decisions having arrived with little consternation and little uncertainty making this down for history when in fact, there are a lot of things competing for those choices and history turns on making the right decision at a moment that it could have gone either way and that if we understand first and foremost great men and women are men and women that their humanity is the essential element of there being and that we share that with them if he gives it gives a much deeper appreciation of history. take away all the halos. and look upon them as real people and we will be inspired by then i think much more keenly thank you all very much. [applause]

up next on booktv, "after words" author of distracted this week for the latest book deadly wandering a tale of tragedy and redemption in the age of attention. in it to "the new york times" reporter tells the story of a tragic car accident due to texting from intact through the court proceeding. he combines the disturbing real-life story with a thorough examination of the distractions of technology and their impact on society. the program is about one hour. >> host: hello i here today hosting "after words" with matt

richtel and congratulations it is a powerful book a deadly wandering. it is a story about you could call it the canary in the coal mine case of how we are living with our technology both in distracted and constructive ways so i think we have a lot to talk about and i want to welcome you. >> guest: prayer was bad when i needed an elevator pitch? that was great. >> i wanted to welcome you and also start off by asking the word deadly is in the title so before we go into the story, how deadly is the trend and what are we talking about historically especially vis-à-vis drunk driving which everyone has heard about. >> guest: first i like the canary in the coal mine reference and the reason i like it relative to the question that you just asked if you are

texting while you are driving it will kill you but it's really indicative of a lot of other things when it comes to distraction sitting at the dinner table being counterproductive at work so that's kind of the extreme example but how deadly specifically to the question. truck driving i think now is about 10,000 a year in the u.s.. it's the biggest number that we can measure of the 30 to 40,000 deaths we have a year. it's come down sharply a strong laws have brought it down sharply. what about texting and driving? the answer is we don't know yet. we have some decent estimates about the amount of crashes and deaths caused by phone use by drivers. just let me pause and to say now this has been like an eight

minute sentence and say shall i tell you why it's complicated. as the committee estimates from the national safety council would put at about if memory serves if they have 1.65 million crashes in the u.s. owing up to phone those are estimates. and the reason we don't know is because it's very hard to track for police agencies. it's very hard to get the information. people why and we just started trying to collect the data. so the estimates are based largely on how much we know people are using phones and how many crashes there are. to give one example of how we know that the official numbers are so far off as a number from about 2011 which is the latest data that we have of the deaths of them to phone use.

tennessee remarks 93 cases and the state of new york remarks one. just simply impossible. we are not tracking accurately so the short answer is we don't know to be the long answer is all the science and everything we see on the roadways say that it is a big and growing problem. >> host: told me about the story because we are dealing with a very, very important problem. it does seem to be on the rise even if we are not quite sure. tell me about the story of the accident briefly because it is a very gripping model or example of what could happen to all of us. >> guest: when i thought about writing all the science i'm sure i thought we would talk about it at some point with interests me when i read a story is that his character and motion and conflict and i couldn't have invented and couldn't have imagined a story that i

discovered in reporting this out. it starts with a young man, 19-years-old can of september, 2006 and he's driving to work at 6:30 in the morning. it happens to be the last day of summer but already there's freezing rain and it is dark and he's going 55 miles per hour and it is different but he's swerving periodically across the yellow divider and this is noticed by the guy driving behind him who happens to be a horse shoe maker who has 2 tons of horseshoes and horseshoe making equipment in the select highway speed. and the last time the young man i mentioned earlier scores across the yellow divider, he clicks a saturn carrying egg and can't make this stuff up to not only find a family man but no kidding rocket scientists. the real thing building boosters for the next space shuttle.

they spin across the road and they are hit by the fair year broadside and the two men in a saturn are killed instantly. >> postcodes quite a tragedy. >> guest: quite a tragedy. >> host: but of course if you are talking about an example of much more. let's get into what this represents. one of the most amazing reasons and i think it might have been why you came to write this book. you can tell us about that. but one of the most amazing issues related to this is why do people do this? we can talk about do they know the risks in 2006 there were arguments to and from. but, you know i guess we could assume now that people have an inkling of the danger so let's

talk a little bit about why we do such a self-destructive thing as -- >> guest: texting. )-right-paren it just to square the circle he was texting. he denied it. he was stopped 100 yards unscathed and he said he hydroplaned. there is a fierce law enforcement essentially a sherlock holmes meets the digital age experience and they discovered after 18 years of looking that he has texted 11 times in the minutes and seconds around the crash and maybe at the crash to have a first-ever criminal trial and historical precedent that you ask the question she's texting something innocuous like good morning to the young woman he's barely even dating he's just getting to know. what would compel a young man who is a decidedly good person although as you read in the book he has a little bit of a

checkered past when it comes to telling the truth so he's got some issues but he's a decidedly good guy, kind of the all-american guy. what would compel someone who knows the difference found right or wrong to look back? this turns out to be a long scientific journey so let me try to break it down into pieces. maybe the best way to start is to give you an image of us going back what with say a million years or 100,000 years picture caveman or cavewoman and that person is tending to a fire and he or she gets a tap on the shoulder. i would ask you what do you think if it were you would you be able to avoid it turning around? if someone tapped on your shoulder and you were pending a fire and didn't know who it was to you think that you could avoid the tap? >> guest: >> host: no.

>> guest: leading question. i'm sorry, your honor. you don't know if it is a threat or opportunity, is it food or someone with a spear that is the first image i would put in peoples mind and i'm going to get into the near of science of this in a minute. essentially, when you are driving in the car and the phone rings, the first thing to think about is that as a proverbial tap on the shoulder and it is from anyone anywhere in the world and you have got no idea is that opportunity come is that threat is that my boss come is that my spouse, is that my potential mate. it is unknown and so, this technology has given us kind of a looking speed version of the tap on the shoulder. now, maybe i should pause before i go to the next level of the moment. >> host: tell us about the limits to our attention which

are well studied for more than a century where they are limited animals when it comes to our attention all capabilities. >> guest: exactly. so what is happening in that moment and it will kind of go directly to answering that question of the limits let's go back to the cave person tending to the fire is using this part of the head of the pre- frontal cortex. it's the thing that makes us most human and we are responsible for architecture, civilization. but essentially signal up from here the reptile parts of the brain are much more permanent survival mechanisms and in the case of the lion it says to lie and run. in this part of its kind during the high-level task must listen to that lower part of the brain because if it isn't, guess what,

you get eaten. so now let's go back in time to start to understand these limitations of our brains. we cannot ignore, first of all, that reptile sound. i mean come if you can view it is actually have to have eyes in the back of your head. so, going back to probably the mid-19 hundreds by after world war ii, scientists in britain were wrestling with the question of why was it that the pilots in airplanes fighting the battle over britain why was it the radar operator could have trouble with these screens and cockpits and with what they were looking at? why was was it they couldn't focus on a life and death situation that they were getting interrupted?

part of it has to do with the civil war going on inside of your brain that i just described. if something came from here it interrupted the ability to focus even if the focus was on something very important. but second and the more basic point was something called the cocktail party effect and this happened right in the aftermath of world war ii, these kind of initial zero scientists who were gathered in britain and they tried to figure out how much information can we possibly handle? i mentioned the cage person image of the come up to you and the audience to think of another image. you are at a cocktail party and you are talking to the person in front of you as i am currently talking to you and you try to listen to the person standing behind you. what you will discover because i

tried this a number of times is that you can really only do one thing. i can focus on maggie or i can switch the track and listen to that person. but at this point, i can no longer listen to you. it is simply physically impossible and we have known this since 1948 simple peace tests were done with one tiny exception, which is i can listen to you and just maybe i can pick up my name or the changing gender behind me. so, that is not new science. that goes back to 1950. over the years between 19522000, the scientists began to define these models. how limited is what we can do and what we begin to discover is that there are networks of attention and our brain. they discover that we can

literally watch in spite of the brain blood flow and discover when you are attending to one thing and you shift your attention, you can see that the load shifts. you can't do those things. you can't juggle those things. it is often said that there is a myth of multitasking. and again, that understanding by the narrow scientists consult the way back to 1948. >> host: so, we are talking about again a limited capacity. we are destined to jump to what is unexpected in our environment and attention is something that if you're paying attention you are going to be blinded to if you are paying attention to, say your cell phone call, you are literally blind, the visual signals -- >> guest: literally blind. >> host: when a child jumps into the street etc..

so, added to this, you know, let's talk a little bit about the over of the technology. you wrote about the social connection that the technology so often represents and i thought it was really fascinating. >> guest: yes. there are three or four levels of this. one is the social connection and the social wiring is very deep and it is again a survival mechanism. in fact as we go through this conversation i think what i will begin to describe is the power that these devices come is because they are in effect survival mechanisms that are becoming so powerful that they can be counterproductive and even deadly. so, anti-survival mechanisms for wanted a better word. but on the social point, let's go back to the fire analogy. one of the values of being social is that we learn from each other. so, if maggie, you learn that fire burns you back millennia

ago but you are unable to communicate that to me -- i have to burn my hand in order to not get killed, right clicks because i get burned. language itself, the telling of anything else is so deeply wired on the social level because it helps us survive. it tells us go into the bomb shelter, go down the list of ways. so, communication and the idea that communication could be urgent is deeply wired into us and not just that. it's not just the receipt of information that is powerful, but as i document in this book the sharing of information harvard researchers have shown gives you a dopamine rush, scorches the reward centers in

your brain, it is reinforcing the idea that the sharing of social information is a reward you do so now you've got the receipt being a reward and the sharing being everywhere. i will pause and say that is one way in which our devices work but it's only one of several. >> host: so you are painting a picture of someone behind the wheel getting extraordinary temptation from that device cites them. it might be a computer. it's often a smartphone now. there's a person of the other end, something possibly rewarding and even the idea of peeking behind the curtain of its novelty as rewarding. it >> guest: before you go onto the 20 pause that with me pause you there because you said it possible reward. in some ways my favorite bit of science that i learned in this, the one that really surprised me and honed in on just how powerfully the devices are is that you would think to yourself

while matt, maggie or whomever, if i know that a lot of this stuff is spam coming into this, 67% of what we get is spam in e-mail, then i would get conditioned to ignore it because i know that it's worthless. going back to the word possibly important, it turns out that the very fact that most of this stuff is worthless because it even harder to resist. this goes back to b. f. skinner and the concept called intermittent negative reinforcement into the way that i would describe it that would connect to your audience as it did for me is that you have a rat in the cage and they are supposed to push the lever to get food for the rat doesn't know which push will bring the foods of the rat is compelled to push all the time. it's called intermittent reinforcement. one of the most powerful words in all of psychology and if

you'll forgive the comparison of us to rodents that is exactly the same thing happening with your phone. you press and press because you don't know when it's going to come. as many scientists call it it is a slot machine in your pocket, so you add that to the social wiring and you are starting to find something super powerful and i haven't yet given you the full range yet. >> i don't think that when people are doing at the quite realized what a package of dynamite is again sitting in the car with them. i think that it also seems as though it is just such a part of our daily life it's just seated as a fixture in the tool, so that kind of perception into invisibility adds to the fact that what it's doing to us is kind of becoming invisible.

>> guest: i like the way you've put it where it's just become a fixture. we understand it to be part of life and maybe even to go a step further as celebrated fixture. i mean come if you look, if you look at the way that advertising is today, it may not tell you to do this in the car, but it certainly celebrates being on all the time and i sort of documented the ads coming from the various places that say try to do more, try to do more faster from the wireless companies were due to things at once as this ad from one company where it's little kids and they say to the little kids of course you want to do more than one thing at a time and the kids say of course i would, so it's a fixture. it's become invisible, it's become celebrated coming and that is if we are sort of enumerating you take the social, you take the slot machine and the cultural and still we are not done that you but you are adding up again a pretty irresistible thing.

>> host: to push that played a little further, tell us about -- i don't know if complicity is too strong of a word but what was the news to me was the idea that the mobile phone companies and car companies can still see this today. the car companies want more on your dashboard then the mobile phone companies want to have this device at hand at all times so, you know, tell us a little bit about that because there were echoes to me of smoking. i'm not saying that it there was a conspiracy, but that is really very interesting. >> guest: there is another one of these as i reported in this book one anecdote after the next you're on the phone reporting and you've experienced this where you go you got to be kidding me and it's one of the near of scientists and other played a huge role in the case

that we talked about at the beginning whose name is david and he worked as a lot of nero scientists do he sort of went into corporate america where he first started and he was working for one of the cell phone companies in the early '90s and they were starting to market the stones as car phones and he went to them and he said i think we've got a problem. i understand he was in this long line of people going all the way back to world war ii sort of this very kind of fine wine connected all the way back to the beginning of the year of science where they understood the stuff we were talking about and he went to his boss and he said i'm not sure that you understand. this can't work. this is dangerous. and if he records the anecdote in the book they said to him why would we want to know that and he said to him it was self-evident because people could be in trouble and the way that he described the situation

knowing that would be counter to making a lot of money. i want to be careful in this conversation because the cell phone companies have actually gotten much more disposable but i do think that it's worth noting the point that you brought up. early on on a cell phone with a car phone. that's how it was sold. that is where you didn't have phone service, so if you are trying to build a business you are going to build it where you cannot have phone access. the early towers went up on the highways. the money was made. you can and do what they used to charge it was like 50 cents a minute, right and the advertising, the marketing from the cell phone companies reflected this. there would be literally and add where the guy is standing in his jeep or sitting in his cheek with his phone to his ear speeding down the road and it was a glorification of this. i'm closing my eyes because i'm trying to remember -- it will be

in the book but it said something like wildly offensive on a number of levels. but can your secretary take dictation at 50 miles per hour and its a guy in a sports car talking on the phone. so that's the early days. the car phone, it's hard to imagine that the wireless companies didn't know and in fact early on, some very courageous legislators, particularly in california and in utah where the story happened early states bought off by the companies who said what people do what they want. we are not sure if the risks. the smoking industry is a weighty thing. i wouldn't use that example but it's a kind of prevarication that is very unnerving. now these days, the cell phone companies have really taken the mantle of no texting in

particular. they put out applications to block things in at&t and verizon go down the list and have campaigns, they have public service announcements but it's also an staunch in our culture. shall i keep going? >> host: we are approaching a break and we want to talk about solutions where we fit in. i'm getting an incredible picture of individual accountability and perhaps societal responsibility and where it all fits in. just before the break, we have five minutes, why don't you bring us back to the story and we will parcel this fantastic story out in increments as you say in the book because it is a page turner. here's this kid. the issues we've been talking

about there was some denial and maybe if the fall had about this issue tell me a little bit more about his first reaction briefly in how the cmos and/or what came to be. >> guest: he pulls over to the side of the road and he tells the police he doesn't know what happened. maybe he hydroplaned and this tenacious state troopers extend to the hospital to get a blood test and notices that he is texting and the trooper told me -- and it ends the first chapter he is a one hander and he spent the next 18 months in this hot pursuit trying to get the phone records, and apropos of what you just said, one of the big issues he said he doesn't do it. he gets a lawyer and a standoff is set for the first-ever historic trial and then i will tell you more as we parse it out. >> host: we do have a couple

more minutes. so, you know what happened happened over many months as you said. and doesn't this initial reaction perhaps speak to what we will go into later, but the idea that it can't happen to us. ..

>> >> to return to those statistics with the scope of the problem but particular day with yogurt ages, of 40 percent i think people said they had read or 30% they send said text but we're not talking about the minority. >> guest: talking about is if you have done at 100 times and not been in a rack using 100 percent of the time i have not gotten in a

wrecked so therefore i won't but it is a terrible control group because 101 or who knows 31 guys are dead. >> dealing with no one time slot machine on the raid a highway. talk about those distractions >> host: we are talking about the deadly wondering of fantastic but you have written a would like to return to the science of

attention as many before me attention is the human faculties. to rarely pay attention determines our life is the decisions we make our job make every day leaves the fabric of our life said talk more about the latest multitasking viewers may have heard of the fact there are super testers. how many are their? can somebody really juggle and went to need to be conservative? >> guest: the short answer is no we can really there are anomalies everywhere there are 76 people who can dunk a basketball but none of us would try to set up a stretch to do that in our home but that is tiny i

think less than 1% if memory serves i am not a super tasker or i would remember that number but i do mention there are some efforts under way to understand the mechanisms to build the network and some of scientists talk about whether we might use video games and other techniques to improve the visual acuity. but to go back to something you mentioned earlier about attention to be the building block of how we see the world. as it goes to a multitasking and our limitation you put it so beautifully as second to go i don't remember where you just said that it may not just go to what we kayhan do but the choices and even further free will

in a way i will give you a steady to back it up even to reggie and how much control there is a steady and i guess you're audience has heard but i will simplify the chocolate cake steady. need you to tell me remember exactly but seven subjects go into a room the chocolate cake for the first? summer asked before to remember a string of numbers. by a significant margin those that had to remember a number choose the chocolate cake and those who did not choose the effort to. -- the fruit. what they come up with is when your brain not even

overloaded that taking into account significant information it affects your decision making. so now bring it back to the phone in the car thinking about what is going on with your phone to anticipate the phone, talking on the phone you begin to impinge your decision making power. but is potentially deadly but to go all the way to the restaurant what you choose to eat or how you interact with your spouse at dinner. >> host: even something as automatic as routine as 16 drawled does it because they don't have the judgment and the frontal lobe is not as developed.

people of our age to it because they assume they can handle this. that driving is so habitual it should not take that frontal lobe is that one assumption? so when we're tired every face a situation to slam on the brakes the brain cannot react as quickly. >> guest: make no mistake driving death is an epidemic. this is not a situation where people of our doing some negligent behavior bridging themselves into a coma or taking a gun to the square but these are good people driving with good hearts hoping not to hurt anybody. i would bring something up

statistically one of the issues for a while the wireless industry brought up that driving fatalities have come down. that is true but to other things are also true they come down far less than other countries and at a time when we have spent billions on wider roads comair bags, a safety measures in the cars of the advocates will save you would see much better safety improvements. don't taken for granted you can drive because tens of thousands of people per year die. and let's touch on the brain. >> statistics show that they are the textures and the reggie was just 19 at the

time. >> he is so emblematic because we go back to the initial images of the civil war to direct you and if this is not fully developed it is much, much worse. but you might maybe no zero little more adept. we have a prefrontal cortex i should not be driving in the snow is in the dark of the prefrontal cortex is not formed it lacks the defense's. so the group doing it the

most this susceptibility. >> host: a very powerful problem in society right now. talk about this sociological trend the messages that we are getting you could do it anywhere with the picture of success but let's talk more about those messages. to have everything to do with how we see technology. >> guest: how it defines us and what is associated there is a study that shows it would be true of all of us measure the with each

minute that passes. the text comes while you're driving party at jane's house in 50 minutes and you don't look you missed the party and the critical social information your boss says a last-minute deal. so there is a practical element5n just like pulling over the car if you are inclined but just as things are speeding up and want to talk about their cultural and neurological. because this blew me away when i saw its people use more and more apps each day

so they must abandon the old one. no. they're opening more apps for shorter periods of time so they're spending less time or to put it in another way they are tending to things for that much less time. put up with like to have a neurological assumption or hypophysis. given the feeling that you touch your phone that you get that adrenaline? >> host: sure. >> guest: it does make you feel good.h the neuroscience shows

through bringing imaging and neurochemical steady we discover with video games in the internet you get said dopamine's squirt that really did to earlier and one of the most important parts is that dopamine interaction the escort to the pleasure center of your brain does not have to do with the information or the substance but merely the stimulus response. so if you do something something happens. i say this with my kids all the time so now you have the device where you get a response you are accustomed

to these sorts you killed the angry bird you get a response. in essence you start to feel bored. then what you do? >> host: basically we talk real to put our chimpanzee's self there. [laughter] opening the car door do-gooder's cells behind the wheel but talk about solutions their treaty and difficult and disheartening. personally and professionally to see how that will affect law-enforcement and public health threats to see any signs of hope? you talk to one study they put a tremendous amount of effort into enforcement.

to education and law enforcement. >> greasy stuff around the merchantsa but i will just give the law-enforcement landscape. 45 states outlawed texting and driving and hands free is required. go go back to a reset earlier with a huge disconnect between attitudes and behavior is right down 96% for highway safety says it is very dangerous with 30 or 40 that received the first thing we need to rid knowledge in this conversation is it is not an

issue of attitude. that is what we saw. said public safety advocates said it is an issue of attitude. is accused of vernacular is not the problem. >> host: clarify attitudes >> we'd need to know this is an issue it is a problem. >> education? >> we are fairly well educated their even more pronounced than adults. those texting laws while the tickets were written it is hard for the police to know what is doing.

>> host: it is almost impossible. >> guest: it is tantamount to a possible.ór would my doing? dialling? texting? the map? pandora? interesting law-enforcement things in canada is they dress up like road workers to pire inside the car. that is a lot of hard work. those that expressed frustration what the psychologists tell me is it is confusing for the driver or the consumer. what am i allowed to do? it is not easy to drive with that distinction. >> host: do we know if he hands three is as bad as

being on the phone? i can imagine texting or sending it is far worse than reading it but is this figured out? >> to manipulate your hands if you look away the numbers go up so if you were on the hands free phone you still r question which is the most hard to parse even with a voice activated model of research shows they don't work very well you were in an argument with your phone. that is a problem but it also takes you away from the road. for the hands free device most narrow scientists believe it is a cognitive destruction goes public

safety experts believe it is a cognitive distraction that you are not fully focused on the road where your visual cortexçé is superimposed by imagining the person you're talking to in this situation. when that comes into play you have to make a split-second decision going very fast some traffic safety advocates to disagree there is not a big argument that a low level discussion. i will tell you the auto industry advocates for hands free being okay and it is also true they have financial interests to be okay because they sell lots of gadgets for cars that rely on the system and one

step further try to get people to the show room and

>> but i i want to hit both of them. when it comes to public education in this guy who'd deny is tears out to be a

hero. what a redemption not to give the book away. >> host: it is very powerful. >> guest: he deserves for whenever tragedy he caused and it was serious and it was terrible how he felt he has redeemed in so far no one i have ever seen it is a story worth reading but public education people are out speaking he speaks to audiences. >> host: you think at has an impact? >> guest: like mad. also legislatures. want to be careful but with tough love i think what i hear from public safety advocates unless the laws are tougher and people really feel afraid they're in jeopardy we will not see

reconciliation between attitude and behavior they will not come together and intel is more than a slap on the rest, not to be too prescriptive with their solutions in the book but advocates are starting to talk about it. >> that is hopeful. tell us a little bit about your personal experience how did you come to write the book? how did it change your behavior as a technology reporter? how has it changed your thinking. >> so broadly to your point how forms my world view i

have two little kids in their watch my behavior but i am a journalist, think about what is happening and nothing was going on so parting to understand but i mentioned my kids. a quick story about my son who was two years old he barely knew any words and he walks by his grandparents' house and his foot kicks of little plastic phone and their rings and he picks it up and puts it to his year he says i will call you back from the landline. i burst out laughing.

is a moment i realized i have a kid to mix my behavior with the device and i want to know from myself power raise my kids that was a big part coupled with the irresistible story with reggie shaw. >> host: anything in particular can even be at peace of the research and i know you are surprised of the time but was there anything the surprises you the most about this issue that changes their behavior at all? and to push that further did you used to texting and

drive? >> the short answer is i feel like a politician because i don't remember when i first got my phone capable of texting but i suspect not because i could not text by the timing was reporting and by then it was no bleeping way will i do that. i don't think i did but i did talk on the phone and i stopped doing that the fund is it in the middle and does not get answered but what surprised me the most it was not the science honestly you have done some great journalism. what surprised me the most was the outpouring from the characters of this book the rock, deep candor honesty and sharing from the widows

of the men jim and keefe come on some level this book is built on grief. what richie's prosecutors and victims' advocates open up stories of domestic abuse , sexual abuse were not ancillary or irrelevant it went to the question of attention. what you pay attention to? and in this case it was on the razor's edge of morality the way people attended to it depended on the places they came from. what gratified me the most to be truly honored as the vessel was the outpouring of

candor and emotion and raw energy. it was a once-in-a-lifetime. >> host: to understand this issue we need to look skeptically at all the different layers it is not just a manner of how you use it at that moment. is the very dicey shape shifting power for aspect of our life. how low do you hope revolve -- seibald.

>> guest: i like the question and to take a critical look there is an analogy that hits at home but i try to add up what this means. science said we will compare technology today to the industrialization and to back out a lot of amazing things happen like less expensive food giving calories to more people of survival mechanism. but it also gave us the of vending machine, nike. you walk down the hall and hit the button and get a bag of chips that has all the sugar and fat you ever needed as a person that had to walk through the jungle, it killed the bear then you desperately needed it now it will make you

obese and a diabetic so survival turns into a problem the same problem is true. they are incredible. but this technology is amazing the agility is incredible. tantamount to the industrialization of food to do survive every day. but just like that in the machine it has the potential to short circuit going right to the nerve center with primitive social rewards that can hijack as. i hope we become critical of this the way we have of food. the metaphor that has been used before that i talk about is the book find a direct.