 So there we have it, directly from Danny Kahneman talking about System 1 and System 2. Now, I think it's important to remember kind of the point of this episode, and we're looking at the difference between System 1 and System 2. And he makes that distinction clear, I think, when he was talking about some of the early work that he did with Jackson Beattie in the 60s, actually, on pupil dilation. He just mentioned it briefly, but what he was actually measuring. So we know that pupils, when you're measuring, what you can actually do is film somebody's pupil and you can project it on a wall beside them, for example. And you can measure, literally, with a ruler, measure the size of the pupil as it gets larger and smaller. Now we know that the pupil responds to things like light. So if you have bright light, the pupil dilates. Dark, and then it gets larger. But it also responds to cognitive effort. So it's actually responding to System 2 and how essentially how hard your brain is working. It's not even how hard you feel like you're working, but it's actually how much kind of like how much effort, how much heat the brain is producing almost. And so what you can do, the way that they tested it, he and Beattie, was by presenting people with a digit span task. And so if I ask you to remember, for example, six, four, three, those three digits, and I measure your pupil, then I add a digit, six, four, three, two. You keep those four digits in mind and I measure your pupil, six, four, three, two, seven. We can keep doing this and adding digits. And as you try to remember the digit span as you keep adding more and more digits, your pupil just keeps getting larger and larger until one of two things happens. One, you report the number, so you say, okay, six, four, three, two, seven. And then your pupil constricts again. Or you give up. And so Kahneman in his book, he talks about this really nice example where they're watching. They have somebody participate in an experiment in this digit span task and they're remembering the digits and they're outside of the room. They're watching this large pupil on the screen outside. And when the person gave up, they just see and then they say inside it. So you gave up on the problem, they said. And the person's like, how did you know, right? It's almost like you had a window into their own mind, right? Which is, I think, quite cool. That's cool. Danny Kahneman also talked about this phenomenon known as anchoring. And Fritz Struck, a researcher, has a pretty cool example of this. He asked people to guess how old Gandhi was when he died. And he put them into two groups. One group he asked, was Gandhi older than 140 years old when he died? And another group he asked, was Gandhi older than nine years old when he died? And these people responded, so they were guessing how old Gandhi was when he died. And the people that were given the high anchor of 140 guessed that Gandhi died at 67 years old. And people that were given the low anchor of nine guessed that Gandhi died when he was 50 years old. Now, he actually died when he was 78. But you can see that the high anchor pushed people in one direction and the low anchor pushed them into another. Now, you may think that, well, that's kind of reasonable. If an experimenter or someone, they might have some inside information about the correct answer to the question. And so it's quite reasonable to anchor your decision based on a number that they say. But it can't be working like that because there's another great example by Dan Ariely and he asked people to bid on bottles of wine and chocolate. And before the experiment, he asked participants to write down their social security number, just the last two digits. And then he split them into two groups. If their social security number is higher than 50, they go into this group, lower than 50 in other group. And then he asked them, how much would you bid on these things, on these bottles of wine and this chocolate? Now, we found that people who had a high social security number greater than 50, for example, they were willing to pay way more for these things than people who wrote down a low social security number before the experiment. So you can see that this arbitrary writing down of a number is influencing their decisions. I think people with a high social security number were willing to pay 60 to 120 percent more for these things than the low social security number, which I think is pretty cool. But this idea of anchoring I think is really good and it highlights what we're talking about. So the point of this episode is that we're operating under less than ideal conditions so we have to rely on shortcuts in order to be able to navigate the world, obviously. And when you're in this sort of anchoring position, if you're given any number, any number, obviously even random numbers, the same thing happens with the role of a roulette wheel. If a number comes up, say, 10, then you use that as your anchor, regardless of whatever random process generated it. But under most conditions, it's not random. Under most conditions, when we're operating in the world, a number appears. That's something to start with. But in kind of complex scenarios, if you have no idea, for example, of the percentage of African countries in the UN or the population of Australia, say, you have to start somewhere and any number that you have is better than no number at all. And so we have to deal with what we have. But that's just anchoring. We can deal with a whole bunch of other types of heuristics and biases. So we're going to talk about one next called availability. But what we're going to do first is revisit the faces that we presented in the first part of the episode. Now, what we want you to do is think back to the list of faces that we presented earlier in the episode. So don't watch the video again. Just think back to that list that we presented. What we want you to do is estimate whether in that list there were more males or whether there were more females that we presented. So think back and go into the next section and indicate whether there were more males or more females in that list.