Many Minds

We're on break this month, but are sharing some favorite episodes from our archives to tide you over. Enjoy, friends! I'm betting you've heard about the next generation of artificial intelligence, the one that's just around the corner. It's going to be pervasive, all-competent, maybe super-intelligent. We'll rely on it to drive cars, write novels, diagnose diseases, and make scientific breakthroughs. It will do all these things better, faster, more safely than we bumbling humans ever could. The thing is, we've been promised this for years. If this next level of AI is coming, it seems to be taking its time. Might it be that AI is simply harder than we thought? My guest today is Dr. Melanie Mitchell. She is the Davis Professor at the Santa Fe Institute and the author of a number of books, including her latest, which is titled 'Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans.' In this conversation we zoom in on Melanie's widely discussed recent essay, 'Why AI is harder than we think.' We talk about the repeating cycle of hype and disenchantment within AI, and how it stretches back to the first years of the field. We walk through four fallacies that Mitchell identifies that lead us to think that super smart AI is closer than it actually is. We talk about self-driving cars, brittleness, adversarial perturbations, Moravec's paradox, analogy, brains in vats, and embodied cognition, among other topics. And we discuss an all-important concept, one we can't easily define but we can all agree AI is sorely lacking: common sense. Across her scholarly publications and public-facing essays, Melanie has recently emerged as one of our most cogent and thoughtful guides to AI research. I've been following her work for a while now and was really stoked to get to chat with her. Her essay is insightful, lucid, and just plain fun—if you enjoy this conversation, I definitely suggest you check it out for yourselves. Alright folks, on to my conversation with Dr. Melanie Mitchell. And for those in the US—happy thanksgiving! The paper we discuss is available here. A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 5:00 – A recent essay by Dr. Mitchell on self-driving cars and common sense. 14:00 – An influential paper from 2013 titled 'Intriguing properties of neural networks.' 16:50 – A video introduction to "deep learning." 19:00 – A paper on "first step fallacies" in AI by Hubert Dreyfus. 21:00 – For a discussion of Alpha Go's recent success with the game of Go, see our earlier interview with Dr. Marta Halina. 26:00 – An influential 1976 paper titled, 'Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity.' 31:00 – A popular Twitter account that tags recent findings with "In mice." 38:00 – A paper by Lawrence Barsalou on "grounded cognition." For related ideas see Lakoff & Johnson's Metaphors We Live By. 41:00 – A recent book by Brian Cantwell Smith, The Promise of Artificial Intelligence. 43:00 – An article on the idea of "core knowledge." 47:00 – The CYC project. 49:30 – A recent article by Dr. Mitchell about analogies people have been using to understand COVID-19. 50:30 – An op-ed by Dr. Mitchell about why we should not worry os much about super-intelligence. End-of-show recommendations: Dr. Mitchell's 2019 book, Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans Blake et al., 2017, 'Building Machines that Think and Learn Like People' Chollet, 2019, 'On the Measure of Intelligence' You can find Dr. Mitchell on Twitter (@MelMitchell1) and follow his research at her website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

The world is bigger than you think. I don't mean geographically, though maybe that too. I mean in terms of its textures and sounds and smells; I mean in terms of its hues and vibrations. There are depths and layers to the world that we don't usually experience, that we might actually never be able to experience. Our senses just aren't wired to take it all in. We're simply not tuned to all the dimensions of reality's rich splendor. But there is a way we can appreciate these hidden dimensions: with a flex of the imagination, we can step into the worlds of other creatures; we can try out different eyes and noses; we can voyage into different perceptual universes. Or at least we can try. My guest today is Ed Yong, author of the new book An Immense World: How Animal Senses Reveal the Hidden Realms Arounds Us. Ed is a science writer for The Atlantic and the author of an exceptional earlier book on the microbiome called I Contain Multitudes. This new book tours the wide diversity of animal senses. It asks what it's like to be a bat, sure, but also what it's like to be a star-nosed mole, a manatee, or a mantis shrimp. Informed by some truly extraordinary science, the book considers how it might feel to electrolocate around the ocean, to hear through the threads of a web, or to be tugged by the earth's magnetic field. There's a lot of praise I could lavish on this book, but I'll just say this: it really makes you feel more alive. Reading it makes everything, in fact, seem more alive. It makes the world seem richer, more vivid, somehow more technicolor and finely textured. It makes you realize that every organism, all the creatures we share this planet with, possesses a kind of vibrant genius all their own. After this episode we will be on a short holiday, and then we'll be gearing up for Season 4. If you have guests or topics you want us to cover, please send us a note. And, of course: if you've enjoyed the show so far, we would be most grateful if you would leave us a rating or a review. I know I say this all the time, and it's probably a bit annoying: but it really, truly helps, and I would personally, very much appreciate it! Alright friends, now to my conversation with Ed Yong. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 3:30 – One of our earlier audio essays—'Me, my umwelt, and I'—profiled von Uexküll and his concept of an Umwelt. 6:00 – The classic Nagel article 'What is it like to be a bat?'; Mike Tomasello's recent variant, 'What is it like to be a chimpanzee?', which we discussed just last episode. 10:00 – One of many articles by Ed about COVID-19. He was awarded a Pulitzer prize for his coverage of the pandemic. 14:30 – A popular article on proprioception. 19:00 – A research article on the evolution of opsin proteins. 20:00 – A primer on echolocation. 25:00 – A brief article on heat-sensitive pits in snakes. 26:30 – An academic article about the "star" of the star-nosed mole. A video showing the star-nosed mole in action. 31:00 – A popular article about the eyes of starfish. 32:00 – A collection of research articles about the Ampullae of Lorenzini. 35:00 – A very recent article about spider webs as "outsourced" hearing. 38:00 – A research article about aspects of bird song that humans can't hear. 40:00 – A study by Lucy Bates and colleagues about how elephants operate with a spatial model of where their kin are. You can read more about Ed's work at his website, catch up on his stories in The Atlantic, or follow him on Twitter. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome back, friends! Apologies for the brief delay in getting this episode out. We're now happily back on track and super stoked for what we have coming up—starting with today's episode. My guest is Dr. Michael Tomasello, a voraciously interdisciplinary thinker, an incredibly productive scientist, and a pioneer in the systematic comparison of chimpanzee and human capacities. Mike is a Distinguished Professor in the department of Psychology & Neuroscience at Duke University, where also holds appointments in Evolutionary Anthropology, Philosophy, and Linguistics. He is the author of growing list of influential books, including the recent Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny and a new book coming out this fall titled The Evolution of Agency. In this conversation, Mike and I talk about how he came to study both children and chimpanzees. We discuss the challenges of working with each of these groups—and the challenges of comparing them. We talk about some of the key concepts that have figured prominently in Mike's work over the years—like joint attention and false belief—and well as some of the concepts he's been elaborating more recently—including norms, roles, and agency. We also discuss Vygotsky and Piaget; how humans got started down the path toward intense interdependence and cooperation; and what Mike thinks he got wrong earlier in his career. Lots in here, folks—let's just get to it. On to my conversation with Dr. Michael Tomasello. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 3:30 – Early in his career, Dr. Tomasello was affiliated with the storied Yerkes Primate Center. 5:00 – Major works by Lev Vygotsky (in translation) include Mind in Society and Thought and Language. 7:00 – A video about some of the early work of Wolfgang Kohler. 10:30 – Dr. Tomasello is the Emeritus Director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. 17:00 – A chapter outlining some key results of "looking time" (or "preferential-looking") experiments in developmental psychology. 21:00 – A recent article by Cathal O'Madagain and Dr. Tomasello about "joint attention to mental content." 25:00 – A paper by Holger Diessel on demonstratives and joint attention. 25:00 – A video describing work that Dr. Tomasello and colleagues have carried out on chimpanzee theory of mind. A 2019 general audience article summarizing the state of this research. 28:00 – Dr. Tomasello's book on child development, Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny, was published in 2018. 31:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Tomasello on the importance of roles in human cognition and social life. 34:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Tomasello on the psychology behind the human sense of obligation. 35:00 – A paper of Art Markman and C. Hunt Stillwell on "role-governed categories." 36:00 – A paper by Christophe Boesch on "cooperative hunting roles" among chimpanzees. 38:00 – A very recent paper by Dr. Tomasello, "What is it like to be a chimpanzee?" 39:15 – A study by Dr. Tomasello and colleagues about whether apes (and children) monitor their decisions. 40:45 – Dr. Tomasello's most cited book, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, was published in 2001. 43:00 – Dr. Tomasello's next book, The Evolution of Agency, will be published in September by MIT press. You can read more about Dr. Tomasello's work at his website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Have you ever pondered the letter P, or maybe reflected on the letter R? As in, thought about their structures, their shapes, and how they came to be. I, to be honest, had not. I have never given these letters—or any other letters—much thought. But that's what we're up to today. In this episode, we're looking across the world's hundred plus scripts and asking some basic questions: How are they alike? How do they differ? And why do they have the shapes that they do? My guests are Dr. Yoolim Kim and Dr. Olivier Morin. Yoolim is a Psycholinguist at the Korea Institute at Harvard University, and Olivier is director of the Minds and Traditions research group (aka 'The Mint') at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany. Olivier and Yoolim, along with other colleagues, have recently launched a new online game called Glyph. You can play right now. It asks players to help describe, break down, and classify the characters of dozens of writing systems around the world. Here, we talk about Glyph and what Yoolim and Olivier hope to learn from it. We do a bit of 'Writing Systems 101' and shine a spotlight on two scripts with fascinating origin stories: Hangul, the Korean script which was devised in the 15th century and Vai, a script invented in Liberia in the 19th century. We also talk about how universal cognitive factors shape writing systems and about whether the writing system you use shapes how you think. Finally, we discuss the earliest writing systems and what they were used for; the myth that the alphabet is the most advanced type of writing system; and the understudied—but not uncommon!—phenomenon of "biscriptalism." If you enjoy this episode, be sure to check out Glyph. It sounds super fun and engrossing—and I'll definitely be playing it myself! On to my conversation with Dr. Yoolim Kim and Dr. Olivier Morin. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 2:30 – You can sign up to play Glyph and watch a video about the game here. 6:30 – The International Phonetic Alphabet or IPA. 10:00 – In addition to writing, Dr. Morin's group at the MPI has also studied coin designs and other aspects of visual culture. 16:30 – A paper by Dr. Morin and colleagues about writing as one of many kinds of "graphic codes." 18:40 – An explanation of the international laundry symbols. 19:50 – A video about how Egyptian hieroglyphs were decoded. A website where you can see your name written in Egyptian hieroglyphs. 24:50 – An article laying out five major types of writing system, distinguished by the linguistic unit they encode. 27:40 – More information about Hangul and Vai. 33:00 – A pioneering early paper by Mark Changizi and colleagues about the origins of letter shapes. 34:00 – A research paper by Dr. Morin about how cognitive biases for cardinal shapes and vertical symmetry shape letter forms. 37:30 – A cuneiform tablet, which shows how the script has a distinctive three-dimensional "wedge-shaped" quality. 41:30 – A research paper by Dr. Morin and colleagues on how the Vai script seems to have gotten simpler over its short history. A general audience treatment of the same study by co-author Piers Kelly. 42:00 – A research paper by Dr. Helena Miton and Dr. Morin about what determines the complexity of written letters. 45:00 – The Ogham script, which may have needed to grow more complex over time rather than simplify. 46:00 – An article on the origins of writing in different parts of the world. An article on the rebus principle. 48:30 – Our earlier essay on footprints, which discusses the idea that bird tracks inspired the Chinese writing system. 50:00 – A paper in which Dr. Morin and colleagues discuss the role of early writing in "recitation practices". 52:00 ­– The idea that literacy profoundly affects cognition was famously articulated by Jack Goody in The Domestication of the Savage Mind. A paper by Stanislas Dehaene and a colleague about the "Visual Word Form Area" and how it becomes rapidly specialized for reading. 55:00 – Korean readers are often "biscriptal" in that they are familiar with both Hangul and Hanja. 57:30 – A paper by Dr. Kim and colleagues on whether Hanja shapes the mental lexicon of Korean speakers. 59:00 – A research paper examining some of the effects of biscriptalism. 1:03 – A paper by Isabelle Dautriche and colleagues about how word forms are clustered in the lexicon. Dr. Kim recommends: In the Land of Invented Languages, by Arika Okrent Highly Irregular, by Arika Okrent Frindle, by Andrew Clements Dr. Morin recommends: The Greatest Invention, by Silvia Ferrara Stories of Your Life, by Ted Chiang Codes of the Underworld, by Diego Gambetta You can read more about Dr. Morin's lab on the Mint website and follow him on Twitter. You can read more about Dr. Kim's research here. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Found

Right now, as I'm recording this, there's an astonishing spectacle unfolding in the forests of Tennessee. Every June, vast swarms of Photinus carolinus fireflies light up the night there. The members of this particular species don't just blink erratically and independently. They sync up; they flash in a dazzling unison, creating waves of light that seem to propagate through the forest. But how do they do it? How do these tiny creatures pull off such a brilliant display? My guest today is Dr. Orit Peleg. She's an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science and the BioFrontiers Institute, at the University of Colorado – Boulder. Though a physicist by training, Orit and her lab focus on the dynamics of living systems, and they have recently taken up the puzzle of firefly synchrony. Here, we talk about what it's like to do fieldwork on fireflies. We discuss the colorful history of research in this area and how the phenomenon of firefly synchrony was originally contested and explained away. We talk about what Orit and her team have learned about the mechanisms of this synchrony—and about their methods, which include rich in-the-wild recordings, experiments involving tents and LEDs, and a fair bit of modeling and math. We also touch on the firing of neurons, the pulsing of heart cells, the clapping of hands, and other examples of synchronization in the natural world. As always, if you're enjoying the show, we would really appreciate a rating or review or a recommendation to a friend. Thanks so much in advance for your support. Alright, friends, on to my chat with Dr. Orit Peleg. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 2:30 – A video of firefly synchrony, produced by the Peleg lab from their own data, is available here. Other videos are here and here. A general audience essay about firefly synchrony that Dr. Peleg wrote is here; another general audience essay about the Peleg lab's work on fireflies is here. Firefly photography is an entire genre these days. 3:15 – Dr. Peleg and collaborators have conducted fieldwork on fireflies (different species) in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Arizona. 8:00 – The website of the mathematician and popularizer Steven Strogatz. 11:00 – An example of Dr. Peleg's work on bee swarms. A popular article she wrote on the topic. 13:30 – An example of an early report on firefly synchrony in Science magazine. Pioneering earlier work by Buck & Buck on the topic. An interview with Lynn Faust. 20:00 – Our previous episode on bat signals also discussed the issue of a congested signalling channel. 24:00 – Dr. Peleg and her lab have put out a number of studies on firefly synchrony in recent years—see here, here, and here (preprint). 32:00 – An academic review of the "integrate and fire" model. 34:00 – A video of an audience applauding and eventually syncing up. 40:00 – An article about the work of Todd Oakley on bioluminescence in sea fireflies. Edith Widder's book, Below the Edge of Darkness. 42:30 – An article by Dr. Peleg and a colleague on dung beetle navigation. Dr. Peleg recommends: Silent Sparks, by Sara Lewis Sync, by Steven Strogatz David Attenborough's Life that Glows You can read more about Dr. Peleg's work at her website and follow her on Twitter. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

When we think about ancient humans, we often imagine them doing certain kinds of things. Usually very serious things like hunting game and making tools, foraging for food and building fires, maybe performing the occasional intricate ritual. But there was definitely more to the deep past than all this adulting. There were children around, too—lots of them—no doubt running around and wreaking havoc, much as they do today. But what were the kids up to, exactly? What games were they playing? What toys did they have? What were their lives like? My guest today is Dr. Michelle Langley, an archaeologist at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia. Michelle grapples with questions about children, play, and childhood in the deep past. In recent work, she draws on ethnographic reports to assemble a picture of what children have in common all across the globe. She then uses that understanding to cast new light on the archaeological record, to make fresh inferences about what kids must have been doing, making, and leaving behind. In this conversation, Michelle and I talk about the kinds of basic activities that have long been a mainstay of childhood everywhere—activities like playing with dolls, keeping pets, collecting shells, and building forts. We discuss how archaeologists often assume that hard-to-interpret objects have ritual purpose, when, in fact, those objects could just as easily be toys. We talk about how children seek out and engineer "secret spaces". We also touch on how a male-centric bias has distorted archaeological discussions; how the baby sling may have been the primordial container; and how otters stash their favorite tools in their armpits. This is a super fun one, folks. But first a tiny bit of housekeeping: in case you missed the news, we have new newsletter. Seriously, who wouldn't want a monthly dose of Many Minds right in their inbox? You can find a sign-up link in the show notes. Alright friends, on to my conversation with Dr. Michelle Langley. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 2:30 – A 15,000 year old horse figurine from Les Espélugues cave in France. 6:00 – A classic paper by Conkey & Spector that helped initiate a wave of feminist archaeology. 7:30 – Dr. Langley's first paper to examine children's leavings in the archaeological record. 8:30 – See here for discussion and examples of perforated batons or bâton percés. 9:30 – Dr. Langley's paper, co-authored with Mirani Litster, 'Is it ritual? Or is it children?' 14:00 – An influential discussion of ethnographic analogies in archaeology. 18:30 – A paper on the interpretation of Dorset miniature harpoon heads. 23:30 – An article on the Neanderthal ornamental use of raptor feathers. 29:00 - Dr. Langley's paper on identifying children's secret spaces in the archaeological record. 30:30 – A book by David Sobel on children's special spaces. 34:00 – A website about the site of Étiolles. 40:00 – A figure showing the layout of the Bruniquel Cave, including the secondary structures. 41:00 ­– More information about the mammoth bone huts of Ukraine. 44:00 – A paper by Dr. Langley and Thomas Suddendorf on bags and other "mobile containers" in human evolution. 47:00 – A video showing a sea otter using their underarm "pocket" to store objects. 50:00 – The "carrier bag theory of evolution" was proposed by Elizabeth Fisher in Women's Creation. This later inspired Ursula Le Guin to propose the "carrier bag theory of fiction." 51:30 – An experimental study by Dr. Langley and colleagues on children's emerging intuitions about the use of containers and bags. 55:30 – A paper by Dr. Langley and colleagues on early symbolic behavior in Indonesia. Dr. Langley recommends: Growing up in the Ice Age, by April Nowell You can read more about Dr. Langley's work at her website and follow her on Twitter. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome back friends! Today's episode is an audio essay. Those who've listened to the show for a while now know that this is a classic Many Minds genre. But we actually haven't done one in quite awhile. This one takes on a topic that is big, consequential, and above all quite fun: our species' long-running obsession with our own uniqueness. I won't say too much more—don't want to spoil anything—but, like a lot of our essays, this one's a mix of history of ideas and contemporary science, leavened—naturally—with a bit of speculation. Oh, and some neologizing. There's a good neologism in here, or at least, a neologism. One news item before we get to the essay: we're stoked to announce the new Many Minds newsletter! The first edition is already out in the world—we'll put a link to that and to the sign-up form in the show notes. For now the plan is that each installment will include brief descriptions of the latest episodes, as well as a curated little link pack—links to 5-10 of the most interesting things we've come across recently. Installments will be monthly so shouldn't burden your inbox too much either. Again, look for the sign-up info in the show notes. Alright folks, now on to our essay on the quest for human uniqueness! A text version of this episode is also available on Medium. Notes 2:00 – The "great hippocampus" debate has been discussed by the neuroscientist Charles Gross here and here. 4:00 – For discussion of the "man alone among animals" trope, see here and here. 5:00 – For the idea that only humans cry emotional tears, see here. 5:20 – The suggestion of the term human cognitive "autapomorphies" is from Thomas Suddendorf. 6:00 – On the idea that, relative to other primates, we have strange sleeping habits, see here. 6:30 – The website in question is called the Matrix of Contemporary Anthropogeny and is put out by CARTA, a transdisciplinary center at UCSD. 7:15 – On Von Economo neurons, see here. 8:00 – On "categorical perception" in chinchillas, see here. 9:00 – For the famous Jane Goodall & Louis Leakey exchange, see here. 9:30 – The paper by Laland and Seed, 'Understanding Human Cognitive Uniqueness', is available here. 11:00 – On our motivation to police our own uniqueness, see here. 12:00 – On the scarcity of ion channels in human neurons, see here. On our attunement to abstract geometry, see here. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Your friend is in a bit of distress. They've just been dunked in a pool, and they can't pull themselves out. You're looking on as they're paddling furiously, trying to hold onto the pool's ledge. Fortunately, there's a way to save your friend, to give them an escape route. The thing is, there's also something else vying for your attention at the moment: a chunk of chocolate. So what do you do? Do you first nab the chocolate and then free your friend? Turns out that most rats in this position—that's right, rats—will first free their friend and then go for the chocolate. This is one of many studies that have raised profound questions about whether animals are moral beings, about whether they are capable of things like care and empathy. Such studies are doing more than raising questions about animal morality, though; they're also reshaping our understanding of what animal minds are capable of. My guests today are not one but two philosophers: Dr. Kristin Andrews, Professor of Philosophy at York University in Toronto and Dr. Susana Monsó, Assistant Professor in the Department of Logic, History, and Philosophy of Science at UNED in Spain. Both Susana and Kristin have emerged as central figures in the new conversations and debates that springing about animal minds and animal morality. We cover a lot of ground in this episode. We talk about rats and empathy. We discuss the role of philosophy in the crossdisciplinary study of animal cognition. We talk about Kristin's most recent book, which is a critical consideration of how scientists are trained to study animals, and Susana's book, which is an extended investigation into animals' understandings of death. We zoom in on the "animal morality debate"—about whether animals should be considered moral beings. We consider how touch might inform the debate and social norms and morality are deeply enmeshed than you may realize. As we navigate these lofty ideas, we also touch on the use of thermography to study emotions in marmosets, planning in orangutans, tongue-biting in orcas, and playing dead in possums. This is basically a double episode. It features two amazing guests. It takes on two big topics—the study of animal minds in general and the animal morality debate in particular. It's also a tad longer than our usual fare, but I promised its packed with useful frameworks, provocative findings, and a bunch of open questions. I think it also picks up steam as we go—so be sure to stick with it, through to the second half. Alright folks, as always, thanks so much for listening. And be sure to send us your guest and topic ideas, your glowing reviews, and your crotchety comments. You can reach us on Twitter or by email at [email protected]. Now for my conversation with Dr. Susana Monsó and Dr. Kristin Andrews. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 5:00 – An essay by Dr. Andrews & Dr. Monsó in Aeon magazine, about how rats deserve ethical protections. 7:30 – A popular article about findings that vervet monkeys socially learn food preferences. The original research paper is here. 9:10 – A popular article on the findings that rats can learn to play hide-and-seek. 22:00 – Dr. Andrews' most recent book is How to Study Animal Minds. Her earlier book, The Animal Mind, is now out in a second edition. 24:00 – Morgan's Canon has been widely discussed and criticized in recent decades (see here, here, and here). 27:00 – A paper by Dr. Andrews on the role of folk psychology in animal cognition research. 33:00 – A paper by Dr. Andrews discussing the idea of "anthropectomy." 34:00 – The paper by Dan Dennett that makes the distinction between "romantics" and "killjoys." 35:20 – Dr. Monsó's recent book (in Spanish) translates as Schrödinger's Opossum. See also: her essay in Aeon about the phenomenon of "playing dead" and what it tells us about predator cognition; and her recent philosophical papers on the same topic (here, here). 49:30 – See the recent chapter by Dr. Monsó & Dr. Andrews on "animal moral psychologies." See also a paper by Dr. Monsó and colleagues, 'Animal morality: What it means and why it matters.' 51:30 – A classic article by Frans de Waal, 'Putting the altruism back into altruism.' 53:40 – An "appreciation and update" to Tinbergen's four questions. 58:00 – For a review of some of the "rat empathy" studies, see the "animal moral psychologies" chapter by Dr. Monsó & Dr. Andrews. This line of work began with a paper by Bartal and colleagues in 2011. A skeptical take can be found here. 1:01 – A popular article on how chimpanzees pass the "marshmallow test." 1:04:00 – A paper on (the apparent absence of) "third-party punishment" in chimpanzees. 1:06:00 – A recent paper using thermography to gauge whether marmosets understand each other's "conversations." 1:08:00 – One of the now-famous "ape suit" studies by Chris Krupenye and colleagues. 1:11:30 – A recent paper by Dr. Andrews on the possibility of animal social norms. 1:17:00 – A recent

Welcome back friends and happy spring! (Or fall, as the case may be.) Today's show takes on a disarmingly simple question: What is language for? As in, why do we say things to each other? What do words do for us? Why do our languages label some aspects of the world, but not others? My guest today is Dr. Nick Enfield. He's Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney. Nick has authored or edited more than a dozen books on different aspects of human language and communication—books on word meaning, gesture, conversation, social interaction, the languages of Southeast Asia, and more. His latest book, just published by MIT press, is titled Language vs Reality: Why Language is Good for Lawyers and Bad for Scientists. In it, Nick argues that language is pretty awful at capturing reality—but actually that's fine, because capturing reality isn't the primary reason we use it. The real reason, in his view, is to coordinate with others. In this conversation, Nick and I flesh out this way of thinking about language as foremost a social coordination tool. Along the way, we talk about the two "reductions" that happen as brute reality gets transmuted into words. We discuss the economist Thomas Schelling and so-called Schelling maps. We talk about color words and plant names, salt and spoons, the insights of Benjamin Lee Whorf, the idea of "verbal overshadowing," and a bunch of other phenomena and thinkers. As I say in the interview, Nick has one of the most expansive views of human language of anyone I know. He draws on anthropology, economics, primatology, developmental psychology, not to mention decades of his own fieldwork in Laos. That expansive—one might say, "many minded"—perspective is on full display here. Briefly, before we get to the conversation: if you have any ideas for future guests or topics—or want to lodge some criticisms—you can reach out to us at [email protected]. That's [email protected]. We're always eager to hear from listeners. Alright friends, now to my conversation with Dr. Nick Enfield. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 10:00 – Dr. Enfield's 2002 edited book on "ethnosyntax." Here is a brief overview of serial verb constructions. 15:30 – Dr. Enfield has another book coming out later this year, with Jack Sidnell, titled Consequences of Language. 20:00 – The website of the influential semanticist Anna Wierzbicka, one of Dr. Enfield's early mentors. 22:45 – Roger Brown's classic 1958 paper 'How shall a thing be called?' 24:30 – Daniel Dor's 2015 book, The Instruction of the Imagination. 25:40 – A popular article about the contributions of the economist Thomas Schelling. Another article on his notion of "focal points." 37:00 – The classic treatment of color terms across languages is Berlin & Kay's 1991 book Basic Color Terms. 40:00 – Dr. Enfield spent a large portion of his early career at the MPI for Psycholinguistics. 44:45 – The classic treatment of plant names across cultures is Berlin's book, Ethnobiological Classification. 49:30 – Dr. Enfield has been documenting Kri, an indigenous language in Laos. 53:00 – The classic study on "verbal overshadowing" was done by Schooler & Engstler-Schooler in 1990. 58:20 – A classic paper by Krebs and Dawkins on signaling in nonhuman animals. 1:00:00 – The website of the influential (late) linguist Wallace Chafe. 1:08:30 – A widely-circulated 2013 paper by Dr. Enfield and colleagues on whether "huh" is a universal word. Spoiler: it seems to be. 1:10:00 - The researcher Jim Hurford has written several influential books on the evolution of language. Dr. Enfield recommends: Origins of Human Communication, by Michael Tomasello Social Intelligence and Interaction, edited by Esther Goody Language, Thought, and Reality, by Benjamin Lee Whorf You can read more about Dr. Enfield's work at his website and follow him on Twitter. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Friends—we're busy with some spring cleaning this week, but will be back in mid-April. In the meanwhile, here's a favorite audio essay from our archives. Enjoy! ______ Welcome back folks! Today is a return to one of our favorite formats: the audio essay. If you like your audio essays short, concise, and full of tidbits, then this one will not disappoint. We take a look at a 140-year-old idea but very much a radical one—the root-brain hypothesis. It was proposed by Charles Darwin in a book published in the twilight of his career. The idea, in short, is that plants have a structure that is, in some ways, brain-like—and it is located underground, at their roots. We talk about how Darwin and his son Francis arrived at this idea, why it was ignored for so long, and how it's recently stirred to life. Enjoy! A text version of this essay is available here. Notes and links 2:15 – The last page of Darwin's The Power of Movement in Plants (1880). 3:25 – The 2009 paper by Dr. Baluška and colleagues about the history and modern revival of the "root-brain hypothesis." 6:00 – The tinfoil hats experiment—and its influence—is discussed in this 2009 paper. 8:00 – The dust-up between Darwin and Sachs is described in this 1996 paper. 8:47 – The 2011 paper listing many of the environmental variables plants are now known to be sensitive to. 9:28 – Dr. Gagliano and colleagues' paper on associative learning in plant and on plants' use of sounds to find water. The possibility of echolocation is discussed here. 9:45 – For broader context surrounding the question of plants may have something like a brain, see Oné R. Pagán's essay titled 'The brain: A concept in flux.' 9:57 – The 2006 paper that inaugurated the field of "plant neurobiology." 10:34 – Discussions of the "transition zone" of the root can be found in the 2009 paper by Baluška and colleagues, as well as in this more technical paper from 2010. 11:00 – The response letter to the original "plant neurobiology" paper, signed by 36 plant biologists. 12:00 – Michael Pollan's 2013 article 'The Intelligent Plant' in The New Yorker. 12:05 – Anthony Trewavas's letter, highlighting the power of metaphors in science. 12:26 – The 2020 paper about pea tendrils in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Correction: The audio version of this episode misstates the publication year of Darwin's final book, about worms. The correct year is 1881, not 1883. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

It's an old question: How does experience shape our minds and brains? Some people play the piano; others drive taxis; others grow up trilingual. For years now, scientists have examined how these and other kinds of life experiences can lead to subtle differences in our concepts and cortexes. But to really push on the question, to really explore the limits of how experience can rewire us, some researchers have turned to an especially dramatic case: blindness. What does a life without visual input do to the mind and brain? My guest today is Dr. Marina Bedny, an Associate Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Johns Hopkins University. For more than a decade now, Marina has been researching blindness and, in particular, what blindness can tell us much about where our concepts come from and about how our brains get organized. Here, Marina and I discuss how people who have been blind since birth nonetheless develop rich, sophisticated understandings of the visual world. We talk about how the visual cortex in blind folks gets repurposed for other decidedly non-visual functions, like language. We consider the intriguing findings that blind people very often outperform sighted people in certain kinds of tasks. On the way, we also touch on John Locke and the British empiricists; the notion of cortical recycling; the possibility of re-opening the brain's critical periods; and a bunch else. This was a super thought-provoking conversation—I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I think you will too. But, before we get to it, a final reminder about the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, or DISI. This year's DISI will be not only in-person but held in the charming seaside city of St Andrews, Scotland. More details at disi.org. The application window is only open for a little while longer, so better act fast. Alright friends, on to my chat with Dr. Marina Bedny. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 3:30 ­– A popular article and video on the ideas of John Locke and other empiricists. 4:50 – One of the original articles by the philosopher Frank Jackson on Mary the color scientist. 7:35 – The 1985 book by Dr. Barbara Landau and Dr. Lila Gleitman on language acquisition in (a few) blind children. 11:00 – Dr. Bedny's first study involving blind subjects, in collaboration with Dr. Alvaro Pascual-Leone and Dr. Rebecca Saxe. 15:00 – A recent study in Dr. Bedny's lab, led by Dr. Judy Kim, comparing color knowledge in blind and sighted adults. 23:30 – A recent study by Dr. Bedny and collaborators on blind people's understanding of visual verbs like sparkle, glow, peek, and stare. 30:30 – A recent study in Dr. Bedny's lab, led by Dr. Judy Kim, comparing knowledge of animal appearance in blind and sighted adults. 34:00 – Tour an interactive model of the visual cortex—and the rest of the brain—here. 36:00 – A now-classic paper by Dr. Norihiro Sadato and colleagues on how reading Braille activates blind people's "visual" cortex. 37:30– The "metamodal" hypothesis and the "pluripotent" hypothesis are compared in Dr. Bedny's recent article in TiCs. 45:30 – A 2011 paper by Dr. Bedny and colleagues about how, in blind people, the "visual" cortex is involved in language processing. 49:00 – A paper showing that "visual" areas in blind people are highly synchronized when listening to stories. A more recent paper in a similar vein. 53:00 – A now-classic paper by Dehaene and Cohen on the "cultural recycling" of certain brain areas. 56:00 – A paper by Dr. Bedny and colleagues on sensitive periods and cortical specialization. 1:01:00 – A recent paper from Dr. Bedny's lab, led by Karen Arcos, showing superior verbal working memory in blind relative to sighted adults. 1:03:30 – Another study from Dr. Bedny's lab showing that blind people are less likely than sighted people to be led astray by garden-path sentences. Dr. Bedny recommends: Her TiCs article on the "pluripotent cortex" Recent papers (e.g. here and here) from her lab led by Dr. Judy Kim A now-classic paper on cortical recycling. You can read more about Dr. Bedny's work at her lab's website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMind

To be a good magician, you have to be a good psychologist. If you want to pull off a really good magic trick, you need to know your audience—what they are likely to attend to or gloss over, what shortcuts they take, what predictions they tend to make. Which all raises a question: Could you get to know a new audience, a very different audience, by seeing which tricks they fall for and which they don't? Could we use magic as a scientific tool, in other words, as a window into minds that may be quite unlike our own? My guest today is Dr. Nicola Clayton. Nicky is Professor of Comparative Cognition in the Psychology department at the University of Cambridge. She is this year's winner of the prestigious ASAB medal, awarded by Association for the Study of Animal Behavior. Nicky is perhaps best known for her research on birds—corvids in particular—and how they show evidence of sophisticated cognitive abilities like memory, planning, mental time travel, and even understanding of other minds. Recently, Nicky and her colleagues have been up to something new: showing magic tricks to birds, as a way of probing their impressive mental capacities. Here, Nicky and I talk about why magic is a useful tool for psychologists. We discuss her pioneering earlier work on corvids and, in particular, on how they hide or "cache" vast amounts of food. We talk about how corvids protect their caches from would-be thieves using tactics that, curiously, resemble some of those used by human magicians. We dive into some recent studies from Nicky's lab that involved showing classic magic tricks to Eurasian jays. And, finally, we get a tiny taste of what might be coming up in this line of research. Before we get to it, one quick announcement: Applications are now open for the 2022 Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute or DISI. After two years in the Zoomverse, DISI will be back in 3D this summer in St Andrews, Scotland. If you like the topics we talk about on this show, it's a pretty safe bet you'd be into DISI. So check out disi.org for more info. Alright folks, without further hocus pocus, here's my conversation about magic and birds with Dr. Nicky Clayton. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 2:45 ­– A recent editorial in Science by Dr. Clayton and colleagues about the promise of using magic to illuminate animal minds. 4:45 – One of Dr. Clayton's primary collaborators on her magic studies is Clive Wilkins, who is an artist, writer, and professional magician. He is a member of the Magic Circle in London. 8:30 – For more on tool use in corvids, see our prior episode with Dr. Alex Taylor. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Clayton have collaborated on a number of studies. 10:30 – A 2004 paper in Science by Dr. Clayton and Dr. Nathan Emery on the convergent evolution of intelligence in apes and corvids. A recent paper on physical and social intelligence in ravens. 14:00 – Dr. Clayton has authored a number of influential studies on caching behavior in corvids; see here, here, and here, among others. 17:30 – A paper by Dr. Clayton and a colleague on how caching jays are sensitive to who can hear them caching. 21:30 – A recent paper in PNAS by Dr. Clayton and her colleagues, including lead author Elias Garcia-Pelegrin, examining three sleight of hand tricks in jays and humans. 24:00 – A recent video profile of Dr. Clayton's line of work on magic includes examples of these sleight of hand tricks. 27:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Clayton and her colleagues, including lead author Dr. Alex Schnell, examining a version of the "cup and balls" trick, also shown to jays. 35:00 – The proposed priming experiment was inspired by a recent paper on subconscious gestural priming in humans. 36:00 – For work on cephalopods, see our prior episode with Dr. Alex Schnell, who has collaborated with Dr. Clayton on the magic work in addition to wave-making studies on cephalopods. Dr. Clayton recommends: A profile of her lab's work on magic in New Scientist Bird Brain, by Nathan Emery Experiencing the Impossible, by Gustav Kuhn You can find Dr. Clayton on Twitter (@nickyclayton22). Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

I have this theory about podcasts—it's almost certainly not original, and it's probably not right. But anyway, I have this theory that what makes for a great podcast episode is really just a few good moments. Sure, it's nice if the conversation has a satisfying arc and good energy; it's great if it's not too dense or repetitive—all that stuff matters. But I think what really makes an interview stick out for us—and stick with us—are these little time slices. Charged little moments that burn a little brighter. On Many Minds, those moments might come when someone is telling us about their big idea or reframe, a sudden realization they had, maybe just a charming factoid. It might come from them transporting us to a recent research trip, or musing on what it's like to be another creature. It really could come from almost anywhere honestly. So on the occasion of our 2nd birthday— okay, fine, I seem to have buried the lead. We have a birthday this week: we are turning two years old. Incredible—I know. It's really gone by in a flash, but also felt like eons and all that. But anyway, on the occasion of our 2nd birthday, we wanted to look back at some of our favorite moments from the first two years. Fair warning, this is a highly selective selection. We weren't able to feature all our episodes—less than half of them, actually. And those that are featured have been reduced to a tiny snippet. So it's a selective and reductive sample but hopefully somehow still a satisfying one. One more thing: some of you will no doubt be wondering what to get us for our birthday. Great question. In lieu of the usual cake or cards or cash, we would happily take a rating or review, a forward to a friend, or a shout out on social media. All that stuff makes us feel good, and ensures that we can keep going and keep growing. Alright friends without further ado, here's a select few of our favorite moments from the show—interleaved with bits of context and commentary. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Episodes excerpted: Bat Signals Clever Crows and Cheeky Keas Our Pranking Primate Cousins The Roots of Rhythm How Do Chimps Communicate? The Scents of Language Of Bees and Brains Architects of the Underworld Cultures of the Deep Intoxication Revising the Neanderthal Story The Savvy Cephalopod From Where We Stand Culture, Innovation, and the Collective Brain Aligning AI with Our Values Babies, Grandmas, and Our Most Human Capacities Born to be Cultured Why Do We Dream? Why is AI So Hard? Mind Everywhere

You have a big brain. I have a big brain. We, as a species, have pretty big brains. But this wasn't always the case. Way back when, our brains were much smaller; then they went through a bit of growth spurt, one that lasted for a couple million years. This steady ballooning of brain size is one of the key themes of the human story. But then there's a late-breaking twist in that story—a kind of unexpected epilogue. You see, after our brains grew, they shrank. But when this shrinkage happened and—of course, why—have remained mysterious. My guest today is Jeremy DeSilva, a paleoanthropologist at Dartmouth College. He's an expert on the evolution of the foot and ankle. But, it turns out the body is all connected, so he also thinks about brains and heads. In a recent paper, Jerry and his colleagues took up the mystery of human brain shrinkage. They first set out to establish more precisely when in our past this occurred. Using a large database of crania, spanning few million years, Jerry's team was able to establish that this shrinkage event happened much more recently than previously thought—a mere 3000 years ago. Naturally, the next question was why? What happened around that time that could have possibly caused our brains to deflate? To answer this, Jerry and his collaborators turned to an unexpected source of insight: Ants. That's right, ants. They argue that these ultrasocial critters may offer clues to why we might have suddenly dispensed with a chunk of brain about the size of a lemon. This is a really juicy paper and a super fun conversation, so we should just get to it. But I did want to mention: Jerry has a recent book from 2021 called First Steps that I whole-heartedly recommend. It's about origins of upright walking in humans—which it turns out, is bound up with all kinds of other important aspects of being human. So definitely check that out! Thanks folks—on to my chat with Dr. Jerry DeSilva. Enjoy! The paper we discuss is available here. A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 3:00 ­– A podcast episode from the Leakey Foundation about the so-called "obstetrical dilemma." 5:40 – A refresher for those who have trouble keeping their 'cenes' straight: the Pleistocene refers to the period from 2.58 million years ago to 11,700 years ago; immediately after that came the Holocene, which we are still in today. 7:00 – An article discussing the issue of unethical collections of human remains. 10:30 – The key figure form Dr. DeSilva's paper—showing the changing "slopes" of brain size over time—is available here. 19:30 – The original article by Leslie Aiello and Peter Wheeler on the "expensive tissue hypothesis." A more recent popular article on the hypothesis. 20:45 – An article by a major proponent of the social intelligence hypothesis, Dr. Robin Dunbar. A more critical review of the social intelligence hypothesis. 23:00 – A recent paper by Jeff Stibel and an older preprint by John Hawks evaluating the "body size" explanation of recent brain shrinkage. 24:00 – See our earlier episode on human self-domestication with Brian Hare. 29:00 – One of Dr. DeSilva's collaborators on this research is Dr. James Traniello, who specializes in ants. 34:45 – An overview of the earliest history of writing. 37:20 – Dr. DeSilva's book, First Steps, came out in 2021. 39:00 – A recent paper discussing the evolution of rotational birth in humans. Dr. DeSilva recommends: Kindred, by Rebecca Wragg Sykes (featured in an earlier episode!) Origin, by Jennifer Raff You can find Dr. DeSilva on Twitter. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

You've probably seen those lists of the so-called "wonders of the world." Many are works of architecture: the Great Wall, the pyramids, the colosseum, Taj Mahal. But these lists are, in a sense, always incomplete. Our world holds other architectural wonders, after all—albeit ones that are hidden from human eyes, made from different materials, and a bit scaled down. I'm talking, of course, about the wonders of the underworld. I'm talking about ant nests. My guest today is Dr. Walter Tschinkel. Walter is an Emeritus Professor of Biological Science at Florida State University, where he's led a distinguished career as a myrmecologist—a scientist who studies ants. He's the author of the recent book Ant Architecture: The Wonder, Beauty, and Science of Underground Nests. For decades now, Walter has been delving into ant colonies using a variety of creative, homegrown techniques. Foremost among these is his method of "nest casting"—the process of making durable, three-dimensional casts of ant nests. In this conversation, Walter and I do a bit of "Ants 101." We discuss the notion of ant colonies as superorganisms. We talk about how Walter developed his nest-casting technique (not to mention other ingenious methods). We discuss where the blueprint for an ant nest resides, and whether ants might appreciate the beauty of their own nests. We also talk about the scientific process—about the joys of low-tech problem solving, about the importance of negative results, and about the pleasure of pursuing a good scientific mystery. One last thing I'll mention: a podcast really can't do justice to these ant nests. So be sure check out the show notes below—and also Walter's gorgeously illustrated book—to see these architectural wonders for yourselves. Alright, folks, on to my conversation with Dr. Walter Tschinkel. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 5:00 – Dr. E. O. Wilson, one of the starts of myrmecology, recently passed away at the age of 92. Read a recent tribute to him. 6:00 – Dr. Tschinkel's previous book, published in 2013, was The Fire Ants. 6:30 – See a recent popular article about harvester ants. 10:20 – An interactive map showing the diversity of ant species. 15:00 – On the "superorganism" concept, see the book by the same name by Bert Hölldobler & E. O. Wilson. 20:30 – A figure from an academic paper showing the excavation of a giant leafcutter ant colony in Brazil. See also this 2012 popular article. 24:05 – A photo of Dr. Tschinkel's original plaster cast that has made the rounds on the internet. You can also view numerous other images of Dr. Tschinkel's nest casts in this recent paper. Finally, check out this recent video showcasing some of Dr. Tschinkel's methods and nest casts. 29:00 – A recent paper on the division of labor in leafcutter ants, and another paper critiquing the concept of division of labor as applied to ants. 38:30 – A recent editorial on null results in science. 39:00 – An article by Dr. Tschinkel describing his technique for building artificial ice nests. 43:00 – A photo showing the contrast between the charcoal-covered nest disk of an old harvester ant colony with the in-progress (uncharcoaled) nest disk of a new colony. 54:15 – Here Dr. Tschinkel is referring to two books: On size and life, and Scaling: Why is animal size so important? 56:00 – A recent article on the so-called "insect apocalypse." Dr. Tschinkel recommends the following books: The Ants, by Bert Hölldobler & E. O. Wilson The Superorganism, by Bert Hölldobler & E. O. Wilson The Guests of Ants, by Bert Hölldobler & Christina Kwapich For more on ant architecture, be sure to check out Dr. Tschinkel's fascinating book! Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

We're on a brief winter break right now, but we'll be back later in January. To tide you over, here's one of our favorite episodes from 2021: a conversation with Dr. Luke Rendell about culture in whales and dolphins. Enjoy! -- Whales and dolphins are, without a doubt, some of the most charismatic, enigmatic creatures around. Part of what draws us to them is that­—different as our worlds are from theirs, different as our bodies are—we sense a certain kinship. We know they've got big brains, much like we do. We know that some cetacean species live long lives, sing songs, and form close bonds. If you're like me, you may have also wondered about other parallels. For example, do whales and dolphins have something we might want to call culture? If so, what do those cultures look like? What sorts of traditions might these animals be innovating and circulating down in the depths? On this week's episode I chatted with Dr. Luke Rendell, a Reader in the School of Biology and a member of the Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. He's been studying cetaceans for more than two decades. He's the author, with Hal Whitehead, of the 2014 book The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins. (You can probably guess by the book's title where Luke comes down on the question of cetacean culture.) Luke's work is, to my mind, an impressive blend of naturalistic observation, cutting edge methods, and big-picture theorizing. In this conversation, Luke and I do a bit of "Cetaceans 101." We talk about what culture is and why whale song is a good example of it. We discuss lob-tail feeding in humpback whales and tail-walking in bottlenose dolphins. We talk about Luke's very recent work on how sperm whales in the 19th century may have learned from each other how to evade whalers. And we discuss why an understanding of culture may be crucial for ongoing cetacean conservation efforts. We didn't plumb all the depths of this rich topic—nor did we exhaust all the maritime puns—but we did have a far-reaching chat about some of the most fascinating beings on our planet and their distinctive cultures. As always, thanks a bunch for listening folks. On to my conversation with Dr. Luke Rendell. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 2:30 – My favorite edition of Moby Dick (for what it's worth). 6:45 – A primer on cetaceans. 9:30 – A paper on the ins and outs of the whale nose. 10:45 – A general audience article about echolocation in cetaceans, drawing on this recent academic article. 12:30 ­– A discussion of Roger Payne's storied whale song album. 19:00 – A paper on cetacean brain and body size. 19:45 – Dr. Rendell's 2001 article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, co-authored with Hal Whitehead. The paper made a splash. 24:50 – A paper by Dr. Rendell and colleagues describing some of his work on whale song. 26:40 – The 2000 paper by Michael Noad and colleagues, presenting some of compelling early evidence for whale song as a culturally transmitted phenomenon. 28:30 – A subsequent paper by Ellen Garland, Michael Noad, and colleagues showing further evidence for the socially transmitted nature of song. 31:45 – Dr. Rendell has also done important theoretical work on social learning strategies. See, for instance, here and here. 33:24 – An article offering evidence of imitation in killer whales. 36:10 – The paper by Dr. Rendell and colleagues on lob-tail feeding in humpback whales. 36:35 – A video illustrating "bubble net feeding." 47:45 – The paper by Dr. Rendell and colleagues on tail-walking in dolphins. 55:30 – The paper by Dr. Rendell and colleagues on 19th century sperm whales' evasion tactics, as well as a popular piece on the same. 57:00 – A website documenting various aspects of whaling history. 1:05:00 – A recent discussion of gene-culture co-evolution across animal species. 1:10:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Rendell and (many) colleagues about how an appreciation of animal culture offers important lessons for conservation. Dr. Rendell's end of show recommendations: Dolphin Politics in Shark Bay, by Richard Connor Deep Thinkers, edited by Janet Mann The Wayfinders, by Wade Davis You can keep up with Dr. Rendell on Twitter (@_lrendell). Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the

A pharmacologist and a philosopher walk into a bar. This is not the start of a joke—it's the start of our 2021 finale and our first ever theme episode. The idea with these theme episodes is that we have not one but two guests, from different fields, coming together to discuss a topic of mutual interest. Our theme for this first one—in the spirit of the holiday season—is intoxication and our guests are Dr. Oné Pagán and Dr. Edward Slingerland. Oné is a Professor of Biology at West Chester University and our pharmacologist in residence for this episode. He just published Drunk flies and stoned dolphins: A trip through the world of animal intoxication. Ted is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia and our resident philosopher. He is the author of the recent book Drunk: How we sipped, danced, and stumbled our way into civilization. We range over a lot of ground in this conversation. We talk about alcohol as a kind of pharmacological "hand grenade"—whereas other substances are more like "scalpels". We touch on catnip, cannabis, psychedelic fungi, and poison toads. We discuss Asian flushing genes and what they might suggest about the functions of alcohol. We talk about self-medication in the animal kingdom and in Neanderthals. We size up the "drunken monkey", "stoned ape", and "beer before bread" hypotheses. And though we mostly keep things light and festive here, we also do delve into the dark side of intoxication—which may have gotten that much darker with the advent of distilled liquor. Whether you're a tippler or a teetotaler, I'm guessing you'll find this to be a heady conversation. Did you really think I was going to make it to the end of this intro without a single intoxication-related pun? You know me better. Alright friends—be well, be merry, and be safe this holiday season. We'll be back in mid-January after a not so long winter's nap. Now on to my conversation with Dr. Oné Pagán and Ted Slingerland. Cheers! A transcript of this episode is now available. Notes and links 4:00 – The "write drunk, edit sober" idea is sometimes (mis)attributed to Ernest Hemingway. 8:00 – Dr. Pagán wrote an earlier book about his favored model organism, the planaria (or flatworms). You may recall we discussed planaria in our recent episode with Dr. Michael Levin. 10:10 – Dr. Slingerland wrote an earlier book about the Chinese ideal of wu-wei. See this brief discussion of his ideas in The Marginalian. 13:00 – The idea of alcohol as pharmacological "hand grenade" is a metaphor due to Steven Braun. 19:30 – An article in Science about "why cats are crazy for catnip." 21:20 – A recent article in The Conversation about Asian flushing genes. 26:00 – Thomas Hunt Morgan, who won the Nobel Prize in 1933, pioneered the use of drosophila as an animal model. 28:20 – An article on the inebriometer (with an accompanying illustration). 33:00 – The biologist Robert Dudley introduced the "drunken monkey" hypothesis. A recent synopsis by Dudley. 38:00 – Not to be confused with the "stoned ape" hypothesis, which was introduced by Terrence McKenna. A recent popular article on the hypothesis. 41:00 – The idea of psychedelics as introducing "mutagens" into culture comes from How to Change Your Mind, by Michael Pollan. 44:00 – A recent popular article on the "beer before bread" hypothesis. The idea was originally proposed in 1953. 48:50 – Pharmaceutical practices of non-human animals are called "zoopharmacognosy." A 2014 summary of findings about animal self-medication. 53:00 – The original report in Science on the "flower burial" in Shanidar cave. 56:20 – The Laussel Venus appears to be drinking (alcohol?) from a horn. 59:20 – An article describing the tragic case of Tusko the elephant. 1:03:50 – One example of practices that moderate alcohol's dangerous effect is the Greek symposium. 1:08:00 – A brief history of distillation, which is a relatively recent invention. 1:11:00 – Planaria are widely used as an animal model for understanding nicotine, among other intoxicating substances. Dr. Slingerland recommends the following books: Buzz, by Steven Braun Drink, by Iain Gately A Short History of Drunkenness, by Mark Forsyth Dr. Pagán recommends the following book: Intoxication, by Ronald Siegel You can find Dr. Slingerland on Twitter (@slingerland20) and follow him at his website; you can find Dr. Pagán on Twitter (@Baldscientist), follow him at his website, and listen to his podcast. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many

You may not remember much about it, but chances are last night you went on a journey. As you slept, your brain concocted a story—maybe a sprawl of interconnected stories. It took you to some unreal places, gave you superpowers, unearthed old acquaintances, and twisted your perceptions. Meanwhile, billions of brains all around you, up and down the tree of life, were probably doing something very similar—dreaming, that is. But why do we do this? What could possibly be the function of these nightly ramblings? My guest today is Dr. Erik Hoel. He is a writer and a neuroscientist at Tufts University. In a paper published earlier this year, Erik presented a new theory of why we (and other creatures) dream. It's called the "over-fitted brain hypothesis"; the basic idea is that dreaming helps us stay cognitively limber, adaptable—less tied to the particulars of our previous experiences. Erik and I discuss how he came to this new theory. We talk about how his account develops an analogy between the "overfitting" problem in machine learning and the "overfitting" problem that biological brains face as well. We discuss how his hypothesis can account for the bizarre nature of dream experience. And we consider Erik's provocative suggestion that dreams are really just one type of fiction—biological fictions, if you like—and that other types of fiction may serve similar purposes. Erik is a fascinating, wide-ranging thinker (there aren't a lot of neuroscientists who also write novels). And this is a conversation I'll be chewing on for some time. It takes on one of those timeless questions about human experience—why we dream—from an angle that feels fresh and energizing. Alright friends, on to my conversation with Dr. Erik Hoel. Hope you enjoy it! The paper we discuss is available here. A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 4:00 – Dreams have been in the news recently, with reports of an uptick in strange dreams during the pandemic. 9:30 – An early study on "dream deprivation." 11:00 – An article on the idea that dreams serve memory consolidation. 23:00 – A study showing that we don't dream about reading or writing. 27:30 – An attempt to solve a Rubik's cube with a robot hand. 32:00 – An influential paper articulating the synaptic homeostasis hypothesis. 38:30 – A recent paper on the question of whether animals like octopuses dream. 42:00 – We've discussed Pinker's "music is like cheesecake" analogy in previous episodes, most recently in our discussion of the evolution of music. 46:00 – For more on these ideas, see Dr. Hoel's essay 'Enter the Supersensorium'—and be sure to check out his new novel The Revelations! You can find Dr. Hoel on Twitter (@erikphoel) and subscribe his newsletter on Substack. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

I'm betting you've heard about the next generation of artificial intelligence, the one that's just around the corner. It's going to be pervasive, all-competent, maybe super-intelligent. We'll rely on it to drive cars, write novels, diagnose diseases, and make scientific breakthroughs. It will do all these things better, faster, more safely than we bumbling humans ever could. The thing is, we've been promised this for years. If this next level of AI is coming, it seems to be taking its time. Might it be that AI is taking awhile because it's simply harder than we thought? My guest today is Dr. Melanie Mitchell. She is the Davis Professor at the Santa Fe Institute and the author of a number of books, including her latest, which is titled 'Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans.' In this conversation we zoom in on Melanie's widely discussed recent essay, 'Why AI is harder than we think.' We talk about the repeating cycle of hype and disenchantment within AI, and how it stretches back to the first years of the field. We walk through four fallacies that Mitchell identifies that lead us to think that super smart AI is closer than it actually is. We talk about self-driving cars, brittleness, adversarial perturbations, Moravec's paradox, analogy, brains in vats, and embodied cognition, among other topics. And we discuss an all-important concept, one we can't easily define but we can all agree AI is sorely lacking: common sense. Across her scholarly publications and public-facing essays, Melanie has recently emerged as one of our most cogent and thoughtful guides to AI research. I've been following her work for a while now and was really stoked to get to chat with her. Her essay is insightful, lucid, and just plain fun—if you enjoy this conversation, I definitely suggest you check it out for yourselves. Alright folks, on to my conversation with Dr. Melanie Mitchell. And for those in the US—happy thanksgiving! The paper we discuss is available here. A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 5:00 – A recent essay by Dr. Mitchell on self-driving cars and common sense. 14:00 – An influential paper from 2013 titled 'Intriguing properties of neural networks.' 16:50 – A video introduction to "deep learning." 19:00 – A paper on "first step fallacies" in AI by Hubert Dreyfus. 21:00 – For a discussion of Alpha Go's recent success with the game of Go, see our earlier interview with Dr. Marta Halina. 26:00 – An influential 1976 paper titled, 'Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity.' 31:00 – A popular Twitter account that tags recent findings with "In mice." 38:00 – A paper by Lawrence Barsalou on "grounded cognition." For related ideas see Lakoff & Johnson's Metaphors We Live By. 41:00 – A recent book by Brian Cantwell Smith, The Promise of Artificial Intelligence. 43:00 – An article on the idea of "core knowledge." 47:00 – The CYC project. 49:30 – A recent article by Dr. Mitchell about analogies people have been using to understand COVID-19. 50:30 – An op-ed by Dr. Mitchell about why we should not worry os much about super-intelligence. End-of-show recommendations: Dr. Mitchell's 2019 book, Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans Blake et al., 2017, 'Building Machines that Think and Learn Like People' Chollet, 2019, 'On the Measure of Intelligence' You can find Dr. Mitchell on Twitter (@MelMitchell1) and follow his research at her website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

If you're a brain, it can be tough to stay organized. The world comes at you fast, from all angles, in different sensory formats—sights, sounds, smells. You need to take it all in, but you also need to parse it, process it, categorize it, remember and learn from it. And of course you also need react to it, preferably appropriately. So what do you do—as a brain—to handle this organizational overload? Well, for one thing, you make maps. Lots of maps. My guest today is Dr. Rebecca Schwarzlose, a cognitive neuroscientist and author of the new book Brainscapes: The warped, wondrous maps written in your brain—and how they guide you. Rebecca is former editor of Trends in Cognitive Sciences and is currently a postdoctoral scholar at Washington University in St Louis. Her book was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program in the Public Understanding of Science and Technology. In this conversation, Rebecca and I talk about what brain maps are and why brains evolved to make them. (And just to be clear, it's not just human brains—it's the brains of many creatures.) We talk about how delightfully warped these maps are —and, of course, why. We discuss how we rely on them for vision, touch, smell, and movement, not to mention for thinking about faces, places, numbers, and more. We also discuss the fascinating duality at the heart of these brain maps, which is their balance of universal and unique features. I just love this angle on neuroscience, this way of thinking about the brain as a restless, prodigious cartographer. I thoroughly enjoyed Rebecca's book. And definitely there's a lot in it we couldn't touch on in this episode—details about how the mustache bat makes echolocation maps, for example, and about how new techniques are leveraging brain maps to do something like mindreading. So I hope you enjoy the episode, but I also hope you go and check out Rebecca's book for yourselves. Alright folks, on to my conversation with Dr. Rebecca Schwarzlose. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 3:15 – A review article by Dr. Schwarzlose's doctoral advisor, Nancy Kanwisher, on the fusiform face area. (Be sure to check out Dr. Kanwisher's brain course online.) 8:00 – An article on Inouye's work and the "discovery of the visual cortex." 14:00 – Much work has focused on the metabolic costs associated with the brain. For instance, an article on how metabolic costs of the brain shift over development. 18:30 – A study of cortical magnification in V1 and how it relates to visual acuity. 21:00 – The famous "homunculi" of the brain's touch maps are described and depicted in this article. 28:50 – A recent popular article on the brain's maps of odors. 32:00 – Our interview with Asifa Majid about smell across cultures. 42:00 – An article about how numbers are represented in the parietal cortex. Another article about the relationship between finger discrimination and number discrimination abilities. 46:30 – An article about how the hippocampus supports thinking about the social world. 54:00 – An article about plasticity in the developing brain. 1:01:00 – One of Dr. Schwarzlose's earliest studies, which was on face and body maps in the fusiform gyrus. Dr. Schwarzlose recommends the following books: Making Space, Jennifer Groh Into the Gray Zone, Adrian Own The New Mind Readers, Russell Poldrack You can find Dr. Schwarzlose on Twitter (@gothemind) and follow her work at her website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Our planet is home to an astonishing diversity of plants—close to 400,000 species. Over the millennia, indigenous communities around the world have been studying those plants, experimenting with them, using them as a sort of free-growing pharmacy. Certain species, prepared in certain ways, might be used for digestive ailments; others for the skin, teeth, or liver. But this vast trove of medicinal knowledge is now under threat. Under two threats, really—we're losing plant species and we're losing indigenous languages and cultures. My guests this week are Dr. Rodrigo Camara-Leret and Dr. Jordi Bascompte, both of the University of Zurich's Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies. Rodrigo is a Senior Researcher there, and Jordi is a Full Professor. We discuss their remarkable recent paper titled 'Language extinction triggers the loss of unique medicinal knowledge', published this past summer in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). In the paper, Rodrigo and Jordi analyzed data from three hotspots of biocultural diversity—New Guinea, the Northwest Amazon, and North America. They were trying to better understand the nature of indigenous medicinal knowledge, the threats it is facing, and how we might best protect it. This is one of those papers that immediately grabbed me. It's deeply, unclassifiably interdisciplinary; it takes on an urgent question with a clever approach; and it tells us something we genuinely didn't already know. As I already said, our global stores of ethnobotanical knowledge are under threat—and from different directions. What Jordi & Rodrigo's work shows is that, in order to protect that knowledge, we need to focus on protecting indigenous languages. Before we get to it, just wanted to mention that, as it happens, Jordi was just very recently awarded the prestigious Ramon Margalef prize for his groundbreaking contributions to the field of ecology. So it was an extra special honor to have him on this episode. Alright friends—on to my conversation with Dr. Rodrigo Cámara-Leret and Dr. Jordi Bascompte. Enjoy! The paper we discuss is available here. A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 4:45 – The Bascompte lab focuses on the architecture of biodiversity. 9:30 – Dr. Cámara-Leret and Dr. Bascompte have previously worked together on indigenous knowledge networks. 12:00 – The concept of "ecosystem services" is central in ecology. 16:30 – Dr. Cámara-Leret has previously worked on plant biodiversity in New Guinea, as well as on ethnobotany in Northwestern South America. 25:30 – A 2000 paper estimated that only about 6% of the world's plant species have been screen for biological activity. 36:20 – Dr. Bascompte very recently won the 2021 Margalef Award for his contributions to ecology. End-of-show recommendations: Dr. Bascompte recommends Perspectives in Ecological Theory, by Ramon Margalef. Dr. Cámara-Leret recommends Where the Gods Reign, by Richard Evans Schultes, and One River, by Wade Davis. You can find Dr. Cámara-Leret on Twitter (@R_CamaraLeret) and follow his research at his website. You can follow Dr. Bascompte's work at his lab's website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome back folks! Today's episode circles some big questions. What does it mean to be human? What's distinctive about the human mind and the human mode of being? What is human nature—if such a thing exists—and how could we catch a glimpse of it? Should we go looking for it in other primate species? Should we look deep in our fossil record? My guest today is Dr. Agustín Fuentes, Professor of Anthropology at Princeton University. He is the other of a number of books, most recently The Creative Spark, in 2017, and Why We Believe, in 2019. Agustín was trained as a biological anthropologist, but as, you'll hear, he's very much interested in the whole human, not just our skulls and teeth and genes. He's spent the better part of his career trying to build a more integrated, more fully fleshed out view of our species—one that takes seriously our bodies and brains, our culture and cognition, our primate heritage and our Pleistocene past. Here we talk about Agustín's career—how he got into anthropology in the first place, and how he went from observing langurs in Indonesia, to writing about human creativity and belief. We discuss the human niche and why it's distinctive (but maybe not unique). We touch on monogamy and how it's not a monolith. We talk about maleness and masculinity. And, for those who've been following recent hubbubs online, rest assured that we also talk about Darwin—and specifically what Darwin got wrong about biological sex and race. I've been following Agustín's work for some time and was thrilled to get him on the show. He's an unusually expansive and boundary-crossing thinker—and that's on full display in this conversation. He also doesn't shy away from messiness. He welcomes the mess. He celebrates complexity. He enthuses about the richly, entangled human condition. Whether or not you yourself celebrate mess and complexity and entanglement—I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy hearing what Agustín has to say about it. One quick announcement before he get to it: we'd like to welcome a new member of the Many Minds team: Cecilia Padilla. She is our new Assistant Producer, and we're super excited to have her on board. Alright friends—here's my chat with Dr. Agustín Fuentes. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 6:00 – One of the first anthropology courses to inspire Dr. Fuentes was taught by Dr. Phyllis Dolhinow of UC Berkeley. 9:15 – An early publication by Dr. Fuentes on the Mentawai langur (Presbytis potenziani). 12:00 – A 2012 paper by Dr. Fuentes laying out the aims, findings, and history of the subfield known as ethnoprimatology, which studies interactions between humans and primates. 13:30 – A 2013 paper by Dr. Fuentes describing ethnoprimatological findings from Bali. 17:30 – Dr. Fuentes's 1998 paper on monogamy, which he considers one of his first important contributions to the field. 22:00 – In 2008 Dr. Fuentes published Evolution and Human Behavior, a book-length comparison of different accounts of why humans are the way they are. 23:15 – The classic book on niche construction by Odling-Smee and colleagues. A single-article discussion of the concept of niche construction is available here. 26:00 – The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis website, which Dr. Fuentes recommends. 29:40 – A paper by Dr. Fuentes on the human niche. 32:00 – One distinctive aspect of the human niche—belief—is discussed extensively in Dr. Fuentes's book Why We Believe. 37:00 – Dr. Fuentes recently reviewed Kindred, by Rebecca Wragg Sykes, who we had on the show previously. 39:30 – Dr. Fuentes's recent paper on the search for the "roots" of masculinity. 54:00 – Dr. Fuentes recently wrote a chapter on Darwin's account of the "races of man" in A Most Interesting Problem, a volume edited by Jeremy De Silva. See also his recent editorial in Science, which raised quite a stir. Dr. Fuentes also recommends the chapter in the De Silva volume by Dr. Holly Dunsworth titled 'This View of Wife.' 1:03:00 – For the broader historical and biographical context of Darwin's ideas, I recommend Janet Browne's two-volume biography. 1:12:15 – Dr. Fuentes quotes Tim Ingold's idea that "anthropology is philosophy with people in it." If you're interested in learning more about the topics we discussed, be sure to check out Why We Believe and The Creative Spark. Dr. Fuentes also recommends: Kindred, Rebecca Wragg Sykes The Promise of Contemporary Primatology, Erin P. Riley Emergent Warfare in Our Evolutionary Past, Nam C. Kim & Marc Kissel Recent books on race by Dorothy Roberts and Alondra Nelson Anthropology: Why It Matters, Tim Ingold Darwin's Unfinished Symphony, Kevin Laland Pink Brain, Blue Brain, Lise Eliot The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry You can find Dr. Fuentes on Twitter (@Anthrofuentes) and follow his research at his website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity F

Welcome back folks! Today, we've got an audio essay for you. I won't say too too much—don't want to spoil it—but it's about pupils. Not as in students, but as in the dark cores of our eyes. This one of those that's been in the works for a little while. About a year ago I started collecting all the cool new pupil-related stuff coming out. Then at some point this summer some extra cool stuff came out and I said, "That's it—time to do it, time to pull this material together into some kind of episode." So that's what we have for you today. And I hope you find it eye-opening. Quick reminder before we get to it: As always, we could really use your help in getting the word out about the show. That might mean subscribing, if you don't already. It might mean rating or reviewing us on Apple Podcasts. It might mean sending the show to a friend or two. I mean honestly it could mean knitting a Many Minds cardigan for the cold months ahead and sporting it around town. Ceaselessly. Alright all, on to this week's essay 'The eye's mind.' Enjoy! A text version of this episode (enriched with images!) is readable on Medium. Notes 2:00 – The eye of the giant squid was described in detail for the first time in 2012, in this paper. 3:10 – On diversity in animal pupils, see this recent paper. 4:40 – Pupil changes to imagined and linguistically encoded light can be read about here and here. 5:30 – Eckherd Hess's early research on pupils is summarized in his 1965 Scientific American article, 'Attitude and Pupil Size'. 6:45 – The 1966 paper by Kahneman and Beatty is here. Or see a 2018 review of more recent research on pupils and cognitive effort. 8:10 – Hess's studies on the social functions of pupils are recounted in his 1975 Scientific American article, 'The Role of Pupil Size in Communication'. Several of his classic studies have been replicated just this year (with good but not perfect success). 8:50 – Mariska Kret's suggestion about how pupils fit the baby schema can be found here. 9:45 – Kret's studies of pupil mimicry include this one, this one, and this one, among others. 10:15 – The 2021 paper by Wohltjen & Wheatley on "pupillary synchrony" is available here. 12:00 – The 1974 Nature article titled 'Pupils of a talking parrot' is available here. Correction: The audio version of this essay misstated the size of the pupil changes in Daniel Kahneman's classic studies. These changes were roughly .2 to .5 mm, not 2 to 5 mm.

We've got something special for you today folks: bats. That's right: bats. Ever since Thomas Nagel wrote his famous essay on what it's like to be a bat, these flying, furry, nocturnal, shrieky mammals have taken up roost in our scientific imaginations. They've become a kind of poster child—or poster creature?—for the idea that our world is full of truly alien minds, inhabiting otherworldly lifeworlds. On today's show, we dive deep into these other minds—and into some of their less appreciated capacities. Bat don't just echolocate, they also sing. And, as we'll see, they sing with gusto. My guest today is Dr. Mirjam Knörnschild. She directs the Behavioral Ecology and Bioacoustics Lab at the Natural History Museum of Berlin. She and her team study bat communication, cognition, and social life; they focus in particular on bat social vocalizations—what we might call bat signals. Here, we do a bit of Bats 101. We talk about how bats form a spectacularly diverse group, or taxon. We talk about the mechanics of echolocation. We talk about the mind-bogglingly boisterous acoustic world of bats and how they're able to navigate it. We discuss Mirjam and her team's recent paper in Science magazine, showing that baby bat pups babble much like human infants. And, last but not least, we talk about what it's like to be a bat. As I say in this conversation, I've always been a bit unnerved by bats, but part of me also knew they were seriously cool. But really, I didn't know the half of it. There's so much more to these creatures than meets the casual eye. One last thing before we jump in: as a little bonus, for this episode Mirjam was kind enough to share some examples of the bat calls we discuss in the episode. So there's a bit of an audio appendix at the end where you can hear slowed-down versions. On to my chat with Dr. Mirjam Knörnschild. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 7:20 – Meet the Honduran white bat, which Knörnschild likens to a "fluffy little white ping pong ball." 13:50 – Austin, Texas is home to Bracken Cave, which harbors more than 15 million bats. 16:30 – Much of Dr. Knörnschild's work focuses on the Greater Sac-winged bat, which is a member of the Emballonurid family. 18:00 – See the audio appendix for an example of a Greater Sac-winged bat's echolocation calls. See also examples on Dr. Knörnschild's website. 21:10 – A paper by Dr. Knörnschild and colleagues about how echolocation calls serve social functions in addition to navigational functions. 24:00 – A paper by Dr. Knörnschild and colleagues on the origin and diversity of bat songs. 30:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Knörnschild and colleagues on the correlation between social complexity and vocal complexity across bat species. 37:30 – A brand new special issue on vocal learning in humans and animals, including a review of vocal learning in mammals by Dr. Vincent Janik and Dr. Knörnschild. 40:35 – Dr. Knörnschild's first scientific paper, in 2006, reported the observation that Greater Sac-winged bats seemed to babble like infants. 47:20 – A recent paper by Dr. Knörnschild and colleagues on territorial songs in male Greater Sac-winged bats. 53:45 – A very recently published paper in Science by Ahana Fernandez, Dr. Knörnschild, and collaborators; see also this popular article and a video about the findings. 1:05:30 – A recent paper by Dr. Knörnschild and colleagues on bat "motherese." 1:12:00 – For a concise narrative summary of Dr. Knörnschild's research, including some of the future directions she is planning to pursue, see the article 'Bats in translation.' 1:14:00 – The philosopher Thomas Nagel famously argued that we can't really know what it's like to be a bat. Dr. Knörnschild recommends two books by Merlin Tuttle: Bats: An Illustrated Guide to All Species The Secret Lives of Bats You can find Dr. Knörnschild on Twitter (@MKnornschild) and follow her research at her website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Isabelle Laumer. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Why do we make music? Why do we love music? Well, you say, because it's in our nature. Our brains were sculpted over the course of evolution to delight in sonic sequences, to remember melodies, to revel in rhythms. Perhaps. But, actually, not everyone thinks music is an adaptation. Not everything we do was directly shaped by natural selection. And even if music was an evolutionary adaptation, that raises a bunch of further questions, like: Why would musical abilities have been an advantage? Why did music emerge in our species, but not, say, in chimps? What were the first contexts in which music took shape? What were we singing or drumming or making all that racket about? For today's episode we're going behind a recent paper that explores these questions. My guest is Dr. Ed Hagen, Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology Washington State University – Vancouver. For a couple decades now, on and off, Ed has been thinking and writing about the origins of music. Along with his co-authors Samuel Mehr, Max Krasnow, and Greg Bryant, Ed recently published a paper in the journal Behavioral & Brain Sciences titled 'Origins of music in credible signaling.' Ed and I talk about what first got him musing about music, back in graduate school. We consider the functions of vocal signaling in birds, wolves, chimps, and other creatures. We discuss three prominent ideas about the roots of music: Darwin's idea that it evolved as a way for males to advertise their quality, Pinker's idea that music is like cheesecake, and—perhaps the most popular of all—the idea that music evolved to help cement social bonds. And, of course, we dig into the meat Ed and company's paper, their alternative proposal. They argue that the roots of music lie in two contexts: coalition signaling and infant care. We'll get into the specifics, of course. One of my biggest takeaways from this conversation is that it's a fascinating time to be interested in the deep history of music. Seems like a bit of a subfield is coalescing around the topic. In fact—as Ed and I talk about—their paper was actually one of two papers on the origins of music published in the very same issue of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you want to dive deeper, definitely check out the other article as well. One last note—and this is something I keep forgetting to mention: If you have ideas about who we should interview, or about which papers or topics we should feature, we would *love* to hear from you. Just find us on Twitter, or send an email to [email protected]. That's [email protected]. Alright, on to my conversation with Dr. Ed Hagen. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 3:00 – A 2003 paper by Dr. Hagen and co-author Greg Bryant about music as a "coalition signaling system." 10:50 – An example of a gibbon song. 12:00 – The companion paper, led by Patrick Savage, advances the social bonding view. 15:30 – Darwin's theory of the origins of music was laid out in The Descent of Man. 20:20 – Steven Pinker proposed the "auditory cheesecake" hypothesis in How the Mind Works. 28:30 – An early article on how singing is preserved in aphasia. 42:00 – A paper on chimpanzee pant hoots; a video showing an example. 46:00 – Long-standing listeners will recall that we briefly discussed "contact calls" in our episode on piloerection. 51:00 – The study showing that dance music and lullabies are perhaps the most readily recognized genres of music, and the past episode where Manvir Singh and I discussed this. 55:30 – A book by Brian Hayden on feasting in pre-industrial societies. 1:00:30 – One advocate of the idea that language may have emerged from music is W. Tecumseh Fitch, who wrote The Evolution of Language. Dr. Hagen recommends you check out the companion paper—which advances the social bonding view and which appeared in the same issue of Behavioral & Brain Sciences—and Steven Mithen's book, The Singing Neanderthals. You can find Dr. Hagen on Twitter (@ed_hagen) and follow him at his website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Isabelle Laumer. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome back friends! Cue the kazoos and the champagne—after a short summer snooze, we're much revived and ready for a third season of Many Minds! I could not be more thrilled about the guest we have to help kick things off: Dr. Alison Gopnik. Alison is a Professor of Psychology and Affiliate Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. She's the author of several books, including most recently The Gardener and the Carpenter, and she writes the "Mind and Matter" column for the Wall Street Journal. She also recently became the president-elect of the Association for Psychological Science. As many of you know, Alison is a distinguished developmental psychologist—she's been thinking deeply about children and writing insightfully about them for decades. But more recently she's stepped back to think also about childhood itself: that long period where we're kind of needy, messy, dreamy, and blissfully unproductive. She notes that childhood may be one of the most puzzling and distinctive things about our species. Though it is perhaps rivaled by the other extreme of the human lifespan: old age, or as she calls it, "elderhood." Here Alison and I talk about childhood and elderhood and how they go hand in hand. We discuss how they evolved, and, of course, why. We consider how they are associated with different modes of thinking and different ways of being. We talk about Alison's radical suggestion that it's during these bookends of life—our first act and last act—that we are, in fact, at our most human. Something I especially enjoyed about this conversation—and you'll definitely notice it if you've been listening to the show for awhile—is how often we hit on themes and topics from past episodes. We touch on cephalopods, orcas, bees, and Neanderthals; we talk about the tension between imitation and innovation and about why adults don't change their minds. But here, of course, we're seeing all this familiar terrain from new angles. But before we get to the episode, just wanted to say a quick but heartfelt thanks for all your support over our first two seasons. The best way to keep supporting the show is just to keep listening, to rate and review us if you haven't already, and, of course, to recommend us to a friend or colleague. Alright folks, looking forward to spending more time with you in the coming months. Here's my conversation with Dr. Alison Gopnik. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 4:00 – On our distinctive life history, see Dr. Gopnik's recent paper 'Childhood as a solution to explore-exploit tensions' and her 2020 piece in Aeon magazine. Some of this terrain is also covered in her most recent book, The Gardener and the Carpenter. 8:30 – The term "alloparents" was introduced by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. See especially her book Mothers and Others. 11:30 – A recent study of hunting productivity and life history by Jeremy Koster, Michael Gurven, and colleagues. 13:40 – A 1972 paper by Jerome Bruner on the uses of immaturity. 15:00 – One of Dr. Gopnik's (co-authored) earlier books was The Scientist in the Crib. 20:15 – A paper on life history and brain size in marsupials. 21:00 – On the explore-exploit tradeoff, see especially Dr. Gopnik's recent paper 'Childhood as a solution to explore-exploit tensions.' 29:30 – The 1983 paper that described this analogy with metallurgy and the "simulated annealing" approach to optimization. 35:30 – A paper on the division of labor among bees. 37:00 – See Dr. Gopnik's recent column titled 'The Many Minds of the Octopus.' 40:00 – A paper on the role of climate variability in evolution. 43:00 – A series of papers by Dr. Gopnik and colleagues suggest that children have a more exploratory mindset than adults. See here, here, and here. 49:30 – On the finding that adolescents are more flexible than either young children or adults on a social task, see here. 52:00 – Michael Pollan's new book, This is Your Mind on Plants, discusses three drugs derived from plants. 55:00 – A paper by (former guest!) Cristine Legare about the trade-offs between imitation and innovation. 56:20 – Dr. Gopnik's most recent column on altruism and aging. 1:00:20 – A paper by Dr. Gopnik and collaborators on causal learning across cultures and socioeconomic strata, which included children in Peru. Dr. Gopnik recommends a recent special issue on life history and learning. You can find Dr. Gopnik on Twitter (@AlisonGopnik) and follow her work on her website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Isabelle Laumer. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You

We're on summer break this week. Back in a couple weeks with the kick-off of Season 3! In the meanwhile, here's a favorite episode from our archives: a conversation with Dr. Rebecca Wragg Sykes about her 2020 book, Kindred. Enjoy! --- You probably think you know the Neanderthals. We've all been hearing about them since we were kids, after all. They were all over the comics; they were in museum dioramas and on cartoons. They were always cast as mammoth-eating, cave-dwelling dimwits—nasty brutes, in other words. You probably also learned that they died off because they couldn't keep pace with us, Homo sapiens, their svelter, savvier superiors. That's story we had long been told anyhow. But, over the past few decades, there's been a slow-moving sea change—a revolution in how archaeologists understand our closest cousins. For this episode I talked to Dr. Rebecca Wragg Sykes about this revolution. She is a Neanderthal specialist and the author of the new book Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art. Rebecca and I discuss the new picture of Neanderthals emerging from the latest archaeological research. We talk about where they lived, what they ate, the tools and clothing they made. We talk about the evidence that they had a considerable degree of cognitive sophistication and—very possibly—an aesthetic sense. Once we put all this together—and let the new picture come into focus—the gap long thought to separate them from us from them starts to close. And this makes the question of why they vanished about 40 thousand years ago all the more puzzling. I really hope you enjoy this one—I certainly did. And if you do, I definitely encourage you to check out Kindred! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links Most of the topics we discuss are treated in detail in Rebecca Wragg Sykes's book, Kindred. 5:40 – Earlier book-length treatments of the Neanderthals include The Smart Neanderthal and Neanderthals Revisited. 9:15 – The archaeological site of Atapuerca in Spain, which includes the Sima de los Huesos (Pit of Bones). 11:20 – The Neander Valley in Germany was the site of the very first Neanderthal find in 1856. 11:50 – Another early site was Krapina, Croatia, which is now home to a Neanderthal museum. 24:30 – A recent academic article on the complexity of Neanderthal tool use. 28:27 – A French site—La Folie—gives a sense of what some Neanderthal dwellings were like. 41:05 – A popular article about the "wow site" at Bruniquel. The original academic article. 49:16 – An article on the evidence that Neanderthals were preparing and using birch tar. 56:45 – Some evidence suggests Neanderthals were interested in bird feathers and talons. 1:01:30 – There is now evidence for repeated phases of interbreeding between human and Neanderthals. 1:05:00 – Other ancient hominin species included the Denisovans. 1:07:00 – There are some reasons to believe that pathogens carried by humans may have played a role in the demise of the Neanderthals. 1:13:30 – Another richly imaginative treatment of ancient human life is Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic, by Mark Edmonds. To keep up with the latest Neanderthal research, Dr. Wragg Sykes recommends following archaeologists such as John Hawks (@johnhawks). She is also on Twitter (@LeMoustier) and her website is: https://www.rebeccawraggsykes.com/. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Preferences, decisions, goals. When you hear these words, you probably think of humans. Or, if not humans then maybe charismatic animals—you know, great apes, certain species of birds, maybe dogs. In any case, I bet you think of creatures that are more or less cognitively sophisticated. I know I do. But, according to some researchers, this is an outmoded and over-narrow way of thinking. They propose that decisions and goals—not to mention other fancy-seeming constructs like memory, problem-solving, and intelligence—can usefully be ascribed to an astonishingly large array of agents. Not just humans, not just animals, not even just organisms. My guest on today's episode is Dr. Michael Levin. He's the Vannevar Bush Distinguished Professor of Biology at Tufts University; he directs the Allen Discovery Center and the Tufts Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology. In recent years, Mike's been developing a radical reconsideration of the nature of mind and intelligence. He argues that it's not just humans and other smart creatures that traffic in all this classically cognitive stuff. It's also cells, tissues, organs, colonial organisms, and much more. He sometimes summarizes his view as "cognition all the way down." Here we talk about how Mike came to this perspective. We discuss his empirical studies of bioelectricity, including some pretty astonishing experiments on planaria. We dig deep into two of the conceptual models he uses in talking about his "mind everywhere" framework: the "axis of persuadability" and the notion of the "cognitive light-cone". And we talk about why Mike rejects the criticism that this is all mere anthropomorphism. In fact, he makes a compelling case that it's time we retired that term altogether. In the intro to Many Minds way back when, we talked about how the terrain of mind is vast. But as I've learned about the work of Mike and others, I've become convinced that the terrain of mind is actually vaster than I imagined then—maybe vastly vaster. I think you'll like this one, folks. And even if you're not convinced, there's little doubt you'll be provoked. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 4:10 – Dr. Levin mentions the caterpillar-to-butterfly transition in the introduction to a recent theoretical paper. 8:00 – Dr. Levin's work on bioelectricity and regeneration are the focus of a recent profile of his work in the New Yorker. A recent perspective piece on bioelectric signaling by Dr. Levin is here. 8:50 – The book The Body Electric was an early influence on Dr. Levin's interests. 10:30 – The term "basal cognition" refers to minimal cognitive agents like cells and slime molds. It is also the label for a newly formed subfield or researchers who work on such systems. Read the introduction to a recent special issue on the topic, written by Dr. Levin and colleagues. 13:45 – Much of Dr. Levin's early work (described, e.g., here) was on the generation of left-right asymmetry, a thorny issue in morphogenesis. 15:45 – Planaria are a popular model organism in biology. For a fun conversation about their curious properties, see this episode of the podcast Ologies. 20:30 – Dr. Levin and colleagues' experiments with two-headed planaria were first reported here. 25:30 – Here Dr. Levin mentions Shuffle Brain by Paul Pietsch. 26:40 – See Dr. Levin's recent discussions of "scale-free cognition" and "cognition all the way down" (the latter piece was written for a general audience and co-authored with the philosopher Daniel Dennett). 32:00 – Dr. Levin's notion of the "axis of persuadability" is discussed here. 42:00 – Dr. Levin's light-cone model of cognition is sketched here (see especially Figure 2). ­52:00 – Dr. Levin has applied his ideas to tumorigenesis (e.g., here). 52:45 – For an intro to Umwelt theory, see our earlier episode, 'Me, my Umwelt and I.' 58:00 – Dr. Levin discusses ideas about the anthropomorphism objection here. Dr. Levin recommends books by: Scott Turner Denis Noble You can find Dr. Levin on Twitter (@drmichaellevin) and keep up with his latest research on his lab's website. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Isabelle Laumer. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Public opinion can sometimes shift dramatically over time. Beliefs that were widely held a few decades ago may now seem antiquated or even repugnant. But what's driving these shifts? Is it individual people changing their minds? Or is it just folks with old-fashioned worldviews dying out and being replaced? My guest on today's show is Dr. Stephen Vaisey. He's a Professor of Sociology and Political Science at Duke University and co-director of the compellingly named Worldview Lab. In a recent paper, Steve and his co-author Kevin Kiley sought to better understand whether people every really update their beliefs. We're talking about beliefs about gender, race, the environment, the role of government, and a bunch of other central issues. The answer Steve and Kevin arrived at may surprise you: while people do sometimes change their minds—particularly at certain life stages and particularly around certain kinds of issues—more often they don't. People's beliefs tend to be pretty settled. So I'll admit, sheepishly, that it was really only pretty recently that I realized that sociologists and political scientists think a lot about minds. That they're often grappling with the same questions that exercise psychologists, philosophers, cognitive scientists, and others. Questions about how beliefs are formed, about the dynamics of culture, about how minds change over the course of the lifespan, about how our social forces shape our thinking. As you'll hear, Steve's been thinking deeply about these questions for awhile now, and he's innovating new ways to address them. He's also just a super affable guide to this whole terrain. Hope you enjoy this one folks. Without further ado, my conversation with Dr. Steve Vaisey! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 2:30 – The Worldview Lab at Duke University is co-directed by Steve and Christopher Johnston. 4:00 – The paper we discuss is here (open access preprint). 6:00 – An influential article looking at the phenomenon of "pluralistic ignorance" and its consequences. 8:30 – The General Social Survey—as Dr. Vaisey describes it, the Hubble Telescope of sociology. 10:30 – A paper by Omar Lizardo elaborating the notion of personal culture. 12:15 – The webpage of Steve's co-author, Kevin Kiley. 20:45 – A 2010 paper by Steve and Omar Lizardo asking related questions. 37:45 – For more on issues with generalizing from WEIRD samples, see our past episode. For more on these topics, Dr. Vaisey recommends checking out the work of: Ronald Inglehart Pippa Norris Raül Tormos Kevin Kiley You can find Dr. Vaisey on Twitter (@vaiseys). Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Isabelle Laumer. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

You've no doubt heard that—as humans—our sense of smell is, well, kind of pathetic. The idea goes all the way back to Aristotle, that we have advanced senses—especially sight and hearing—and then lowly, underdeveloped ones—taste and smell. It's an idea that has been repeated and elaborated over and over, throughout Western intellectual history. Along with it comes a related notion: that smells are nearly impossible to talk about, that odors simply can't be captured in words. These ideas may be old, but are they actually true? A number of researchers would say they're ripe for reconsideration. And my guest is one such researcher, Asifa Majid. She's Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of York in the UK. For a decade now, Asifa's been pioneering a new wave of research on human olfaction, especially how it interfaces with language, thought, and culture. In this conversation we talk about the general notion that some kinds of experience are harder to put into words than others. We discuss Asifa's fieldwork with hunter-gatherer groups in the Malay peninsula, as well as her studies with wine experts in the west. We talk about whether learning special smell terms seems to sharpen one's ability to discriminate odors. And we venture beyond Asifa's own work, to touch on a bunch of recent highlights from the broader science of olfaction. This was such a fun conversation, folks! I've admired Asifa's work on this topic since her very first paper. She's a truly interdisciplinary thinker and, as you'll hear, she's got a nose for fun examples and deep questions. Without further ado, on to my conversation with Dr. Asifa Majid! Enjoy. A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 3:40 – A paper on the 19th century rise of the myth that humans are poor smellers. 6:00 – A paper estimating that humans can discriminate possibly a trillion different odors. 7:30 – A theoretical paper by Dr. Majid and a collaborator on "differential ineffability" and the senses. 9:20 – Dr. Majid's collaborator in her work on Jahai, a Malaysian language, was Niclas Burenhult. 11:00 – A classic book on the idea of "basic terms" in the domain of color, which provide an analogy for basic terms in the domain of smell. 12:30 – A first paper by Dr. Majid and Niclas Burenhult describing the language of olfaction in Jahai. 14:45 – Dr. Majid's first experiment comparing odor naming (and color naming) in Jahai and English. 20:00 – Dr. Majid has also examined smell lexicons in several other languages, including Seri, Thai, Maniq, and Cha'palaa. 25:40 – A follow-up study by Dr. Majid and a collaborator on two groups within Malaysia who contrast in subsistence mode. 29:30 – A paper detailing cultural practices surrounding smell among the Jahai. 31:00 – Dr. Majid discusses the factors shaping cultural variation in olfaction (as well as a number of other interesting issues) in her most recent review paper. 39:00 – The "deodorization" hypothesis was discussed in a classic book on the cultural history of aroma. 39:40 – In a recent study, Dr. Majid and collaborators failed to find evidence that the frequency of smell language has fallen off since industrialization. 45:50 – Dr. Majid led a study comparing 20 languages across the world in terms of how expressible their speakers found different sensory experiences. 53:00 – Some possible reasons for the general trend toward the ineffability of smell are considered in Dr. Majid's recent review paper. 57:00 – Along with her collaborators, Dr. Majid has examined the smell-naming abilities of wine experts. See one paper here. 1:02:45 – A recent paper by Dr. Majid and colleagues showing that wine experts' smell-naming abilities are not dependent on "thinking in" language. 1:05:35 –Some evidence from "verbal interference" tasks suggests that, when carrying out color discrimination tasks, people rely on language in the moment. 1:09:00 – The Odeuropa project. 1:10:20 – The website of Noam Sobel's lab. Dr. Majid's end of show recommendations: What the Nose Knows, by Avery Gilbert The Philosophy of Olfactory Perception, by Andreas Keller Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell, by Constance Classen, David Howes, and Anthony Synott Neuroenology, by Gordon Shepard Cork Dork, by Bianca Bosker You can keep up with Dr. Majid on Twitter (@asifa_majid). Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Isabelle Laumer. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your

Let's say you're out on the open sea, having a leisurely sail, when you suddenly encounter not one but two sinking boats. One is a boat with two dogs in it; the other is a boat with a single human in it. You can only save one of the boats, so which one do you pick? The answer may seem obvious—you save the boat with the human, right? For many adults—even those who have a special love for animals—there's little question that a human life is simply worth more, perhaps way more, than an animal life. But where does this pro-human bias come from? Is it in our nature? Is it drilled into us by culture, maybe by Western culture in particular? Would young children also place more value on human lives than on animal lives? This is the question at the core of a recent paper by Matti Wilks, Lucius Caviola, Guy Kahane, and Paul Bloom. The team found—rather strikingly I have to say—that children simply don't show the same pronounced pro-human biases that adults do, or at least not as pronounced. On today's episode I have Matti Wilks on to go behind this paper with us. She's a postdoc at Yale University, studying moral cognition and how we judge the moral worth of others. Matti and I discuss children's moral development; we touch on the psychology and philosophy of speciesism; we talk about why tragic trade-off dilemmas—like the one involving the boats—are just so engaging. We also talk about a number of questions this paper raises but can't yet answer, questions for future work. Really stoked to discuss this research on the show, folks. We talk about some themes we've touched on before—for instance, speciesism and child development—and some we haven't—like the origins of morality. This is also just one of those super-cool and generative studies, one you know is going to inspire a bunch of follow-up work. Alright folks, hope you enjoy this chat as much as I did. On to my conversation with Dr. Matti Wilks. The paper we discuss is here. A transcript of this show is available here. Notes and links 4:40 – The term "speciesism" was first broadly popularized by Peter Singer's 1975 book Animal Liberation. 5:40 – A prior study by Dr. Wilks' co-author, Lucius Caviola, on the psychology of speciesism. 6:30 – A prior study led by Karrie Neldner, with Dr. Wilks as a co-author, on the "moral circle" of children. 7:15 – Some of the first experimental work on the construct of the "moral circle" was done by Charlie Crimston and colleagues. 12:00 – A paper on the emergence of in-group biases in children. 13:00 – There was a lively discussion on Reddit of this paper—and the tragic trade-off dilemmas it used as stimuli. 13:40 – A paper by Peter Blake and colleagues showing that children at a certain age know they should share but still do not. 20:15 – Dr. Wilks has also done work on children's moral concern for robots. 27:40 ­– Our previous episode with Melanie Challenger, in which we discuss "dementalization." Dr. Wilks' end-of-show recommendation: The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism, a paper by Lucius Caviola and colleagues

Welcome back folks! We've got an audio essay for you this week. It touches on art, music, the skin, the spine, individual differences, vestigial responses, tiny muscles. There's even some Darwin thrown in there. It's a fun one. Hope you enjoy it! A text version of this essay is available on Medium. Notes and links 1:30 – The novel that very recently gave me goosebumps. 2:00 – A brief discussion of Nabokov and his ideas about the tell-tale tingle. 2:45 – Some terms for goosebumps in other languages. 3:00 – A primer on skin anatomy. 4:00 – A paper on the thermoregulatory function of piloerection in primates and other animals. 4:25 – Read Darwin's Expression here. 5:00 – A paper about "nails on chalkboard chills." A paper that discusses claims that piloerection attends awe (but which fails to find evidence for this association in a lab setting). A paper on goosebumps in religious experiences. A paper that references mathematicians getting goosebumps when seeing proofs. 5:30 – The 1980 paper by Goldstein on "thrills." 6:45 – The Darwin passage is quoted in McCrae 2007. 7:00 – A 1995 paper by Panskepp, as well as his 2002 study with a co-author. 7:40 – A recent paper on chills in response to films; another on poetry. 9:15 – The paper by McCrae reporting the association between "openness to experience" and chills. 10:00 – A paper by Fiske and colleagues on kama muta, the "sudden devotion emotion." 11:10 – Panskepp's "separation call" hypothesis is perhaps best described in his 2002 study. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play—or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Whales and dolphins are, without a doubt, some of the most charismatic, enigmatic creatures around. Part of what draws us to them is that­—different as our worlds are from theirs, different as our bodies are—we sense a certain kinship. We know they've got big brains, much like we do. We know that some cetacean species live long lives, sing songs, and form close bonds. If you're like me, you may have also wondered about other parallels. For example, do whales and dolphins have something we might want to call culture? If so, what do those cultures look like? What sorts of traditions might these animals be innovating and circulating down in the depths? On this week's episode I chatted with Dr. Luke Rendell, a Reader in the School of Biology and a member of the Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. He's been studying cetaceans for more than two decades. He's the author, with Hal Whitehead, of the 2014 book The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins. (You can probably guess by the book's title where Luke comes down on the question of cetacean culture.) Luke's work is, to my mind, an impressive blend of naturalistic observation, cutting edge methods, and big-picture theorizing. In this conversation, Luke and I do a bit of "Cetaceans 101." We talk about what culture is and why whale song is a good example of it. We discuss lob-tail feeding in humpback whales and tail-walking in bottlenose dolphins. We talk about Luke's very recent work on how sperm whales in the 19th century may have learned from each other how to evade whalers. And we discuss why an understanding of culture may be crucial for ongoing cetacean conservation efforts. We didn't plumb all the depths of this rich topic—nor did we exhaust all the maritime puns—but we did have a far-reaching chat about some of the most fascinating beings on our planet and their distinctive cultures. As always, thanks a bunch for listening folks. On to my conversation with Dr. Luke Rendell. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 2:30 – My favorite edition of Moby Dick (for what it's worth). 6:45 – A primer on cetaceans. 9:30 – A paper on the ins and outs of the whale nose. 10:45 – A general audience article about echolocation in cetaceans, drawing on this recent academic article. 12:30 ­– A discussion of Roger Payne's storied whale song album. 19:00 – A paper on cetacean brain and body size. 19:45 – Dr. Rendell's 2001 article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, co-authored with Hal Whitehead. The paper made a splash. 24:50 – A paper by Dr. Rendell and colleagues describing some of his work on whale song. 26:40 – The 2000 paper by Michael Noad and colleagues, presenting some of compelling early evidence for whale song as a culturally transmitted phenomenon. 28:30 – A subsequent paper by Ellen Garland, Michael Noad, and colleagues showing further evidence for the socially transmitted nature of song. 31:45 – Dr. Rendell has also done important theoretical work on social learning strategies. See, for instance, here and here. 33:24 – An article offering evidence of imitation in killer whales. 36:10 – The paper by Dr. Rendell and colleagues on lob-tail feeding in humpback whales. 36:35 – A video illustrating "bubble net feeding." 47:45 – The paper by Dr. Rendell and colleagues on tail-walking in dolphins. 55:30 – The paper by Dr. Rendell and colleagues on 19th century sperm whales' evasion tactics, as well as a popular piece on the same. 57:00 – A website documenting various aspects of whaling history. 1:05:00 – A recent discussion of gene-culture co-evolution across animal species. 1:10:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Rendell and (many) colleagues about how an appreciation of animal culture offers important lessons for conservation. Dr. Rendell's end of show recommendations: Dolphin Politics in Shark Bay, by Richard Connor Deep Thinkers, edited by Janet Mann The Wayfinders, by Wade Davis You can keep up with Dr. Rendell on Twitter (@_lrendell). Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Have you ever seen what seemed to be a spirit? Or heard a voice from an unseen source? Or maybe just sensed a presence and found yourself with goosebumps all over? These kinds of experiences can be incredibly powerful— life-altering, in fact—but they don't happen often, and they don't happen to everyone. So what drives this individual variation? Why do some of us have these extraordinary experiences while others never do? Could it be something about our personalities? Or our cultures? Could it have to do with the way we understand our minds? My guests on today's show are Tanya Luhrmann, Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University, and Kara Weisman, a postdoc at UC-Riverside (formerly in the Psychology department at Stanford). Along with nine collaborators from across institutions, Tanya and Kara recently published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences (PNAS) titled 'Sensing the presence of gods and spirits across cultures and faiths.' This episode is nominally in our "behind the paper" series, but really it tells the story of not just this one paper but a much larger project: The Mind and Spirit project. The project was an unusual effort in scope: it included anthropologists and psychologists; it involved fieldwork in Ghana, Thailand, China, Vanuatu, and the US and practitioners of different faith traditions; it used both in-depth interviews and large-scale survey testing with thousands of participants. The particular paper we're discussing today probed the basic idea that so-called "spiritual presence events"—those tingly, jarring, extraordinary experiences that some of us have—could be due to two main factors, factors that vary across individuals and cultures. The first proposed factor is how people understand the mind-world boundary. People who conceive of the mind as fundamentally leaky or "porous" might be more likely to have these kinds of experiences. The second proposed factor is how likely people are to get absorbed in their sensory experiences, to lose themselves in music, art, nature, movies, and so on. In our conversation, Tanya, Kara, and I talk about the deeper history behind this work; we break down what the constructs of porosity and absorption mean exactly and how they chose to measure them; we discuss the challenges and rewards of cross-disciplinary collaboration; and we talk about why I really need to read more William James. I wanted to feature this paper the moment I learned about it—it's such an impressive piece of research on several levels. It's also just certifiably cool. It's dealing with cultural differences. It's dealing with individual differences. And it's dealing with variability in, to use the authors' words "something as basic as what feels real to the senses." So let's get to it. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Dr. Tanya Luhrmann and Dr. Kara Weisman. Enjoy! The paper we discuss is here. A transcript of this show is available here. Notes and links 4:00 – Dr. Luhrmann's first book was based on work with British practitioners of magic and witchcraft. 5:30 – Another of Dr. Luhrmann's books looked at American Evangelicals and their relationship to God. 6:30 – A paper by Marcia Johnson and Carol Raye on "reality monitoring." 12:45 – In earlier work, Dr. Weisman examined people's conceptions of mind and mental life. 16:37 – One of the other collaborators on the Mind and Spirit project is Felicity Aulino. 19:30 – More info about Tellegen's absorption scale can be found here and here. 28:05 – Another member of the project is Rachel E. Smith. 33:24 – Another member of the project is Cristine Legare, former guest on Many Minds (!). 36:00 – Another member of the project is John Dulin. 42:00 – Another member of the project is Emily Ng. 42:30 – Another member of the project is Joshua D. Brahinsky. 43:00 – Another member of the project is Vivian Dzokoto. 58:00 – Dr. Luhrmann discusses the "citadel" model of the mind in her more recent book, How God Becomes Real. 59:20 – Dr. Weisman is currently part of a new large-scale project, the Developing Belief Network. Dr. Luhrmann's end-of-show recommendation: Religious Experience Reconsidered, by Ann Taves Dr. Weisman's end-of-show recommendation: The Varieties of Religious Experience, by William James Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to

Greetings, all! It's been a minute, but we're back, we're refreshed, and we're buzzing with excitement about the next few months of Many Minds. This episode we're talking about one of humanity's most powerful cognitive tools: numerals. Numerals are those unassuming symbols we use whenever we read clocks, check calendars, dial phone numbers, or do arithmetic. My guest on today's show is Stephen Chrisomalis. Steve is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at Wayne State University in Michigan, where he specializes in the anthropology of numbers, mathematics, and literacy. He's the author of the recent book Reckonings: Numerals, Cognition, and History, which is the focus of our conversation today. Humans have developed more than a hundred different systems for representing numbers over the last 5000 years or so. Steve and I discuss how these systems differ from each other. We talk about how they build on the ancient tally systems used in the Upper Paleolithic and how the develop hand-in-hand with writing. We consider the popular idea that the Roman numerals fell from favor because they're no for good calculation. (Not so much, says Steve.) We also talk about some lesser-known numerical notation systems. Like the one the Cherokee polymath Sequoyah developed alongside his much-celebrated syllabary. And, of course, we cast a glance to the future. What kinds of systems might humans be using centuries or even millennia from now? Numerals are—in and of themselves—pretty cool. But they become all the more so when we see them in broader context. As Steve's book makes clear, numerals offer a compelling case study in how of our cognitive technologies are shaped by the vagaries of history, the dynamics of culture, and, of course, the constraints of the human mind. Learned a lot from this one, folks—I think you'll enjoy it. Without further ado, here's my chat with Steve Chrisomalis. A transcript of this episode is now available here. Notes and links 3:20 – Dr. Chrisomalis's doctoral advisor was the prominent archaeologist, Bruce Trigger. 4:30 – A paper by Dr. Chrisomalis and colleagues on the "cultural challenge" in the study of mathematical cognition. 9:50 – One of several papers by Alexander Marshack on Upper Paleolithic tally systems. 19:00 – Dr. Chrisomalis's earlier book on numeral systems—written for a more specialist audience and encyclopedic in scope—can be found here. 20:10 – The Armenian and Georgian numeral systems. 23:00 – The term "subitizing," from the Latin for 'sudden,' was introduced in this article by Kaufman et al. in 1949. 24:20 – Conventions for making tally marks vary across cultures, a fact which recently went viral. 33:50 – The ancient Roman abacus was different from abacuses used in Asia. 35:00 – A recent paper on the benefits of abacus training in India. 42:20 – A paper on frequency-dependent selection. 49:00 ­– An article about the Cherokee syllabary, which was invented by Sequoyah. 1:00:20 ­­– A numerical notation developed in the 20th century based on color, used for labeling electrical resistors. 1:09:00 ­­– Dr. Chrisomalis maintains two websites about different kinds of language: Glossographia & The Phrontistery. His personal website is here. Dr. Chrisomalis's end of show recommendations: Where Mathematics Comes From, by George Lakoff & Rafael Núñez Cultural Development of Mathematical Ideas, by Geoffrey Saxe Numbers and the Making of Us, by Caleb Everett Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

We're doing some spring cleaning this week, but please enjoy this pick from our archives. It's a conversation with Dr. Alex Taylor that aired originally in September 2020. We've got a terrific spring lined up for the show. See you in two weeks! --- There's a viral video clip from 2014—maybe you've seen it. It features a subject in a pretty remarkable psychology experiment. He's put in room full of different apparatuses, one of which contains reward. After sizing up the room, the subject gets started. The first thing he does is tug on a string until he can reach a short stick that's tied to the end of it. He then uses that stick to retrieve a stone that was just out of his reach, behind some bars; then he retrieves another stone in the same way; then a third. One at a time, he picks up the stones, takes them across the way, and plunks them down a tube. Nothing happens at first but, after the third stone, the combined weight lowers a trap door, releasing a long stick. The subject then uses that long stick to carefully pry out his reward from a deep hole. It's an impressive display of problem solving. But what's most remarkable is that the subject in question is not a Psych 101 student but a bird—a New Caledonian crow, to be exact—and his name is 007. My guest on today's show is Alex Taylor, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Auckland. He's the one who devised this challenge for 007—it brings together a number of tasks he's used with New Caledonian crows over the years to try to understand their striking capacities for tool use, for planning, and for reasoning of different kinds. We talk about how Alex got interested in crows and how he studies them; we talk about what seems to be going on in their minds when they solve multi-step puzzles; we talk about the kinds of tools that crows make and use in the wild and the emerging evidence that using those tools puts them in a good mood. We then zoom out to discuss some of the leading ideas about what drives the evolution of intelligence behavior, whether in crows or chimps or children. We also touch on some of Alex's new work with another species—the kea, an alpine parrot native to the south Island of New Zealand. We talk about how the kea are in some ways a foil to the New Caledonian crow—a bit more curious, a bit more fun-loving—but also super sharp in their own ways. This conversation was a real treat. Like many folks, it seems, during the lockdown this spring I found myself with a newfound interest in birds. So I was especially excited to get to tour the world of avian cognition with Alex—a leading researcher in the area and an affable guide at that. I think you'll get a kick out of this one folks—and I'm happy to bet it'll have you looking at your neighborhood corvids in a whole new light. Without further preamble, here's my conversation with Dr. Alex Taylor. Enjoy. A transcript of this interview is available here. Notes and links 4:00 ­– A popular article about the famed feats of Betty, a New Caledonian crow. An early publication establishing these crows' impressive tool-making abilities. 8:00 – The corvid family is large and diverse. Accessible introductions to corvids and corvid cognition can be found here and here. 13:30 – Dr. Taylor's first study with crows dealt with meta-tool use—the use of one tool on another. An image depicting the set-up of the study can be found here. 17:30 – An article about how New Caledonian crows craft and use tools in the wild. 19:34 – A study suggesting that the pandanus tools made by New Caledonian crows may exhibit cumulative cultural evolution. (We discussed the importance of cumulative culture in humans in an earlier episode.) 22:20 – A 2019 study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues investigating the types of mental representations crows seem to be using during multi-stage problem solving tasks. 24:10 – A 2019 study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues suggesting crows might enjoy using tools. The procedure involved a cognitive bias task first developed in this 2004 study. 30:50 – A classic study in psychology analyzing individual differences in how much people like thinking—that is, their "need for cognition." 35:00 – Aesop's fable about the crow and the pitcher. The fable was first adapted into an experimental task in this study. Dr. Taylor and colleagues have since used variations of the task to probe crows' causal understanding. Here is one overview of this work. 41:20 – A study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues examining how human children do on the Aesop's fable task. 42:35 – Dr. Taylor's "signature testing" proposal is discussed here. 53:50 – A 2017 study showing that monkeys can be trained to pass the mirror test by using laser pointers. (We discussed the mirror test in a previous episode.) 56:34 – A paper by Dr. Taylor and a colleague discussing the equivocal evidence for the "technical intelligence hypothesis"—the idea that selection for tool use leads to selection for general intelligence. 58:17– An article ab

Welcome back folks! Don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but rumor is that in certain parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the signs of spring are starting to emerge—little buds and shocks of color. We'll be monitoring the situation closely over the coming weeks. My guest today is Melanie Challenger. Melanie is a writer and researcher whose work explores the relationship between humans and the natural world. The subject of our conversation is her latest book, How to be Animal: A New History of What it Means to Be Human. In it, she confronts our species' epic struggle with our animal nature. We have this tendency to see ourselves as above and beyond the natural order, as possessing something special, something extraordinary that sets us apart. And yet it's no secret that we are also biological organisms, made from the same stuff as the rest of the animal kingdom and bound by the same laws and limits. You can sense the struggle; you can probably feel the tension. Through the lens of this struggle, Melanie's book takes in a huge sweep of terrain. It considers our tendency to dehumanize other humans and "dementalize" animals; it discusses our alienation from our own bodies; it takes up our desire to colonize space and upload our minds so they survive our death. That's not all. It also zooms in on paleolithic cave art, neuro-essentialism, the notions of personhood and dignity, not to mention mass extinction and machine intelligence and a whole lot else. It's a provocative book and a brave book, and chatting with Melanie about it was a real treat. An announcement, or re-announcement, I suppose: Applications for the 2021 Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute are now open. Check out our amazing faculty (including some former guests of the show) and find further details at disi.org. I'll just mention here that Melanie and I first met at the 2020 institute—she was one of our Storytellers. So, you know, more evidence that cool people who think about cool things are to be found at DISI. Alright folks—hope you enjoy this one. And, if you do, definitely pick up Melanie's book. It'll be out Tuesday, March 23 in the US. A transcript of this show is available here. Notes and links 9:24 – "Substance dualism" is one of several forms of dualism. See here. 12:30 – A primer on elephant cognition. 18:00 – One of the works on dehumanization that Challenger discusses in her book is Less than Human by David Livingstone Smith. The topic is also discussed at length in a book we featured in December, Survival of the Friendliest, by Brian Hare & Vanessa Woods. 21:30 – A recent review of the wide literature on "terror management theory." 25:50 – An article reviewing work on "mental time travel," which Challenger views as one of our key capacities as humans. 30:46 – A study by Amy Fitzgerald and colleagues on crime rates in the proximity of slaughterhouses. 33:50 – The Cave of Altamira in Spain. 38:30 – Here we discuss the work of researcher Kim Hill. 45:50 – John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690, can be read here. 53:57 – See Challenger's previous book about extinction. 55:45 – Read about the 2009 Copenhagen accord here. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our NEW website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Do you remember the first time you made a good joke? Most likely not. Turns out the first forms of humor emerge super early in infancy, before the first birthday even. We're not talking about stand-up routines here. We're talking about a more basic but no less interesting behavior: teasing. In what's known as "playful teasing," one individual intentionally violates another's expectations for the sake of amusement. In this week's episode, we're going behind a recent paper that ask whether apes also tease each other playfully—whether they share our early-emerging impulse to prank and razz each other. My guests are Johanna Eckert, a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and Erica Cartmill, Associate Professor of Anthropology at UCLA. (For those who may not know, Erica is one of the founders and directors of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, the organization behind Many Minds.) In their paper, Johanna, Erica, and their co-author Sasha Winkler review a wealth of observations made over the years that together suggest that apes do indeed have the pranking impulse. They seem to tease each other in many of the ways infants do, in fact. Here, we talk about some of these fascinating observations and why they deserve a fresh interpretation. We consider what makes teasing such a cognitively rich behavior. We discuss the different functions teasing may serve and talk about how research on primate teasing is part of a bigger zeitgeist of work on positive emotions in non-human animals. I'm an inveterate teaser myself; I come from a family of teasers. And I'm someone who tends to show affection for people by teasing them. So I was super excited to dive into this topic. Teasing is fascinating on its own, no question. But it becomes that much more so when we realize that it may shed light on the evolutionarty roots of humor and joking. Understanding teasing can, in other words, help us understand the phylogeny of funniness. But, before we get going, two bits of exciting news. The first is that we have a new website at disi.org. You'll find Many Minds there under the 'Podcast' tab. Check it out. The second bit is that applications for the 2021 Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute are now open! You'll find the link and bunch more info on the new website, under the 'Apply' tab. There are two application tracks, an academic track and a storytelling track. If you like this show—and the kinds of topics we cover—there's a pretty good chance you'd be interested in DISI. So definitely consider applying yourself and please do share with anyone who may be interested. Alright, friends—now on to my conversation about playful teasing with Dr. Johanna Eckert and Dr. Erica Cartmill! Hope you enjoy this one! The paper we discuss is here. A transcript of this show is available here. Notes and links 5:20 – A paper stemming from Dr. Cartmill's dissertation work on gesture in orangutans. 9:45 – Learn more about the work of Professor Vasudevi Reddy here. 12:10 – For more about Koko the Gorilla, who died in 2018, see here and here. 14:15 – Meet the orangutans at the Leipzig Zoo, including Bimbo, here. 16:00 – A recent review article about "theory of mind" in non-human animals. 19:15 – A classic article on tactical deception in primates. 24:00 – Many animals seem to enjoy jumping on the backs of capybaras. 27:20 – A paper on play fighting and its possible functions. 30:00 – A recent review of gesture in non-human primates by Dr. Cartmill and another former guest, Dr. Cat Hobaiter. 41:00 – One example of a recent study using thermal imaging in chimpanzees. 46:45 – The Latke-Hamantash Debate is a (humorous) yearly ritual at the University of Chicago. Dr. Eckert's end-of-show reading recommendations: The Psychology of Humor, by Rod Martin and Thomas Ford Important early work by Otto Adang on teasing in chimpanzees, including here and here Dr. Cartmill's end-of-show reading recommendations: Teasing and clowning in infancy, by Vasudevi Reddy and Gina Mireault Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters, by Ted Cohen Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, visit our NEW website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Guess what folks: we are celebrating a birthday this week. That's right, Many Minds has reached the ripe age of one year old. Not sure how old that is in podcast years, exactly, but it's definitely a landmark that we're proud of. Please no gifts, but, as always, you're encouraged to share the show with a friend, write a review, or give us a shout out on social. To help mark this milestone we've got a great episode for you. My guest is the writer, Brian Christian. Brian is a visiting scholar at the University of California Berkeley and the author of three widely acclaimed books: The Most Human Human, published in 2011; Algorithms To Live By, co-authored with Tom Griffiths and published in 2016; and most recently, The Alignment Problem. It was published this past fall and it's the focus of our conversation in this episode. The alignment problem, put simply, is the problem of building artificial intelligences—machine learning systems, for instance—that do what we want them to do, that both reflect and further our values. This is harder to do than you might think, and it's more important than ever. As Brian and I discuss, machine learning is becoming increasingly pervasive in everyday life—though it's sometimes invisible. It's working in the background every time we snap a photo or hop on Facebook. Companies are using it to sift resumes; courts are using it to make parole decisions. We are already trusting these systems with a bunch of important tasks, in other words. And as we rely on them in more and more domains, the alignment problem will only become that much more pressing. In the course of laying out this problem, Brian's book also offers a captivating history of machine learning and AI. Since their very beginnings, these fields have been formed through interaction with philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and neuroscience. Brian traces these interactions in fascinating detail—and brings them right up to the present moment. As he describes, machine learning today is not only informed by the latest advances in the cognitive sciences, it's also propelling those advances. This is a wide-ranging and illuminating conversation folks. And, if I may say so, it's also an important one. Brian makes a compelling case, I think, that the alignment problem is one of the defining issues of our age. And he writes about it—and talks about it here—with such clarity and insight. I hope you enjoy this one. And, if you do, be sure to check out Brian's book. Happy birthday to us—and on to my conversation with Brian Christian. Enjoy! A transcript of this show is available here. Notes and links 7:26 - Norbert Wiener's article from 1960, 'Some moral and technical consequences of automation'. 8:35 - 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' is an episode from the animated film, Fantasia (1940). Before that, it was a poem by Goethe. 13:00 - A well-known incident in which Google's nascent auto-tagging function went terribly awry. 13:30 - The 'Labeled Faces in the Wild' database can be viewed here. 18:35 - A groundbreaking article in ProPublica on the biases inherent in the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) tool. 25:00 – The website of the Future of Humanity Institute, mentioned in several places, is here. 25:55 - For an account of the collaboration between Walter Pitts and Warren McCulloch, see here. 29:35- An article about the racial biases built into photographic film technology in the 20th century. 31:45 - The much-investigated Tempe crash involving a driverless car and a pedestrian: 37:17 - The psychologist Edward Thorndike developed the "law of effect." Here is one of his papers on the law. 44:40 - A highly influential 2015 paper in Nature in which a deep-Q network was able to surpass human performance on a number of classic Atari games, and yet not score a single point on 'Montezuma's Revenge.' 47:38 - A chapter on the classic "preferential looking" paradigm in developmental psychology: 53:40 - A blog post discussing the relationship between dopamine in the brain and temporal difference learning. Here is the paper in Science in which this relationship was first articulated. 1:00:00 - A paper on the concept of "coherent extrapolated volition." 1:01:40 - An article on the notion of "iterated distillation and amplification." 1:10:15 - The fourth edition of a seminal textbook by Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, AI a Modern approach, is available here: http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/ 1:13:00 - An article on Warren McCulloch's poetry. 1:17:45 - The concept of "reductions" is central in computer science and mathematics. Brian Christian's end-of-show reading recommendations: The Alignment Newsletter, written by Rohin Shah Invisible Women, by Caroline Criado Perez: The Gardener and the Carpenter, Alison Gopnik: You can keep up with Brian at his personal website or on Twitter. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is ma

Greetings friends and happy February! Today's episode is a conversation with Dr. Michael Muthukrishna, an Associate Professor of Economic Psychology at the London School of Economics. Michael's research takes on a suite of topics that all start from a single big question: Why are we so different from other animals? Part of the answer has to do with our neural hardware. There's no question we've got big brains—and Michael has some cool things to say about why they may have gotten so big. But Michael is just as focused on our cultural software—the tools and ideas we develop, tweak, share, and accumulate over time. You might say he's more impressed by our collective brains than by our individual brains. To study all this, Michael builds formal theories and computational models; he runs experiments; and he constructs and analyzes huge databases. We cover a lot of ground in this episode. We talk about the finding that the size and interconnectedness of a social group affects the cultural skills that group can develop and maintain. We consider what actually powers innovation (hint: it's not lone geniuses). We discuss how diversity is a bit double-edged and why psychology needs to become a historical science. And that, my friends, is hardly all—we also touch on cetaceans, religious history, and spinning plates. I've been hoping to have Michael on the show for months now. His work is deeply theoretical, advancing the basic science of what it means to be human. But it's also engaged with important practical issues—issues like corruption and cultural diversity. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Dr. Michael Muthukrishna. Enjoy! A transcript of this show is available here. Notes and links 4:30 - An introduction to "dual inheritance theory." 11:00 - A 2013 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues about the relationship between sociality and cultural complexity. 12:15 - A paper on the loss of cultural tools and traditions in the Tasmanian case. 21:20 – A 2016 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and Joseph Henrich on innovation and the collective brain. 28:30 - The original paper on the notion of cultural "tightness" and "looseness." 30:20 - A recent short piece by Dr. Muthukrishna on the paradox of diversity. 34:50 - A 2019 popular piece of mine on the phenomenon of "global WEIRDing." 40:27 - The so-called Flynn Effect refers to the puzzling rise of IQ scores over time. It is named after James Flynn, who died only weeks ago. 42:30 - A paper about the significance of Luria's work on abstract reasoning in Uzbekistan. 50:26 - A paper on the "cultural brain hypothesis," the subject of Dr. Muthukrishna's dissertation. 51:00 - A paper on brains as fundamentally "expensive." 58:00 - Boyd & Richardson, mentioned here, have authored a number of highly influential books. The first of these was Culture and the Evolutionary Process. 59:35 - A 2015 paper on head size and emergency birth interventions. 1:01:20 - The stylized model we mention here is discussed and illustrated in this lecture from the 2020 Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute. 1:03:15 – The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues on cetacean brains and culture. 1:11:38 - The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues on 'Psychology as a Historical Science.' 1:14:00 - The 2020 paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and colleagues introducing a tool for the measurement of cultural distance. 1:20:20 – Dr. Muthukrishna is part of the team behind the Database of Religious History. 1:24:25 - The paper by Dr. Muthukrishna and Joe Henrich on 'The Origins and Psychology of Human Cooperation.' Dr. Muthukrishna's end-of-show reading recommendations: Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success & The WEIRDest People in the World Matt Ridley, How Innovation Works Matthew Syed, Rebel Ideas You can keep up with Dr. Muthukrishna's work at his personal website and on Twitter (@mmuthukrishna). Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Today we've got another "behind the paper" episode for you. In it, we're talking about some of the most alien-seeming yet charismatic creatures around. I chatted with Dr. Alex Schnell, a Comparative Psychologist and Research Fellow at Cambridge University. We discuss a paper she recently published with a few colleagues titled, 'How intelligent is a cephalopod?' I've been charmed by cephalopods for awhile now—octopuses specifically. Maybe you have too. You've probably seen those videos of octopuses carrying coconut shells for protection, or pretending to be a hermit grab or a flounder. Maybe you saw the recent documentary My Octopus Teacher where the main octopus character gathers a bunch of shells into a kind of makeshift armor to protect herself against an imminent shark attack. This is all jaw-droppingly, head-scratchingly cool stuff. But you may have also wondered, as I have, what's really going on—cognitively— behind these behaviors. What's happening in the minds of these creatures when they pull off these fancy feats? Could the mechanisms involved actually be simpler than you might at first guess? This really is the core issue in Alex's paper and we circle around it for much of the conversation. But, in circling, we touch on a lot. We cover some Cephalopod 101 type stuff—when cephalopods split from vertebrates, what cephalopods brains are like, why octopuses tends to hog the limelight when squid and cuttlefish are pretty impressive, too. We talk about Alex's studies of self-control in cuttlefish, styled on the classic marshmallow experiments. We talk about the cephalopod gift for disguise and whether this gift might suggest a form of bodily awareness or maybe even theory of mind. And we zoom out to talk about the evolution of cognitive sophistication generally and how cephalopods can help us understand the kinds of forces that drive it. I've been excited about cephalopods for awhile now, but having this conversation made me that much more so. It's convinced me that we still have a ton to learn about—and probably from—these brainy, shape-shifting creatures. So let's get to it. Here's my conversation with Dr. Alex Schnell. Enjoy! The paper we discuss is here. A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 14:35 – Watch a video of octopuses carrying coconuts here. See the original research study on this behavior here. 16:45 – A paper showing that Eurasian jays can think beyond their current state to consider future needs. 17:40 – The paper reporting the original pretzel experiments in human children. 29:10 – A video of an octopus purportedly changing colors while dreaming. 32:10 – Another recent paper published by Dr. Schnell, led by her colleague Piero Amodio, about the evolutionary drivers of cephalopod intelligence and animal intelligence generally. 38:20 – A recent discussion of animal sentience and the "precautionary principle." Dr. Schnell's end-of-show reading recommendations: A recent paper by P. Billard and colleagues Recent work by Piero Amodio Research at the Cognitive Neuroethology of Cephalopods (NECC) lab You can follow Dr. Schnell at her website or on Twitter. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome to our first episode of 2021! Super excited to get this year going—we've got, I promise, lots of great conversations in store for you. But this week, to kick things off, we have a brief audio essay. It's about tracks—that's right, footprints. This might seem at first glance like a narrow topic but, fear not, it contains multitudes. I started thinking about this theme a month or so ago after the first snowfall of the winter. It was just a dusting but perfect conditions for clear, distinct footprints. I was out in the park totally transfixed by these crisp perfect animal tracks. (I'm still not sure what kind of animal, some small to medium mammal.) And, anyway, I got to thinking about how many of us have lost touch with tracks—just like we've lost touch with so many other natural phenomena, from bird calls to constellations. And I started thinking about the many meanings of tracks. The roles they've played. What they can tell us. So that was the seed from which this essay grew. In it we talk about how archaeologists have used trackways to reconstruct our prehistory; about how, according to some, tracking played a role in our cognitive evolution; and we talk about how about tracks are mainstay of myth and metaphor and visual culture. Lots here folks—I think you'll enjoy it. A text version of this essay is available on Medium. Notes and links 2:45 – The Laetoli prints have been written about in numerous places. Early reports by Mary Leakey and colleagues are here and here. A brief, accessible, up-to-date overview is here. 4:15 – The 2013 prints from Norfolk, England are widely known as the Happisburgh prints. Read the original report here. 4:40 – Read the paper about the 2020 prints from White Sands National Monument here. A popular article about the trackway can be read here. 6:15 – Read Kim Shaw-Williams' "social trackways theory" paper here. More recently, he has expanded these ideas to cover the evolution of language. 8:20 – A 2003 paper by Deborah Wells and colleagues, about the directional tracking abilities of dogs, can be read here. A follow-up is here. 9:30 – Louis Liebenberg's book The Art of Tracking: The Origin of Science can be read here. 10:45 – The Robert Macfarlane quote comes from his book The Old Ways. 11:00 – Ethnographic evidence of peopel's ability to recognize individual tracks in some communities is discussed by Liebenberg and Shaw-Williams. 11:30 – Wikipedia has articles about the Ciguapa and Curupira. Read about the Konderong here. The number words of the Xerénte can be read about here. Sesotho time metaphors are briefly mentioned here. 12:15 – Read about the origins of Chinese characters in bird tracks here. View scanned pages of the Boturini Codex here. 13:55 – One recent new analysis of the Laetoli prints can be read here. Another striking recently reported ancient trackway is mentioned here. 14:20 – The Emerson essay from which this quote comes can be viewed here. Correction: The audio version of this episode misstates the age of the trackway discovered near Norfolk, England. It is estimated to be 800,000 years old, not 80,000. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play—or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

When you think of domestication, I bet you think of farm animals—you know cows and pigs and alpacas—or maybe house pets. You might think of corn or wheat or rice. You probably don't think of us—humans, Homo sapiens. But, by the end of today's conversation, I'm guessing you will. For this episode I talked with Dr. Brian Hare of Duke University. He's a core member of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience there, as well a Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology. Along with Vanessa Woods, he's the author of book published this summer titled Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding our Origins and Rediscovering our Common Humanity. We talked about Brian's research with dogs, foxes, and bonobos and how it led him to a big idea at the center of this new book. The idea is that, much as we domesticated farm animals to make them tamer and easier to work with, we also seem to have domesticated ourselves at some point in our evolutionary past. This process is known as self-domestication—a selection for friendliness. But beyond making us gentler and smilier, the domestication process also had a bunch of unexpected impacts on our behaviors, bodies, and brains. Really unexpected, like the fact that we have globe-shaped heads. According to Brian and Vanessa's account, self-domestication was in fact the force that allowed ancient humans to develop larger social networks and, in turn, more sophisticated technologies. So it may hold the answer to why we're still around while other hominin species—like the Neanderthals—aren't. As Brian says at one point in our conversation, the book is really offering an account of human nature. And, importantly, it's a dual nature. Lurking behind our friendliness—co-existing and co-evolved with our newfound chumminess—is a darker side, a capacity for real cruelty. I consider the human self-domestication hypothesis to be one of the most fascinating ideas of that last decade. Right now it's really at the center of a lot of conversations about human origins and about human and animal minds. Enjoy! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links Note: Much of what we discuss is covered in Survival of the Friendliest, but additional readings and sources are also listed here. 6:42 – Read the paper inspired by Dr. Hare's early observations about how his dog Oreo could understand human pointing gestures. 8:40 – In one study, Dr. Hare traveled to Siberia to study a population of domesticated foxes—and specifically to ask whether they would show a predilection for cooperative communication. The long-running fox-farm experiment is the subject of a book titled How to Tame a Fox (And Build a Dog). 10:50 – Around the same time as his research in Siberia, Dr. Hare also published work examining how bonobos exhibit more tolerance than chimpanzees. 15:15 – A recent article voicing skepticism about the fox-farm research and the so-called "domestication syndrome." 17:30 – See Dr. Hare's 2017 book, Bonobos: Unique in Mind, Brain, and Behavior, co-authored with Shinya Yamamato. 30:00 – A long-standing puzzle in paleoanthropology is why modern human behavior—as judged by advanced tool use, symbolism, etc.—lagged behind modern human anatomy by more than a hundred thousand years. The eventual emergence of modern behavior is sometimes described as the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. 40:00 – An article Dr. Hare published along with Robert L. Cieri, Steven Churchill, and other colleagues on the origins of "behavioral modernity." 48:30 – Steven Pinker—among other scholars—has argued that violence has declined in human societies from prehistory until today. This idea has been both influential and controversial. 58:45 – Evidence from social psychology suggests that cross-group friendships might be especially powerful in changing attitudes. Here's one paper on the power of inter-group contact. Brian Hare's end-of-show recommendations: Richard Wrangham, The Goodness Paradox David Livingston Smith, On Inhumanity David Stasavage, The Decline and Rise of Democracy See also: books by Joseph Henrich and Michael Tomasello The best way to keep up with Dr. Hare's work is on Twitter (@bharedogguy) website: http://brianhare.net/ Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twit

Welcome back folks! Today's episode is a conversation about the nature of knowledge. I talked with Dr. Briana Toole, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College. Briana specializes in epistemology—the branch of philosophy that grapples with all things knowledge-related. In her work she is helping develop a new framework called "standpoint epistemology." The basic idea is that what we know depends in part on our social position—on our gender, our race, and other factors. We flesh out this idea by walking through a bunch of examples that show how where we stand shapes the facts we attend to, believe, accept, and resist. We also talk about our moment present, polarized and fractured as it is. As we discuss, standpoint epistemology might offer tools to help us make sense of what's happening, understand where others are coming from, and maybe even bridge some of the chasms that divide us. Enjoy! A transcript of this show is available here. Notes and links 2:10 – Learn more about Dr. Toole's outreach organization, Corrupt the Youth. And for more about Dr. Toole's work with the program see this recent profile in Guernica magazine. 6:15 – Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth. 9:00 – Corrupt the Youth often begins with lessons on the allegory of the cave and the ring of Gyges. 19:50 – For more on the significance of "fake barn country," see this entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Gettier's groundbreaking paper is here. 23:00 – We mention a number of early pioneers in standpoint epistemology, including Rebecca Kukla, Sandra Harding, and Donna Haraway. 26:40 – Jane Addams's letter about women and public housekeeping. 32:20 – Dr. Toole's recent paper—'From Standpoint Epistemology to Epistemic Oppression'—discusses the distinction between marginalized and dominant knowers, among other topics. 32:55 – Kristie Dotson's classic paper on epistemic oppression. You can also listen to a podcast with her here. 37:00 – Indigenous communities in Australia have long known that certain birds spread fire in order to flush out prey. This example is discussed in Dr. Toole's article 'Demarginalizing Standpoint Epistemology.' 38:20 – We discuss three key theses in the standpoint epistemology framework: the situated knowledge thesis; the achievement thesis; and the epistemic privilege thesis. 41:10 – Read more about W.E.B. Dubois's notion of "double consciousness" here. 43:29 – The particular sense of "conceptual resources" we discuss here was introduced by Gaile Pohlhaus, and is further developed by Dr. Toole in her paper, 'From Standpoint Epistemology to Epistemic Oppression.' 44:50 – The concept of "misogynoir" is discussed here. 59:40 – The notion of "consciousness raising" has its roots feminism, as discussed here. 1:11:35 – A recent interview in The Atlantic in which former US President Barack Obama referred to our current moment as one of "epistemological crisis." Briana Toole's end-of-show recommendations: Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, by bell hooks Sister Outsider, by Audre Lorde Learning from the Outsider Within, Patricia Hill Collins Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, edited by Shannon Sullivan an Nancy Tuana The best way to keep up with Dr. Toole's work is at her website: http://www.brianatoole.com/ Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Today we've got another installment in our "behind the paper" format. In case you missed the first iteration, these are 30-minute or so interviews that dig into recent notable papers. This episode takes on a timeless question: Do concepts differ from one language to the next, or are they basically the same? Maybe you think we already know the answer. You've probably heard of cases where one language labels a concept that other languages don't—the German word schaudenfreude, or the Danish notion of hygge, or, my favorite, the Japan concept of tsundoku. These examples are fun and get a lot of attention, and they certainly make it clear that there's at least some variation. But a more provocative possibility is that even everyday words that seem easy to translate—words for concepts like chair, beautiful, or walk—might actually differ considerably from one language to the next. Today I talk to Dr. Bill Thompson, a postdoc at Princeton University in the Department of Computer Science and Dr. Gary Lupyan, a Professor at the University of Wisconsin in the Department of Psychology. Along with their co-author Sean Roberts, they published a paper this summer that looks at just this issue, at whether basic words have the same meanings across languages. The paper's title is: "Cultural influences on word meanings revealed through large-scale semantic alignment." We talk about the computational approach they use to quantify the similarity of word meanings. We consider their finding that certain kinds of concepts are more similar across languages than others. We discuss the role of culture in shaping concepts. And we talk a bit about why their paper caused something of a stir online. I found this to be a really thought-provoking conversation. It circles around one of the deepest questions we can ask about the human mind: Where do our concepts come from? Spoiler: we don't settle the question once and for all here. But we do throw some light on it—perhaps. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Dr. Bill Thompson and Dr. Gary Lupyan. Enjoy! The paper we discuss is here. A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 9:20 – A very brief introduction to distributional semantics. A core tenet of such approaches is that "you shall know a word by the company it keeps"—as J. R. Firth famously put it. 16:00 – The Intercontinental Dictionary Series divides the words of the world's languages into 22 semantic domains. See also this blog post by Sean Roberts, in which he reports the results of a survey the authors did on how translatable people thought words from these domains would be across languages. 22:10 – The D-Place dataset is here. 27:00 – The popular write-up which, when shared on Twitter, caused a bit of a stir. End-of-show reading recommendations: Comparing lexicons cross-linguistically, by Asifa Majid The Conceptual Mind: New Directions in the Study of Concepts, edited by Eric Margolis and Stephen Laurence Words and the Mind, edited by Barbara Malt and Phillip Wolff Does vocabulary help structure the mind? by Gary Lupyan and Martin Zettersten Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

You probably think you know the Neanderthals. We've all been hearing about them since we were kids, after all. They were all over the comics; they were in museum dioramas and on cartoons. They were always cast as mammoth-eating, cave-dwelling dimwits—nasty brutes, in other words. You probably also learned that they died off because they couldn't keep pace with us, Homo sapiens, their svelter, savvier superiors. That's story we had long been told anyhow. But, over the past few decades, there's been a slow-moving sea change—a revolution in how archaeologists understand our closest cousins. For this episode I talked to Dr. Rebecca Wragg Sykes about this revolution. She is a Neanderthal specialist and the author of the new book Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art. Rebecca and I discuss the new picture of Neanderthals emerging from the latest archaeological research. We talk about where they lived, what they ate, the tools and clothing they made. We talk about the evidence that they had a considerable degree of cognitive sophistication and—very possibly—an aesthetic sense. Once we put all this together—and let the new picture come into focus—the gap long thought to separate them from us from them starts to close. And this makes the question of why they vanished about 40 thousand years ago all the more puzzling. I really hope you enjoy this one—I certainly did. And if you do, I definitely encourage you to check out Kindred! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links Most of the topics we discuss are treated in detail in Rebecca Wragg Sykes's book, Kindred. 5:40 – Earlier book-length treatments of the Neanderthals include The Smart Neanderthal and Neanderthals Revisited. 9:15 – The archaeological site of Atapuerca in Spain, which includes the Sima de los Huesos (Pit of Bones). 11:20 – The Neander Valley in Germany was the site of the very first Neanderthal find in 1856. 11:50 – Another early site was Krapina, Croatia, which is now home to a Neanderthal museum. 24:30 – A recent academic article on the complexity of Neanderthal tool use. 28:27 – A French site—La Folie—gives a sense of what some Neanderthal dwellings were like. 41:05 – A popular article about the "wow site" at Bruniquel. The original academic article. 49:16 – An article on the evidence that Neanderthals were preparing and using birch tar. 56:45 – Some evidence suggests Neanderthals were interested in bird feathers and talons. 1:01:30 – There is now evidence for repeated phases of interbreeding between human and Neanderthals. 1:05:00 – Other ancient hominin species included the Denisovans. 1:07:00 – There are some reasons to believe that pathogens carried by humans may have played a role in the demise of the Neanderthals. 1:13:30 – Another richly imaginative treatment of ancient human life is Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic, by Mark Edmonds. To keep up with the latest Neanderthal research, Dr. Wragg Sykes recommends following archaeologists such as John Hawks (@johnhawks). She is also on Twitter (@LeMoustier) and her website is: https://www.rebeccawraggsykes.com/. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome back folks! Today is a return to one of our favorite formats: the audio essay. If you like your audio essays short, concise, and full of tidbits, then this mini will not disappoint. We take a look at a 140-year-old idea but very much a radical one—the root-brain hypothesis. It was proposed by Charles Darwin in a book published in the twilight of his career. The idea, in short, is that plants have a structure that is, in some ways, brain-like—and it is located underground, at their roots. We talk about how Darwin and his son Francis arrived at this idea, why it was ignored for so long, and how it's recently stirred to life. Enjoy! A text version of this "mini" is available here. Notes and links 2:15 – The last page of Darwin's The Power of Movement in Plants (1880). 3:25 – The 2009 paper by Dr. Baluška and colleagues about the history and modern revival of the "root-brain hypothesis." 6:00 – The tinfoil hats experiment—and its influence—is discussed in this 2009 paper. 8:00 – The dust-up between Darwin and Sachs is described in this 1996 paper. 8:47 – The 2011 paper listing many of the environmental variables plants are now known to be sensitive to. 9:28 – Dr. Gagliano and colleagues' paper on associative learning in plant and on plants' use of sounds to find water. The possibility of echolocation is discussed here. 9:45 – For broader context surrounding the question of plants may have something like a brain, see Oné R. Pagán's essay titled 'The brain: A concept in flux.' 9:57 – The 2006 paper that inaugurated the field of "plant neurobiology." 10:34 – Discussions of the "transition zone" of the root can be found in the 2009 paper by Baluška and colleagues, as well as in this more technical paper from 2010. 11:00 – The response letter to the original "plant neurobiology" paper, signed by 36 plant biologists. 12:00 – Michael Pollan's 2013 article 'The Intelligent Plant' in The New Yorker. 12:05 – Anthony Trewavas's letter, highlighting the power of metaphors in science. 12:26 – The 2020 paper about pea tendrils in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Correction: The audio version of this episode misstates the publication year of Darwin's final book, about worms. The correct year is 1881, not 1883. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play—or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Imagine a friend's face. How much detail do you see? Do you see the color of their hair? What about the curve of their smile? For many people, this mental image will be relatively vivid. A somewhat watered down picture, sure, but still a picture—still something similar to what they would see if that friend were sitting across from them. For other folks, though, there's no image there at all. There's just no way to will it into being. Such people have what is now known as "aphantasia"—the inability to generate visual imagery. Today I talk with Dr. Rebecca Keogh, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of New South Wales in Australia. Dr. Keogh is one of the leading researchers in the new, fast-evolving study of aphantasia. We talk about the work she and her colleagues are doing to explore the full spectrum of individual differences in visual imagery ability, how these differences arise in the brain, and how they impact different aspects of everyday life, from how we dream, to how we envision the future, to how we respond to trauma. We also talk about folks on the other end of the spectrum—those with so-called "hyperphantasia," who experience visual images in extraordinary detail. And we get a sneak preview of some of the questions that Rebecca and her colleagues are taking on next. This episode takes us, for the first time on Many Minds, into the fascinating terrain of individual differences—into questions about how other human minds may differ from our own, often in ways that invisible and unexpected. This is terrain we definitely plan to revisit in future episodes. Had a blast with this one folks—hope you enjoy it, too! A transcript of this episode is available here. Notes and links 3:16 – The 2015 paper in Cortex that introduced the term "aphantasia," but the spectrum of visual imagery ability has been studied since the 1800s. 5:08 – In the 1980s Martha Farah and colleagues studied a case of acquired "aphantasia," though they didn't use the term at the time. 8:30 – The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) was first introduced in 1973 by David Mark. 12:15 – The 2018 paper in Cortex by Dr. Keogh and Dr. Joel Pearson. 15:15 – A 2008 paper by Dr. Pearson introducing the binocular rival method of measuring mental imagery. 23:15 – An overview of the idea of separate "what" and "where" pathways in the brain. 27:23 – The 2020 paper—'A cognitive profile of multi-sensory imagery, memory and dreaming in aphantasia'—by Alexei Dawes, Dr. Keogh, and colleagues. 41:30 – The 2020 paper by Dr. Keogh and colleagues about the role of cortical excitability in visual imagery. 44:30 – Phosphenes are a kind of visual experience that is not induced by light entering the retina. 48:15 – A primer on Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). 51:45 – A pre-print by Marcus Wicken, Dr. Keogh, and Dr. Pearson using skin conductance to examine the level of fear experienced by aphantasic and control participants. 1:01:45 – A paper by Dr. Adam Zeman and colleagues titled 'Phantasia–The psychological significance of lifelong visual imagery vividness extremes,' which discusses vocational choices in people with extreme imagery. Rebecca Keogh's end-of-show recommendations: Aphantasia: Experiences, Perceptions, and Insights by Alan Kendle The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination by Anna Abraham The best way to keep up with Dr. Keogh's work is to follow her on Twitter (@Becca_Keogh_PhD). To keep tabs on aphantasia research more broadly, you can follow other prominent aphantasia researchers such as Dr. Joel Pearson (@ProfJoelPearson) and Dr. Adam Zeman (@ZemanLab). You can also check out the Future Minds Lab and sign up for their mailing list: https://www.futuremindslab.com/. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

We've got a little something different for you today­—a new format we'll be experimenting with over the next few months. You can think of it as a kind of "behind the paper" series. The idea is to take notable articles from the last year or so and talk to their authors. We'll delve into each paper's backstory, sketch its broader context, and dig up some of that fun stuff that just doesn't get mentioned in a formal scientific write-up. We'll still be doing our longform interviews as well, but we'll be mixing in shorter ones in this style. For this first installment we're discussing a paper published in March of this year titled 'Baboon thanatology'. It describes a truly startling behavior: when an infant baboon dies, it's mother may carry its corpse around for days, sometimes a week or longer. She might continue to groom it or care for it in other ways. The paper is one of a raft of recent articles on how animals respond to death and dying. This new research area of "comparative thanatology" asks whether animals truly understand this basic bodily process, whether they grieve, whether they get that death is final and irreversible. To talk about this deep stuff, I'm joined in this episode by not one but two of the study's authors—Dr. Alecia Carter, who is a Lecturer in Evolutionary Anthropology at University College London and Dr. Elise Huchard, a CNRS Research Scientist at the Institute of Evolutionary Sciences, at the University of Montpellier. Hope you enjoy this format. As always, let us know what you think. On to my conversation with Alecia and Elise. Enjoy! The paper we discuss—by Alecia Carter, Alice Baniel, Guy Cowlishaw, and Elise Huchard—is here. A transcript of this interview is available here. Notes and links 2:25 – More info about the Tsaobis Baboon Project in Namibia. Dr. Carter and Dr. Huchard co-direct the project with Dr. Guy Cowlishaw. 7:35 – A 2018 special issue on 'Evolutionary thanatology' that helped crystallize the field and another one from 2020. 8:40 ­– See the famous 2009 photo of chimpanzees appearing to grieve. It may have helped kick-start the field of comparative thanatology. 26:35 – Dr. Carter is now directing a project—'Thanatobase'—to collect further records of primate responses to death and dying. End-of-show recommendations: How Animals Grieve by Barbara King Comparative Thanatology by James R. Anderson Mama's Last Hug by Frans de Waal Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: [email protected]. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome back everyone! Hope you all had a great August. And hope you're all—like me—jazzed about the start of Season 2 of Many Minds. There's a viral video clip from 2014—maybe you've seen it. It features a subject in a pretty remarkable psychology experiment. He's put in room full of different apparatuses, one of which contains reward. After sizing up the room, the subject gets started. The first thing he does is tug on a string until he can reach a short stick that's tied to the end of it. He then uses that stick to retrieve a stone that was just out of his reach, behind some bars; then he retrieves another stone in the same way; then a third. One at a time, he picks up the stones, takes them across the way, and plunks them down a tube. Nothing happens at first but, after the third stone, the combined weight lowers a trap door, releasing a long stick. The subject then uses that long stick to carefully pry out his reward from a deep hole. It's an impressive display of problem solving. But what's most remarkable is that the subject in question is not a Psych 101 student but a bird—a New Caledonian crow, to be exact—and his name is 007. My guest on today's show is Alex Taylor, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Auckland. He's the one who devised this challenge for 007—it brings together a number of tasks he's used with New Caledonian crows over the years to try to understand their striking capacities for tool use, for planning, and for reasoning of different kinds. We talk about how Alex got interested in crows and how he studies them; we talk about what seems to be going on in their minds when they solve multi-step puzzles; we talk about the kinds of tools that crows make and use in the wild and the emerging evidence that using those tools puts them in a good mood. We then zoom out to discuss some of the leading ideas about what drives the evolution of intelligence behavior, whether in crows or chimps or children. We also touch on some of Alex's new work with another species—the kea, an alpine parrot native to the south Island of New Zealand. We talk about how the kea are in some ways a foil to the New Caledonian crow—a bit more curious, a bit more fun-loving—but also super sharp in their own ways. This conversation was a real treat. Like many folks, it seems, during the lockdown this spring I found myself with a newfound interest in birds. So I was especially excited to get to tour the world of avian cognition with Alex—a leading researcher in the area and an affable guide at that. I think you'll get a kick out of this one folks—and I'm happy to bet it'll have you looking at your neighborhood corvids in a whole new light. Without further preamble, here's my conversation with Dr. Alex Taylor. Enjoy. A transcript of this interview is available here. Notes and links 4:00 ­– A popular article about the famed feats of Betty, a New Caledonian crow. An early publication establishing these crows' impressive tool-making abilities. 8:00 – The corvid family is large and diverse. Accessible introductions to corvids and corvid cognition can be found here and here. 13:30 – Dr. Taylor's first study with crows dealt with meta-tool use—the use of one tool on another. An image depicting the set-up of the study can be found here. 17:30 – An article about how New Caledonian crows craft and use tools in the wild. 19:34 – A study suggesting that the pandanus tools made by New Caledonian crows may exhibit cumulative cultural evolution. (We discussed the importance of cumulative culture in humans in an earlier episode.) 22:20 – A 2019 study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues investigating the types of mental representations crows seem to be using during multi-stage problem solving tasks. 24:10 – A 2019 study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues suggesting crows might enjoy using tools. The procedure involved a cognitive bias task first developed in this 2004 study. 30:50 – A classic study in psychology analyzing individual differences in how much people like thinking—that is, their "need for cognition." 35:00 – Aesop's fable about the crow and the pitcher. The fable was first adapted into an experimental task in this study. Dr. Taylor and colleagues have since used variations of the task to probe crows' causal understanding. Here is one overview of this work. 41:20 – A study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues examining how human children do on the Aesop's fable task. 42:35 – Dr. Taylor's "signature testing" proposal is discussed here. 53:50 – A 2017 study showing that monkeys can be trained to pass the mirror test by using laser pointers. (We discussed the mirror test in a previous episode.) 56:34 – A paper by Dr. Taylor and a colleague discussing the equivocal evidence for the "technical intelligence hypothesis"—the idea that selection for tool use leads to selection for general intelligence. 58:17– An article about "encephalization" as a proxy for animal intelligence. 1:02: 35 – A paper by the philosopher Kim Sterelny about