<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0"><channel><title>Psychology of Human Nature</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/psychology-of-human-nature--7257557</link><description><![CDATA[The Psychology of Human Nature and Everyday Behavior is a research-driven documentary podcast exploring the hidden psychological forces behind the way people think, feel, remember, choose, connect, and behave. Each episode begins with a familiar human experience and asks a deeper question. Why do embarrassing memories stay with us for years? Why can rejection make someone harder to forget? Why do people gossip, procrastinate, follow crowds, compare themselves with others, or make decisions they later regret? Through psychology, behavioral science, neuroscience, social psychology, cognitive science, and real-world examples, the podcast examines the mechanisms that shape everyday behavior while separating credible evidence from popular myths and oversimplified explanations. From relationships, attraction, memory, emotions, attention, motivation, and social influence to cognitive biases, identity, loneliness, trust, decision-making, and the perception of time, each episode reveals how ordinary moments can tell us something deeper about human nature. This is not pop psychology or quick self-help. It is an evidence-based exploration of the complicated, surprising, and deeply human reasons behind the things we do.]]></description><atom:link href="https://www.spreaker.com/show/7257557/episodes/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><language>en</language><category>Social Sciences</category><copyright>Copyright Michel Black</copyright><lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2026 05:00:10 +0000</lastBuildDate><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:owner><itunes:name>Michel Black</itunes:name><itunes:email>feeds@spreaker.com</itunes:email></itunes:owner><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:subtitle>The Psychology of Human Nature and Everyday Behavior is a research-driven documentary podcast exploring the hidden psychological forces behind the way people think, feel, remember, choose, connect, and behave. Each episode begins with a familiar human...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The Psychology of Human Nature and Everyday Behavior is a research-driven documentary podcast exploring the hidden psychological forces behind the way people think, feel, remember, choose, connect, and behave. Each episode begins with a familiar human experience and asks a deeper question. Why do embarrassing memories stay with us for years? Why can rejection make someone harder to forget? Why do people gossip, procrastinate, follow crowds, compare themselves with others, or make decisions they later regret? Through psychology, behavioral science, neuroscience, social psychology, cognitive science, and real-world examples, the podcast examines the mechanisms that shape everyday behavior while separating credible evidence from popular myths and oversimplified explanations. From relationships, attraction, memory, emotions, attention, motivation, and social influence to cognitive biases, identity, loneliness, trust, decision-making, and the perception of time, each episode reveals how ordinary moments can tell us something deeper about human nature. This is not pop psychology or quick self-help. It is an evidence-based exploration of the complicated, surprising, and deeply human reasons behind the things we do.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:category text="Science"><itunes:category text="Social Sciences"/></itunes:category><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><podcast:guid>b4b03186-06d9-554f-8b26-1721823b1a05</podcast:guid><itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type><item><title>Standing Somewhere Vast Makes Your Problems Feel Smaller</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/standing-somewhere-vast-makes-your-problems-feel-smaller--76045040</link><description><![CDATA[You are standing on a cliff, looking out at the sea. Or under a night sky, far from any city. And when you come back, your problems are still there, but they feel smaller. Not gone. Smaller. Michel asks what awe is, why it shrinks the self and expands time, and why the most common source of awe in the world is not a mountain but another person's courage. What was observed? In Piff et al. (2015), awe made people feel smaller and more generous in a dictator game and more likely to help a person who had dropped pens; in Rudd, Vohs and Aaker (2012), awe made people feel they had more time, more patient, less materialistic, and more willing to volunteer time. How was it measured? Tall trees, videos of vast natural scenes, a sixty-second commercial with waterfalls and astronauts, and a life-size Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. Why is it important? Awe makes you kinder, more patient, and less distressed — and it can be practised, in fifteen minutes a week. What explanations are supported? Keltner and Haidt (2003) — awe is defined by perceived vastness and a need for accommodation; the small self shifts attention from the self to larger entities. What remains unknown? How far the benefits of awe walks persist beyond eight weeks, and how far they generalise beyond older adults. Sources: Keltner & Haidt (2003); Piff et al. (2015); Rudd, Vohs & Aaker (2012); Shiota et al. (2007); Stellar et al. (2015); Sturm et al. (2022).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76045040</guid><pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76045040/episode.mp3" length="3848293" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/47f5da51-f151-4160-ba04-31975751ec02/47f5da51-f151-4160-ba04-31975751ec02.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/47f5da51-f151-4160-ba04-31975751ec02/47f5da51-f151-4160-ba04-31975751ec02.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/47f5da51-f151-4160-ba04-31975751ec02/47f5da51-f151-4160-ba04-31975751ec02.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You are standing on a cliff, looking out at the sea. Or under a night sky, far from any city. And when you come back, your problems are still there, but they feel smaller. Not gone. Smaller. Michel asks what awe is, why it shrinks the self and expands...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You are standing on a cliff, looking out at the sea. Or under a night sky, far from any city. And when you come back, your problems are still there, but they feel smaller. Not gone. Smaller. Michel asks what awe is, why it shrinks the self and expands time, and why the most common source of awe in the world is not a mountain but another person's courage. What was observed? In Piff et al. (2015), awe made people feel smaller and more generous in a dictator game and more likely to help a person who had dropped pens; in Rudd, Vohs and Aaker (2012), awe made people feel they had more time, more patient, less materialistic, and more willing to volunteer time. How was it measured? Tall trees, videos of vast natural scenes, a sixty-second commercial with waterfalls and astronauts, and a life-size Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton. Why is it important? Awe makes you kinder, more patient, and less distressed — and it can be practised, in fifteen minutes a week. What explanations are supported? Keltner and Haidt (2003) — awe is defined by perceived vastness and a need for accommodation; the small self shifts attention from the self to larger entities. What remains unknown? How far the benefits of awe walks persist beyond eight weeks, and how far they generalise beyond older adults. Sources: Keltner & Haidt (2003); Piff et al. (2015); Rudd, Vohs & Aaker (2012); Shiota et al. (2007); Stellar et al. (2015); Sturm et al. (2022).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>482</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>A Hundred Dollars Feels Different Depending on Where It Came From</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-hundred-dollars-feels-different-depending-on-where-it-came-from--76045037</link><description><![CDATA[You have lost a ten-dollar bill, and you buy the theater ticket without a second thought. You have lost a ten-dollar ticket, and you hesitate. The money is the same. The choice is the same. Only the label is different. Michel follows that label into the mind's invisible envelopes, and asks what mental accounting costs you in real life. What was observed? In Kahneman and Tversky (1984), eighty-eight percent of people still bought a ticket after losing a ten-dollar bill, but only forty-six percent paid for a second ticket after losing the first; in Thaler and Johnson (1990), seventy percent of students took a gamble after a prior gain, but only forty percent after a prior loss. How was it measured? The theater-ticket problem, the house-money gambles with real money, and the gasoline and credit-card studies. Why is it important? A couple can borrow at fifteen percent while saving at ten percent, and never see the loss, because the two accounts are never looked at together. What explanations are supported? Mental accounting (Thaler, 1985, 1999) — money is treated as non-fungible in the mind, sorted into separate budgets by source and intended use, and each account is judged on its own. What remains unknown? How far people can be taught to close their accounts and look at the bottom line, outside the laboratory. Sources: Kahneman & Tversky (1984); Thaler (1985, 1999); Thaler & Johnson (1990); Prelec & Simester (2001); Hastings & Shapiro (2013); Read et al. (1999).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76045037</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76045037/episode.mp3" length="3626149" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/0d730323-adee-40ef-acab-c40283de23f2/0d730323-adee-40ef-acab-c40283de23f2.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/0d730323-adee-40ef-acab-c40283de23f2/0d730323-adee-40ef-acab-c40283de23f2.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/0d730323-adee-40ef-acab-c40283de23f2/0d730323-adee-40ef-acab-c40283de23f2.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You have lost a ten-dollar bill, and you buy the theater ticket without a second thought. You have lost a ten-dollar ticket, and you hesitate. The money is the same. The choice is the same. Only the label is different. Michel follows that label into...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You have lost a ten-dollar bill, and you buy the theater ticket without a second thought. You have lost a ten-dollar ticket, and you hesitate. The money is the same. The choice is the same. Only the label is different. Michel follows that label into the mind's invisible envelopes, and asks what mental accounting costs you in real life. What was observed? In Kahneman and Tversky (1984), eighty-eight percent of people still bought a ticket after losing a ten-dollar bill, but only forty-six percent paid for a second ticket after losing the first; in Thaler and Johnson (1990), seventy percent of students took a gamble after a prior gain, but only forty percent after a prior loss. How was it measured? The theater-ticket problem, the house-money gambles with real money, and the gasoline and credit-card studies. Why is it important? A couple can borrow at fifteen percent while saving at ten percent, and never see the loss, because the two accounts are never looked at together. What explanations are supported? Mental accounting (Thaler, 1985, 1999) — money is treated as non-fungible in the mind, sorted into separate budgets by source and intended use, and each account is judged on its own. What remains unknown? How far people can be taught to close their accounts and look at the bottom line, outside the laboratory. Sources: Kahneman & Tversky (1984); Thaler (1985, 1999); Thaler & Johnson (1990); Prelec & Simester (2001); Hastings & Shapiro (2013); Read et al. (1999).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>454</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Jealousy Arrives Before the Evidence</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/jealousy-arrives-before-the-evidence--76045033</link><description><![CDATA[Your partner is laughing at a text message. You do not know who sent it. You do not know what it says. And before you have thought about it at all, the feeling is already there. Michel follows jealousy from that moment to a forced-choice experiment, a meta-analysis debate, and a study of jealous dogs — and asks why the feeling is a deliberately twitchy alarm, and why an alarm is not a verdict. What was observed? In Buss et al. (1992), sixty percent of men but only seventeen percent of women chose sexual infidelity as more distressing; in Harris and Prouvost (2014), dogs pushed or touched their owner seventy-eight percent of the time when the owner was affectionate to a stuffed dog, against forty-two percent for a pail and twenty-two percent for a book. How was it measured? The forced-choice infidelity dilemma, continuous distress scales, and the dog jealousy experiment. Why is it important? Jealousy protects valued relationships, but persistent jealousy can destroy the bond it exists to protect. What explanations are supported? Error management theory (Haselton & Buss, 2000) — the alarm is tuned to fire early on weak evidence, because missing a real rival is costlier than imagining one that is not there. What remains unknown? Whether the sex difference in infidelity distress is created by the forced-choice method or revealed by it — Harris (2003), Carpenter (2012) and Sagarin et al. (2012) disagree, and the debate is unresolved. Sources: Buss et al. (1992); Harris (2003); Carpenter (2012); Sagarin et al. (2012); Haselton & Buss (2000); Nesse (2001); Harris & Prouvost (2014); Buss & Abrams (2017).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76045033</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76045033/episode.mp3" length="3755557" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/5c8a072c-d2a6-4cbd-a9d7-441560ecee6f/5c8a072c-d2a6-4cbd-a9d7-441560ecee6f.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/5c8a072c-d2a6-4cbd-a9d7-441560ecee6f/5c8a072c-d2a6-4cbd-a9d7-441560ecee6f.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/5c8a072c-d2a6-4cbd-a9d7-441560ecee6f/5c8a072c-d2a6-4cbd-a9d7-441560ecee6f.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Your partner is laughing at a text message. You do not know who sent it. You do not know what it says. And before you have thought about it at all, the feeling is already there. Michel follows jealousy from that moment to a forced-choice experiment, a...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Your partner is laughing at a text message. You do not know who sent it. You do not know what it says. And before you have thought about it at all, the feeling is already there. Michel follows jealousy from that moment to a forced-choice experiment, a meta-analysis debate, and a study of jealous dogs — and asks why the feeling is a deliberately twitchy alarm, and why an alarm is not a verdict. What was observed? In Buss et al. (1992), sixty percent of men but only seventeen percent of women chose sexual infidelity as more distressing; in Harris and Prouvost (2014), dogs pushed or touched their owner seventy-eight percent of the time when the owner was affectionate to a stuffed dog, against forty-two percent for a pail and twenty-two percent for a book. How was it measured? The forced-choice infidelity dilemma, continuous distress scales, and the dog jealousy experiment. Why is it important? Jealousy protects valued relationships, but persistent jealousy can destroy the bond it exists to protect. What explanations are supported? Error management theory (Haselton & Buss, 2000) — the alarm is tuned to fire early on weak evidence, because missing a real rival is costlier than imagining one that is not there. What remains unknown? Whether the sex difference in infidelity distress is created by the forced-choice method or revealed by it — Harris (2003), Carpenter (2012) and Sagarin et al. (2012) disagree, and the debate is unresolved. Sources: Buss et al. (1992); Harris (2003); Carpenter (2012); Sagarin et al. (2012); Haselton & Buss (2000); Nesse (2001); Harris & Prouvost (2014); Buss & Abrams (2017).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>470</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Gorilla You Walked Right Past</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-gorilla-you-walked-right-past--76045022</link><description><![CDATA[Count the passes. Thirteen. Fourteen. Fifteen. And a gorilla walks through the middle of the game, thumps its chest, and leaves — and about half of us never see it. Michel follows inattentional blindness and change blindness from the basketball court to the radiology reading room, and asks what else we are missing while we are busy counting the passes. What was observed? In Simons and Chabris (1999), about fifty percent of participants counting basketball passes failed to notice a person in a gorilla suit; in Simons and Levin (1998), about half of the people asked for directions failed to notice that their conversation partner had been replaced behind a door; in Drew, Vo and Wolfe (2013), eighty-three percent of radiologists missed a gorilla image in lung scans. How was it measured? The gorilla experiment, the flicker task of Rensink, O'Regan and Clark (1997), and the door study. Why is it important? Drivers who looked but failed to see, radiologists who miss what they were not looking for — the failure matters where the stakes are high. What explanations are supported? Attention is a spotlight; the visual system samples the world guided by the question you are asking, and the rest is filled in or ignored; change detection needs focused attention. What remains unknown? How far checklists, second reads and computer assistance can close the gap in everyday life, outside the laboratory. Sources: Simons & Chabris (1999); Neisser & Becklen (1975); Rensink, O'Regan & Clark (1997); Simons & Levin (1998); Drew, Vo & Wolfe (2013); Chabris & Simons (2010).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76045022</guid><pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76045022/episode.mp3" length="3639589" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/dd85b5c0-d6d6-4ace-9122-fa5e644d5e4b/dd85b5c0-d6d6-4ace-9122-fa5e644d5e4b.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/dd85b5c0-d6d6-4ace-9122-fa5e644d5e4b/dd85b5c0-d6d6-4ace-9122-fa5e644d5e4b.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/dd85b5c0-d6d6-4ace-9122-fa5e644d5e4b/dd85b5c0-d6d6-4ace-9122-fa5e644d5e4b.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Count the passes. Thirteen. Fourteen. Fifteen. And a gorilla walks through the middle of the game, thumps its chest, and leaves — and about half of us never see it. Michel follows inattentional blindness and change blindness from the basketball court...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Count the passes. Thirteen. Fourteen. Fifteen. And a gorilla walks through the middle of the game, thumps its chest, and leaves — and about half of us never see it. Michel follows inattentional blindness and change blindness from the basketball court to the radiology reading room, and asks what else we are missing while we are busy counting the passes. What was observed? In Simons and Chabris (1999), about fifty percent of participants counting basketball passes failed to notice a person in a gorilla suit; in Simons and Levin (1998), about half of the people asked for directions failed to notice that their conversation partner had been replaced behind a door; in Drew, Vo and Wolfe (2013), eighty-three percent of radiologists missed a gorilla image in lung scans. How was it measured? The gorilla experiment, the flicker task of Rensink, O'Regan and Clark (1997), and the door study. Why is it important? Drivers who looked but failed to see, radiologists who miss what they were not looking for — the failure matters where the stakes are high. What explanations are supported? Attention is a spotlight; the visual system samples the world guided by the question you are asking, and the rest is filled in or ignored; change detection needs focused attention. What remains unknown? How far checklists, second reads and computer assistance can close the gap in everyday life, outside the laboratory. Sources: Simons & Chabris (1999); Neisser & Becklen (1975); Rensink, O'Regan & Clark (1997); Simons & Levin (1998); Drew, Vo & Wolfe (2013); Chabris & Simons (2010).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>455</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Alone in a Crowded Room</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/alone-in-a-crowded-room--76045016</link><description><![CDATA[You are at a party. The room is full. Music, conversation, laughter. And you feel alone. Michel follows loneliness from its definition — the gap between the relationships you want and the relationships you have — to the cycle it builds, and to the finding that more contact is often not the cure. What was observed? Loneliness is about feeling alone, not being alone; you can be lonely in a crowd and content on your own. How was it measured? The work of Cacioppo and Hawkley on perceived isolation and hypervigilance, the mortality meta-analysis of Holt-Lunstad et al. (2015) covering seventy studies and more than three million people, and the intervention meta-analysis of Masi et al. (2011). Why is it important? Loneliness is associated with a twenty-six percent increase in the odds of premature death, and it builds a self-fulfilling cycle of threat, withdrawal and more loneliness. What explanations are supported? Perceived isolation triggers hypervigilance for social threat, which biases attention and memory and drives withdrawal. What remains unknown? How far the cognitive interventions that work in trials can be made routine in everyday life, outside a clinical setting. Sources: Cacioppo & Hawkley (2009, 2010); Hawkley & Cacioppo (2010); Holt-Lunstad et al. (2015); Valtorta et al. (2016); Wang et al. (2023); Masi et al. (2011); U.S. Surgeon General (2023); WHO Commission on Social Connection (2025).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76045016</guid><pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76045016/episode.mp3" length="4110565" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/4de0dbcf-b73b-4935-b1c7-0897f300c0ae/4de0dbcf-b73b-4935-b1c7-0897f300c0ae.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/4de0dbcf-b73b-4935-b1c7-0897f300c0ae/4de0dbcf-b73b-4935-b1c7-0897f300c0ae.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/4de0dbcf-b73b-4935-b1c7-0897f300c0ae/4de0dbcf-b73b-4935-b1c7-0897f300c0ae.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You are at a party. The room is full. Music, conversation, laughter. And you feel alone. Michel follows loneliness from its definition — the gap between the relationships you want and the relationships you have — to the cycle it builds, and to the...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You are at a party. The room is full. Music, conversation, laughter. And you feel alone. Michel follows loneliness from its definition — the gap between the relationships you want and the relationships you have — to the cycle it builds, and to the finding that more contact is often not the cure. What was observed? Loneliness is about feeling alone, not being alone; you can be lonely in a crowd and content on your own. How was it measured? The work of Cacioppo and Hawkley on perceived isolation and hypervigilance, the mortality meta-analysis of Holt-Lunstad et al. (2015) covering seventy studies and more than three million people, and the intervention meta-analysis of Masi et al. (2011). Why is it important? Loneliness is associated with a twenty-six percent increase in the odds of premature death, and it builds a self-fulfilling cycle of threat, withdrawal and more loneliness. What explanations are supported? Perceived isolation triggers hypervigilance for social threat, which biases attention and memory and drives withdrawal. What remains unknown? How far the cognitive interventions that work in trials can be made routine in everyday life, outside a clinical setting. Sources: Cacioppo & Hawkley (2009, 2010); Hawkley & Cacioppo (2010); Holt-Lunstad et al. (2015); Valtorta et al. (2016); Wang et al. (2023); Masi et al. (2011); U.S. Surgeon General (2023); WHO Commission on Social Connection (2025).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>514</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Everything Takes Longer Than You Planned. Even When You Know.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/everything-takes-longer-than-you-planned-even-when-you-know--76045008</link><description><![CDATA[You look at the clock. It is nine in the morning. The report will take two hours, you are sure of it. Michel follows the planning fallacy from honours theses — where students predicted about thirty-four days and took about fifty-six — to the Sydney Opera House, promised for 1963 at seven million dollars and delivered in 1973 at one hundred and two million. What was observed? People underestimate the time, costs and risks of their own future actions, even when they know similar tasks took longer in the past. How was it measured? The studies of Buehler, Griffin and Ross (1994), the curriculum textbook story of Kahneman, and the megaproject data of Flyvbjerg et al. (2002). Why is it important? The inside view — a story about how this task will go — beats the outside view — the statistics of how tasks like this usually go — almost every time. What explanations are supported? Planning from the inside view, and ignoring distributional information, even when it is available. What remains unknown? How far reference class forecasting can be made routine in everyday planning, where no formal reference class exists. Sources: Kahneman & Tversky (1977, 1979); Buehler, Griffin & Ross (1994); Flyvbjerg et al. (2002); Flyvbjerg (2014); Hofstadter (1979).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76045008</guid><pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76045008/episode.mp3" length="3988261" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/7169cec5-fe55-4d0d-9329-6d6107c968a3/7169cec5-fe55-4d0d-9329-6d6107c968a3.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/7169cec5-fe55-4d0d-9329-6d6107c968a3/7169cec5-fe55-4d0d-9329-6d6107c968a3.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/7169cec5-fe55-4d0d-9329-6d6107c968a3/7169cec5-fe55-4d0d-9329-6d6107c968a3.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You look at the clock. It is nine in the morning. The report will take two hours, you are sure of it. Michel follows the planning fallacy from honours theses — where students predicted about thirty-four days and took about fifty-six — to the Sydney...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You look at the clock. It is nine in the morning. The report will take two hours, you are sure of it. Michel follows the planning fallacy from honours theses — where students predicted about thirty-four days and took about fifty-six — to the Sydney Opera House, promised for 1963 at seven million dollars and delivered in 1973 at one hundred and two million. What was observed? People underestimate the time, costs and risks of their own future actions, even when they know similar tasks took longer in the past. How was it measured? The studies of Buehler, Griffin and Ross (1994), the curriculum textbook story of Kahneman, and the megaproject data of Flyvbjerg et al. (2002). Why is it important? The inside view — a story about how this task will go — beats the outside view — the statistics of how tasks like this usually go — almost every time. What explanations are supported? Planning from the inside view, and ignoring distributional information, even when it is available. What remains unknown? How far reference class forecasting can be made routine in everyday planning, where no formal reference class exists. Sources: Kahneman & Tversky (1977, 1979); Buehler, Griffin & Ross (1994); Flyvbjerg et al. (2002); Flyvbjerg (2014); Hofstadter (1979).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>499</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Feeling Someone's Pain Isn't the Same as Helping Them</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/feeling-someone-s-pain-isn-t-the-same-as-helping-them--76045005</link><description><![CDATA[You see someone crying on a train, a stranger, and for a moment you feel it too. Michel follows empathy and compassion from Batson's Elaine experiment — where people took another person's place under electric shocks even when they could have walked away — to the finding that feeling with someone can burn you out, while feeling for someone lets you keep helping. What was observed? High-empathy participants helped even when escape was easy; low-empathy participants helped only when escape was difficult. How was it measured? The Elaine study of Batson et al. (1981), the empathy and compassion training study of Klimecki et al. (2014), and the compassion-training studies of Leiberg et al. (2011) and Weng et al. (2013). Why is it important? Empathy is feeling with someone; compassion is feeling for someone — and only the second is sustainable when suffering is prolonged. What explanations are supported? Personal distress produces egoistic motivation; empathic concern produces altruistic motivation; compassion training reduces negative affect and increases prosocial behaviour. What remains unknown? Whether compassion is a better moral motivator than empathy in action — the key training study had no behavioural task. Sources: Batson et al. (1981); Singer & Klimecki (2014); Klimecki et al. (2014); Leiberg, Klimecki & Singer (2011); Weng et al. (2013); Bloom (2016), Against Empathy; Cialdini et al. (1997).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76045005</guid><pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76045005/episode.mp3" length="5278157" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/dfdc50cc-160a-4e44-8ffe-c5694919c1fc/dfdc50cc-160a-4e44-8ffe-c5694919c1fc.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/dfdc50cc-160a-4e44-8ffe-c5694919c1fc/dfdc50cc-160a-4e44-8ffe-c5694919c1fc.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/dfdc50cc-160a-4e44-8ffe-c5694919c1fc/dfdc50cc-160a-4e44-8ffe-c5694919c1fc.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You see someone crying on a train, a stranger, and for a moment you feel it too. Michel follows empathy and compassion from Batson's Elaine experiment — where people took another person's place under electric shocks even when they could have walked...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You see someone crying on a train, a stranger, and for a moment you feel it too. Michel follows empathy and compassion from Batson's Elaine experiment — where people took another person's place under electric shocks even when they could have walked away — to the finding that feeling with someone can burn you out, while feeling for someone lets you keep helping. What was observed? High-empathy participants helped even when escape was easy; low-empathy participants helped only when escape was difficult. How was it measured? The Elaine study of Batson et al. (1981), the empathy and compassion training study of Klimecki et al. (2014), and the compassion-training studies of Leiberg et al. (2011) and Weng et al. (2013). Why is it important? Empathy is feeling with someone; compassion is feeling for someone — and only the second is sustainable when suffering is prolonged. What explanations are supported? Personal distress produces egoistic motivation; empathic concern produces altruistic motivation; compassion training reduces negative affect and increases prosocial behaviour. What remains unknown? Whether compassion is a better moral motivator than empathy in action — the key training study had no behavioural task. Sources: Batson et al. (1981); Singer & Klimecki (2014); Klimecki et al. (2014); Leiberg, Klimecki & Singer (2011); Weng et al. (2013); Bloom (2016), Against Empathy; Cialdini et al. (1997).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>660</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Same Choice, Two Different Answers</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-same-choice-two-different-answers--76044999</link><description><![CDATA[Two packets of ground beef, identical in every way. One says seventy-five percent lean. The other says twenty-five percent fat. Michel follows the framing effect from a disease expected to kill six hundred people — where the same programmes produced opposite choices depending on whether they were described as lives saved or lives lost — to the supermarket shelf, where the words change what you taste. What was observed? In the gain frame, seventy-two percent chose the safe option; in the loss frame, seventy-eight percent chose the gamble; the options were identical. How was it measured? The Asian disease problem of Tversky and Kahneman (1981), the beef study of Levin and Gaeth (1988), and the butcher study of Keren (2007). Why is it important? The frame sets the reference point, and the reference point decides whether we play safe or gamble. What explanations are supported? Prospect theory — losses loom larger than gains — plus the social signal a frame carries about the speaker. What remains unknown? How far framing can be resisted in real, high-stakes decisions, where the frame is only one of many influences. Sources: Tversky & Kahneman (1981), Science; Kahneman & Tversky (1979); Levin & Gaeth (1988); Keren (2007); Rothman et al. (1993); LeBoeuf & Shafir (2003); McKenzie et al.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044999</guid><pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044999/episode.mp3" length="3924709" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/a08bc50d-7d8c-4f73-92ad-788d30e64f57/a08bc50d-7d8c-4f73-92ad-788d30e64f57.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/a08bc50d-7d8c-4f73-92ad-788d30e64f57/a08bc50d-7d8c-4f73-92ad-788d30e64f57.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/a08bc50d-7d8c-4f73-92ad-788d30e64f57/a08bc50d-7d8c-4f73-92ad-788d30e64f57.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Two packets of ground beef, identical in every way. One says seventy-five percent lean. The other says twenty-five percent fat. Michel follows the framing effect from a disease expected to kill six hundred people — where the same programmes produced...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Two packets of ground beef, identical in every way. One says seventy-five percent lean. The other says twenty-five percent fat. Michel follows the framing effect from a disease expected to kill six hundred people — where the same programmes produced opposite choices depending on whether they were described as lives saved or lives lost — to the supermarket shelf, where the words change what you taste. What was observed? In the gain frame, seventy-two percent chose the safe option; in the loss frame, seventy-eight percent chose the gamble; the options were identical. How was it measured? The Asian disease problem of Tversky and Kahneman (1981), the beef study of Levin and Gaeth (1988), and the butcher study of Keren (2007). Why is it important? The frame sets the reference point, and the reference point decides whether we play safe or gamble. What explanations are supported? Prospect theory — losses loom larger than gains — plus the social signal a frame carries about the speaker. What remains unknown? How far framing can be resisted in real, high-stakes decisions, where the frame is only one of many influences. Sources: Tversky & Kahneman (1981), Science; Kahneman & Tversky (1979); Levin & Gaeth (1988); Keren (2007); Rothman et al. (1993); LeBoeuf & Shafir (2003); McKenzie et al.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>491</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Past Smells Better Than It Was</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-past-smells-better-than-it-was--76044992</link><description><![CDATA[A song comes on, one you have not heard in years, and suddenly you are seventeen again. Michel follows nostalgia from its invention as a medical diagnosis in 1688 — the pain of wanting to go home, suffered by Swiss mercenaries — to the modern finding that it is a predominantly positive emotion that restores connection, meaning and optimism. What was observed? Nostalgic memories contain more positive than negative feeling, feature the self as protagonist, and are almost always social. How was it measured? The experiments of Wildschut et al. (2006), Zhou et al. (2008), Routledge et al. (2008, 2011), Cheung et al. (2013) and Sedikides et al. (2015). Why is it important? Nostalgia is a psychological thermostat: loneliness, boredom and mortality reminders trigger it, and it restores social connectedness, self-esteem, meaning and optimism. What explanations are supported? The homeostatic model — an adverse state triggers nostalgia, and nostalgia counteracts the adverse state. What remains unknown? The boundary conditions — when nostalgia helps and when, compared with an unfavourable present, it makes people feel worse. Sources: Hofer (1688); Sedikides, Wildschut, Arndt & Routledge (2008); Wildschut et al. (2006); Zhou et al. (2008); Routledge et al. (2011); Cheung et al. (2013); Van Tilburg et al. (2013); Sedikides et al. (2015).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044992</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044992/episode.mp3" length="3628069" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/9c6ca60f-ec65-427b-b305-1467eea8d7f1/9c6ca60f-ec65-427b-b305-1467eea8d7f1.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/9c6ca60f-ec65-427b-b305-1467eea8d7f1/9c6ca60f-ec65-427b-b305-1467eea8d7f1.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/9c6ca60f-ec65-427b-b305-1467eea8d7f1/9c6ca60f-ec65-427b-b305-1467eea8d7f1.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>A song comes on, one you have not heard in years, and suddenly you are seventeen again. Michel follows nostalgia from its invention as a medical diagnosis in 1688 — the pain of wanting to go home, suffered by Swiss mercenaries — to the modern finding...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[A song comes on, one you have not heard in years, and suddenly you are seventeen again. Michel follows nostalgia from its invention as a medical diagnosis in 1688 — the pain of wanting to go home, suffered by Swiss mercenaries — to the modern finding that it is a predominantly positive emotion that restores connection, meaning and optimism. What was observed? Nostalgic memories contain more positive than negative feeling, feature the self as protagonist, and are almost always social. How was it measured? The experiments of Wildschut et al. (2006), Zhou et al. (2008), Routledge et al. (2008, 2011), Cheung et al. (2013) and Sedikides et al. (2015). Why is it important? Nostalgia is a psychological thermostat: loneliness, boredom and mortality reminders trigger it, and it restores social connectedness, self-esteem, meaning and optimism. What explanations are supported? The homeostatic model — an adverse state triggers nostalgia, and nostalgia counteracts the adverse state. What remains unknown? The boundary conditions — when nostalgia helps and when, compared with an unfavourable present, it makes people feel worse. Sources: Hofer (1688); Sedikides, Wildschut, Arndt & Routledge (2008); Wildschut et al. (2006); Zhou et al. (2008); Routledge et al. (2011); Cheung et al. (2013); Van Tilburg et al. (2013); Sedikides et al. (2015).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>454</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>You'd Rather Have Nothing Than an Unfair Split</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/you-d-rather-have-nothing-than-an-unfair-split--76044990</link><description><![CDATA[Someone hands you ten dollars and says, split it with the person next to you. If they reject your split, neither of you gets anything. Michel follows the ultimatum game from the laboratory — where people routinely reject offers below twenty percent — to fifteen societies around the world, and to chimpanzees, who play the game more rationally than we do. What was observed? Proposers typically offer forty to fifty percent, and responders reject offers below twenty percent about half the time. How was it measured? The ultimatum game of Guth, Schmittberger and Schwarze (1982), the dictator game of Forsythe et al. (1994), the cross-cultural study of Henrich et al. (2005), and the chimpanzee study of Jensen, Call and Tomasello (2007). Why is it important? Fairness is not a luxury — people pay, with their own money, to punish an unfair split. What explanations are supported? Inequity aversion, plus reputation: rejecting an unfair offer teaches the other side what you will accept next time. What remains unknown? How the one-shot, anonymous, windfall-money game maps onto real divisions, where the money was earned and the relationship continues. Sources: Guth, Schmittberger & Schwarze (1982); Forsythe et al. (1994); Camerer (2003); Henrich et al. (2005); Jensen, Call & Tomasello (2007), Science; Fehr & Schmidt (1999).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044990</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044990/episode.mp3" length="3909733" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/118bc11e-93ee-4bfa-bc56-e2477f12dc78/118bc11e-93ee-4bfa-bc56-e2477f12dc78.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/118bc11e-93ee-4bfa-bc56-e2477f12dc78/118bc11e-93ee-4bfa-bc56-e2477f12dc78.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/118bc11e-93ee-4bfa-bc56-e2477f12dc78/118bc11e-93ee-4bfa-bc56-e2477f12dc78.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Someone hands you ten dollars and says, split it with the person next to you. If they reject your split, neither of you gets anything. Michel follows the ultimatum game from the laboratory — where people routinely reject offers below twenty percent —...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Someone hands you ten dollars and says, split it with the person next to you. If they reject your split, neither of you gets anything. Michel follows the ultimatum game from the laboratory — where people routinely reject offers below twenty percent — to fifteen societies around the world, and to chimpanzees, who play the game more rationally than we do. What was observed? Proposers typically offer forty to fifty percent, and responders reject offers below twenty percent about half the time. How was it measured? The ultimatum game of Guth, Schmittberger and Schwarze (1982), the dictator game of Forsythe et al. (1994), the cross-cultural study of Henrich et al. (2005), and the chimpanzee study of Jensen, Call and Tomasello (2007). Why is it important? Fairness is not a luxury — people pay, with their own money, to punish an unfair split. What explanations are supported? Inequity aversion, plus reputation: rejecting an unfair offer teaches the other side what you will accept next time. What remains unknown? How the one-shot, anonymous, windfall-money game maps onto real divisions, where the money was earned and the relationship continues. Sources: Guth, Schmittberger & Schwarze (1982); Forsythe et al. (1994); Camerer (2003); Henrich et al. (2005); Jensen, Call & Tomasello (2007), Science; Fehr & Schmidt (1999).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>489</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Least Skilled Are Often the Most Certain</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-least-skilled-are-often-the-most-certain--76044985</link><description><![CDATA[In 1995, a man robbed two banks with lemon juice on his face, believing it would make him invisible to the cameras. Michel follows the Dunning-Kruger effect from Kruger and Dunning's 1999 study — where the lowest performers thought they were above average — to the finding that the famous chart is a fabrication and the real effect is smaller, and still real, than the meme. What was observed? Participants in the bottom quarter scored at the twelfth percentile and estimated themselves at the sixty-second; the top quarter underestimated themselves. How was it measured? Kruger and Dunning (1999), four studies of humour, grammar and logical reasoning, and a 2020 reanalysis of nine hundred and twenty-nine people. Why is it important? The skills needed to do something well are the skills needed to judge whether you are doing it well. What explanations are supported? The dual burden of incompetence and impaired metacognition — plus a statistical artefact (regression to the mean and the better-than-average effect) that explains part, but not all, of the pattern. What remains unknown? The exact size of the genuine effect once the artefact is fully removed. Sources: Kruger & Dunning (1999); Nuhfer et al. (2016, 2017); Gignac & Zajenkowski (2020); Krueger & Mueller (2002).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044985</guid><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044985/episode.mp3" length="4015909" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/3168b50b-8046-4645-b57d-f0a469c5a1c2/3168b50b-8046-4645-b57d-f0a469c5a1c2.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/3168b50b-8046-4645-b57d-f0a469c5a1c2/3168b50b-8046-4645-b57d-f0a469c5a1c2.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/3168b50b-8046-4645-b57d-f0a469c5a1c2/3168b50b-8046-4645-b57d-f0a469c5a1c2.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In 1995, a man robbed two banks with lemon juice on his face, believing it would make him invisible to the cameras. Michel follows the Dunning-Kruger effect from Kruger and Dunning's 1999 study — where the lowest performers thought they were above...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In 1995, a man robbed two banks with lemon juice on his face, believing it would make him invisible to the cameras. Michel follows the Dunning-Kruger effect from Kruger and Dunning's 1999 study — where the lowest performers thought they were above average — to the finding that the famous chart is a fabrication and the real effect is smaller, and still real, than the meme. What was observed? Participants in the bottom quarter scored at the twelfth percentile and estimated themselves at the sixty-second; the top quarter underestimated themselves. How was it measured? Kruger and Dunning (1999), four studies of humour, grammar and logical reasoning, and a 2020 reanalysis of nine hundred and twenty-nine people. Why is it important? The skills needed to do something well are the skills needed to judge whether you are doing it well. What explanations are supported? The dual burden of incompetence and impaired metacognition — plus a statistical artefact (regression to the mean and the better-than-average effect) that explains part, but not all, of the pattern. What remains unknown? The exact size of the genuine effect once the artefact is fully removed. Sources: Kruger & Dunning (1999); Nuhfer et al. (2016, 2017); Gignac & Zajenkowski (2020); Krueger & Mueller (2002).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>502</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Thing You Didn't Do Hurts More</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-thing-you-didn-t-do-hurts-more--76044983</link><description><![CDATA[There is a moment you probably still think about. Not the worst thing that ever happened to you. The thing you did not do. Michel follows regret from two stockbrokers who lost the same amount of money — ninety-two percent of people said the one who acted would feel more regret — to the finding that, in the long run, the things we did not do hurt more than the things we did. What was observed? Actions generate more regret in the short term; inactions produce more regret in the long run. How was it measured? The stockbroker study by Kahneman and Tversky (1982), the review by Gilovich and Medvec (1995), and the largest regret survey ever run in the United States by Daniel Pink (2022) with four thousand four hundred and eighty-nine adults. Why is it important? The regret you feel today about a mistake will probably fade; the regret about a chance not taken will probably grow. What explanations are supported? We repair actions more than inactions; we are more certain why we acted; and unfinished goals are remembered better (the Zeigarnik effect). What remains unknown? Exactly how much of a long-term inaction regret can be closed by acting later, in a different form. Sources: Kahneman & Tversky (1982); Gilovich & Medvec (1995); Gilovich, Medvec & Kahneman (1998); Roese & Summerville (2005); Beike, Markman & Karadogan; Pink (2022), The Power of Regret.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044983</guid><pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044983/episode.mp3" length="4163557" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/9787daad-53bd-4120-8630-3757fc67e803/9787daad-53bd-4120-8630-3757fc67e803.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/9787daad-53bd-4120-8630-3757fc67e803/9787daad-53bd-4120-8630-3757fc67e803.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/9787daad-53bd-4120-8630-3757fc67e803/9787daad-53bd-4120-8630-3757fc67e803.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>There is a moment you probably still think about. Not the worst thing that ever happened to you. The thing you did not do. Michel follows regret from two stockbrokers who lost the same amount of money — ninety-two percent of people said the one who...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[There is a moment you probably still think about. Not the worst thing that ever happened to you. The thing you did not do. Michel follows regret from two stockbrokers who lost the same amount of money — ninety-two percent of people said the one who acted would feel more regret — to the finding that, in the long run, the things we did not do hurt more than the things we did. What was observed? Actions generate more regret in the short term; inactions produce more regret in the long run. How was it measured? The stockbroker study by Kahneman and Tversky (1982), the review by Gilovich and Medvec (1995), and the largest regret survey ever run in the United States by Daniel Pink (2022) with four thousand four hundred and eighty-nine adults. Why is it important? The regret you feel today about a mistake will probably fade; the regret about a chance not taken will probably grow. What explanations are supported? We repair actions more than inactions; we are more certain why we acted; and unfinished goals are remembered better (the Zeigarnik effect). What remains unknown? Exactly how much of a long-term inaction regret can be closed by acting later, in a different form. Sources: Kahneman & Tversky (1982); Gilovich & Medvec (1995); Gilovich, Medvec & Kahneman (1998); Roese & Summerville (2005); Beike, Markman & Karadogan; Pink (2022), The Power of Regret.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>521</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>You Knew the Group Was Wrong. You Agreed Anyway.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/you-knew-the-group-was-wrong-you-agreed-anyway--76044976</link><description><![CDATA[You are in a meeting. Everyone says the new plan is a good idea. You can see the flaw clearly. But when it is your turn to speak, you say it is a good idea too. Michel follows Solomon Asch's line experiment — where a unanimous group made people deny their own eyes — to the discovery that one dissenting voice breaks the spell. What was observed? On the trials where a group gave a clearly wrong answer, participants went along thirty-seven percent of the time, and three quarters conformed at least once. How was it measured? Asch's 1951 line-judgment experiment and its variations, and a 1996 meta-analysis of one hundred and thirty-three studies from seventeen countries. Why is it important? The pressure to agree is silent, and it works even when the answer is obvious. What explanations are supported? Normative influence — not wanting to be the odd one out — and informational influence — using the group as evidence — with unanimity, not group size, as the key driver. What remains unknown? How the effect plays out when the stakes are high and the group is divided, rather than in a laboratory with a trivial task. Sources: Asch (1951, 1956); Deutsch & Gerard (1955); Bond & Smith (1996); Berns et al. (2005).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044976</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044976/episode.mp3" length="4090213" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/b2de9429-1dc7-40bb-bb32-b47ccfd6f9fd/b2de9429-1dc7-40bb-bb32-b47ccfd6f9fd.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/b2de9429-1dc7-40bb-bb32-b47ccfd6f9fd/b2de9429-1dc7-40bb-bb32-b47ccfd6f9fd.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/b2de9429-1dc7-40bb-bb32-b47ccfd6f9fd/b2de9429-1dc7-40bb-bb32-b47ccfd6f9fd.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You are in a meeting. Everyone says the new plan is a good idea. You can see the flaw clearly. But when it is your turn to speak, you say it is a good idea too. Michel follows Solomon Asch's line experiment — where a unanimous group made people deny...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You are in a meeting. Everyone says the new plan is a good idea. You can see the flaw clearly. But when it is your turn to speak, you say it is a good idea too. Michel follows Solomon Asch's line experiment — where a unanimous group made people deny their own eyes — to the discovery that one dissenting voice breaks the spell. What was observed? On the trials where a group gave a clearly wrong answer, participants went along thirty-seven percent of the time, and three quarters conformed at least once. How was it measured? Asch's 1951 line-judgment experiment and its variations, and a 1996 meta-analysis of one hundred and thirty-three studies from seventeen countries. Why is it important? The pressure to agree is silent, and it works even when the answer is obvious. What explanations are supported? Normative influence — not wanting to be the odd one out — and informational influence — using the group as evidence — with unanimity, not group size, as the key driver. What remains unknown? How the effect plays out when the stakes are high and the group is divided, rather than in a laboratory with a trivial task. Sources: Asch (1951, 1956); Deutsch & Gerard (1955); Bond & Smith (1996); Berns et al. (2005).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>512</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Ending Rewrites the Whole Experience</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-ending-rewrites-the-whole-experience--76044972</link><description><![CDATA[Think of the last holiday you loved. You probably remember one afternoon and the last day. Michel follows the peak-end rule from a cold-water experiment — where most people chose the longer, more painful trial because it ended slightly better — to a hospital, where patients who endured extra minutes of a medical procedure remembered it as less unpleasant. What was observed? Memory judges an experience by its most intense moment and its ending, not by how long it lasted. How was it measured? The cold-water study by Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber and Redelmeier (1993) and the colonoscopy study by Redelmeier and Kahneman (1996) with two hundred and eighty-seven patients. Why is it important? The remembering self, not the experiencing self, decides what we repeat, recommend, or avoid. What explanations are supported? Duration neglect — the length of an experience barely affects how it is remembered — and the peak-end rule, confirmed by a 2022 meta-analysis. What remains unknown? Exactly how far the rule extends to continuous experiences without a definite beginning and end. Sources: Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber & Redelmeier (1993); Redelmeier & Kahneman (1996); Do, Rupert & Wolford (2008); Ganzach & Karsahi (2022); Baumeister et al. (2001); Kahneman (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044972</guid><pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2026 05:00:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044972/episode.mp3" length="4085797" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/5a914ea2-d4b7-4c56-92f5-bab028687b01/5a914ea2-d4b7-4c56-92f5-bab028687b01.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/5a914ea2-d4b7-4c56-92f5-bab028687b01/5a914ea2-d4b7-4c56-92f5-bab028687b01.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/5a914ea2-d4b7-4c56-92f5-bab028687b01/5a914ea2-d4b7-4c56-92f5-bab028687b01.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Think of the last holiday you loved. You probably remember one afternoon and the last day. Michel follows the peak-end rule from a cold-water experiment — where most people chose the longer, more painful trial because it ended slightly better — to a...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Think of the last holiday you loved. You probably remember one afternoon and the last day. Michel follows the peak-end rule from a cold-water experiment — where most people chose the longer, more painful trial because it ended slightly better — to a hospital, where patients who endured extra minutes of a medical procedure remembered it as less unpleasant. What was observed? Memory judges an experience by its most intense moment and its ending, not by how long it lasted. How was it measured? The cold-water study by Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber and Redelmeier (1993) and the colonoscopy study by Redelmeier and Kahneman (1996) with two hundred and eighty-seven patients. Why is it important? The remembering self, not the experiencing self, decides what we repeat, recommend, or avoid. What explanations are supported? Duration neglect — the length of an experience barely affects how it is remembered — and the peak-end rule, confirmed by a 2022 meta-analysis. What remains unknown? Exactly how far the rule extends to continuous experiences without a definite beginning and end. Sources: Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber & Redelmeier (1993); Redelmeier & Kahneman (1996); Do, Rupert & Wolford (2008); Ganzach & Karsahi (2022); Baumeister et al. (2001); Kahneman (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>511</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Being Left Out Stings Like a Bruise</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/being-left-out-stings-like-a-bruise--76044969</link><description><![CDATA[You send a message to the group chat. It is read. Nobody replies. Michel follows ostracism from a simple ball-tossing game called Cyberball — where being left out threatens belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence — to the brain's pain alarm, and to the fork in the road: some people reach for new connections, others lash out. What was observed? Being ignored hurts immediately and automatically, even when you know the other players are computer programs, even when the excluders are a group you despise. How was it measured? The Cyberball studies of Williams et al. (2000), a meta-analysis of one hundred and twenty studies, and brain imaging by Eisenberger, Lieberman and Williams (2003). Why is it important? Exclusion threatens four fundamental needs, and the response that follows depends on whether belonging or control feels recoverable. What explanations are supported? A reflexive alarm for social threat, followed by a reflective stage where people reconnect or restore control. What remains unknown? The exact map of social pain in the brain — the overlap with physical pain is real but partial, and the original scanner study had thirteen participants. Sources: Williams, Cheung & Choi (2000); Hartgerink et al. (2015); Eisenberger, Lieberman & Williams (2003), Science; Zadro, Williams & Richardson (2004); Gonsalkorale & Williams (2007); DeWall et al. (2010); Maner et al. (2007); Twenge et al. (2001); Warburton et al. (2006); Williams (2009), Annual Review of Psychology.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044969</guid><pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2026 05:00:03 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044969/episode.mp3" length="4452709" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/d5ff3037-8a69-446d-a071-8730887f554d/d5ff3037-8a69-446d-a071-8730887f554d.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/d5ff3037-8a69-446d-a071-8730887f554d/d5ff3037-8a69-446d-a071-8730887f554d.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/d5ff3037-8a69-446d-a071-8730887f554d/d5ff3037-8a69-446d-a071-8730887f554d.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You send a message to the group chat. It is read. Nobody replies. Michel follows ostracism from a simple ball-tossing game called Cyberball — where being left out threatens belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence — to the brain's pain...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You send a message to the group chat. It is read. Nobody replies. Michel follows ostracism from a simple ball-tossing game called Cyberball — where being left out threatens belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence — to the brain's pain alarm, and to the fork in the road: some people reach for new connections, others lash out. What was observed? Being ignored hurts immediately and automatically, even when you know the other players are computer programs, even when the excluders are a group you despise. How was it measured? The Cyberball studies of Williams et al. (2000), a meta-analysis of one hundred and twenty studies, and brain imaging by Eisenberger, Lieberman and Williams (2003). Why is it important? Exclusion threatens four fundamental needs, and the response that follows depends on whether belonging or control feels recoverable. What explanations are supported? A reflexive alarm for social threat, followed by a reflective stage where people reconnect or restore control. What remains unknown? The exact map of social pain in the brain — the overlap with physical pain is real but partial, and the original scanner study had thirteen participants. Sources: Williams, Cheung & Choi (2000); Hartgerink et al. (2015); Eisenberger, Lieberman & Williams (2003), Science; Zadro, Williams & Richardson (2004); Gonsalkorale & Williams (2007); DeWall et al. (2010); Maner et al. (2007); Twenge et al. (2001); Warburton et al. (2006); Williams (2009), Annual Review of Psychology.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>557</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The First Number You Heard Is Still Deciding for You</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-first-number-you-heard-is-still-deciding-for-you--76044963</link><description><![CDATA[A jacket marked down from four hundred dollars to one hundred and twenty feels like a bargain, even though you never wanted the jacket. Michel follows the anchoring effect from a rigged wheel of fortune — ten versus sixty-five moved estimates about the United Nations from twenty-five to forty-five percent — through real estate agents and judges who anchored on numbers they knew were meaningless, to the two checks that reveal when a first number is deciding for you. What was observed? The first number in a decision drags judgments toward itself, even when it is random. How was it measured? The wheel of fortune study by Tversky and Kahneman (1974), the real estate study by Northcraft and Neale (1987), and the loaded-dice sentencing study by Englich, Mussweiler and Strack (2006). Why is it important? Decisions are often made at the beginning, by the first number that arrives. What explanations are supported? Insufficient adjustment from the anchor, plus selective accessibility — testing the anchor activates anchor-consistent evidence. What remains unknown? Exactly how much expertise and explicit warnings can reduce the effect in high-stakes real decisions. Sources: Tversky & Kahneman (1974), Science; Northcraft & Neale (1987); Englich, Mussweiler & Strack (2006); Chapman & Johnson (1999); Critcher & Gilovich (2008); Furnham & Boo (2011).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044963</guid><pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2026 05:00:04 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044963/episode.mp3" length="4032421" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/dc32ee99-515c-4650-86c0-a7f34a12c972/dc32ee99-515c-4650-86c0-a7f34a12c972.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/dc32ee99-515c-4650-86c0-a7f34a12c972/dc32ee99-515c-4650-86c0-a7f34a12c972.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/dc32ee99-515c-4650-86c0-a7f34a12c972/dc32ee99-515c-4650-86c0-a7f34a12c972.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>A jacket marked down from four hundred dollars to one hundred and twenty feels like a bargain, even though you never wanted the jacket. Michel follows the anchoring effect from a rigged wheel of fortune — ten versus sixty-five moved estimates about...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[A jacket marked down from four hundred dollars to one hundred and twenty feels like a bargain, even though you never wanted the jacket. Michel follows the anchoring effect from a rigged wheel of fortune — ten versus sixty-five moved estimates about the United Nations from twenty-five to forty-five percent — through real estate agents and judges who anchored on numbers they knew were meaningless, to the two checks that reveal when a first number is deciding for you. What was observed? The first number in a decision drags judgments toward itself, even when it is random. How was it measured? The wheel of fortune study by Tversky and Kahneman (1974), the real estate study by Northcraft and Neale (1987), and the loaded-dice sentencing study by Englich, Mussweiler and Strack (2006). Why is it important? Decisions are often made at the beginning, by the first number that arrives. What explanations are supported? Insufficient adjustment from the anchor, plus selective accessibility — testing the anchor activates anchor-consistent evidence. What remains unknown? Exactly how much expertise and explicit warnings can reduce the effect in high-stakes real decisions. Sources: Tversky & Kahneman (1974), Science; Northcraft & Neale (1987); Englich, Mussweiler & Strack (2006); Chapman & Johnson (1999); Critcher & Gilovich (2008); Furnham & Boo (2011).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>505</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Guilt Wants to Fix It. Shame Wants to Hide.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/guilt-wants-to-fix-it-shame-wants-to-hide--76044956</link><description><![CDATA[The same mistake, two different evenings. In one, you apologise and fix it. In the other, you hide for a week. Michel follows the difference between guilt and shame through the research of June Tangney — guilt says I did something bad, shame says I am bad — the attribution structure behind each, the daycare fine study, and the two motives hidden inside shame that decide whether it drives repair or withdrawal. What was observed? Guilt-proneness predicts empathy and repair; shame-proneness predicts anger, blame and withdrawal. How was it measured? Decades of self-conscious emotion research, scenario studies and longitudinal work. Why is it important? The feeling that looks like taking responsibility is often the one that prevents it. What explanations are supported? Guilt targets a specific, controllable behaviour; shame targets the whole self. What remains unknown? Exactly how the restore and protect motives trade off in real relationships over time. Sources: Tangney & Dearing (2002); Tracy & Robins (2006); Tangney, Stuewig & Mashek (2007); Gneezy & Rustichini (2000); de Hooge, Zeelenberg & Breugelmans (2010).]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044956</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2026 05:00:03 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044956/episode.mp3" length="4588645" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/9fbda10d-2a5f-4c09-ba2a-1dda25268d71/9fbda10d-2a5f-4c09-ba2a-1dda25268d71.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/9fbda10d-2a5f-4c09-ba2a-1dda25268d71/9fbda10d-2a5f-4c09-ba2a-1dda25268d71.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/9fbda10d-2a5f-4c09-ba2a-1dda25268d71/9fbda10d-2a5f-4c09-ba2a-1dda25268d71.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>The same mistake, two different evenings. In one, you apologise and fix it. In the other, you hide for a week. Michel follows the difference between guilt and shame through the research of June Tangney — guilt says I did something bad, shame says I am...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[The same mistake, two different evenings. In one, you apologise and fix it. In the other, you hide for a week. Michel follows the difference between guilt and shame through the research of June Tangney — guilt says I did something bad, shame says I am bad — the attribution structure behind each, the daycare fine study, and the two motives hidden inside shame that decide whether it drives repair or withdrawal. What was observed? Guilt-proneness predicts empathy and repair; shame-proneness predicts anger, blame and withdrawal. How was it measured? Decades of self-conscious emotion research, scenario studies and longitudinal work. Why is it important? The feeling that looks like taking responsibility is often the one that prevents it. What explanations are supported? Guilt targets a specific, controllable behaviour; shame targets the whole self. What remains unknown? Exactly how the restore and protect motives trade off in real relationships over time. Sources: Tangney & Dearing (2002); Tracy & Robins (2006); Tangney, Stuewig & Mashek (2007); Gneezy & Rustichini (2000); de Hooge, Zeelenberg & Breugelmans (2010).]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>574</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Room Wasn't Watching You</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-room-wasn-t-watching-you--76044949</link><description><![CDATA[You spill coffee down your shirt and you are certain the whole room saw it. Michel follows the spotlight effect from a Cornell experiment — students in an embarrassing Barry Manilow T-shirt guessed half the room noticed, when only about a quarter did — through the anchoring mechanism behind it, its sibling the illusion of transparency, and two practical checks for the next time you feel watched. What was observed? People overestimate how much others notice their appearance and behaviour, by about double. How was it measured? The Barry Manilow T-shirt experiment and group-discussion studies by Gilovich, Medvec and Savitsky (2000). Why is it important? The feeling of being watched shapes what we dare to do in public. What explanations are supported? Egocentric anchoring with insufficient adjustment — we start from our own vivid experience and dial it down too little. What remains unknown? Exactly how the effect varies across cultures and in online settings, where the audience is invisible. Sources: Gilovich, Medvec & Savitsky (2000), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Gilovich, Savitsky & Medvec (1998) on the illusion of transparency.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/76044949</guid><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2026 07:01:11 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/76044949/episode.mp3" length="4087717" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/c3b7ef9a-c399-4a35-abaf-70d92e93cecd/c3b7ef9a-c399-4a35-abaf-70d92e93cecd.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/c3b7ef9a-c399-4a35-abaf-70d92e93cecd/c3b7ef9a-c399-4a35-abaf-70d92e93cecd.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/c3b7ef9a-c399-4a35-abaf-70d92e93cecd/c3b7ef9a-c399-4a35-abaf-70d92e93cecd.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You spill coffee down your shirt and you are certain the whole room saw it. Michel follows the spotlight effect from a Cornell experiment — students in an embarrassing Barry Manilow T-shirt guessed half the room noticed, when only about a quarter did...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You spill coffee down your shirt and you are certain the whole room saw it. Michel follows the spotlight effect from a Cornell experiment — students in an embarrassing Barry Manilow T-shirt guessed half the room noticed, when only about a quarter did — through the anchoring mechanism behind it, its sibling the illusion of transparency, and two practical checks for the next time you feel watched. What was observed? People overestimate how much others notice their appearance and behaviour, by about double. How was it measured? The Barry Manilow T-shirt experiment and group-discussion studies by Gilovich, Medvec and Savitsky (2000). Why is it important? The feeling of being watched shapes what we dare to do in public. What explanations are supported? Egocentric anchoring with insufficient adjustment — we start from our own vivid experience and dial it down too little. What remains unknown? Exactly how the effect varies across cultures and in online settings, where the audience is invisible. Sources: Gilovich, Medvec & Savitsky (2000), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Gilovich, Savitsky & Medvec (1998) on the illusion of transparency.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>511</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,attraction,behavioral science,cognitive biases,cognitive psychology,cognitive science,decision making,emotions,human behavior,human nature,human relationships,identity,memory,motivation,psychology,relationships,social behavior,social psychology,social sciences,trust</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/a5af74946e619db8c869aeae7519ce8e.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Your Hand Reaches for the Phone Before You Decide to Check It</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/your-hand-reaches-for-the-phone-before-you-decide-to-check-it--75798179</link><description><![CDATA[You unlock your phone.<br />Nothing important is there.<br />You put it down.<br />A few minutes later, you pick it up again.<br />Sometimes there was no notification. Sometimes you were not even bored. Your hand simply moved before you consciously decided that you wanted anything.<br />This episode explores the psychology of habitual smartphone checking: how repeated behaviors become tied to cues, why notifications can interrupt attention even when we do not respond to them, and why frequent checking should not automatically be labeled addiction.<br />Most importantly, we look at a more useful way to regain control: not by fighting your phone with willpower all day, but by changing the conditions that keep inviting the habit to begin.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/75798179</guid><pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2026 01:25:01 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/75798179/your_hand_reaches_for_the_phone_before_you_decide_to_check_it_081617.mp3" length="6392311" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/629ae3f7-853c-495d-a520-14db0ca6e172/629ae3f7-853c-495d-a520-14db0ca6e172.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/629ae3f7-853c-495d-a520-14db0ca6e172/629ae3f7-853c-495d-a520-14db0ca6e172.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/629ae3f7-853c-495d-a520-14db0ca6e172/629ae3f7-853c-495d-a520-14db0ca6e172.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You unlock your phone.
Nothing important is there.
You put it down.
A few minutes later, you pick it up again.
Sometimes there was no notification. Sometimes you were not even bored. Your hand simply moved before you consciously decided that you...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You unlock your phone.<br />Nothing important is there.<br />You put it down.<br />A few minutes later, you pick it up again.<br />Sometimes there was no notification. Sometimes you were not even bored. Your hand simply moved before you consciously decided that you wanted anything.<br />This episode explores the psychology of habitual smartphone checking: how repeated behaviors become tied to cues, why notifications can interrupt attention even when we do not respond to them, and why frequent checking should not automatically be labeled addiction.<br />Most importantly, we look at a more useful way to regain control: not by fighting your phone with willpower all day, but by changing the conditions that keep inviting the habit to begin.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>400</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attention,automatic,behavior,behavioral,checking,cognitive,digital,distraction,documentary,habits,human,nature,notifications,phone,podcast,psychology,science,smartphone</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The More You Push Someone, the More They May Want to Resist</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-more-you-push-someone-the-more-they-may-want-to-resist--75798095</link><description><![CDATA[Sometimes the fastest way to make someone resist an idea is to push it too hard.<br />A parent says, “You have to do this.” A partner says, “You need to change.” A manager says, “There is no discussion.” Even when the advice is reasonable, something inside us can immediately push back.<br />This episode explores psychological reactance: the motivational response that can appear when people feel their freedom to choose is being restricted. We examine why controlling language can make good advice less persuasive, why some people are more reactant than others, and how preserving autonomy can sometimes make change more likely.<br />The lesson is not to avoid influence. It is to understand that humans do not only evaluate what you are asking them to do. They also evaluate whether they still feel free to choose.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/75798095</guid><pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2026 01:15:02 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/75798095/the_more_you_push_someone_the_more_they_may_want_to_resist_080829.mp3" length="9488553" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/5abd9a3c-feba-4a76-abab-5812ab1b5713/5abd9a3c-feba-4a76-abab-5812ab1b5713.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/5abd9a3c-feba-4a76-abab-5812ab1b5713/5abd9a3c-feba-4a76-abab-5812ab1b5713.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/5abd9a3c-feba-4a76-abab-5812ab1b5713/5abd9a3c-feba-4a76-abab-5812ab1b5713.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Sometimes the fastest way to make someone resist an idea is to push it too hard.
A parent says, “You have to do this.” A partner says, “You need to change.” A manager says, “There is no discussion.” Even when the advice is reasonable, something inside...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Sometimes the fastest way to make someone resist an idea is to push it too hard.<br />A parent says, “You have to do this.” A partner says, “You need to change.” A manager says, “There is no discussion.” Even when the advice is reasonable, something inside us can immediately push back.<br />This episode explores psychological reactance: the motivational response that can appear when people feel their freedom to choose is being restricted. We examine why controlling language can make good advice less persuasive, why some people are more reactant than others, and how preserving autonomy can sometimes make change more likely.<br />The lesson is not to avoid influence. It is to understand that humans do not only evaluate what you are asking them to do. They also evaluate whether they still feel free to choose.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>594</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>autonomy,behavior,behavioral,communication,decision,human,making,nature,parenting,persuasion,podcast,psychological,psychology,reactance,relationships,resistance,science,social,to,workplace</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>You Can Remember It Clearly and Still Be Wrong</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/you-can-remember-it-clearly-and-still-be-wrong--75271595</link><description><![CDATA[Sometimes a memory does not feel uncertain at all.<br />You can see the room. You remember the words. You know where someone was standing. You may even be willing to argue that it happened exactly that way.<br />But confidence and accuracy are not identical.<br />In this episode, we explore how memories are reconstructed, how information encountered after an event can influence later recollection, why repeated remembering can change what feels familiar, and why a vivid memory should not automatically be treated as a perfect record of the past.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/75271595</guid><pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 02:47:42 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/75271595/you_can_remember_it_clearly_and_still_be_wrong_094242.mp3" length="10529689" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/8617f3d9-0559-428c-8452-430b3ad36973/8617f3d9-0559-428c-8452-430b3ad36973.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/8617f3d9-0559-428c-8452-430b3ad36973/8617f3d9-0559-428c-8452-430b3ad36973.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/8617f3d9-0559-428c-8452-430b3ad36973/8617f3d9-0559-428c-8452-430b3ad36973.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Sometimes a memory does not feel uncertain at all.
You can see the room. You remember the words. You know where someone was standing. You may even be willing to argue that it happened exactly that way.
But confidence and accuracy are not identical.
In...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Sometimes a memory does not feel uncertain at all.<br />You can see the room. You remember the words. You know where someone was standing. You may even be willing to argue that it happened exactly that way.<br />But confidence and accuracy are not identical.<br />In this episode, we explore how memories are reconstructed, how information encountered after an event can influence later recollection, why repeated remembering can change what feels familiar, and why a vivid memory should not automatically be treated as a perfect record of the past.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>659</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>accuracy,autobiographical,behavior,behavioral,cognitive,confidence,documentary,effect,eyewitness,false,human,memory,misinformation,one,podcast,psychology,science,voice</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Apology, Self-Protection and the Psychology of Taking Responsibility</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/apology-self-protection-and-the-psychology-of-taking-responsibility--75086458</link><description><![CDATA[Sometimes a memory does not feel uncertain at all.<br />You can see the room. You remember the words. You know where someone was standing. You may even be willing to argue that it happened exactly that way.<br />But confidence and accuracy are not identical.<br />In this episode, we explore how memories are reconstructed, how information encountered after an event can influence later recollection, why repeated remembering can change what feels familiar, and why a vivid memory should not automatically be treated as a perfect record of the past.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/75086458</guid><pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2026 09:18:46 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/75086458/you_can_remember_it_clearly_and_still_be_wrong_161353.mp3" length="10633343" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/471a9e2e-93de-4118-bf6a-7571fb0c2d6f/471a9e2e-93de-4118-bf6a-7571fb0c2d6f.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/471a9e2e-93de-4118-bf6a-7571fb0c2d6f/471a9e2e-93de-4118-bf6a-7571fb0c2d6f.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/471a9e2e-93de-4118-bf6a-7571fb0c2d6f/471a9e2e-93de-4118-bf6a-7571fb0c2d6f.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Sometimes a memory does not feel uncertain at all.
You can see the room. You remember the words. You know where someone was standing. You may even be willing to argue that it happened exactly that way.
But confidence and accuracy are not identical.
In...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Sometimes a memory does not feel uncertain at all.<br />You can see the room. You remember the words. You know where someone was standing. You may even be willing to argue that it happened exactly that way.<br />But confidence and accuracy are not identical.<br />In this episode, we explore how memories are reconstructed, how information encountered after an event can influence later recollection, why repeated remembering can change what feels familiar, and why a vivid memory should not automatically be treated as a perfect record of the past.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>665</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>accuracy,autobiographical,behavior,behavioral,cognitive,confidence,documentary,effect,eyewitness,false,human,memory,misinformation,one,podcast,psychology,science,voice</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Sometimes We Stay Because Leaving Would Make the Past Feel Wasted</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/sometimes-we-stay-because-leaving-would-make-the-past-feel-wasted--73848050</link><description><![CDATA[You have already invested the money. The years are gone. The effort cannot be recovered. And yet those very losses can make walking away feel almost impossible.<br />This episode explores the sunk cost effect, the tendency for past investments of time, money, or effort to influence decisions that should ideally depend on what happens next. We look at why people continue with failing plans, relationships, purchases, and projects, and why quitting can feel like admitting that everything before it was wasted.<br />Sometimes the question is not whether the past mattered. It is whether the past should be allowed to decide the future.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73848050</guid><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 13:49:31 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73848050/sometimes_we_stay_because_leaving_would_make_the_past_feel_wasted_204637.mp3" length="6861679" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/cb4ed1ff-7dc1-4158-9ce3-583da2a26f7d/cb4ed1ff-7dc1-4158-9ce3-583da2a26f7d.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/cb4ed1ff-7dc1-4158-9ce3-583da2a26f7d/cb4ed1ff-7dc1-4158-9ce3-583da2a26f7d.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/cb4ed1ff-7dc1-4158-9ce3-583da2a26f7d/cb4ed1ff-7dc1-4158-9ce3-583da2a26f7d.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You have already invested the money. The years are gone. The effort cannot be recovered. And yet those very losses can make walking away feel almost impossible.
This episode explores the sunk cost effect, the tendency for past investments of time,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You have already invested the money. The years are gone. The effort cannot be recovered. And yet those very losses can make walking away feel almost impossible.<br />This episode explores the sunk cost effect, the tendency for past investments of time, money, or effort to influence decisions that should ideally depend on what happens next. We look at why people continue with failing plans, relationships, purchases, and projects, and why quitting can feel like admitting that everything before it was wasted.<br />Sometimes the question is not whether the past mattered. It is whether the past should be allowed to decide the future.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>429</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>aversion,behavior,behavioral,bias,cognitive,cost,decision,documentary,effect,fallacy,human,loss,making,nature,one,persistence,podcast,psychology,science,sunk</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>There Is Always Someone Doing Better</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/there-is-always-someone-doing-better--73847867</link><description><![CDATA[Humans have always compared themselves with other people. What changed is the size of the crowd.<br />Today, we can compare our homes with millionaires, our bodies with professional athletes, and our careers with the most successful people our age in a matter of minutes.<br />This episode explores how social media can amplify upward comparison, why envy sometimes contains useful information, why the comparison target keeps moving, and what happens when visible achievements become the scoreboard for an entire life.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73847867</guid><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 13:44:13 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73847867/there_is_always_someone_doing_better_204109.mp3" length="7068569" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/32c726ce-8eb4-4239-8a9a-086895cbad28/32c726ce-8eb4-4239-8a9a-086895cbad28.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/32c726ce-8eb4-4239-8a9a-086895cbad28/32c726ce-8eb4-4239-8a9a-086895cbad28.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/32c726ce-8eb4-4239-8a9a-086895cbad28/32c726ce-8eb4-4239-8a9a-086895cbad28.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>Humans have always compared themselves with other people. What changed is the size of the crowd.
Today, we can compare our homes with millionaires, our bodies with professional athletes, and our careers with the most successful people our age in a...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Humans have always compared themselves with other people. What changed is the size of the crowd.<br />Today, we can compare our homes with millionaires, our bodies with professional athletes, and our careers with the most successful people our age in a matter of minutes.<br />This episode explores how social media can amplify upward comparison, why envy sometimes contains useful information, why the comparison target keeps moving, and what happens when visible achievements become the scoreboard for an entire life.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>442</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>behavior,behavioral,comparison,documentary,envy,esteem,evaluation,human,media,nature,podcast,psychology,science,self,social,upward</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Someone Else's Life Can Make Ours Feel Smaller</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/someone-else-s-life-can-make-ours-feel-smaller--73847785</link><description><![CDATA[You can feel perfectly satisfied with your life until you see someone else doing better.<br />A friend earns more. A former classmate buys a house. Someone your age seems more successful. Suddenly, nothing about your own life has changed, yet it feels different.<br />This episode explores why humans use other people as reference points, how upward and downward comparison shape self evaluation, and why the same comparison can motivate one person while making another feel inadequate.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73847785</guid><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 13:40:37 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73847785/someone_else_s_life_can_make_ours_feel_smaller_203751.mp3" length="5752416" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/51d1aac5-7054-4eb0-b63a-8cd9a365f4a4/51d1aac5-7054-4eb0-b63a-8cd9a365f4a4.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/51d1aac5-7054-4eb0-b63a-8cd9a365f4a4/51d1aac5-7054-4eb0-b63a-8cd9a365f4a4.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/51d1aac5-7054-4eb0-b63a-8cd9a365f4a4/51d1aac5-7054-4eb0-b63a-8cd9a365f4a4.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You can feel perfectly satisfied with your life until you see someone else doing better.
A friend earns more. A former classmate buys a house. Someone your age seems more successful. Suddenly, nothing about your own life has changed, yet it feels...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You can feel perfectly satisfied with your life until you see someone else doing better.<br />A friend earns more. A former classmate buys a house. Someone your age seems more successful. Suddenly, nothing about your own life has changed, yet it feels different.<br />This episode explores why humans use other people as reference points, how upward and downward comparison shape self evaluation, and why the same comparison can motivate one person while making another feel inadequate.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>360</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>behavior,behavioral,comparison,documentary,downward,evaluation,human,nature,podcast,psychology,science,self,social,upward</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Familiar Things Begin to Feel Like They Belong</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/familiar-things-begin-to-feel-like-they-belong--73833278</link><description><![CDATA[A song sounds ordinary the first time you hear it. A few weeks later, you know the rhythm. Then one day, without quite knowing when it happened, you realize you like it.<br />This episode explores the psychology of familiarity and the mere exposure effect, the well-established tendency for repeated exposure to sometimes increase liking. We examine why familiar faces, sounds, places, and ideas can begin to feel more comfortable, why repetition does not work indefinitely, and why familiarity should never be confused with truth, quality, or trustworthiness.<br />Some of the things we love may have won us over not because they changed, but because they slowly stopped feeling unfamiliar.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73833278</guid><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 03:41:08 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73833278/familiar_things_begin_to_feel_like_they_belong_103425.mp3" length="15856579" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/fee00c57-1ce3-45df-b9a6-c86a1749e65a/fee00c57-1ce3-45df-b9a6-c86a1749e65a.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/fee00c57-1ce3-45df-b9a6-c86a1749e65a/fee00c57-1ce3-45df-b9a6-c86a1749e65a.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/fee00c57-1ce3-45df-b9a6-c86a1749e65a/fee00c57-1ce3-45df-b9a6-c86a1749e65a.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>A song sounds ordinary the first time you hear it. A few weeks later, you know the rhythm. Then one day, without quite knowing when it happened, you realize you like it.
This episode explores the psychology of familiarity and the mere exposure effect,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[A song sounds ordinary the first time you hear it. A few weeks later, you know the rhythm. Then one day, without quite knowing when it happened, you realize you like it.<br />This episode explores the psychology of familiarity and the mere exposure effect, the well-established tendency for repeated exposure to sometimes increase liking. We examine why familiar faces, sounds, places, and ideas can begin to feel more comfortable, why repetition does not work indefinitely, and why familiarity should never be confused with truth, quality, or trustworthiness.<br />Some of the things we love may have won us over not because they changed, but because they slowly stopped feeling unfamiliar.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>992</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>attraction,behavior,behavioral,cognitive,decision,documentary,effect,exposure,familiarity,formation,human,making,mere,nature,podcast,preference,psychology,repetition,science,social</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>The Mind Prefers a Story That Already Fits</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-mind-prefers-a-story-that-already-fits--73832863</link><description><![CDATA[You believe a coworker dislikes you. One morning, they walk past without saying hello. You notice immediately. Later that day, they smile, ask how you are doing, and offer to help with something. Somehow, that evidence feels less important.<br />This episode explores confirmation bias, the human tendency to search for, notice, interpret, or weigh information in ways that can support what we already believe. We examine why prior beliefs influence what information we seek, why contradictory evidence can receive less attention, and why simply knowing that biases exist does not automatically make us immune to them.<br />The uncomfortable truth is that being intelligent does not prevent us from seeing what we expected to see.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73832863</guid><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 03:31:10 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73832863/the_mind_prefers_a_story_that_already_fits_102437.mp3" length="14893601" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/15befaeb-aec8-4f84-ac7c-ad29213a418a/15befaeb-aec8-4f84-ac7c-ad29213a418a.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/15befaeb-aec8-4f84-ac7c-ad29213a418a/15befaeb-aec8-4f84-ac7c-ad29213a418a.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/15befaeb-aec8-4f84-ac7c-ad29213a418a/15befaeb-aec8-4f84-ac7c-ad29213a418a.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You believe a coworker dislikes you. One morning, they walk past without saying hello. You notice immediately. Later that day, they smile, ask how you are doing, and offer to help with something. Somehow, that evidence feels less important.
This...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You believe a coworker dislikes you. One morning, they walk past without saying hello. You notice immediately. Later that day, they smile, ask how you are doing, and offer to help with something. Somehow, that evidence feels less important.<br />This episode explores confirmation bias, the human tendency to search for, notice, interpret, or weigh information in ways that can support what we already believe. We examine why prior beliefs influence what information we seek, why contradictory evidence can receive less attention, and why simply knowing that biases exist does not automatically make us immune to them.<br />The uncomfortable truth is that being intelligent does not prevent us from seeing what we expected to see.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>931</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>behavior,behavioral,belief,bias,cognitive,confirmation,critical,decision,documentary,exposure,formation,human,making,nature,podcast,psychology,science,selective,social,thinking</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Before We Know Someone, We Have Already Decided Who They Are</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/before-we-know-someone-we-have-already-decided-who-they-are--73832581</link><description><![CDATA[You meet someone for the first time. Before you know what they believe, how they treat their friends, or what they are like on a difficult day, your mind has already begun building a picture of them.<br />This episode explores how quickly first impressions can form, why appearance, expression, context, and early information can influence the way we judge strangers, and why later evidence does not always erase an initial impression as easily as we might expect.<br />First impressions can be useful shortcuts. The problem begins when a quick guess quietly turns into certainty.<br />]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/73832581</guid><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 03:21:12 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/73832581/before_we_know_someone_we_have_already_decided_who_they_are_100318.mp3" length="11620563" type="audio/mpeg"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/353bb966-8e4f-4d8f-bff3-2046662c2af7/353bb966-8e4f-4d8f-bff3-2046662c2af7.srt" type="application/x-subrip" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/353bb966-8e4f-4d8f-bff3-2046662c2af7/353bb966-8e4f-4d8f-bff3-2046662c2af7.txt" type="text/plain" language="en"/><podcast:transcript url="https://transcription.spreaker.com/starship/353bb966-8e4f-4d8f-bff3-2046662c2af7/353bb966-8e4f-4d8f-bff3-2046662c2af7.vtt" type="text/vtt" language="en"/><itunes:author>Michel Black</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>You meet someone for the first time. Before you know what they believe, how they treat their friends, or what they are like on a difficult day, your mind has already begun building a picture of them.
This episode explores how quickly first impressions...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[You meet someone for the first time. Before you know what they believe, how they treat their friends, or what they are like on a difficult day, your mind has already begun building a picture of them.<br />This episode explores how quickly first impressions can form, why appearance, expression, context, and early information can influence the way we judge strangers, and why later evidence does not always erase an initial impression as easily as we might expect.<br />First impressions can be useful shortcuts. The problem begins when a quick guess quietly turns into certainty.<br />]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>727</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>behavior,behavioral,bias,cognition,cognitive,effect,first,formation,halo,human,impression,impressions,nature,perception,person,podcast,psychology,science,social,trustworthiness</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>false</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/80afdb9c6514a2eb1453a3341382800d.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item></channel></rss>
