Podcasts about Christakis

The amount of time children and adolescents spend with a screen is absolutely stunning. Lots of people, including parents, health leaders, educators, elected leaders from both parties I might mention, and even children themselves, are highly concerned and are discussing what might be done about all this. I'm delighted to begin this series of podcasts on children and screen time. Today we're welcoming two very special guests who can talk about this topic in general, and especially about what's being done to protect children and adolescents. Several podcasts will follow this one that deal with food and nutrition in particular. Our first guest, Kris Perry, is Executive Director of Children and Screens, an organization devoted to protecting children. In the digital world by addressing media's impact on child development, communicating state-of-the-art information, and working with policymakers. Prior to joining children in Screens, Kris was senior advisor of the Governor of California and Deputy Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. Our other guest, Dr. Dimitri Christakis is a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and director of the Center for Child Health Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's. He's also editor-in-chief of JAMA Pediatrics and both Chief Scientific Officer and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of Children and Screens. He's also the co-editor of a new book that I'm very excited to discuss. Interview Summary Download The Handbook of Children and Screens: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-69362-5 Kris, let's start with you. Could you set the stage and give us some sense of how much time children spend in front of screens, children and adolescents, and what devices are being used and what kind of trends are you seeing? Yes, I'd be happy to. I had better news for your listeners, but as you might imagine, since the advent of the smartphone and social media, the youth digital media use has been increasing each year. Especially as children get older and have increasing demands on their time to use screens. But let's just start at the beginning of the lifespan and talk about kids under the age of two who shockingly are spending as much as two hours a day on screens. Most spend about 50 minutes, but there's a significant chunk spending up to two hours. And that rises to three or three to five hours in childhood. And eventually in adolescence, approximately eight and a half hours a day our adolescents are spending online. Also wanted to talk a little bit about middle childhood children, six to 12 years of age. 70% of them already have a social media account, and we all know social media wasn't designed for children. And there are restrictions on children under 13 using them, and yet children six to 12 most have an account already. Over half of four-year-olds have a tablet and two thirds of children have their own device by the age of eight; and 90% of teens. This probably won't be surprising, and yet we should really think about what this means; that 90% of teens are using YouTube, 60% are on TikTok and Instagram, and 55% use Snapchat. I'll stop by ending on a really alarming statistic. Oh my, there's more? There's more. I know it! I told you. I'll be the bearer of bad news so that we can talk about solutions later. But, children are checking their devices as often as 300 times per day. 300 times. 300 times per day, and we're talking about screen time right now. And we know that when you're using time to be on screens, you are not doing something else. And we know that childhood is full of challenges and skill building and mastery that requires repetition and tenacity and grit and effort. And the more children are on their screens, whether it's social media or other entertainment, they're not doing one of these other critical child development tasks. That's pretty amazing. And the fact that the older kids are spending more time on before a screen than they are in school is pretty alarming. And the younger, the really youngest kids, that's especially alarming. So, Dimitri, why should we fret about this? And I realize that fret is kind of a mild word here. Maybe all I'll panic would be better. But what are some of the major concerns? Well, I don't think panic is ever the right reaction, but the numbers Kris conveyed, you know, I think do paint a, let's say, concerning story. You know, the simple reality is that there's only so much time in a day. And if you think about it, teenagers in particular should sleep for eight to 10 hours a day at a minimum. They really should be in school six and a half, seven hours a day. And then when you add the numbers, Kris conveyed, you realize that something's giving because there isn't enough time left to spend eight and a half hours a day. The two things at a minimum that are giving are sleep. Kids are losing sleep to be on screens. And I'm sorry to say that they're losing school while they're on screens. We just published a paper that used passive sensing to see where and when children are on their screens. And found that the typical child in the United States spends an hour and a half during the school day on their device. And it's not, before any of your guests ask, on Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica. It's on the usual suspects of social media, TikTok, etc. So, you know, we talk about displacement, and I think it's pretty obvious what's being displaced during school hours. Its time focused on learning if it's in the classroom, and time focused on being authentically present in real time and space if it's during recess. School hours are precious in that way, and I think it is concerning that they're spending that much time in school. And I told you the median. Of course, some kids are above that, a significant half of them are above it. And at the high end, they're spending 30 to 40% of school time on screens. Now, some schools have enacted policies. They don't typically enforce them very well. One of the things that drives me nuts, Kelly, is that as an academic, you know we love to argue amongst ourselves and hem and haw. And this issue about whether or not there's such a phenomenon as digital addiction is still being hotly debated. Honestly, the only behavioral addiction that's being seriously considered at this point is gaming disorder. The DSM-5 didn't consider gaming, considered it, but didn't include, it said it needed further study in 2013. In 2022, the WHO did include gaming disorder as an ICD-11 diagnosis. But just as further evidence how slow science is compared to technology., I mean gaming, while it's still an entity, represents a small fraction of most people's screen time. And the numbers that Kris conveyed, a small fraction of that for some on average was gaming. For some people, it's their screen use of choice, but for many, it's social media. YouTube, although I consider YouTube to be a social media, etc. And at the high end when you hear the numbers Kris conveyed in my mind that's a behavioral addiction any way you define it. Well, and if you think about things that we all agree are addictive, like nicotine and alcohol and heroin, people aren't doing it 300 times a day. So it's really pretty remarkable. And that's exactly right. One of the salient criteria for those addictions is that it's interfering with activities of daily living. Well, you can't be on a screen for nine hours a day when you're supposed to be asleep for 10 and at school for six without interfering with activities of day. The math isn't there. And things like being physically active and going out and playing. That's right. It doesn't add up. So, you don't need the DSM-5. You don't need a psychiatrist. You need a mathematician to tell you that there's too much time on this thing. Alright, so Kris, talk to us if you will, about the Children and Screens organization. I have a lot of respect for the organization and its work. Tell us how it got started and what its objectives are. Well, it's so great to be on this show with you and get to see you in your day job, Kelly. Because you've been an advisor, like Dimitri, to the institute almost since its inception, which is in 2013. As you know, our founder, Dr. Pamela Hurst-Della Pietra, really became concerned as a parent about the way digital media was impacting her children and sought out some answers. Well, what does this mean? Why is this happening? What should I do? And found out that this, of course, is 2013, this is a long time ago. There wasn't that much research yet. And it was multidisciplinary. In other words, there might be a study among neuroscientists or developmental psychologists, even ophthalmologists. But there really hadn't been, yet, a concerted effort to bring these different disciplines and the research together to try to answer some of these hard questions about the impact on kids. And lo and behold, here we are, almost 13 years since the advent of the smartphone and social media. And there is an astounding amount of research across disciplines. So, what we do at the institute is we try to translate it as fast as we can and make it actionable for parents, providers, and policy makers. And we do that through our Ask the Experts webinar series where we bring the experts themselves directly to our audience to talk about these impacts and answer questions. We also create printables, you might say, like tip sheets and Research at a Glance Digest, and newsletters and FAQs and we've upgraded our website to make it very navigable for parents of kids of all ages. I even started my own podcast this year, which has been really fun. Dimitri was my first guest, so it's great to see him here. And we have convenings. We're having our third Digital Media Developing Mind Scientific Congress this summer where the experts come together in person to discuss issues. And we really try to focus them on advancing research and supporting it, translating it, and positioning the issue as a policy priority. We'll be in Washington, DC where we know lawmakers are grappling with the impact of digital media on child development, how to make online, products safer for kids and protect their data. The Institute is in the middle of all of this, trying to facilitate more discussion, more results and more support for parents primarily. Kris, a couple of things occur to me. One is that the breadth of work you do is really very impressive because you're not only having very hands-on kind of in the real world ex advice for parents on how to navigate this world, but you have advice for and helpful resources for policy makers and for researchers and people. It's really quite an impressive breadth of work. The other thing that occurred to me is that I don't think you and I would have any podcast career at all if it hadn't been for Dimitri helping us out. So thanks Dimitri. Yeah. So, let me ask you, Dimitri, so I know that both you and Kris are committed to an evidence-based approach to making policy. Yeah. But technology advances way more quickly than scientists can evaluate it. Much less come up with policies to deal with it. And by the time research gets funded, completed, published, you're on to eight new levels of technology. So how does one handle this fundamental problem of pace? It's a really good question. I mean, I can tell you that we should at a minimum learn from the mistakes we've made in the past. And, you know, one of the most critical, frankly, that most people don't really understand is that we talk about the age at which children get social media accounts in this country. Kris pointed out that actually pre-teens routinely have social media accounts. Social media companies do very little to age gate. They're trying to do more now, but even the age at which we've accepted it is being normative is 13. Few people know where that comes from. That doesn't come from talking to pediatricians, psychologists, parents about what age is the appropriate age. It comes entirely from COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act), which basically was the original privacy act that said that before the age of 13, companies could not collect data from children. So, because these companies were interested in collecting data, they set the age at 13 so as to not have any constraints on the data they collected. Well, that's not even common sense-based policy, let alone evidence-based policy. And it's never been revisited since. It's very troubling to me. And as things move forward, I think we have to learn from those mistakes. Medicine has a maxim which is do no harm. We use that phrase a lot and I think it's a good one in this case. I think it's a particularly good one as we see the new technologies emerging around artificial intelligence. And you know, again, like any new technology, it has incredible upside. We made the mistake and we're still paying for it, about not appreciating the downsides of social network sites, and frankly, the internet in general. And I would hope we put guardrails in place now. And if you will apply the same standard we apply to other non-technology based products. You can't introduce a new pharmaceutical to anybody, let alone to children, until you show it's safe and effective. You can't bring toys to the world that are dangerous. Why do we have more safety precautions around toys than we do around websites for children? You know, a lot of it involves changing defaults, doesn't it? Because if the default is that government or somebody out there has to prove that something is harmful before it gets taken away. That changes everything then if you began at a different point where these companies have to prove that these things are safe. Correct. Or they're permitted. Then the companies would find workarounds and they would play games with that too, but at least that would help some. Well, it would help some. And at least we'd be philosophically in the right place. By the way, Kris didn't say it, so I'll say it. You know, the mission of Children and Screens, lest we sound like Luddites here, is not get kids away from technology. Take away their smartphones. We all recognize that technology is here to stay. I think all of us appreciate the incredible upside that it brings to children's lives. The mission of Children and Screens is to help children lead healthy lives in a digital world. And part of the reason she and I often talk about the concerns we have is because the pros make the case for themselves. I mean, you know, no one needs to come here and tell you how amazing it is that you could Google something or that you could get somewhere with GPS. I mean, we know it's amazing and we all rely on it. And none of us are ever talking about getting rid of that stuff. That makes good sense. It's like, you know, children benefit from the fact that they can get around with their parents in the automobile. But you want to have car seats in there to protect them. Exactly. And that's exactly right. There needs to be assurances of safety and they're none. I mean, they're really virtually none. The age getting is a joke. And even if we accept it as effective, the age set of 13 is too young, in my opinion. We started this conversation talking about these medias being addictive, I believe they're addictive. There are legitimate academics that will debate me on that, and I'm happy to join that debate. But as I said before, it's a tough argument to win when people spending upwards of 10 to 16 hours a day doing it. I don't know what you call that besides addictive. We can argue about what percentage are doing that, but nevertheless, once you accept something as addictive, for other addictive things we immediately age gate it above 18 or 21, right? Mm-hmm. We don't believe that the teenagers have the ability to regulate their alcohol or tobacco or gambling, all of which we accept are addictive. In fact, in the case of alcohol, we raised the age from 18 to 21 because we thought even 18-year-olds weren't able to do it. And yet somehow for this behavior, we think of it as just so different that it doesn't require greater cognitive capacity. And I don't believe that. Yeah, very good point. Kris, let me ask you a question about how you and your colleagues at Children and Screens set priorities because there are a lot of things that one could potentially worry about as outcomes. There's violence that kids see on social media. There's cognitive and brain development, social developments, social interactions, and bullying. Mental health, body image, diet, all these things are out there. How do you decide what to work on? Well, we try to work on all of it. And in fact, we've built up a fair amount of expertise and resources around almost 25 different topics. And we also understand that, you know, childhood is a long period of time. Birth to 18, birth to 21, birth to 25, depending on who you talk to. So, we're able to take those 25 topics and also provide deeper, you might say, resources that address the different stages of development. We're really trying to do as much as we can. What's been interesting over these last few years is trying to figure out when to be reactive, when to be proactive. And by being proactive, we go out looking for the research, translating it, digesting it, and creating materials with it that we think are really accessible and actionable. At the same time, as Dimitri points out, there are policy windows and there are opportunities that present themselves that you have to react to. If you just only talk about what you want to talk about to each other you're missing some of these external opportunities to inform policy and policy makers. Help influence the way that parents and providers are talking about the issue. Framing it in such a way that engages youth and makes them want what we want for them. We're really excited by increasing opportunities to partner in coalitions with others that care about kids and teachers and nurses and doctors. But we also are speaking directly to leaders in states and school districts at the federal level, at the local level. You would be, I'm sure, not surprised to hear that we are contacted every day by groups that support parents and families. Asking for resources, asking for support, because they're seeing the impact now over many years on their children, their development. Their academic ability. Their cognitive and analytical ability. Their social emotional ability. Their ability to pay attention to tasks that we all know are critical in building that foundation for essentially, you know, future success. The Institute is being pulled in many directions. Ee try really hard to be strategic about what are people asking us for? What does the research say and how can we get that to them as quickly as possible? Dimitri - Can I add to that? You know, I want to emphasize that the concern around the effects of screen use on children's lives is shared by parents on both sides of the aisle. 75% of parents are concerned about the impact of screens on their children's lives. 35% of teenagers are concerned about their dependents on screens and that it has a negative effect on their lives. Actually by some studies, some surveys, even more than 35 to 50% of teenagers are concerned. And both sides of the political aisle agree in large part of this. And Kris and Kelly, you guys are the policy wonks, you can speak more to that. So it's a serious indictment on us as grownups and as a society that we have not done more to deliver on this issue. Why? When there's bipartisan agreement amongst many policymakers. This is not a political [00:22:00] issue to speak of and there is widespread concern on the part of parents and even teenagers. Why is nothing happening? Well, one has to look no further than where the money is. And that's a problem. I mean, that's a serious indictment on our political system when we can't deliver something that is needed and basically wanted by everybody but the industry itself. We'll come back and talk in a few moments about the policy issues and where industry gets involved here. But let me take just a bit of a detour from that and talk about the book that I mentioned earlier, because I think it's such a valuable resource. Now, when I mention the name of this book I'm urging our listeners to write this down or to remember it because you can get the book at no cost. And I'll come back, Kris, and explain what made that possible and why the decision was to make this an open access book. But Dimitri, let's begin with you. So you, along with Lauren Hale, edited this book that's entitled, The Handbook of Children and Screens: Digital Media Development and Wellbeing From Birth Through Adolescence. I think it's an extraordinary piece of work, but tell, tell us about the book.  It was an extraordinary undertaking. There's I think 178 or 180 authors. Literally, it's a who's who of experts in children and media research in all disciplines. It represents pediatrics, psychiatry, psychology, communications experts, demography, lawyers, neuroscientists. I don't know who I'm forgetting. Every single discipline is represented. Leading scientists in all of those areas. Virtually every topic that someone might be of interest to people. And we deliberately made the chapters short and easily accessible. So, it is, I think, a great resource for the constituents we serve. For teachers, for parents, for researchers, for policymakers. And it is free. The hardest part of it, to be honest, as an editor, was getting peer reviewers because unfortunately, every expert was conflicted since they all had an article in it. But it was a long time coming. And again, this was really the brainchild of Pam (Pamela Hurst-Della Pietra) and we're grateful to have brought it along. So, you go all the way from the neuroscience, how children's brains are reacting to this, all the way out there into the public policy and legal arena about what can be done about it. And then kind of everything in between. It's remarkable how much the book covers. It's almost a thousand pages. I mean, it is a tome to be sure. And don't forget to mention, Dimitri, we aren't even two months post publication, and we have 1.6 million views of the document, despite its gargantuan size. I think that is really a tribute to experts like you and others that have really studied this issue and can speak directly to its impacts. It's been great to see the success so far. You know, not a small number of those views is from me logging on. And then a million from me and then we got there. So, it is free because it's online and you can download it. You can also order a hard copy for I think, $60, but I'm not sure why you would do that if you can download it for free. But it's up to you. So, Kris, it's unusual for a book like this to be made open access and free to the general public. What made that possible and why was that so important? We want the maximum number of people to use it and treat it like the premier resource that it is. And the only way you can really do that is to fund it to be open access and find a publisher that does open access publishing, which we did with Springer. I mean, most journal articles are behind a paywall and publishers do require you to purchase either a subscription or the document itself to download it or order it. And we just really wanted maximum access. So, we funded it to be published in that way. And I think honestly, it helped us even sort of create it in the first place. People want to be a part of something that has that level of access and is available so widely. So, I think it was a kind of mutually beneficial. It gets more people to read it, but it got more people to write for it too, I think. Right, Dimitri? Dimitri - I agree. I mean, you know, the numbers 1.6 million are extraordinary. I mean, Kelly, you've been internal editor. I mean, as a editor of JAMA Pediatrics, if an article gets 70,000 views, it's in our top 1%, you know, 200,000 views is 0.01%. 1.6 million in growing is really extraordinary. And that's about the number of people that read my articles. 1.6. And of course, they're not all scientists. I mean, many of them are parents and maybe are policy makers, but that's Kris's point, you know. The moment anyone hits a paywall, even if it's a dollar or two, they're going to walk away. It's great to see it get so much traction. Alright, so again, for our listeners, the title of the book is The Handbook of Children and Screens. And it's really a terrific resource. Alright, so let's turn our attention to a really important matter. And we've sort of touched on this, but who's in charge of protecting our children? You know, Dimitri at the end of the day help survey this landscape for us. I mean, is it congress, is it the administrative branch of government? What role do the courts play? Are there legal actors taking meaningful action? What's being done does it come anywhere near, meeting the need. Tell us about what that landscape is like? Well, there isn't adequate protections for children. And we talked a little bit about that earlier. There's been an enormous loophole, unfortunately, created by Congress when they added the Section 230 to the Communications Decency Act in 1996. And that was put in place essentially to provide protections for internet companies. And it basically said that they should be treated like bookstores and not publishers. That they weren't responsible for content they were just conveying it. And what that means, in effect, was that the companies had sort of carte blanche to do whatever they want. And they've used that very effectively, legally, to argue that any restriction, any culpability on their part, is protected by that Act. That they're exonified for any ill that occurs as a result of their product. The only exception that's been made of it, to date, was around sex trafficking on back page, if anyone remembers that. But other than that, social media sites and internet sites in general have been able to say that they're not liable for anything that's done. And I think that was a huge mistake that was made. It needs to be rectified. It's being challenged in the courts presently. My own belief is that, and I'm not speaking as a lawyer, is that when that law was passed, it was under the assumption as I said, that they were just conveying information. No one at the time foresaw the development of algorithms that would feed the information. It's really not a bookstore when you are making recommendations. Once you start recommending things, I think you're no longer merely a purveyor of product. You're actually pushing it. So, Kris, tell us about the Children and Screens and the role the organization plays in this space. And how do you deal with policy and is it possible to be bipartisan? Yeah, I mean, it's essential. There's no way to get anything done, anywhere on these policy matters at a population level without working in a bipartisan or non-partisan manner, which is what we've always done. And it's easy to do that when you're following the science, not ideology. And you're putting the science first and you're creating resources and tools and support for those mostly staffers, honestly, that are trying to help their bosses get smarter and better at talking about these issues as they evolve and become more complicated over time. It takes more effort to staff a lawmaker on this front. And they're very anxious to learn and understand because they're meeting with parents of children who have been harmed. Or frankly didn't even survive their childhood because of the social media platform. There's great urgency on the part of policymakers. We've heard everything from school phone bans to outright social media bans proposed as policies. And one thing I like to come back to is it's one thing to want to take action and make your best guess at what would have the best impact. But it's another thing to study whether or not that policy actually achieved its result. And it's a part of this that by staying bipartisan, nonpartisan allows us to say, 'Hey lawmaker, if you're able to get that to happen, we'd really like to come in and help study whether or not your idea actually achieves the results that you wanted, or if it needs to be adjusted or amended over time.' Fantastic. That's so important to be doing that work, and I'm delighted the organization is doing it. Let me ask a question here. If you think about some of the areas of public health that I've been following, like tobacco, for example. Opioids more recently. Vaping products. And in the case of my own particular work food policy. The administrative legislative branches of government have been almost completely ineffective. If I think about food policy over the years, relatively little has been accomplished. Even though lots of people have worked really hard on it. Same thing happened with tobacco for many years. Opioids, same thing.  And it's until you get the third branch of government involved, the judiciary, and you start suing the actors who were causing the harm do you get much action. Not only do the lawsuits seem to have an effect, but they soften the ground for legislative things that then can occur because public opinion has changed. And then those things help make a difference as well. What do you think about that kind of issue in this space?  I think you're exactly right. I mean, I think the failure of our legislative branch to enact policy leaves us with very few options at this point anyway, except to try to pursue it through the judiciary. There are challenges there. First and foremost, it's a big and well-funded industry, not unlike tobacco or big food, as you mentioned and there's this Section 230 that's given them kind of blanket immunity to date. But there are many, many very large pending cases in several jurisdictions brought by individuals, brought by school districts, brought by states. And those, at least provisionally have gotten further than prior cases have with which have been thrown out based on Section 230. So, we'll see what happens with that litigation. But right now, my guess is it's the best chance we have to set some guardrails. And I think there are plenty of guardrails that could be set. Everything that these companies have done to make their products addictive can be undone. Can be made protective. The tobacco company deliberately designed their products to be addictive. While they tried to make the claims that they were less addictive, you know. They made light cigarettes that had holes in the filter so that it would diffuse the carbon and nicotine, but people quickly learned they could cover those up with their fingers and think they were smoking light cigarettes, and smoke more of them. There's a lot of things that can be done in this space to undesign the problematic nature of the products. And quite apart from the financial settlements, which will get companies attention, I hope that that's part of any settlement if it gets that far. It'll be interesting to see where those go. And, also historically, one important part of these lawsuits is what gets turned up in discovery. And what sort of intent the companies have and how much do they know about harms. And how much do they know about addiction and things like that. And how they might have proceeded in the face of that information that then doesn't get disclosed to the public. In any event, we'll see where that goes. Dimitri, what about the argument that responsibility resides with parents. It's up to parents to protect their kids from this, and government doesn't need to be involved. I've never understood that argument. I mean parents obviously are children's most important safeguard, but as a society, we enact policies and laws to assist parents in that. I mean to me, if I made the argument, well, why, why do we have minimum ages of drinking. It's parents' job to make sure their kids don't drink. How would that possibly play out? Look, it's hard enough as a parent anyway, because kids do get around these laws. But we still have them and it's a lot easier as a parent. I think most parents would agree their life's made easier by minimum age restrictions on certain things. We have seatbelt laws. I mean, why do we have seatbelt laws? Why don't we just tell its parents' job to make sure their kids buckle up? The truth is its society and parents working hand in hand to try and keep children safe. And I think it also helps parents to be able to say that there are laws around this, and I expect you to follow the laws. So, I don't think it's an either or. Okay, well, I think that's a very good way to frame it. There are many, many precedents where we protect children. And why not do it here too? So let me end with a question I'd like to ask both of you. So, in this sea of concerns that we've discussed, is there a reason for optimism? And Kris, let me start, start with you. What do you think? Absolutely. I think the young people I've met that are leading among their peers are incredibly impressive and are armed with the research and their energy and their own lived experience in ways that are very compelling. At the same time, I think the vast amount of research that has now been compiled and translated and acted upon, whether in courtrooms or in state houses, it's becoming more, and we're all getting more steeped and aware of more nuanced information. And finally, I would just say, there is a tipping point. We are reaching as a society, adults and kids alike, we are reaching a tipping point where we can't withstand the pressure of technology in every aspect, every corner of our day, our life. And we want relief. We deserve relief. And I think that's what's going to take us over the finish line. Good. Well, I'm glad to hear those optimistic notes. Dimitri, what about you? I can find reasons to be optimistic. I mean, look, the reality is that technologies have enriched our lives in many ways. And I think if we put guardrails in place, we can make sure that future ones do even better. I have a piece coming out in JAMA Pediatrics around the use of AI, which people are very concerned about, I think rightly. But specifically, about the use of AI and people with intellectual developmental disabilities, making the use case, that there are ways in which it could be extremely beneficial to that population. A population I care deeply about in my role as the Chief Health Officer at Special Olympics International. And in particular, let's say in terms of the doctor patient interaction where it could facilitate their communication with their provider, and it could also help the provider better communicate with them. Look, that use case isn't going to be a priority for the purveyors of artificial intelligence. It's a small, non-lucrative use of a technology. But it's a good one. And if we created the right incentives and put in the right guardrails, we could find many other ways that technology can serve the needs of all of us going forward. I think the problem is that we've tended to be reactive rather than proactive. And to not start with the do no harm first premise, particularly when it comes to children. AI is another example of that where I hope we don't make the same mistake we made with social media. Bios Kris Perry is the executive director of the Children and Screens Institute. Kris most recently served as Senior Advisor to Governor Gavin Newsom of California and Deputy Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency where she led the development of the California Master Plan for Early Learning and Care and the expansion of access to high-quality early childhood programs. She led systems change efforts at the local, state and national levels in her roles as executive director of First 5 San Mateo, First 5 California and of the First Five Years Fund. Through it all, Perry has fought to protect children, improve and expand early learning programs, and increase investments in low-income children. Perry was instrumental in returning marriage equality to California after the landmark 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Hollingsworth v. Perry, which she wrote about in her book Love on Trial (Roaring Forties Press, 2017). Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH is the Children and Screens Institute's inaugural Chief Science Officer. He is also the George Adkins Professor at the University of Washington, Editor in Chief of JAMA Pediatrics, and the Chief Health Officer at Special Olympics International. Christakis is a leading expert on how media affects child health and development. He has published over 270 peer reviewed articles (h-index 101) including dozens of media-related studies and co-authored a groundbreaking book, The Elephant in the Living Room: Make Television Work for Your Kids. His work has been featured on Anderson Cooper 360, the Today Show, ABC, NBC, and CBS news as well as all major national newspapers. Christakis received his undergraduate degree at Yale University and his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and completed his residency and Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar Fellowship at the University of Washington School of Medicine. 

Theodore Christakis is Professor of International and European Law at University Grenoble Alpes (France), Director of the Centre for International Security and European Law (CESICE), Director of Research for Europe with the Cross-Border Data Forum, Senior Fellow with the Future of Privacy Forum and a former Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the New York University Cybersecurity Centre.  He is also Chair on the Legal and Regulatory Implications of Artificial Intelligence with the Multidisciplinary Institute on AI, and has been a member of the French National Digital Council, currently serving as a member of the French National Committee on Digital Ethics as well as a member of the International Data Transfers Experts Council of the UK Government.  With Theodore we have gone through “the good”, “the bad”, and “the ugly” in the EDPB Opinion on LLMs and personal data. We have also examined the Deepseek affair, as well as the challenges posed by hallucinations in generative AI.  References: Théodore Christakis' SSRN Author Page Théodore Christakis on LinkedIn EDPB opinion 28/2024 on certain data protection aspects related to the processing of personal data in the context of AI models Discussion Paper: Large Language Models and Personal Data (Hamburgische Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit) Lokke Moerel: using personal data in the development and deployment of AI models (Masters of Privacy) Théodore Christakis, ‘European Digital Sovereignty': Successfully Navigating Between the “Brussels Effect” and Europe's Quest for Strategic Autonomy  Théodore Christakis, Cyber-Attacks – Prevention-Reactions: The Role of States and Private Actors Multidisciplinary Institute on AI Université Grenoble Alpes: Centre d'études sur la sécurité internationale et les coopérations européennes.

Dr. Nicholas Christakis is a Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science at Yale. He is known for his research on the influence of social networks in determining behaviors and health phenomena in human populations. He explores how social factors affect biological and social functioning, illustrating that behaviors like smoking, happiness, and obesity can spread through social ties. Christakis also delves into the biological and evolutionary basis for why humans form social networks and how these structures affect individuals and societies. He joins Nick for a conversation about his work, particularly the insight in his recent book, Blueprint.✨Join us on Patreon https://patreon.com/psychologyis✅ Early access to ad-free videos - No more skipping ads!✅ Your name in end credits of main full length videos, including Psychology Is Podcast videos✅ Unlock our community and direct chat

Le microbiote intestinal, un ensemble de micro-organismes vivant dans notre système digestif, est unique à chaque individu. Cependant, des études montrent qu'il peut être influencé par nos interactions sociales, révélant un lien étonnant entre les personnes qui se fréquentent régulièrement. Une étude récente menée par Nicholas Christakis et ses collègues, publiée le 20 novembre 2024, explore ce phénomène en examinant le microbiote intestinal de plusieurs habitants de villages isolés au Honduras.Les résultats de l'étudeL'équipe de Christakis a observé que les individus vivant en proximité ou ayant des interactions régulières partageaient des similitudes dans leur microbiote intestinal. Ce constat était valable non seulement pour les membres d'une même famille, mais aussi pour des amis proches. Les chercheurs ont attribué cette convergence à des facteurs tels que les échanges microbiens indirects (par exemple, par le biais d'objets partagés ou d'aliments consommés en commun) et les environnements similaires.Mécanismes de partage du microbioteLe partage de bactéries intestinales peut se produire par des moyens variés :1.Contact physique : Des études antérieures ont montré que le simple fait de se toucher ou d'avoir des interactions proches (comme dans les câlins) peut transférer des micro-organismes.2.Environnement partagé : Les personnes qui vivent ensemble sont exposées aux mêmes sources alimentaires, surfaces et micro-organismes présents dans leur habitat.3.Habitudes alimentaires : Les amis et les membres d'une même famille adoptent souvent des régimes alimentaires similaires, influençant ainsi la composition de leur microbiote.Pourquoi cela est importantLe microbiote joue un rôle clé dans la digestion, le système immunitaire et même la santé mentale. Une convergence du microbiote entre individus proches pourrait donc avoir des implications sur leur santé collective. Par exemple, une étude de Song et al. (2013) a montré que des microbiotes similaires peuvent favoriser une meilleure réponse immunitaire contre certaines infections.Une empreinte sociale biologiqueLe microbiote peut être considéré comme une "signature biologique" reflétant nos interactions sociales. Les travaux de Christakis suggèrent que nos relations influencent directement notre physiologie au niveau microbien, brouillant les frontières entre biologie et sociologie.ConclusionEn observant le microbiote intestinal, il est possible d'identifier les réseaux sociaux d'un individu. Ce domaine émergent de recherche ouvre des perspectives fascinantes sur l'interdépendance biologique et sociale des êtres humains, révélant à quel point nos relations façonnent littéralement qui nous sommes, jusque dans nos entrailles. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

We explored the challenges and potential solutions for building trust, inclusion, and collaboration in tech-hybrid or remote teams. A focus on how technology supports transparent communication and fosters connections in tech-enabled environments related to socio-technical teams. (Tech-hybrid teams blend humans and robotics, AI, or other modern technology as team members.)  In this Episode: Dr. Emi Baressi, Tom Bradshaw, special guests Keith and Daniel Edwards from the Houston RobotLab, Dr. Matt Lampe, Alexander Abney-King, Nic Krueger, Rich Cruz, Dr. Martha Grajdek    Visit us https://www.seboc.com/ Follow us on LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/sebocLI Join an open-mic event: https://www.seboc.com/events   References: Arslan, A., Cooper, C., Khan, Z., Golgeci, I., & Ali, I. (2022). Artificial intelligence and human workers interaction at team level: a conceptual assessment of the challenges and potential HRM strategies. International Journal of Manpower, 43(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2021-0052   Berretta, S., Tausch, A., Ontrup, G., Gilles, B., Peifer, C., & Kluge, A. (2023). Defining human-AI teaming the human-centered way: A scoping review and network analysis. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1250725–1250725. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1250725 Belanger, F., Collins, R. W., & Cheney, P. H. (2001). Technology Requirements and Work Group Communication for Telecommuters. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.2.155.9695   Belling, S. (2021). PsychoWorkplacegenerationslogy of Remote Teams: Trust, People, and Connections. In Remotely Possible (pp. 59–73). Apress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-7008-0_5   Boccoli, G., Gastaldi, L., & Corso, M. (2024). Transformational leadership and work engagement in remote work settings: The moderating role of the supervisor's digital communication skills. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(7), 1240–1257. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2023-0490   Brock, J. K.-U., & von Wangenheim, F. (2019). Demystifying AI: What Digital Transformation Leaders Can Teach You about Realistic Artificial Intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504219865226   Chin, J. H., Haring, K. S., & Kim, P. (2023). Understanding the neural mechanisms of empathy toward robots to shape future applications. Frontiers in neurorobotics, 17, 1145989. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2023.1145989   Ezer, N., Bruni, S., Cai, Y., Hepenstal, S. J., Miller, C. A., & Schmorrow, D. D. (2019). Trust Engineering for Human-AI Teams. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631264   Flathmann, C., Schelble, B. G., Rosopa, P. J., McNeese, N. J., Mallick, R., & Madathil, K. C. (2023). Examining the impact of varying levels of AI teammate influence on human-AI teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 177, 103061-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103061   Fuchs, A., Passarella, A., & Conti, M. (2024). Optimizing Delegation in Collaborative Human-AI Hybrid Teams. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3687130   Guznov, S., Lyons, J., Pfahler, M., Heironimus, A., Woolley, M., Friedman, J., & Neimeier, A. (2020). Robot Transparency and Team Orientation Effects on Human-Robot Teaming. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(7), 650–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1676519   Hagemann, V., Rieth, M., Suresh, A., & Kirchner, F. (2023). Human-AI teams—Challenges for a team-centered AI at work. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1252897–1252897. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1252897   Harris-Watson, A. M., Larson, L. E., Lauharatanahirun, N., DeChurch, L. A., & Contractor, N. S. (2023). Social perception in Human-AI teams: Warmth and competence predict receptivity to AI teammates. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107765-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107765   Hauptman, A. I., Schelble, B. G., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., & McNeese, N. J. (2024). Understanding the influence of AI autonomy on AI explainability levels in human-AI teams using a mixed methods approach. Cognition, Technology & Work, 26(3), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-024-00765-7   Hauptman, A. I., Schelble, B. G., McNeese, N. J., & Madathil, K. C. (2023). Adapt and overcome: Perceptions of adaptive autonomous agents for human-AI teaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107451-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107451   Li, M., Kwon, M., & Sadigh, D. (2021). Influencing leading and following in human–robot teams. Autonomous Robots, 45(7), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-021-10016-7   Ma, L. M., Ijtsma, M., Feigh, K. M., & Pritchett, A. R. (2022). Metrics for Human-Robot Team Design: A Teamwork Perspective on Evaluation of Human-Robot Teams. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 11(3), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3522581   Naikar, N., Brady, A., Moy, G., & Kwok, H.-W. (2023). Designing human-AI systems for complex settings: ideas from distributed, joint, and self-organising perspectives of sociotechnical systems and cognitive work analysis. Ergonomics, 66(11), 1669–1694. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2023.2281898   Traeger, M. L., Sebo, S. S., Jung, M., Scassellati, B., & Christakis, N. A. (2020). Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6370–6375. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910402117   You, S., & Robert, L. P. (2022). Team robot identification theory (TRIT): robot attractiveness and team identification on performance and viability in human–robot teams. The Journal of Supercomputing, 78(18), 19684–19706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-022-04645-7

One of the most fascinating concepts in human health is the idea of social contagion, meaning that emotions, behaviors, and health outcomes can spread through social networks, much like infectious diseases. Examples in the medical literature abound: if a person becomes obese, their friends have a significantly higher chance of becoming obese — even their friends of friends have increased odds of becoming obese. Similarly, someone who quit smoking is likely to create a ripple effect through their social networks, influencing many more people to quit smoking. Social contagion affects life and death itself — after the death of a spouse, the surviving partner's mortality risk increases, and conversely, strong social networks are protective against early death. Much of the groundwork of our understanding of the powerful health effects of social networks laid by Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, a physician-turned-social scientist who is the author of multiple best selling books, including Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus On the Way We Live (2020) in Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society (2019).In this episode, Dr. Christakis shares his remarkable path to medicine and sociology, beginning from witnessing his mother's struggle through serious illness, to his foray into palliative medicine, and finally to his life's work on the social, economic and evolutionary determinants of human welfare. We discuss the mechanisms by which social contagion functions, why modern medicine does a disservice to patients by atomizing their medical problems, how the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the effects of social networks on public health, the philosophical implications of living an interconnected life, and why human beings are wired to build good societies through our capacity for love, friendship and cooperation.In this episode, you'll hear about 3:17 - Dr. Christakis's path to medicine through witnessing his mother's serious illness 15:05 - How Dr. Christakis became passionate about studying the effects of social networks 24:43 - How social networks affect an individual's health 31:28 - The negative effects that COVID-19 restrictions had on patients and their loved ones38:58 - The central thesis of Dr. Christakis's 2019 book Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society 50:38 - Dr. Christakis's thoughts on how to live a meaningful life  Dr. Nicholas Christakis can be found on Twitter/X at @NAChristakis.Visit our website www.TheDoctorsArt.com where you can find transcripts of all episodes.If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, rate, and review our show, available for free on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you know of a doctor, patient, or anyone working in health care who would love to explore meaning in medicine with us on the show, feel free to leave a suggestion in the comments or send an email to info@thedoctorsart.com.Copyright The Doctor's Art Podcast 2024

The boys are joined by former BITTER podcast rivals @notadamncheese and @al.christakis from the @clownpeoplepodcast

Episode #115: Today's "Quick Friendship Tip" is about how to capture the attitude and spirit of that special "freshman energy" apparent on any college campus in the first three weeks of school when making new friends as an adult.There is something real happening in that freshman year, specifically the first three weeks, that is magical for friend making. I saw it while dropping off my son for his freshmen year of college in August, and I remember it from my own freshmen year.  I'm grateful to former guest, Gretchen Rubin, (who also recently dropped off a child for freshmen year) for sharing a 2015 NYT article in her newsletter by Nicholas A Christakis called "Making Friends in New Places." Christakis described in more detail what exactly is happening in those first three weeks. I did not imagine it just a few months ago during the initial college move in days. While adult life cannot replicate those three weeks in exactly the same way, I have some ideas about how we can take what's essential about that vulnerable time and use it to our advantage as adults when we're in periods of having to make new friends or just wanting to get out of a friend rut. Send us a text* All transcripts are available on the main Buzzsprout "Dear Nina" site. Click on any episode and find the transcript tab. Let's connect over all things friendship! My Substack newsletter about friendship & more Dear Nina website with show notes and a guide to pitching yourself as a guest Instagram , TikTok, Twitter, Youtube, Threads JOIN the Dear Nina Facebook group Ask an anonymous question

De laatste aflevering van seizoen 2 alweer. Over vriendschap. Lennard en Thijs hebben het over wat de wetenschap, psychologie met name, allemaal voor moois te vertellen heeft rondom vriendschap. Wat is het, wat is het niet. Waarom zou je vrienden willen hebben? Hoe kom je van sommige vrienden af? Maar ook hoe je vrienden houdt en überhaupt hoe je vrienden maakt: ook als je volwassen bent. En ze vertellen wat over hoe hun eigen vriendschap is ontstaan. Dat, en alles over social contagion theory en meer, hoor je in deze aflevering. Na de zomer zijn we weer terug met een nieuw seizoen! Tussendoor hoor je hier en daar een speciale aflevering om je niet helemaal droog te laten staan. Adverteren in deze podcast? Mail naar podcasts@astrolads.com Bronnen en ander lees- en luister- en kijkvoer: - Check het boek over het beëindigen van vriendschappen van Raounak Khaddari, Even goede vrienden - hoe je vrienden kunt maken als volwassene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eww3stkEwBY - Kurzgesagt filmpje over vrienden en het belang van vriendschap https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9hJ_Rux9y0 - Er zijn een aantal klassiekers qua boeken over vriendschap, zoals: How to win friends and influence people. Van Dale Carnegie - Of How to start a conversation and make friends van Don Gabor. Nerd-literatuur: - Kang, W. (2023). Establishing the associations between the Big Five personality traits and self-reported number of close friends: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Acta Psychologica, 239, 104010. - Brent, L. J., Chang, S. W., Gariépy, J. F., & Platt, M. L. (2014). The neuroethology of friendship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316(1), 1-17. - Cohen, E. E., Ejsmond-Frey, R., Knight, N., & Dunbar, R. I. (2010). Rowers' high: behavioural synchrony is correlated with elevated pain thresholds. Biology letters, 6(1), 106-108. - DeVries, A. C., Glasper, E. R., & Detillion, C. E. (2003). Social modulation of stress responses. Physiology & behavior, 79(3), 399-407. - Hruschka, D. J. (2010). Friendship: Development, ecology, and evolution of a relationship (Vol. 5). Univ of California Press. - Fowler, J. H., Settle, J. E., & Christakis, N. A. (2011). Correlated genotypes in friendship networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(5), 1993-1997. - Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Statistics in medicine, 32(4), 556-577. - Nickolas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler (2009), Connected: The Surprising Power of our Social Networks and How they Shape our Lives, Little, Brown, New York, NY. - Ackerman, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2007). Is friendship akin to kinship?. Evolution and human behavior, 28(5), 365-374. - Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS medicine, 7(7), e1000316. - Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Statistics in medicine, 32(4), 556-577. - Apostolou, M., Keramari, D., Kagialis, A., & Sullman, M. (2021). Why people make friends: The nature of friendship. Personal Relationships, 28(1), 4-18. - Smets, S., & Velázquez-Quesada, F. R. (2017). How to make friends: A logical approach to social group creation. In Logic, Rationality, and Interaction: 6th International Workshop, LORI 2017, Sapporo, Japan, September 11-14, 2017, Proceedings 6 (pp. 377-390). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Ashley Christakis has 19 years of experience in the Legal and eDiscovery industry. Her roles have included Litigation Paralegal, eDiscovery Project Manager, eDiscovery Program Manager, and Senior Manager, eDiscovery and Legal Operations. Ashley's experience spans each phase of the EDRM in the law firm and in-house settings, including information governance and litigation readiness for key and complex data sources, legal hold management, collection strategy and execution, processing specifications, crafting and iterating on search terms, analytics, document review management, data disposition, and optimization, driving efficiencies in each phase, and drafting and consulting on associated corporate policies and procedures. She enjoys building relationships and collaborating to advance legal technology in support of the business and legal industry. Ashley lives in Malvern, PA, with her husband, two kids, and their assortment of pets.   In episode 001 of Careers and The Business of Law: Legal Data Intelligence Series, Ashley Chistakis talks with David about her path from Law firm marketing to paralegal to legal operations at Siemens, “the art of the possible” in elevating the role of legal ops and eDiscovery, the three legal superpowers-- technology curiosity, relationship building, and a service mindset--that all nextGen legal data intelligence workers will need.   (0:24) The Evolution of Legal Roles. Ashley Christakis introduces her role at CrowdStrike and her dual responsibilities in legal operations and eDiscovery, highlighting her efforts to elevate the legal department by enhancing internal workflows in collaboration with her team and the tech department. (1:35) Facing Challenges in LegalOps. Discussing the biggest challenges in her role, Ashley points to the need for reimagination and innovation in legal processes, along with the hurdles of technology implementation and workforce management. She emphasizes the broad scope and the inherent difficulties of making decisive choices in her field. "I would say it's the reimagination... it's really hard, at least for me individually, to make a decision.” (3:05) From Childhood Dreams to Legal Innovator. Ashley recounts her unexpected career trajectory from dreaming of being a musician or ballerina to pioneering legal technology and eDiscovery. She draws an engaging analogy between musical roles and departmental functions within a company, illustrating her creative approach to organizational dynamics. "H.R. is the guitar... and we all know that the lead singer is sales." (6:02) Legal Data Intelligence Explained. Ashley delves into the concept of Legal Data Intelligence (LDI), emphasizing its reliance on nextGen technology to drive improvements in productivity and efficiency within legal operations. She articulates her personal connection to LDI, noting her introverted nature and her passion for the subject. "And so when I raise my hand, it's about something I'm passionate about. And that's LDI.” (10:19) The Superpowers of Legal Professionals. Highlighting the unique qualities essential for roles in legal data and operations, Ashley identifies technology curiosity, relationship building, and a service-oriented approach to internal clients as her professional "superpowers." These traits, she argues, are crucial for navigating the complex intersections of law and technology.  (15:59)  Building the LDI Community. Ashley speaks about forming a collaborative group within the realm of Legal Data Intelligence, named the LDI posse, which includes professionals like Farah, Pepper, Omar, and Jeremiah. This group aims to spearhead new initiatives and bring diverse ideas to the forefront of legal operations. "There's at least 30 of us, and we're all uniquely qualified in various ways to present this new initiative.” (21:07) A Personal Note: Life Beyond the Office. Ashley shares personal insights into her daily routine and how she balances professional demands with personal life, emphasizing the importance of maintaining boundaries for work-life balance. She also shares her leisure activities, such as watching TV shows to unwind. "I probably watch either a comedy, like Parks and Recreation, or I watch The West Wing to fall asleep to.”

Read the longform article at:https://gettherapybirmingham.com/healing-the-modern-soul-part-2/   The Philosophy of Psychotherapy The Corporatization of Healthcare and Academia: A Threat to the Future of Psychotherapy The field of psychotherapy is at a critical juncture, facing numerous challenges that threaten its ability to effectively address the complex realities of the human experience. Chief among these challenges is the growing influence of corporate interests and the trend towards hyper-specialization in academic psychology, which have led to a disconnect between the profession and its roots, as well as a lack of understanding of the physical reality of the body, anthropology, and the history of the field. In this article, we will explore the ways in which the corporatization of healthcare and academia is impacting psychotherapy, and argue that in order for the profession to remain relevant and effective, it must embrace a more holistic and integrative approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of the mind, body, and spirit. This requires a renewed commitment to developing a coherent concept of self, a shared language and understanding of implicit memory, and a vision of psychotherapy as a means of empowering individuals to become more effective at being themselves in the world and, in turn, better at transforming the world for the better. The Corporatization of Healthcare and Academia The influence of corporate interests on healthcare and academia has had a profound impact on the field of psychotherapy. The pressure to maximize profits and minimize costs has led to a shift away from comprehensive diagnosis and towards a reliance on quick fixes like medication and brief, manualized therapies. This trend is particularly evident in the way that psychiatry has evolved over the past few decades. Psychiatrists used to spend an entire hour with their patients doing psychotherapy, but now the majority of the profession relies solely on drug therapy. In fact, a staggering 89% of psychiatrists used only drug therapy in 2010, compared to just 54% in 1988 (Mojtabai & Olfson, 2008). Patients are often left feeling frustrated and unheard, with many giving up on medication after their psychiatrist writes a script in the first and last five minutes of their first session. The same forces are at work in academia, where the cost of education has skyrocketed and the focus has shifted towards producing "products" rather than fostering critical thinking and innovation. Adjunct professors, who often lack the expertise and experience to teach psychotherapy effectively, have replaced tenure-track faculty, and students are graduating with a narrow understanding of the field that is ill-suited to the realities of private practice (Collier, 2017). The result is a profession that is increasingly disconnected from its roots and the physical reality of the body. Anthropology, humanities and the history of the profession, which offer valuable insights into the nature of the human experience and the evolution of psychotherapy, are largely ignored in favor of a narrow focus on cognitive-behavioral interventions and symptom reduction pushed largely to help psychopharm companies' bottom lines (Frances, 2013). The current academic publishing system is also broken. Academics work hard to come up with original ideas and write papers, only to give their work away for free to publishers who make trillions of dollars in profits while the authors get no compensation (Buranyi, 2017). Peers often cite papers to support their own points without actually reading them in depth. And the "best" journals frequently publish absurd psychology articles that would make you laugh if you said their main point out loud, but hide their lack of substance behind academic jargon (Sokal, 2008). Meanwhile, students spend years in graduate school being forced to research what their advisor wants, not what's truly innovative or needed to advance the field. After a decade of study and compromise, the pinnacle achievement is often creating a new 30-question screener for something like anxiety, rather than developing therapists who can actually discern and treat anxiety without needing a questionnaire. The system fails to properly vet or pay therapists, assuming they can't be trusted to practice without rigid manuals and checklists. This hyper-rationality, the madness arising from too much logic rather than too little, is very useful to moneyed interests like the Department of Defense in how they want to fund and control research. Large language models and AI are the pinnacle of this - spreadsheets sorting data points to mimic human speech, created by people so disconnected from a real sense of self that they believe you can turn people into robots because they've turned themselves into robots (Weizenbaum, 1976). But psychology and therapy can't be reduced to hard science and pure empiricism the way fields like physics can (at least until you get to quantum physics and have to rely on metaphor again). We can't remove all intuition, subjective experience and uncertainty (Rogers, 1995). The reproducibility crisis in psychology research shows the folly of this over-rationality (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Studies that throw out any participant who dropped out of CBT treatment because it wasn't helping them are not painting an accurate picture (Westen et al., 2004). Developing a Coherent Concept of Self A History of the Self Our understanding of the self has evolved throughout history: Ancient Greek Philosophy (6th century BCE - 3rd century CE) Socrates introduces the idea of the self as a distinct entity, emphasizing self-knowledge and introspection (Plato, trans. 2002). Plato's concept of the soul as the essence of the self, distinct from the physical body (Plato, trans. 1997). Aristotle's notion of the self as the unity of body and soul, with the soul being the form or essence of the individual (Aristotle, trans. 1986). Medieval Philosophy (5th century CE - 15th century CE) St. Augustine's concept of the self as a reflection of God, with the inner self being the source of truth and self-knowledge (Augustine, trans. 2002). St. Thomas Aquinas' synthesis of Aristotelian and Christian concepts of the self, emphasizing the soul as the form of the body (Aquinas, trans.1981). Renaissance and Enlightenment (16th century CE - 18th century CE) Descartes' famous "cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"), establishing the self as a thinking, conscious being (Descartes, trans. 1996). Locke's idea of the self as a blank slate shaped by experience and the continuity of consciousness (Locke, trans. 1975). Hume's skepticism about the self, arguing that it is merely a bundle of perceptions without a unified identity (Hume, trans. 2000). Romantic Era (late 18th century CE - mid-19th century CE) The self is seen as a creative, expressive force, with an emphasis on individuality and subjective experience (Berlin, 2013). The rise of the concept of the "self-made man" and the importance of personal growth and self-realization (Trilling, 1972). 20th Century Philosophy and Psychology Freud's psychoanalytic theory, which posits the self as composed of the id, ego, and superego, with unconscious drives and conflicts shaping behavior (Freud, trans.1989). Jung's concept of the self as the center of the psyche, integrating conscious and unconscious elements (Jung, 1959). Existentialism's emphasis on the self as a product of individual choices and actions, with the need to create meaning in a meaningless world (Sartre, trans. 1956). The rise of humanistic psychology, with its focus on self-actualization and the inherent potential of the individual (Maslow, 1968). Postmodernism's deconstruction of the self, challenging the idea of a unified, coherent identity (Jameson, 1991). Contemporary Developments (late 20th century CE - present) The influence of neuroscience and cognitive science on the understanding of the self as an emergent property of brain processes (LeDoux, 2002). The impact of social and cultural factors on the construction of the self, with the recognition of multiple, intersecting identities (Gergen, 1991). The rise of narrative theories of the self, emphasizing the role of storytelling in shaping personal identity (Bruner, 1990). The influence of Eastern philosophies and contemplative practices on Western concepts of the self, with an emphasis on mindfulness and interconnectedness (Epstein, 1995). Psychotherapy and the Concept of Self Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) - Psychoanalysis: Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, conceived of the self as being composed of three elements: the id, the ego, and the superego. The id represents the primitive, instinctual drives; the ego mediates between the demands of the id and the constraints of reality; and the superego represents the internalized moral standards and values of society. Freud believed that the goal of psychotherapy was to bring unconscious conflicts and desires into conscious awareness, allowing the ego to better manage the competing demands of the id and superego (Freud, trans. 1989). Carl Jung (1875-1961) - Analytical Psychology: Jung, a former collaborator of Freud, developed his own theory of the self, which he saw as the central archetype of the psyche. Jung believed that the self represented the unity and wholeness of the personality, and that the goal of psychotherapy was to help individuals achieve a state of self-realization or individuation. This involved integrating the conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche, including the persona (the public face), the shadow (the repressed or hidden aspects of the self), and the anima/animus (the inner masculine or feminine) (Jung, 1959). Alfred Adler (1870-1937) - Individual Psychology: Adler, another former collaborator of Freud, emphasized the importance of social relationships and the drive for superiority in shaping the self. He believed that individuals develop a unique lifestyle or way of being in the world based on their early experiences and relationships, and that the goal of psychotherapy was to help individuals overcome feelings of inferiority and develop a healthy, socially-oriented way of living (Adler, trans. 1964). Fritz Perls (1893-1970) - Gestalt Therapy: Perls, the founder of Gestalt therapy, saw the self as an ongoing process of self-regulation and self-actualization. He believed that the goal of psychotherapy was to help individuals become more aware of their present-moment experience and to take responsibility for their thoughts, feelings, and actions. Perls emphasized the importance of contact between the self and the environment, and the need to integrate the different aspects of the self into a cohesive whole (Perls et al., 1951). Internal Family Systems (IFS) - Richard Schwartz (1950-present): IFS is a more recent approach that sees the self as being composed of multiple sub-personalities or "parts." These parts are seen as having their own unique qualities, desires, and beliefs, and the goal of IFS therapy is to help individuals develop a greater sense of self-leadership and inner harmony. The self is seen as the core of the personality, with the capacity to lead and integrate the different parts (Schwartz, 1995). As Schwartz writes in the introduction to his book on IFS, the model was heavily influenced by Gestalt therapy and the work of Carl Jung. Schwartz aimed to create a non-pathologizing approach that honored the complexity and wisdom of the psyche. IFS shares Jung's view of the self as the central organizing principle, surrounded by various archetypes or subpersonalities. It also draws on the Gestalt emphasis on present-moment awareness and the need for integration of different aspects of the self. However, IFS offers a more user-friendly language than classical Jungian analysis, without the need for extensive explanations of concepts like anima/animus. In IFS, a patient can quickly identify different "parts" - for example, a protector part that taps its foot and bites its nails to avoid painful feelings. By directly engaging with and embracing that part, the patient can access the vulnerable feelings and memories it is protecting against, fostering self-compassion and integration over time. The IFS model is an example of how contemporary approaches are building on the insights of depth psychology while offering more transparent, experience-near practices suitable for a wider range of patients and practitioners. It reflects an ongoing effort to develop a cohesive yet flexible understanding of the self that remains open to unconscious processes. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) - Aaron Beck (1921-2021) and Albert Ellis (1913-2007): CBT, developed by Beck and Ellis, focuses on the role of thoughts and beliefs in shaping emotional and behavioral responses. CBT sees the self as being largely determined by the individual's cognitions, and the goal of therapy is to help individuals identify and modify maladaptive or irrational beliefs and thought patterns. CBT places less emphasis on the unconscious or intrapsychic aspects of the self, and more on the conscious, rational processes that shape behavior (Beck, 1979; Ellis & Harper, 1975). Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) - B.F. Skinner (1904-1990): ABA, based on the work of Skinner and other behaviorists, sees the self as a product of environmental contingencies and reinforcement histories. ABA focuses on observable behaviors rather than internal states or processes, and the goal of therapy is to modify behavior through the systematic application of reinforcement and punishment. ABA has been widely used in the treatment of autism and other developmental disorders, but has been criticized for its lack of attention to the inner experience of the self (Skinner, 1953; Lovaas, 1987). What is Self? One of the key challenges facing psychotherapy today is the lack of a coherent concept of self. The self is a complex and dynamic entity that is shaped by a range of internal and external factors, including our experiences, relationships, and cultural context (Baumeister, 1987). Unfortunately, many contemporary models of therapy fail to adequately capture this complexity, instead relying on simplistic and reductionistic notions of the self as a collection of symptoms or behaviors to be modified (Wachtel, 1991). To develop a more coherent and holistic concept of self, psychotherapy must draw on insights from a range of disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, anthropology, and the humanities (Sass & Parnas, 2003). This requires a willingness to engage with the messy and often paradoxical nature of the human experience, recognizing that the self is not a fixed entity but rather a constantly evolving process of becoming (Gendlin, 1978). The psychoanalyst Carl Jung's concept of the self as the central archetype, connected to the divine and the greater unconscious, offers a useful starting point for this endeavor. Jung believed that by making the unconscious conscious and dealing with ego rigidity, individuals could embody a deeper sense of purpose and connection to the universe (Jung, 1959). While we may not need to fully embrace Jung's metaphysical language, his emphasis on the dynamic interplay between conscious and unconscious processes, as well as the importance of symbol, dream, and myth in shaping the self, remains highly relevant today (Hillman, 1975). Other approaches, such as Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy and somatic experiencing, also offer valuable insights into the nature of the self. IFS sees the self as a core of compassion, curiosity, and confidence that is surrounded by protective parts that arise in response to trauma and other challenges. By working with these parts and fostering greater integration and self-leadership, individuals can develop a more coherent and authentic sense of self (Schwartz, 1995). Similarly, somatic experiencing emphasizes the role of the body in shaping the self, recognizing that trauma and other experiences are stored not just in the mind but also in the muscles, nerves, and other physical structures (Levine, 1997). Models like IFS, somatic experiencing, and lifespan integration are appealing because they see the self as a dynamic ecosystem that is always evolving and striving for integration and actualization (Boon et al., 2011; Ogden et al., 2006; Pace, 2012). They don't try to label and categorize everything, recognizing that sometimes we need to just sit with feelings and sensations without fully understanding them intellectually. Lifespan integration in particular views the self as a continuum of moments threaded together like pearls on a necklace. Traumatic experiences can cause certain "pearls" or ego states to become frozen in time, disconnected from the flow of the self-narrative. By imaginally revisiting these moments and "smashing them together" with resource states, lifespan integration aims to re-integrate the self across time, fostering a more coherent and flexible identity (Pace, 2012). In contrast, the more behavioral and manualized approaches like CBT and ABA have a much more limited and problematic view. They see the self as just a collection of cognitions and learned behaviors, minimizing the role of the unconscious and treating people more like programmable robots (Shedler, 2010). If taken to an extreme, this is frankly offensive and damaging. There has to be room for the parts of the self that we can feel and intuit but not fully articulate (Stern, 2004). Ultimately, developing a coherent concept of self requires a willingness to sit with the tensions and paradoxes of the human experience, recognizing that the self is always in communication with the world around us, and that our sense of who we are is constantly being shaped by implicit memory and other unconscious processes (Schore & Schore, 2008). It requires remaining open to uncertainty and realizing that the self is never static or finished, but always dynamically unfolding (Bromberg, 1996). Good therapy helps people get in touch with their authentic self, not just impose a set of techniques to modify surface-level symptoms (Fosha et al., 2009). Understanding Implicit Memory Another critical challenge facing psychotherapy today is the lack of a shared language and understanding of implicit memory. Implicit memory refers to the unconscious, automatic, and often somatic ways in which our past experiences shape our present thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Schacter et al., 1993). While the concept of implicit memory has a long history in psychotherapy, dating back to Freud's notion of the unconscious and Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, it remains poorly understood and often overlooked in contemporary practice (Kihlstrom, 1987). This is due in part to the dominance of cognitive-behavioral approaches, which tend to focus on explicit, conscious processes rather than the deeper, more intuitive and embodied aspects of the self (Bucci, 1997). To effectively address the role of implicit memory in psychological distress and personal growth, psychotherapy must develop a shared language and framework for understanding and working with these unconscious processes (Greenberg, 2002). This requires a willingness to engage with the body and the somatic experience, recognizing that our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are deeply rooted in our physical being (van der Kolk, 2014). One way to think about implicit memory is as a kind of "photoshop filter" that our brain is constantly running, even when we are not consciously aware of it. Just as the center of our visual field is filled in by our brain based on the surrounding context, our implicit memories are constantly shaping our perceptions and reactions to the world around us, even when we are not consciously aware of them. This is why it is so important for therapists to be attuned to the subtle cues and signals that patients give off, both verbally and nonverbally. A skilled therapist can often sense the presence of implicit memories and unconscious processes long before the patient is consciously aware of them, and can use this information to guide the therapeutic process in a more effective and meaningful direction (Schore, 2012). At the same time, it is important to recognize that implicit memories are not always negative or pathological. In fact, many of our most cherished and meaningful experiences are encoded in implicit memory, shaping our sense of self and our relationships with others in profound and often unconscious ways (Fosshage, 2005). The goal of therapy, then, is not necessarily to eliminate or "fix" implicit memories, but rather to help individuals develop a more conscious and intentional relationship with them, so that they can be integrated into a more coherent and authentic sense of self (Stern, 2004). The Future of the Unconscious Many of the most interesting thinkers in the history of psychology understood this symbolic dimension of implicit memory, even if their specific theories needed refinement. Freud recognized the dynamic interplay of conscious and unconscious processes, and the way that repressed material could manifest in dreams, symptoms, and relational patterns (Freud, trans. 1989). Jung saw the unconscious as not just a repository of repressed personal material, but a deep well of collective wisdom and creative potential, populated by universal archetypes and accessed through dream, myth, and active imagination (Jung, 1968). Jung urged individuals to engage in a lifelong process of "individuation," differentiating the self from the collective while also integrating the conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche (Jung, 1964). Reich connected chronic muscular tensions or "character armor" to blocked emotions and neurotic conflicts, pioneering body-based interventions aimed at restoring the free flow of life energy (Reich, 1980). While some of Reich's later work veered into pseudoscience, his core insights about the somatic basis of psychological experience were hugely influential on subsequent generations of clinicians (Young, 2006). More recently, emerging models such as sensorimotor psychotherapy (Ogden & Fisher, 2015), accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy (AEDP; Fosha, 2000), and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR; Shapiro, 2017) aim to access and integrate implicit memories through body-based and imagistic techniques. By working with posture, sensation, movement, and breath, these approaches help patients bring nonverbal, affective material into conscious awareness and narrative coherence. Process-oriented therapies such as Arnold Mindell's process work (Mindell, 1985) offer another compelling framework for engaging implicit memory. Mindell suggests that the unconscious communicates through "channels" such as vision, audition, proprioception, kinesthesia, and relationship. By unfolding the process in each channel and following the flow of "sentient essence," therapists can help patients access and integrate implicit memories and in turn catalyze psychological and somatic healing. These contemporary approaches build on the insights of earlier clinicians while offering new maps and methods for navigating the realm of implicit memory. They point towards an understanding of the self as an ever-evolving matrix of conscious and unconscious, cognitive and somatic, personal and transpersonal processes. Engaging implicit memory is not about pathologizing the unconscious so much as learning its unique language and honoring its hidden wisdom. At the same time, this is tricky terrain to navigate, personally and professionally. As therapist and patient venture into the uncharted waters of the unconscious, it is crucial to maintain an attitude of humility, compassion, and ethical integrity (Stein, 2006). We must be mindful of the power dynamics and transference/countertransference currents that can arise in any therapeutic relationship, and work to create a safe, boundaried space for healing and transformation (Barnett et al., 2007). There is also a risk of getting lost in the fascinating world of the unconscious and losing sight of external reality. While depth psychology and experiential therapies offer valuable tools for self-exploration and meaning-making, they are not a replacement for practical skills, behavioral changes, and real-world action. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of "spiritual bypassing," using esoteric practices to avoid the hard work of embodying our insights and values in daily life (Welwood, 2000). Ultimately, the future of psychotherapy lies in integrating the best of what has come before while remaining open to new discoveries and directions. By combining scientific rigor with clinical artistry, cognitive understanding with experiential depth, and technical skill with ethical care, we can continue to expand our understanding of the self and the transformative potential of the therapeutic relationship. As we navigate the uncharted territories of the 21st century and beyond, we will need maps and methods that honor the full complexity and mystery of the human experience. Engaging with the unconscious and implicit dimensions of memory is not a luxury but a necessity if we are to rise to the challenges of our time with creativity, resilience, and wisdom. May we have the courage to venture into the depths, and the humility to be transformed by what we find there. Empowering Individuals to Be Themselves The ultimate goal of psychotherapy, in my view, is to empower individuals to become more effective at being themselves in the world and, in turn, better at transforming the world for the better. This requires a fundamental shift in the way that we think about mental health and well-being, moving beyond a narrow focus on symptom reduction and towards a more holistic and integrative approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of mind, body, and spirit. To achieve this goal, psychotherapy must embrace a range of approaches and techniques that are tailored to the unique needs and experiences of each individual. This may include somatic therapies that work with the body to release trauma and promote healing, such as somatic experiencing, sensorimotor psychotherapy, or EMDR (Levine, 1997; Ogden & Fisher, 2015; Shapiro, 2017). It may also include depth psychologies that explore the unconscious and archetypal dimensions of the psyche, such as Jungian analysis, psychosynthesis, or archetypal psychology (Jung, 1968; Assagioli, 1965; Hillman, 1975). And it may include humanistic and experiential approaches that emphasize the inherent worth and potential of each person, such as person-centered therapy, gestalt therapy, or existential psychotherapy (Rogers, 1995; Perls et al., 1951; Yalom, 1980). At the same time, psychotherapy must also be grounded in a deep understanding of the social, cultural, and political contexts in which individuals live and work. This requires a willingness to engage with issues of power, privilege, and oppression, recognizing that mental health and well-being are intimately connected to the broader structures and systems that shape our lives (Prilleltensky, 1997). It also requires a recognition that the goal of therapy is not simply to help individuals adapt to the status quo, but rather to empower them to become agents of change in their own lives and in the world around them (Freire, 1970). Therapists as Agents of the Post-Secular Sacred One way to think about this is through the lens of what depth psychologist David Tacey calls the "post-secular sacred" (Tacey, 2004). Tacey argues that we are moving into a new era of spirituality that is grounded in a deep respect for science and reason, but also recognizes the importance of myth, symbol, and the unconscious in shaping our experience of the world. In this view, the goal of therapy is not to strip away our illusions and defenses in order to reveal some kind of objective truth, but rather to help individuals develop a more authentic and meaningful relationship with the mystery and complexity of existence. This requires a willingness to sit with the discomfort and uncertainty that often accompanies the process of growth and transformation. It also requires a recognition that the path to wholeness and healing is not always a straight line, but rather a winding and often circuitous journey that involves confronting our deepest fears and vulnerabilities (Jung, 1959). Therapists of Agents of the Post Secular Sacred Riddle in the Garden by Robert Penn Warren My mind is intact, but the shapes of the world change, the peach has released the bough and at last makes full confession, its pudeur had departed like peach-fuzz wiped off, and We now know how the hot sweet- ness of flesh and the juice-dark hug the rough peach-pit, we know its most suicidal yearnings, it wants to suffer extremely, it Loves God, and I warn you, do not touch that plum, it will burn you, a blister will be on your finger, and you will put the finger to your lips for relief—oh, do be careful not to break that soft Gray bulge of blister like fruit-skin, for exposing that inwardness will increase your pain, for you are part of this world. You think I am speaking in riddles. But I am not, for The world means only itself. In the image that Penn Warren creates in "Riddle in the Garden" is a labyrinth leading back to the birth of humans in the garden of Eden.  Life itself is a swelling of inflammation from a wound or a need in both blisters and in peaches. You cannot have one part of the process without accepting all of it. The swelling in the growth of the fruit is also the swelling in the growth of a blister of pain. The peach must swell and become a sweet tempting blister or else no one would eat it and expose the "inwardness" of the seed to grow more trees.  exists to be eaten to die. We eat the peach to grow the next one. Not to touch the “suicidal” peach is not to touch life itself. For to live is to be hurt and to grow. To touch the peach is to become part of the world like Adam and Eve found out. It hurts it blisters us turning us into fruit.  For Penn Warren it is the separation of the self from the world of divine connection with nature that creates our need for meaning. This need is the reason that patients come to therapy. God tells us that “I am the lord your God” but Penn Warren tells us “I am not”. For “The world means only itself”. This process only has the meaning that we allow ourselves to give it. This is not a riddle, Penn Warren tells us.  It is only something we have to deal with but cannot not solve. The world means only itself. There is no gimmick or solution to the problem of being human.  In other words, the process of becoming more fully ourselves is not always easy or comfortable. It requires a willingness to confront the pain and suffering that is inherent in the human condition, and to recognize that growth and healing often involve an alchemical kind of death and rebirth. But it is precisely through this process of facing our fears and vulnerabilities that we can begin to develop a more authentic and meaningful relationship with ourselves, with others, and with the world around us. Ultimately, the goal of psychotherapy is not to provide answers or solutions, but rather to create a space in which individuals can begin to ask deeper questions about the nature of their existence and their place in the world. It is to help individuals develop the tools and capacities they need to navigate the complexities of life with greater courage, compassion, and wisdom. And it is to empower individuals to become more effective at being themselves in the world, so that they can contribute to the greater whole and help to create a more just, equitable, and sustainable future for all. The Future of Psychotherapy The corporatization of healthcare and academia poses a serious threat to the future of psychotherapy, undermining its ability to effectively address the complex realities of the human experience. To remain relevant and effective in the face of these challenges, the field must embrace a more holistic and integrative approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of the mind, body, and spirit. This requires a renewed commitment to developing a coherent concept of self, a shared language and understanding of implicit memory, and a vision of psychotherapy as a means of empowering individuals to become more effective at being themselves in the world and, in turn, better at transforming the world for the better. It also requires a willingness to engage with the full complexity and paradox of the human experience, recognizing that growth and healing often involve a kind of death and rebirth, and that the path to wholeness is not always a straight line. As the psychologist Carl Jung once wrote, "The privilege of a lifetime is to become who you truly are." Psychotherapy and the Dialectic of Self and World As we have explored throughout this essay, the self does not exist in a vacuum, but is always in dynamic interaction with the world around it. Our sense of who we are, what we value, and what is possible for us is shaped by a complex interplay of internal and external factors, from our earliest experiences of attachment and attunement to the broader social, cultural, and political contexts in which we are embedded. In many ways, psychotherapy can be seen as a process of exploring and working with the dialectical tension between self and world, between our innermost longings, fears, and aspirations and the often harsh realities of the environments we find ourselves in. When we enter therapy, we bring with us not only our own unique histories, personality structures, and ways of being, but also the internalized messages, expectations, and constraints of the world around us. For many individuals, these internalized messages and constraints can feel suffocating, limiting their sense of possibility and agency in the world. They may find themselves feeling stuck, trapped, or disconnected from their authentic selves, playing roles and wearing masks that no longer fit who they really are. In the face of external pressures to conform, to achieve, to fit in, the self can become fragmented, disempowered, or lost. The task of psychotherapy, then, is to help individuals rediscover and reclaim a sense of self that feels vital, authentic, and empowered, while also developing the skills and capacities needed to navigate the complexities of the world with greater flexibility, resilience, and integrity. This requires a delicate balance of supportive and challenging interventions, of validating the individual's unique experience while also gently questioning and expanding their assumptions about what is possible. On one end of the spectrum, an overly supportive or myopic approach to therapy can run the risk of enabling individuals to remain stuck in limiting patterns and beliefs, reinforcing a sense of helplessness or dependence on the therapist. While providing a warm, empathic, and nonjudgmental space is essential for building trust and safety in the therapeutic relationship, it is not sufficient for fostering real growth and change. Individuals need to be challenged to step outside their comfort zones, to experiment with new ways of being and relating, and to take responsibility for their choices and actions in the world. On the other end of the spectrum, an overly challenging or confrontational approach to therapy can be experienced as invalidating, shaming, or even retraumatizing, particularly for individuals with histories of abuse, neglect, or marginalization. Pushing individuals to "toughen up," to adapt to oppressive or toxic environments, or to simply accept the "reality" of their situation without questioning or resisting it can lead to a kind of false or forced adaptation, a loss of self that is no less harmful than remaining stuck. The key, then, is to find a middle path between these extremes, one that honors the individual's inherent worth, agency, and potential while also recognizing the very real constraints and challenges of the world they inhabit. This requires a deep understanding of the ways in which power, privilege, and oppression shape our experiences and identities, as well as a willingness to grapple with the existential questions of meaning, purpose, and authenticity that arise when we confront the gap between who we are and who we feel we ought to be. In practice, this might involve helping individuals to: Develop a clearer and more coherent sense of self, one that integrates the various parts of their personality, history, and identity in a way that feels authentic and meaningful to them. Identify and challenge limiting beliefs, assumptions, and patterns of behavior that keep them stuck or disconnected from their true desires and values. Cultivate greater self-awareness, self-compassion, and self-acceptance, learning to embrace the full range of their thoughts, feelings, and experiences with curiosity and kindness. Develop the skills and capacities needed to communicate effectively, set healthy boundaries, and navigate relationships and social situations with greater ease and confidence. Explore and experiment with new ways of being and relating in the world, taking risks and stepping outside their comfort zones in service of their growth and healing. Engage critically and creatively with the social, cultural, and political contexts that shape their lives, developing a sense of empowerment, agency, and social responsibility. Connect with a deeper sense of meaning, purpose, and spirituality, one that transcends the ego and connects them to something greater than themselves. Ultimately, the goal of psychotherapy is not simply to help individuals adapt to the world as it is, but to empower them to become active agents of change, both in their own lives and in the larger systems and structures that shape our collective reality. By developing a stronger, more integrated, and more authentic sense of self, individuals can begin to challenge and transform the limiting beliefs, oppressive power dynamics, and dehumanizing narratives that keep us all stuck and disconnected from our shared humanity. In this sense, psychotherapy is not just a personal journey of healing and self-discovery, but a deeply political and moral enterprise, one that calls us to envision and create a world that is more just, compassionate, and sustainable for all. As therapists, we have a unique opportunity and responsibility to support individuals in this process, to bear witness to their pain and their resilience, and to help them find the courage, clarity, and creativity needed to live a life of purpose, integrity, and connection. As the existential psychiatrist Viktor Frankl once wrote, "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." By creating a space for individuals to explore and expand their capacity to choose, to respond to the world with authenticity and agency, psychotherapy can play a vital role in the ongoing dialectic of self and world, of personal and collective transformation. May we rise to the challenge and opportunity of this sacred work, and may we never lose sight of the inherent beauty, complexity, and potential of the human spirit as it unfolds in the therapy room and beyond. https://youtu.be/iAof2cim5Wk References Adler, A. (1964). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler: A systematic presentation in selections from his writings (H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher, Eds.). Harper & Row. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Erlbaum. Aquinas, T. (1981). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Christian Classics. Aristotle. (1986). De anima (On the soul) (H. Lawson-Tancred, Trans.). Penguin. Assagioli, R. (1965). Psychosynthesis: A manual of principles and techniques. Hobbs, Dorman & Company. Augustine of Hippo. (2002). Confessions (R. S. Pine-Coffin, Trans.). Penguin. Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 163-176. Beck, A. T. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. Guilford Press. Berlin, I. (2013). The roots of romanticism (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. Boon, S., Steele, K., & Van der Hart, O. (2011). Coping with trauma-related dissociation: Skills training for patients and therapists. W. W. Norton & Company. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books. Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press. Bromberg, P. M. (1996). Standing in the spaces: The multiplicity of self and the psychoanalytic relationship. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 32(4), 509-535. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press. Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). Scribner. Buranyi, S. (2017, June 27). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science Burkeman, O. (2012). The antidote: Happiness for people who can't stand positive thinking. Faber & Faber. Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. W. W. Norton & Company. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. Little, Brown and Company. Collier, R. (2017, December 12). Half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18248 Comas-Díaz, L. (2012). Multicultural care: A clinician's guide to cultural competence. American Psychological Association. Cozolino, L. (2014). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. Dalai Lama, & Ekman, P. (2009). Emotional awareness: Overcoming the obstacles to psychological balance and compassion. Times Books. Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy (J. Cottingham, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1641) Doctorow, C., & Wang, H. (2020, September 28). How to destroy surveillance capitalism. OneZero. https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59 Ellis, A., & Harper, R. A. (1975). A new guide to rational living. Prentice-Hall. Epstein, M. (1995). Thoughts without a thinker: Psychotherapy from a Buddhist perspective. Basic Books. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton & Company. Fosha, D. (2000). The transforming power of affect: A model for accelerated change. Basic Books. Frances, A. (2013). Saving normal: An insider's revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life. William Morrow. Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man's search for meaning. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1946) Freud, S. (1989). The ego and the id. W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1923) Fromm, E. (1955). The sane society. Rinehart & Company. Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. Metropolitan Books. Gendlin, E. T. (1978). Focusing. Bantam Books. Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. Basic Books. Goodman, D. M., & Freeman, E. E. (2015). Psychology and the art of compassion: Issues in transpersonal psychology. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 47(2), 192-207. Goodman, R. D., Williams, J. M., Chung, R. C.-Y., Talleyrand, R. M., Douglass, A. M., McMahon, H. G., & Bemak, F. (2004). Decolonizing traditional pedagogies and practices in counseling and psychology education: A move towards social justice and action. In R. L. Carter (Ed.), Handbook of racial-cultural psychology and counseling: Vol. 2. Training and practice (pp. 147-160). Wiley. Greenberg, L. S. (2002). Emotion-focused therapy: Coaching clients to work through their feelings. American Psychological Association. Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman, R. N. (2019). Clinical handbook of emotion-focused therapy. American Psychological Association. Griffith, J. L., & Griffith, M. E. (2002). Encountering the sacred in psychotherapy: How to talk with people about their spiritual lives. Guilford Press. Grof, S. (1985). Beyond the brain: Birth, death and transcendence in psychotherapy. State University of New York Press. Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Spiegel & Grau. Hillman, J. (1975). Re-visioning psychology. Harper & Row. Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(3), 353-366. Hook, J. N., Farrell, J. E., Davis, D. E., DeBlaere, C., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Utsey, S. O. (2016). Cultural humility and racial microaggressions in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(3), 269-277. Hopwood, C. J., & Bleidorn, W. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology. Oxford University Press. Hume, D. (2000). A treatise of human nature (D. F. Norton & M. J. Norton, Eds.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1739-1740) Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press. Jung, C. G. (1959). The archetypes and the collective unconscious (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton University Press. Jung, C. G. (1964). Man and his symbols. Dell. Jung, C. G. (1968). Analytical psychology: Its theory and practice (The Tavistock lectures). Vintage Books. Jung, C. G. (1973). C. G. Jung letters: Volume 1, 1906-1950 (G. Adler, Ed.; R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton University Press. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. Delacorte Press. Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237(4821), 1445-1452. Knill, P. J., Levine, E. G., & Levine, S. K. (2005). Principles and practice of expressive arts therapy: Toward a therapeutic aesthetics. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic self: How our brains become who we are. Viking. Levine, P. A. (1997). Waking the tiger: Healing trauma. North Atlantic Books. Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding (P. H. Nidditch, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1689) Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 3-9. Malchiodi, C. A. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of art therapy. Guilford Press. Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold. May, R. (1969). Love and will. W. W. Norton & Company. McNiff, S. (1981). The arts and psychotherapy. Charles C. Thomas. McWilliams, N. (2004). Psychoanalytic psychotherapy: A practitioner's guide. Guilford Press. Mearns, D., & Cooper, M. (2005). Working at relational depth in counselling and psychotherapy. Sage. Mindell, A. (1985). River's way: The process science of the dreambody. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis: An integration. Harvard University Press. Mojtabai, R., & Olfson, M. (2008). National trends in psychotherapy by office-based psychiatrists. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65(8), 962-970. Nietzsche, F. (1967). The will to power (W. Kaufmann & R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1901) Norcross, J. C., & Goldfried, M. R. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of psychotherapy integration (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the body: A sensorimotor approach to psychotherapy. W. W. Norton & Company. Ogden, P., & Fisher, J. (2015). Sensorimotor psychotherapy: Interventions for trauma and attachment. W. W. Norton & Company. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 Pace, P. (2013). Lifespan integration: Connecting ego states through time (5th ed.). Lifespan Integration. Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the sacred. Guilford Press. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press. Perls, F., Hefferline, R. F., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt therapy: Excitement and growth in the human personality. Julian Press. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1937) Plante, T. G. (Ed.). (2007). Spirit, science, and health: How the spiritual mind fuels physical wellness. Praeger. Plato. (1997). Phaedo (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.). In J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Plato: Complete works (pp. 49-100). Hackett. (Original work published ca. 360 BCE) Plato. (2002). Apology (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.). In J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Plato: Complete works (pp. 17-36). Hackett. (Original work published ca. 399 BCE) Pollan, M. (2018). How to change your mind: What the new science of psychedelics teaches us about consciousness, dying, addiction, depression, and transcendence. Penguin Press. Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company. Post, B. C., & Wade, N. G. (2009). Religion and spirituality in psychotherapy: A practice-friendly review of research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(2), 131-146. Prilleltensky, I., & Fox, D. (1997). Introducing critical psychology: Values, assumptions, and the status quo. In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 3-20). Sage. Reich, W. (1980). Character analysis (3rd, enlarged ed.; V. R. Carfagno, Trans.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (Original work published 1933) Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin. Rogers, C. R. (1995). A way of being. Houghton Mifflin. Sartre, J.-P. (1956). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Philosophical Library. Sass, L. A., & Parnas, J. (2003). Schizophrenia, consciousness, and the self. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 29(3), 427-444. Schacter, D. L., Chiu, C.-Y. P., & Ochsner, K. N. (1993). Implicit memory: A selective review. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 16, 159-182. Schore, A. N. (2012). The science of the art of psychotherapy. W. W. Norton & Company. Schore, J. R., & Schore, A. N. (2008). Modern attachment theory: The central role of affect regulation in development and treatment. Clinical Social Work Journal, 36(1), 9-20. Schwartz, R. C. (1995). Internal family systems therapy. Guilford Press. Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65(2), 98-109. Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. Guilford Press. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan. Sokal, A. (2008). Beyond the hoax: Science, philosophy and culture. Oxford University Press. Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, (46/47), 217-252. Stein, M. (2006). The principle of individuation: Toward the development of human consciousness. Chiron Publications. Stern, D. N. (2004). The present moment in psychotherapy and everyday life. W. W. Norton & Company. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Wiley. Tacey, D. J. (2004). The spirituality revolution: The emergence of contemporary spirituality. Brunner-Routledge. Tervalon, M., & Murray-García, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117-125. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press. Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Harvard University Press. Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-17. van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking. Vieten, C., Scammell, S., Pilato, R., Ammondson, I., Pargament, K. I., & Lukoff, D. (2013). Spiritual and religious competencies for psychologists. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(3), 129-144. Wachtel, P. L. (1991). From eclecticism to synthesis: Toward a more seamless psychotherapeutic integration. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 1(1), 43-54. Wallin, D. J. (2007). Attachment in psychotherapy. Guilford Press. Warren, R. P. (1998). The collected poems of Robert Penn Warren (J. Burt, Ed.). Louisiana State University Press. Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. W. H. Freeman and Company. Westen, D., Novotny, C. M., & Thompson-Brenner, H. (2004). The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: Assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 631-663. Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Shambhala. Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. Basic Books. Young, C. (2006). One hundred and fifty years on: The history, significance and scope of body psychotherapy today. In J. Corrigall, H. Payne, & H. Wilkinson (Eds.), About a body: Working with the embodied mind in psychotherapy (pp. 14-28). Routledge.   #Psychotherapy #CorporateInfluence #HolisticHealing #AuthenticSelf #ImplicitMemory #PostSecularSacred #MentalHealthTransformation #IntegrativePsychotherapy #EmpoweringIndividuals #PsychotherapyChallenges #jung #philosophy #PsychotherapyInCrisis #MentalHealth #Self #eikonosphere #ImplicitMemory #Empowering #AuthenticSelf #capitalism 

New research finds that an artificial intelligence decision support tool has high accuracy for diagnosing otitis media. Bimal Desai, MD, MBI, Chief Health Informatics Officer at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, discusses applications of artificial intelligence in pediatric care with Editor in Chief Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, and Associate Editor Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH. Related Content: Development and Validation of an Automated Classifier to Diagnose Acute Otitis Media in Children

In Episode 19 of Awkward Conversations  "The Drug Dealer in Your House: Protecting Your Kids from Online Dangers ," hosts Jodie Sweetin and Amy McCarthy tackle the urgent and sobering topic of safeguarding children from online drug dangers. Ed Ternan, a devoted father who tragically lost his 22-year-old son, Charlie, to a fake prescription pill, joins the conversation to share his heart-wrenching story. Ed's account highlights the alarming ease with which pills and drugs can be accessed online and sheds light on the accessibility of counterfeit drugs in the digital age. Ed discusses "Song for Charlie," a nonprofit charity he and his wife, Mary, established to raise awareness about synthetic drugs like fentanyl. Through their organization, they provide valuable drug education materials online, on campuses, and via social media. Amy mentions the importance of engaging young individuals when they engage in online activities. Dr. Dimitri Christakis, an expert in child health and development, addresses the role of social media platforms and the need for smart social media use. They also explore deciphering the language used by kids online and the importance of open communication between parents and children. It's never too late or early to establish rules and boundaries in an ever-evolving digital landscape.   Key Takeaways: There is an alarming ease with which pills and drugs can be obtained online, posing significant dangers to children. There is a need for greater awareness about the risks of fake prescription pills. "Song for Charlie" is a nonprofit to educate young people, families, and educators about synthetic drugs like fentanyl. Dr. Dimitri A. Christakis emphasizes the importance of educating children about smart social media use and understanding its impact on behavior. Recognizing the language kids use online and understanding the signs of potential drug involvement are crucial for parents. Maintaining open lines of communication with children without judgment is essential for addressing online drug dangers. Striking a balance between privacy and safety in the digital age is key, with real relationships valued over virtual ones.   Jodie Sweetin is an actress, author, and advocate, best known for her role as Stephanie Tanner on the iconic sitcom "Full House" and its sequel "Fuller House". In 2009 she penned her memoir, "unSweetined", which chronicles her journey through addiction and into recovery. With her frank and open approach, Jodie has emerged as a compelling speaker and advocate who now seeks to use her platform and experiences to educate others and reduce the stigma associated with addiction and recovery. @jodiesweetin Amy McCarthy, LICSW, is a Director of Clinical Social Work at Boston Children's Hospital's Division of Addiction Medicine. She has been working in the Adolescent Substance Use and Addiction Program since 2019. @amymccarthylicsw Ed Ternan is a husband, father and businessman. In May 2020, he lost his son 22-year-old son Charlie, who was poisoned by a counterfeit prescription pill. Since that time, Ed and his wife Mary have dedicated themselves to informing young people about the new risks of self-medication and recreational drug use in the age of synthetic drugs like fentanyl. The Ternans have formed a nonprofit charity called Song for Charlie, where they create and distribute fentanyl awareness and drug education materials online, on campus and via social media. Their programs are designed to provide useful, fact-based resources to young people, families and educators, with the goal of reducing drug use and encouraging healthier strategies for managing stress. @song4charlie   Dimitri A. Christakis MD MPH is the George Adkins Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Washington, Director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's Research Institute, Vice President, Global Health Promotion, Prevention and Policy Advocacy at Special Olympics International, Editor and Chief of JAMA Pediatrics and an attending pediatrician at Seattle Children's Hospital.  Professor Christakis graduated from Yale University, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and completed a pediatric residency followed by a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholarship at the University of Washington from which he received his MPH.  He is the author of over 230 original research articles, a textbook of pediatrics and The Elephant in the Living Room: Make Television work for your kids. (September 2006; Rodale). In 2010 he was awarded the Academic Pediatric Association Research Award for outstanding contributions to pediatric research over his career.  His passion is developing actionable strategies to optimize the cognitive, emotional, and social development of preschool children. The pursuit of that passion has taken him from the exam room, to the community and most recently to cages of newborn mice. Christakis' laboratory focuses on the effects of early environmental influences on child health and development and his work has been featured on all major international news outlets as well as all major national and international newspapers.   He speaks frequently to international audiences of pediatricians, parents, educators and policy makers about the impact of early learning on brain development.    Resources/Links Get Smart About Drugs Growing Up Drug Free: A Parent's Guide to Substance Use Prevention One Pill Could Kill SAMHSA | Help and Treatment   DEA Website DEA on Instagram DEA on Twitter DEA on Facebook DEA YouTube   Elks Kid Zone Website Elks Drug Awareness Program Website Elks DAP on Twitter Elks DAP on Facebook Elks DAP on YouTube   Jodie Sweetin's Links Jodie's Instagram Jodie's TikTok   Amy McCarthy's Links Amy's Instagram Boston Children's Hospital Instagram Boston Children's Hospital Addiction Medicine   Ed Ternan's Links Song for Charlie Instagram Song for Charlie YouTube Song for Charlie TikTok Song for Charlie Website The New Drug Talk Website

Welcome to another exciting episode of "Anime Minority Report" with your hosts Jamie Aird and Guerby Laguerre! This time, we're joined by the incredibly funny AL Christakis, a comedian and anime enthusiast. Get ready for laughs as AL attempts to convince the hosts that Buggy from One Piece is destined to be the next Pirate King. Plus, dive into AL's extensive collection of physical manga books, featuring both classics and new anime favorites. Don't miss out on the hilarity and anime passion in this special episode!

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the September 5, 2023, issue. Related Content: Association Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and Early Childhood Development Community Health Worker Home Visiting, Birth Outcomes, Maternal Care, and Disparities Among Birthing Individuals With Medicaid Insurance

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the August 7, 2023, issue. Related Content: Short-Course Therapy for Urinary Tract Infections in Children Prospective Associations of Childhood Housing Insecurity With Anxiety and Depression Symptoms During Childhood and Adulthood

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the June 6, 2023, issue. Related Content: Cost-effectiveness and Return on Investment of a Nationwide Case-Finding Program for Familial Hypercholesterolemia in Children in the Netherlands Association Between Early Prostacyclin Therapy and Extracorporeal Life Support Use in Patients With Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the May 1, 2023, issue. Related Content: Effectiveness of Structured Care Coordination for Children With Medical Complexity Out-of-Pocket Spending for Non–Birth-Related Hospitalizations of Privately Insured US Children, 2017 to 2019

Today, Debbie re-runs the single most popular of 100+ episodes of [B]OLDER. Exactly two years ago, in the spring of 2021, she asked plague expert Nicholas Christakis, a distinguished Yale professor and author,  the burning question: when will the COVID-19 pandemic end? His answer: 2024. It startled her and burst her bubble of optimism. Vaccines were widely available by then and it seemed like the beginning of the end. Surely he was exaggerating how long it would take for the COVID pandemic to wind down? No, it was only the end of the beginning, he told her.Today that makes sense. And of course, it was prescient.Tune into a re-run of one of the most fascinating episodes of [B]OLDER. (Note that Debbie refers to it as The Gap Year Podcast, the name she gave the podcast during the height of the pandemic. It's now the [B]OLDER podcast. Same podcast; different name.) SHOW NOTES from the original interview with Nicholas Christakis (May 7, 2021)Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, and a Sterling Professor at Yale, has been named to TIME magazine's list of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. His fluency in explaining the intertwined science, epidemiology, psychology, sociology and history of pandemics - and his sense of humor - make this a compelling episode. You'll hear why he chose to publish his latest book, Apollo's Arrow, in the fall of 2020, before we knew the end of the story of COVID-19How his childhood experiences with illness and death affected his career choicesWhat the predictable three phases of a pandemic are (in 2021 we were still in the immediate phase)Why he thinks this pandemic won't be over until 2024They also talked about separating the biological vs. the psychological impacts of the pandemicWhat herd immunity actually means and whether we'll get thereAnd what the public health messaging around the pandemic should beDebbie asks him point blank: when is the next pandemic? The answer is unnerving – sooner than you might think. About Nicholas ChristakisWikipediaTwitterYale UniversityTed TalksHuman Nature Lab at Yale Books by Nicholas ChristakisApollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live by Nicholas Christakis (Little, Brown Spark 2020)Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society by Nicholas Christakis (Little, Brown Spark 2019)Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives by Nicholas Christakis (Little, Brown Spark 2009)Death Foretold: Prophecy and Prognosis in Medical Care by Nicholas Christakis (University of Chicago Press, 2001) Articles and interviewsThe New York Times Book Review: The Pandemic's Future — and Ours (NYT Book Review of Apollo's Arrow, November 3, 2020)A year of COVID: Making sense of an ‘alien and unnatural' time (Yale News, March 4, 2021)Epidemiologist looks to the past to predict second post-pandemic ‘roaring 20s' (The Guardian, December 21, 2020)Denial And Lies Are ‘Almost An Intrinsic Part Of An Epidemic,' Doctor Says (NPR, October 29, 2020)The pandemic is as much about society, leaders, and values as it is about a pathogen (Science Mag, November 17, 2020)The Importance of Being Little: What Young Children Really Need from Grownups by Erika Christakis (Penguin Books 2016)Remote Learning Isn't the Only Problem With School (The Atlantic, December 2020)The COVID-19 Pandemic and the $16 Trillion Virus by Larry H. Summers, PhD and David M. Cutler, PhD (October 12, 2020) Mentioned or usefulThe Plague by Albert Camus (1947)What Is R-naught? Gauging Contagious Infections (Healthline, April 20, 2020)What is Epidemiology?What is Sociology? PHOTO CREDIT: Evan Mann Get the inside skinny on every episode of [B]OLDER:Subscribe to Debbie's newsletter for the inside story about every episode. You will also get her 34-page writing guide: https://bitly.com/debbie-free-guide.   Request from Debbie:If you've been enjoying the podcast, please take a moment to leave a short review on Apple Podcasts. It really makes a difference in attracting new listeners. Connect with Debbie:debbieweil.com[B]OLDER podcastEmail: thebolderpodcast@gmail.comBlog: Gap Year After SixtyFacebook: @debbieweilInstagram: @debbieweilLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/debbieweilTwitter: @debbieweil Our Media Partners:CoGenerate (formerly Encore.org)MEA and with thanks to Chip ConleyNext For Me (former media partner and in memory of Jeff Tidwell) How to Support this podcast:Leave a review on Apple PodcastsSubscribe via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify Credits:Host: Debbie WeilProducer: Far Out MediaMusic: Lakeside Path by Duck Lake   

This brings us to the last episode of Environmental Alchemy. And what a journey it's been. Just to recap: how many environments are there? 7 Please remember that willpower is off and on, but environment is 24/7; and it should be apparent by now that everything counts. Do your customers and clients affect YOU? (Have we ever fired a client?) How about vendors? (Are some vendors so difficult to work with that even if they're good, they aren't worth it? Does the gym in which you work out affect your energy and psychology? Charities, clubs, associations Six degrees of separation On a real mundane level research proves that if you hang out with people who drink you're much more likely to drink. If you socialize with people who are overweight, you are more likely to be overweight. Christakis and Fowler from Harvard: your community drives your impact, your influence, and your income in the world. We encourage you to take an inventory of your community and your network. Join our community here: https://www.harmonicsuccess.com/group

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the April 3, 2023, issue. Related Content: Effect of an Intranasal Corticosteroid on Quality of Life and Local Microbiome in Young Children With Chronic Rhinosinusitis Changes in Body Mass Index Among School-Aged Youths Following Implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

Think back to the first time you held a smartphone or tablet in your hands. For most adults, this probably happened later in life. Now, a new generation of kids is growing up exposed to screen time as toddlers, or even babies. What impact will this screen time have on their very young and still growing brains? Dr. Dimitri Christakis takes us inside his lab at the Seattle Children's Research Institute and demonstrates how he studies some very young research participants. Plus, Dr. Christakis sits down with CNN's Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta and shares his most realistic tips for setting screen time limits. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the March 6, 2023, issue. Related Content: Outdoor Play as a Mitigating Factor in the Association Between Screen Time for Young Children and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Acid-Suppressive Medications and Risk of Allergic Diseases in Children

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the February 6, 2023, issue. Related Content: Mental Health Revisits at US Pediatric Emergency Departments Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes of Singleton Births Following Single- vs Double-Embryo Transfer in Sweden

"Join Jesse Burlingame and Ben Bosunga on this week's episode of LonelyMans Podcast as they welcome special guests Brieana Woodward and Al Christakis. The group starts off by revisiting the exciting story of Brieana and Al's car crash in Austin and Brieana shares some big news with the listeners. Get ready for some laughs as Al showcases his infamous "happy claps." The conversation then shifts to the Boston comedy scene and the gang's love for anime. But it's not all fun and games, as they also delve into the dangers of skateboarding accidents. Take a break from the discussion as the group takes a trip to Snowball Riceball, an Asian restaurant that they all love. Join in on the fun as they share their experiences and laughs on this week's LonelyMans Podcast." - written by ChatGPT Follow Brieana - https://www.instagram.com/notadamncheese/ Follow Al - https://www.instagram.com/al.christakis/ Subscribe to the LonelyMans Patreon for exclusive bonus episodes every Friday: http://www.patreon.com/lonelymans MERCH: https://teespring.com/lonelymanspodcast Video available at https://www.youtube.com/lonelymanspodcast Follow us on Instagram LonelyMans - @lonelymanspodcast Jesse Burlingame - @jesse.burlingame Ben Bo - @benbosunga Paul Cyphers - @realpaulcyphers

Jim Rohn famously said that you are a composite of the five people you hang out with the most. “Show me your friends and I'll show you your future.” Well that might have been true 50 years ago but the age of social media has completely changed this. Today, we are influenced by algorithms based on our preferences. Consequently, we imitate people we have never met. The breadth of influence upon us is enormous and yet we are influenced most by the company we keep. For example, Christakis and Fowler conducted a survey and found that if you have friends who smoke, then you are 61 percent more likely to be a smoker yourself. If a friend of a friend smokes you are still 29 times more likely to smoke. This can be applied to most every metric including happiness and depression. Your friends really are your future and this is why the concept of friend auditing has become pervasive. The implication is that you need to examine your entire social network and its influence on your life. If not, you might become the person you don't want to be. What's particularly devastating is when people follow the crowd for no other reason than to gain an identity. I heard a prominent philosopher say that in his opinion the biggest threat society faces is from the narcissistic virtue signaler. These are people who adopt opinions and postures solely to garner praise and sympathy or whose good deeds are tainted by their need for everyone to see just how selfless they are. If virtue signaling can be tied to victimhood it makes for a very powerful voice. This is what makes much of social media a firestorm. If only victimhood gives a person the right to comment then there's tremendous motivation to be a victim if you want to be heard. This isn't to say there aren't legitimate victims who have reasonable voices, but for many, the temptation is all too common. So whose voice is most important to you? In other words, who are you following? Can I give you an alternative voice? It's a far better calling and it comes from Jesus himself. “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Matthew 4:19 When Jesus wanted to recruit world changers he chose people who were not highly qualified or influential in society. These guys are simple fishermen. It reminds me of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:26, "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth." This should be encouraging to everyone. I have heard people say things like, “I am not qualified”, ”I do not have the skills to talk about Jesus”, ”I haven't gone to Bible College”, ”I'm afraid I will make mistakes”, “I don't have what it takes” and so on. It is not our qualification that makes us worthy to be a follower of Jesus, it is his calling. Jesus said this in John 15:16, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit.” I love this  quote: "No one is destroyed by obeying Jesus and there is no one who has prospered by disobeying Him." Jesus is calling you right now to follow him. Will you do it?

Episode #240 features two of the funniest comedians in the world that ALSO happen to be a couple! You can See Al Christakis & Brieana Woodward on tour all of January & February across the US and listen to their hilarious podcast, The Clown People Podcast exclusively on spotify! Follow them@NotADamnCheese @al.christakis @clownpeoplepodcast!

On the latest episode of Health Law Talk, we sit down with Dr. Ares Christakis to discuss a spotlight on his general surgery practice. We delve into Dr. Christakis' background and educational journey to becoming a general surgeon. In addition to discussing the day-to-day responsibilities of a general surgeon, we learn about the technical advancements in general surgery from going to laparoscopic surgery all the way through robotics. In addition, we have a discussion on the future of general surgery and how robotics will play a role in invasive surgery in the near future. Come join us in learning more about Dr. Christakis and his role as a general surgeon in the New Orleans region. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rory-bellina6/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rory-bellina6/support

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the November 7, 2022, issue. Related Content: Risk of Psychiatric Disorders Among Refugee Children and Adolescents Living in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Effect of Text Messaging Parents of School-Aged Children on Outdoor Time to Control Myopia

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the October 3, 2022, issue. Related Content: Long-term Outcomes of Childhood Family Income Supplements on Adult Functioning Preventing Cardiac Arrest in the Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Through Multicenter Collaboration

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, and Andrea F. Duncan, MD, MSClinRes, Associate Editor, for the September 6, 2022, issue.

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the Aug 1, 2022 issue. Related Content: Effects of Limiting Recreational Screen Media Use on Physical Activity and Sleep in Families With Children Association of Patient and Family Reports of Hospital Safety Climate With Language Proficiency in the US

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the July 5, 2022 issue. Related Content: Developmental Outcomes for Children After Elective Birth at 39 Weeks' Gestation Association Between Funding and School Suspension Rates for Autistic Students in New Zealand

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the June 6, 2022, issue. Related Content: Associations of Parental Cancer With School Absenteeism, Medical Care Unaffordability, Health Care Use, and Mental Health Among Children Psychosocial Interventions for the Treatment of Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.“We're not attempting to invent super smart AI to replace human cognition. We are inventing dumb AI to supplement human interaction. Are there simple forms of artificial intelligence, simple programming of bots, such that when they are added to groups of humans – because those humans are smart or otherwise positively inclined - that help the humans to help themselves? Can we get groups of people to work better together, for instance, to confront climate change, or to reduce racism online, or to foster innovation within firms? Can we have simple forms of AI that are added into our midst that make us work better together? And the work we're doing in that part of my lab shows that abundantly that's the case. And we published a stream of papers showing that we can do that.”· Nicholas Christakis: humannaturelab.net/people/nicholas-christakis· Human Nature Lab: humannaturelab.net· Yale Institute for Network Science: yins.yale.edu· sociology.yale.edu/people/nicholas-christakis · Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society · Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live· TRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data: trellis.yale.edu.The Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/robots-human-relationships/583204/· www.creativeprocess.info · www.oneplanetpodcast.org

“Are there simple forms of artificial intelligence, simple programming of bots, such that when they are added to groups of humans – because those humans are smart or otherwise positively inclined - that help the humans to help themselves? Can we get groups of people to work better together, for instance, to confront climate change, or to reduce racism online, or to foster innovation within firms?Can we have simple forms of AI that are added into our midst that make us work better together? And the work we're doing in that part of my lab shows that abundantly that's the case. And we published a stream of papers showing that we can do that.” Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.Nicholas Christakis: humannaturelab.net/people/nicholas-christakisHuman Nature Lab: humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science: yins.yale.edusociology.yale.edu/people/nicholas-christakisTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data: trellis.yale.edu.The Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.“When we look around the world, we see endless and timeless fear, ignorance, hatred, and violence. From our position, we could also boundlessly catalogue the minute details of human groups, highlighting and emphasizing the differences among them. But this pessimistic gaze that separates humans from one another by highlighting evil and by emphasizing difference misses an important underlying unity and overlooks our common humanity. Humans everywhere are also pre-wired to make a particular kind of society — one full of love, friendship, cooperation, and learning.
Humans have always had both competitive and cooperative impulses, both violent and beneficent tendencies. Like the two strands of the double helix of our DNA, these conflicting impulses are intertwined. We are primed for conflict and hatred but also for love, friendship, and cooperation. If anything, modern societies are just a patina of civilization on top of this evolutionary blueprint.
The good things we see around us are part of what makes us human in the first place. We should be humble in the face of temptations to engineer society in opposition to our instincts. Fortunately, we do not need to exercise any such authority in order to have a good life. The arc of our evolutionary history is long. But it bends toward goodness.”Excerpted from BLUEPRINT: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good SocietyCopyright 2020 by Nicholas A. Christakis· www.oneplanetpodcast.org· www.creativeprocess.info

Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world. “When we look around the world, we see endless and timeless fear, ignorance, hatred, and violence. From our position, we could also boundlessly catalogue the minute details of human groups, highlighting and emphasizing the differences among them. But this pessimistic gaze that separates humans from one another by highlighting evil and by emphasizing difference misses an important underlying unity and overlooks our common humanity. Humans everywhere are also pre-wired to make a particular kind of society — one full of love, friendship, cooperation, and learning.Humans have always had both competitive and cooperative impulses, both violent and beneficent tendencies. Like the two strands of the double helix of our DNA, these conflicting impulses are intertwined. We are primed for conflict and hatred but also for love, friendship, and cooperation. If anything, modern societies are just a patina of civilization on top of this evolutionary blueprint. The good things we see around us are part of what makes us human in the first place. We should be humble in the face of temptations to engineer society in opposition to our instincts. Fortunately, we do not need to exercise any such authority in order to have a good life. The arc of our evolutionary history is long. But it bends toward goodness.”Excerpted from BLUEPRINT: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good SocietyCopyright 2020 by Nicholas A. Christakishumannaturelab.net/people/nicholas-christakisHuman Nature Lab humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.eduTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data trellis.yale.eduThe Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

“When we look around the world, we see endless and timeless fear, ignorance, hatred, and violence. From our position, we could also boundlessly catalogue the minute details of human groups, highlighting and emphasizing the differences among them. But this pessimistic gaze that separates humans from one another by highlighting evil and by emphasizing difference misses an important underlying unity and overlooks our common humanity. Humans everywhere are also pre-wired to make a particular kind of society — one full of love, friendship, cooperation, and learning.
Humans have always had both competitive and cooperative impulses, both violent and beneficent tendencies. Like the two strands of the double helix of our DNA, these conflicting impulses are intertwined. We are primed for conflict and hatred but also for love, friendship, and cooperation. If anything, modern societies are just a patina of civilization on top of this evolutionary blueprint.
The good things we see around us are part of what makes us human in the first place. We should be humble in the face of temptations to engineer society in opposition to our instincts. Fortunately, we do not need to exercise any such authority in order to have a good life. The arc of our evolutionary history is long. But it bends toward goodness.”Excerpted from BLUEPRINT: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good SocietyCopyright 2020 by Nicholas A. ChristakisNicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world. “When we look around the world, we see endless and timeless fear, ignorance, hatred, and violence. From our position, we could also boundlessly catalogue the minute details of human groups, highlighting and emphasizing the differences among them. But this pessimistic gaze that separates humans from one another by highlighting evil and by emphasizing difference misses an important underlying unity and overlooks our common humanity. Humans everywhere are also pre-wired to make a particular kind of society — one full of love, friendship, cooperation, and learning. Humans have always had both competitive and cooperative impulses, both violent and beneficent tendencies. Like the two strands of the double helix of our DNA, these conflicting impulses are intertwined. We are primed for conflict and hatred but also for love, friendship, and cooperation. If anything, modern societies are just a patina of civilization on top of this evolutionary blueprint. The good things we see around us are part of what makes us human in the first place. We should be humble in the face of temptations to engineer society in opposition to our instincts. Fortunately, we do not need to exercise any such authority in order to have a good life. The arc of our evolutionary history is long. But it bends toward goodness.”humannaturelab.net/people/nicholas-christakisHuman Nature Lab humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.eduTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data trellis.yale.eduThe Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world. “When we look around the world, we see endless and timeless fear, ignorance, hatred, and violence. From our position, we could also boundlessly catalogue the minute details of human groups, highlighting and emphasizing the differences among them. But this pessimistic gaze that separates humans from one another by highlighting evil and by emphasizing difference misses an important underlying unity and overlooks our common humanity. Humans everywhere are also pre-wired to make a particular kind of society — one full of love, friendship, cooperation, and learning. Humans have always had both competitive and cooperative impulses, both violent and beneficent tendencies. Like the two strands of the double helix of our DNA, these conflicting impulses are intertwined. We are primed for conflict and hatred but also for love, friendship, and cooperation. If anything, modern societies are just a patina of civilization on top of this evolutionary blueprint. The good things we see around us are part of what makes us human in the first place. We should be humble in the face of temptations to engineer society in opposition to our instincts. Fortunately, we do not need to exercise any such authority in order to have a good life. The arc of our evolutionary history is long. But it bends toward goodness.”Excerpted from BLUEPRINT: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society Copyright 2020 by Nicholas A. ChristakisNicholas ChristakisHuman Nature Lab humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.eduTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data trellis.yale.eduThe Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

“We're not attempting to invent super smart AI to replace human cognition. We are inventing dumb AI to supplement human interaction. Are there simple forms of artificial intelligence, simple programming of bots, such that when they are added to groups of humans – because those humans are smart or otherwise positively inclined - that help the humans to help themselves? Can we get groups of people to work better together, for instance, to confront climate change, or to reduce racism online, or to foster innovation within firms?Can we have simple forms of AI that are added into our midst that make us work better together? And the work we're doing in that part of my lab shows that abundantly that's the case. And we published a stream of papers showing that we can do that.” Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.Nicholas Christakis Human Nature Lab humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.eduTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data trellis.yale.eduThe Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

“We're not attempting to invent super smart AI to replace human cognition. We are inventing dumb AI to supplement human interaction. Are there simple forms of artificial intelligence, simple programming of bots, such that when they are added to groups of humans – because those humans are smart or otherwise positively inclined - that help the humans to help themselves? Can we get groups of people to work better together, for instance, to confront climate change, or to reduce racism online, or to foster innovation within firms? Can we have simple forms of AI that are added into our midst that make us work better together? And the work we're doing in that part of my lab shows that abundantly that's the case. And we published a stream of papers showing that we can do that.”Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.
humannaturelab.net/people/nicholas-christakisHuman Nature Lab humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.eduTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data trellis.yale.eduThe Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

“So cities are amazing. Now, why are they amazing? Well, there's one aspect that relates to some of the work that my lab does on human social interactions, which is the main focus of what my lab does. We look at the mathematical, biological, psychological, and social underpinnings and consequences of human social interactions...As the size of the population grows, the combinatorial complexity, the network complexity rises superlinearly. So a city that's 10 times the size has a hundred times as many social possible social connections. And it's the social connections between people that lead to the creation of new ideas, people mixing and bumping into each other with different occupations and different business ideas, and different ways of life. So one of the ideas about cities is that they are these creative places and, as they get bigger and bigger, they get more and more creative. That's just one thought that connects networks to cities in the 21st century”Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.Nicholas Christakis humannaturelab.net/people/nicholas-christakisHuman Nature Lab: humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.edusociology.yale.edu/people/nicholas-christakisBlueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We LiveTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data: trellis.yale.edu.The Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/robots-human-relationships/583204/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.“So cities are amazing. Now, why are they amazing? Well, there's one aspect that relates to some of the work that my lab does on human social interactions, which is the main focus of what my lab does. We look at the mathematical, biological, psychological, and social underpinnings and consequences of human social interactions...As the size of the population grows, the combinatorial complexity, the network complexity rises superlinearly. So a city that's 10 times the size has a hundred times as many social possible social connections. And it's the social connections between people that lead to the creation of new ideas, people mixing and bumping into each other with different occupations and different business ideas, and different ways of life. So one of the ideas about cities is that they are these creative places and, as they get bigger and bigger, they get more and more creative. That's just one thought that connects networks to cities in the 21st century”Nicholas Christakis humannaturelab.net/people/nicholas-christakisHuman Nature Lab: humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.edusociology.yale.edu/people/nicholas-christakisBlueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We LiveTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data: trellis.yale.edu.The Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/robots-human-relationships/583204/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

“We're not attempting to invent super smart AI to replace human cognition. We are inventing dumb AI to supplement human interaction. Are there simple forms of artificial intelligence, simple programming of bots, such that when they are added to groups of humans – because those humans are smart or otherwise positively inclined - that help the humans to help themselves? Can we get groups of people to work better together, for instance, to confront climate change, or to reduce racism online, or to foster innovation within firms?Can we have simple forms of AI that are added into our midst that make us work better together? And the work we're doing in that part of my lab shows that abundantly that's the case. And we published a stream of papers showing that we can do that.” Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.Nicholas Christakis: humannaturelab.net/people/nicholas-christakisHuman Nature Lab: humannaturelab.net Yale Institute for Network Science: yins.yale.edusociology.yale.edu/people/nicholas-christakisBlueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We LiveTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data: trellis.yale.edu.The Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.“We're not attempting to invent super smart AI to replace human cognition. We are inventing dumb AI to supplement human interaction. Are there simple forms of artificial intelligence, simple programming of bots, such that when they are added to groups of humans – because those humans are smart or otherwise positively inclined - that help the humans to help themselves? Can we get groups of people to work better together, for instance, to confront climate change, or to reduce racism online, or to foster innovation within firms? Can we have simple forms of AI that are added into our midst that make us work better together? And the work we're doing in that part of my lab shows that abundantly that's the case. And we published a stream of papers showing that we can do that.”Nicholas Christakis humannaturelab.net/people/nicholas-christakisHuman Nature Lab: humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.edusociology.yale.edu/people/nicholas-christakisBlueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We LiveTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data: trellis.yale.edu.The Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/robots-human-relationships/583204/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

“We're not attempting to invent super smart AI to replace human cognition. We are inventing dumb AI to supplement human interaction. Are there simple forms of artificial intelligence, simple programming of bots, such that when they are added to groups of humans – because those humans are smart or otherwise positively inclined - that help the humans to help themselves? Can we get groups of people to work better together, for instance, to confront climate change, or to reduce racism online, or to foster innovation within firms?Can we have simple forms of AI that are added into our midst that make us work better together? And the work we're doing in that part of my lab shows that abundantly that's the case. And we published a stream of papers showing that we can do that.” Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.Nicholas ChristakisHuman Nature Lab humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.eduTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data trellis.yale.eduThe Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

Nicholas Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is a social scientist and physician who conducts research in the areas of biosocial science, network science and behavioral genetics. He directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale University and is the co-director of the Yale Institute for Network Science. Dr. Christakis has authored numerous books, including Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society published in 2019 and Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live published in 2020. In 2009, Christakis was named by TIME magazine to their annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world.
“We're not attempting to invent super smart AI to replace human cognition. We are inventing dumb AI to supplement human interaction. Are there simple forms of artificial intelligence, simple programming of bots, such that when they are added to groups of humans – because those humans are smart or otherwise positively inclined - that help the humans to help themselves? Can we get groups of people to work better together, for instance, to confront climate change, or to reduce racism online, or to foster innovation within firms? Can we have simple forms of AI that are added into our midst that make us work better together? And the work we're doing in that part of my lab shows that abundantly that's the case. And we published a stream of papers showing that we can do that.”Nicholas Christakis Human Nature Lab humannaturelab.netYale Institute for Network Science yins.yale.eduTRELLIS - Suite of software tools for developing, administering, and collecting survey and social network data trellis.yale.eduThe Atlantic: “How AI Will Rewire Us: For better and for worse, robots will alter humans' capacity for altruism, love, and friendship”www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.org

JAMA Pediatrics Editors' Summary by Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief, and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH, Associate Editor, for the May 2, 2022 issue.

Scapegoating particular communities during an epidemic — be it tuberculosis, HIV or COVID-19 — is nothing new. Outbreaks of disease are often accompanied by the demonizing of some portion of humanity that is supposedly the source of the contagion. They are to blame.Must it be this way? Why do we feel the need to point the finger at each other when threatened like this — even when the threat is ultimately not from people but from viruses or bacteria? And what does this sort of blanket indictment during a health crisis have in common with cancel culture? Host Amna Khalid discusses these pressing issues with Nicholas Christakis, the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science, Internal Medicine & Biomedical Engineering at Yale University, and the author of Apollo’s Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live, now out in paperback.TRANSCRIPTDONALD TRUMP: Covid-19 — that name gets further and further away from China, as opposed to calling it the “Chinese virus.” [Cheers]...it’s got all different names: Wuhan…...Chinese virus......Kung flu, yes. [Cheers] Kung flu...AMNA KHALID: That was former president Donald Trump taking every opportunity to suggest that the coronavirus was spread by China — rather than by American apathy and incompetence. Of course, scapegoating particular communities during an epidemic — be it tuberculosis, HIV or Covid — is nothing new. Outbreaks of disease are often accompanied by the demonizing of some portion of humanity that is supposedly the source of the contagion. They are to blame.Must it be this way? Why do we feel the need to point the finger at each other when threatened like this — even when the threat is ultimately not from people but from viruses or bacteria? And what does this sort of blanket indictment during a health crisis have in common with cancel culture?Joining me to talk about the connection is Nicholas Christakis, the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science, Internal Medicine & Biomedical Engineering education at Yale University. A sociologist and a physician, Christakis directs the Human Nature Lab at Yale and is the author of Apollo’s Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live. He is also a keen critic of cancel culture, especially as it's playing out on college campuses.Nicholas, thanks for being here.NICHOLAS CHRISTAKIS: Thank you so much for having me.KHALID: We’re in the middle of a pandemic. Some people think we're towards the end of it, but I believe you describe it as towards the end of the beginning of the pandemic, which I, as an historian of medicine, would very much agree with having studied how epidemics play out. But shortly after we were hit by COVID, you wrote a most phenomenal book called Apollo's Arrow, and I was struck by how quickly you were able to put together what you were seeing, both of how the virus was progressing and the kinds of ways in which it was impacting our society. So can you tell me a little bit about what led you to write that book?CHRISTAKIS: What happened was I had a long standing collaboration with some Chinese scientists. We had been studying phone data that tracks people's social interactions and their movements, doing a bunch of research on different topics. And it dawned on us in January of 2020 we could use that data to study the spread of the virus. And we scrambled, beginning January 15th, to write a paper that was eventually published in April in the journal Nature about how the flow of people through Wuhan perfectly predicted the timing, intensity, and location of the epidemic throughout China through the end of February. So as a result of this, I was paying attention to this virus very early on. And as a result of that, became aware of the fact that on January 24th the Chinese promulgated regulations that required 930 million people to stay at home. In other words, the Chinese saw in the virus an enemy of sufficient magnitude that they basically detonated a social nuclear weapon to stop it. And this really got my attention. Of course, I knew the history of epidemic disease having studied that. And I was following what Chinese, and soon after, Italian scientists were putting online. It was very clear to me this was going to be a serious epidemic. And meanwhile, our public discourse was very minimalizing. The president of the United States was saying it'll go away, which is ridiculous. Any expert knew that was false. So I began to send out Twitter threads with sort of basic EPI 101 information about here's what happens with respiratory pandemics. Here's what's going to unfold and so on. And to my amazement, several of those went viral. I think there was a hunger in the United States for sort of basic scientific information about respiratory pandemics. By the middle of March, I began to redirect all the efforts of my lab towards the pandemic — or most of the efforts, not all — March the 15th, I started writing the book and it was due July the 15th, four months later. That was Apollo's Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live. And the reason I was able to write the book so swiftly, I think, is that so much is known about respiratory pandemics. I mean, the thing to understand is that this experience so many of us are having and this way we've come to live right now, which feels so alien and unnatural, is not. Plagues are not new to our species. They're just new to us. We think this is crazy — what's happening — but that's ridiculous. Humans have been interacting with pandemic disease for centuries. I mean, they're in the Bible. They're in the Iliad. The canonical work of Western fiction begins with a plague. They’re in Shakespeare. They’re in Cervantes. This is a part of the human experience. And there is therefore expertise — both human experience and in our religious traditions, in our literary traditions and also scientific expertise, as you mentioned, in medical historians, in epidemiologists. People know. We know about these things. Therefore, pretty much everything that has happened, almost without exception, has been foreseeable.KHALID: So, as I was reading the book, Nicholas — and for our listeners, I should mention that the paperback version of the book has just come out with a new preface. And if you're listening to this episode, you should go out and get a version because there are substantive differences, I think, between the hardback and the paperback. But I want to go back to the book itself. And when I was reading it, what I was struck by was how you explain these really complicated, scientific things in a very accessible fashion. But to my heart, what speaks to me is how you bring precisely what you mentioned — the history of how humans have coped with pandemics — into the frame. Because in our own lifetimes, we've been fortunate in that we have not seen anything of this scale. We've seen, you know, the SARS-1. We've seen a few other — Ebola. But, particularly in the U.S., we've been pretty insulated, I'd say, compared to other historical times. And I just found it fascinating how you were able to weave that into a discussion of what's happening right now. One of the things that I do when I'm teaching my history of medicine course is I tell my students that historians are interested in epidemics precisely because they reveal the fault lines of society. It's like that pressure point where everything that is papering over differences kind of evaporates and you can see what's going on. And we saw that happen this time too. Particular communities get scapegoated. Can you say a little bit about that? I mean, we've heard our prior president talk about the virus as a “China virus,” as “kung flu.” There is demonization of certain peoples.CHRISTAKIS: One of the things that's so interesting about plagues is that they have a biological and epidemiological existence, but, as you're pointing out, they also have a sociological existence. They bring with them certain psychological, economic, and sociological impacts, which are pretty much invariant. For example, plagues are a time of denial and lies. We see denial and lies for thousands of years. People have said that we have accounts from bubonic plague outbreaks from, you know, 1500 years ago where observers say it's crazy. There's all this superstition around what's happening, you know. Or the emergence of quacks, you know, who sell nostrums to cure the plague that even people in real time observe doesn't work, for example. So the emergence of lies and denial is typical. Fear is typical. Grief — the grief making power of plagues, sort of depression. Marcus Aurelius writes about a plague in Rome, about how worse even than the deaths was the kind of sense of depression that had settled over the city. All of these things that we're experiencing on a psychosocial plane are things that have been observed with plagues in the past. And as you're highlighting, one further such thing is this notion of blame, because during times of plague, it is stereotypic to blame others. During, for example, the bubonic plague, the Jews were blamed, right? There was an ascendant antisemitism. Countless Jews in many cities were burned at the stake or buried alive, blamed wrongly — of course — for the plague. During HIV, for example, gays were blamed or Haitians were blamed or IV drug users were blamed. And during this epidemic, we've seen that Asians are blamed or migrants are blamed. Part of the reason, I think, psychodynamically we are so eager and willing to blame others is that the alternatives are more frightening. So another alternative is that the plague is the workings of an implacable God, right? That God is bringing annihilation to us, right? That's scary. Or another alternative is that the plague is the inexorable workings of the natural world. Well that's frightening too. Whereas if you imagine that human agency is responsible, that some other humans are causing the plague, then you might imagine, in a soothing sort of way, that human agency might cause the plague to remit, that there's something we can do to stop it. But even within the category of blame — this issue of who gets blamed and why do we blame certain other groups of humans? On the one hand, there have been voices that have said kill the other. The other is responsible. There have also always been voices that have said no, that's not the case. For example, even during the first outbreak of bubonic plague in the 1340s, Pope Clement VI, during this wave of anti-Semitism, in an astonishing set of statements for a sitting pope — by the way, he comported himself remarkably humanely during this whole episode, taking great personal risk, having real sorrow and sympathy for the plight of human beings — he observed, just very logically, he goes, it couldn't possibly be the Jews that are responsible because they're also dying. You know, just very basic reasoning, you know, like the plague is killing everyone. Why would the Jews be doing this to themselves? Or Saint Cyprian — and I'll just read this — people have often said, well, why wouldn't the emergence of a common threat — like a plague is like a shared enemy — why wouldn't it bind human beings together? So here is an observation by Saint Cyprian. During the third century of the common era, there was another plague in Rome. Rome was about a million people in those days, which is astonishing. 5,000 people a day were dying, and Saint Cyprian said, “It disturbs some that this mortality is common to us with others; and yet what is there in this world which is not common to us with others...So long as we are here in the world, we are associated with the human race in fleshly equality.” This idea that we're all together in this, facing this common threat, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be divided by these superficial differences, this tension between no, there shouldn't be a bright line between us and them, or yes, there should be a bright line between us and them is also an ancient feature of plagues.KHALID: I'm loving the fact that you're drawing out this tension because I think this tension is at the heart of how we deal with pandemics. You've got these two forces contending with each other. At one level, you've got people — even during the Black Death — who believed that this is a curse from God for not caring for the poor. But coming back to the implications of scapegoating and essentially, you know, for banishing people — people have been banished during times of pandemics and for chronic illnesses as well. There is the idea of “leper” colonies and people who were sent away who were suffering from leprosy. And it was not just a physical death that they were sent towards, but there is very distinctly a social death that takes place. Can you comment and reflect on that a little bit in light of what's happening today as well?CHRISTAKIS: If you think about it, short of killing someone or maiming them, ostracizing them is a very powerful sanction. Ostracism comes from the Greek word ostrakon, which means little shards of pottery that they would write someone's name in to ostracize. Or there are many traditional societies where a witchdoctor, a traditional healer, might sort of identify who is the person who is responsible for the woes in our group, and that person would be cast out. Or sailors' accounts, you know, of why a ship has suffered a calamity, and it must be because this person on our ship is bad, that person would be flung overboard, for example. So there are many, many ways in which this idea of purging a group of an individual might somehow represent a kind of catharsis. And be, by the way, a very serious sanction to the person that was sent out, whether guilty or innocent. Many of the examples I just gave are innocent people being sacrificed for the benefits of the group. Sometimes they are guilty parties and we don't want to execute them, but let's say we'll banish them, which was a bad, bad sanction in old days. Now, the reason it's such a bad sanction is that we are actually social animals. It is very vulnerable to be on your own. To be cast out of a group and to have to survive on your own elicits a lot of very serious anxieties in human beings because, in our ancestral past, to be on your own was risky. So banishment, whether as a punishment for a bona fide crime or as a kind of immoral, I would say, act of purification — I mean, you see this in, for example, in the Cultural Revolution, you know where people were picked from a group and everyone else got to feel good because they cast out this person. This is a perverse reflection of a very fundamental human fear and even a human tendency.KHALID: Yeah, there is a kind of in-group and outgroup, right? This kind of tribalism that suddenly can get very starkly reinforced.CHRISTAKIS: We see that also, by the way, in the suboptimal way our country has responded to the pandemic. So, for example, in my view, we have needlessly politicized things like mask wearing and vaccination. I think it's wonderful that we live in a plural democracy. We have a range of political beliefs about all kinds of topics. And we resolve our differences how? Not by force of arms, we vote. That's what we do in our society. We vote to resolve our differences. And I would rather live in the kind of heterogeneous political pluralism than in a political monoculture. So I like the fact that we have a civilized way — to the extent possible — of resolving our differences, which is terrific. But this idea that you're going to signal your political affiliation by whether you choose to get vaccinated or not is really dumb. The vaccine should be seen as a kind of technocratic, apolitical tool. If people wanted to politicize whether you got Moderna or Pfizer, I think that would still be stupid. But if they want to politicize whether you get a vaccine at all, I mean, I think that's just not only illogical but self-injurious.KHALID: We've talked about this tension and this tribalism that is present, but I would argue that the coronavirus or a disease is a historical agent in its own right in that it acts and causes change in a way that exacerbates existing tendencies and sometimes even sows the seeds — it's not just exacerbation — but sometimes even sows the seeds of new kinds of rifts within society. How would you respond to that?CHRISTAKIS: Anything that puts stress on a society, whether a war or a famine or a natural disaster like a major earthquake or a plague highlights divisions or stresses in a society. It can also elicit wonderful qualities. There's a whole literature on the communities that form in the wake of disaster, for example. So, when people are flung out of a city and they're living in a camp and how they help each other out, you know. There are, of course, criminals and thieves and others who take advantage of the situation, but people tend to bond together in these types of things. I think that the virus struck us at a particularly vulnerable moment from the point of view of the intellectual fabric of our society. So there were a number of macro trends that were happening. First of all, we were at century level highs of economic inequality. We had historically very high levels of political polarization, which political scientists have documented. Those were in the background. In addition, we had a kind of anti-elitism — partly reflecting that inequality — and swept up in that anti-elitism was a kind of anti-scientism. Scientists were seen as just another kind of elite that was feeding at the public trough, which is kind of, in my view, a wrong way to see scientists. It's like seeing judges as an elite. You know, like the judges are feeding at the public trough because they're paid by our taxes. Well no, we don't see judges as a constituency, right? We don't see judges as an interest group. Some people have come to see scientists that way. And we also, as a nation, seem to have lost the capacity for nuance, right? Like we had these conversations in which everything is black or white or you’re with me or you're against me, again reflecting the kind of politicization of so many of our disagreements, as you just said. So all of these things were happening in our society when the virus struck. And I think it really exploited that. I think many more thousands of Americans died because we were unable as a nation to come together, and, by the way, in my view, with the previous administration, were poorly led at the level of the White House. We were not well led. You could have come and you could have said, you know, the American people are being attacked by this external virus. We need to come together to rebuff this. We need to work together as a nation. There's a kind of appeal — almost a jingoistic appeal — that could have been made that I think would have been appealing to the right and the left politically that could have worked. I do fault the White House, but there were Democratic governors who also did a lousy job — and mayors. But the White House is the White House, right? I think the inability of the White House to organize an effective national response is sort of the flip side of the unwillingness of much of the citizenry to face up to the unpleasant reality. The plague struck and exploited or exacerbated a variety of ongoing problems in our society.KHALID: When you wrote your book and the hardcover came out, at that point, the lab leak theory was really pooh-poohed and wasn't really something that was being considered as a possibility. And between that and your next edition, people are thinking differently about it or new evidence has come to light. Could you reflect on where you stand right now on that?CHRISTAKIS: People early on were saying that there was no evidence that this was an engineered bioweapon. I think those people advancing that theory were seen as a little bit of like conspiracy theorists. When you make extraordinary claims, you need to have some evidence for the claim. Many people acknowledge that it was possible that this was a leak from a lab, but they thought — and I was one of them — that it was more likely that this was a zoonotic leap rather than a lab leak. So one theory is that this was a virus that was brought back from the wild into the laboratory for study and then inadvertently leaked. And that is, by the way, still possible. We don't have good evidence one way or the other. And certainly, Chinese secrecy about this raises suspicions. The other idea is that there was some unobserved natural leap from a bat to a human probably in sort of the second half of 2019. And that theory, I think, is still more likely, partly because we know there are many such zoonotic leaps. You mentioned some. Ebola is a zoonotic leap. SARS-1 in 2003 was a zoonotic leap. Influenza is a zoonotic leap. Zika virus, hantavirus, HIV. All of these things we've all lived through, these are all zoonotic leaps, well documented zoonotic leaps. It happens and it's happening increasingly. In fact, there's some evidence that the zoonotic leaps are happening increasingly partly because of climate change, if you can believe it. So there's a deep connection between climate change and pandemic disease. And so, I still think that is probably what happened in this case, but I can't be sure. There's no reason to politicize this. We'll go wherever the evidence leads us. I mean, I don't have a political dog in this fight.KHALID: But this is the part that's interesting, right? Like you said, we can wait for the evidence, but there is this tendency, again, to go down that blame route, to try and see it as maliciously intentioned and something that has a conspiracy behind it. With HIV, in your book, you were reflecting on how the gay population got scapegoated and you said it just so happens that the virus settles in a particular community and that is the one that gets stigmatized. It's not necessarily inherently anything about that community. Another kind of parallel movement in our society, particularly American society, where cancelations are on the rise, where somehow there is this fear of contagion of ideas, and therefore we can't even bear to listen to anyone who holds a viewpoint that is contrary to us, and we must banish them. You know, we must cancel them. It's happening all around us, but it's happening in institutions of higher education which should be the places where we slow down, take a step back, and like you said, wait for the evidence and think things through. But that's not what's going on. Do you see similar dynamics in our social ways of dealing with difference?CHRISTAKIS: You know, the contagion of ideas can be modeled in ways similar to the contagion of germs. And my laboratory has done a lot of work on spreading processes and social networks. We've developed a lot of data sets and mathematical models and ideas that are highly relevant to understanding such phenomena. On the issue of silencing one's opponents, the desire to silence one’s opponents is a very primitive and ancient desire as well. But I think it's a weak desire. You know, if you're so confident in the integrity and validity of your ideas, win the battle of ideas. Argue. Bring evidence and data and rhetoric and logic to the field of battle and win. It's only people who lack confidence, in my view, who actually secretly suspect that maybe their ideas are not valid, that seek to silence their opponents, to prevent their opponents from speaking.And we see this on the right and on the left. For example, on the right they don't want to fund gun research, gun epidemiology research. Why would you not want to fund basic research on how guns kill people? Well, maybe you're afraid that if we find such evidence, it might lead to new policies that you disagree with. And rather than winning the battle of ideas and arguing about the policies, you're like, well, let's just suppress the evidence. Same with climate change. On the left, things having to do with gender, the biological reality of sex, for example. People would rather suppress such evidence or contort such evidence rather than engage with the evidence in a very, you know, mature way and recognize the subtleties and the nuance in any of these topics. Or in behavior, genetics is another topic that the left doesn't want to explore — you know, the role of genetics in human behavior. This is weak minded, in my view. I would rather have a full airing of people's ideas. And I would rather try to create institutions in our societies like universities, which are special places for such airing. And incidentally, as James Mill famously said, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of it.”Your ideas get stronger when you test them against opponents. Why — when you fight in martial arts, why do you bow to your opponent? You're grateful to your opponent for giving you an opportunity to perfect your own skills. You couldn't do that without an opponent, right? It's the same in intellectual battle — you need to test your ideas. Whether it's scientific claims about the world or philosophical stances about the world, I think they get better in the crucible of contention. And so, this is why I am gravely concerned that there are many topics which have become taboo on university campuses, on the left and on the right. It's below a great nation like ours, and it's below our best universities to fall prey to such desires, to create a culture of censorship. What happens typically is that someone is cast out. Like someone is identified for like a minor delict and is cast out, and that has a real silencing effect on everyone else. People are oh, better not discuss that topic. The costs are too high of discussing that topic, and it's dropped.KHALID: Yeah, this is an excellent point, and I've actually had a few people push back and say well, you know, there’re not that many professors who've been canceled recently, if you count the numbers compared to the proportion. It's not about the actual numbers of people who are being canceled, but those who are subsequently silenced and who are self-censoring for fear of being canceled. There is this parallel of the fear that we're facing with the pandemic and this fear that is now being cultivated through these kinds of cancelations and scapegoating of people.CHRISTAKIS: I may bungle this example, and there may be listeners of yours who know more about it. But my understanding of training to become a SEAL — you know, an elite warrior — is that there is an exercise early on in that training where they throw all the men and women into the water and there's a little raft and everyone has been issued like a little tripod and you start treading water. And they tell them all, you will all tread water until one of you climbs up onto this raft and sets up their little tripod and rings the bell and gives up. Then we'll let the rest of you out of the water. And these soldiers tread water for 24 hours until finally one person gives up. So the SEAL — the trainers are willing to sacrifice one guy early on for the benefits of solidarity that accrue to everyone else, where everyone else feels we made it. We're good material. It's us. You know, we are now us because we have symbolically cast out a member of our erstwhile community. People get this kind of free zone, this kind of sense of solidarity by sacrificing someone. And many of these cases of cancelation that we have seen have this element. There's a case at the Yale Law School right now where a Native American student who's politically on the right sent out, innocently — we now have on record that he was unaware that his lighthearted party invitation could be seen by some other people as having racist connotations. He referred to having a party at his “trap house.” This is a slang I was previously unfamiliar with, but if you look it up, it's been used by many people with nonracial connotations for quite a long time now. Its primary definition does not have racial connotations. He mentioned the foodstuffs that would be available, which included apple pie and fried chicken at this event. Turns out he didn't even pick the fried chicken. It was a convenient fast food store near their house. One of his roommates had made that selection. He sends out an announcement, and nine people at Yale Law School — primarily African Americans — were so offended by this that they reported him to some deans who then called the student in and tried to engineer an apology from him. And then the student was denounced by this body within the university that his email was racist and pejorative, even though on record — we now have audiotapes of the conversation. It was clear he had no idea. And they told him they believed him that he had no idea. Nevertheless, they denounced him. And then everyone is circling the wagons now, reading his actions in the most uncharitable way. To me, this seems like a situation in which they're trying to cast out an innocent person in order to make themselves feel better and build group solidarity and police the margins of acceptable discourse. All of which is wrong, in my view.KHALID: You know, the irony is that this is happening at a law school, which is all about teaching students how to pass out evidence, how to think through who is responsible, and how you hold them responsible. And also, one of the key elements of legal schooling is to learn there is the action but then there is the intention. And you cannot discount the intention. The intention is what makes the difference between the verdict for manslaughter versus murder. CHRISTAKIS: Yes.KHALID: Somehow that has been completely erased from our conversation right now.CHRISTAKIS: There was no due process. There was no right to confront your accusers. It was so unlawyerly from start to finish, as far as I can tell, ignoring some of these philosophical elements that are so important in our jurisprudence. It's embarrassing. And furthermore, some of the students claim that this party invitation from this guy was physically harmful to them, they claimed, in a kind of histrionic language that I think needs to be called for what it is. They use the term “never again,” which is a phrase we usually use when talking about genocide. We say genocide should never happen again. These are very extreme statements, really unwarranted in this type of a situation. The uncharitable reading, the witch hunt mentality, the over involvement of administrators in business they really shouldn't be involving themselves in, the attempts at forced apology — you know, they drafted an apology note for him to sign and then threatened him with reporting him to the bar if he didn't sign it. There's so many elements of this case that are just shameful.KHALID: The parallels are really striking between how communities and pandemics are scapegoated and how people, right now, for their speech are being ostracized and being blamed. And the implications — what we were talking about earlier about a social death — are very real because these kinds of cancelations and attacks and censorship have implications for people's lives in very real ways.CHRISTAKIS: Just imagine being widely reviled. I mean, it's one thing if you are a murderer and you're widely reviled. Imagine if you're not. There was a case at Dartmouth a few years ago of a chair of a department of psychology who was wrongly accused of being complicit — falsely and wrongly accused of being complicit in sexual harassment done by other professors. And he was rejected by the local community. People would see him in the grocery store and take it upon themselves to denounce him. And this man eventually took his own life. I mean, this is appalling. It is extremely painful to be cast out of a community. And it is not a light sanction to impose, especially unjustly. This is not a civilized way to act, in my view. I think there are better ways to handle the stumbles that people sometimes make around many hot button issues in our society. And I would especially like to see us do better at our best universities.KHALID: Thank you, Nicholas. I feel like that's a good way to converge the two conversations. Thank you so much for joining us today.CHRISTAKIS: Amna, thank you so much for having me. KHALID: Nicholas Christakis is a physician, a professor at Yale, and author of Apollo’s Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live — which is now out in paperback. It’s a book I highlighly recommend to all Banished listeners. My conversation with Christakis, as you heard, called to mind the protocol for casting out those suffering from leprosy in Medieval England. Here is an excerpt from a set  of instructions used by the diocese at Salisbury for banishing a “leper” —  in the parlance of the time:The priest casts earth on each of his feet saying “Be thou dead to the world, but alive again unto God.” Then the priest must lead him from the church to his house as a dead man, chanting libre me Domine, in such ways that the sick man is covered with a black cloth. Then when he comes into the open fields … he ends by imposing prohibitions on him in the following manner:I forbid you to ever enter churches or go into a market or a mill or in any assemblies of people.I forbid you henceforth to go out without your leper’s dress, that you may be recognised by others; and you must not go outside your house unshod.I forbid you henceforth to eat or drink in any company except that of lepers.I would encourage you to heed the advice of Nicholas Christakis and imagine being reviled by many thousands of people for some perceived transgression. Really sit with that for a while and then ask yourself: Are the judgements of Medieval clergy so different from those of Twitter mobs or university administrators today? Is one social death really less painful than another? Less barbaric? Less, oh, I don’t know, medieval? Please support the work we do at Booksmart Studios by becoming a paying subscriber, and get access to full interviews, bonus segments, and more.Don’t forget to rate and share what you've heard here today on whichever platform you listen on and leave a comment so we know what you think. Our success here at Booksmart depends as much on you as on us.Banished is produced by Matthew Schwartz and Mike Vuolo. And I, as always, am Amna Khalid. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe