New Podcast Release: Tali Sharot

In the latest episode of Lives Well Lived, the podcast I co-host with Kasia de Lazari-Radek, we speak with neuroscientist, author, and psychologist Tali Sharot.

Tali’s work blends neuroscience and behavioural science to better understand how we think about the future, make decisions, and influence others. She’s best known for her research on optimism bias, our tendency to believe the future will turn out better than the information we have justifies us in believing, and how this cognitive bias can shape everything from health and happiness to political decisions and financial choices.

In this episode, we explore how this personal optimism persists even in times of global crisis, how memory and anticipation influence our day-to-day wellbeing, and what neuroscience can teach us about the difficulties of making moral progress and avoiding moral corruption. Tali also reflects on the emotional drivers behind behavioural change and how hope can be a force for good, if blended with awareness.

Below are some highlights from our conversation, edited for clarity. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred platform

The Core Idea: Optimism Bias Amid Global Crisis

KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK: Tali, we live in a time of profound uncertainty: climate change, political instability, and rapid technological shifts. And yet your research shows that most of us remain stubbornly optimistic about our own lives. Why does the brain protect personal hope, even in the face of collective despair? Is this self-focused optimism helpful, or is it a comforting illusion we cling to at our peril?

TALI SHAROT: So many questions. I'm going to have to divide that into pieces. You're diving right in. First of all, you're absolutely right. We have what we call private optimism and public despair. So, the question is: why do we have private optimism, where does it come from, and is it helpful? Then, why do we have public despair, and how can both things be true at the same time?

Let’s start with private optimism. The data shows that about 80% of the population have what we call optimism bias. This means we expect our personal future to be better than what the data would suggest. For example, we might underestimate our likelihood of getting cancer or getting divorced, or overestimate the likelihood of having talented children. It's a mild optimism, but present in most people.

Is it helpful? There are upsides and downsides. On the positive side, optimism is related to psychological wellbeing. Depression, for example, is associated with pessimism. People with depression tend to have a pessimism bias. So, predicting good things for ourselves helps keep us happy and mentally healthy. Studies also show that optimism is linked to success in academia, sports, and business. It makes sense: if you believe the future will be positive, if you think your company will succeed or you will find love, you’re more motivated to try. That belief encourages action and exploration.

Optimism is also linked to better physical health. Optimistic people tend to survive longer and recover from illness more quickly. It's not magic; it's because they take actions to stay healthy. They follow medical advice, exercise, and so on.

But there are downsides. Optimism bias can lead us to underestimate risk. We might skip medical screenings or not buy insurance when we should. When many individuals are slightly optimistic, it can accumulate into larger risks, as seen in the 2008 financial collapse. Many economists believe optimism bias among advisors, governments, and everyday individuals contributed to the crisis.

Still, the fact that optimism bias is present across cultures and even among animals, pigs, bees, etc., suggests there is an evolutionary advantage. The benefits seem to outweigh the costs, on average. But context matters. In safe environments, optimism bias is helpful. In dangerous ones, it can be harmful. Interestingly, the brain adapts. Under acute stress, a physiological response actually removes the optimism bias temporarily. So, what’s adaptive isn’t optimism itself, but rather being optimistic at the right time and in the right place.

On Memory and Emotion Driving Behaviour

KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK: Let’s think about how memories impact whether we live well. Do they affect our choices and behaviour?

TALI SHAROT: The memory system is there to guide us, to help us plan and make decisions. Emotional memories, good or bad, are especially useful. They tell us, "Last time this happened, it turned out badly, avoid it," or "Last time it turned out well, do it again."

Interestingly, you don’t have to consciously remember the event for it to influence you. Implicit memories, especially emotional ones, shape our decisions even without conscious recollection. And those emotional memories, the good and the bad, are particularly important for living well. Because so much of wellbeing is about the outcomes of our choices.

Also, emotions from the past affect our present. You could be going through your day and suddenly remember something happy or sad, and that changes your mood. Research by Daniel Kahneman shows that our current feelings often depend not on what we’re doing right now, but what we remember or anticipate.

The Emotional Mechanics of Anticipation

KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK: Let’s talk about anticipation. How do we think about our lives and plan in a way that maximises happiness or pleasure? Philosophers like the Stoics warned that desiring things is dangerous: if they don’t come to pass, we suffer.

TALI SHAROT: Anticipation doesn’t have to be grand. Even small things, like having dinner plans tomorrow or a vacation coming up, can make us happy. Daniel Gilbert did a study where he asked people how happy they were before, during, and after a vacation. The happiest day? The day before the vacation. They were still at work but mentally already on the beach.

Anticipation triggers real joy. The brain can produce emotional experiences based solely on what it imagines. Even if the actual event isn’t as good as imagined, the anticipation still brought happiness.

Now, what happens if the anticipated event disappoints? There might be some letdown, but that doesn’t erase the joy of anticipation. Studies show people rebound fairly quickly unless the outcome is truly terrible. Often, they simply start anticipating something else.

PETER SINGER: In your TED Talk, you mention an experiment where people paid more to receive a kiss from a celebrity in three days than immediately. Suggesting that anticipation is more intense than the experience itself. Should we deliberately delay pleasurable experiences to enjoy anticipating them?

TALI SHAROT: That study was actually by George Loewenstein, but yes, people paid more for a kiss in three days than right away. Anticipation added value. So yes, create "anticipatory events." Put things in your diary to look forward to. Even if they get cancelled, the joy was already there.

You can also do this with long-term goals, thinking about what you want to be doing in 10 or 20 years, and what you can start doing now to make that future possible. It reduces dread and anxiety too.

In Loewenstein’s study, people were also asked how much they’d pay to avoid a strong electric shock. They paid the most to avoid a shock in 10 years because of the anxiety it would cause over time. Anticipation can create joy, but dread can also cause suffering. So both shape well-being in the present.

KASIA DE LAZARI-RADEK: My intuition is different. I think I’d get used to the anxiety or forget about it. Can’t we habituate to dread?

TALI SHAROT: That relates to my book "Look Again" with Cass Sunstein. We questioned whether you can habituate to depression or anxiety. Habituation is a reduced emotional response to a repeated stimulus. But anxiety and depression are the emotional responses. You can habituate to external triggers, but it’s harder when the trigger is hypothetical or far off in the future.

Moral Action and Habituation

TALI SHAROT: When it comes to issues like animal suffering, I think people do have emotional reactions, but they train themselves not to think about it. We suppress thoughts that are uncomfortable. That’s human.

But reminders can bring the issue back to mind. For example, some countries use images and warnings on public transport to reduce fare evasion. Similarly, if you had reminders on meat packaging about animal welfare, it could trigger that emotional response.

However, people habituate to warnings too. With cigarette packaging, studies show that graphic images lose impact over time. That’s why they need to rotate the images periodically.

PETER SINGER: In your book The Influential Mind, you discuss what actually persuades people. Facts alone often don’t. This resonates with me. When Animal Liberation came out in 1975, I thought telling people about factory farms would be enough. But change has been slower than I expected. Why haven’t facts changed minds more effectively?

TALI SHAROT: Emotion plays a major role. People might intellectually agree that something is wrong, but emotion is what truly drives change. Documentaries have helped by triggering emotional responses. But with eating animals, the challenge is that the behaviour is easy and rewarding. Meat tastes good. Restaurants make it easy. It’s not just about creating a moral or emotional reaction; it’s also about changing the environment.

To change behaviour, we need alternatives that are equally rewarding and widely available. That’s the key to real change, not just the ethics, but also the incentives and structure that support different choices.

PETER SINGER: Yes, I agree. More tasty, affordable alternatives will help move the dial. And we see that happening, slowly.

TALI SHAROT: It’s not just about animals. Think about sugar, fat, smoking, all rewarding behaviours, even if we know they’re harmful. The brain’s desire for reward often wins out. We need to make the better choices more rewarding and accessible.