In the interview with Dan Gilbert, Professor Goodman makes the point that historians, unlike scientists, tend to disagree with the existence of some realistic, absolute, objective timeline of the human past. This makes me curious about where objectivity lies within Dan Gilbert's field of psychology, where individual perception seems to be such an important factor (at least, that's my perception). I would ask him which side he tends towards, that of the historian or that of the scientist? I also wonder how a belief in some objective truth, past or present, factors into his research, and into questions of uncertain in his research. He notes that even if we were able to perfectly predict everything that would happen, how we would feel about those events is more uncertain. It seems that even knowing about some absolute truth that will come to pass does not eliminate the presence of subjectivity, but I'd like to hear Dan Gilbert's discuss this further.