S1: The following program has the potential, dare I say, probability, to give offense.
S2: It’s Monday, August 24th, twenty twenty from Slate, it’s the gist. I’m Annie Duke, sitting in for Mike Pesca. In case you don’t know who I am, I’m a former world champion poker player, cognitive scientist and author of Thinking and Back, as well as my new book, How to Decide Out in September and available for Preorder Now. Yes, that was a naked pleb.
S3: I spent the weekend trying to perfect Mike’s gravelly 1930s gumshoe detective voice, but to no avail. I guess I’ll have to keep working on it. So yesterday, President Trump called a press conference to announce that the FDA was approving an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma in treating covid-19 patients. Now, for those of you who don’t know what convalescent plasma is, basically you take plasma from people who’ve recovered from covid. So they presumably have antibodies and you give it to people who are sick with covid, which should theoretically help their immune systems to to battle covid. Now, I’m not a medical doctor, so I’m not going to get into the specifics of whether convalescent plasma seems like a reasonable treatment for covid-19. And I’m certainly not going to get into whether it was reasonable for the FDA to be offering this up in regards to convalescent plasma. That certainly wouldn’t be my wheelhouse. What I’m more interested in is how things get spread around the Internet, how we start to believe that things that aren’t true are. So you might be wondering, what does an emergency use authorization have to do with how people end up believing things that aren’t true? Well, it has to do with something that Stephen had said, who’s the FDA commissioner as he characterized what the effectiveness in this Mayo Clinic study was of convalescent plasma. Now, the Mayo Clinic showed that if you looked at the seven day death rate for covid-19 patients who were given this treatment, it was reduced from eleven point nine percent to eight point seven percent. So that’s that’s what the Mayo Clinic said. But here’s how Steven Hahn characterized those findings.
S4: So let me just put this in perspective. Many of you know, I was a cancer doctor before I became FDA commissioner. And a thirty five percent improvement in survival is a pretty substantial clinical benefit. What that means is and if the data continue to pan out, 100 people who are sick with covid-19 35 would have been saved because of the administration of plasma. We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country. And what this EOA does, the emergency use authorization today does, it allows us to continue that and meet the demand. And again, I want to echo the president’s and the secretary’s asking the American people, if you’ve recovered from covid-19, please donate. It could save a life. And, Mr. President, thank you again. Thank you very much.
S1: OK, well, that characterization went really sideways. Now, obviously, I’m not I’m really not saying that.
S3: I think that Stephen Hahn was deliberately lying. I think that he was thinking about this. Thirty five percent and then thirty five percent of one hundred is thirty five. And that’s just how he ended up with that error.
S1: And no doubt, I don’t think that he was doing that on purpose, but what he said just isn’t true. But here’s the thing, because I played that clip and because you’ve now heard it, the next time you hear it, that is probably going to feel much more true to you. What you might be asking. That can’t possibly be the case. But it is. And the reason is that as we’re sort of trying to figure out what’s true and what’s not true, a lot of stuff just kind of isn’t clear to us. It’s not like we live in the Matrix where there’s code coming down in front of us and the truth is always revealed to us. We’re usually trying to sort of figure out what’s true and what’s not true when we don’t necessarily have all the information that we need or necessarily all the time in the world to start to figure out what things are true and what aren’t. So we hear things and our brain takes some shortcuts in figuring out whether the thing that we’ve heard is true or not. And there’s two simple shortcuts that our brains take. One is how often have you heard it? And the other is, is there a picture? Could it really be as simple as that? The answer is yes. There was a great study that was done way back in nineteen seventy seven by someone named Lynn Hasher, and she did this really elegant experiment. She just had people come in and write a whole bunch of statements for whether they were true or false statements like fish swim in the ocean. Well, that’s obviously true. Or statements like giraffes are the only mammals that can’t jump. Well, that’s like maybe true, maybe not until you start thinking about it and then you realize, well, there’s elephants and they can’t jump and there’s hippos and they can’t jump and there’s rhinos and they can’t jump and you realize it’s false. So on the first time, people did pretty well with that. But what was really interesting was she had them come in on. Three separate occasions to rate these statements, and they were seeing these statements over and over again. And here is what happened by the third time that people saw a statement like, giraffes are the only mammals that can’t jump. They rated them is as true as the true statements felt to them on the first time they heard them just hearing something three times. Those statements, to use that term popularized by Stephen Colbert started to sound more truthy. Subsequent studies showed that if you just add a picture to a statement, it also feels more truthy. So you hear a statement like, giraffes are the only mammals that can’t jump. And then you put a picture of a giraffe next to it and all of a sudden it develops this truthiness. So when I’m listening to Stephen Horn, I hear the statement and it’s accompanied by a video. And now it’s the perfect recipe for me to start to feel like that’s true, for it to start to develop this truthiness. And it comes down to something that we call processing fluency. So the way that we generally figure out if something is true is kind of how easy is it for us to recall it from memory? How easy is it for us to process and feel like we’ve understood the sentence? And obviously things we hear more are easy for us to process. And things that have pictures also make it easier for us to recall them from memory. Here’s where I get a lot of concern about social media. If we know that repetition makes things truthy and we know that pictures make things Truthy, think about Twitter. It’s a repetition machine. There are retreats and quote tweets and people just repeating the things that they hear and posting them over and over and over again. And you can attach a picture. So what ends up happening is that as we think about what we need in order to actually figure out what’s true and not true, our brains are getting short circuited. They’re essentially getting hacked by something like Twitter where you’re getting these repetitions of things over and over again and things are just starting to feel true that whether they’re objectively true or not starts to fall away and everything starts to take on this kind of truthy quality. And then you add on top of that the fact that there are actually bad actors who are sending misinformation out over Twitter and then using armies of bots to repeat the information and making their targets. We Americans feel like those things now all of a sudden have truth to them that maybe on the first time we heard it, they don’t have. And then we start to repeat it and we start to spread it. And that creates more repetitions, which makes those things feel more truthy. And look, I’m part of the problem because I just played you an untrue statement from somebody and now you’re going to believe it.
S3: More on the show today I spiel about what went wrong with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign strategy. But first I talked to Katie Milkman, a professor at Wharton who is an expert in habit change. I asked her to come on the show because I wanted to understand which habit changes spurred by the pandemic are likely to stick.
S2: And which are are we all really going to keep washing our hands like surgeons after this is all over? That conversation is up next.
S1: Katie Milkman is a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Her research explores ways that insights from economics and psychology can be harnessed to change consequential behaviours for good, like savings and exercise, vaccination, takeup and discrimination. She also has a TED talk that you should check out.
S5: A couple of weeks ago, I came across an article in The Atlantic by Joe Pinsker that that was really cool and cool. I mean, it was about something I was I was already thinking about myself, which obviously I think is cool. It was about how the pandemic has already changed us. And he was asking the question about, you know, we think about all these behaviors that are new to the pandemic, like in the beginning were elbow bumping instead of handshaking. And then, of course, like washing our hands like a surgeon and washing our food off and social distancing and wearing masks, so and so forth. And he was asking if those behaviors were going to persist. What I loved about this article was he asked a bunch of just kind of man on the street kind of thing, and everybody had the same intuition that they were going to continue to wash their hands like like they are now. And they were continue to social distance. And if they felt sick, they were definitely going to wear masks out. So after asking a bunch of lay people kind of what their intuition was about these behaviors, he decided to ask a scientist who knows a little something about this and that. That scientist is Katie Milkman, who’s a behavioral scientist and a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. She also hosts an amazing podcast called Twice Allergy, which is just about these kinds of topics. And if anybody knows something about behavior change, it would be Katie, because this is her specialty. So. So, Katie, I’m so happy that you’re here.
S6: I’m so happy to be here. Thanks for having me, Annie.
S5: So this is your specialty. You you really think a lot about behavior change. In fact, you do. You’re writing a book about it that’s going to that’s going to be out in the spring. So everybody should be on the lookout for that. But so so you think about when and how do we change our behaviors. And so so I was reading Joe Pinschers article and everybody, including me, by the way, had the intuition that I was going to carry a bottle of Purell around with me for the rest of my life. And you’re taking somewhat contrarian to that. So what do you think? Do you think that these things are going to persist?
S6: I think some things will persist and some things won’t, and that we’re doing a pretty bad job as laymen intuiting what’s going to persist. So we think, you know, I’ll always wash my hands for 20 seconds and I will always wear a mask from now on if I have the slightest cough or maybe period. And I think that is unlikely, assuming that we get to a state of the world that we’re all hoping we do, which is where there’s an effective vaccine and there’s high take up. And this horrible pandemic is truly a thing of the past. And we are in a state of the world that looks more like the universe we got used to. Once that happens, the rewards for washing your hands for an extended period of time to mask wearing, they’re all going to be gone and the irritation is going to persist. And what I would predict is that most people, the vast majority of us will go back to life as usual and will not retain these quote unquote habits we’ve developed. I don’t think they’ll be sticky because they won’t serve a purpose and they will have costs to us. And so we tend not to have sticky behavior when those things coincide.
S5: So what? So that’s interesting. So so basically what you’re saying is, look, I’m not trading horribly chopped and changed hands for whatever the benefits of hand hygiene are. If I don’t see that the the sort of death counter on CNN that’s really showing me why I need to be doing this, that is my prediction.
S6: And you like all predictions, you know, only time will tell. But in general, when we look at the science on behaviour change, it’s very hard to create lasting change and it typically requires persistent stimuli. So if I am paying you for a certain behavior for a period of time or you’re getting some other reward, non-monetary, then we see a little persistence after the rewards are removed. But nothing like the persistence. You would see if the rewards stuck around. And I think everybody is imagining they’ll just keep doing this. And in reality, maybe five percent, maybe 20 percent will keep doing some of these things because they’re really, truly have become habits. And and they’ll see the reward even after this. These circumstances have ended and they’ll see a reason to keep doing it. But most of us will go back to life as usual. And we’re really bad at forecasting how will react to changes in the world. There’s a whole large literature on. In psychology on affective forecasting biases, forecasting our future emotional states, our future emotional reactions, and one of the biggest takeaways is that we think whatever we’re feeling right now will last forever. And we overestimate the extent to which our current circumstances are going to influence our future ones and our future feelings.
S5: So would you say that? So the thing that I thought was so remarkable about the article was that every single person that he interviewed that was not a scientist absolutely insisted that these behavior changes, that their behavior changes were continually going to continue. And in fact, what I thought was really interesting was that even though you brought a contrarian take to the article, his conclusion is kind of like, well, yeah, but I don’t really not sure I believe Katie Milkman here. And, you know, when you read the article, it’s clear that he sort of thinks that that these things are going to change. So why why are we so bad at kind of knowing ourselves? I think I think that we have the intuition that our own self reflection, the way that we sort of view ourselves and our predictions about ourselves, because it’s us, like obviously the person we should know best is ourselves. Why why are we predicting so poorly? Why did everybody that he talked to insist that these things were going to persist?
S6: Well, the answer to that could be several dissertation theses. But I will point listeners who are interested to the wonderful book by Dan Gilbert, Stumbling on Happiness, which I think does a really good job of explaining why when we do sort of mental time travel, we don’t get things right and why we overweight our current feelings. And it’s hard to think beyond the here and now for us humans, by the way, like a lot of other creatures, can’t think beyond the here and now at all. So I don’t want to insult our species. I think it’s pretty awesome that we can do it at all. But we’re not fantastic down waiting what we’re going through now and truly imagining a future that’s very different and what will come with it. And I think that’s at the heart of of this, our inability to really take ourselves out of this moment and truly understand what it will be like in some other moment. I should also say that that I don’t want to take the most extreme contrarian view. I don’t think none of this will persist. I think some of it will persist. And I think one of the things that will be most persistent is any new habit we’ve formed that’s clearly just better. And that came about through exploration we wouldn’t have done if it weren’t for the pandemic. So there’s this really fantastic paper that came out a few years ago in the quarterly Journal of Economics, which is sort of the top one of the top economics journals in the world that was looking at the impact of a 2014 strike by London tube workers that that led to the closure of a bunch of different routes that commuters typically took. And what the researchers looked at was when this closure happened, it forced commuters to try new routes. They basically had to experiment that, you know, maybe suboptimal routes. In many cases, they had to find a new way to get to work. And the question was how many of those route changes would persist after the strike had ended and the researchers found about five percent of people started taking a new route to work after the strike concluded, they didn’t go back to their old habits. And it looked like what happened was basically about five percent of commuters found a better way to get to work. They were forced through closures to change up what they’d been doing. And they were like, whoa, wait a minute, I found a better way. And I think that’s absolutely going to be the case with some of the habits we’re developing during the pandemic. I can give you a personal example in my house after dinner. Now we do exercise and we found that watching YouTube videos of a of something called just dance. It’s like a video game where people are dancing to pop music and specific ways and trying to follow a guide. We watch videos of this. I have a four and a half year old and we dance for 30 minutes and we get like an incredible heart workout. And also it really boosts our mood because we love the music and we will totally keep doing that after the pandemic because it’s great. But things like washing my hands furiously or never having lunch with my friends during the week, those are going to go out the window really quickly as my forecast, because we haven’t found a better way, you know, washing your hands for five seconds if there’s not a huge risk of doing that is better. Your hands aren’t as chapped and you’re still mostly clean and you’re probably not going to get a deadly disease. And seeing your friends for meals is really pleasant. So that’s the key. I think we we miss understand what will persist. Not it’s not that some things won’t persist.
S1: So you you’ve written a lot about.
S5: Big life changes really being a point at which big habit changes occur. So obviously we’ve been talking about these habits that are very particular to the pandemic and perhaps not goals of the human being themselves. Look, I know for me, I don’t know about you, Katie, but I never had a goal to learn how to wash my hands like a surgeon and actually watch videos of people putting on gloves and then washing it off so I could see exactly how you could get that thing off the glove. This was not a personal goal of mine is not one of my goals either. Weirdly, I was it I was thinking about that. But, you know, obviously, like, I have other goals, like, you know, I want to exercise a lot and I want to I want to eat healthy. And I would like to spend less time on Twitter and, you know, and general things about productivity and whatever. I mean, obviously, I have life goals. So you’ve written so much about, you know, when it’s kind of the ideal time that those types of habit changes occur. So so I’d love to kind of hear your take on that as it relates to the pandemic and what you suspect might be happening in terms of habits maybe we don’t suspect will change because they’re not kind of in our face like handwashing.
S6: So I’ve done research with Hengjun Dye and Jason Reece on what we call the fresh start effect. And our research shows something that may be intuitive initially when I say it. So everybody knows New Year’s kicks off, a lot of resolution making for people. A lot of people start pursuing goals around the new year. So while we document that shocker, but we actually go beyond that and say it’s not just New Year’s, you know, about New Year’s, but there’s actually all these other moments in our lives that have a similar feeling to them. They feel like fresh starts, like new beginnings, like, you know, a new era has begun. And the old me before this period, well, you know, they were a bit of a shmo and they didn’t get around to achieving their goals. They get off Twitter. They didn’t make fresh meals for their family, but that was the old me. And the separation that is created makes you feel like, OK, I can do it now. It also is the case that these moments that feel like chapter breaks in our lives give us a reason to step back and think bigger picture. It’s like a pause button that that, you know, normally we go about our daily routines. We’re not thinking a lot about our goals, but when we get those moments that stand out from others will step back and say, wait, what am I looking for? What am I trying to achieve? What do I want to change and do better? So those come at the start of a new year, but also they can arise at smaller moments like the start of a new week or month celebration of a birthday. Holidays can trigger these kinds of events. And there’s actually other research by other scholars, including Wendy Wood, showing that you get a similar effect when you have a big life change. So not just something that’s merely on the calendar and isn’t changing your your routines, but if you have something that literally arrives and changes your routines and shake things up, like you move to a new community, for instance, that can shake all of this up for for a similar set of reasons. And also because now you’re exposed to new stimuli like the Dunkin Donuts around the corner isn’t on your commute anymore. And so maybe you you adopt healthier habits. So what we’re getting with this pandemic is like both. We get the double whammy. There’s this sort of temporal shift right after March. Life feels really different than before March. But also it really did disrupt the way we were living our lives. And the double whammy seems to me like the perfect storm for getting a lot of us to think bigger picture about our lives, to experiment with new routines, to try to put in place better habits. And so my guess is that both during the pandemic, for those of us who have the privilege to not be, you know, living hand-to-mouth and really in crisis, I should say, because obviously there’s a different mentality when you’re in crisis mode. But for those of us who have the privilege to be safely working from home, it gives us a chance to step back and think big picture about our goals and potentially make changes. And I suspect that if there is a magical ending to this fairy tale ending, we all are dreaming of which realistically, it’s you know, when you read, by the way, we were talking about The Atlantic, when you read folks like Ed Yong in The Atlantic, you get a more realistic picture. That is probably there’s not going to be a fairy tale ending where we all got a shot one day together and magically go out to bars again. But, you know, when there’s some kind of resolution, you could imagine that being a really important moment to that gives everybody a chance to think big picture that first day you go back to the office or are able to go to a restaurant that may do that may trigger a lot of existential thinking. And and I’m hopeful that will help people recognize what’s important to them and and make the changes that they want to change, that they want to make. And obviously, I should note, you know, we both know this statistic and have laughed about it together before and that most New Year’s resolutions do fail. So just as I’m saying, you know, a lot of habits will stick, but maybe like five to 30 percent, a lot won’t. It’s going to be the same with this, right? So if people have big goals, a lot of them will fail. But if you don’t try, you don’t get anywhere. In most of life, we aren’t trying to go for big goals. So I’m excited about the fact that these disruptions are causing people to think like, where do I want to live? Where do I want to be in my life? What do I want to achieve? What do I want my health to look like? And that hopefully it’ll it’ll help some people achieve more than they would have otherwise in the long run.
S5: It’s been so wonderful talking to you. Thanks. Thank you so much. I feel like I am so better educated. Certainly you you’ve changed the way that I’m thinking about what my habits are going to be going in the future, because I have to count myself among one of those people who is who is pretty certain that I was going to continue to wash my hands to the point of chafing. I was always going to have Purell in my bag. And certainly whenever I was sick, I was going to wear a mask. And if I even had the slightest hint of a fever, I was not going to go out in public. And and I I really thought that that was true. And you sort of made me rethink that. No. One, that that that would be what would happen. And number two, made me think more about like what what are the habits that I do think that I would like to stick. For example, I would like to actually be a good sort of citizen. And when I’m feeling sick, not put it not go out and make or if I do go out, make sure I have a mask on because I ate prior to this, I was one of those people who was like, I show up like the postman, like rain or shine or whatever, like fever or no fever. I’m going to come give a talk and I look back on that a little bit horrified. And that is not a habit that I would like to pick back up when this is gone. So you you’ve given me some thoughts about how to be more mindful about making sure that the things that I do want to stick to stick.
S6: So it was really fun to talk to you about this. And I should also say, I mean, you might be one of the five to 30 percent for whom things you predict will stick forever really well. So so we’ll have to find out and check back in.
S5: Possibly. We’ll have we’ll have to check back in a year and see if I’m coughing all over people and, you know, not washing my hands for five seconds instead of thirty. So we’ll see. We’ll see how it goes down the road. Katie Milkman, it has been so amazing to talk to you. Thank you so much for coming on the show.
S6: Thank you for having me. And this was great.
S1: And now the spiel, so I’ve been really needing to get something off of my chest and it’s about Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy in 2016 and this is really important to me because it really matters for how we think about what a good campaign strategy would be going into twenty. Twenty. So it’s accepted as basically incontrovertible fact that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because, well, we all know it, she neglected the Rust Belt and instead devoted proportionately more resources to states like Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Arizona and New Mexico. And we know what the result of her strategic failing was. She lost the Rust Belt by a combined total of under seventy eight thousand votes out of nearly 14 million. Those forty six electoral votes of those states swung the election from Clinton to Trump. So I did a simple Google search, which you should try to just to see how much has been written about her derelict negligence of the Rust Belt. And I just entered into Google Clinton, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, 20, 16. And just as I would expect, that search revealed page after page after page after page of links of articles from practically every major news outlet with headlines like How the Rust Belt Paved Trump’s Road to Victory from the Atlantic or the Clinton campaign was undone by its own neglect and a touch of arrogance, staffers say from the Huffington Post or from Slate report. Neglect and poor strategy helped cause Clinton three critical states. What all these headlines are telling us is that Clinton should have known what we all did know. Because everybody from political strategists to armchair pundits talked about it, wrote about it and read about it before the election. So how could she not have listened? Right. Well, not so fast, because if it’s true that everybody knew, then there’s something seriously amiss with Google, because here’s the thing, the date of the first serious critique of Clinton’s rustbelt strategy that I could find. Is from November 9th, twenty sixteen, that’s a really important date because it’s the day after the election, which was on November 8th. So if Clinton’s strategy was so obviously fatally flawed, it wouldn’t be something identified only in hindsight after the results were already in. I mean, presidential elections are one of the world’s biggest exercises in crowd sourcing, decision making. Think about the last several elections. The campaigns have dominated the news cycle for a year or more. Whether it’s from inside the candidates campaigns or in media coverage, presidential elections draw the best minds and campaign strategy and data analysis, political science, persuasion, media and current events. Commentary. If the Clinton campaign’s priorities were so clearly in error, then where is the evidence? Where were all those minds before the election? Why wasn’t everybody writing about it? And this is the weird thing in that Google search I did. I did actually find two articles with critiques of campaign strategy around Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, but they were critiques of why Trump was campaigning there. One of those articles was from Philip Bumpe of The Washington Post, who was asking what on earth Trump was doing in Pennsylvania when he was behind by seven points. So how could both be true that Clinton was supposed to be campaigning there and Trump had no business campaigning there? I mean, that Clinton was making such a big mistake was either the best kept secret in politics or as a nation were just misremembering what we knew at the time. Well, given how rare any secret is ever kept in politics, I’d just bet on the latter. This national fever dream that we all knew beforehand is just an astonishing case of hindsight bias. Hindsight bias is a reasoning error where after we find out how something turned out, we believe that it had to turn out that way. And therefore, we should have known in the most extreme cases like what seems to be happening with how we remember Clinton’s campaign strategy. Hindsight bias causes memory creep, where after we already know the results, we believe we did know about it beforehand, even in the face of abundant evidence that we did it. So what we know is that Clinton lost the Rust Belt and it had to turn out that way, that she lost the Rust Belt and her campaign should have known she needed to spend more time there, that she lost the Rust Belt because of an obvious polling error in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. And we all knew about it at the time. But here’s the thing about a polling error. You don’t know there’s an error until after the vote is taken. That’s the whole problem. The only way we can really judge a campaign strategy is to understand what the inputs were into that strategy, to understand the information the campaign had to work with at the time. In this case, that information was the polls and there was a polling error, but it wasn’t systematic. Some state polling was dead on and some wasn’t. And we didn’t know which until after the fact. At the time, the polls showed that Clinton had a large single digit lead in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, while states like Florida and New Hampshire were polling as toss ups. The polls in the Rust Belt, we now know, were significantly overstating Clinton’s support or at least understating Trump’s support. But here’s the problem. The polling was spot on nationally. It actually pretty perfectly predicted the margin of Clinton’s win in the popular vote. And the polls also got places like Florida and New Hampshire. Right. They were pulling as tossups and they turned out to be tossups. So how could she have known specifically that there was a polling error in those three states, but not in other places and not nationally without having seen the vote, which could only occur on November 9th? Now, having said all of this, I’m betting that there’s still just a really good chance that you’re hearing this and you’re thinking, but no, there was loads of coverage about it. I remember reading about how Clinton’s campaign strategy of prioritizing red states and trying to put those in place. We’re going to cost her the blue wall. It’s just that feeling that, you know, you read about it before the election and that’s the power of hindsight bias. Now, obviously, learning from her past experiences requires that we have to remember our past experiences. And if we can’t accurately remember the past, we’re just not going to learn good lessons for the future, whether it’s about learning from the failures of a previous campaign or learning from a bad date or a parenting misstep or a sales slump or an investment gone sideways. And that’s really the broader lesson here. It’s not just about the national fever dream that we’re having around Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy or what to learn from the 2016 election that could help you or help us in two thousand twenty. This misremembering happened in the biggest news event of 2016, where hundreds of millions of people were bombarded with months of coverage, analysis and commentary. And there was an easy to access evidentiary record of what we all thought at the time. So I want you to just imagine how susceptible you are to hindsight, bias and memory creep in little ways and big ones every single day in your own life where you don’t have the Google search to go back and look at.
S2: And that’s it for today’s show, the gist was produced by Daniel Shrader and Margaret Kelly. Sadly, this is my last day sitting in for Mike. But the good news is there will be a new and no doubt better guest host tomorrow. As a last plug, please check out the Alliance for Decision Education because better decisions lead to better lives and a better society. I’m Annie Duke in Peru, de Peru du Peru. And thanks for listening.