Podcast appearances and mentions of daniel oppenheimer

A session with Terry Real, a marriage and family therapist, can get uncomfortable. He's known to mirror and amplify the emotions of his clients, sometimes cursing and nearly yelling, often in an attempt to get men in touch with the emotions they're not used to honoring.Real says men are often pushed to shut off their expression of vulnerability when they're young as part of the process of becoming a man. That process, he says, can lead to myriad problems in their relationships. He sees it as his job to pull them back into vulnerability and intimacy, reconfiguring their understanding of masculinity in order to build more wholesome and connected families.In this episode, Real explains why vulnerability is so essential to healthy masculinity and why his work with men feels more urgent than ever. He explains why he thinks our current models of masculinity are broken and what it will take to build new ones.This episode was inspired by a New York Times Magazine piece, “How I Learned That the Problem in My Marriage Was Me” by Daniel Oppenheimer.The “Modern Love” podcast team is planning a second episode with Real, focused on fatherhood. He has agreed to give our listeners advice on fatherhood, whether you're an experienced dad, an expecting dad or otherwise dad-adjacent. For example, maybe you want advice on how to parent in a world filled with so many mixed messages about how men should be or on how to repair a mistake you made as a dad. Maybe there are elements of fatherhood you're still figuring out or are unsure of. Record your questions as a voice memo and email them to modernlovepodcast@nytimes.com.Tips for recording: Please avoid recording where there is a lot of background noise. If you are using your smartphone to record your voice memo, please speak into your phone's built-in microphone from a few inches away. Your recording may not be usable if you use Bluetooth earbuds or if you are too close or too far from the phone. It works best when you tell us your story as if you are speaking to a friend rather than reading it from a written statement. Be as concise as you can, and please listen back to it to make sure the recording is complete. You can find further tips for recording here, and find our submission terms here.Here's how to submit a Modern Love essay to The New York Times.Here's how to submit a Tiny Love Story. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

The writer Daniel Oppenheimer and his wife, Jessica, have been going to marriage therapy for many years. But, as he confessed in a recent New York Times magazine piece, he had to go to a superstar councillor to finally recognize that the biggest problem with his marriage was himself. Oppenheimer explains how renowned therapist Terry Real helped them, particularly by teaching him about healthy expressions of power. As with yesterday's show with William Deresiewicz, our conversation expands to broader societal themes about modern masculinity, with Oppenheimer suggesting many men are now struggling with emotional maturity in relationships.Five KEEN ON AMERICA Takeaways with Daniel Oppenheimer* Self-awareness in relationships is crucial - Oppenheimer's confessional essay acknowledges his own reactive behaviors (anger, walking out, saying "f**k you") as primary problems in his marriage.* Men often struggle with emotional maturity - The conversation highlights how many men, including Oppenheimer, have difficulty processing emotions in healthy ways within relationships.* Power dynamics matter in relationships - Therapist Terry Real introduced the concept of "power with" versus "power over," suggesting passive men aren't effective in relationships, but dominating men aren't either.* Cultural representations shape expectations - Oppenheimer discusses how media portrayals of relationships (romantic comedies vs. train wrecks) create unrealistic relationship models without showing the healthy middle ground.* Good relationships require hard work - Despite 18 years of ups and downs, Oppenheimer and his wife chose to stay together, work through their problems, and find a path forward, suggesting commitment and effort are central to lasting relationships.Daniel Oppenheimer is a writer whose features and reviews have been featured in the Washington Post, Texas Monthly, Boston Globe, Slate.com, The Point, Washington Monthly, Guernica, The New Republic, Tablet Magazine, and Salon.com. He received his BA in religious studies from Yale University and an MFA in nonfiction writing from Columbia University. He lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife Jessica and his kids Jolie, Asa, and Gideon.Exit Right, which was published in February 2016 by Simon & Schuster, was his first book. His other book, Far From Respectable: Dave Hickey and His Art, was published in June 2021 by The University of Texas Press. It was reviewed in a variety of places, but the best review (ie the one that said the nice things most persuasively) was this one by Blake Smith.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Valentine's Day, for most people, is a day to celebrate love. For the more neurotic among us, we might be inclined to spend the day analytically dissecting our romantic lives and partnerships. There are conflicting truths about modern relationships: we have to accept that our partners are special, sacred and worth fighting for; and, at the same time, that modern marriage was never meant to be like this. Throughout history, our co-parents, best friends, cooks, nannies and confidants were different people; today, we expect everything from our partner. It's no surprise that couples therapy has risen dramatically, and that the shifting role of men in society—more depressed, anxious and lonely—has played a role in this. Daniel Oppenheimer knows this well. The writer and podcaster recently published a lengthy personal feature in the New York Times Magazine, "How I Learned That the Problem in My Marriage Was Me", in which he details undergoing couples therapy quasi-publicly with the acclaimed therapist Terry Real. He joins Bonjour Chai, our weekly current affairs show, to discuss the importance of taking responsibility for one's actions and the complexities of modern masculinity—especially through the lens of Jewish identity. Credits Hosts: Avi Finegold and Phoebe Maltz Bovy (@BovyMaltz) Production team: Joe Fish (producer & editor), Michael Fraiman (executive producer) Music: Socalled Support The CJN Subscribe to the Bonjour Chai Substack Subscribe to The CJN newsletter Donate to The CJN (+ get a charitable tax receipt) Subscribe to Bonjour Chai (Not sure how? Click here)

Two quick opening notes on this episode of the Eminent Americans podcast:* According to some post by some guy that I read somewhere once, most podcasts don't make it past 20 episodes. This is episode 21, which I take to mean not only that I'm more stubborn and self-absorbed than all those sub-21-ep scrubs—who have appropriately realized by episode 20 that the world doesn't need another podcaster in it—but that this is surely one of those tipping point situations where if you make it past 20, then the next few hundred are all but assured. So I'll be in your life for a while, or at least until you unsubscribe. * This is the second episode in a row in which I flamboyantly refuse to pay any attention to the text that my guest has selected as our topic of conversation. I should probably reconsider my approach to these State of the Discourse episodes. * The opening clip is from Beanie Siegel's “The Truth.”My guest on this episode of the podcast is James Livingston, professor emeritus of history at Rutgers and the author of, among other books, The World Turned Inside Out: American Thought and Culture at the End of the 20th Century and Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, Class, and Corporate Capitalism, 1890-1913. He's currently hard at work on a new book on pragmatism, provisionally titled The Intellectual Earthquake: How Pragmatism Changed the World, 1898-2008.The Mark Edmundson essay we discuss is “Truth Takes a Vacation: Trumpism and the American philosophical tradition.” James's response to it, published on his Substack newsletter Politics, Letters, Persons, is “Pragmatism: An Old Name for a New Kind of Nihilism?”Here's how the AI software Claude describes our conversation. It's basically accurate, but I feel as though it fails to capture the unique essence of our charm and brilliance.This conversation is between Daniel Oppenheimer, the host of the podcast Eminent Americans, and his guest James Livingston, an intellectual historian and professor emeritus at Rutgers University. The main focus of their discussion is pragmatism, the philosophical tradition associated with thinkers like William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Richard Rorty.Livingston argues that pragmatism is still very relevant to American culture and politics. He sees it as a perspective that dismantles traditional dualisms and binary oppositions in favor of more fluid, constructed notions of truth. A key pragmatist idea they discuss is that truths are made by humans rather than existing independently, and that facts cannot be separated from the values and purposes that shape them.They then apply this pragmatist lens to the current polarized political climate in the US. Livingston suggests that the contemporary right-wing, characterized by the "MAGA nation," is motivated by a desire to defend traditional hierarchies and values like male supremacy that are threatened by more egalitarian social changes. He and Oppenheimer debate whether directly confronting this regressive impulse is necessary and desirable.While Oppenheimer is skeptical that heightened politicization and polarization is productive, Livingston argues it is clarifying essential conflicts in American society around issues like racism and sexism. However, they agree that approaching political opponents with empathy and an attempt to understand the experiences and values motivating them is important.Throughout, they reflect on the role of intellectuals and the nature of progress. The conversation showcases the continued relevance of pragmatist ideas for making sense of truth, politics and social change in the United States today. Get full access to Eminent Americans at danieloppenheimer.substack.com/subscribe

Perhaps this year's letter to Santa will reap more benefit than just what's under the tree on Christmas morning. Daniel M. Oppenheimer is a professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon University in the Department of Social and Decision Sciences. He discusses if the pen is indeed mightier than the laptop.

Brew a cup and join Omar and Professor Daniel Oppenheimer for a chat! In today's episode we talk about the science of memory retention. Professor Daniel Oppenheimer walks us through his studies and research in to how to improve your long term and short term memory and whether or or multi tasking is a good thing. Check out our website here! Equipment we use: Microphones: Sennheiser MK4 and Neumann TLM 103 MT Interface: Focusrite Scarlett 8i6 Cables: Kenable XLR 4m cables

The Interview:Dave Hickey was an inspirational character—a writer of essays and songs, an astute art and literary critic, a one-time gallerist and, certainly, an art-world provocateur.Hickey published his two most famous books in the 1990s, The Invisible Dragon—a call to reconsider beauty in art—and Air Guitar, a cult classic essay collection that exposed the more personal and venerable style of cultural criticism.Dave passed away at the age of 82, a few weeks after we recorded this interview with his biographer, Daniel Oppenheimer. Hickey's pariah status had by then waned, but he was the last of a certain school of rebel writers of the 1960s and 1970s who could still churn out consistently good work.Based in Austin, Texas, where Dave got his start as a gallerist—having opened A Clean, Well-Lighted Place in 1967—writer and now biographer Daniel Oppenheimer charts Hickey's life and times in Far From Respectable: Dave Hickey and His Art, a smart, compact biography published by the University of Texas Press.Drawing from first-person interviews with Hickey, his wife and friends, comrades and critics, Oppenheimer helps explain Why Dave Hickey Matters and why we should read him, particularly his essay collections Air Guitar and Pirates and Farmers.With Hickey's passing, this episode has become a tribute to the great Dave Hickey, as much as it was a good conversation with his biographer. He will be missed. But his writing will live on. The Reading: Artist and professor Joel Ross reads a part of “Dealing” from Dave Hickey's essay collection Air Guitar.Music by Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois & Roger Eno

Writer Daniel Oppenheimer joins me to discuss his new book on the legendary art critic Dave Hickey, "Far From Respectable." We explore Hickey's case for the continued vitality of beauty as a criterion for thinking about art and culture, his defense of controversial artist Robert Mapplethorpe and simultaneous critique of Mapplethorpe's other defenders, his aesthetic populism, his abandoned project "Pagan America," and the relevance of all of these to the current cultural panorama. We also explore Hickey's critique of institutions alongside the ironic fact that institutions sustained his best work – and what that might mean for current institutional outsiders in the Substack economy and elsewhere. Daniel's website: http://www.danieloppenheimer.com/ Far From Respectable: https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/oppenheimer-far-from-respectable

This week on Unorthodox, vegemite drama in Israel. Our first guest is Shira Haas, the Israeli actress best known for her starred role on the Netflix series Unorthodox and the Israeli hit Shtisel. She tells us about learning English by watching TV as a kid, how she responds to criticism of Unorthodox's portrayal of Orthodox Judaism, and her upcoming role as Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Our next guest is Daniel Oppenheimer, brother of our host Mark, who returns to the show to tell us about his latest book, an appreciation of the critic Dave Hickey. Send us your stories for our upcoming special episodes. Were you or someone you know a Jewish scout? Do you have stories of apologies given or owed, for our annual Yom Kippur Apology episode? Leave us a voicemail (under a minute long) at (914) 570-4869, or record a voice memo on your phone and email it to unorthodox@tabletmag.com to be featured on the episode. Like the show? Rate us on iTunes! Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to get new episodes, photos, and more. Join our Facebook group, and follow Unorthodox on Twitter and Instagram. Get a behind-the-scenes look at our recording sessions on our YouTube channel! Get your Unorthodox T-shirts, mugs, and baby onesies at bit.ly/unorthoshirt. Want to book us for a live show? Email producer Josh Kross at jkross@tabletmag.com. Check out all of Tablet's podcasts at tabletmag.com/podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Regarded as both a legend and a villain, the critic Dave Hickey has inspired generations of artists, art critics, musicians, and writers. His 1993 book The Invisible Dragon became a cult hit for its potent and provocative critique of the art establishment and its call to reconsider the role of beauty in art. His next book, 1997's Air Guitar, introduced a new kind of cultural criticism--simultaneously insightful, complicated, vulnerable, and down-to-earth--that propelled Hickey to fame as an iconoclastic thinker, loved and loathed in equal measure, whose influence extended beyond the art world. Far from Respectable is a focused, evocative exploration of Hickey's work, his impact on the field of art criticism, and the man himself, from his Huck Finn childhood to his drug-fueled periods as both a New York gallerist and Nashville songwriter to, finally, his anointment as a tenured professor and MacArthur Fellow. Drawing on in-person interviews with Hickey, his friends and family, and art world comrades and critics, Daniel Oppenheimer examines the controversial writer's distinctive takes on a broad range of subjects, including Norman Rockwell, Robert Mapplethorpe, academia, Las Vegas, basketball, country music, and considers how Hickey and his vision of an "ethical, cosmopolitan paganism" built around a generous definition of art is more urgently needed than ever before. _______________________________________________   Produced by Maddie Gobbo, Lance Morgan, & Michael Kowaleski Theme: "I Love All My Friends," an unreleased demo by Fragile Gang. Visit https://www.skylightbooks.com/event for future offerings from the Skylight Books Events team.

➡️ _Leilui nishmat Shmuel ben Rosa_

La migración de sus padres a Argentina. Su niñez en Buenos Aires. Estudios en la yeshiva Jafetz Jaim de Rab Dov Ber Baumgarten y luego en Filadelfia y Jerusalem. Sus ejemplos a seguir. Sucediendo a su padre, Rab Iosef Oppenheimer, como rabino de Ajdut Israel. Análisis de su personalidad y enseñanzas de la misma. Su trabajo en kashrut y la lista de kasher abierto. McDonalds kosher. Amenazas y amedrentamientos. Cuando es correcto adoptar una jumrá (costumbre piadosa que va más allá de lo exigido por la ley). La educación secular (secundaria y universidad), la tecnología y las herramientas que el mundo nos proporciona. Entrevista de Moshi Plotka para la Congregación Sefaradí Yesod Hadat.

Refua shleima para Moshe Shelomo ben Rajel Maria

Refua sheleima para Moshe Shelomo ben Rajel Maria.

The non-profit environmental organization, The Hill Country Alliance plays a vital role in preserving the beauty of the hill country of Texas. Their mission is: “The mission of the Hill Country Alliance is to bring together an ever-expanding alliance of groups throughout a multi- county region of Central Texas with the long-term objective of preserving open spaces, water supply, water quality and the unique character of the Texas Hill Country.” Our guest on Shades of Green is Daniel Oppenheimer, Land Program Manager for the Hill Country Alliance.

Daniel Oppenheimer, PhD, known to all as “Danny,” is a professor of psychology in the Social and Decision Sciences department in the Dietrich College of Humanities & Social Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. This is the third episode in our Carnegie Mellon series, and Danny is a researcher with a wide variety of curiosities. His writings have been published in more than 50 peer-reviewed publications, as well as a number of book chapters and media contributions. Among his notable works, he co-authored Democracy Despite Itself: Why a System That Shouldn’t Work at All Works So Well, published by the MIT Press, and Psychology: A Cartoon Introduction, a cartoon book published by WW Norton on, you guessed it, the simple and humorous aspects of psychology.   He is also an esteemed recipient of the Ig Nobel award for his paper titled “Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly.” Need we say more?   We spoke at length about how a person’s take on helicopter (and submarine) parenting strongly correlates to their view of governance. These findings cross-party affiliation and self-identification as liberal or conservative and can also vary from topic to topic. All in, it’s a fascinating discussion. We recorded our discussion with Danny just a couple of weeks before the 2019 college admissions bribery scandal was brought to light. We discuss the implications of Danny’s observations in our grooving session. Danny shared that he’s lived for long periods without a mobile phone and that he prefers delegating his music selection to radio DJ’s, who might be considered expert in this situation, to bring him new music without the stress of finding it himself. In our grooving session, we returned to helicopter and submarine parenting styles and how they might impact the next generation of entrepreneurship, corporate policies and management styles. We also spend some time on the ways business leaders manage data inputs from various sources and the potential impact these decisions have. We hope you enjoy our discussion with Danny and that you subscribe to Behavioral Grooves at the link below. It’s free!    Links Danny Oppenheimer: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/daniel-oppenheimer.html Carnegie Mellon University: https://www.cmu.edu/  CMU Social and Decision Sciences Department: https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/  “Democracy Despite Itself: Why a System That Shouldn’t Work at All Works So Well” (MIT Press) https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/democracy-despite-itself “Psychology: A Cartoon Introduction,” (WW Norton) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34068488-psychology “Easy does it: The role of fluency in cue weighting,” Anuj K. Shah and Daniel M. Oppenheimer, Princeton University: http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm7730.pdf  “The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity” https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-23933-000   George Lakoff: https://georgelakoff.com/ Jonathan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff: “The Coddling of the American Mind” https://www.thecoddling.com/   Helicopter parenting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent Free-Range parenting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-range_parenting Snowplow parenting: https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-call-their-adult-childrens-bosses-snowplow-parenting-2019-4 Submarine parenting: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unmapped-country/201603/submarine-parenting College Admissions Bribery Scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal Mechanical Turk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Turk Postmodern Jukebox: http://postmodernjukebox.com/home/    Kurt Nelson: @motivationguru and https://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwnelson/ Tim Houlihan: @THoulihan and https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-houlihan-b-e/ Subscribe to Behavioral Grooves: https://behavioralgrooves.podbean.com/

Especial em Espanol - R.Daniel Oppenheimer

Daniel Oppenheimer and I talked about Stephen Elliott’s essay and lawsuit (filed last week) against Moira Donegan and the “Shitty Men in Media” list that Elliott was named in a year ago this week.This one was put together on short notice, and made in part because I couldn’t find written words to express my thoughts on this and it was making me crazy. Here are some stories mentioned in the episode: Elliott’s “How An Anonymous Accusation Derailed My Life”: https://quillette.com/2018/09/25/how-an-anonymous-accusation-derailed-my-life/The news story about the lawsuit: https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/stephen-elliott-sues-moira-donegan.htmlOther “shitty men” respond to the lawsuit: https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/stephen-elliott-moira-donegan-men-respond.htmlWriters respond to the lawsuit: https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/books/writers-condemn-author-stephen-elliott-after-he-sues-creator-of-s-ty-media-men-listOn the possible effects of the suit:https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/stephen-elliott-lawsuit-moira-donegan-spreadsheet-privacy-expert.htmlThe Honest Couretesan’s Maggie McNeill’s “Topping from the Bottom” mentioned & quoted in intro: https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2018/10/15/topping-from-the-bottom/Moira Donegan’s legal defense fundraiser: https://www.gofundme.com/hz8sxqMy “A noisy man on the silence of men” rant:https://medium.com/@15minsjamieb/if-this-reads-like-a-facebook-post-a0fde26a45a7If you want to read Bari Weiss’s Times Opinion Piece, you’ll have to look it up yourself.Please find all our episodes, I’d say all of them more cheery than this one, at http://15minutesjamieberger.comInsta/twitter: @15minsjamiebFeedback? info@15minutesjamieberger.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Confession time…   A few years ago when someone asked me to explain a technical concept and I couldn’t successfully get through to them or didn’t have time, I would send them this link. ;)   And it seemed funny the first couple of times I did it.   It wasn’t until someone did it to me that I realized how obnoxious it was. I eventually stopped asking for them for help, because I knew they weren’t very good at explaining things and didn’t have the patience to help me.   I also realized that I didn’t want to be like them. I needed to get better at explaining technical concepts. Ever since then, I’ve been on a quest to improve how I communicate technical concepts when I write and speak to people and audiences of varying levels.   Part of my discovery led to me Anne Janzer. Anne is a prolific author who has recently written a book called Writing To Be Understood: What Works And Why, and she’s also a cognitive science geek!   I sat down with Anne to debunk the misconception that if someone doesn’t understand a technical concept immediately, then it’s their fault. They're too much of a layperson, and they should look it up. But it’s actually the explainer who needs to do a better job of explaining, and in today’s *Build* episode, we’ll explain why!   In next week’s episode, we'll provide techniques on how you can get better at explaining technical concepts to a mixed audience or to a layperson.   As you listen today’s episode, you’ll learn the following:   Why people on the receiving end of an explanation find the explainer to be less smart if the explanation cannot be easily understood Why people are bad at explaining technical concepts using simple language Why we assume our audience knows what we’re talking about Why people may not get our explanation The three questions to ask yourself about your audience before you communicate with them Why we have a tendency to overexplain Why overexplaining isn’t helpful either and being brief is better   -- Build is produced as a partnership between Femgineer and Pivotal Tracker. San Francisco video production by StartMotionMEDIA. -- ## Why Doing a Bad Job of Explaining Technical Concepts Hurts Our Credibility Transcript   Poornima Vijayashanker:  Welcome to *Build*, brought to you by Pivotal Tracker. I'm your host, Poornima Vijayashanker. In each episode, innovators and I debunk a number of myths and misconceptions related to building products, companies and your career in tech.   Now one huge misconception that we all face is that when we're trying to explain a technical concept, if someone doesn't immediately get it, we think, you know what, it's their fault. They're too much of a layperson, and we advise them to just look it up. Turns out, the person who's explaining the technical concept, it's actually their fault for not explaining it.   I know that might seem counterintuitive, but in today's episode, we're going to explain why the onus falls on the explainer and in a future episode, we'll give you some techniques on how you can get better at explaining technical concepts to a mixed audience or to a lay person. And to help us out, I've invited Anne Janzer, who is the author of a number of books ranging from writing to marketing and she's kind of a cognitive science geek. Thanks for joining us today, Anne.   Anne Janzer:    Thanks for having me Poornima. I'm happy to be here.   Poornima Vijayashanker:   So you've got a new book coming out and it's all about explaining technical concepts and being understood. Maybe you can dive into the origin story for what inspired you to write this book.   Anne Janzer:    Sure. So, the title of the book is *Understood*. So it's about writing to be understood and it came from two things in my life. One, is that I spent a lot of my time in the technical industry as a freelance marketing writer working for dozens and dozens of different companies trying to explain these really geeky technologies to a business audience. So that's familiar to most of the viewers.   But second, I also, as you said, I'm a bit of cognitive science geek so I love to read all these books about the brain and psychology and behavior and behavioral economics. You notice that some authors are really good at explaining this stuff. And you think, so there's parallels between what they do and what I was doing, which is explaining complicated, abstract topics. So are some people just like born better at this? I don't think so.   I took a close look at what these writers do, now I've called up and talked to some of them about what they do which is great. It turns out that there are just methods and techniques and approaches that we can all use to become better at being understood when we're talking about something to people who don't share our knowledge about it.   Poornima Vijayashanker:   So it's great that there all these experts who understand why this is important, but for our audience out there, they're not sure why this is important. We can dive into that in a little more detail.   Why people on the receiving end of an explanation find the explainer to be less smart if the explanation cannot be easily understood   Anne Janzer:    Yes. So you may not feel like…you may feel, well, I'm the expert. It's not on me to make sure that everybody understands. It's not my problem basically, if I'm explaining it. But it is your problem. It really is and the cognitive science shows that.   When you explain something that's complicated and you use words or terms or even writing techniques that they don't understand, you are giving the audience extra cognitive load. You're making them do extra work, not to understand the thing that you're saying, but even to get through to the thing that you're trying to explain to them.   Research shows that when people experience cognitive load, certainly while reading, they don't assume that the writer is smarter, they actually assume that the writer is less smart. So when they don't get it, they don't think, gee, I must be stupid, they think, they're not so smart.   Anne Janzer:    There's a study by a guy named Daniel Oppenheimer, who's now at Carnegie Mellon, but he did this back when he was at Princeton. I have to read the name of the study because it totally illustrates what it's about. “Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity or Problems with Using Long Words Unnecessarily.”   Poornima Vijayashanker:   Nice. Yeah.   Anne Janzer:    Which is great. And in the study they had people look at the same passage written two ways. One in a more straightforward way, one more complex using longer words or one piece sentence construction, let's say. People who read the more complicated ones rated the author as being less intelligent.   In one case, even when they knew that the passage was by René Descartes. They were reading translations and they're like, this is René Descartes from his meditations. They're like yeah, he's not that smart. If they read the more complicated one. So if you want to show up as being an expert you have to be understood. And it's on you. It's on you to do that.   Why people are bad at explaining technical concepts using simple language   Poornima Vijayashanker:   So why do you think people get into this habit of being long-winded or maybe using big words?   Anne Janzer:    I don't mean to be critical of it, because we all do it. It's a natural thing. If you work in a tech sector for a long time, you're surrounded by people who are all using these abstractions and these terms. You master the complexity of the subject. You're a part of a social group of people who have mastered that complexity. So it's natural to want to speak in a way that people around you understand, use those words.   But you need to remember that these abstractions that now come easily to you. Like now you can ride a bike, but a toddler can't ride a bike, looks up at the person riding the bike thinking, yeah, that looks really hard. So that's the situation. That you're really comfortable with these abstract terms, but if you're talking to people outside of your domain, outside of your area, those terms are much more difficult to operate with.   Why we assume our audience knows what we’re talking about   Poornima Vijayashanker:   So it's natural to evolve and get into this in crowd or you're surrounded by people who know. You kind of expect other people to know and then when they don't, you're kind of like, well, just Google it, right. So how can we get over this? This expectation that our audience just knows.   Anne Janzer:    Well, we have to remember that we suffer from the curse of knowledge, which is hard for us to remember not knowing the things that we not now know. So some of the times it's not that we're being dismissive of our audience, we're just assuming that they know the things. That these things are familiar to us are familiar to them.   So you really have to get outside of your own head for a moment and try to put yourself in the perspective of your audience. That's why the title of my book is Understood. It's not like, explaining, it's understood, because it doesn't matter what the words are coming out of your mouth or your pen. It matters how it sinks into the audience's mind.   Why we need to incite curiosity in our audience Poornima Vijayashanker:   I don't know about you, but I definitely had a few college professors, their names will go unnamed. In their 101 class, kind of expected me to know certain things or to, again, spend the time looking it up. So how can we combat that as well?   Anne Janzer:    So that story drives me crazy because the purpose of a 101 class and the job of the professor of that class is to give people enough information but also to incite their curiosity so that they can learn enough to figure out if they want to pursue that field. If they want to learn more or what is useful to them from that class.   And in many ways, we all are in that same position as that 101 teacher. When we're talking to people who aren't familiar with our area, our job too, is not to tell them everything I know or expect them to step up to what we want to talk about. Our job is to incite their curiosity about our topic so that they'll pay attention and get something and to give them a little bit more and to lead them into it. That's a whole different way to think about explaining complicated stuff. It's not like I'm going to dump all this stuff on you you need to know. It's I'm going to pull into this topic and bit by bit get you interested in it, tell you how it applies to you and see what goes from there.   Why people may not get our explanation   Poornima Vijayashanker:   So it's good to know that we may suffer from the curse of knowledge and that not everyone is going to have a same level of expertise as us. What are some other things that may get in the way of people understanding when we communicate technical concepts to them?   Anne Janzer:    There's a couple things to be aware of and one is that sometimes people think they understand already and you have to work around their existing models of what's happening. People think they understand what's happening, for example, to their data when they go onto a website and use it and then go away. The data stays where they left it. Right?   And that's not always the case. So sometimes they think they have an understanding of something. We always talk...if you think about how do you understand using storage. How is stuff stored on your computer? You think, well, I've got a disk, maybe you think you have a directory and then I have a folder and I put files in it. That's nothing like what's really happening underneath. The file may be distributed over many areas of the disk. Some stuff is not on disk, it's in memory.   Poornima Vijayashanker:   It's in the cloud.   Anne Janzer:    It's in the cloud. You can't come up to people and say no, you don't know what's going on, you're wrong. So you need to understand what their understanding is and figure out how to work around that.   And then there are the topics that people, they want to cling to their understanding of it. They don't want to hear about something that disrupts their understanding of it. That's why, if you search for a swimsuit on a website and then you go to the New York Times and it's serving you an ad for that swimsuit that you just searched for. It can be really distressing, these retargeting ads, because they show us something that we don't want to hear about, which is that we're leaving this huge digital wake of data around that people can use. We find that distressing because we don't want to hear it, but it's there.   Poornima Vijayashanker:   So there's the concept of challenging people's current understanding and then there's a concept of ignorance is bliss.   Anne Janzer:    Yes, right, right.   3 questions to ask yourself about your audience before you communicate with them   Poornima Vijayashanker:   So those are both things that we need to be aware of. How can we know...because I know in the next episode we're going to dive into how to get around this. But how can we at least develop an awareness to know which camp our audience may be in?   Anne Janzer:    That's the key thing is to think about your audience. I think you need to answer three questions about your audience before you go to speak to them or before you write for them. It's what do they already know about the subject and this requires that you put yourself in their perspective. You may have to talk to people that are like your audience.   How do they feel about your subject? Do they have resistance to hearing the message? Is this something that they like talking about? Are they curious or are they showing up for your talk under duress because they have to? That's something you want to know too, right?   Poornima Vijayashanker:   Yeah. My boss is making me come to this.   Anne Janzer:    My boss is making me come to this. And the third thing is what makes them curious? What can you use to hook their interest in the topic? What going to make them want to explore more about it?   Why over-explaining isn’t helpful either and being brief is better   Poornima Vijayashanker:   Now one final thing I've noticed, especially with a lot of my students and audience members is they can be on the flip side, where it's not the case that they think they're the expert, but they feel like they really need to go down this path and be very, very long winded about an explanation instead of favoring brevity. So how would you recommend to kind of balance that?   Anne Janzer:    So there's two things I want to get at. One is that you need to make a careful distinction between what you want to talk about and what the audience needs to hear. There may be a small overlap and maybe you can widen that by making them more curious, but you need to respect what their needs are. And that's the hardest thing for us as writers to do.   When I worked on this draft, I wrote this whole section and I thought, this doesn't serve the book. I had to delete 10,000 words and just put it aside because it wasn't what the audience needed. It wasn't what the readers needed. So that's one thing.   Why we have a tendency to over-explain   And then second, I would look at the reason why they feel they need to explain everything and often I think it's an attempt to assert some kind of credibility. Credibility is such an important issue, right?   It's such a critical issue for speakers, for writers. But the way that we often go about asserting credibility can work against us. If you say, well, I'm going to get up and first I'm going to list off all my accomplishments so they know I'm serious. Or I'm going to just take them through every little experiment, every little process I did to get to this so they see that I worked really hard.   These things work against you because the root of the word credibility is believability. That's what it means. Well, to be believed you have to first be understood. So to be credible, you need to be understandable and that means you're going to have to cut out that stuff. People will respect you more, think more of you if they can really understand what you're saying. So if you were meeting their needs rather than asserting your own. So if you come at it from that way, it gives you an understanding for how to be more brief. What to cut and why to cut it.   Poornima Vijayashanker:   Well thank you so much, Anne, for sharing why our explanations may be convoluted and of course, why we need to do a better job at explaining them. I can't wait until our next episode where we're going to dive into a number of techniques and tactics to help our audience out there when it comes to explaining these.   Now Anne and I want to know, when was the last time you had to explain something that was complicated, maybe some technical jargon. Were you misunderstood? And if you were, how did you get over that misunderstanding? What were your techniques? Let us know in the comments below this video. And that's it for this episode of *Build*. Be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel to receive the next episode where Anne and I are going to dive into some techniques to help you be more understood when you're explaining those technical concepts to your audience and to your teammates. Ciao for now.

Daniel Oppenheimer 2Hello All,Part 2 of my conversation with Beth Lisick will be next up. For now, here's a timely interruption. You may recall, in the last episode, I mentioned that (to quote, well, me) :"This week I took a huge, manic, obsessive dive down the Aziz Ansari/#metoo rabbit hole, and like to think I have takes that haven't yet been took. But after writing about 18 (single space) pages of notes and compiling dozens of articles and audio and video (google Samantha Bee and Aziz for one of the most recent, and best, responses), when I went to record ... well, I'm just not skilled enough yet to say what I need to say as concisely as would make me feel comfortable to share with the world."It just so happened that right after that, Dan Oppenheimer (Episode 11) called me up wanting to talk through that same stuff and what he sees as the frustrating toxicity of most ostensibly serious discourse on social media. So I asked if I could use his need to both satisfy my own AND make an episode. So we talked ... and talked ....I think it made both of us feel a little better. Maybe it will you too.  Among the topics we dug into:PatriarchyRacism#metooThe Aziz Ansari moment / bad dates and bad daters/ discord between 2nd and 3rd Wave FeministsThe toxicity of social mediaThe dangers of stereotyping, even of straight, white, middle-aged men! (even when based on valuable/sound movements/ideas/etc. such as patriarchy, #metoo)Child-rearing / sexual moresMale feminismPuritanismvirtue signallingHigh-school sex (& why we didn't get much)and ...PARKING IN THE DEEP SPOTFind Dan and his work at: http://danieloppenheimer.com. He's the author of Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Centurywhich was published in 2016 by Simon and Schuster to the kind of fanfare authors of such books dream of dream of with reviews and features everywhere from the Atlantic to the New Republic, New Yorker to, New Statesman, TIme Magazine the New York TImes Book Review.These notes have gotten really long. If you want to know more about anything we talked about from Bob Jensen & Hugo Schweitzer to any of the best and worst writing on the Aziz stuff, and google fails you, please feel free to email me at: info (at) jamiebergerwords.comand I'll be glad to send links your way.Likewise, if you have a thought/response to the episode that you'd like to share either with me or with the whole wide world.Last, I will put one link, to the short story "Cat Person," that we referred to:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-personTHANKS FOR LISTENING. If you like what we do, please pass it on, rate/review on iTunes, or even chip in a little money per episode:https://www.patreon.com/15minutesjamiebergeror if you want to donate just once, paypal to "15minutesjamieberger (at) gmail.comTHANKS!-Jamie See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nikolai DiPippa, Clinton School Director of Public Programs, sat down with Daniel Oppenheimer, author of “Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century.” He tells the story of six major political figures whose journey away from the left reshaped the contours of American politics in the 20th century.

Episode 15 - Eugene MirmanHello listeners! We made it to 15!Serendipitously, this article (http://www.recorder.com/15-Minutes-4996757) in the local press came out today about the show. Are we famous yet?!At this mini milestone, I’d like to send out huge thanks to my guests so far for their trust and earnest, eager, fun participation, so here we go. THANKS: John Hodgman, Case Hudson, Mark Berger, Annie Duke, Tim Lockfeld, Lois Parkison, Monte Belmonte, Hearty White, Matthew Latkiewicz, Soren Mason-Temple & Dave Rothstein, Daniel Oppenheimer, Andi Zeisler, Penny Lane, and Sara Jaffe, thank you thank you thank you . . . you get the idea. Thank you. (You can find all those episodes at http://15minutesjamieberger.com .Also and of course, thanks so much to all you listeners for joining us on this little exploration. And to Ed Patenaude, for always making me sound as pretty as is achieveable.And to Christian Cundari, for our theme music.Please, if you haven’t already, rate and/or review 15 Minutes on the Great Satan - sorry, I mean iTunes - or wherever you listen to podcasts - it’s more important than you can imagine, unless you have a podcast of your own, then you know how important it is. ***You may know Eugene Mirman from his comedy albums or Comedy Central Specials, from his roles on series such as Flight of the Conchords, Delocated, Startalk, and most recently and ongoing-ly, Bob’s Burgers. You may even know him as “Berny Foy,” the bad guy in the the 1999 “Firestarter” episode of Third Watch. I don’t actually know Eugene from that one, but I’m sure gonna try to find it! OR, as I said back in episode 1, about Mr. Hodgman, you may not know him at all, and if so I hope you’ll enjoy getting to know Eugene via this conversation and a couple of cuts thrown in from Monumental 9-volume latest release on Sub Pop Records, “I’m Sorry (You’re Welcome).”Those of you who know me know that my Sub Pop ( http://subpop.com ) hoodie (which I stole from Eugene) is one of my prized possessions, not only because great artists like Eugene Mirman and Death Vessel and so many more have been on there, but that Sub Pop has been rocking my world since way back when I used to eagerly await the arrival at Sounds Records of the next Sub Pop Cassette Compilation to arrive back in the 1980s. So it’s a huge honor to be able to thank to Sub Pop for permission to use a couple of Eugene’s tracks! Go Shop for Eugene’s albums and so many more beautiful noises on Sub Pop’s Megamart (www.megamart.subpop.com). We talked earlier this month of September 2016 at his home in an undisclosed location in Eastern Massachusetts. Tune in! for upcoming episodes with graphic novelist Jessica Abel, NPR producer/reporter Tina Antolini, in a couple of months, writer George Saunders but I’m so excited I’m going to mention it right now.And much much more!Find us wherever podcasts are found or at 15minutejamieberger.com where you can also find out how to find us on twitter, instagram @15minsjamieb and on facebook.Thank you so much for listening! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

I met Dan Oppenheimer soon after I moved to this here Pioneer Valley in 2005. We ended up writing a blog together, Masculinity and Its Discontents (M.A.I.D.) for several years while I was in grad school and he was the arts writer and anonymous advice-giver, as Dear Dexter, for our region’s alternative weekly, the Valley Advocate.This year, his long awaited and much longer toiled-over book, Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century was published by Simon and Schuster to the kind of fanfare authors of such books dream of, with reviews and features everywhere from the Atlantic to the New Republic, the New Yorker, Time Magazine and the New York Times Book Review.Exit Right explores the lives and careers of six major 20th Century figures - Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Christopher Hitchens - who moved from the political right to the political left, often quite suddenly. It’s a really fascinating read, which I mention especially because you might want to go check it out, seeing as Dan and I talked about jealousy and fame and ambition and podcasting and filmmaking and Morris Dickstein and a bunch of other stuff, but hardly at all about the book.We talked on the phone for the first time in a long time, in June.If you're digging what we're laying down please pass it on, and please please please rate and even review us on itTunes. Thanks! 15 Minutes is also on Twitter and Instagram at @15minsjamieb.Also, as mentioned, you can find my essay "Peep Show," which Dan mentioned (warning adult content blah blah blah, here:http://jamiebergerwords.com/peep-show/"See" you next time! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

"As an artist it feels good to be recognized for your work, as a narcissist it feels great to be recognized for nothing." - J. HodgmanHello Fabulous People,Note: to read this with lots of fun hyperlinks, go to:http://www.15minutesjamieberger.com/news/2016/8/12/episode-105-aka-episode-1-john-hodgman-the-directors-cutHope you are near water this hot day. We've got our first repeat this week, as we prepare upcoming episodes with writer/podcaster/radio historian/artist-enabler (in a good way) Jessica Abel, author Daniel Oppenheimer, filmmaker Penny Lane, and plenty of interesting people you've never heard of because maybe they want it that way! Coming this fall and beyond, we're lining up episodes with Matt (The Suitcase Junket) Lorenz, comedian Eugene Mirman, and writer George Saunders, to name just a few of the famouser ones.But remember, in between those folks will be lesser-known-if-known-at-all names with stories rants and other interesting takes on the topic - could YOU be one of them?Let us know by writing us at 15minutesjamieberger@gmail or though our facebook page or Twitter or Instagram or even by leaving a story on the fame telephone hotline at 872-215-6467. We really, truly, pinky-swear would love to hear from you. ***For this shorter version of Episdode 1: John Hodgman, we cut out the rather rough-sounding recording of the Judge John Hodgman semi-impromptu meeting that took place the day of our conversation back in aught-14. Super-Hodgman-fans, or Judgalos, as I like to call you, you can still hear that meet-up by going to Episode 1 on iTunes or Soundcloud or just about anywhere you look for podcasts!As always, the call goes out. PLEASE review and rate us on iTunes and anywhere else you can. Takes a minute, makes a BIG-ASS DIFFERENCE to us and the future of 15 Minutes!THANKS!Stay cool, all! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In today’s episode, we hear a June 29, 2016 interview with Daniel Oppenheimer, a writer and documentarian, and the author of Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Shaped the American Century. In his book, Daniel Oppenheimer writes about the political conversions of six figures whose names might be familiar—Whitaker Chambers, James Burnham, Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Christopher Hitchens. Though each of these figures defected from the left in one if not all ways, their stories are certainly not identical: whereas Chambers and Burnham were both committed Marxists at one point, Reagan was never really of full-fledged lefty. And Hitchens, though a supporter of the Iraq War and a friend of neoconservatives, always bristled at the accusation that he was in any way on the Right. Still, despite the differences between these figures, studying their respective apostasies can reveal something valuable and instructive about the changing political landscapes of the 20th century. And in a broader sense, the question their stories raise is really about us, today: how and why, our guest Daniel Oppenheimer asks, do we come to believe in certain political positions at all—either on the left, the right, or somewhere in the middle?

Although, incorrectly attributed to Churchill, most of you have heard the quote that   "if you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart.  If you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain."  While it’s a little silly, it does go to the core fact that personal beliefs can change as we grow, as we evolve and as context changes.  And while people like Jonathan Haidt have made the case that political belief is in some ways tied to evolutionary psychology and biology, we know from the lives of prominent Americans who have changed their beliefs, that this has it’s limits. Writer and filmmaker Daniel Oppenheimer in  Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century looks at the lives of six prominent figures, not just whose politics have changed, but wholes ideas, and intellectual core beliefs shifted over time from left to right. In the process, they all profoundly impacted our political dialogue. My conversation with Daniel Oppenheimer: 

This week on Unorthodox: Klezmer aerobics and the strangest bris story you've ever heard. Our Jewish guest is Daniel Oppenheimer, author of the new book, Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Reshaped the American Century. He’s also—you guessed it—the brother of our host Mark Oppenheimer. Our Gentile of the Week is novelist and essayist Roxane Gay, whose latest book, Bad Feminist, cleverly tackles issues in contemporary feminism alongside considerations of culture, identity, and race. We love to hear from you! Email us at Unorthodox@tabletmag.com. Sign up for our weekly newsletter at http://bit.ly/UnorthodoxPodcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joined in the studio by IP scholar Mark McKenna, yielding a two to one ratio of IP to non-IP people at headquarters, we discuss: the dilapidated state of headquarters (0:00), computers in the classroom and the first installment of Joe’s Quandary (6:11), topics we do not yet but one day will discuss and the topic for our upcoming live show (15:25), the speech implications of the revocation of trademark registration as with the Washington football team (20:12), and Knitting with Joe and one other bit of feedback (1:20:15). This show’s links: Mark McKenna’s faculty profile and writing The Clear Sky Chart forecast for Athens, Georgia, containing explanations of transparency and seeing Dan Rockmore, The Case for Banning Laptops in the Classroom Clay Shirky, Why I Just Asked My Students To Put Their Laptops Away Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer, The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking Anne Curzan, Why I’m Asking You Not to Use Laptops Rebecca Schuman, In Defense of Laptops in the Classroom Oral Argument 71: Rolex Tube Socks (guest Mark McKenna) Mark McKenna, Trademark Year in Review In re Simon Shiao Tam Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse Amicus: The Case of the Missing Constitutional Violation Christine Haight Farley and Robert Tsai, The First Amendment and the Redskins’ Trademark, Part II: A Shot Across the Bow from the Federal Circuit (also containing a link to part one) Christine Haight Farley, Registering Offense: The Prohibition of Slurs as Trademarks Lilit Voskanyan, The Trademark Principal Register as a Nonpublic Forum Theodore Davis, Registration of Scandalous, Immoral, and Disparaging Matter Under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act: Can One Man's Vulgarity Be Another's Registered Trademark? The National Speed Trap Exchange Special Guest: Mark McKenna.

Professor Daniel Oppenheimer holds joint positions in marketing and psychology at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. Previously he was a Professor at Princeton University for 8 years, where he held a joint appointment in psychology and public affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He joined the faculty of Princeton after receiving his PhD from Stanford. Professor Oppenheimer has received several prestigious awards for his research, which focuses on human decision making. His work has also been featured in top-tier media. He’s the co-author of the book, Democracy Despite Itself: Why a System That Shouldn't Work at All Works So Well. And recently, he was named as one of the Best 40 Professors under 40 by Poets and Quants, a widely read blog about MBA programs. In this episode, Professor Oppenheimer talks about research he conducted with his graduate assistant Pam Mueller when he was at Princeton. They studied the impact of taking notes by hand versus laptop on the retention and understanding of information by students. Their study generated a tremendous amount of buzz in top tier media like the Wall Street Journal, which is where I first spotted it. Professor Oppenheimer explains why they decided to undertake this research, the methodology they used, and their surprising findings. We also talk about how his research is of relevance to writers like you and me. And he shares some of the techniques he uses to break through writer’s block and achieve flow. Find the shownotes to this episode at writewithimpact.com/episode17 Pick up a free ebook with writing tips here Like the Write With Impact Facebook page Follow Write With Impact on Twitter

Have you ever deliberately replaced small words with bigger ones in order to sound more intelligent? Guess what - it usually doesn't work. In a series of studies Daniel Oppenheimer showed that writers actually came across as less intelligent when they used big words where smaller ones would have worked just as well. The bottom line: take the time to understand what you want to say and then say it in plain, ordinary language.