Podcast appearances and mentions of Ian Ayres

The best decision-makers aren't better at deciding. They're better at controlling when, where, and how they decide. It took me twenty years to figure that out. Most people spend that time trying harder: more discipline, more willpower, more resolve to think clearly under pressure. It doesn't work. That's when mindjacking wins. Not through force. Through the door you left unguarded. The answer isn't trying harder. It's building systems that protect your thinking before the pressure hits. By the end of this episode, you'll have four concrete strategies for doing exactly that, and a one-page system you'll build before we're done. And I have something else to share at the end. Something I've been working toward for twenty years. Let's get into it. Why Willpower Fails and Design Works Ulysses knew his ship would pass the island of the Sirens. He also knew the song was irresistible. Sailors who heard it became incapacitated and drove straight into the rocks. He didn't try to be stronger than it. He had his crew fill their ears with wax and tie him to the mast, with strict orders not to release him, no matter what he said when the music reached him. His calm self setting rules for his compromised self. That's the core of everything in this episode. These are called commitment devices. The decision gets made early, when your thinking is clear, before you're tempted to take the wrong path. Studies tracking self-imposed contracts found that when people added meaningful stakes to their commitments, their follow-through nearly doubled. Not because they became more virtuous, but because they'd taken the choice off the table at the moment they were most likely to get it wrong. Stop asking "How do I resist?" Start asking, "What can I decide now, so I don't have to decide under pressure?" Before you can build the right commitments, you need to know exactly where your thinking breaks down. Not decision-making in general. Yours. Finding Your Personal Vulnerability Think back across the last few months. Where did your thinking most clearly cost you? Some people stall. They keep researching past the point of useful information, using "I need more data" as cover for avoiding a commitment they know they need to make. Others make their worst calls at the end of long days. Saying yes when they mean no, because no requires energy they've already spent. Some get caught by urgency. A deadline appears, the pressure closes off their thinking, and they move fast. Only later do they discover the deadline was manufactured to do exactly that. Others walk into a room with a clear position and walk out agreeing with the loudest voice, unable to explain exactly when they shifted. And some defend decisions past the point where the evidence says stop, because stopping would mean admitting something about themselves they're not ready to face. Identify yours. Write it down before we go further. Your primary vulnerability is a design target, not a character flaw. You can't build around something you haven't named. Four Strategies for Protecting Your Judgment Strategy 1: Control When You Decide Every morning I put on the same thing: a black golf shirt, blue jeans, and cowboy boots. Same brands, same routine, no decisions. My wife tolerates it. I've stopped apologizing for it. It's not a fashion choice. It's a cognitive load choice. Your brain has a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day. Every trivial choice draws from the same reserve you need for the decisions that actually matter. What to wear, what to eat, which route to take. Eliminating those choices doesn't just save time. It protects the mental fuel you'll need later. Decision-making capacity isn't flat across the day. It peaks early, when you're rested and fresh. It degrades, measurably, as conditions erode. The same call made at 8 a.m. and at the end of your seventh consecutive meeting aren't equivalent. Same person, different machine. Pull up your calendar from the last two weeks. Look at when your biggest decisions actually happened. For most people, it's not in a calm moment with a clear head. It's in the hallway, on a rushed call, in the last fifteen minutes of a meeting that ran over. That's not bad luck. That's the default you haven't changed yet. Write a standing rule: no significant, hard-to-reverse commitments after a certain hour or after a certain number of back-to-back meetings without a mandatory pause. Hold it like a policy, not a preference. Because preferences are exactly what disappear under the conditions where you need them most. Strategy 2: Build Your Kitchen Cabinet One of the things I credit most for whatever success I've had in my career isn't a framework or a methodology. It's four people. I call them my kitchen cabinet. They've seen my best decisions and my worst ones. They know when I'm rationalizing. They know when I'm avoiding. And they are not afraid to call me out when I'm off the tracks. Here's what surprises people when I describe them. They're not senior executives. They're not peers from inside my industry. They don't work in any organization I've ever worked for. They're a deliberate mix: different backgrounds, different areas of expertise, different ways of seeing the world. One of them has been in my cabinet for nearly thirty years. I trust them completely, and everything we discuss stays between us. That independence is the whole point. The people inside your organization have something at stake in your decisions. Your peers have their own agendas, even when they don't mean to. Your boss has a preferred outcome. None of that makes them bad advisors. It just means they can't give you the one thing you need most when a decision gets hard: a perspective with no skin in the game. Your kitchen cabinet can. Because they have nothing to gain or lose from what you decide, they can ask the question everyone else in the room is avoiding. They can tell you what you don't want to hear. And they'll do it before you've committed, when it still matters, not after the fact, when all they can do is watch. Build yours deliberately. Four to six people is enough. Prioritize independence over seniority. Look for people who will push back, not people who will reassure. And make the relationship reciprocal. You show up for their decisions too. The cabinet only works if the trust runs both ways and the conversations stay private. You don't need them for every decision. You need them for the ones where you're most at risk of fooling yourself. Strategy 3: Write Your Position Before the Room Fills Up I've sat in enough rooms where I walked in with a clear position and walked out having said almost none of it. Not because I was wrong. Because by the time the senior voice spoke and the heads started nodding, my own analysis felt less certain than it did twenty minutes earlier. The brain doesn't just nudge your answer when social pressure arrives. It rewrites your perception. What you saw before entering the room changes to match what the room already believes, before you've consciously registered the pressure. Before any consequential group decision, write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe. What evidence supports it. What would genuinely change your mind. A note on your phone is enough. It doesn't need to be formal. It needs to be external, because your memory will quietly revise itself once the social pressure arrives. Those three sentences are a record of what you actually concluded before the room had a chance to work on you. When the discussion moves toward a position, you can then distinguish between "I'm updating because I heard something new" and "I'm caving because the silence is uncomfortable." Without that record, those two experiences feel identical in the moment, and one of them will reliably win. Strategy 4: Assume the Failure Before You Commit In August 2016, Delta Air Lines ran a routine scheduled test of the backup generator at their Atlanta data center. A transformer caught fire. Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers, improperly connected to a single power source, went dark. They couldn't fail over to backups. The servers that stayed online couldn't communicate with the ones that hadn't. The entire system collapsed: passenger check-in, baggage, websites, kiosks, and airport displays. Gone. Delta cancelled 2,100 flights over three days. $150 million in losses. Thousands of passengers slept on airport floors. The system had redundancy designed in. The backup had been tested. The specific failure mode, servers with no alternate power connection, was a known vulnerability that nobody had ever stopped to question. A year before the fire, cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem, had written a thought experiment describing almost this exact scenario. Imagine, he wrote, that an airline CEO gathered top management and asked: "Every one of our flights around the world has been cancelled for two straight days. Why?" People would think terrorism first. The real progress, Klein said, would come from mundane answers: a reservation system down, a backup that didn't activate, a cascade nobody had traced in advance. Delta built what Klein described. Without running the question that would have found it. The pre-mortem is that question. Before you commit to a significant decision, assume it's six months later, and the decision failed. Not possibly, but definitely. Then ask: What went wrong? What did you know but not say? What did someone sense but find too awkward to raise in the room? "What could go wrong?" produces hedged answers. People soften concerns to preserve harmony. "It failed. What happened?" changes the psychology entirely. You're not being negative. You're being forensic. The things that surface, the concerns that felt impolitic, the risks that seemed too small to mention, are frequently the ones that end up mattering most. Each of these four strategies is a designed defense against the same thing: the systematic capture of your judgment before you notice it happening. That's mindjacking. And now you have four ways to make it harder. But strategies only work if you remember to use them. And you won't remember. Not when you're depleted at 7pm, not when the room is staring at you, not when your identity is on the line. That's not a character flaw. That's just how it works. So we're going to take everything you just learned and put it on one page. A page you'll sign. A page you'll keep somewhere you'll actually see it. Your calm self, right now, is building the system your future self will thank you for. The people who shape outcomes consistently aren't necessarily the sharpest thinkers in the room. They're the ones whose judgment is still intact when everyone else's has degraded. That's a practice, not a talent. The full video and written deep-dive on mindjacking are linked below at philmckinney.com/mindjacking. Your Decision Constitution Remember the Ulysses insight from the beginning of this episode. Your calm self setting rules for your compromised self. That's exactly what this is. A Decision Constitution is one page. Five commitments. Written when your thinking is clear, so the version of you under pressure has something to stand on. Not a to-do list. Not a productivity hack. A contract with yourself. Here's what goes in it. Your Timing Rule. You already know that your judgment degrades as the day runs long. So name it. What are the specific conditions (time of day, number of back-to-back meetings, hours of sleep) that disqualify you from making a high-stakes, hard-to-reverse call without a mandatory pause first? Write that line. Hold it like a policy. Your Pre-Decision List. Think of the situations where you consistently make choices you later regret. The late-day request you said yes to when you meant no. The urgency that overrode your better judgment. Pick three. Write a standing rule for each, specific enough that you can invoke it without having to think. "I don't make new commitments without sleeping on it." That's a rule. "I'll try to be more careful" is not. Your Pre-Meeting Anchor. Before any meeting where a significant decision will be made, you write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe, what evidence supports it, and what would genuinely change your mind. Not in the car on the way. Before. That record is what protects your thinking from the room. Your Pre-Mortem Trigger. Name the threshold that makes a decision significant enough to require a pre-mortem. A dollar amount. An impact on more than a certain number of people. A commitment lasting longer than six months. Whatever your threshold is, write it down. Once a decision crosses it, the pre-mortem is non-negotiable. Your Kitchen Cabinet Trigger. Your cabinet is only useful if you engage them before you've decided, not after. So name the conditions that require you to bring a decision to them first. A decision that's hard to reverse. A situation where you have significant personal stakes in the outcome. A moment where you notice everyone around you wants you to decide a certain way. A decision you find yourself avoiding thinking about clearly. Any one of those is enough. Two or more is non-negotiable. Now print out your decision constitution. Sign it. Put it somewhere you'll actually see it before the moments that count. This is your Ulysses contract. Your clear-headed self, right now, is setting the terms your compromised self will have to honor when the pressure is real, and the easy path is pointing the wrong way. Closing That's Part 2 of the Thinking 101 series. Fifteen episodes. If you've been here from the beginning, you've built something real. The series has been running for 21 weeks. The show behind it has been running for 20 years. And how we got here traces back to a single conversation. Twenty years ago, a mentor of mine, Bob Davis, gave me a challenge I couldn't shake. I'd asked him how I could ever repay him for what he'd done for my career. He laughed and said I couldn't. The only option, he said, was to pay it forward. That's why this show exists. That's why it has always existed. The show was called Killer Innovations because that's what felt right in 2005. Bold, a little provocative, built for a moment when podcasting was brand new, and nobody knew what it was supposed to be. Tens of millions of downloads later, we're still here. We have regular listeners in more than 50 countries. Some of you are younger than the podcast itself. But somewhere along the way, the show became something more specific. It stopped being about innovation tips and started being about the innovation decisions that actually shape outcomes. About the patterns underneath the decisions. About the skills that matter most when the pressure is real. On March 23rd, the show's 20th anniversary, we're making major changes. The podcast. The YouTube channel. All of it. And if you have thoughts about where we've been or where we're going, I want to hear them. There's a contact form at philmckinney.com. Send me a note. I'll see you on the 23rd.   Endnotes  "their follow-through nearly doubled": Gharad Bryan, Dean S. Karlan, and Scott Nelson, "Commitment Contracts," Yale Economics Department Working Paper No. 73 / Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 980 (October 23, 2009). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1493378. The research draws on Karlan and co-founders' development of StickK.com, a commitment contract platform launched in 2008 at Yale. Platform data consistently shows that users who add meaningful stakes — financial or reputational — to their commitments achieve their goals at roughly double the rate of those who don't. The underlying mechanism was established in Karlan's earlier field research in the Philippines: Nava Ashraf, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin, "Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence From a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines," Quarterly Journal of Economics 121, no. 2 (May 2006): 635–672. doi:10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.635. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/121/2/635/1884028. Pre-commitment works not by increasing virtue but by removing the decision from the moment of temptation. For accessible application, see Ian Ayres, Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (New York: Bantam, 2010), ISBN 978-0-553-80763-9. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/6794/carrots-and-sticks-by-ian-ayres/.   "a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day": Roy F. Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne M. Tice, "Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 5 (1998): 1252–1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252. https://roybaumeister.com/1998/03/16/ego-depletion-is-the-active-self-a-limited-resource/. Also see Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength (New York: Penguin, 2011). Baumeister's strength model of self-control proposes that willpower, decision-making, and self-regulation all draw from a single, depletable resource — what he termed "ego depletion." Subsequent work has debated the precise mechanism, with some researchers arguing the effect is motivational rather than metabolic. The practical implication, however, is consistent across studies: decision quality degrades as the day progresses, and the effect is most pronounced for complex, high-stakes choices. For a summary of the current scientific debate on the mechanism, see Michael Inzlicht and Brandon J. Schmeichel, "What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-Control," Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 5 (2012): 450–463. doi:10.1177/1745691612454134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168503/.   "It rewrites your perception": Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelow, Caroline F. Zink, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Megan E. Martin-Skurski, and Jim Richards, "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation," Biological Psychiatry 58, no. 3 (August 1, 2005): 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/.  This fMRI study at Emory University extended Solomon Asch's classic conformity experiments by imaging participants' brains as they conformed to or resisted incorrect group answers. The key finding: when participants went along with the group, the activity appeared not in the prefrontal cortex — the seat of conscious decision-making — but in the occipital-parietal network responsible for visual and spatial perception. In other words, participants who conformed weren't consciously deciding to lie; the group had altered what they actually perceived. Standing alone, by contrast, activated the amygdala, a region associated with emotional distress — consistent with the experience of social dissent as genuinely uncomfortable rather than merely inconvenient.   "Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers": Yevgeniy Sverdlik, "Delta: Data Center Outage Cost Us $150M," Data Center Knowledge, September 8, 2016. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/outages/delta-data-center-outage-cost-us-150m.  Also see W. H. Highleyman, "Delta Air Lines Cancels 2,100 Flights Due to Power Outage," Availability Digest (September 2016). https://availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/1109/delta.pdf. On the morning of August 8, 2016, a fire triggered during a routine backup generator test at Delta's Atlanta data center caused a transformer failure. Approximately 300 of Delta's 7,000 servers were improperly connected to a single power source with no alternate feed, and when that feed failed, those servers went dark. Because those servers couldn't communicate with the rest of the system, the entire network collapsed. Delta cancelled roughly 2,100 flights over three days, leaving an estimated 250,000 passengers stranded. Total losses reached $150 million.   "cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem": Gary Klein, "Performing a Project Premortem," Harvard Business Review 85, no. 9 (September 2007): 18–19. https://hbr.org/2007/09/performing-a-project-premortem.  Klein developed the pre-mortem method over several decades of applied research in naturalistic decision-making. The technique asks teams to assume, before committing to a plan, that the plan has already failed — definitively, not possibly — and then work backward to identify causes. Klein's research found that this reframing dramatically increases the willingness of team members to surface concerns they would otherwise suppress to preserve group harmony. The method has since been endorsed by Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Richard Thaler as a practical tool for reducing overconfidence in planning. For Klein's broader framework of naturalistic decision-making, see Gary Klein, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998). https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262343251/sources-of-power/. 

Episode 193: Here Be Dragons! Show NotesSummary: "Here be Dragons" was a phrase early cartographers (map makers) used on faraway, uncharted corners of the map. It was used to warn people away from dangerous areas where sea monsters were believed to exist. Most view dragons as mythological creatures, but the Bible has a very different view of them, and they are quite real. Let's explore the mystery of dragons!This episode Is brought to you by the following Bible Mysteries Podcast Premium Subscribers or Seekers: Amelia Joan Goodridge, Garrett Thomas, Ian Ayres, Lisa Cattanach, and Jennifer StropeNotes:Dragons: תַּנִּין tannîn (tan-neen') - dragon, serpent, sea monsterdragon or dinosaur sea or river monster serpent, venomous snakeScriptures:All Scripture references are from the King James Version of the Bible. Psalm 148:7-14, Job 30:28-31, Psalm 91:10-13, Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 26:20-27:1, Psalm 44:18-26, Deuteronomy 32:31-34, Ezekiel 29:3-6, Isaiah 51:9-11, Jeremiah 51:33-35, Isaiah 13:19-22, Revelation 18:1-3, Jeremiah 9:1-11, Isaiah 34:1-15, Isaiah 35:3-10, Isaiah 43:19-21, Psalm 74:10-14, Revelation 12:3-4, Revelation 12:7-9, Micah 1:8-9, Revelation 16:12-14, Revelation 20:1-3Takeaway:Dragons are very much real in Scripture and not at all what mythology presents them to be, although there are hints of truth in the legends. Dragons were considered magical creatures and often depicted as winged serpents. In reality, this likely is a distortion of the actual reptilian beings, Seraphim, who, along with Satan, comprise the serpent brotherhood that is at war with humanity and the Lord. Here be dragons, indeed! They will soon be here, cast down and confined to the earth. And woe unto those who will inhabit the earth in that time!Links:https://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfmInteractive church locator for those looking for a fellowship that teaches certain truths - https://rockharborchurch.net/grow-connect/church-locator/Bible Mysteries Podcast Visit our Website: https://biblemysteriespodcast.com Listen to our Podcast: https://biblemysteriespodcast.comBe a Premium Podcast Subscriber: https://biblemysteries.supercast.comSupport the Ministry: https://secure.subsplash.com/ui/access/BDJH89Contact Us: unlockthebiblenow@gmail.comFollow Us: https://www.youtube.com/c/BibleMysteriesFollow Us: https://www.facebook.com/utbnowFollow Us: https://www.instagram.com/biblemysteries/Follow Us: https://twitter.com/biblemyspodcastFollow Us: https://truthsocial.com/@biblemysteries

Many Americans rely on 401k plans as the primary source to fund their retirements. But many also don't understand the behind-the-scenes details that play a significant role in the outcomes they generate with these retirement plans. In this episode, we speak with Yale law professor Ian Ayres and UVA law professor Quinn Curtis to help us fill in these gaps and discuss how retirement plans can produce better outcomes for their participants. We look at the history of retirement plans and how they have evolved, why choice can be a double-edged sword, how guardrails can improve outcomes and a lot more. We hope you enjoy the discussion. SEE LATEST EPISODES ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.validea.com/the-education-of-a-financial-planner-podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FIND OUT MORE ABOUT VALIDEA CAPITAL ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.valideacapital.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FIND OUT MORE ABOUT SUNPOINTE INVESTMENTS ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://sunpointeinvestments.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FOLLOW JACK Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/practicalquant⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-forehand-8015094⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FOLLOW JUSTIN Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/jjcarbonneau⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/jcarbonneau⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FOLLOW MATT Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/cultishcreative⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/matt-zeigler-a58a0a60/⁠⁠⁠⁠

#77 Yale Negotiation Professors

Ian Ayres is an economist, a lawyer, and the William K. Townsend Professor at Yale Law School. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times, Slate, and The New Republic, and his research has been featured on PrimeTime Live, Oprah, and Good Morning America. Barry Nalebuff is the Milton Steinbach Professor of Economics and Management at Yale School of Management. He is the author of fifty scholarly articles and multiple books—including Co-opetition and The Art of Strategy—and is the cofounder of Honest Tea. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Ayres & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Nalebuff Website: http://www.lifecycleinvesting.net/

How lifecycle investing and risk parity portfolios can assist you in having sufficient assets to retire. What are the two types of time diversification and why is one flawed?Topics covered include:What is settled work and what are some examplesHow does lifecycle investing work and should you consider itWhy investing in stocks and other volatile asset classes is riskier over longer holding periodsWhat are risk-parity portfolios and how to evaluate themThanks to Masterworks for sponsoring the episode.For more information on this episode click here.Show NotesThe moral calculations of a billionaire by Eli Saslow—The Washington PostLife-Cycle Investing and Leverage: Buying Stock on Margin Can Reduce Retirement Risk by Ian Ayres and Barry J. NalebuffLifecycle Investing - Leveraging when young, Forum Discussion by Steve Reading on bogleheads.orgWhat Practitioners Need to Know… About Time Diversification (corrected March 2015) by Mark Kritzman—Financial Analysts Journal Volume 71, Number 1Wishful Thinking About the Risk of Stocks in the Long Run: Consequences for Defined Contribution and Defined Benefit Retirement Plans by Zvi BodiePension Obligation Bonds: Know Their Appeal and Pitfalls by Todd Tauzer—SegalShrinkage Estimation in Risk Parity Portfolios by Nabil Alkafri and Christoph FreyPortfolio ChartsHow to Invest in Closed-End Funds—Money For the Rest of UsRelated EpisodesHow to Invest in Closed-End FundsWhy You Should Rebalance Your Portfolio306: Three Approaches to Asset AllocationSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Charlie Olson is the co-founder and CEO of Pando. Pando was founded after Charlie and his co-founder, Eric Lax, graduated from Stanford's Graduate School of Business in 2017. Since inception Pando has signed hundreds of professional athletes and entrepreneurs into income pools and has raised a Series A from top fintech investors. Prior to his time at Stanford, Charlie worked with Bob Grady at Cheyenne Capital, a private equity firm based out of Jackson, WY. Concurrently, Charlie worked in search fund investing for Professor David Dodson and was a speechwriter and policy analyst for two governors. Charlie also holds two other degrees from Stanford, including a B.A. in International Relations and an M.A. in US History. Charlie was named to Forbes' 30 Under 30.Charlie joins me today to discuss his income pooling company, Pando. He explains the concept and shares with us the higher than average results that the company has provided. He shares the type of client that Pando seeks. Charlie also vulnerably shares some of his early challenges as a founder. “When you're trying to overcome a challenge, a CEOs job is to be somewhat of the ballast and not allow the team to get too high or allow the team to get too low.” - Charlie OlsonToday on Startups for Good we cover:Risk ToleranceChallenging limiting beliefs about success ratesConsumer protectionsBuilding new marketsLoss aversionConflict resolution between co-foundersConnect with Charlie on Twitter and Pando at pandopooling.comThe book that Miles mentioned is Lifecycle Investing by Ian Ayres & Barry J. NalebuffSubscribe, Rate & Share Your Favorite Episodes!Thanks for tuning into today's episode of Startups For Good with your host, Miles Lasater. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a rating and review on your favorite podcast listening app.Don't forget to visit our website, connect with Miles on Twitter or LinkedIn, and share your favorite episodes across social media. For more information about The Giving Circle

African Americans continue to face predatory lending practices when they apply for credit. And never is this more evident than when Blacks go to buy a car. My guest today is economist and lawyer Ian Ayres. He is the Deputy Dean and the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Professor at Yale Law School. He started his research back when President Barack Obama was then president of the Harvard Law Review and published an article about his findings. Let's listen to what he has to say.

On our last episode of Season 2, Ian Ayres, professor of law and of professor of management at Yale University, and Frederick E. Vars, professor of law at the University of Alabama, join us to discuss their new book Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights. In the book, Ayres and Vars outline decentralized and voluntary policies that can be immediately adopted at the state or federal level to prevent gun-related deaths. We discuss the benefit and the possible downside of presuming second amendment rights and pursuing a neoliberal approach to the issue. We also discuss the politics of the proposal, including the professors' lobbying efforts. Additional readings, including any referenced during the episode, are available on our website: DiggingAHolePodcast.com.

The conversation about reducing gun violence tends to be black and white – but one argument says progress has failed because solutions might be found in the gray areas of the discussion. University of Alabama law professor Fredrick E. Vars joins host Krys Boyd to discuss his 10 ideas for state-level policy to promote public safety while protecting gun ownership. His book, co-written with Yale law professor Ian Ayres, is “Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights.”

In this episode, we discuss incentives for goal-achievement with Jordan Goldberg, co-founder of stickK. StickK.com is a goal-setting platform that employs incentive-based behavioral economic research by Yale economists Ian Ayres and Dean Karlan. Jordan’s experience places him at the forefront of applied behavioral economics, harnessing social media trends, technology, and the power of incentives to help individuals create lasting change. Jordan Goldberg is the co-founder of stickK.com, a goal-setting website based on behavioral economics research conducted by Yale economists Ian Ayres and Dean Karlan. Jordan’s experience places him at the forefront of applied behavioral economics, harnessing social media trends, technology, and the power of incentives to help individuals create lasting change. Jordan has been frequently interviewed for both print and television media, appearing on NBC’s TODAY Show and CBS NewsSunday Morning, and in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Economist. A graduate of Yale University with a bachelor’s degree in American Studies, Jordan is also a recipient of the Yale School of Management’s Silver Anniversary Scholarship.

In the United States, gun violence is in a state of national crisis, yet efforts to reform gun regulation face significant political and constitutional barriers. In this innovative book, Ian Ayres and Fredrick E. Vars put forward creative and practical solutions, proposing legislative reform which will reduce gun deaths. Theirs is a libertarian 'bottom-up' approach which seeks to empower those most at risk by allowing individuals a choice to opt in to common-sense gun regulation for themselves. At the same time, the genius of Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights (Harvard University Press, 2020) is that the proposals do not infringe the individual freedoms of gun ownership protected by the second amendment. Ayres and Vars put forward practical solutions which, where adopted, will cause an immediate reduction in lives lost as a result of gun violence. Their work is empirically grounded and provides a roadmap for legislators and policy makers who wish to keep people safe by reducing gun deaths. Ian Ayres is the William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of Management at Yale University. He is the author of many books, including the New York Times bestseller Super Crunchers. He is a contributor to Forbes, NPR's Marketplace, and the New York Times. Fredrick E. Vars is the Ira Drayton Pruitt, Sr., Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, where he specializes in mental health law. He works with numerous suicide-prevention organizations and is a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Gun Violence. Jane Richards is in the final stages of completing her doctoral thesis on the application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the insanity defence and its disposition orders at the University of Hong Kong. You can find her on twitter where she follows all things related to human rights and Hong Kong politics @JaneRichardsHK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the United States, gun violence is in a state of national crisis, yet efforts to reform gun regulation face significant political and constitutional barriers. In this innovative book, Ian Ayres and Fredrick E. Vars put forward creative and practical solutions, proposing legislative reform which will reduce gun deaths. Theirs is a libertarian 'bottom-up' approach which seeks to empower those most at risk by allowing individuals a choice to opt in to common-sense gun regulation for themselves. At the same time, the genius of Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights (Harvard University Press, 2020) is that the proposals do not infringe the individual freedoms of gun ownership protected by the second amendment. Ayres and Vars put forward practical solutions which, where adopted, will cause an immediate reduction in lives lost as a result of gun violence. Their work is empirically grounded and provides a roadmap for legislators and policy makers who wish to keep people safe by reducing gun deaths. Ian Ayres is the William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of Management at Yale University. He is the author of many books, including the New York Times bestseller Super Crunchers. He is a contributor to Forbes, NPR's Marketplace, and the New York Times. Fredrick E. Vars is the Ira Drayton Pruitt, Sr., Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, where he specializes in mental health law. He works with numerous suicide-prevention organizations and is a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Gun Violence. Jane Richards is in the final stages of completing her doctoral thesis on the application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the insanity defence and its disposition orders at the University of Hong Kong. You can find her on twitter where she follows all things related to human rights and Hong Kong politics @JaneRichardsHK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the United States, gun violence is in a state of national crisis, yet efforts to reform gun regulation face significant political and constitutional barriers. In this innovative book, Ian Ayres and Fredrick E. Vars put forward creative and practical solutions, proposing legislative reform which will reduce gun deaths. Theirs is a libertarian 'bottom-up' approach which seeks to empower those most at risk by allowing individuals a choice to opt in to common-sense gun regulation for themselves. At the same time, the genius of Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights (Harvard University Press, 2020) is that the proposals do not infringe the individual freedoms of gun ownership protected by the second amendment. Ayres and Vars put forward practical solutions which, where adopted, will cause an immediate reduction in lives lost as a result of gun violence. Their work is empirically grounded and provides a roadmap for legislators and policy makers who wish to keep people safe by reducing gun deaths. Ian Ayres is the William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of Management at Yale University. He is the author of many books, including the New York Times bestseller Super Crunchers. He is a contributor to Forbes, NPR's Marketplace, and the New York Times. Fredrick E. Vars is the Ira Drayton Pruitt, Sr., Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, where he specializes in mental health law. He works with numerous suicide-prevention organizations and is a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Gun Violence. Jane Richards is in the final stages of completing her doctoral thesis on the application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the insanity defence and its disposition orders at the University of Hong Kong. You can find her on twitter where she follows all things related to human rights and Hong Kong politics @JaneRichardsHK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

In the United States, gun violence is in a state of national crisis, yet efforts to reform gun regulation face significant political and constitutional barriers. In this innovative book, Ian Ayres and Fredrick E. Vars put forward creative and practical solutions, proposing legislative reform which will reduce gun deaths. Theirs is a libertarian 'bottom-up' approach which seeks to empower those most at risk by allowing individuals a choice to opt in to common-sense gun regulation for themselves. At the same time, the genius of Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights (Harvard University Press, 2020) is that the proposals do not infringe the individual freedoms of gun ownership protected by the second amendment. Ayres and Vars put forward practical solutions which, where adopted, will cause an immediate reduction in lives lost as a result of gun violence. Their work is empirically grounded and provides a roadmap for legislators and policy makers who wish to keep people safe by reducing gun deaths. Ian Ayres is the William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of Management at Yale University. He is the author of many books, including the New York Times bestseller Super Crunchers. He is a contributor to Forbes, NPR's Marketplace, and the New York Times. Fredrick E. Vars is the Ira Drayton Pruitt, Sr., Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, where he specializes in mental health law. He works with numerous suicide-prevention organizations and is a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Gun Violence. Jane Richards is in the final stages of completing her doctoral thesis on the application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the insanity defence and its disposition orders at the University of Hong Kong. You can find her on twitter where she follows all things related to human rights and Hong Kong politics @JaneRichardsHK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the United States, gun violence is in a state of national crisis, yet efforts to reform gun regulation face significant political and constitutional barriers. In this innovative book, Ian Ayres and Fredrick E. Vars put forward creative and practical solutions, proposing legislative reform which will reduce gun deaths. Theirs is a libertarian 'bottom-up' approach which seeks to empower those most at risk by allowing individuals a choice to opt in to common-sense gun regulation for themselves. At the same time, the genius of Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights (Harvard University Press, 2020) is that the proposals do not infringe the individual freedoms of gun ownership protected by the second amendment. Ayres and Vars put forward practical solutions which, where adopted, will cause an immediate reduction in lives lost as a result of gun violence. Their work is empirically grounded and provides a roadmap for legislators and policy makers who wish to keep people safe by reducing gun deaths. Ian Ayres is the William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of Management at Yale University. He is the author of many books, including the New York Times bestseller Super Crunchers. He is a contributor to Forbes, NPR's Marketplace, and the New York Times. Fredrick E. Vars is the Ira Drayton Pruitt, Sr., Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, where he specializes in mental health law. He works with numerous suicide-prevention organizations and is a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Gun Violence. Jane Richards is in the final stages of completing her doctoral thesis on the application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the insanity defence and its disposition orders at the University of Hong Kong. You can find her on twitter where she follows all things related to human rights and Hong Kong politics @JaneRichardsHK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the United States, gun violence is in a state of national crisis, yet efforts to reform gun regulation face significant political and constitutional barriers. In this innovative book, Ian Ayres and Fredrick E. Vars put forward creative and practical solutions, proposing legislative reform which will reduce gun deaths. Theirs is a libertarian 'bottom-up' approach which seeks to empower those most at risk by allowing individuals a choice to opt in to common-sense gun regulation for themselves. At the same time, the genius of Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights (Harvard University Press, 2020) is that the proposals do not infringe the individual freedoms of gun ownership protected by the second amendment. Ayres and Vars put forward practical solutions which, where adopted, will cause an immediate reduction in lives lost as a result of gun violence. Their work is empirically grounded and provides a roadmap for legislators and policy makers who wish to keep people safe by reducing gun deaths. Ian Ayres is the William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of Management at Yale University. He is the author of many books, including the New York Times bestseller Super Crunchers. He is a contributor to Forbes, NPR's Marketplace, and the New York Times. Fredrick E. Vars is the Ira Drayton Pruitt, Sr., Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, where he specializes in mental health law. He works with numerous suicide-prevention organizations and is a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Gun Violence. Jane Richards is in the final stages of completing her doctoral thesis on the application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the insanity defence and its disposition orders at the University of Hong Kong. You can find her on twitter where she follows all things related to human rights and Hong Kong politics @JaneRichardsHK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the United States, gun violence is in a state of national crisis, yet efforts to reform gun regulation face significant political and constitutional barriers. In this innovative book, Ian Ayres and Fredrick E. Vars put forward creative and practical solutions, proposing legislative reform which will reduce gun deaths. Theirs is a libertarian 'bottom-up' approach which seeks to empower those most at risk by allowing individuals a choice to opt in to common-sense gun regulation for themselves. At the same time, the genius of Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights (Harvard University Press, 2020) is that the proposals do not infringe the individual freedoms of gun ownership protected by the second amendment. Ayres and Vars put forward practical solutions which, where adopted, will cause an immediate reduction in lives lost as a result of gun violence. Their work is empirically grounded and provides a roadmap for legislators and policy makers who wish to keep people safe by reducing gun deaths. Ian Ayres is the William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of Management at Yale University. He is the author of many books, including the New York Times bestseller Super Crunchers. He is a contributor to Forbes, NPR's Marketplace, and the New York Times. Fredrick E. Vars is the Ira Drayton Pruitt, Sr., Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, where he specializes in mental health law. He works with numerous suicide-prevention organizations and is a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Gun Violence. Jane Richards is in the final stages of completing her doctoral thesis on the application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the insanity defence and its disposition orders at the University of Hong Kong. You can find her on twitter where she follows all things related to human rights and Hong Kong politics @JaneRichardsHK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the United States, gun violence is in a state of national crisis, yet efforts to reform gun regulation face significant political and constitutional barriers. In this innovative book, Ian Ayres and Fredrick E. Vars put forward creative and practical solutions, proposing legislative reform which will reduce gun deaths. Theirs is a libertarian 'bottom-up' approach which seeks to empower those most at risk by allowing individuals a choice to opt in to common-sense gun regulation for themselves. At the same time, the genius of Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights (Harvard University Press, 2020) is that the proposals do not infringe the individual freedoms of gun ownership protected by the second amendment. Ayres and Vars put forward practical solutions which, where adopted, will cause an immediate reduction in lives lost as a result of gun violence. Their work is empirically grounded and provides a roadmap for legislators and policy makers who wish to keep people safe by reducing gun deaths. Ian Ayres is the William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of Management at Yale University. He is the author of many books, including the New York Times bestseller Super Crunchers. He is a contributor to Forbes, NPR's Marketplace, and the New York Times. Fredrick E. Vars is the Ira Drayton Pruitt, Sr., Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, where he specializes in mental health law. He works with numerous suicide-prevention organizations and is a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Gun Violence. Jane Richards is in the final stages of completing her doctoral thesis on the application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the insanity defence and its disposition orders at the University of Hong Kong. You can find her on twitter where she follows all things related to human rights and Hong Kong politics @JaneRichardsHK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Ian Ayres, Deputy Dean and William K. Townsend Professor of Law at Yale Law School, and Fredrick E. Vars, Ira Drayton Pruitt, Sr. Professor of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law, discuss their new book "Weapon of Choice: Fighting Gun Violence While Respecting Gun Rights," which is published by Harvard University Press. They begin by explaining that their book explores methods of reducing gun violence that rely on voluntary choice, rather than coercion. Among other things, they propose giving people the ability to voluntarily relinquish their gun rights, which they argue would prevent many deaths caused by suicide. They also offer other proposals that would recognize the right of property owners to exclude guns from their property. This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference began with a panel discussion on "Government vs. Private Decisionmaking". The panel took place via teleconference on Thursday, June 11, 2020.How should societies respond to pandemic crises, and to what extent has the American response tracked ideal models? The key questions are the extent to which public and private actors take responsibility for actions and how those actors coordinate with each other. What considerations should govern the allocation of public/private decision making in confronting COVID-19? What are the risks and benefits of decisions being made by the government (at all of the different levels of government), businesses, and individuals? What, in the response thus far,has worked and what hasn’t? Do government decisions about what to close down and when to reopen them create serious crony capitalism and public choice problems or in such an emergency will politicians rise above those temptations? What, if anything, does COVID-19 tell us about Medicare for All?Featuring:Prof. Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown UniversityProf. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law; Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law; and Director, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Anup Malani, Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolModerator: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

The Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference began with a panel discussion on "Government vs. Private Decisionmaking". The panel took place via teleconference on Thursday, June 11, 2020.How should societies respond to pandemic crises, and to what extent has the American response tracked ideal models? The key questions are the extent to which public and private actors take responsibility for actions and how those actors coordinate with each other. What considerations should govern the allocation of public/private decision making in confronting COVID-19? What are the risks and benefits of decisions being made by the government (at all of the different levels of government), businesses, and individuals? What, in the response thus far,has worked and what hasn’t? Do government decisions about what to close down and when to reopen them create serious crony capitalism and public choice problems or in such an emergency will politicians rise above those temptations? What, if anything, does COVID-19 tell us about Medicare for All?Featuring:Prof. Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown UniversityProf. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law; Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law; and Director, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Anup Malani, Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolModerator: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

In this episode, we share insights incentives for goal-achievement with Jordan Goldberg, co-founder of stickK. Goal setting can be overwhelming. The average New Year's Resolution is evidence of overzealous goal setting that is unachievable. Jordan Goldberg applies psychology to goal setting, and more importantly, goal completion.  StickK.com is a goal-setting platform that employs incentive-based behavioral economic research by Yale economists Ian Ayres and Dean Karlan. Jordan’s experience places him at the forefront of applied behavioral economics, harnessing social media trends, technology and the power of incentives to help individuals create lasting change. Jordan Goldberg is the co-founder of stickK.com, a goal-setting website based on behavioral economic research conducted by Yale economists Ian Ayres and Dean Karlan. Jordan’s experience places him at the forefront of applied behavioral economics, harnessing social media trends, technology and the power of incentives to help individuals create lasting change. Jordan has been frequently interviewed for both print and television media, appearing on NBC’s TODAY Show and CBS News Sunday Morning, and in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Economist. A graduate of Yale University with a bachelor’s degree in American Studies, Jordan is also a recipient of the Yale School of Management’s Silver Anniversary Scholarship

It's our annual Supreme Court term roundup, with special guest Ian Samuel. We discuss, natch, one case, Carpenter v. United States, which concerns the need for a warrant to get records from cell phone companies concerning the location of your phone. But there's much more, including: hard drive upgrades, the sum total of human writing, audio vs. text for messaging, emojis, AI and grunts, Supreme Court-packing / balancing / restructuring (16:37), what rules of procedure an enlarged Court should set for itself and what rules should be imposed on it (29:00), podcast lengths and listening habits (51:04), Carpenter v. United States(01:02:06), Batman movies, and Hold-Up. This show’s links: First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm) Ian Samuel’s writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=936551) Ian Samuel, The New Writs of Assistance (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3075587) Snopes, Did Facebook Shut Down an AI Experiment Because Chatbots Developed Their Own Language? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-ai-developed-own-language/) (no, but interesting) Oral Argument 134: Crossover (http://oralargument.org/134) Christian Turner, Amendment XXVIII: A First Draft (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2018/7/12/amendment-xxviii) Ian Ayres and John Witt, Democrats Need a Plan B for the Supreme Court. Here’s One Option. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-need-a-plan-b-for-the-supreme-court-heres-one-option/2018/07/27/4c77fd4e-91a6-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html) Oral Argument 37: Hammer Blow (http://oralargument.org/37) (with Michael Dorf); Oral Argument 38: You're Going to Hate this Answer_ (http://oralargument.org/38) (with Steve Vladeck); Christian Turner, Bound by Federal Law (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2014/10/29/bound-by-federal-law) (including links to posts by Michael and Steve on the issue of state courts' not being bound by federal circuit courts) Carpenter v. United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_new_o75q.pdf) Radiolab, Eye in the Sky (https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/update-eye-sky/) Ian Samuel, Warrantless Location Tracking (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1092293) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=659168721517750079) Florida v. Jardines (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2570635442757547915) Justice Souter’s discussion of Plessy and the role of history in judging (http://www.c-span.org/video/?284498-2/america-courts) (watch from minute one until about minute fourteen) and his Harvard Commencement speech (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/) on Plessy Hold Up! (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2015/7/24/hold-up) Special Guest: Ian Samuel.

In this episode, we discuss incentives for goal-achievement with Jordan Goldberg, co-founder of stickK. StickK.com is a goal-setting platform that employs incentive-based behavioral economic research by Yale economists Ian Ayres and Dean Karlan. Jordan’s experience places him at the forefront of applied behavioral economics, harnessing social media trends, technology and the power of incentives to help individuals create lasting change. Jordan has frequently been interviewed for both print and television media, appearing on NBC’s TODAY Show and CBS NewsSunday Morning and in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Economist. Jordan is a graduate of Yale University with a bachelor’s degree in American Studies, and he is the recipient of the Yale School of Management’s Silver Anniversary Scholarship.

How to Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done: - How commitments can be used to fortify our willpower - How we can use our social network to get the very best out of ourselves - Hyperbolic Discounting - Why our Inner Homer Simpson wins out over our Inner Spock and what to do about it - What are the best kinds of tasks/goals that we should use commitments for?

ILONA EUROPA hosted solo this week, but got a surprise call from co-host Jonathan Todd in Maui. This week was packed with Fauna Hodel (http://www.faunahodel.com/, http://www.faunahodel.biz/) who told us her fascinating story that includes being raised in a pre-Civil Rights America and connections to the Black Dahlia. Director and poet Ian Ayres phoned from in from Paris to discuss his shared history of Tony Curtis with Fauna. Also joining the show was the lovely Julia Gayle who shared more of her story and had a few questions for Fauna. Finally, Stephanie Mack shared her irreverent point of view of her generation. For more information about about Childhelp, a North American non profit organization, helping hundreds of abused children every year. If you know of, or strongly suspect, child abuse, call 1-800-4-A-Child. Text a $10 to: CHLP, 20222. Free on iTunes! Visit our Accent On! Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AccentOnRadioTV! Follow us @AccentOnRadio! Visit ILONA EUROPA at www.ILONAeuropaCreative.com Email ILONA: ilonaeuropa@euroamericaent.com!

JONATHAN TODD and ILONA EUROPA hosted Accent On! together this week with two very special guests. On the show for the first time, Ian Ayres, director and producer of the fascinating documentary "Tony Curtis: Driven to Stardom" (http://www.7thart.com/films/Tony-Curtis-Driven-to-Stardom). He shared his poetry, his music, and his passion for helping Children in need. Then Vladek Juszkiewicz (http://www.polishfilmla.org/), director of the Polish Film Festival in Los Angeles stopped by to given Ian a special surprise! Listen in to find out what it was and to learn more about these amazing talents. For more information about about Childhelp, a North American non profit organization, helping hundreds of abused children every year. If you know of, or strongly suspect, child abuse, call 1-800-4-A-Child. Text a $10 to: CHLP, 20222. Free on iTunes! Visit our Accent On! Facebook page! Follow us @AccentOnRadio! Visit ILONA EUROPA at www.ILONAeuropaCreative.com Email ILONA: ilonaeuropa@euroamericaent.com!

In the $500 Diet, author and law professor Ian Ayres offers an audio presention companion to his recently published book "Carrots & Sticks"

--{ Logic Estranged for the Deranged: "Soya, Veggies and Beans, the Farce is Starting, We'll Soon, by Law, Each Pay for Farting, A Collective Punishment on the Masses For Expelling Legume Greenhouse Gases, A Whole Lot of Nothing to be Traded for Money, Two Cons Together, Now ain't that Funny, No Jobs, and Services Given the Axe As We're Ordered to Pay Existence Tax, We're Bankrupt, Soon to Ration Food, Sending Billions to Third World for 'Common Good' " © Alan Watt }-- Media Spins - Legal Declarations, Agreement by Silence - "Voluntary" becomes Mandatory, Driving Licences, Auto Insurance - Personal Carbon Tax, Carbon Offset for Air Travel - Chicago Climate Exchange (Casino); Contracts, Permits and Penalties for Energy Consumption - Al Gore Socialized (Factory) Medicine, Cutting Costs - Obama, "Burden of Elderly", Euthanasia - Flu Shots for U.S. - Mix of Common Flu and Avian Flu, Viral Mutations from Hosts' DNA, Breeding Viruses - Contagious Diseases - Creation of Killer Virus (Spanish Flu Mix) - Swine Flu Diagnosis and Hype. Svalbard, Norway's Global Seed Storage Bank. PBSG Polar Bear Conference, Dr. Taylor's "Contrary Belief" on Global Warming, More Bears (They Can Swim), Thickening Arctic Ice. WWF wants Vegetarian World, Meat and Dairy Warning Labels - War Scenario to Unite Planet - Food Rationing - Foundation-Funded NGOs, Soviet Rule by Councils - Gordon Brown's Call for New Bretton Woods. Creation of Communism by Bankers - World Population Reduction and Management. (Articles: ["Zerofootprint" [Voluntary Personal Carbon Offset Tax] (zerofootprint.net).] ["Your Personal Climate Exchange" by Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff (forbes.com) - Nov. 24, 2008.] ["Listening Session of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research" (hhs.gov) - June 10, 2009.] ["Comparative Effectiveness Research Funding" (hhs.gov).] ["Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research" [PDF File] (hhs.gov) - June 30, 2009.] [Video: "Obama Depopulation Policy Exposed!" [See Obama's Top Man Emanuel Leave Quickly When His Pro-Euthanasia Policy is Exposed] (youtube.com).] [Video: "Obama Admin to Depopulate This Fall 2009" [US to get 3 flu Shots by Law] (youtube.com).] ["US VIPs to visit Svalbard's Global Seed Bank" by A. Rienstra (icenews.is) - July 20, 2008.] ["Polar bear expert barred by global warmists" by Christopher Booker (telegraph.co.uk) - June 27, 2009.] ["Brown facing revolt over plans to raid health, transport and education budgets to pay for latest round of spending" by James Chapman (dailymail.co.uk) - July 1, 2009.] ["Eat red meat just three times a week, says World Wildlife Fund" by Sean Poulter (dailymail.co.uk) - June 29, 2009.] ["Commonwealth say IMF, UN 'inadequate' on crises" Reuters (polity.org.za) - June 10, 2008.]) *Title/Poem and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - June 30, 2009 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)

A conversation about the revolution in decisionmaking brought about by large-scale quantitative analysis with Yale law professor and economist Ian Ayres, author of Super Crunchers: Why Thinking by Numbers is the New Way to Be Smart.

Ian Ayres of Yale University Law School talks about the ideas in his new book, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-by-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart. Ayres argues for the power of data and analysis over more traditional decision-making methods using judgment and intuition. He talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about predicting the quality of wine based on climate and rainfall, the increasing use of randomized data in the world of business, the use of evidence and information in medicine rather than the judgment of your doctor, and whether concealed handguns or car protection devices such as LoJack reduce the crime rate. The podcast closes with a postscript by Roberts challenging the use of sophisticated statistical techniques to analyze complex systems.

Ian Ayres of Yale University Law School talks about the ideas in his new book, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-by-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart. Ayres argues for the power of data and analysis over more traditional decision-making methods using judgment and intuition. He talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about predicting the quality of wine based on climate and rainfall, the increasing use of randomized data in the world of business, the use of evidence and information in medicine rather than the judgment of your doctor, and whether concealed handguns or car protection devices such as LoJack reduce the crime rate. The podcast closes with a postscript by Roberts challenging the use of sophisticated statistical techniques to analyze complex systems.