0:00

Saudi Arabia's economy is transforming.

0:03

What's behind it? The public investment

0:05

fund, 0PIF It's one of

0:07

the largest sovereign wealth funds in the

0:09

world, creating thirteen new sectors,

0:12

sixty six companies, and more than five

0:14

hundred thousand direct and indirect

0:16

job so far. PIF is also

0:19

the first sovereign wealth fund to issue

0:21

a green bond supporting Saudi Arabia's

0:23

twenty sixty net zero emissions

0:25

target. Find out more at PIF

0:28

dot gov dot s a.

0:36

Hello. I'm Anne Nicole Voie. And

0:38

since twenty fifteen, I've had the pleasure

0:40

of introducing nearly four hundred episodes

0:43

of The Economist asks and still

0:45

so young. This week, however, will

0:48

be my last on this show. And

0:50

thank you to all who have over the years

0:52

listen to our conversations with some of the world's

0:55

greatest thinkers, politicians, artists,

0:58

and business leaders. Looking back,

1:00

I've traveled from London to Saint Petersburg

1:02

in Berlin, from Shanghai to

1:04

New York, and to the snow

1:06

capped peaks of Davos. Alongside

1:09

my glamorous life, my team and I have

1:11

pulled together shows from far

1:13

flung studios, including a hip

1:15

hop hangout in Harlem, a

1:18

water tower dungeon in Hamburg

1:20

and from under a lot of duvets

1:22

in lockdown and you've been there

1:25

all the way. So for this

1:27

my final episode, we've dug through

1:29

the archives and picked out a favorite show from

1:31

this year. My interview with Organizational

1:33

Psychologist, Adam Grant, and

1:35

I asked him how he can learn to disagree

1:38

better, which I reckon is a fitting tribute

1:41

to the economist asks Quest to

1:43

engage in the debates We all

1:45

need to have. We hope you enjoy this episode.

1:52

Argument is key to human

1:54

communication. Since

1:57

the classical Western philosophers tussled

1:59

in the agoras and forums of ancient Greece

2:01

and Rome, it's how the foundations of

2:03

democracy, law, and science were

2:05

agreed on. Debit and dialogue

2:08

became cornerstones of civilization and

2:10

we've continued the great tradition of positing

2:12

and postulating for

2:13

centuries. But in an age of

2:16

polarization on everything from politics

2:18

to pandemics, this county of

2:19

opportunity for disagreement and

2:22

and senator Paul, you do not know what

2:24

you are talking about.

2:25

Officer Vladimir Fenol in orders. Vladimir

2:28

Fenol.

2:29

And to do so, Nadir. Alright.

2:32

There's party of welcome. Come

2:35

in.

2:39

This is the Economist ask Simon

2:41

McAlvo in this week we're asking, can

2:43

we learn to disagree better?

2:46

My guest is the organizational psychologist,

2:49

Adam Grant. He's professor at

2:51

The Wharton School of the University of

2:53

Pennsylvania, and author of several

2:55

bestselling books on success and innovation.

2:58

He's also so host of the dead broadcast work

3:00

life. Carter spent years

3:02

studying how to sharpen our argument

3:05

literacy, and he thinks that somewhere

3:07

along the way we've lost not only the

3:09

art of arguing well, but the

3:11

ability to disagree productively.

3:14

Adam Grant, welcome to The Economist

3:16

asks. Thank

3:20

you, Anne. It's great to be here as a psychologist.

3:23

I'm interested as we're going

3:25

to talk about good argument, bad and

3:27

the difference between them, I was about

3:29

to say only good argument on this show and you'll

3:31

say, We'll be the judge of that.

3:34

Why do humans? Why do

3:36

we argue in the first place? I

3:38

actually think there's a fascinating case to

3:40

be made that we argue not

3:42

to win, but to reason. It

3:44

turns out that we make better

3:46

arguments when we're disagreeing

3:48

with other people. Than we do

3:50

often when we're thinking for ourselves. And

3:53

there are at least some evolutionary psychologists

3:55

who believe that The whole purpose of arguing

3:58

is to to sharpen our ability

4:00

to bring logic and evidence

4:02

to the table as opposed to just relying

4:04

on our intuitions and uninformed

4:06

opinions in our heads.

4:07

Have you always been interested in argument?

4:10

And as a practitioner, and all of us

4:12

have arguments of some sort or another

4:14

varying volumes. Have you ever

4:16

always been someone who liked an argument

4:18

or were you more of a conflict

4:21

of void until you started to look at this

4:23

in more detail?

4:24

I hated arguments growing up.

4:27

I avoided them. I was taught that it was impolite

4:29

to disagree. That

4:31

when I had an argument to make that I

4:33

should keep it to myself in

4:35

many situations. And

4:38

I felt like my job was to keep the peace.

4:40

don't know if it's because my parents got divorced

4:43

or or whether I I

4:45

have a genetic predisposition toward

4:47

agreeableness, probably some of both.

4:49

But I found that it was really holding

4:52

me back and that my hesitation to

4:54

disagree meant that I wasn't

4:56

honest with people around me It

4:58

meant that I learned less

5:00

from the people who disagreed with me.

5:02

And at some point, I I concluded

5:04

that It was actually bad manners

5:07

to avoid an argument because

5:09

that disrespected our ability to have

5:11

a thoughtful disagreement. And

5:13

it also it basically

5:15

dismissed the fact that I might be able to learn something

5:17

from

5:17

you, and I decided I was gonna overcome

5:20

it. It's interesting that people have very

5:22

strong. I don't wanna say hardwired because it's

5:24

probably the wrong use of that phrase here.

5:26

But I remember because my parents always

5:28

argued about current affairs very vociferously.

5:31

And the school friend coming over when we were watching

5:33

a show on the television is a quite

5:35

famous show in the UK that does that. Saying, I'm so

5:37

sorry. Your parents said that you drew. And I was like, no.

5:39

That's perfectly normal. It's what we do every Thursday

5:41

night. But it did make

5:43

me realize that the

5:45

pitch at which people argue and the way in

5:47

which people argue can land very, very differently

5:49

and this can lead to a lot of

5:51

stress in the workplace, disagreements in

5:53

the home, and between friends. So

5:55

fundamentally, what do you think makes for

5:57

a good argument and what makes for less good or

5:59

even a bad

5:59

one? Well, my first surprise was when

6:02

looking at at research on creative adults.

6:04

It turns out that they actually

6:06

grew up in families that had more frequent

6:08

disagreements. Well, I'm set for life

6:10

then. I can tell you. I mean, I'm

6:12

definitely in the right job. You

6:14

were clearly raised in the right environment to to

6:16

become an original thinker, Anne. But

6:19

it's clear that these were not

6:21

knock down drag out fist fights.

6:23

They were, you know, kind of friction. They

6:25

were people coming together to debate.

6:28

And to challenge, but doing it in a

6:30

way that fostered diversity of

6:32

thought as opposed to, you know,

6:34

silencing the the person who lost the

6:36

argument. The research also on child development

6:38

is pretty clear in in showing that it's

6:40

not how often parents argue that

6:42

matters. It's how constructively they

6:44

argue. So your parents can

6:46

disagree all the time and you're fine

6:48

as long as they make it clear that they still love each

6:50

other. And in fact, that people who love

6:52

each other are supposed to disagree. That's

6:55

at the heart of a good argument for me that

6:57

it involves what's often called task

6:59

conflict as opposed to relationship conflict.

7:01

So the arguments I was avoiding were about

7:03

relationship conflict. Which is the the

7:05

personal, emotional, I hate your

7:07

guts, and I wish you didn't exist at

7:10

the extreme. That that doesn't sound

7:12

particularly productive.

7:14

Not healthy. But that's kind of tease that

7:16

apart if we we could because your book's

7:18

called Think Again, and you put

7:20

forward the case that people should question

7:22

their opinions in order to open

7:25

someone else's mind as well as their their

7:27

own. But what leads you to

7:29

believe that people they need to

7:31

rethink their convictions, their assumptions

7:33

and learn to to argue better. I

7:35

mean, why is that

7:38

kind of approach? Better

7:40

than one in which disagreement is

7:42

rare or smoothed over. And people might think it's

7:44

a bit counterintuitive.

7:46

I think it is for some people. The thing to remember

7:48

is that if two people never

7:50

disagree, it means at least one of

7:52

them is not thinking critically or speaking

7:54

candidly. And that means

7:56

both of them are failing to learn from

7:58

the exchange that might happen between them.

8:00

I think a lot of us are taught to argue

8:02

to win. I think what we ought to

8:04

be doing is arguing to learn. And

8:07

the problem is that when a lot of people

8:09

come into a debate or a

8:11

disagreement, they lock into

8:13

preacher or prosecutor mode. So

8:15

in preacher mode, I am basically proselytizing

8:18

my views. In prosecutor mode,

8:20

I am attacking your views. And

8:22

in both cases, I've already concluded

8:24

that I'm right and you're wrong, which

8:28

in some cases will lead you to withdraw

8:30

together and disengage from the disagreement.

8:32

In other cases, when I go into prosecutor

8:34

mode, you bring your best defense

8:36

attorney to court. Right? And then we just butt

8:38

heads and neither of us is willing to change

8:40

our mind. I've been studying this for the past

8:42

few years and I've I've found that if you

8:44

can signal a little bit of humility and

8:46

curiosity, I'll tell you how I do this

8:48

personally. If we're gonna disagree, I would start

8:50

by saying, you know, Anne, I can be the

8:52

world's most annoying prosecuting

8:54

attorney. I've even been called a

8:56

logic bully which I only learned

8:58

later was not a compliment. And

9:00

I'm trying not to be that person anymore.

9:03

If you catch me doing that, please call

9:05

me out. And people do

9:07

give the feedback, which is helpful. But

9:09

also, it invites the other person to be more humble

9:11

too and say, I could actually be the most in

9:13

person on Earth, and I don't wanna be like that either.

9:15

So let me know if if you see that happening

9:17

and and we've both entered the argument

9:19

with a commitment to

9:20

openness, which is good for both of our

9:23

growth. So how should we be

9:25

approaching an argument with someone who holds

9:27

the opposite view? And did you talk about the

9:29

prosecutor, their prosecutorial

9:31

approach? And I think journalists who

9:33

do this kind of interview shows are

9:35

well aware of that. You you almost

9:37

feel you you could see the sort of bone inside. You

9:39

would hang on like a dog with the bone. But you

9:41

also then say that there is a mode which you

9:43

call the preacher. So just

9:46

distinguish if you could between

9:48

the preacher, the prosecutor. And then I

9:50

think your third category is the

9:52

politician. So the poor old politicians will

9:54

come to them in a

9:55

moment. Tell tell me about this taxonomy a

9:57

bit more. This is fascinating to me as an

9:59

organizational psychologist because I have never worked

10:01

in any of these jobs. Yet, I

10:03

have caught myself slipping into each of

10:05

these mindsets. So we've talked about the

10:07

prosecutor mode. In preacher mode, you're

10:09

basically serving your own intellectual

10:11

kool Aid. Right? And assuming that if everyone

10:14

thought just like you, the world would be a

10:16

better place. But great

10:18

minds do not think alike.

10:20

They challenge each other to think again.

10:23

And I think getting out of preacher

10:25

mode and recognizing sometimes

10:27

the harder I work to sell my own

10:29

ideas The more I

10:31

convinced myself, but the more I

10:33

alienate you is probably

10:36

something we should take into account. In

10:38

politician mode, you don't even bother to

10:40

listen to people unless you already

10:42

agree with their views or they've

10:44

already, you know, expressed approval

10:46

for yours. You're catering to your

10:48

constituents. You're trying to to

10:50

basically appeal to your existing

10:52

tribe. And that's even worse than somebody

10:54

has been preaching and prosecuting. Because

10:56

instead of saying I'm right and you're

10:57

wrong, you've concluded we're right

10:59

and they're wrong. That's the point in which

11:01

I would have a bit of a a challenge is political

11:04

journalist? Because I can understand Here we

11:06

go. I can understand why you

11:08

say that given the way that politics,

11:10

particularly in the US, but in in some

11:12

other places as well as as developed negatively in the

11:14

last few years of politicians playing

11:16

to a particular base to get over a certain

11:18

line, to get where they want to

11:20

be. But generally speaking, they

11:22

still need to appeal

11:24

to some voters who don't agree with

11:26

them. That's why we talk about swings,

11:29

isn't it? And swing voters? And if they

11:31

didn't do that, then they would

11:33

struggle. So the big political breakthroughs,

11:35

whether they've been left or right, and whether we

11:37

have a high opinion of Murillo, one would

11:39

be, for instance, people becoming

11:41

Reagan Democrats or people

11:43

voting for Bill Clinton in nineteen

11:45

ninety two. But putting the

11:47

economy, typically, at least at

11:49

that point, a subject where Republicans

11:51

often held sway at the heart

11:53

of his debate. Or

11:55

indeed, you might say Joe Biden now trying to

11:57

figure out how to bring back those working

11:59

class voters or those who felt alienated

12:01

and voted for

12:02

Trump. So I I'm not sure the politicians

12:04

are only preaching to the choir. I

12:06

think that's a good point, and I'm open

12:08

to rethinking my definition of

12:10

how people think like politicians. So

12:13

it's probably issue specific. Right? So

12:15

in the data I've gathered, there are

12:17

cases where when you're in politician

12:19

mode, you basically lock yourself in an echo

12:21

chamber. And you don't want to hear or

12:23

address alternate perspectives at

12:25

all. But I think you're describing another

12:27

flavor of thinking like a politician, which

12:30

is basically being approval

12:32

seeking to the point that you run the risk

12:34

of flip flopping. I worry a lot

12:36

about the disingenuousness of that

12:38

behavior because you

12:40

haven't actually changed your mind. You're

12:42

just, in many cases, claiming

12:44

to hold a different stance in order

12:46

to appease a new audience. And I think

12:48

there's a big difference between flip

12:50

flopping and learning. Flip

12:52

flopping is I'm gonna change what

12:54

I say but not what I think deep

12:56

down. Learning is recognizing

12:59

I have evolved my views.

13:01

Based on better reasons

13:03

or stronger data. Let's

13:05

take the greatest American president by

13:07

consensus Lincoln. If Lincoln were alive

13:09

today, Anne, he would be accused of flip

13:11

flopping. Constantly, he would be

13:13

called a hypocrite because he came into the

13:15

White House. Insisting that

13:17

he was not going to abolish

13:19

slavery because he was afraid that

13:21

it would tear the union apart. And

13:23

he thought preserving the American paramount and

13:25

maintaining this democracy was

13:27

even more important than trying

13:29

to to eliminate this important practice

13:31

of slavery And how lucky

13:33

are we that he changed his

13:34

mind? Why would you say that

13:37

now particularly is

13:39

the time for a rethink

13:41

about the way that we make arguments. Some

13:43

of these things sound like a total truth. We

13:45

sometimes put them into different ways of

13:47

describing them or have different preoccupations

13:49

and a versions. But you seem to

13:51

feel some urgency about this

13:53

moment, and I wondered what led you to

13:54

that. Part of the issue is

13:57

polarization has expanded from

13:59

all the evidence I've seen.

14:01

People are more extreme and more entrenched

14:03

now about their political views than

14:05

they were any time in the last few

14:07

decades from the data that I've seen in

14:09

the US and the UK, there's a

14:11

perception gap where Liberals

14:13

and Conservatives are clinging to

14:15

caricature of the other side

14:17

that are not rooted in reality, but

14:19

are clearly consistent with what

14:21

in psychology is called binary bias. Where

14:23

I take a complex spectrum of people

14:25

and attitudes, and I oversimplify them and

14:28

I dumb them down into two categories.

14:30

And so the people who agree with me

14:32

are smart and

14:32

right, and the people who disagree are stupid and

14:35

wrong. And I think that's really interfering with

14:37

progress. And you wrote recently about

14:39

one of the most widely debated and

14:41

busily argued topics in America at the

14:43

moment. That's Roe v. Wade. And you

14:45

describe how Liberals and Conservatives lose

14:47

their grasp for critical thinking when an

14:49

issue strikes such an emotional or a personal

14:51

court. What is it about a

14:53

mode of arguments that makes

14:55

people lose critical thinking

14:57

or it to blur into perhaps

14:59

a tendency to believe their own biases

15:02

and not sort them out from just

15:04

something that they prefer or where the other side

15:06

might have a

15:06

point. Well, there are a few things

15:08

that can go wrong. Our reasoning is

15:11

lazy, but it's selectively lazy.

15:13

So empirically, there's good evidence that

15:15

we're much more skeptical of other

15:17

people's arguments than we are of our

15:19

own, to the point where if you make

15:21

an argument and then later, I

15:23

present it back to you. But you've

15:25

forgotten that you were the one who made it.

15:27

Over half of people will reject their

15:29

own argument when they think someone else has

15:31

made it. Because they're holding the

15:33

argument now to higher standards of rigor.

15:35

When we're emotionally charged,

15:37

we choose the easiest

15:39

arguments to make. And we accept them at face

15:41

value even when we might not

15:43

if somebody else were pitching them.

15:46

There's also good evidence to suggest

15:48

that when an issue is core

15:50

to our identity. So let's say, for

15:52

example, you're somebody who believes

15:54

strongly in abortion rights.

15:56

When Rovi WAV gets overturned, that's

15:58

a threat to your core beliefs and

16:00

values. Neuroscientists have

16:02

found that when your core ideas

16:05

identities, ideologies are attacked.

16:07

You actually respond to that in

16:09

similar ways to physical pain. So it

16:11

feels like you're being punched in the mind.

16:13

And you immediately put your guard up,

16:15

which then leads you to choose the

16:17

the most available defenses instead

16:20

of perhaps ultimately the most

16:22

compelling ones.

16:23

I think Roe is a very interesting case

16:26

because it did make me wonder if

16:28

something is so critical to a person's

16:30

well-being or indeed just their

16:32

sense of What is right? What's right for

16:34

the country? Why would it not

16:36

be okay to be

16:39

actually quite difficult, even a bit

16:41

ornery in terms of

16:43

your own beliefs. Why would you

16:45

particularly want to take on the

16:47

other side's advantages? Because

16:49

it's a fight and it's a fight that matters.

16:51

So I I wanted in a way where we're beginning to

16:53

step around the fact that some people just

16:55

believe something is really right and I should

16:57

fight for it or something is really wrong and I should

16:59

fight against

17:00

it. Well, I think for two reasons,

17:02

at least, one is that there's

17:04

a risk of winning the battle and losing

17:07

the war. That you might succeed on this issue

17:09

and then alienate people

17:11

or undermine your ability to

17:13

keep having good disagreements on other

17:16

issues. Because they just conclude that you're unreasonable.

17:18

I think the second risk though

17:20

is that very few people's

17:23

beliefs are as simple

17:25

as they might let on when

17:27

they frame this as a win lose

17:29

fight. So abortion is a

17:31

good example. If you really push people on

17:33

this, you will find that the

17:35

vast majority of people believe

17:37

that their times and abortion is

17:39

the only moral option. And there are

17:41

times when they consider it a completely immoral option.

17:43

And that's true across the the political

17:45

spectrum. So let's take some

17:48

preposterous extreme examples. No

17:50

one in their right mind would say that a woman should have

17:52

the right to abort a

17:55

healthy baby at thirty eight weeks.

17:57

Everybody considers that objectionable. same

18:01

time, there are very few people in the right

18:03

mind who would agree with the reverse

18:05

extreme and who would say it's

18:07

okay. To deny a mother an

18:09

abortion for a baby that's not viable

18:11

when the mother's life is in jeopardy.

18:14

And so if we start there, we realized that there

18:16

is no such thing as purely

18:18

pro choice or purely pro life

18:20

and that most people believe

18:22

in both the sanctity of human

18:24

life the right to bodily

18:25

autonomy, and the challenge is where do you draw

18:28

the line on trying to

18:30

reconcile those two values? I get I

18:32

think you still end up with a dividing line. So

18:34

I suppose are you saying that you don't

18:36

resolve the

18:36

problem, but that you hope to

18:39

address the way of talking about the

18:41

problem? Yes. Maybe I'll throw out a couple of ways of doing that

18:43

that are backed by good data.

18:46

So one is some experiments that Tim

18:48

Conroe and I have run recently with

18:50

people on opposite extremes of the abortion debate.

18:52

We asked them to evaluate an

18:54

essay written by the other side.

18:57

In the control group, when people just come in and and

18:59

evaluate that essay, they're pretty

19:02

nasty. You know, they call each other women

19:04

oppressors and baby

19:05

killers. So then we say,

19:08

well, what if what if we have them take each

19:10

other's

19:10

perspectives? And guess what? It

19:13

doesn't work. Because the

19:15

perspective is so unimaginable, either

19:18

offensive or foreign or both, that

19:20

people just end up creating a

19:22

ridiculous view of the other side.

19:24

What we found is much more effective is

19:26

to say instead of imagining the other

19:28

person's perspective, I want you

19:30

to consider how you might feel

19:32

differently about this issue if your life

19:34

circumstances had unfolded differently. And

19:36

we find that when people engage in that

19:38

counterfactual thinking, when they

19:40

realize, wow, if I had grown up in a different era or

19:42

a different family, I might have different beliefs,

19:45

they're less likely to demonize the

19:47

other side. They're more likely to recognize

19:49

that the other side has some legitimate

19:51

points, and they're in a better position

19:53

than to identify some common

19:54

ground. If not, fully agree.

19:56

There's a breed of politicians who are powerful

19:59

communicators in different ways,

20:01

perhaps not exactly following

20:04

the advice that you've provided. I'm thinking of

20:06

Donald Trump, Victor, Orban, in in

20:08

Hungary to an extent also of Vladimir Putin, and the

20:10

way that he controls and

20:13

distorts messages. None of them are

20:15

particularly brilliant debaters or

20:17

orators or at least not in the traditional sense,

20:19

but their words do resonate with people even

20:21

if they division as they go.

20:23

Where do you think the claims of

20:25

reasoned argument then stand when you

20:27

have political debates, which the other side if

20:29

you like is bringing sourced

20:32

to the party and you were bringing something that's,

20:34

you know, didn't want to say a baguette. But

20:36

you might think, oh my goodness, this is all

20:38

very reasonable, but how is it good to stand

20:40

up? To these forces of un

20:43

reason where they appear to be so

20:45

attractive? That's a

20:47

hard question. Let me say a couple of things on

20:49

that. Tell me what you think. My

20:51

first thought is, I

20:53

don't believe that the pen is always

20:55

miteer than the sword. But

20:57

I do think the ink lasts longer.

21:00

The autocrats of the

21:02

world are effective in the short to medium

21:04

term in many situations and

21:06

I guess the appeal of populism is they are

21:08

preaching to their choir, but

21:10

we've seen that this preaching also brings

21:12

out a lot of prosecutors. There's

21:14

a reason Donald Trump failed to win reelection. And

21:17

I think if he were better at at reasoned

21:20

argument, it's very possible he wouldn't have

21:22

alienated some of his supporters from his

21:24

first election. And I

21:26

think in the long run, we should

21:28

give people credit for their

21:30

ability to to learn and change. We saw

21:32

that actually in the election of Donald

21:34

Trump. Look at the number of Obama

21:36

voters who then cast a vote for Trump.

21:38

Right? That's a that's a pretty radical

21:40

change. In both the kind of so called leader that you prefer

21:42

and also the sorts of policies that

21:44

you support. And I think that over

21:47

time, Many people do revisit

21:49

their views. They don't often do it when

21:51

we want. They don't often do it in the

21:53

direction we

21:53

hope. But People do have the capacity

21:56

and the motivation to change their mind. I'm really

21:58

seeing as you asked, you know, what I made of that and

22:00

I spent a lot of my early working

22:02

life working in dictatorships

22:04

or near as damaged dictatorships particularly

22:07

under communism but also the beginnings of

22:09

some nationalisms in

22:11

Eastern Europe. And think you're right

22:13

that usually I would have said probably let you

22:15

hang on in there if it's I

22:17

like your idea that the the ink lasts

22:19

longer. But there is a complicating factor in

22:21

there and it certainly come on in my

22:23

working life, which is that online discourse

22:25

and social media disputes

22:27

are so much more heated

22:30

and burrow people further

22:32

and further into the corners of

22:34

their own argument. We

22:36

we all know even in our own

22:38

conversations that something like Twitter can pretend

22:40

shouty very fast, and that's before you get

22:42

to the darker recesses of

22:44

social media. So I just wondered if

22:46

that was bit of a challenge to your

22:48

view that eventually if you

22:50

like the truth or the better argument would

22:51

out. I think it's a fair

22:54

challenge and I'm sort of of two

22:56

minds about it. One is to say I think

22:58

you're right and I think that the task

23:00

has gotten harder over time.

23:02

The other is to say

23:05

Let's not overgeneralize from

23:07

a few bad social media

23:09

actors and debates. So there

23:11

was a series of studies published

23:14

last year This is eight studies eight thousand

23:16

people showing that it's not

23:18

necessarily the case that the Internet turns

23:20

people into trolls. It

23:23

actually makes their trolling more

23:26

apparent. So there's a subset of

23:28

people who are

23:30

assholes online. And it turns out they are

23:32

also assholes offline.

23:34

The difference is that when

23:36

you're an asshole in the public square, When

23:38

you're a troll in face to face interaction,

23:41

usually only a few people see it.

23:43

Whereas on the Internet, it gets

23:45

amplified. And so you have this group of trolls

23:47

who's figured out that they can use aggression

23:49

to get attention. And if

23:51

we feed them and we

23:53

respond with outrage, it only reinforces

23:56

their strategy. And I think in many

23:58

cases, it's better to ignore the trolls than

24:00

to feed them. And if you do that, one of

24:02

the things you start to notice is that

24:04

the vast majority of people on the

24:06

internet are not having nasty arguments,

24:08

are not spewing hate and visceral.

24:10

That behavior is is perpetrated by

24:12

a loud minority. The two

24:15

extremes are often feeding each other.

24:17

Empirically, less than ten

24:19

percent of people even want to have a

24:21

political debate on Twitter. The dominant

24:23

preference online is actually to have a thoughtful

24:25

discussion, not to have a nasty

24:27

one, and we shouldn't let the

24:29

visible people who choose the nasty

24:30

ones. Dominate the information space. I want to move

24:33

her so on to the return to work and the

24:35

impact of the pandemic, also on the way

24:37

that we think about work and

24:39

conflict in the workspace, but more

24:41

generally about our jobs. But before we

24:43

do, my producer who has a wicked sense of

24:45

humor, I have to tell you, says,

24:47

I could ask you. And we're both across in this

24:50

conversation. Preacher,

24:51

prosecutor, politician. No

24:54

holds barred. How are we doing, Adam, in

24:57

arguing? I don't know. I

24:59

I don't feel like you have

25:01

fit into any of those categories.

25:03

I think you're engaging like

25:05

a good journalist or dare I say

25:07

even a scientist. You're challenging some of

25:09

my arguments thoughtfully and respectfully. You're

25:12

pushing me to think

25:14

again I think doing that. And in other cases,

25:16

I'm trying to encourage you to think

25:17

again. What do you think? Well, I would

25:20

say if I've gotten awareness, I

25:22

would say like a lot of journalists who ask questions and

25:25

make arguments. For

25:25

Living, I think I can be a bit prosic

25:28

tutorial. So I just wondered how

25:30

that was coming across I don't perceive

25:32

it as prosecutorial because you're challenging

25:34

to enrich the discussion. Right? Not

25:36

to to prove your case. Or

25:38

try to win. That creates a very different reaction

25:40

in me. I don't feel like I have to defend

25:42

my

25:42

ideas. I feel like the point of this conversation is

25:45

to explore ideas. Adam,

25:47

you're welcome on the show anytime. We might just put you on every

25:49

week because We'll try not to make

25:50

you regret that. You wrote a

25:52

column for The Economist. A couple

25:54

of years ago saying the legacy of the pandemic could be

25:57

more work satisfaction, more

25:59

ethical leadership in the workplace,

26:01

and a deeper sense of

26:03

trust Do think any of that has really come

26:05

to pass a couple of years

26:06

on? I should say, III was asked to

26:08

write this article in the spring of twenty

26:11

twenty. And I did it with some trepidation knowing that

26:13

predicting the future is so hard that there's an

26:15

old joke that historians don't even predict

26:17

the past with much

26:19

accuracy. quite an eventful two years. One

26:21

should say that as well. There are sometimes two

26:23

year periods where very little appears to to

26:25

change. But this has not been one of them.

26:27

This is longer term prediction. What we were

26:30

starting to see in the early days of the

26:32

pandemic was that leaders were

26:34

finally waking up to realize that you don't

26:36

get quality work if your people don't have

26:38

quality of life. That burning

26:40

someone out on the job was a short

26:42

sighted strategy because you were

26:44

ultimately gonna lose your best

26:46

people. We've seen that prediction come true in

26:48

the sense that the great resignation has

26:50

been driven by people fleeing from

26:52

toxic cultures. And saying, I live in

26:54

a world where there's enough freedom and

26:56

flexibility now that I do

26:58

not want to tolerate disrespect,

27:00

abuse, exclusion, unetheical

27:02

behavior or selfish taking when I

27:04

think an organization should be built around generous

27:07

and fair behavior. The other thing

27:09

that's intriguing to me about the set

27:11

of predictions is I didn't

27:13

really account for the possibility of

27:15

backslide. So our our leader

27:17

is going to change their mindsets. are

27:19

they gonna return to business as usual? And I

27:21

think we've seen a mix on on

27:23

that front. We're still seeing leaders who are trying

27:25

to drag their employees back to

27:27

the office full time. Ignoring the

27:29

fact that in many of the

27:31

studies so far, people have been just

27:34

as productive when working fully

27:36

remote or hybrid. I worry a little

27:38

bit that either there's some unlearning

27:40

going on or that the learning never

27:42

happened in the first place, but I think

27:44

the majority of the effects on the way that

27:46

leaders have taken well-being and mental health

27:48

seriously at work have been

27:50

positive.

27:50

You talked about something that struck a chord in a piece that

27:52

you wrote for the New York Times a little

27:55

while ago went viral and it was about

27:57

languishing that sense of stagnation or

27:59

emptiness and you dubbed it the middle child

28:01

of mental health, IEA

28:03

phenomenon which gets neglected or

28:05

doesn't sort of show up if we're

28:07

looking for doing well in one category or

28:09

feeling depressed or anxious in another. But

28:12

I still was a bit confused about the

28:14

difference between languishing and

28:17

mild to moderate depression?

28:19

Is it possible to pinpoint

28:22

what a sense of languishing is? And it

28:24

particularly is you've now had a chance

28:26

to perhaps look at it more across time

28:28

or test the reactions to what you were

28:30

writing

28:30

then. There are about two decades of data

28:32

on languishing now that have been gathered by mostly

28:34

a sociologist since cologists. Some

28:37

people would say the difference between languishing and mild

28:39

depression is just a matter of

28:41

degree. That mild depression is a little

28:43

bit more severe. And you

28:45

start to feel a little bit

28:47

hopeless. Whereas, languishing is, you

28:49

know, more just emptiness stagnation

28:51

on we It's not the presence of

28:53

mental illness. It's just the absence

28:55

of of peak mental health. And so

28:57

you're a little bit shorter on joy. Maybe

28:59

you're lacking motivation or you're struggling

29:01

to concentrate, but you don't feel

29:03

down. You're just not up. There's

29:05

a case to me made though that these are different

29:07

in kind. Not just in

29:09

degree. The presence of mental

29:11

illness symptoms is very different from the

29:13

absence of maybe signs of

29:15

flourishing. Mile depression would typically be characterized

29:18

by real difficulties functioning.

29:20

Whereas in languishing, you

29:22

can get by and oftentimes you don't

29:24

even realize you're languishing. You become

29:27

indifferent to your own sense of indifference. I

29:29

think one of the reasons we need to pay attention to

29:31

that is languishing turns out to be a

29:33

risk factor for later mental

29:35

illness. It's the people who are languishing

29:37

today, not the people who are depressed today,

29:39

that are actually empirically at the

29:41

greatest risk for depression or anxiety in the next

29:43

decade or so. I guess it is a

29:45

neglected middle child because it's

29:47

neglected by the person. Who's

29:49

feeling it in many cases and that means

29:51

that if you don't know that you're

29:52

languishing, you're probably not gonna seek

29:55

help and you may not even do anything to

29:57

help yourself.

29:57

And were you sure then what the route to

30:00

help should look like? Yeah. I think languageing

30:02

is tricky because it's not necessarily

30:04

a state that you would seek

30:06

help directly for it or even one that a therapist

30:08

would always be trained or qualified to

30:11

treat. It's not a diagnosable medical

30:14

condition. I think the

30:16

research on languishing suggests

30:18

that there are a few ways of overcoming

30:20

it. And the psychology of

30:22

resilience maybe gives us a few others as

30:24

well. So People seem to

30:26

avoid languishing when they

30:28

have a sense of mastery, mindfulness,

30:30

and mattering. Mastering not

30:32

always being big triumph but just

30:34

small wins, a sense of progress, which is the the

30:37

strongest known predictor of daily joy at

30:39

work. Mindfulness concentrating

30:41

on a single thing as opposed

30:43

to constantly being interrupted and distracted,

30:46

which is necessary for those moments of

30:48

progress in mastery. And then mattering what we were

30:50

talking about before, knowing that your work

30:52

benefits other people or your

30:54

actions as a parent or as a volunteer

30:56

contributing to the lives and well-being of

30:58

others. Those are all missing ingredients for

31:00

people when they're languishing. Maybe

31:02

this is why sourdough baking was so

31:04

popular. In the early days of the pandemic,

31:06

right, is you were able to get that that

31:08

little jolt of mastery. I I baked a loaf

31:10

of bread. required mindfulness because

31:12

if you took your eyes off of the oven, you

31:14

were about to deal with with a charred

31:16

burning wreck. And it also

31:18

contributed to the sense of mattering

31:20

that I can create something to share with my family

31:22

or my neighbors or my friends.

31:24

One of the mistakes a lot of people made during

31:26

the pandemic is they said, well, I don't know what

31:29

to do. I'd never lived through a pandemic before. And

31:31

it is true unless you're a hundred three years

31:33

old, you probably have not lived through one, and even

31:35

then you wouldn't remember it very well.

31:37

But you have languished before. You

31:40

have burned out. You've felt

31:42

loneliness. You've experienced grief. And one

31:44

of the best things you can do is learn lessons

31:46

from your own past resilience. To

31:48

think about when was the last time that you were

31:50

languishing or burned out? What was your

31:52

last bout of grief or

31:54

loneliness? And ask, what is it that got me

31:56

through it? And you find there are insights

31:58

to be gleaned there. If you're having

32:00

trouble getting those, one of the things you can do

32:02

is find someone else who's in a similar

32:04

mental zone. Find a friend who's

32:06

languishing or a family member who's burned out

32:08

or a colleague who's grieving, and

32:10

give them some advice for how to

32:12

navigate it. And you will generally find

32:14

that the advice you give to others is the

32:16

advice that you needed to take for

32:17

yourself. You mentioned some

32:20

competences in pandemic

32:22

that might have helped us get through it and

32:24

maybe set us up on some different tracks

32:26

and approaches to satisfaction.

32:29

of them being dough baking. I think mine is

32:31

best forgotten. Though it was it was quite eclipsed

32:33

by my mixologist skills, which came

32:35

on a lot at the quarantine hour.

32:38

But you have some really interesting skills

32:40

in your back pocket item. Before you

32:42

were an organizational psychologist

32:45

and professor, You had a career as a

32:47

magician and as a junior Olympic

32:49

springboard diver, which is quite

32:51

the mix. What lessons you

32:53

take from those disciplines you

32:55

think might help us to

32:56

do? I think magic taught me the

32:58

importance of the element of surprise that

33:01

if I told you exactly what trick I

33:03

was gonna do, you'd often say,

33:06

yeah. But if I used a little bit of

33:08

misdirection and and set an

33:10

expectation that that I would then break you

33:13

were much more curious and excited, and I've

33:15

I've tried to do that in communicating

33:17

ideas. I think diving, the

33:19

biggest takeaway came from my cochair

33:21

at best. I was afraid of heights was terrified of getting

33:23

lost in mid air and and then crashing all

33:25

over the pool. And so I would just sit

33:27

there shaking at the end of the board, afraid to

33:29

try a new dive. And

33:31

I remember one particular day I was I was standing on

33:33

a three meter springboard and I was supposed to do a

33:35

a front two and a half with a full twist. To

33:38

some results, a three hundred sixty degree

33:40

rotation and then a dive at the end. I stood

33:42

there for what must have been fifteen or twenty

33:44

minutes and my teammates were

33:46

getting annoyed and I was getting frustrated with

33:47

myself. And Eric said,

33:50

Adam, are you gonna do this

33:52

dive?

33:52

And I said, ever? Like,

33:55

of course, I'm gonna do dive. It's a major goal of mine.

33:57

And he said, well, what are you

33:59

waiting for? And I have heard

34:01

his voice in my head every

34:04

time I've been nervous.

34:06

I've been hesitant to take on a challenge. I've been afraid

34:08

to step out of my comfort zone.

34:10

I ask myself Are you going to do

34:12

this one day? And then the answer is

34:14

yes. And then the next question is, what

34:17

am I waiting for?

34:18

Adam Grant, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

34:22

Thank you.

34:26

And thank you for listening to this. The final episode of The Economist asks. My

34:29

producer is Alicia Burrell. The bookings

34:31

producer is Melanie Starling Condon, and

34:33

the executive producer

34:36

is Hannah marino. And for one last time,

34:38

I'm Anne McElroy and in London.

34:40

This is the Economist. Saudi

34:47

Arabia's

34:50

economy is transforming. What's

34:54

behind it? The public investment fund or PIF.

34:56

It's one of the largest sovereign wealth

34:58

funds in the world, creating

35:00

thirteen new

35:02

sectors sixty six companies and more than five hundred thousand

35:04

direct and indirect jobs so

35:06

far. PIF is also the first

35:10

sovereign wealth fund to issue a

35:12

green bond supporting Saudi Arabia's twenty sixty net zero

35:14

emissions target. Find out more at

35:16

PIF dot gov dot s

35:20

a.