The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway: Office Hours Special: Algebra of Masculinity Part 2

Support for Prop G comes from Movember.

We're talking a lot about what it means to be a man on the show and historically masculinity

has not played that well with mental health.

Being a man meant sucking it up, being tough and never talking about your feelings.

Movember wants to change that.

Movember is encouraging guys to open up and find strength in being honest with each other.

We're running a segment later in this episode about how all men can support each other and

why vulnerability might be the key to emotional strength.

The mustache is calling.

Use funds.

Save lives.

Sign up or donate now at Movember.com.

Welcome to the second episode of a special series of the Prop G pod.

As a reminder, we're covering all things masculinity over the next few weeks on office hours or

as I like to say, it's not that be funny or anyway, something we've been wanting to learn

more about is the physiological and biological differences between men and women, specifically

the role of testosterone.

Now what happens to me when I shoot ADCCs into my ass every week, a little strong in

the gym, a little hornier, which means not that strong and not that horny, quite frankly,

but still trying to hold on to those last messages of youth because I'm a narcissist

and I'll just tend it there.

Anyways, we sought out Dr. Robert Sapolsky, who is a critically acclaimed author and professor

of biology, neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford University.

If you've ever wondered what it might be like for one professor with much less domain expertise

and credibility to speak to a highly credible academic, well, then you're in for a treat.

It's coming up.

I found this stuff fascinating.

He spent, I guess, decades with baboons.

I don't know if he was hanging out with Jane Goodon or what he was doing, but he has observed

primate behavior and the role of testosterone and community effects.

I think this stuff is just fascinating.

We discussed with Dr. Sapolsky the contradictions in human behavior as well as the common misconceptions

surrounding testosterone and estrogen, specifically how these hormones relate to aggressive behavior.

We also get into the concept of free will, including how the understanding of limited

free will can influence one's approach to parenting.

I really struggle with this because I like to think that we have agency and I think decisions

matter and your characters making the right decisions when no one's looking.

This notion of you don't have free will, which is getting a lot of traction right now, kind

of doesn't make sense to me until you hear them explain it.

I think what they're saying is a lot of your chemistry and your DNA and your instincts

are sort of cooked already.

That's not to say that as parents, I think the best example is parents, and that is as

parents we like to think they were engineers, that we get to kind of design the sheep and

the reality is we're shepherds.

We get to decide where they graze and point them in the right direction and decide what

they eat, but they kind of come to you.

You don't get to engineer the sheep.

Now anyways, I found this conversation fascinating.

Remember, remember we're shepherds, not engineers.

Dr. Sapolsky, where does this podcast find you?

Well, sitting here at home where it appears to be kind of sunny out there.

So that's nice.

Where's home?

San Francisco.

Oh, nice.

So let's bust right into it.

Can you share more about the way our physiology influences our behavior specifically as it

relates to men and contrast to women?

I would say quite relevant are, of course, testosterone levels and the changing levels

of it.

What one needs to emphasize right off the bat when you're thinking about testosterone,

male behavior, human male behavior as such, is that everybody knows what testosterone

does and virtually everybody is wrong.

The general theme is testosterone makes you aggressive.

And on first pass, that certainly seems that way.

You know, males of virtually every species out there are, on the average, more aggressive

than females, a couple of really interesting exceptions.

Time of year when males have highest T levels, most aggressive, to you look closely.

And testosterone does not cause aggression.

It does something much more subtle.

Say take five rhesus monkey males and put them together and they form a dominant

hierarchy and number one, trashes two through five, number two, trashes three

through five and so on.

And take number three in the hierarchy and shoot them up with testosterone with

like just massive quantities of it.

And does he get involved in more aggressive interactions?

Yeah, absolutely.

Whoa, there you go again.

Testosterone causing aggression.

But then look at the pattern of it.

Number three, who up until that moment was completely brown nosing to numbers one

and two, number three.

Now, is he now challenging one and two as he's taking them on with just ceaseless,

self-confident, aggressiveness?

No, number three, steers clear of numbers two and one exactly as he's always done.

What does he do instead?

He becomes a complete nightmare to poor numbers four and five.

In other words, testosterone has not created a new pattern of aggression going

after two and one, all it's done is up the volume on patterns of aggression

that were already there thanks to social learning.

So we have a hormone driving aggression.

It's not driving, it is not inventing, it is just amplifying what's there already.

I almost think that if the aggression was aimed up, you'd have churn,

which in some ways is healthy.

But if you're just ramping the aggression around dominance, where there's

already a social hierarchy, isn't that just as bad?

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

It's just an interesting reframing.

This is not a hormone causing you to do something.

This is not biological destiny on that level at all.

It's where has your social conditioning brought you to in that moment?

And that counts for a lot.

But then there's an even more interesting elaboration on it.

Because it turns out this is what's known in the business as the challenge hypothesis.

A guy named John Wingfield, University of California, who pointed out,

it's not so much that testosterone amplifies preexisting aggression.

What it does is when your status is being challenged, it amplifies

whatever you need to do to hold on to status.

Okay, that does not sound like a very interesting distinction.

If you're a baboon and somebody is challenging your status, what you do is

you get into a fight.

It's all about aggression, but you get to humans and we do all sorts

of weird things to gain status.

Like go to some fancy fundraiser for some charitable something filled

with nothing but wealthy people.

And what you'll see is like these wealthy guys who've had too much to drink

usually because they've been plied with it by the hosts are there and

they're competing for dominance by who can give away the most money,

who can make the largest contributions.

And like what an incredibly nutty way in which like a baboon

would go about showing dominance.

And some studies extraordinarily have shown you take people,

you take subjects and you give them testosterone and a ton of it and all of that.

And if it's the right sort of economic game where you gain

credibility and power by giving more generous offers in terms of

reputational stuff, testosterone makes you more generous because that's

the ways by which you are strutting your stuff in that game.

In other words, when you look at it, not only does testosterone

not cause aggression, it doesn't really amplify preexisting aggression.

It only does it in a circumstance where that's what's being rewarded.

And if you've got problems on your planet with too much male

testosterone, amplifying aggression, don't blame this hormone, blame

the fact that we hand out high status for aggression so much of the time.

And that's a remarkably different picture.

Let's go to the base of the origin story of testosterone.

What is the anthropological use of testosterone?

And I would think that the most violent and aggressive among us throughout

history have been the conquerors.

And so high testosterone individuals tend to have more propagation

opportunities resulting in increasing levels of testosterone.

So take us back to where at a very kind of rude biological level,

the role that testosterone plays and why it's important.

And what has happened to testosterone levels throughout history?

Well, first one I'm going to come back with is the notion that high

testosterone equals social dominance is kind of a myth.

Because what you see great example of this is baboons.

Baboons, why do I keep coming back to baboons?

Because I spent 33 summers in the Serengeti studying what hormones have

to do with behavior in these populations of wild baboons.

OK, so baboons male dominated hierarchical, incredible levels of aggression.

And that generates this simple prediction, higher rank, higher

testosterone, go hand in hand.

And it turned out that's not the case in the slightest.

It's independent.

It's not correlated with rank.

Hmm. So who has the high testosterone, some jerky, high ranking guy

who starts a lot of fights, but the much more typical profile is

it's some idiot adolescent male who recently joined the troop.

And what is his testosterone elevated doing to him?

He's picking fights with all sorts of guys.

He has no business going anywhere near and getting trounced.

And what you see instead is a high ranking male and alpha male very often.

Yeah, it's taken a lot of aggression and a lot of muscle and some big canines

to attain your high rank.

But at that point, in order to maintain your high rank, if you're getting

to a lot of fights, you're going to go down in a hail of built bullets

pretty quickly, what makes for an alpha male who maintains dominance

for a long time, he wants to go months, seasons, years on end without being

in a fight, because if he's doing it right, all he has to do is look at

somebody, stare at them for a couple of seconds and they back off.

It's all by psychological bluff at that point.

If you're going to be one of these successful ones and they hang on

for a long time that way, often well into their physical decline

after their prime years, holding it on just by psychological bluff.

And in a case like that, testosterone actually has nothing to do with it.

Social intelligence, what coalitions you're forming, who you know how to

threaten in which way, which provocations you ignore and just walk away from.

And that's a very different picture.

So it's all about testosterone and well timed, socially calibrated

aggression that gets you into high rank in the first place.

But after that, the alpha males who last forever, they just become really

cagey and socially intelligent.

And it's the fights they avoid rather than the fights that they get into

that have the biggest impact on their destiny.

I'm trying to sort of summarize power can be acquired through

deaf use of testosterone, but power is maintained through more

political or social intelligence.

Exactly.

And that's the case with like a monkey with a quarter of the number

of like brain volume that we have as humans.

And what we show is far, far more complicated versions of the exact same theme.

When you look at risen populations and who's on the top of the hierarchy there

and you look at testosterone levels earlier on, those are not predictive.

Those are predictive of idiot guys who are going to challenge someone.

And as a result, their knife and the shower there, what testosterone

is mostly about is it gives you problems with impulse control.

It gives you problems at looking at somebody's face and decide their

facial expression is really not threatening as opposed to what's this

guy glaring at me about.

It gives you problems in all those ways.

It makes you impulsive and it makes you disinhibited and it makes you a poor

calculator of your odds and typically in the direction of deciding that you are

way more likely to be successful in this interaction than you actually are.

And most of the time, that's a prescription for a complicated social

primate who's not going to do very well.

And everything we know about us as a species where, yeah, we've got a lot of

violets, we're the most violent primate on this planet, blah, blah.

But we have a lot of alternative strategies.

And if you're just running on testosterone, amping up your

preexisting tendencies towards aggression, that's not a human prescription

for social success.

So men are more violent towards other people and they're more violent

towards themselves, right?

Three times as many men commit suicide in the US, I think, as women.

When you look at nature versus nurture, when you look at the biology of it

and then you look at the social context, where do you think we should be focused?

Are we focused too much on the nature end of it?

Should we be thinking more about early intervention in terms of giving

people better social context?

My personal bias is, you know, people in my business have been getting paid

salaries for thousands of years arguing about nature versus nurture.

And, you know, what the answer is, is everything about our nature only

makes sense in the context of nurture and environment.

They are inseparable, a great sort of way of framing it from a colleague

of mine saying, so which contributes more to the area of a rectangle,

the width or the height?

And they're inseparable.

It winds up being virtually irrelevant to ask, what does a gene do?

Only to ask, what does it do in this particular context?

It's meaningless to say what a gene does, just what it does in the

particular environment.

And likewise, it's meaningless to say what a particular environment does,

just what it does to an individual with this particular genetic profile.

Now, those pieces put together, the fact that we're the most violent

species on this planet, all of this, most of us have not murdered anyone.

Most of us males, if we've been in relationships, have not been abusive

partners, all of that, it is actually a rare subset.

The percentage of men who actively have violent interactions at some

point in their lifetime is very low.

What that mostly is telling us, the similarities among all of us biologically

are a whole lot more similar than the similarities in how we're raised

and our values and our experiences, all of that.

So if I was given a gazillion dollars to go solve male violence and I could

only spend it on nurture sort of things or nature sort of things,

recognizing that it's totally silly and false, piecing them apart.

But I only have the energy to target one of them, environment, much more.

And this is from someone where what I do is I study neurons and hormones and

all this nuts and bolts biology.

But in that realm, when you get to somebody like us, you want to understand

why one gecko is being miserable to another gecko.

You know, biology is on its own, is good to do a lot of explaining.

You get to us and I think it's much more social issues, socialization and such.

Yeah, I just you inspired a thought that eventually

nurture becomes nature, right?

I mean, we adapt to our surroundings and start developing

different hormones and different instinctual responses, no?

Exactly.

So if testosterone has been unfairly assigned or there's too much

attribution between certain activities and behaviors and testosterone.

And while testosterone does create aggression, it creates in inordinate

amounts, create sort of what I call reckless or unproductive aggression.

What compare and contrast if you can testosterone and what are the similar

effects of estrogen?

Interesting estrogen really does have a different profile.

And it should be noted that, you know, all of this that we're talking about

in terms of testosterone or androgens, the more general term for testosterone

like hormones, androgens and males, androgens and males, females

to create androgens as well, doesn't come out of the ovaries.

It comes out of the adrenal gland, adrenal androgens, not a ton of this stuff.

Maybe, I don't know, one-tenth the level as in males, but it serves a similar role.

People used to think that adrenal androgens and females caused aggression.

Then they figured out, no, it amplifies preexisting that whole song and dance

just on a less dramatic scale.

So with estrogen, what you find is estrogen can be extremely, extremely

enhancing of aggression.

In the right setting, because you're a mama cat and you've got all those kittens

there and the, you know, the eight year old kid from the neighbor's house who

knows nothing about this makes a mistake of coming right up to the kittens.

And mom is going to go after him with tremendous aggression driven by

estrogen, oxytocin, a hormone that has a lot to do with maternal behavior.

So in a context like that, oh, females aren't aggressive, blah, blah.

Females can be incredibly aggressive in defense of their young.

Females in some species of primates are incredibly aggressive at trying to kill

their competitors or, as Jane Goodall first documented with chimps, try to

kill the kids of their competitive females and that sort of thing.

But in other settings, estrogen is very facilitating of pro-social behaviors.

It's the context, it's the context over and over and over.

We typically assign physical aggression or we assign, I would say, and tell

me if you agree with this, we assign aggression predominantly to men because

physical aggression gets more media attention and it's more shocking.

But there's physical aggression and non-physical aggression.

Have you thought about the difference?

Are certain are women more prone to non-physical aggression than men?

Or are they just generally speaking, their aggression just manifests in

different, less harmful ways?

Well, I think absolutely less harmful ways than a automatic weapon kind of thing.

But on the average, again, women are far, far less likely to have physical

violence and just look at what people wind up in prison for.

And you can see that demonstrated there.

Women do a whole lot more verbal aggression, social aggression, exclusion,

ostracizing, things of that sort.

I mean, we're a species where, like, this is how subtle we could be, like,

aggressive, it's January each year and we're looking at all the applications

for new grad students who are there.

And you go in there and you read a letter from somebody's advisor and they're

saying, yeah, so I heard he's interested in your grad program and he, like,

worked in my lab and he did some stuff with this and he's, yeah, he's pretty good.

Wow, he hates the guy.

He said he's pretty good rather than amazing and all of that.

Whoa, that was an incredibly aggressive act or looking the other way can be.

Or pressing a button and, like, you drop a bomb from 30,000 feet up in the air.

So in those cases, it is very, very different in the versions it could take.

And what you see is if there's less options for effective physical aggression,

which is generally the case with women against men, the alternatives are far

more the case.

And, you know, clearly, like this epidemic we're having of adolescent girl

depression and suicidality and anxiety disorders and how much of a role social

media is playing in it.

Nobody is stabbing you literally in the stomach with social media.

All they're doing is being really social intelligent and dissing you.

And this is a driving force and all sorts of adolescent girl malaise and misery.

And, yeah, that's pretty awful.

Nonetheless, I think at the end of the day, that still counts as better than

going showing up with an automatic weapon.

The statement I'm thinking of is that boys bully physically and verbally

and girls bully relationally.

Do you think that's true?

And do you see that manifest continue as adults?

Absolutely, except I keep sticking in this phrase here, which sounds like

it's some sort of like reflex or covering my ass, but is incredibly

informative when I say on the average, on the average, statistically across

populations, could you pick out the average male or two of them, pick them

out and find out their testosterone levels and see who's got higher levels

than the other and say with any confidence, aha, he's the one who's more likely

to be physically aggressive.

Does that give you any predictive power?

It takes you from the chance level of 50% to, I don't know, about 55% predictability

because there's tremendous individual differences because the guy who seemingly

has higher testosterone levels just happens to be, you know, a Buddhist monk.

And that's not what's going to happen.

And then you do the same thing.

You take your average male and average female and what you know by studies

of huge numbers of test subjects is on the average, if you have to bet money,

the male is going to be more aggressive than the female and it's going to

more likely take the physical form, but on the average, isn't the confidence

with each you could predict from any given individual or pair, tremendous

individual variation.

And I don't know, I guess I know nothing about this world, but there's, you

know, auxiliary gangs of some of the most violent ones out there that are all

women or all girls and they are plenty violent as well.

Individual differences on the average, on the average.

But one of the things we've learned about making sense of like really the worst

of human behaviors is if you're just going with on the average, that's not

a very good predictor and you can make some horrendous mistakes.

We'll be right back.

Fox Creative.

This is advertiser content brought to you by Movember.

Mental health to me is a capacity to feel deeply without being thrown totally

out of our capacity to live in some healthy way and maintain good relationships

with other people.

My name is Avi Steinhardt.

I'm a psychotherapist and I have a private practice based in Brooklyn, New York.

As men, we're just bombarded constantly with a message that we need to have

everything together.

We've got to be tough.

We've got to be stoic.

And if we're not feeling that way, we better keep that to ourselves.

Because men are by nature and by conditioning, often seeking mastery.

That's what mainstream culture is constantly asking of us.

That's why the experience of standing up and saying, Hey, I definitely don't

have it all together is so powerful.

In a men's group, a man is often sharing exactly where he feels no mastery at all.

And to look around and see a group of men with some measure of compassion on

their faces, just receiving that story has healing properties unto itself.

You don't need to do this in a literal men's therapy group.

That's great.

But you can also open up with your friends, with your fantasy football

league, with whoever.

I think for men to be in groups with other men can be incredibly healing.

And in just that connection, we can start to experience some healing with each other.

Movember is focused on helping men everywhere feel their best.

Visit movember.com slash profg today to sign up or donate to the cause.

That's movember.com slash profg.

In your latest book, Determined, A Science of Life Without Free Will, you

spent with the notion that humans operate with any free will.

One particular area you explore is how the United States has really a

misguided emphasis on meritocracy.

And as a result, it spews out false promises of equal economic potential.

Say more about this.

Yeah, it's a pretty grim picture.

First off, just to show where I'm coming from, like you talk to, I'm showing

my biases, you talk to any sensible neurobiologist and they're going to

believe in free will a lot less than your typical person on the street.

My particular stance is when you look closely at all the biological nuts and

bolts and how each of us turned out to be who we are, there's no free will

whatsoever.

And I can argue that until the cows come home, as long as you have a

broader picture of like what made me me, is that the fact that like this

guy is pissing me off right now?

Yeah, but it also has something to do with what your hormone levels were yesterday.

And if you went through some sort of trauma in the last year or found love

in the last year, if what your adolescence was like, childhood, what

your fetal life was like, because that has something to do with the propensity

of your brain towards all sorts of actions, what your genetic makeup is

like, not your genes determining anything, but your genes interacting with

what kind of culture your ancestors came up with 400 years ago.

And because of what kind of ecosystem, because that was going to influence

how your mother was like raising you within minutes of birth and you put

all the pieces together and free will is a myth and one of the implications

which get people to immediately assign me to being just like way out there

off the charts.

This guy is impossible is punishment in and of itself never makes any sense.

Blame never makes any sense.

It doesn't because nobody ever does something damaging because they have

turned into the person who they are, thanks to a great deal of control

on their part over their biological attributes and their environmental experiences.

So now we can argue for hours about what does that do to criminal justice system

and what do we do with dangerous people and that sort of thing.

And if you really follow through the implications of this intellectually,

where it takes you is punishment is OK as a tool, like every now

and then you bop somebody over the head instrumentally that could bring

about like a shaping effect on their behavior and you could do the same thing

by like bopping some sea slug over one part of its body.

And it becomes less aggressive or I could learn or things like that.

So that's wonderful.

But the whole premise that people should be blamed and punished for things

they had no control over makes no sense at all.

But then you flip things 180 degrees as you did.

And what also becomes completely ridiculous and unsupportable is a meritocracy.

The notion that people who've come out with the better college degrees,

the notion that people who've come out with the higher salaries, even the notion

that people who've wound up that way because they worked harder and studied

harder and while their roommate was out partying, they were like getting

their work done and all of that, that, whoa, that's a virtue in and of itself.

The notion that we praise and reward people for things they had no control over

is just as clear.

And this is where people readily fall into a false dichotomy.

OK, OK, in nature, biology, yeah, you had no control over

your by nature, a good athlete, or you by nature have a great memory

and digit span memory or by nature, you're an introvert or these are things

you had no control over.

This is what like life gave you and where people then fall for free will

like temptation every time is saying, yeah, that's biology.

But what do you do with your attributes?

What do you do?

Do you get tougher when the going gets tough?

Do you show backbone?

Do you have self-discipline?

Do you have gumption?

Are you somebody who is gifted with every like talent and attribute

on earth and you go and squander it out of self-intelligence?

Whoa, the things your attributes, those are biological.

But what you do with them, that's the measure of your soul.

And it turns out what you do in moments of temptation.

What do you do when you know what the right thing is, but are you going

to be able to keep yourself under control enough to do the right thing?

All the circumstances that's made of the exact same biology as is whether,

you know, biology has made you a good sprinter or not, or a good marathon.

It's made of the same stuff.

So in principle, criminal justice and meritocracies both make no sense

scientifically, and we need something very different from that.

So I loved.

I remember watching Ted talk from along the baton who said that the

dangerous part of a meritocracy is that if you believe anybody can

achieve greatness in the US, then you're naturally saying, if you don't

achieve greatness, it's your fault and you lack moral character.

And it opened my eyes to the danger of meritocracy that that no,

not everybody has those same opportunities.

And to believe that we're a meritocratic, I mean, I was saying my success

as a function of being born in California in 1964, that that was the most

that had more, more impact on the outputs in my life than anything,

specifically anything I decided.

At the same time, this notion that we don't have free will.

Are you worried that it creates a lack of accountability that as a father,

I'm trying to train my kids to make better decisions in the moment,

to read the tea leaves, to read the context, to read the situation

and be more empathetic, be smarter, don't give into temptation,

don't move to violence, handle situations well.

I think of that as free will.

Where do I have that wrong?

That's as biological as your kids eye color.

So what you see, wow, let's get rid of punishment and blame and all of that.

And people immediately freak out at that point and says,

everybody's just going to run amok, because if people decide,

I cannot be held responsible for my actions, well, go do whatever you want.

And the science seems to support this because these very interesting studies

where you take a subject and you psychologically prime them

to believe less in free will.

And 30 minutes later, you put them in some sort of economic game

and they cheat more.

They're more backstabbing.

They're less generous.

All of that. Well, look at this.

You believe less in free will and, you know, anti social behaviors.

After a zoo and what a disaster this is going to be for our world.

But now you do something different.

Don't get a test subject in there who believes in free will

and manipulate them in some way so that they have less sense of it.

Get somebody who hasn't believed in free will for a year,

for a decade, whatever, they're already of that mindset.

And look at their behaviors and ask what's their level of ethical

like standards or whatever.

And you see they are on the average.

Once again, they are exactly as ethical as are the people

who most subscribe to a notion of free will and we should be held responsible.

Whoa, what's that about?

You see an interesting parallel in the other realm

in which people say we're going to run amok if people stop believing in God.

It's the same exact thing.

Either, you know, I scientifically can't be held responsible

because there's no free will.

So run amok or nobody is going to hold me in an ultimately responsible way.

So run amok and our atheists like immoral people and it's the exact same thing.

You take people who are absolutely strident in their atheism and all of that.

And they're exactly as ethical as are the most religious people out there

and who see the really religiosity as sort of like a moral imperative.

And exactly the same on the average.

What the studies show is that it's having

done the hard work to think about these subjects.

Those are the ones who wind up showing the highest levels of ethical behavior.

And it doesn't matter which end of the spectrum they're on.

Amid all of that, we're going to have some people who are dangerous.

And it's goes the parts of their brain that rain in their

like strongest worst impulses didn't develop very well

because of all sorts of early childhood adversity, blah, blah.

There's going to be some people who are dangerous, who are damaging.

So are we all just let them run around on the streets?

Is that what you people are saying?

You don't believe in free will?

No, absolutely not.

We have a means by which we subtract responsibility completely out of how we

make sense of like what people are doing in that case.

And the roof doesn't fall in.

So in actuality, I think a world in which where we see the most damaging behaviors.

Yeah, keep people whose breaks are broken off the street,

but not one smidgen more than you need to contain them.

And then we get back to our meritocracy and the exact same thing there.

Yeah, make sure there's not dangerous people on the street

and make sure the person who's doing surgery on your brain tomorrow

to take out the tumor is actually competent.

But don't have him believe afterward that they're a better person than the rest of us,

that they were entitled to something that they earned it.

But it's also in passing a more humane place

because people are not being blamed and they're not being rewarded

for things over which they had no control.

If you don't have some degree of punishment around people who are incarcerated,

are you worried that the deterrent effect, if it's not there and it's not severe,

that it doesn't lead to an increase in crime and on the opposite end,

if you don't give the neurosurgeon a lot of reward and access to a bigger home

and a broader selection set of mates,

that not as many people are going to work as hard to try and be outstanding surgeons?

Well, that's part of the problem.

One solution is, yeah, punishment could be a very good

intervention weapon at times, but it's used in a purely instrumental way.

Certain types of bad behaviors are lessened by punishment.

Certain types of bad behaviors are made less likely to happen

if you read in the newspaper that somebody was punished for it.

Most of the time where we think punishment accomplishes that, it really doesn't.

But yeah, there's a little outpost where it's a useful thing to do,

but use it as a tool rather than telling you something about this person's

imaginary soul and in the same way with the neurosurgeons,

yeah, at various points when they haven't slept for three days

because they're on call or something, like that's kind of a good time

to give them a pep talk about how they're like amazing, the self-discipline

they showed and, you know, that could get a better outcome.

But don't make that their general worldview that they deserve to get in line

in front of everybody else.

Yeah, these are good tools to use and use imprudently.

Robert, do you have kids?

I do. Boys, girls.

We have a 27 year old son and a 24 year old daughter.

And what I proved from the moment that they were born, that after my years

of study of human behavior and after my years and years and years

of looking at primate social behavior and behavior of primate infants

and baboons and all of that, that it did not prepare me in the slightest

for having any intuitions about being a competent parent.

Yeah, nothing does.

Whoa, nothing about my training has made me particularly competent at that.

Thank God my wife has been there throughout.

But having said that, I'm not going to let you have the hook here.

So what has your research, at least theoretically, if not practically,

changed or informed the way you parent your children?

Oh, we would have my wife before she decided she was sick of it.

Was a clinical neuropsychologist.

So we actually do that kind of stuff at home.

So like our four year old son does something rotten to his little sister

and she's crying and we swoop in there.

And of course, we don't say you're a rotten kid.

We say you're a wonderful child and we love you, but you just did a rotten thing

and we do that distinction, all of that.

And we're wailing on him.

And at some point, one of us, my wife is going to say, you know,

maybe we're being unfair here.

He's got like no frontal cortex.

And we, you know, we actually talk that way at home.

And the only logical answer to that is, yeah, but how else is he going to

develop a good one?

And some of the time you get a good frontal cortex, we're regulating

your behaviors, reigning them in with some well placed instrumental punishment.

You get it much better by teaching somebody other people can have different

feelings than you do, and they can be sad at a time that you're not.

And that's a bad thing and you should do something.

And yeah, so that's kind of where they came from.

So like our kids turned out to be wonderful humans and my input was it

to that they know what the frontal cortex is and my wife did the rest of it.

I've got to ask what, and this will be a last question.

If you could sit everybody down and say, this is the one thing you're

missing about human behavior and how we should reframe it.

What would that be?

Um, oh hell, I'm going to take two things, even though you didn't offer it.

The first one is nothing we do makes sense outside of context.

The other one is when you look at like our plumbing, what makes us like a vertebrate,

a mammal, a primate, an ape and all of that.

We're just like every other species out there in terms of our basic blueprint.

And we are utterly unlike them in that we go and use it in ways that

nobody could ever dream of if you're like, have a tail and a running around the savanna.

The neurobiology of aggression is exactly the same in us as in like a, a vole running

around the prairies or something.

And they use it to savage the other male right in front of them at that point.

And we can kill someone whose face we never even see because we're operating a drone

from the other side of the planet.

Or we could be aggressive by writing somebody a crappy recommendation for a job and read

between the lines.

And so we're just like every other animal out there in terms of the basic wiring of

what we have.

And then we use it in ways that nobody else in the animal kingdom would even dream of.

So I lied.

I said I wouldn't ask any more questions.

I do have one more question though.

So if you were going to recommend two or three books so someone could get just sort

of up to speed on biology, neurology, human behavior, what do you think are sort of the

pillars of what someone could, could read to get sort of up to speed, if you will?

Oh, because I'm a jerk and insecure and all of that.

I have to like mention two books of mine because why not?

The first one you mentioned determined a science of life without free will, which is

coming out this October.

The other is a book I published five years ago called Behave, The Biology of Humans

at Our Best and Worst.

And so like they're written for non-scientists.

I remember most people I know hated biology in middle school and so it's like hopefully

accessible.

But another book to look at is by this wonderful scientist, physician, both an

anthropologist and a doctor, a man named Melvin Connor.

At Emory University, who wrote a book a number of years ago looking at some of these

same issues called The Tangled Wing, Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit.

And it's the most poetically beautiful, scientifically informed book out there for

making sense of us as like a screwed up, troubled, complicated species with all sorts

of foibles and wonderful potentials and teaches you a lot of science.

And it's beautifully written.

He's a published poet.

I go figure all of that.

So that's a great book.

Also, that was published first in the 80s and he came out with an updated

edition a few years ago.

So Melvin Connor with the K Melvin Connors, The Tangled Wing.

And what the teachers do is, whoa, be really nuanced before you think you

understand why somebody just did what they did.

Dr. Robert Sapolsky is a professor of biology, neurology and neurosurgery at

Stanford University.

Having spent more than 30 years as both a field primatologist and a laboratory

neuroscientist, Dr. Sapolsky has written a number of critically acclaimed books,

including Behave, The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst, A Primate's

Memoir and Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers.

His latest book, Determined, A Science of Life Without Free Will, is out now.

He joins us from his home in San Francisco with his Golden Labrador.

Dr. Sapolsky, I really enjoyed this.

This is just fascinating.

We appreciate your, appreciate your good work and your time.

Well, thank you.

Thanks for having me on.

That's all for this episode.

If you'd like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to

officehours at propertymedia.com.

Again, that's officehours at propertymedia.com.

Thank you.

I have a large dog coming over here right now, getting on the camera.

There he is.

Is that a beast?

No, it's a, it's a golden retriever.

That's a golden.

He is as sweet and simple-minded as they all are.

And he's wonderful and love them to pieces, but he's not great at calculus or like

philosophizing and stuff.

Support for this episode of Prop G came from November.

For over 20 years, November has been at the forefront of men's health.

They've helped fund cutting-edge tests for prostate cancer, encouragement to

check their testicles for bumps.

And yeah, they got all of us to grow a mustache that people in our lives hated.

Now they're locking in on men's mental health, encouraging guys to open up with

each other.

And this November, they need your help.

It's time to bring back the stash, raise some cash with your buds and help

change the face of men's health.

The mustache is calling.

Raise funds, save lives, sign up or donate now at November.com.

Machine-generated transcript that may contain inaccuracies.