Psyched For Business Podcast Episode 7
Episode 7:
Why Do Intelligent People Do Stupid Things?
In this podcast episode, Richard Anderson is joined by Andrew Munro.
Andrew is a chartered psychologist with over 30 years experience in the corporate sector, a conference speaker, and author.
In this episode, we cover:
✅ intelligence and IQ testing
✅ the part that intelligence plays in overall success
✅ how intelligence can lead to poor decision making
Subscribe to the podcast on your favourite platform:
Episode 07 - Transcript
Voiceover 0:00
Welcome to Psyched For Business, helping business leaders understand and apply cutting edge business psychology principles in the workplace.
Richard Anderson 0:10
Hi, and welcome to Psyched for Business. I'm your host, Richard Anderson, thank you very much for tuning in. In this episode, I'm joined by Andrew Munro. Andrew is a chartered psychologist with over 30 years experience in the corporate sector, as well as in consulting. He's a conference speaker and author of many articles and books, including his latest A to Z and Back Again, Adventures and Misadventures in Talent World, which I have to say I've very much enjoyed. In this episode we're going to be covering - Why do intelligent people do stupid things? I hope you enjoy it. Thanks again for listening.
So Andrew Munro, thank you very much for joining me. How are you doing?
Andrew Munro 0:49
All good Richard. And thanks for the invitation to join in another of your podcasts.
Richard Anderson 0:55
I've been really looking forward to having you on, Andrew, I know that we've been in conversation about this and other things for quite some time. And there's a load of things that we could have focused this podcast around. But we've chosen a particular topic, and I think it's going to be one that might be a little bit contentious, but we'll see. So this whole notion of why do intelligent people do stupid things? That's what we've chosen as a title. Okay, let's maybe start with intelligence. I know that you've got some strong opinions and a lot of knowledge, ironically, on the on the subject. Definitely been some confusion, some controversies over the years when it comes to intelligence. But would you mind maybe starting by briefly summarizing those issues and giving us a bit of a background in the topic of intelligence?
Andrew Munro 1:37
You're right, there's been no end of controversies. Where to start? One, the lack of an agreed definition, the absence of a decent theory. Ian Deary, one of the world class researchers in this field, who does fantastic work has pointed out, we're still a bit iffy theoretical thoughts, lots of models about methodology for debates about the causes and consequences of intelligence, a social impact of testing. In a very strange, historical quirk, both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, banned intelligence testing. For Hitler, the tests were too Jewish; for Stalin, the tests were too Bourgeois. So when we move into the world of intelligence and testing, we're also moving into the world of ideology.
Richard Anderson 2:34
Okay, I know that we don't have time maybe on this podcast to work through the entire history of intelligence and testing, although I know that will be a very, very interesting topic. But having done some research, of course, for this podcast, my understanding is that intelligence testing began as a bit of an educational diagnostic tool, and it was all about identifying which children would need additional support. But then after that, the emphasis shifted and testing was deployed as more of an assessment to identify who was smarter or more intelligent or cleverer than others.
Andrew Munro 3:08
That's right, it did originate within education. And then it has moved on. I'm sure all of our listeners will be familiar with the concept of IQ. So this is calculated by dividing the test takers mental age, from their test responses, by their chronological age, then multiplying this number by 100.
Richard Anderson 3:31
How did that work? Or how does an IQ test work?
Andrew Munro 3:34
So individuals complete a series of tasks, and they vary. An example would be - Day is to night as sun is to blank.
Richard Anderson 3:47
Don't make me answer that...
Andrew Munro 3:53
Then there was all the unfolded cubes, number sequences, there was any number of different formats. The overall score was then calibrated to indicate the extent to which the score was above or below that expected from your chronological age. So that's way back, things have moved on. And IQ scores are now compared with a reference group, a norm group that allows you to see how your score compares with others who've also completed the test.
Richard Anderson 4:28
Which seems on the face of it, a little bit more robust. So am I right in thinking that the 11 Plus tests so that was obviously the test that children had in their last year of primary school, and all about did we get into grammar school or not? That was a variation of the IQ test, wasn't it?
Andrew Munro 4:46
It was. So what began as an educational diagnostic tool turned into a kind of Hogwarts Sorting Hats. So this was oh, here we go back to the 1940s, and the 11 Plus was phased out in the 60s, although variations are still in use.
Richard Anderson 5:09
You've still got high IQ societies now, I'm familiar - not hugely familiar - but I'm familiar with the concept of Mensa, which I think you've got to get above a certain threshold, maybe
Andrew Munro 5:20
To join Mensa, you need to be above the threshold of an IQ of 132. So that's one in 50 of the population. If that's not enough for you, you might want to join the Prometheus society. Here the requirement is an IQ of 164. So I know bear with me, bear with me. Here, you're in one in 30,000 of the population, right? Again, if that's not enough, there's another society if the Mega Society were needed IQ of 175, which is a one in a million in the population.
Richard Anderson 6:01
I can see you've got the t shirt on.
Andrew Munro 6:03
No, no, no. To jump ahead a wee bit. What is fascinating is the amount of bickering that goes on within and between these societies. And also, and we'll come on to this a significant amount of weirdness.
Richard Anderson 6:23
So can I then check, is intelligence no more than a marker of how good somebody is academically?
Andrew Munro 6:30
That has been the major criticism, conventional IQ tests might be good at predicting educational attainment, but not much more than that. What has been problematic for these critics, is that of all the traits that psychologists have attempted to measure IQ, or what is now commonly known as general mental stability, stands out head and shoulders above other traits, and its predictive power of life outcomes. We're not looking at massive correlations, but enough for general mental ability to be seen as an important factor.
Richard Anderson 7:12
Okay, so when you talk there about predictive power of life outcomes, what sorts of things do you mean is that like, maybe work, financial, relationships?
Andrew Munro 7:24
Yeah, and even things like your likelihood of not going to prison. But here we get or we move into a bit of a messy worlds, and a whole bunch of socio economic factors need to be part of the mix. And I know, Richard, you don't want me to stray into politics, but there is a sense that social mobility has reduced. There is a widening gap between the haves and the have nots. However flawed the 11 Plus was, it was one of those gaps intended to address.
Richard Anderson 8:07
And I mean, it's interesting, because I mean, we'll have maybe the political discussion when we get to the pub, but maybe a topic for another time. But aren't there lots of different types of intelligence, not just general mental ability.
Andrew Munro 8:21
Perhaps the most ambitious project was led by psychologist Guilford back in the 1950s. And he mapped out a model that identifies 180 intellectual abilities. I'm not going to list them out now, mainly because most of them were never found. More recently, Howard Gardner, and a lot of our listeners will be aware of his concept of multiple intelligence. And he suggested eight different types spatial, bodily, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and so on. Even more recently, Robert Sternberg, first class guy, he argues for three, practical, our ability to get along in different contexts creative, how we come up with new ideas, and analytical how we evaluate information and solve problems. And I guess the analytical has been the focus of previous IQ type intelligence tests.
Richard Anderson 9:29
Obviously, in our world under the world of assessment, the current trend, or what I often see is this whole general mental ability being broken down into very specific aptitudes. So verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, those sorts of things. And I have to say, I think this is a pretty good idea. I like it above like a general type of reasoning test. I mean, for me, I've always thought that I've been decent, I'm not saying brilliant, but decent at English, but certainly not good at maths. So I think I personally would fare far better in verbal reasoning tests than I would in numerical reasoning. Is that often the case?
Andrew Munro 10:07
So put to the test tests have distinct specific cognitive aptitudes are highly correlated, but and this is the big but at a certain level of general mental ability, the G general factor breaks up, ie you get lower correlations across different attitudes. And I think that probably explains why, back to your point about assessment, why specific aptitude tests are used more often selection than general IQ type tests
Richard Anderson 10:48
Would you mind just really quickly, if we're taking the direction of exploring some of the other areas of intelligence that again, in our world that we we hear about quite regularly that are maybe different to cognitive? I'm thinking, Daniel Goleman, emotional intelligence, or again, as we call it, EQ, and how much more predictive that is than IQ?
Andrew Munro 11:08
Yeah I remember this going back to the 80s. As a claim has not aged all that well. The evidence base of the last 20-30 years hasn't been brilliant. I see that Daniel's been backpedaling since. Having said all that, I did come across a piece of research, that indicated emotional intelligence might be more critical factor for entrepreneurial success. So you need to look into that. But you're right. There's a whole bunch of intelligence, there's like it's almost like an alphabet soup. From the adversity quotient, spiritual intelligence, Zen intelligence.
Richard Anderson 11:54
It's quite topical. Because within the last couple of weeks, I read an article on I think it was called the six cues of leadership maybe with all of these different different ones.
Andrew Munro 12:03
Different quotients yeah. And at this point, the concept of intelligence is getting so stretched to the point where meaning is lost. Richard Flynn, one of the key researchers in this field, proposed humorously, but I hope it was humorously, there's a new type of intelligence that's waiting to be discovered called stuffing beans up your nose.
Richard Anderson 12:33
So Andrew, would you would you mind just quickly pulling back and getting a sense of intelligence as part of the bigger framework of success? We've talked separately about maybe doing a podcast in the future around the dynamics of success, the levels and types and those sorts of things? But what would you say, if not intelligence, what is the biggest factor of success for you?
Andrew Munro 12:55
Luck. So this is success, and as you see, Richard's willing to be a little bit more specific about the definition of success, but broadly, success is about time and place to be born at the right time, in the right place. So Warren Buffett's investor, one of the wealthiest people on the planet, he makes the very honest point, if I'd been born 10,000 years ago, I would have been some animals lunch, because I can't run very fast. And I can't climb trees. And what Warren is saying, his success is largely an outcome of the modern day context in which he finds himself and his skill set, analyzing company data, making tough investment decisions, he found a niche. That's the reason for his success.
Richard Anderson 13:58
Very, very fair point. And he articulates it very well as do you. Would you say, Are there any other factors that we can look at maybe aside luck?
Andrew Munro 14:07
Our listeners will be horrified if we just say, luck, full stop. Is that it? So again, Warren Buffett proposed three other factors, integrity, intelligence, which we've talked about and we will talk about a little bit more, and energy.
Richard Anderson 14:29
It's funny because I know that you're a big fan of Warren, and I have to say I am too and I've watched a few of his YouTube videos now. I watched a very specific interview where he really nailed it on that point, and he says something along the lines of you really don't want to hire an intelligent and motivated individual if they're lacking integrity, if they don't have that integrity, that's very last person you want to hire. Of course, they're going to be really, really smart. They're going to be incredibly ambitious, but doing probably the wrong thing. In the wrong way, usually for themselves and not for other people. I thought he was bang on with that.
Andrew Munro 15:05
Exactly. And lots of recent examples to draw on from the worlds of politics and business. But I suspect if we go down that rabbit hole, we're gonna be talking for the next three hours.
Richard Anderson 15:18
I was gonna say, I guess let's not name any names on that. But we can we move on to the word stupidity, which this is the bit that I thought might be a little bit contentious when we chose this as a podcast title, but it's quite hard hitting word, isn't it? What do we mean by it?
Andrew Munro 15:36
It is a hard hitting word Richard. And we don't mean stupid people. We mean stupid behavior. Stupidity comes from a Latin word that basically means are to be stumped. So this is stupidity, not about not simply lack of intelligence, but a kind of mindset of befuddlement. And we all experienced this, you know, what was I thinking? How could I have been so stupid? Daft is the Scottish equivalent?
Richard Anderson 16:09
Yes, we use daft as well.
Andrew Munro 16:13
But I'm not sure how it translates globally,
Richard Anderson 16:15
Maybe not. So stupid. Yeah. Makes more sense. Yeah.
Andrew Munro 16:19
My interest in the psychology of stupidity, was triggered by a comment by Charlie Munger, sidekick of Warren Buffett as that happens. And he highlights it a fundamental life principle. Before we do the smart stuff, stop the stupid stuff. For example, never do anything that you even want to explain to the paramedics don't drink and drive.
Richard Anderson 16:46
Yeah, it's when you listen to you talk about those that reminds me of I don't know how familiar you are with the Darwin Awards? It was brought to my attention a few years ago. And I have to say I can just sit and scroll through that and just laugh because basically, for anybody who doesn't know what the Darwin Awards are, essentially, it's a website that records examples of people doing absolutely extraordinarily stupid things, or daft things as we might say, and actions that unfortunately, sometimes are resulting in their death. It is a bit dark when I think about one like that, but it is also quite funny. I don't know how familiar you are, you've said you're familiar Andrew, but and one of the examples that I looked on there was a guy who thought he was so astute at kung fu that he decided to try and take a lion on with his bare hands. And you probably guessed...
Andrew Munro 17:34
Oddly enough, I noticed in the paper yesterday, Richard, that 10% of the population think they could win a fight with a chimpanzee. Well good luck, good luck. My favorite is the guy who tied 45 helium balloons to his garden chair. He wanted to float up and hover maybe 50 feet over his neighborhoods. You know, he took a few sandwiches and beers. At 16,000 feet, and I have read this and I keep laughing, he was in trouble. So he frantically began popping the balloons ending up entangled in a power line that blacked out the neighborhoods he was planning to hover over. When asked why he did it, Larry said, Larry our helium guy said "a man just can't sit around".
Richard Anderson 18:39
Brilliant. I love that. Absolutely fantastic. You know, reviewing the examples on the website. I mean, I have to say it seems no coincidence that these Darwin Awards are often won by young men who have had a bit too much to drink.
Andrew Munro 18:54
Indeed. So alcohol is one factor in stupidity. Others includes a fixed belief system that is embedded within our personal identities. And there's a whole set of cognitive biases Daniel Kahneman and a whole others have explored. We seem to have two decision making systems system one instinctive and automatic and it gets a lot of stuff done quickly. System two, more thoughtful and reflective and we get into trouble when system one emotional triggers take over our judgment and decisions on task four is not suited.
Richard Anderson 19:43
Like the work of Daniel Kahneman and I also liked the analogy of the car that you will not be familiar with. You might have a powerful engine your cognitive horsepower as we like to call it but if you don't know how you're going to use the gears or the how use it is you're in big trouble.
Andrew Munro 20:00
Exactly. If we forget to take the handbrake off, you'll simply burn rubber, or your car breaks down because you haven't had it serviced.
Richard Anderson 20:09
I get that and then, you know, we all do stupid stuff. Why don't we go back to the very essence of the podcast and the question that we're asking at the beginning? What makes intelligent people do stupid things? Do you think they're more prone to stupidity either maybe, let's say the average person.
Andrew Munro 20:29
So here's an example. We'll call it the James Bond villain factor. There's a terrific book, the heretics guide to management? And the author's pose an interesting question. How is it that James Bond has stayed alive long enough to star in so many movies? I don't know what the last count is 25, I don't know. Bonce has to contend with powerful adversaries. Phenomenal intellects. But for all the smarts evil. Sorry, I can't stop laughing at this thought, evil mega geniuses are actually pretty dumb. And that's of course drama. But there's a fantastic clip from the spoof Austin Powers.
Richard Anderson 21:23
We'll go on and why might intelligent people in that case, be particularly vulnerable to the daft stuff?
Andrew Munro 21:28
Have a go Richard?
Richard Anderson 21:31
Right put me on the spot? Well, I'm thinking maybe off the top of my head. I don't know what what you might call it. But intellectual arrogance, let's say. I mean, there's that, is that one?
Andrew Munro 21:43
Yes. The first hazard is that smart people overreach themselves. So this is the problem of the individual whose glittering intellectual brilliance over extends itself to take on problems outside their circle of competence. Lots of examples, but here's one from history an exchange between Arthur Conan Doyle, the writer of the Sherlock Holmes books, and Houdini the magician and illusionist, so Holmes is the detective who applies the power of intelligence, logical, objective reasoning to solve crimes. Conan Doyle was also interested in the paranormal. So he invited Houdini to attend a seance in which a medium made contact with the other sides.
Richard Anderson 22:41
I'm interested to find out how did that work out then.
Andrew Munro 22:45
Well, Houdini, the illusionist, he identified the tricks of the trade cut quite quickly through the whole charade. Conan Doyle, the exemplar of critical reasoning was having none of Houdini's explanation. And sadly, in a bitter breakup, the peer ended their relationship
Richard Anderson 23:09
Ended their relationship so it was all because of, I guess Conan Doyle's intellectual arrogance convinced that, he you know, his critical reasoning skills or whatever were far superior to Houdini's explanation to this trick. What a sad situation. But yeah, that's a great example of intellectual arrogance.
Andrew Munro 23:28
Yes. And Houdini, reflecting on this episode, remarked as a rule, I have found out, the greater the brain has, and the better educated they are. The easier has been to mystify them. There's a lot of research on conmen conwomen and they target more intelligent people. Interesting, isn't it? The technical term is earned dogmatism. We think our brilliance in one fields gives us the right to apply our brilliance in other fields. And there's even more interesting research on Nobel Prize winners who went on to make absolutely daft claims about their speciality.
Richard Anderson 24:20
Right. Okay, so we've established the intellectual arrogance is one factor. And what else is there please don't ask me, Andrew, because I'm at the limit my knowledge on this subject.
Andrew Munro 24:33
It's a bit related. And motivated reasoning is a process in which we are drawing our arguments to disconfirm opposing views to defend our position. So here, we want to protect our existing beliefs. If we think of our beliefs as possessions, we don't want to lose them.
Richard Anderson 24:57
I have to say on that point, you see a lot of it, don't you? on social media and Twitter and places like that, where somebody's so wedded to a particular view, it doesn't matter what anybody says they're not going to change their mind. You think it's I think it's a bit of a pride thing. Would you say high intelligence equals excessive pride? Maybe not wanting to admit you're wrong?
Andrew Munro 25:18
Yep. I'm sure ego is a massive factor. But again, there's a bit of nuance. What's is often neglected is that the correlation between self reported measures of intelligence and aptitudes is in fact pretty low. Some highly intelligent individuals rate themselves as you know, not especially smart. And some have relatively low intelligence see themselves as highly intelligent. The latter is obviously not a good combination.
Richard Anderson 25:52
Doesn't, doesn't sound good. Doesn't sound good.
Andrew Munro 25:55
But coming back to your points Richard, motivated reasoning is a bit different. Unsurprisingly, those with higher levels of intelligence, particularly as defined by analytical, logical, critical reasoning, they are particularly skilled at this, after a debate on some topic of disagreement, and the facts are presented to challenge the motivating reason as arguments. They don't change their minds, they become even more entrenched in their opposition.
Richard Anderson 26:34
Okay, and can you think of any maybe any examples of motivated reasoning that you might be able to draw upon?
Andrew Munro 26:41
This one's a bit tragic, actually, but it's also telling how motivated reasoning works. Steve Jobs, an individual of extraordinary intelligence, and creativity, he applied the equivalence of motivated reasoning. He called this his reality distortion field, and allowed him to block out inconvenient facts and challenges to his ideas. Don't let the noise of others opinions drown out your own inner voice. He was convinced, and others was wrong. And as a purposeful push to innovation to revolutionize their technology. But this outlook backfires and his own personal life will happen. Steve Jobs was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, he ignored the medical advice for treatments, he relied on a few quack remedies, herbal cures spiritual healing, a fruit juice diet, his extraordinary intelligence led him to believe unable to argue back to motivated reasoning and argue he knew better than adopters. And sadly, he died way, way before his time.
Richard Anderson 28:09
Yeah, of course he did. And yeah, I mean, that is a really, really sad example. But a good a good one for motivated reasoning. So you might be highly intelligent. But if you've got the wrong mindset, so we've talked, obviously, one based on arrogance, you mentioned before that expression entitled dogmatism, and also motivated reasoning, you might be your own worst enemy. We've talked about some really interesting things, in my view, and I hope the listeners feel the same, I'm sure they will. But can we conclude maybe, with the so what factor? So what does all this mean? What's the practical implications of what we've discussed?
Andrew Munro 28:51
Lots. But three suggestions. The first is let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. intelligence matters, and it matters in most domains of life. But I would say we need to find more imaginative ways to measure it that are improvements on previous current cognitive tests.
Richard Anderson 29:15
Any ideas around how we could do that?
Andrew Munro 29:19
Well, we could go down the biological route, assess brain structures, physiological processes. Given the current state of neuro psychology, I would say we're not remotely there yet. I can't think of any candidates who would want to be shown down the corridor to be wired up to the electrodes as part of our selection process.
Richard Anderson 29:47
Yeah, you might get a bit of pushback on that one. But yeah, we'll rule that one out and in that case, anything else?
Andrew Munro 29:53
Another direction to design tests that mirror more realistically, the requirements of the role within the selection process. Measures of abstract thinking, critical reasoning- they're important, and they have their place. But we've had a century of test development and validation, and any number of advances in technology. And I'm sure we can do better scenarios based assessments, situational judgment tests, they all have promise. But I would say we're not there yet.
Richard Anderson 30:32
Okay and how, obviously we're not a test publisher, how are the test publishers, from what you see responding to this stuff?
Andrew Munro 30:41
Being candid, it's not in their interest to change their operating model, or the legacy base of their clients, sunk cost investment and all of that, which is why I anticipate innovation, not through- in terms of cognitive testing- not through the psychometric tradition, but from I don't know techie firms, who don't have that history of past assumptions, and begin to look at the field with fresh eyes.
Richard Anderson 31:15
Yeah, so we talked about the biological route, not going to happen, potentially the test route showing some promise with the situational judgment test any any other recommendations,
Andrew Munro 31:25
We need our better decision making model to integrate different strands of information about the individual. So back to Warren Buffett's- high levels of intelligence will not compensate for low levels of integrity, it only makes things worse. So we need to be a lot smarter, in how we build our understanding of individuals, whether it's selection candidates, or promotion prospects, that factors in a whole range of requirements,
Richard Anderson 32:05
That's a really good point, I have to say, in my experience, you'll often see organizations throw a bunch of assessments at candidates, they're not particularly systematic in any particular way, or how they weight the data from the assessment as part of a, like a proper coherent selection decision making strategy.
Andrew Munro 32:25
I have sat in so many selection reviews, Assessment Center wash ups, and the decision outcomes bore very little relationship to the assessment data. Yeah, I guess there's a third theme Richard, which is one we should go beyond the individual to think of collective intelligence, and two sort of related thoughts. The days of personal intellectual heroics, are probably largely over, not completely. And it varies by discipline, but much of the focus, and this is about some of the work I've been doing in higher education, the focus is on collaboration. There's no shortage of very smart people. But how can organizations create an environment that nurtures teams, not just within the university, but with other partnerships for greater creativity and innovation?
Richard Anderson 33:30
Yeah, and I have to say, that's a pattern that I'm certainly seeing in a project or a lot of the projects that we get involved with of course the individual matters that's that's obvious. That's read, that's given. But the individual themselves can only optimize their impact within the workgroup. That part of it if you can't be smart, by deploying others intelligence, you're going to be you're going to be constrained.
Andrew Munro 33:54
Exactly. And then over above the mutual work group, there's the organizational context, and a context that can make stupidity, more or less likely. Lots of factors, foolish strategies, siloed functions, power dynamics, flawed incentive systems,
Richard Anderson 34:19
Obviously, as you would imagine, I did a bit of research for this podcast, and I do remember reading a book quite a long time ago, my memory was refreshed when I was doing that prep, and it's called The Smartest Guys in the Room- Enron's downfall. And for anybody listening who's not familiar, but that was a firm that brought in the best the brightest from all these Ivy League universities and top tier consulting firms and the company was eventually brought down and it was not despite but because of its intelligence, but lack of integrity.
Andrew Munro 34:57
Yeah, brilliant example. The dynamics of organizational success and decline are complex. But here's a thought experiment. If you wanted to sabotage a company, you know, one of your competitors, what would you do? You would bring in lots of smart people with low integrity, and reward them for the wrong results. Because when there's no downsides to daft decision making, and failures rewarded, we shouldn't expect anything more than stupid outcomes that trigger corporate decline.
Richard Anderson 35:40
Brilliant. So let's summarize them. So we've talked about three ways forward. So how we measure intelligence in ways that are more accessible, and relevant in to today's challenges. There's also the need to see intelligence as only one piece within the overall jigsaw, of course, there are many pieces, and particularly for some roles, if we're neglect integrity, then we're going to get ourselves into big trouble. And also the importance of course of context and how organizations can set the scene through functional silos, political gamesmanship, denial about the future and so on. For intelligent people to do dumb things.
Andrew Munro 36:21
Yes. But I feel Richard, we've only scratched the surface either that or opened the can of worms on a complex, a very important set of issues. And we haven't even touched on some of the complexities and controversies around intelligence, testing, bias, adverse impact. There's a whole bunch of other stuff really, that we didn't have time for.
Richard Anderson 36:54
Well, if you're happy and willing, I would love to get you know, into those discussions in maybe future podcast to be continued, as they say. That's right. Absolutely. Well, Andrew Munro, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me about this really interesting topic. I thoroughly enjoyed having you on this podcast. And yeah, great to speak.
Andrew Munro 37:16
Thanks, for sure. It's my pleasure. Do we have time for a final soundbite? Yeah, why not? Go for it? All right, Alan Kay, one of the early computing pioneers. His ideas were pretty much stolen by everyone. He said, a change in perspective, is worth 80 IQ points. I truly believe that.
Richard Anderson 37:42
Absolutely. And I just want to remember, I know that some of these issues, of course, are going to be covered in your sequel to A to Z which I give a bit of an intro to at the very beginning. But how is the sequel coming along?
Andrew Munro 37:57
Pretty well. We're hoping for release in spring 2023.
Richard Anderson 38:04
Brilliant, fantastic. Thank you very much, Andrew.
Voiceover 38:09
Thanks for listening to Psyched For Business - for show notes, resources and more visit evolveassess.com
