Interview on August 17, 2009 with Dan Goleman

Biographical Sketch

Daniel Goleman is an internationally known psychologist who lectures frequently to professional groups, business audiences, and on college campuses. Working as a science journalist, Goleman reported on the brain and behavioral sciences for The New York Times for many years. His 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence (Bantam Books) was on The New York Times bestseller list for a year-and-a-half; with more than 5,000,000 copies in print worldwide in 30 languages, and has been a best seller in many countries.

Goleman’s latest book is Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything. The book argues that new information technologies will create “radical transparency,” allowing us to know the environmental, health, and social consequences of what we buy. As shoppers use point-of-purchase ecological comparisons to guide their purchases, market share will shift to support steady, incremental upgrades in how products are made – changing every thing for the better.

For more information go to:  www.DanielGoleman.info  and
http://www.morethansound.net/store/ecological-awareness/cat_20.html



INTRODUCTION - INITIAL INTEREST

DC:  What’s drawing you to this new area of Ecological Intelligence?

DG:  I wrote a book called Vital Lies, Simple Truths in the 80’s that was about self-deception as well as collective deception.  In the foreword of that book I said perhaps the biggest shared self-deception was the collusion not to know.  A collective blind spot, for instance, is the fact that we decry things like the clear cutting of the Amazon rain forest (in the 80’s it was acid rain) and yet we don’t see at all the connection between us, our habits, and what we buy as drivers of those great problems.  There’s a disconnect.  And that’s a massive self-deception. 

Decades later, I heard that there were new advances in the ways that infection was assessed and, also, information systems that could deliver that critical missing link to us as we’re making decisions. A decision that seems so trivial when you’re shopping actually has massive implications for our health and for other people’s health when you take it to scale. You know, you buy one shampoo, but they make 80,000 bottles at a time.  And you’re voting for those 80,000 if you buy that shampoo.  And you’re not only voting for that shampoo but for everything in it, everything that the product did to the planet during its manufacturing and so on.  So, there’s enormous consequences to a simple decision like “What should I buy?”

INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY AND LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT

DC:  So the connection to self-deception continues from consumer behavior to the impacts of that behavior?
DG:  Well, we’ve all been shopping blind basically because manufacturers aren’t going to tell us that, “By the way, when we mine the chromium for the beautiful stainless steel set of flatware you’re buying, workers in Kazakhstan are exposed to a carcinogen. So if you buy this product, you’re actually endorsing exposing workers to carcinogens. Or that nice shirt you’re wearing, the textile dyes are also carcinogens.” We’ve had huge disconnect about that.

DC:  It seems like there are several technologies now that can make that information more available to people.

DG:  The technologies that are making a difference are basically two.  One comes from the rise of a new field called industrial ecology.  This is a field of mostly engineers, industrial designers and chemists and so on.  It’s a field that looks at the impact of human systems like manufacturing or transportation on biological systems, ecosystems, our bodies. And it uses a very precise metric called life cycle assessment to understand the total impacts of the product in a very specific way. This metric then yields a huge amount of data about environmental, health, and social impacts.  That data can now be harvested by new information systems that aggregate and analyze the data and render a judgment on a 10-point scale.  And that rating can be used in a store to compare that product to a competitive product and that is enormously useful.  All of a sudden we have a decision to make based on sound data that can have enormous consequences.

DC:  Does making that information available represent a big change?

DG:  Well, 20 years ago we didn’t have the data. We didn’t have any way to summarize it. We didn’t have any way to deliver it.  Now that we do, it changes everything because the industrial manufacturing methods, platform and chemicals we use were all determined in an era when we had no idea what the crude health and environmental impacts were. We didn’t know any of that.  Now that we can evaluate them through the lens of impacts, we have to rethink everything.  Truth be told there’s no man-made object that loves nature.  Everything has negative impacts and everything needs to be rethought.

Heating sand and some chemicals, at a very high temperature, for 48 hours, makes cement.  That was invented in the 1920’s.  Taking sand and some chemicals and heating it a couple thousand degrees for 24 hours makes glass.  That was invented in the 1850’s.  Two easy examples of something that’s true across the board – our palette of industrial chemicals, which are mostly based on oil, were developed in the early 19th century.  We need updates.  But we need to use our personal decision-making when we shop to make it matter to manufacturers and retailers so that they say, “This is going to help us in our business - we better upgrade.”


RADICAL TRANSPARENCY

JE:  In Ecological Intelligence you use the term radical transparency. Can you talk about how that concept links to personal decision-making?

DG:  Radical transparency is the antidote to the vital lie.  The vital lie is the cover story we tell ourselves to help us ignore more painful underlying truths. So, when we shop the vital lie is, “Well it doesn’t matter if I buy this or that.”  In fact, it has vast consequences.  Radical transparency says, “Here’s detailed data over the entire life cycle of this glass that you’re about to buy.  Industrial ecologists tell us there are 1,959 industrial steps in making it and, in each step there are multiple impacts to the environment; toxins and so on.  And here’s the data on that.  And here’s how it compares to that other one.”  That’s radical transparency.  It looks at the whole life cycle and it makes all of that easily available to us at the decision point.


THE ROLE OF THE AMYGDALA IN DECISION-MAKING

DC:  That’s a significant change. You also write about the way the psychology of shopping and decision-making fit together when people encounter that kind of information.

DG:  Well, first of all, you should understand that in any decision there is interplay, from a neurological point of view, between the emotional centers — particularly the amygdala which is the trigger point for danger and threat — and cognition.  Every thought, every perception, is valenced emotionally by the amygdala at a very subtle level.  Like or dislike?  Is it safe or is it not?  When I say amygdala I’m really talking about the extended circuits in the brain that are crucial for sound decision-making. 

In Emotional Intelligence, I talk about this famous neurological case about a brilliant corporate lawyer who had a prefrontal brain tumor (the prefrontal area being the center for rational decision-making in the brain).  It was discovered early, operated on successfully.  During surgery they disconnected the legion between the prefrontal area and the circuitry of the amygdala and, afterwards, his decision-making was just off. He couldn’t even do his job anymore. On every test of memory and retention he was perfectly fine, his IQ was still very high. But when he was asked, “When can we have our next appointment?” the lawyer could give the pros and cons of every hour for the next two weeks, yet he didn’t know which was best.  And that was because he had no feelings about his thoughts.  His thoughts were no longer valenced correctly.
So, we need the amygdala for rational decision-making. We have to understand that there is no purely rational decision-making, but there’s better decision-making and worse decision-making.  You don’t want, however, the alarm system of the amygdala to highjack the rest of the brain because then it overwhelms rational thought, the flow of cognitive information, and creates a knee jerk reaction. So, when we’re shopping, advertising is trying to seduce our amygdala continually.  Advertising appeals to the amygdala. It wants us to like this and not like that.  Basically, it’s forcing us to make a false decision because fundamentally there’s almost no difference between this and that in anything.  It’s all just the amygdala data center.

DC:  In the book, for example, you show the difference in pricing and how that influences us.

DG:  There’s a long series of experiments where they take a wine and they tell one group of people, “This is very expensive wine, tell us what you think of it.” And people love the wine.  They take the same wine and tell another group, “This is a cheap North Dakota wine.” In other words, they give it a negative perception and that influences people’s reaction.  With the so-called expensive wine, people even linger longer over the meal and say they like the food better, not just the wine.  It generalizes.  So we’re very easily influenced.  This is true of medicines.  You take an aspirin and you say, “This is an expensive pain reliever,”and people will say it relieves more pain than they will if they take the same aspirin and are told it’s from the bargain bin. So, our amygdala is quite prone to being swayed.


SHORT AND LONG-TERM THINKING

JE:  You also talk in the book about the amygdala’s relation to short-term and long-term thinking.

DG:  Well, the problem when it comes to global warming, for example, and the impacts of global warming, is that the amygdala is a radar for threat that was designed during evolution. Through evolution threats were immediate; a snarling tiger. Threats, in evolution, were not remote, not slow.  The problem with global warming is it’s not happening fast enough. There’s no just noticeable difference day-to-day and moment-to-moment. A noticeable difference is what our sensory systems pick up. We only hear about global warming; the amygdala doesn’t really get it directly. 

And this is one of the problems in making decisions about what to buy: dangers are remote. So, if it’s not going to prompt the amygdala, there’s another strategy for the brain. It’s an information prosthetic, so to speak, where something like the system “Good Guide” (which rates products on a 10-point scale on the basis of the true impacts) gives you that number right next to the price tag.  This does something very important for information.  It lowers the cognitive cost of the data.  Right now, if you want to find out the impacts of anything it’s very laborious. You have to go a website, then you have to look it up, and then you have to remember that when you go shopping.  That’s all cognitive effort. If it’s right next to the price tag, the cognitive cost drops to zero and you’re much, much more likely to use the information.  And I think that retail is moving toward that.  Walmart has announced that its going to introduce a sustainability index based on life cycle assessment of its products and then put the rating of products next to the price tag.  That will have a tremendous impact.  Consumers will not drive the first impact. Walmart will drive it by telling its suppliers, “You’ve got to be transparent; you’ve got to give us the information that’s being kept secret.”  That alone is a revolution in decision-making.

DC:  How will that information compete with all the other messages consumers are receiving?

DG:  We have some data on that.  There was a supermarket chain in Maine that had nutritionists at Yale and Dartmouth rate the nutritional value of all the food it carried.  They summed it up in either 3 stars for best, 2 or 1 or none.  80% or more of the foods got none because they had so much corn syrup and fat in them that they were pretty disgusting from a nutritional point of view.  What happened was that market share shifted toward the more nutritional products.  In other words, people did weigh this into their matrix of decision-making.  And I think the same thing would happen with an eco-evaluation.

DC:  You mentioned that younger demographics are keenly interested in this kind of rating.

DG:  I grew up in a day when the big threat was the Cold War and nuclear obliteration.  Kids today are growing up with the generational trauma of global warming and I think they will also have a lifespan long enough to witness many more of the changes that it will bring.  I think their motivation to do everything they can to slow that process is going to be very high.  And this is one powerful way to slow that process.
DC:  The fact the Walmart adopted this is a major development.

DG:  They’re so big that nobody can ignore them.  It basically is an earthquake in retail.


THE VALUE DILEMMA

JE:  In looking at companies making the decision to shift practices, your chapter in the book on tough questions lays out some major issues manufacturers need to look at.  The subtext running through all of those questions is one of values.  Can you say a bit more about the way values are situated in this shift?

DG:  Values present an enormous dilemma for any company in this regard because on the one hand there are voices in companies who articulate the ethical principle that, “We should be good citizens and have a triple bottom line where economic, social and environmental impacts are also a driver in making business decisions.” Another set of voices says, “No you’re wrong.  Our first ethical duty is to make money for our investors.  And if there’s no business case for it, and there isn’t always one for sustainability (if it cuts costs, fine) then it’s unethical for us to do something that’s going to lower profit.”  So, there’s an ethical debate.

The nice thing about radical transparency on ecological impacts is that it changes the terms of the debate because once you can get individual consumers to make the choice and shift market share toward the more virtuous alternative, then the ethical thing to do is to make this a core business strategy.  It alignssustainability with strategy.  Actually, I think this approach will spur a huge amount of innovation in entrepreneurial thinking and a re-thinking of business manufacturing in the pursuit of profit so that both camps win.

JE:  I was struck by your use of the example of trans fat.  Companies said they couldn’t possibly do things differently and fought regulation.  Then, there’s a shift in public opinion and all of a sudden they can do things differently.

DG:  It’s a very old story.  In the 80’s they introduced the idea of an energy saver rating for refrigerators and appliances and appliance companies said, “We can’t do that – it’s going to be way too expensive. We can’t lower use, its just not feasible.”  They resisted vehemently.  Congress passed it anyway. So what do you know?  Today refrigerators and appliances are far more energy efficient than they are even required to be.  Why?  It became a competitive arena and an entrepreneurial opportunity. 

SYSTEMS THINKING AND ECO-LITERACY

JE: I wonder if the life cycle assessment might promote more public familiarity with a systems thinking approach to issues. “Oh, so this connects to this and this connects to that.”

DG: Life cycle assessment comes out of systems thinking. Essentially, it’s a metric for assessing the system and the more we understand how our personal choices impact the system for survival the better off we’ll all be.

DC: So we need to start thinking more in terms of inter-related systems?

DG: Well, that’s why I like industrial ecology as a concept. It’s a discipline that studies the impacts of human systems on natural systems. Those impacts across the board are disastrous and we need to reverse that.

DC: It seems we need to learn to think in more complex ways to develop eco-literacy. Yet, I don’t see our education placing much emphasis systems thinking.

DG: Eco-literacy interests me because I think that kids are the key to the future, obviously, and getting them to think in terms of systems is crucial. Now, a lot of environmental education involves understanding your local ecosystem. “Let’s go to the river. Let’s go to the woods. Let’s see how the food chain operates.” That’s all good. But what’s missing is our impact on our ecosystem. Not just directly, but indirectly. Not just one ecosystem, but every ecosystem around the world. Because supply chains are global, everything we buy has distant impacts on ecosystems we’ll never experience. And so we need to broaden our personal understanding of our impact on systems at different orders of magnitude, and at great distances. What we buy is devastating China and other third world countries right now in ways we don’t understand because we don’t think in terms of systems.


MINDFULNESS AND DECISION-MAKING

DC: So, systems thinking includes mindfulness?

DG: I see mindfulness as critical to decision-making in that you need to remember when you shop to do the following: Stop. Slow down. Don’t just grab for the same old thing. Check the impact. Remember that there’s something else to choose.

DC: In other words, we can start to pay better attention to how we think and act.

DG: I think it involves changing how we’re doing what we’re doing. In fact, I see ecological intelligence as shared because no one of us can hold in mind all of this complexity, but all of us can help. It has to be a collective conversation. There’s a Japanese saying: “All of us are smarter than any one of us.” That’s definitely true when it comes to ecological intelligence. It’s a maxim of group behavior. Groups in harmony make better decisions than individuals.

DC: Part of our cognitive evolution depends on recognizing our interconnectedness…

DG: That’s the interpersonal infrastructure that supports a collective intelligence.

JE: There’s been an arc to your books that makes a larger argument for seeing literacy differently.

DG: Collective intelligence requires social intelligence; social intelligence requires emotional intelligence.

DC: And ecological intelligence requires all of the above so that people can be empathetic with each other.

DG: The more empathy we have, the more concern, the more compassion we show. This is interesting from an ecological perspective. It turns out a friend of mine had a job for years as an inspector of factory floors for non profits in Asia. He was in a garment factory and found that workers were getting badly injured at two in the morning. Why were they getting injured at two in the morning? Because we like our fashions quick and cheap that puts pressure on those factories. “We don’t need all those light bulbs, we don’t need all those safety devices and we need to work around the clock.”

When something comes down the runway in Milan, we want it six weeks later in the department store. We are putting people at risk with our unconscious habits. So, for collective mindfulness and collective understanding concerning our true impact, it takes empathy for that young girl on the factory floor spray painting Barbie without respirator protection. These workers are usually young women. Who knows what the consequences are for their children?