I have a sneaky suspicion that this episode is going to haunt me for years and I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to drink iced beverages in public again.

Anyone know what electronic/jazzy piece is woven through Malcolm Gladwell's part of the piece? It plays around 45-47 minutes into the whole show. Wish Radiolab would just cite this stuff unless it's all original. :/

This program does not prove that free will is non-existent, just that most people are weak willed sheep and do not use it. If you let your emotions, or fear of how you are perceived, effect your actions, then sure, free will doesn't exist (for you). Not everyone gives a rats behind about whether their coffee is cold, and they'll even tell you how they feel, your feelings be darned.

Salespeople are either studious or intuitive at guiding people to a decision with tone of voice, suggestive wording, hand gestures, eye contact, etc. I'm terrible at selling, not because I can't see what I *need* to do and say, but because I can't force myself to do it when I don't believe in it.

I've recently become a tour guide, and with little (admittedly unscientific) tests I've found I can win over almost any crowd with nothing but enthusiasm and sharp changes in inflection and tone. I can put them into what mood I want to, almost without thinking about it. The level to which we're social creatures, determined by the mob...or parasites, or genes, and/or any other thing that determines self...well, it's difficult to even wrap my mind around it enough to be scared about it.

As a true skeptic of the idea of free will, I was really taken in by a description by Micheal Shermer in "The Science of Good and Evil." It's a fantastic book on all counts, but his is the most compelling and credibly plausible explanation for the illusion of free will I've ever read. I recommend it.

Trying to explain why took me over the character limit, but this is the most important part of the most important episode of the most important show ever made. In my humble opinion, of course.

This combined with a few psychology articles helped me to make a cognitive leap that is commonly referred to as enlightenment. It's that powerful.

I was disappointed with Radiolab for the beginning segment in which--in listing off lifestyle choices--notes that, today, one "could be gay, straight, bi.."
Including this in a discussion of demonstrating the "opportunities" that individuals are presented with in the modern age gives the impression not just that sexual orientation is a choice, but that it is a recent development. In giving the benefit of the doubt I can imagine that perhaps Radiolab was intending for this to indicate that gay or bi individuals may not have been quite as free to live a life that included their true sexual orientation in, say, the 1950s in America; if so, then I still see it as a poorly executed example. If not, then I am severely disappointed in this program that I so love.

There is not a choice involved in being straight, gay, bi, or transgendered. There may be a choice necessitated as to whether an individual wishes to be "out" and whether or not doing so is safe, but I believe that such a choice is not truly up to the freedom of the individual, but rather thrown upon them by the way that their environment/society treats it. The "choice" to live closeted due to fear of retaliation by one's peers does not quite reek of "freedom" and "opportunity" to me.

I hope that you can provide some clarification on this issue. Thank you.

It would be interesting to hear other interpretations of the results of the coffee experiment besides temperature being the main factor. I would guess that most people expect a cup of coffee to feel warm rather than cold. If someone gives you coffee, it wouldn't be unusual to expect to be given a warm cup or mug. It might, however, be surprising to be handed a cold cup unless someone had specifically offered you "ice coffee."
It could be that people's responses to Joe might not have been influenced so much by temperature, but by being given something familiar and unsurprising vs. something unexpected and maybe disconcerting.

Our ability (& willingness) to get "on top" of ourselves or to "self"-spy on things that bother us is exactly the first necessary step towards freeing ourselves from the prison of our culture(s) and becoming self-"governable." Discussions such as this are a perfect example of our attempts to understand such issues well enough to begin to deal with them. The "presumption" of conscious will may be an illusion, but potential of conscious will is well within our reach if we strive for truth through awareness.

So if you consciuosly think: I am going to pick up this pencil and then pick it up, wouldn't your acton be conscious and of free will? Does Daniel Wegner theorize that all conscious thought is an illusion?

I wanted to comment and maybe add to the latter part of this piece, the part about the test with the cold coffee vs the hot coffee, since the hot cup of Joe; refers to an American saying would this translate in other languages, as in if ‘Juan’ was the fella and it was a ‘taza’ of ‘chocolate frio’ , or a ‘taza’ de‘chocolate caliente’? would a similar test have the same outcome, since the concept/term would not really apply. I did hear the part that this ‘feeling’ would fly along more, nature, since it might be hard-wired. Are there any other examples of similar test….

One must wonder if Malcolm Gladwell isn’t at odds with himself when he reports on the one hand that such societal expectations manifested in art-choices-which-must-be-justified or focus groups skew us to deny our intrinsic preferences (which later emerge intact despite the cultural pressures) while on the other hand he observes that cultural norms obliterate such intrinsic feelings when racial stereotyping is involved, squashing them completely.

Or maybe these experiments are not at odds. Perhaps focus groups and art-choice-justifications are coercive at a level nearer to consciousness than are racial stereotypes.

A Columbia psych student performed the coffee experiment on me. I got the warm cup of coffee but I remember responding that I thought Joe didn't seem friendly because he worked in a chem lab and lived in the woods.

First, let me say I am a long time listener of Radio Lab and hope the show continues broadcasting indefinitely.

I am surprised and a little disappointed, however, that in all the shows I have listened to on the topic of Psychology and human behavior (which is probably the majority), none have ever interviewed an expert or discussed the science of Applied Behavior Analysis. ABA is capable of answering nearly all of the questions discussed in a data-based and practical manner. I am not an expert in the area, only a practitioner of the science. Regarding the issue of choice, I would recommend "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" by B.F. Skinner. He discusses real-world situations which clarify the relationship between human behavior and the environment, very similar to the interview with Malcolm Gladwell at the 92nd Y. I don't know why contingency shaped behavior is "scary" to Robert or Jad; it’s just to say that the punishing and reinforcing contingencies of the environment will shape the behavior of the organism (Operant Behavior).

I wonder why it is such a disturbing thought that we may ultimately not be in control of our decisions? If we are not ultimately in control of the variety of choices that we have, even if we did have some sort of ultimate control of ourselves we would only pick that which was available. There are limits to our world on a macrocosmic and microcosmic level. Accept it, test your boundaries, and work within the outline. Maybe this is too simplistic, but I find it challenging in and of itself.

To Jeff:

Although you make a good point in your comment, it is sadly, mostly wrong. Unfortunately, most people do NOT use a great deal of information when making assessments of people as can be shown in a good deal of research.

For instance, if you ask most Industrial Psychologists about the validity or necessity of personal interviews for positions, they will most likely tell you just how pointless they are. Generally the first impression gathered within about 2 seconds of meeting someone is very stable in this sort of situation, regardless of any further information which is revealed.

Maybe it's silly, but I wondered if the use of the name "joe" was intentionally linked the the cup of "joe" or if various names were used in the experiments.

Eric from Brooklyn:

Daniel Wegner, The Illusion of Conscious Will

So interesting for "accountability conservatives."

Eric from Brooklyn:

Daniel Wegner, The Illusion of Conscious Will

So interesting for the "accountability conservatives."

I'm a proponent of the rational approach and I can't see how Elliot the accountant should be used as good evidence for a need for emotional thought. First, he is an example of one, and second how can you assume that his actions after having part of his brain removed are the equivalent of a completely rational non-emotive thinker? Most illogical!
Regardless of my criticism, great radio show, if you do more shows on subjects like this I'll be “tuning in” online again, thanks!

Question for the producers: You mentioned a book during this segment called something like 'the Myth of Conscious Choice', which takes this idea to an extreme. What is the actual name of that book? (The radio stream isn't working at the moment so I can't go back and listen.)
Great show,
-Eric

Jeff, you say that "in real situations, people have and use much more information". I agree that the conditions of this experiment put too little emphasis on the consequences of a decision, but I disagree with this specific point.

Sure, we have more information, but do we use it? The first segment of the episode suggests that we don't, specifically Miller's and Shiv's research.

I believe the point of the coffee experiment is that your opinion of a person can be controlled by whether you hold a warm cup or a cold one. I believe this is wrong because the person studied is not forming an opinion about a person, they are forming an opinion about a piece of paper, in the absence of any other information. In addition, the importance of the opinion formed is has very low and it is formed very quickly - a very artificial situation. In a real situation, there are many differences.

One influence is how important the decision is. If the decision is important, such as forming an opinion about your possible future son-in-law versus an opinion about the person behind you in a line, you will take the time to gather much more information and process it. Then your opinion will be an informed one, as it should be.

Another influence is how much information is actually available to form the opinion.

Considering how unimportant the decision in the experiment was, and how little time and information was given, how warm your hands are is as good a way as any to form an opinion. In the real world in real situations, people have and use much more information. Therefore, the effect of the hand stimulus will probably play an infinitesimally small part.