Psychology

You can have the best AI in the world and the best robots in the world, but if they aren't integrated well with the humans, then you will lose.

We have to recognise that if we ignore or downplay the human side, we could lose. That, I think, is really the key insight for why and how things should be done differently.

This tool is truly the best thing that the science has come up with for getting two people to like each other. A little bit of optimisation can be effective—you should be eating healthy and exercising and doing the basics. But I tend to think in terms of relational optimisation: how can I put two people in the best position to share things about themselves that allow them to find conversational pathways that happen to go well?

You feel like a product when you're on these things. You feel like you're selling yourself. But what's amazing is that when you get people in person, actually interacting, much of the time they don't do that same optimisation, especially if you give them just a few nudges.

What we see in the science is something very different. We often see that romantic partners basically see the best in each other. They're wearing rose-coloured glasses. And the primary thing that brings people together is what we would call attachment bonds or pair bonds: the idea that people are looking for somebody who they feel has their back, somebody who's going to celebrate their successes, and somebody who's going to be there for them.

When you tell people these things, they get a little fatalistic about it. They tend to think, 'Well, I guess there's not much I can do about that.' I would call that a bias. It is wrong just as often as it's likely to be right. We really need to interrogate and deconstruct that assumption. It's rarely true, and it can lead people to internalise some of these effects in a way that can be pretty damaging and totally unnecessary.

Data is showing that the amount of information we're sending them without hope, and the ratio of hope versus negativity, is shutting down the next generation, which is terrifying. They're like, 'Oh my gosh, what's the point? The fire is too big.'

What happened was that people saw their place going down while London was booming. They started to blame each other. We retreat into polarised blame games, and that is very common.

Economist specializing in poverty, conflict, and development in Africa

We have a significant ability to change our cognitive trajectory. But first, we need to believe it's possible. And second, we need to engage in the things that allow it to happen.

When those inputs are removed, it starts to prune function and structure, because those functions aren't needed anymore. It's still that same process — we just call it ageing. And it happens because we've removed physical activity, cognitive stimulus, and social connection. The brain responds accordingly.