Podcasts about Social psychology

The broken windows theory suggests that one broken window can cause a neighbourhood to descend into disrepair. But is it true?  Today, with the award-winning professor Leidy Klotz, we investigate the broken windows theory and explain how environments shape our behaviour.  --- Become an FSB member: https://get.fsb.org.uk/nudge/ Leidy's book Subtract: https://amzn.to/4df4duk Leidy's latest book In a Good Place: https://amzn.to/4tzjCvE  Join 11,934 readers of the Nudge Newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  --- Today's sources:  Brown, G., & Baer, M. (2011). Location in negotiation: Is there a home field advantage? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 190–200. Cialdini, R. B. (2016). Pre-suasion: A revolutionary way to influence and persuade. Simon & Schuster. Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 191–198. Pinsker, H., Kupfermann, I., Castellucci, V., & Kandel, E. R. (1970). Habituation and dishabituation of the gill-withdrawal reflex in Aplysia. Science, 167(3926), 1740–1742. Rajecki, D. W. (1974). Effects of prenatal exposure to auditory or visual stimulation on postnatal distress vocalizations in chicks. Behavioral Biology, 11(4), 525–536. Rodin, J., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention with the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(12), 897–902. Wells, M. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: The role of office personalization in employee and organizational well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 239–255.

Kaum eine Nachricht kommt heute ohne sie aus: Emojis

Sometimes you just need an impromptu therapy session with absolutely no professionals present. From the adult who calls their parents by their first names to the person who orders a salad at a pub, Clare, Amelia and Em are unpacking the exact types of people we just don’t trust. SUBSCRIBE to Mamamia and never miss a word of Out Loud. Plus get access to every story and our exercise app, MOVE. Australia’s fertility rate has sunk to a record low, but researchers swear they’ve found the one simple trick to get women to have more babies. It does involve your home office’s proximity to the bedroom, but not quite in the way you might think. Plus, how are powerful women like Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan still being target with 300 year old Salem tropes like ‘Ditch The Witch’? Julia Gillard, like us, has thoughts. Also, Madonna just dropped a star-studded 10-minute musical short film called Confessions II. We’re breaking down every single celebrity cameo you might have missed. And, we explain the reason why Taylor Swift, Timothée Chalamet and Ben Stiller are in orange and blue all over your social media feed. SUBSCRIBE here: Support independent women's media What To Listen To Next: Listen to our latest episode: 3 (Celebrity) Weddings And A Guest Drama Listen: Spoiled Pig Syndrome & Our List Of Things That Are Just Not Working Listen: Sorry Clare. There’s No Better Time To NOT Have A Baby Listen: The Boy ‘Mom’ Trap & Actually, We’ve Met Listen: The Married People Claiming 'Hot Divorce Energy' Listen: Don’t Go To Uni, Baby Doll Dresses & The World’s Coolest Wedding Hat Listen: Reading-Gap Relationships & The 'Daddy' Of It All Connect your subscription to Apple Podcasts Discover more Mamamia Podcasts here including the very latest episode of Parenting Out Loud, the parenting podcast for people who don't listen to... parenting podcasts. SUBSCRIBE here: Support independent women's media You can now watch our show in full length video on the Apple Podcast app - make sure your phone is up to date and we can't wait for you to see Mamamia Out Loud on Apple What to read: 'Five words from someone I trusted nearly broke me. Here's what I know now.' HOLLY WAINWRIGHT: Want to start a fight in 3 words? Work from home. The real reason less of us are having babies in 2025. Your 5-minute news explainer to get you up to date on June 9, 2026. THE END BITS: Check out our merch at MamamiaOutLoud.com GET IN TOUCH: Feedback? We’re listening. Send us an email at outloud@mamamia.com.au Share your story, feedback, or dilemma! Send us a voice message. Join our Facebook group Mamamia Outlouders to talk about the show. Follow us on Instagram @mamamiaoutloud and on Tiktok @mamamiaoutloud Mamamia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the Land on which we have recorded this podcast.Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Uncommon Sense, we're discussing the tragic state of the modern world.From the protests in Ireland to growing frustration across Western nations, many people feel as though their voices are no longer being heard by the institutions that claim to represent them. I'll share why I support the right of people to protest and why I believe the demonstrations in Ireland have resonated with so many people around the world.We'll also discuss what I see as a deeper spiritual crisis affecting modern society. Many of the political, cultural, and social problems we face today are symptoms of a broader moral and spiritual decline, one that cannot be solved through politics alone.In this episode:My thoughts on the protests in IrelandWhy so many citizens now feel disconnected from their governmentsThe growing divide between ordinary people and powerful institutionsThe role of faith, morality, and personal responsibility in rebuilding societyWhy I believe many of today's crises point to a deeper spiritual battleWhether you agree or disagree, this episode is an invitation to think critically about the direction of our culture, our governments, and our future.--https://www.youversion.com/bible-app

Seems common sense, humans are social creatures by NATURE, but ARE we? And as much we ARE, can it be undone? Hopefully not, as it could be the death of us, or at least that which is in keeping us alive, the best of what makes us human.Contact Us: DrMDClay@TheWORDHouse.com; TheWORDHouse.com; @WORDHouse; or call 304.523.WORD (9673).

Why do anomalous experiences so often arrive in the wake of trauma? And what happens when the people who understand that connection decide to use it as a weapon? This episode of Inquiry follows trauma as the hidden throughline connecting UFOs, consciousness, psychological operations, and the engineering of belief at scale. Kelly Chase starts with how human perception actually works, drawing on Donald Hoffman's "The Case Against Reality," James Madden's umwelt and über-umwelt from "Unidentified Flying Hyperobject," and Jeffrey Kripal's Filter Thesis, then grounds it all in the predictive processing model of the brain and Karl Friston's free energy principle. The picture that emerges is unsettling: trauma doesn't only wound a person, it makes them porous, loosening the filters that hold consensus reality in place. From there the conversation turns toward how that vulnerability has been exploited. It traces belief manipulation from the 1980 "From PSYOP to MindWar" paper by Michael Aquino and Paul Vallely, through MKULTRA and Operation Mockingbird, to the declassified reality of Operation Northwoods and the manufacturing of consent. It brings in Jacques Vallée's control system hypothesis and Colm Kelleher's concept of bidirectional mimicry to ask whether human institutions and the phenomenon itself may be using the same lever: disruption, destabilization, and the reshaping of belief in the rupture's aftermath. Then it turns the dread on its head. Research on openness to experience and Post-Traumatic Growth suggests the architects of mass stress made a critical miscalculation. Trauma creates openings, and openings go both ways. You can crack the shell of consensus reality to make people malleable, but you cannot control what hatches. Topics explored: Trauma and anomalous experience | experiencer patterns | the Filter Thesis | Donald Hoffman | perception as interface | umwelt and über-umwelt | James Madden | Jeffrey Kripal | predictive processing | Karl Friston | free energy principle | belief malleability | shattered assumptions | meaning violation | belief engineering | MindWar | Michael Aquino | Paul Vallely | psychological operations | MKULTRA | Operation Mockingbird | cognitive sovereignty | bidirectional mimicry | Colm Kelleher | black triangle craft | Jacques Vallée | control system hypothesis | Operation Northwoods | manufactured consent | openness to experience | Post-Traumatic Growth | consciousness-level immune response | non-human intelligence | contact experiences Inquiry with Kelly Chase is brought to you by SpectreVision Radio.Produced in partnership with Voltage.fm.  Referenced In This Episode The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes — Donald Hoffman (2019) Unidentified Flying Hyperobject: UFOs, Philosophy, and the End of the World — James Madden (2023) How to Think Impossibly: About Souls, UFOs, Time, Belief, and Everything Else — Jeffrey J. Kripal (2024) The Flip: Epiphanies of Mind and the Future of Knowledge — Jeffrey J. Kripal (2019) "The Free-Energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?" — Karl Friston (2010) "Trauma or Drama: A Predictive Processing Perspective on the Continuum of Stress" — Valery Krupnik (2020) "Predictive Processing and the Varieties of Psychological Trauma" — Sam Wilkinson, Guy Dodgson & Kevin Meares (2017) "Assumptive Worlds and the Stress of Traumatic Events" — Ronnie Janoff-Bulman (1989) Shattered Assumptions: Towards a New Psychology of Trauma — Ronnie Janoff-Bulman (1992) "PTSD as Meaning Violation: Testing a Cognitive Worldview Perspective" — Crystal L. Park, Mary Alice Mills & Donald Edmondson (2012) "Making Sense of the Meaning Literature: An Integrative Review of Meaning Making and Its Effects on Adjustment to Stressful Life Events" — Crystal L. Park (2010) From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory — Paul E. Vallely & Michael Aquino (1980) MindWar: The New Battle for the Mind — Michael Aquino (2016) Project MKULTRA, the CIA's Program of Research in Behavioral Modification — U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (1977) MKULTRA Collection — CIA Reading Room Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Book II (Church Committee Report) — U.S. Senate (1976) Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (Operation Northwoods) — Joint Chiefs of Staff (1962) "The Anxious State: Stress, Polarization, and Elections in America" — The Conversation (2025) "Politics Is Taking a Toll on People's Well-Being" — Psychology Today (2025) "Stressful Life Events and Openness to Experience: Relevance to Depression" — Chiappelli et al. (2021) "The Social Psychology of Responses to Trauma: Social Identity Pathways Associated with Divergent Traumatic Responses" — Orla Muldoon et al. (2019) "Posttraumatic Growth: Conceptual Foundations and Empirical Evidence" — Richard Tedeschi & Lawrence Calhoun (2004) "The Post-Traumatic Growth Approach to Psychological Trauma" — Richard Tedeschi (2023) "Confidence in U.S. Institutions Down; Average at New Low" — Gallup (2022) 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer — Edelman (2025) Support The Show Patreon: inquirywithkellychase.com Substack: inquirywithkellychase.substack.com Connect with Kelly Website: kellychase.media X: @kellychasemedia Instagram: @kellychasemedia TIMESTAMPS 04:12 Trauma and The Anomalous 07:01 Perception Is an Interface 11:05 Umwelt and Uber Umwelt 14:05 Kripal and Filter Thesis 18:27 Predictive Brain and Trauma 23:11 Belief Becomes Malleable 28:08 MindWar Doctrine 32:36 MKUltra and Mockingbird 36:58 Mimicry and Control System 42:17 False Flags and Consent 46:09 Algorithms as Trauma Engine 49:23 Openness and Growth 55:59 Consciousness Immune Response 57:18 Closing and Next Steps Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Enhanced Games, hosted in Las Vegas last Saturday, made a bold claim. With the use of performance-enhancing drugs, enhanced athletes would break not just personal records but world records.  And the end goal? To sell those same drugs to the masses.  It's arguably the biggest marketing stunt of the year so far, and today on Nudge I reveal the psychology behind it.  Did the Enhanced Games succeed? Listen to find out.  --- Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Subscribe to my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  --- Today's sources  Landy, D., & Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 299–304. Miller, A. G. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 19(4), 241–242. Mujika, I., & Burke, L. M. (2019). Swimming fast when it counts: A 7-year analysis of Olympic and World Championships performance. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. Nicolau, J. L., Mellinas, J. P., & Martín-Fuentes, E. (2020). The halo effect: A longitudinal approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 83, 102938. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.

The Libertarian Party has just wrapped their National Convention so it seems like the perfect time to do an Anarchist Audit

When was the last time you sparked up a conversation with a stranger and surprised yourself with how good it felt? Behavioral scientist Nicholas Epley, author of A Little More Social, returns to the podcast to discuss with Michael why we systematically underestimate how positively strangers respond, how connection supports happiness, health, and longevity, and the key mechanisms behind our social pessimism (misjudging warmth vs. competence, overlooking reciprocity, and self-fulfilling avoidance). Nicholas shares research on how quickly people update after a conversation and how fast those gains can fade, plus practical “easy choice” experiments like asking someone to take your photo or simply asking, “Can you tell me your story?” Plus, in a special post-interview discussion, listener-turned-friend of Michael's, therapist Dr. Jennifer Kauder, joins Michael to reflect on voice vs. text, comfort-zone challenges, and why real-time connection changes everything.Listen and Learn: The surprising benefits of connecting with people you don't know, and why our minds trick us into fearing these interactions that can lengthen and enrich our livesPsychological traps that make us overly pessimistic about reaching out to others, and why we miss out on deeper, happier connections due to misplaced expectations Research on why trying to push past social awkwardness just once isn't enough, and why our brains quickly forget positive interactions Why our confidence drops right before we approach someone new, the psychology behind why starting a conversation is much easier than anticipating it, and how small mindsets can instantly dissolve social anxiety A simple, foolproof question that skips past awkward small talk, ignites genuine curiosity, and uncovers the fascinating, hidden storiesResources: A Little More Social: How Small Choices Create Unexpected Happiness, Health, and Connection https://bookshop.org/a/30734/9780593319543 Nicholas' Website: https://www.nicholasepley.com/Nicholas Epley on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-epley/ Michael's Confidence Course: https://herold.coach/courseRejection Proof by Jia Jiang: https://bookshop.org/a/30734/9780804141383 About Nicholas EpleyNicholas Epley is the John Templeton Keller Distinguished Service Professor of Behavioral Science and Director of the Roman Family Center for Decision Research, at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He studies social cognition—how thinking people think about other thinking people—to understand why smart people so routinely misunderstand each other. He teaches an ethics and happiness course to MBA students called Designing a Good Life. His research has appeared in more than two dozen empirical journals, been featured by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Wired, and National Public Radio, among many others, and has been funded by the National Science Foundation and the Templeton Foundation. He has been awarded the 2008 Theoretical Innovation Award from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the 2011 Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology from the American Psychological Association, the 2015 Book Prize for the Promotion of Social and Personality Science, and the 2018 Career Trajectory Award from the Society for Experimental Social Psychology. Epley was named a “professor to watch” by the Financial Times, one of the “World's Best 40 under 40 Business School Professors” by Poets and Quants, and one of the 100 Most Influential in Business Ethics in 2015 by Ethisphere. He is the author of Mindwise: How We Understand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want. His new book, A Little More Social: How Small Choices Create Unexpected Happiness, Health, and Connection, was published in May! (Our UK listeners will find the book titled Hello: The Unexpected Power of Choosing To Connect)Related Episodes422. Mindwise with Nicholas Epley454. Remain Calm. Confidence Ahead with Michael Herold313. ACT-Informed Exposure for Anxiety with Brian Pilecki and Brian Thompson393. Supercommunicators with Charles Duhigg360. The Laws of Connection with David RobsonSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What does psychology miss when it treats racism as only an individual bias? In this special live episode, Dr. Phia Salter and Dr. Glenn Adams join us to discuss critical race psychology, and how psychological science can better account for systems of power while still asking psychological questions.This live episode was recorded at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology's Critical Perspectives in Psychology Preconference; thanks to organizers Drs. Jada Copeland, Keturah Ragland, Phia Salter, and Mikaela Spruill.

Content section starts at 25:50.If you've been a long-time listener of The Psychology World Podcast then you might be well aware that I flat out love anime and manga. Especially, Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba, Go For It, Nakamura and Stranger by the Shore. Those are some amazing animes from Japan. For a while, and more to support my obsession or autistic special interest in them, I've been wondering about the clinical psychology or possible mental health implications, because in my experience autistic individuals and other nerdy people tend to be drawn to these niche interests. Of course, there is barely any research on the topic but I managed to find a fascinating study from Hajek and Konig (2024) that explores the relationship between interest in anime and manga and mental health, social connectedness and more. Therefore, by the end of this clinical psychology podcast episode, you'll understand more about anime and manga, how interest in these forms of Japanese entertainment relate to mental health and other wellbeing outcomes and I'll discuss possible implications for aspiring and qualified clinical and educational psychologists too. If you enjoy learning about social psychology, popular culture and mental health, then this will be a great episode for you.In the psychology news section, you'll learn about the neurodegenerative prevention benefits of even light exercise, the silent noise that gives you the creeps and how high conflict divorce harms long-term health.LISTEN NOW!If you want to support the podcast, please check out:FREE AND EXCLUSIVE 8 PSYCHOLOGY BOOK BOXSET- https://www.subscribepage.io/psychologyboxsetYour Unshakable Self: A Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology and Mental Health Guide to Sense of Self: https://www.connorwhiteley.net/your-unshakable-self Available from all major eBook retailers and you can order the paperback and hardback copies from Amazon, your local bookstore and local library, if you request it. Also available as an AI-narrated audiobook from selected audiobook platforms and libraries systems. For example, Kobo, Spotify, Barnes and Noble, Google Play, Overdrive, Baker and Taylor and Bibliotheca. Patreon- patreon.com/ThePsychologyWorldPodcast#anime #manga #animelover #animes #socialpsychology #cyberpsychology #mediapsychology #clinicalpsychology #mentalhealth #clinicalmentalhealth #clinicalpsychologist #mentalhealthawareness #mentalhealthsupport #mentalhealthadvocate #psychology #psychology_facts #psychologyfacts #psychologyfact #psychologystudent #psychologystudents #podcast

If you enjoy this episode, we're sure you will enjoy more content like this on The Occult Rejects.  In fact, we have curated playlists on occult topics like grimoires, esoteric concepts and phenomena, occult history, analyzing true crime and cults with an occult lens, Para politics, and occultism in music. Whether you enjoy consuming your content visually or via audio, we've got you covered - and it will always be provided free of charge.  So, if you enjoy what we do and want to support our work of providing accessible, free content on various platforms, please consider making a donation to the links provided below.  Thank you and enjoy the episode!Links For The Occult Rejectshttps://linktr.ee/theoccultrejectsOccult Research Institutehttps://www.occultresearchinstitute.org/Substackhttps://substack.com/@theoccultrejects?r=7auau0&utm_campaign=profile&utm_medium=profile-pageCash Apphttps://cash.app/$theoccultrejectsVenmo@TheOccultRejectsBuy Me A Coffeebuymeacoffee.com/TheOccultRejectsPatreonhttps://www.patreon.com/TheOccultRejectsEPISODE 1 BIBLIOGRAPHYThe Building That Changes YouAckerman, Joshua M., Christopher C. Nocera, and John A. Bargh. “Incidental Haptic Sensations Influence Social Judgments and Decisions.” Science 328, no. 5986 (2010): 1712–1715. Key use: Haptics, touch, weight, texture, hardness, and the idea that physical sensation can influence judgment and social interpretation. This supports the tactile layer of the episode: heavy doors, cold stone, worn rails, kneelers, relic cases, and sacred matter as meaningful contact.Higuera-Trujillo, Juan Luis, Carmen Llinares, and Eduardo Macagno. “The Cognitive-Emotional Design and Study of Architectural Space: A Scoping Review of Neuroarchitecture and Its Precursor Approaches.” Sensors 21, no. 6 (2021): 2193. Key use: Neuroarchitecture, emotional response to built environments, and the idea that architecture can be studied as a cognitive-emotional stimulus rather than only as art or style.Kilde, Jeanne Halgren. Sacred Power, Sacred Space: An Introduction to Christian Architecture and Worship. Oxford University Press, 2008. Key use: Major backbone source for Christian architecture as a system of worship, power, spatial order, and embodied religious experience. Oxford's description emphasizes Kilde's argument that church buildings represent and reify different forms of power, especially divine power.Morgan, David. The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice. University of California Press, 2005. Key use: Religious seeing, visual culture, sacred images, and the idea that vision is an active religious practice that can invest images, persons, times, and places with spiritual meaning.Taves, Ann. Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things. Princeton University Press, 2009. Key use: Helps frame religious experience without reducing it to one fixed category. Useful for the episode's approach to how experiences become interpreted, named, and treated as religious or sacred.Clark, Andy. Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford University Press, 2016. Key use: Predictive processing, active inference, and the idea that perception is not passive recording but active prediction and model-building. This supports the “brain does not enter a church like a camera” argument.Krueger, Joel. “Extended Mind and Religious Cognition.” 2016. Key use: Extended and embodied cognition applied to religious practice, ritual objects, and environments. Useful for arguing that worship is not only inside the head but supported by bodies, tools, spaces, and shared action.Oxford Academic. “Embodied Cognition in Ecclesial Practices.” In Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology, 2023. Key use: Christian practices, embodied cognition, Eucharistic action, and religious material culture as cognitively significant rather than merely symbolic.Piff, Paul K., Pia Dietze, Matthew Feinberg, Daniel M. Stancato, and Dacher Keltner. “Awe, the Small Self, and Prosocial Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108, no. 6 (2015): 883–899. Key use: Awe, vastness, the “small self,” and the psychological effects of encountering something perceived as larger than the ordinary self. This supports the cathedral-scale and sacred-vastness argument.Tarr, Bronwyn, Jacques Launay, and Robin I. M. Dunbar. “Music and Social Bonding: ‘Self-Other' Merging and Neurohormonal Mechanisms.” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014): 1096. Key use: Music, synchrony, social bonding, rhythmic action, and group cohesion. This supports the sections on chant, group singing, ritual synchrony, and bodies acting together in sacred space.Ittyerah, Miriam. “Memory for Curvature of Objects: Haptic Touch vs. Vision.” 2007. Key use: Haptic memory, touch-based object recognition, and the idea that touch can produce durable memory traces. Useful for worn rails, thresholds, beads, icons, relic cases, and repeated sacred contact.Lange, Lisa S., et al. “Tactile Memory Impairments in Younger and Older Adults.” Scientific Reports, 2024. Key use: Modern tactile-memory framing; useful for the claim that tactile experience is remembered and retrieved as part of embodied life.Freedberg, David. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. University of Chicago Press, 1989. Key use: Image response, embodied reaction to sacred or charged images, and why religious images can provoke devotion, fear, destruction, reverence, or bodily response.Plate, S. Brent. A History of Religion in 5½ Objects: Bringing the Spiritual to Its Senses. Beacon Press, 2014. Key use: Material religion, objects, sensory experience, and the idea that religion is encountered through things, not only beliefs.Meyer, Birgit. Mediation and the Genesis of Presence: Toward a Material Approach to Religion. Key use: Material religion, mediation, presence, and how religious traditions use media, objects, images, sounds, and spaces to make the sacred present.Pallasmaa, Juhani. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. Key use: Architecture as a multisensory experience, especially touch, materiality, atmosphere, and the limits of treating architecture as only visual.Mallgrave, Harry Francis. The Architect's Brain: Neuroscience, Creativity, and Architecture. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Key use: Architecture and neuroscience, built form, emotion, perception, and embodied response to space.Robinson, Sarah, and Juhani Pallasmaa, eds. Mind in Architecture: Neuroscience, Embodiment, and the Future of Design. MIT Press, 2015. Key use: Embodiment, neuroscience, architectural perception, and how built environments shape lived experience.Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Key use: Sacred space, threshold, center, axis mundi, and the distinction between ordinary space and holy space. This becomes more important in Episode 2, but it also supports Episode 1's general sacred-space framework.van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Key use: Separation, threshold, and incorporation. Useful for the threshold logic that runs through the whole series.Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Key use: Liminality, transition, communitas, and the ritual power of in-between states.Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Key use: Lived place, memory, experience, and the difference between abstract space and meaningful place.Smith, Jonathan Z. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Key use: Ritual as place-making; sacred places are produced through repeated action, interpretation, and return.Morgan, David. Visual Piety: A History and Theory of Popular Religious Images. Key use: Popular religious images, devotional seeing, sacred practice, and how visual material becomes part of lived religion.Kieckhefer, Richard. Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley. Key use: Church architecture as theology in built form, useful as a broad Christian architectural bridge source.Also want to remind people about the website, if you're into reading we have tons of information by multiple contributors, and we got t-shirts up on the site if you're interested. Fun fact, the art is all based on the eyeball. A

Dr Lilla Csorgo, lay member of the High Court of New Zealand, joins us to talk about being Chief Economist in three different countries, approaches to ex ante regulation and merger control, being approximately correct vs precisely wrong, and whether fiction and economics have anything in common. Plus, the ACCC wins against Coles in its “was/now/had been” pricing case, the courts have thoughts on NSW Ports, competition and consumer initiatives in the federal budget, and competition and consumer concerns at the FIFA World Cup … All this and e-micromobility with co-hosts Moya Dodd and Matt Rubinstein. Links:   Henry Ergas, "TSLRIC, TELRIC and Other Forms of Forward-Looking Cost Models in Telecommunications: A Curmudgeon's Guide" at SSRN Softwar by Thierry Breton and Denis Beneich at The Internet Archive Prose and plays by Dr Lilla Csorgo ACCC v Coles [2026] FCA 598 Mayfield v NSW Ports [2026] HCA 21 Summary and Judgment "Why Susie sells seashells by the seashore: Implicit egotism and major life decisions", Journey of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4) 469-487 Why all fire trucks are called Dennis Discover your Hogwarts House at Hatty Potter Wizarding World Julien Guyon, "Risk of Collusion: Will Groups of 3 Ruin the FIFA World Cup?" The Disgrace of Gijon on YouTube Meet the Gilbert + Tobin Competition, Consumer + Market Regulation team Email us at edge@gtlaw.com.au Support the show: https://www.gtlaw.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Why do some students quit after one day, while others become skiers for life? In this episode of First Chair, host George Thomas is joined by Sebastian Crain to explore the deep psychology behind snowsports instruction. Sebastian teaches at Aspen Snowmass and Eldora, but he also holds a Master's in the Social Psychology of Sport. He uses that expertise to explain why Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is the ultimate tool for modern instructors. Sebastian breaks down the three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competency, and relatedness—and explains how they lead to "intrinsic motivation." Learn how to move your guests away from just "trying it out" and toward a permanent identity as a snowpro. We also discuss how to deliver "informational" rather than "controlling" feedback to keep your students in the driver's seat. In this episode, we discuss: - How Self-Determination Theory improves on Maslow's Hierarchy. - The motivation spectrum: From ice cream rewards to flow state. - 9 statistically significant characteristics of effective feedback. - Shifting the focus from what you teach to how the guest feels.

Content part of the episode starts at 21:45.This week I have an online job interview for the role of an education mental health practitioner, and as part of my interview preparation I want to make sure that I have a good understanding of what the job is, what an education mental health practitioner is expected to do and more. Also, it helps that because of my neurodivergence, creating a podcast episode on the topic is a very helpful way to make me focus. Therefore, by the end of this clinical psychology podcast episode, you'll understand what is an education mental health practitioner, what skills and experiences the role requires and so much more, including how to phrase this information in a job interview. Since I'm sure that I'll be tested on my understanding of the role in my interview. This is somewhere that I normally fail on so I want to change that. If you enjoy learning about careers in psychology, working in education and applying psychology to improve lives, then this will be a great episode for you.In the psychology news section, you'll learn how the brain integrates an augmented body part, why not every facet of narcissism strains relationships, and the world's largest great ape cognition dataset goes live.LISTEN NOW!If you want to support the podcast, please check out:FREE AND EXCLUSIVE 8 PSYCHOLOGY BOOK BOXSET- https://www.subscribepage.io/psychologyboxsetYour Unshakable Self: A Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology and Mental Health Guide to Sense of Self- https://www.connorwhiteley.net/your-unshakable-self Available from all major eBook retailers and you can order the paperback and hardback copies from Amazon, your local bookstore and local library, if you request it. Also available as an AI-narrated audiobook from selected audiobook platforms and libraries systems. For example, Kobo, Spotify, Barnes and Noble, Google Play, Overdrive, Baker and Taylor and Bibliotheca. Patreon- patreon.com/ThePsychologyWorldPodcast#education #educationmentalhealthpractitioner #healthcareers #mentalhealthpractitioner #childmentalhealthmatters #childmentalhealth #clinicalpsychology #mentalhealth #clinicalmentalhealth #clinicalpsychologist #mentalhealthawareness #mentalhealthsupport #mentalhealthadvocate #psychology #psychology_facts #psychologyfacts #psychologyfact #psychologystudent #psychologystudents #podcast #podcasts

What if the smallest act of vulnerability… could completely change someone's life? In this deeply heartfelt solo episode, Darin explores a simple but radically transformative idea: go first. In a world where people are more digitally connected yet emotionally isolated than ever before, Darin breaks down the neuroscience, psychology, and human power behind making eye contact, giving genuine compliments, expressing appreciation, and risking authentic connection. From oxytocin and nervous system regulation to loneliness research and real-life stories of spontaneous connection with strangers, this episode is a reminder that healing doesn't always begin in a therapist's office—it can begin in a coffee shop, a grocery line, or a brief moment where one human being chooses to truly see another.     What You'll Learn Why modern society is experiencing a crisis of disconnection and loneliness The hidden psychological cost of avoiding vulnerability Why brief positive interactions with strangers improve mental health The neuroscience behind social rejection and fear of connection How oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin are activated through authentic interaction Why vulnerability is a trainable "muscle" that rewires your nervous system The power of eye contact, compliments, and acknowledgment Why meaningful human interaction lowers stress and inflammation How small moments of courage create ripple effects for others Practical ways to "go first" and create more connection every day Chapters 00:00:32 – Sponsor: Fatty15 and the science of cellular health 00:01:03 – C15:0, mitochondrial function, and healthy aging 00:02:12 – Why many people may be deficient in C15 00:03:19 – "Celebrate science": discovering new essential fatty acids 00:04:13 – Opening reflection: noticing strangers in everyday life 00:04:52 – The moment we stop ourselves from speaking 00:05:10 – How many genuine moments do we suppress every day? 00:05:33 – Why these "tiny swallowed moments" matter deeply 00:06:02 – Humanity starving for real human connection 00:06:23 – "I see you. You are real to me." 00:06:51 – Vulnerability begins in ordinary daily moments 00:07:18 – The central thesis: "Go first" 00:07:37 – More surrounded and more isolated than ever before 00:07:57 – Research: meaningful interactions with strangers rarely happen 00:08:07 – Loneliness and lack of belonging in modern society 00:08:27 – Gen Z and Millennials: digitally connected yet emotionally isolated 00:08:47 – The silent routines of everyday life 00:09:16 – Why engaging with strangers feels risky or intrusive 00:09:47 – The cost of avoiding connection 00:10:12 – University of British Columbia study on strangers and belonging 00:10:48 – Positive interactions reducing loneliness and increasing happiness 00:11:03 – People predict interactions will be awkward—and are wrong 00:11:15 – Darin's recent experiments talking to strangers 00:11:38 – "Everyone wants connection" 00:12:00 – The emotional lives strangers are carrying invisibly 00:12:22 – One sentence can remind someone they matter 00:12:38 – Why vulnerability feels biologically terrifying 00:13:05 – Social rejection activating the same pathways as physical pain 00:13:20 – Ancient survival wiring and fear of exclusion 00:13:49 – "Your brain is firing a lion alert" 00:14:05 – What happens biologically when you push through fear 00:14:17 – Dopamine and meaningful social interaction 00:14:53 – Why real connection feels different from notifications 00:14:59 – Oxytocin as an anti-inflammatory bonding hormone 00:15:26 – Genuine interactions changing biology in seconds 00:15:43 – Polyvagal theory and nervous system safety states 00:16:17 – Vulnerability as a practice and a muscle 00:16:37 – Darin's valet story: "Bring the cash back!" 00:17:10 – How small interactions can shift someone's entire day 00:17:20 – Going deeper with loved ones and emotional openness 00:17:53 – Vulnerability rewiring the nervous system 00:18:07 – "If you want love, be love" 00:18:24 – Small acts of kindness shifting your heart and brain 00:18:53 – Sponsor: Shakeology and nutrient density 00:20:40 – Six practical ways to practice vulnerability 00:21:05 – Action #1: make eye contact and say hello 00:21:25 – Stop swallowing genuine compliments 00:21:46 – Asking deeper, more meaningful questions 00:22:05 – Giving honest answers instead of autopilot responses 00:22:28 – Seeing and acknowledging "invisible" people 00:22:50 – Gratitude toward workers, attendants, and strangers 00:23:04 – Reaching out to someone who changed your life 00:23:30 – "Going first" is about willingness, not fearlessness 00:23:59 – Stop hiding behind your phone and look around 00:24:16 – Human connection as medicine and nervous system healing 00:24:35 – Tell someone they made you smile today 00:24:50 – Calling loved ones and expressing appreciation 00:24:59 – "Don't let another moment go by without fully engaging in your life" 00:25:07 – Closing reflections: "This is SuperLife"     Thank You to Our Sponsors Fatty15: Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to fatty15.com/DARIN and using code DARIN at checkout. Shakeology: Get 15% off with code DARINO1BODI at Shakeology.com.     Join the SuperLife Community Get Darin's deeper wellness breakdowns — beyond social media restrictions: Weekly voice notes Ingredient deep dives Wellness challenges Energy + consciousness tools Community accountability Extended episodes Join for $7.49/month → https://patreon.com/darinolien     Find More from Darin Olien: Instagram: @darinolien Podcast: SuperLife Podcast Website: superlife.com Book: Fatal Conveniences New Show: Roadmap to Happiness      Key Takeaway "Vulnerability isn't weakness, it's willingness. The willingness to go first. To smile first. To speak first. To love first. Because every time you choose connection over fear, you're not only changing someone else's day… you're rewiring your own biology, your nervous system, and your relationship to the world around you."     Bibliography/Sources: Public Health & Loneliness Data American Psychological Association. (2023). Stress in America 2023: A nation in crisis. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress British Red Cross. (2022). Tackling loneliness: From awareness to action. https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/action-on-loneliness Cigna. (2023). Cigna U.S. loneliness index. Evernorth Health Services. https://newsroom.cigna.com/loneliness-epidemic-continues-to-rise-cigna-study The Science of Micro-Connections & Strangers Barlow, J., & Møller, C. (1996). A complaint is a gift: Recovering customer loyalty when things go wrong. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. https://www.bkconnection.com/books/title/A-Complaint-Is-a-Gift Epley, N., & Schroeder, J. (2014). Mistakenly seeking solitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1980–1999. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037323 Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014a). Is efficiency overrated? Minimal social interactions lead to belonging and positive affect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613502990 Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014b). Social interactions and well-being: The surprising power of weak ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 910–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214529799 Neuroscience of Social Rejection & Vulnerability Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The neural bases of social pain: Evidence for shared representations with physical pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(2), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182464dd1 Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 294–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.010 Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.95 Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company. https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393707007 Gratitude, Disclosure & Emotional Expression Algoe, S. B. (2012). Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in everyday relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(6), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00439.x Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships in everyday life. Emotion, 8(3), 425–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.425 Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 823–865. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.823 Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychological Science, 8(3), 162–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00403.x Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410 Relationship Building, Oxytocin & Health Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234003 Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. Gotham Books / Penguin. https://brenebrown.com/book/daring-greatly/ Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018186 Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Turner, R. B., Alper, C. M., & Skoner, D. P. (2003). Sociability and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychological Science, 14(5), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01452 Szeto, A., Sun-Suslow, N., Mendez, A. J., Hernandez, R. I., Wagner, K. V., & McCabe, P. M. (2017). Regulation of the macrophage oxytocin receptor in response to inflammation. American Journal of Physiology—Endocrinology and Metabolism, 312(2), E183–E189. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00424.2016 Uvnas-Moberg, K. (2003). The oxytocin factor: Tapping the hormone of calm, love, and healing. Da Capo Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=b-aKjQoB_nQC

Traumas de infância não precisam ser dramáticos para deixar marcas profundas. A necessidade de agradar todo mundo, o medo de abandono nos relacionamentos, o perfeccionismo extremo, a sensação de nunca ser suficiente, a dificuldade de mostrar emoções — tudo isso pode ter raiz em experiências que você viveu muito antes de ter palavras para descrevê-las.Neste episódio, Thais Galassi explora como a psicologia do desenvolvimento e a neurociência explicam por que mulheres adultas continuam reagindo a padrões emocionais criados na infância — e o que é possível fazer a partir de hoje para interromper esse ciclo.Você vai entender: por que seu cérebro ainda age em modo de sobrevivência | como o trauma molda relacionamentos e autoestima | o que a ciência diz sobre apego ansioso, fawn response e perfeccionismo | e uma técnica prática validada pela neurociência para começar a se libertar desses padrões agora.Baseado em estudos do JAMA Pediatrics, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology e nas obras de Bessel van der Kolk, Pete Walker e Kristin Neff.Se você já sentiu que nunca é suficiente, que tem medo de perder as pessoas que ama ou que precisa agradar todo mundo pra ser amada — esse episódio foi feito pra você.00:00 — A descoberta de Harvard que vai mudar como você se vê02:30 — Como o cérebro grava traumas antes de você ter palavras06:00 — A menina que aprendeu que precisava ser boa para ser amada10:30 — Fawn response: a raiz da necessidade de agradar14:00 — Medo de abandono e apego ansioso nos relacionamentos19:00 — Perfeccionismo: quando a ferida usa a produtividade como disfarce24:00 — A mulher forte que chora sozinha no chuveiro28:30 — Técnica STOP: como interromper padrões automáticos hoje33:00 — Dor não tem ranking — o começo da cura

Sommige mensen lijken het te hebben, anderen niet. Als ze het hebben, dan voelen we ons daar tot aangetrokken, willen we luisteren en vinden we dat boeiend. Charisma is een best vaag concept. Je kunt je vinger er niet echt op leggen hoe het zit en hoe je dat eventueel zou kunnen ontwikkelen. Toch zijn we er wel veel mee bezig. In deze aflevering duiken psychologen Thijs Launspach en Lennard Toma in het concept wat charisma heet. Wat zegt de psychologie erover en kun je het ontwikkelen? En zit er ook een dark side aan? Laat ons vooral weten hoe jij kijkt naar charisma door te commenten in Spotify of via de Instagram: NormaleMensenBestaanNiet.Bronnen:Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2012). Learning Charisma. Harvard Business Review.Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology.Banks, G.C. et al. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. (76 studies, N=36.031)Tskhay, K.O., Zhu, R., Zou, C., & Rule, N.O. (2017). Charisma in everyday life: Conceptualization and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Keating, C.F. et al. (2020). Charismatic nonverbal displays by leaders signal receptivity and formidability. Frontiers in Psychology.Katz-Navon, T., Delegach, M., & Haim, E. (2023). Contagious charisma. Frontiers in Psychology.Friedman, H.S., Riggio, R.E., & Casella, D.F. (1988). Nonverbal skill, personal charisma, and initial attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.Cabane, O.F. (2012). The Charisma Myth. Portfolio/Penguin.Carnegie, D. (1936). How to Win Friends and Influence People. Simon & Schuster.Weber, M. (1922). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (oorspronkelijke conceptualisering van charisma als sociologisch begrip).Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Creativity and charisma among female leaders: The role of resources and work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2760-2779.

Dr. Bailey Rose (Ngāti Maniapoto), Clinical Psychologist at Ora Toa Mauriora, New Zealand, joins us for a conversation on eating disorders, culture, identity, and mental health care.We explore how eating disorders are often misunderstood through a narrow Western lens, and why that can leave Māori and other underserved communities unseen, misdiagnosed, or excluded from support systems. Bailey shares insights from both her clinical work and research, discussing the cultural meaning of food, barriers to care, stigma, social media pressures, and the limitations of relying too heavily on measures like BMI.The episode also dives into: Māori perspectives on food, care, and wellbeing  How culture shapes experiences of eating disorders  Emotional regulation, shame, and relationships with food  Misconceptions around who “gets” eating disorders  The impact of beauty standards and social media  Ozempic and the growing conversation around weight-loss medications  Why culturally responsive mental health care matters Support the showSupport us and reach out!https://smoothbrainsociety.comhttps://www.patreon.com/SmoothBrainSocietyInstagram: @thesmoothbrainsocietyTikTok: @thesmoothbrainsocietyTwitter/X:  @SmoothBrainSocFacebook: @thesmoothbrainsocietyMerch and all other links: Linktreeemail: thesmoothbrainsociety@gmail.com

Professor Richard Wiseman searched for the world's funniest joke.  He found it.  But it wasn't what he expected.  --- Richard's book Quirkology: https://amzn.to/4shYOJ6  Richard's book 59 Seconds: https://amzn.to/3Pf9pWI  Richard's SubStack: https://richardwiseman.substack.com/  Join 11,934 readers of the Nudge Newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  --- Today's sources:  Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35. Crum, A. J., & Langer, E. J. (2007). Mind-set matters: Exercise and the placebo effect. Psychological Science, 18, 165–171. Wiseman, R. (2009). 59 seconds: Think a little, change a lot. Knopf. Wolff, H. A., Smith, C. E., & Murray, H. A. (1934). The psychology of humor: I. A study of responses to race-disparagement jokes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 345–365.

What if your "glow-up" didn't change who you are, but changed how the world treats you? In this episode, I'm unpacking pretty privilege, the psychology behind it, and why being seen differently can feel more unsettling than empowering. We're talking about perception, bias, and the uncomfortable truth behind why opportunities, attention, and respect suddenly shift. This isn't about glow-ups...it's about what they reveal. Are. You. Ready?****************Sources & References:Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology.Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What Is Beautiful Is Good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Hamermesh, D. S. (2011). Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful.Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy Theory. Psychological Review.Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification Theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly.Ogden, J., & Clementi, C. (2010). The Experience of Being Obese and the Many Consequences of Stigma. Journal of Obesity.****************Leave Us a 5* Rating, it helps the show!Apple Podcast:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beauty-unlocked-the-podcast/id1522636282Spotify Podcast:https://open.spotify.com/show/37MLxC8eRob1D0ZcgcCorA****************Follow Us on TikTok & Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!YouTube:@beautyunlockedspodcasthourTikTok:tiktok.com/@beautyunlockedthepod****************Intro/Outro Music:“Fame Inc” by Savvier — https://icons8.com/music

Three thousand years ago, Odysseus tied himself to a mast to resist the Sirens.  He didn't trust his willpower, so he removed the choice entirely.  Today, Owain Service, co-founder of the Behavioural Insights Team and CEO at CogCo, calls that a commitment device.  And modern evidence shows it works for everything from saving money to staying married. --- Owain's book: https://amzn.to/4smVtrP  Owain's company CogCo: https://cogco.co/  Unlock the Nudge Vaults: ⁠https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults⁠ Join 11,626 readers of my newsletter: ⁠https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list ⁠ Connect on LinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/⁠ --- Today's sources:  Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press. Ashraf, N., Karlan, D., & Yin, W. (2006). Tying Odysseus to the mast: Evidence from a commitment savings product in the Philippines. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 635–672. Behavioural Insights Team. (2013). New BIT trial results: helping people back into work. https://www.bi.team/blogs/new-bit-trial-results-helping-people-back-into-work/ Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 186–199. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. Milkman, K. (2021). How to change: The science of getting from where you are to where you want to be. Portfolio/Penguin. Olson, R. (2014, October 10). What makes for a stable marriage. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/10/10/what-makes-for-a-stable-marriage/ Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Kalyanaraman, S. (1999). Mixing virtue and vice: Combining the immediacy effect and the diversification heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(4), 257–273. Service, O., & Gallagher, R. (2017). Think small: The surprisingly simple ways to reach big goals. Michael O'Mara Books.

Tom Gilovich finds it fun to study the whys and wherefores of how human beings make sense of the information delivered by the world around them. And why not, he explains to interviewer David Edmonds in this Social Science Bites podcast. "We're dynamic, very complicated creatures who do all sorts of things and sometimes make you go, 'Huh?' That's interesting." He adds, "At the same time, some of the things that people do have great consequences," which means understanding how understandings come about also has great import. "A lot of the research on judgment and decision making is that there's a schism between the rational choice and the psychologically compelling choice," Gilovich continues, "and that has provided fertile ground for psychologists like me to explore it: "OK, this is what the rational analysis suggests. Why don't we do that?" And there's often some interesting psychological answers to that. Doesn't make logical sense, but it makes lots of psychological sense." In that spirit, Edmonds and Gilovich, the Irene Blecker Rosenfeld Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychology at Cornell University, run through what Edmonds calls "the greatest hits" of Gilovich's research findings. These include the "spotlight effect," which posits that individuals often assume others pay more attention to them than they are, and its cousin, "the illusion of transparency," in which people assume others recognize their feelings and emotions accurately. They also look at regret, bias blind spots, and why third-place finishers are happier than second-place ones. Gilovich is the co-director of the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Research. He's written or co-written several books, ranging from the academic (the textbook Social Psychology written with Dacher Keitner, Serena Chen and Richard Nisbett), titles that bridge academia and the general public (2002's The psychology of intuitive judgment: Heuristic and biases written alongside Dale Griffin and Daniel Kahneman), and books that bring psychological insights directly to the public (such as 1999's Why smart people make big money mistakes—and how to correct them: Lessons from the new science of behavioral economics with Gary Belsky and 2015's The wisest in the room: How you can benefit from social psychology's most powerful insights with Lee Ross).  

In this paper spotlight episode, Rebekka Weidmann speaks with Michael Krämer about his recent publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, titled “What explains personality change intervention effects?”. Co-authored by Chris Hopwood, Travis Miller, and Wiebke Bleidorn, the paper summarized three studies that tested personality trait change interventions and compared them to acceptance interventions and examined whether they were driven by expectancy effects. Michael provides the theoretical background of the study, summarizes the findings, and provides ideas how these findings can be used for future research.

A Social-Psychology fixture, TRIANGULATION may simply just speak to ADAPTIVE negotiations in otherwise potentially CRITICAL relationships.Contact Us: TheWORDHouse.com; DrMDClay@TheWORDHouse.com; @WORDHouse; of call 304.523.WORD (9673).

Kimberly and Dr. Sarah Hill explore the intricate science of women's menstrual cycles, hormonal changes, and how lifestyle choices impact fertility and well-being. Sarah Hill shares insights from her book 'The Period Brain' to empower women with knowledge about their bodies.Chapters00:00 Introduction to The Period Brain03:02 Understanding the Menstrual Cycle06:00 The Role of Hormones in Attraction and Reproduction09:11 Infertility and Sperm Quality11:59 Ovulation and Its Indicators15:11 Emotional Changes and PMS17:48 Managing Hormonal Sensitivity21:21 Understanding Women's Health Through Hormonal Phases24:14 Listening to Your Body: The Key to Wellness26:21 The Impact of Research on Women's Health28:40 Tracking Hormones: Tools and Techniques32:09 The Journey to Understanding Women's Bodies37:40 Promoting Awareness and Support for Women's HealthSponsors: LMNTOFFER: Right now, for my listeners LMNT is offering a free sample pack with any LMNT drink mix purchase at DrinkLMNT.com/FEELGOOD. That's 8 single serving packets FREE with any LMNT any LMNT drink mix purchase. This deal is only available through my link so. Also try the new LMNT Sparkling — a bold, 16-ounce can of sparkling electrolyte water.USE LINK: DrinkLMNT.com/FEELGOODFATTY15 OFFER: Fatty15 is on a mission to replenish your C15 levels and restore your long-term health. You can get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to fatty15.com/KIMBERLY and using code KIMBERLY at checkout.USE LINK: fatty15.com/KIMBERLYDr. Sarah Hill Resources: Book: THE PERIOD BRAIN: The New Science of Why We PMS and How to Fix It: A Manifesto for Women Website: www.sarahehill.comInstagram: @sarahehillphd Bio: Sarah E. Hill, Ph.D., is the author of This is Your Brain on Birth Control and an award-winning researcher who has spent most of her 20+ year career studying women, relationships, and health. In addition to having established an award-winning health and relationships lab at TCU, she has published nearly 100 academic research articles, is a sought-after public speaker, and sits on the scientific advisory boards for women's health companies such as Flo and 28 Wellness. Her research is regularly covered by national media, such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and many others, and is regularly published in highly prestigious journals, including Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Psychoneuroendocrinology, Psychological Science, and Health Psychology.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, we continue our discussion of disagreement in science, shifting the conversation from why it matters to how to do it well.   Shownotes Paul Graham. (2008). How to disagree.  Rapoport's Rules.  Cass Sunstien. The Rapoport Rules. Preregistration is redundant, at best.  An Evidence-Based Critique of the Cass Review  Fiedler, K., Messner, C., & Bluemke, M. (2006). Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 74–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280600681248 Neyman, J. (1961). Silver Jubilee of My Dispute With Fisher. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 3, 145–154.  

Do you avoid small talk in the office, or with your neighbor in the elevator? If so, you might want to give it a chance. According to a study just published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, even when participants were primed that a conversation would be boring, it turned out to be more interesting than they anticipated. Today on the show, we get into that, plus why scientists gave lobsters painkillers, and a clue about the formation of the Grand Canyon. Interested in more science? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Welcome to “Better Than Fine,” the award-winning podcast hosted by wellbeing expert and wellness coach Darlene Marshall! In this inspiring episode, Darlene dives deep into NASA's Artemis II mission and unpacks the powerful human response known as the Overview Effect—the profound sense of awe experienced by astronauts when seeing Earth from space. Episode Highlights: ·      Journey of Artemis II: Relive the record-breaking 252,756-mile lunar orbit with Commander Reed Wiseman, Victor Glover Jr., Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen. ·      What is the Overview Effect? Discover how this mind-bending phenomenon rewires our sense of self, connects us to humanity, and sparks a desire to protect our “lifeboat” Earth. ·      Science of Awe & Positive Psychology: Learn how awe changes our mental models, triggers self-transcendence, and enhances meaning, purpose, and connection. ·      Collective Awe—Why It Matters: Explore how sharing awe-inspiring experiences strengthens community, reduces loneliness, and fuels hope—especially in challenging times. ·      From Inspiration to Action: Uncover research-backed ways to channel awe into positive action, forward motion, and pragmatic optimism. ·      Listener Takeaways: Practical tips for bringing more awe and connection into your everyday life. Why Watch? ⭐️ Get Inspired: Feel the chills as real astronaut quotes reveal how space travel transforms our understanding of life and purpose. ⭐️ Level Up Your Mindset: Darlene shares powerful evidence-based tools to recalibrate your thinking and boost resilience. ⭐️ Strengthen Your Wellbeing: Find out how to harness the science of awe for greater happiness, deeper connection, and meaningful action. Show References: Keltner, D. & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 297–314. The foundational paper that defined awe scientifically — introducing the two core features of vastness and need for accommodation that underpin all subsequent awe research.https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297  Rudd, M., Vohs, K.D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe expands people's perception of time, alters decision making, and enhances well-being. Psychological Science, 23, 1130–1136. Demonstrated that awe — unlike happiness — makes people feel they have more time available, reduces impatience, and increases life satisfaction.https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612438731  Yaden, D.B., Iwry, J., Slack, K.J., Eichstaedt, J.C., Zhao, Y., Vaillant, G.E., & Newberg, A.B. (2016). The overview effect: Awe and self-transcendent experience in space flight. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(1), 1–11.The primary academic framework for the Overview Effect — identifying awe, self-transcendence, and schema changes as the three psychological mechanisms behind what astronauts experience viewing Earth from space.https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000086  Bai, Y., Maruskin, L.A., Chen, S., Gordon, A.M., Stellar, J.E., McNeil, G.D., Piff, P.K., & Keltner, D. (2017). Awe, the diminished self, and collective engagement: Universality and cultural variation in the small self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 185–209.Found that awe reliably shrinks self-referential thinking across cultures — people literally drew themselves smaller after experiencing awe — and increases feelings of connection to something larger.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000087  Piff, P.K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D.M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 883–899.Showed that awe reliably increases prosocial behavior — generosity, ethical decision-making, and concern for others — by reducing preoccupation with the individual self.https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000018  White, F. (2021). The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution (4th ed.). Multiverse Publishing.The original book that named and documented the Overview Effect through interviews with astronauts — still the definitive primary source on the phenomenon.https://www.amazon.com/Overview-Effect-Exploration-Human-Evolution/dp/1951480007 The content shared in this podcast is solely for educational and entertainment purposes. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek out the guidance of your healthcare provider or other qualified professional. Any opinions expressed by guests and hosts are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NASM.  The most trusted name in fitness is now expanding into the wellness world. Become an NASM Certified Wellness Coach and you'll be able to guide and motivate clients to make lasting changes through mental and emotional well-being, recovery, and more. https://bit.ly/464tK4b

Send us Fan MailJoin My Substack for more content: maaponte.substack.comConsulting/Advisory Services: MAAponte.com

Professor Richard Wiseman wanted to discover the world's #1 chat-up line.  But in doing so, he discovered several secrets behind human psychology.  On today's Nudge he covers:  1) Why councils shouldn't pay people to sweep litter  2) How a saleswoman doubled her likeability  3) The picture Richard uses to never lose his wallet  4) And the #1 chat-up line  --- Richard's book Quirkology: https://amzn.to/4shYOJ6  Richard's book 59 Seconds: https://amzn.to/3Pf9pWI  Richard's SubStack: https://richardwiseman.substack.com/  Join 11,934 readers of the Nudge Newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  --- Aronson, E., Willerman, B., & Floyd, J. (1966). The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 4, 227–228. Hornstein, H. A., Fisch, E., & Holmes, M. (1968). Influence of a model's feeling about his behavior and his relevance as a comparison on other observers' helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 222–226. Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.

In a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Eskreis-Winkler and colleagues describe what they call “the failure gap” — the consistent finding that outside observers dramatically overestimate how often people succeed after failing. In this episode of Two Guys on Your Head, Dr. Art Markman, Dr. Bob Duke, and Rebecca McInroy […] The post The Failure Gap & Its Discontents appeared first on KUT & KUTX Studios -- Podcasts.

Send us Fan MailJoin My Substack for more content: maaponte.substack.comConsulting/Advisory Services: MAAponte.com

Gregory Guldner, MD, MS, FACEP is the Vice President of Academic Affairs for HCA GME, a role he entered July 1, 2022, most recently serving as DIO at HCA Healthcare Riverside in Riverside CA. Before joining HCA Healthcare, Dr. Guldner served as the Program Director for the Emergency Medicine Residency Program at Loma Linda University Medical Center, as well as an Associate Professor of both Emergency Medicine and Pediatrics at Loma Linda University. Dr. Guldner served with the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, including serving as Brigade Surgeon for the 420th Engineer Brigade in Sharana, Afghanistan. He holds a Commission as Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve Medical Corps.Jason T. Siegel (PhD) is a Professor of Social Psychology at Claremont Graduate University, where he is the director of the Depression and Persuasion Research Lab. Dr. Siegel's scholarship examines the intersection between message features and the cognitive profile of people with depression to develop messages to maximize help-seeking among this population. He also investigates message approaches for increasing the social support received by people with depression. Dr. Siegel has been the principal investigator or co-investigator for over $25 million of grants and contracts. He is currently working on a federally funded grant to increase help-seeking among military members. HCA Healthcare also sponsors Dr. Siegel to conduct research to improve the well-being of their medical residents. He has served or is currently serving on editorial boards of journals, including Health Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Health Communication. Dr. Siegel is co-editor of Wiley's Handbook of Mental Health Communication and co-editing a special issue for Stigma and Health on unintended effects of anti-stigma campaigns.Thanks for tuning in! Check out more episodes of The Well-Being Connector at www.bethejoy.org/podcast.

In a forthcoming paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Eskreis-Winkler and colleagues describe what they call “the failure gap” — the consistent finding that outside observers dramatically overestimate how often people succeed after failing. In the episode of Two Guys on Your Head, Dr. Art Markman, describes the study and implications of […] The post The Failure Gap appeared first on KUT & KUTX Studios -- Podcasts.

Send us Fan MailDay One Starts Now: The Simple Reset That Finally Makes Weight Loss Stick I caught myself the other day.In the middle of everything going on… I stopped doing the one thing that always helps me.Planning.Not because I don't believe in it—but because life got heavy, real, and honestly… a little overwhelming.And that's when it hit me.This is exactly when I need a Day One.Not Monday.Not next week.Not when things “calm down”… because let's be honest—when does that actually happen?So in this episode, I'm walking you through what Day One really looks like when life isn't perfect… when you're tired, stretched, and still expected to show up.I share what I'm doing right now, the simple shift that changes everything, and why starting small—like really small—might be the most powerful thing you do.If you've been waiting for the “right time”… this is your sign.Let's go.Quote of the Week:“A year from now you may wish you had started today.” — by Karen Lamb CitationsGollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2009). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009.Clear, J. (2018). Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones. Avery.Let's go, let's get it done.Get more information at: http://projectweightloss.org

Join us for “What Social Psychology Says About Behaviorism, and Five Things to Try Instead” with Dr. Arielle Silverman.In this presentation, Dr. Silverman will share research and theory from social psychology explaining why behaviorism (rewards and punishments) so often fails to improve children's long-term behavior. She will then discuss five strategies to use in place of behaviorist methods: co-regulation, communicating clearly and reasonably about behavioral expectations, proactively solving problems, building a child's self-regulation toolbox, and intentional role modeling.Arielle is a disabled activist and a social scientist who is passionate about improving public understanding of life with disabilities.Professionally, she has spent fifteen years conducting research on the social psychology of disability. Personally, she has spent a lifetime learning and teaching with fellow members of the disability community.An excerpt from Just Human:"The most important thing I have discovered as a leader, a supervisor, an educator, and even an aunt, is that respect must be given before it can be received. When we offer respect and compassion to our children, our students, our employees, and others under our authority, we can bring out their full potential. What we get back is not just compliance and cooperation, but a real, mutual, human connection."Support the show

In 2015, the media became obsessed with one man's attempts to grow tea in the Scottish Highlands.  The BBC profiled him on the One Show. Radio reporters flocked to interview him. Even the Chinese national news agency reported his work.  Tam O'Braan (as he was then known) was the first to ever sell Scottish tea, and the press went wild.  Fornum and Mason bought his leaves. The Dorchester created a new Scottish tea-tasting menu. Barack Obama reportedly tried his tea, and the Queen loved it. Tam's business started bringing in hundreds of thousands of pounds. But soon his lies began to unravel. Today, with Jaega Wise, we tell the story of the Scottish tea scandal. We explain how Tam O'Brann fooled the world and the psychology behind why so many customers believed him. --- Listen to the BBC Food Program's show on the scandal: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002mn01 Learn more about Jaega: https://www.jaegawise.com/  Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Join 10,828 readers of my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  --- Today's sources:  Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A., & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). Are consumers really willing to pay more for a favorable country image? A study of country-of-origin effects on willingness to pay. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 19–41. Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635–642. Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 812–822. Maier, L., Schreier, M., Baccarella, C. V., & Voigt, K.-I. (2023). University knowledge inside: How and when university–industry collaborations make new products more attractive to consumers. Journal of Marketing. Peterson, R. A., Kim, Y., & Jeong, J. (2019). Out-of-stock, sold out, or unavailable? Framing a product outage in online retailing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.

Have you ever watched a client fall off track and chalked it up to a lack of motivation? What if that's not actually what's going on?Clients who can't seem to stick to the plan might have nothing to do with motivation and everything to do with this: lack of discomfort tolerance. The process of behavior change requires staying resilient when things get uncomfortable, and this is something coaches are almost never taught how to help their clients build. Until now.In this episode, Dr. Kasey Jo Orvidas breaks down the real reason clients struggle to stick to the plan and shares practical strategies coaches can start using right away. She covers:Why clients don't struggle because they don't know what to do (they struggle because they can't tolerate the discomfort that comes with doing it)The research behind self-efficacy, stress mindset, and psychological flexibility and why it all matters for behavior change5 coaching strategies to build discomfort tolerance, including urge surfing, stress reappraisal, and reflective debriefingThe coaching mistakes that accidentally keep clients stuckIf you want to help clients push through the hard stuff and actually see results that last, this episode is for you. Connect with me on Instagram! Grab 5 Free Lessons in Mindset and Behavior Change Coaching [HMCC WAITLIST]LEAVE A REVIEW, WIN A WORKSHOP! After you leave your review, take a screenshot and upload it to this form to be entered to winWant me to answer your questions on my next Q&A episode? Drop your questions here!Sources:Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control.Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Jamieson, J. P., Mendes, W. B., Blackstock, E., & Schmader, T. (2010). Turning the knots in your stomach into bows: Reappraising arousal improves performance on the GRE. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 208–212. Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013).Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716–733.

Author Justin Huft discusses the article, "The Impact of Differing Identity Meanings on Fears of Death" published in the March 2026 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

Dr. Kurt Gray, social psychologist, award-winning researcher and teacher, and author of Outraged, joins me on this episode. Kurt is the Weary Foundation Endowed Chair in the Social Psychology of Polarization and Misinformation at The Ohio State University, where he directs the Deepest Beliefs Lab and the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding. He was also appointed to lead the university's Collaborative for the Science of Polarization and Misinformation (C-SPAM). He earned his PhD from Harvard University. In this fascinating conversation, we explore the psychology behind outrage, conflict, and why disagreements escalate so quickly in today's world.

The best decision-makers aren't better at deciding. They're better at controlling when, where, and how they decide. It took me twenty years to figure that out. Most people spend that time trying harder: more discipline, more willpower, more resolve to think clearly under pressure. It doesn't work. That's when mindjacking wins. Not through force. Through the door you left unguarded. The answer isn't trying harder. It's building systems that protect your thinking before the pressure hits. By the end of this episode, you'll have four concrete strategies for doing exactly that, and a one-page system you'll build before we're done. And I have something else to share at the end. Something I've been working toward for twenty years. Let's get into it. Why Willpower Fails and Design Works Ulysses knew his ship would pass the island of the Sirens. He also knew the song was irresistible. Sailors who heard it became incapacitated and drove straight into the rocks. He didn't try to be stronger than it. He had his crew fill their ears with wax and tie him to the mast, with strict orders not to release him, no matter what he said when the music reached him. His calm self setting rules for his compromised self. That's the core of everything in this episode. These are called commitment devices. The decision gets made early, when your thinking is clear, before you're tempted to take the wrong path. Studies tracking self-imposed contracts found that when people added meaningful stakes to their commitments, their follow-through nearly doubled. Not because they became more virtuous, but because they'd taken the choice off the table at the moment they were most likely to get it wrong. Stop asking "How do I resist?" Start asking, "What can I decide now, so I don't have to decide under pressure?" Before you can build the right commitments, you need to know exactly where your thinking breaks down. Not decision-making in general. Yours. Finding Your Personal Vulnerability Think back across the last few months. Where did your thinking most clearly cost you? Some people stall. They keep researching past the point of useful information, using "I need more data" as cover for avoiding a commitment they know they need to make. Others make their worst calls at the end of long days. Saying yes when they mean no, because no requires energy they've already spent. Some get caught by urgency. A deadline appears, the pressure closes off their thinking, and they move fast. Only later do they discover the deadline was manufactured to do exactly that. Others walk into a room with a clear position and walk out agreeing with the loudest voice, unable to explain exactly when they shifted. And some defend decisions past the point where the evidence says stop, because stopping would mean admitting something about themselves they're not ready to face. Identify yours. Write it down before we go further. Your primary vulnerability is a design target, not a character flaw. You can't build around something you haven't named. Four Strategies for Protecting Your Judgment Strategy 1: Control When You Decide Every morning I put on the same thing: a black golf shirt, blue jeans, and cowboy boots. Same brands, same routine, no decisions. My wife tolerates it. I've stopped apologizing for it. It's not a fashion choice. It's a cognitive load choice. Your brain has a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day. Every trivial choice draws from the same reserve you need for the decisions that actually matter. What to wear, what to eat, which route to take. Eliminating those choices doesn't just save time. It protects the mental fuel you'll need later. Decision-making capacity isn't flat across the day. It peaks early, when you're rested and fresh. It degrades, measurably, as conditions erode. The same call made at 8 a.m. and at the end of your seventh consecutive meeting aren't equivalent. Same person, different machine. Pull up your calendar from the last two weeks. Look at when your biggest decisions actually happened. For most people, it's not in a calm moment with a clear head. It's in the hallway, on a rushed call, in the last fifteen minutes of a meeting that ran over. That's not bad luck. That's the default you haven't changed yet. Write a standing rule: no significant, hard-to-reverse commitments after a certain hour or after a certain number of back-to-back meetings without a mandatory pause. Hold it like a policy, not a preference. Because preferences are exactly what disappear under the conditions where you need them most. Strategy 2: Build Your Kitchen Cabinet One of the things I credit most for whatever success I've had in my career isn't a framework or a methodology. It's four people. I call them my kitchen cabinet. They've seen my best decisions and my worst ones. They know when I'm rationalizing. They know when I'm avoiding. And they are not afraid to call me out when I'm off the tracks. Here's what surprises people when I describe them. They're not senior executives. They're not peers from inside my industry. They don't work in any organization I've ever worked for. They're a deliberate mix: different backgrounds, different areas of expertise, different ways of seeing the world. One of them has been in my cabinet for nearly thirty years. I trust them completely, and everything we discuss stays between us. That independence is the whole point. The people inside your organization have something at stake in your decisions. Your peers have their own agendas, even when they don't mean to. Your boss has a preferred outcome. None of that makes them bad advisors. It just means they can't give you the one thing you need most when a decision gets hard: a perspective with no skin in the game. Your kitchen cabinet can. Because they have nothing to gain or lose from what you decide, they can ask the question everyone else in the room is avoiding. They can tell you what you don't want to hear. And they'll do it before you've committed, when it still matters, not after the fact, when all they can do is watch. Build yours deliberately. Four to six people is enough. Prioritize independence over seniority. Look for people who will push back, not people who will reassure. And make the relationship reciprocal. You show up for their decisions too. The cabinet only works if the trust runs both ways and the conversations stay private. You don't need them for every decision. You need them for the ones where you're most at risk of fooling yourself. Strategy 3: Write Your Position Before the Room Fills Up I've sat in enough rooms where I walked in with a clear position and walked out having said almost none of it. Not because I was wrong. Because by the time the senior voice spoke and the heads started nodding, my own analysis felt less certain than it did twenty minutes earlier. The brain doesn't just nudge your answer when social pressure arrives. It rewrites your perception. What you saw before entering the room changes to match what the room already believes, before you've consciously registered the pressure. Before any consequential group decision, write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe. What evidence supports it. What would genuinely change your mind. A note on your phone is enough. It doesn't need to be formal. It needs to be external, because your memory will quietly revise itself once the social pressure arrives. Those three sentences are a record of what you actually concluded before the room had a chance to work on you. When the discussion moves toward a position, you can then distinguish between "I'm updating because I heard something new" and "I'm caving because the silence is uncomfortable." Without that record, those two experiences feel identical in the moment, and one of them will reliably win. Strategy 4: Assume the Failure Before You Commit In August 2016, Delta Air Lines ran a routine scheduled test of the backup generator at their Atlanta data center. A transformer caught fire. Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers, improperly connected to a single power source, went dark. They couldn't fail over to backups. The servers that stayed online couldn't communicate with the ones that hadn't. The entire system collapsed: passenger check-in, baggage, websites, kiosks, and airport displays. Gone. Delta cancelled 2,100 flights over three days. $150 million in losses. Thousands of passengers slept on airport floors. The system had redundancy designed in. The backup had been tested. The specific failure mode, servers with no alternate power connection, was a known vulnerability that nobody had ever stopped to question. A year before the fire, cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem, had written a thought experiment describing almost this exact scenario. Imagine, he wrote, that an airline CEO gathered top management and asked: "Every one of our flights around the world has been cancelled for two straight days. Why?" People would think terrorism first. The real progress, Klein said, would come from mundane answers: a reservation system down, a backup that didn't activate, a cascade nobody had traced in advance. Delta built what Klein described. Without running the question that would have found it. The pre-mortem is that question. Before you commit to a significant decision, assume it's six months later, and the decision failed. Not possibly, but definitely. Then ask: What went wrong? What did you know but not say? What did someone sense but find too awkward to raise in the room? "What could go wrong?" produces hedged answers. People soften concerns to preserve harmony. "It failed. What happened?" changes the psychology entirely. You're not being negative. You're being forensic. The things that surface, the concerns that felt impolitic, the risks that seemed too small to mention, are frequently the ones that end up mattering most. Each of these four strategies is a designed defense against the same thing: the systematic capture of your judgment before you notice it happening. That's mindjacking. And now you have four ways to make it harder. But strategies only work if you remember to use them. And you won't remember. Not when you're depleted at 7pm, not when the room is staring at you, not when your identity is on the line. That's not a character flaw. That's just how it works. So we're going to take everything you just learned and put it on one page. A page you'll sign. A page you'll keep somewhere you'll actually see it. Your calm self, right now, is building the system your future self will thank you for. The people who shape outcomes consistently aren't necessarily the sharpest thinkers in the room. They're the ones whose judgment is still intact when everyone else's has degraded. That's a practice, not a talent. The full video and written deep-dive on mindjacking are linked below at philmckinney.com/mindjacking. Your Decision Constitution Remember the Ulysses insight from the beginning of this episode. Your calm self setting rules for your compromised self. That's exactly what this is. A Decision Constitution is one page. Five commitments. Written when your thinking is clear, so the version of you under pressure has something to stand on. Not a to-do list. Not a productivity hack. A contract with yourself. Here's what goes in it. Your Timing Rule. You already know that your judgment degrades as the day runs long. So name it. What are the specific conditions (time of day, number of back-to-back meetings, hours of sleep) that disqualify you from making a high-stakes, hard-to-reverse call without a mandatory pause first? Write that line. Hold it like a policy. Your Pre-Decision List. Think of the situations where you consistently make choices you later regret. The late-day request you said yes to when you meant no. The urgency that overrode your better judgment. Pick three. Write a standing rule for each, specific enough that you can invoke it without having to think. "I don't make new commitments without sleeping on it." That's a rule. "I'll try to be more careful" is not. Your Pre-Meeting Anchor. Before any meeting where a significant decision will be made, you write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe, what evidence supports it, and what would genuinely change your mind. Not in the car on the way. Before. That record is what protects your thinking from the room. Your Pre-Mortem Trigger. Name the threshold that makes a decision significant enough to require a pre-mortem. A dollar amount. An impact on more than a certain number of people. A commitment lasting longer than six months. Whatever your threshold is, write it down. Once a decision crosses it, the pre-mortem is non-negotiable. Your Kitchen Cabinet Trigger. Your cabinet is only useful if you engage them before you've decided, not after. So name the conditions that require you to bring a decision to them first. A decision that's hard to reverse. A situation where you have significant personal stakes in the outcome. A moment where you notice everyone around you wants you to decide a certain way. A decision you find yourself avoiding thinking about clearly. Any one of those is enough. Two or more is non-negotiable. Now print out your decision constitution. Sign it. Put it somewhere you'll actually see it before the moments that count. This is your Ulysses contract. Your clear-headed self, right now, is setting the terms your compromised self will have to honor when the pressure is real, and the easy path is pointing the wrong way. Closing That's Part 2 of the Thinking 101 series. Fifteen episodes. If you've been here from the beginning, you've built something real. The series has been running for 21 weeks. The show behind it has been running for 20 years. And how we got here traces back to a single conversation. Twenty years ago, a mentor of mine, Bob Davis, gave me a challenge I couldn't shake. I'd asked him how I could ever repay him for what he'd done for my career. He laughed and said I couldn't. The only option, he said, was to pay it forward. That's why this show exists. That's why it has always existed. The show was called Killer Innovations because that's what felt right in 2005. Bold, a little provocative, built for a moment when podcasting was brand new, and nobody knew what it was supposed to be. Tens of millions of downloads later, we're still here. We have regular listeners in more than 50 countries. Some of you are younger than the podcast itself. But somewhere along the way, the show became something more specific. It stopped being about innovation tips and started being about the innovation decisions that actually shape outcomes. About the patterns underneath the decisions. About the skills that matter most when the pressure is real. On March 23rd, the show's 20th anniversary, we're making major changes. The podcast. The YouTube channel. All of it. And if you have thoughts about where we've been or where we're going, I want to hear them. There's a contact form at philmckinney.com. Send me a note. I'll see you on the 23rd.   Endnotes  "their follow-through nearly doubled": Gharad Bryan, Dean S. Karlan, and Scott Nelson, "Commitment Contracts," Yale Economics Department Working Paper No. 73 / Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 980 (October 23, 2009). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1493378. The research draws on Karlan and co-founders' development of StickK.com, a commitment contract platform launched in 2008 at Yale. Platform data consistently shows that users who add meaningful stakes — financial or reputational — to their commitments achieve their goals at roughly double the rate of those who don't. The underlying mechanism was established in Karlan's earlier field research in the Philippines: Nava Ashraf, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin, "Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence From a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines," Quarterly Journal of Economics 121, no. 2 (May 2006): 635–672. doi:10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.635. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/121/2/635/1884028. Pre-commitment works not by increasing virtue but by removing the decision from the moment of temptation. For accessible application, see Ian Ayres, Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (New York: Bantam, 2010), ISBN 978-0-553-80763-9. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/6794/carrots-and-sticks-by-ian-ayres/.   "a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day": Roy F. Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne M. Tice, "Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 5 (1998): 1252–1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252. https://roybaumeister.com/1998/03/16/ego-depletion-is-the-active-self-a-limited-resource/. Also see Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength (New York: Penguin, 2011). Baumeister's strength model of self-control proposes that willpower, decision-making, and self-regulation all draw from a single, depletable resource — what he termed "ego depletion." Subsequent work has debated the precise mechanism, with some researchers arguing the effect is motivational rather than metabolic. The practical implication, however, is consistent across studies: decision quality degrades as the day progresses, and the effect is most pronounced for complex, high-stakes choices. For a summary of the current scientific debate on the mechanism, see Michael Inzlicht and Brandon J. Schmeichel, "What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-Control," Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 5 (2012): 450–463. doi:10.1177/1745691612454134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168503/.   "It rewrites your perception": Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelow, Caroline F. Zink, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Megan E. Martin-Skurski, and Jim Richards, "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation," Biological Psychiatry 58, no. 3 (August 1, 2005): 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/.  This fMRI study at Emory University extended Solomon Asch's classic conformity experiments by imaging participants' brains as they conformed to or resisted incorrect group answers. The key finding: when participants went along with the group, the activity appeared not in the prefrontal cortex — the seat of conscious decision-making — but in the occipital-parietal network responsible for visual and spatial perception. In other words, participants who conformed weren't consciously deciding to lie; the group had altered what they actually perceived. Standing alone, by contrast, activated the amygdala, a region associated with emotional distress — consistent with the experience of social dissent as genuinely uncomfortable rather than merely inconvenient.   "Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers": Yevgeniy Sverdlik, "Delta: Data Center Outage Cost Us $150M," Data Center Knowledge, September 8, 2016. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/outages/delta-data-center-outage-cost-us-150m.  Also see W. H. Highleyman, "Delta Air Lines Cancels 2,100 Flights Due to Power Outage," Availability Digest (September 2016). https://availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/1109/delta.pdf. On the morning of August 8, 2016, a fire triggered during a routine backup generator test at Delta's Atlanta data center caused a transformer failure. Approximately 300 of Delta's 7,000 servers were improperly connected to a single power source with no alternate feed, and when that feed failed, those servers went dark. Because those servers couldn't communicate with the rest of the system, the entire network collapsed. Delta cancelled roughly 2,100 flights over three days, leaving an estimated 250,000 passengers stranded. Total losses reached $150 million.   "cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem": Gary Klein, "Performing a Project Premortem," Harvard Business Review 85, no. 9 (September 2007): 18–19. https://hbr.org/2007/09/performing-a-project-premortem.  Klein developed the pre-mortem method over several decades of applied research in naturalistic decision-making. The technique asks teams to assume, before committing to a plan, that the plan has already failed — definitively, not possibly — and then work backward to identify causes. Klein's research found that this reframing dramatically increases the willingness of team members to surface concerns they would otherwise suppress to preserve group harmony. The method has since been endorsed by Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Richard Thaler as a practical tool for reducing overconfidence in planning. For Klein's broader framework of naturalistic decision-making, see Gary Klein, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998). https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262343251/sources-of-power/. 

One third of Americans believe the world will end in their lifetime. Astronomers discover 100 black holes devouring a star cluster. Oklahoma family reports Class A Bigfoot sighting. Scientists warn we're creating consciousness faster than we can understand it.Study published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reveals apocalyptic thinking is now mainstream, not just fringe conspiracy theorists. Five psychological dimensions identified: imminence, causation (human vs divine), personal control, emotional outlook, and vision of what the end looks like. Researchers say this affects voting, policy, and how society responds to crises.Palomar 5 star cluster being consumed by swarm of 100+ black holes, each 20 times the mass of our sun. Located 80,000 light years from Earth with a 30,000 light year tidal stream. In a billion years, only black holes will remain orbiting the Milky Way.Family in Oklahoma witnesses massive bipedal creature crossing power line easement in broad daylight northwest of Durant. BFRO classifies as Class A encounter—credible witnesses, close range, no misidentification.Deep dive: Scientists warning of existential risk from creating consciousness faster than we understand it. Lab-grown brain organoids that might be aware. AI systems that could be conscious with no way to recognize it. Ethical disasters we're not prepared to handle. What happens when we can't tell if something is conscious?https://www.youtube.com/@InfiniteRabbitHolePodcastInfiniteRabbitHole.com

Ever feel like staying healthy today requires constant effort, planning, and discipline?You're not imagining it. Modern life is designed in ways that make health harder than it used to be. From ultra-processed foods and sedentary jobs to a culture built around convenience and constant access to calories, our environment often works against our biology.In this episode, we break down why maintaining your health today can feel like an uphill battle—and why that doesn't mean you're failing. It means you're navigating what public health researchers call an “obesogenic environment”: surroundings that make overconsumption easy and physical activity harder.You'll learn how changes in our food system, movement patterns, and daily routines have reshaped the health landscape—and most importantly, what you can do about it.In this episode:Why modern environments promote overeatingHow ultra-processed foods increase calorie intakeWhy sedentary lifestyles changed daily energy expenditureThe hidden role of convenience and “friction” in eating behaviorWhy health requires more intention todayFive practical strategies to make healthy choices easierThe goal isn't perfection—it's awareness and creating an environment that supports your health instead of working against it.You're not failing. You're navigating a system that wasn't built for human health. ReferencesBaumeister, R. F., et al. (1998). Ego depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Ducrot, P., et al. (2017). Meal planning, diet quality and body weight. Int. Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. Hall, K. D., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed diets increase calorie intake and weight gain. Cell Metabolism. Juul, F., et al. (2022). Ultra-processed food consumption and obesity in the U.S. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Levine, J. A. (2002). Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. Martínez Steele, E., et al. (2016). Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the U.S. diet. BMJ Open. Matthews, C. E., et al. (2008). Sedentary behavior and health outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology. Pontzer, H. (2015). Constrained energy expenditure model. Current Biology. Pontzer, H. (2021). Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories. Swinburn, B., et al. (1999). Obesogenic environments. Preventive Medicine. Young, L. R., & Nestle, M. (2002). Expanding portion sizes. American Journal of Public Health.Support the showGet Weekly Health Tips: thrivehealthcoachllc.com Join the Thrive Collective Facebook group Let's Connect:@‌ashleythrivehealthcoach or via email: ashley@thrivehealthcoachingllc.com Podcast Produced by Virtually You!

Welcome to the Social-Engineer Podcast: The Doctor Is In Series – where we discuss understandings and developments in the field of psychology.  In today's episode, Chris and Dr. Abbie discuss decision fatigue—how making too many choices throughout the day drains mental energy and affects judgment. They explain how stress and lack of sleep make it worse, how it differs from burnout, and why leaders and parents are especially vulnerable. The episode also shares simple, practical strategies to reduce daily decisions, protect mental energy, and prioritize recovery.  [Mar 2, 2026]  00:00 - Intro  00:56 - Show Updates and Sponsors  02:35 - What Decision Fatigue Is  03:34 - Stress, Sleep, and Mental Energy  05:12 - Mental vs. Physical Limits  07:13 - Decision Fatigue vs. Burnout  10:22 - Leadership, Empathy, and Hard Decisions  14:33 - Prevention: Routines and Breaks  20:43 - Advisors and AI Caution  24:38 - Everyday Life and Parenting Load  27:23 - Recovery Outlets and Wrap-Up  28:49 - Closing and Next Month's Topic (Diet Culture)    Find us online:    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dr-abbie-maroño-phd    Instagram: @DoctorAbbieofficial    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/christopherhadnagy    References:   Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252   Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. Penguin Press.   Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889–6892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108   Davidson, R. J., & McEwen, B. S. (2012). Social influences on neuroplasticity: Stress and interventions to promote well-being. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3093   Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). The neural basis of metacognitive ability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1338–1349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0417   Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019486   Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  

Welcome back to Truth, Lies & Work, the award-winning workplace podcast where behavioural science meets workplace culture. This week, we explore the "silent disengagement" trend, the surprising truth about Gen Z and the office, and the psychological reason why the end of a project feels harder than the beginning. Plus, we settle the ultimate workplace debate: do people leave managers or jobs? Stories Covered 1. The Rise of "Silent Disengagement" Is office culture dying, or is it just getting quieter? We look at silent disengagement, where employees do the work but mentally pull back, speaking less in meetings and avoiding new projects. Leanne argues this isn't a new remote work problem, but a long-standing issue of employees not feeling valued or challenged. Source: Silent Disengagement: The work trend explained 2. Gen Z: Leading the Charge Back to the Office? Forget the lazy stereotypes. New data suggests Gen Z is actually leading the return to the office for social connection and development. We share the story of a 24-year-old commuting four hours a day just to be in the room. It turns out, different life stages need different work models—and flexibility increases engagement for everyone. 3. Why the "Last Stretch" Feels the Hardest Ever noticed how the final 10% of a project feels more draining than the first 90%? A new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology explains that fatigue heightens as we become more aware of the effort we've already invested. The fix? Zoom out and frame the task as part of a bigger goal. Read the paper: More done, more drained (Zeng et al., 2025) BPS Digest: How to get through the last push Truth or Lie: Do people really leave managers, not jobs? It is one of the most common beliefs in business: "People don't leave bad jobs, they leave bad managers." Leanne digs into the research from Gallup, McKinsey, and Facebook to find the truth. While poor leadership dramatically increases the odds of someone quitting, we reveal the other factors that actually drive the Great Resignation. Workplace Surgery This week, we tackle three tough questions from our listeners: Unlimited Holiday: Is it a brilliant trust-building exercise or a recipe for anxiety and "leavism"? Lifting Morale: How do you rebuild energy in a team that is flat after a draining year of changes and stress? The "30-Second" Interview: What do you do when you know a candidate isn't right within seconds of meeting them? Connect with Al & Leanne LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/truthlieswork Al Elliott: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thisisalelliott Leanne Elliott: https://www.linkedin.com/in/meetleanne Email: hello@truthliesandwork.com Book a call: https://savvycal.com/meetleanne/chat Mental health support UK & ROI — Samaritans: Call 116 123 or visit https://www.samaritans.org UK — Mind: Call 0300 123 3393 or visit https://www.mind.org.uk US — Suicide & Crisis Lifeline: Call or text 988 or visit https://988lifeline.org Australia — Lifeline: Call 13 11 14 or visit https://www.lifeline.org.au Global helplines: https://findahelpline.com Truth, Lies & Work is proud to be part of the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals.

When neuroscientists scanned the brains of people going along with a group, they expected to find lying. What they found instead was something far stranger. The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw. We'll get to that study in a minute. But first, I want you to remember the last time you were in a meeting, and you knew something was wrong. The numbers didn't add up. The risk was being underestimated. And someone needed to say it. Then the most senior person in the room spoke first: "I think this is exactly what we need." Heads nodded. Finance agreed. Marketing agreed. The consultant agreed. And by the time it was your turn, you heard yourself saying, "I have some minor concerns, but overall I think it's solid." You're not alone. Research shows that roughly half of employees stay silent at work rather than voice a concern. And among those who stayed quiet, 40% estimated they wasted 2 weeks or more replaying what they didn't say. Two weeks. Mentally rehearsing the point they should have made in a meeting that's already over. That silence isn't a character flaw. It's your neurology working against you. And today I'm going to show you exactly why it happens and how to stop it.  It starts with what was happening inside your head during that meeting you just remembered. Why Your Brain Surrenders to the Group Most people know about the Asch conformity experiments from the 1950s. People were asked to match line lengths, and seventy-five percent went along with answers that were obviously wrong. That result gets cited everywhere. But the more important study came fifty years later, and it revealed something the Asch experiment never could. In 2005, neuroscientist Gregory Berns at Emory University put people inside an MRI machine and ran a similar conformity task, this time with three-dimensional shape rotation. Like Asch, he planted actors who gave wrong answers. But unlike Asch, he could watch what was happening inside people's brains while the conformity was occurring. Berns expected the MRI to show activity in the prefrontal cortex, the brain's decision-making center, when people went along with wrong answers. That would mean they were knowingly lying to fit in. Just a social calculation. That's not what the scans showed. People who conformed showed no increased activity in decision-making regions. Instead, the activity showed up in the parts of the brain that handle visual and spatial perception, the occipital and parietal areas. The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw. Their brains were rewriting their experience to match the room. And the people who resisted the group? Their scans told a different story. Heightened activity in the amygdala, the brain's threat detection center. The same circuitry that fires when you encounter physical danger lit up when someone disagreed with the group. Berns put it plainly. The fear of social isolation activates the same neural machinery as the fear of genuine threats to survival. When you caved in that meeting, your neurology wasn't malfunctioning. It was doing exactly what it was designed to do. Keep you safe inside the tribe. This is why what I call mindjacking works so well. Algorithms manufacture social proof by showing you what's trending, what your friends liked, and what similar people chose. Your wiring responds the same way it does at the conference table. You're fighting your own threat-detection system every time you try to hold an independent position within a group. You can't turn off the wiring. But you can learn to catch it in the act. And that starts with one critical distinction. The First Skill: Separating Updating from Caving Sometimes the people around you know something you don't. Changing your mind in a group isn't always a surrender. Sometimes it's the smartest move in the room. The real skill is knowing which one just happened. You can test this in real time. When you feel your position shifting in a group, ask yourself three questions. First: Did someone introduce information I didn't have before? If the CFO reveals a data point that genuinely changes the calculus, updating your view isn't a weakness. It's intelligence. That's new evidence. Second: Can I articulate why I changed my mind, in specific terms? If you can say, "I shifted because of the margin data in Q3 that I hadn't seen," that's a real update. If you can only say, "I don't know, everyone seemed to think it was fine," that's capitulation. Third: Would I have reached this same conclusion alone, with the same information? This is the killer question. If the answer is no, and you only arrived at this position because others were already there, you haven't updated. You've surrendered. Getting this wrong is costly. And not just the one time. When you capitulate and call it updating, you train yourself to stop trusting your own analysis. Do it enough times, and you won't even bother preparing, because you already know you're going to defer. That's how capable people slowly become passengers in rooms where they should be driving. Capture those three questions somewhere you'll see them. They're your real-time check on whether you're being open-minded or spineless. Those questions work when you're already in the meeting and the pressure is live. But what if you could protect your thinking before the pressure even starts? The Pre-Meeting Lock-In The most important thing you can do to protect your independent thinking doesn't happen during the meeting. It happens before. I call it the Pre-Meeting Lock-In, and it takes less than two minutes. Before any meeting where a decision will be made, write down three things:  Your position  Two or three key reasons supporting it What would it take to change your mind Put it on paper. Put it in a note on your phone. Just get it out of your head and into a form you can reference. Why does this work? Because once the discussion starts, your mind is going to quietly edit your memories of what you believed. You'll start thinking, "Well, I wasn't really sure about that point anyway." Your pre-meeting notes are an anchor against that self-deception. They're a record of what you actually thought before the social pressure arrived. You want to see what happens when someone has the analysis but doesn't lock it in?  The night before the Challenger launch in January 1986, engineer Roger Boisjoly and his team at Morton Thiokol had the data. They knew the O-ring seals were dangerous in cold weather. They'd written memos. They'd run the numbers. They recommended against launching. But when NASA pushed back hard on the teleconference, Thiokol management called an off-line caucus and excluded the engineers from the room. When the call resumed, management reversed the recommendation. Boisjoly had the analysis. His managers had heard it. But under pressure from their biggest customer, the conclusion got edited in real time. Boisjoly later described it as an unethical forum driven by what he called "intense customer intimidation." He fought like hell, but the room won. That's the most extreme version of the problem. Life and death. But the mechanics are the same in every conference room. The analysis exists. The pressure arrives. And without something anchoring you to what you actually concluded, the room rewrites the story. There's a bonus effect to the Lock-In, too. When you've documented what it would take to change your mind, you've given yourself permission to be genuinely open. You're not being stubborn for the sake of it. You're saying, "Show me evidence that meets this threshold, and I'll update." That's intellectual honesty with a backbone. But you can know exactly what you think and still fail if you can't get anyone else to hear it. How to Dissent and Actually Be Heard Most dissent fails not because it's wrong, but because it's delivered badly.  Blurting out "I think this is a mistake" when the group is already aligned feels like an attack. People get defensive. Your point gets ignored, not because it lacked merit, but because your delivery threatened the group's cohesion. You triggered the same threat response in them that you've been learning to manage in yourself. Charlan Nemeth, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, has studied dissent for decades. You'd expect her research to show that dissent helps groups when the dissenter is right. When someone spots a flaw that everyone else missed. That makes intuitive sense. But that's not what she found. Nemeth discovered that when someone voices a genuine minority opinion, the entire group thinks more carefully. They consider more information, examine more alternatives, and reach better conclusions. And the group benefits even when the dissenter turns out to be wrong. Even when you're wrong, the act of dissenting makes the group smarter. Your disagreement forces everyone out of autopilot. Decades of research by Moscovici supports this. Minority voices don't just influence people in the moment. They shift perception afterward, in private, long after the meeting ends. That's the good news. The catch is in how the dissent happens. Nemeth tested what happens when dissent is assigned rather than authentic, when someone plays devil's advocate because they were told to. It doesn't produce the same effect. Groups can tell when disagreement is performative. The cognitive benefits only show up when the dissent is authentic. When someone actually believes what they're saying. That means the goal isn't just to voice disagreement. It's to voice it in a way that people can actually receive. And the hardest version of this isn't when you have a minor concern about an otherwise good plan. It's when the whole direction is wrong, and finding something to praise would be dishonest. In those moments, the move is to separate the people from the position. "I respect the work that went into this, and I know this isn't what anyone wants to hear, but I think we're solving the wrong problem." You're honoring the effort while challenging the direction. You're not attacking the tribe. You're trying to save it from a bad bet. When the stakes are lower, and you do see genuine merit, you can lead with that. "The market timing argument is strong, and I want to make sure we've stress-tested one thing before we commit." Same principle. You're working with their wiring instead of against it. Either way, your dissent has value beyond being right. Remember that. It's worth holding onto when your amygdala is screaming at you to stay quiet. Everything so far has assumed you're in a room with other people. Your amygdala can't tell the difference between a conference table and a phone screen. The Rooms You Can't See You're not just in meetings. You're in invisible rooms all day long. And most of the time, you don't even know you've walked into one. Every time you scroll past a post with ten thousand likes and think, "I guess that's the right take." Every time you read three articles with the same conclusion and stop questioning it. Every time an algorithm shows you what similar people chose, and you choose it too. Those are rooms full of nodding heads. And your amygdala responds to them the same way it responds to the conference table. Think about the last time you researched a major purchase. You probably started with some idea of what you wanted. Then you read reviews. Then you checked what was trending. Then you asked friends. By the time you decided, how much of that decision was yours? How much of it was the room? Or think about how you form opinions on topics you haven't studied deeply. You read a few articles. They mostly agree. You adopt the consensus. That feels like research. But Berns' scans tell us what's actually happening. Your brain isn't independently weighing the evidence. It's detecting a consensus and rewriting your perception to match. The same process that happens at the conference table is happening every time you open your phone. Mindjacking doesn't need to override your thinking. It just needs to make sure you never finish thinking for yourself before the crowd's answer arrives. And once it arrives, your neurology does the rest. The group doesn't just influence your answer; it shapes it. It rewrites your perception. The Lock-In works for these invisible rooms, too. Before you research a major purchase, write down what you actually want and what you're willing to pay. Before you dive into reviews and opinions, commit your criteria to paper. Before you ask friends what they think about a decision you've already analyzed, record your conclusion. Give yourself the same protection from algorithmic conformity that you'd want before walking into a boardroom. The skill isn't being contrarian. It's being first. First, to your own conclusion, before the room, any room, gets a vote. This is your challenge for the week. Think of one meeting you have coming up where a decision will be made. Before you walk in, open your notes app and type three lines. Line one: what you think. Line two: why. Line three: what would change your mind. That's it. Then sit in that meeting and watch what happens to your thinking when the room pushes back. I think you'll surprise yourself. What if the person you can't resist isn't your boss, your colleagues, or the algorithm? What if it's you? What happens when the decision you need to make threatens something deeper, when being wrong would mean something unbearable about who you are? That's where we're headed next. Closing If this episode gave you something useful, hit that subscribe button. I'm building a complete thinking toolkit here in the Thinking 101 series. If you got value today, share it with someone who could use it, especially anyone heading into a big meeting this week. Drop a comment and tell me: what's the hardest group you've ever had to disagree with? I read every comment and reply. Thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next episode. Endnotes/References "roughly half of employees stay silent at work rather than voice a concern" / "forty percent estimated they wasted two weeks or more": VitalSmarts, Costly Conversations: Why The Way Employees Communicate Will Make or Break Your Bottom Line (Provo, UT: VitalSmarts, December 2016). In a study of 1,025 employees, 70 percent reported instances where they or others failed to speak up effectively when a peer did not pull their weight. Half wasted seven days or more avoiding crucial conversations. Forty percent estimated they wasted two weeks or more ruminating about the problem. A 2021 follow-up study by Crucial Learning (formerly VitalSmarts) of 1,100 people found the rumination figure had risen to 43 percent. The script's "roughly half" is drawn from the VitalSmarts finding that the majority of the workforce reported conversation failures, with half losing seven or more days to avoidance behaviors. Primary source: https://www.vitalsmarts.com/press/2016/12/costly-conversations-why-the-way-employees-communicate-will-make-or-break-your-bottom-line/. Follow-up study: https://cruciallearning.com/press/costly-conversations-how-lack-of-communication-is-costing-organizations-thousands-in-revenue/ "the Asch conformity experiments from the 1950s": Solomon E. Asch, "Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments," in Groups, Leadership and Men, ed. Harold Guetzkow (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951), 177–190. The expanded report was published as Solomon E. Asch, "Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority," Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70, no. 9 (1956): 1–70. Asch conducted the line-judgment experiments at Swarthmore College. Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line, with confederates unanimously giving incorrect answers on critical trials. Across conditions, approximately 75 percent of participants conformed at least once, and the mean conformity rate was approximately one-third of critical trials. Group sizes varied across experiments, typically with 6–8 confederates and one real participant. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1952-00803-001 "neuroscientist Gregory Berns at Emory University put people inside an MRI machine": Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelow, Caroline F. Zink, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Megan E. Martin-Skurski, and Jim Richards, "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation," Biological Psychiatry 58, no. 3 (August 1, 2005): 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012. The study used functional magnetic resonance imaging with a mental rotation task. Participants (n=32, ages 19–41) judged whether three-dimensional shapes were rotated versions of each other while four confederates provided answers. Conformity was associated with functional changes in the occipital-parietal network (visual and spatial perception regions), not the prefrontal cortex. Independence was associated with heightened activity in the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus, regions linked to emotional salience and threat detection. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/ "The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw": Berns et al., "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity," 245–253. The researchers isolated the specifically social element of conformity by comparing brain activation when wrong answers came from a group of people versus when they came from computers. Conformity to group-sourced wrong answers produced greater activation bilaterally in visual cortex and right intraparietal sulcus, overlapping the baseline mental rotation network. Berns interpreted this as evidence that social conformity operates at a perceptual level rather than merely at a decision-making level. Full text PDF: https://pdodds.w3.uvm.edu/files/papers/others/2005/berns2005.pdf "Heightened activity in the amygdala": Berns et al., "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity," 245–253. Participants who gave independent (correct) answers when the group was wrong showed significantly increased activation in the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus. The amygdala is associated with processing emotionally salient stimuli and threats. Berns described these findings as "consistent with the assumptions of social norm theory about the behavioral saliency of standing alone." The script's characterization that "the fear of social isolation activates the same neural machinery as the fear of genuine threats to survival" is an accessible paraphrase of this finding, consistent with the broader social pain literature (e.g., Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003), though Berns' paper does not use that exact language. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/ "engineer Roger Boisjoly and his team at Morton Thiokol had the data": Roger M. Boisjoly, "Ethical Decisions — Morton Thiokol and the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster" (paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Annual Meeting, December 13–18, 1987). First presented as a talk at MIT in January 1987. Boisjoly, a specialist in O-ring seals and rocket joints at Morton Thiokol, documented how engineers recommended against the January 28, 1986 launch based on concerns about O-ring performance in cold temperatures. During the pre-launch teleconference, Thiokol management called an off-line caucus, excluded the engineers, and reversed the no-launch recommendation under pressure from NASA. Boisjoly described the forum as constituting "the unethical decision-making forum" driven by customer pressure. He was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Online Ethics Center at the National Academy of Engineering hosts Boisjoly's full account: https://onlineethics.org/cases/ethical-decisions-morton-thiokol-and-space-shuttle-challenger-disaster-introduction. See also Russell P. Boisjoly, Ellen Foster Curtis, and Eugene Mellican, "Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: The Ethical Dimensions," Journal of Business Ethics 8, no. 4 (April 1989): 217–230. doi:10.1007/BF00383335. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00383335 "Nemeth discovered that when someone voices a genuine minority opinion, the entire group thinks more carefully": Charlan J. Nemeth, In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business (New York: Basic Books, 2018). Nemeth's research program at UC Berkeley, spanning four decades, demonstrated that exposure to minority dissent stimulates divergent thinking, broader information search, consideration of more alternatives, and higher-quality group decisions. The finding that dissent improves group performance even when the dissenter turns out to be wrong is documented across multiple studies. See also Charlan J. Nemeth, "Minority Influence Theory," IRLE Working Paper No. 218-10 (Berkeley: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, May 2010). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1pz676t7 "Decades of research by Moscovici": Serge Moscovici, Elisabeth Lage, and Martine Naffrechoux, "Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task," Sociometry 32, no. 4 (December 1969): 365–380. In the original experiment, participants viewed blue slides while two confederates consistently called them green. The consistent minority condition produced a shift in approximately 8 percent of majority judgments toward the minority position, and roughly one-third of participants conformed at least once. In the inconsistent minority condition, the effect was negligible (approximately 1.25 percent). The script's claim that "minority voices don't just influence people in the moment — they shift perception afterward, in private" draws on Moscovici's subsequent conversion theory and research on the delayed and private effects of minority influence, including afterimage studies showing genuine perceptual shifts. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786541 "Nemeth tested what happens when dissent is assigned rather than authentic": Charlan J. Nemeth, Joanie B. Connell, John D. Rogers, and Keith S. Brown, "Improving Decision Making by Means of Dissent," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, no. 1 (2001): 48–58. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x. Groups deliberated a personal injury case under three conditions: authentic dissent (a genuine minority viewpoint), assigned devil's advocate (a member told to argue the opposing side), and no dissent. Authentic dissent was superior in stimulating consideration of opposing positions, original thought, and direct attitude change. The devil's advocate condition did not produce the same cognitive benefits, suggesting that groups detect and discount performative disagreement. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x. See also Charlan Nemeth, Keith Brown, and John Rogers, "Devil's Advocate versus Authentic Dissent: Stimulating Quantity and Quality," European Journal of Social Psychology 31, no. 6 (2001): 707–720. doi:10.1002/ejsp.58.

Ever heard of cognitive dissonance? That thing a psychology lecturer might have explained to you once upon a time, likely using the same UFO cult example everyone else uses. Well, a new paper by Thomas Kelly suggests that the UFO cult example might have been ever so slightly oversold.Kelly's archival work suggests that the researchers didn't just observe the cult as reported. Instead, they infiltrated it, faked supernatural experiences, assumed quasi-leadership roles, and then wrote up the results as if the group had spontaneously doubled down on their failed prophecy, which they had not. Because the leader recanted, and the group fell apart shortly after the failed prophecy. Minor details.Matt and Chris discuss this paper, a 2024 multilab replication, and some other papers by Kelly, considering the ever-reliable tendency of researchers to find exactly what they are looking for.It's cognitive dissonance all the way down, folks.The full episode is available to Patreon subscribers (1 hour, 10 minutes).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurusDecoding Academia 34: When Prophecy Fails Debunked?00:00 Introduction02:04 Cognitive Dissonance Theory06:41 Classic lab evidence: effort justification & the ‘severe initiation' study08:33 When Prophecy Fails: The Original Account10:54 The debunking: archival evidence, misconduct claims, and ethical red flags20:22 Replication reality check: multi-lab results and ‘strong vs weak' dissonance31:40 Beyond one case: survivorship bias, failed prophecies, and early Christianity parallels35:51 Christianity as Historical Anomaly or Cognitive Dissonance Exemplar?41:48 Thomas Kelly: Interesting biosafety takes and a possible Christian lens45:43 The importance of seeking for disconfirming evidence50:23 Conspiracy-theory dynamics & narrative elaboration56:30 Classical Psychological Theories and Personal Motivations01:03:07 Steps that can be taken to reduce biases01:05:01 Stay tentative, check evidence, and don't pick sides too fast01:06:30 A lesson from Scott Alexander!SourcesAcademic Papers and BooksFestinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. University of Minnesota Press.Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593 (The original induced-compliance/$1/$20 study)Kelly, T. (2026). Debunking "When Prophecy Fails." Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 62(1), e70043. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.70043Kelly, T. (2025). Failed prophecies are fatal. International Journal for the Study of New Religions, 14(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsnr.33085Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on...

I watched Home Alone and suddenly started hearing the theme tune everywhere.  I thought I was going insane.  But Tom Bowden-Green and Luan Wise explained that I actually fell for a fairly well-known bias.  A bias you've almost certainly experienced as well.  ---  Come to Uplift Live: https://uplift-live.com/ (Use code NUDGE to get £50 off)  Tom and Luan's book: https://amzn.to/49aZnh3 Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Join 10,428 readers of my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  ---  Today's sources:  Costello, J. P., Garvey, A. M., Germann, F., & Wilkie, J. E. B. (2024). The Uptrend Effect: Encouraging healthy behaviors through greater inferred normativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 61(1), 110–127. Cruz, R. E., Leonhardt, J. M., & Pezzuti, T. (2017). Second person pronouns enhance consumer involvement and brand attitude. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39(1), 104–116. Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 259–266. Lim, S., van Osselaer, S. M., Goodman, J. K., Fuchs, C., & Schreier, M. (2024). The Starbucks effect: When name-based order identification increases customers' store preference and service satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 100(2), 316–329. Sahni, N. S., Wheeler, S. C., & Chintagunta, P. (2018). Personalization in email marketing: The role of noninformative advertising content. Marketing Science, 37(2), 236–258. Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 66–76. van der Meulen, M. (2022). Are we indeed so illuded? Recency and frequency illusions in Dutch prescriptivism. Languages, 7(1), 42. Zwicky, A. (2006). Why are we so illuded. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/LSA07illude.abst.pdf