 Richard Nisbitt is a really strong proponent of this idea of kind of unconscious processing, the fact that we really have no insight into why we do the things that we do. And in fact there's a lot of evidence for this kind of coming at it at different angles. A fellow named David Dunning provided a sort of meta-analysis, kind of analysis of analyses of all of these sorts of experiments and there's one kind of really good demonstration that we're all guilty of I think, and that's something called the planning fallacy. It's an old idea actually developed by Daniel Kahneman back in the 70s, but it's as you would expect, right? When there's any sort of complex thing that we have to do in the future, we're really bad at planning for it. And you can imagine this happens all the time with large projects. I think the mother of all planning disasters was right here in Australia at the Sydney Opera House. When it was being built, it was originally estimated to be about $7 million and it was supposed to be completed in 1963, but it blew out, I think it wasn't completed until a decade later for like $102 million. So I mean that's kind of on the large scale, but it's, I mean, despite our best intentions to do something, to plan for this thing and assignments, whether it be anything, we're just horrible. I mean, it's like we only see the best sort of situation that's going to get us from point A to point B. I'm totally guilty of the planning fallacy. I go away on holiday and I bring four books. I'm like, yeah, I'm going to read on the plane and I'm going to read on the beach and it's going to be awesome. And of course, by the time the end of the holiday rolls by, I've read maybe a couple of chapters. That's right. And I mean, so David Dunning, not just the planning fallacy, I mean, he provides a bunch of different examples. And another one that's kind of on that line of seeing yourself in the best sort of frame, I'm going to be this diligent scholar and so on, is something called the above average effect. And so we like to see ourselves as being above average in every respect. We're more talented, we're better drivers, we are more attractive, we're more moral, we're more sympathetic. There's a whole bunch of different experiments to demonstrate that we judge ourselves to be far better than average. And in my conversation, a brief conversation with Jeff Norman, who we're going to meet again in episode five, he kind of describes this idea of how bad we are at self-assessment. If I think of all the people who are watching this video, I'm going to ask them all a simple question. Are you in the bottom half of driving skills? Now, half of you should say yes. But having seen this, but performed, having done this in live time, probably one out of 100 will say yes. And yet half of you, by definition, are in the bottom half of driving skills. The evidence is absolutely crushing that people cannot assess where they're at. They basically start with the premise that they're at about 70% and then go up and down from there. I'd like to think that we're a little better than Jeff Norman kind of lets on in terms of, you know, predicting how good of a driver we are or something. Now, we obviously were teaching this stuff. So you'd like to think that we're kind of immune to this sort of planning fallacy and above average effects and so on. But that's not actually the case. There was another experiment done, well, more of a survey, I suppose, by Patricia Cross. And she looked at university professors and asked them to judge how good they were compared to their colleagues. And 94% of these university professors judge themselves to be better than average at teaching, which obviously averages 50%, and we're, you know, way off in that scale. So, you know, I'd like to think that we're kind of immune to these sort of effects and biases, but maybe I'm just being a little bit too idealistic.