The slippage between ideas and science
How do you delineate clearly between ideas and scientific data on your episodes that are less fact based? In a recent episode with Robert Greene, you discussed what kinds of choices we're 'hard wired' for - from eating different foods to choosing different ideas about gender -including the notion that there are of too many choices and that kids feel "overwhelmed" (vs., say, "liberated"). Given that there are scientists who work on these issues, do you plan to cover such issues in a research-based, rather than opinion-based way? I enjoy the exchange of ideas, but worry that they are not sufficiently demarcated as opinions, especially when language like "hard wired" is used.
Magic mushrooms and dreams
The March issue of the Stanford Alumni mag had an article about supervised testing of "Magic Mushrooms" for treatment of PTSD at Stanford. The article included a subject's description of the treatment (that lasted for 6 hours!) and it sounded just like he was describing a dream, and the calming effect was very much like the result of a natural dream. Since you also have had people from the Dement sleep center, that might be an interesting panel discussion...how they are similar, how they differ, is the "trip" an induced waking dream, does this mean that it's possible to create medications to enhance dreaming?