john: are your instock exchanges wrong? [screaming] instinct tells us fly something dangerous. charity helps the poor. price-gouging is evil and every adult should vote. tonight we challenge your instincts. who helps the poor more, charity or business? >> charity. >> charity. john: but is that true? self-interest has fed more people than charity ever has. john: then, what scares you? are you scared of flying? your instinct misleads you. this is much more likely to kill you.

woe all hear it is your duty to vote. i say some of you shouldn't vote because some of you don't know much. do you know who this is? >> tom brokaw? >> looks like will ferrell. >> don't know know who he is. john: do you vote? >> yes, sir. john: maybe you shouldn't if you don't know who these people are? >> you're correct. john: your instinct is it probably wrong. that's our show tonight. wrong. that's our show tonight. >> and now, john >> and now, john stossel. [applause] john: what does your brain tell you should do about our problems? we have plenty. lots of people are poor. here we should spread the wealth around. i hear businesses raise prices and gouge people. foreigners sneak into america and take american jobs. there ought to be a law.

government should do something. that's just the way people think. it is instinct. and i have to admit, it is how i used to think. it took me decades to realize i was wrong. that passing a law, often, usually does more harm than good and progress comes from millions of individuals acting to make themselves better off guided by an investable hand, a hand inadvertently helps others. that is counterintuitive to most people. not to viewers of the "stossel" show but to normal people. your brains are designed to think when there's a problem government should address it. my next guests say they know why our brains are wired that way. we have a evolutionary psychologist at university of california at santa barbara. michael shermer, is the author of the mind of the market. there is your book. let me start with you since you talk about the mind. you say this faith in government comes from evolution? >> well i think that the

natural propensity we have to think if somebody has more stuff than somebody else there must have been something done wrong, something immoral, something unfair because we evolved in these small bands of hunter gatherers which it was a few dozen to a few hundred people in very reverse-poor environments almost nobody had any kind of wealth. so any kind of redirection had to be done fairly equally or else it was obvious that somebody was getting more than somebody else through unfair means. in fact that is the way it was throughout history until the last 150, 200 years. john: i also think when we lived in the clan or the tribe, an elder or a few of them who ran things? >> right. you sit down in the quad. you talk things out. there is a elder or chieftan a big man who solves the problem. we tend to look up to the alpha male. you solve the problem for us. you make the decision for us if we can't do it. john: lita, as a

evolutionary school exist you agree with that? >> well, with a lot of it. we live in an advanced industrial economy where markets involve millions of people interacting and we don't have a mind designed for understanding the consequences of policies in that kind of world. we did evolve in these small social groups where most of the people around you were your family, your friends, people you were in intimate contact with every day. our sharing evolves from small scale situation where you knew everybody you were interacting with. you could see whether they are contributing, whether they were contributing, whether they were hunting with you or fathering with you. whether they were making an oar loafing. you could see what was happening and you can them too. john: why should it be different because we have 300 plus million people? >> there are two problems. it doesn't scale up to millions of people or even thousands of people or even hundreds of people because you can't do the same kind

of monitoring. the second problem is, when you try as was done in communist countries for many years to organize businesses as collective actions where you decouple, where you decouple reward from effort --. john: they fail one after the other, these utopia groups. >> not just that they fail. yes, they fail because who contribute when they see people free ride they want to withdraw and contribute less and less and less. the only way you can sustain it is through punishment and coercion. there is dark side of communism. everybody thinks communism. how lovely. we'll all share and it will be wonderful but there is a very dark side which a lot of research in experimental economics and other places has been showing without the possibility of punishing free riders you don't get sustained contributions to the public good. john: let's talk some real specifics here, some of these issues where people say, government must step in. one thing that seems instinctive to people in this very rich country is that since some of us are

rich it makes sense to make from the rich and give to the poor. most people we interviewed said that was just fair. >> like if you're making over a million dollars it is not fair. >> everybody has to pay their fair share. >> it seems fair. john: it seems fair. in the wall street protests, michael, seemed on based on hatred of inequality. >> put a name to it, you mean steve jobs did something bad or famous amos making chocolate chip cookies this is bad? no, cookies are okay, and apple is fine. oil company or finance company. if it is an amorphous entity that is easy to tribalize as an enemy ink tinge sievely feels -- instinctively feels right but does absolutely nothing. john: instinctively usury was wrong. for thousands of years there were laws against usury. that is loaning money at

interest rate somebody says is too high yet our economy is built on loans. >> this is one much the tribal instincts that is somehow taking something away from me because in our an sesteral environment and in our history up to the industrial revolution most people did not fairly make money. there was some kind of cheating going on. it was a zero-sum game. only recently it has become a win-win, my charging a profit, not only helps me but also helps you and helps everybody. that is very counterintuitive. it has to be sold and resold and repeated over and over because it doesn't feel right. john: go on to rush limbaugh's point, who helps the poor, charity or business? we're in the holiday season. almost everyone i asked had no doubt about the answer to this question. who helps the poor more, charity or business? charity. >> charity. john: most everyone said charity. >> this has got a taken up more money and kind of

killing the lower people. that is charity. john: so what is wrong with that? >> say we dissolved apple computers and gave away all of their billions of dollars that they have in assets. they're the most wealthiest country in the world, company in the world right now. would that help more people than if they kept making great products and making a profit and hiring people? it is obvious. everybody knows dissolving it would be a disaster. they would spend billions in no time and it would be gone and nothing would be improved. john: greed-driven making of products hiring of people expanding, you really have to look at economics to see, oh, this helps, this has helped many more people? >> right. yet it is still counter intuitive. it doesn't feel right. but the rich are already giving way more than their fair share in terms of what they get for their money in terms of if it was priced advertised. we have the sense the way things ought to be because for the last 100,000 years things are not the way they

are now. john: talk about rent control that is good example. sound fair. poor renter, greedy landlord. make sure the rent is reasonable. it is intuitive. >> sound like a nice idea. when people vote for it i'm sure they feel good about themselves that they're doing something nice for homeless people but the, when you, when people have actually studied this it turns out it shrinks the supply of housing and particularly shrinks the supply of low, low-cost housing. so you end up throwing people out on streets into a brutal life of poverty. you make the problem, in this case, it seems nice but you're actually making the problem worse. john: but you feel good because you held the prices down. >> you feel like you're doing something good because you're being, the way you feel about it is governed by these evolved intuitions for a small scale world. we don't live in that world. we live in a very complicated world where the consequences of policies really need to be analyzed.

john: one more counter intuitive example, michael. price-gouging. people hate it. i would have asked people on the street. they would haver. ed. something happens they raise the price of water, batteries generators. >> what we see there looks bad and intuitively our minds evolved to just dislike that but in fact the long-term consequences as lida said if you calculate it out in fact it ends up as a better good for all of us. john: because of gouging higher prices make more people bring in batteries and water. >> it solves the supply and demand. john: why everybody should study some economics. thai, michael and lida. coming up, what is most likely to kill you? it is not what you think? these? >> do you know who this is? >> looks like will

should these people vote? if you have copd like i do, you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd iludes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiva helps corol my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell yr doctor if you have kidy problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you ta, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if yr breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing ure. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation.

nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help. you see us, at the start of the day. on the company phone list that's a few names longer. you see us bank on busier highways. on once empty fields. everyday you see all the ways all of us at us bank are helping grow our economy. lending more so companies and communities can expand, grow stronger and get back to work. everyday you see all of us serving you, around the country, around the corner. us bank.

[applauding] [applause] john: in the last big election, 90 million people voted. that sound like a lot. until you realize there are more than 200 mill eligible voters. in other words most people didn't vote. and that's terrible! i'm told. but i don't think it's terrible. i think it is good. because i think a lot of you are stupid. [laughter] some of you too. or maybe not you. you're the audience that bothered to come to my show. so you're obviously quite on top of things. [applause] but lots of americans don't follow the news. i took these blown upphotos of ron paul, mitt romney, newt gingrich, showed them to people outside the studio. i figured some would wouldn't know who ron paul was but surely everyone would know who mitt and newt were. wrong? >> do you know who this is?

>> tom brokaw. >> looks like will ferrell. john: who is this guy? >> i don't know. john: how about this, do you know who this is? >> the situation. the situation. john: he is a character on a sleazy reality show. yet more peop knew him than knew important politicians. >> the situation!. john: this is it one reason i say get-out-the-vote drives are dumb. they hold them at rock concerts. i run my what do you know test there, many young people had no clue about national affairs. fine that most of them don't vote. that is appropriate self-selection. those of you who don't pay attention will be less likely to vote. good! but i take heat for saying that, saying some people shouldn't vote is just sacrilegious to people. one economist who agrees with me, brian kaplan. author of, the myth of the rational voter. why democracies choose bat policies. so democracies choose bad policies because voters are

not rational? >> exactly. there is a lot of bad policies pass by popular demand. john: but people want to do the right thing. >> that's absolutely right, actually. people do want to do the right thing but doesn't mean they are doing it. in order to do the right thing you have to know something. if you try to do the right thing without knowing what you're doing you can easily mess things up. john: you say voters don't have a real incentive to get informed? >> that's right. so you really need to ask yourself what would happen if you voted at random? the answer is same thing that happens to you otherwise. john: nothing. >> nothing. john: one vote probably doesn't matter? >> you're just one little vote out of millions and millions of people. if you make a terrible decision, the same thing happens to you that happens to everybody else. i had an argument with colleague of mind, the problem, brian we're getting government we deserve. well, pete the real story is we're getting the government they deserve. that is the problem. john: the people who really get informed and really are likely to vote and get other

people to vote are the special interest groups? >> that is often true, yes. john: because because they have more at stake? >> special interest groups are paying close attention. they know what is going on. people who are listening to them do what they're told in a lot of cases, sure. john: rest of us have lives. it is not our main interest to get somebody in office? >> that's abs sought lie right. people have their own lives. they're doing other things. it is, very hard to know what is going on although here's the interesting thing. if all you want to do is vote intelligently or at least not mess things up, there is just this. admit being honest with yourself admit there are a bunch of things i don't know about, therefore i have no opinion on them. john: by contrast, if you're dumb about your personal purchases you are hurt? >> that is absolutely right. if you're walking by a used car dealership see the sign, best cars in the world for the lowest prices. even if you don't know a thing about cars you can

exert your common sense skepticism, say, yeah, right that's what they all say. when a politician comes along, he looks so trustworthy, he has a great smile, he wouldn't lie to me, would he? john: if you're dumb buying the car you clearly get stuck with a bad car, you get punished right away. the market public niches you. >> you may look back and say i won't do that again. hear is the striking thing. not so much voters are done, even smart people act dumb when they vote. i know an engineer who is very clever and could get me off a desert island but his views on economics are ridiculous. not that he read the textbook. he knows what he likes and doesn't want to hear anything else. john: it is my test here, fairly shallow, is this representative? i understand other surveys have found amazing things. >> there is not so much, when people don't know the answer as when they think they know answers that aren't true. for example, in the budget, a very common view that foreign aid is actually the

largest item in the budget. it is about 1% of the budget. john: one survey found, what is the two biggest items in the budget in winners were foreign aid and welfare? >> that's right. not social security, not medicare. nod defense. john: foreign aid and welfare together are probably less than 1% of the budget. >> depends on how you define welfare. roughly 10 when you put them together. john: social security or medicare are all 10 times bigger. >> really what it looks like people do, they think how much they like people. based on whether or not they like you decide you're not a drain on the budget. elderly we like them. they don't cost us much. foreigners, we don't like them much so they're bleeding us dry. john: thank you, brian. up next, what are you afraid of? i bet what you fear is not the thing that is going to get you. that's next. [applause]

>> you worry about terrorism? >> yes. >> terrorist act. especially being from the east coast. john: right. if anyone ought to be worried about terrorism we should be. we taped this show in manhattan, ground zero is just a few miles south. so, let me ask you are you worried about terrorism? any of you raise a hand if you worry about it. okay. do you worry about your home catching fire? >> yes. john: okay. well you're an unusual group. most people are more worried about terrorism but it is much more likely that your house will catch fire. i think we don't worry about the right things. how about crossing the street? do you worry when you do that? 5,000 people get killed every year.

so what scares you more, who is scared of flying? who is scared of driving? one person. [laughter] all right. i asked people outside about that and people said they know driving is risky but it is flying that scares them. >> i think flying because i have control of my car but i don't have control of the plane. so -- >> quite frankly flying even though i know the odds of being in a plane crash are much less than being in a car crash. john: so what's that about? he knows his odds are better in the plane but he still worries more about that? so david is a former director of risk communication at the harvard center for risk analysis and he has been studying risks and at tides about them. so why? >> risk perception is subjective. you immy people should decide things based on numbers. that is not how a human being does it on anything. we per sieve everything in the world on those facts and

how we feel. john: the guy said i'm in control in my car. >> there is a whole language. it is chapter two in my book where there are four or five fields of science. john: let's plug it. he has a book out, called, how risky is it really? >> thank you. collection of various scientists where are subjective interpretations of information to come up with judgements about risks come from. one whole field, risks have personality traits. you made a career pointing out, and you're right, people are more afraid of some environmental risks than the evidence needs to be. john: like radiation. chemical traces. >> yeah, yeah. but those risks caused cancer. i bet if i ask those people later are you more afraid of cancer than heart disease i bet most of their hands would go up because it has the characteric of involving more pain and suffering. and doesn't it make emotional sense to be for afraid of what is nastier regardless what the odds say. john: i would say yes. >> yeah, sure.

but heart disease kills 10 to 11% more in roughly the same demographic in a year. that is an oops. drives the policy. our federal government spends way more reserving number two cause of death, cancer, four times as much from the national institutes of health as it spends on the number one cause of death, heart disease. oops? research isn't being done on what is more likely to kill us. oops. john: i'm almost puzzled by people's explanations why they fear this or that. the reason for the threat does sometimes seem more important than the risk. here's one woman's explanation why she fears terrorists more than car crashes. >> there are people that want, want me dead. that is what a terrorist act is. in a car crash there is not anyone out there trying to kill me with their car. john: i don't get it. you're just as dead. why if somebody wants you dead does that make it much scarerry to people? >> it is how you get dead. john: car crash is just as violent. >> yeah but not the only

component how that feels. you heard her. i will give you a perfect example. you use mobile phone sometimes when you drive. you're a new yorker. do you drive? john: yes. >> have you ever had the experience, audience might have. and the phone. driving along. using psychological effect optimism bias what you a smart fellow knows is risky behavior. opt michl bias say, woken happen to me. we play mental games to be able to do all the risky things in our lives we allow. look over and somebody driving next to you, swerving, speeding up, slowing down. that guy makes you angry. he --. john: he should stop but i should do it. >> do you think our state laws saying ban cell phones, take away mine? they're saying like that lady said, take away the risk being imposed on me because that feels different. it is how you get did. not just how dead you are. john: some of this comes from years of evolution? >> well, the theory is that

along the way we needed to developmental shortcuts for making quick calls what might be dangerous. if you spent a lot more energy and time thinking about it was dangerous you're out of the gene pool. john: snake is there. >> poisonous snake you want to think about it for a while and you're wrong, you're dead. that trait is out of the gene pool. makes sense in evolution we would have adopted mental shortcuts for judging facts. emotional filters for judging situations how scary they are. we pride ourself on intellect and reason and statistics and rationality and you're dead, it shouldn't matter. in fact ambrose pierce said in the devil's dictionary, he said the brian is only organ which we think, we think. most of it happens below the radar screen. john: when i researched the numbers of what kills people, it just does blow me away, we fear terrorism. say 9/11 happens every 10 years, god forbid, i don't

think it will. that is 300 deaths. but falls, maybe 20,000 deaths. people crossing the street. 5,000. fires, 4,000. choking on small objects. 3,000. bicycles, 600. drowning in swimming pools, 400. drowning in a bathtub,00. all statistically more likely to kill you than a terrorist. >> it is wonderful we're having this conversation because society needs to come to grips with the fact that the statistics aren't the only way we judge what's scary. and make decisions for ourselves which makes us feel right but put us greater risk. you using a mobile phone or me when we drive. we need to recognize your risk perception is subjective informed by feelings as well as just those statistic and recognize there is danger in that. this phenomenon of the perception gap, a risk misperception is in itself a danger we can study, know why it happens and we can use that information and not

just the statistics to help reduce those pitfalls. john: one final thought, as you think about this, are you scared of nuclear power or school shootings or getting brain cancer from your cell phone? there is no evidence that anybody has been killed in america by nuclear power or their cell phone but assume, 10 people die a year. that would be horrible it. would be all over the news. 25 are killed by plastic bags every year. it is a big country. lots of nasty stuff happening to people. thank you, david. >> thank you for having me. john: stay with us. up next how the free market solves things like racism, without government. that is not intuitive but that's next. ext. want to try to crack it? yeah, that's the way to do it! now we need a little bit more... a little bit more vanilla? this is great! [ male announcer ] at humana, we believe there's never been a better time to share your passions because the results...

are you having fun doing this? yeah. that's a very nice cake! [ male announcer ] well, you can't beat them. [ giggles ] ohh! you got something huh? whoa... [ male announcer ] humana understands the value of spending time together that's a lot of work getting that one in! let's go see the birdies. [ male announcer ] one on one, sharing what you know. let's do it grandpa. that's why humana agents will sit down with you, to listen and understand what's important to you. it's how we help you choose the right humana medicare plan for you. because when your medicare is taken care of, you can spend more time sharing your passions. wow. [ giggles ] [ male announcer ] with the people who matter most. i love you grandpa! i love you grandma! now you're a real fisherman. [ male announcer ] humana.

and what they said is amazing. a rereview 5-hour energy over 73 percent who reviewed 5-hour energy said they would recommend a low calorie energy supplement to their healthy patients who use energy supplements. seventy-three percent. 5-hour energy has four calories and it's used over nine million times a week. is 5-hour energy right for you? ask your doctor. we already asked 3,000.

john: tonight' talked about how our instincts are often wrong and the result of that, we push for government policies that often make problems worse. of course the politicians who pushes stupid but popular policies gets rewarded for that. we will probably get reelected and push more stupid policies. someone in business that instincts lead him to do stupid things, the freed market punishes him. in business you face reality or you go out of business. that has surprising

unintended consequences, good ones says historian jonathan bean. he is a fellow at independent institute. author of, race and liberty in america. jonathan in your book the race is the largest word in the trial. why? what does that have to do with free market. >> everybodies is me. everybody is racist. business people are greedy. you how can you argue business people had something to do with the civil rights movement? i argue in my book they had a lot to do with the civil rights movement. john: what? >> well, let me give you one example. branch ricky, built a business empire for the st. louis cardinals. he was a gruff, anti-new deal republican. he was a fierce businessman. he built a championship series. he had st. louis browns. he had negro league team. john: this is baseball we're talking about. >> baseball, baseball. he builds it up into an empire. the business is doing well. but he could not let black consumers into the business. he went to brooklyn --.

john: it was against the law. >> literally against the law to admit blacks to baseball. he had jackie robinson over in kansas city. he saw all this talent out there. other people wouldn't hire them those other people were punishing themselves for their racist acts and so left for the brooklyn dodgers and they ended up winning championships and st. louis cardinals nose dived. st. louis cardinals did not hire a single black player until 1968. they lost all the championships. john: people hired black players because it was good for business. >> it was good for business. john: the perception is business is racist and government is evil and government has to protect us from that. government was racist enforcing jim crow. even southern businesses fought that? i hadn't heard about that. >> yeah. government was branch ricky's problem. he had to escape the government of missouri to go to new york city with the brooklyn dodgers. down south there were

companies like pepsi who advertised to black consumers. john: we have some pictures of that, if we could put that up. and they were doing it when it was illegal according to the government? >> yeah. john: to share pepsi at the lunch counter. >> these ads came out before people who knew martin luther king was. john: because pepsi wanted to make money? >> pepsi was nearly bankrupt during the great depression. a man with a vision, walter mack, said coke, won't sell to negro consumers. so we'll sell to negro consumers and the rest is history. john: in jacksonville, florida, city officials acting at the behest of companies, wouldn't force segregation ordinances? >> no. everybody knows plessy versus ferguson says separate and equal is okay on the buses, cars. what happened they didn't want to enforce it.

it cost them business. and so they fought it. blacks boycotted. it was a mess. and so ultimately the government had to many cities had to force the businesses to do it. and one city, jacksonville, florida, the companies convinced the government to back off. john: and other places businesses refused to obey the jim crow law. they said we want to serve every customer? >> yeah. we assume that when government pass as law that business is going to follow through and the corporate lawyers for these companies just dragged their feet. and that was through the benefit of minorities t was also to the benefit of business. john: and years before, more than 100 years ago there was something called the chinese exclusion act. >> yeah. the chinese exclusion act all up and down the west coast. businesses hired chinese workers and white workers wanted to keep the chinese out. so that they could get their wages up. these are labor unions. business stepped in. went to washington, d.c. and testified that keep the

chinese. they're the best workers we have in america. and they ultimately lost that case but business, against labor, against big government, that will be the story of immigration right up to the present day. john: business saying let's be inclusive. let people in and unions and government saying no? >> they want to hire people on the merits. look at google. john: business wants to hire people. >> business wants to hire people on the merits because, you know, many companies have been founded by immigrants. look, the person who doesn't hire the best employee because that employee is chinese or japanese or black is giving that employee to his competitor. john: one more benefit of capitalism which we instinctively hate. so, thank you, jonathan bean. stick around. the audience wants to question you and some of our other guests. [applause] ♪ i can do anything

♪ i can do anything today ♪ i cano anywhere ♪ i can go anywhere today ♪ la la lla la la la [ male announcer ] dow solutions help millions of people by helping to make gluten free bread that doesn't taste gluten free. together, the elements of science and the human element can solve anything solutionism. the new optimis questions. when you're caring for a loved one with alzheimer's, not a day goes by that you don't have them. questions about treatment where to go for extra help, how to live better with the disease. so many questions, where do you start? alzheimers.gov. the answers start here.

john: we're back now with audience comments and questions for michael shermer from the skeptic society. brian kaplan, economist from george mason university. david robiac, author of the book, how risky is it really? jonathan bean, author of, race and liberty in america. who is first? yes, sir. >> if you ask most people thaw interviewed on the street they would probably agree that government is, for the most part inept an corrupt. the same token too, those same people i would think would want more government intervention to have a equal playing field for people, for the, people in this country in general. what do you think that those two issues, the ineptness and corruptness don't coy inside with their desire for less government? >> anyone? i mean i totally agree with him, people say, government is corrupt, we need

government to fix that. >> i think instinctively, yes, but as long as it's our tribe we're connected to then we feel like, well, they will make the right decisions. if they're the kind of decisions we want them to make. and then if it is going in favor of the other tribe, the other group that we don't like, then we'll then attack them as being inept and corrupt as so on. we only see government, being corrupt when it is the other party or other guy. >> if i may, add, john? there is example in texas. seen as libertarian, government leave me alone. they haved something for drunk drivering no refusal. in many states, when attorney's tell you don't blow because the sanctions are worse. if in texas you're stopped when they're enforcing this law, called no refusal, you refuse to blow, the state of texas has the right to take

your blood. talk about government intervention. so you would think that texans, libertarian, conservative government --. john: would object to that. >> except for michael alluded to they are more afraid of drunk drivers than government to butt out. >> i think that is great question. if you open the high school history textbook, that is only exposure will have more to the american history. there is progressive script that government comes in and saves us from evil things that happen. segregation, it was government. forced sterilization, nazis got that from us. i'm not making that up. no surprise that government schools are teaching that government is good. and so, it is good, that a lot of people are opting out of government schools today with homeschooling and private schooling. >> good when it works for you. to most people corruption and ineptness means government not doing stuff.

there is no contradiction in their minds. they think a government honest would actually be doing a lot and their complaint it is not doing what they think i had should. john: yes, sir? >> what can schools do to educate people to get past their instincts and actually step back to try to think of things rationally and logically. >> this is such a brilliant question for of us i think. i think we need to get back the belief perfect reason is possible given the human animal we are. the brain is only organ which we think we think. there are vast bodies of evidence that suggest these are deeply, deeply ingrained, connected to survival sorts of instincts. what we can do, i think, my argument is, we can realize that our instincts get us into trouble and we can be rational enough to study where those instincts come from as michael written about as many have, and use that knowledge of our foibles to be smarter about the foibles being dangerous for us.

i sometimes use the analogy, that knowledge of the danger of risk decision-making, risky environment like when you go out driving, you put on a seatbelt. enter agris can i environment. you have a tool. we have the tool knowing where these foibles come from. we can rationally make better choices if we learn what we learned about from our instincts and emotions. >> very important thing to do with education, just tell people the answers. there is so much effort made to teach all of american history, and figure out what you're supposed to learn from it. that isn't how people learn. when you give people an enormous amount of information, at the end they decide i don't know what to think. would be better to just say things, free trade works. here's why and not expect people to connect the dots. here is, you have to get to the answers. >> i'm not that optimistic. i would love the schools to improve things. i'm old enough to know it is not going to happen in my lifetime. we to go around the schools. >> may i offer one other suggestion to you? sometimes government has to

step in on our behalf when what feels right does us and other people harm. we have laws against drunk driving. john: not often. [applause] john: yes? >> differences between way men and women look at things. men want to be rough and play hard. women want to be compassionate and nuturing. is any of this based upon like a male or female-dominated society? are we feminizing things where we can't let people suffer. john: are instincts men and women different. >> in risk perception they are dramatically. there is something called the white male effect and he emphasize the white as well. ask people in any group what are you afraid 1 to 10, genders, races, how many people they killed them they rank them right. what are you more afraid of, white men between 18 and 59 are 10 to 15% less afraid of the same stuff because research suggests white men think they have more control. that's why the white as well

as the male part. guy walking down the street is less afraid than a woman because of sense of control and minorities, the same feeling. risk perception is absolutely proven. john: from my facebook page, dan barber wants to know is belief in god based on instinct? >> i believe it is. it comes naturally to think there is some hidden force behind the scenes pulling the strings and running the show. we call that an agency that we tend to see invisible agents running things. john: sort of natural from childhood? mom and dad ran the show from the tribe. the elders might have run the show. >> yaes that's why i think there is something like a god of the government. we almost see the government like almost a deity for us we can pray to in the sense of casting our vote and telling them to do things for us. john: it is not a god. don't believe that. >> in that case you're a government atheist. john: thank you, brian, brian, jonathan. david.

coming up how instinct tells us to say yes we can and invite politicians to manage our lives. but the truth is no, they can't. but we individuals can. that's next. we have big dreams. one is for a clean, domestic energy future that puts us in control. our abundant natural gas is already saving us money, producing cleaner electricity, putting us to work here in america and supporting wind and solar. though all energy develoent comes with some risk, we're committed to safely and responsibly producing natural gas. it's not a dream. america's natural gas... putting us in control of our energy future, now.

john: simple answers are so satisfying. green jobs will fix the economy. stimulus will create jobs. and of course everyone should vote. well, all those instinctive solutions are wrong. for one thing, everyone shouldn't vote. these people shouldn't. who is this guy? >> oh, i'm not sure who that one is. >> i don't know. john: do you know who this is? >> i know his face but i can't think of his name. >> newt romney. [laughter]

john: on the other hand, it is refreshing when i find someone who does know. who is this guy? >> ron paul. john: very good. who is he? >> mitt romney. john: okay. who is he? >> gingrich? john: who? >> gingrich. john: good for her. should she vote? my instinct says she is too young. i don't trust instinct anymore because too often it is wrong especially when it comes to politics and economics. hayak wrote in the fatal conceit, it is problem we use instincts that evolved when we lived in tribes to make decision about our complex economy. he wrote the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about they imagine they can design. you might think that people have gee begun to understand this. opinion poles show people

are dissatisfied with congress. they have only 12% approval rating. good. people should be suspicious what congress would design. central planners failed in the soviet union and cuba and america's public schools and the post office. however despite all that failure, whenever another crisis hits, the natural instinct is to say, there ought to be a law. government must do something. what i used to think. i learned in my years doing reporting on local tv stations news stories should draw attention to some terrible problem. homelessness, crack cocaine, people spending too much time on the internet. people not spending enough time on the internet and so on. and whatever the problem there was usually one answer. government should act. it just seemed like common sense. but that common sense is just flawed. for each new problem the central planners imagine they solved they create new ones. but if the politicians did nothing, the self-correcting mechanisms of free people in

the free market would mitigate most of the problems with more finesse and far less money. but people don't get that. people instinctively say, there ought to be a law. fighting big government isn't easy. it is fighting instinct. even couples fight about it. i got a kick out of these two. the question was should we tax the rich more? >> yes. >> no. john: i think she is going on instinct but he understands economics. >> more money into the economy so why are we taxing more. >> to help the economy. >> i'm helping it because i'm purchasing thing. >> would help even more if you pay more taxes. john: i wish them luck in their relationship. my bottom line if we keep voting for politicians who want to pass more laws and raise more taxes and spend more money, the result will not be a country with fewer problems but a country that is governed by piecemeal socialism. we can debate the meaning of the term socialism. but no doubt big government leaves us less prosperous

and less free. we should be realistic about what government can not do, being realistic means we have to fight our instinct. that is our show. thanks for watching. good night. [applause] all right. thank you. watching. good night this man is about to be the millionth customer. watching.

would you mind if i go ahead of you? instead we had someone go ahead of him and wifty thousand dollars. congratulations you are our one millionth customer.

people don't li to miss out on money that should have been theirs. that's why at ally we have the raise your rate 2-year cd. you can get a one-time rate increase if our two-year rate goes up. if your bank mes you miss out, you need an ally. ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense.