So, here’s a scenario: It’s Monday. And you open up whatever calendar or planner or to-do list you use to organize the essential activities of the upcoming week. There’s a large project due Thursday. And an important meeting Wednesday. Your nine-to-five is chockablock with meetings, and your kid has a school function Tuesday, and there are holiday gifts to buy before Friday, and just when you’re pretty sure your week couldn’t possibly take one more featherweight of responsibilities, the HVAC unit sputters to a stop, requiring a call to the local heating and cooling guys, which obliterates four hours of Monday.

You can tell yourself that this week is cursed. Or you can tell yourself the truth: Feeling an imbalance between the time you have and the time you want to have isn’t really a curse at all. It’s a bit more like ... the definition of being alive. To see life clearly in this way is what I’ve come to think of as Oliver Burkeman brain. Oliver is the author of the books 'Four Thousand Weeks' and 'Meditations for Mortals.'

Today, in what's become a holiday tradition of sorts, we bring back Oliver to chat about doing more by doing less, the dubious benefits of scheduling, and the freedom that comes from accepting our limitations.

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

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Oliver Burkeman

Producer: Devon Baroldi

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

Last week, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot to death outside a hotel in Manhattan by a young man motivated by rage at the insurance industry. His rage is clearly felt widely. In the aftermath of the killing, many people seemed to delight in the man’s assassination. Their reaction was a grotesque illustration of something real: There is an enormous amount of anger and frustration about the state of American health care. And there ought to be. The U.S. is the most expensive health care system in the world, while for many people it delivers bad care at exorbitant prices.

But anger is not always a signal of accuracy. And while some of the most popular reasons to be furious at American health care are based on truth, many are based on misunderstandings and myths—especially about the insurance system.

This week, I wanted to present a calm and informed conversation with a health care expert to walk me through what I consider the biggest health care questions of the moment. Why are American health care costs so high? How much are insurers to blame? How do other countries handle health care differently? What can we learn from them? And what, if anything, should make us optimistic about the future of American health care?

Today we have two guests. First we have Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at MIT and a key architect of several health care laws, including the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform and the Affordable Care Act. Jon walks me through the key drivers of health inflation and American anger at the health care system. The second, David Cutler, is an economics professor at Harvard who served as senior health care adviser for Barack Obama; he helps us think comparatively about the weaknesses and strengths of the U.S. health system and what reforms could help Americans live longer and healthier lives.

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

Host: Derek Thompson

Guests: Jonathan Gruber and David Cutler

Producer: Devon Baroldi

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

The crypto industry seems poised for a new golden age. But what exactly does that mean? Who would benefit? And, oh by the way, what does this technology do other than serve as a set of assets to bet to the moon?

I have lots of questions about the state of crypto right now. Last week, Bitcoin traded above $100,000 for the first time in history. Its price has skyrocketed since Donald Trump’s win, as a wave of investors bet that the next four years will mark a new renaissance. And this isn’t just a time for optimism. It’s also a time for recrimination. In the last few weeks, several major tech figures, including the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, have condemned democrats for what they describe as an illegal war on crypto.

Austin Campbell is finance vet, an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School, and the founder of Zero Knowledge Consulting. Today, we talk about the purported war on crypto, starting with the origins of "debanking" practices under Obama; we talk about why crypto now seems like a majority-republican technology in an industry that has historically been democratic; we talk about the biggest use cases of crypto around the world; and Austin tells me why he thinks many people in the industry still aren't thinking clearly about the future of finance.

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Austin Campbell

Producer: Mike Wargon

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

In the last decade, several major findings in social psychology have turned out to be hogwash—or, worse, even fraud. This has become widely known as psychology's "replication crisis." Perhaps you have heard of power poses—based on a study finding that subjects reported stronger “feelings of power” after they posed, say, with their hands on their hips for several minutes. But that finding did not replicate. Or perhaps you have heard of ego depletion—the more famous assertion that, when people make a bunch of decisions, it exhausts their ability to make future decisions. Again: did not replicate.

“There’s a thought that’s haunted me for years,” social psychologist Adam Mastroianni has written. “We’re doing all this research in psychology, but are we learning anything? We run these studies and publish these papers, and then what? The stack of papers just gets taller? I’ve never come up with satisfying answers. But now I finally understand why.”

Today’s episode features two interviews. First, I talk to Adam about his big-picture critique of his own field: how psychology too often fails as a science, and what it can do better. Second, we speak with journalist Dan Engber from The Atlantic, who has been reporting on a billowing scandal in psychology that has enveloped several business school stars—and raised important questions about the field. What is psychology for? What would progress in psychology mean? And how can this field—which might be the discipline I follow than any other in academia—become more of a science?

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

Host: Derek Thompson

Guests: Adam Mastroianni and Daniel Engber

Producer: Devon Baroldi

Links:

“Is psychology going to Cincinnati?” by Adam Mastroianni 

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/is-psychology-going-to-cincinnati

"I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is" by Adam Mastroianni 

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/im-so-sorry-for-psychologys-loss#footnote-anchor-3-136506668

“The Business-School Scandal That Just Keeps Getting Bigger” by Daniel Engber 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/01/business-school-fraud-research/680669/

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

Emily Oster, professor of economics at Brown University, joins the show to talk about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his theories about fluoride and vaccines, and how the media and science community should treat the most controversial topics. This is a new age of science and information, where trust seems to be shifting from institutions like the FDA and CDC to individuals like RFK Jr. and Oster, and I consider her a model of public health communication.

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

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Emily Oster

Producer: Devon Baroldi

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

What would a world of self-driven cars look like? How would it change shopping, transportation, and life, more broadly?

A decade ago, many people were asking these questions, as it looked like a boom in autonomous vehicles was imminent. But in the last few years, other technologies—crypto, the metaverse, AI—have stolen the spotlight.

Meanwhile, self-driving cars have quietly become a huge deal in the U.S. Waymo One, a commercial ride-hailing service that spun off from Google, has been rolled out in San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Austin. Every week, Waymo makes 150,000 autonomous rides. Tesla is also competing to build a robo-taxi service and to develop self-driving capabilities.

There are two reasons why I’ve always been fascinated by self-driving cars: The first is safety. There are roughly 40,000 vehicular deaths in America every year and 6 million accidents. It’s appropriate to be concerned about the safety of computer-driven vehicles. But what about the safety of human-driven vehicles? A technology with the potential to save thousands of lives and prevent millions of accidents is a huge deal.

Second, the automobile was arguably the most important technology of the 20th century. The invention of the internal combustion engine transformed agriculture, personal transportation, and supply chains. It made the suburbs possible. It changed the spatial geometry of the city. It expanded demand for fossil fuels and created some of the most valuable companies in the world. The reinvention of last century’s most important technology is a massive, massive story. And the truth is, I’m not sure that today’s news media—a category in which I include myself—has done an adequate job representing just how game-changing self-driving technology at scale could be.

Today’s guest is Timothy Lee, author of the Substack publication Understanding AI. Today I asked him to help me understand self-driving cars—their technology, their industry, their possibility, and their implications.

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

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Timothy Lee

Producer: Devon Baroldi

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

Derek shares his big-picture theory for Trump's victory. Then, Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson explains how Trump shifted practically the entire electorate to the right.

Links:

Derek's article that inspired his open: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/donald-trump-covid-election/680559/

The Washington Post voter shift map:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/11/05/compare-2020-2024-presidential-results/

The graveyard of the incumbents:

https://www.ft.com/content/e8ac09ea-c300-4249-af7d-109003afb893

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Kristen Soltis Anderson

Producer: Devon Renaldo

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

Today’s guest (our final preelection guest) is David Wasserman, political analyst with the Cook Political Report, who also helps out with the NBC decision desk. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of people whose job on election night is to help Americans understand when we can safely call specific districts and states for Congress, Senate, or the presidency. However, I truly don’t think I know anybody whose calls I trust more than David's. And the even deeper compliment is that David is perhaps the most trusted election night consigliere among all the other people I trust. So, when I wanted to put together a show on how to watch election night like a pro, I’m grateful that the pro of pros said yes.

With a week to go, this election has attracted several theories about which trends will determine the outcome. We’ve done shows on the rightward shift among men, especially young men; the politics of working class decline; the possibility that we’ll see non-white voters move into the Trump column while college-educated white voters move into the Harris column. But these are all theories. It’s going to take a while to know if they’re actually true. When polls close at 7 p.m., you’re going to see some people dive into exit polls and incomplete county-by-county returns, claiming that they can see trends and predict the outcome. But as Wasserman tells us, this is not wise. Exit polls aren’t special. They’re just another poll. And their non-specialness is important to note in an age when so many people are voting early and therefore aren’t counted among surveys of election-day voters.

Meanwhile, different states have different rules for when they can start counting early and mailed ballots. These rules dramatically and sometimes confusingly shift our understanding of election night. Pennsylvania cannot start counting mail-in or early votes until Election Day morning. This often leads to slower reporting of mail-in results, while Election Day votes are usually counted and reported first. Last election Republicans were more likely to vote on Election Day while Democrats were more likely to vote by mail. If the same thing happens in 2024, what we should expect to see is a red mirage followed by a blue wave—as right-leaning ballots are counted first and left-leaning ballots are counted second. This is not a conspiracy. It’s just state law.

In the state of Georgia, it’s the opposite. Georgia and other Sunbelt states can begin processing and counting mail-in and early votes before Election Day, which means what you might see a blue mirage followed by a red wave.

One conspiracy theory that’s already starting to attract attention is that any state that looks like it’s voting for Trump that sees a blue wave is a sign of voter fraud. But there’s nothing fraudulent about the state laws that determine the orders in which votes are counted.

For this reason, Wasserman says, it’s tantalizing but misleading to draw strong conclusions about the election from incomplete county results. If you want to understand where the election is going, if you want to watch the returns, like a good faith pro, the better solution is to wait for full county results in key bellwether counties like Nash County, North Carolina. Understanding what those key, predictive, canary-in-a-coalmine counties are is the focus of this show.

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

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: David Wasserman

Producer: Devon Baroldi

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

Today, a close look at the history of a Pennsylvania town and how that history contains within it the story of the 2024 election. In September, Donald Trump claimed that the city of Charleroi, Pennsylvania, was being overrun by immigrants who brought violence, gangs, and economic destruction. Last month, The Atlantic's George Packer went to Charleroi to report on what's actually going on there, and how the issues most important to Charleroi—nativism, immigration, change, working-class decline, and corporate greed—are also the deciding issues of the 2024 election.

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

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: George Packer

Producer: Devon Baroldi

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

My favorite sort of social phenomenon is something that seems normal to modern eyes that is actually incredibly unusual. We take it for granted that every presidential election is a nail-biter these days. But this era of close elections is deeply strange. We used to have blowouts all the time. In 1964, 1972, and 1984, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan, respectively, won by more than 15 points. This never happens anymore. Since the hanging-ballot mess of 2000, we’ve had historically close contests again and again: in 2004, 2012, 2016, and 2020. This year seems almost certain to continue the trend. National polls have almost never been this tight in the closing days of a presidential contest.

In an era of shifting coalitions and weak parties, why is every modern presidential election so close? Today’s guest is Matt Yglesias, the author of the ‘Slow Boring’ newsletter, and a return guest on this show. We talk about how the era of close elections has, importantly, coincided with an era of racial realignment. We propose several theories for why every election is a nail-biter in the 21st century. And we explain why “it’s the internet, stupid” doesn’t work to explain this particular trend.

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

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Matthew Yglesias

Producer: Devon Baroldi

LINKS:

• https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-era-of-close-elections
• https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-electorate-is-becoming-less-racially

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

In 1900, the average US life expectancy was 47 years old. That's the current age of Tom Brady, Ryan Reynolds, and Shakira. But extraordinary advances in medicine and public health have surged lifespans in the US and throughout the world. The average American currently lives to about 79 years old. How long can this progress continue? As we have gotten so much better at allowing people to live to old age, how much progress have we made at confronting this ultimate boss of longevity? Today’s guest is Professor S. Jay Olshansky, from the school of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. We talk about progress and stasis in the most important science project in human history: how to increase human life.

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

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: S. Jay Olshansky

Producer: Devon Baroldi

LINKS:

• "Implausibility of radical life extension in humans in the twenty-first century" [link]
• "If Humans Were Built to Last," an illustration of what people would look like if they were optimally designed to live to 100 [link]
• "Child and Infant Mortality," from Our World in Data [link]

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