1 00:00:03,070 --> 00:00:06,740 - I find these pictures of World War II leaders as children 2 00:00:07,010 --> 00:00:10,807 kind of fascinating, because it grounds you. It makes you realize 3 00:00:10,890 --> 00:00:17,047 that there is a whole story there of environment, of development through their 4 00:00:17,130 --> 00:00:22,177 childhood, through their teenage years. You just remember they're all kids. 5 00:00:22,260 --> 00:00:25,097 Except Stalin. He was looking evil already when young. 6 00:00:25,180 --> 00:00:27,180 - Well, people used to not smile in photos as well. 7 00:00:27,263 --> 00:00:28,997 So looking at historical photos of children, 8 00:00:29,080 --> 00:00:31,741 or sometimes even kids in other cultures, it's like, "Oh, 9 00:00:31,824 --> 00:00:34,721 why are they all so serious?" But our creepiness radars are also way off. 10 00:00:34,805 --> 00:00:37,137 This is something that I've been interested in for a long time as 11 00:00:37,220 --> 00:00:41,097 well, is that we have this intuitive perception of whether or 12 00:00:41,180 --> 00:00:44,837 not somebody is trustworthy. And that intuitive perception, according to 13 00:00:44,920 --> 00:00:48,577 ample studies at this point, is not to be trusted. And one thing in 14 00:00:48,660 --> 00:00:52,357 particular is whether or not we think someone is creepy, including children, but 15 00:00:52,440 --> 00:00:55,877 usually the research is done, of course, on adult faces and with adults. 16 00:00:55,960 --> 00:00:59,857 And only recently did we even really define 17 00:00:59,940 --> 00:01:03,917 what that vague feeling of creepiness is. 18 00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:07,857 It has a lot to do with not following social norms. This is something 19 00:01:07,940 --> 00:01:11,617 we see that transfers to other contexts, like why people are afraid of 20 00:01:11,700 --> 00:01:15,320 people with severe mental illness and psychosis. If you're on 21 00:01:15,600 --> 00:01:18,808 the bus or the Tube in London, and someone's talking to themselves 22 00:01:18,891 --> 00:01:19,457 and they're 23 00:01:19,540 --> 00:01:22,923 acting in an erratic way, we know that people are more likely to keep a distance. 24 00:01:23,006 --> 00:01:23,157 There 25 00:01:23,240 --> 00:01:26,717 There was one study where they literally had a waiting room where they also had 26 00:01:26,800 --> 00:01:30,637 people with chairs, and the question was, "How many chairs would you sit away 27 00:01:30,720 --> 00:01:32,943 from someone you know has a severe mental illness?" 28 00:01:33,027 --> 00:01:34,657 And the answer is you sit more chairs 29 00:01:34,740 --> 00:01:38,257 away, and there's a physical and psychological distancing that's 30 00:01:38,340 --> 00:01:42,237 happening there. And it's not because people with severe mental 31 00:01:42,320 --> 00:01:46,310 illness are inherently more violent or more dangerous. That is not 32 00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:50,117 actually what the research finds. It's that we perceive them as such 33 00:01:50,200 --> 00:01:51,550 because we perceive them as 34 00:01:52,540 --> 00:01:56,460 weird basically. We go, "This isn't how you're supposed to be behaving, and 35 00:01:56,560 --> 00:02:00,397 so I'm worried about this and so I'm going to keep my distance." And so 36 00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:04,297 creepiness is much the same, and that's where you can totally misfire 37 00:02:04,380 --> 00:02:07,997 whom you perceive as creepy just because they're not acting in the way that you 38 00:02:08,080 --> 00:02:09,917 expect people to act in society. 39 00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:15,760 - Well, what are the sort of concrete features that contribute to our creepiness 40 00:02:16,380 --> 00:02:20,277 metric? Is that meme accurate that when the person's attractive, you're 41 00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:22,657 less likely to label them as creepy? 42 00:02:22,740 --> 00:02:25,890 - It depends. If they're too attractive, it can be. So there's- 43 00:02:26,240 --> 00:02:28,297 There's, there's effects that interact there. 44 00:02:28,380 --> 00:02:29,177 - That's hilarious. 45 00:02:29,260 --> 00:02:33,200 - And we also don't trust people potentially who are too attractive. 46 00:02:33,300 --> 00:02:36,797 But again, deviation from the norm. And so if you're 47 00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:40,557 deviating in any way, that can lead to 48 00:02:40,640 --> 00:02:45,710 well, your assessment being more wrong, but also you assessing people as more 49 00:02:46,640 --> 00:02:50,397 negative. And so with creepiness, the 50 00:02:50,480 --> 00:02:54,140 main thing that bothers me as a criminal psychologist 51 00:02:54,600 --> 00:02:58,500 is that tangential to creepiness is this general idea of trustworthiness 52 00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:02,717 and that you can tell whether somebody is lying. And I've done research on this, 53 00:03:02,800 --> 00:03:06,517 as have lots of other people, like Aldert Vrij is one of the leading researchers on 54 00:03:06,600 --> 00:03:10,470 deception detection. And he has found in so 55 00:03:10,660 --> 00:03:14,397 many studies that it's really hard to detect whether someone is 56 00:03:14,480 --> 00:03:18,237 lying reliably, and that people, especially police 57 00:03:18,320 --> 00:03:22,220 officers, people who do investigative interviewing, they have this high 58 00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:26,217 confidence level that they, because of their vast experience, 59 00:03:26,300 --> 00:03:29,049 can in fact tell whether the person across from them is lying to them, 60 00:03:29,132 --> 00:03:33,537 this witness, the suspect. And the answer is that, even that, if you take them into 61 00:03:33,620 --> 00:03:37,320 experimental settings, they are no better than chance at detecting 62 00:03:37,500 --> 00:03:41,257 lies, and yet they think they are. And so again, you get into this path 63 00:03:41,340 --> 00:03:45,237 where you're going to miss people who are actually lying to you potentially, and 64 00:03:45,320 --> 00:03:47,784 you're going to potentially point at innocent people and say, 65 00:03:47,867 --> 00:03:49,097 "I think you're guilty of this 66 00:03:49,180 --> 00:03:52,797 crime," and you go hard on that person in a way that might even lead to a wrongful 67 00:03:52,880 --> 00:03:53,713 conviction. 68 00:03:54,440 --> 00:03:58,130 - So it's the fact that it's very difficult to detect lies and 69 00:03:58,800 --> 00:04:03,797 overconfidence in policing creates a huge problem. 70 00:04:03,880 --> 00:04:07,837 - Not just policing, in relationships and in lots of other contexts as well. 71 00:04:07,920 --> 00:04:11,003 I mean, a lot of jealousy is born out of uncertainty. Jealousy isn't, 72 00:04:11,086 --> 00:04:11,797 "I know for sure 73 00:04:11,880 --> 00:04:14,389 that you have done something that is threatening our relationship." 74 00:04:14,472 --> 00:04:15,737 A lot of jealousy is, "What's in 75 00:04:15,820 --> 00:04:19,300 my head because I am assuming that you might be thinking or doing 76 00:04:19,680 --> 00:04:22,937 X." And that is also basically an exercise in lie 77 00:04:23,020 --> 00:04:26,230 detection. And there as well, we are very bad at it. 78 00:04:26,620 --> 00:04:32,888 - Is there a combination of the dark tetrad and how good you are at lying? 79 00:04:32,971 --> 00:04:36,844 Like, are people with certain traits, maybe psychopathy, 80 00:04:36,928 --> 00:04:39,137 are better at lying than others? 81 00:04:39,220 --> 00:04:41,668 - There's definitely some research to support the idea that people 82 00:04:41,751 --> 00:04:43,117 with psychopathy are better at lying. 83 00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:46,680 There's also some research specifically on sort of faking good 84 00:04:46,780 --> 00:04:50,667 in, for example, parole decisions. So when it comes up to 85 00:04:50,750 --> 00:04:54,457 someone who is... There's a legal decision to be made as to whether this 86 00:04:54,540 --> 00:04:58,177 person can be released from prison or released from just detention in general. 87 00:04:58,260 --> 00:05:02,157 And then the person will act in a particular way, sort 88 00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:06,117 of mimic a good prisoner, mimic someone who's safe to be released into 89 00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:10,037 society. And then the committee goes, "Oh, well, you know, this, 90 00:05:10,120 --> 00:05:12,708 this person's doing great," and so they're ready to be released. 91 00:05:12,791 --> 00:05:15,817 And then they make the wrong decision because that person has been faking it. 92 00:05:15,900 --> 00:05:21,177 So I think with psychopathy, it's a bit complicated. There has been 93 00:05:21,260 --> 00:05:25,180 some sort of, historically as well, some concern that certain treatment for 94 00:05:25,280 --> 00:05:28,797 psychopathy, especially empathy-focused treatment, makes people with 95 00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:32,717 psychopathy more likely to fake empathy and to 96 00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:36,537 weaponize it. But then there's other research which finds that if you use other 97 00:05:36,620 --> 00:05:40,477 kinds of interventions, so like Jennifer Skeem in 98 00:05:40,560 --> 00:05:44,477 California who does research on people with psychopathy who have 99 00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:47,508 committed severe crimes. And she specifically creates these treatment 100 00:05:47,591 --> 00:05:48,417 programs that aren't 101 00:05:48,500 --> 00:05:51,593 just around empathy, but they're more around almost learning the rules 102 00:05:51,676 --> 00:05:52,510 of society 103 00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:56,457 and convincing people that actually being pro-social is a better way to get 104 00:05:56,540 --> 00:06:00,437 what you want in life. And so there's a real need 105 00:06:00,520 --> 00:06:03,857 for tailored treatments to deal with especially certain kinds of 106 00:06:03,940 --> 00:06:07,417 personality traits, dark personality traits, to try and convince people 107 00:06:07,500 --> 00:06:11,337 basically, actually being pro-social is the better path, rather 108 00:06:11,420 --> 00:06:15,337 than just going hard on, you know, empathy and things that they don't maybe also see 109 00:06:15,420 --> 00:06:20,660 as faults with themselves. - Is there a psychological cost to empathizing with... 110 00:06:21,270 --> 00:06:24,807 - so-called monsters? You referenced Nietzsche in the 111 00:06:24,890 --> 00:06:28,387 book, you know, "Gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into 112 00:06:28,470 --> 00:06:32,217 you." If you study, quote unquote, 113 00:06:32,300 --> 00:06:35,857 "evil" or study monsters that you may become that. 114 00:06:35,940 --> 00:06:39,707 Is there a danger of that? I don't think so. I think that's what 115 00:06:39,790 --> 00:06:43,647 people fear. So, a lot of the Nietzsche quotes I use as well are... Some of them I 116 00:06:43,730 --> 00:06:46,256 like because they speak to the chapters I write about, but... 117 00:06:46,339 --> 00:06:47,507 and the issues I write about. 118 00:06:47,590 --> 00:06:51,470 But some of them I also like because they are how people think about evil 119 00:06:51,890 --> 00:06:54,190 and people who are labeled evil. And 120 00:06:55,010 --> 00:06:58,787 I do think with gazing into the abyss and the abyss gazing back, 121 00:06:58,870 --> 00:07:02,377 it's more of a... You're trying to find it. 122 00:07:02,460 --> 00:07:06,447 And that's why in some ways that doesn't work actually, because it isn't a total 123 00:07:06,530 --> 00:07:10,350 blank. It isn't the abyss. There are in fact things that you can see, 124 00:07:10,510 --> 00:07:14,387 even, even if it's just superficially, and patterns you can recognize to help 125 00:07:14,470 --> 00:07:18,347 you and key decision-makers, especially in legal settings, make better 126 00:07:18,430 --> 00:07:21,499 decisions around people like this. So, when they see these patterns, 127 00:07:21,582 --> 00:07:26,150 they act a better way. So yeah, I get asked a lot 128 00:07:26,510 --> 00:07:30,347 as a criminal psychologist, "Do you carry the cases that you deal around 129 00:07:30,430 --> 00:07:34,247 with you?" So, some of the cases involve, you know, huge 130 00:07:34,330 --> 00:07:36,365 amounts of witnesses, huge amounts of potential victims, 131 00:07:36,448 --> 00:07:38,087 and so in these cases there are very visceral 132 00:07:38,170 --> 00:07:42,087 victims, and so in these cases there are very visceral 133 00:07:42,170 --> 00:07:45,210 descriptions sometimes of heinous crimes. And 134 00:07:46,370 --> 00:07:50,030 I think that as someone who does this work, you 135 00:07:50,130 --> 00:07:53,530 can't be someone who sees it as anything other than a puzzle. 136 00:07:54,690 --> 00:07:58,000 So, you have to look at it and go, "Here's the different pieces of information. 137 00:07:58,083 --> 00:08:02,467 What I am doing is pattern recognition. I'm not here to emotionally 138 00:08:02,550 --> 00:08:04,609 invest in each of these victims or potential victims. 139 00:08:04,692 --> 00:08:06,347 That's not my role. There's therapists for 140 00:08:06,430 --> 00:08:08,279 that. There's other people who do that work. 141 00:08:08,362 --> 00:08:10,207 I am here working with the police. I'm here 142 00:08:10,290 --> 00:08:13,447 working with lawyers. I'm here looking at it more objectively 143 00:08:13,530 --> 00:08:17,140 to see how this all fits together." And so, I think that's how 144 00:08:17,570 --> 00:08:21,427 I engage with it. I see it as this puzzle that I'm trying to figure out. I worry 145 00:08:21,510 --> 00:08:25,307 for my own brain that when I confront people 146 00:08:25,390 --> 00:08:29,247 and see them as a puzzle, which I do. I see the beauty in 147 00:08:29,330 --> 00:08:33,167 the puzzle. All the puzzles look beautiful to me. 148 00:08:33,250 --> 00:08:37,167 I'm sometimes like a Prince Myshkin character from The Idiot 149 00:08:37,250 --> 00:08:40,850 by Dostoevsky, where you just see... It's not the good in 150 00:08:40,950 --> 00:08:44,050 people, but the beauty in the puzzle. And I 151 00:08:44,330 --> 00:08:48,110 think you can lose your footing on the moral landscape if you 152 00:08:48,630 --> 00:08:52,167 see the beauty in everything a bit too much. 153 00:08:52,250 --> 00:08:56,067 Because, everyone is interesting. Everyone 154 00:08:56,150 --> 00:08:59,747 is complicated. It's the classic scientist response as 155 00:08:59,830 --> 00:09:03,667 well to what other people in society go, "Ooh." They go, you know, "This 156 00:09:03,750 --> 00:09:07,227 is horrible," or, "This atrocious thing has happened," or, "This shocking, 157 00:09:07,310 --> 00:09:11,107 existential crisis inducing thing I've just found is, you 158 00:09:11,190 --> 00:09:15,120 know, giving me existential crisis." And scientists instead go, "Oh, 159 00:09:15,210 --> 00:09:18,927 wow!" And you can sort of see the delight in discovery as well. 160 00:09:19,010 --> 00:09:22,570 And I think sometimes scientists read as callous because we 161 00:09:22,710 --> 00:09:26,467 enjoy this discovery of knowledge and the discovery of insights. 162 00:09:26,550 --> 00:09:30,327 And it just feels like this little light bulb has gone off and you go, "Oh, I 163 00:09:30,410 --> 00:09:33,616 understand a tiny bit more about the human experience or about the world around us." 164 00:09:33,699 --> 00:09:38,327 And I think it must be similar. I don't know that I feel or worry that I sort 165 00:09:38,410 --> 00:09:42,170 of become more, quote unquote, "evil." I think it's more 166 00:09:42,350 --> 00:09:46,227 that you add this nuance, which 167 00:09:46,310 --> 00:09:49,270 I guess sometimes can be estranging to other people. So, there's that. 168 00:09:49,354 --> 00:09:50,147 When you speak with 169 00:09:50,230 --> 00:09:53,441 others, sometimes, like even when I say, "We shouldn't use the word evil," 170 00:09:53,525 --> 00:09:56,432 people go, "No, but you have to. Does that mean you're trivializing things?" 171 00:09:56,515 --> 00:09:57,467 The answer is no, I'm not 172 00:09:57,550 --> 00:10:01,367 trivializing. I'm just trying to understand. Also, sympathizing 173 00:10:01,450 --> 00:10:05,347 or being empathetic towards people whom others have written off is always going to 174 00:10:05,430 --> 00:10:07,330 get that response from some people. I mean, 175 00:10:07,413 --> 00:10:09,277 there are real questions around whom we're 176 00:10:09,360 --> 00:10:13,187 platforming and what that has and what role we have as content creators, 177 00:10:13,270 --> 00:10:16,867 both of us, of the people we talk about, how we cover them. I 178 00:10:16,950 --> 00:10:20,867 often come across this in true crime work that I do, because I get asked 179 00:10:20,950 --> 00:10:24,767 to do TV shows. I host TV shows, and I host BBC podcasts. 180 00:10:24,850 --> 00:10:28,470 And there's always the question of sometimes people commit 181 00:10:28,630 --> 00:10:32,387 murder to become famous. And should it be a 182 00:10:32,470 --> 00:10:34,538 blanket ban that we don't cover those cases, 183 00:10:34,621 --> 00:10:36,407 or should we cover those cases but in 184 00:10:36,490 --> 00:10:40,407 a different way, or should we anonymize the… So, it doesn't mean that 185 00:10:40,490 --> 00:10:44,490 you should never cover that case. It just means that you need to think about it.