1: Introducing Circle of Willis
Here it is: The very first episode of CIRCLE OF WILLIS, where, to the best of my ability, I respond to the question many of my colleagues have been asking, which is, "why are you doing this?"
This episode references all kinds of things, one of which is the only real blog post I ever wrote. I foolishly promised I'd leave a link to it on the website, so here's that link!
Coming soon: My conversation with Eli Finkel! Watch this space, or subscribe to Circle of Willis wherever you like to get your podcasts!
- Jim
-
Jim Coan: From VQR and the Center for Media and Citizenship, this is episode one of Circle of Willis, where, to the best of my ability, I respond to the question many of my colleagues have been asking me, which is: “why are you doing this?”
[Intro Music]
———
[Explosion sound effect]
Unknown Speaker: Ay son, don't light a cigarette around that gasoline!
[Explosion sound effect]
Jim Coan: This is me and my friend Nick, making explosion sounds over and over again by blowing into a microphone. And judging from the intensity of our laughter, this activity was the airy height of humor. Back then, when we were about 15 years old, and bored out of our skulls in the Spokane Valley, state of Washington, where there isn't much to occupy a busy adolescent brain.
Jim Coan: The way that the way the joke went was this: what we do is we'd come up with any scenario that might plausibly involve an explosion and then we'd blow into the microphone. See? That was…that was the joke. Here, at some point in here, we thought it would be fun to rewrite the entire first Star Wars movie this way.
Unknown Speaker: God dammit Ben, I can't see a thing with a blast shield, man!
[Explosion sound effect]
Jim Coan: So, I bring this up to introduce my long-standing interest, going back at least to junior high school, in recording time spent with my friends. It's something I've always liked to do. And I, you know, it's a niche, it's niche interest. I laugh. The word niche makes me laugh. Don't ask me why. And honestly, I've recorded literally hours and hours and hours of this stuff. Conversations with friends where we're, you know, we perform skits or we just, we just chat about school or unrequited love or, you know, our shitty home lives, you know, sometimes just sitting around making explosion sounds. It was a habit I formed and maintain sometimes to the point of absurdity.
Jim Coan: So, you know, for example, in this clip that's going on in the background, now, I'm actually on the back of a motorcycle. That is, that's, that's speeding through downtown Taipei, in Taiwan. Let's see, it's about since 1989, I think and I'm one of three people on the motorcycle, which is being driven in this case by a Taiwanese buddy of mine that I called Alex because he didn't much like the way we always bungled his actual Chinese name. Anyway, sort of scrunched between me and Alex on the bike is Alex's girlfriend and my friend, Jean. And it's, it's in the middle of the night. But you know, this is Taipei. So the streets are choked with cars, and scooters, and motorcycles, and pedestrians. And I'm not quite sure about this, but I'm pretty sure that all of us are intoxicated.
Jim Coan: As we're driving along, the weight of our bodies is causing the bike to actually scrape on the road whenever we hit a bump. And we're weaving, really, very unwisely through traffic and going far, far too fast. And one of the things that I remember about this moment is that all the way through it this entire period of time, I was, I was literally afraid for my life.
[People screaming and laughing]
Jim Coan: And yet, I'm still, almost pathologically at this point, recording the whole thing using my little handheld Walkman. [Laughs] That I was still carrying with me everywhere. And you know, that's what I did. I don't know why exactly. I don't know why, but I sort of always preferred audio to video. What do you want? I don't know, maybe I just liked the way that audio evokes, and augments my memories. I don't know. I don't know! But anyway, what? So why am I doing this right now? Well, it's a little bit of what I just told you and the rest is a little bit of a story. So I'm going to tell a story right now.
Jim Coan: It goes back a few years now, I was at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, APS. And I got depressed, because of an ongoing public conversation I was witnessing among my scientist friends about the state of science, in general, and psychology, in particular. And, you know, there was this kind of activist movement that was beginning at the time. And it was, it was really, this movement was really sort of holding the whole field's collective feet to the fire about, you know, a bunch of perceived methodological shortcomings. Things like failures to replicate studies, insufficient transparency, and statistical methods, all those sorts of things. And I was then, and actually, I remain really pretty sympathetic to this movement. I'm… I was trained as a methodologist many years ago. And, you know, anyway, it's, you know, how can, how can you be against better methods? It's just you can't do that, really. So you know, to my mind, it's just never a bad idea to remind ourselves, whatever we're doing, but I think, particularly if we're doing science to try and do better work. So that's, that was good. That was a good part. But I also... I also felt at the time that some folks often enough, you know, my actual friends were not really helping matters, you know, in the way they were communicating these concerns.
Jim Coan: And I started to feel like the conversation was kind of devolving into a cycle of public shaming and defensiveness. It's a cycle that, that seemed at the time, to me, anyway, to be escalating and also seem to be mediated, no surprise, largely through social media. You know, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, that sort of thing. So it's kind of a long story, but you know, I'm not going to go into all of it, but, because you read about it elsewhere, but I wrote a blog post. It's really the only blog post, the only serious blog post I ever wrote. I don't know if I'll ever write another one. I kind of doubt it.
[Guitar Interlude)]
Jim Coan: In this blog post, I wrote mostly the whole first draft of it on the plane home from that conference. And it really basically argued two things: One, I felt… I felt it was probably best to strive and maintain, strive for and maintain a reasonably high level of professional decorum and civility, when coping with scientific disagreements. I didn't think that was particularly controversial. But I also thought that I really wanted to say that whatever else is true, moral outrage is… is just, it's no substitute for scientific rigor. Moral outrage, I felt, is pretty easy. Not a high bar for that. But scientific rigor is not so easy. It's hard. It's tough. Got to work hard at it. Got to earn it. If you, if you'd like to read this blog, and you know, who knows? There is a link to it at CircleOfWillisPodcast.com. How do you like that, got a website.
Jim Coan: Anyway, at the end of my little blog post, you know, I thought maybe I should provide some prescriptive advice for how to move forward with the… in the so-called sort of science debates. And, you know, maybe even repair some of the damage that had been done through bad behavior on social media. And as I sat down to write this prescriptive advice, what I found is that I really didn't have any. That wasn't very good. I didn't really have any particular prescriptive advice. I mean, I guess other than, you know, maybe we should actually, you know, like, literally talk to each other more often. Like, you know, face-to-face. There was…Really is the only thing I said at the end of my blog post. And it was a suggestion that seemed to me anyways, pretty benign. It's sort of obvious. But there were some really interesting objections to it. Where else? On Facebook, a Facebook research methodology group.
Jim Coan: You know, somewhere somewhere along the way, in Facebook land there, I got to reminiscing about great conversations I've had during conferences, usually at the bar, somewhere sometime after the day's events with fellow scientists. You know, these were conversations where we discussed everything from methodological issues with this or that study, to failures to replicate a given finding, whatever. And I said, you know, that these face-to-face meetings, essentially never, ever included that rancor that you see in online discussions now all the time. So I suggested that, you know, people just behave better when they're face to face. I mean, right? This is not controversial, right? We all know that now. We've all had what, you know, more than 10 years of Facebook, and we all sort of know that we're better at disagreeing in person. And... but in addition to that, I suggested that there really was no downside to having face-to-face conversations. You know, so, you know, the big plus side was that we were able to actually talk things through in a reasonably civil manner. And the downside was well there just wasn't any! I mean, it wasn't like we avoided talking about problems with each other's work. You know, it's quite the contrary. I talked about problems with my work with people at the bar all the time. But, but, there was a problem. A wise Facebook friend of mine objected to this point, on the grounds that those conversations that I was having face-to-face at the bar were private, and that was the rub here.
Jim Coan: For all the bad behavior that I think we're starting to see on social media, those discussions came with at least one undeniable benefit, major benefit. And that was that pretty much everyone has access to them. You know, by contrast, those conversations that I loved so much at the bar remain sort-of bottled up, shared, you know, only among what might be a pretty elite club of folks with the resources and time to be there. So, you know, my friend said something like, you know, great, but what about the grad student out there? You know, maybe in a less resource program or country who never gets to hear your civil bar-room tale of multiple failures to replicate some effect, and who then goes on to make that same effect the centerpiece of an almost certainly doomed dissertation! And, you know, I was like, huh. Well, I because I didn't really know what to say. Other than, you know, that's a pretty good point right there. That's, that's something. So that kind of depressed me.
Jim Coan: Well, the path from that point to this one has been pretty long and circuitous. Just by the way, I love that word. Circuitous. Circuitous. Great word. Anyway. What happened was, I started out interviewing some psychologists for a book project that my wife, who by the way is named Cat Thrasher, real name. That's her name, Cat Thrasher. We started working on a book project that we were thinking of doing. At the time, Cat was a professional photographer, and we had sort of hatched this idea to interview psychologists while taking their portraits. So, in this clip that's playing in the background now, you can hear her camera clicking away while I interview social psychologist Harry Reese.
[Camera shutters]
Cat Thrasher: And one, two, three. Great.
Jim Coan: The sound of her camera, by the way, is so…it's so deeply satisfying because she's using one of those old manual Hasselblad cameras with, you know, with the medium format film. She's just taking these amazing, amazing portraits. and the idea of portraits and interviews was, I guess, really about sort of humanizing these folks as much as anything else. You know, we were, of course, we were into their work, but, you know, with the interviews, what we were planning to do, and with the with…the portraits was to really sort of delve more into their careers. You know, their personal lives. You know, to understand their personalities. And even show you what they sort-of looked like. Not sort of, but actually! It seemed like the best way…it seemed to us at the time, like perhaps the best way to push back against what we perceive to be this sort of dehumanizing effect of social media, you know? But it, it didn't take us long to realize that, failing some very generous subvention from somebody, our book idea was not affordable. We actually stopped after only five interviews, because we just couldn't pay for the film development costs. And it's a shame really, that the recordings, the recordings I made at that time, they aren't great, because I was I was originally thinking of just sort of summarizing them for the book, you know, sort of quoting from them while I while I wrote something in a, you know, a narrative format. But it's it I wish I could play them for you right now. Because they're, they're all so…hilarious, and moving and really deeply informative.
Unknown Speaker: If I'd gone to Columbia, I actually would have worked with Stanley Schachter.
Jim Coan: You know, I keep thinking maybe one day I'll find a way to release them, but the recordings, they're just not great recordings. So, the interview/portrait project was scrapped. But the project did something to me. It sort of reawakened that kid in me, who used to just record almost everything, and who has, still, this vault of old recorded conversations with a bunch of old friends. All made many years ago.
Unknown Speaker: …job that I got. He ended up in Connecticut.
Jim Coan: I kind of felt that old addiction, flare back to life. And I was itching to do more, but I didn't really have a plan. You know, so I didn't really know how to proceed.
Barbara Bradley Haggerty: On a cold wet Monday morning, my friend Sheree Harder, and I arrived at the University of Virginia's neuroscience laboratory in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Jim Coan: At some point, Barbara Bradley Haggerty of NPR News had visited my lab to record a story about some of the work we've been doing. And obviously, it's NPR. She recorded the whole thing. She was really interesting and the whole experience was super positive. And then a while later, I met up with her again in Washington D.C. for a follow up interview, which we actually recorded in her car, using one of her assorted high-end mics. And that that was such a cool, I mean, in her car? That was such a cool experience that got me thinking: hey, you know, this looks fun! I want to do this! It wasn't a particularly profound epiphany. But I did feel like it looked like fun. So I wanted to do it. And a little while later, a little while after that, I actually wrote to Barb and I told her that I wanted to do that. And she was super encouraging and actually gave me some coaching, even. And what she did was she really turned me on to the idea of a podcast. She said that podcasts were becoming a pretty big deal, even at NPR, where people really enjoyed the freedom that podcasts offered to really sink their teeth into an interview or a story. And, you know, after that conversation, I was sort of dazzled, to be honest. I went out and bought some equipment. I started requesting interviews with folks and just got busy making some recordings. And what has happened since that time has sort of blown me away. I mean, you know, these have been great conversations. At least for me. You know, obviously - obviously, I hope that you enjoy them too. But you know, whatever. I'm having the time of my life here.
Jim Coan: And I'm not even sure, I'm not even sure what this podcast project is even about anymore. I mean, do I still find value in humanizing scientists? Absolutely. Do I still think this might be a way to sort of push back against the worst elements of social media? Yes, yes I do! But. I'm mostly just, I think I’m just scratching an itch here. Right now. I love to talk with people, about their lives and their work and now I want to record them! I want to record those conversations. Just like I used to as a kid. I want to talk with my colleagues about their work, sure, but also their lives, their careers, their families. Really, you know, whatever comes up. I want to contribute to a collective understanding that scientists are sort of ever and always people first. You know, deserving of all the interest and sympathy and respect that that implies. But what I don't want, and I realize this goes against pretty much all of the advice for podcasters that exists anywhere, is for this podcast to be about a particular thing. Even scientists. Yeah, I'm, you know, I'll mostly be talking with scientists here. But I might chat with some science writers too, might do that. Maybe some journalists. You know, hell with it! Maybe I'll talk with some poets and novelists, I don't know. If I want to, that's what I'll do. But, you know, science will probably come up. So maybe that's the…maybe that's the rock bottom thing that this podcast is really about. It's about science, sort of one way or another. But if that's true, then I'd have to add that it's also about people, one way or another. And, you know, it's it's I feel, I feel strongly about that. And I don't want to be pigeonholed.
Jim Coan: But so you might be thinking, well, okay, that's all fine Jim. You're a little excitable, aren't you? Yes, I am. Can't help it. That's what you get. But you might be wondering, so why is this… why is this even called…why do you call your podcast Circle of Willis? And the answer to that question is, I don't really know. I mean, to be honest, If I'm being completely honest, I just like it, just like it. I think it's kind of funny. I mean, I guess. Okay, so back in back in 1989 or so when I first learned about the Circle of Willis, sort of what it is, I was knocked out by its redundant sort-of design. By the way it had been sort of shaped by natural selection to ensure that the brain always had access to a robust supply of blood. Okay? And I'll say more about that in a second. But really, the other thing I loved about the Circle of Willis was that it kind of looked like a little, I don't know, like a little… little man, like a little blood man, I guess. Really! It does. Google it. Or just go to CircleofWillisPodcast.com. And you'll see what I mean. But so, you know, the little blood man inspired a persistent interest in the vasculature of the brain that really continues to this day. I'm not kidding. I was really impressed by that little guy! And by the way, I also thought, hey, Circle of Willis would be a cool band name. And I tried to make that happen for a little bit. That didn't work, didn't work out for me. And then, you know, I guess more recently, I thought, hey, Circle of Willis would be a cool name for a podcast, for my podcast! So but... yep.
Jim Coan: Anyway, in addition to being a sort of cryptic and loosely, metaphorical podcast name, the Circle of Willis is, as I was saying a few moments ago, the key mediator of blood to and throughout your brain. So there's a cool answer about that. And as cool as that is, I think it gets even cooler, because you see, the Circle of Willis is also…arranged as a redundant blood supply to the brain. Meaning that if any one part of the flow of blood to the circle gets blocked, other sources are able to compensate. And that's why it looks like a circle. And, you know, to me, it's sort of like a little blood man.
[Guitar Interlude]
Jim Coan: Look, I wasn't, I wasn't intending for this introductory episode to be quite so rambling. But that's how it happened, isn't it? And I'm just gonna go with that because, you know, because my day job is still on, you know, I'm a full time professor. I'm running a neuroscience laboratory at the University of Virginia, with, you know, graduate students and staff and things. And we're writing grants and papers and collecting data. All that stuff. The real thing! That's what I'm doing. And but you know, but all that's for another time. Right now I just want to say thanks for, I don't know exactly. Tuning in? Downloading? What do…you how do you refer to podcast listening exactly? Should I know that? I feel like I should know that. Listen…the main point is, there are a bunch of really great conversations coming up in the next several weeks. These are folks like Eli Finkel, you know, Lisa Diamond, John Cacioppo, Judy DeLoach, David Sloan Wilson, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Marco Iacoboni, Brian Nosek, Lisa Feldman-Barrett, Tanya Singer, it goes on and on! There's just a bunch more. I'm just naming names right now, and I don't want it to get too tedious. But trust me, there's a lot more coming. A lot of people that I've talked to, I'm talking to more all the time. And they're interesting. They're really interesting, and I hope you liked them. I think you will.
[Music Interlude]
Jim Coan: Alright, I want to thank a few people for Circle of Wills. Circle of Willis is a group project in many ways. First of all, I want to thank Tom Stouffer and Jean Ruli for creating some really amazing music that we use here on Circle of Willis. And by the way, for more information about their music, check out the ‘about’ page at CircleOfWillisPodcast.com, where you'll find a link to their Amazon page where you can actually purchase some of the music that you hear here. Here at this place, that is to say. Now, I also want to send out some special thanks. Some special thanks really for their general support and some real rock-solid resources. Go to Siva Vadhyanathan at the Center for Media and Citizenship, and Paul Rays of VQR, Nathan Moore at WTJU here in Charlottesville, Virginia. And also for their invaluable advice and encouragement on this project, I'd really like to thank Lulu Miller and Barbara Bradley Haggerty, both of NPR news, and, I don't know, of the world, where they continue to pursue, you know, really a bunch of interesting independent projects. Thanks, you guys.
Jim Coan: And that's all I got! Don't forget that Circle of Willis is brought to you by VQR and the Center for Media and Citizenship at the University of Virginia. Plus, Circle of Willis is a member of the TJFM network. You can find more about that at TEEJ.FM. Okay, I'll see you at episode two, where I'll talk with Eli Finkel of Northwestern University about the history and science of marriage. Until then, see you next time. Bye bye!
[Music Outro]