This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. When psychologist Robert Cialdini was in college, a magazine salesman knocked on his dorm room door. He was selling subscriptions to Sports Illustrated Magazine.
Bob was going to say no, but then the salesman said, It's the most popular subscription here in your dorm, and the experts rate it as the number one sports magazine in the United States. And I found myself buying that subscription. The exchange with the Sports Illustrated Salesman got Bob thinking, What exactly had the man said to overcome his resistance? And could studying exchanges like this reveal why some people were more persuasive than others?
But I don't know I had the terms to explain it. But I knew that they had worked, and I knew that he had turned a no to a yes. So there was something powerful there, inside what he had said. Over the course of several decades of observation and experimental research at Arizona State University, Bob eventually identified seven techniques of influence.
Last week on the show, we explored three of them. We looked at the role of scarcity, the norm of reciprocity, and the effects of liking. If you missed that episode, I would strongly recommend you go back and listen to it first. Today, we explore four more powerful ways to turn noes into yeses.
And as we did last week, we will also examine how these ideas can be used for good and for evil. The patterns of persuasion, this week on Hidden Brain. I'm afraid of my shoes. Real life is a lot.
Clean cut meals means eating well doesn't need to be. I'm Connor and I'm Miho. We make clean cut meals for people who want to eat well. Without making a whole thing in it.
Chef design, breakfast, lunch, and dinner options. High protein, balanced, and delicious. Ready for real life. Clean cut meals, fuel for real life in super value and centra.
Researchers who study disasters have often noticed a curious pattern. People confronting emergencies often behave like the people around them. In my book, The Hidden Brain, I described how these patterns shaped decisions involving life and death on the upper floors of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Shortly after planes hijacked by terrorists struck the skyscrapers, people inside the buildings had to make a choice.
Should they run for the stairs and try and plan down dozens of flights to safety? Or should they shelter in place? In the confusion and panic that ensued in the moments after the attacks, they received conflicting guidance from authorities. But at one company that was spread over two floors of the World Trade Center, I found that people made radically different decisions.
Nearly everyone on one floor chose to evacuate, and nearly all survived. Nearly everyone on the other floor stayed in place, and large numbers perished when the tower collapsed. It's not quite right to say that people are sheep and follow the herd. That's unfair and simplistic.
But it is the case that one of the most important sources of influence in our lives comes from the people around us. If you are on a floor where everyone is running for the stairs, it's hard not to run yourself. If you're on a floor where everyone is staying put, it's hard to jump up and take off. Psychologist Bob Cialdini says the same principle known as social proof also works in situations with much lower stakes.
Social proof reduces uncertainty in others when we show them that a lot of other people like them are doing or have been doing what we're asking this particular individual to do. We give them confirmation that this is widely accepted and widely performed. And I remember that magazine salesman came to my dorm room and told me that the Sports Illustrated subscription was the most popular one of the guys in my dorm. He was using the principle of social proof.
And the idea here is that if I have the sense that people in my community, my group, my tribe are basically all doing something, it becomes easier for me to want to do it, but it also presumably becomes harder for me not to do it to feel like I'm actually not a member of that group. That's right, and there are three reasons. One is if everybody around me like me is doing it, that is probably the right thing to do. It's also probably the case that it's feasible for me to do.
And finally, they're more likely to approve of me if I do the things that they are doing instead of being a violator of the norm. So for all those reasons, I'm driven to reduce my uncertainty about what I should do here by following the dictates of social proof. You can see countless examples of the power of social proof in daily life. The same principle is at work when you pass a collection plate at church, or when volunteers from the Salvation Army ring a bell outside stores asking for donations.
It helps to see that others have previously dropped money on the collection plate, or into a collection box. Even if we approve of the person ringing the bell asking us to contribute to some cause at wrong Christmas time, we can approve of it. But if we don't see other people doing it, it's not necessarily something that is likely just for us to do it. I mean, I've seen instances of street musicians, Bob, who are playing for money.
They'll drop some dollar bills of their own into an open guitar case to send a signal to passersby that they should make a contribution of their own. There was a lovely study done by a researcher who went door-to-door for charity and gave people a list of how many of their neighbors had already given and showed them a list. The longer the list, the more likely that the resident was likely to contribute. And the larger the amount of money that each person had given in the neighborhood, the larger that the recipient of that information was to give.
I understand there was a wonderful study conducted at a Beijing restaurant where a manager was trying to increase the likelihood of customers choosing particular items from the menu. Tell me about what happened at that restaurant, Bob. The researchers had the managers put little asterisks next to certain items on the menu and see what effect that would have. What did the asterisks stand for?
It didn't say, this is a specialty of the house, which you often see. It didn't say, this is our chef's selection for this evening. It said, this is one of our most popular items. And purchase of those items increased by 13 to 20%.
There's this lovely study that was done in McDonald's in which researchers arranged for the person behind the counter after customers had finished their order to say, and would you like a dessert versus, and would you like a dessert? The McFlurry is our customer's favorite. Those customers who heard the latter bought 45% more desserts because they were informed about what the most popular one was. They all bought McFlurries because it was the most popular.
One of my favorite examples of the social proof that you described has to do with how your son learned to swim. Tell me that story, Bob. So my son, Chris, when he was about three years old, we live in Arizona, and I worry that because there are so many backyard swimming pools, he might fall in. And if he didn't know how to swim, that would be very unfortunate.
So I put him in a swimming class, and it didn't work. I even hired one of my research assistants who had been a lifeguard. That big six-foot-two guy was very expert at swimming. Chris wouldn't even get in the pool with this guy without his ring, you know, this plastic ring that he would wear.
He loved the water, but only with that ring. He wouldn't go in without it. And then I had him in a day camp where there was a big swimming pool. Usually he didn't go near it, but I went to pick him up one day, and I saw him run down the diving board and jump into the middle of the pool without his ring on, and he paddled over to the side.
I ran there. I said, Chris, you're swimming. And he said, yes, because Jimmy can swim. And Jimmy's three years old, like me.
That means I can swim. So that's the idea again here. It's about feasibility. It's not necessarily that swimming is the right thing or the approving.
It's feasible if the people around me, like me, are able to do this. You know, I'm thinking of that wonderful story from many decades ago where John Landy and Roger Bannister were trying to break the four-minute mile. And Landy was an Australian runner and one of the best runners on the planet and widely considered to be the person most likely to break the four-minute mile. And he ran several races and got very, very, very close and was just unable to break through the barrier.
And at one point he says, you know, I don't believe this barrier is amountable. I don't believe humans can run a mile in less than four minutes. And then Roger Bannister, of course, famously went on to break the barrier. He ran a four-minute mile.
But what's astonishing about the story is that the very next race, John Landy ran a mile in under four minutes. And what's astonishing there is that this is one of the best runners in the world, has tried repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, and unable to break the barrier. Someone else does it, and it suddenly becomes possible. And I think it speaks to this idea that you just talked about, Bob, which is that one really important element of social proof is that it communicates to us that this is actually feasible.
It's actually within the realm of possibility. Right. We have done some work with informing the hangers about why they should reduce their energy consumption. And if we give them evidence that their neighbors are reducing, they get significantly more likely to, indeed, conserve more.
Because it's feasible. We don't just give them evidence of any neighbors. We give them evidence of comparable neighbors. Those who have the same size home, the same type of air conditioning units, and the same number of bedrooms, and so on.
And if those things are in place, and they can do it, that means I can do it. Social proof can be used for good, but it can also be used for evil. One of the oldest tricks of fraudsters and conmen is to show people that other people, who are just like them, have signed on to some scheme. Once financier Bernie Madoff showed his victims that other people were giving him money, and he was giving them astronomical returns, he didn't have to market his scam to new victims.
The marks came to him, begging him to take their money. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. This is Hidden Brain.
I'm Shankar Vedantam. Psychologist Bob Cialdini has always thought of himself as easy to persuade. From a young age, he found himself saying yes to salespeople and pictures for charity. In time, Bob decided he wanted to understand the psychology of influence.
He started out his research by infiltrating a number of groups where people made money by persuading others to say yes to them. He spent time selling cars, hawking portrait photos, and fundraising. Over several decades of research at Arizona State University, Bob has identified seven techniques of persuasion that nearly every human being is susceptible to. In this episode, we've talked about the power of social proof.
A related idea unfolds in nearly every workplace, family, and community. Some people in these groups have a very obvious and powerful form of influence. They have authority. It plays a role that's not unlike social proof in that it reduces uncertainty as to what to do based on the information at hand.
If I see that a lot of my friends or colleagues and neighbors are doing something that reduces my uncertainty that I should do it. And if I see evidence of authority voices speaking about a particular direction for me to take, it reduces my uncertainty that indeed this is probably the right thing to do. The magazine salesman who was trying to sell you Sports Illustrated didn't just tell you that it was the most popular magazine. He also said it was the highest rated sports magazine.
And of course, I think all manner of salespeople do this. They're basically saying this is the best television. This is the best kind of car. This is the highest rated product.
This is the best university. Ratings effectively are the voice of authority speaking to us. Well, especially if those ratings are coming from knowledgeable experts in the field, which this salesperson told me. He didn't just say it was the highest rated by consumers.
That would have been more of social proof. He said it was the highest rated by the experts in the field of sports as to which magazine is best at conveying what really goes on in that arena. I remember reading a study recently where they had people essentially walk on the street and bark instructions at passersby, just sort of random instructions saying, you know, this parking meter seems to be empty. Why don't you put a dime in it?
Just sort of telling a stranger. And when the instructions were given by somebody wearing a uniform, compliance with those instructions basically went through the roof. So even if you don't know who the authority figure is, what the uniform represents, the mere fact that someone's wearing a uniform indicates this must be a person of authority. Right.
This was a security guard's uniform. It wasn't a police officer. It was a security guard. But somebody had the aura of authority.
The one I loved best was where he told people, you're standing at a bus stop. And he said, stand on the other side of the bus stop. Go to the other side. He didn't stand there and people did.
And then he left the scene. He turned to the corner and he was gone. And people still stayed on the other side of the bus stop because the authority figure had instructed them to do so. Yeah.
And it is partly the case, of course, that people are before to authority. But as you say, it also is cognitively simpler to do it. To basically say someone who is in charge has figured out what we should do. They have thought through what the answer should be.
I don't have to expend the time and energy thinking about it. Precisely right. I think that that's the shortcut. I don't need to do the testing now.
Somebody else with greater knowledge and experience and expertise has done so. I can usually be right if I just follow. This is why electing the right leaders is so important. A president is not just someone who signs bills into laws.
If a president tells us we have nothing to fear but fear itself, we feel braver. If a president tells us that a vaccine is suspect, that makes us hesitate to put our arms out for a jab. This also explains why dictators are able to muster so much power. Yes, some of this power flows from guns and weapons.
But a great deal of it is psychological. In the face of authority, dissenters often hide their views or withdraw from argument. Bob once had this experience himself, although in a context when no one was holding a gun to his head. I was sitting next to an Oxford don whose research area was Italian culture and Italian productivity.
And I was making a comment about compared to the past when the sculpture and paintings and so on that came out of Italy were the best and they had stood the test of time. But now it seemed to be more something ephemeral, that it was fashion and food and these kinds of things, a style. And he said to me, I must degrade your thesis. I'm a guy who's always competitive in an intellectual.
He completely eliminated any comeback I would have because he was an authority. He came off with authority related language and it may. me recognize that he knew more than i did about this and i should shut my mouth because i really didn't have the high ground here you talk about another form of influence that has to do with commitment and consistency which is that we want to feel like we are being consistent in the way we act talk about this idea bob how does this work well one of the things that uh people prefer is to be seen as consistent so that they're not incongruent in terms of what they say and what they do or they say one thing today they say another thing the other day we don't like those individuals we don't like people who are all over the board we can't predict or count on so one of the things that uh commitment and consistency does if if we make a commitment especially in public we're significantly more likely to be congruent with it if we are asked to do so at a later stage in the interaction there was a chicago restaurant that was once having a problem with people not showing up at the time of the reservation tell me what they did to try and increase compliance with when people said they were going to show up and actually showed up yeah it was police called gordon's restaurant and gordon he had a problem that was at the time not unique to his restaurant no shows people who called booked a table and then just didn't appear didn't call ahead to cancel and it was a big problem for him and he went to listen to what his receptionist said when she took a reservation she would say thank you for calling gordon's restaurant please call if you have to change or cancel your reservation and that ended the call he asked her to add two words and to say will you please call if you have to change or cancel your reservation and then he asked her to pause so what would you say how would you fill that pause i would say yes of course i would call and that's your commitment chunker you have now publicly committed yourself to it and no shows at gordon's restaurant dropped by 64 percent that day and never went back up and do you think that this is uh being shaped by a desire for image management uh that i care what the you know the receptionist at the restaurant thinks and i don't want her to think less of me or do you think it's primarily about how i think of myself i have made a commitment to the restaurant to show up on time and so i need to call if i'm actually going to cancel it is both of those things you want to see yourself as a person who lives up to his or her commitments and it's in private that you make a commitment you get a significant increase but if it's in public you get a much larger increase in congruency of a subsequent behavior the one that produces the biggest leap forward in terms of compliance it's the public commitment one of the techniques that follows from this principle is something called the foot in the door technique what is the foot in the door technique it's a technique that was uh uncovered back in the 60s by uh jonathan friedman in which he asked people to make a small initial step in a particular direction and after they had done so ask them to behave in a way that was consistent with that step later the interesting thing is that if they had made that first step they were significantly more likely to say yes to the larger request than if they hadn't been asked to make the small step first so the classic study was people in palo alto california friedman was at sanford at the time they were asked to take a small to put a small sign in their window of their car or their home that said please drive safely national driver safety some were asked to do so others of their neighbors were not asked to do that then a week later somebody came to their homes and asked them to put a big sign on their lawn promoting driver safety week those people who put the small sign on in their window were significantly more likely to put a large sign on their lawn because it was congruent with what they had already committed themselves i mean isn't it interesting if i ask you for a small favor and you say yes to me and i come back to you and i'll ask you for a big favor i've actually asked you for two favors now but you become more likely to say yes to the second favor and the first favor if you said yes to the first favor then if i only asked you about the second favor that's kind of astonishing it is astonishing but the key is that the second favor has to be logically congruent with the first one so you see yourself as being consistent now which is a powerful motive because of course if you say no to the second then it asks you to ask yourself the question well why would that sign up on my window in the first place do i not really believe in it am i a hypocrite do i not really care about driver safety all these questions have to pop in your head and we want to be consistent we want to have views of ourselves as having coherent choices positions attitudes and so on you have a friend bob who has been especially successful in job interviews what does your friend do when he sits down in a job interview this is an individual who had been relatively unsuccessful before in getting successful job interviews and he decided to do a small thing that changed the profile of his successes usually what he would do at the beginning of an interview with one person or sometimes it's two or three individuals who are evaluating he would say i'm very happy that you had me come in and i want to answer all of your questions and then he would add but i'm curious about something i wonder if you could answer a question for me why did you invite me here what was it about my resume about my qualifications about my background that caused you to invite me and he would hear them make commitments to his traits and values and fit and then they would continue to be consistent with those positive comments they made and he said he's gotten three better jobs in a role by using this commitment and consistency strategy when bob first published his book about influence in 1984 he stopped there he said he had found six main techniques of influence scarcity reciprocity liking social proof authority and commitment and consistency but as time went on he noticed one more you can see this form of influence come election time it's something bob calls the principle of unity i started to see the literature in behavioral science on the effects of belonging to a particular social identity category that would cause people to feel very positively toward those to whom they could use the word we who are we in its religious denominations political parties neighborhoods communities all kinds of we groups exist we the people we never bow we never bend we never break and above all else we know this in america we don't worship government we worship god yes we can yes we can yes we can and if a communicator can convince me that he or she is is not just like me but one of me of us that lends itself to influence i am much more likely to be influenced by the suggestions requests proposals recommendations of that sort of person very often that's a way that people use to decide what they should do what are the people who i am of doing in this situation i want to make a distinction between simply being like someone and being of or one of that person's group certainly when we're talking about political campaigns you see this in spades which is that people are essentially making pleas just saying if you're one of us this is what you would support if you're one of us this is how you should vote if you're one of us this is the candidate that you should go out and vote for and both work but it's the unity principle that i think is the most powerful one is about identity shared identity it's something in which you feel that you you share a we category with those individuals that's very powerful we we favor and we follow those individuals with whom we share identities social or personal identities recently bob discovered an affinity for someone he shares an identity with the rapper lil wang i grew up in wisconsin the national football league team in wisconsin that i had always favored was green bay packers still is the green bay packers and i saw an article in the newspaper a few months ago that said what the famous celebrities were for each of the team that supported each of the teams and justin timberlake and lil wang were avid green bay packer fans like me younger i immediately felt better about their music and this is the key for influence i wanted them to succeed more than before after i learned that like me they were avid green bay packer fans yeah they shared an identity with me and it made me favorable to them what do you think is actually happening here the fact that the two of you like the same sports teams the rationalist would say what does it have to do with whether you like their music or not but what's the connection about the connection is that we share a group identity so and that's been the way we've evolved that to favor those who are in our group because typically there we were genetically related in our small groups our bands and clans and so on so where we find the sense of groupiness we want to benefit those who share our genetic makeup i understand that you were once completing a grant application with a very short deadline and you were trying to get the help of a colleague and that help was not forthcoming and you decided to use one of your own techniques to try and elicit some of that help tell me the story what happened so i was writing a grant proposal it was due the next day i was reviewing it one last time and i came to one section and i realized i really didn't have the evidence to support my contentions in that place but i had a colleague let's call him tim wasn't his name who had done a study the year before and had collected evidence that was indeed supportive and i thought well i'm going to write to tim and tell him the situation that i have this grant proposal to the next day uh there's a weakness you have some data in your archives i'm going to phone you and see if we can arrange for you to get those data send them to me so i can get into my proposal before the deadline now tim was known to be a sour kind of irascible guy not not a guy who's very agreeable or likable i called him and he said bob i know why you're calling and the answer is no the answer is no look you're a busy man you have a deadline i'm a busy man i have deadlines i can't help you with your poor time management skills bob before i saw all this research on group identity and unity i would have said come on tim this is due tomorrow i really need this well he had already said no to that so i said come on tim i really need this we've been members of the same psychology department now for 12 years and chakra i had the data that afternoon i raised our collective identity to consciousness here this is what we do for one another when we come back how these powerful techniques of influence can be used for good and for evil you're listening to hidden brain i'm shank harry danton between packing passports and racing to check in holiday practically well pure chaos but your travel money that you can take off long before you leave pop into your local post office today to sort your travel money into either cash or card instantly and now on post will even buy back your unused cash when you return if you haven't spent it on ice cream service visit your local post office today on post money making better happen on post money currency card is issued by ppsc usa pursu to license by mastercard international ppsc usa is authorized by national bank account is regulated by the central bank of consumer collection rules on post is authorized by the minister for finance provide foreign currency cash fx cash live available in selected post offices for purchase selected notes only this is hidden brain i'm shankar vedantam in his book influence bachaldini writes about the psychology of persuasion he describes seven techniques that we can use to influence those around us these tools can be applied in many areas of life and they can be used for good ends and for bad ones social proof for example can be used to help people cut back on energy consumption well the way in which i think it can be used in a policy-based setting it has to do with some work that we have done with an organization called opower they work with power companies and we send to their customers information about how where they stand relative to their neighbors in energy consumption that has been remarkably successful in the 10 years in which opower has been in business it causes people to reduce their energy consumption when they are above the norm it has prevented 36 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the environment since we've begun this strategy can you think of a way of using um social proof in a way that would be problematic or unethical yeah rather than pointing to its existence you inform people by lying with statistics of the amount of support for your position that would be unethical so in other words if i basically communicate to people the vast number of people support this proposition or that proposition it's a way of basically manipulating people into supporting the proposition that i want them to support when in fact that the underlying truth of that might not be might not be accurate exactly what one of our former presidents is often recorded saying many people say this a lot of people said i won and i'm very happy about that it's always nice to hear that but many of your cohorts have said i won this most people said i won it i think you believe that too a lot of people are saying they had spies in my campaign or a lot i've heard from a lot of people without ever documenting those numbers or the reality of those people but that's a common approach it's not just politics this kind of manipulation happens all the time on social media take the example of click farms from instagram accounts with thousands of likes and followers to facebook posts that go viral overnight ever wonder if it's actually legit and what could be behind those crazy spikes enter the world of click farms undercover operations where actual people are paid to monitor hundreds of phones clicking on posts following accounts liking photos and watching videos all to drive up fake traffic the idea here is that more followers equals more popularity more popularity equals proof that others should also follow them social proof drives virality you can think of similar positive and negative forms of manipulation using the influence principle of consistency there's some good research that shows that charity agencies that simply remind people that they have been generous in the past, let's say, with the flood victims in Bangladesh. You remind them of their history and commitment to pro-social action, then ask them to help the hurricane victims in Miami, and they're more willing to do so, just because you've reminded that you brought to consciousness their commitment to pro-sociality.
I'm wondering, you know, when I think about politics, it feels like very often we castigate politicians when they change their minds on something. When someone says, I believe X, but now I believe Y. Of course, when you think about it, which would you actually prefer? Would you prefer the politician who believes X and never changes his or her mind for the next 30 years, or would you prefer someone who says, I believe X, but now new information has come in, I'm going to revise my opinion to Y.
And it feels as if the norm of consistency is actually something that we punish people with. And we sort of say, you know, this person is a flip-flopper if they change their minds. I'm not sure that it's necessarily a misuse of consistency. No one's actually manipulating us in that sense.
But in some ways, it's a misapplication of the principle in a domain where actually it's not providing probably good results. Right. I like the way you characterize someone who would move as someone who said, well, there's no information that's come into the system. With that, I prefer that politician.
Provided I agree that the information is valid, that's the sort of person I want to be making judgments based on the current and valid evidence. But people who say, well, I've changed my mind now. I don't feel that way that I said I did. But they don't tell you why.
That's somebody who's just flipping to attract voters. The political sphere is right with efforts to influence and manipulate. Political actors use their authority to get their way. They use commitment and consistency to lobby their colleagues.
And they use the principle of unity to appeal to potential voters. It's a we versus they argument that people make. If the other side is saying it, then we don't want to do it. If our side is taking this position, it really almost doesn't matter what the merits of it is.
It's one of us. And so we must align ourselves with those we members. Do you hear politicians doing this in their speeches, in their messaging? All the time.
All the time. Isn't it the case that that's what we hear them doing? Don't be like the other people who are against us and not of us. Be like us.
I'm wondering, as someone who has thought about these ideas for a long time, how have you come to think about these techniques? And are you worried? Do you worry at all of these techniques, these ideas, which of course can be used for both good and evil, might end up being used for evil rather than good? I do worry about it.
I claim that the one way that we can insulate ourselves from this kind of unethical approach is to only use the principles that we can point to in the situation that are naturally inherently there. Is there true social proof? You're allowed to point to it. Is there true scarcity?
Yes. Bring that to consciousness. Is there true authority that's aligned with the position? Yes.
Make that available to people. That is informing them into assent. It's not tricking them or deceiving them or perusing them. It's manipulative to fake the presence of one or another of these principles in a situation.
Whenever we come across an instance of one of those corporations, one of those marketers, one of those advertisers who is using one of the principles unethically, we have to call them out. We have to go online and let them know and the people might patronize their products or services, what we have experienced and penalize them for it. That's the way I would, I think, make a clear distinction. I'm wondering if there's a wrap-up idea that you want to leave people with as they think about the world of influence and persuasion because of course, it's not as if we can live our lives without being influencers and persuaders.
Even if we're not politicians or public figures, we're always influencing and persuading other people and always being influenced and persuaded by other people. How should we think about these ideas that you spend these many decades setting them up? Well, first we have to know what are the major influences on the influence process and then I'm going to revert to what I was saying about the importance of employing them only by bringing attention to them where they naturally reside in the influence setting. If we do that, I don't know who loses under those circumstances.
We're a better culture as a result. Robert Cialdini is the author of Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion. Bob, thank you for joining me today on Hidden Brain. I enjoyed it.
We're thinking of trying something new today. Many listeners email us with thoughts and questions after episodes run. We're exploring the possibility of regular follow-up conversations in which our listeners can pose their questions to our guests. If you have questions or thoughts about our series with Bob Cialdini and are willing to have those questions shared with a larger Hidden Brain audience, please record a voice memo on your phone and email it to us at ideas at hiddenbrain.org.
60 seconds is plenty. Please remember to include your name and a phone number where we can reach you. Again, email the question to us at ideas at hiddenbrain.org and use the subject line Persuasion Episodes. Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media.
Our audio production team includes Bridget McCarthy, Annie Murphy-Paul, Kristen Wong, Laura Querell, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes, and Andrew Chapik. Tara Boyle is our executive producer. I'm Hidden Brain's executive editor. Our Unsung Hero this week comes from our sister podcast, My Unsung Hero.
In the summer of 2008, Rick Magno was making the long commute from his home in the remote mountains of Three Rivers, California, to his job at a community college in the town of Visalia. At the time, he was living in a travel trailer, which was often invaded by the abundant wildlife in the area. He would find bats in his curtains, rattlesnakes under his trailer, and bears at his window. But the one that is most problematic for me are the scorpions.
And they get into everything. They get into cabinets somehow, they get into a drawer with your clothes, and the only way to stop it is to smash them. That particular day, I got up, put my clothes on, got in the car, and started driving. The drive took him down a road that was flanked on both sides by large slabs of granite rock.
All of a sudden, a scorpion that had somehow gotten into his clothes crawled out and stung him on the back. When he tried to smash it, he accidentally yanked the steering wheel down and to the right. And when I looked up, I was looking right at a sheer granite embankment. And I hit that rock wall, and I still recall the sensation of my Honda Civic going airborne.
And I can feel it now, feeling the car flip in the air, just feeling being upside down in my seatbelt. And about that time, an old white Ford pickup going the other direction pulled over across the road from me. And two Hispanic guys jumped out. And one of them directed the other one to go up around the corner of the road to slow traffic down and direct it around me because I was in the middle of the lane.
And the other one came across the street. I don't remember what he said or what I said, but he didn't speak more than a couple of words of English. And he put his hand on my shoulder. And I tried to tell him he could go.
Rick worried that the two men were undocumented. So I thought he probably should get out of there because I called 911 and Highway Patrol would be coming and could get questioned or picked up. I had no idea what would happen. So I tried to reassure him that I was okay, but he would have none of it.
He just stood with me. And he stood there with me for maybe 20 minutes, maybe. We didn't have any conversation. But when Highway Patrol showed up, I looked up and this fellow was gone.
The truck was gone. They just melted away. I wish I had thanked him. I wish I thanked him.
See you soon.