Podcast appearances and mentions of Dan Kahan

I spoke on Human Rationality and Academic Freedom at the Dissident Dialogues event in New York this year. Drawing from my book, Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, I explore why rational thinking is essential yet slowly becoming elusive in our society.Today we have what Dan Kahan calls expressive rationality which is allegiance to a social group, and right or left wing political loyalty - both of which often interfere with reasoned study and dialogue.In an era where academic freedom is under threat, with individuals being canceled or fired for expressing their views, it is crucial to protect and develop our institutions of reason. #Rationality #AcademicFreedom #DissidentDialogues#Rationality #AcademicFreedom #DissidentDialogues #pinker #cognitivepsychology #podcast #psychology #science #stevenpinker #motivation #success #mindset #sound #mind #brain #imagination #languagedevelopment #language #words #magic #memorizing #social #mechanism #humanbehavior #fear #expressions #music #universal #genetics #equalitynow Follow me: Twitter: https://bitly.ws/3eEx6 Facebook: https://web.facebook.com/Stevenpinkerpage/?_rdc=1&_rdr Website: https://stevenpinker.org/

John Jost talks about his childhood, education, cowboys and Indians, the psychology of political conservatism and system justification, the horseshoe theory of political orientation, ideological asymmetries, political polarization, capitalism, fear of socialism, the existence of racial microaggressions, being misunderstood by the left and the right, and the work of Ezra Klein, Mahzarin Banaji, Joshua Greene, Kurt Gray, Dan Kahan, Jonathan Haidt, and Jordan Peterson. My links: Substack: https://ideassleepfuriously.substack.com Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Ideas_Sleep Twitter: https://twitter.com/Ideas_Sleep

Is Big Data able to take decisions for us, humans? In this episode, we talk to the Big Data expert from nPowered, Piotr Jegier about the traps that many of us will encounter as we start to rely more any more on data. We dive into the topic of cognitive biases and try to understand in what domains humans still can't be replaced by AI.IMPORTANT LINKSnPowered - what we doPiotr's twitterFlat Earthers' documentary - BEHIND THE CURVE | Official HD Trailer (2018) | DOCUMENTARY | Film Threat Trailers (YT)Things that correlate, but that does not really mean anything (Spurious Correlations by Tyler Vigen)The software that helps judges make bail decisions, which does not like black peopleJohn Cleese on Creativity, including open vs. closed mode (YT)Modern portfolio theory, ie. making sure your many mistakes of forecasting compensate each other (Wikipedia)Traveling Wilburys, the supergroup and the history behind their nameAn article on The Butterfly Effect and Edward Lorenz's contribution to the Chaos TheoryOn the often-discussed death of strategy in business in these turbulent times - IMD: Strategy is dead? Long live strategic thinking!. Diagnostics, alternatives and choice By Emeritus Professor Paul StrebelAn interesting article on what you might make when you do strategy, includes the strategy statement and the strategic sweet spot: - Can You Say What Your Strategy Is? by David J. Collis and Michael G. RukstadComments by the CEO of T-Mobile Poland on "turning the tanker around"Ethics and addiction in tech product design: How Technology is Hijacking Your Mind — from a Magician and Google Design Ethicist, by Tristan HarrisWhat is the Turing Test? (a short video from Cnet on YT)On the General AI and the control problem (YT) - Can we build AI without losing control over it? | Sam Harris (TED)Confirmation Bias - a good intro by Shahram Heshmat Ph.D. on Psychology TodayA Vox article outlining the work of Dan Kahan on how the (politically) motivated reasoning makes us stupid, and how scientific curiosity can counteract this effectA place where you can learn more on Open Science movement and pre-register your research hypotheses - Center for Open Science - preregister your hypothesesAI Control Problem (Wikipedia)An episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast, "The Destroyer of Worlds" on the difficult and risky early years of the nuclear cold war on EarthA selection of 10 particularly non-obvious "For Dummies" booksAn inspiring introduction and overview of Getting Things Done method (and book) by its creator, David Allen, on Google Tech TalksAn accessible and irreverent discussion of the Extended Mind article by Andy Clark and David Chalmers and the distributed cognition concept, on the Very Bad Wizards podcastPeter Thiel's favorite job interview question, as written up by QuartzThe original article on the primacy and precedence of (moral) emotions compared to reasoning - more accessible writeups are also easy to find online - The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment, Jonathan Haidt, University of Virginia

In this episode, our guest is Dan Kahan about his research into how people consume and interpret science news. In an era of fake news, motivated reasoning, and alternative facts, important questions need to be asked about how people understand new information. Dan is a member of the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale University, a group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs. In a paper titled Cultural cognition of scientific consensus, Dan and co-authors Hank Jenkins‐Smith and Donald Braman discuss the "cultural cognition of risk" and establish experimentally that individuals tend to update their beliefs about scientific information through a context of their pre-existing cultural beliefs. In this way, topics such as climate change, nuclear power, and conceal-carry handgun permits often result in people. The findings of this and other studies tell us that on topics such as these, even when people are given proper information about a scientific consensus, individuals still interpret those results through the lens of their pre-existing cultural beliefs. The ‘cultural cognition of risk’ refers to the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values. The study presents both correlational and experimental evidence confirming that cultural cognition shapes individuals’ beliefs about the existence of scientific consensus, and the process by which they form such beliefs, relating to climate change, the disposal of nuclear wastes, and the effect of permitting concealed possession of handguns. The implications of this dynamic for science communication and public policy‐making are discussed.

On Season 2, Episode 10 of Hyperlink Radio, it's Part 2 of The Seventh Generation—our two-part special on climate change. Host David Grabowski walks us through the underlying issues of the climate change crisis which he asserts isn't climate change itself, but the political stalemate that's blocking nationwide action. To get to the bottom of things, David is joined by Dan Kahan—the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law & Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School and head of the Cultural Cognition Project. Much of Dan's research has focused on the political polarization around climate change and getting to the root of why it exists. The answers will probably surprise you. David also chats with Valerie Bane—she's the Chapter Leader for the Sacramento Chapter of Citizen's Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan group that advocates for political climate change action through a measure called Carbon Fee and Dividend. Valerie explains what that is and why it might be the best bipartisan political measure for lowering emissions in America. The movement to fight climate change may be the most important period in human history, David summarizes. If you're a concerned citizen, this is the episode for you! (Don't miss out on Part 1 if you haven't heard it yet.)

I det här avsnittet pratar Christer Sturmark med Dan Kahan som är professor i juridik och psykologi. I sin forskning har Dan Kahan upptäckt att vi människor bedömer fakta på olika sätt beroende av vilken värdegrund vi har, så kallad "motivated reasoning". Han har kunnat visa att vi inte är objektiva när vi analyserar fakta utan att vi väger in huruvida de talar för eller emot vår grunduppfattning.

Do you have strong views on climate change, taxes, health care, or gun control? Do you think the evidence and reason support your side of the debate? How do you know you’re right? David and Tamler discuss a recent paper by Dan Kahan and colleagues showing how prone people are to make errors in processing information to favor positions they are predisposed to believe. And even more shocking: the higher your numeracy skills, the more prone you are to fall prey to this bias. So how do we correct for this? Can we know anything at all with any confidence? Could it be that 'Are You There God? It’s Me Margaret' in not in fact a completely accurate depiction of how young girls think about puberty? Plus, we decide whether to join Neil deGrasse Tyson as a citizen of Rationalia. To paraphrase Mr. T, I pity the newscasters!LinksReflections on Rationalia by Neal deGrasse Tyson [facebook.com]Vulcan learning pods from Star Trek (2009). [youtube.org]Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2013). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper, (307). [uoregon.edu]Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568. [phi.org]

How well do you know your Rocky quotes? Super fan and broadcaster Dan Kahan joins in or a roundtable Rocky discussion and quizzes Rocky's famous lines to Ryan, Ruban and Kyle Pederson. 

Why do people stand in line? Or is it “on line”? Of course it isn’t. But the question remains. We talk with Dave Fagundes, scholar of, among many other things, roller derby, who has written the cutting edge article on why we form lines even without laws requiring them. Discussion ranges from cronuts to rock bands to carpool lanes to phone apps. This show’s links: Dave Fagundes’s faculty profile and writing The decision in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center and Steve Vladeck’s reaction, Steve’s having discussed this case in episode 38 David Fagundes, Waiting in Line: Norms, Markets, and the Law Episodes 31 and 32, in which there are links and discussion concerning the “knee defender” controversy and airline seat reclining David Fagundes, Talk Derby to Me: Intellectual Property Norms Governing Roller Derby Pseudonyms A stachexchange thread about standing “in line” vs. “on line” The word “spendy” dates from 1911 at the latest How Y’all, Youse and You Guys Talk, a quiz to see your personal dialect map Hella Blitzgeral, roller derbyist Lisa Bernstein, Opting out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry Robert Ellickson, Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute Resolution Among Neighbors in Shasta County (and more in his book, Order Without Law) Philosophy Bites: Lisa Bortolotti on Irrationality Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell, Fairness versus Welfare: Notes on the Pareto Principle, Preferences, and Distributive Justice Leon Mann, Queue Culture: The Waiting Line as a Social System About cronuts Carol Rose, Possession as the Origin of Property Thomas Merrill and Henry Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle An example of a “queuing app” About the “tit for tat” strategy and its connection to human nature in Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation An excerpt on social norms from Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational The excerpt on videphones from David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest; see also Infinite Summer Michael Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (his Tanner Lecture) Lior Strahilevitz, How Changes in Property Regimes Influence Social Norms: Commodifying California's Carpool Lanes David Fagundes, The Pink’s Paradox: Excessively Long Food Lines as Overly Strong Signals of Quality, referring to Pink’s Hot Dogs; see also Sally’s Apizza The set of policies for “Krzyzewskiville,” the grassy lawn at Duke where students line up for days to get basketball tickets Catherine Eade, Diplomatic (Snow) Storm Erupts After American Ambassador to Switzerland Criticises Its Ski Lift Queues About power distance index John Wiseman, Aspects of Social Organisation in a Nigerian Petrol Queue Lior Strahilevitz, Charismatic Code, Social Norms, and the Emergence of Cooperation on the File-Swapping Networks (discussing reciprocity cascades) Dan Kahan, The Logic of Reciprocity: Trust, Collective Action, and Law Felix Oberholzer-Gee, A Market for Time: Fairness and Efficiency in Waiting Lines Stanley Milgram, Response to Intrusion into Waiting Lines Special Guest: Dave Fagundes.

This week we're talking about science and evidence in the political process. We'll talk to Dan Kahan, Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School, about the Cultural Cognition Project, which studies group values and perceptions of risk in science communication. We'll speak to Shane Trimmer, Executive Director of Franklin's List, about their work to elect pro-science candidates. And biologist Katie Gibbs returns with an update on Evidence for Democracy, which advocates for the transparent use of evidence in Canadian government policy.

As two top researchers studying the science of science communication—a hot new field that combines psychology with public opinion research—Dan Kahan and Stephan Lewandowsky agree about most things.There's just one problem. The little thing that they disagree on—whether it actually works to tell people, and especially political conservatives, that there's a "scientific consensus" on climate change—has huge practical significance.In this episode, Kahan and Lewandowsky debate the issue. It also features a discussion of the strange and disturbing disappearance of moose across much of the United States, and of Oprah's recent claim that self-described atheist swimmer Diana Nyad isn't actually an atheist.Subscribe:itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/inquiring-minds/id711675943feeds.feedburner.com/inquiring-minds

Host: Chris Mooney So who's right, factually, about politics and science? Who speaks truth, and who's just spinning? It's kind of the million dollar question. If we could actually answer it, we'd have turned political debate itself into a... well, a science. And is such an answer possible? What does the scientific evidence suggest? In this episode of Point of Inquiry, Chris Mooney brought back a popular guest from last year, Yale's Dan Kahan, to discuss this very question-one that they've been emailing about pretty much continually ever since Kahan appeared on the show. In the episode, Kahan and Mooney not only review but debate the evidence on whether "motivated" ideological biases are the same on both sides of the political aisle—or alternatively, whether they're actually "asymmetrical." Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at the Yale Law School. He's also the Eli Goldston Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. His research focuses on "cultural cognition"-how our social and political group affiliations affect our views of what's true in contested areas like global warming and nuclear power-and motivated reasoning. Before then, he served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, of the U.S. Supreme Court (1990-91) and to Judge Harry Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1989-90).

Host: Chris Mooney Why do Americans claim to love science, but then selectively reject its findings when they're inconvenient? And why do some cultural groups reject certain types of scientific findings (about, say, harm to the environment), whereas others reject others? Yale law professor Dan Kahan is doing some of the most cutting edge work right now when it comes to figuring this out. Kahan is trying to resolve what he has called the "American Culture War of Fact," by determining how it is that our core values-whether we are "individualists" or "communitarians," "hierarchs" or "egalitarians"—can sometimes interfere with our perceptions of reality.  Most intriguingly—or, if you prefer, disturbingly—Kahan has found that deep-seated values even determine who we consider to be a scientific expert in the first place. His results have very large implications for how to depolarize an array of scientific issues-and how to communicate about controversial science in general. Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law at Yale Law School. In addition to risk perception, his areas of research include criminal law and evidence. He has served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court (1990-91) and to Judge Harry Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1989-90).