Podcasts about Giroux

Daniel Immerwahr, historian, contributing writer at The New Yorker, the Bergen Evans Professor in the Humanities at Northwestern University and the author of How to Hide an Empire (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2019) offers historical context on the war in Iran and Trump's overall foreign policy. Photo: The aftermath of a US-Israeli strike on Tehran, Iran on March 3, 2026. Credit: محمدعلی برنو/Avash Media via Wikimedia Commons/CC 4.0

What does it mean to give yourself fully to something — a marriage, a calling, a city, a cause — and still make peace with the fact that you won't get everything you hoped for? In this episode of The Upwards Podcast, host John Terrill sits down with professor, author, and longtime friend Steve Garber for a wide-ranging conversation about vocation, faithfulness in a particular place over time, and the trap of dualism.Drawing on literature, theology, biography, and lived experience, Steve invites listeners into the central question of his new book, Hints of Hope: Essays on Making Peace with the Proximate - Is it worth doing something that matters, even when you don't get everything you hoped for?WHAT YOU'LL LEARN00:00 — Introduction: Steve Garber and the questions that have shaped his life and writing03:26 — Steve's father, plant pathology, and the question of germination: how a scientist's work became a metaphor for vocation07:52 — Dropping out of college, living in communes, and what those years taught Steve about the nature of learning11:40 — “Common grace for the common good”: why a theology of common grace matters for how we work in the world16:40 — “Vocation is integral, not incidental”: what it means to live seamlessly, without dualism17:59 — Can you know the world and still love it? Making peace with the proximate: the essay that became a life philosophy21:31 — Who is this book written for? How Steve's audience has grown from university students to the whole world28:39 — Telos and praxis: the fundamental question of the book — is it worth doing something that matters if you don't get everything you hoped for?33:19 — Already but not yet: Tolkien, Frodo, and what the last pages of The Return of the King taught Steve in his 60s that he missed at 2036:36 — The Clapham Community, Wendell Berry, and why commitment to a people and a place matters41:26 — NT Wright on joy and sorrow woven into the fabric of a life44:45 — The perennial question: What does it mean to be human in 2026?49:23 — What Steve may write next: pedagogy and learning “over the shoulder and through the heart”ABOUT STEVE GARBERSteven Garber was professor of marketplace theology and leadership at Regent College, Vancouver, and the principal of The Washington Institute for Faith, Vocation & Culture. A consultant to foundations, corporations, and schools, he is a teacher of many people in many places. His books include Visions of Vocation and The Fabric of Faithfulness, and he is a contributor to the books Faith Goes to Work: Reflections from the Marketplace and Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 Catalogue.BOOKS REFERENCED IN THIS EPISODEHints of Hope: Essays on Making Peace with the Proximate by Steve Garber (Paraclete Press, 2026)The Fabric of Faithfulness: Weaving Together Belief and Behavior by Steve Garber (IVP, 1996; revised ed. 2007)Visions of Vocation: Common Grace for the Common Good by Steve Garber (IVP, 2014)The Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King) by J.R.R. Tolkien (George Allen & Unwin, 1955)The Moviegoer by Walker Percy (Knopf, 1961)Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book by Walker Percy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1983)The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness bCONNECT WITH USSubscribe to The Upwards Podcast wherever you listen to podcasts and visit slbf.org/studio to learn more about our work at the intersection of faith, the academy, and the marketplace.This episode was created by the SLBF STUDIO at Upper House.Produced by Daniel Johnson and Dave ConourEdited by Dave Conour

This week on ‘The Write Question,' host Lauren Korn speaks with University of Montana alum Andrew Martin (MFA ‘13), author of ‘Down Time,' published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

This week on ‘The Write Question,' host Lauren Korn speaks with University of Montana alum Andrew Martin (MFA ‘13), author of ‘Down Time,' published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Welcome to the Social-Engineer Podcast: The Doctor Is In Series – where we discuss understandings and developments in the field of psychology.  In today's episode, Chris and Dr. Abbie discuss decision fatigue—how making too many choices throughout the day drains mental energy and affects judgment. They explain how stress and lack of sleep make it worse, how it differs from burnout, and why leaders and parents are especially vulnerable. The episode also shares simple, practical strategies to reduce daily decisions, protect mental energy, and prioritize recovery.  [Mar 2, 2026]  00:00 - Intro  00:56 - Show Updates and Sponsors  02:35 - What Decision Fatigue Is  03:34 - Stress, Sleep, and Mental Energy  05:12 - Mental vs. Physical Limits  07:13 - Decision Fatigue vs. Burnout  10:22 - Leadership, Empathy, and Hard Decisions  14:33 - Prevention: Routines and Breaks  20:43 - Advisors and AI Caution  24:38 - Everyday Life and Parenting Load  27:23 - Recovery Outlets and Wrap-Up  28:49 - Closing and Next Month's Topic (Diet Culture)    Find us online:    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dr-abbie-maroño-phd    Instagram: @DoctorAbbieofficial    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/christopherhadnagy    References:   Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252   Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. Penguin Press.   Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889–6892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108   Davidson, R. J., & McEwen, B. S. (2012). Social influences on neuroplasticity: Stress and interventions to promote well-being. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3093   Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). The neural basis of metacognitive ability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1338–1349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0417   Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019486   Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  

Quatre ans après le succès du drame financier NORBOUG, le cinéaste Maxime Giroux nous propose IN COLD LIGHT (À FROID en v.f.), un thriller criminel canadien qui met en scène des comédien(ne)s américains, soit la vedette montante Maika Monroe (Longlegs, Reminder of Him) et Troy Kutsur (lauréat d'un Oscar pour Coda). Maxime nous explique le processus complexe du casting avec des vedettes américaines, et nous raconte également quelques anecdotes sur l'industrie hollywoodienne. Il nous parle aussi de la dynamique de travail avec son équipe créative québécoise (dont la talentueuse Sara Mishara à la direction photo) et de la répercussion sur le plateau de tournage. Le film prend l'affiche partout au Québec (et au Canada) le 27 février. Bon épisode!

With fresh vision for 2026, we are declaring Rivers of Revival over this year. This is going to be a year filled with life-giving currents, the abundance of God's presence, prayer, worship, baptisms, healing & transformation. It will start with us & then out of the overflow, affect our city & our nation. Join us as Pastor Michael explains & declares Rivers of Revival over our year.

Oliver Munday is a graphic designer and writer. His new book, Head of Household, is a collection of short stories that explore the conditions of modern fatherhood. Perhaps best known for his book cover designs, Oliver is currently the executive director of art and design at Doubleday, previously designed covers for Knopf and Farrar, Straus & Giroux, and served as associate art director of The Atlantic. In this wide-ranging conversation, Jarrett and Oliver talk about his move into fiction, why he wrote a book about fatherhood, and the limits of working as a graphic designer. Links from this episode are available at www.scratchingthesurface.fm/2823-oliver-munday — Help support the show by joining our Substack: surfacepodcast.substack.com

With fresh vision for 2026, we are declaring Rivers of Revival over this year. This is going to be a year filled with life-giving currents, the abundance of God's presence, prayer, worship, baptisms, healing & transformation. It will start with us & then out of the overflow, affect our city & our nation. Join us as Pastor Michael explains & declares Rivers of Revival over our year.

Happy Vision Sunday! With fresh vision for 2026, we are declaring Rivers of Revival over this year. This is going to be a year filled with life-giving currents, the abundance of God's presence, prayer, worship, baptisms, healing & transformation. It will start with us & then out of the overflow, affect our city & our nation. Join us as Pastor Michael explains & declares Rivers of Revival over our year.

Pharmacist Stephen Giroux on the creation of Trump RX full 691 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 09:39:00 +0000 PI1Ckd2BxQahrT4qGkvg904N7Z6casZY news WBEN Extras news Pharmacist Stephen Giroux on the creation of Trump RX Archive of various reports and news events 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News False https://player.amperwavepodcasting.com?

Send us a textThis week, I chat with Ann Kjellberg, founding editor of the literary magazine Little Star and Book Post, a bite-sized newsletter-based review delivery service, sending well-made book reviews by distinguished and engaging writers, direct to your inbox.Start with a single question: who gets to decide what matters in books—algorithms, crowds, or critics who sign their names? We sit down with editor and publisher Ann Kjellberg to trace a life spent inside literature, from Yale and Farrar, Straus and Giroux to The New York Review of Books, Little Star, and her Substack, Bookpost. Along the way, we explore how clarity, curiosity, and community can still hold the center in a noisy culture.Ann shares how working with émigré writers, including Joseph Brodsky, shaped her view of editing as a craft of ethical clarity—making difficult ideas legible without flattening a writer's voice. We look at the mid-century boom that birthed the paperback revolution and an expanded reading public, then contrast it with today's attention economy, where BookTok trends and Amazon ratings often drown out patient, thoughtful criticism. Ann doesn't dismiss reader enthusiasm; she pairs it with the need for accountable reviews that analyze, cite, and argue—skills that teach us how to think rather than what to buy.We also celebrate indie and radical bookstores as engines of civic life. From hand-selling that starts lifelong reading relationships to nonprofit partnerships that put free books in schools, these shops build the pluralist spaces many communities lack. Ann explains why Bookpost rotates partner bookstores to steer purchases locally, and why a weekly, well-matched review can re-anchor conversation in substance. If you care about the future of reading, criticism, and the free exchange of ideas, this conversation offers a map—and a reason to keep showing up for books and each other.Enjoyed the conversation? Subscribe, share it with a friend, and leave a rating or review so more readers can find the show.Ann Kjellberg - Book PostSupport the showThe Bookshop PodcastMandy Jackson-BeverlySocial Media Links

On July 11, 1804, former TreasurySecretary Alexander Hamilton and Vice President Aaron Burr faced off in the most infamous duel in American history. Burr fatally wounded Hamilton, who died the next day. Hamilton's premature death transformed him from one of the last stalwarts of the fading Federalist Party to an American martyr, the namesake of towns across the country, and the face of theten-dollar bill. Written by Josh Wood, basedon the excellent work by Joanne B. Freeman, The Field of Blood:Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018) and Affairsof Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (Yale University Press,2002). Narration by Dr. Nicholas B. Breyfogle. Video productionby Hannah Keller, Dr. Nicholas B. Breyfogle, and Laura Seeger. A transcript isavailable at https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/july-2019-hamilton-burr-duel This is a production of Origins: CurrentEvents in Historical Perspective at the Goldberg Center in the Department ofHistory at The Ohio State University and the Department of History at MiamiUniversity. Be sure to subscribe to our channel to receive updates about ourvideos and podcasts. For more information about Origins: Current Events inHistorical Perspective, please visit origins.osu.edu.   

TSN's Cheryl Pounder on being in Italy and running into some pepper spray, the hockey venues, Sens win their 4th straight, Stützle and Sanderson leading the way, and the NHL roster freeze.

Emily Witt is a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine and a native of Minneapolis. She has been reporting from the streets of her hometown over the past couple of weeks, covering the ICE raids, the killings of Rene Good and Alex Pretti, the non-fatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, and the spirited citizen response by Minneapolitans. She recently wrote about it in a piece called 'The Battle for Minneapolis,' with includes some excellent photos by Philip Cheung. Emily Witt is the author of Future Sex (Farrar, Straus, & Giroux), Nollywood: The Making of a Film Empire (Columbia Global Reports 2017), and an award-winning memoir called Health and Safety (Pantheon). In addition to her work for The New Yorker, she has also written for n+1, The New York Times, GQ, the London Review of Books, and many other places. She has degrees from Brown, Columbia, and Cambridge, and was a Fulbright scholar in Mozambique.  *** ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Otherppl with Brad Listi⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ is a weekly podcast featuring in-depth interviews with today's leading writers. This episode is sponsored by Ulysses. Go to ⁠⁠⁠ulys.app/writeabook⁠⁠⁠ to download Ulysses, and use the code OTHERPPL at checkout to get 25% off the first year of your yearly subscription. Available where podcasts are available: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, etc. Get ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠How to Write a Novel,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ the debut audio course from DeepDive. 50+ hours of never-before-heard insight, inspiration, and instruction from dozens of today's most celebrated contemporary authors. Subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Brad's email newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support the show on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Merch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bluesky⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email the show: letters [at] otherppl [dot] com The podcast is a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠proud affiliate partner of Bookshop⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, working to support local, independent bookstores. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This four-week January series is designed to guide you along a clear, faith-fueled journey into the new year. Anchored in Matthew 19:26 ("With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"), we'll walk step-by-step from recognizing God's power to living boldly in His possibilities. Each week will build like a pathway—starting with awakening faith, clearing obstacles, taking action, and sustaining the walk. Let's start the new year by renewing our sense of God's goodness and inviting His direction in setting audacious faith goals for 2026.

Troublemaker: The Fierce, Unruly Life of Jessica Mitford and Pride (Harper, November 2025) and Pride and Pleasure: The Schuyler Sisters in an Age of Revolution (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, October 2025) are the […]

This four-week January series is designed to guide you along a clear, faith-fueled journey into the new year. Anchored in Matthew 19:26 ("With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"), we'll walk step-by-step from recognizing God's power to living boldly in His possibilities. Each week will build like a pathway—starting with awakening faith, clearing obstacles, taking action, and sustaining the walk. Let's start the new year by renewing our sense of God's goodness and inviting His direction in setting audacious faith goals for 2026.

Did the Senators make the right decision in the way they handled their social media controversy? We talk about the players' reactions, including Brady Tkachuk's. Are the playoffs now a pipe dream? Goalie James Reimer gets pumped for 6 goals in his Belleville debut on Sunday. A missed five minute major loomed large in Saturday's loss to Florida. And Claude Giroux turns 38.

"Practically speaking, mostly what I'm doing is I'm writing in a hotel room and then writing in the taxi, and then if the TSA queue is long, I might whip my laptop out and balance it on the stanchion and do some more writing, and then get on the other side and write in the lounge and then write on the plane, and whether that means that the laptop's nearly vertical because I'm on a discount airline with with terrible seat pitch, just writing. And so that's it, right? What my real practice is ... I just goddamn write," says Cory Doctorow, author of Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It.This is exciting. We've got Cory Doctorow on the podcast today for Ep. 507. Cory is the author of more than 30 books of nonfiction and fiction, his latest being Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About it. It's published by MCD, an imprint of Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Ever wonder why Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, and Apple suck ass? This book will explain why they do and how they got there and maybe, just maybe, how we can get out of this mess. Did you know that Apple factories in China installed suicide nets so workers couldn't kill themselves? Think about that the next time you upgrade your phone. I'm ready for a new computer and it will likely be a Mac, even though they've gotten shitty over the years. Point is we all have blood on our hands.Cory is prolific, his blog posts epic, his books prescient and important. You can learn more about him at craphound.com or read his blog at pluralistic.net. He is a science fiction author, activist, and journalist. In 2020 he was inducted into the Candadian Science Fiction Hall of Fame and he is a special advisor to the Electronic Frontier Foudnation (eff.org), a nonprofit group that defnds freedom in tech law, policy, standards and treaties. You could spend a year or two reading nothing but Cory Doctorow books and, I might add, you'd be better for it.He's one of the good guys, man, and he's out to help us understand the internet. So in this episode we talk about: Internet literacy His ongoing relationship with his audience Getting a book done in six weeks Platform decay What exactly enshittification is and how Substack is slouching toward it And the influence of the writer Judith MerrilOrder The Front RunnerNewsletter: Rage Against the AlgorithmWelcome to Pitch ClubShow notes: brendanomeara.com

This four-week January series is designed to guide you along a clear, faith-fueled journey into the new year. Anchored in Matthew 19:26 ("With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible"), we'll walk step-by-step from recognizing God's power to living boldly in His possibilities. Each week will build like a pathway—starting with awakening faith, clearing obstacles, taking action, and sustaining the walk. Let's start the new year by renewing our sense of God's goodness and inviting His direction in setting audacious faith goals for 2026.

Original air date: June 10, 2025.⁠ Claire Hoffman⁠ is the author of ⁠Sister, Sinner: The Miraculous Life and Mysterious Disappearance of Aimee Semple McPherson⁠, available from Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Hoffman is also the author of the memoir Greetings from Utopia Park and is a journalist reporting for national magazines on culture, religion, celebrity, business, and more. She was formerly a staff reporter for the Los Angeles Times and Rolling Stone. She is a graduate of UC Santa Cruz, and has an MA in religion from the University of Chicago and an MA in journalism from Columbia University. She serves on the boards of the Columbia School of Journalism, ProPublica, and the Brooklyn Public Library. *** ⁠⁠⁠⁠Otherppl with Brad Listi⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ is a weekly podcast featuring in-depth interviews with today's leading writers. Available where podcasts are available: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, etc. Subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Brad Listi's email newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support the show on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Merch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bluesky⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email the show: letters [at] otherppl [dot] com The podcast is an ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠affiliate partner of Bookshop⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, working to support local, independent bookstores. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deze week hoor je in NRC Vandaag onze serie Wilde eeuwen, het begin. Een van de verhalende series die we dit jaar maakten: perfect voor tijdens de dagen rond Kerst.Het is 3.800 jaar geleden. Mijnwerker Lachisch verstopt zich in een tempel een leert daar vreemde tekentjes. Hoe nuttig kan dat nieuwe alfabet worden? Heeft u vragen, suggesties of ideeën over onze journalistiek? Mail dan naar onze redactie via podcast@nrc.nl.Voor deze aflevering is onder meer gebruikt gemaakt van deze literatuur: Ludwig D. Morenz. ‘El(-GOD) as “Father in Regalness”. Mine M in Serabit el Khadim as a Middle-Bronze-Age (c. 1900 BC). Working Space sacralised by Early Alefbetic Writing' in Working Paper 13 Bonn Center for Dependency and Slavery Studies, 2023. Martijn Jaspers en Toon Van Hal. ‘Van huisje tot hashtag, van ossenkop tot apenstaart. Een geschiedenis van het alfabet', Maklu uitgever, 2023. Silvia Ferrara. ‘The Greatest Invention. A History of the World in Nine Mysterious Scripts', Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2022 (Vertaald uit het Italiaans door Todd Portnowitz). Felix Höflmayer e.a. ‘Early alphabetic writing in the ancient Near East: the ‘missing link' from Tel Lachish' in Antiquity, juni 2021. Philip J. Boyes en Philippa M. Steele (eds). ‘Understanding Relations Between Scripts II Early Alphabets', Oxbow books, 2020. Miriam Lichtheim. ‘Ancient Egyptian Literature', University of California Press, 2019 (eerste druk 1975).Aaron Koller. ‘The Diffusion of the Alphabet in the Second Millennium BCE: On the Movements of Scribal Ideas from Egypt to the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Yemen', in Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, in december 2018. Steven R. Fischer. ‘History of Writing', Reaktion Books, 2003.Brian E. Colles. ‘The Proto-Alphabetic Inscriptions of Canaan' in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 1991.Lina Eckenstein. ‘A History of Sinai', Macmillan 1921. Tekst en presentatie: Hendrik SpieringRedactie en regie: Mirjam van ZuidamMuziek, montage en mixage: Rufus van BaardwijkBeeld: Jeen BertingVormgeving: Yannick MortierZie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Pharmacist Steve Giroux on FDA approval of the Wegovy pill full 318 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 09:45:00 +0000 MXSahP2UGClnVQe0mcVdz86DrWs0trjT news & politics,news WBEN Extras news & politics,news Pharmacist Steve Giroux on FDA approval of the Wegovy pill Archive of various reports and news events 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News & Politics News False https://player.amperwavepodcasting

In a world often filled with darkness, the birth of Jesus is God's radiant reminder that light has come—and that light lives in us. Join us as we dive into our Christmas sermon series entitled Arise & Shine: The Christmas Story. Christmas is the story of His illumination and the invitation for us is to arise and shine!

We conclude our Best Books of 2025 coverage with a special episode dedicated to young adult. First, Libba Bray joins us to discuss Under the Same Stars (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Feb. 4). Then young readers' editor Laura Simeon highlights some more of the year's best YA.Thanks to our sponsors:The Tale of the Wicked Old Woman and the Very Nice 'Beast' of Crouch End by Lance Lee, illus. by Nathalie T. RetivoffA Widow's Fire by Diane Pike HeilerFuture-Focused Wealth by Melissa CoxSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In a world often filled with darkness, the birth of Jesus is God's radiant reminder that light has come—and that light lives in us. Join us as we dive into our Christmas sermon series entitled Arise & Shine: The Christmas Story. Christmas is the story of His illumination and the invitation for us is to arise and shine!

In this episode, we talk about Elias Canetti's 1960 book Crowds and Power. Equal parts political theory, poetic sociology, and speculative anthropology, this staggering work explores human social life through an increasingly elaborate series of reflections on the nature of crowds. The result is a fascinating typology of different kinds of crowds in which human beings cast off their individuality for the sake of equality and directed collective action: there are baiting crowds, feast crowds, prohibition crowds… Does a lynch mob follow a logic analogous to that of the viewing public in a world of mass media, a gathering of dancers attuned to the rhythms of the others, or those brought before the host of the invisible dead? What does it mean for the general strike that we fear the touch of others, until it's the thing we desire most? It's pretty wild stuff, and we find plenty of insights to pull out and play with.This is just a short teaser of the full episode. To hear the rest, please subscribe to us on Patreon:patreon.com/leftofphilosophyReferences:Elias Canetti, Crowds and Power, trans. Carol Stewart (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1984).Music:“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN

Since the global financial crisis, and even more over the last five years, capitalism's popularity has fallen, while the fortunes of the capitalist class have risen steeply. Polls show that a majority of people under forty, of any political affiliation, view democratic socialism positively and capitalism negatively. Even a majority of Republican voters believe that our economic system favors corporations and the wealthy. Journalist John Cassidy discusses capitalism through the eyes of its critics. (Full-length presentation.) John Cassidy, Capitalism and Its Critics A History: From the Industrial Revolution to AI Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2025 The post Criticizing Capitalism appeared first on KPFA.

While he may have been called a demagogue and a counterfeit Mussolini, Huey Long had some darn tootin' good ideas—mainly taxing the rich into oblivion. Strange Country cohosts Beth and Kelly talk about Long's rise to populist power in the 1930s and the corruption in its wake, but also how much a 65% tax increase on the rich makes a whole lotta sense. Like Long said "We only propose that, when one man gets more than he and his children and children's children can spend or use in their lifetimes, that then we shall say that such person has his share. That means that a few million dollars is the limit to what any one man can own." Theme music: Big White Lie by A Cast of Thousands Cite your sources: Burns, Ken, director. Huey Long. PBS, 1985.   Ganz, John. "Swamp Creature." When the Clock Broke : Con Men, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked up in the Early 1990s, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024, pp. 1-42.   "Governor Huey Long: Kidnapper." Medium, 21 November 2021, https://medium.com/historys-trainwrecks/governor-huey-long-kidnapper-52b69644141c. Accessed 15 November 2025.   Kolbert, Elizabeth. "The Big Sleazy." The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 12 June 2006, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/06/12/the-big-sleazy. Accessed 15 November 2025. White Jr., Lamar (April 2, 2018). "Huey P. Long wasn't assassinated"Bayou Brief. Archived from the original on June 9, 2020 White, Richard D. Kingfish : the Reign of Huey P. Long. Random House, 2006.

Leaning on God when you're living through a lean season. Sometimes life looks like Pharaoh's dream—ugly cows and empty ears. The abundance fades, plans dry up, and we're left wondering where God is in the scarcity. But lean seasons aren't a punishment; they're part of life. Hidden in those seasons are silos of grace and blessings that we can't live without. In Ugly Cows and Empty Ears, we'll learn how to find God's purpose in seasons of lack. When we lean on Jesus and lean into community, we discover that even in the famine, God is still faithful—and He's storing up something great for the days ahead.

Try to go through a day without using an analogy. I guarantee you'll fail within an hour. Your morning coffee tastes like yesterday's batch. Traffic is moving like molasses. Your boss sounds like a broken record. Every comparison you make—every single one—is your brain's way of understanding the world. You can't turn it off. When someone told you ChatGPT is "like having a smart assistant," your brain immediately knew what to expect—and what to worry about. When Netflix called itself "the HBO of streaming," investors understood the strategy instantly. These comparisons aren't just convenient—they're how billion-dollar companies are built and how your brain actually learns. The person who controls the analogy controls your thinking. In a world where you're bombarded with new concepts every single day—AI tools, cryptocurrency, remote work culture, creator economies—your brain needs a way to make sense of it all. By the end of this episode, you'll possess a powerful toolkit for understanding the unfamiliar by connecting it to what you already know—and explaining complex ideas so clearly that people wonder why they never saw it before. Thinking in analogies—or what's called analogical thinking—is how the greatest innovators, communicators, and problem-solvers operate. It's the skill that turns confusion into clarity and complexity into something you can actually work with. What is Analogical Thinking? But what does analogical thinking entail? At its core, it's the practice of understanding something new by comparing it to something you already understand. Your brain is constantly asking: "What is this like?" When you learned what a virus does to your computer, you understood it by comparing it to how biological viruses infect living organisms. When someone explains blockchain as "a shared spreadsheet that no one can erase," they're using analogy to make an abstract concept concrete. Researchers have found something remarkable: your brain doesn't actually store information as facts—it stores it as patterns and relationships. When you learn something new, your brain is literally asking "What does this remind me of?" and building connections to existing knowledge. Analogies aren't just helpful for communication—they're the fundamental mechanism of human understanding. You can't NOT think in analogies. The question is whether you're doing it consciously and well, or unconsciously and poorly. The quality of your analogies determines how quickly you learn, how deeply you understand, and how effectively you can explain ideas to others. Remember this: whoever controls the analogy controls the conversation. Master this skill, and you'll never be at the mercy of someone else's framing again. The Crisis of Bad Analogies Thinking in analogies is a double-edged sword. I learned this the hard way. A few years ago, I watched a brilliant engineer struggle to explain a revolutionary idea to executives. He had the data, the logic, the technical proof—but he couldn't get buy-in. Then someone in the room said, "So it's basically like Uber, but for industrial equipment?" Instantly, heads nodded. Funding approved. Project greenlit. One analogy did what an hour of explanation couldn't. Six months later, that same analogy killed the project. Because "Uber for equipment" came with assumptions—about pricing, about scale, about network effects—that didn't actually apply. The team kept forcing their solution to fit the analogy instead of recognizing when the comparison broke down. I watched millions of dollars and two years of work disappear because nobody questioned whether the analogy was still serving them. The same mental shortcut that helps you understand new things can also trap you in outdated patterns. Consider Quibi's spectacular failure. In 2020, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman launched a streaming service with $1.75 billion in funding—more than Netflix had when it started. Their analogy? "It's like TV shows, but designed for your phone." They created high-quality 10-minute episodes optimized for mobile viewing. Six months later, Quibi shut down. What went wrong? The analogy was flawed. They assumed mobile viewing was like TV viewing, just shorter. But people don't watch phones the way they watch TV—they watch phones while doing other things, in stolen moments, with interruptions. YouTube and TikTok understood this. They built for distraction and fragmentation. Quibi built for focused attention that didn't exist. That misunderstanding burned through nearly $2 billion in 18 months. We see this constantly where complex issues get reduced to simplistic analogies that feel intuitive but lead to flawed conclusions. Someone compares running a country to running a household budget—"If families have to balance their budgets, why shouldn't governments?" The analogy sounds intuitive, but it ignores that countries can print currency, carry strategic long-term debt, and operate on completely different time horizons than households. The cost of bad analogical thinking is enormous. You waste time applying solutions that worked in one context to problems where they don't fit. You miss opportunities because you're trying to squeeze new situations into old patterns. And worst of all, you become easy to manipulate—because anyone who controls your analogies controls how you think. How To Think Using Analogies So how do we harness the power of analogy while avoiding its traps? Let me show you five essential strategies that will transform how you use comparison to understand your world. Generate Analogies Systematically The first skill is learning to create useful analogies on demand. Most people wait for analogies to pop into their heads randomly, but you can develop a systematic process for generating them whenever you need one. Map the structure of what you're trying to understand, then search for similar structures in domains you know well. Netflix's recommendation algorithm didn't come from studying other algorithms—it came from asking "How do humans recommend things?" and mapping that social process onto a technical system. Steps to generate powerful analogies: Identify the core function or relationship: Strip away surface details and ask what the thing actually does. A heart pumps fluid through a system. Now you can compare it to anything else that pumps fluid—engines, wells, plumbing systems.  Look across multiple domains: Don't limit yourself to obvious comparisons. The best analogies often come from unexpected places. The inventor of Velcro, George de Mestral, understood how burrs stuck to fabric by comparing them to hooks and loops—leading to a billion-dollar fastening system.  Map specific correspondences: Once you find a potential analogy, be explicit about what maps to what. If you're comparing your startup to a marathon, what corresponds to training? What's the equivalent of hitting the wall? What represents the finish line?  Test the analogy's limits: Push the comparison and see where it breaks down. This isn't a failure—it's information. Every analogy has boundaries, and knowing them makes the analogy more useful.  Consider multiple analogies: Don't settle for the first comparison that works. Electricity is like water flowing through pipes AND like cars on a highway. Each analogy reveals different insights.  Recognize When Analogies Break Down Most people fall in love with an analogy and push it beyond its useful range. A powerful analogy becomes a dangerous one the moment you forget it's just a comparison, not reality itself. The human brain loves patterns, and once we find one that works, we want to apply it everywhere. This is how we end up with terrible advice like "Just be yourself in job interviews" because "authentic relationships require honesty"—taking an analogy from personal relationships and stretching it to professional contexts where it doesn't fit. How to recognize the breakdown: Watch for forced mappings: If you find yourself struggling to make pieces fit, the analogy might be wrong. When the comparison starts requiring elaborate explanations or special exceptions, it's probably breaking down.  Check for contradictory predictions: A good analogy should help you predict behavior. If your analogy suggests one outcome but reality keeps producing another, the comparison isn't working.  Look for what's missing: What does the analogy leave out? Understanding the gaps is as important as understanding the matches. Social media isn't "the modern town square"—because town squares had time constraints, physical presence, and social accountability that platforms lack.  Test edge cases: Push your analogy to extremes. If "your body is a temple," does that mean you should let tourists visit? When an analogy gets absurd at the edges, you've found its limits.  A good analogy is a map, not the territory. The moment you forget that, you're lost. Use Analogies to Explain Complex Ideas Analogies are your secret weapon for making complicated concepts accessible to anyone. The person who can explain quantum physics using everyday comparisons has a superpower in our information-saturated world. Match the analogy to your audience's knowledge and choose comparisons that illuminate rather than obscure. The explanatory analogy playbook: Know your audience's knowledge base: You can compare machine learning to "teaching a child through examples" for general audiences, but that same analogy won't work for computer scientists who need technical precision.  Start with the familiar: Always move from what people know to what they don't. "Imagine your favorite playlist, but instead of songs it recommends..." grounds abstract concepts in concrete experience.  Be explicit about the comparison: Don't assume people will automatically see the connection. Say "Think of it like this..." and make the mapping clear.  Use multiple analogies for complex concepts: One analogy rarely captures everything. Combine several different comparisons to give people multiple angles of understanding.  Identify False Analogies in Arguments People will use analogies to manipulate your thinking—sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. Workplace debates are full of analogical arguments: "Remote work is like letting students do homework unsupervised—productivity will plummet." But is professional work really like homework? The analogy assumes similarities that may not exist. Recognizing false analogies protects you from being intellectually hijacked. When someone uses comparison to make their argument, your job is to evaluate whether the comparison is valid. Your defense against false analogies: Ask what's being compared: Make the analogy explicit. Often people use vague gestures toward similarity without stating exactly what maps to what.  Examine the relevant similarities: Are the things being compared actually alike in ways that matter to the argument? Comparing a business to a family sounds warm, but families don't fire members for poor performance.  Identify critical differences: What's different between the two things? Sometimes those differences destroy the analogy's validity. Saying "hiring is like dating" ignores that employment is a contractual relationship with completely different expectations and legal frameworks than romantic partnerships.  Consider alternative analogies: If someone says "Unlimited vacation policies are like giving employees a blank check," counter with "Actually, it's more like trusting professionals to manage their own time like we trust them to manage budgets." Different analogies suggest different conclusions.  Demand literal argument: When someone relies heavily on analogy to make their case, ask them to make the argument without comparison. If they can't, the analogy might be doing rhetorical work rather than logical work.  Build Your Analogy Library The final strategy is long-term: deliberately expand your collection of mental models and experiences so you have more source material for analogies. The person who only knows their own industry can only draw comparisons from that narrow domain. But someone who reads widely, pursues diverse experiences, and studies multiple fields can make unexpected connections. Steve Jobs famously took a calligraphy class—years later, those insights about typeface and design influenced the Mac's revolutionary interface. The analogy between typographic beauty and digital design wouldn't have been available without that cross-domain experience. Building your source material: Read across disciplines: Don't just consume content in your field. Read history, science, philosophy, biography. Each domain gives you new patterns to recognize elsewhere.  Study other industries: How do restaurants manage inventory? How do sports teams develop talent? These patterns might apply to your completely different context.  Learn the fundamental models: Some analogies recur because they capture universal patterns. Evolution, network effects, compound interest, equilibrium—these models apply across countless domains.  Practice deliberately: Make it a habit to ask "What is this like?" when you encounter new ideas. The more you practice generating analogies, the faster and better you'll become.  Practice A practical and effective way to develop this skill is to practice explaining concepts across contexts. Here's how you can sharpen your ability to think in analogies: Choose a concept you know well: Pick something from your area of expertise—a technical process, a business strategy, a creative technique, whatever you know deeply.  Identify three different audiences: Consider explaining this concept to a child, to someone in a completely different profession, and to an expert in an unrelated field.  Generate three analogies: For each audience, create a different analogy that would make the concept clear. Force yourself to draw from domains that audience would understand.  Test your analogies: If possible, actually explain your concept to someone using your analogy. Watch their face—confusion means the analogy isn't working, clarity means it is.  Refine and iterate: Share your analogies with others and adjust based on their feedback. The best analogies often emerge through conversation and iteration.  This exercise trains you to think flexibly, draw connections across domains, and understand the mechanics of what makes analogies work or fail. The more you practice, the more naturally these comparisons will come to you when you need them. The Rewards Mastering analogical thinking is a journey, not a destination. It requires constant practice, intellectual curiosity, and the humility to recognize when your comparisons break down. But the rewards are transformative. You'll learn faster by connecting new information to what you already know. You'll explain complex ideas with clarity that makes you invaluable in any professional setting. You'll spot flawed reasoning in arguments before others even notice something's wrong. You'll generate creative solutions by borrowing patterns from unexpected domains. Most importantly, you'll develop the mental flexibility to navigate an increasingly complex world. When AI reshapes your industry, you'll understand it by comparison to previous technological disruptions. When new social dynamics emerge, you'll make sense of them by recognizing familiar patterns in new contexts. The best thinkers aren't those who memorize the most facts—they're those who see connections others miss. Steve Jobs didn't invent the smartphone—he saw that a phone could be like a computer in your pocket. Jeff Bezos didn't invent retail—he saw that a bookstore could be like an infinite warehouse. Every breakthrough starts with someone asking "What if this is like that?" That's the power of thinking in analogies. And now you have the tools to make it yours. Your Thinking 101 Journey The Thinking 101 series is teaching you how to think clearly in a world designed to confuse you—here's our journey so far: In Episode 1, we exposed the thinking crisis—AI dependency is creating cognitive debt, and independent thinking has become the most valuable skill in the modern world. In Episode 2, you learned to distinguish deductive certainty from inductive probability and stop treating patterns as proven facts. In Episode 3, you discovered how to distinguish true causation from mere correlation—saving yourself from solving the wrong problem perfectly. Today, you learned how to harness the power of analogies while avoiding their traps—generating useful comparisons systematically, recognizing when analogies break down, and spotting false analogies that manipulate thinking. Up next—Episode 5: "Probabilistic Thinking—Living with Uncertainty." You'll learn how to think in probabilities rather than certainties, make decisions with incomplete information, and act wisely when nothing is guaranteed. Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss future episodes. Also—hit the like and notification bell. It helps with the algorithm so others see our content. Why not share this video with a colleague who you think would benefit from it? Because right now, while you've been watching this, someone just pitched a billion-dollar idea using a flawed analogy—and investors nodded along because it "sounded like" something that worked before. The only question is: will you be the one who sees through it? SOURCES CITED IN THIS EPISODE Cognitive Science Research on Analogical Reasoning Green, A.E., Fugelsang, J.A., & Dunbar, K.N. (2006). Automatic activation of categorical and abstract analogical relations in analogical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 34(7), 1414-1421. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03195906  Brain Pattern Recognition and Memory Storage Gentner, D., & Smith, L. (2012). Analogical Reasoning. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition), 1, 130-136. https://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/gentner/papers/gentnerSmith_2012.pdf  Neuroscience of Analogical Thinking Parsons, S., Maillet, D., Sayfullin, A., & Ansari, D. (2022). The Neural Correlates of Analogy Component Processes. Cognitive Science, 46(3). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35297092/  Quibi Shutdown and Funding Details Spangler, T. (2020). Quibi Confirms Shutdown, Jeffrey Katzenberg Startup Will Shop Assets. Variety. October 22, 2020.https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/quibi-confirms-shutdown-jeffrey-katzenberg-meg-whitman-1234812643/  Quibi Funding History Crunchbase. (2020). Quibi Is Shutting Down After Raising $1.75B In Funding. October 22, 2020. https://news.crunchbase.com/startups/quibi-shutting-down/  Steve Jobs Stanford Commencement Speech Jobs, S. (2005). 'You've got to find what you love,' Jobs says. Stanford Commencement Address. June 12, 2005. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2005/06/youve-got-find-love-jobs-says  ADDITIONAL READING On Analogical Reasoning and Cognition Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. MIT Press. Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. N. (Eds.). (2001). The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. MIT Press. On Thinking and Decision-Making Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. On Innovation and Cross-Domain Learning Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. Simon & Schuster. Note: All sources cited in this episode have been accessed and verified as of October 2025.

Show notes and links: www.chrisbeatcancer.com/how-karla-mans-giroux-healed-metastatic-breast-cancer

Your mental health is more habit than happenstance. Join us as we learn five habits that build a happy life.

Welcome, my ghouls! In this episode, I explore the Gothic body, where beauty, death and desire intertwine. From vampire myths to historical obsessions with youth and purity, I uncover how the pursuit of eternal beauty has always revealed something darker about power, fear, and control. ***Listener Discretion is Strongly Advised*******************Sources & References:Kubiesa, Jane M. (2021). Cultural Representations of the Transformative Body in Young Adult Multi-Volume Vampire Fiction, 2000–2010. University of Sheffield.Kavka, Misha. (2002). The Gothic on Screen. In The Cambridge Companion to Gothic Fiction, edited by Jerrold E. Hogle. Cambridge University Press.Sontag, Susan. (1978). Illness as Metaphor. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Illness & Illustration: The Beauty Myths of Tuberculosis & Vampires. Infectious Science. Retrieved from [Infectious Science website].Vampire Panic. (n.d.). Science History Institute. Retrieved from [sciencehistory.org].Flückinger, Johannes. (1732). Visum et Repertum: Report on the Case of Arnold Paole. Austrian Army Medical Corps.Elizabeth Báthory in Popular Culture. Wikipedia. Retrieved from [wikipedia.org].Smith, Robyn. (2020). Looking Like the Other: The Evolution of Vampire Fashion. Online article.****************Leave Us a 5* Rating, it really helps the show!Apple Podcast:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beauty-unlocked-the-podcast/id1522636282Spotify Podcast:https://open.spotify.com/show/37MLxC8eRob1D0ZcgcCorA****************Follow Us on Social Media & Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!YouTube:@beautyunlockedspodcasthourTikTok:tiktok.com/@beautyunlockedthepod****************MUSIC & SOUND FX:"Haunted Mind" Etienne Roussel"The Haunted" Luella GrenRain Light 6- SFX ProducerEpidemic SoundFind the perfect track on Epidemic Sound for your content and take it to the next level! See what the hype is all about!

$37 billion. That's how much gets wasted annually on marketing budgets because of poor attribution and misunderstanding of what actually drives results. Companies' credit campaigns that didn't work. They kill initiatives that were actually succeeding. They double down on coincidences while ignoring what's actually driving outcomes.   Three executives lost their jobs this month for making the same mistake. They presented data showing success after their initiatives were launched. Boards approved promotions. Then someone asked the one question nobody thought to ask: "Could something else explain this?" The sales spike coincided with a competitor going bankrupt. The satisfaction increase happened when a toxic manager quit. The correlation was real. The causation was fiction. This mistake derailed their careers.   But here's the good news: once you see how this works, you'll never unsee it. And you'll become the person in the room who spots these errors before they cost millions.   But first, you need to understand what makes this mistake so common—and why even smart people fall for it every single day. What is Causal Thinking? At its core, causal thinking is the practice of identifying genuine cause-and-effect relationships rather than settling for surface-level associations. It's asking not just "do these things happen together?" but "does one actually cause the other?"   This skill means you look beyond patterns and correlations to understand what's actually producing the outcomes you're seeing. When you think causally, you can spot the difference between coincidence, correlation, and true causation—a distinction that separates effective decision-makers from those who waste millions on solutions that were never going to work. Loss of Causal Thinking Skills Across every domain of professional life, this confusion costs fortunes and derails careers.   A SaaS company sees customer churn decrease after implementing new onboarding emails—and immediately scales it company-wide. What they missed: they launched the emails the same week their biggest competitor raised prices by 40%. The competitor's pricing reduced churn. But they'll never know, because they never asked the question. Six months later, when they face real churn issues, they keep doubling down on emails that never actually worked.   This happens outside of work too. You start taking a new vitamin, and two weeks later your energy improves. But you started taking it in early March—right when days got longer and you began going outside more. Was it the vitamin or the sunlight and exercise? Most people credit the vitamin without asking the question.   But here's the good news: once you understand how to think causally, these mistakes become obvious. And one of these five strategies can be used in your very next meeting—literally 30 seconds from now. Let me show you how. How To Master Causal Thinking Mastering causal thinking isn't about becoming a statistician or learning complex formulas. It's about developing five practical strategies that work together to reveal what's really driving results. These build on each other—starting with basic tests you can apply right now, and progressing to a complete system you can use for any decision. Strategy 1: The Three Tests of True Causation Think of these as your checklist for evaluating any causal claim.   The Three Tests:   Test #1 - Timing: Confirm the supposed cause actually happened before the effect. If traffic spiked Monday but you launched the campaign Tuesday, that campaign didn't cause it. The cause must always come before the effect.   Test #2 - Consistent Movement: When the supposed cause is present, does the effect reliably occur? When the cause is absent, does the effect disappear? Document instances where they occur together. Then examine situations where the cause is absent. If the effect happens just as often without the cause, you're looking at correlation, not causation.   Test #3 - Rule Out Alternatives: Think carefully about what else could explain what you're seeing. Actively try to disprove your idea rather than only looking for supporting evidence. If you can't eliminate other explanations, you don't have causation. Strategy 2: Ask "Could Something Else Explain This?" Here's a technique you can implement in the next 30 seconds that will immediately improve your causal thinking: whenever someone presents a causal claim, ask out loud: "Could something else explain this?"   This single question is remarkably powerful. It forces the speaker to consider hidden factors they ignored. It reveals whether they've actually done causal analysis or just noticed a correlation and declared victory. It shifts the conversation from assumption to examination.   Try it in your next meeting when someone says "We did X and Y improved." Watch how often they haven't considered alternatives. Watch how often their confident causal claim becomes less certain when forced to address this simple question.   Most people present correlations as causations without even realizing it. Your question makes that leap visible. Suddenly they have to justify it with evidence or back down. It's not confrontational—it's curious. And curiosity is the foundation of good causal thinking.   Use it today. Use it every time someone attributes an outcome to a cause without ruling out alternatives.   That question leads us naturally to our next strategy—learning to identify what those "something elses" actually are. Strategy 3: Hunt for Hidden Causes A confounding variable is a third factor that influences both your suspected cause and your observed effect. It creates the illusion of a direct relationship where none exists.   Here's a simple example: ice cream sales and drowning deaths both increase during summer months. Does ice cream cause drowning? Obviously not. The confounding variable is warm weather, which causes both more ice cream purchases and more swimming.   Now here's the business version: A retail company sees both customer satisfaction and sales increase after renovating their stores. Does the renovation cause higher satisfaction? Maybe—but both also increased because they renovated during the holiday shopping season when people are generally happier and spending more anyway. Same logical structure. Same expensive mistake if they conclude renovations always boost satisfaction.   Map the Relationship: When you observe a correlation, write down your suspected cause and your observed effect. This visualization helps you spot gaps in your logic immediately.   Ask "What Else Changed?": Think carefully about what other factors were present or changed during the same period. Make a written list so your brain doesn't skip over these hidden causes.   Search for Common Causes: Identify factors that could influence both variables at the same time. For instance, if both employee satisfaction and productivity increased, could several toxic managers have left the company?   Consider Time-Based and Environmental Factors: Examine seasons, business cycles, economic trends, reorganizations, leadership changes, and industry shifts that could affect multiple outcomes at once.   Test by Controlling Variables: If possible, create scenarios where you can control or account for potential hidden causes. Try analyzing subgroups where the hidden cause is absent, or run controlled A/B tests.   Once you can spot these hidden causes, you're ready to understand why your brain makes these mistakes in the first place. And this next one? It's probably happening in your head right now without you realizing it. Strategy 4: Outsmart Your Brain's Shortcuts Your brain is wired to see causal connections everywhere, even where none exist. This isn't a design flaw—it's a survival mechanism that kept your ancestors alive. But in the modern business world, this pattern-seeking instinct can mislead you.   Your brain wants simple causal stories. Reality is usually more complex. Once you know what to watch for, you can catch yourself before making these errors.   Catch Your Instant Explanations: When you observe a pattern, pause before declaring causation. Ask yourself: "Am I seeing causation because it's really there, or because my brain desperately needs an explanation?"   Fight Confirmation Bias: Actively search for information that challenges your causal idea, not just data that supports it. If you can't find contradicting evidence, you haven't looked hard enough.   Here's how this plays out: A manager believes remote work hurts productivity. She notices every time someone's late to a Zoom call. But she doesn't notice the three on-time people. She remembers the one missed deadline but forgets the five delivered early. Her brain is filtering reality to confirm what she already believes.   Question Your Compelling Stories: Be wary of explanations that sound too neat. If your causal explanation reads like a perfect success story, double-check it.   Don't See Patterns in Randomness: Three successful quarters in a row doesn't mean you've discovered a winning formula. It might just be a lucky streak. Always ask "Could this pattern occur by chance?"   Watch the 'After Therefore Because' Trap: Every time you catch yourself thinking "we did X and then Y happened," force yourself to consider alternative explanations. Ask yourself "What would I need to see to know this isn't causal?"   Now that you understand how your brain works, let's put this all together into a practical system you can use every time you need to make a high-stakes decision. Strategy 5: The Five-Question Causation Check Mastering causal thinking requires more than understanding principles—it demands a clear approach you can apply when the stakes are high and the pressure is on.   The Five-Question Causation Check:   Define the Relationship Clearly: Write out the specific causal claim you're evaluating with precision. "Social media advertising increases qualified leads by X%" is better than "marketing works."   Verify the Basics: Does the cause come before the effect in time? Are they consistently related across different contexts? Are there possible alternative explanations?   Look for or Create Tests: Find situations where the supposed cause varies while other factors stay constant. The goal is isolation—can you isolate the variable you're testing from everything else that's changing?   Check if More Causes More: Does more of the cause lead to more of the effect? If doubling your ad spend doubles your conversions, that's stronger evidence than if the relationship is erratic.   Test Reversibility: If you remove the cause, does the effect disappear? If you reinstate the cause, does the effect return? This is why pilot programs and controlled rollbacks are so valuable. Put It Into Practice You now have the complete framework for causal thinking—five strategies that work together to reveal what's really causing what.   But here's what separates people who learn this from people who actually use it—one simple practice you can do this week that makes this framework automatic. Practice Exercise: The Causation Audit A practical and effective way to internalize these strategies is through practice with real-world scenarios from your actual work.   Here's how to conduct your own causal analysis:   Identify a Correlation from Your Work: Choose a recent pattern or causal claim that affects budgets or strategy.   State Your Causal Hypothesis: Write out your causal claim explicitly. Be specific about the supposed cause and the supposed effect.   Brainstorm Alternative Explanations: List at least five alternatives. Force yourself beyond the obvious first three.   Apply Your Three Tests: Evaluate whether your idea meets all three tests for causation. Did the cause come first? Do they consistently move together? Have you actually ruled out alternatives?   Design a Simple Test: If possible, design a test to isolate the variable you're testing. For example, have some account managers follow one approach while others don't, with otherwise similar conditions.   Share Your Analysis: Explain your reasoning to a colleague or manager. Teaching forces clarity and demonstrates analytical rigor.   With practice, you'll become skilled at spotting false causation and identifying true cause-and-effect relationships. This skill compounds over time, making you more valuable with every analysis you conduct.   So what does this actually get you? Let me paint the picture of what changes when you master this skill. The Rewards The rewards of mastering causal thinking are well worth the effort and will compound throughout your career.   You become immune to the most expensive mistakes in business—the ones where you solve the wrong problem perfectly. When everyone else is celebrating a correlation as success, you'll be asking the questions that reveal what's really driving outcomes. Imagine being in a meeting where leadership is about to allocate $2 million to scale an initiative, and you're the one who asks the question that reveals a competitor's bankruptcy actually caused the results. That's career-defining value.   Your strategic recommendations carry weight because they're based on actual causation rather than hopeful patterns. Leaders who can distinguish between correlation and causation make decisions that actually work. When your predictions prove accurate while others' fail, your credibility compounds—you become the person everyone turns to when stakes are high.   You develop the intellectual humility that marks exceptional leaders. Causal thinking teaches you to question your initial judgments, seek alternative explanations, and change your mind when evidence demands it. These qualities don't just make you a better thinker—they make you someone others trust with important decisions.   So take these strategies and practice them. Apply them in your daily work. Question causal claims, hunt for hidden causes, check your biases, and use the systematic process. This makes you a more effective decision-maker, a more credible advisor, and someone who spots opportunities and avoids disasters that others miss entirely.   And you'll become the person in the room everyone listens to when the stakes are high. Your Thinking 101 Journey In Episode 1, "Why Thinking Skills Matter Now More Than Ever," we exposed the crisis: your thinking ability is collapsing, AI dependency is creating cognitive debt, and those who can't think independently will be left behind.   In Episode 2, "How To Improve Your Logical Reasoning Skills," you learned to distinguish deductive certainty from inductive probability, calibrate your confidence to match your evidence, and stop treating patterns as proven facts.   Today, you learned how to distinguish true causation from mere correlation—saving yourself from expensive mistakes where you solve the wrong problem perfectly.   Up next—Episode 4: "Analogical Thinking—The Power of Comparison." Your brain doesn't learn through pure logic—it learns by comparison. Every breakthrough idea came from someone who made an unexpected connection. You'll learn how to generate insights through analogy, recognize when comparisons break down, and spot when others use false analogies to manipulate you.   Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss future episodes. Also—hit the like and notification bell. It helps with the algorithm so others see our content. Why not share this video with a colleague who you think would benefit from it?   Because right now, while you've been watching this, someone just approved a million-dollar budget based on a correlation they mistook for causation. The only question is: will you be the one who catches it?       SOURCES CITED IN THIS EPISODE Pathmetrics – Marketing Attribution Waste 5 Common Marketing Attribution Mistakes to Avoid. (2025). Pathmetrics. (Citing Proxima research on global marketing waste) https://www.pathmetrics.io/attribution/5-common-marketing-attribution-mistakes-to-avoid/   Harvard Business Review – Correlation vs Causation in Leadership Luca, M. (2021). Leaders: Stop Confusing Correlation with Causation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/11/leaders-stop-confusing-correlation-with-causation   The CEO Project – Correlation vs Causation in Business Correlation vs Causation in Business. (2024). The CEO Project. https://theceoproject.com/correlation-vs-causation-in-business/   Nature Communications – Causality in Digital Medicine Glocker, B., Musolesi, M., Richens, J., & Uhler, C. (2021). Causality in digital medicine. Nature Communications, 12, 4993. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25743-9   Stanford Social Innovation Review – The Case for Causal AI Sgaier, S. K., Huang, V., & Charles, G. (2020). The Case for Causal AI. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_case_for_causal_ai       ADDITIONAL READING On Causation and Decision-Making Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books.   On Thinking Clearly Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.   On Statistical Reasoning Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton University Press.         Note: All sources cited in this episode have been accessed and verified as of October 2025.  

Your mental health is more habit than happenstance. Join us these next two weeks to learn five habits that build a happy life.

Welcome, my devilish fiends!Join me as we trace the roots of the vampire back to the women who came before her: Lamia, Lilith, and the succubi.These "monstrous" figures haunted ancient myth and medieval imagination, embodying male fears of female power, pleasure, and autonomy. Long before Dracula, they turned desire into danger and defiance into sin. Their stories reveal how myth and theology worked together to make women's power appear monstrous and how those same fears still shape the vampire we know today. So, close your doors and windows, turn off the lights, get cozy, and join me... ***Listener Discretion is Strongly Advised*******************Sources & References:Epic of Gilgamesh – references to lilītu demons.The Alphabet of Ben Sira.The Zohar (Book of Splendor).Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana.Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, Malleus Maleficarum.King James VI of Scotland, Daemonologie.John Keats, Lamia.Sarah Iles Johnston, Restless Dead: Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece (University of California Press, 1999).Daniel Ogden, Drakōn: Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford University Press, 2013).Judith Plaskow, The Coming of Lilith: Essays on Feminism, Judaism, and Sexual Ethics, 1972–2003 (Beacon Press, 2005).Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co., 1974).Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess (Wayne State University Press, 1990).Jeffrey Burton Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages (Cornell University Press, 1972).Deborah Lyons, Dangerous Gifts: Gender and Exchange in Ancient Greece (Princeton University Press, 1997).Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, Dictionary of Women in Religious Art (Oxford University Press, 1996).Nina Auerbach, Our Vampires, Ourselves (University of Chicago Press, 1995).Paul Barber, Vampires, Burial, and Death: Folklore and Reality (Yale University Press, 1988).Barbara Creed, The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis (Routledge, 1993).Marina Warner, From the Beast to the Blonde: On Fairy Tales and Their Tellers (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995).****************Leave Us a 5* Rating, it really helps the show!Apple Podcast:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beauty-unlocked-the-podcast/id1522636282Spotify Podcast:https://open.spotify.com/show/37MLxC8eRob1D0ZcgcCorA****************Follow Us on Social Media & Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!YouTube:@beautyunlockedspodcasthourTikTok:tiktok.com/@beautyunlockedthepod****************MUSIC & SOUND FX:"Beast by Beast" by Edward Karl Hanson"An Obsession" by DayonEpidemic SoundFind the perfect track on Epidemic Sound for your content and take it to the next level! See what the hype is all about!

You see a headline: "Study Shows Coffee Drinkers Live Longer." You share it in 3 seconds flat. But here's what just happened—you confused correlation with causation, inductive observation with deductive proof, and you just became a vector for misinformation. Right now, millions of people are doing the exact same thing, spreading beliefs they think are facts, making decisions based on patterns that don't exist, all while feeling absolutely certain they're thinking clearly.   We live in a world drowning in information—but starving for truth. Every day, you're presented with hundreds of claims, arguments, and patterns. Some are solid. Most are not. And the difference between knowing which is which and just guessing? That's the difference between making good decisions and stumbling through life confused about why things keep going wrong.   Most of us have never been taught the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. We stumble through life applying deductive certainty to inductive guesses, treating observations as proven facts, and wondering why our conclusions keep failing us. But once we understand which type of reasoning a situation demands, we gain something powerful—the ability to calibrate our confidence appropriately, recognize manipulation, and build every other thinking skill on a foundation that actually works.   By the end of this episode, you'll possess a practical toolkit for improving your logical reasoning—four core strategies, one quick-win technique, and a practice exercise you can start today.   This is Episode 2 of Thinking 101, a new 8-part series on essential thinking skills most of us never learned in school. Links to all episodes are in the description below.       What is Logical Reasoning? But what does logical reasoning entail? At its core, there are two fundamental ways humans draw conclusions, and you're using both right now without consciously choosing between them.   Deductive reasoning moves from general principles to specific conclusions with absolute certainty. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. "All mammals have hearts. Dogs are mammals. Therefore, dogs have hearts." There's no wiggle room—if those first two statements are true, the conclusion is guaranteed. This is the realm of mathematics, formal logic, and established law.   Inductive reasoning works in reverse, building from specific observations toward general principles with varying degrees of probability. You observe patterns and infer likely explanations. "I've seen 1,000 swans and they were all white, therefore all swans are probably white." This feels certain, but it's actually just highly probable based on limited evidence. History proved this reasoning wrong when black swans were discovered in Australia.   Both are tools. Neither is "better." The question is which tool fits the job—and whether you're using it correctly.       Loss of Logical Reasoning Skills Why does this matter? Because across every domain of life, this reasoning confusion is costing us.   In our social media consumption, we're drowning in inductive reasoning disguised as deductive proof. Researchers at MIT found that fake news spreads ten times faster than accurate reporting. Why? Because misleading content exploits this confusion. You see a viral post claiming "New study proves smartphones cause depression in teenagers," with graphs and official-looking citations. What you're actually seeing is inductive correlation presented as deductive causation—researchers observed that depressed teenagers often use smartphones more, but that doesn't prove smartphones caused the depression.   And this is where it gets truly terrifying—I need you to hear this carefully:   In 2015, researchers tried to replicate 100 psychology studies published in top scientific journals. Only 36% held up. Read that again: Nearly two-thirds of peer-reviewed, published research couldn't be reproduced. And those false studies? Still being cited. Still shaping policy. Still being shared as "science proves." You're building your worldview on a foundation where 64% of the bricks are made of air.   In our personal relationships, we constantly make inductive inferences about people's intentions and treat them as deductive facts. Your partner forgets to text back three times this week. You observe the pattern, inductively infer "they're losing interest," then act with deductive certainty—becoming distant, accusatory, or defensive. But what if those three instances had three different explanations? What if the pattern we detected isn't actually a pattern at all? We say "you always" or "you never" based on three data points. We end relationships over patterns that never existed.   So why didn't anyone teach us this? Traditional schooling focuses on teaching us what to think—facts, formulas, established knowledge. Deductive reasoning gets attention in math class as a mechanical process for solving equations. Inductive reasoning gets buried in science class, completely disconnected from actual decision-making. We graduated with facts crammed into our heads but no framework for evaluating new claims.   But that changes now.       How To Improve Your Logical Reasoning You now understand the two reasoning systems and why mixing them up is costing you. Let's fix that. These five strategies will give you immediate control over your logical reasoning—starting with the most foundational skill and building to a technique you can use in your next conversation. Label Your Reasoning Type The first step to improving your logical reasoning is becoming aware of which system you're using—and we rarely stop to check.   We flip between deductive and inductive thinking dozens of times per day without realizing it. You see your colleague get promoted after working late, and you instantly conclude that working late leads to promotion—that's inductive. But you're treating it like a deductive rule: "If I work late, I WILL get promoted." The moment you label which type you're using, you regain control.   Start with a daily reasoning journal. At the end of each day, write down three conclusions you made—about people, work, news, anything.   For each conclusion, ask: "What evidence led me here?" If it's general rules applied to specifics (all mammals have hearts, dogs are mammals), you used deduction. If it's patterns from observations (I've seen this three times), you used induction.   Label each one: "D" for deductive, "I" for inductive. This creates conscious awareness. You'll likely find 80-90% of your daily reasoning is inductive—but you've been treating it as deductive certainty.   When you catch yourself saying "always," "never," "definitely," stop and ask: "Is this deductive certainty or inductive probability?" That single pause changes everything.   Practice in real-time during conversations. When someone makes a claim, silently label it: deductive or inductive? Weak reasoning becomes obvious instantly.   After one week of journaling, review your entries. Patterns emerge in your reasoning errors—specific topics where you consistently overstate certainty, or people you make assumptions about. This awareness is the foundation for improvement.       Calibrate Your Confidence Once you've labeled your reasoning type, the next step is matching your certainty level to the strength of your evidence.   Here's where most people fail: they feel 100% certain about conclusions built on three observations. Your brain doesn't naturally calibrate—it defaults to "this feels true, therefore it IS true." But when you explicitly assign probability levels to inductive conclusions, you stop making the most common reasoning error: treating patterns as proven facts.   For every inductive conclusion, assign a percentage. "Given these five observations, I'm 60% confident this pattern is real." Never use 100% for inductive reasoning—by definition, inductive conclusions are probabilistic, not certain.   Use this language shift in conversations: Replace "You always ignore my suggestions" with "I've brought up ideas in the last two meetings and haven't heard feedback, which makes me about 40% confident there's a communication pattern worth discussing." Replace "This definitely works" with "From what I've seen, I'm 70% confident this approach is effective."   Create a certainty threshold for action. Decide: "I need 70% confidence before I make a major decision based on inductive reasoning." This prevents impulsive moves based on weak patterns. Below 50%? Keep observing. Above 80%? Worth acting on.   Keep a confidence log for one week. Write your predictions with probability levels ("80% confident it will rain tomorrow," "60% confident this project will succeed"). Then check if you were right. This trains your calibration. You'll discover whether you're overstating or understating your certainty—and you can adjust.   When someone presents "definitive" claims based on inductive evidence, ask: "What certainty level would you assign that? 60%? 90%?" Watch them realize they've been overstating their case. This question immediately disrupts manipulation.       Hunt for Contradictions Your brain naturally seeks confirming evidence and ignores contradictions—this strategy forces you to do the opposite.   Confirmation bias is the enemy of good inductive reasoning. Once you believe something, your brain becomes a heat-seeking missile for evidence that supports it. The only antidote? Actively hunt for evidence that contradicts your conclusion. It's uncomfortable, yes, but it's the difference between being right and feeling right.   For every inductive conclusion you reach, set a 24-hour "contradiction hunt." Your job is to find at least two pieces of evidence that contradict your conclusion. If you believe "remote work increases productivity," you must find credible sources claiming the opposite.   Use search terms designed to find opposites. Search for "remote work decreases productivity study" or "evidence against intermittent fasting." Force-feed yourself the other side. Google's algorithm wants to confirm your beliefs—you have to actively fight it.   Create a contradiction column in your reasoning journal. For each conclusion (left column), list contradicting evidence (right column). If you can't find any contradictions, you haven't looked hard enough—or you're in an echo chamber.   In debates or discussions, argue the opposite position for 5 minutes. Seriously. If you believe X, spend 5 minutes making the best possible case for NOT X. This breaks confirmation bias and reveals holes in your reasoning you couldn't see before.   Before sharing anything on social media, spend 2 minutes actively searching for contradicting evidence. Search "[claim] debunked" or "[claim] false" or look for the opposite perspective. If you find credible contradictions, pause. The claim is disputed. Either don't share it, or share it with context like "Interesting claim, though [credible source] disputes this because..." This habit trains you to think critically before becoming a misinformation vector.       Question the Sample Most bad inductive reasoning fails the sample size test—and almost no one thinks to ask. Here's the manipulation technique you need to spot: Someone shows you three examples and declares a universal truth. "I know three people who got rich with crypto, therefore crypto makes everyone rich." Three examples. Seven billion people. Your brain treats this as evidence—until you ask about the total number. This question alone dismantles 90% of weak arguments. Every time someone makes an inductive claim, ask out loud: "How many observations is that based on?" Three? Thirty? Three thousand? The number matters enormously. One person's experience is an anecdote. Ten similar experiences start to suggest a pattern. A hundred becomes meaningful. A thousand builds real confidence. Learn the rough sample sizes for different certainty levels. For casual patterns: 10-20 observations. For moderate confidence: 100-500. For high confidence: 1,000+. For scientific certainty: 10,000+. Five examples claiming certainty? That's weak, and now you know it. Always check the total number—whether it's called sample size, denominator, or population. When someone shows examples or cites a study, ask: "Out of how many total?" Three testimonials mean nothing without knowing if it's 3 out of 10 (30% success rate) or 3 out of 10,000 (0.03%). When reading headlines like "Study shows X," click through and find the sample size. "Study of 12 people" is not the same as "Study of 12,000 people." The total number is usually hidden because it reveals how weak the claim really is. In your own reasoning, track your sample. Before concluding "this restaurant is always slow," count: how many times have you been there? Three? That's not "always"—that's barely data. You need at least 10 visits across different times and days before you can claim a pattern. Challenge yourself: Can you find a larger sample that contradicts your small sample? If your three experiences clash with 3,000 online reviews saying the opposite, which should you trust? The larger sample wins unless you have specific reasons to believe it's biased.       The One-Word Test (Quick Win) Here's a technique you can implement in the next 30 seconds that will immediately improve your logical reasoning: stop using absolute language.   Every time you're about to say "always" or "never," catch yourself and replace it with "usually" or "rarely." Every time you're about to say "definitely" or "certainly," use "probably" or "likely" instead.   This single word swap trains your brain to think probabilistically. It acknowledges that most of your reasoning is inductive—based on patterns, not guarantees. And here's the bonus: people will perceive you as more credible because you're not overstating your case.   Try it right now in your next conversation. Watch how often you reach for absolute language—and how much clearer your thinking becomes when you don't use it.       Practice The most effective way to internalize these strategies is through practice with real-world scenarios. The Pattern Detective Challenge Find three claims from your social media feed today—anything that declares a pattern, trend, or "truth" (health advice, political claims, life advice, product recommendations).   For each claim, identify: Is this deductive or inductive reasoning? Write it down. Most will be inductive disguised as deductive. "This supplement WILL boost your energy" sounds deductive, but it's based on inductive observations.   If inductive, assess the sample size. How many observations is this based on? One person's testimonial? A study? How many participants? Is the sample representative of the broader population?   Assign a certainty level. Given the sample size and quality of evidence, what probability would you assign this claim? 30%? 60%? 90%? Be honest—most will be below 70%.   Hunt for contradictions. Spend 5 minutes finding evidence that contradicts the claim. Can you find it? How credible is it? Does it have a larger sample size than the original claim?   Rewrite the claim with calibrated language. Change "Intermittent fasting WILL make you healthier" to "From studies of X people, intermittent fasting appears to improve some health markers for some people, though individual results vary—confidence level: 65%."   Share your analysis with someone. Explain your reasoning process. Teaching others reinforces your own learning and reveals gaps you didn't notice.   Repeat this exercise 3 times per week for one month. By the end, automatic evaluation becomes second nature. You won't need to think about it—it just happens.       The Rewards The journey of improving your logical reasoning is ongoing, but the rewards compound quickly.   You become nearly impossible to manipulate. When you can spot the difference between inductive observation and deductive proof, 90% of manipulation tactics stop working. The car salesman's pitch falls flat. The political ad looks transparent. The social media rage-bait loses its power.   Your relationships improve dramatically. When you stop saying "you always" and start saying "I've noticed this three times," you create space for understanding instead of defensiveness. Conflicts become conversations. Assumptions become questions.   Your professional credibility skyrockets. Leaders who can distinguish between strong deductive arguments and weak inductive patterns make better strategic decisions. When you speak with calibrated confidence—saying "I'm 70% confident" instead of "I'm absolutely certain"—people trust your judgment more, not less.   You build a foundation for every other thinking skill. Spotting logical fallacies, evaluating evidence, resisting cognitive biases, asking better questions—all of these depend on understanding which type of reasoning you're using and which type the situation demands.   You're not just learning a thinking skill—you're installing psychological armor that most people don't even know exists. And in a world where manipulation is the norm, that makes you dangerous to anyone trying to control you. Every week on Substack, I go deeper—sharing personal examples, failed experiments, and lessons I couldn't fit in the video. It's like the director's cut. This week's Substack deep dive into a logical reasoning failure can be found at: https://philmckinney.substack.com/p/kroger-copied-hps-innovation-playbook        Your Thinking 101 Journey This is Episode 2 of Thinking 101: The Essential Skills They Never Taught You—an 8-part foundation series where each episode unlocks the next.   If you missed Episode 1, "Why Thinking Skills Matter Now More Than Ever," start there. It explains why this entire skillset has become essential.   Up next: Episode 3, "Causal Thinking: Beyond Correlation." You'll learn how to distinguish between things that simply happen together and things that actually cause each other—transforming how you evaluate health claims, business strategies, and relationship patterns.   Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss any future episodes. Also - hit the like and notification bell. It helps with the algorithm so others see our content. Why not share this video with a coworker or a family member who you think would benefit from it? …     Because right now, while you've been watching this, someone just shared a lie that felt like truth. The only question is: will you be able to tell the difference?     SOURCES CITED IN THIS EPISODE MIT Media Lab – Misinformation Spread Rate Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559 Indiana University – Misinformation Superspreaders DeVerna, M. R., Aiyappa, R., Pacheco, D., Bryden, J., & Menczer, F. (2024). Identifying and characterizing superspreaders of low-credibility content on Twitter. PLOS ONE, 19(5), e0302201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302201 Open Science Collaboration – The Replication Crisis Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716     ADDITIONAL READING On Inductive Reasoning and Uncertainty Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House. On Cognitive Biases and Decision-Making Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. On Confirmation Bias Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 On Scientific Reproducibility Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124       Note: All sources cited in this episode have been accessed and verified as of October 2025. The studies referenced are peer-reviewed academic research published in reputable scientific journals, including Science and PLOS ONE.  

13 families a day are told their child has brain cancer. This statistic is rising, yet pediatric brain cancer is still underfunded and advances in treatment options aren't coming fast enough. In this episode, host Jamie Truman speaks with one mother who refused to wait and built a foundation to fund more research and bring hope to families. Nicole Giroux, founder of the Lilabean Foundation, shares how they've built a community that supports families, honors children affected by pediatric brain cancer, and funds the research needed to develop safer, more effective treatments. Learn how community fundraisers and private donors are helping — and how you can get involved! Connect with Lilabean Foundation:WebsiteFacebookInstagramYoutube: Connect with Jamie at Truman Charities:FacebookInstagramLinkedInWebsiteYouTubeEmail: info@trumancharities.comThis episode was post produced by Podcast Boutique https://podcastboutique.com/

How do you reconnect learning with business outcomes in a world where skills are evolving faster than ever? That's what Vincent-Pierre Giroux, Global Learning & Talent Development Director at Alstom, explores in this episode of the Digital HR Leaders podcast. Host David Green speaks with Vincent-Pierre about the lessons he's learned from leading resets across industries, his perspective on why skills volatility is reshaping mobility and retention, and the leadership qualities that matter most in today's environment of constant change. In this episode, you'll learn: Why reconnecting learning with business outcomes is key to driving real impact How skills volatility is transforming mobility, engagement, and retention What leadership qualities are most critical in a world shaped by disruption How to think about ROI in learning and skills, and measure it meaningfully Practical advice for HR and people analytics leaders to keep their organisations future-ready This episode is sponsored by 365Talents. 365Talents takes a flexible, tailored approach to skills and talent management—because no two businesses are the same. Their adaptive talent intelligence solutions empower HR teams to move faster, build skills-based strategies, and deliver real impact at scale. Want to learn more? Visit www.365talents.com And don't forget to explore the latest thinking on skills and job architecture in this in-depth playbook: The Skills and Job Architecture Playbook Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Cressey Sports Performance - Florida chiropractor Dr. Tera Giroux covers a wide variety of sports medicine topics. We discuss the management of acute vs. chronic low back pain, the role of diagnostic imaging, and the who/what/when/where/why of manual therapy interventions.

Ari Berman, voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones and author of Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People—and the Fight to Resist It (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024), talks about his latest article on the "rapidly escalating" threats to America's election system, including how the Trump administration is making it harder to vote, the DOJ's civil rights division has dropped cases investigating gerrymandered maps in states such as Arizona, Georgia, and Texas and more.