Who Are “The WEIRDest People in the World?”

> WE COME TO THE STUDY OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR, ARE WE GETTING THE FULL PICTURE?

OUR NEXT GUEST SAYS NO.

JOSEPH HENRICH IS A HARVARD PROFESSOR OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND SAYS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN NATURE IS SKEWED BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO VOLUNTEER TO TAKE PART IN STUDIES COME FROM THE SAME CROP.

EDUCATED WESTERNERS.

AND ONCE MORE, THEY ARE ACTUALLY PSYCHOLOGICALLY QUITE PECULIAR.

HENRICH SPELLS IT OUT IN HIS NEW BOOK, 'THE WEIRDEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD' AND ALSO TELLS IT TO WALTER ISAACSON.

THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE.

PROFESSOR JOSEPH HENRICH, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

THANKS, GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

FIRST LET'S EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY W.E.I.R.D.

RIGHT, IT'S A ACRONYM, STANDS FOR WESTERN, EDUCATED, INDUSTRIALIZED, RICH AND DEMOCRATIC.

TWO COLLEAGUES OF MINE, WE COINED IT BACK IN 2010 WHEN WE WANTED TO REFER TO THE BEST BODY OF SUBJECTS OR PARTICIPANTS THAT PSYCHOLOGISTS USE TO POPULATE THEIR EXPERIMENTS.

ON WHICH MUCH OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY IS BASED.

SO IT'S A PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNUSUAL POPULATION.

MOST OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY TAKES PEOPLE LIKE US, I'LL SAY, WESTERNERS WHO ARE EDUCATED AND LITERATE AND MAKES PSYCHOLOGICAL, YOU KNOW, ABSTRACTIONS AND JUDGMENTS ABOUT THEM.

WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM?

WELL, IT TURNS OUT WHEN WE BEGAN TO REVIEW THE LITERATURE, NOT ONLY ARE THESE W.E.I.R.D.

POPULATIONS PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNUSUAL, SO THERE'S VARIATION AROUND THE WORLD IN PSYCHOLOGY AND THEY TURN OUT TO BE THE EXTREME END OF THE DISTRIBUTION ON LOTS OF DIFFERENT INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES.

SUCH AS WHAT?

WELL, SO A BIG ONE IS INDIVIDUALISM.

SO HOW MUCH PEOPLE FOCUS ON THEMSELVES AND THEIR ATTRIBUTES THAT AFFECTS THINGS LIKE OVERCONFIDENCE AND SELF-ESTEEM.

INCLINATION TO CONFORM TO PEERS.

THERE'S A VARIATION THERE ON WHICH W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE ARE.

GUILT VERSUS SHAME, ANTHROPOLOGISTS NOTE ARE DIFFERENT ACROSS SOCIETIES.

W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE TEND TO BE EXTREME ON THE GUILT END OF THE SYSTEM.

USE OF INTENTIONALITY AND MORAL JUDGMENT.

HOW MUCH YOU THINK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S INTERNAL MENTAL STATES AND INTENTIONS WHEN JUDGING THEM MORALLY.

THINGS LIKE TRUST IN STRANGERS AND COOPERATION WITH STRANGERS.

ARE THESE GENETIC TRAITS?

NO, NO, THEY'RE VERY MUCH CULTURALLY LEARNED.

THE BOOK IS ABOUT ALL THE WAYS IN WHICH OUR INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER FEATURES OF SOCIAL LIFE SHAPE HOW WE THINK.

ONE OF THE KEY IDEAS THAT COMES FROM MY PRIOR WORK IS THAT WE EVOLVED AS A CULTURAL SPECIES SO OUR MINDS ADAPT TO THE KIND OF CONSTRAINTS CREATED BY OUR INSTITUTIONS.

WE END UP THINKING DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF THE KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS WE ENCOUNTER WHEN WE'RE GROWING UP.

YOU SAY W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE, I.E., WESTERN-EDUCATED PEOPLE, TEND TO BE MORE INDIVIDUAL ISTIC.

EXPLAIN THAT.

THE IDEA IS W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE ARE MORE FOCUSED ON THEMSELVES, CULTIVATING THEIR OWN ATTRIBUTES, ON BECOMING A KIND OF UNIQUE MEMBER OF THEIR SOCIETY.

AND THE REASON I ARGUE IN THE BOOK IS BECAUSE IN THIS WORLD, YOU'VE GOT TO GO OUT AND MAKE YOUR OWN FRIENDS AND MAKE YOUR OWN RELATIONSHIPS, FIND YOUR OWN SPOUSE, FIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS PARTNERS.

FROM THIS, YOU KNOW, COLLECTION OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE PLAYING THE SAME GAME.

LOTS OF SOCIETIES OVER HUMAN HISTORY, YOU'VE HAD THESE DENSE NETWORKS OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS SO YOU WOULD RELY ON FAMILY AND OTHER KINDS OF RELATIONAL TIES TO FIND BUSINESS PARTNERS, CREATE ARRANGED MARRIAGES.

THE IDEA OF THIS, HAVING THESE KINDS OF KIN-BASED RELATIONSHIPS OR MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIPS AND LOOKING FOR PEOPLE IN YOUR SOCIAL NETWORK TO BUILD ANY KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH, YOU END UP WITH A DENSE NETWORK AND TRUST BECOMES BASED ON HAVING NETWORK CONNECTIONS.

RATHER THAN CULTIVATING A KIND OF DISPOSITIONAL TRUST.

THAT'S ANOTHER THING ABOUT W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE, THEY THINK IN TERMS OF DISPOSITION.

HE'S EITHER TRUSTWORTHY OR NOT.

A OPPOSED TO TRUSTWORTHY, IF I'M CONNECT.

ED TO HIM THROUGH MY NETWORK.

ISN'T IT MORE AVANTAGEOUS TO TRUST PEOPLE BASED ON EVIDENCE RATHER THAN NETWORKS?

DEPENDS ON THE STRUCTURE OF YOUR SOCIETY.

IN LOTS OF PEOPLE IF YOU WERE TO TRUST STRANGERS, YOU WOULD BE TAKEN AVANTAGE OF.

ECONOMISTS HAVE DONE INTERESTING STUDIES LOOKING AT THERE'S AN OPTIMAL AMOUNT OF TRUST YOU SHOULD HAVE IN OTHER PEOPLE BASED ON HOW TRUSTWORTHY THE PEOPLE YOU'RE LIKELY TO ENCOUNTER ARE.

THIS IDEA IS A LOT OF HUMAN TRUST WAS BUILT BY EXTENDING THESE NETWORKS THEN TO CREATE THE KIND OF MODERN WORLD WHERE WE'RE ACCUSTOM TO THIS ANONYMOUS, NONPERSONAL INTERACTION, WE MIGHT MOVE A LOT, YOU HAVE TO RELY ON DISPOSITIONAL STRATEGY.

ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS PSYCHLOGICAL TESTS IS THE MARSHMALLOW TESTS WHICH TESTS PATIENCE.

IN OTHER WORDS, ARE YOU WILLING TO DEFER GRATIFICATION BY PUTTING OFF HAVING ONE MARSHMALLOW FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING TWO OR THREE LATER ON?

TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT A DIFFERENCE ACROSS CULTURES?

YEAH, RECENTLY FOUND INTERESTING DIFFERENCES IN THE WILLINGNESS OF CHILDREN TO WAIT FOR THAT SECOND MARSHMALLOW, HOW LONG THEY WAIT IS A MEASURE OF THEIR SELF-REGULATION.

AND RESEARCHERS WORKING IN THE U.S. AND WITH WESTERN POPULATIONS HAVE SHOWN THAT THAT WILLINGNESS, THAT ABILITY TO SELF-REGULATE, PREDICTS STAYING IN SCHOOL, SAVINGS, OTHER KINDS OF THINGS THAT REQUIRE A DEFERRAL OF GRATIFICATION LATER IN LIFE.

PARALLEL WORK DONE BY ECONOMISTS MEASURING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN 80 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD SHOWS THERE'S TREMENDOUS VARIATION IN PEOPLE'S WILLINGNESS TO DEFER GRATIFICATION.

THERE'S AN ADVANTAGE FOR US W.E.I.R.D. WESTERN-EDUCATED SOCIETIES THAT WE DEVELOPED THAT CULTURAL INSTINCT?

YEAH, BUT, AGAIN, ONE OF THE THINGS I POINT OUT IN THE BOOK IS IT REALLY DEPENDS ON YOUR SOCIAL MILYU.

AN ECONOMIST HAS DONE EXPERIMENTS WHERE THEY TOOK SOME POOR MEN IN LIBERIA AND TRAINED THEM TO HAVE -- TO BE ABLE TO DEFER GRATIFICATION MORE.

SO THEY PUT THEM INTO AN EIGHT-WEEK TRAINING AND SHOWED THEY WERE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR ABILITY TO DEFER GRATIFICATION THEN IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE BEGINNING TO SAVE MORE.

DO THINGS THAT LEADS YOU TO.

THEY LOST THEIR SAVINGS BECAUSE THE POLICE TOOK IT AWAY FROM THEM, TACTICS, IT WAS STOLEN FROM THEM.

IT ACTUALLY DIDN'T PAY IN THAT ENVIRONMENT TO SAVE AND DEFER FOR THE FUTURE.

IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOUR INSTITUTIONS WORKS.

A LOT OF TIMES IN KIN-BASED SOCIETIES, YOU INVEST IN THE FUTURE BY INVESTING IN YOUR RELATIVES AND FRIENDS.

IF THEY HAVE SOMEONE IN THEIR FAMILY GETS INJURED, THEY NEED MONEY FOR A MEDICAL PROCEDURE, THEY GIVE THEM MONEY AND LET YOU KNOW IN THE FUTURE YOU'RE INSURED THROUGH YOUR NETWORK OF SOCIAL RELATIONS AND GOOD WILL YOU BUILT UP BY GIVING AWAY.

IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.

TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE A ROLE IN BREAKING DOWN THIS NOTION OF FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND MARRIAGE WITHIN CLANS?

YEAH, SO I MAKE THE CASE IN MY BOOK THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE, THAT EUROPE PRIOR TO THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY THROUGH NORTHERN EUROPE, PLACES LIKE NORTHERN FRANCE AND ENGLAND, GERMANY, THE NETHERLANDS, PLACES LIKE THAT, THAT THESE WERE TRIBAL POPULATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE HAD COUSIN MARRIAGE AND POLIGINOUS MARRIAGE.

THERE'S VARIOUS LINES OF EVIDENCE.

IT SEEMS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SYSTEMICALLY BROKE THESE POPULATIONS DOWN INTO MANOGONOUS FAMILIES.

PREVENTED YOU FROM MARRYING INITIALLY FIRST COUSINS THEN EVENTUALLY STRETCHED OUT TO SIX COUSINS BY AROUND THE YEAR 1000.

NO MORE SEX SLAVES.

AND THEN THINGS ABOUT INHERITANCE ARE CHANGED.

SO EVENTUALLY, YOU GET THE KIND OF MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES WHICH ARE QUITE UNUSUAL IN THE WORLD TODAY.

KIND OF GLOBAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.

THEY'RE PRESENT IN EUROPE BEFORE 1500.

SO WHEN THEY SPRING UP IN EUROPE AROUND 1500, MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES, HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THE WAY WE BEHAVE?

WELL, IT MEANS BY BREAKING PEOPLE DOWN INTO MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES, IT FORCED EUROPEANS TO GO OUT AND BUILD NEW KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS.

SO I ARGUE THAT THIS WAS A GRADUAL PROCESS THAT HAPPENED OVER CENTURIES.

AND IT'S UNDER WAY IN SEVERAL PARTS OF EUROPE BY AROUND A THOUSAND.

AND THAT'S WHEN YOU SEE THE PROLIFERATION OF VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.

SO YOU GET THINGS LIKE GUILDS, UNIVERSITIES, CHARTERTOWNS.

PEOPLE ARE JOINING TOGETHER WITH VOLUNTARY STRANGERS TO FORM SOCIAL SAFETY NETS.

SO ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THESE KIN-BASED INSTITUTIONS DO BACK INTO HUMAN HISTORY, TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE SICK, WHEN THEY'RE OLD, WHEN YOU GET INJURED, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO, PEOPLE NEEDED TO FIGURE OUT NEW WAYS TO DO THAT.

THEY BEGAN BANDING TOGETHER WITH STRANGERS.

THERE'S OFTEN A RELIGIOUS OVERTONE TO THE FIRST GILDS.

RELIGIOUS MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETIES.

EARLY CHARTER TOWNS DID THE SAME KIND OF SIMILAR THING.

THEY HAVE TO DECIDE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO ORGANIZE THEMSELVES AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE TOWN.

AND SO THEY BEGIN TO COME UP WITH REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTS.

AND THIS -- THIS I REALLY THINK IS ENCOURAGED BY THE FACT THAT THEY'RE MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES.

YOU DON'T HAVE CLANS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AND HAVE A INDIVIDUALISTIC SOCIETY.

PEOPLE ARE MOVINGING INTO THE TOWN AS INDIVIDUALS RATHER THAN BRINGING A LARGE FAMILY.

THAT ENCOURAGES THE EMERGENCE OF MORE FORMAL INSTITUTIONS BASED ON REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND EVENTUALLY DEMOCRACY AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

YOU REALLY SEE THIS TAKE OFF IN EUROPE.

ONE OF THE ANALYSES I LOOK AT IN THE BOOK IS THE MORE CENTURIES THAT A REGION HAD UNDER THE CHURCH, THE MORE LIKELY THEY WERE TO COME UP WITH REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

IF I HAD TO COME UP WITH A MISSION STATEMENT FOR US W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE, I.E., WESTERN, EDUCATED, FOLKS, TAKE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

PARSE THAT SENTENCE FOR ME.

WELL, I THINK THE IDEA, YOU KNOW, WE CAN UNDERSTAND A LOT ABOUT THAT SENTENCE IF WE RECOGNIZE THERE WAS ALREADY THIS PRE-EXISTING PSYCHOLOGY IN THE HEADS OF THE GUYS THAT WERE COMING UP WITH THIS.

THE NOTION THAT WE'RE INDIVIDUALS, AND THAT WE HAVE INSIDE OF US THESE RIGHTS OR SOMETHING, WHERE THESE RIGHTS COME FROM.

THE VERY NOTION THAT WE'RE ENDOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH RIGHTS WHICH THEN PROPEL THEIR BEHAVIOR OR GIVE THEM POLITICAL POWERS.

SOMETHING THAT I THINK DEVELOPS SLOWLY AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS I'M TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S NOT EVIDENT, THOUGH, TO LOTS OF OTHER POPULATIONS IN PLACES IN TIME THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO ENDOW PEOPLE WITH THESE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FROM WHICH WE DERIVE ALL KINDS OF OTHER PRIVILEGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS A CONSEQUENCE.

THIS IS THAT DISPOSITIONALISM I MENTIONED ABOUT HOW W.E.I.R.D.

PEOPLE THINK.

DO YOU THINK GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENING TO WESTERN DEMOCRACIES, THE WORLD COULD USE SOME MORE -- WE IN THE WEST COULD USE SOME MORE NON-W.E.I.R.D. INFLUENCES?

YEAH.

ONE OF THE CASES I MAKE IN THE BOOK IS THAT A LOT OF OUR CAPACITY TO INNOVATE, BOTH IN TERMS OF BUILDING NEW INSTITUTIONS AND BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, COMES FROM BRINGING IN IDEAS FROM ALL DIFFERENT SOCIETIES.

AND KIND OF CREATING RECOMBINATIONS.

SO AT THE END OF THE BOOK I NEED TO EXPLAIN THE KIND OF MASSIVE PROLIFERATION OF INNOVATION.

BASED IN 1750.

TYPICAL STARTING DATE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

AND THE CASE I MAKE IS IT'S BECAUSE OF THIS KIND OF BROAD-BASED TRUST, THE FLOW OF INDIVIDUALS AMONGST DIFFERENT SOCIETIES, IN BETWEEN OCCUPATIONS, CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HIGHER AND LOWER STRATA INDIVIDUALS, LEADING TO SPREADING IDEAS AROUND THE WORLD.

I THINK A LOT OF THE STRENGTH OF THE U.S., THE U.S. HAS COME FROM IMMIGRATION.

SO I RECENTLY REVIEWED THE LITERATURE ON THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ON INNOVATION, MEASURED AS PATENTS.

BASICALLY, AT EVERY CASE, EVERY TIME YOU TURN UP IMMIGRATION, YOU TURN UP INNOVATION BECAUSE PEOPLE FROM OTHER PLACES BRING IDEAS, RECOMBINES WITH IDEAS THAT THE LOCALS HAVE AND CREATES NEW STUFF.

YOU DISCUSS A LOT ABOUT IMMORAL JUDGMENT.

HOW WE W.E.I.R.D. PEOPLE SPEND A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT INTENT, INTENTIONALITY.

WHY IS THAT AN IMPORTANT CULTURAL DISTINCTION?

WELL, IT'S IMPORTANT FROM THE -- WHAT I THINK CAUSES IT IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU ARE IN A -- IF YOU'RE IN A DENSE NETWORK WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO PICK PARTNERS WHO YOU HAVE SEVERAL CONNECTIONS TO, WHAT'S GOING TO CAUSE THEM TO BEHAVE WELL IS THE FACT THAT THEY'RE CONNECTED TO YOU.

SO IF THEY DON'T BEHAVE WELL IN YOUR BUSINESS TRANSACTION, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE YOU CAN TELL WHO KNOW THEM AND THEN, YOU KNOW, BE BAD FOR THEM REPUTATIONLY.

IF YOU'RE IN THIS KIND OF MORE DISCONNECTED SOCIAL WORLD, YOU'VE GOT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE HIS INTENTIONS, WHAT ARE HIS GOALS, WHAT ARE HIS INTERNAL MENTAL STATES, WHAT'S HIS DISPOSITION, OR HERS, THAT'S GOING TO THEN AFFECT YOUR JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO GO INTO BUSINESS WITH THEM OR MARRY THEM OR DO ALL THESE DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO.

SO YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE THESE MORE INTERNALIZED ASSESSMENTS.

DO YOU THINK THAT THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELATIVE SUCCESS THAT W.E.I.R.D. CULTURES HAVE HAD IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, LITERACY, INNOVATION?

WELL, YEAH, I DEFINITELY MAKE THE CASE IT'S A SHIFT IN PSYCHOLOGY THAT LED TO INSTITUTIONS LIKE THE KINDS OF ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS WE HAVE AND KINDS OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS WE HAVE AND THIS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS HELP EXPLAIN INNOVATION IN WESTERN SOCIETIES, INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, WHY EUROPEAN MILITARIES WERE SO SUCCESSFUL AROUND THE WORLD AFTER 1500.

WHICH, OF COURSE, HAD LOTS OF AWFUL AND CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES FOR LOTS OF POPULATIONS AROUND THE WORLD.

BUT YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE ABLE TO DO IT.

SO THIS IS A STORY ABOUT WHY THEY WERE ABLE TO DO IT BECAUSE THIS CHANGE IN FAMILY LED TO A CHANGE IN PSYCHOLOGY WHICH LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS WHICH DIDN'T ARISE IN OTHER PLACES.

ONE OF THE AMUSING TASTY MORSELS IN YOUR BOOK WAS A DISCUSSION OF UNITED NATIONS DIPLOMATS GETTING TRAFFIC TICKETS.

EXPLAIN THAT.

YEAH, SO IT WAS A RESEARCH DONE BY TWO ECONOMISTS.

AND WHAT THEY DID IS THEY GOT ALL THE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS FOR U.N. DIPLOMATS.

SO U.N. DIPLOMATS, 90% OF THEM LIVE WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE U.N.

COMPOUND IN MANHATTAN.

AND UP UNTIL 2002 AFTER 9/11, THEY HAD DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

SO THEY COULD PARK ANYWHERE WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY THE PARKING TICKETS.

SO WHAT THEY DID IS THEY JUST LOOKED AT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE HOME COUNTRY CORRUPTION AND RELATED IT TO THE NUMBER OF PARKING TICKETS THAT PEOPLE HAD AND NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE COUNTRY-LEVEL CORRUPTION PREDICTED THE PARKING TICKETS.

PEOPLE, DIPLOMATS FROM MORE CORRUPT COUNTRIES HAD MORE PARKING TICKETS.

WHAT MY COLLABORATORS DID WAS WE TOOK THE INTENSITY OF KINSHIP IN THESE DIFFERENT PLACES AND WE USED THAT AND CAN EXPLAIN THE NUMBER OF PARKING TICKETS BETTER.

IF YOU CAME FROM KINSHIP, PEOPLE ACCUMULATED A LOT OF PARKING TICKETS.

LOOK AT THE WHOLE U.N.

DELEGATION OR JUST THE DIPLOMATS.

SAME ANSWER.

PLACES WITH SMALL MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES TENDED NOT TO GET VERY MANY PARKING TICKETS.

HOW COME?

WELL, THE IDEA IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE FROM THESE SOCIETIES THAT HAVE SMALL MONOGAMOUS NUCLEAR FAMILIES YOU TEND TO BE BIG ON FOLLOWING THESE IMPERSONAL RULES SO THESE KIND OF INVISIBLE INSTITUTIONS YOU CAN SEE WHICH IS WHY YOU MIGHT COMPLY WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT, EVEN WHEN THERE'S NO PENALTY, THOSE THINGS BECOME DEEPLY INTERNALIZED AND WE CAN SHOW IN SIMPLE EXPERIMENTS THAT PEOPLE ARE MORE WILLING TO FOLLOW THESE IMPERSONAL INSTITUTIONALIZED RULES.

WHEN YOU'RE IN A SOCIETY THAT'S BASED ON RELATIONSHIPS, YOU'RE ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT HOW ARE THESE GOING TO AFFECT MY RELATIONSHIPS, YOU KNOW, WHO AM I TRYING TO HELP AND WHO AM I TRYING NOT TO HELP HERE?

AND IF IT'S A CASE THAT'S AN IMPERSONAL INSTITUTION, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR LOYALTY OR RELATIONSHIP TO THESE IMPERSONAL INSTITUTIONS.

THAT DOESN'T WEIGH IN YOUR DECISION MAKING AS MUCH.

WHAT OF THE LESSONS FROM YOUR BOOK, THE ANALYSES FROM YOUR BOOK, ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PROBLEMS WE NOW FACE WITH WESTERN DEMOCRACY AND WESTERN SOCIETIES?

WELL, I THINK, I MEAN, IF I'M ANALYZING THE SITUATION THAT THE U.S. IS FACING RIGHT NOW, I LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE SHAPED PEOPLE'S MORAL PSYCHOLOGY.

SO ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT I PUSH IN THE BOOK IS THE IMPORTANCE OF RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY.

SO PEOPLE NEED TO MOVE AROUND AND NOT GET ANCHORED IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS THAT BUILD UP SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE U.S., CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE U.S. POPULATION HAVE HAD A BIG DECLINE IN RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY.

SO PEOPLE ARE STAYING IN THE SAME PLACES, THEY'RE STAYING IN THE SAME SOCIAL CLASSES, AND THIS LEADS TO A MORALE -- A KIND OF MORAL PSYCHOLOGY THAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE MOVING AROUND, BUILDING NEW RELATIONSHIPS ALL THE TIME, LOOKING FOR MORE EGALITARIAN RELATIONSHIPS, NOT CONCERNED WITHIN GROUP LOYALTY.

THAT I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN CREATING THIS DIVIDE AND MORAL PSYCHOLOGY THAT WE SEE IN PLACES LIKE THE U.S. TODAY.

TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK YOUR RESEARCH CAN HELP US CHANGE THE WAY WE LOOK AT PSYCHOLOGY, WHICH HAVING READ YOUR BOOK, IS SO FOCUSED ON PEOPLE COMING INTO THE LABS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS AND GETTING TESTED AND THOSE PEOPLE ALL TEND TO BE EDUCATED PEOPLE WHO END UP BEING TESTED AND SO WE'VE HAD A BLIND SPOT IN OUR PSYCHOLOGY.

DO YOU THINK THAT SHOULD CHANGE?

YEAH.

WHAT I'VE BEEN ARGUING IS WE NEED TO HAVE AN INTEGRATED SOCIAL SCIENCE WHERE WE HAVE LABORATORIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT RUN CONTINUOUSLY IN DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND WE STUDY PEOPLE ACROSS THEIR WHOLE LIVES AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN RUN EXPERIMENTS, WE SHOULD ALSO BE INTERVIEWING THEM AND KEEPING TRACK OF WHAT THEY DO AND HOW THEY SPEND THEIR TIME.

AND, YOU KNOW, FROM TRIALS ALL THE WAY TO ADULTHOOD RATHER THAN JUST PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET OR PEOPLE WHO GO TO COLLEGE OR SOMETHING.

PROFESSOR JOSEPH HENRICH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

IT WAS GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.