Farewell, Sir Gavin Williamson?

Speaker A: 00:00:00

Hello, and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, produced by me, Fraser McGruer, for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts, we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision-making. I'm here with Chris Wragg and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights, and this week we're discussing Gavin Williamson.

Speaker B: 00:00:25

Chris, go for it. Well, as loyal listeners to our podcasts will know, Gavin Williamson has featured on at least, I think it's three, we couldn't recall what the third was, but we've talked about him in a range of contexts before. He's endlessly fascinating and an intriguing personality and seems to trail sort of crises and interesting sort of fallout from all of his decisions. Who is he? Give us an overview. He's a Conservative politician. He's served a number of ministerial positions, including Education Secretary and Defence Secretary. He's also been the Chief Whip. He's basically lost his position on a number of occasions, once for leaking details of sort of classified conversations. Also, he's been kind of largely ridiculed for his handling of things like exams and crises around our ability to actually mark

Speaker C: 00:01:43

exams properly. Do you remember, he wouldn't say what his A-level results were. He was asked what his A-level was. He tells a story about getting his A-level results, but he refused to disclose

Speaker A: 00:01:53

what he got. Presumably they're relatively easy to find out, which seems a bit silly, or did we ever

Speaker C: 00:01:58

find out? I don't know, maybe people thought he was probably looking through. He's probably using barrows because he probably got three A's, that's probably what it is, maybe four. And then he

Speaker B: 00:02:04

wouldn't look like a man of the people. Anyway, he's this sort of tragicomic character. He's also a knight. Yeah, he's a knight now. Which has been knighted. Which is incredible,

Speaker A: 00:02:19

how has that happened? And also, not to be snobbish or stuff, but he didn't have the most

Speaker B: 00:02:24

sparkling of careers before entering politics. No, that's right. There's this whole issue around him of perhaps chip on the shoulder, perhaps also rightly feeling like he's looked down upon by the rest of the parliamentary party. So yeah, I think of him as like a pound shop Richard

Speaker A: 00:02:47

Nixon, really. Yeah, that's a nice description. I mean, also, if I think of words when I think of liar, incompetent, idiot, wannabe Machiavellian, but not. He wanted to cultivate this when he was chief, particularly this sort of dark arts, but no, he was just a... incompetent twat who's quite nasty as well. Is that kind of fair? I think so, but I've also got a bit of a soft spot. All right,

Speaker C: 00:03:16

anyway. But I think the interesting thing there is sort of incompetent, which turns him into a figure of ridicule rather than one who could be disliked actively. I think that's the difference

Speaker A: 00:03:28

here. He looks a bit like a sort of geography teacher. He's very nerdy looking. And he's

Speaker B: 00:03:35

got a really nasal voice as well. So it's like a reedy tone. Sorry about all this Gavin. Yeah, I know he's a keen listener to the podcast. No offence. Anyway, right. So having everybody thought his political career was over as when Rishi Sunak was appointed prime minister, he brought him back into the cabinet and he had an extremely brief cameo because no sooner had he been appointed than a whole series of bullying accusations sort of came through. Chief among them was the sort of claims brought against him by the former chief whip, not him, a woman called Wendy Morton, who was Liz Truss. People may have forgotten about her already. She was very briefly our prime minister. And during one of the many crises of them trying to get people to vote for them, there was a there was a WhatsApp exchange between Wendy Morton and Gavin Williamson in which he is alleged and indeed, I think subsequently sort of agreed by the prime minister that he engaged in bullying behaviour. And so he was then removed from his position sacked.

Speaker A: 00:05:04

This was when he because that event was I think it was about the day before she resigned, wasn't

Speaker B: 00:05:09

it? It was more or less it was the whole it was the whole debacle around whatever that vote was about. They nearly lost and then they said it was a you know, a three line whip and they withdrew that and the chief whip herself had a sort of, you know, there were rumours of her resigning on the day, all that kind of stuff. So there's obviously there's a real pressure cooker run up to that. Yeah, and obviously a lot of pressure. But actually, his his WhatsApp exchange was primarily driven or at least the original thread of it was driven by a sense of grievance about the fact that he hadn't been invited to some part of the Queen's funeral. That's right. And so so that really is another great example of why Gavin Williamson so intriguing, this sort of peevishness about a slight, a perceived slight or I should have been, you know, about something that was supposed

Speaker C: 00:06:04

to be about the Queen's death. But with that, but without the insight and self-awareness to know how it comes over when you behave like that, which is what people I think largely mean by having a chip on your shoulder is that you feel like you've been slighted, but you go on about it. It's all very well to feel like you've been slighted. But if you go on about it, you're just making it worse. People are just going to think, hang on, they're right to slight you.

Speaker A: 00:06:28

And associated with that, an arrogance and conceit that it's OK to be like that.

Speaker C: 00:06:32

Well, I think we should put some flesh on these bones.

Speaker A: 00:06:35

This is conjecture so far, right?

Speaker C: 00:06:37

It's right. So why don't we go through? Shall we do a bit of the text messages? Yeah, right. So what are these text messages? We're going to do some drama now. Yeah, OK, brilliant. We're going to do some drama. Well, Chris, why don't you put the text messages in context because and you're going to be Sir Gavin and I'm going to be Wendy Morton.

Speaker B: 00:06:53

Yeah. So well, as I said, so this is a WhatsApp exchange between Gavin. So this is their sort of personal thread that was subsequently kind of released to the media in order to make the case for or against bullying. So yes, it starts off sort of around the Queen's funeral or after the Queen's funeral when Gavin had been slighted and it moves through to this this crucial vote.

Speaker A: 00:07:18

So you're going to read this?

Speaker B: 00:07:19

Here's Sir Gavin, I'll be I'll be Wendy Morton. Brilliant. I'll try and do Gavin William.

Speaker C: 00:07:24

And I'll try and do Wendy as well. They're both they're both northerners, not that that's pertinent or anything.

Speaker B: 00:07:30

Think very poor how parliamentary colleagues who aren't favoured have been excluded from the funeral. Very poor and sends a very clear message. That is not the case, Gavin. Well, certainly looks like it, which I think is very shit and perception becomes reality. Also, don't forget, I know how this works, so don't push me about.

Speaker C: 00:07:55

As I said above, that's simply not the case, Gavin. The number of places allocated was extremely limited.

Speaker B: 00:08:01

It's very clear how you are going to treat a number of us, which is very stupid. And you are showing F all interest in pulling things together. Don't bother asking anything from me. Also, this shows exactly how you have rigged it. It is disgusting. You are using her death to punish people who are just supporting. Absolutely disgusting. Gavin, again, this is not the case whatsoever. Well, let's see how many more times you F us all over. There is a price for everything. Next day.

Speaker C: 00:08:36

Morning, Gavin. I hear from your whip you're probably not voting this evening. Is there a problem? We are on a three-line whip. Thanks.

Speaker B: 00:08:43

Thank you for your patronising and condescending tone. You're welcome to come and see me and explain. Best wishes. You do know you can speak to people in your job and don't just text them. There's absolutely no need for you to take this tone, Gavin. I'm trying to help. How are you? I'm fine. No! How are you helping? But very glad you are fine. Look at my voting record, step back and think how you are dealing with people, and then maybe talk to people. I am currently with my pawly dog at the vets. I will give you some time to reflect on how you are dealing and treating people.

Speaker C: 00:09:27

I need no lecture from you, Gavin. When I ask a civil question, I will call you later. End of exchange.

Speaker A: 00:09:34

Good lord, that was sort of... Riveting stuff. Riveting.

Speaker C: 00:09:37

It's like Game of Thrones, isn't it?

Speaker A: 00:09:38

Well, it's like Game of Thrones, but written by... what's the name of that northern playwright? Alan Bennett. Alan Bennett. That's what it sounded like. Yeah. Wow. Okay, so what do we make of all this? Look, what do we make of all this, one, but two, yes, we're talking about Gavin Williamson. What are we really talking about? What's the point of this?

Speaker C: 00:10:00

Well, I just want to say something about the text messages first. Chris is going to bring in probably the more pertinent issue, but with the worst will in the world, because I really want to find Gavin Williamson annoying. That doesn't bother me too much. I don't think I would read that and think that's really tremendously offensive. I would imagine it's probably a good reflection of how MPs interact with each other. So it's not like he's, I think, being incredibly rude to her, but he just has this really obnoxious sense of entitlement which comes out of it. I think that's the issue.

Speaker B: 00:10:41

And I think if you look at the question of whether or not it's bullying, which is what he was accused of, I mean, I sort of looked at the UK Gov guidance on bullying and harassment in the workplace. And they say- Which he'd been looking up anyway, hadn't he? Well, quite yes, for other reasons, obviously. Yeah. It's a how-to guide for Chris. Yeah, quite. Yeah, the management list of things to do. So yeah, and it says basically that it's behaviour that makes someone feel intimidated or offended. So straightaway a subjective element to that. But then it says examples of it are spreading malicious rumours, unfair treatment, picking on or regularly undermining somebody, denying someone training or promotion opportunities, right? That's bullying in the workplace. And then there's another definition I looked at from the charity, the Anti-Bullying Alliance, where they say, and I sort of think this is probably closer to what most people think of as bullying, the repetitive intentional hurting of one person or group by another person or group, where the relationship involves an imbalance of power. It can happen face to face or online. And one of the key things there for me is the imbalance of power. And actually under these circumstances, you know, she's the government representative in the chief whip and he's jumped up now. So it would have been the other way around. So it would have been the other way around. And I don't think you can really look at, I mean, there's a perhaps a routine, you know, we don't know all the context around this. There's maybe a routine element to this, you know, regularity. But he's not in a position to deny or, you know, her opportunity.

Speaker C: 00:12:28

Well, in fact, if anything, she's doing that to him by deliberately excluding him from the Queen's funeral, which let's run with it if that's his perception. He felt intimidated and offended by that. Well, maybe. But also the interesting thing was, I think you've mentioned it in the past when we've discussed Gavin Williamson, is that he actually is seen as a bit of a figure of fun by his colleagues, right? So maybe he's right to feel that he's being bullied and excluded from the Queen's funeral.

Speaker B: 00:13:01

Well, look how many times he's been sacked from the Cabinet.

Speaker C: 00:13:02

No, it's a real turnaround in my mind. I'm now seeing poor old Sir Gavin as the victim here.

Speaker A: 00:13:09

Well, yeah, I can see why. However, what I like, that second definition you're talking about was imbalance of power. And it's exactly that. Well, what is power? Because in theory, the chief whip, part of their job is kind of bullying a little bit, as I understand it. But also what is power? Because I think one of the things that he's famous for is somehow each time managing to be the right person. He can get you support. He can do deals. He's apparently very good at what's the, is it in vaguely, what's it called? Getting yourself into the right position, as it were. And so he does have this kind of, well, he's not the chief whip. And in theory, when they had more power, in practice, he's got some sort of network. Yeah. And he kind of, I think he hints at that as well, or more than hints. He says, I wrote the phrase, I know how this works, which is quite a threatening thing. And actually, I don't know

Speaker C: 00:13:58

what he means, but maybe she knew what he meant. I would paraphrase it as, I know you can't come out and say that I'm being kept away from the Queen's funeral as a punishment, but I know that that's really it. So don't deny it. Okay. You know, we all know what's really going on. I thought it was

Speaker A: 00:14:17

more in reference to there are things that I can do. I know how this game works. Well, he does say

Speaker C: 00:14:20

there's a price for everything, doesn't he? And so there is a bit of that. There's a bit of a kind of veiled threat. Yeah. So anyway, looking at this, and this is what he was forced to resign

Speaker A: 00:14:29

over. Was it specifically these messages or just a more general thing? So there is also,

Speaker B: 00:14:35

there are alleged things that were brought up by civil servant in when he was in the M.O.D. that were lingering around, which were much more, you know, this was minister to civil servant. So that's much more relatable to the bullying sort of definition. And the alleged terms were about slitting your throat and jumping out of a window. So that's... Was that him as well? You should jump out of a window. Yes, that was him. So, you know, were those to be proven to be true, then that would be a clear cut case, I think, in most people's mind of bullying type behaviour. Yeah. Although,

Speaker C: 00:15:15

I mean, it is... Fraser did talk about, you know, how does imbalance of power work and what kinds of power we're talking about? Because, you know, it's not straightforward, minister and civil servant. Ministers don't have the power to fire civil servants as such. I'm sure they could make life difficult for them if they wanted to go out their way to do it. But they're not straightforwardly your boss as a civil servant as such. So the question is whether the way that, you know, he's interacting with people is kind of inappropriate for the sort of relationship he's got with them. I mean, but do we want to go down that avenue or not? Because, look, I think

Speaker A: 00:15:52

what we really want to talk about, and I want to bring us onto this, is, you know, what is acceptable behaviour? What is unacceptable behaviour? And how that might change in certain contexts? Because it seems to me... Am I on the right track here? Do we want to talk about this? Right. Because it seems to me, one thing I see in politics, but you see it in other things like sport, for example, is I'm astonished at the way that people behave in what is a professional context. They're getting paid for it. And I just know that if I were to ever have done that in my career, with the exception of shouting on this podcast, maybe. No, but if I have ever done that in my career or witnessed anyone doing that, it would be a big deal. Okay? And those people, first of all, they probably wouldn't do it anyway, because we all have to behave. And actually, as an aside, I often feel my family gets the worst of me, because I have to behave when I'm out here, like, with my voice to the world. And it's when I go home that I'm... The brutality starts. Exactly. It's all pent up, you know? And yeah. So, and I see it in politics, but also not just in this unreasonable behaviour of bullying, let's say, but also just, I mean, more recently with, what's the name of the Home Secretary? Suella Braverman. Yeah, her, who had to resign, but then got put back in again, because of using her personal email, right? For work reasons. I've never really, I don't think I've ever used my personal work email in a professional capacity or linked it to my salaried work.

Speaker C: 00:17:25

Well, you're not a minister, you're not emailing about...

Speaker A: 00:17:29

Let alone being the Home Secretary and National Secret. And I just think, who the fuck are these

Speaker C: 00:17:35

people? Yeah, so it just reminds me of the expenses scandal of a few years ago, you know, where there was all these absolutely outrageous expenses claims being made by MPs. You know, and obviously, as a civil servant, you've got just absolutely no way you could claim for any of those things, you know, regardless of the fact that, you know, and it was not a totally dissimilar set of rules. So the question is, is it, well, I know you've sort of said, is it about what behaviour, how does context affect behaviour? But is it a problem actually with just politics or with a small subset of professions? Is there something about politics, something about sport, you know, which encourages this kind of behaviour? Or is it slightly more indirect and to do with the kinds of people who end up doing those things?

Speaker B: 00:18:26

Quite. Yes. Well, so I mean, I think when you raise those two areas, and the other one that I think, so I think in most people's, in most professional people's career, there is a sense of, you read about these behaviours and you think, well, that's not, that wouldn't be tolerable. I've never, I might have experienced that once, but it was clearly unacceptable behaviour and somebody was, you know, disciplined or I moved jobs because of it or whatever, you know. But the things you mentioned, politics, sport, the other area, I think you get this kind of very, this very aggressive, combative sort of area is in sort of finances. You hear these stories of, you know, certainly in the olden days on the sort of trading floor and, you know, the kind of culture of big investment banks. And there's an element there, I think, in all of those where these are adversarial environments, you know, highly, so sport is you against your opposition and you must beat your opposition. Politics is clearly adversarial and finance is sort of, you know, dog eat dog, you know, it's either we make a profit or, you know, and they make a loss or vice versa, sort of nil some gain type things.

Speaker C: 00:19:51

So, OK, I think that's a really good start for a theory. So what we're saying is behaviour is primarily rent seeking. So just explain what that means. It means that there's a sort of fixed amount of wealth and you're trying to grab your bit, right, as opposed to a kind of endeavour where you're creating wealth. So wealth in this context, in the context of, you know, sport, only one person can win. You can't all get together and sort of all win somehow. Unless it's a school sports day. And, you know, politics, there's only a certain number of MPs and you've got, there's only one prime minister. It's like there's a restricted quantity. I think we're on the wrong track. Keep going. Well, no, and the reason why I think there are other professions, which we haven't talked about, it's always slightly puzzled me, have an incredible amount of sort of drama in them. And I know it's sort of a subcategory of sport, but chess, phenomenal amount of competitiveness in chess. But also like the arts has always puzzled me. Take something like music. Musicians and actors and people like that all tend to be the bitchiest people I've ever met, you know, and really sort of there's just a lot of rivalry there. See, I think we're going down the wrong, but I want to say, there's only a certain number of positions, you're fighting

Speaker A: 00:21:10

for a small number of positions. I think there's something else and I keep saying I think there's

Speaker B: 00:21:15

Yeah, so I was going to say the other place that and this is where I think it all sort of stems from the other area, which has traditionally and maybe less so recently, but certainly traditionally been a haven of bullying type behaviour is the military environment. And, you know, that idea of, you know, think of full metal jacket and the drill sergeant, certainly in popular culture. And, you know, the, you know, the sergeant major shouting at new recruits and so on. And that not being something you would, you know, experience if you worked in a library, for example. But but and so what I think this boils down to is is essentially that all these things mass mimic warfare in some way. And warfare is the stem of it. And this need that you're in an environment where aggression and violence and intimidation and bullying are what you need to do to other people and what you need to resist from your enemy. And therefore, that becomes part of the way you're trained to do things. And part of your training is about getting used to that kind of thing and not going, oh, I'm having a bit of a crisis because somebody just shouted at me when you're about to wander out onto a battlefield. I've got some data.

Speaker A: 00:22:50

Well, no, I want to interrupt us because Oh, yeah. I think I think the military Podcast us, interrupt us. Yes. Okay. I think, yes, of course, there've been lots of well-documented incidents of bullying in the military. But I think the military is a bit different from the other areas that we've talked about, because of its one, it's so hierarchical. But also because of that atmosphere, it's a very explicitly kind of combative

Speaker C: 00:23:14

But you also get like a level of camaraderie you don't get anywhere else.

Speaker A: 00:23:17

Yeah. And often it's to do with building up that camaraderie and that bullying goes over. And anyway, it does cross over with these other areas. But I think it's about something else, actually, than what we've been talking about. It's combative and so on. I think this is different. So to recap, the areas we've talked about is politics, finance, sport. And actually, yes, I agree the arts and music and all that sort of area. I think it's doing something else, which is this. So those areas lend themselves to entitled behavior, because let's say in finance, in high finance, the most important thing, more or less, is making huge loads of money. And if someone makes huge loads of money, they can more or less do what they want. If you're a great goal scorer, you can do what the hell you want. If you're the person who can help make the next prime minister, you can get away with what you want. If arts, if you are a fabulous, lauded artist or musician and get paid as much as you want, and you start to get separated out, so you get treated in this special way, you start to act in an entitled manner. I think, to be honest. I think that's what it's about. And you just don't get that in the more humdrum, regular walks of life, just going into office and so on.

Speaker C: 00:24:21

No, but I think what you've done is represent one of the things we've talked about before, which is just the something to do with the distribution. Like it's a small number of people have a disproportionate, well, it is slightly different, actually, but it's a small number of people have a disproportionate amount of power in something. And so if you imagine sort of, yeah, so I think that fits in, actually, like chess superstars. Often, you know, there's like a few of them and everyone else is just an also ran. It does fit, actually, yeah. Yeah. So I think maybe the shape of the distribution is important if it's got that kind of long, very long tail, you know, and actually that is characteristic of those sorts of, you know, so boiler repairmen, you know, fall on a normal distribution. You know, you don't get one boiler repairman who gets paid a million pounds per boiler and does them all. Each superstar has got an incredible rider. So I think it's probably, yeah. So I think that does sort of explain, I think, where you were likely to get this kind of behavior, regardless of whether it's effective. I mean, I suspect the problem with Garyn Williamson is he's not doing it very effectively. And that what separates him is not that he's not that he's more Machiavellian, it's just that he's more effective at it. But I've got I looked at some data about leadership.

Speaker A: 00:25:38

Yeah.

Speaker C: 00:25:39

And and what kinds of personality traits tend to promote sort of, well, people's people being leaders and being successful in leadership or being or being successful in becoming.

Speaker A: 00:25:54

I bet we start talking about psychopathy and so on.

Speaker C: 00:25:56

Well, so some interesting things. So just about leadership in general. Right. So this is correlations between being a leader and having a certain personality type. So the extroversion key, right out of the sort of big five personality factors, extroversion is definitely positively correlated with becoming a leader. Neuroticism is definitely correlated with not becoming a leader. Right. So that so you need to be low on neuroticism and high on extroversion to get into the leadership game, really. Obviously, these are only correlations and they're not true in every case. But the interesting thing is looking at this study I found, which was, I think, Judge et al from about 20 years ago, where they looked at emergence and effectiveness. So this is who gets to become a leader and who's good once they're already a leader. And this is where there's some really interesting differences. So extroversion is sort of good for both. Right. Neuroticism is bad for both. Very straightforward openness. Kind of good for both. But agreeableness, actually, agreeableness makes you less likely to become a leader, but it makes you more effective if you are a leader. Now, this is the key thing, I think, here is that the kinds of people, in order to get into power, being agreeable for whatever reason, we can speculate is bad. So nice guys are less likely to become leaders, but they make more effective leaders once you're there. So I think, you know, the practical outcome of this, if you're designing a kind of leadership selection mechanism is ignore the people who, you know, look like their apprentice contestants, go for the people who are actually team players, they're more likely to be good leaders. And then the other interesting one is conscientiousness, which has a much bigger effect on emergence than it does on effectiveness. So conscientiousness. So the people who are kind of diligent, conscientious, it means what you think it means, are more likely to get into a leadership position, but it doesn't really make them much more effective once they're there. So there we are. I thought that was interesting. So yeah, so basically look out for people who are disagreeable and conscientious, because they're going to get into power, but

Speaker A: 00:28:25

they're not going to be very good. I'm just thinking of some British prime ministers. I think also what's interesting about getting into power and what you're like in power. And I think a classic sort of conflict or contrast rather is Margaret Thatcher, conviction politician, followed by John Major. Yeah. Consensus politician. Yeah. So Margaret Thatcher,

Speaker C: 00:28:45

you'd say was disagreeable. I think she certainly sort of falls on the disagreeable, whereas John Major probably much more agreeable. Rishi Sunak strikes me as agreeable. Yeah. Boris Johnson, probably less so. And then you've got the extrovert, introvert. It's hard. Obviously, we don't really know. I'm guessing. But I would guess that Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair were classic extroverts, whereas Gordon Brown, you know, bit of a classic introvert. Yeah. If only they'd

Speaker B: 00:29:09

assessed Liz Truss before they should have done. Yeah. Yes, I found she was suboptimal on every

Speaker A: 00:29:15

category. Yeah. I just also famously, I don't know if it's true, if it's just anecdotal, was John Major. One of the things that helped him sort of actually get elected from within the parliamentary party was I think he was ill around the time that all the stuff was happening. I wasn't able to be involved in the intrigue. No idea if that's not true. I've no idea if that's true or

Speaker C: 00:29:33

not. So I did one last thing, which is just the different, how effectiveness in different areas. And they, so he's actually broken down, and this is a meta-analysis. So they looked at studies of people in business and studies of people in government and the military. And it turns out leadership, for leadership and business, openness is important, but not in government or the military, whereas conscientiousness is less effective in business than it is in the government or the

Speaker A: 00:30:02

military. So there you go. Anyway, that's the data I found, the data. Look, I mean, we actually spent quite a long time at the beginning of this really delving into Gavin Williamson and why didn't you, you know. But we need to wrap up soon-ish. What haven't we covered? What do we

Speaker B: 00:30:19

want to move on before I've got a question or two? Yeah, well, I was going to say one of the things that I'm sort of quite interested in is the effectiveness of this kind of behaviour and also the ability to sort of stop it. I think most people agree that it's not terribly effective, like losing your temper, for example, with people. And there are lots of cases where people do lose their temper and they subsequently lose their job. So certainly in today's environment, it doesn't seem like losing your temper is terribly effective. But what I'm quite interested in is how people, because it's a very human reaction to lose your temper, or at least for a lot of people. And I came across this study that was quite interesting where they were looking at effectively how people avoid losing their temper. And they conducted this study where they were, basically the subjects had to read out a series of, sort of answer a series of questions. They were kind of being interviewed, but it was also, there was an element they had to get them right in some way. And they were going through a microphone and they were on a stage and there were sort of interviews. And essentially the sort of interviewer would interrupt them throughout and pretend not to be able to hear them. And then at the final instant, they would shout at them, look, this is the third time I've had to say this. Can't you follow directions? Speak louder. Right. Which instantly even reading that in a dispassionate scientific journal got my goat. So it was obviously a well-constructed study. And what they found was essentially that they were looking at this idea of self-distancing, right? Which means basically stepping out of the moment and viewing yourself externally. And it was sort of being thought up until that point that it's very difficult to do that in the heat of the moment, right? You can do that retrospectively. Oh, I shouldn't have done that. But when emotions take over, you can't do that. But they found some people were able to do that. And they had particular sort of particularly high emotional intelligence. And they sort of followed particular kinds of strategies like distancing themselves from or rather distancing the person from the point that they're making. Being able to think about the perspectives of other people, sort of theory of mind kind of stuff. So I was quite interested in that idea that, you know, how people manage to not lose their temper and this idea. And what I realised is that I've been self-distancing my entire life. That's all I do. I never actually, you know, view the situation from within myself, which probably explains why I would never lose my temper. Actually, this makes me think of

Speaker C: 00:33:32

a distinction I sketched. I wrote down in a note, as we were discussing earlier, but which is about the extent to which something you do is about you versus what you're doing. Right. And how integral sort of your job is to your identity. Right. Which, again, I think it seems to correlate with those sort of professions which are very much about, you know, Magnus he doesn't make chess games. He's a chess player. Right. Whereas someone who makes tables is, you know, they're slightly more distance from what they do. So I don't quite get your point. Well, politician. It's very difficult to say I'm a good politician. It's just, you know, everyone hates me and I never get elected. Yeah. That means you're a bad politician. Right. I get what you're saying. Yeah. So I think there is. Yeah. There's that sense in which, you know, if someone is attacking you or you feel you're being attacked and your identity is very bound up with what they're attacking you about, you're going to it's going to be harder to take that outside view, that sort of distance view from what you're doing. Do you know what I mean?

Speaker B: 00:34:42

The other myth I saw sort of dispelled to some extent was the idea of outlets for anger as a source of catharsis. Right. And so there was there was another study looking at basically like replaying a slight in your mind where somebody has slighted you and punching a punch bag while while doing it, you know, versus doing other things while punching a punch bag and then other other forms of rumination on the incident. And so and basically it made you more angry, punching a punch bag. There's this idea. All right, I'm going to really get this anger out and off I go. And apparently that's not the case at all that people end up. So so losing your temper isn't like people say, oh, well, it's just better to get it all out there, isn't it? Well, you know, maybe for the individual, but actually not for the individual and definitely not for the recipient of it. Yeah, I'm I've got a real

Speaker C: 00:35:40

I've had to say I do judge people quite harshly for emotional incontinence in that regard. Well, I mean, people who lose their rag, you know, in a sort of public way, you know, people who get grumpy in public about things who get irate. I don't like it. I think what's the matter with you?

Speaker A: 00:35:57

OK, nice. Well, because actually I want to wind up, but actually this leads me exactly on what I want to talk about as as a parting question. I've actually got two. One's not particularly relevant to this, but is maybe relevant to the whole thing. And although we're sort of running out of time, I really want to try and do. OK, go for it. So most underrated prime minister. OK, just a quick one. Just that. And then the second thing I want you to tell us about what's your worst character trait within the bounds of reason and the decency of this podcast. What's your worst character trait? So those are my two questions. So I'll kick off. Um, yeah, look, when I say underrated prime minister, I'm probably realistic. We're talking about, you know, in the last 50 years, I'm probably thinking about right. It's got to be John Major. I think he had a tough act to follow coming after Margaret Thatcher, massively lauded. How many elections did he win? At least one, maybe two, John Major. I think a thoroughly decent person from what I can see.

Speaker C: 00:36:58

Now, you probably think John Major is a mild mannered, accountable looking guy. No, it's not a story so much as a moment when I was in a club in St. James's. Yeah, he was walking past and he just exuded this aura, charisma. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And yeah, there's something

Speaker A: 00:37:16

really impressive about I've heard that about him. Yeah, I think, you know, a good prime minister, a really good prime minister, I think. Yeah, my worst character trait. And actually, you know, when I hear you guys talking about how, Chris, you say, I never lose my temper and Nick saying, I don't like it when I see people being publicly grumpy and maybe losing their temper. I do have a terrible temper and I do flare up. Right. And I don't like it because I do think it's a weakness. And I think there's something I hate the idea of being, you know, a paper tiger or an empty or banging drum, you know. And sadly, you know, when do I lose my temper? I often feel slighted quite easily if someone's rude to me. And instead of sort of thinking, you know, out in public and so on, instead of sort of just going, well, that's their problem, not mine. I do immediately kind of take

Speaker C: 00:38:09

it as a murderous rage. Yeah. If someone doesn't say thank you for holding a door open or won't move out of the way when I'm trying to get off the tube. Yeah. That gets me really angry. More than anything else in the world, you want to murder them there and then. Yeah. Well,

Speaker B: 00:38:24

the only reason we hold doors open for people is so that we can get upset when they don't say thank

Speaker A: 00:38:30

you. Yeah. And one of the things that also I don't like about myself in this respect is who do I get angry with the most? My family, the people I love the most, of course, with my so I feel I take it out on my wife and my kids. And, you know, and I just I do fly into a rage every now and again. I don't like that. Listeners help me or Nick and Chris help me. But maybe it's just to say, Chris, I think the opposite is, you know, as you say, you're never getting angry. However, I think with yourself, you're quite, you know, you're full of equanimity. It feels and and.

Speaker B: 00:39:04

There's more there's more volatility in your there's more there's more ups and downs. Yeah,

Speaker A: 00:39:10

I suppose. Yeah. No, I can be. I'm not saying you're not fun to be around. Yeah. A barrel of laughter. Yeah, but I'm good company, aren't I, Nick? Yeah, sure. Yeah. You know, I'm good to be around. But I think it's all part of that sort of roller coaster and the majesty and wonder of the floors that is myself. And I need to stop modesty as well. Yes, that is. Yeah. One of you

Speaker B: 00:39:31

guys. Well, I'll go for. Well, I'll pick up on the on the character trait, first of all, because it's it's I think it is that is that sort of detachment even keel element is probably too extreme in me if you can be extremely moderate in some way. And I think what that what that manifests itself in is is a couple of things. One is the phenomenon of an hedonism. So not being able to enjoy things because you don't have the up and the down. So you just you know, it means you don't get the bad bits when, you know, other people would be depressed or whatever. Yeah. But you also find it more difficult to reach the peaks when things are, you know, should be should be exciting. And the other thing is sort of an authenticity. It's like the rest of humankind are emotional creatures and and I sort of view them by it's difficult to join in with that that sense, you know, and feel feel authentically part of what they're what they're enjoying. I mean, I'm not a complete robot. I do occasionally raise an eyebrow at something and most underrated prime minister. There are loads in this in this category, you know, and I could go on for sort of political reasons and so on. Well, I mean, yeah, I'm going to have a stab at Liz Truss in a minute. But I think Theresa May, because I think effectively, while she was a terrible campaigner, that is true. I think she would have been potentially quite a good prime minister in post, were it not for the fact that she was basically operating in times where... Bit of a hospital pass. It was a hospital pass. It was ungovernable. And Liz Truss, I will put forward as an underrated prime minister, largely because she is so badly rated. Yeah. And I think I think under other circumstances, I mean, it was all basically about her one plan. She had this idea she was going to go against the consensus and take a risk and the risk went wrong. Right. But it may have been under different circumstances that the risk that was maybe a small chance that that risk would have would have turned out right. And had it gone right, she would have been heralded. I'm not saying she made the right decisions, but had that risk gone right, she would have been heralded as the best prime minister.

Speaker C: 00:42:15

Yeah. I mean, Thatcher had a very rocky first few years and presided over a recession and probably, you know, it was touch and go. I think it's only the verdict of history and the Falklands War. I think the Falklands War, the impact of that is overstated often. But anyway, yeah, go on.

Speaker A: 00:42:32

Yeah, it'd be an interesting essay. Liz Truss could have been as great as Margaret Thatcher. I mean, something along those lines.

Speaker C: 00:42:43

I'd be reluctant to sign up to that.

Speaker A: 00:42:45

But no, Chris, I think that's a nice point that, you know, she's so underrated, or no, sorry, so poorly rated that maybe she can't be as bad. She can't be as bad as all of them. Okay, nice, Chris. Nick.

Speaker C: 00:42:58

Yeah, so I'm going to come out and say it. Tony Blair, his career has been now marred, really, with the Iraq War. And that's all I think most people think Tony Blair, Iraq War, we forget that, you know, actually two thirds of his time in power was presided over this, you know, very successful time. And but not just that, but I think, you know, he really did wonders for the Labour Party. I'm sure people in the Labour Party don't agree with that. But it's true. I mean, he made them electable, which they weren't very good at being. But did all sorts of things like, you know, the independence of the Bank of England is brilliant. The Northern Ireland peace process. I mean, there were loads of things that Tony Blair, with that unique blend of personality, you know, managed to manage to pull off. So I like Tony Blair. He doesn't deserve, doesn't deserve his reputation.

Speaker A: 00:43:48

I don't think he's underrated so much as kind of that's what he's become known for.

Speaker B: 00:43:54

He's vilified by quite a large portion of bizarrely the people who support the party that he helped get elected three times for reasons best known to themselves.

Speaker C: 00:44:08

I think the character trait I find probably holds me back the most, I would say is my sort of the conscientiousness issue, but particularly about doing things I can't really face, which I'm in a position quite a lot, you know, of having a massive to do list ever growing. And some of them, I think, well, the most important ones, I just can't, I can't face it now. And so I end up doing things that I can face now, which aren't necessarily the most important things. Everything gets done. Don't get me wrong. It's just that I sort of feel like if only I could force myself, you know, to do to do the difficult things like I know I should. Swallow that frog. Yeah, swallow the frog. That's right. So I find myself sitting around with an uneaten frog all day, you know, and then eventually I do eat the frog, but I just wish I'd done it in the morning.

Speaker A: 00:44:52

You know, I think you've got many other worse character traits than that. Anyway, that's for another time, I guess. All right. Nice. I like that. Well, we'll stop there. Thank you, as always, for listening to the Cognitive Engineering podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer, being here with Chris Wragg and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights. Until next time. Goodbye.