Psychology is hard, even when you’re just trying to understand what’s going on with one impossibly complex person. Romance psychology is particularly hard because you’re trying to understand what’s going on between two impossibly complex people. Eli Finkel is a professor of psychology at Northwestern University. Paul Eastwick is a professor at the University of California, Davis. Both are experts on the psychology of attraction, dating, and romance and hosts of the Love Factually podcast. Today, Derek asks: Does anybody actually have "a type"? Are we any good at predicting the sort of people we’ll fall in love with? Has online dating caused people to over-filter for attraction, even though initial attraction doesn't determine long-term compatibility? How do modern, affluent folks' incredibly high expectations of marriage affect satisfaction in long-term relationships?

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guests: Eli Finkel and Paul Eastwick

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In every generation, important people predict that the end is near and the apocalypse is coming. In the 1960s, the fear was that population growth would destroy the planet—that fertility would outrun the food supply, and hundreds of millions of people would starve to death. The most famous warning was 'The Population Bomb,' a bestselling book published in 1968 by Stanford ecologist Paul Ehrlich, which claimed "the battle to feed all of humanity is over" and “hundreds of millions of people would starve to death” in the 1970s.

But then the 1970s came and went. And global famine deaths didn’t rise. They declined by 90 percent. In the 1980s, deaths from world hunger fell again. And again in the 1990s. And again in the 2000s. The apocalypse that everybody said was coming never came. And the reason is, basically, we invented super wheat.

In the 1950s and 1960s, a plant pathologist named Norman Borlaug, working in Mexico on fungus-resistant wheat on a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, managed to create a breed of wheat that was super abundant, efficient, and disease-resistant. His work kickstarted what’s known as the Green Revolution, a movement whose discoveries are responsible for keeping roughly half the planet alive. In 2007, when Borlaug was 93, The Wall Street Journal editorialized that he had “arguably saved more lives than anyone in history. Maybe one billion.”

Today’s guest is Charles C. Mann, a journalist and author. We talk about the long history of the Green Revolution. Who was Norman Borlaug? What did he actually do? How did he do it? What does his accomplishment teach us about science, invention, and progress?

We’re at a moment today when American science is being cut to the bone while foreign aid is being slashed. I sometimes hear the question: What is foreign aid really worth to us? I think it’s important to remember that Norman Borlaug was a foundation-funded scientist who didn’t do his most important work in air-conditioned labs at Harvard or Johns Hopkins. His breakthroughs came in lean-to shacks in Mexico, where he worked to improve harvests. Without Borlaug’s accomplishments, the world would look very different: Famines might trigger migration that destabilizes countries and transforms global politics. The world we have today, where countries like China and India can easily feed their huge populations, is a gift to global stability, to humanity, to America. It grew from the seed of a foreign agricultural support program.

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Charles C. Mann

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Monday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order telling drugmakers to slash the prices of their medicines. Once again, the president showed an amazing nose for interesting questions. Statistically, the U.S. accounts for 4 percent of the world’s population but nearly 50 percent of global pharmaceutical spending. Americans spend three to five times more on new branded drugs than people in Europe.

Why? And what's the matter with fixing this problem by just telling pharmaceutical companies that their prices are too damn high?

Today’s guest is Jason Abaluck, a health economist at Yale University. We talk about why Americans pay so much for new drugs but, ironically, pay so little for old drugs. We unpack trade-offs between low prices and innovation. And finally, we consider several ways we can have our cake and eat it too: more miracle drugs and more affordability. Because, after all, what is this whole conversation about besides the obvious: How do we design a world in which imperfect people working at imperfect companies nonetheless collaborate to build therapies that save and extend our lives with products we can actually afford?

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Jason Abaluck

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In music, billion-dollar investments in old catalogues are squeezing out new music. In film, Hollywood has become addicted to the regurgitation of familiar IP. In visual art, critics bemoan the straitjacket of political correctness. On TV, as Derek told Bill Simmons, we're in a Gilded Age of television, where every prestigious show looks absolutely amazing—but that gilded veneer often covers up for dull storytelling.

What do these trends all have in common? The slow decline of modern media. This month, The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber published a blockbuster essay, "Is This the Worst-Ever Era of American Pop Culture?" Today, he joins Derek to answer that question. They discuss the four horsemen of the pop culture apocalypse—stagnation, cynicism, isolation, and brain rot—and the case that, maybe, things aren't quite as bad as they seem.

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Spencer Kornhaber

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last month, the unemployment rate for recent college grads surged to nearly 6 percent. Compared to the overall economy's jobless rate, the unemployment rate for recent grads is higher now than in any month on record, going back at least four decades. Business school grads are struggling, too. Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that elite MBA programs saw that their most recent classes had "worse job-placement outcomes last year than any other in recent memory."

What’s going on? Today’s guest is David Deming, an economist at Harvard who studies education and the future of work. We walk through some plain-Jane theories about the weakening labor market for young college grads. But then, as you’ll hear, the conversation expands to consider the coming storm of AI—and how artificial intelligence is changing education and the workforce for young people.

To read more on this topic, check out Derek's Atlantic column from last week.

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: David Deming

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today, we are witnessing an unprecedented assault on American science. Thousands of workers have been dismissed from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Billions of dollars are being cut from the NIH and NSF. Talented scientists are leaving the field (or leaving the country). Clinical trials and longitudinal studies are ending without explanation. Major research universities are under direct attack, with billions more dollars being withheld for political purposes.

Today, I want to do three things: First, I want to review what's happening to American science and why it’s so serious. Second, I want to explore how we got here—how the American science system works, and where it came from. And third, I want to discuss what a real reformist agenda for American science would look like.

So, for the first time, this is a triple-barreled podcast. First we speak to Holden Thorp, the editor-in-chief of Science and the prestigious Science journals. Second, we talk to Bhaven Sampat, a researcher and historian at Arizona State University, about the history of the NIH. And finally, we talk to Pierre Azoulay, a researcher at MIT, who has spent considerable time and energy studying how American science works and how it could work better.

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guests: Holden Thorp, Bhaven Sampat and Pierre Azoulay

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the last few weeks, for the first time in my life, I’ve seriously thought about the 21st century not being another American century.

A recent essay in the journal Foreign Affairs by Rush Doshi and Kurt Campbell put things as starkly as I’ve ever seen. Some people are still stuck in a mode of thinking about China as being a place that just makes things of little value and significance. But Made in China means something different now. Technologically, China dominates everything from electric vehicles to fourth-generation nuclear reactors. Militarily, it features the world’s largest navy. Its shipbuilding capacity is 200 times as large as America’s. In a world built of cement and steel, China makes 20 times more cement and 13 times more steel than the U.S. In a world whose future will be full of electric vehicles, batteries, drones, and solar power, China makes two-thirds of the world’s EVs, three-quarters of its electric batteries, 80 percent of consumer drones, and 90 percent of solar panels. In a world where wars are won by the largest militaries, consider that China’s navy will be 50 percent larger than the U.S. Navy by the end of the decade.

Today's guests are Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi. Both men served on the Biden National Security Council. Campbell is the chairman and cofounder of The Asia Group. Doshi is director of the China Strategy Initiative at the Council on Foreign Relations and an assistant professor at Georgetown University.

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In 1937, a Rhode Island psychiatrist named Charles Bradley ran an experiment on 30 child patients who had complained of headaches. He gave them an amphetamine, that is a stimulant, called Benzedrine, which was popular at the time among jazz musicians and college students. The experiment failed, in one sense. The headaches persisted. But he noted that half of the children responded in what he called spectacular fashion, as teachers said these children seemed instantly transformed by the drug. Rather than being bored by their homework, they were interested in it. Rather than being hyperactive, they became more “placid and easygoing.” Rather than complaining to parents about chores, they would make comments like: “I start to make my bed, and before I know it, it is done.” Bradley published the results in The American Journal of Insanity, and it marks perhaps the origins of our treatment model for ADHD.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, has always been hard to define. It’s harder still in an age when everybody feels like modern entertainment and the omnipresence of our screens make it hard for anybody to concentrate and sit still. But clearly, some people struggle with concentration and stillness more than others. ADHD has many classic symptoms, but it is typically marked by patterns of inattentiveness—frequently losing items, failing to follow multistep instructions—or by hyperactivity: say, fidgeting, or, for some children, being literally incapable of sitting in one place for more than half a second. In a way, I’ve always disliked the phrase "attention-deficit disorder," because ADHD is not about a deficit of ordinary attention but a surplus of feral attention—an overflowing of raw, uncontrollable noticing.

Last week, the journalist Paul Tough published a long, 9,000-word essay in The New York Times Magazine about ADHD called "Have We Been Thinking About ADHD All Wrong?" Tough asked hard questions about why diagnoses are soaring. Is this evidence of an epidemic? Or is it evidence of overdiagnosis? Paul is today’s guest. We talk about his blockbuster essay, what its loudest critics said about it, what its loudest advocates said about it, and why they both might be wrong.

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Paul Tough

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last week, a team of astrophysicists from the University of Cambridge announced that they had discovered the “strongest indication” ever of extraterrestrial life. The source did not come from Mars or Venus or any nearby moon. It came from K2-18b, a massive planet some 120 light-years from Earth.

If this finding checks out, it is, without question, one of the most important discoveries in the history of science. But many scientists think that ... well, it might not check out at all.

Today’s guest is Sara Seager, a celebrated astrophysicist at MIT. Seager is a pioneer in the study of exoplanets and their atmospheres. She has done as much as practically anybody to develop the science of interpreting light from faraway stars to make inferences about planets. In today’s show, Seager and I slowly worked our way up to last week’s announcement by building a foundation of the basic science at play. What are exoplanets? How do we know that they’re there? How do we have any idea about the chemicals present on that planet if we can’t send probes to test their air? What does the K2-18b finding really tell us? And what larger philosophical questions about life and aliens are raised by this new science of exoplanet atmospheres?

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Sara Seager

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the past three weeks, we've spoken to economists about the tariffs. We’ve spoken to a historian about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and the 100-year legacy of American protectionism. We've spoken to supply chain expert Jason Miller from Michigan State about why China is set up to win the upcoming trade war. But the voice we haven’t heard is the voice of business. People who run companies are screaming at whoever will listen that the White House agenda will decimate business and plunge their industries into a recession.

Today’s guest is Molson Hart. He’s run a manufacturing business in the U.S. for the last 15 years. His company, Viahart, manufactures consumer products in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam and sells them both in stores and online—mostly in the U.S. His biggest vertical is toys, including Brain Flakes, which are molded plastic disks that kids and adults can snap together to build things.

This is not a bleeding-heart lefty. Quite the opposite: This is a guy who is rooting for the Trump agenda to succeed. This is a guy who told me in our interview he wants to believe that the Trump team has its heart in the right place when it comes to bringing back manufacturing in the long run. And yet he has called these tariffs not just a bad idea … but the worst economic policy in American history.

I spoke to him this week, and he was just incredibly compelling and thoughtful about the toy industry, why it’s so difficult to bring back American manufacturing quickly, and how these tariffs could do incredible damage to America’s small businesses. So we’ve decided to rush out this interview a little sooner than we intended, in part because it’s great and in part because this news story is moving so quickly, it’s hard to know what reality will even look like next week.

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at [email protected].

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Molson Hart

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices