#814 Insight & Openness

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: What significance do openness and curiosity have for gaining insight? That’s the question we explored in Room #814 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme of “Insight.” Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…

Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.

A very good morning to you. This morning we’re talking about insight and openness, specifically the significance of openness and curiosity for insight and gaining insight. I’m really looking forward to that. And before we get into the content, just a quick note: thank you so much, by the way, for yesterday’s great launch, which we pulled off with your support. It was really phenomenal, and the first day is always fairly exciting. And for those who might have missed it yesterday, I’ve brought the link again today for the launch of the ebook “Magische Hacks zur optimalen Nutzung von Chat GPT. Erstelle dein eigenes Fachbuch mit Hilfe von künstlicher Intelligenz” (German only). It’s a special link — the book is already available at the regular price, as I announced yesterday. Today, exclusively today, for anyone who missed it, you still have the chance, here from the Deep Talk Club, to order it at half price. For anyone seeing this via the social media channels and so on, it’s already offered at the regular price. So today there’s the link I’ve pinned here — if you’d like to download it as a PDF, that’s the PDF version, feel free to do that, and there’s a voucher code to go with it. If you click the link, you’ll see the regular price, and then I have the voucher code in the chat, valid exclusively today. OSTERAKTION-LAUNCH, with hyphens in between and written in capital letters. So if anyone hasn’t ordered yet since yesterday and would still like to, today’s your chance to get it at half price, otherwise it’s at the regular price. Right, and with that, let’s get into today’s topic, “Insight and Openness” — the significance of openness and curiosity for insight and gaining insight. That’s the topic we want to talk about, and with yesterday’s ebook launch announcement, we’ve already built a kind of bridge to it too, in the sense that there’s a lot of discussion about ChatGPT, for example, a lot of negativity too, in terms of what concerns there are, what threats there are, what could go wrong, what dangers we see. I don’t want to say that’s unfounded. But with our German Angst, we do tend to see the negative too strongly and, basically, to not focus enough on other things. And something you can observe again and again is that people from other countries and cultures often move forward much faster and simply try things out, do them, gather experience with them, while we — in inverted commas, whoever “we” may be — often discuss it, think about it, weigh it up, and so on, and somehow never get any horsepower onto the road. And that ultimately has something to do with openness too, and I don’t want to focus primarily on ChatGPT today — it’s just an example, representative of many things we could open this up for, whether it’s about technology or entrenched opinions. And ultimately, yesterday we talked about true understanding, that it might take experience, or impulses from outside, for that understanding to happen. And openness might be a kind of basic stance that’s needed for that. We’ve talked in the past about unconscious bias too — that means even if I bring openness with me, certain patterns are of course still at work that might mean I still can’t see or recognize one thing or another. But if I approach topics, conversations, and dialogue with a certain open stance, then I at least have a bit more possibility than someone who’s per se always in question-mark mode, or grumbler mode, or whatever you want to call the various types. So it’s worth looking at what openness actually means — what characterizes it when I’m open, and to what extent that ultimately influences whether, and what kind of, insights I generate. And that’s what I’d like to talk to you about this morning. With that, you’re warmly invited, as every morning, to join and start this reflection space with me. Another reminder that a recording is running in the background and that the whole thing will be published. If you’re okay with that, feel free to join. Assuming you also follow the three small rules we have here in the room — a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio, so we can make sure these are serious contributions and not Clubhouse trolls. And if for whatever reason you don’t want that, don’t want to be on the recording or similar, feel free to use the chat too, and I’ll check in from time to time to take your thoughts into account too. Let’s see — I already have a hand raised, let’s check if it works technically too. Wonderful, a very good morning, dear Layla.

A very good morning, dear Yasemin. Should I start right away?

Yes, very gladly.

So I was thinking, let me see — I was just thinking, what’s insight allowed to do? That has something to do with openness, and when you just used this term, German Angst, I thought, yes, that’s right, and is that a bad thing? And I thought, well, we’re falling behind. And there’s an ethics council, and my exam topic was actually ethics of responsibility, because for my final exams I covered Hans Jonas, the accumulation of consequences. And that’s about how you can do things, and you’re allowed to do things, but we don’t yet know how things will look in ten years. And I was a bit into research there too, because we think about that a lot. That’s not just about ChatGPT, it’s really also, if we look at insights, including from research, what are we actually allowed to do there? And if we look at genes, we now have the mRNA vaccine, which we might not know that much about yet. And insight is something really wonderful, and I think science is something great too. And still, back then in my oral exam, I said, and the idea isn’t mine, and I still think it’s good today, that we can’t foresee all the consequences. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do things. It just means we should maybe take a look at it. The question is, do I then get too afraid to do things? And then I thought to myself, wait, I’ve already seen so many things. And then I had to think of the cloned sheep, Dolly. Then I had to think, well, if we’re at the point now of, are we allowed to grow organs? Is that okay? Is it okay that a lot of things just get done? And you’re completely right, other countries are much further along. And then I thought, yes, that’s true. And still I find it strange when I see a mouse with an ear grown on it, or where an ear has been attached, to see if it works. Or when I think about cosmetics testing, and you think about what’s done to the animal in these animal tests. Am I allowed to do everything, or am I not? And that’s just an introduction to the topic. That doesn’t mean I don’t think this openness is good, because openness does lead to insights too. And that would be my second thought I’d like to bring in. And that’s actually, you already said this, and I think, look, there’s no thought that hasn’t already been thought before. I adopted that as my motto very early on, and it’s not from me either, I’d have to look up who said it. But in any case, I’ve noticed for myself that we humans tend to think, once we’ve worked out some knowledge or these insights, that we internally think, yes, that’s how it is. And that’s a question — is it, though? And a lot of scientists, and also people who advanced research, or developers, were considered crazy at first, or people said, well, that’ll never amount to anything. And afterward it turned out to be great. Albert Einstein, by the way, was also told in school that he’d never amount to anything. And that’s a thing for me. But I think we humans often tend to consider our own ideas to be the right ones. And that brings us back to our original topic from before — truth always has something to do with perception. Thanks for listening.

Yes, thank you so much. And here you can already see that there are a lot of components coming together that need to be considered. On the one hand, it’s about ethical aspects, about responsibility, about morality, values that play a role here. At the same time, and there was a comment in the chat about this too, ChatGPT is currently banned in Italy, which I also find really exciting. Not because I want to talk about ChatGPT, but this point, this aspect of regulation, I think it’s really important to bring up in this context too. Because whenever something new comes along, whether it’s a technology or something else that’s unfamiliar to us, something we haven’t really dealt with before, we often quite quickly get into this fear mode, because it’s unknown to us. An unknown component, where we maybe don’t know the effects of whatever it is. And we could take TikTok as an example here too — there were restrictions in the US too, imposed in certain areas, up to discussions about banning it entirely and so on. And on the one hand you can of course look at it objectively and think it through. At the same time, we’ve also talked about how everything has its price. And both directions — letting it run and not regulating it — have a price on the other side too, if I regulate it, because of course, as a country, I can’t view myself in isolation from the world and from world events taking place. And here, and this is a really important aspect, the moment we call for regulation, say, for the sake of security, or regulations get put in place, the price can definitely be, and this is something that often does happen, that there’s a price to pay in terms of competitiveness. That means other countries don’t go along with it — it’s not an agreement between different countries acting in unison, but the other countries use that for themselves. And in the worst case, in inverted commas, it can mean I disadvantage people or companies in my own country, in the sense that they can’t use certain things for themselves, or similar. That doesn’t even have to be a regulation in the sense of a complete ban or anything. We’ve had this in other places too — something like the double opt-in procedure, which is well-intentioned in principle, applies within Europe, and doesn’t have to be used or followed outside of Europe, results, for example, in the price the entrepreneur has to pay again, that advertising becomes significantly more expensive when ads are placed, and that creates a competitive disadvantage. And these are all aspects that play into this. And if we look at it again from this brain-research perspective, it’s the case that when we get some kind of information from outside, whether that’s a technology or whatever, or maybe an encounter with a person — that can be on the social level too, and this person is from a cultural background I’ve never had anything to do with before — then that can initially seem threatening to me, simply because it’s unfamiliar. And here too there are incredibly many theories that get put forward, and research being done, in the context of dealing with the unfamiliar, so to speak, whether that’s in the human sphere or in a factual, technical context. It’s really exciting to observe that, when we feel threatened, we should actually first check, is this threat even “real,” in inverted commas. And often, especially when we look at it historically, especially in the technical field too, a lot of technical developments that took place were also experienced as a threat, and actually fought against massively in the past too. Today, if you find out about that and look at it more closely, you smile about it — whether it’s the mirror, where people said, good heavens, that has all sorts of negative effects and can lead to this and that and so on. Today it’s totally normal to stand in front of a mirror, brush your hair, or put on makeup or whatever, before you go out the door. And all of these are good examples showing that certain movements happen almost automatically, because they’re controlled by our brain, controlled through this fear, that a certain sequence takes place here, so to speak. And so it makes sense not to just stay stuck in this area, conditioned by this negative feeling that comes with something new, something unfamiliar, and say, okay, I’m just going to observe this for now, look at it for now, and then I can decide how it develops, whether I go along with one thing or another or not — but maybe also quite deliberately say, I’ll look at this, not just observe it from outside, but go in and try it out and maybe gather my own experience with it too, so I can actually get into forming a judgment myself to some extent, and not act based on hearsay. What do you say to that, Layla?

I was just thinking about whether I’m playing — wait a second, I need to close my door. Okay, the birds chirping are gone now and the sound is better. I was just thinking about whether I’m playing devil’s advocate now if I support this concern, because I was just thinking to myself, that’s true, what you said. And I think these innovations are often connected with that. Look, purely psychologically, there’s this thing about the unfamiliar and the other. I could use a saying again here, that from the cradle to the grave, habits are the only true thing. What the farmer doesn’t know, he won’t eat. That’s a bit arrogant now too. But it really is the case that what we don’t know seems very strange to us at first. And that’s why it’s really good to engage with things — I’m totally with you on that. And the question is, what are the interests behind it? So I’ve come to decide, or I always try to, even though it’s probably a felt objectivity, to always look at, well, everyone has interests. And that’s fine too — that entrepreneurs have interests is totally fine. That politics is interested in getting re-elected is also totally fine, in principle. And I also think, but we have to be careful, because sometimes it’s lobbyism. I recently saw a show about Teflon pans, don’t ask me, it was on ProSieben. And it was about a substance that gets released into nature, because it’s very productive and very good. And they’re now finding it even in Antarctica, and I thought, oh god, oh god, oh god. And we don’t know the effects of this chemical substance, and to what extent it can harm us or not. Of course we can now say, it’ll be fine. But this is really that thing, which generation am I thinking of, and now we’re at the “last generation,” the people who advocate for us not destroying the climate and who do extreme protests because of it. And I thought to myself, well, they also say, you’re not thinking about your future, you’re not thinking about your children, you’re only thinking about how things are right now. And I don’t know if the response then is to say, well, that’s all lobbyism. I find that a bit flat too. Then you’re very quickly at “those up there” and “us.” And it’s not “those up there” and “us” — we can all change something. And I think openness is something very, very, very nice. And I don’t want to — well, I don’t want to avoid doing things because I’m afraid of them. I think this living together, this getting to know other things, other cultures, other people, is fantastic. Being open to innovations is also something fantastic. And still, I sound quite restrictive right now, saying, yes, but we don’t know the consequences, and we can’t only think about the here and now, for all the mindfulness in the world. And we also have to think about why someone does something. And that’s really difficult. I was just thinking, I’m not at all able to solve this problem. But I’m really curious to reflect on it with you.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you so much. Before I respond to what you said, maybe a quick reminder for those who’ve just joined the room, or are here for the first time. You’re basically invited to join and step into the exchange. But we have a few rules that need to be followed to come up on stage. A profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. That’s the minimum we check for here, to make sure these aren’t Clubhouse trolls, but really serious contributions. So if you’d like to join and don’t meet at least one of these rules, just use this moment to change that, and then I’ll be happy to take you into account. Please also note that a recording is running in the background and that this will be published. So if you join, you’re agreeing to that, and if for whatever reason you don’t want that, or don’t want to share your photo, or whatever, feel free to share questions or thoughts with us in the chat instead, and we’ll pick those up too, as long as it fits content-wise. Right, Layla, there are various aspects coming together here, and I said at the start, personally I’m not saying we shouldn’t bear any responsibility. Everything always has a price. That means weighing things up is important. It’s also important, maybe in one place or another, to even have different regulations for certain aspects — maybe not a total ban or similar, but maybe creating certain framework conditions to make dealing with it easier. You could transfer that to social media or similar too — you can observe a lot of things there too. At the same time, we also know that a lot of what gets regulated in some form doesn’t necessarily always result in something positive, regardless of the interests involved. Because people are also very inventive. And whenever we have regulations in some respect, there can be workarounds, and that happens relatively often. That means, if I really want to realize something and have restrictions, whether that’s laws, which we’ve already looked at, or other things — I can’t rule out every possible eventuality. That means, in the formulations chosen and so on, I always have to make sure I leave a certain door open, to leave a bit of room for decisions and so on. Which ultimately means, I can’t account for everything — even if I did, there’d be something I hadn’t thought of. And that usually means it doesn’t actually prevent anything anyway. I think the double opt-in procedure is a great example of that. Basically, you could handle it differently and say, well, okay, so we don’t have double opt-in, and if someone abuses it and enters their neighbor’s email address, then they can simply unsubscribe from the newsletter, just as an example. So we could handle it differently. I mean, a person is quite entitled to take action themselves, for example, and I don’t have to protect them in advance above all, in inverted commas, but they can also become active themselves. And why does that work in other countries, in inverted commas, but not for us? And what’s the price of doing something like that, ultimately, so to speak? Or we had September 11th, and there was a big outcry then, September 11th, toward security — even more checks and so on and so forth. It went so far that ultimately, for example, cutlery on board was made of plastic and similar. And the funny thing about it is, there’s no such thing as one hundred percent security. I can spin this however I want. Whoever really intends to do something on board will manage it anyway. Basically, and I think we should become aware, or more aware, of the fact that this is, to some extent, a kind of reassurance, self-reassurance. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have any measures at all for security when boarding. But on board, for example, you have drinks in bottles — that’s the sharpest weapon I have on board. Or, after going through security, you can buy Swiss Army knives and whatever else, and that gets brought on board and handed over on board. So basically, if you go deeper into it and engage with these topics, you’ll find that basically it mostly just serves as reassurance in many places, but doesn’t really actually have that effect. And then the logical conclusion, the question then is, yes, but how do we deal with it then? And here we come to a point, maybe even to say, doesn’t it need more education, and in the sense of individuals taking responsibility, to handle it accordingly? Question mark. And how could something like that be supported, in the sense of openness, so to speak, so as not to harm it, in inverted commas, and also to make insights possible on that level too. What do you say to that?

I just had to smile a lot, because I thought, insurance agents actually live off this, because they say insurance is like a security blanket. That means we prepare for every eventuality — if we have a problem with our home contents, life insurance, car insurance is mandatory, all these kinds of things. And then I thought, yes, and that’s good too. But what you said, Yasemin, is actually the case that, look, I’m a person who’s torn back and forth, because I hate rules and I love rules. And my horror is always, if you don’t know what to do anymore, form a working group. That things take a very long time. And that the wheels, not just of the law, but also in companies and administration and the civil service, sometimes turn very slowly. And I always have this feeling, yes, but there must be another way. And because I’m neurodivergent and not neurotypical, if someone tells me, go do it, I’ll gladly do it my own way too. And what you said is very true. I don’t like it when people are denied the ability to think. That already annoyed me with the Tagesschau news program. I’m sorry, greetings go out to the Tagesschau, when they changed “commentary” to “opinion,” because I thought to myself, yes, but you can still trust people to know what a commentary is. You learn that in secondary school too. And that’s why thinking for yourself is something really great. And you’re completely right. I think we can trust people a lot, and that we sometimes trust them too little because of these regulations, that we over-organize things, are too restrictive, and thereby prevent development, progress, and insight, because we lack this openness. And I think it’s very human to do that, that’s another quote, where there are people, there’s always some human failing. And I always ask myself personally, well, I think everyone should be invited to think. And I believe that being smart, intellect, openness, and insight have very little to do with what educational qualification someone has. And we have to trust people more. Look, for example, I’m very open to TikTok. I know, extended arm of a country. Also with ChatGPT — I try to use it too. And it was the same before with Galileo. Before, before people said, well, can a teacher tell, and how can this be used for cheating, and is this a danger or not. And still I’d like to say that we do need to look at things. Let me take social media, I don’t want to tease this now — I think about things like, does my life need a like? That has to do with Instagram and social media. So we used to have a like, and the dislike was only added later. Does our life need a filter? If you look at filters now, and this is a development that plastic surgeons also confirm, there’s a nice Arte documentary about this, that because I always look at my picture filtered instead of looking at it in the original, I might no longer find myself pretty, because I only have this filtered version anymore. So we used to have top models who said, this is how we’d like to look, and nowadays girls and boys, and adults too, come to plastic surgeons with this picture and say, I’d like to look like my filter, because that’s the optimized self. And I don’t think that’s terrible. I’m really very open. And still, I think we have to factor in the accumulation of consequences. But that doesn’t mean people can’t think. So I’m with you.

Thank you so much. And before I welcome our next guest, quickly back to something that came up in the chat in the meantime — this aspect of thinking for yourself and so on is included there too, that it’s also difficult. That means, thinking for yourself is nice, only many people can’t, it says here in the chat. Empathy is something 75 percent don’t have. And we’ve already talked about that in the context of our overarching theme of education, among other things, but it’s a topic that keeps coming up. That means the question is, well, education stands for — I’m not talking about school now, or how school is structured today, but the educational mandate says it’s about support that enables someone to lead a self-determined and free life. And that’s about self-efficacy. And the question we’ve been dealing with for many, many years now is, how can you support this form of education so that people take on responsibility, learn to think for themselves, think independently, and become self-effective, not just on an individual level, but on a societal level too, so that certain aspects that don’t just affect me as an individual, or me as an entrepreneur, self-employed person, or whatever, with various interests being pursued, but really in the sense of a society, of meaningful coexistence, and also looking to the future, whether that’s climate topics or other topics. Here too it’s always about aspects of self-efficacy — what contribution can I make to that? And that’s a really, really exciting topic. And with that, I’d like to welcome Florian to the round first. A very good morning, Florian. What are your thoughts on the topic?

Hi, from me too, a very good morning. I’ve listened to you for a few minutes now. The topic is very sensitive. I think, on this topic, we should first form a chair circle and… I just have a quick question. I was here recently with the like, I was there too, but unfortunately wasn’t brought up on stage. Today I got brought up, I’m really happy about that too. My question, I wrote it down, one moment, just a second. Moment. Um… I had written it down, one second. Never mind, I’ll just freestyle it. I’ll just freestyle it, and… Um… The elections are coming up soon in Turkey, as you’ve all probably heard, I just wanted to tell you all, vote for Erdogan, folks. He knows what needs to be done. Erdogan is the man for Turkey. Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Florian, that’s absolutely not what we’re talking about here.

I’m just saying.

We’re talking about a different topic right now.

I know, yes.

And we also don’t talk about these political topics here, whether it’s about Turkey or other countries. Do you have a point you’d like to contribute on the topic of insight and openness?

Insight and openness, yes, sure. So I read a comment, education solves many problems like crime. If that’s what we’re talking about, then I’d say no, education doesn’t solve much. Education can’t lower the crime rate. Because there’s all kinds of crime out there. Even the lawyer who’s educated, the jurist who’s studied, even they can be corrupt and criminal. You know, crime will always exist, even if everyone gets educated. Anyway, yes, it’s 8:30am, I haven’t slept. But anyway, one moment, I’d like to say something on the topic of openness.

Yes?

The German passport — should everyone who lives in Germany have a German passport? Would that be fair? That’s a question about openness now.

Okay, let’s pick that up. But I’d like to ask you — I’ll move you back into the audience now, so to speak. I’m just telling you in advance so you’re prepared and not surprised. Thank you for the few aspects you brought in. That was the topic with education, we’ll gladly pick that up again with Layla to talk about it. This aspect of crime you raised, and we can also gladly pick up the example with the German passport again, in the context of openness. We’re bringing in examples here like ChatGPT, social media, and others, and in this context we can gladly take this example into account too. And maybe just a quick note for you and the others who are new to the room too — on one hand, we have a few rules to follow here, thank you also for changing your photo, and that was actually the reason I was able to take you into account for the hand-raise. The other thing is that we always talk in relation to the topic, so always bring in examples in this context. We have an overarching theme we engage with for several weeks — currently it’s insight and gaining insight. We also already had the topic of education. So feel free to keep joining and just listen in a bit, to follow along with this progression, because we keep building bridges to past topics too. And these are exciting topics where there’s no right or wrong, but often it’s simply about sorting your own thoughts a bit, and it’s up to each individual what they pick up for themselves personally and what they can take away as an impulse, and what might get them thinking too, in the sense of their own reflection, and to keep working with that. Thank you, Florian.

Sure thing, folks, before I go down — don’t forget, tech also needs years of professional experience. That doesn’t happen overnight. It also takes a long time to build up. So keep at it. It’s maybe the faster path, but not the easy path.

Thank you so much.

You’re welcome.

Until next time. Layla, would you like to respond to that directly? We had this education aspect, “crime will always exist.” By the way, I’m totally with Florian there, in the sense that, well, crime will always exist, but we’ve also already discussed, through various bridges we’ve built, that laws getting stricter and stricter, for example, doesn’t lead to less crime either, because the criminal, in inverted commas, per se already assumes they won’t get caught or caught out anyway. That’s the first impulse I have on that. Layla, what do you say to that?

Yes, well, I have to say, openness is something really beautiful, and I admire your openness. That’s what I wanted to briefly say here in the room. And yes, regarding crime, look, I think we also have over-regulation here too. And we also have, what does over-regulation even mean, that’s the wrong word now. But I think here too we try to prevent things, we say, this and that are connected, we need to be careful there. And I don’t know exactly what Florian meant. I think he was saying it’s independent of education level whether you become criminal or not. I’d support that perspective more, because a higher educational qualification doesn’t prevent you from becoming immoral, to bring in a judgment from my point of view now. And still, I think we do need to look at it — we can’t say, those up there and us down here. I think one thing has nothing to do with the other. The topic of “German passport” was also raised, and I think here too we’re back at this “unfamiliar” thing. I think it’s important that we don’t create fronts, that we don’t think in categories and say, okay, they’re like this, because then we’re in profiling. And when we’re in profiling, we try to weed things out. And then we say, okay, well, he’s a lawyer, so he’s probably like this. That’s an insurance agent, so that’s a criminal. Ah, they do phone contracts, so they do this and that. And that has something to do with openness too. Or, I don’t know if you know this, Yasemin, but I hear this more often, that people look at me and say, “You speak German so well though.” And I always look and say, “So do you.” Because I’m always a bit puzzled by that. And to briefly connect this topic with openness, I think we really do always think in these categories. And that brings us to this topic of pigeonholing. That means we assess people — if a person is like this and that, then they must do this and that. If someone’s a coach, they want to sell something. If someone’s a life advisor, they have this and that. I studied philosophy, so it’s absolutely certain that I apparently can’t find a job, because that’s a very impractical field of study. And I think we should just take ourselves out of these categories a bit and have a certain openness here too. I hope this contribution fit the topic.

Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much. And ultimately there are so many examples, we had this with the Author Breakfast “Schwarze Deutsche” (German only) and so on, in that context we had that recently with Florence. So there are a lot of aspects coming together here. And I think this fits well with this topic of openness and insight too. Also this point that was raised, with the aspect of crime. So on the one hand, crime, of course, there will always be some, there always has been and always will be. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything about it, along the lines of “let everything run free,” but for the sake of good coexistence it’s important to have certain basic rules too. And at the same time, especially in Germany, we tend toward over-regulation in a lot of places. And we’ve also talked about how crime statistics get distorted, for example, because we keep passing more and more offenses into law. That means something that wasn’t previously, say, a criminal offense, is now recorded as a criminal offense, a law is passed for it. I don’t want to say with this that it’s not necessary — it can definitely be necessary, especially maybe in the social media context, for example. That means it’s a phenomenon that’s newly emerged, a technological development that might need one regulation or another. And then there are new laws. But if we just look at the statistical numbers and see, yes, crime just keeps rising steadily, then something like this often isn’t taken into account — that this also has an effect on the numbers, namely that new offenses get added with every new law passed, and that of course means crime, when you look at these numbers, appears to be rising. Per se it might not have risen at all — maybe it’s simply stayed the same. You’d need to factor that out, so to speak. To really be able to compare whether crime regarding XYZ has risen, you’d also need to look at the offenses themselves. What legal changes were there, that might also have effects on the numbers? And if you don’t take that into account, then the numbers are, so to speak, “only conditionally real.” And these are all factors that play a role here. And when we look at statistical numbers like this, we should always be aware that, basically, with all statistical numbers you look at, you really need to look closely into the details and check what was taken into account, how that was factored in and so on and so forth, what was subtracted and similar, and whether these numbers are really valid or not. Or whether you can actually make that statement based on these numbers. And this doesn’t mean the numbers are wrong — there are just certain factors that need to be considered. Regarding this aspect with the German passport, I find that really exciting too — in terms of openness, it’s also a topic that’s been discussed and debated for many years, because while there are certain people with ties to certain countries for whom dual citizenship might even be possible or similar, there are people of other origins, other backgrounds, for whom that’s not permitted in Germany, and this topic is always hotly debated. From my own experience, I can say my parents used a loophole in the law and actually managed to make it possible for us to have dual citizenship before that was noticed and then a law was passed. But everyone who switched before that and used this option, this loophole, gets to keep dual citizenship. That’s legitimate too, it’s not illegal or anything. There was a loophole in the law, and it’s since been closed. If someone switches today, so to speak, they actually have to decide again — with Turkish origin, do I want German or Turkish citizenship, so I basically have to give one of them up. Personally, looking back, I’m glad my parents did that. I’m happy that I have both. My sister switched only later, and she, for example, only has the German one exclusively, and that does make certain things harder, and this often doesn’t get discussed. So it’s not just about, am I willing to give up one of the citizenships or not. Also here, for example, the moment various things need to be handled in your own country of origin, it’s a massive complication if you suddenly only have German citizenship. It can lead to disadvantages, it can lead to various things that often don’t get considered in the discussion at all. That’s one thing. The other thing, in this context, is that just because I have German citizenship on paper, in inverted commas, and that’s where we’re at what you just brought up, Layla, with the “but you speak German so well” — just because I have German citizenship on paper doesn’t mean it’s really recognized in people’s minds, in inverted commas. How often are there conversations where I hear, yes, and where are you originally from? Frankfurt. And, yes, yes, okay, but where are you originally from? Well, what am I supposed to say to that? I was personally born and raised in Frankfurt. My parents have a different origin, but I’ve never lived in another country in the sense of really being socialized there. I speak German better than Turkish, even though I speak Turkish very well too. And these questions, even if partly unconscious, do have something to do with unconscious bias too. That means, what expectations do I have, or what do I assume, when I hear a different name, when I notice, this person must have a different origin. Of course you could say now, you don’t have to overanalyze everything, and that’s curiosity too, or something. On the other hand, if we look at it from the perspective of the person affected, it’s also annoying to keep being asked this question again and again, and to keep getting the feeling that you don’t belong. And here we’re very quickly back at this aspect of openness and insight again too. What do you say to that, Layla?

I’ve just thought about that a bit more too. Look, I think this is an issue that people with a migration background definitely know. And what I always notice is that it’s connected with a lot of pain too, in the sense that exactly what you said, you belong, but somehow you also don’t belong. I know that the other way around too, because I’m German-Tunisian. That means the larger group always excludes the other group, or whichever group is currently represented. So I also know how the “Alman” discussion starts. And I could sit down just as easily at a German regulars’ table as at another one. And then they say, yes, they’re all like this and that, but you’re different. I tried to explain this to myself from brain research — I’m not an expert there, but I tried to explain it to myself a bit, and thought, well, we always search for reasons. That’s what you mentioned earlier — we always search for reasons, and that means when we see statistics, and we’ve talked about this before too, we always look for confirmation of our own opinion, maybe. And what’s being addressed here is also a thing that often annoys me too. For example, when we look at New Year’s Eve and ask about migration background in Neukölln, I personally don’t find that particularly productive, because every second person in Neukölln has a migration background. And then to say, “no, but where are they originally from?” And then to say, yes, they have a German passport, but… And that’s where the pain starts. So, you’re born here, or came here very early on. And you’re always a bit excluded. And then reasons are sought for why you don’t belong. But that goes in the other direction too. And that’s why I always say, the answer to racism can never be discrimination. And I don’t want to downplay this topic at all, I just want to say, you can do this within your own group too, that you start — because a white person can’t be attacked racially. So, for everyone in the audience, please don’t take this the wrong way, you can read about this in the book “Exit Racism,” which is a very good book, where you understand things too. And what I’ve just realized for myself is that discrimination isn’t nice, whether I mean it as “Alman,” which originally means “German,” well, but if I use this term to mean I’ll fight over five cents, if I use this term to mean I pay separately in German fashion and don’t take care of my parents, then it’s discriminatory and I shouldn’t use it. It’s the same the other way around. If I only ask about a person’s background to spin a connection, to say, okay, the unfamiliar, the other, they don’t belong to us, then there’s a problem there too. And I think that’s the case for a lot of people. Or I don’t know, maybe you can explain whether it’s normal that we search for connections and regularities, or why it is that we’re always a bit afraid of the unfamiliar, of the other — I had this in my studies too, that we’re always a bit afraid of that, or have a certain insecurity. And I completely understand that. But as I said, I think these connections we often spin, on one side as well as the other, whether they really correspond to the truth — I have to think of that kids’ show, something like “Last Chance,” whether you’re really standing in the right spot, you see when the light turns on — in many cases, we simply don’t know that. And that’s why I get annoyed at myself sometimes too. During my studies, Yasemin, I was on a placement, and someone looked at me, a lecturer who was very nice, and said, I think it’s nice that people of their skin color and religion also become teachers. He didn’t mean that badly at all. That was really shocking for me. And then something else happened. He gave me a Turkish text, and this is really a true story, on the same day, in the same situation, and said, translate this. And I said, I can’t translate that. And I thought, I’m the one who doesn’t have prejudices. Then I looked at the only other person who also had, well, a migration background in that case, and also in terms of skin color. And then I unpacked my own prejudices, because I looked at him and said, maybe he can translate it. And then he looks at me, my fellow student, and says, well, I don’t speak Turkish either. And then I thought, oh, you’re no better either, Layla. And that’s just a point I noticed there. Thanks for listening.

Yes, thank you so much. So ultimately it’s the aspect we’ve talked about more often — that, given the background, from the brain’s perspective, all the information, stimuli, and so on we receive get checked within fractions of a second in terms of, well, we want to secure our survival, and anything that seems existentially threatening triggers uncomfortable feelings in us. And that’s especially the case when it’s something we haven’t had contact with before — whether that’s technological progress, or an encounter with a person with a new background, a cultural background unfamiliar to me, because I simply don’t have action routines for it yet. I don’t have experience I can draw on. And so this need for security kicks in, so to speak, which can lead me to react to certain things impulsively, and if I don’t reflect on that, I fall into a trap, in inverted commas. And that’s why it’s so important to keep going into this reflection and developing this awareness, so to speak, and looking at it, at least, even if I can’t completely change it or fully resolve it. We’re at this uncertain and unplannable thing here to some extent. I do things unconsciously too, not everything consciously. And I can’t make everything conscious either, even if I reflect. But to a certain degree, it is indeed possible for me to take control of this. And the last part, we’ve talked about that too, especially when it comes to unconscious bias and things like that — that needs corresponding processes and structures too. Those can be regulations. They can be certain processes and structures in companies, in application procedures and so on, that kick in and ultimately support people in not falling into the trap here either. That won’t be completely eliminated either, but it can at least have a supportive effect here, so to speak. And there’s one point I’d like to briefly mention before we move into today’s closing round, namely the aspect that we tend, on one hand, to always evaluate with right and wrong. You just mentioned that. But it’s often the case that there isn’t just right or wrong — it’s something we’ve learned through socialization, to always think in these binary codings, so to speak. Right, wrong, black, white, and so on. And we often forget to look at the facets in between too. So really directing the focus there and looking at it, and making ourselves aware of that again and again. And in this context I’d like to briefly mention, because when we talk about right or wrong, or white or black, we tend to — anything we evaluate in one direction or the other has something to do with extremism. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter whether it’s right-wing or left-wing. A left-wing stance can be extreme too. A right-wing stance can be extreme too. That means, the moment I’m vehemently convinced of something and represent it vehemently, and lack the openness to enter into dialogue, to really look at different perspectives and understand them — then I can go back into evaluation and draw my own conclusions again. And maybe one thing or another will be reinforced by that. But there might also be aspects where it loosens up again too. Considering and looking at these aspects again and again, and consciously directing focus toward them, has a lot to do, from my perspective, with this aspect of openness and insight, and gaining insight, ultimately. Because whenever I extremely stand up for something, with vehemence, there’s always a price too, that certain things tip over on the other side. And it doesn’t matter whether we’re looking at the discussions about the Ukraine-Russia war, or the climate activists who are currently in focus, or, I’ll call it the rainbow movement, with institutions specifically meant for that. In many places there are positive thoughts behind it, but the moment it tips into extremes, or the gender discussions in language that get debated, the moment it tips into an extreme, then, from my perspective, my personal perspective, it doesn’t have much to do with openness, or “I want to make a difference,” in inverted commas, anymore, but tips into another extreme instead. And it can definitely be legitimate that we talk about these topics, but the moment I represent it so extremely that I no longer allow anything else, it becomes another extreme, which also comes with a price. And we should simply become aware of that. That’s why dialogue is so important here, to keep coming into exchange and talking about it, and also about empathy. And that was a really key point that was raised again in the chat too. We’ve talked about empathy in the past too. Empathy is a really, really important aspect. And here too, looking at how empathy can actually develop — but it also requires aspects like mindfulness in many places, clarity regarding yourself, knowing yourself, knowing your own identity, having roots, in inverted commas, and so on and so forth. That means it’s a very, very complex topic, as becomes clear, and so I found it really exciting to look at this from so many different perspectives here. And briefly, before we move into today’s closing round, another reminder: I’ve pinned the link above us here again for the ebook that launched yesterday, “Magische Hacks zur optimalen Nutzung von Chat GPT” (German only). For anyone interested, today, as part of the Easter promotion days, so to speak, there’s still the chance to download it at half price. Otherwise, from tomorrow it’ll be available online at the regular price as usual, and I’ve brought the voucher code for you. You can see it right at the top in the chat — Osteraktion-Launch in capital letters, with hyphens in between too. So if you’d like to download it, at least take a screenshot of the voucher code, so you can actually redeem it later. Otherwise it won’t work, otherwise it’ll be set at the regular price. And yes, so maybe just a quick mention of that, and then I’ll gladly do the preview for tomorrow after our closing round. Layla, what are your highlights, or what would you like to underline again for today?

I was just thinking to myself — first, I’d like to congratulate you on the launch, because I think it’s important, and an Easter promotion like this, look, getting a book at half price, I think that’s a good thing, because that’s 50 percent, and this isn’t an ad, I just think it’s nice, because that’s the direction things are developing — either we’re afraid that technology will replace us, or we work together with it, always in this context of the accumulation of consequences. Where can this develop toward? Does AI have its own will now, or does it think like a human? Because that gets confused easily, because talking with ChatGPT might sometimes be more interesting than talking with the person across from you. I don’t mean that completely seriously, but it can happen under certain circumstances. And regarding our room today, or your room today, I’d like to say I noticed that insight and openness have a lot, a lot to do with feelings. On the one hand with joy, joy in insight, joy in openness, but on the other hand also a lot with fear. And you explained that really nicely — very often it has to do with us being afraid of the unfamiliar. We’re afraid of being excluded. We’re afraid of connections being spun that don’t really make sense for us, or that are simply factually wrong. I’m not happy with everything either. To close, I’d like to say, because I think fear is something very normal — I once talked about this with Patrick M. Sheedy from ProSieben, and back then he told me, well, bad news is just news that people are interested in. And you explained that really nicely too. And good news, we always pay attention to what could harm us. That’s why I’d like to invite everyone to look at how big the saber-toothed tiger on their own shoulder is, to see if it’s something positive that moves you forward, or if it’s maybe really weighing on your shoulder right now, and also to look with humor at the saber-toothed tiger on the other person’s shoulder. Thanks for listening.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you so much. I think we can absolutely leave that as it is, wonderfully summarized too. And with that, I’m really looking forward to continuing tomorrow at 8am with our Author Breakfast. We’re expecting Marc Gassert with “Alles ist schwer, bevor es leicht wird. Mit dem Wissen der Shaolin zu mehr Disziplin und Willenskraft” (German only). I’m curious what he can contribute from various other perspectives too, under this overarching theme of insight and gaining insight, so to speak — how he stands on certain topics and how that ultimately connects with his book and with this discipline and willpower, and what that means for us. So we have both aspects in there — on one hand aspects toward true understanding, on the other hand toward openness, and then also what I already mentioned yesterday. Yes, insight and so on is nice. But, and now what? How does it actually go from here? And that’s why I’m really looking forward to welcoming you again tomorrow morning at 8am under the roof of the Bestselling Authors Club, and seeing what perspectives come in as an addition, and what depths we’ll get into together tomorrow. So you’re really, really warmly invited to join again tomorrow for Easter Sunday too, and pick up a few impulses here with us in the sense of insight and gaining insight. With that, I wish you a wonderful day. Thank you so much for the intensive exchange, for the great perspectives and examples that were part of this, and all that’s left for me to say is, hopefully see you tomorrow. Ciao!