Podcast appearances and mentions of hugo mercier

Some thoughts (arguments?) on Hugo Mercier's Not Born Yesterday (https://www.amazon.com/Not-Born-Yesterday-Science-Believe/dp/0691178704), which advances the thesis that humans are not as gullible as is commonly thought. This is our second episode on Mercier's work, and we're as intrigued as ever. But this time we have different interpretations of his thesis, so it's a good thing the man himself is coming on soon to sort us out. We discuss If humans are less gullible than is commonly believed Evolution of Communication Theory Gazelles jumping in the air Are humans too stubborn? Is one of your hosts who shall go unnamed too stubborn? When do humans actually change their minds? Does Mercier's work conflict with Popper? How much of our reasoning is motivated reasoning? How much is social conformity? Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) Did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

Will LLMs soon be made into autonomous agents? Will they lead to job losses? Is AI misinformation overblown? Will it prove easy or hard to create AGI? And how likely is it that it will feel like something to be a superhuman AGI?With AGI back in the headlines, we bring you 15 opinionated highlights from the show addressing those and other questions, intermixed with opinions from hosts Luisa Rodriguez and Rob Wiblin recorded back in 2023.Check out the full transcript on the 80,000 Hours website.You can decide whether the views we expressed (and those from guests) then have held up these last two busy years. You'll hear:Ajeya Cotra on overrated AGI worriesHolden Karnofsky on the dangers of aligned AI, why unaligned AI might not kill us, and the power that comes from just making models biggerIan Morris on why the future must be radically different from the presentNick Joseph on whether his companies internal safety policies are enoughRichard Ngo on what everyone gets wrong about how ML models workTom Davidson on why he believes crazy-sounding explosive growth stories… and Michael Webb on why he doesn'tCarl Shulman on why you'll prefer robot nannies over human onesZvi Mowshowitz on why he's against working at AI companies except in some safety rolesHugo Mercier on why even superhuman AGI won't be that persuasiveRob Long on the case for and against digital sentienceAnil Seth on why he thinks consciousness is probably biologicalLewis Bollard on whether AI advances will help or hurt nonhuman animalsRohin Shah on whether humanity's work ends at the point it creates AGIAnd of course, Rob and Luisa also regularly chime in on what they agree and disagree with.Chapters:Cold open (00:00:00)Rob's intro (00:00:58)Rob & Luisa: Bowerbirds compiling the AI story (00:03:28)Ajeya Cotra on the misalignment stories she doesn't buy (00:09:16)Rob & Luisa: Agentic AI and designing machine people (00:24:06)Holden Karnofsky on the dangers of even aligned AI, and how we probably won't all die from misaligned AI (00:39:20)Ian Morris on why we won't end up living like The Jetsons (00:47:03)Rob & Luisa: It's not hard for nonexperts to understand we're playing with fire here (00:52:21)Nick Joseph on whether AI companies' internal safety policies will be enough (00:55:43)Richard Ngo on the most important misconception in how ML models work (01:03:10)Rob & Luisa: Issues Rob is less worried about now (01:07:22)Tom Davidson on why he buys the explosive economic growth story, despite it sounding totally crazy (01:14:08)Michael Webb on why he's sceptical about explosive economic growth (01:20:50)Carl Shulman on why people will prefer robot nannies over humans (01:28:25)Rob & Luisa: Should we expect AI-related job loss? (01:36:19)Zvi Mowshowitz on why he thinks it's a bad idea to work on improving capabilities at cutting-edge AI companies (01:40:06)Holden Karnofsky on the power that comes from just making models bigger (01:45:21)Rob & Luisa: Are risks of AI-related misinformation overblown? (01:49:49)Hugo Mercier on how AI won't cause misinformation pandemonium (01:58:29)Rob & Luisa: How hard will it actually be to create intelligence? (02:09:08)Robert Long on whether digital sentience is possible (02:15:09)Anil Seth on why he believes in the biological basis of consciousness (02:27:21)Lewis Bollard on whether AI will be good or bad for animal welfare (02:40:52)Rob & Luisa: The most interesting new argument Rob's heard this year (02:50:37)Rohin Shah on whether AGI will be the last thing humanity ever does (02:57:35)Rob's outro (03:11:02)Audio engineering: Ben Cordell, Milo McGuire, Simon Monsour, and Dominic ArmstrongTranscriptions and additional content editing: Katy Moore

"A shameless recycling of existing content to drive additional audience engagement on the cheap… or the single best, most valuable, and most insight-dense episode we put out in the entire year, depending on how you want to look at it." — Rob WiblinIt's that magical time of year once again — highlightapalooza! Stick around for one top bit from each episode, including:How to use the microphone on someone's mobile phone to figure out what password they're typing into their laptopWhy mercilessly driving the New World screwworm to extinction could be the most compassionate thing humanity has ever doneWhy evolutionary psychology doesn't support a cynical view of human nature but actually explains why so many of us are intensely sensitive to the harms we cause to othersHow superforecasters and domain experts seem to disagree so much about AI risk, but when you zoom in it's mostly a disagreement about timingWhy the sceptics are wrong and you will want to use robot nannies to take care of your kids — and also why despite having big worries about the development of AGI, Carl Shulman is strongly against efforts to pause AI research todayHow much of the gender pay gap is due to direct pay discrimination vs other factorsHow cleaner wrasse fish blow the mirror test out of the waterWhy effective altruism may be too big a tent to work wellHow we could best motivate pharma companies to test existing drugs to see if they help cure other diseases — something they currently have no reason to bother with…as well as 27 other top observations and arguments from the past year of the show.Check out the full transcript and episode links on the 80,000 Hours website.Remember that all of these clips come from the 20-minute highlight reels we make for every episode, which are released on our sister feed, 80k After Hours. So if you're struggling to keep up with our regularly scheduled entertainment, you can still get the best parts of our conversations there.It has been a hell of a year, and we can only imagine next year is going to be even weirder — but Luisa and Rob will be here to keep you company as Earth hurtles through the galaxy to a fate as yet unknown.Enjoy, and look forward to speaking with you in 2025!Chapters:Rob's intro (00:00:00)Randy Nesse on the origins of morality and the problem of simplistic selfish-gene thinking (00:02:11)Hugo Mercier on the evolutionary argument against humans being gullible (00:07:17)Meghan Barrett on the likelihood of insect sentience (00:11:26)Sébastien Moro on the mirror test triumph of cleaner wrasses (00:14:47)Sella Nevo on side-channel attacks (00:19:32)Zvi Mowshowitz on AI sleeper agents (00:22:59)Zach Weinersmith on why space settlement (probably) won't make us rich (00:29:11)Rachel Glennerster on pull mechanisms to incentivise repurposing of generic drugs (00:35:23)Emily Oster on the impact of kids on women's careers (00:40:29)Carl Shulman on robot nannies (00:45:19)Nathan Labenz on kids and artificial friends (00:50:12)Nathan Calvin on why it's not too early for AI policies (00:54:13)Rose Chan Loui on how control of OpenAI is independently incredibly valuable and requires compensation (00:58:08)Nick Joseph on why he's a big fan of the responsible scaling policy approach (01:03:11)Sihao Huang on how the US and UK might coordinate with China (01:06:09)Nathan Labenz on better transparency about predicted capabilities (01:10:18)Ezra Karger on what explains forecasters' disagreements about AI risks (01:15:22)Carl Shulman on why he doesn't support enforced pauses on AI research (01:18:58)Matt Clancy on the omnipresent frictions that might prevent explosive economic growth (01:25:24)Vitalik Buterin on defensive acceleration (01:29:43)Annie Jacobsen on the war games that suggest escalation is inevitable (01:34:59)Nate Silver on whether effective altruism is too big to succeed (01:38:42)Kevin Esvelt on why killing every screwworm would be the best thing humanity ever did (01:42:27)Lewis Bollard on how factory farming is philosophically indefensible (01:46:28)Bob Fischer on how to think about moral weights if you're not a hedonist (01:49:27)Elizabeth Cox on the empirical evidence of the impact of storytelling (01:57:43)Anil Seth on how our brain interprets reality (02:01:03)Eric Schwitzgebel on whether consciousness can be nested (02:04:53)Jonathan Birch on our overconfidence around disorders of consciousness (02:10:23)Peter Godfrey-Smith on uploads of ourselves (02:14:34)Laura Deming on surprising things that make mice live longer (02:21:17)Venki Ramakrishnan on freezing cells, organs, and bodies (02:24:46)Ken Goldberg on why low fault tolerance makes some skills extra hard to automate in robots (02:29:12)Sarah Eustis-Guthrie on the ups and downs of founding an organisation (02:34:04)Dean Spears on the cost effectiveness of kangaroo mother care (02:38:26)Cameron Meyer Shorb on vaccines for wild animals (02:42:53)Spencer Greenberg on personal principles (02:46:08)Producing and editing: Keiran HarrisAudio engineering: Ben Cordell, Milo McGuire, Simon Monsour, and Dominic ArmstrongVideo editing: Simon MonsourTranscriptions: Katy Moore

Pour l'épisode de cette semaine, je reçois Nicolas Vandenberghe, cofondateur et CEO de Chili Piper.Chili Piper est une plateforme SaaS spécialisée dans la gestion des rendez-vous et des interactions client, en optimisant le routing des leads et l'automatisation des processus pour les équipes de vente. Fondée en 2016 avec sa femme Alina, l'entreprise s'est imposée en pionnière dans l'amélioration des processus de prospection, en simplifiant la prise de rendez-vous pour les commerciaux.Au cours de cet épisode, nous avons discuté du parcours entrepreneurial de Nicolas, depuis ses débuts inspirés par une rencontre avec Steve Jobs, jusqu'à la création de Chili Piper après plusieurs autres aventures tech. Nicolas nous a expliqué comment l'idée de Chili Piper est née d'une observation simple sur l'inefficacité de la prise de rendez-vous, et comment ils ont développé une solution qui a immédiatement trouvé son marché.Nous avons également parlé des défis du bootstrapping, du passage à l'Enterprise après avoir commencé avec des entreprises de taille moyenne, ainsi que de l'expansion récente avec des solutions comme ChiliCal.Nicolas a partagé sa vision unique de la culture d'entreprise chez Chili Piper, qui repose sur un modèle de travail à distance depuis sa création, et sur une organisation fondée sur la transparence et l'auto-organisation. Il a aussi mentionné son intérêt pour la "communication non-violente" et comment cela a contribué à façonner leur culture interne.Vous pouvez suivre Nicolas sur LinkedIn.Bonne écoute !Mentionnés pendant l'épisode :Les mots sont des fenêtresThe Enigma of Reason: A New Theory of Human Understanding de Hugo Mercier et Dan SperberNot Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe de Hugo MercierEpisode #96 de SaaS Connection avec Philippe Pinault, cofondateur de TalkspiritPour soutenir SaaS Connection en 1 minute⏱ (et 2 secondes) :Abonnez-vous à SaaS Connection sur votre plateforme préférée pour ne rater aucun épisode

Aanhangers van complottheorieën gedragen zich bijna nooit alsof ze er echt in geloven. De enkeling die wel overgaat tot het beschieten van een pizzeria of het in brand steken van een 5G-mast gebruikt het vaak als excuus voor wangedrag, zegt evolutionair psycholoog Hugo Mercier. Opname & Montage: Tom Ruijg Probeer De Correspondent nu een gratis maand uit: decorrespondent.nl/gratismaand

What makes a con succeed? Does snake oil actually work? And just how gullible is Angela? SOURCES:Robert Cialdini, professor emeritus of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University.Yaniv Hanoch, professor of decision sciences at University of Southampton.Hugo Mercier, research scientist at the French National Centre for Scientific Research.George Parker, 19-20th century American con artist.Clark Stanley, 19th century American herbalist and quack doctor.William Thompson, 19th century American criminal and con artist.Danny Wallace, British filmmaker, comedian, writer, and actor.Stacey Wood, professor of psychology at Scripps College. RESOURCES:"They Thought Loved Ones Were Calling for Help. It Was an A.I. Scam," by Pranshu Verma (The Washington Post, 2023)."Who Experiences Scams? A Story for All Ages," by the Federal Trade Commission (2022)."The Scams Among Us: Who Falls Prey and Why," by Yaniv Hanoch and Stacey Wood (Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2021)."The Nigerian Prince Scam Is Still Fooling People. Here's Why," by Eleanor Cummins (Popular Science, 2020)."How Gullible Are We? A Review of the Evidence From Psychology and Social Science," by Hugo Mercier (Review of General Psychology, 2017)."The Man Who Sold the Eiffel Tower. Twice," by Jeff Maysh (Smithsonian Magazine, 2016)."Why Your Brain Loves Good Storytelling," by Paul J. Zak (Harvard Business Review, 2014)."A History Of 'Snake Oil Salesmen,'" by Lakshmi Gandhi (Code Switch, 2013).Yes Man, by Danny Wallace (2005)."For You, Half Price," by Gabriel Cohen (The New York Times, 2005).Influence, by Robert Cialdini (1984)."Arrest of the Confidence Man," (New York Herald, 1849). EXTRAS:"Are N.F.T.s All Scams?" by Freakonomics Radio (2022)."Trust Me," by Freakonomics Radio (2016).

Ralston College Humanities MA Dr John Vervaeke is a cognitive scientist and philosopher who explores the intersections of Neoplatonism, cognitive science, and the meaning crisis, focusing on wisdom practices, relevance realization, and personal transformation. Ralston College presents a lecture titled “Levels of Intelligibility, Levels of the Self: Realizing the Dialectic,” delivered by Dr John Vervaeke, an award-winning associate professor of cognitive science at the University of Toronto and creator of the acclaimed 50-episode “Awakening from the Meaning Crisis” series. In this lecture, Dr Vervaeke identifies our cultural moment as one of profound disconnection and resulting meaninglessness. Drawing on his own cutting-edge research as a cognitive scientist and philosopher, Vervaeke presents a way out of the meaning crisis through what he terms “third-wave Neoplatonism.” He reveals how this Neoplatonic framework, drawn in part from Plato's conception of the tripartite human soul, corresponds to the modern understanding of human cognition and, ultimately, to the levels of reality itself. He argues that a synoptic integration across these levels is not only possible but imperative.   — 00:00 Levels of Intelligibility: Integrating Neoplatonism and Cognitive Science 12:50 Stage One: Neoplatonic Psycho-ontology and the Path to Spirituality 41:02 Aristotelian Science: Knowing as Conformity and Transformation 46:36 Stoic Tradition: Agency, Identity, and the Flow of Nature 01:00:10 Stage Two: Cognitive Science and the Integration of Self and Reality 01:04:45 The Frame Problem and Relevance Realization  01:08:45 Relevance Realization and the Power of Human Cognition 01:20:15 Transjective Reality: Affordances and Participatory Fittedness 01:23:55 The Role of Relevance Realization: Self-Organizing Processes 01:31:30 Predictive Processing and Adaptivity 01:44:35 Critiquing Kant: The Case for Participatory Realism 01:53:35 Stage Three: Neoplatonism and the Meaning Crisis  02:00:15 Q&A Session 02:01:45 Q: What is the Ecology of Practices for Cultivating Wisdom? 02:11:50 Q: How Has the Cultural Curriculum Evolved Over Time? 02:26:30 Q: Does the World Have Infinite Intelligibility? 02:33:50 Q: Most Meaningful Visual Art? 02:34:15 Q: Social Media's Impact on Mental Health and Information? 02:39:45 Q: What is Transjective Reality? 02:46:35 Q: How Can Education Address the Meaning Crisis? 02:51:50 Q: Advice for Building a College Community? 02:55:30 Closing Remarks   — Authors, Ideas, and Works Mentioned in this Episode:    Antisthenes Aristotle Brett Anderson Byung-Chul Han Charles Darwin Daniel Dennett D. C. Schindler Friedrich Nietzsche Galileo Galilei Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Heraclitus Henry Corbin Immanuel Kant Iris Murdoch Isaac Newton Igor Grossmann Johannes Kepler John Locke John Searle John Spencer Karl Friston Karl Marx Mark Miller  Maurice Merleau-Ponty Nelson Goodman Paul Ricoeur Pierre Hadot Plato Pythagoras Rainer Maria Rilke René Descartes Sigmund Freud W. Norris Clarke anagoge (ἀναγωγή) Distributed cognition eidos (εἶδος) eros (ἔρως) Evan Thompson's deep continuity hypothesis Generative grammar logos (λόγος) Sensorimotor loop Stoicism thymos (θυμός) Bayes' theorem Wason Selection Task The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber The Ennead by Plotinus Explorations in Metaphysics by W. Norris Clarke Religion and Nothingness by Keiji Nishitani The Eternal Law: Ancient Greek Philosophy, Modern Physics, and Ultimate Reality by John Spencer   — Additional Resources  John Vervaeke https://www.youtube.com/@johnvervaeke  Dr Stephen Blackwood  Ralston College (including newsletter) Support a New Beginning  — Thank you for listening!

This is a selection of highlights from episode #180 of The 80,000 Hours Podcast.These aren't necessarily the most important, or even most entertaining parts of the interview — and if you enjoy this, we strongly recommend checking out the full episode:Hugo Mercier on why gullibility and misinformation are overratedAnd if you're finding these highlights episodes valuable, please let us know by emailing podcast@80000hours.org.Highlights put together by Simon Monsour, Milo McGuire, and Dominic Armstrong

The World Economic Forum's global risks survey of 1,400 experts, policymakers, and industry leaders ranked misinformation and disinformation as the number one global risk over the next two years — ranking it ahead of war, environmental problems, and other threats from AI.And the discussion around misinformation and disinformation has shifted to focus on how generative AI or a future super-persuasive AI might change the game and make it extremely hard to figure out what was going on in the world — or alternatively, extremely easy to mislead people into believing convenient lies.But this week's guest, cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier, has a very different view on how people form beliefs and figure out who to trust — one in which misinformation really is barely a problem today, and is unlikely to be a problem anytime soon. As he explains in his book Not Born Yesterday, Hugo believes we seriously underrate the perceptiveness and judgement of ordinary people.Links to learn more, summary, and full transcript.In this interview, host Rob Wiblin and Hugo discuss:How our reasoning mechanisms evolved to facilitate beneficial communication, not blind gullibility.How Hugo makes sense of our apparent gullibility in many cases — like falling for financial scams, astrology, or bogus medical treatments, and voting for policies that aren't actually beneficial for us.Rob and Hugo's ideas about whether AI might make misinformation radically worse, and which mass persuasion approaches we should be most worried about.Why Hugo thinks our intuitions about who to trust are generally quite sound, even in today's complex information environment.The distinction between intuitive beliefs that guide our actions versus reflective beliefs that don't.Why fake news and conspiracy theories actually have less impact than most people assume.False beliefs that have persisted across cultures and generations — like bloodletting and vaccine hesitancy — and theories about why.And plenty more.Chapters:The view that humans are really gullible (00:04:26)The evolutionary argument against humans being gullible (00:07:46) Open vigilance (00:18:56)Intuitive and reflective beliefs (00:32:25)How people decide who to trust (00:41:15)Redefining beliefs (00:51:57)Bloodletting (01:00:38)Vaccine hesitancy and creationism (01:06:38)False beliefs without skin in the game (01:12:36)One consistent weakness in human judgement (01:22:57)Trying to explain harmful financial decisions (01:27:15)Astrology (01:40:40)Medical treatments that don't work (01:45:47)Generative AI, LLMs, and persuasion (01:54:50)Ways AI could improve the information environment (02:29:59)Producer and editor: Keiran HarrisAudio Engineering Lead: Ben CordellTechnical editing: Simon Monsour and Milo McGuireTranscriptions: Katy Moore

Hugo Mercier nous avait fait rêver avec Dreem

Podcast: Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas Episode: 233 | Hugo Mercier on Reasoning and SkepticismRelease date: 2023-04-17Here at the Mindscape Podcast, we are firmly pro-reason. But what does that mean, fundamentally and in practice? How did humanity come into the idea of not just doing things, but doing things for reasons? In this episode we talk with cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier about these issues. He is the co-author (with Dan Sperber) of The Enigma of Reason, about how the notion of reason came to be, and more recently author of Not Born Yesterday, about who we trust and what we believe. He argues that our main shortcoming is not being insufficiently skeptical of radical claims, but of being too skeptical of claims that don't fit our views.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Hugo Mercier received a Ph.D. in cognitive sciences from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. He is currently a Permanent CNRS Research Scientist at the Institut Jean Nicod, Paris. Among his awards are the Prime d'excellence from the CNRS.Web siteGoogle Scholar publicationsAmazon author pageTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Podcast: Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas Episode: 233 | Hugo Mercier on Reasoning and SkepticismRelease date: 2023-04-17Here at the Mindscape Podcast, we are firmly pro-reason. But what does that mean, fundamentally and in practice? How did humanity come into the idea of not just doing things, but doing things for reasons? In this episode we talk with cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier about these issues. He is the co-author (with Dan Sperber) of The Enigma of Reason, about how the notion of reason came to be, and more recently author of Not Born Yesterday, about who we trust and what we believe. He argues that our main shortcoming is not being insufficiently skeptical of radical claims, but of being too skeptical of claims that don't fit our views.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Hugo Mercier received a Ph.D. in cognitive sciences from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. He is currently a Permanent CNRS Research Scientist at the Institut Jean Nicod, Paris. Among his awards are the Prime d'excellence from the CNRS.Web siteGoogle Scholar publicationsAmazon author pageTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In our random thought we talk all about the Ig Nobles. We don't transcribe that, so you'll have to listen. Sorry! But now, let's talk about logic. When you are writing a novel and something doesn't make sense—let's say someone has brown eyes on page 2 and blue eyes on page 1—your editor if you have one is going to call you on that. If they don't call you on that, the readers' brain will hitch when they are reading. Editors are awesome. And what I'm saying is that we need editors for real life. That's because a lot of time people don't seem to listen to facts. Reason is what helps us justify our beliefs. But someties that means that we aren't awesome at seeing the truth. We like to cherry pick facts that support our own ideas and then we get biased. We start looking and seeing information that holds with what we already believe rather than information that goes counter to how we believe. These two cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber believe that reasoning is to help us function as a social group rather than as people who seek truth. A Psychology Today article by Jessica Schrader writes: "A number of studies document the many ways in which our political party distorts our reasoning. One study found that people who had strong math skills were only good at solving a math problem if the solution to the problem conformed to their political beliefs. Liberals were only good at solving a math problem, for instance, if the answer to that problem showed that gun control reduced crime. Conservatives were only good at solving this problem if the solution showed that gun control increased crime. Another study found that the higher an individual's IQ, the better they are at coming up with reasons to support a position—but only a position that they agree with. "Belonging to a particular political party can also shape our perception. In one study, researchers were asked to watch a video of protestors. Half of the participants were told the people in the video were protesting the military's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy. The other half were told that the people were protesting an abortion clinic. Liberals reported saying the protestors were more violent and disruptive if they were told they were watching abortion clinic protestors, and the opposite was true for conservatives—even though everyone was watching the same video." DOG TIP FOR LIFE Hoarding all your toys on the couch isn't the best idea. LINKS TO LEARN MORE https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts https://apnews.com/article/ig-nobels-prize-2023-3f34e020cfb9154c240dfef7c076f177 SHOUT OUT! The music we've clipped and shortened in this podcast is awesome and is made available through the Creative Commons License. Here's a link to that and the artist's website. Who is this artist and what is this song? It's “Summer Spliff” by Broke For Free. WE HAVE EXTRA CONTENT ALL ABOUT LIVING HAPPY OVER HERE! It's pretty awesome. AND we have a writing tips podcast called WRITE BETTER NOW! It's taking a bit of a hiatus, but there are a ton of tips over there. We have a podcast, LOVING THE STRANGE, which we stream biweekly live on Carrie's Facebook and Twitter and YouTube on Fridays. Her Facebook and Twitter handles are all carriejonesbooks or carriejonesbook. But she also has extra cool content focused on writing tips here. Carrie is reading one of her raw poems every once in awhile on CARRIE DOES POEMS. And there you go! Whew! That's a lot!

Pour cette rentrée dans Les coulisses du web3, je vous emmène dans les coulisses d'un pivot : Ness Benamran, Joseph Comisi et Hugo Mercier sont passés en quelques mois de Bullvbear à Gekko. Bullvbear c'était un protocole DeFi pour parier à la baisse sur les NFT. Après avoir observé que le gros du volume des NFT était réalisé par seulement 300 traders, ils ont décidé de mettre un terme au projet. C'est alors qu'ils ont eu l'idée de Gekko, une solution de market making pour les jeux blockchain qui émettent des NFT. Le but : apporter de la liquidité aux NFT des jeux blockchain pour permettre une meilleure stabilité des prix. Ils s'adressent à un marché de 2 500 jeux blockchain en préparation pour 2024. Découvrez comment ils ont décidé de pivoter et comment ils ont réutilisé une brique de Bullvbear pour construire Gekko, un masterclass d'un pivot de startup !

Hugo Mercier desmonta en 'No hemos sido engañados' publicado por la editorial Shackleton, uno de los grandes bulos de nuestro tiempo: el poder de las fake news. Escuchar audio

TWiV notes the passing of Harald zur Hausen, dengue breaking records in the Americas, inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 infection and inflammation by modulation of type I IFN, and an armed nanobody that protects mice against influenza A and B disease. Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Kathy Spindler, and Angela Mingarelli Subscribe (free): Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode MicrobeTV Discord Server MicrobeTV store at Cafepress Position in Rosenfeld Laboratory (pdf) Paul and the Mosquitos (pdf, English) Other childrens books (SMVIROLOGIA) Dengue breaking records in Americas (Nature) Harald zur Hausen, 1936-2023 (Nature) Vincent interviews zur Hausen (ASM) COVID-19 and modulation of IFN (Sci Immunol) Burning down the mouse (TWiV 900) Armed nanobody protects against influenza (Sci Immunol) Click chemistry Nobel prizes (The Nobel Prize) Letters read on TWiV 1033 Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks! Weekly Picks Angela – The Deepest Breath Kathy – Pink snow Vincent – Scientist vs PowerPoint Listener Picks Fernando – The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber and Language vs. Reality by Nick Enfield Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/hugo_mercier_how_can_you_change_someone_s_mind ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/55-academic-words-reference-from-hugo-mercier-how-can-you-change-someones-mind-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/syoyDBVw7mI (All Words) https://youtu.be/5rvgtoP8UJg (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/k4BJm956ni0 (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Catarina Dutilh Novaes is Professor and University Research Chair at the Department of Philosophy of the VU Amsterdam. She is also a Professorial Fellow at Arché in St. Andrews (2019-2024). She is currently running the ERC Consolidator project 'The Social Epistemology of Argumentation' (2018-2023). Her main fields of research are history and philosophy of logic, philosophy of mathematics, and social epistemology. In this episode, we talk about argumentation, reason, and disinformation. We start with argumentation, and discuss what is it and what it is for; the contexts it applies to; what is a valid argument; adversariality; the role of trust; argumentation as a social phenomenon, and disagreements with Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber; the social epistemology of argumentation; and we also discuss if argumentation changes minds. We then talk about reason, and a disagreement with Mercier's and Sperber's modular nature of reason. Finally, we discuss disinformation, and if it is a new phenomenon. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, OLAF ALEX, JONATHAN VISSER, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, MIKKEL STORMYR, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, MORTEN EIKELAND, DANIEL FRIEDMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ANTON ERIKSSON, CHARLES MOREY, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, PEDRO BONILLA, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, STARRY, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, TOM ROTH, THERPMD, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, RICHARD BOWEN, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, CHRIS STORY, AND MANUEL OLIVEIRA! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, ROBERT LEWIS, AND AL NICK ORTIZ! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND BOGDAN KANIVETS!

Here at the Mindscape Podcast, we are firmly pro-reason. But what does that mean, fundamentally and in practice? How did humanity come into the idea of not just doing things, but doing things for reasons? In this episode we talk with cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier about these issues. He is the co-author (with Dan Sperber) of The Enigma of Reason, about how the notion of reason came to be, and more recently author of Not Born Yesterday, about who we trust and what we believe. He argues that our main shortcoming is not being insufficiently skeptical of radical claims, but of being too skeptical of claims that don't fit our views.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Hugo Mercier received a Ph.D. in cognitive sciences from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. He is currently a Permanent CNRS Research Scientist at the Institut Jean Nicod, Paris. Among his awards are the Prime d'excellence from the CNRS.Web siteGoogle Scholar publicationsAmazon author pageTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This episode features a conversation with cognitive scientist, Hugo Mercier. It was recorded in February 2023.Hugo studies human reasoning and communication, as well as cultural evolution, working out of the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. He is the co-author, alongside Dan Sperber, of The Enigma of Reason, and the author of Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who we Trust and What we Believe. Not Born Yesterday is the book that brought Hugo to my attention and is a highly recommended read for anyone interested in persuasion and influence. If, like me, you come from a marketing and communications background, it might tickle your cognitive biases, but it's a super constructive read.Amongst other things, Hugo and I discussed the reasons that climate change is so hard for humans to grasp, how we assess messages we're exposed to as credible, or not, and what happens when we encounter information that doesn't align with our existing beliefs. Additional links:Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We BelieveHugo's profile at the Jean Nicod InstituteThe Enigma of Reason, co-authored with Dan Sperber

Topics covered include human reasoning, epistemic vigilance, intellectual humility, nomological networks of cumulative evidence, and the acceptance and future of evolutionary psychology. Hugo's website: https://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/ _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad _______________________________________ This clip was posted earlier today (March 3, 2023) on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1524: https://youtu.be/57u7mWmEAHU _______________________________________ My forthcoming book The Saad Truth about Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life is now available for pre-order: https://www.amazon.com/Saad-Truth-about-Happiness-Secrets/dp/1684512603 _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense. _______________________________________

Bienvenue dans la Tronche en Live #5, nous y retrouvons Hugo Mercier, chercheur en sciences cognitives et co-auteur de la théorie argumentative du raisonnement. Ses travaux sont disponibles ici : https://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/ Au programme de l'émission : qu'est-ce que la rationalité ? Que fait le cerveau quand on croit qu'il raisonne ? Quelle est la fonction du raisonnement et son histoire évolutive ? Et enfin nous parlons des apports de la théorie argumentative de Sperber & Mercier. Livres cités :  - "Comment fonctionne l'esprit" de Steven Pinker - "La conscience expliquée" de Daniel  Dennett et "Darwin Dangerous Idea" en anglais - "Le gène égoiste" de Richard Dawkins - "L'animal moral" de Robert Wright - "La politique du chimpanzé" de Frans de Waal Pour nous soutenir :  Invité : Hugo Mercier Animation : Acermendax et Vled Tapas Editeur podcast : Corentin Savre Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

This week welcomes Hugo Mercier to the podcast. We discuss his work and research with a particular focus on his book Not Born Yesterday in which he argues with data that we are not as gullible as we may believe but rather we are very good a using reason and decision-making. We discuss real-world issues such as politics, society, individuals and groups, and learning, and the application of his research in evolution and social cognition in those areas. All this and more on MOI Merci, Hugo! 

Comment notre cerveau se protège-t-il de la crédulité ? C'est ce que nous allons découvrir avec le chercheur en Sciences cognitives Hugo Mercier.  Plongeons-nous dans les mystères du raisonnement humain... On sait que nous pouvons facilement être trompés par notre cerveau. Il faut évidemment dénoncer les erreurs de raisonnement, les fake news, les théories complotistes et les rumeurs. Seulement, à force de mettre l'accent sur ces travers, on oublie que dans la majorité des cas, nous avons raison d'accorder notre confiance. Et heureusement ! Car sans confiance, il n'y aurait pas de vie sociale possible.  Mais comment trouver l'équilibre entre confiance et méfiance ? Avec Hugo Mercier, chercheur en Sciences cognitives, et qui vient de publier un livre intitulé Pas né de la dernière pluie, aux éditions Humensciences.  

David McRaney breaks down why it's so difficult to change people's minds—and shares powerful strategies to get others to open their minds. — YOU'LL LEARN — 1) Why facts alone can't persuade others 2) One simple question to make you more persuasive 3) A step-by-step guide to changing even the most stubborn minds Subscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep780 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT DAVID — Science journalist, podcaster, and internationally bestselling author David McRaney is an expert in the psychology of reasoning, decision making, and self-delusion. His wildly popular blog became the international bestselling book You Are Not So Smart, revealing and celebrating our irrational and thoroughly human behavior. His second bestseller, You Are Now Less Dumb, gives readers a fighting chance at outsmarting their brains. His most recent book, How Minds Change, is a brain-bending and big-hearted investigation into the science of belief, opinion, and persuasion. David is an in-demand speaker whose work has been featured in The Atlantic and many others.He also created and hosted Exploring Genius: In-Depth Study of Brilliant Minds, an audio documentary for Himalaya, and is working on a TV series about how to better predict the psychological impact of technological disruption. • Book: How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion • Website: YouAreNotSoSmart.com • Personal website: DavidMcRaney.com — RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Book: Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg • Book: Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain by David Eagleman • Book: Joe by Larry Brown • Book: The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber • Video: Why We Fight: Prelude to War See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Is there any possibility of fruitful dialogue with your mildly crazy, significantly intoxicated uncle at Thanksgiving dinner? We turn to Karl Popper's essay, The Myth of the Framework, to find out. Popper argues that it's wrong to assume that fruitful conversation is only possible among those who share an underlying framework of beliefs and assumptions. In fact, there's more to learn in difficult conversations which lack such a framework. We discuss - What is The Myth of the Framework? - The relationship between the myth of the framework and epistemological and moral relativism - Modern examples of the myth, including Jon Haidt's recent Atlantic essay (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/) and Paul Graham's Keep your identity small (http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html). - Why there's more to learn from conversations where the participants disagree, and why conversations with too much agreement are uninteresting - Linguistic relativism and the evolution of language as a refutation of the myth - The relationship between the myth of the framework and the Enigma of Reason Quotes I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan. - Paul Graham, Keep your identity small The story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past. It's been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it's a story about the fragmentation of everything. It's about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It's a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families. - Jonathan Haidt, Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid The proponents of relativism put before us standards of mutual understanding which are unrealistically high. And when we fail to meet these standards, they claim that understanding is impossible. - Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34 The myth of the framework can be stated in one sentence, as follows. A rational and fruiful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion. As I have formulated it here, the myth sounds like a sober statement, or like a sensible warning to which we ought to pay attention in order to further rational discussion. Some people even think that what I describe as a myth is a logical principle, or based on a logical principle. I think, on the contrary, that it is not only a false statement, but also a vicious statement which, if widely believed, must undermine the unity of mankind, and so must greatly increase the likelihood of violence and of war. This is the main reason why I want to combat it, and to refute it. - Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34 Although I am an admirer of tradition, and conscious of its importance, I am, at the same time, an almost orthodox adherent of unorthodoxy: _I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strif, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence. Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument, and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance. I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words. This is why my topic is of some practical significance._ - Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 34 My thesis is that logic neither underpins the myth of the framework nor its denial, but that we can try to learn from each other. Whether we succeed will depend largely on our goodwill, and to some extent also on our historical situation, and on our problem situation. - Karl Popper, MotF, pg. 38 References - Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/), by Jonathan Haidt - Keep your identity small (http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html), by Paul Graham - The Enigma of Reason (https://smile.amazon.com/Enigma-Reason-Hugo-Mercier/dp/0674368304?sa-no-redirect=1) by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber - Glenn Loury and Briahna Joy Grey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-pxokcOUHY&ab_channel=TheGlennShow) - Normal Science and its Dangers (https://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Knowability_590/Week1/Normal%20Science%20and%20its%20Dangers.pdf) Social media everywhere Follow us on twitter (@Incrementspod, @VadenMasrani, @BennyChugg), and on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ). Tell us about your shaken framework at incrementspodcast@gmail.com Image: Cornelis Anthonisz (1505 – 1553) – The Fall of the Tower of Babel (1547)

My guest today is Dr Andy Norman, who is the award-winning author of ‘Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think'. His research illuminates the evolutionary origins of human reasoning, the norms that make dialogue fruitful, and the workings of the mind's immune system. He champions the emerging science of mental immunity as the antidote to disinformation, propaganda, hate, and division. Currently, Andy directs the Humanism Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University and is the founder of CIRCE, the Cognitive Immunology Research Collaborative.  Some of the topics we covered include: Andy's entry into philosophy The mind's ‘immune system' Definition of ‘mind parasites' Manipulation gone to scale Simple conspiracy vs complex reality The challenge of debating against conspiratorial thinking The incentives that fuel misinformation How to prevent mind infections Determining whether a belief is ‘reasonable' Evolutionary origins of our capacity to ‘reason' Dangers of confirmation bias Factors that make us vulnerable to ‘mind parasites' The dangers of hitching belief to identity Developing a ‘mind vaccine' The ‘New Socratic Method' During the show, Andy and I discussed a paper he wrote in response to Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber's book ‘The Enigma of Reason'. You can download that paper here. ----- If you like what you hear, please consider liking and reviewing the show wherever you get your pods. You can also support the show on our Patreon and Buy Me A Coffee page on the links below: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thevoicesofwar Buy Me A Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/thevoicesofwar

The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book The Enigma of Reason by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! *We discuss * - Reason as a social phenomenon - The two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others - Reason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories - The "intellectualist" vs the "interactionist" approach to reason - Nassim Taleb's notion of "skin in the game" - The consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche - The marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings Quotes: The interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. EoR (pg. 332) In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. EoR (pg. 247) References Dan Sperber's talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsjWo6K4w0) at the Santa Fe Institute Image credit: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama Social media everywhere Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Send a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

MEDECINE AU CARREFOUR DES SCIENCES – Une émission proposée et présentée par José Cohen et Philippe Grimbert, professeurs de médecine à l'université Paris-Est-Créteil Ils reçoivent Dan Sperber, co-auteur avec Hugo Mercier du livre « L'énigme de la raison » aux éditions Odile Jacob À propos du livre : «L'énigme de la raison » paru aux éditions Odile Jacob La raison, dit-on, est ce qui rend les humains supérieurs aux autres animaux. Si elle est un tel atout, pourquoi n'a-t-elle évolué que dans notre espèce ? Pourquoi nos opinions et nos actions sont-elles si souvent irrationnelles ? Hugo Mercier et Dan Sperber s'attaquent à ces énigmes. S'appuyant sur des exemples historiques, des anecdotes du quotidien et les derniers résultats de la psychologie expérimentale, ils critiquent l'idée selon laquelle la fonction de la raison serait de permettre à chacun de parvenir à une meilleure connaissance du monde et à des décisions plus justes. Pour eux, la raison est avant tout à usage social : elle nous aide à nous justifier aux yeux d'autrui, à argumenter pour convaincre et à évaluer les arguments des autres. Elle facilite la communication, les actions collectives et la vie sociale. Elle peut aussi polariser les antagonismes. En bref, la raison a pour fonction première de permettre aux humains de tirer le meilleur parti de leurs inter- actions, riches et complexes. Cette conception explique comment la raison a pu évoluer, et ce qu'on peut – ou non – en attendre. Ambitieux, provocateur, passionnant, ce livre donne aux lecteurs des ressources pour penser leur propre façon de penser. Dan Sperber est chercheur en philosophie, sciences cognitives et sciences sociales à l'Institut Jean-Nicod (CNRS, ENS) à Paris. Il est aussi professeur à la Central European University à Vienne et a enseigné aux universités de Princeton, du Michigan, de Chicago et de Londres. Parmi ses livres, aux éditions Odile Jacob, La Contagion des Idées (1996), et, avec Roger-Pol Droit, Des idées qui viennent (1999). Hugo Mercier est chercheur en sciences cognitives à l'Institut Jean Nicod (CNRS, École Normale Supérieure), Paris, spécialisé dans l'étude du raisonnement et de la communication humaine. Il a récemment publié un ouvrage sur la façon dont nous résistons aux tentatives d'influence, Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who we Trust and What we Believe.

In this episode we discuss Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe by Hugo Mercier. Next time we'll discuss This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality by Peter Pomerantsev.

Le combat contre l'infox est une préoccupation majeure, mais il ne peut se faire sans le souci de défendre dans le même temps une information fiable et de qualité. L'un agit-il sur l'autre et de quelle manière ? Comment restaurer la confiance ? Au programme : Entretien avec Hugo Mercier, chercheur au CNRS en Sciences cognitives et coauteur de l'étude Lutter contre la désinformation ou se battre pour l'information ? Subtilités diplomatiques et mésinformation sur la crise ukrainienne. La chronique de Sophie Malibeaux. Un tweet attribué à la ministre française des Armées, Florence Parly, au contenu jugé dangereux... mais douteux. Vérification faite par Monique Ngo Mayag, journaliste à l'AFP Factuel, site de vérification de l'Agence France Presse.

In this episode we discuss Against Everything: Essays by Mark Greif. Next time we'll discuss Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe by Hugo Mercier.

In this episode, I talk with Gregg Henriques about the problem of psychology and the solution he has been working on for 20 years. We covered the bulk of his theory in the first half of the episode, and in the second half, we do a deep dive into cognitive behavioral therapy, including Gregg's experience with it and some controversies in one of the major studies published about CBT. Gregg Henriques is a Full Professor and a core faculty member in James Madison University's Combined-Integrated Clinical and School Psychology Doctoral Program. He teaches courses on integrative/unified psychotherapy, personality, social, and cognitive psychology. He developed the Unified Theory Of Knowledge (UTOK), which consists of eight key ideas that Henriques results in a much more unified vision of science, psychology and philosophy. 0:00:09 Introduction 0:05:16 The enlightenment gap 0:12:12 The problem of psychology 0:21:50 Why evolutionary psychology can't be the answer 0:31:31 The tree of knowledge 0:38:25 Emergence and complexity dynamics 0:45:13 Comparing it to memetics 0:49:24 Justification hypothesis 0:52:24 Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier 1:00:57 The influence matrix 1:09:45 Children social intellgience 1:11:42 Variation of the influence matrix 1:18:03 Connection with Haidt 1:20:13 Empirical backing 1:26:03 Cognitive Behavioral Therapy 1:46:19 Cognitive vs Non-Cognitive Therapy 1:55:08 Rigidity vs pseudoscience in therapy 2:01:49 Conclusion

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Dan Sperber is a researcher at the Institut Jean Nicod, and a professor in cognitive science and philosophy at the Central European University in Budapest. He is the author of numerous articles in anthropology, linguistics, philosophy and psychology and of several books, including Meaning and Relevance (with Deirdre Wilson), Relevance: Communication and Cognition (with Deirdre Wilson), and The Enigma of Reason (with Hugo Mercier). In this episode, we talk about cultural evolution, cultural attraction theory, epistemic vigilance, and reason. We start by talking about how human cognition is best understood in a social context, and how to think about the relationship between culture and biology. We then get into Dr. Sperber's “epidemiology of representations”, and into cultural attraction theory, and how it related to Robert Boyd's and Peter Richerson's approach to cultural evolution. We discuss the limitations of memetics, and if we can say that cultural evolution is Darwinian. We talk about epistemic vigilance, and the argumentative theory of reasoning. Finally, Dr. Sperber tells us about his take on massive modularity of the human mind, and why reason is modular. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS P. FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, AND DENISE COOK! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND THOMAS TRUMBLE! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND BOGDAN KANIVETS!

Det sunda förnuftet är nog det mest åberopade förnuftet av alla. Men är det så förnuftigt? Det frågar sig Eva-Lotta Hultén i denna essä. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Det förstår väl alla med sunt förnuft!Frasen får det alltid att krypa i kroppen på mig. Det spelar ingen roll om jag håller med i sakfrågan eller inte. Det är den inbyggda premissen som sätter fart på mina invärtes myror: att alla som kan tänka skulle komma fram till samma slutsats. Men vad som är förnuftigt att göra hänger ihop med vilka mål vi har. Och vilka mål vi har beror på vilka egenintressen, värderingar och föreställningar om världen vi har.Det är samma sak med det sunda förnuftets systerbegrepp: rationaliteten. Risken är att man glömmer de grundvalar som den vilar på.Under andra världskriget dödades judar, romer, homosexuella, kommunister och handikappade för att de inte föreställdes kunna passa in i det fulländade samhälle man eftersträvade. Nazisterna ansåg det vara förnuftigt att döda dem och rationellt att göra det med gas.Ett mindre drastiskt och mer nutida exempel är miljöfrågor och ekonomi. Många anser det rationellt med fortsatt ekonomisk tillväxt trots att den riskerar att underminera den biologiska tillväxten som är grunden inte bara för ekonomin utan för fortsatt liv på den här planeten.Det gäller att vara vaksam för det är svårt att argumentera med dem som anser sig företräda förnuft och rationalitet. Ofta finns anledning att tolka det som kodord för en instrumentell syn på världen, och brist på föreställningsförmåga. Idéer om det rationella riskerar att skymma sikten för andra möjliga vägar att gå och för ifrågasättande av de gränser som upprättats runt rationaliteten. Som sociologen Zygmunt Bauman konstaterar i Auschwitz och det moderna samhället: Ju mer rationellt organiserat handlandet är, desto lättare är det att vålla lidande och fortfarande behålla sinnesron.Med upplevd rationalitet riskerar likgiltigheten att slå följe: jag handlar rationellt, alltså är jag ansvarsfull, oavsett vilka konsekvenser mina handlingar får.De ser helt enkelt sig själva som måttstocken för sunt förnuftPå ett mer vardagligt plan stör pratet om förnuft och rationalitet mig också eftersom många som hänvisar till det tycks anse inte bara att just deras ståndpunkter är de förnuftiga och rationella utan också att just deras premisser är neutrala eller på något sätt objektiva. De ser helt enkelt sig själva som måttstocken för sunt förnuft. Andra har kommit fram till sina slutsatser för att de är känslomässiga, skygglappade, ideologiskt styrda, okunniga eller har fastnat i grupptänk. Själva står de över sådant.Ett närmast övertydligt exempel är filosofen och författaren Ayn Rand, en av nyliberalismens förgrundsgestalter och en stark förespråkare för förnuft och rationalitet, som döpte sina filosofiska läror till objektivism. Rands åsikter är att egoism är något gott, att beskattning och omfördelning är stöld och att konkurrens är det högsta goda. Ett av hennes stridsrop lyder Kontrollera dina premisser! Men själv har hon naturligtvis inga.Hennes roman "Och världen skälvde" ger en bra bild. När svaga människor misslyckas är det deras eget fel, när de överlägsna misslyckas är det de underlägsnas fel. När egoister samarbetar är det ädelt, när altruister eller fattiga gör det är det farligt. När arbetare tar till våld är det avskyvärt, när kapitalister gör det är det föredömligt. När en företagsledare bestämmer lönerna så blir de automatiskt rättvisa, om facket blandar sig i blir de automatiskt orättvisa.Här och var hemfaller Rand åt ren komik. Som när hon hävdar att guld och silver är objektiva värden och att det är därför som bara de gäller som betalningsmedel i den dal dit de överlägsna människorna i Och världen skälvde dragit sig undan. Men vilket objektivt värde representerar egentligen guld? I samma stund som människor slutar hålla guld högt så mister det ju allt värde utöver bruksvärdet. Och guld är inte en särskilt användbar metall eftersom den är så mjuk. Att guld och silver ansetts mer värdefulla än många andra metaller har alltid främst handlat om människors tro på deras värde.Vi ser det vi vill se, eller förväntar oss att se.Det var Aristoteles som kategoriserade människan som det förnuftiga djuret. Descartes tog föreställningen in i den moderna tiden. Vi kunde, menade han, genom vår tankeförmåga kasta loss från vår kultur, våra medmänniskor och våra egna känslor och behov och utifrån givna data fatta klartänkt rationella beslut.Andra har påpekat att vi snarare utmärker oss i djurvärlden som det självbedrägliga djuret. Det är kanske lite väl hårt för nog har vi förmåga till förnuft. Vi kan väga fakta, resonera och dra slutsatser. Men vårt förnuft har många fläckar. Att vi alla lider av bekräftelsebias är väl belagt i forskningen. Vi ser det vi vill se, eller förväntar oss att se. Det hjälper inte att vi är aldrig så högutbildade. Naturligtvis sker det helt omedvetet, vilket gör det möjligt för oss att tro att vi dragit våra slutsatser enkom efter moget och objektivt övervägande.Vi är också lättmanipulerade. Ett kul experiment är det där man visade försökspersoner bilder av två personer och lät dem välja vem de tyckte var mest attraktiv. Sedan gav man dem bilden på den de rankat som nummer två och bad dem förklara varför de tyckt denna person var vackrast. De allra flesta gav glatt sina skäl till valet som de alltså inte gjort. Mindre komisk är den forskning som visar hur vi bildar oss åsikter genom att dras med av flocken. Den som i stunden tanklöst skrattar åt det den egentligen uppfattar som ett fördomsfullt skämt känner efteråt ofta behov av att rättfärdiga snarare än att rannsaka sig själv. Jag skrattade för att jag faktiskt håller med, blir slutsatsen.De båda kognitionsforskarna Hugo Mercier och Dan Sperber har lanserat idén att vår förmåga till förnuft är utvecklad för att användas tillsammans med andra. Vi klarar inte att ensamma på våra kammare lägga pannan i djupa veck och självständigt tänka fram det förnuftiga och rationella. Visst kan vi själva väga för- och nackdelar i våra egna resonemang men vi är flockdjur och gjorda för att möta mothugg på vår väg mot klokskap.Ett ord jag tycker mycket bättre om än förnuft särskilt om det behäftas med epitetet sunt är omdöme. I omdömet, menar filosofen Jonna Bornemark i sin bok Horisonten finns alltid kvar, ingår förmåga att förhålla sig till det vi inte vet, att se och erkänna våra känslomässiga kopplingar, att så rationellt som möjligt överväga, vrida och vända; och inte minst att handla lyhört och eftertänksamt. Vårt omdöme utvecklas, menar Bornemark, genom samtal om konkreta händelser som utspelat sig i gråzoner.Med vårt omdöme kan vi till exempel ta ett helhetsgrepp om ekonomi och ekologi och se att de hänger ihop, och att vi ännu inte vet allt om de komplexa samspelen i naturen och därför måste vara varsamma om dem.Omdömet har en koppling till verkliga situationer, människor och relationer. Till själva livet och inte till teorierna om det. Sunt förnuft är kanske däremot mest något vi slänger i ansiktet på varandra när vi är frustrerade för att vi inte förmår nå varandra eller för att vi inte är riktigt förankrade i den värld vi lever i.Eva-Lotta Hultén

On February 19th, 2021, we were delighted to welcome social psychologist and bestselling author, Jonathan Haidt, along with widely published speechwriter and author, Peter Wehner. Wehner is a New York Times columnist, a contributing editor for The Atlantic, and a Trinity Forum Senior Fellow with a deep interest in healing our divided nation. Haidt has done extensive research examining the intuitive foundations of morality and how morality varies across cultures. His books address these topics and provide insights into how to cultivate meaningful, moral conversations across cultural divides.We hope you enjoy this conversation on the impact of hyper-politicization and polarization, the temptations of illiberalism, the natural tendency towards bias and blind spots in our thinking, and the role of faith in bringing healing and hope to a hurting culture. Especially in our ongoing season of isolation and social restrictions, we hope this will inspire you to reach out and connect with those around you and think about how you can grow culture-shaping friendships and communities. Learn more about Jonathan Haidt and Pete Wehner. Watch the full Online Conversation and read the transcript from February 19, 2021. Authors and books mentioned in the conversation:The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, by Jonathan HaidtThe Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, by Jonathan Haidt and Greg LukainoffThe Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan HaidtCity of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era, by Peter Wehner and Michael GersonThe Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, by Peter WehnerA Time to Build: From Family and Community to Congress and the Campus, How Recommitting to Our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream, by Yuval LevinWhy We're Polarized, by Ezra KleinBlaise PascalJohn McWhorterFrancis CollinsC.S. LewisOwen BarfieldDavid BrooksOn Liberty, by John Stuart MillIbram X. KendiRichard Reeves, Brookings InstitutionHow To Think: A Guide for the Perplexed, by Alan JacobsThe Enigma of Reason, by Hugo Mercier and Dan SperberMy Bright Abyss: Meditation of a Modern Believer, by Christian Wiman Related Trinity Forum Readings:Politics in the English Language, by George OrwellPolitics, Morality, and Civility, by Václav HavelDemocracy in America, by Alexis de TocquevilleBrave New World, by Aldous Huxley Related Conversations:Rebuilding our Common Life, with Yuval Levin Special thanks to Ned Bustard for the artwork and Andrew Peterson for the music.

Guest host Troy Swanson chats with Dr. Hugo Mercier, research scientist and author of Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe, about cognitive science, how humans think they make decisions (and how they actually do), intuition, and why we aren’t as easily fooled as we think (…or are we?). … Continue reading 207: Hugo Mercier

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Sacha Altay is doing his PhD in cognitive science at the Institut Jean Nicod of the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. Fascinated by apparently irrational beliefs and behaviors, he works with Hugo Mercier on the role of epistemic reputation in communication and the cognitive mechanisms underlying information transmission and evaluation. In this episode, we talk about fake news, and scientific misinformation. We start with fake news, and discuss how widespread it really is, and the sort of cultural and social factors behind fake news sharing. We talk about misinformation on misinformation, and moral panics about fake news. We also talk about scientific misinformation during the COVID pandemic, and how governments and health authorities could have done a better job of communicating COVID-related information. We finish with a discussion of what would make for more effective science communication. -- Follow Sacha's work: Website: https://bit.ly/2P0PYSv ResearchGate profile: https://bit.ly/3ok96IJ Twitter handle: @Sacha_Altay -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, AND EDWARD HALL! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND NIRUBAN BALACHANDRAN! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, MATTHEW LAVENDER, AND SERGIU CODREANU!

Humans have intuitive and reflective beliefs. Often, these affect how we weigh and process our arguments and views. Listen to Hugo Mercier, Cognitive Scientist and Author of Not Born Yesterday, as he shares provocative findings from his books. In this episode, he and host Greg LaBlanc have fascinating conversations on what kind of environments shape our biases and what we choose to believe in. Don't miss their discussion on when and how to assess good and bad arguments to better our lives. Finally, tune in for their riveting exchange on how conversations and disagreements on belief affect social learning and progress. Some excellent insights were tackled to help listeners understand how the government, politicians, and brands use propaganda and ads to affect our reasoning and gain our trust.Episode Quotes:Understanding Choice Blindness: Why We Contradict Our Own Argument When Presented as Coming from Others"Choice blindness, which has been discovered by some Swedish psychologists. It's not surprising that I really want to establish that this is a very kind of well-established plaintiff by which it's very easy for people to be lied to in terms of what decisions they made. And so the prediction that we made was that people should be critical [...] and objective when it comes to other people's arguments—accepting good arguments and rejecting bad arguments. And that they shouldn't be quite lazy and lenient when it comes to their own arguments. For they should just accept anything as long as they thought everything themselves if you wanted to be able to evaluate your arguments in the more objective facts. The idea would be to be able to write something down and then turn off the part of your brain that recognizes the argument as your own. And then you'll be able to evaluate it more objectively and in a way. I mean, that's what happens to us when you've written something that a few years ago and you read it again, and it feels a bit frightening to you [...] When you're writing is good too, wait for a little bit and kind of revisit it. It's because you gained some distance. It feels like someone else's writing."Why don't we have a natural instinct to seek out those who have views that disagree with ours?"We tend to be around people who are doing those because otherwise, we'd have to argue constantly, which is a bit of a pain. Even if you think you have people who come from different, different schools in anthropology or whatever international schools, it might be really hard for them to argue because they disagree about most of the premises. So it's good to agree on those things before discussing them. So, for instance, maybe your closest colleagues shared a broad vision of the field, but sometimes agree, but in the sense of the details of an experiment or interpretation of a result, and that's when the discussion is the most productive. Find the kind of context in which people would mostly agree with us and disagree on some points. But the issue that's at stake is when everybody around us agrees with us, then it is good to try to seek out someone who tends to disagree."On why and how social learning is crucial to human progress"Social learning is crucial, but it can only work. It can only be evolutionarily stable if people are concerned with what they accept and then if they have good reasons to accept something. If it comes from a trustworthy source. If they have good arguments."Will it be beneficial to create a space where people argue and discuss their bias, eventually coming to a collective agreement for a better cognitive division of labor?"Yes, that's exactly right. To unwrap that a little bit, we're suggesting is that we know that reasoning means I have my biases. So what it's often called is confirmation bias. That is a tendency when you consider a conclusion or a belief that you have to overwhelmingly find reasons that will support that. The analogy of the lawyer has a conclusion that they have to defend. And then you not only find arguments for that conclusion, unfortunately when we're engaged in the back and forth, a discussion, we are also both lawyers for our point of view. But what's amazing, when we evaluate the other person's arguments, we also become the judge. And so there are quite a bit of data shows. When you are faced with good arguments, even an argument that challenges your views, you are able to recognize the strength of the arguments. And so, a discussion, as long as you're in mostly good faith, which is kind of the case by default, you alternate taking the mental arguments. That is what makes an argumentation work."What can we try to do to better align our mechanism for reasoning for the environment that we're in?"We have to train ourselves not to get better at rejecting information because we're already very good at this. What we have to get better at is accepting more information and understanding why, science, and some of these amazing institutions that we have, our use cases ate very reliable. You don't want to just accept everything. Understanding how these institutions work and what makes them reliable in what cases they will be, more or less reliable. Just putting yourself in a position that we can accept more of those. We can trust more people than in more of these amazing institutions that we have."Show Links:Guest ProfileHugo Mercier's ProfileHugo Mercier on TwitterHugo Mercier on Google ScholarHis WorkNot Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We BelieveThe Enigma of Reason

It's 1990 and Birmingham metal band Judas Priest are on trial in court in Reno, Nevada. The band are accused of influencing the suicide and suicide attempt of two of their young fans by placing subliminal messages in their track Better By You, Better Than Me. What follows is a six week trial - the first to be filmed for Court TV - in which the lives of the boys' families are devastatingly pulled apart in front of the cameras, junk science is flung around the courtroom. The band will have to prove their innocence, in a classic piece of courtroom theatre, by explaining the suspicious nonsense phrases found when they play their music backwards. Matthew Syed tells the story of the case and examines the stubborn myth of mind control and hidden influences. From the fascination with subliminal messages in mid-century advertising, to self-help tapes in the 1980s and the fear for the minds of young YouTube fans falling asleep to strange sounds in order to wake up with glowing skin, Matthew considers the misconceptions about the way we're influenced. With David Van Taylor, filmmaker and director of Dream Deceivers: Heavy Metal on Trial; Timothy E. Moore, professor in the Department of Psychology, Glendon College, York University; and Hugo Mercier, research scientist at the CNRS Institut Jean Nicod, Paris. Wilson B. Key interview on KPFK courtesy of Pacifica Radio Archives. BBC Action Line If you or someone you know are experiencing emotional distress, help and support is available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4WLs5NlwrySXJR2n8Snszdg/emotional-distress-information-and-support2 Presenter: Matthew Syed Producer/Series Editor: Katherine Godfrey Executive Producer: Max O'Brien Music, Sound Design and Mix: Nicholas Alexander Theme Music: Seventy Times Seven by Ioana Selaru A Novel production for BBC Radio 4

Episode Notes How do we know who we can trust? And how good are we at detecting liars? Hugo Mercier researches human reasoning, and in this episode, we talk about our reasoning behind who we trust and how we trust. By understanding this, we can make much better decisions in everyday life. Follow Hugo on Twitter @hugoreasoning Get a copy of The Enigma of Reason Get a copy of Not Born Yesterday For the interview transcript visit www.TheRewiredSoul.com/interviews Follow @TheRewiredSoul on Twitter and Instagram Support The Rewired Soul: Get books by Chris Support on Patreon Try BetterHelp Online Therapy (affiliate) Donate

Would you believe that I'm a shape-shifting lizard who thinks that the Earth is flat? 'Not Born Yesterday' by Hugo Mercier is an argument against the perceived notion that humans are gullible. In the age of fake news, false rumours and conspiracies it is easy to think that we are too credulous. However, Mercier argues that we have developed open vigilance mechanisms which allow us to sort out the incoming communication from other people to let us know who to trust and what to believe.I summarised the book as follows. "It's definitely an 'intellectual' book that requires a lot of prior knowledge of evolutionary science, game theory and behavioural economics. It brought up some original ideas but there may be some dubious studies that were used to support his thesis. The general argument makes sense to me and there are a couple of useful takeaways but it won't revolutionise my thinking."As always, I hope you have a fantastic day wherever you are in the world. Kyrin out!Timeline:(0:00) - Intro & Synopsis(2:54) - Open Vigilance Mechanisms: Accepting the beneficial, rejecting the harmful(9:07) - Trust & Belief: Who to trust & what to believe?(13:54) - Personal Observations/Takeaways(16:59) - SummaryConnect with Mere Mortals:Website: https://www.meremortalspodcast.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/meremortalspodcast/Support the show

Would you believe that I'm a shape-shifting lizard who thinks that the Earth is flat? 'Not Born Yesterday' by Hugo Mercier is an argument against the perceived notion that humans are gullible. In the age of fake news, false rumours and conspiracies it is easy to think that we are too credulous. However, Mercier argues that we have developed open vigilance mechanisms which allow us to sort out the incoming communication from other people to let us know who to trust and what to believe.I summarised the book as follows. "It's definitely an 'intellectual' book that requires a lot of prior knowledge of evolutionary science, game theory and behavioural economics. It brought up some original ideas but there may be some dubious studies that were used to support his thesis. The general argument makes sense to me and there are a couple of useful takeaways but it won't revolutionise my thinking."As always, I hope you have a fantastic day wherever you are in the world. Kyrin out!Timeline:(0:00) - Intro & Synopsis(2:54) - Open Vigilance Mechanisms: Accepting the beneficial, rejecting the harmful(9:07) - Trust & Belief: Who to trust & what to believe?(13:54) - Personal Observations/Takeaways(16:59) - SummaryConnect with Mere Mortals:Website: https://www.meremortalspodcast.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/meremortalspodcast/

Key Insights:Henry: We need to be critical of other people in the public sphere, but we need to be critical in an extraordinarily humble way—to recognize that we, all of us, are incredibly biased as individuals. We see the moats in our brothers' eyes very well. We do not see the beams and our own. We have a duty to others to try to help them to remove the beams in a polite, quiet, sometimes insistent way... think very carefully about the ways in which we can genuinely be constructive in criticism...Brad: We are in huge trouble: organizing our 7.8 billion person anthology intelligence to actually get done what we need to get done in the next century appears beyond our capabilities. It may be time to go back to the trees, or even to devolve completely and let some other more mature species more capable of collective action and organization come up—the raccoons, or something. Nobody has a gospel. So the next move has to be, somehow. with the head...Noah: Perhaps this is just the optimism of relative youth but I think that we're going to break out of our local maximum and find a better way. If you were in the 1930s, and you looked at the state of both America and the world, you would see even more cause for despair. Yet we got our way out of that without having to leave the planet to the raccoons. I think we will this time as well. The key insight is that we are still in the process of learning about what democracy means and about how, you know, humans can participate in their own government without turning it into an unwieldy shout fest.All: Hexapodia!P.S.: Marko Kloos's Paladium Wars series is excellent.References:Jason Brennan: Against Democracy Bryan Caplan: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies John Dewey: The Political Writings John Dewey: The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry Henry Farrell: In Praise of Negativity Henry Farrell & Jack Knight: Reconstructing International Political Economy: A Deweyan ApproachHenry Farrell, Hugo Mercier, & Melissa Schwartzberg: No-B******t Democracy Alexander Hamilton: Federalist 9 Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, & Cass Sunstein: Noise Philip Kitcher: Science in a Democratic Society Hugo Mercier & Dan Sperber: The Enigma of Reason Michael Neblo, Kevin Esterling, & David Lazar: Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy Josiah Ober: Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens Melissa Schwartzberg: Epistemic Democracy and Its Challenges Ilya Somin: Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter Richard Thaler & Cass Sunstein: Nudges: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness &, of course:Vernor Vinge: A Fire Upon the Deep Alexander Hamilton: ‘It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated. From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans…. It is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals from which they were taken. If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible. The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided…Henry Farrell, Hugo Mercier, & Melissa Schwartzberg: No-B******t Democracy: ‘Over the last decade a prominent academic literature tied to libertarian thought has argued that democracy is generally inferior to other forms of collective problem-solving such as markets and the rule of cognitive elites (Caplan 2007, Somin 2016, Brennan 2016). These skeptics appeal to findings in cognitive and social psychology, and political behavior, to claim that decision-making by ordinary citizens is unlikely to be rational or well-grounded in evidence.  Their arguments have received prominent media coverage (Crain 2016), and have been repeated in conservative critiques of democratic voting (Mathis-Lilley 2021), while provoking rejoinders from political theorists whose “epistemic” account of the benefits of democracy invokes mechanisms such as deliberation, the Condorcet Jury Theorem, and the “Diversity Trumps Ability” theorem (Landemore 2013; Schwartzberg 2015). This debate has been largely unproductive…. We set out a different approach. We show that democratic skeptics’ claims tend to rest on partial, inaccurate, and outdated understandings of human cognition. However, we do not retort with a general defense of democracy on cognitive or epistemological grounds. Instead, we advocate a scientific program investigating the conditions under which specific democratic institutions do better or worse in discovering solutions to collective problems, building in particular on results in experimental psychology… (Remember: You can subscribe to this… weblog-like newsletter… here: There’s a free email list. There’s a paid-subscription list with (at the moment, only a few) extras too.) Get full access to Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality at braddelong.substack.com/subscribe

“The avoidance of conflict is actually the real problem”We traditionally view an argument as a symptom of a problematic relationship, but relationship psychologists have found that they actually lead to healthier and happier people. Children who grow up arguing with their parents do better in school, and couples who air their disagreements stay together longer.What holds true for the family, holds true for all groups of people: conflict is central to Democracy. Humans evolved to reason collectively: we need each other to get to the truth.“For valuable conflict to occur, you need two things: a shared goal, and agreed rules of engagement.”Listen to Ian and Turi discuss:Why arguments are good for usWhy most ‘conflict' on social media isn't ‘Fight' so much as ‘Flight'Why emotion is so important in conflictHow we can turn our cognitive flaws to society's advantageHow human individuals evolved to argue, but society evolved to reason.Democracy as an ‘Infinite Game'How we can have healthy arguments“It doesn't matter if you are right, it matters that WE, as a society, are right. Arguing is what gets us there.”Works cited include:Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber's Enigma of ReasonJames Carse and his Finite and Infinite GamesIan LeslieIan Leslie is a writer and author of acclaimed books on human behaviour. He writes about psychology, culture, technology and business for the New Statesman, the Economist, the Guardian and the Financial Times. He is the author of Conflicted.More on this episodeLearn all about the Parlia Podcast here.Meet Turi Munthe: https://www.parlia.com/u/TuriLearn more about the Parlia project here: https://www.parlia.com/aboutAnd visit us at: https://www.parlia.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this dialogue, Robert Gressis (UCal Northridge) and Hugo Mercier ( French National Center for Scientific Research, Not Born Yesterday) discuss how human belief and manipulation work, and Hugo's research about why people aren't as manipulable as we sometimes think. 01:24 Hugo’s thesis: when it comes to communication, people are not easily manipulated, but hard to manipulate.07:19 If people aren’t easily manipulated, then how does Hugo explain the success of Hitler, Pol Pot, and Trump?16:07 Aren’t people easily manipulated by leaders who share their political orientation?21:00 Do people really believe the crazy things they espouse?28:36 What is the connection between belief and behavior? 35:45 Sperber and Mercier’s “interactionist” theory of reason41:00 Twitter as a counterexample to the interactionist theory of reason48:18 Are people good at arguing?53:13 Rational rioters and the extraordinary heterogeneity of crowds

出版社：商周出版 - 書本簡介： 本書說明了我們如何決定自己可以信任的人與事物，並指出我們其實相當擅長做出這些決定。 在這本生動有趣的書中，認知心理學家雨果‧梅西耶（Hugo Mercier）指出，幾乎所有試圖進行大規模說服的嘗試， 無論是宗教領袖、政治家還是廣告商，幾乎都慘遭失敗！他借鑒了政治科學、歷史甚至人類學的最新發現， 指出人類容易輕信一切是種錯誤的陳述，大眾其實沒那麼容易被煽動者和騙子誤導。 為什麼說服這麼難？作者利用實驗心理學的最新發現，展示我們每個人如何被賦予「開放性警覺」（open vigilance）的複雜認知機制。 這些機制計算出各種線索，使我們能夠防範有害的信念，同時在有正確證據的情況下開放心胸，做好改變主意的準備。 甚至當我們接受了謠言或遭到庸醫蒙騙時，這也是在其他方面運轉良好的認知機制中的錯誤罷了。 透過本書，你將知道人們如何決定要相信什麼， 理解廣告、傳教、選舉宣傳甚至謠言和假新聞如何擴散與滲透， 以及──你會不會選擇相信這本書！ 購書資訊 https://www.books.com.tw/products/0010862828 從早忙到晚的你，是不是應該在睡前好的放鬆一下，讓田定豐的安眠書店， 每一天陪你說晚安。 田定豐＿FB粉絲專頁 https://www.facebook.com/LancasterTien 田定豐＿IG ＠lancaster5858 https://www.instagram.com/lancaster5858

Discussion avec Hugo Mercier, chercheur en sciences cognitives et co-auteur de la théorie argumentative du raisonnement.   Ses travaux sont disponibles ici : https://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/  Au programme de l'émission : Qu'est-ce que la rationalité ? Que fait le cerveau quand on croit qu'il raisonne ? Quelle est la fonction du raisonnement et son histoire évolutive ?  Et enfin nous parlons des apports de la théorie argumentative de Sperber & Mercier.    Pour nous soutenir : - Helloasso : https://www.helloasso.com/associations/association-pour-la-science-et-la-transmission-de-l-esprit-critique - Tipeee : https://fr.tipeee.com/la-tronche-en-biais    Lien Youtube de l'émission : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TDu426tV2U&ab_channel=LaTroncheenBiais   Animation : Acermendax et Vled Tapas Editeur podcast : Corentin Savre

Podcast: Philosophy Bites (LS 63 · TOP 0.1% )Episode: Dan Sperber on the Enigma of ReasonRelease date: 2011-09-25Our reasoning capacity sets us apart from other animals. But reason is frequently prone to error. Why then did we evolve with a capacity for reason at all?  This is a question that has vexed Dan Sperber - with Hugo Mercier he has been researching the topic. Dan Sperber discusses their research and conclusions with Nigel Warburton for this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Philosophy Bites is made in assocation with the Institute of Philosophy.

Podcast: Philosophy Bites Episode: Dan Sperber on the Enigma of Reasonhthttps://www.dan.sperber.fr/Release date: 2011-09-25Our reasoning capacity sets us apart from other animals. But reason is frequently prone to error. Why then did we evolve with a capacity for reason at all?  This is a question that has vexed Dan Sperber - with Hugo Mercier he has been researching the topic. Dan Sperber discusses their research and conclusions with Nigel Warburton for this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Philosophy Bites is made in assocation with the Institute of Philosophy.

Greetings, SuperFriends! Today we are joined by Hugo Mercier, the CEO and co-founder of Dreem, a leading digital therapeutic for sleep disorders. Hugo has led his business through the development of the company's solution – the Dreem 2 headband -, which I recently got a chance to try out and was blown away by so much, that I wanted to have Hugo on the show to learn how they managed to build a sleep lab that you can buy and use at home to improve your sleep. Hugo is a graduate of my Alma mater, UC Berkeley, and the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris where he studied engineering and entrepreneurship. He's also been honored with all kinds of awards for being an innovator and all different kinds of awesome influential persons awards. He's even spoken at amazing events such as Slush Web, Summit, TEDx, and more. Now, I really enjoyed this episode and I think you will very quickly see why. I know we have done a lot of episodes on sleep, but I have never had a chance to talk to someone who works with literally a dozen of the world's top sleep researchers one-on-one, and who is constantly spending his entire day analyzing sleep research and figuring out how we can practically make people's sleep better. I learned things about sleep and that says a lot because I have done a lot of thinking, interviewing, and reading about sleep. So, I know you're going to enjoy this episode! -Jonathan Levi

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/the-dissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT Anchor (podcast): https://anchor.fm/thedissenter Dr. Hugo Mercier is a research scientist at the CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Institut Jean Nicod), where he works with the Evolution and Social Cognition team. Most of his work so far has focused on the function and workings of reasoning. He's the author of The Enigma of Reason, and, more recently, Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe. In this episode, we center on Dr. Mercier's recent book, Not Born Yesterday. He walks us through the recent science that goes against the prevailing narrative in social psychology, that we are extremely gullible, and easily manipulated and deceived. We explore examples in the domains of politics, social media, science, and others. -- Follow Dr. Mercier's work: Faculty page: http://bit.ly/2Ro0CBu Personal website: http://bit.ly/2sTjQp7 Not Born Yesterday: https://amzn.to/37AeDBy Twitter handle: @hugoreasoning -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, DAVID DIAS, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, AND MIKKEL STORMYR! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, ROSEY, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, AND MATTHEW LAVENDER! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, MICHAL RUSIECKI!

Bernie Sanders announced the suspension of his presidential campaign this week, making Joe Biden the official presumptive Democratic nominee. What is the legacy of his campaign? Does it signal a complete lack of interest in very left policies and a major win for conservatives in the US, or does it show gradual change? Wisconsin’s primary election went ahead this week as scheduled, despite the coronavirus pandemic. Is this a preview of future primaries and the general election in November? Should both Democrats and Republicans favor voting by mail? President Trump is being criticized for taking too much of the spotlight during daily coronavirus briefings at the expense of medical experts. Is it time for that to change? Is President Trump capable of changing that? Finally: one concerning theme of this pandemic is the political polarization of attitudes about it, but polling suggests that even though Democrats and Republicans might be saying opposite things, they’re pretty much behaving the same way: staying home, avoiding social contact, following guidelines. But this pandemic also feels like a crisis that could also be the nexus of other American crises: low trust in government, fake news and motivated reasoning. Cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier says people are relatively good at distinguishing good information from bad information, especially when their lives depend on it.

We're peeling back the layers of language and cognition and how it relates to COVID-19. Particularly at this time, the way we talk about the disease and the current situation, can be helpful or harmful, comforting or confusing. What should we be conscious of? We speak with Nick Enfield, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sydney. WHAT WE COVER – From "mild" to "extreme" cases: the need for nuance – Unpacking the idea of "the new normal" – Exercising cognitive literacy, or what Hugo Mercier terms 'open vigilance' Access the transcript: https://bit.ly/2V0VLa3 For more info, head to the Sydney Ideas website: sydney.edu.au/sydney-ideas.

Le sommeil est un élément qui joue un rôle beaucoup plus important que vous ne l’imaginez, dans votre santé. Il est lié à votre humeur et à votre sensation générale de forme, bien sûr, mais peut aussi devenir responsable, en cas de négligence, d’épisodes de dépression, favoriser la maladie d’Alzheimer, ou encore l’obésité, par exemple. Les troubles du sommeil font partie des grands maux du XXIe siècle et c’est pour cette raison que Quentin Soulet De Brugière, directeur technique de Dreems, a décidé de se lancer dans cette aventure, avec Hugo Mercier, rencontré pendant ses études. Quentin nous explique en quoi consiste le bandeau Dreem, qu’il a conçu avec ses associés et collaborateurs, et en quoi il aide à trouver le sommeil et à en maximiser l’efficacité, à l’aide, notamment de sons diffusés par conduction osseuse pendant la nuit. N’hésitez pas à vous abonner au podcast, et surtout à le partager autour de vous ! Site : www.anti-brouillard.fr Instagram : www.instagram.com/antibrouillard/ Twitter : www.twitter.com/Anti_brouillard Facebook : www.facebook.com/anti.brouillard.podcast/ Email : anti.brouillard.podcast@gmail.com Et mon contact perso : Fabien Roques www.linkedin.com/in/fabienroques/ ___ Crédit logo : Axel Delbrayère - http://delbrayere.com/

Author and cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier joins Tim to talk about an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal where he sheds light on research that answers the question: “Do political campaigns change voters' minds?” Hugo is the author of, “Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe.” https://traffic.libsyn.com/shapingopinion/Do_campaigns_change_minds_-_auphonic.mp3 It's 2020 and election season is in full swing. No matter where you live in America, you're starting to see the ads, the debates, the door-to-door canvassers, the political signs, the rallies and the protests. While some of what you see may be genuine and spontaneous, much of what you will see is crafted as part of a political campaign designed to change your mind. Hugo Mercier is a cognitive scientist at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. He recently wrote the book, “Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe.” But it was something he wrote for the Wall Street Journal recently that prompted us to each out to him to have him speak with us. He wrote a column posing the question: Do political campaigns change voters' minds? In 2020 at least $6 billion will be spent on political campaigns in the U.S. Over $2 billion will be spent on the presidential race. This means: TV ads, cold calling, mailings, social media and more sophisticated technology that uses big data to target ads. For almost 20 years, political scientists have studied the effectiveness of political campaigns. They wanted to find out whether a campaign strategy actually works. They conducted randomized control trials. In other words, you can randomly select certain neighborhoods to receive a campaign mailing supporting one candidate. Alan Gerber of Yale University did one of the first studies like this. Published in the journal American Behavioral Sciences (2004). Nearly 100,000 households received mailings in favor of a congressional candidate. Gerber found that the voters in this area were only 0.2% more likely to vote for the candidate. This is statistically insignificant. Gerber has done other studies. He found that campaign mailings did have an effect on votes, but that had a smaller sample size results were contradictory. One study found mailings seem to make people less likely to vote for a candidate. Hugo says the best way to arrive at some level of truth is to pool all of those studies and other research. So he pointed to a later test that aggregated multiple test results to see if any robust patterns emerge. Links Do Political Campaigns Change Voters' Minds?, by Hugo Mercier, Wall Street Journal Hugo Mercier Jean Nicod Institute Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe, by Hugo Mercier (Amazon) About this Episode's Guest Hugo Mercier Hugo Mercier is a cognitive scientist working at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. He studies human reasoning and communication, as well as cultural evolution. He is the co-author, with Dan Sperber, of The Enigma of Reason, and the author of Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who we Trust and What we Believe.

Author and cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier joins Tim to talk about an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal where he sheds light on research that answers the question: “Do political campaigns change voters’ minds?” Hugo is the author of, “Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe.” https://traffic.libsyn.com/shapingopinion/Do_campaigns_change_minds_-_auphonic.mp3 It’s 2020 and election season is in full swing. No matter where you live in America, you’re starting to see the ads, the debates, the door-to-door canvassers, the political signs, the rallies and the protests. While some of what you see may be genuine and spontaneous, much of what you will see is crafted as part of a political campaign designed to change your mind. Hugo Mercier is a cognitive scientist at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. He recently wrote the book, “Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe.” But it was something he wrote for the Wall Street Journal recently that prompted us to each out to him to have him speak with us. He wrote a column posing the question: Do political campaigns change voters’ minds? In 2020 at least $6 billion will be spent on political campaigns in the U.S. Over $2 billion will be spent on the presidential race. This means: TV ads, cold calling, mailings, social media and more sophisticated technology that uses big data to target ads. For almost 20 years, political scientists have studied the effectiveness of political campaigns. They wanted to find out whether a campaign strategy actually works. They conducted randomized control trials. In other words, you can randomly select certain neighborhoods to receive a campaign mailing supporting one candidate. Alan Gerber of Yale University did one of the first studies like this. Published in the journal American Behavioral Sciences (2004). Nearly 100,000 households received mailings in favor of a congressional candidate. Gerber found that the voters in this area were only 0.2% more likely to vote for the candidate. This is statistically insignificant. Gerber has done other studies. He found that campaign mailings did have an effect on votes, but that had a smaller sample size results were contradictory. One study found mailings seem to make people less likely to vote for a candidate. Hugo says the best way to arrive at some level of truth is to pool all of those studies and other research. So he pointed to a later test that aggregated multiple test results to see if any robust patterns emerge. Links Do Political Campaigns Change Voters' Minds?, by Hugo Mercier, Wall Street Journal Hugo Mercier Jean Nicod Institute Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe, by Hugo Mercier (Amazon) About this Episode’s Guest Hugo Mercier Hugo Mercier is a cognitive scientist working at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. He studies human reasoning and communication, as well as cultural evolution. He is the co-author, with Dan Sperber, of The Enigma of Reason, and the author of Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who we Trust and What we Believe.

Not Born Yesterday explains how we decide who we can trust and what we should believe — and argues that we’re pretty good at making these decisions. Hugo Mercier demonstrates how virtually all attempts at mass persuasion — whether by religious leaders, politicians, or advertisers — fail miserably. Drawing on recent findings from political science and other fields ranging from history to anthropology, Mercier shows that the narrative of widespread gullibility, in which a credulous public is easily misled by demagogues and charlatans, is simply wrong. Why is mass persuasion so difficult? Mercier uses the latest findings from experimental psychology to show how each of us is endowed with sophisticated cognitive mechanisms of open vigilance. Computing a variety of cues, these mechanisms enable us to be on guard against harmful beliefs, while being open enough to change our minds when presented with the right evidence. Even failures — when we accept false confessions, spread wild rumors, or fall for quack medicine — are better explained as bugs in otherwise well-functioning cognitive mechanisms than as symptoms of general gullibility. In this lively and provocative conversation Shermer and Mercier discuss: If we’re not as gullible as we’ve been led to believe, then why do so many people apparently believe in ESP, astrology, the paranormal, the supernatural, conspiracy theories, and the like? Epistemic Vigilance and skepticism why most Germans did not believe in Nazi ideology honest signaling, costly signaling, and virtue signaling Malcolm Gladwell’s book Talking to Strangers and why the “default to truth” theory is wrong. folk biology and why creationism is intuitive and evolutionary theory counterintuitive conspiracy theories and why we believe them (or not) the real meaning of conformity experiments in which people appear to go along with the group why people join cults … or ISIS. why people belong to religions, and why we are not living in a post-truth era, and why access to accurate information has never been so good. Hugo Mercier is a cognitive scientist at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris and the coauthor of The Enigma of Reason. He lives in Nantes, France. Twitter @hugoreasoning Listen to Science Salon via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Play Music, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.

Scott H. Young on quickly mastering hard skills, acquiring knowledge, and becoming good at things that seem impossible to you right now. Scott H. Young is an author, entrepreneur, and ultralearner. After learning MIT's 4-year computer science curriculum in less than twelve months, Scott taught himself four new languages in a year. In his book Ultralearning, Scott shares the principles and methods that he and other ultralearners employ to quickly master new skills, acquire knowledge, and become good at things that seem impossible to you right now. Connect with Scott on scotthyoung.com, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. Favorite quotes "All of us are learning. Otherwise, we would be rocks." "Ultralearning is not just a philosophy of learning one thing [and getting better at it] but a constant process of taking on projects and learning new things." "Most people don't do [what would probably work better for learning] because it's kind of scary or frustrating or a little uncomfortable at first." "Learning is any change that happens in the brain that makes you do something better." "There are mental and emotional obstacles that often prevent us from doing what [we] know would really make sense for learning better, because we're afraid or think it will be too frustrating or challenging." "[Deliberate practice] is overriding the habits and patterns that you form." "I'm always learning about learning." "[The Feynman Technique] forces you to articulate what you understand and what you don't." "Paper acts as an extension of your working memory. [Writing things down] is a kind of cognitive enhancement that allows you to think more intelligently about ideas." "The ultralearning ethos: learning is intrinsically hard." Episode links Survivorship bias Deliberate practice explained by James Clear Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi Stardew Valley by Eric Barone (game) Skill polarization Goals! An Interactive Guide by Scott Young Fluent in Three Months by Benny Lewis Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman (autobiography) The Feynman Technique by Scott Young Rubber Ducky technique Top Performer by Cal Newport and Scott Young (course) Don’t Break The Chain! (app) LeechBlock (app) Screen Time (app) Text Expander (app) Scott Young’s book club (podcast) James Clear's blog Study Hacks by Cal Newport Marginal REVOLUTION by Tyler Cowen (blog) Slate Star Codex by Scott Alexander (podcast) Zen habits by Leo Babauta Anki (space repetition system) (app) Supermemo (app) R (programming language) Books Ultralearning by Scott Young Deep Work by Cal Newport Digital Minimalism by Cal Newport So Good They Can't Ignore You by Cal Newport The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber People mentioned Darrin Rose Leo Babauta Benny Lewis Roger Craig David Autor Anders Ericsson Eric Barone Lazlo Polgar Susan Polgar Sofia Polgar Judit Polgar Bobby Fischer Richard Feynman Cal Newport James Clear Ramit Sethi Barbara Oakley Tristan de Montebello Tim Ferriss Tyler Cowen Episode notes Scott Young. [0:28] Career. [4:31] Going full time. [8:37] Monetizing. [11:05] Writing the Ultralearning book. [12:52] Guinea pigs - "[There isn't such a thing as] ultralearning conventions." [15:09] Pushing yourself. [18:21] Flow vs. deliberate practice. [26:12] Ultralearning principles. [29:22] Self-directed and intense. [35:34] Why does ultralearning matter? [39:48] Can anyone learn? [45:17] Your learning approach. [49:28] Directness. [53:34] The Feynman technique. [1:02:01] Rubber ducky. [1:05:33] The mindset of experimentation. [1:06:23] Constraints - Performance and creative constraints. [1:09:24] The Expert Interview Method - What advice did Cal Newport give to Scott for writing his book? [1:12:23] Masters and mentors - Avoiding the mythical "complete mentor." [1:14:56] Role models. [1:19:06] Cal Newport and James Clear. [1:20:37] Daily routine. [1:22:38] Is your life simple? [1:23:16] Complexities. [1:23:49] Team. [1:24:44] Habits. [1:26:18] Meditation. [1:27:45] Rituals. [1:28:35] Commute. [1:29:44] Working from home. [1:29:54] Sports and hobbies. [1:30:37] Work hours. [1:31:24] Email. [1:32:57] Distractions. [1:33:51] Social media. [1:34:45] A list of ideas. [1:36:46] Curating your work. [1:37:45] Disconnection. [1:39:39] Boredom. [1:40:58] Healthy tech. [1:42:13] Digital clutter. [1:43:28] Workflows. [1:44:52] Away from screens. [1:45:36] The story about who you are. [1:46:17] Successful people. [1:49:25] One sentence to the world. [1:50:28] What would you tell your 20-year-old self? [1:50:46] Paranoid. [1:53:54] Book (and other) recommendations. [1:54:55] Spaced-repetition systems. [1:55:53] Connect with Scott. [1:57:15] What's next? [1:58:15] Slowing down. [1:59:53] See you next time. [2:01:04] Scott speaking Spanish. [2:01:32] Submit your questions and I'll try to answer them in future episodes. I'd love to hear from you. If you enjoy the show, would you please consider leaving a short review on Apple Podcasts/iTunes? It takes less than 60 seconds and really helps. Show notes, transcripts, and past episodes at gettingsimple.com/podcast. Theme song Sleep by Steve Combs under CC BY 4.0. Follow Nono Twitter.com/nonoesp Instagram.com/nonoesp Facebook.com/nonomartinezalonso YouTube.com/nonomartinezalonso

Scott Young shares innovative methods to learn new skills more efficiently and effectively.   You'll Learn: Foundational principles for mastering skills more effectively The importance of “meta-learning” The Feynman Technique and other approaches to accelerate learning   About Scott: Scott is a writer, programmer, traveler and an avid reader of interesting things. For the last ten years he’s been experimenting to find out how to learn and think better. He doesn’t promise he has all the answers, just a place to start. Scott’s Book: "Ultralearning: Master Hard Skills, Outsmart the Competition, and Accelerate Your Career" Scott’s MIT Challenge Scott’s email: personal@scotthyoung.com Scott’s website: ScottHYoung.com   Resources mentioned in the show: Online Class: MIT OpenCourseWare Technique: Feynman Technique Study: Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping Book: "The Enigma of Reason" by Hugo Mercier   Thank you Sponsor! The Simple Habit meditation app can help you gain greater control over distractions for faster learning. The first 50 listeners to sign up at SimpleHabit.com/Awesome get 30% off premium subscriptions.

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT Dr. Hugo Mercier is a research scientist at the CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Institut Jean Nicod), where he works with the Evolution and Social Cognition team. Most of his work so far has focused on the function and workings of reasoning. Together with Dan Sperber, he wrote a book that develops and extends the argumentative theory of reasoning, called The Enigma of Reason. In this episode, we focus on The Enigma of Reason, and talk about how reason might have evolved, and its cognitive and social function. We talk a little bit about the notion of the modular mind. Also, how cognition operates at a subconscious level; the conditions in which reason works best; if dual-process theory (the idea of us having two different cognitive systems – one more fast and frugal, and the other more deliberative) makes sense from this new perspective; what really is a “rational” behavior; and why science as a human enterprise works so well. Time Links: 00:36 How do people perceive threat? 04:38 Fight-or-flight responses 13:04 Threat at the individual and collective levels 17:19 In-group and out-group differences 23:00 Threat in the context of politics and warfare How people solve reasoning problems 17:16 The social function of reason 20:34 Reason works better when done in groups 24:31 Does dual-process theory (system 1 and system 2) make sense? 27:18 What is it to be rational, from an evolutionary perspective? 29:23 Why does science work so well? 32:06 Follow Dr. Mercier's work! -- Follow Dr. Mercier's work: Faculty page: https://tinyurl.com/yb39w3t4 Personal website: https://tinyurl.com/d2te7pm The Enigma of Reason: https://tinyurl.com/y8melzua Twitter handle: @hugoreasoning -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, JUNOS, SCIMED, PER HELGE HAAKSTD LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, RUI BELEZA, MIGUEL ESTRADA, ANTÓNIO CUNHA, CHANTEL GELINAS, JIM FRANK, JERRY MULLER, FRANCIS FORD, AND HANS FREDRIK SUNDE! I also leave you with the link to a recent montage video I did with the interviews I have released until the end of June 2018: https://youtu.be/efdb18WdZUo And check out my playlists on: PSYCHOLOGY: https://tinyurl.com/ybalf8km PHILOSOPHY: https://tinyurl.com/yb6a7d3p ANTHROPOLOGY: https://tinyurl.com/y8b42r7g

Amis insomniaques, si vous ne comptez plus les nuits à vous tourner et retourner dans votre lit, ce podcast devrait vous plaire ! Pour tous les autres, les bienheureux du sommeil comme moi, écoutez le quand même, ça vous intéressera, promis. Car pour ce nouvel épisode de Génération Do It Yourself, j’ai le grand plaisir de recevoir Hugo Mercier, jeune entrepreneur de même pas 26 ans et co-fondateur de Dreem.“La création de choses nouvelles m’a toujours passionné et c’est comme ça que j’ai fini par savoir ce que je voulais faire.” Petit, il se rêvait astronaute. Finalement, à la tête dans les étoiles il a préféré la tête sur l’oreiller. Tout commence presque par hasard, dans un laboratoire, pendant un cours optionnel sur les personnes en situation de handicap. Hugo et Quentin (son co-fondateur sur Dreem), alors étudiants ‘pas très sérieux’, pensent directement aux handicaps liés au cerveau et très vite au sommeil. S’ils ont une très mauvaise note, ils repartent avec une idée : faire dormir les gens. “Je n’avais pas voulu préparer Polytechnique pour m’opposer à mon père. Finalement j’y suis allé pour un double diplôme.” Pendant quatre ans et demi, en parallèle de leurs études à Polytechnique, ils développent le concept, continuent leurs recherches et très vite trouvent des investisseurs. Pas n’importe lesquels d’ailleurs : Xavier Niel, Laurent Alexandre (fondateur de Doctissimo) ou encore la Maif. Résultat : 31 millions d’euros levés en 2019 et le duo ne compte pas s’arrêter là ! Leurs objectifs ? Dans un premier temps éradiquer le mauvais sommeil pour passer à la deuxième étape : rendre les gens heureux… en somme, un sacré programme ! Ecoutez donc et partagez cet épisode passionnant où l’on parle sommeil et business, mais aussi catch, école et famille (sa maman est infirmière de nuit, comme la mienne !). Livres recommandés : John Carreyrou - Bad blood : Secret and lies in a silicon valley strat-up Phil Knight - Shoe Dog (ou en français, L’art de la victoire) - l’autobiographie du fondateur de Nike Geoff Smart & Randy Street - Who ? The method for hiring Ben Horowitz - The hard thing about hard things : building a business when there are no easy answers (ou en français, Hard things : entreprendre dans l’incertitude) Et rien que pour vous qui écoutez GDIY, un code promo, valable tout juillet : DOIT ! On parle aussi des épisodes : #3 Ilan Abehassera – en direct de NYC !#57   Marc Fiorentino - la dure transition de Golden Boy à Entrepreneur# 83 Perry Chen - Kickstarter - un projet peut en cacher 100 000 autres J’espère que ce nouveau podcast Génération Do It Yourself vous a plu ! N’oubliez pas de partager, c’est simple et ça m’apporte beaucoup, et SURTOUT de noter ce podcast sur iTunes (bande de feignasses, vous n’êtes pas assez à l’avoir fait). Pour travailler avec CosaVostra -> contact@cosavostra.com

Hugo Mercier, CEO of Dreem (dreem.com), discusses their innovative solution that helps people achieve better quality sleep.   Mercier discusses the early ideas that intrigued him and led him down the path toward founding Dreem. As students at École Polytechnique, Hugo Mercier and Quentin Soulet de Brugière became fascinated by the scientific studies that indicated sound stimulations actually improve deep sleep. They wanted to dig deeper.   Mercier explains their product and how it works. Dreem is a headband and accompanying app that works with you to achieve better sleep. Many of us do not get the quality sleep that we need to feel refreshed and ready to take on the new day, which can lead to problems from fatigue, to stress, and more. The Dreem headband measures brain activity, heart rate, and movement through the night, with the kind of accuracy you would normally only be able to get in a sleep lab. As he explains, all the data collected through the night is accessible through your phone. And inside the Dreem app, users can access personal advice that will further help them improve their sleep. Working with cognitive behavioral therapists, Mercier and his team have developed a tool that helps people not only improve the quality of sleep but decrease the amount of time it takes to fall asleep.    Mercier talks about the kind of data that Dreem collects and what it can tell you. He discusses their studies, and how the Dreem data compares with expensive sleep lab equipment. And as he states, their numbers and results are very good, in regard to the accuracy and quality of their data collection! He explains how their product can help many types of sleep problems and disorders, including how it helps insomniacs. Mercier details the problems insomniacs struggle with, and how their sleep problem is further exacerbated by their stress about not being able to fall asleep.    Mercier explains that Dreem has developed a program with sleep doctors that offers Dreem users accurate, insightful advice that gets to the root of their sleep problems from an analytical perspective, to help users understand how to correct sleep problems. By understanding one's sleep and sleep habits, we can find a way to combat problems and get better quality sleep, which leads to improvements in a vast number of ways in regard to wellness.

Människan är som mest rationell och förnuftig när hon tänker i grupp. Det hävdas i en ny bok, Förnuft och fördom av kognitionsforskarna Hugo Mercier och Dan Sperber. Det är dags att skrota idén om det ensamma geniet. Människans irrationella bekräftelse-jäv, det vill säga tendens att ta till oss mer av den information som bekräftar våra föreställningar och övertygelser än sådant som talar emot det, är fullt rationellt om man ser det ur grupp-perspektiv. Det som kan få oss att tänka fel individuellt kan leda till de bästa kollektiva besluten. Bland annat detta hävdar kognitionsforskarna Hugo Mercier och Dan Sperber i sin bok som nyligen kommit ut på svenska, Förnuft och fördom. Utifrån denna idé samtalar filosoferna Åsa Wikforss och Ingar Brinck med kognitionsforskaren Peter Gärdenfors. Programledare är Lars Mogensen, producent: Thomas Lunderquist.

Hva har moderne ballbinger, en engelsk utilitaristisk filosof, lokalpolitikk, podkaster og fornuftens sosiale rolle med hverandre å gjøre? Vel, ikke så altfor mye, men vi klemmer en episode ut av denne gammalosten likevel. Lytt og døm selv.   Ting og tang nevnt i denne episoden: Påls innlegg om ballbinger: https://paljabekk.com/2019/04/08/ballbinger-og-oppna-landskap/ John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) You are not so smart, episode 151, om flatjordteoretikere (men lov oss å ikke bli en, ellers så sparker vi deg over kanten) Hele Norge snakker Dan Sperber og Hugo Mercier, boken The Enigma of Reason fra 2017 (om fornuftens sosiale rolle) Radiolab, episode «For whom the cowbell tolls» Hvis man vil lese mer om Dunning Kruger effekten, her er en temmelig utførlig artikkel: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8226/22ed711dfc0f63a232f31ac3163fb3cb8b55.pdf   Vi tar gjerne imot tilbakemeldinger fra dere, kanskje særlig om det er ting dere vil høre mer om, saker vi burde fordype oss i, og andre måter vi kan bli bedre på. Et hobbyprosjekt har endel naturlige begrensninger, men det er likevel såpass mange saker vi har vært innom som betyr mye for oss, at tips som kan hjelpe oss med å nå ut til flere, og ikke minst, måten vi gjør dette på, hadde vært til stor hjelp. ---------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info. ---------------------------- Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på vår facebookside eller på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss. Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

Stéphane Debove est docteur en psychologie évolutionnaire, président du Café des Sciences et vulgarisateur sur Homo Fabulus et La Main Baladeuse. Retrouvez Stéphane sur le web ! Twitter : https://twitter.com/stdebove Homo Fabulus : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-Dmq5q3-FIBknv1TVIR__Q La main baladeuse : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4V8l0YMJ3IAOToCX5SdVug/ Le Café des Sciences : http://www.cafe-sciences.org/ Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/Science4Allorg/ Twitter : https://twitter.com/science__4__all Tipeee : https://www.tipeee.com/science4all Mes goodies : https://shop.spreadshirt.fr/science4all Mes dates à venir : https://www.dropbox.com/s/t3abghdmh5964sx/Actu.txt?dl=0 La formule du savoir (mon livre) : https://laboutique.edpsciences.fr/produit/1035/9782759822614/La%20formule%20du%20savoir A Roadmap for the Value-Loading Problem https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01036 Probablement? en audio : http://playlists.podmytube.com/UC0NCbj8CxzeCGIF6sODJ-7A/PLtzmb84AoqRQ0ikLb4yC4lKgjeDEIpE1i.xml Moi en podcast avec Mr Phi : Version YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNHFiyWgsnaSOsMtSoV_Q1A Version Audio : http://feeds.feedburner.com/Axiome Sous-titres sur les autres vidéos : http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_panel?tab=2&c=UC0NCbj8CxzeCGIF6sODJ-7A Le gène égoïste | Richard Dawkins https://www.amazon.fr/Gène-égoïste-Richard-Dawkins/dp/2738112439/ Darwin en tête : l'évolution et les sciences cognitives | Jean-Baptiste Van der henst et Hugo Mercier https://www.amazon.fr/Darwin-tête-Lévolution-sciences-cognitives/dp/2706115521/ Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind | David Buss https://www.academia.edu/38186179/Evolutionary_psychology_The_new_science_of_the_mind_by_David_M._Buss_-_2016_

In this IMMERSIVE episode, “Reason,” our goal is to immerse you in a soundscape that triggers cognitive biases which limit your reasoning capabilities. Then later we evoke a more constructive reasoning mindset and leave you with some ways to avoid these cognitive biases through a consequential and depersonalized approach. To preserve this immersive experience, we stripped out a lot of the reporting we did on the science of reason.   To find out more... - LISTEN to these full interviews we conducted with cognitive neuroscientists on our website: Hugo Mercier Philip Fernbach   - READ these books from the authors above: The Enigma of Reason The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone   Our website: qualiapod.com     Leave a voicemail (comment or story)   Listen to us on the RadioPublic app to help support the show.     Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Qualiapod/     Twitter: @qualiapod

Diplômé de l’École Polytechnique, Hugo Mercier crée sa start-up Rythm en 2014, rassemblant experts en technologie et spécialistes de la recherche fondamentale. Financé par Free et Doctissimo, ce jeune entrepreneur a crée le premier objet connecté actif Dreem. Il présente au Boma France Festival son bandeau connecté permettant d’agir sur la qualité du sommeil en stimulant les cycles de sommeil profond.➡️ En savoir plus sur https://fr.boma.global Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

Étudiants à Polytechnique, Hugo Mercier et Quentin Soulet créent en 2014 Dreem, une entreprise de neurotechnologies développant le premier objet connecté actif permettant d'améliorer la qualité du sommeil. Issus de travaux effectués avec une équipe de neuroscientifiques et de médecins spécialistes du sommeil, ainsi que du développement de nouvelles technologies d'acquisition et d'analyse de l'activité électrique du cerveau, le bandeau Dreem permet d'induire du sommeil profond à partir d'un procédé de stimulations. Grâce à Dreem, Quentin et Hugo comptent améliorer la qualité du sommeil, et par conséquent les performances au réveil.➡️ En savoir plus sur https://fr.boma.global Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

The results of the US midterm elections are in. The attack on liberal values there, here and elsewhere in the world where populism holds sway is real and significant. How does this affect communities like ours? Reading Group Think: Irving Janis, Yale University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink Reference “The Enigma of Reason” by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32336635-the-enigma-of-reason David Frum, “The Real Lesson of My Debate With Steve Bannon” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/bannon-frum-munk-debate-what-really-happened/574867/ The Unitarian Church of Edmonton is a liberal, multi-generational, religious community. We celebrate a rich mosaic of free-thinking, spiritually-questing individuals joined in common support and action. We welcome diversity including diversity of beliefs from divine believers to humanists, from pagans to atheists and agnostics. We believe in the compassion of the human heart, the warmth of community, the pursuit of justice and the search of meaning in our lives. We gather with gratitude on traditional Cree lands that are now a part of Treaty Six and shared by many nations. A treaty is an inheritance, a responsibility and a relationship. May we be good neighbours to one another, good stewards to our planet and good ancestors to our children. UCE - https://www.uce.ca/ Facebook Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/41659071349/ Facebook Page - https://www.facebook.com/UnitarianChurch/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/EdmUnitarian Twitter - https://twitter.com/UnitarianUCE Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/unitarianuce/ SoundCloud - https://soundcloud.com/user-189401827/

Må vi mene det vi sier? I hvilken grad sier vi det vi mener, og hvor gode sjanser gir vi egentlig oss selv og andre til å tenke høyt sammen? Om vår fornuft er sosial så er det nettopp i felleskap at vi tenker best, og dette faktum burde egentlig ha langt større effekt på måten vi snakker sammen enn det det har idag.  Målet her er ikke å komme med noen filsofisk argumentasjon, og episoden er forhåpentligvis heller ikke spesielt tung og abstrakt. Det grunnleggende spørsmålet er ganske enkelt hvordan vi forholder oss til hverandre når vi snakker og skriver sammen.  Et annet spørsmål som blir veldig viktig i denne sammenhengen er hvordan vi har endt opp med å skape en kultur hvor man forsøker å skjule det om det er noe man ikke vet i stedet for å spørre. I hvilken grad er det skolen som er delvis ansvarlig for at vi mennesker nesten alltid foretrekker å late som at vi vet snarere enn å innrømme dette? Og når blir denne uvanen nærmest et demokratisk problem?  Dette er noe av det vi tar for oss i denne sommerepisoden av Lars og Pål, som spilt inn på en veranda i en by ved sjøen her i landet, derav måkeskrikene.  Takk for at du hører på! Det vil sikkert dukke opp en episode eller to av podkasten i løpet av sommermånedene, forhåpentligvis, men det er foreløpig litt uklart når det blir. Ha en strålende sommer, og skriv oss gjerne en melding eller epost om du har fått noe ut av å lytte på oss.    Anbefalinger: Podkastene In the dark, Dialogisk, Skravleklassen, Caliphate Bøker: Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Deus  Dan Sperber, Hugo Mercier, The Enigma of Reason Anne Spurkeland, Immun Trond Berg Eriksen, Augustin. Det urolig hjerte Stanley Cavell, Must we mean what we say? Martha Nussbaum, Not for profit Lisa Feldman Barrett, How emotions are made Jorge Louis Borges, Labyrinter (novellen Mannen med den gode hukommelsen) Magnus Marsdal, Frihetens mødre Hope Jahren, Lab Girl Michael Pollan, How to change your mind; The botany of desire; The omnivore’s dilemma Ken Robinson, You, your child and school     ---------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com   Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info. ----------------------------   Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på vår facebookside eller på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss. Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

Vi har lenge tenkt på å lage en episode om følelser, men altfor mye lesing om tema og endeløse notater gjorde temaet ekstra vanskelig å kjevle ut i episodeform. Så vi bestemte oss for å hoppe rett i det, og ganske enkelt utforske temaet gjennom å gjøre en litt fri episode om følelser, for så å se hva vi lærer av dette og hvor vi kan ta det videre.  Hva er følelser og emosjoner, hvorfor har vi dem, hvor stor er den kulturelle innflytelsen på følelseslivet vårt sammenlignet med den biologiske, hva sier nyere forskning, er det en grunnleggende forskjell på tenking og følelser? Slike spørsmål, og enda flere, forsøker vi å snu og vende på. Det som i alle fall er temmelig sikkert er at ens eget syn på følelser, våre så å si hjemmesnekra teorier om følelser, kraftig påvirker hvordan de virker på oss og hvor mye kontroll vi har over dem. Referanser: Lisa Feldman Barrett, How emotions are made. The secret life of the brain, 2017 Podkasten Invisibilia har to veldig gode episoder om følelser, basert på Feldman Barretts arbeider. https://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/530718193/emotions Charles Darwin, The expression of the emotions in man and animals, 1872 William James, “What is an emotion?” Mind, Volume os-IX, Issue 34, 1 April 1884, s.188–205,  Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber, The enigma of reason, 2017 Elisabeth Kolbert, “Why facts don’t change our minds”, The New Yorker, februar 2017 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds ---------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info. ---------------------------- Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på vår facebookside eller på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss. Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

This is the wrap-up video for the tenth month of the book club. This month we read The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber.

Dans l’épisode d’aujourd’hui, nous sommes très heureux d’accueillir Hugo Mercier, le CEO de Rythm. Hugo a derrière lui un super beau parcours et devant lui l’un des plus gros marchés du monde : le sommeil. Rythm c’est la société qui développe Dreem, le bandeau qui vous aide à mieux dormir. Au programme donc : neurosciences et entrepreneuriat. Bonne écoute à tous !Identité Sonore & Réalisation : yoann.saunier.me Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

En los tiempos de noticias falsas y tendencias, segmentación de usuarios de Internet por gustos y hábitos en la red, cómo nos afecta la filtración de contenidos mediante la inteligencia artificial? A qué le llamamos información verdadera e información falsa? En qué te basas para decir que algo es verdad.

This event was recorded live at The RSA on Thursday 1st June 2017 Many of us believe our capacity to reason helps us to acquire knowledge and make better decisions - but what if it has an entirely different purpose? Cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier and his colleague Dan Sperber have made waves with the surprising results of years of research – that our power to reason has nothing to do with accuracy or truth-seeking. Mercier visits the RSA to present their astounding thesis: that the essential function of reason is not solitary but social - it exists to help us convince other people or groups of our arguments. Discover more about this event here: https://www.thersa.org/events/2017/05/a-new-theory-of-human-understanding

DAN SPERBER is a Paris-based social and cognitive scientist. He holds an emeritus research professorship at the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, and he is currently at Central European University, Budapest. He is the creator (with Deirdre Wilson) of "Relevance Theory," and coauthor (with Hugo Mercier) of The Enigma of Reason. Dan Sperber's Edge Bio Page (https://www.edge.org/memberbio/dan_sperber) The conversation: https://www.edge.org/conversation/dan_sperber-the-function-of-reason

Meet Rythm, a neurotechnology company is debuting their first product, an active wearable headband called Dreem. This is the first wearable to go beyond merely monitoring sleep, it actually reads your brainwaves and influences them to sleep better. I invited CEO and co-founder Hugo Mercier onto the show to learn more about how the Dreem headband is different from other innaccurate sleep trackers and the future of neurotech. Guest Info https://www.rythm.co/ Twitter - @HugoMercierR    

On this episode we discuss the psychology of arguing and interview both Jeremy Shermer and Hugo Mercier. Afterward, I eat an orange chocolate chip cookie and read a news story about reading your partner's mood in old age. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My guest is Hugo Mercier, cognitive scientist at Université de Neuchâtel, interested in the way people reason. Together with Dan Sperber, Hugo has developed an argumentative theory of reasoning according to which our reasoning abilities have been designed by evolution to allow us to exchange arguments rather than to reason on our own.

Our reasoning capacity sets us apart from other animals. But reason is frequently prone to error. Why then did we evolve with a capacity for reason at all?  This is a question that has vexed Dan Sperber - with Hugo Mercier he has been researching the topic. Dan Sperber discusses their research and conclusions with Nigel Warburton for this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Philosophy Bites is made in assocation with the Institute of Philosophy.

Host: Chris Mooney Why are human beings simultaneously capable of reasoning, and yet so bad at it? Why do we have such faulty mechanisms as the "confirmation bias" embedded in our brains, and yet at the same time, find ourselves capable of brilliant rhetoric and complex mathematical calculations? According to Hugo Mercier, we've been reasoning about reason all wrong. Reasoning is very good at what it probably evolved to let us do—argue in favor of what we believe and try to convince others that we're right. In a recent and much discussed paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Research, Mercier and his colleague Dan Sperber proposed what they call an "argumentative theory of reason." "A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis," they write. Given the discussion this proposal has prompted, Point of Inquiry wanted to hear from Mercier to get more elaboration on his ideas. Hugo Mercier is a postdoc in the Philosophy, Policy, and Economics program at the University of Pennsylvania. He blogs for Psychology Today.