I hate to burst your balloons.
No, you don't.
Because your balloons are so bright and cheery.
And you're a little thumbtack.
I'm Angela Duckworth.
I'm Stephen Dubner.
And you're listening to No Stupid Questions.
Today on the show, how much better do you really want to be?
The secret to looking successful is to surround yourself with people who are quite dumb.
Also, why do we pad our speech with so many filler words?
I don't think I quite had the belly girl thing.
Gag me with a spoon.
So Angela, there is a question that often gets asked about money, but that I would like to ask you about ability or talent instead.
That probably doesn't make that much sense yet, does it?
Not yet, but why don't you keep going?
Here's what I mean.
This research literature goes back, I believe, to the 1990s, where people are asked would you rather earn X amount of dollars let's say 50000 while everyone else around you is earning, let's say 45000, or.
Would you rather earn, let's say, $55,000 while everyone else around you is earning $60,000?
It's relative versus absolute judgments.
Precisely.
So that's the money question.
And many people, when asked this, at least in an experimental setting, say they would rather earn less in absolute terms, but more compared to the Joneses that they're trying to keep up with or surpass by a little bit.
So my question for you Angela, is similarly would you rather be, let's say, 5 smarter or more talented than everybody around you?
Or would you rather be 10 more talented or smarter, while everyone else around you is a little bit better?
So basically, do I want to be better in some absolute way, or do I want to be better in a relative way?
And the way that you phrased that really forces me to make that choice.
Right.
I'm going to give you the true answer, like the honest answer.
And then I don't know.
And then the face saving answer or what?
Well, what I would love to say, Stephen, is that.
Of course, I want to be with people who are smarter.
Right.
Because I'm not competing with other people.
I'm not trying to beat anyone.
I'm just trying to be my own best self.
I want to say that.
But I don't think there are any absolute judgments.
In a fundamental way, I think all of human perception and judgment is always relative to something.
And if you ask me, hey, how was breakfast?
And you're saying, I'm not asking you in a comparative sense.
I'm just asking in some absolute sense how delicious was breakfast.
I can't answer that without thinking of other breakfasts or how breakfast should have been.
You could say that this breakfast was demonstrably delicious and almost anyone would think it was delicious.
And it happened to have been prepared by someone who's been training for 50 years to do nothing but make delicious breakfast.
But you're saying that, at least subconsciously.
Compared to every other breakfast I've had, it was awesome.
In some implicit way that can be below the level of consciousness, and very fast.
There's a comparison going on.
I know that's a broad, sweeping statement to say, like all of human judgment and all of human perception, even if it doesn't feel like it is comparative is comparative.
I think that is so important and interesting.
And even though I think I agree to the depths of my bones, I don't know if I ever would have put that label comparative period on all of our human decision making.
I mean, you could say there are absolutes when it comes to chemical issues and biological issues, but you're saying, in terms of the way that we perceive the world and our emotions and so on, you're saying there's really no such thing as absolute happiness frustration anger, depression.
I am.
Again, it can happen so fast and below consciousness, I don't even know that we're aware.
One reason I believe this is true is because you can move people's judgments around pretty easily.
Here's an example.
In studies where you ask somebody, do you want $1 today or do you want $1.50 in two months?
I want $1.50 today, thank you.
Trick answer.
The famous finding is that people prefer immediate gratification.
But you can shift people's answers by giving people a comparison.
You say, would you rather have 1 today and nothing in two months, or would you rather have nothing now and 150 in two months?
You are shifting them to a certain comparison.
It's called the hidden zero effect.
You're taking the A versus B alternative, but you're bringing out something which is always true.
And you can move people around.
In a hidden zero effect, people are more likely to delay gratification.
And I know this isn't going to sound plausible, but I actually –
On February 13th, I emailed Danny Kahneman the following Melville quote.
Okay.
So Melville wrote, The more so I say, because truly to enjoy bodily warmth, some small part of you must be cold.
For there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast.
Nothing exists in itself.
Interesting.
He's using, however, an absolute measurement temperature to talk about the difference in experience.
But let's go back to the question of you being around more talented, smarter people.
I've come across this phrase, interpersonal preferences.
We inevitably compare ourselves all the time to everyone else on every dimension.
Well, that was going to be my second point.
Human beings spontaneously compare themselves on things like talent or ability or personality or likability to other people.
We immediately want to know how we stack up.
Like when I give people a grit score, they always want to know. what percentile am I in?
And I say hey, rather than comparing yourself to other people, maybe you could just focus on how you answered these questions and what that reveals.
And they still want to know what percentile they're in.
So there is a human tendency to compare ourselves to other people, especially when it's something ego-related.
So you hinted at your answer, or one of your two answers, to this actual question about you being around people who are smarter than you, or you getting to be a bit smarter, but around people who are less smart than you.
But you haven't said your true answer yet.
Yeah, let me be straight with you.
My honest answer is I would probably rather be 5% more talented than the people around me.
Because why?
My ego exists and it's going to want to feel good.
And it does it by making a relative judgment to what I see.
And even though I want to want to tell you Stephen, that I only care about the absolutes and better that everyone else be even better off.
The realistic answer, and the one that we live, is the one where I'm just looking at other people's relative standing.
So you'd rather be a big fish in a slightly stinky pond than a slightly smaller fish in a pristine pond.
That's what I want, but I want to want the more noble answer.
Of course you do.
Probably the vast majority of us are just like you, but let's for a minute pretend that you and all of us would like to align our, Our wants with our want-to-wants.
Exactly.
So let's talk about...
The advantages of being around people who are smarter, more accomplished, more disciplined, whatever.
What do you know about that?
Well, first of all, this is actually the pattern of experts.
You know, if you're playing chess, do you want to play somebody who's about as good as you, worse than you or a little bit better than you?
And if you are an expert chess player, or somebody who has ambition to become an expert chess player, you absolutely want to play somebody who's a little better than you.
And then ditto for golf, tennis, etc.
Leaders often say this.
I think Andrew Carnegie has on his tombstone that the secret to success was just to surround himself always with people who are a little smarter.
I thought this was going to be the other way around.
The secret to looking successful is to surround yourself with people who are quite dumb.
Also, can I just say you had me at golf because it is so true.
I love to play golf with golfers who are better than me, but not too much better.
Why is that that you do want to?
Because this could go both ways.
Exactly.
I think about that because I have friends who are about at my level, but they prefer to play with people that they're a little bit better than.
Because they're more likely to win.
But I find that, for the most part, when you're actually interacting with people who are better than you, it's pretty easy for that to rub off or for you to rise to that level.
That's what I find with golf.
You'll get better.
Yeah.
And partly that's because there's a strong mental component, which is an expectation like this guy is going to be able to accomplish this.
And of course, I should be not too far behind him.
But then the question is do you want to put yourself in an arena where you're constantly not as good as the others around you?
And you may feel like, well, I may get better long run.
But in the short run, I'm losing all my games.
I was thinking outside of the sports realm.
Let's say, a student gets admitted to an incredibly selective school, even though they don't really think that they're an awesome scholar yet.
So there's a choice.
I can go there and there are other variables.
There's the prestige and so on.
But do I want to be around people who might make me feel inferior, or do I want to go to the place where I can excel?
Again, big fish, slightly stinky pond.
I think the most important benefit is that it's challenging and therefore you will perform better.
You'll learn more for sure.
The downside really is ego and the short-term losses.
There is this big fish, little pond effect.
You said stinky pond.
That's a bigger pond or a tougher pond to be in than the school you would have gone to otherwise.
And what Marsh finds in lots and lots of research, including hundreds of thousands of students, is that this can actually lead you to have a lower academic self-concept.
And it's pretty common sense why.
My own two daughters went to a public school that was a magnet school and they would come home after a day of school pre-pandemic, and they would say I'm kind of an average student.
They see themselves as middle of the pack.
The whole pack is not in the middle of the pack.
But it was very, very hard to convince them of this, because you're now trying to contradict hourly and daily experience with intellectual fact.
And anyway, that's the big fish, little pond effect.
How does this relate to what I've seen called relative deprivation?
Do you know anything about that?
Relative deprivation is a term from the social psychology literature that you have the judgment that you're worse off compared to some standard and that leads to anger and resentment.
So, again, our judgments are spontaneously relative, and then—
When we don't come out well in that arithmetic, we can be angry and resentful.
In terms of osmosis and the smartness of the people around us rubbing off on us or us learning from them.
I'm curious whether that same phenomenon has ever been studied in, let's say, kindness or charitable behavior.
If I'm a selfish person and I start hanging out with a bunch of altruists, what happens there?
One prediction might be that, just like everything else money or status or ability that it's just going to make you feel worse.
Alternatively, Chris Peterson and Marty Seligman, two psychologists.
Chris Peterson now deceased, but Peterson and Seligman published this book on character about 20 years ago and their claim was that, when it comes to kindness or honesty or forgiveness or dimensions of character, we actually don't make these relative comparisons.
We don't have a rank ordering.
We don't say like, oh, I'm the fifth most kind person in the room out of five.
Now I don't feel good.
When we're around a lot of kind people, we just feel great.
That is encouraging, because when you began this conversation with this sort of categorical assessment of humans as comparative animals, I assumed that those characteristics would be included as well.
So I'm happy to hear that.
Well, that's what they claimed.
Oh, Duckworth is here to tell you they're a bunch of liars.
Look, I don't have data.
I've got like a Melville quote.
So I'm not saying that I have systematically tested this hypothesis.
I really do feel like even for kindness.
When I think of my mom and I think of myself, my mom is kinder than me.
She is more generous than me.
But here's the thing.
I do spontaneously make a relative comparison to her.
The comparison... doesn't necessarily make me feel angry and resentful.
So it could be that what Peterson and Seligman are arguing about the consequences emotionally may be different.
For virtues.
But I think the fact that we make the comparison spontaneously and without urging, I think it's true.
I am interested to know whether we might have an easier time absorbing the virtues of others than the more measurable traits like academic talent.
Because I could see you in some grocery store about to crash over some person who's in your way and saying what would my mother do?
My mother would probably stop and say, hey person, you're sitting there blocking up the whole aisle.
So you must have some problem.
Can I help you solve that problem?
As opposed to Angie, which was like, get the hell out of my way shopper.
Stop. stiff elbow, dirty look.
Okay.
So if we spontaneously make relative judgments and if sometimes that can make us feel bad about ourselves when the other person is more admirable, there's got to be some benefit to learning.
And the golf example is one, kind of ups your competition.
And very related to that is thinking about What would Teresa do?
Who's Teresa?
My mom.
Oh, sorry.
I guess I forgot you're not on a first-name basis with my mom.
But if I think, what would my mom do?
I can use that to emulate her.
So there's got to be benefits to being around other people.
And I think it's a terrific thing to have on your tombstone to say I had the courage to be around people who were better than me.
And I got my ego out of the way so I could learn and be better.
I hate to burst one of your balloons.
No, you don't.
I do.
Because your balloons are so bright and cheery.
And you're a little thumbtack.
But I was looking up the quote on the Carnegie tombstone and I come across a page here that is from Carnegie Hall.
In New York, we call it Carnegie Hall, but in Pittsburgh, they call him Carnegie.
Anyway, Andrew Carnegie, who died at age 84 in 1919, this says...
In a 1901 speech so this is 18 years before he died Carnegie stated that he wished to have his tombstone inscribed with the words here lies a man who knew how to enlist in his service better men than himself.
This, however, did not happen.
Instead, chiseled into the base of a simple Celtic cross, is simply Andrew Carnegie, born Dunfermline Scotland 25 November 1835.
Died Lennox Mass August 1 1919.
That's it?
There's no epigram?
There's apparently a story how, 18 years before he died, he wanted to be remembered as the kind of person who wanted to have people around him better than himself.
But doesn't this illustrate your story perfectly?
That it never got onto the tombstones?
Know that everybody says that they want to have better people around them.
But in fact, I'm not going to have those people on my tombstone, damn it.
I think that...
Whether those words made it to the tombs or not, even whether Andrew Carnegie or Carnegie lived that way, it's definitely an aspiration.
And I do think this.
If you have a decision about whether to hang out with people who are better than you, character-wise or talent-wise, or not, the key thing is are you out to protect your ego or are you out to learn?
And if you're out to learn, then do as Andrew Carnegie said.
Not as he did.
I did run this question through my head as well.
I actually do more enjoy being around people who are smarter than me, as long as they're not too much smarter.
For Freakonomics Radio, for instance, I love the learning.
I love asking people who really know stuff to explain it.
But I don't want to be around people who are running circles around me.
And I don't know if it's ego necessarily or...
Just the very frustrating feeling of not being able to keep up.
That I hate.
And so I do wonder if that possibility repels a lot of people from being around others who are smarter, more talented, richer even than them, because they feel that they will be frustrated, even though in many cases it may turn out to be a much more pleasant and useful experience than we think.
We often get intimidated by people who have to put a very broad brush on it, a little bit higher status than us in some way.
And I think that's a good reluctance to shed would be my argument.
I want to revise my answer, Stephen.
Your answer makes me want to change.
Is that allowed?
No, I can't.
Yes, you may.
Okay.
Upon reflection and when I think about who I hang out with, Katie Milkman, Danny Kahneman.
These are people who I think are 5 to 10 to however many percent better than I am in what we do like in my actual job.
And I think the reason that I choose to be around these people is that I am –
Learning from them faster than I would be if I were hanging around just a lot of Angela Duckworth clones.
And maybe to your point about them being a little better than me, but I don't think they're so far beyond me.
There's something called desirable difficulty.
There's a zone. of difficulty where things are just beyond your reach.
And honestly, if I had no idea what they're talking about, then I don't think I would be learning from them.
So the key here is that if the choice that you're making is based on learning and then being around people who are 5 better, is a great thing.
And maybe being around people who are 500% better isn't a great thing.
So I don't know if you need to shed that reluctance.
I think it's very adaptive.
I'll tell you one thing that Katie Milkman, Danny Kahneman and no one else in the entire world of psychological science is better at than you.
And that is hanging out with you.
I was going to say inventing tombstone inscriptions for long dead steel magnets, because you nailed that one.
The next time my ego is a little black and blue, I'm just going to go right back to that one.
Thank you, Stephen.
Still to come on.
No Stupid Questions.
Stephen and Angela discuss why our sentences are so loaded with so much unnecessary junk.
Needless to say, if it's needless to say, why are you saying that?
Steven, like, I used to, you know, like, talk like a valley girl, and then I learned not to.
But it took me a long time.
How about you?
Have you always spoken like the British documentary narrator that you sometimes sound like to me, because you don't say like can you know, and um and so forth.
Or did you have a Valley Girl phase?
I don't think I quite had the valley girl phase.
Gag me with a spoon.
Oh, my God.
But I still do have plenty of, like, tics like you.
Apparently, I start way too many of my sentences with the word so.
I know this because we have very helpful listeners to Freakonomics Radio and this show who are very happy to inform me of all the filler language and tics and mispronunciations and vocalizations that they don't like, not only of me but of every single guest.
We hear a lot.
Wow.
And, you know, well, there, I just did one.
You know I've been working on cutting down on the filler in my own vocalizing for a long time, but I'm sure I'll die with plenty of filler because it's a natural linguistic thing, even though In writing we plainly don't do it.
But in vocalizing, we certainly do.
As someone who's had plenty of conversations with plenty of people and having dispensed and received lots of filler, what is the function of filler?
We've talked...
Thank you.
That's a great question.
And we examined that because it has become such a common thing in media and you see it at a lot of conferences where there's a moderator and a panel and every panelist after every question by the moderator will say that's a great question.
So we wanted to explore the function of that.
Many of these verbal fillers are what linguists and communication experts call discourse markers or verbal pauses.
So in most cases They're serving as a moment for your mouth basically to catch up to what your brain is working on.
So the stall tactic, essentially.
Yeah, sometimes you're filibustering like, you know, well, da-da-da.
And in some cases that function is to tell your listener that you're still talking and that you don't want to be interrupted yet.
So it buys time in that way, too.
Kind of like a real filibuster.
I know there's a linguist named Michael Erard who wrote a book called Slips, Stumbles and Verbal Blunders and What They Mean.
And he makes the interesting note that, here, I'll read a bit.
With a few exceptions, people didn't really start talking about um or complaining about it until the advent of voice recording.
It is likely they were using it all along, but either...
They didn't notice it or didn't deem it worthy of writing down.
It wasn't considered a word, but a noise, like a cough.
And then he notes that all languages have their own version of um.
I will say that, having interviewed a few thousand people over the last many years especially when you interview people for audio, for podcasts or radio, where the editing process really reveals the filler I will say that very few people speak without filler.
Is it at all indicative of more intelligent content to speak without the filler?
In other words, do the people who have lots of filler have less interesting things to say?
I would say, as a rule, no.
In addition to being a sort of verbal tick or a linguistic demarcation, a lot of filler is also a manifestation of nerves, for sure.
If there's one breed of person who seems to use very little filler, it would be lawyers.
Interesting.
I was going to go with the Brits.
No, I have a lot of British friends who have the most entertaining but gobbledygookie filler.
Can we digress to that for a moment?
What do Brits say?
Because I thought they spoke in complete sentences, without qualifiers, without liking, you know, and ums and errs.
Maybe I've just been extrapolating from Richard Attenborough to the entire British populace.
Are you basing this on watching British television shows, perhaps?
No nature documentaries which, for whatever reason, are primarily narrated by Richard Attenborough, but sometimes another British guy.
They're also scripted.
I hate to tell you that.
You said that the British people that you've interviewed also use filler.
What filler are they using?
Oh, their filler is the same as our filler.
When I think of the list of the most common filler that our guests use generally, I would think you know is right up there.
Like...
Here's another very common category, the sort ofs and the kind ofs.
You also get a lot of people who say right after nearly every sentence.
You'll be talking to a social scientist and they might say it's easy to understand this effect, right?
You're blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
And blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
And it's almost like a little checkmark they're making.
I will say there is one human American economist who speaks as if every sentence is perfectly extracted from this nicely written Early 20th century academic treatise quite formal and yet specific and even emotive.
And that would be Ed Glazer.
Ed Glazer is an economist who's done a lot of interesting work, but especially around the economics of cities.
But I will say this.
It can be very distracting for a listener to hear all that filler language.
When we make Freakonomics Radio, we do our best to clean up the language of the people who are being interviewed, because It's counterproductive to have all that filler in there.
You liposuction the transcripts.
I think of it as a neutron bomb where you kill everything except the real words.
But don't we need time to catch up also?
So if you say, like, you know, that gives us a few more milliseconds for our brains to catch up.
I would argue no.
The listener doesn't need the intermissions.
Here's a good example.
Imagine that you are listening to an audiobook that's well-read versus the same person talking about their book.
Almost the same passages.
I can guarantee you the writing that has been written with consideration and is read, which doesn't have filler, that is much more pleasant to listen to.
Now, that said, There is something about all this filler maybe just because we're used to it that does convey authenticity.
So if you're talking to a listener on this podcast or in a lecture, You don't wanna sound like a news anchor reading from a teleprompter.
We've all heard those lectures of people who give the same lecture every time and the punchline lands exactly right.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather listen to someone kind of sort of stumbling over like every other word.
A lot of these little filler words might seem or sound less intelligent, or at least that's the perception.
Whereas you don't want to over formalize your speech just in the pursuit of sounding intelligent.
It feels insincere.
It feels inauthentic.
It's the difference between a person talking to you and a person reciting something as if off a teleprompter.
By the way, do you know what decade the teleprompter was invented in?
I do not know the decade.
What would you guess?
Okay, I'm going to guess 1955.
Oh, you're really good.
You're much better than me.
I thought it was the 70s or 80s.
It was the 1940s.
One of the three inventors of the first teleprompter I learned recently was Irving Berlin Kahn, who was a nephew of Irving Berlin, which is kind of neat.
Irving Berlin of course holds the record for writing the most awesome Christmas song White Christmas while also being Jewish.
There's a fun fact.
So what about you?
You intimated that you had some valley girl issues that you weren't happy about.
Have you mostly brought the girl out of the valley?
Well, I have been aware of this partly because at an earlier point in my life, I was a young woman making her way in her career.
Now I'm a middle-aged woman and I don't have the same concerns.
But I remember thinking, how do I sound like more of an authority?
And I – made an intentional change in my elocution.
I thought if I give lectures where every time I say anything it sounds like a question, it would be not only annoying but it would undermine the authority that I was trying to communicate.
Unfortunately, we can't really examine the science on this, because you're an N of one and we haven't videotaped every word you've ever spoken.
But do you think that your concentration on sounding a little bit less valley girlish actually contributed to your being better regarded as a scientist?
I think it probably had to have.
Based on what evidence, though?
Well, there is scientific research on the inferences that we make about people based on their speech.
Katie Kinsler is the psychologist who leaps to mind who has shown that even very, very young children jump to conclusions about the gender of somebody and the age of somebody and the status of somebody based on vocal tone and intonation, and so forth.
I have to believe that making the shift from somebody who sounds like they're 16 years old at Cherry Hill High School East in the 80s to somebody who ends their sentences like statements doesn't have so much larding of like, and you know that had to have helped.
I also wanted to just be a more effective communicator.
And to your point, I don't think it's a benefit to the listener in most circumstances to have too much of this filler.
Do you think the pursuit of that legitimacy is harder for women than for men?
Do you think that women run a greater risk of not sounding as competent smart legitimate, whatever if they use filler than men do?
My guess is yes, because of the assumptions before we even hear the person speaking.
If it is true that people have an expectation and a bias that whatever the guy says is going to be intelligent and authoritative and whatever the woman says is going to be less so, then that can only be exacerbated by how we interpret the fact that they started their sentences with like or you know, or ended it on an uptone.
That would be my hypothesis.
I have seen research.
I can't remember from where now that if you essentially have females and males saying the same statement, that it will be assessed as more intelligent if the male said it, including by female listeners.
And related to that research.
I believe it was the same researchers who also had an American person say something and a British person.
Well, a person with an American accent and a British accent.
And essentially, the stupidest thing said by a Brit would still be perceived as smarter than the smart thing said by the Americans.
So we accord all kinds of bonus points based on perception of whatever.
What if this is all about status?
If you ask the question, why do we think the Brits have a great accent but South Jersey isn't?
Maybe all of this is that we have certain cultural assumptions about the cultures that are better and we can break free of these assumptions, biases about what speech is supposed to sound like.
I am sure you're right to at least a substantial degree.
I will say this not all filler is casual or informal or the product of nerves.
I find interesting the filler that makes someone sound more formal or official.
Politicians do this all the time.
Like what?
At the present time as opposed to now.
There's a perfectly good word for that.
Needless to say, if it's needless to say, why are you saying that?
I see this in golf commentary.
It is a weirdly stilted language that golf broadcasters use.
So no golfer is ever... just very good with his driver or very good at driving.
He's always a very good driver of the golf ball.
There's this appendage.
No golfer is ever 24 hours or even 24 years old, they're always 24 years of age.
Every idiom has its filler slash jargon that's meant to show that you belong to that tribe And so when you're speaking with a friend, it kind of you know maybe I mean sort of.
I guess it sort of makes sense to show that you're relaxed enough to, like you know, take your time and hold the floor, etc.
Personally, I prefer straight talk.
Say what you're actually thinking.
Try to put as little junk as possible in your sentences.
Be generous toward others who may put more junk.
And so like, that's what I think.
Well, like you know Stephen, if I had to choose between hanging out with girls who grew up in New Jersey in the 80s and a bunch of golf commentators I like, totally know the choice I would make.
Coming up after the break, a fact check of today's conversation.
And now, here's a fact check of today's conversations.
Angela refers to the language that Andrew Carnegie said he wanted on his grave as an epigram.
An epigram is defined as an inscription or a short poem ending in a witty or ingenious turn of thought.
The sentence that Carnegie requested here lies.
A man who knew how to enlist in his service better men than himself could potentially be referred to in this way.
But Angela likely meant to say epitaph, which is an inscription on a tomb or a brief composition characterizing a dead person.
Carnegie's headstone might be missing the requested epitaph, But other famous graves do feature some interesting ones.
Poet Charles Bukowski's reads, Don't try.
American television show host Merv Griffins says, I will not be right back after this message.
And Looney Tunes voice actor Mel Blanc has a headstone inscribed with, That's all, folks.
Later, Angela doubts whether British people use filler words.
As a point of reference, she points to nature documentaries eloquently narrated by Richard Attenborough.
Richard Attenborough was an English actor, filmmaker and president of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, well known for his appearance as John Hammond in Jurassic Park and Kris Kringle in the remake of Miracle on 34th Street.
He was not, however, known for narrating nature documentaries.
That honor goes to his younger brother, Sir David Attenborough, who wrote and presented the BBC Natural History Unit's Life series, which documented wildlife all over the planet.
And for the record, British people do use filler language.
As Stephen said, it's similar to American filler, often with alternate spellings.
For example, erm replaces um, and er stands in for uh.
Finally, Stephen says he couldn't remember who was responsible for the research on the perception of men and women, and Americans and Brits saying the same statement.
The researcher in question is Stanford phonetician Megan Sumner.
Stephen recalled that listeners assessed the statements of men and of British people as more intelligent than those of women and Americans.
That's slightly misleading.
According to Sumner's research, Average American listeners did a better job of remembering the words of men and of people speaking in a Southern Standard British English voice than of women and people with American accents.
And statements made in a woman's voice were rated as less reliable than statements made in a man's voice.
Sumner says that this has huge implications for how we interact and the types of information that we use to make decisions on an everyday basis.
That's it for the Fact Check.
No Stupid Questions is produced by Freakonomics Radio and Stitcher.
This episode was produced by me, Rebecca Lee Douglas.
No Stupid Questions is part of the Freakonomics Radio Network.
Our staff includes Allison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Mark McCluskey, James Foster, and Emma Terrell.
Thanks also to Lyric Bowditch for her help with this episode.
Our theme song is And She Was by Talking Heads.
Special thanks to David Byrne and Warner Chapel Music.
If you have a question for a future episode, please email it to nsq at Freakonomics.com.
And if you heard Stephen or Angela reference a study, an expert or a book that you'd like to learn more about, you can check out freeconomicscom slash NSQ, where we link to all of the major references that you heard about here today.
Thanks for listening.
You are good at Valley.
Thank you.
It's my people.
The Freakonomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything.
Stitcher
