:43 of
1:45:44 those
1:45:44 autobiographical
1:45:45 memories
1:45:45 basically
1:45:45 every
1:45:46 single
1:45:46 autobiographical
1:45:47 memory
1:45:47 you have
1:45:47 is
1:45:48 false
1:45:48 the question
1:45:49 isn’t
1:45:49 whether
1:45:49 it’s
1:45:49 false
1:45:49 the question
1:45:50 is
1:45:50 how
1:45:50 false
1:45:51 you’re
1:45:51 despairing
1:45:52 over there
1:45:53 well I mean
1:45:53 yeah
1:45:53 that’s
1:45:53 I mean
1:45:54 it’s both
1:45:54 beautiful
1:45:55 and terrifying
1:45:56 that nothing
1:45:57 is real
1:45:58 no that’s not
1:45:58 that’s not
1:45:59 what I’m
1:45:59 saying
1:45:59 okay
1:46:00 I’m just
1:46:00 saying that
1:46:00 everything
1:46:01 has a
1:46:02 degree of
1:46:02 falsehood
1:46:03 to it
1:46:04 and
1:46:05 this is
1:46:05 where
1:46:05 sometimes
1:46:06 I’ll get
1:46:06 accused
1:46:06 of being
1:46:06 like
1:46:07 oh but
1:46:07 does that
1:46:07 mean we
1:46:08 can never
1:46:08 use
1:46:08 witness
1:46:08 statements
1:46:10 I’m not
1:46:10 saying we
1:46:10 can’t use
1:46:11 any witness
1:46:11 statements
1:46:11 I’m just
1:46:12 saying that
1:46:12 we need
1:46:12 to be
1:46:12 careful
1:46:13 because
1:46:13 even if
1:46:14 people say
1:46:14 things with
1:46:15 confidence
1:46:15 it doesn’t
1:46:16 necessarily
1:46:16 mean they’re
1:46:16 true
1:46:17 or if
1:46:17 they have
1:46:18 multi-sensory
1:46:18 details
1:46:19 they’re
1:46:20 describing in
1:46:21 very specific
1:46:21 detail
1:46:21 what they
1:46:22 smelled
1:46:22 what they
1:46:22 heard
1:46:23 whatever
1:46:24 it doesn’t
1:46:25 mean it’s
1:46:25 necessarily
1:46:26 true
1:46:27 most of
1:46:28 the time
1:46:28 our
1:46:29 autobiographical
1:46:29 memories
1:46:30 are good
1:46:31 enough
1:46:32 and that’s
1:46:33 where
1:46:33 memory
1:46:34 scientists
1:46:34 talk about
1:46:34 this as
1:46:35 gist
1:46:35 memory
1:46:36 our gist
1:46:37 memory for
1:46:37 events
1:46:38 much like
1:46:38 for text
1:46:39 you get
1:46:40 the gist
1:46:40 of it
1:46:40 right
1:46:41 you’re
1:46:41 good
1:46:41 enough
1:46:42 you generally
1:46:43 remember
1:46:43 accurately
1:46:44 approximately
1:46:45 what happened
1:46:46 but it’s
1:46:46 when you get
1:46:47 to the
1:46:47 so-called
1:46:48 verbatim
1:46:48 details
1:46:49 the specific
1:46:50 details of
1:46:50 memories
1:46:51 that you
1:46:52 find
1:46:53 people are
1:46:53 often
1:46:54 really bad
1:46:55 now
1:46:56 most of
1:46:56 the time
1:46:56 that doesn’t
1:46:57 really matter
1:46:58 because you
1:46:58 remember you
1:46:58 hung out
1:46:58 with a
1:46:59 friend
1:46:59 you remember
1:46:59 you were
1:47:00 at this
1:47:00 university
1:47:01 you remember
1:47:01 approximately
1:47:02 what your
1:47:03 favorite cafe
1:47:03 was
1:47:04 you remember
1:47:04 this important
1:47:05 negative or
1:47:06 positive event
1:47:06 fine
1:47:07 you don’t
1:47:07 actually need
1:47:08 to know
1:47:08 exactly what
1:47:09 you were
1:47:09 wearing and
1:47:09 drinking and
1:47:10 saying
1:47:11 but in a
1:47:11 criminal justice
1:47:12 setting
1:47:13 you do need
1:47:14 to remember
1:47:14 exactly what
1:47:15 you were
1:47:15 drinking and
1:47:16 saying and
1:47:16 doing right
1:47:17 and so
1:47:18 that’s where
1:47:19 we have this
1:47:20 need to
1:47:21 break down
1:47:23 this human
1:47:23 capacity for
1:47:24 memory
1:47:25 to this
1:47:25 level of
1:47:26 detail that
1:47:26 it’s just
1:47:27 not made
1:47:27 for
1:47:29 so that’s
1:47:29 where the
1:47:30 verbatim
1:47:30 stuff can
1:47:31 get you
1:47:31 into trouble
1:47:31 because with
1:47:32 criminal cases
1:47:33 I suppose the
1:47:34 tiniest details
1:47:36 really matter
1:47:37 because then the
1:47:37 lawyers can like
1:47:38 really zoom in
1:47:39 on that particular
1:47:40 detail and then you
1:47:40 can just make
1:47:41 that up and
1:47:42 then the
1:47:43 interrogation
1:47:44 with a leading
1:47:45 question as you
1:47:45 were saying
1:47:46 can just alter
1:47:48 your memory
1:47:48 of a particular
1:47:49 detail and then
1:47:50 everything will
1:47:50 hang on that
1:47:51 detail
1:47:51 right and if
1:47:52 that particular
1:47:52 detail is
1:47:53 someone’s face
1:47:54 then that’s a
1:47:54 really big
1:47:55 problem
1:47:56 and so
1:47:58 and it can
1:47:59 also be an
1:47:59 entire false
1:48:00 memory so this
1:48:01 is where in
1:48:02 my research and
1:48:02 in research like
1:48:03 mine we’ve
1:48:04 implanted
1:48:06 well memories
1:48:06 what we call
1:48:07 memories or
1:48:07 false memories
1:48:08 of experiences
1:48:09 that never
1:48:09 happened at
1:48:10 all so while
1:48:11 most things are
1:48:12 modifications of
1:48:13 real memories
1:48:14 false memories
1:48:15 complete false
1:48:16 memories are
1:48:16 when you think
1:48:17 you experienced
1:48:17 something that
1:48:18 you didn’t
1:48:19 and we all
1:48:19 have them
1:48:20 we all have
1:48:21 some memories
1:48:22 that can’t
1:48:22 be true
1:48:23 and we usually
1:48:24 realize them
1:48:25 for example when
1:48:25 we talk to our
1:48:26 parents about our
1:48:27 childhood or when
1:48:28 we talk to friends
1:48:29 and we say remember
1:48:30 that time we did
1:48:31 this and your
1:48:31 friend will go
1:48:33 that happened to
1:48:34 me that didn’t
1:48:34 happen to you
1:48:36 and you become
1:48:37 what is known in
1:48:38 research as a
1:48:39 memory thief where
1:48:39 you’ve stolen
1:48:40 somebody else’s
1:48:42 memory and you’ve
1:48:43 accepted it or
1:48:44 your brain has
1:48:44 accepted it as
1:48:45 your own and
1:48:46 that’s possibly
1:48:46 because the other
1:48:47 person told it in
1:48:48 such vivid detail
1:48:49 that you could
1:48:50 imagine it and
1:48:51 basically your brain
1:48:52 was like well this
1:48:52 feels real now and
1:48:53 so the next time you
1:48:54 thought about that
1:48:55 maybe maybe not the
1:48:56 next time but maybe
1:48:57 after a couple of
1:48:57 times of thinking
1:48:58 about it you
1:49:00 started going this
1:49:00 happened to me
1:49:02 right and then you
1:49:02 integrate it into
1:49:03 your autobiography
1:49:05 how hard is it to
1:49:06 insert false
1:49:07 memories not
1:49:09 hard it’s very
1:49:10 easy to distort
1:49:10 memories or to
1:49:11 insert small false
1:49:12 memories it’s
1:49:13 harder to convince
1:49:14 people of entire
1:49:15 events especially
1:49:16 specific events and
1:49:17 this is widely
1:49:18 debated exactly how
1:49:19 easy it is to
1:49:20 implant a specific
1:49:21 false memory it’s
1:49:22 also one of the
1:49:22 big debates around
1:49:24 my own research is
1:49:25 that when I was
1:49:26 writing the memory
1:49:26 illusion which was
1:49:28 my first book and
1:49:29 the research that
1:49:30 was in line with
1:49:31 that there was a
1:49:32 huge debate between
1:49:33 me and a couple of
1:49:34 other academics about
1:49:36 what it means for
1:49:36 something to be a
1:49:37 false memory and
1:49:38 how we should talk
1:49:40 about the ease with
1:49:40 which they’re
1:49:41 implanted and that
1:49:42 is still one of the
1:49:43 biggest scientific
1:49:44 debates in our
1:49:46 field and to me I
1:49:47 think that’s so
1:49:48 the coding stuff is
1:49:49 about the difference
1:49:50 between what some
1:49:51 people call a false
1:49:52 belief and a false
1:49:54 memory so I think
1:49:55 this thing happened
1:49:56 or I remember this
1:49:58 thing happened and
1:49:59 that is a really
1:50:00 difficult differentiation
1:50:02 often because all we
1:50:02 have as social
1:50:03 psychologists is what
1:50:05 you’re telling me and
1:50:06 I can ask you do you
1:50:06 think it really
1:50:07 happened or not do
1:50:08 you believe it really
1:50:10 happened but it’s
1:50:11 really hard to
1:50:12 differentiate and so I’ve
1:50:13 always thought that you
1:50:13 need to ask people
1:50:14 about the specifics
1:50:16 like how confident
1:50:16 are you in this
1:50:17 memory or do you
1:50:18 feel things in this
1:50:19 memory does it feel
1:50:20 like other kinds of
1:50:21 memory right sort of
1:50:22 the Nate like describe
1:50:24 the nature of this
1:50:25 experience rather than
1:50:26 being like do you
1:50:27 think this is a real
1:50:28 memory because that’s
1:50:29 that’s a hard thing to
1:50:30 ask people to do so
1:50:31 you want to get
1:50:32 indirectly as many
1:50:33 signals as possible to
1:50:34 show that they actually
1:50:35 believe the thing
1:50:37 happened or that it
1:50:38 approximates a memory in
1:50:38 their minds that’s
1:50:40 right rather than just
1:50:40 the thing they think
1:50:41 kind of sort of
1:50:42 happened yeah but
1:50:43 other people think
1:50:44 that it’s an easier
1:50:44 to differentiate
1:50:46 line so for me that
1:50:46 different that it’s
1:50:47 almost impossible to
1:50:48 differentiate the two
1:50:49 other people think it’s
1:50:52 more clear and then in
1:50:52 terms of the frequency
1:50:54 so in my research 70%
1:50:56 of people became
1:50:57 convinced that they
1:50:58 committed a crime that
1:50:58 never happened or
1:50:59 experienced another
1:51:01 important emotional
1:51:03 event and that number
1:51:05 as well as is challenged
1:51:06 in that people go well
1:51:07 does that mean that 70%
1:51:09 of people can have false
1:51:10 memories like this and
1:51:11 the answer is no
1:51:12 obviously not that’s
1:51:13 that’s just in my
1:51:14 sample that’s just
1:51:15 these specific six
1:51:17 false memories and it
1:51:18 could be that I think
1:51:19 100% of people are
1:51:20 prone to some version
1:51:22 of this just maybe not
1:51:23 in this specific study
1:51:24 right if I had to come
1:51:26 up with different false
1:51:27 memories to implant or
1:51:28 if I was a different
1:51:29 person myself and people
1:51:30 trusted me differently
1:51:31 there’s again those
1:51:33 social factors that make
1:51:34 it more or less likely
1:51:35 that I’m going to be
1:51:36 able to convince you
1:51:37 that something happened
1:51:37 in your life that you
1:51:39 can’t remember and in
1:51:40 one study obviously I
1:51:41 can’t capture that but
1:51:42 it also doesn’t mean
1:51:43 that 70% of the time
1:51:44 people are you know it
1:51:45 might be 1% of the time
1:51:46 or 0.1% of the time that
1:51:47 people have these complex
1:51:48 false memories I guess
1:51:49 you’re just speaking to
1:51:50 the fact that you know
1:51:51 you don’t know how
1:51:52 representative the sample
1:51:53 is but even with one
1:51:54 study that’s a crazy
1:51:56 that’s that’s incredible
1:51:57 well it’s not just
1:51:58 representativeness it’s
1:52:00 also that we shouldn’t
1:52:01 take individual studies in
1:52:02 that way sure like I’m
1:52:03 not saying that 70% of
1:52:04 people always have false
1:52:05 memories either like it’s
1:52:06 it just means in this one
1:52:08 study more people than
1:52:09 not develop these
1:52:10 complex memories what
1:52:11 was the methodology for
1:52:12 implanting the false
1:52:13 memories this is so cool
1:52:16 by the way I just human
1:52:18 memory is so fascinating
1:52:19 and the fact that we’re
1:52:21 going to engineer memory
1:52:23 it’s so interesting it’s
1:52:23 also really interesting
1:52:24 that we live so much of
1:52:27 our lives and memories and
1:52:28 that you can mess with
1:52:30 that you can shape it it’s
1:52:33 interesting it’s mostly I
1:52:34 think a good thing that we
1:52:35 can shape it I think so I
1:52:38 think the fact that memory
1:52:39 can be false in the way
1:52:41 that I do it in my study is
1:52:43 it’s a result of the fact
1:52:45 that our minds are made to
1:52:46 creatively recombine
1:52:47 information to solve
1:52:50 problems in the present and
1:52:51 so even the fact that we
1:52:53 have this just memory it’s
1:52:55 because we’re optimizing data
1:52:57 processing we’re basically
1:52:58 saying these are the most
1:52:59 important things from these
1:53:00 events and the other details
1:53:02 are irrelevant don’t remember
1:53:04 that gone and now I’m going
1:53:06 to work with that to try and
1:53:07 solve what life comes up
1:53:09 with and the ability to be
1:53:10 creative and intelligent
1:53:12 relies on our ability to
1:53:14 take memories from the past
1:53:15 and pieces of them and to
1:53:16 creatively recombine them
1:53:18 and so that’s what false
1:53:18 memories are except that
1:53:21 that then can look bad if
1:53:22 you’re trying to remember
1:53:23 something specific and so
1:53:25 in my research I used leading
1:53:27 and suggestive questions like
1:53:29 close your eyes picture the
1:53:30 event that I’m trying to
1:53:32 implant so I was implanting for
1:53:34 example you’re 14 years old
1:53:37 you were in contact with the
1:53:38 police the police called your
1:53:40 parents and you assaulted
1:53:43 someone with a weapon and
1:53:45 then the question is what do
1:53:47 you remember and you say to
1:53:48 me as a participant because
1:53:49 you’ve been selected out to
1:53:50 specifically never having had
1:53:51 this experience and just to be
1:53:52 clear a weapon I don’t mean a
1:53:53 semi-automatic weapon I mean
1:53:56 anything and usually it was a
1:53:57 rock and so people would say I
1:53:58 found that because a weapon is
1:53:59 just anything you use to hurt
1:54:01 another person and I did the
1:54:02 study in Canada we don’t have
1:54:03 guns in the same way as in some
1:54:05 other parts of the world and so
1:54:06 it was unlikely that my
1:54:07 participants would have been
1:54:08 like yeah I totally have all
1:54:10 these guns and so they would
1:54:12 take something an object and
1:54:13 hurt somebody else or they
1:54:15 stole something or they hit
1:54:17 somebody so those are three of
1:54:18 the conditions and I randomly
1:54:21 assigned people to them and they
1:54:23 knew that I’d contacted their
1:54:25 loved ones ahead of time so they
1:54:26 they were participating in a
1:54:28 childhood memory study and
1:54:30 emotional childhood memory study
1:54:32 and they knew that and then I
1:54:33 contacted their parents ahead of
1:54:34 time to get information about
1:54:35 what they were like as
1:54:36 teenagers where they lived
1:54:38 friends basic things and to
1:54:39 make sure they hadn’t ever
1:54:40 experienced any of the target
1:54:42 events and then with that
1:54:44 information I said to the
1:54:45 participants okay so there’s
1:54:45 these two things your parents
1:54:47 reported happening and one of
1:54:49 them is a true one and so I’d
1:54:51 always include a true one to
1:54:53 build rapport which is I’m doing
1:54:54 the what not to do of
1:54:56 interviewing right right I’m I’m
1:54:58 laying it on thick to see what’s
1:54:59 possible to see what’s
1:55:00 possible because you have to to
1:55:02 push it to also show that it’s
1:55:04 create that I can do this in this
1:55:05 context so that we can warn
1:55:07 police to not do this so I said
1:55:08 we had these two instances that
1:55:09 your parents reported and one of
1:55:12 them was you had a skiing
1:55:13 accident blah blah blah let’s
1:55:14 start with that one the second
1:55:15 one was an instant where you were
1:55:16 in contact with the police but
1:55:18 we’ll get to that so we’d first
1:55:20 have 20 minutes talking about the
1:55:22 true memory which people you know
1:55:24 they’re getting going it feels
1:55:25 good I’ve got a structured
1:55:26 interview as well which I’ll then
1:55:28 mirror in the false memory so it
1:55:30 all feels very legit and then we
1:55:32 get to the second memory and I say
1:55:34 this you know I there’s this other
1:55:36 important memory that your parents
1:55:37 were called and then they’d say I
1:55:39 don’t remember that and I’d say oh
1:55:40 okay but I have this really
1:55:42 detailed account all you have to do
1:55:44 is remember it and then I would do
1:55:46 the illusion of transparency which is
1:55:48 a really powerful psychological tool
1:55:49 which is to make people feel like
1:55:50 they know what’s going on when they
1:55:52 don’t really and the thing I would
1:55:54 do is just say well you know if you
1:55:57 want to we can do this memory
1:55:59 retrieval technique called this
1:56:01 imagination exercise and I don’t
1:56:03 like to call it repression but
1:56:04 sometimes we hide away memories that
1:56:06 we don’t like about ourselves and
1:56:08 I’m using words that people know and
1:56:09 mechanisms that people have heard of
1:56:11 that are frankly quite disputed in
1:56:14 actual science but people go oh well
1:56:15 maybe I did repress this and then
1:56:18 everybody says yes technically they
1:56:19 could say no they could say no I don’t
1:56:20 want to do that but they go yeah of
1:56:22 course I want to know and so I do this
1:56:24 imagination exercise where people
1:56:25 close their eyes very simple and
1:56:26 just imagine how what could have
1:56:28 happened basically and every time
1:56:30 they say a detail my very first
1:56:32 detail ever I remember this because I
1:56:34 was so excited because they’ve got
1:56:35 their eyes closed right and I’m right
1:56:37 next to the head of department because
1:56:38 they were worried because I was a PhD
1:56:41 student that you know the ethics of
1:56:42 it the consequences like it took like
1:56:43 years to get the protocol through
1:56:45 ethics and to make sure it was safe
1:56:49 anyway I’m I’m grinning as the
1:56:50 person with their eyes closed says the
1:56:53 most trivial detail I remember a blue
1:56:58 sky and I remember going it’s
1:57:00 working did you know what’s gonna
1:57:01 happen at all oh no I had no idea
1:57:03 that’s so fascinating and so from the
1:57:05 trivial details and I’d always say yeah
1:57:07 good job good job you know social
1:57:08 reinforcement little little treat
1:57:11 little treat and they would remember
1:57:12 more and more details and then they get
1:57:14 more specific and then they tell me
1:57:16 who it was they allegedly attacked or
1:57:19 stole from where they were and those
1:57:21 details had to come from them because I
1:57:22 don’t know enough about their lives
1:57:23 right so this is the other thing with
1:57:25 false memories is it’s basing it on
1:57:27 lots of real pieces of memories real
1:57:28 places real people real feelings
1:57:30 they’re just woven together in a way
1:57:32 that never happened and so just three
1:57:34 interviews and you’ve got 70% of
1:57:35 people confessing to crime that never
1:57:37 happened first of all great study
1:57:40 great great job all around to what
1:57:41 degree has this been sort of
1:57:44 elaborated on and proven further since
1:57:47 this is a super powerful idea whether
1:57:50 there’s 70% or 80 kind of percent what I
1:57:51 wanted with the study is just to show
1:57:53 it’s possible that’s that’s really the
1:57:55 powerful thing that it’s possible right
1:57:56 and so it could have been two people and
1:57:58 I would have been happy the fact that
1:58:01 it was so possible was frankly quite
1:58:03 surprising to everybody and we did in
1:58:04 fact cut the city short because we
1:58:05 told ethics that we’re only gonna have
1:58:09 like a 13% hit rate we’re like this is
1:58:10 working really well we’re gonna stop
1:58:14 so and and that was just because of you
1:58:16 know how power calculations whatever
1:58:20 science because science and since then
1:58:23 there have been other studies on
1:58:25 implanting false memories there have been
1:58:27 ones also using AI tools so like
1:58:30 whether or not we remember or think we
1:58:33 remember incidents differently or better
1:58:36 if they were created with AI images of
1:58:38 ourselves or videos so there was a study
1:58:40 that came out I think it was this year
1:58:44 by a team including Elizabeth Loftus
1:58:46 which showed that if you turn photos of
1:58:49 yourself into videos using AI that you
1:58:50 are more likely to believe that those
1:58:51 things happen in the way that AI is
1:58:53 telling you that they did even though AI
1:58:55 has absolutely no idea and that then
1:58:57 you are more likely to remember it with
1:58:59 high confidence that it happened in the
1:59:02 way that this AI has created it and so we
1:59:05 can see that there’s lots of versions of
1:59:06 this whether it’s in you know interpersonal
1:59:09 social interactions or or interactions
1:59:11 with tech and there’s a big replication
1:59:13 that’s happening right now and at the
1:59:15 University of Maastricht of my study or
1:59:17 is about to happen hopefully actually is
1:59:18 where we’re at there’s a lot of
1:59:20 questions I want to ask here really one of
1:59:23 them doesn’t this mean that at scale you
1:59:26 can have something like a government use
1:59:30 propaganda to mass gaslight a population
1:59:36 so implant false memories you using AI
1:59:39 using using whatever tools they have
1:59:42 yes that is definitely already happening
1:59:47 that’s terrifying is there any anything
1:59:49 you’ve learned about defending against
1:59:53 that yeah I guess knowing that first step
1:59:54 is just knowing that it’s possible that’s
1:59:57 already a very powerful piece of knowledge
1:59:59 that’s right so the first thing that’s
2:00:01 important is for people to understand that
2:00:02 they are capable of creating these false
2:00:05 memories and that they’re not this really
2:00:07 unusual hard to generate thing that
2:00:09 they’re actually a normal memory process
2:00:11 and that insight is why I wrote the memory
2:00:13 illusion is because I think people need to
2:00:15 just understand that their minds work like
2:00:18 this and that they’re really glitchy when
2:00:19 it comes to the accuracy of their
2:00:21 autobiographical memories but again that
2:00:23 that’s probably ultimately a good thing as
2:00:25 well in terms of our overall human
2:00:29 experience but then what happens if you do
2:00:30 have an important piece of information
2:00:32 that’s important to not being distorted
2:00:35 right you are a witness of a crime for
2:00:36 example and you now know that this is
2:00:39 going to be important what do you do and
2:00:41 the really simple answer is don’t trust
2:00:42 your brain just make sure you write it
2:00:45 down assume you are going to forget
2:00:47 everything assume you’re going to forget
2:00:50 no matter how important how emotional how
2:00:53 intense how much you say to yourself this is
2:00:54 the failure of prospect of memory it’s
2:00:57 called I will remember you won’t just
2:00:58 assume that you’re not going to remember
2:01:02 and the closer you get to the time at
2:01:05 which an event happened and we call this
2:01:07 contemporaneous evidence the closer you get
2:01:09 in time the more high quality that memory
2:01:10 is going to be and I think there’s this
2:01:12 myth sometimes that like if you’re drunk or
2:01:14 if you’re high or if you’re really
2:01:17 emotional that that’s somehow you should
2:01:20 wait sort of like go home sleep it off and
2:01:23 then recall your memory that is not what
2:01:25 the current advice in memory research
2:01:28 actually says it’s in the moment as soon
2:01:30 as possible write it down record outside
2:01:32 your brain you can do it again when you
2:01:34 wake up but then at least you have an
2:01:36 original version yeah you you use the
2:01:38 analogy of a Wikipedia page for memory I
2:01:40 think it’s pretty useful way to think
2:01:43 about it it’s kind of crowdsourced by all
2:01:45 the different influences you have all the
2:01:47 different experiences all the other
2:01:50 people you telling other people about the
2:01:52 memory that interact all of that edits
2:01:55 the page the Wikipedia page of your
2:01:58 memory it does and collective and
2:02:00 individual memory are these really
2:02:02 interesting they interact in a really
2:02:04 interesting way so I would always say so
2:02:08 when I train for example people who go to
2:02:12 deal with warlords in the German military
2:02:14 I was working with agents who are going
2:02:17 abroad and who are in these really
2:02:18 difficult situations where they had to
2:02:20 remember a lot of information that was
2:02:22 important for national security they
2:02:23 couldn’t just sit there with the tape
2:02:25 recorder being like hey or like a phone
2:02:26 being like hey Mr. Warlord can you just
2:02:28 talk into this a bit closer you can’t do
2:02:31 that and so you have to remember it and so
2:02:33 what they were doing is they were coming
2:02:35 back from their deployments and they
2:02:37 would meet up immediately and have like a
2:02:39 team meeting to be like what did you
2:02:41 remember what happened and the problem
2:02:42 is that they would do that before
2:02:45 writing their notes and that is that is
2:02:47 the wrong way around and so they don’t do
2:02:49 that anymore because I’ve told them not
2:02:52 to do that anymore but it feels good it
2:02:53 feels like collectively we are going to
2:02:56 remember more details because you do but
2:02:57 it doesn’t mean that those details are
2:03:00 right and so that’s where I’d always
2:03:02 say have your own version before you talk
2:03:05 to anybody then and my colleague Dr.
2:03:08 Freydeveld is one of the experts on the
2:03:11 effect of things like eye closure on memory
2:03:13 and collective memory and she has found
2:03:16 repeatedly that if you remember things
2:03:18 together especially if you’ve already got
2:03:20 an original version of your own you do
2:03:22 usually remember more details and
2:03:24 especially if you are helping each other
2:03:26 to remember like in a relationship you’ll
2:03:27 have someone who’s better at remembering
2:03:30 certain kinds of details maybe names or
2:03:32 what happened or what you were doing and
2:03:34 the other person’s better at when it
2:03:35 happened and so you can have these
2:03:37 complementary memories that come in in
2:03:41 social situations and you can then have
2:03:42 more details that are remembered after
2:03:44 right but there’s conflicting forces here
2:03:48 so that’s true but also as you said it’s
2:03:50 true that together you can weave a narrative
2:03:52 that never happened so you together you
2:03:55 can solidify the thing that actually
2:03:57 happened maybe if you take notes
2:04:00 beforehand but at the same time if you
2:04:02 don’t take notes you can just make shit
2:04:03 up very effectively together because
2:04:05 you’re like yes anding the whole time
2:04:08 like building together a castle that’s
2:04:12 false or distorted distorted yeah but you
2:04:14 can also sometimes go back to your
2:04:15 original account and go actually know
2:04:20 that that was a bit wrong and so my as
2:04:21 again an analytical person someone who
2:04:23 works as an expert witness on memory
2:04:25 cases I just want to see all the
2:04:27 versions I want your version history I
2:04:29 want the complete version history of your
2:04:30 memory and then I can tell you whether I
2:04:32 think things have gone wrong here and if
2:04:34 so why have you seen like different
2:04:37 versions of memory and they’re really
2:04:40 conflicting like what have you learned
2:04:43 about memory from that that they can be
2:04:45 very conflicting people explaining the
2:04:46 same experience and it’s very different
2:04:48 well there’s different people having
2:04:49 very different memories of the same
2:04:51 experience and there’s the same person
2:04:52 having different memories of the same
2:04:56 experience and so I work in both in some
2:04:58 ways as an expert witness but mostly in
2:05:01 the individual changing their story in a
2:05:04 dramatic way yeah so witness or a
2:05:07 alleged victim saying that they you know
2:05:09 having x story the first time they go to
2:05:11 the police and then three years later
2:05:13 having a very different sometimes
2:05:15 categorically different account and the
2:05:18 question is are they just were they just
2:05:20 too shy initially to say what really
2:05:23 happened were they were they under
2:05:25 pressure from other people were they not
2:05:27 really remembering you know why has it
2:05:30 changed or could it be that they have
2:05:32 been undergone some really problematic
2:05:36 like hypnotherapy or just shady therapy in
2:05:38 general that is like convinced them that
2:05:39 things are maybe much worse than they
2:05:41 initially remembered and it’s not that
2:05:43 therapy doesn’t necessarily like therapy
2:05:46 can bring out more details for sure but the
2:05:48 problem is that certain kinds of therapy
2:05:49 mirror what we do in false memory
2:05:51 research in terms of implanting false
2:05:53 memories and it just makes it really
2:05:55 messy and you just it makes the quality
2:05:57 of the evidence really low because we
2:05:58 can no longer tell what is because of
2:05:59 the therapy and what’s actually
2:06:01 remembered this is so fascinating what
2:06:03 are the ways you can possibly figure out
2:06:06 which is true the thing you remembered
2:06:07 initially or the thing you’re now
2:06:09 remembering four years later receipts
2:06:11 that’s all you got you have to look at
2:06:13 your original versions if you only have
2:06:15 your version now the only thing you can
2:06:17 look for is evidence that confirms or
2:06:21 shows that it didn’t happen if you can’t
2:06:23 access that then it ultimately is a matter
2:06:24 of especially if you’ve got like two
2:06:26 people saying completely different things it
2:06:28 ends up being a battle of confidence
2:06:30 ultimately this is tricky question but you
2:06:31 mentioned therapy
2:06:36 it does seem like what therapists do
2:06:40 is they want to find a problem and they
2:06:42 can then just project the problem and then
2:06:45 convince you the problem existed so how do
2:06:48 you know it’s like therapy even an
2:06:50 effective it takes a very special
2:06:53 therapist not to implant right a trauma
2:06:57 that never happened or details that ever
2:07:00 happened to a trauma that did it depends
2:07:02 on the kind of therapy so there’s a lot of
2:07:04 therapy that is evidence-based and that is
2:07:06 very much focused on tackling sort of
2:07:09 feelings and reactions that you have right
2:07:13 now then there is a an area or a bunch of
2:07:15 areas of therapy including psychoanalysis which
2:07:19 are very focused on trying to find
2:07:24 retroactively sources of mental illness in
2:07:29 your personal past and i am very critical of
2:07:32 the kinds of well both from an explanatory
2:07:35 perspective but also from a false memory
2:07:37 perspective i don’t think that we are the
2:07:38 way we are because of individual incidents
2:07:41 that happen to us i think that is a wild
2:07:43 thing to think about the brain like to be
2:07:45 like you are the way you are because of
2:07:47 this one interaction you had that one time
2:07:49 is like i mean maybe this explains a tiny
2:07:50 bit of you but what about all the other
2:07:52 life experiences you have every single day
2:07:54 and so i think that there’s sometimes an
2:07:56 oversimplified searching for answers or
2:07:58 sources of problems that we have that i
2:08:00 i don’t like i don’t think it’s true
2:08:03 and i think that there can be an
2:08:05 unconscious approach to memory as you were
2:08:08 saying where you have someone who is
2:08:11 saying things and your role as a therapist
2:08:13 is to help them manage their emotions now
2:08:15 and to feel better and that’s the other
2:08:15 thing is that they have very different
2:08:17 role than i do the therapist is trying to
2:08:19 manage the person’s well-being now
2:08:22 whereas i am looking at the evidentiary
2:08:23 quality that is a complete i’m almost like
2:08:25 yeah not quite the other side but i’m in a
2:08:27 very different role you will you just want
2:08:30 the truth well i’m criticizing slash
2:08:32 analyzing their memories whereas the
2:08:34 others the therapists are more likely to be
2:08:36 trying to help them manage the memories in
2:08:38 their day-to-day life and so it doesn’t
2:08:39 matter if they’re true or not to
2:08:41 therapists what matters is that they’re
2:08:42 troubling to the people themselves but
2:08:44 once you get into a courtroom setting
2:08:46 as you say the facts and what actually
2:08:48 happened matter and it’s not just what
2:08:50 you remember it’s what actually happened
2:08:53 maybe you can speak to the other the
2:08:55 non-courtroom setting because this is
2:08:58 all the positive side of it is you can
2:09:00 basically shape your memories to be
2:09:04 happier i mean i find this in myself
2:09:06 maybe you could speak to that if i you know
2:09:09 looking at past relationships if i just
2:09:11 think about or maybe speak to others about
2:09:11 the positive things
2:09:16 really think just think like i focus my mind
2:09:18 on the memory on the positive memories and
2:09:20 then everything just becomes more positive
2:09:26 and i think it makes me feel like i’m way
2:09:30 happier about my past so there must be
2:09:32 something to that because i almost start to
2:09:35 forget that the negative stuff happened and
2:09:37 then the same thing on the flip side is if you
2:09:41 focus on the negative then the negative stuff
2:09:45 just overpowers everything else and you have a
2:09:48 very heavy negative feeling about your past so
2:09:55 that seems like the way to live a healthy life a
2:09:57 happy life is just to focus on the positive not
2:10:00 to sound cliche but like like basically modifying your
2:10:02 memories continuously that everything was just
2:10:06 great is there something to that well the essence of
2:10:09 that is right there is something called state
2:10:11 dependent memory which is that you’re more like
2:10:15 to remember things that were consolidated or created
2:10:19 as memories if if they match the state that you’re in
2:10:25 now so if you are sad now and you your brain sort
2:10:27 of just going you’re more likely to remember other
2:10:30 sad times because your memory and the emotional state
2:10:33 of your brain is basically already activating those
2:10:36 networks of sadness and it’s like here’s some other
2:10:38 sad things and shitty things that happened to you and
2:10:41 it’s the same with if you’re embarrassed it’s that’s
2:10:43 the sort of classic one that we usually use as memory
2:10:45 researchers is that moment where you do something
2:10:48 embarrassing and for the next like six hours all
2:10:50 you’re thinking of is all the other embarrassing things
2:10:53 you’ve ever done and it’s like your brain is like would
2:10:56 you like some other embarrassing stories and obviously
2:11:00 you’re going no thank you please stop but you have this
2:11:03 this spreading activation as it’s called of just this
2:11:06 synapse is just like lighting up new networks and
2:11:08 you’re going ah and there’s this other memory that’s
2:11:10 attached to the same feeling and so it’s the same
2:11:13 with happiness is that people who are happier tend to
2:11:16 remember more happy memories and so most of the time
2:11:20 unless you’re depressed most people look back at their
2:11:23 lives with a sort of rosy reminiscence bias and they’re
2:11:26 more like to remember the positives than the negatives but
2:11:28 it’s not quite the way you were describing it actually so
2:11:31 it’s not quite that you only remember the good the
2:11:34 objectively good things that happened it’s more that
2:11:37 your interpretation of the things that you’ve
2:11:40 experienced is either neutral or positive so for
2:11:43 me for example growing up with my father with
2:11:48 paranoid schizophrenia that is something that i see as a net
2:11:53 positive so obviously at the time it was experienced in a complicated way
2:11:57 but in hindsight it defined my life and it completely gave me a perspective of the
2:12:01 human mind that i just wouldn’t have had otherwise and so i see that as a
2:12:06 positive part of my autobiography and that is what good therapy should be
2:12:10 doing is it should be taking negative experiences and not overriding them or
2:12:14 changing them i mean our brains do that naturally anyway but trying to work with
2:12:18 what you’ve got the experiences the true experiences but then just shifting the
2:12:22 emotional content so that how you’re dealing with them now is is good
2:12:31 how much of uh what this uh danny kahneman type of idea that we live a lot of our life
2:12:38 in memory like it’s not you know the there’s the direct in the moment experience of a thing
2:12:44 and then there’s remembering that thing over and over and over and over so there’s like i don’t know
2:12:51 getting married or whatever like some pleasant thing that if you over a lifetime the pleasure
2:12:57 you derive from that thing is disproportionately most of it is from remembering the thing versus
2:13:02 experiencing it is there is there something to that i think so and his experiments where he asked
2:13:08 participants if they were offered this holiday that they could go on but they wouldn’t remember
2:13:13 it so they’d have the present day experience of enjoyment in this on this holiday i think it was a
2:13:19 tropical vacation or something that he’d offer people and he he then said well but you’re not
2:13:23 going to be able to remember this would you still go and a lot of people say no i wouldn’t go on that
2:13:29 holiday if i can’t remember it um i think that’s interesting and i think that sort of picks or it
2:13:35 didn’t happen so the social media generation obviously is perhaps even more in line with that
2:13:40 also in terms of how you deal with that in social context sort of sharing those memories with
2:13:45 others and those experiences and which experiences end up being the important ones in our lives yeah
2:13:50 there’s a real case to be you know there’s this kind of ridiculous thing that happens now whenever
2:13:54 something cool is happening people take out their phones and film it but the case for that is that
2:14:00 yeah this gives you actual something to look back at that it’s worthwhile to take a picture actually
2:14:04 although it’s even more worthwhile to pay attention so attention is the glue between reality and memory
2:14:10 and so if you’re using your phone to not have to pay attention and not have to put any work into
2:14:14 remembering it then you’re going to look at that picture later and go what was this because you’ve
2:14:21 tried to outsource it in a way that our brains don’t work how hard is it to modify memories from a
2:14:26 neuroscience perspective so if you look at brain computer interfaces like neural link for example
2:14:32 do you think there’s a future where we’re implanting or modifying memories directly
2:14:38 yeah i mean that’s basically what we do as human beings already and i don’t see why tech couldn’t do
2:14:42 exactly the same thing to speed that up so right now we can do that with language right yeah we just
2:14:46 talk to each other and modify them and we just speed that up language but also think about it yourself
2:14:51 so you can it’s called auto suggestion when you suggest things to yourself that didn’t happen
2:14:56 and that often comes from reading something or seeing something or thinking about something or
2:15:00 hearing somebody else’s story and going does something like that happen to me and then you
2:15:03 start picturing it and thinking about in what context it could have and then you start to basically
2:15:08 implant a false memory in yourself and so that can happen as well and i think with things like
2:15:14 neural link it would be the same where you’d have the ability to do that and but again i i still think
2:15:21 that this interaction between humans and ai or ai like systems is it is the same as a social
2:15:24 interaction which is why i was saying it’s so important i think that we have social psychologists
2:15:30 in the in the room because ultimately whether it’s an ai or another person it’s the same brain that
2:15:34 you’re modifying so what you’re worried about there is that you become untethered from reality like you
2:15:40 fabricate too many details about the memory like if you’re if human is interacting with ai and as telling
2:15:48 the human what they want to hear you are you worried about over time you start to just have a very uh
2:15:55 overly modified version of your of your past narrative i’m not necessarily worried about
2:16:04 the fact that ai and generative ai can create false memories that is again something we’ve also been
2:16:09 doing for a long time like modified photos is something pre-ai that we had that was already
2:16:15 messing with people’s minds even just what you have in the frame of a shot so if you take a holiday snap
2:16:19 and you’ve you’re omitting like a really important part of what actually happened on that holiday
2:16:22 because you’re taking a picture of the nicest part and not that you know the garbage behind you
2:16:27 yeah um that is going to have an impact on your memory as well and so we’ve that versions of that
2:16:32 have always existed and historically if you go even further back i mean in some ways we’ve never
2:16:37 been closer to facts than we are now there’s this whole idea of like oh we’re living in this post-truth
2:16:44 um but that is not true i mean we didn’t even know how to write for a long time we had no way of
2:16:50 reliably cataloging information never mind the scientific method never mind uh reliably sharing
2:16:56 it with one another or fact checking quickly with things like google so i mean we’re so close to facts
2:17:02 but that in some ways i think is the the worry is that we’ve gotten comfortable feeling like we can just
2:17:06 access things that aren’t modified or that are less likely to be modified and now they’re more likely to
2:17:13 be and that can interface with our memories so just a practical is there like a protocol for
2:17:19 self-modifying memories so you can live a happier life there is yeah it’s called cognitive restructuring
2:17:27 when you actively deliberately change an aspect of a memory usually for some therapeutic outcome so to be
2:17:33 happier to be better in some way that’s really interesting right like not just for if you have
2:17:40 some kind of issue but just how to have a life well lived right yeah does that work yeah it totally
2:17:45 works i mean i do it all the time it’s again it’s about thinking about experiences you’ve had positive
2:17:51 or negative usually the negative are the ones we need to work on more and thinking instead of wow how
2:17:56 terrible was that thinking what did i learn from that what is this giving me that other people haven’t
2:18:02 experienced what is it that it taught me about who are my friends what do you know what are these
2:18:09 insights that i’ve won from this experience and so i think that is an important part of resilience that
2:18:15 we ideally need to celebrate and teach more than the opposite which is hanging in the negatives that’s
2:18:19 probably really good for relationships too right together you the you form the collective memory
2:18:26 and you work on that you can just fabricate or modify towards the positive well with relationships
2:18:33 one of my favorite research on memories is that if you ask people in relationships who does most of
2:18:38 the housework or who does most of certain things the numbers that they give you so like someone will
2:18:45 say i do 60 the other person will say i do 50 and you add them up that’s more than 100 and that’s
2:18:50 basically always the case and on lots of different fronts people will claim that they do more and if
2:18:54 you ask them how much their partner does they will diminish it and so one of the tips i always say for
2:19:00 relationships in terms of memories is actually just sharing what you’re actually doing and so if you’ve
2:19:06 initially it feels a bit cumbersome because it’s quite unnatural to be like i’ve just taken out you know
2:19:16 the rubbish i’ve just taken out the bins um or i’ve just booked us a hotel um but saying it out loud means the other person’s able to perceive it
2:19:22 and then can add it to sort of their internal like star chart of how much you’ve done in the relationship
2:19:28 and they’re more like to actually perceive what you’re contributing whereas we just assume that people have the same memories we do
2:19:33 and that they they of course she remembers that i took out the bins but not necessarily she might not
2:19:37 even have really perceived it but if you’re reminding each other of all the things that you’re doing it can
2:19:43 feel more balanced over time this memory is just so fascinating uh is it possible this is a little bit
2:19:48 outside of the topic of false memories but is it possible to train memory like what what have you
2:19:55 understood about memory like can it be improved yep it can be improved and there are now some really good
2:20:03 brain training apps as well that can help to get people to work better with attention to have n back
2:20:09 tests so remember information a couple of information pieces of information back so what did i tell you
2:20:16 three sentences ago um there’s all of these kinds of well games effectively that you can play that will in
2:20:22 fact train how your brain is using its networks there was one that was developed by researchers including
2:20:28 researchers at the university of bonn in germany and it’s called neuro nation and that’s one that i like
2:20:33 because it’s all these really short games and the idea is that doing one thing like sudoku or whatever
2:20:38 those sort of classics to train your brain that is only going to be useful up to a point because it’s
2:20:42 then the same thing over and over again and what you want to be doing is lots of different kinds of tasks
2:20:48 that your brain has to remain flexible and so short and many is the answer rather than one thing hard
2:20:55 it’s almost the opposite of expertise so in doing this regularly like keeping your mind sharp
2:21:00 that’s interesting uh
2:21:08 i’m terrible at remembering names me too is there a trick to doing that i don’t know because i i’m also
2:21:12 terrible at remembering names allegedly there are tricks and it’s mostly to make the information more
2:21:18 sticky by making it a bigger network in the brain and so usually when you hear a name especially like
2:21:23 you and i it’s like gone immediately yeah and that’s partly because i’d like to think the positive
2:21:28 of that is because we’re focusing on other things about the person right like what do they like what
2:21:32 do they you know what’s this next interaction going to be maybe you’re a bit nervous about what they’re
2:21:36 going to say or what you’re going to say you’re already thinking a step ahead in terms of interpreting
2:21:39 the situation and it’s quite an overwhelming situation when you first meet somebody because
2:21:47 there’s a lot to take in and so if however a name is important then you need to a remember to focus when
2:21:53 they actually say their name and tune out the other stuff which can be really difficult and then to give
2:22:01 yourself a mnemonic of how do i remember this name um so you could have a visualize something you could
2:22:08 have a weird name like word game or some sort of like rhyme that you create for the person you can say
2:22:15 you know uh julia with big ears like whatever works for you as long as it sticks now there’s a caveat that
2:22:21 i recently discovered about myself and to in terms of why i might not have i have particularly bad
2:22:27 memory for names um all of these mnemonic devices that have been studied over the last hundreds of
2:22:33 years mostly rely on creating elaborate pictures in your mind so like memory champions people who do
2:22:38 competitive remembering will tell you that they create these really elaborate images in their heads
2:22:46 i recently discovered that i have aphantasia aphantasia is the inability to create mental imagery
2:22:51 and so when i was trying these techniques i was going none of these are working for me
2:22:56 and it turns out it’s because i don’t see anything whereas other people actually see pictures in their
2:23:00 mind and so i think there’s some individual differences stuff going on there that we haven’t
2:23:05 quite understood so you’re not able to visualize like can you imagine like a castle in your head and
2:23:12 look at it no so the memory palace idea is absurd to me wow but the so the test for aphantasia is
2:23:17 really easy which is close your eyes and picture a red apple you can’t picture a red apple
2:23:27 and i just see black wow yeah and there’s a scale so some people are hyper fantasia fantasic where they
2:23:33 can have a really elaborate version of the apple and other people have like a gray sort of outline
2:23:38 and i have nothing wait how does your memory work like if you think about a past event are you
2:23:45 wait am i visualizing the past event or am i just oh that’s the question or is it just a concept it might be
2:23:50 i might be operating in the space of concepts because i do and i think that’s why i’m so
2:23:54 interested in concepts and ideas yeah then we know that people with aphantasia are less likely to care
2:23:58 about their childhood memories because they can’t visualize them i’m trying to think if i can visualize
2:24:06 people’s faces from the past i have a feeling like i can oh but are you seeing it am i actually seeing
2:24:13 it i don’t know i think i actually reduced those people down to a few concepts about the characteristics of
2:24:22 their face and i might be visualizing the concepts boy interesting right yeah most people with aphantasia
2:24:26 don’t realize they have it until they have this kind of conversation i didn’t know i don’t know if
2:24:32 i can visualize the red apple now oh boy yeah yeah because i the memory palace thing has never really
2:24:38 worked for me either i tried interesting okay i have a hypothesis that people who are analytical are more
2:24:44 likely to i think it intersects with other things because a lot of my friends turns out have aphantasia
2:24:49 and i think it’s there’s a version of intelligence i think that it might be related to or an interest in
2:24:55 certain kinds of concepts that it’s related to um but i don’t know because it’s early days of research on
2:24:59 this all right this conversation totally is leading me to do some soul searching on many fronts
2:25:07 you have done incredible work across a number of disciplines i mean from from sexuality to evil
2:25:14 to memory and now in your upcoming book green crime inside the minds of the people destroying the
2:25:21 planet and how to stop them can you speak to the psychology of the people the organizations that are
2:25:27 killing earth as you describe including illegal gold miners animal traffickers con men who falsify data
2:25:36 and bribe regulators to keep polluting and many other types of criminals is there a psychology similar to
2:25:41 the psychology of some of the folks we’ve been talking about so the book green crime is really an experiment
2:25:48 for me in whether we can apply criminological and criminal psychology ideas to the area of environmental
2:25:55 protection and and crimes because there are people who are convicted of crimes who are convicted of crimes
2:26:01 specifically in relation to destroying the earth and our natural resources or shared resources i sometimes
2:26:06 think about the earth as like a house and if someone was coming into your house and just setting things
2:26:13 on fire and then walking out unpunished you’d be really upset and correctly so or poisoning your water or
2:26:18 just like leaving a bunch of garbage all over your house and that’s what people are doing
2:26:24 on a planetary scale and the question is are we responding effectively and if so who who is
2:26:28 responding effectively and then what is the adequate punishment how should we deal with the people who
2:26:37 we who we catch and so in this book the question was are the people who are for example i use the the diesel
2:26:44 gate volkswagen case which was all about lying about the emissions that were being produced by diesel cars
2:26:51 especially in the united states and so volkswagen for 10 years produced these cars that had what was
2:26:57 called a defeat device which is a specific device that makes it look like the cars don’t emit very much
2:27:04 nitrous oxides but they actually were way over the legal limit for pollution now why we should care about
2:27:10 nitrous oxides is because there is no limit of no like bottom limit of nitrous oxides that is uh healthy
2:27:16 for the the human lung so basically any amount is bad for you and it’s related to things like asthma it’s
2:27:21 related to things like uh premature death it’s related to all kinds of negative immediate health effects
2:27:30 and this is what was being pumped out of these cars at wildly high rates 40 times the legal rates
2:27:36 in some cases and they just lied about it they just covered it up they knew they didn’t well some some of
2:27:41 the people there’s a big debate within the volkswagen people who’ve been convicted a lot of people say
2:27:48 i didn’t really know i’m being scapegoated fine people knew the question how much and who that’s up for
2:27:51 debate but certainly people knew because they had to create the thing like they had to literally create
2:27:55 this piece of software to put into the cars and then when they got caught they lied about it
2:28:02 and eventually the truth came out but it was like 10 years later and so the question is what leads
2:28:08 people clever people these aren’t idiots these are like clever engineers who are literally working on
2:28:12 emissions like they know exactly what these emissions do to people they know exactly how harmful they are
2:28:18 what leads people like that to lie about it to create these things and to keep and to
2:28:25 continue lying when they are caught and so that is one of the cases i i cover in it and i’m looking
2:28:33 at it more as a case study for this kind of crime which is the sort of corporate collective crime and the
2:28:39 lying and just what leads people in these settings to lie and to cover up each other’s crimes and to
2:28:47 conform to these new norms these harmful environmental norms and so i look at it in that way and then in other
2:28:53 chapters i look at like people go undercover and uncover poaching gangs and there it’s some somewhat
2:29:00 procedural where it’s more i didn’t know that there were undercover agents infiltrating poaching gangs
2:29:05 i didn’t know that interpol was involved in all of these kinds of environmental crime and how and it gets
2:29:10 quite exciting in some of these cases where you really see the people who are trying to hold people
2:29:18 accountable what are the different ways to fight environmental crime that you describe so what i found
2:29:25 most interesting in researching for green crime so i was speaking to people from the united nations who
2:29:31 are doing these huge research reports on things like the international trafficking and wildlife crime i was
2:29:39 talking to people who were infiltrating uh at the eia the environmental investigation agency it’s like
2:29:45 the sort of undercover police of the earth and they’re infiltrating these organized crime groups these gangs
2:29:52 that are involved in poaching and other activities i was talking to this interpol agent and it’s i think all of these
2:30:01 people were talking about very different ways of measuring environmental crime and of responding to it
2:30:06 and so depending on who you talk to the answer will be very different how do we fight crime
2:30:11 and the answer is also very different potentially than in other kinds of crime that are more commonly
2:30:17 discussed like violent crime so initially when i started trying to apply criminal psychology to these
2:30:25 really big crimes of that are often also multi-level where you’ve got bosses you’ve got the whether it’s a
2:30:30 corporate boss or an illegal gang boss you’ve got the middlemen you’ve got the people on the ground who
2:30:35 actually have the guns who are killing people or animals or are logging or polluting and then you’ve got
2:30:41 sort of all these levels of people and that makes it very different from the kinds of crimes that we often talk about
2:30:47 in other kinds of true crime for example where it’s sort of one person maybe a couple of people against one other
2:30:53 person or a couple of other people and so the scale is so tiny normally and it’s mostly violent crime which is
2:31:00 mostly it’s arguments it’s bad decisions it’s people who are frankly often quite vulnerable themselves like substance
2:31:05 using people with mental health problems people who are sleeping rough like these are not
2:31:11 healthy normal people most of the time who are perpetrating bad crimes and yet in this context
2:31:16 in environmental crime this is where i couldn’t apply the research directly you’ve got some of the
2:31:22 smartest people in the world who are still engaging in fraud who are engaging in the cover-up of financial
2:31:26 information who are creating shell companies in order to hide certain things for poaching the proceeds of
2:31:31 poaching you’ve got people who are out there illegally fishing and someone’s insuring the vessel that has been
2:31:39 literally registered by interpol as a criminal vessel for 10 years and someone’s going i’ll insure that and so you’ve got these
2:31:48 really complicated other factors going on but i thought that’s what was so interesting is ultimately stripping back each layer of
2:31:57 each of these crimes and going who is that person who is the person who’s insuring this who is the person who is out there
2:32:02 engaging in illegal fishing on the boat who is the person who’s financing the boat who is the person who’s
2:32:07 investigating right and so looking at all the different levels and i think that’s where you get some clarity and actually
2:32:17 at the end of the book for me i felt so optimistic i went into green crime because i like most people in the world at least
2:32:23 according to a recent u.n climate survey something like 85 to 90 percent of people in the world think about the climate crisis on a regular
2:32:30 basis um most people think about every single day this idea that there’s this like minority of people who care about climate change
2:32:37 that’s an illusion that’s not true and if you ask people what the emotional consequences are of those feelings
2:32:43 it’s people say things like eco-anxiety anger sadness grief that we’re you know we’re worried about the future
2:32:51 but what you want is for people to feel motivated energized purposeful about tackling one of the biggest issues of our time
2:32:58 and certainly by meeting all of these u.n uh researchers but i went to so many conferences
2:33:04 you have no idea how many conferences i went to i went to anti-corruption conferences i went to wildlife time conferences
2:33:11 i went to the specific meeting of multilateral agreements to see how like people were negotiating
2:33:17 in the room and the tensions between it it was wild it’s so interesting it’s such a huge space and it gave
2:33:22 me so much hope for the future and actually the way you frame it very clearly is a crime against earth
2:33:26 somehow that’s more uh actionable
2:33:34 and it’s less controversial and divisive because climate change in the topic has become like a
2:33:43 political issue or it’s like is it really happening is it uh like what’s the right policies it’s nice to
2:33:48 look at actual obvious criminals yeah where no one’s debating did someone just burn down this rainforest
2:33:55 it’s like we can see it i was at a european space agency conference recently and they’re telling us all
2:33:59 about the different satellites that are imaging sort of pointing at the earth rather than out into space
2:34:04 and that are imaging through all these different wavelengths exactly what’s changing and basically
2:34:09 just chronicling how the earth has changed over time and a lot of these environmental crimes can be seen
2:34:15 from space and can be measured and so it’s like as long as you trust those data the question then is
2:34:20 okay so these crimes are happening how do we stop them and as you say like i was very much trying
2:34:25 i mean you can’t write a book on environmental issues and be apolitical i think that’s impossible
2:34:31 but i certainly was trying to look at it quite logically and go here’s a crime we all agree this is bad
2:34:35 and they are these are people who’ve been convicted this isn’t just like someone who didn’t do the recycling
2:34:39 um because also i think that individual level is often detrimental
2:34:45 but these are huge huge crimes that cost us a huge amount of money to clean up
2:34:51 and that cost a huge amount of human health and you know have these other knock-on effects um and are
2:34:58 changing certainly the structure of our planet in a way that we can feel already and so that is the
2:35:02 purpose of the book is to try and show that we actually have lots of laws already we’ve got lots of
2:35:07 enforcers we’ve got lots of researchers on it from space and not space looking at these issues tracking
2:35:16 so what can you say about how people end up doing bad stuff at a company when there’s a lot of them
2:35:21 are they bad people like how how do you get to that place
2:35:25 where you in a large collective are doing something really bad
2:35:32 so the psychology of environmental crime i find often boils down to the same kinds of things that we
2:35:37 have already been talking about in the context of quote-unquote evil where it’s things like conformity
2:35:42 so doing what you think everyone else is doing or know what everyone else is doing so there’s an
2:35:49 industry where you know that lots of people are cheating or are fudging the facts in some way
2:35:56 then you both feel the need and also maybe rationalize the ability to also deceive because it’s market
2:36:02 forces right like ultimately in a free market or even a controlled one you’ve got these people who are
2:36:07 just lying to everybody else and they’re saying we’re getting to these x outcome by following
2:36:11 the rules that everyone else is and they’re not they’re just lying to consumers they’re lying to
2:36:17 the regulators they’re just lying and then other people who are trying to be honest and you know
2:36:23 play the game clean they see the success of this other company and go well we we want to have what
2:36:28 they have and then they realize they can’t with the tech that exists get there and so what do they
2:36:32 then realize is well they must be cheating and so then they start cheating and so it has this
2:36:39 trickle effect of making everyone else fall in line with these well unethical practices that are
2:36:45 unethical on so many levels and then later you get these huge lawsuits because if it you know if you
2:36:50 get caught then everyone’s upset the investors are upset the consumers are upset the environmentalist
2:36:54 the lawyer everybody’s upset with you because you have committed this huge crime yeah i mean you
2:37:00 you explain so many um forces there but even the simple force of social pressure like very slight
2:37:06 social pressure i was just watching this um um documentary it’s based in a book ordinary men
2:37:14 talking about the the germans uh the in nazi germany they were taking part in the execution squads
2:37:25 in eastern europe and uh that they were given the option not to do it and ultimately they most people
2:37:29 decided to keep being part of the execution squad even though they had no hatred in their heart
2:37:35 seemingly whatsoever it’s just slight social pressure you don’t want to be the guy that kind of
2:37:42 chickens out just a little bit of social pressure and you are able to very quickly dehumanize
2:37:49 a large number of people and to murder them without any hate in your heart without anything that could
2:37:58 trivially directly be identified as quote-unquote evil just normal people doing very bad things
2:38:04 and you can be an emissions engineer with a kid with asthma and an old grandma who’s struggling
2:38:09 with her health and still feel like yeah i know that i’m creating these dirty cars and yet i’m gonna
2:38:13 do it anyway because as you say there’s a the conformity the social pressure the rationalization
2:38:20 and those are all very human experiences and that’s why also in the book i always focus on
2:38:26 whistleblower is a big word but like people who at some point actually helped to uncover what was
2:38:32 going on and that if we’re back to the topic of heroes we’re back to bystander effects we’re back
2:38:36 to all of the social psychology and criminal psychology we’ve been talking about this whole
2:38:41 time which is why i thought it was so important to apply that research to this context and to say
2:38:48 okay so now we’ve got these people who are willing to engage in these crimes they know it but there’s
2:38:53 also this moment of how do you get out of it and who is going to stop them and back to the idea of
2:38:57 heroes and you do usually in these cases at some point have a hero either an external one or an
2:39:04 internal one who goes this needs to stop do you have empathy for those criminals i have empathy for
2:39:12 everybody has that ever been in your life challenged like where you had trouble empathizing
2:39:19 oh there is one context so there is one context that i i don’t know if it’s that i have trouble
2:39:27 empathize i think it is i have trouble empathizing and i just think it is i don’t want to and i don’t know
2:39:38 why this is the one thing but i remember writing evil and i got to the section on sexual slavery and
2:39:46 there was something about that very specific issue of having women in particular in a confined area
2:39:53 where you have often trafficked them and then you’re forcing them to engage in repeated sexual acts
2:39:57 that the person who is running that
2:40:05 it’s tough for you i can’t that’s like the i know that i’m not saying that that’s the worst kind of crime
2:40:11 i don’t think that necessarily is i just think from my mind there was just a you can’t go there
2:40:13 that’s i don’t know how to empathize with that person
2:40:17 yeah i have i probably have a bunch of categories of people stuff with kids
2:40:22 it’s just like it’s tough it’s tough yeah it’s tough
2:40:29 what gives you hope about this beautiful world of ours about the future of human civilization
2:40:39 i think the fact that there are people who study the darkness gives me hope
2:40:46 and that there are people who want to understand why we do bad things myself included but i mostly get
2:40:53 to benefit from other people’s research that i summarize into my books and i think that i think
2:41:01 that the tech that we are now experiencing mostly also gives me hope in that there is this whole new
2:41:09 frontier of capacity to implement scientific findings if we want to do so and choose to do so
2:41:15 like also even in memory interviewing we were talking about the potential role of ai in distorting our
2:41:22 memories i when i do talks when i do corporate talks i tell people the prompt that i use to use the
2:41:26 cognitive interview which is the best practices in memory interviewing because you can also tell
2:41:31 you know ai tools to do the appropriate kind of interviewing if you’re talking about memory things
2:41:39 and i created a company called spot uh in 2017 which uses uh well it’s we’re now building it out to be
2:41:45 ai but it’s basically a tool to record important emotional memories and to share them as information with others
2:41:52 so that i’ve always been interested in how tech can help us to record important emotional events like
2:41:59 with spot talk the spot and how technology can actually make us feel more human so there’s these
2:42:04 capacities like memory that we’re bad at and tech can help us to overcome some of those shortcomings
2:42:10 as long as we use it in a science-backed way rather than just sort of freestyling i think
2:42:15 the worry i have sometimes is that as i’ve said before we’re sort of ignoring the social scientists
2:42:20 entirely sometimes when building these systems and it ends up becoming this engineering math problem
2:42:25 when that’s not actually in terms of the consequences for humanity what it’s going to be
2:42:32 and so i’m always keen on connecting social sciences and big issues can you speak more to spot this sounds
2:42:42 fascinating so what what’s what’s entailed in recording important memories so spot came out of
2:42:48 my going around the world and giving everyone an existential crisis so i’d go around and like with you
2:42:54 i’d say look our memory is really faulty and here’s all the ways it can light us and people would go
2:43:02 oh no and then i’d go bye and that’s funny some point i was like maybe i should do something about
2:43:12 this and so and so i did and so i um i went to a well i did a ted talk and i was invited to this tech
2:43:18 conference called founders forum which is a sort of meeting of tech founders and others in london but
2:43:24 and also a couple other places and i was invited to this and while there i met the founder of evernote
2:43:31 um phil liban cool and so i met phil liban at this event and i was talking to him about my research on
2:43:38 memory and how i’ve been wanting to implement or translate what i’ve been doing into something that
2:43:44 could prevent false memories and specifically i was interested in creating a an ai or at least
2:43:51 machine administered version of the cognitive interview so that’s the neutral approach it’s
2:43:56 already a scripted approach which was helpful so it’s been scripted for decades or a couple of
2:44:00 decades um it’s been scripted for decades as a cognitive interview and when we train police on
2:44:06 how to do it in places like the uk it’s literally just asking people to basically read a script that
2:44:12 we have fine-tuned over the years and what can do that really well well chatbots can do that really
2:44:19 well and so together with phil liban and my two co-founders dylan and daniel i ended up co-founding
2:44:26 spot which is talktospot.com if you want to check it out and it ended up sort of pivoting into this
2:44:33 general reporting tool for workplaces where this was before me too but it was the idea being that in
2:44:37 lots of workplace environments you have important emotional events that are really important to
2:44:42 understand but are really hard to preserve and often you have this really bad evidence that you’re
2:44:46 relying on someone at some point sort of goes to hr and says something and somebody else says something
2:44:52 else and you’re sort of unsure as a company maybe who to come to trust what’s real and so we were trying
2:44:59 to streamline that and so now spot is a reporting tool for any kind of compliance issues and so you can
2:45:04 talktospot it’s called and it is this chatbot interface that administers the cognitive interview
2:45:08 and then creates a report that then gets sent if you want to your employer so we work with like
2:45:13 insurance companies medical companies we work with the bar so all the lawyers in the uk use it
2:45:16 themselves which i always think is a real stamp of approval when the bar counsel is using your tool
2:45:23 um but again not not bars and drinks bars and lawyers yes but thank you for clarifying
2:45:30 just picturing all these like people like with flair throwing vodka bottles in the air not not them
2:45:37 oh they’re great too but yeah they could also use it potentially um but we’ve got people reporting
2:45:41 like you know someone left bleach in a machine so it’s like a more small memory so it’s streamlining
2:45:46 reporting processes i mean can you envision something like spot being used for
2:45:51 recording generally important emotional events positive and negative throughout your life
2:45:58 that seems like something the llms of today would really benefit from yeah again that’s why so you’re
2:46:05 not just strictly looking at like compliance or in the context of companies so in the context of spot yes
2:46:09 it’s just compliance and it’s it’s that but i think in sort of private life and in terms of
2:46:15 where i think this could go i i’m i’m interested in all memories and i think that important life
2:46:21 events can be recorded and i think the idea of having like grief bots and having things that
2:46:28 have a representation of you or your loved ones i think that’s something that i like seeing in the
2:46:34 future i would have you gotten a chance to work with uh maybe the gemini team or open ai folks or any of
2:46:41 them anthropic because it seems like they don’t have enough people that think about this well i’m just
2:46:48 waiting for an email okay well maybe i’ll get one after this i’m hanging up guys yeah i’m hanging out
2:46:53 with deep mind folks that would be really that’d be really fascinating to to see first of all the the
2:46:59 proper cognitive interview that’s really interesting that’s really interesting how to not lead how to not
2:47:05 to plant false memories i don’t think any of them are thinking about that i don’t think so either and then how to
2:47:11 make sure that you’re using that to um help people to store contemporaneous evidence outside of their
2:47:15 brain i just think there’s so much potential that’s being wasted right now yeah so the hope is the
2:47:21 technology and that there’s people being willing to empathize with all different flavors of the
2:47:28 human condition that’s your source of hope for the future and to celebrate all the people who are doing
2:47:33 amazing research and really cracking down on things like environmental crime and like spending their
2:47:40 lives to fight specific kinds of crime yeah i like this earth i hope i hope we fight for it it’s the
2:47:45 only one we got and i’m pretty hesitant to say that maybe in this galaxy we might be the only ones so
2:47:57 let’s let’s protect it well uh what’s your name just kidding julia this is a huge honor um i’ve been a fan
2:48:02 of yours for a long time i’m really glad we got a chance to talk this was really fascinating your work
2:48:08 is fascinating and you’re just a fascinating human being so thank you thank you thanks for listening to
2:48:13 this conversation with julia shaw to support this podcast please check out our sponsors in the description
2:48:22 where you can also find links to contact me ask questions give feedback and so on and now let me
2:48:28 leave you with some words from t.s elliot most of the evil in the world is done by people with good
2:48:33 intentions thank you for listening and hope to see you next time
2:48:45 you
2:48:45 you