Clearer Thinking with Spencer Greenberg

Are the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" interchangeable? Are people suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) naturally violent? Are people usually born with these psychopathy, sociopathy, ASPD, or other similar personality disorders; or are they caused by environmental factors? To what extent do sociopaths have a sense of self or relatively fixed personality? Are sociopaths easily manipulated? How do shame and guilt differ? What is "gray rage"? To what extent do the primary "dark" personality traits (narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and sadism) overlap? From an evolutionary perspective, why might these traits appear in a population? Can (and should) people cooperate altruistically with sociopaths? Why do we treat crimes of passion less harshly than premeditated crimes? (For example, why do people found guilty of sudden, impulsive murder usually receive lighter sentences than people found guilty of premeditated murder?) Are sociopaths more or less impulsive than the average person? How prevalent are antisocial personality disorders? Are sociopaths more likely to commit crimes than the average person? What factors motivate the average person to avoid unethical behaviors, and which of these factors do sociopaths lack? Do sociopaths lie about the same kinds of things as "normies"? Do sociopaths naturally enjoy hurting other people? Are sociopaths able to feel happiness? How do sociopaths' sexual behaviors and orientations differ from normies'? Since the majority of violent crime in the world is perpetrated by young men, is the average young man basically a sociopath or psychopath? How easily can sociopaths identify one another? If someone thinks they might be a sociopath (or have any of the other "dark" personality traits), what should they do? How should sociopaths be integrated into society?M.E. Thomas is a practicing attorney who has advocated for equal rights and a better understanding of psychopaths since being diagnosed with psychopathy in 2010. She is the author of the book Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight. You can find her at sociopathworld.com.Further reading:PsychopathyIsStaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. How much more robust have the social sciences become since the beginnings of the replication crisis? What fraction of replication failures indicate that the original result was a false positive? What do we know with relative certainty about human nature? How much of a difference is there between how people behave in a lab setting and how they behave out in the world? Why has there been such a breakdown of trust in the sciences over the past few decades? How can scientists better communicate uncertainty in their findings to the public? To what extent are replication failures a problem in the other sciences? How useful is the Implicit Association Test (IAT)? What does it mean if someone can predict how they'll score on the IAT? How do biases differ from associations? What should (and shouldn't) the IAT be used for? Why do replications often show smaller effect sizes than the original research showed? What is the Lifecycle Journals project?Brian Nosek co-developed the Implicit Association Test, a method that advanced research and public interest in implicit bias. Nosek co-founded three non-profit organizations: Project Implicit to advance research and education about implicit bias, the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science to improve the research culture in his home discipline, and the Center for Open Science (COS) to improve rigor, transparency, integrity, and reproducibility across research disciplines. Nosek is Executive Director of COS and a professor at the University of Virginia. Nosek's research and applied interests aim to understand why people and systems produce behaviors that are contrary to intentions and values; to develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to align practices with values; and, to improve research credibility and cultures to accelerate progress. Connect with him on Bluesky or LinkedIn, or learn more about him on the COS website. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. Why do we suffer? Would we still suffer if we got rid of all craving and aversion? Is pain the same thing as suffering? How is suffering connected to the concept of self? Should people in horrible situations attempt to remove themselves from those environments or try to improve their plights in any way; or should they merely free themselves from suffering by releasing their "craving" for well-being and their "aversion" to misery? Why would the dissolution of the self free someone from suffering? Are we identical to our bodies and/or minds? Is attention the same thing as the self? Is the concept of "no-self" analytical or empirical? How does "flow" differ from distraction? Is it irrational to pursue our own happiness without regard for others? How and where do Buddhist ethics overlap with the ethics taught by (e.g.) Abrahamic religions? What are the roles of meditators in Buddhist monasteries? What do Buddhists believe about god(s)? What do they believe about reincarnation? Is reincarnation different from rebirth? What is the role of the Buddha himself in Buddhism? Can these concepts be understood and/or experienced without meditating or studying Buddhist texts?Jay L. Garfield is Doris Silbert Professor in the Humanities and Professor of Philosophy and Buddhist Studies at Smith College, Visiting Professor of Buddhist philosophy at Harvard Divinity School, Professor of Philosophy at Melbourne University, and Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies. Garfield’s research addresses topics in the foundations of cognitive science and the philosophy of mind; metaphysics; the history of modern Indian philosophy; topics in ethics, epistemology, and the philosophy of logic; the philosophy of the Scottish enlightenment methodology in cross-cultural interpretation; and topics in Buddhist philosophy, particularly Indo-Tibetan Madhyamaka and Yogācāra. He is the author or editor of over 30 books and over 200 articles, chapters, and reviews. A few of his most recent books include How to Lose Yourself: An Ancient Guide to Letting Go (with Maria Heim and Robert Sharf 2024), Losing Ourselves: Learning to Live without a Self (2022), and Knowing Illusion: Bringing a Tibetan Debate into Contemporary Discourse (with the Yakherds 2021), and Buddhist Ethics: A Philosophical Exploration (2021). Learn more about him at his website, jaygarfield.org. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. What are the differences between tactics and strategies? Is the speed of growth of a company the main thing business school graduates should consider when trying to figure out where to launch their careers? How much optimism or pessimism should strategies include? How can we gain footholds for change in systems that are very strongly self-reinforcing? Is it possible to change a system's side effects without changing its purpose? What are the differences between strategies and visions? Is it better to follow a map or a compass? If you buy a lottery ticket and win big, was it a good decision? What are some of the most common mistakes leaders make when developing a strategy? How simple or complex should strategies be? What are the benefits of being able to speak a strategy out loud? How can leaders know when to modify or even abandon a strategy? How can entrepreneurs know if their starting strategy is a good one? To what extent is creativity required for good strategy design? What are the three big principles of marketing? Is all marketing unethical? Is it unethical to market a placebo? How are status and affiliation related? What is the single most important thing a team can do when developing a strategy?Seth Godin is an entrepreneur, best-selling author, speaker, and teacher. In addition to launching one of the most popular blogs in the world, he has written 21 best-selling books, including The Dip, Linchpin, Purple Cow, Tribes, and What To Do When It's Your Turn (And It's Always Your Turn). His book, This Is Marketing, was an instant bestseller in countries around the world. His new book, out in 2024, is This Is Strategy. Though renowned for his writing and speaking, Seth also founded two companies: Squidoo and Yoyodyne (acquired by Yahoo!). He's credited as the inventor of email marketing (the good kind). He has given five TED talks, including two that rank among the most popular of all time. In 2013, Seth was one of just three professionals inducted into the Direct Marketing Hall of Fame; and in 2018, he was inducted into the Marketing Hall of Fame as well. He might be the only person in both. Learn more about him at his website, sethgodin.com, read his blog posts at seths.blog, or pick up his most recent book, This Is Strategy: Make Better Plans. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. What is "mindful" productivity? Is impostor syndrome linked to main character syndrome? Must increased productivity always come with an increased risk of burn-out? What mistakes do people most commonly make when trying to improve their productivity? Is the best productivity system also the most minimal? What is "plus-minus-next"? How can we use our time more efficiently? What does it mean to have an "experimental" mindset? How many of our passions do we discover at first sight? What are the differences between habits and routines? What are some good ways to set up self-experiments? How important is quantification in self-experiments? How often should we expect self-experiments to yield useful results? What does it look like to exhibit "systematic" curiosity?Anne-Laure Le Cunff is an award-winning neuroscientist, entrepreneur, and writer. She is the founder of Ness Labs, where her weekly newsletter about mindful productivity and systematic curiosity is read by more than 100,000 curious minds. Her research at King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, & Neuroscience focuses on the psychology and neuroscience of lifelong learning, curiosity, and adaptability. Her upcoming book, Tiny Experiments, is a transformative guide for living a more experimental life, turning uncertainty into curiosity, and carving a path of self-discovery. Previously, Le Cunff worked at Google as a global lead for digital health. Her work has been featured in Rolling Stone, Forbes, the Financial Times, WIRED, and more. She serves as an advisor for the Applied Neuroscience Association and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Entrepreneurship on themes of mental health at work. Based in London, she continues in her writing and research to explore the intersection of neuroscience and personal development. Learn more about her research, and sign up for her newsletter, at nesslabs.com. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. Should we give cash directly to people living in poverty? Why do most nonprofits prefer to give services rather than cash? What should be done if the things that a person really needs aren't purchasable near them? (For example, what if a person needs a vaccine that isn't available in their country?) Can most people be trusted to spend money wisely? Are single lump sum transfers more effective than recurring transfers on monthly or yearly bases? What are the most common uses to which recipients put their cash transfers? What are the most common kinds of businesses started by entrepreneurially-minded recipients? What kinds of communities does GiveDirectly serve? How do cash transfers affect social dynamics in communities? What are the biggest challenges related to giving cash transfers? What is the evidence that cash transfers are more effective than other kinds of aid? How are the short- and long-term effects of cash transfers measured? How long do beneficial effects tend to last? Are recipients ever suspicious of GiveDirectly's motives? How often do people opt out of receiving a cash transfer? How does GiveDirectly explain to people why they (and not people in neighboring communities) were chosen to receive aid? How do recipients see their own financial situations? Do they usually see themselves as living in poverty?Dr. Miriam Laker is the Director of Research at GiveDirectly. In her role, she oversees the generation of robust evidence on cash transfer implementation and impacts. She is an advocate for unconditional cash transfers as a tool to end global extreme poverty. She is also a board member of the CALPNetwork and was voted one of Uganda's top 40 women under the age of 40. Connect with her on LinkedIn. Learn more about and connect with GiveDirectly on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, or their website, givedirectly.org. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. What's the reality of how politicians get elected in the US? How much of a role does gerrymandering play? Are Democrats and Republicans equally guilty of gerrymandering? Do the parties secretly collaborate on gerrymandering? Is gerrymandering legal? What determines who wins a primary election? What percent of all government positions are actually contested? What are the five main types of politicians? We use our phones to manage our bank accounts, medical records, and other sensitive information; so why can't we vote from our phones yet? Should prediction markets be allowed to bet on elections? What makes a regulation too lax or too restrictive? When should government provide goods, and when should it provide services? Should today's big tech companies be broken up? Should Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 be repealed? How can AI be used to make government more effective?Bradley Tusk is a venture capitalist, political strategist, philanthropist, and writer. He is the CEO and co-founder of Tusk Ventures, the world's first venture capital fund that invests solely in early stage startups in highly regulated industries, and the founder of political consulting firm Tusk Strategies. Bradley's family foundation is funding and leading the national campaign to bring mobile voting to U.S. elections and also has run anti-hunger campaigns in 24 different states, helping to feed over 13 million people. He is also an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School. Before Vote With Your Phone, Bradley authored The Fixer: My Adventures Saving Startups From Death by Politics and Obvious in Hindsight. He hosts a podcast called Firewall about the intersection of tech and politics, and recently opened an independent bookstore, P&T Knitwear, on Manhattan's Lower East Side. In his earlier career, Bradley served as campaign manager for Mike Bloomberg's 2009 mayoral race, as Deputy Governor of Illinois, overseeing the state's budget, operations, legislation, policy, and communications, as communications director for US Senator Chuck Schumer, and as Uber's first political advisor. Connect with Bradley on Substack and LinkedIn.Further reading:Vote With Your Phone: Why Mobile Voting Is Our Final Shot at Saving Democracy, by Bradley TuskThe Fixer: My Adventures Saving Startups from Death by Politics, by Bradley Tusk"Wisconsin's Legislative Maps Are Bizarre, but Are They Illegal?", by Megan O'Matz (gerrymandering examples)Even futher reading based on the note @ 00:14:00:Article discussing whether or not primaries create more extreme results in U.S. elections: "Are Primaries a Problem?", by Lee DrutmanThese papers find that primary voters are more extreme than general election voters or that primaries promote more extremeness in candidates:"Polarized Primaries and Polarized Legislators: Examining the Influence of Primary Elections on Polarization in the U.S. House", by Lindsay Nielson and Neil Visalvanich"Primaries and Candidates: Examining the Influence of Primary Electorates on Candidate Ideology", by Lindsay Nielson and Neil Visalvanich"Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?", by David W. Brady, Hahrie Han, and Jeremy C. PopeWhereas these papers find that there is little to no difference in polarization between primary voters and general election voters:"Don't Blame Primary Voters for Polarization", by Alan Abramowitz"On the Representativeness of Primary Electorates", by John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, Lynn Vavreck, and Christopher Warshaw StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. Do people need more community in their lives? What makes for a good community? Can you really belong to a community if you don't share its core values? Is social chemistry transitive? Do "communities of belief" form and build trust more quickly than "communities of chemistry"? Do rationalists avoid taking "vibes", intuition, or instinct into account when forming communities? Can you learn how to do a thing simply by pretending that you're a pro? What can you learn about people by breaking the standard social scripts? How might utilitarianism be harmful or even dangerous to those trying to live by it? Does the effective altruism movement attract people who are prone to hyper-extend, over-commit, or over-optimize themselves to a fault? To what extent does effective altruism encourage its practitioners to live in permanent crisis mode? Where does moral obligation come from?Tyler Alterman is a former coalition-builder (effective altruism, reducetarianism, x-risks), a former cognitive science researcher (Yale, UChicago), a former startup-maker (Reserve, The Think Tank), a "former" artist & graphic designer, and a current novel-writer & FractalU co-founder. Learn more about him on his website.Further reading:"Effective altruism in the garden of ends", by Tyler Alterman StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. Why should people host more events than they do right now? Under what conditions shouldn't a person host more events? Do these suggestions apply to introverts? What's the best RSVP tool? What is "double opt-in"? What's the ideal length of time for a social event? What kinds of ice-breaker activities, if any, should hosts use? What are the primary factors that affect people's enjoyment of an event? What does it mean to "compress and release" in an event or party context? Which nights of the week are best for hosting events? When should hosts end the event? What should hosts do if people's energy or enjoyment seems to be flagging? Should everyone get a name tag? How should hosts follow up after an event? What is "the strength of weak ties"? Should events be used as business networking tools? How can someone meet more interesting people?Nick Gray is an entrepreneur and best-selling author living in Austin, Texas. He started and sold two successful companies: Flight Display Systems and Museum Hack. Nick is the author of The 2-Hour Cocktail Party, a step-by-step handbook that teaches you how to build big relationships by hosting small gatherings. Over 75,000 people have watched his TEDx talk about why he hates most museums. He's been featured in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and New York Magazine, which called him a host of "culturally significant parties." Connect with him on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or TikTok; sign up for his newsletter; or learn more about him on his website, nickgray.net.Further reading:The 2-Hour Cocktail Party: How to Build Big Relationships with Small Gatherings, by Nick GrayThe Art of Gathering: How We Meet and Why It Matters, by Priya Parker StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. How much progress has psychology made on the things that matter most to us? What are some psychological findings we feel pretty confident are true? How much consensus is there about the Big 5 personality traits? What are the points of disagreement about the Big 5? Are traits the best way of thinking about personality? How consistent are the Big 5 traits across cultures? How accurately do people self-report their own personality? When are psychophysical measures more or less useful than self-report measures? How much credence should we lend to the concept of cognitive dissonance? What's the next phase of improvement in the social sciences? Has replicability improved among the social sciences in, say, the last decade? What percent of papers in top journals contain fraud? What percent of papers in top journals are likely unreplicable? Is it possible to set the bar for publishing too high? How can universities maintain a high level of quality in their professors and researchers without pressuring them so hard to publish constantly? What is the simpliest valid analysis for a given study?Simine Vazire's research examines whether and how science self-corrects, focusing on psychology. She studies the research methods and practices used in psychology, as well as structural systems in science, such as peer review. She also examines whether we know ourselves, and where our blind spots are in our self-knowledge. She teaches research methods. She is editor-in-chief of Psychological Science (as of 1 Jan, 2024) and co-founder (with Brian Nosek) of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science. Learn more about her and her work at simine.com.Further reading:"How Replicable Are Links Between Personality Traits and Consequential Life Outcomes? The Life Outcomes of Personality Replication Project", by Christopher J. Soto"Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies", by Joel, Eastwick, Allison, and WolfNote from Spencer: I misremembered this study as trying to predict breakups when actually the variable they found they couldn't predict is change in relationship-quality over time. The authors said that "relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables". StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. What mistakes do investors make when trying to predict which startups will succeed? Which matters more: a startup's team or its central idea? How do startup founders differ from other capitalists? What makes something a "pattern-breaking" idea or behavior? Are startup founders less sensitive to negative feedback than the average person? Is it possible to achieve startup success without challenging the status quo? Is it true that 90% of startups fail? What is founder-future match? At their core, what are movements? Can startup founders be too good at storytelling? Has the US become less innovative? What are Singapore and Israel doing right that enables them to have the highest number of "unicorn" startups per million people? What's the right amount of "shaking things up"?Mike Maples, Jr. is an entrepreneur, venture capitalist, podcaster, and the co-founder of FLOODGATE, a leading seed stage fund in Silicon Valley that invested in companies like Twitter, Twitch, Okta, and Outreach at the very beginning of their startup journeys. An eight-time member of the Forbes Midas List of Top Venture Capital investors, he was one of the pioneers of the seed investing movement, which started in the mid-2000s, and now is a mainstream part of startup funding. Follow him on Twitter at @m2jr.Further reading:Pattern Breakers: Why Some Start-Ups Change the Future, by Mike Maples StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. What sorts of decisions are we making without even realizing we're making them? Are people aware of their own values? Do they know how those values rank relative to each other? What are all the various parties, interests, and values that have to be addressed and balanced when making decisions in a healthcare context? What does it mean to "play-test" yourself? What are the best strategies for giving feedback? How much energy is required to make various kinds of decisions? How can we practice and get better at decision-making? What is "tabletop exercising"? What are the most effective ways to bring other people into the decision-making process? What are some aspects of games that ought to be put to good use in non-game contexts? Why are educational games usually neither fun nor educational? How can game design features be used in ways that avoid turning metrics into targets? How can we make better decisions about how to divvy up our time?Dr. Dan Epstein is a practicing medical doctor and academic PhD focusing on decision-making and game design. Dan is the director of The Long Game Project, which helps businesses and leaders improve strategy and decision-making with games and tabletop exercises. Dan is also an ambassador for Giving What We Can, a community of people who pledge to donate a portion of their income to effective causes; and he's a member of High Impact Athletes, a community of current and past athletes who do the same. Follow him on Twitter at @drdanepstein, email him at email@longgameproject.org, connect with him on LinkedIn, or learn more about his work at longgameproject.org.Further reading:The Long Game Project newsletterThe Long Game Project YouTube channelFoundations of Tabletop Exercising: Design Exercises for Real Impact — a free course taught by Dan StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. Why do there seem to be more dystopias than utopias in our collective imagination? Why is it easier to find agreement on what we don't want than on what we do want? Do we simply not know what we want? What are "solved worlds", "plastic worlds", and "vulnerable worlds"? Given today's technologies, why aren't we working less than we potentially could? Can humanity reach a utopia without superintelligent AI? What will humans do with their time, and/or how will they find purpose in life, if AIs take over all labor? What are "quiet" values? With respect to AI, how important is it to us that our conversation partners be conscious? Which factors will likely make the biggest differences in terms of moving the world towards utopia or dystopia? What are some of the most promising strategies for improving global coordination? How likely are we to end life on earth? How likely is it that we're living in a simulation?Nick Bostrom is a Swedish-born philosopher with a background in theoretical physics, computational neuroscience, logic, and artificial intelligence, along with philosophy. He's been a Professor at Oxford University, where he served as the founding Director of the Future of Humanity Institute from 2005 until its closure in April 2024. He is currently the founder and Director of Research of the Macrostrategy Research Initiative. Bostrom is the author of over 200 publications, including Anthropic Bias (2002), Global Catastrophic Risks (2008), Human Enhancement (2009), and Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014). His work has pioneered many of the ideas that frame current thinking about humanity's future (such as the concept of an existential risk, the simulation argument, the vulnerable world hypothesis, the unilateralist's curse, etc.), while some of his recent work concerns the moral status of digital minds. His most recent book, Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Solved World, was published in March of 2024. Learn more about him at his website, nickbostrom.com. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. How much energy is needed for GDP growth? Would our civilization have developed at the same rate without fossil fuels? Could we potentially do the same things we're currently doing but with significantly less energy? How different would the world look if we'd developed nuclear energy much earlier? Why can't anything go faster than light? Will the heat death of the universe really be "the end" for everything? How can difficult concepts be communicated in simple ways that nevertheless avoid being misleading or confusing? Is energy conservation an unbreakable law? How likely is it that advanced alien civilizations exist? What are S-risks? Can global civilizations be virtuous? What is panspermia? How can we make better backups of our knowledge and culture?Anders Sandberg is a researcher at the Institute for Futures Studies in Sweden. He was formerly senior research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at University of Oxford. His research deals with emerging technologies, the ethics of human enhancement, global and existential risks, and very long-range futures. Follow him on Twitter / X at @anderssandberg, find him via his various links here. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. How hard is it to construct a toaster from scratch? Do we in modern times individually have more knowledge than individuals living 100 or 1,000 years ago? Should corporations be thought of as a kind of emergent artificial intelligence? To what extent are corporations — and more broadly, whole economies — aligned with human values? Which animals experience the smallest amount of existential dread? Are humans at the top of the evolutionary "pyramid"? Is it possible to make a completely harmless car? Or is it even possible to make a completely harmless anything? What are the differences between "Cowboy Earth" and "Spaceship Earth"?Thomas Thwaites is an award-winning design researcher and author of two acclaimed books, The Toaster Project, and Goatman. His sometimes eccentric projects explore the psychological and social impacts of technology as we struggle to find a sustainable future. His work is exhibited at museums and galleries worldwide, and is in the permanent collections of the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, The Boijmans Museum in Rotterdam, and the Banque de France. He has a BSc. in Human Sciences from University College London and an MA in Design Interactions from the Royal College of Art. Learn more about him at his website, thomasthwaites.com.Further reading:The Toaster Project: Or a Heroic Attempt to Build a Simple Electric Appliance from Scratch, by Thomas ThwaitesGoatman: How I Took a Holiday from Being Human (One Man's Journey to Leave Humanity Behind and Become Like a Goat), by Thomas Thwaites StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. What is "apocaloptimism"? Is there a middle ground between apocalypticism and optimism? What are the various camps in the AI safety and ethics debates? What's the difference between "working on AI safety" and "building safe AIs"? Can our social and technological coordination problems be solved only by AI? What is "qualintative" research? What are some social science concepts that can aid in the development of safe and ethical AI? What should we do with things that don't fall neatly into our categories? How might we benefit by shifting our focus from individual intelligence to collective intelligence? What is cognitive diversity? What are "AI Now", "AI Next", and "AI in the Wild"?Adam Russell is the Director of the AI Division at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI). Prior to ISI, Adam was the Chief Scientist at the University of Maryland's Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security, or ARLIS, and was an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland's Department of Psychology. He was the Principal Investigator for standing up the INFER (Integrated Forecasting and Estimates of Risk) forecasting platform. Adam's almost 20-year career in applied research and national security has included serving as a Program Manager at the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), then as a Program Manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (where he was known as the DARPAnthropologist) and in May 2022 was appointed as the Acting Deputy Director to help stand up the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). Adam has a BA in cultural anthropology from Duke University and a D.Phil. in social anthropology from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. He has also represented the United States in rugby at the international level, having played for the US national men's rugby team (the Eagles). StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. How much should we trust social science papers in top journals? How do we know a paper is trustworthy? Do large datasets mitigate p-hacking? Why doesn't psychology as a field seem to be working towards a grand unified theory? Why aren't more psychological theories written in math? Or are other scientific fields mathematicized to a fault? How do we make psychology cumulative? How can we create environments, especially in academia, that incentivize constructive criticism? Why isn't peer review pulling its weight in terms of catching errors and constructively criticizing papers? What kinds of problems simply can't be caught by peer review? Why is peer review saved for the very end of the publication process? What is "importance hacking"? On what bits of psychological knowledge is there consensus among researchers? When and why do adversarial collaborations fail? Is admission of error a skill that can be taught and learned? How can students be taught that p-hacking is problematic without causing them to over-correct into a failure to explore their problem space thoroughly and efficiently?Daniel Lakens is an experimental psychologist working at the Human-Technology Interaction group at Eindhoven University of Technology. In addition to his empirical work in cognitive and social psychology, he works actively on improving research methods and statistical inferences, and has published on the importance of replication research, sequential analyses and equivalence testing, and frequentist statistics. Follow him on Twitter / X at @Lakens.Further reading:Nullius in Verba (Daniel's podcast) StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. What are "WEIRD" cultures? What percentage of the world's population is WEIRD? Why do WEIRD cultures tend to use analytic thinking (as opposed to the wholistic thinking used in non-WEIRD cultures)? Does school make you more intelligent or merely more knowledgeable? Do individualistic cultures tend to innovate more than collectivistic cultures? How does moral reasoning differ between WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures? Is the world becoming more WEIRD? How diverse are non-WEIRD cultures?Joseph Henrich is currently the Ruth Moore Professor of Biological Anthropology in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. Before moving to Harvard, he was a professor of both Economics and Psychology at the University of British Columbia for nearly a decade, where he held the Canada Research Chair in Culture, Cognition, and Coevolution. His research deploys evolutionary theory to understand how human psychology gives rise to cultural evolution and how this has shaped our species' genetic evolution. Using insights generated from this approach, Professor Henrich has explored a variety of topics, including economic decision-making, social norms, fairness, religion, marriage, prestige, cooperation, and innovation. He's conducted long-term anthropological fieldwork in Peru, Chile, and in the South Pacific, as well as having spearheaded several large comparative projects. In 2016, he published The Secret of Our Success (Princeton) and in 2020, The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous (FSG). Learn more about his work here, or follow him on Twitter / X at @JoHenrich. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumJennifer Vanderhoof — TranscriptionistMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. NOTE: Spencer appeared as a guest on The 80,000 Hours Podcast back in March, and this episode is our release of that recording. Thanks to the folks at The 80,000 Hours Podcast for sharing both their audio and transcript with us!Does money make people happy? What's the difference between life satisfaction and wellbeing? In other contexts, critics are quick to point out that correlation does not equal causation; so why do they so often seem to ignore such equations when they appear in research about the relationships between money and happiness? When is hype a good thing? What are some ethical ways to generate hype? What are some signs that someone is an untrustworthy or hurtful person? Are pre-registrations and/or registered reports helping with reproducibility in the social sciences? Should we all maintain a list of principles to help guide our decisions? What are the most common pitfalls in group decision-making? What is "lightgassing"? What kinds of life outcomes can be predicted from a person's astrological sign? How does machine learning differ from statistics? When does retaliatory behavior become pro-social? In what ways do people change when they become parents?Rob Wiblin hosts The 80,000 Hours Podcast, which investigates the world's most pressing problems and what listeners can do to solve them. You can learn more about Rob at robwiblin.com, learn more about his research work at 80000hours.org, and follow him on social media at @robertwiblin. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

Read the full transcript here. Why should we consider slowing AI development? Could we slow down AI development even if we wanted to? What is a "minimum viable x-risk"? What are some of the more plausible, less Hollywood-esque risks from AI? Even if an AI could destroy us all, why would it want to do so? What are some analogous cases where we slowed the development of a specific technology? And how did they turn out? What are some reasonable, feasible regulations that could be implemented to slow AI development? If an AI becomes smarter than humans, wouldn't it also be wiser than humans and therefore more likely to know what we need and want and less likely to destroy us? Is it easier to control a more intelligent AI or a less intelligent one? Why do we struggle so much to define utopia? What can the average person do to encourage safe and ethical development of AI?Kat Woods is a serial charity entrepreneur who's founded four effective altruist charities. She runs Nonlinear, an AI safety charity. Prior to starting Nonlinear, she co-founded Charity Entrepreneurship, a charity incubator that has launched dozens of charities in global poverty and animal rights. Prior to that, she co-founded Charity Science Health, which helped vaccinate 200,000+ children in India, and, according to GiveWell's estimates at the time, was similarly cost-effective to AMF. You can follow her on Twitter at @kat__woods; you can read her EA writing here and here; and you can read her personal blog here.Further reading:Robert Miles AI Safety @ YouTube"The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence", by Tim UrbanUncontrollable: The Threat of Artificial Superintelligence and the Race to Save the World, by Darren McKeeThe Nonlinear NetworkPauseAIDan Hendrycks @ Manifund (AI regrantor)Adam Gleave @ Manifund (AI regrantor) StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumJennifer Vanderhoof — TranscriptionistMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]