“Your Stone Age Brain in the Screen Age: Coping with Digital Distraction and Sensory Overload” with Professor Richard Cytowic

The human brain evolved for a prehistoric world, not for the demands of the digital age. Yet modern technologies constantly compete for our attention. They exploit ancient systems linked to reward, emotion, comparison, and survival. In his new book, “Your Stone Age Brain in the Screen Age”, Professor Richard Cytowic explores this conflict. He explains why the brain struggles to resist smartphones, social media, and other digital devices. He also examines why developing brains are particularly vulnerable and why periods of silence remain essential. In this episode of Bridging the Gaps, I speak with Professor Richard Cytowic.

Richard E. Cytowic, a pioneering researcher in synesthesia, is Professor of Neurology at George Washington University. He is best known for rediscovering synesthesia—the involuntary coupling of the senses—and returning it to mainstream science. He coauthored “Wednesday Is Indigo Blue” that won the Montaigne Medal.

I begin by asking Richard about the brain’s energy consumption, particularly in relation to attention, information overload, and digital distraction. We also compare the brain’s energy demands with those of other organs and bodily functions.

The book opens with a description of a typical day in the life of a Stone Age human. This leads us to consider a central question: how does an ancient brain function in a radically modern environment? We discuss how people respond to new technologies and why innovations are often adopted so quickly.

The conversation then turns to digital distraction. Richard explains what happens when the brain repeatedly shifts attention and why true multitasking is difficult. We also examine the effects of blue light, the pursuit of happiness through digital devices, and the growing influence of the attention economy.

A particularly striking part of the discussion concerns “virtual autism.” We explore whether excessive screen use and reduced social interaction can produce behaviours that resemble signs associated with autism. We also discuss the idea of engineered addiction and ask whether digital detoxes are genuinely effective.

The discussion then considers possible solutions. These include spending more time in nature, engaging directly with other people, reducing reliance on digital devices, and creating space for silence and reflection. We examine why solitude and quiet may be essential for mental balance.

Finally, Richard explains synaesthesia and how it reveals the brain’s remarkable ability to connect different sensory experiences. Overall, the conversation offers an insightful exploration of attention, technology, behaviour, and the continuing influence of our evolutionary past.

Complement this discussion with “On Task: How Our Brain Gets Things Done” with Professor David Badre and the listen to “Zero to Birth: How the Human Brain Is Built” with Professor William Harris.

By |August 3rd, 2026|Neuroscience, Social Science|

“Somebody Should Do Something: How Anyone Can Help Create Social Change” with Professor Alex Madva

Achieving meaningful and sustainable social change is a complex task and a demanding challenge. Many of the most urgent problems, such as climate change, racism, and poverty are structural. They arise from collective practices, including laws, economies, history, culture and social norms. Yet structural change still depends on individuals making different choices—choices that confront existing structures and challenge established norms.

In their recent book “Somebody Should Do Something: How Anyone Can Help Create Social Change” Michael Brownstein, Alex Madva, and Daniel Kelly present a novel and scientific account of how personal choices can contribute to transformative social change. The authors argue that individual action matters most when it connects people to collective efforts. Meaningful change happens when individuals work with others to challenge and reshape existing structures. In this episode of Bridging the Gaps I speak with Professor Alex Madva.

Alex Madva is Professor of Philosophy, Director of the California Center for Ethics and Policy, and Co-Director of the Digital Humanities Consortium at Cal Poly Pomona.

We begin our discussion by unpacking a key point made in the book: many people feel trapped in “either/or thinking” about personal choices and structural change, as though they must choose between the two. The authors describe the book as a way to help readers “get unstuck,” and we explore what this means in practice.

We then examine the book’s two central themes: the climate crisis and racism. We discuss why the authors focus on these issues rather than others. We also discuss the book’s writing style, including its use of humour, and consider the value of humour when addressing serious and complex topics.

The discussion then turns to pluralistic ignorance, particularly the problem of people not knowing how much others care about social issues. We examine this concept in depth. We also consider several real-world examples, including Chris Smalls’s unionization campaign at Amazon.

Finally, we discuss the differences between face-to-face and online activism. We reflect on whether activists should observe certain limits when their actions affect the daily lives of ordinary people. We also touch on research showing how small actions can create wider social effects, and how movements that appear to fail in the short term may still lay the groundwork for future victories.

Overall, this has been an enlightening discussion.

Complement this discussion with “The Painful Truth about Hunger in America” with Professor Mariana Chilton and then listen to “A Passion for Ignorance” and for Denials and Negations with Professor Renata Salecl.

By |May 27th, 2026|Philosophy, Podcasts, Research, Social Science|

“AI Fairness: Designing Equal Opportunity Algorithms” with Professor Derek Leben

As artificial intelligence takes on a growing role in decisions about education, jobs, housing, loans, healthcare, and criminal justice, concerns about fairness have become urgent. Because AI systems are trained on data that reflect historical inequalities, they often reproduce or even amplify those disparities. In his book “AI Fairness: Designing Equal Opportunity Algorithms” Professor Derek Leben draws on classic philosophical theories of justice—especially John Rawls’s work—to propose a framework for evaluating the fairness of AI systems. This framework offers a way to think systematically about algorithmic justice: how automated decisions can align with ethical principles of equality and fairness. The book examines the trade-offs among competing fairness metrics and shows that it is often impossible to satisfy them all at once. As a result, organizations must decide which definitions of fairness to prioritize, and regulators must determine how existing laws should apply to AI. In this episode of Bridging the Gaps, I speak with Professor Derek Leben.

Derek Leben is Professor of Business Ethics at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University. As founder of the consulting group Ethical Algorithms, he has worked with governments and companies to develop policies on fairness and benefit for AI and autonomous systems.

I begin our discussion by asking Derek what “AI” means in the context of his work and how fairness fits into that picture. From there, we explore why fairness matters as AI systems increasingly influence critical decisions about employment, education, housing, loans, healthcare, and criminal justice.

We discuss how historical inequalities in training data lead to biased outcomes, giving listeners a deeper understanding of the problem. While some view AI fairness as a purely technical issue that engineers can fix, the book argues that it is also a moral and political challenge—one that requires insights from philosophy and ethics. We then examine the difficulty of balancing multiple fairness metrics, which often cannot all be satisfied simultaneously, and discuss how organizations might prioritize among them. Derek explains his theory of algorithmic justice, inspired by John Rawls’s philosophy, and we unpack its key ideas.

Later, we touch on questions of urgency versus long-term reform, exploring the idea of longtermism, and discuss the tension between fairness and accuracy. Finally, we consider how businesses can balance commercial goals with their broader social responsibilities.

Overall, it is an informative and thought-provoking conversation about how we can make AI systems more just.

Complement this discussion with “The Line: AI and the Future of Personhood” with Professor James Boyle and the listen to Reclaiming Human Intelligence and “How to Stay Smart in a Smart World” with Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer