Close
Join hosts Doctor Xand van Tulleken and Professor Rochelle Burgess for Season 5, Episode 2 of Public Health Disrupted with Mia Forbes Pirie and Dr Kris De Meyer
DESCRIPTION
Listening to connect: how understanding beliefs can transform public health
In this episode of Public Health Disrupted, hosts Xand van Tulleken and Rochelle Burgess dive into how we form beliefs, and how they shape our understanding of critical public health issues. From vaccination hesitancy to climate change, the episode explores the psychological mechanisms that lead to entrenched views and the challenges of changing minds.
Joining them are Mia Forbes Pirie, a leading international mediator, and Dr. Kris De Meyer, Director of the UCL Climate Action Unit. Together, they share their insights on effective communication strategies that prioritise relationship-building over persuasion, emphasising the importance of empathy and understanding in discussions surrounding contentious topics.
GUESTS
Mia Forbes Pirie is one of the UK's leading international mediators. Her work ranges from dealing with personal matters like divorce and neighbour complaints to mediating on a global scale for G7 countries, the Government of Mongolia, the EU, the Church of England and Members of Parliament. The subject matters she has dealt with include space, chemicals, oil and gas, sustainability, refugees, same-sex marriage, race, competition law and property law.
Dr Kris de Meyer is the Director of the UCL Climate Action Unit (CAU) and is a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Earth Sciences at UCL. He is a neuroscientist, science communicator and science-policy co-production expert. Kris brings insights from neuroscience and psychology to the domain of climate change. He specialises in how people become fixed in their beliefs, how this leads to polarisation in society, and how to overcome this. He co-produced Right Between Your Ears - an award-winning documentary exploring how people become entrenched in their views, and co-created The Justice Syndicate, a participatory play about how we disagree.
TRANSCRIPT
Xand van Tulleken: Hello, and welcome to season five of Public Health Disrupted with me, Xand van Tulleken.
Rochelle Burgess: and me, Rochelle Burgess. Xand is a doctor, writer and TV presenter and I'm a community health psychologist and professor of global mental health and social justice at the UCL Institute for Global Health.
Xand Van Tulleken: This podcast is about public health. More importantly, it's about the systems that need disrupting to make public health better. So join us each month as we challenge the status quo of the public health field, asking what needs to change, why and how to get there.
Rochelle Burgess: And in today's episode, we'll be exploring something that I've been thinking about since the very beginning of my career. I actually was saying earlier that this is one of the things that made me study psychology. And so we're exploring the science behind beliefs, sort of how we develop them and why we can become entrenched in our views, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Our, guests will explain why we can use this understanding to improve the communication of science and tackle public health issues such as vaccination and climate change. We'll explore the ways fear can lead to people becoming overwhelmed or disengaged and find out how we can use this knowledge to drive action.
Xand Van Tulleken: Our first guest today is Mia Forbes Pirie, one of the UK's leading international mediators. Her, work ranges from dealing with personal matters like divorce and neighbour complaints to mediating on a global scale for G7 countries, the government of Mongolia, the EU, the Church of England and members of Parliament. The subject matters she's dealt with include space, chemicals, oil and gas, sustainability, refugees, same sex marriage, race, competition law and property law. I think that's sort of a list of everything, every kind of thing possible really. It's fantastic.
Rochelle Burgess: All the hardest things I remember looking at that list and being like that is a stress list to me. We're also really delighted to welcome from UCL Dr. Kris DeMeyer. Kris is the Director of UCL Climate Action Unit and is a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Earth Sciences at ucl. He's a neuroscientist, science communicator and science policy co production expert. Kris brings insights from neuroscience and psychology to the domain of climate change. He specializes in how people become fixed in their beliefs, how this leads to polarization in society and most importantly, how to overcome this. Welcome, Mia and Kris, and thank you both so, so much for being here.
Xand Van Tulleken: Kris, can we start with you? Can you talk to us about how people form beliefs and how these beliefs become entrenched?
Kris: Absolutely. So there are Two parts to that question. The first one is how do we form beliefs? And here we use a metaphor of our brains acting as sponges and absorbing the statistics of reality around us. So if you are exposed in your life to lots of stories of a certain kind, lots of experiences of a certain kind, that is shifting the way, that is shaping the way that you think about certain issues. So you may have lots of, lots of things sitting in your head that you don't know you have as beliefs until someone pokes you with questions asking you about what do you think about X. so that's the first way that's how we form beliefs. Now how our beliefs then become really conscious convictions that we hold very strongly and very deeply and that we have a very strong attachment to is through a process of self persuasion equation where we start to think about a particular issue. Now on, any topic where today you may have a very strong view on, there was a moment in the past where you didn't have a strong view about that particular topic. And as you might start to think about something, let's say something in your personal life like whether you're going to change jobs or move to another city or something to do with what's going on in society, how we should tackle climate change, for example. For any of those topics we might start pondering them, we might start thinking about them and initially we might not have a strong view about them. Like we just might be conflicted between different options. And what usually happens in that process is that somewhere in that process of pondering, of thinking it through, our brains are going to say, you know, based on all the thinking that I've done so far, I think I'm going to do this. I think I'm going to look what it would mean like to move to this other city or going to find out more about this company that I might be applying for. And that initial decision sets off a wave of activity in our brain. So what our brains are doing is they're giving ourselves a pat on the back for that initial decision that we've just taken. And that means that now we're a little bit more certain of the decision that we've just taken. So maybe we now do a next action that goes in the same direction. So maybe I start to talk to friends and family about that decision that I've just made. Maybe I go to social media and put something on there and I might end up in an argument with a stranger about this. And what all of these actions do is that they have more of that self justification that follows them. So we take an action. Our brain confirms that action to ourselves. Pat on the back, we find additional reasons for why this is the right thing to do. And the more we take those actions, the more we persuade ourselves of the correctness of that initial decision. And that process is called self persuasion. And in and of itself that process is neutral. It's a thing that makes us the passionate advocates for good causes. Like some point in the past, we started to take an initial action and that has led us in a direction where now perhaps everything we do is dominated by that good cause that we're pursuing. But in the worst case, it can also lead people into conspiracy thinking and into joining dangerous cults, etc. So it's a very similar process that can have very different outcomes dependent on where it takes us.
Rochelle Burgess: One of the things that I remember learning lots about in studying social psychology is sort of identity theory and social identity theory. And so how the way that our beliefs are sort of bound up in sort of the protection of the self, how does that kind of connect to what you're saying there?
Kris: So self identity, yes, we end up doing and believing things that are in line with the identity that we form. But that identity needs to come from somewhere. And that identity comes from us taking action on something, making decisions on something, then bringing our beliefs in line with the actions that we have just taken.
Xand Van Tulleken: Kris, just to reflect on what you said, I love the idea that we're not aware of our beliefs. And I feel like increasingly that happens where I open a newspaper and think, oh, I don't have an opinion about that. And then I can feel my brain hunting for the opinion I think I should have. Are you more personally self conscious of when you are self persuading?
Kris: Well, we have a process inside the climate action. We have a bit of language for that. So we talk about the pyramid of self persuasion and polarization. And that, pyramid, the tip of the pyramid is the moment where you make that initial decision. And what we often use inside our own meetings when we're discussing difficult things is like one of us might say, hold on, we're introducing a pyramid moment here. We're introducing a choice where the group might actually split in different directions. And so we then sometimes say like, this is not the right moment to introduce that pyramid here. We know we might need to make a decision about this, but not at this moment in time. So yes, there are many moments where it would be good to not jump headfirst into decision Making. And then there are other moments where it's really good to say, you know what? I know what is important to me in my life, and that's why I'm m making these decisions, because they will lead to that good outcome for what it is that I'm trying to achieve.
Rochelle Burgess: Kris, what I sort of feel like I'm hearing you talk about is, is this pyramid approach is trying to interrupt sort of a very natural tendency that we have to sort of develop cognitive bias or sort of the way that our brain is just really happy to do what it's always done, you know? So it's like I, used to talk to my students about being cognitive misers, reminding them that actually, like, we're really quite lazy. We want to use the patterns we know and use the things we know. How do people respond to that? I feel like it would be really. It's really hard. Like, it's a quite a hard thing to interrupt those. Those patterns. No. Even in, like, your own meetings with colleagues?
Kris: Yeah, it's. It's not easy, but it's certainly doable. And the reason is that as humans, we're a jumble m of things. We're a jumble of conflicting tendencies. And some of those tendencies that we have, the capacities that we have in us, drive us or pull us towards being thoughtful and trying to be mindful of the other people around us and other tendencies that we have drive us to being judgmental and wanting to make very, very quick decisions that then we feel happy about, that we don't have to think about anymore. So what you can do by, if you want to disrupt these really quick, intuitive, instinctive processes that we might otherwise fall into, is to create the conditions under which you allow the thoughtfulness to come out. And that's certainly the thing that we're trying to do in our own organization, is we're creating the conditions where we are not needing to make snap decisions, where nobody is being judged positively on, making very, very quick fire decisions, but where we take a bit of time to think through. Is this the right decision at this moment in time?
Xand Van Tulleken: I think it does bring us on very nicely to. To you, Mia, about the strategies that you use, because your. Your work, as I understand it, is involved in people who have reached a state of different and conflicting beliefs, and possibly people who actively don't want to change their mind in some cases and are not even willing to attempt to do that. So can you talk strategies you use to communicate with people who might be skeptical or have very Very entrenched, opposing views.
Mia: I think it's worth going back just a little bit to look at how people shape their views, because I think I agree with what I heard from Kris, and I would maybe phrase it sort of in a less scientific way, maybe, which is more to do with culture. And I think we don't often notice that. I mean, every room has a culture. This podcast has a culture. Every family has a culture. And so there are three layers, sort of culture. There's an outer layer, which are, the obvious things. There's a middle layer, which are, the known unknowns, which are basically more norms and values. And there's a bottom layer, which are the unknown unknowns, which are basic assumptions. And these are things that we take for granted and we just assume are a certain way. And, you know, you've hit on a basic assumption because when someone asks you a question about it or when you ask someone a question about it, they get irritated or they don't really understand because it's something that's so obvious to them. So I think our opinions are shaped by the people around us in some sense, and by the experiences that we have in our lives. And I think we forget how tribal we are. And I think that's really important in this age of polarization. And, when we polarize on these kind of topics, because fundamentally, to change your opinion risks you being rejected by your community. And so at an evolutionary level, that's a fear of death. And the more we polarize, the further apart we get, the stronger that gets. If there isn't a middle ground, if there isn't, if we don't value having conversations with people we disagree with, then we feel a lot of anxiety about the possibility of not conforming with our group because we feel like we might be excluded. So I think it's important to understand how deep the stuff runs once we start to polarize.
Xand Van Tulleken: That feels like a very helpful thing to bear in mind that when you're talking to someone who's just disagreeing with you and you cannot understand their point of view about a major issue going, but their beliefs sit within their community and for them to go. Actually, I agree that vaccines work or climate change is bad or any even less controversial issue might risk them getting rejected from their kind of gang that they normally spend time with. So how do you then take steps in that direction about issues of massive importance? You've sort of explained why the entrenchment occurs and why it's so difficult to change. I feel like you're putting yourself then as the mediator into the middle of a nightmarish situation where the one thing they're very powerfully incentivized to not do is sort of let you mediate. So how. How. How do you do your job?
Mia: So what people tend to do, I think, in the examples that you've given, is they tend to start talking immediately about the facts, and they tend to start trying to persuade. And often we're persuading from a place of feeling superior, of thinking you're stupid. If you don't get this and that comes across. And if I were to come on this podcast and tell you that you were stupid, if you didn't think what I thought about something, my guess is you wouldn't appreciate it hugely. So I think conversation stalls with our attitudes. And I think even in sort of matters of life or death, or especially in matters of life or death, we have to put the relationship before the problem. So we have to put connecting with the person and getting to know the person and building trust with that person above the facts that we hold so important and which maybe are so important. Because how are you going to persuade someone who doesn't trust you and who thinks you look down on them?
Kris: Can I comment on that? I was also thinking about that question before, and. And the way to be more effective in communicating across those boundaries is by paradoxically giving up on the idea that you need to persuade other people. And one of the things that we often tell people is that you really need to start by listening and by asking the right questions and then listen. And two of the questions that we have found very useful are, is what keeps you awake at night and what gets you out of bed in the morning. They're very simple questions. And most people will either already, in the way that they're talking to you, will already give you answers to those questions. And you just need to listen carefully for when they're telling you the thing that really concerns them and the thing that really motivates them.
Xand Van Tulleken: Can I ask you both for, examples of those things, Mia, starting with you, when you're talking about building trust. I don't know if you're allowed to talk about your work. but can you give us an example from your own life or own professional experience of where you have had to do that or you've had to get opposing parties to do that?
Mia: So I give one example from my work and one example from sort of actually someone who's one of my heroes in my TEDx talk. And I'd like to start with the second one if I can, because I just think it's so powerful. It's, this man called Daryl Davis. He's a very talented, musician in America, and he's black, which is very relevant. And he makes friends with members of the kkk. And he believes that directly and indirectly he's responsible for over 200 people leaving the KKK. And one of the things he says is he never tries to convince people, he tries to get to know them. And he has a question that he asks them, which is, how can you hate me when you don't even know me? And I think it's just such a powerful question. And I think we need to start to get to know people instead of having we have opinions and assumptions about people and we start by assuming that we're right. And as a mediator, I don't assume that I'm right. And as a human being I try very hard not to assume that I'm right. But of course I do because I'm human. and I think assuming that you're right comes from a place of insecurity and it comes from not having sufficient self esteem. Because if you have sufficient self esteem, you know that there are things you don't know, there are things that you don't understand. And maybe you're right about a certain point, but these issues are complex. The reasons why people have opinions is complex, grounded in culture and trauma and all sorts of things. So you clearly have not understood the whole situation. And so coming with that humility of as Kris said, I'm going to listen, I have something to learn from you. And it might not be on whether or not vaccinations are good, but it might be on why do you not want to get vaccinated? Why do you feel so strongly about this? And understanding the people's whys is really key to explaining to them your perspective. And along the same lines, as Kris was saying with the listening, I think if we don't listen to other people, how can we expect them to listen to us? So I often use a stupid example. like let's say you said to me, the moon is purple with pink dots. And I'm like, oh, okay, let me try and understand. So from your perspective, the moon is purple with pink dots. And you know, understanding and agreeing are, different. So I can totally validate you and make you feel heard and understood and really care about your opinion. And I would be curious why you thought that and that that starts to build a relationship and it Starts to build respect. And we have to respect the people we want to have a conversation with. Otherwise we're not going to have a meaningful conversation.
Rochelle Burgess: You're probably not going to have a conversation, period. there's so many of these discussions that just. They're not actually what you would call, like an actual conversation. It's. It's almost like people way waiting to say their piece. So what you're sort of trying to call to attention here is so, important. Like the actual. The hardest part of actually being in conversation is listening is not speaking. I used to do this exercise with my students where I would say one person talks and the other person listens, and you are not allowed to speak while the other person is speaking. And their body, they have these, like, this physical thing where they're trying so hard not to speak. And see the big deep nods and the, like, this whole embodiment of like, also wanting to be heard. but like, you know, that's not about listening unless, you know, you're actually. Yeah. Anyway, Kris, I feel like you are. We're gonna say something there. Do you want to jump? Jump?
Xand Van Tulleken: Because Kris's body language is like, Kris's listening. He keeps muting and unmuting.
Kris: So there's something called, What we're describing here is sometimes called active listening. It's where you really tell people it's okay to disconnect, the listening from the need to respond. We're living in a society where we're always expected to respond, to react to what people are telling us. If you, say it's okay that you're not going to have to respond to people, then that puts you in a place where you can focus on the listening. So one of the tasks that we often do is similar to the one that you described, Rochelle. But, we sometimes even go further. We ask people to listen within the task to represent the other person's perspective, in a group sharing later on. So you're listening to faithfully represent what the other person told you to the group later on. And that, is an additional layer that then makes people really lean forward and think about, oh, my gosh, I need to make sure I understand this person. One example of, of. Of listening rather than talking is in one of the workshops that we did. An environmental activist came to me during one of the breaks, and she said, this was someone with very strong opinions on the environment. And she said, on one occasion I was. I was in a. In a protest march somewhere, and there was this guy Shouting at us from the sidelines. And rather than shouting back, I stepped out of the march and I had a conversation with him, and I started to ask him about why he was doing this and what concerned him, etc. And it turned out that they had actually very similar concerns about the state of the world around them. They were just thinking about the solutions to that in a different way. And by asking those questions first, that person had a very, very, fertile conversation with the other guy. And whatever animosity, whatever anger existed originally dissipated on the back of having that respectful listening conversation. So it is very possible to even, turn strong emotional responses into more meaningful engagement if you're willing to be the first person that takes that first step, basically.
Mia: I think that's so often the case and that we make assumptions about what other people think. But actually when we start to have a conversation with them and we listen and we let them unpack what they think, we learn many new things, and there are many areas of agreement, Even if there are areas of disagreement, I think that's really, really frequent.
Rochelle Burgess: It's the building of new community in ways that you're, you know, you're. You're often surprised by. you know, Mia, you said something earlier, and I just want to say, I feel like I need to say it. For the social scientists out there, what you're doing is science. Like, I sort of live my life on the, the boundaries of, like, the hard and the soft science. And I think this is an episode where you really see that you cannot have one without the other. Like, culture is science. Like, if we do not understand how people build culture and build community, then the insights we have about how that connects to our sort of individual biologies and psychologies are, you know, that's, that's where the change happens. Those two disciplines and perspectives being in conversation are so important to change and I think really important in how we think about sort of public health issues where, there's sort of this. We have this sort of collective public responsibility. So, like things like climate change and vaccine, sort of unknown uptake or hesitancy. When we have dialogues about that, we're actually also talking about responsibilities that we have to each other. And so I wondered if you could both talk about these different techniques that we've been hearing you share about, and how do we actually use that to encourage action on different public health issues?
Mia: Sure. well, the first step is to meet people who think differently to us, because really often we don't actually come into contact with that many People who think differently to us, we kind of exist in our little bubbles. So we need to get out of our bubbles and start to make ourselves more vulnerable. And I think being willing to be vulnerable is really key to these discussions. We learn that we need to know that it's okay that I think something different to you, and that we're not defined by our opinions. And so then we begin a conversation. And when we look at these sort of charged topics, I think we also have to remember where we are as a society. If we're looking at, vaccines, for example, we're coming out of a pandemic and the OxyContin scandal, and then we're asking people to trust, essentially, in one sense, Big Pharma, right? And we're not thinking, you know, there's been a, I think it was over $8 billion lawsuit that's just been settled, and why should people trust Big Pharma? So, you know, we ask people to think critically, but we kind of want them to think critically when it suits us, and maybe they are thinking critically. So there's something about sort of understanding that the pandemic kind of was a collective trauma that we haven't worked to heal. And it was a collective trauma that had an effect on socialization. We were isolated. And there's a lot of research about when people are isolated, they don't then socialize so well afterwards. And that's a sort of a muscle that needs to be rebuilt. That's a trauma. So we have to recreate these connections, and we have to start with a respect for people, even if we disagree with them completely. And as I said, even if we think lives are at risk, and especially.
Kris: Then all of the above, and then something in addition to that which is, is critical to the work that we do in the Climate Action Unit. So when it comes to communicating to encourage action, specifically, actions speak louder than words, and stories of action speak louder than stories of concern. So on, climate change, what that means is that instead of talking how terrible climate change is going to be or already is, we should talk about what we are doing to tackle climate change, not as an attempt to persuade other people that they have to do the same. That's like the persuasion argument still is valid here. Like, don't try to persuade, but simply as a way to inspire people to help them to understand, the kinds of actions that are possible. People will take action if they see action possibilities. If they get action possibilities in their heads, they might take then the action. So this applies to the things that we can do in our personal lives or in communities. But it also applies to decision makers, to politicians, to people in business and finance, the media. The thing we hear most often from them is when they say, us, we don't know what we can do. We're already doing everything we can. We can't do more. Including politicians, including CEOs and finance leaders, including even millionaires. I've heard them say that, like, we can't do much to tackle climate change. We're not billionaires. What do you expect us to do? The only way we can form those action possibilities in our heads is if we look at what other people are already doing at, ah, learning from them, taking that one step forward and then communicating that to the rest of the world. And in that way, you create a groundswell of, of learning by doing and then sharing that learning by doing, such that the stories, the communications we do then turn into action and so on and so forth.
Xand Van Tulleken: I have to say, between the two of you, that is just a tour de force of how to think and listen to other people. And, Mia, what you're saying about Big Pharma, every time I listen to a controversial interview with RFK Jr. At the moment about vaccines, and the bit where you said, we want people to think critically, but maybe they are thinking critically is incredibly critical about the food industry, about the action of the cdc, about all kinds of things. Of course his family is steeped in conspiracy, and yet as soon as he says about vaccines, my public health radar starts twitching. But I, want him to be critical about one thing and not another. It's amazing.
Rochelle Burgess: And I think it's really important that we also, that we remember there's multiple types of activism that need to go on for change to happen. We can't always be shouting at each other. There must be a way to move towards gentler dialogue on some issues some of the time. That has to be a part of how we do it. And I think what you guys have been talking about today just really reminded me, reminded me of that, sort of like quiet disruption, quiet activism, those sort of spaces where actually you're doing so much by just pulling someone aside and having a conversation where that person feels heard. And so the question I was going to ask about that responsibility, and I was going to ask you, Mia, one of the things that happens around race, cism activism and racialized activism, because I know that story of your, your hero that you were talking about, whose responsibility is it to have those kinds of conversations as a marginal, as a Black woman. I'm not going to go into. It's not my. I don't feel it's my responsibility to have that conversation with someone with the kkk. That is a personal violence to me and my body. So someone needs to do it, but it won't be me. And I just sort of wondered if you could talk for a little bit about that before we end today.
Mia: Of course. I think that's a. It's a very important question. I don't think anyone should be forced to do that in any way. I think it's a question of calling. Like, do you feel called to this? And I think it's a question of looking at what value we place on things, because in our culture, I think we place a high value at the moment, or some people do, on canceling people. And I think that I would like to see us place a higher value on bridging divides. And so that doesn't mean that if you don't bridge divides, you're a bad person. That means that if you, if that's not your calling, or if that's not a way of taking care of yourself, and if that's going to create significantly more trauma in you, then of course that's not what you should be doing. But it's a valuing this bridging divides, because right now we're valuing dividing, and that's why we've ended up so polarized. And that causes a whole host of problems in our world.
Rochelle Burgess: Yeah, that's, that's, that's. Yeah, that gave me goosebumps in this valuing that having a different value, those things can mutually exist. They must mutually exist. Right. Kris, Did I, feel like I'm trying to read your body language continually?
Kris: You're doing that brilliantly. I was trying to find the correct metaphor, and that's why I quickly googled something. So your question makes me think of a bucket brigade, where back in the day, when we were trying to put out a fire, we'd be passing on a bucket of water along a chain. Right. So for you to go directly talk to the other person on the opposite end of the chain would be really difficult. But you can pass your bucket on to someone next to you, they pass it on to someone next to them. And so you can bridge that divide by finding people that are closer to the ones that you want to reach, and then by having conversations with them and getting them to then talk to the person next to them, etc. That's one of the ways that we think about bridging divides. It's like not all of us individually have to do it with everyone, but there always are people that we can speak to who then are more closer, relying to the mindset of the people that we're really interested in influencing down the line.
Mia: Can I add something about the vaccines? I think that when we talk about the importance of being vaccinated, we're talking about herd immunity, and we talk about it as though it's simple. And it's simple to understand that herd immunity is important, but it's not simple for people to understand the details of it. And I think science and journalists need to do a better job of explaining this quite complicated concept and what happens when you're vaccinated and how it works differently to different extents on different people. Because fundamentally, if you don't understand herd immunity, it becomes a question of personal choice. Right. You don't have a duty towards other people. And if you don't really understand the consequences. And that's where I think, coming back to what Kris was saying and the stories of action, there's also stories of what happens when we don't have herd immunity. So I think there are ways of unpacking complicated concepts. I think we're quite addicted to simplicity and dopamine hits in our society, and we need to kind of bridge that divide as well.
Xand Van Tulleken: Yes. That struck me over and over and over again, broadcasting in the pandemic, that I had colleagues who would sort of go on the TV and go, vaccines work. They just work. Science works. And you're like, anyone who's ever run it. Like, I've run loads of vaccine campaigns and they don't work. Like, I'm not saying they don't work at all, but they don't work 100 for everyone. They don't completely do everything, and they certainly don't have no side effects. And so then I'd be on the tv. Well, they do have some side effects. And also, people don't like. Loads of people don't like injections. Like, that's just a whole thing of going, I prefer not to have an injection is a very big deal for a lot of people. You're trying to tease apart all these, like, they do have side effects. And we say, like, you'll feel a bit rubbish afterwards. And we know they interrupt, interact with people, and some people are allergic to them. And. Rochelle, should we ask the last question?
Rochelle Burgess: Yeah, can we just, Can we this be a double issue? Like, just don't cut it. We'll cut some Stuff, but like just make it long because, because people need to hear all of this. Like this, this is the interesting.
Xand Van Tulleken: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Rochelle Burgess: This is the stuff like we're talking about, you know, disrupting. With deep, deep reluctance we, we, we have to wrap up today. So but it's, it's been so wonderful. But one of the ways that we always wrap up, because we're interested in disrupting thinking everywhere and not just in public health, we always ask our guests to think about things that have disrupted their perspective. And we'd love to hear from you, about your sort of disruptive moment. Kris, would you like to go first?
Kris: yes. So I was thinking about that question and, and I, I used to read a lot of novels from like my teenage years or even before and I still do. And so I couldn't pinpoint to a one off disruption. But reading novels really shaped my understanding on a continuing basis. And there are two reasons for this. So the irony is that all the great storytellers instinctively and intuitively know everything that psychologists and neuroscientists know about how people work. And they might just not be explicit like understanding it, but implicitly in the way that they tell their stories they know. And two things that I really got out of all the reading that I did was the making assumptions about other people that Mia was talking about before and how you can get that wrong and how reading stories immerses you in the life of other people and therefore makes you better at not jumping to quick judgments about other people. And like incidentally, there's a bit of evidence that shows that the reduction of openly killing and torturing people in society, the decline of that happening coincided with the arrival of the novel in western countries like France and England. Basically the space where a new form of novels was invented and then spread through the printing press, coincides with the reduction in us killing people in public basically. And the second thing is that actually all novelists and storytellers know that process of self persuasion and that to get to deep engagement we don't need to persuade people. We actually, it, it never happens naturally when we start to do something and when the doing starts to change the attitudes and the beliefs that we have. and if I have to give one example of that, there was one, series, of books that I read from a Spanish writer called Javier Marias. And it's his novel series, your Face Tomorrow. And it just like it, it's, you could use it as a manual for.
Rochelle Burgess: A psychology course basically that's fantastic. Everything we learned as psychologists we learned from novels. I like that.
Xand Van Tulleken: Mia, what about you?
Mia: well, in earlier ah episodes I heard you allow a person. So my person would be my mum, who is the most extraordinary and the most difficult person I've ever come across. So she's sort of my inspiration for mediating and for being interested in these things. And then the poem would be An Invitation to Brave Space by Mickey Scott B. Jones. And it basically talks about how there isn't a safe space and how we've all hurt people and we've all harmed people and we've all been hurt and so we need to create together a brave space. And I think it's a bit like the poem if, which I also love, on a personal level. and it sort of captures all of that. And there's a quote that I think shapes all of my mediation practice and the way I try and engage in relationships. And it's by Marianne Williamson who's been quoted by not for this but for something else by Nelson Mandela. And she says the way of the miracle worker is to see all human behavior as one of two things, either love or a call for love. And so basically, however badly you see someone behave, you know that when someone behaves badly it's because they're in pain. No one who is happy and balanced behaves badly.
Rochelle Burgess: That is so beautiful. And hopefully another tip to our producers that this episode on love that I've been desperate to have for five seasons needs to comes through.
Xand Van Tulleken: We should get a poet. We could, we could, we could get them. We could get a, get a poet to talk about love. The Miracle worker, quote is very lovely as well. I keep. I always remind my 15 year old son of Reinhold Niebuhr's quote about, about love and the different forms of love. And that's another lovely way of phrasing it. So thank you. So thank you so much both of you for sharing those things which I always feel it's quite an intimate question. So a very grateful for you sharing it. That was absolutely fascinating and fantastic. So thank you very much indeed.
Rochelle Burgess: Thank you.
Mia: Thank you for asking us and for having us on.
Rochelle Burgess: You've been listening to Public Health Disrupted. This episode was presented by me, Rochelle Burges and Xand van Tulleken, produced by UCL Health of the Public and edited by Annabel Buckland at Decibel Creative. Our thanks again to today's amazing guests, Mia Forbes Puri and Kris Demeyer.
Xand Van Tulleken: If you'd like to hear more of these fascinating discussions from UCL Health of the Public. Make sure you're subscribed to this podcast so you don't miss future episodes. Come and discover more online and keep up with the school's latest news, events and research. Just Google UCL Health of the Public. This podcast is brought to you by UCL Minds, bringing together UCL knowledge, insights and expertise through events, digital content and activities that are open to everyone.